I wasn't at General Convention. But I offer a few thoughts.
The real issue is not sexuality. Nor is it only about authority. My impression is that we are reacting to a world that is rapidly changing, "global," a consequence of late capitalism. Do I love the changes? Not really. But gay people are simply the current object of our general anxiety.
Those of us on the progressive side might remember that for all the conservative things our bishops say, the economic liberation of women will continue breaking up the traditional patriarchy of our faith. Remember, also, that trying to force the institution to change won't matter if we aren't trying to relate to congregations on the ground.
The reasserters still have not demonstrated that they have a clear understanding of sexual behavior within marriage. What do we do with the problem, for example, of the "strap on" when a woman takes the male role during sex?
Progressives must also remember that, for plenty of people in the rest of the world, our little escapades into Iraq are connected to our sexual libertinism.
But here is a quick commentary to Dr. Harding's thoughts on General Convention, which are being widely praised. [update: here is a commentary from Leaning Toward Justice] Via
1. God is the author of same-sex attraction by an act of special providence that includes biological and social-psychological secondary causes. Because we know through reports of the spiritual experience of same-sex attracted people that God is the primary author of these experiences, inquiry into the relative contributions of nature and nurture to same-sex attraction is of no significance for the church’s moral teaching or pastoral care.
Obviously, it is worthy to explore the nature of desire or attraction. I am skeptical, however, that God has much to do with romance, and it is precisely the practical experience of pastors with gay people that led to the reconsideration of the church’s ethics. The fruits of the spirit, however, are explained in scripture.
2. This recognition of the source of same-sex attraction in the direct intention of God means that the categories of “Gay” and “Lesbian” are part of God’s order of creation in the same way as male and female.
Obviously there are men and women. One does not need to be religious or a Christian to assert such. This fact is not necessarily the primary aspect of being a Christian, who is clothed in Christ rather than gender or ethnicity.
3. Bisexuality is also created by God as an act of special providence through a combination of biological and social-psychological secondary causes.
I’m not sure if anyone was saying this, but goodie for them. Twice as many possibilities. But you are hitched once.
4. It is likewise irrelevant to the church’s moral and pastoral response to this phenomenon to inquire into the relative contributions of nature and nurture in the development of this sexual orientation.
If we were to inquire into the phenomenon, what would we find? Perhaps homosexuality might be God’s way of healing people who have been abused? Perhaps it is one way of resisting the fusion between a mother and son? It might be interesting. But it is probably useless. It does remind me, a bit, of Schockley.
5. The recognition of the source of same-sex desire in the original intention of God for the creation and humanity is a revelation of the Holy Spirit in our time.
Actually, no. The spirit merely revealed that homosexuals are in our midst and included in God’s plan. God reveals our desires and reveals that they may be good. He may or may not put them there. This is profoundly disturbing to those of us who witness these revelations. It is as if we are in the midst of an earthquake.
6. The General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are witnesses to this new revelation of the Holy Spirit.
Only time will tell, but it is possible.
7. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed what amendments in the church’s received sexual ethic will be necessary to accommodate bisexual and transgendered people but we can expect further leading by the Holy Spirit in this regard. In the meantime such persons should be considered fit candidates for Holy Orders.
There is nothing special about bisexual or transgendered people that make them fit for ordination. If a church calls them out to be priests, then that is the best evidence we have for their fitness. Churches make mistakes, but this is also evinced with the number of talentless straight, white, male clergy.
8. Certainty in moral or theological judgments which is based on an authoritative reading of a text whether that is the text of the Bible or any other part of the dogmatic tradition of the church is inherently an example of over-reaching.
Unfortunately, this is a philosophically troubling statement. Most epistemologists would want to be careful about what we consider “certain” and when talking about the supernatural, we are on intrinsically difficult ground. In the public sphere, certainty gets in the way of the greater virtue, humility.
Second, to talk of “authoritative readings” requires that there be, first, an “authority.” Alas, we have not decided who that authority will be. Nigerian bishops? Why? The Archbishop of Canterbury? I vote for the tallest bishop with the most guns or the most organized wife. Or the one who can “pop and lock” like Michael Jackson. Jesus - then by bishop - would be the most logical authority, but I don't think there is any agreement on what Jesus' orienting hermeneutic was [although I have my suspicions...]