Nate Knows Nada

I don’t usually read Christianity Today, as it has too many articles about the Satanic dangers of celebrating Halloween and such. But there’s a thoughtful piece from a conservative Episcopalian in it, talking about how he’d like to be treated by liberals in the church after the Gene Robinson confirmation. It’s thoughtful. The only bit I would add is that people on both sides (not just liberals) should take heed, since both sides are equally culpable in the tossing about of labels and names. I’ll behave well, and I hope that people of the author’s theological persuasion do the same.

I’ve been watching the “conservative”* Anglican blogs this morning, and a funny coincidence occurred to me.

(* I use the term “conservative”, but of course, there’s conflict about this. The people of this group want to be called “orthodox”, thereby implying that their opponents are heterodox. None of my core beliefs are heterodox. I am not an Arian, or a Nestorian, or a Donatist. I disagree about the interpretation of Scriptures, but to my knowledge there’s never been an “official”, orthodox position on how to interpret Scripture. So I’m as orthodox as the conservatives.)

If you look at the demographics of the Episcopal church, and its historical reputation, two trends emerge. First, even today, the ECUSA is about 89 percent white/Caucasian in its makeup. See this page for more info. Second, the Episcopal Church was traditionally known as the “Republican Party at prayer.” We have often been associated with the upper classes. As James Pritchett of St. John’s, College Park, Georgia noted in a sermon, “We Episcopalians are often known as the church of the elite. We can rattle off facts about how George Washington was an Episcopalian; in fact, we have had more Presidents than any other denomination; we have a long list of the famous and powerful people who were Episcopalians (some of whom were also “Robber-Barons”), and there is a book proudly documenting the overlap between the Episcopal Church and American aristocrats called The Episcocrats.”

There’s more than a good chance, statistically and qualitiatively, then, that the people concerned with the changes in the church are white and have incomes above the national average.

It seems ironic to me, then, that the people complaining about the loss of power, about the loss of ways that have always been, about the loss of what is traditional (which is often equated with the good, an equation that we shouldn’t toss out, but which we should question mightily) are the very people who have the most social power in our country. As one of my college professors noted ten years ago, “Try this–who has more real power than white, heterosexual, New Class men
in the US, and who feels so picked upon?”

I’d postulate that at least part of this brouhaha derives from certain quarters becoming frustrated with their perceived loss of power. But it’s less a loss of legitimate power to persuade than the loss of power to determine. The Episcopal Church, and our society in general, have opened up to alternative bases of political and social power in recent years, and it means that any one group can no longer control, set, and implement an agenda. Action requires more discernment and persuastion than it did in the past.

And don’t tell me this has nothing to do with politics, social relations, or power, that it’s only a religious problem. Human social interaction is never so neat as to fit in discrete, manageable categories like that. You start trying to pull them apart and tell me how easy it is.

Here’s what I have been reading of late.

First, an allegorical tale, Life of Pi. I’m uncomfortable with allegories, because I’m not used to picking out literary devices. I loved this, but I don’t quite understand it. Has anyone else read it? Care to discuss it?

I reference Moneyball in my sideblog. But this is definitely worth the read.

What have other people been reading? Can anyone give me some suggestions for after I catch up with my New Yorkers? I’m thinking of Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Christopher Moore’s Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal. But I’m open to other suggestions too!

I’m not sure that this has been brought up before.

If we allow the sexuality issue to split the Episcopal Church, then what we’re saying is that sexuality (or the Scriptural understanding and interpretation around sexuality) are the most important issues facing us. Even more so, we are saying that this issue and its connection to our understanding of God are SO important that they necessitate a split in the church. In essence, we will be sexualizing God and declaring that to be the most important aspect of the Deity.

Both “sides” seem guilty of this to me.

That’s tragic.

Here’s my letter to the New York Times about the Robinson matter. Much of it’s based upon stuff I’ve written here.

