Source:  Anglican Mainstream

April 1, 2004

By Dr. Philip Giddings

Convener, Anglican Mainstream

Canon Dr. Chris Sugden

Anglican Mainstream International

A claim frequently made by Gene Robinson and his supporters is that he is simply being honest. As honesty is a virtue it is therefore wrong to criticise him and his appointment. How valid is this argument?

The question that needs clarification is ‘honest about what?’. Undoubtedly there have been many clergy and bishops in the church who have experienced same sex attraction. There is, however, no objection raised against them being ordained if they uphold Christian teaching.

Robinson’s implied criticism of those who are not ‘honest’ about this because they choose to keep it private rather than making it public is debatable. His stress on the importance of being 'honest' about one’s sexual attractions reflects much of current Western society’s obsession with sexual attraction and having a public sexual identity. There are certainly major questions about imposing a particular construction - 'being gay' – on  those in the past or in other cultures who may have experienced homosexual feelings and then implicitly criticising them for not being open and truthful about this in the way Robinson has been. Robinson’s own personal history is, of course, itself open to different ‘honest’ interpretations: is he someone who fits Paul’s description in Romans 1 and has abandoned natural relations with his wife and entered unnatural relations with another man?, is he someone who was always 'gay' but lived a lie until he was able to be ‘honest’ about who he was?, is he someone who can experience different forms and levels of sexual attraction with both men and women? While respect must be shown to any person’s own honest account of their story, we cannot uncritically accept each person’s story as the true interpretation.

In highlighting his honesty, Robinson is, however, presumably highlighting his honesty about living in a sexually active same-sex relationship. This is the novelty in his situation and what has led to his appointment causing such division. Here his claims about ‘honesty’ are irrelevant. If, as the Anglican Communion teaches, his behaviour is contrary to Scripture then 'honesty' is not the relevant virtue. The only honest Christian response to sin in one's life is a form of penitent confession (‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves...’).  Simply being honest about a sin does not mean it ceases to be a sin. There have, undoubtedly, been adulterers, thieves, gossips etc who have become bishops in the past. That does not, however, make adultery, theft or gossip acceptable conduct. It would also not be a virtue were a bishop now to make public that they were living in this way and intended to continue in this way of life. Any claim that they were more virtuous than others because they were being honest and therefore they did not understand the objections being raised would clearly be unconvincing.

The problem with Gene Robinson is not that he is untruthful or dishonest about his conduct. Nobody has accused him of that. The problem is that the conduct about which he is honest does not bear witness to the truth. The fact that he is honest about it cannot alter that fact. In fact, his self-justifying honesty is arguably even more dangerous in that it presents as acceptable what the church has consistently identified as sin. A Christian understanding of truth, honesty and sin means that expressing openly the truth about oneself as one sees it is not the means of discerning right and wrong. Nor is it sufficient justification for the claim to be living a life of faithful Christian discipleship.

The above article can also be found at www.anglican-mainstream.net.

Date Created: 4/1/2004