Bishop Gene Robinson and Me

Last night, I went to hear Bishop V. Gene Robinson speak at the Emory Law School. If you don't already know, Robinson is the gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire whose ordination has been a catalyst for schism within the Anglican Communion. For better or worse - and I believe worse - Robinson is a history-changer. He's not a "celebrity" like Britney Spears, but he will be remembered in the history books, possibly for centuries, while Britney won't even merit a footnote.

Despite arriving half an hour early, I found no seats available in the auditorium. But caught up in a last minute scrum, I somehow ended up in the front row - a great place for a view, but not so great if you're not going to applaud (I didn't) or give him three standing ovations (I didn't give him even one). Awkward, indeed. At least I didn't hurl tomatoes, or invective.

And it was draining. When it was all over, I felt like I do after a long, tense, enervating movie.

Robinson spoke for maybe 45 minutes, then had a short colloquy with a fawning Harvard professor, then took several questions from the audience. It's not surprising that Robinson likens his situation to that of the campaigners for black civil rights or equal rights for women. He accuses himself of racism and misogyny, which I guess is designed to provide a foundation for accusing those who oppose him of heterosexism (he said he avoids the term homophobia). Victimhood is a strangely comforting position to be in for many, Robinson apparently included.

I won't attempt a detailed recap of his talk or the questions. In some ways, the non-sex-related comments he made were the most illuminating. They certainly explain how he can arrive at the conclusion that it's just fine with God if you are a practicing homosexual. Here are some statements I found "interesting:"

• "I do not believe that Jesus is the sole revelation of God to man." Other faith communities are also OK to God.
• Homosexual behavior is "not immoral, sick, disordered, misguided."
• "You can't find too many definite proclamations in Scripture," so people an use the Bible to say anything. We have a "flawed understanding" of such Biblical words as "abomination."
• "I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but not the words of God."
• Jesus is God's highest revelation. The Bible isn't. [But how do we know anything about Jesus apart from the Bible?]
• Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth." The truth the Spirit is leading us to now is that gays and women deserve "full inclusion."
• Regarding divorce and remarriage: "In spite of the explicit injunction against it from the mouth of Jesus Himself," the Holy Spirit has led us to accept divorced people who remarry. [Thus the Spirit can contradict Jesus.]
• Straight Christians focus on homosexuals so they won't need to deal with their own sexual issues. [He doesn't know the straight Christians I know!]
• "It is time that Christians and Jews actually read the holy Scriptures." [The old canard. Besides myself, I know plenty of Christians who have read the Bible several times through and arrive at conclusions very different from Robinson's.]
• "I helped start a group for 12-21 year old [gay] teens."
• "People who oppose me are only believing what they were taught." [None of his opponents has carefully studied the matter?]
• His advice to gay Catholic priests is that the ordination of women is a good first step on the way toward the full inclusion of homosexuals.
• "There are as many sexualities as there are human beings."
• "God is omni-vulnerable."

There was more, of course, but the above gives you a good flavor of the evening. One thing I listened carefully for, and didn't hear, is any suggestion that whether we're gay or straight, we're called to be continent (i.e., celibate) until marriage or something roughly equivalent. Robinson himself is in a committed relationship and has a "spouse," but at no time did he suggest that spousal fidelity should be normative. He'd lose a lot of gay supporters if he were to advocate such a position, and I still wouldn't agree with him, but I think his position would be much easier to defend. As it is, it comes across more like, "People should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it's loving (and not child abuse or other things I don't think are OK)." That position is intellectual mush, no matter how palatable you make it.

And Bishop Robinson does know how to make heresy palatable. He is witty and winsome. He presents a persona that's hard to dislike, and some of his humor is top-notch. His captor the devil is a liar, and though the Bible doesn't say it, I expect he knows some good jokes, too.

What's the Use?

A while back, I heard from an old friend. The question he asks is simple but profound: why should we pray for people to make good decisions, stay out of sin, etc., if they're just going to do what they will do? Does it make any difference at all?

Here's how my friend explains the dilemma (edited for obvious reasons). If you have any thoughtful responses, they're more than welcome:

Does free will supercede prayer?

This question comes more from the gut than the head. It has been one I have been struggling with as I have seen “B” and two other close Christian friends involved in adultery. It just sometimes feels like "people do what they want to do".

You remember “A” and his wife. “A” ended up marrying that gal he moved in with. Six months after divorcing his wife, he marries her, but not before he moved her in, forced her kids to call her mommy and (rumor has it) got her pregnant. After months of agonizing over him in prayer, organizing prayer meetings with very mature believers, fasting and all the other spiritual requisites, the divorced wife repented but he didn't. I came away thinking, "I could have used that time to mow my lawn, read a book, clean the car, etc." At the end of the day our prayer didn't seem to make much of a difference in his decisions. From my perspective, we did all the right things the scriptures tell us to do to see prayer answered, and there seems to be no reason why God wouldn't answer this one. A no-brainer when it comes to His Will. Yet “A’s” actions seemed to be little hindered by our intercession. Now I have to believe that our prayer at least caused spiritual turmoil in his soul, but his will superceded our prayer.

And what about “B”? He probably had an army of people praying for him over the years. What he did wasn't a shot in the dark, a one night stand. It was a systematic, organized, pre-meditated, long term homosexual affair and cover-up. “B” was acquainted with every single verse in the Bible that deals with sexual sin. He crammed it down my throat as a young believer. And at the end of the day, "he did what he wanted to do". The Holy Spirit didn't intervene, nor did our prayer for his protection, his knowledge of right and wrong, his intimate familiarity with scripture, his church, his family, his training, his accountability group, his Christian books, his cassettes, Christian music, Focus on the Family publications.... He did what he wanted to do....