“To the editor,

“The conflict over Gene Robinson, the bishop-elect of New Hampshire, has been fraught with highs and lows. The allegations against him MUST be taken seriously, especially after what’s happened in the Roman Catholic Church.

“But the timing is rather curious, to say the least. And the fact that it plays into a very old — and empirically false — canard that gay men somehow cannot be trusted to keep their libidos under control around other men also raises my suspicions.

“We gay Episcopalians have waited quite a long time for the Church to begin acknowledging us. There are already gay bishops in our church; Gene Robinson’s “crime” was that he did not hide the fact that he’s gay. Contrary to what the priest from Colorado Springs, Donald Armstrong, said, being gay is not a disorder. No legitimate scientific authority believes this. But in a complete Christianity, the hatred and bigotry that his comment reveals are disordered, and more than a conflict over gay issues, these are the sins of the Church.

“I hope that the charges are wrong. But if they turn out to be true, here’s a question to consider. Do other bishops who don’t receive as much attention get this thoroughly vetted? Sexual problems are no more common in gay men than they are in straight men (as copious psychological research has shown). Are other potential problem bishops being pointed out? Were the other nine bishops to be approved at the convention subject to this sort of vetting? Or were they merely rubber stamped, as Gene Robinson would have been, had he not been gay? I’m not taking sides here, but I’m wondering if the process only works when a bishop is “controversial.”

“Sincerely,

“Nathan A. Paxton”

Couple of other things. The conservative members of the church are entitled to their opinions and ideas, and since I don’t claim to know the mind of God, I welcome those. But the tactics sometimes border on the ridiculous or the hateful. The priest I mentioned in my letter should make all the arguments he wants based on Scripture, but to claim that homosexuality is a “disorder” is intentionally provocative language. It’s quite likely he’s not a research psychiatrist or psychologist, and so the use of the word indicates that he’s trying, inappropriately, to emphasize his own distaste for gays. But he should use the words appropriate to his own profession, knowledge, and understanding.

And come on! The porn thing? You can get to porn from anywhere on the Internet in fewer than 10 clicks….

Have you heard? There’s been an accusation against our gay bishop-elect. Of course, it MUST be taken seriously, especially after what’s happened in the Catholic Church. But the timing is rather curious, to say the least.

I hope that this is wrong. But if it’s right, here’s a question to consider. Do other bishops who don’t receive as much attention get this thoroughly vetted? Sexual problems are no more common in gay men than they are in straight men (we know this from copious amounts of psychological research). Are other potential problem bishops being pointed out? Were the other nine bishops to be approved subject to this sort of vetting? Or were they merely rubber stamped, as Gene Robinson would have been, had he not been gay?

I’m not taking sides here, but I’m wondering if the process only works when a bishop is “controversial.”

Fortunately, our presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, is a man of discernment, whose judgment and level-headedness I have grown to trust since I saw him in action at the last Convention. I think what he’s doing is right.

Pray for us Episcopalians, if you’re that sort of person. Or at least send some good thoughts our way.

The New York Times Magazine has this article about African American men on the “Down Low” — men who have sex with other men but who don’t identify as “gay.”

Some quotes:

• …[U]ntil recently the only popular representations of black gay
  men were what William calls ”drag queens or sissies.” Rakeem takes a
  hit from the bowl. ”We know there are black gay rappers, black gay
  athletes, but they’re all on the DL,” Rakeem says. ”If you’re white,
  you can come out as an openly gay skier or actor or whatever. It might
  hurt you some, but it’s not like if you’re black and gay, because then
  it’s like you’ve let down the whole black community, black women, black
  history, black pride. You don’t hear black people say, ‘Oh yeah, he’s
  gay, but he’s still a real man, and he still takes care of all his
  responsibilities.’ What you hear is, ‘Look at that sissy faggot.’ ”

• Later he adds: ”It’s easier for me to date guys on the DL.
  Gay guys get too clingy, and they can blow your cover. Real DL guys,
  they have something to lose, too. It’s just safer to be with someone
  who has something to lose.”
  Paging Foucault…

• ”I’m masculine,” as one 18-year-old college student from
  Providence, R.I., who is on the DL told me over the phone. ”There’s no
  way I’m gay.” I asked him what his definition of gay is. ”Gays are
  the faggots who dress, talk and act like girls. That’s not me.” That
  kind of logic infuriates many mainstream gay people. To them, life on
  the DL is an elaborately rationalized repudiation of everything the gay
  rights movement fought for — the right to live without shame and
  without fear of reprisal. It’s a step back into the dark days before
  liberation, before gay-bashing was considered a crime, before gay
  television characters were considered family entertainment and way, way
  before the current Supreme Court ruled that gay people are ”entitled
  to respect for their private lives.” Emil Wilbekin, the black and
  openly gay editor in chief of Vibe magazine, has little patience for
  men on the DL. ”To me, it’s a dangerous cop-out,” he says. ”I get
  that it’s sexy. I get that it’s hot to see some big burly hip-hop kid
  who looks straight but sleeps with guys, but the bottom line is that
  it’s dishonest. I think you have to love who you are, you have to have
  respect for yourself and others, and to me most men on the DL have none
  of those qualities. There’s nothing ‘sexy’ about getting H.I.V., or
  giving it to your male and female lovers. That’s not what being a real
  black man is about.”

• ”Mainstream gay culture has created an alternative to
  mainstream culture,” says John Peterson, a professor of psychology at
  Georgia State University who specializes in AIDS research among black
  men, ”and many whites take advantage of that. They say, ‘I will leave
  Podunk and I will go to the gay barrios of San Francisco and other
  cities, and I will go live there, be who I really am, and be part of
  the mainstream.’ Many African-Americans say, ‘I can’t go and face the
  racism I will see there, and I can’t create a functioning alternative
  society because I don’t have the resources.’ They’re stuck.” As
  Peterson, who says that the majority of black men who have sex with men
  are on the DL, boils it down, ”The choice becomes, do I want to be
  discriminated against at home for my sexuality, or do I want to move
  away and be discriminated against for my skin color?”

• Many AIDS organizations now say that frank, sexy prevention
  messages that use the masculine imagery of hip-hop culture are the only
  way to reach men on the DL. In St. Louis, for example, a $64,000
  federal grant financed a billboard campaign — depicting two muscular,
  shirtless black men embracing — aimed at raising AIDS awareness. But
  Mayor Francis Slay called the billboards inappropriate and ordered them
  taken down.

I’m not qualified in any way to talk about black culture. But two points seem relevant and dealable.

First,
there is racism within the white gay community. It shows up everywhere
from the bars to the push for marriage rights. The whole marriage/civil
union push can be read, in at least some sense, as affluent white gay
men trying to secure for themselves some of the last major legal
protections denied them. But concern for the rights and welfare of
women, racial minorities, homeless gays, and most especially
transgender issues get pushed to the side. I’ve had conversations with
people from the Human Rights Campaign (aka as the Gay Marriage
Battalion) who aren’t even sure that we should be addressing racial or
transgender issues, as those don’t really seem part of “our fight.”
Once we get some sort of civil union protection, I seriously doubt that
the “gay community” will put as much effort into these other issue.

Second,
this portends a massive public health crisis. It’s already bad, and
it’s gonna get worse. Public health often plays the stepchild of
Medicine, and our failure to do what it takes to address the epidemic
spread of AIDS in the black community (how is one of three women and
one of three MSM even close to acceptable?) will haunt and accuse us
for years to come.

I just read this post on “metablogging.” Crawford makes a fine analysis of the several styles of blogging available. I have this feeling that mine runs between specialist and extrovert. Probably more to the specialist side (on politics and religion) than the extrovert, since if I were to talk too much about Boston, I’d do a lot of complaining….