So why pray? My time is at a premium. I have cars to wash, lawn to mow, books to read. If my friends are going to commit their sins and the prayer of an army of saints isn't going to make a difference... You get my visceral question....

I have no doubt “A” and “B” heard His voice. I think part of “A” must feel tremendous guilt for having committed adultery and gotten someone pregnant. His bitterness and defiance are probably shielding his emotions. But did God stop at the entry door of self will and only call out? In the case of “B” and “A” it appears so. He didn't stop them from living in sin. At the end of the day he allowed their will to make the final decision.

I was being a bit facetious when I wrote about mowing my lawn, because I do feel I am closer to God through this struggle for “A’s” soul. It caused me to talk to Him more and to wrestle with theological issues. But after so much asking He seems to have said no to us, that he would allow “A” to go his own way...

Getting Any? Single Evangelicals Have Sex More Often Than Nonevangelicals

You heard it here, first. Or maybe not.

An article on the Slate website says that evangelical teens are statistically more likely to engage in premarital sex than nonevangelical teens.

Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

Why is this happening? Well, the author lists several influences, most of them cultural, that make it difficult for evangelicals to think differently from others.

But partly the problem lies in the temptation-rich life of an average American teenager. The fate of the True Love Waits movement, which began with the Southern Baptist Convention in the '90s, is a perfect example. Teenagers who signed the abstinence pledge belong to a subgroup of highly motivated virgins.

But even they succumb. Follow-up surveys show that at best, pledges delayed premarital sex by 18 months—a success by statistical standards but a disaster for Southern Baptist pastors.

Evangelical teens today are much less sheltered than their parents were; they watch the same TV and listen to the same music as everyone else, which causes a "cultural collision," according to Regnerus. "Be in the world, but not of it," is the standard Christian formula for how to engage with mainstream culture. But in a world hypersaturated with information, this is difficult for tech-savvy teenagers to pull off.

There are no specific instructions in the Bible on how to avoid a Beyoncé video or Scarlett Johansson's lips calling to you from YouTube, not to mention the ubiquitous porn sites. For evangelicals, sex is a "symbolic boundary" marking a good Christian
from a bad one, but in reality, the kids are always "sneaking across enemy lines," Regnerus argues.

To that, I'd add that a church environment is all about building relationships. When you're hanging around with people, sharing your lives and your struggles, attachments will develop. Many of those attachments would be called community or fellowship, but as closeness develops, it can tempt toward fornication, as well. This is what I'd call an unintended consequence. Kids could avoid this by staying home alone, reading books, watching TV, or even cruising the internet for porn, but hermitage is a poor substitute for relationships, even when the relationships provide some temptation. There's a middle ground (a balance, if you will) in the pursuit of healthy relationships, knowing the difference between close and too close.

And here's the part of the article that I think is most relevant to our earlier discussion of evangelical divorce rates. Notice that not all evangelicals are created equal:

What really matters is not which religion teenagers identify with but how strongly they identify. After controlling for all factors (family satisfaction, popularity, income), religion matters much less than religiosity. Among the mass of typically promiscuous teenagers in the book, one group stands out: the 16 percent of American teens who describe religion as "extremely important" in their lives. When these guys pledge, they mean it. One study found that the pledge works better if not everyone in school takes it. The ideal conditions are a group of pledgers who form a self-conscious minority that perceives itself as special, even embattled.

I recently spent a year among some evangelical teenagers who belong to this elite minority, and I can attest to the inhuman discipline they exert over their hormones. They can spend all evening sitting on the couch holding hands and nothing more. They can date for a year, be alone numerous times in a car or at the movies, and still stick to what's known in the Christian youth literature as "side hugs," to avoid excessive touching. Muslims have it easy compared to them. At least in Saudi Arabia the women are all covered up, so there's nothing to be tempted by. But among this elite corps of evangelicals, the women are breezing around in what one girl I know called "shockingly slutty conservative outfits" while the men hold their tongues. (No, they don't hold anything else.)

As usual, I encourage you to read the entire article rather than rely on my snippets. But here are my own conclusions:

• Evangelicals are in the world and exposed to the same cultural influences that nonevangelicals are.


• Evangelicals are being taught what's right and wrong, but their thinking is not being transformed. Typically, the church teaches the rules and the lists and the "steps to ___," but doesn't teach its people how to learn God's logic and be transformed by His Spirit.


• Unmarried teens and married adults both think that fulfillment and romantic love are higher values than commitment, obedience, and integrity. When presented with the opportunity for premarital sex or the challenges of a difficult marriage, the tendency (i.e., temptation) is to opt for the "self-actualizing" approach, rather than the one of chastity or fidelity.


• Plus, there is, no doubt, a spiritual warfare component to what's going on - which would give the evangelicals an adversary that the others might not have.


• It's not all bad news, though. Teens who are truly committed and not just mouthing words are avoiding sex before marriage at a rate better than nominal evangelicals. A different mind (or mindset) and the power of the Holy Spirit do make a difference.


• I suspect there's a similar pattern in marriage: although evangelicals as a group are divorcing at a rate similar to their non-evangelical neighbors, the rate among "true believers" is probably better than among those who simply talk the talk and act the walk.