Benjamin,

“Rather - or, at least, I hope - we affirm contributions because they are given with good intent for the upbuilding of the Body”.

Indeed, we should affirm contributions based upon the intent and not based on the sexual orientation of the giver. It is not a matter of affirmation based upon sexual orientation as much as it is a matter of not affirming based strictly upon sexual orientation.

Another example is this: You said “I hope that no one would affirm my gifts because I am heterosexual, or male, or of Cuban, Irish, and German descent, etc”. I agree with that statement. What I am trying to get at is this: How would you feel if your gifts were not affirmed simply because you were of German descent?

I agree with you, Benjamin, that identity politics needs to be renegotiated.  But the reality is that the Church has not dealt adequately with issues of racism, homophobia, and privilege.  While your gifts should not be affirmed because they come from someone of your demographics, the reality is that white privilege, western privilege, straight privilege, male privilege etc. is something from which we benefit.  We don’t feel it as an affirmation because privilege is so often felt to be natural and normal; I don’t need to be affirmed in my identity as a white married western educated man because the deck is stacked in my favor—as long as I play by the rules of the game.  So while there’s a problem with identity politics, it would also be naive to think that the advantages and disadvantages of identity didn’t come into play.  That they shouldn’t is true.  That they do is even truer.

The question, then, is what response to take.  While I’ve trotted out terms that some people like to use in order to induce guilt in privileged people, I think it’s more a question of cultivating empathy for the sorts of binds that keep people, whether privileged or disadvantaged, from living into the truth that Paul speaks of in Galatians.  Rather than rejecting identity politics, therefore, we must take it into account as a part of our givenness as fallen yet redeemed human beings.

I don’t know what David’ perspective is on this, but I imagine the issue is not affirmation as a member of a group that is so much desired as it is the desire not to feel or be dehumanized by virtue of being identified with any particular group.

But your basic point about identity politics is a good one.  The challenge is in how that renegotiation could possibly take place without there being first an affirmation of the humanity and gifts that people bring to their lived experience in the church.

Oh, and David:  Did you read the first part of Ephraim Radner’s piece on blessings?  He struggles with ways in which conservatives could affirm the sorts of goods you point to.  I agree with you, further, that combating homophobia is a task that conservatives need urgently to take on, as the tolerance of fear and hatred does nothing to advance the Gospel.  You’re also right to affirm that people on all sides are (usually) acting out of a good faith sense of where God is calling them and the Church to be.  My problem is with people on either extreme who act as if their discerned position, being God’s Truth, gives them, essentially, a license to kill.  This is a hubris I see on both the left and the right, which we would all do well to avoid—that take-no-prisoners mentality that turns activists into terrorists.  In this regard, Benjamin’s pointing out that things need to be affirmed that upbuild the body is key.  As I’ve often suggested, a useful heuristic tool is the notion of edification.

Fr. Humphrey: You “hit the nail on the head” (as we say here in East TN) when you wrote “the issue is not affirmation as a member of a group that is so much desired as it is the desire not to feel or be dehumanized by virtue of being identified with any particular group.”

Thank you for articulating that much better than I could have.

David,

I guess I would encourage you to do less “reading between the lines”, however good you make think you are at it, and more reading of the lines themselves. I say this pointedly.

Several years ago ACI printed a long and detailed analysis by me and Andrew Goddard rejecting Akinola’s support of anti-homosexual legislation, an essay I defended at length on conservative sites like StandFirm, as well as in public interviews with national reporters.  Interestingly, our essay was dismissed by most liberal TEC and CoE types as pointless because its arguments came from conservatives who do not in fact believe that Christian churches should affirm some of the practices they should nonetheless civilly defend the rights of certain individuals to pursue outside of church.  As for the common defense of homosexual civil rights, I have publicly written that this would be one “common” commitment that conservatives and liberals within the Anglican Communion could and should pursue.  That was also dismissed as being disingenuous and pointless.

I say this not to defend myself (and I am not about to go into the matter of counting how many times I have argued against border crossings and with what results), but to press you to get your facts right before you impute motives to people, as well as to indicate the way this whole matter seems to have little to do with what people actually say and think.

Because, frankly, I assume that the “facts” are irrelevant, if not to you personally—that I would not know—then to many gay-inclusion advocates within TEC.  What motives are you looking for, after all?  That I “dehumanize” you because I don’t agree with the Christian claims you make on behalf of gay inclusivist church policies?  This is all political posturing.  As far as I can see, groups like Integrity and those similar to it have no interest in whether or not or why traditionalists like myself do this or that “on behalf” of gay members of TEC or in the larger society, because their main purpose is to achieve certain practical and limited goals within the church in the form of same-sex blessings or marriage rites and of access to ordination by partnered gays.  They were among the first in the current struggles to take up the intra-church lawsuit (I know this from Colorado, e.g. St. Aidan’s, Boulder) and to engage in surreptitious political manipulation in the process (same event, and elsewhere down to the present).  This has been a political struggle from the start, with little interest in getting facts straight, in comprehending or respecting the views of others, or in engaging the church’s decision-making councils on the basis of common study,understanding, or Christian agreement.  It’s been about “what works” in getting one’s way, and it has been shameful.

No more shameful, to be sure, than other devolutions into political manipulation, by conservatives as well, not just now but in the past. I do not for a moment dismiss the charges that conservative Anglican groups have been at this over the past few years in many forms and in many venues.  Ones you know as well as I. If people leave the TEC over these current struggles and the way they have been pursued, for many it will not be because of theological or moral viewpoints at odds with one another.  It will be because of simple disgust with the descent into the grime of willful malice that seems to be a vice Christian churches are incapable of shedding, as those who believe what “God is calling them to do” will justify that they do anything to accomplish it.

Forgive me if I seem to tar you with this general brush.  I do not, because I do not know you.  But I do very pointedly say that comments like yours come close to exemplifying the kinds of concerns I am articulating.

Thank you for your suggestion about “reading between the lines”, Dr. Radner. I might suggest the same thing concerning the ACI’s reading of several of the latest GC resolutions.

I was not aware of (and therefore have not read) the document you refer to concerning the ACI’s rejection of the legislation supported by +Akinola. I applaud any effort made by the ACI to support basic human rights, and I would very much like to read your analysis. Would you mind providing me a link to this?

Your assumption that progressive people simply think “facts are irrelevant” is indeed painting with a very broad brush. It is also a good example of why those outside the ‘conservative’ element of the church question the motives of the ACI. Ultimately, I would venture to say what “motivates” the ACI is their genuine and honest belief that they are right in these matters, and that the Gospel calls them to share these “truths” with the rest of the church. It is too bad the ACI prefers not to see this same ultimate motivation by those who disagree with them, and instead just paints those who disagree as being merely about “what works in getting one’s way” and not interested in “getting the facts straight”.

The fact is, in the end, I do not insist on “getting my way”. I am an Episcopalian, and I will be an Episcopalian in the future regardless of whether or not TEC offers SSB’s, ordination of gay bishops, or even whether or not TEC remains in the Anglican Communion. Most progressive people I know feel likewise.

I am not “suggesting” that you read anything in particular.  I am encouraging you to do your homework, before you denigrate someone’s integrity.
The essay in question is called “Human Rights, Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion”.  I am not adept at providing links, but Google will easily do so for you.  The point is, that is your responsibility to find out, not mine, when it comes to your accusing people of immoral bias.

I appreciate your providing the title of the essay, as I am quite interested in what it has to say.

Concerning your other statements, I would like to say that you are right. I should “do my homework” before “denigrating someone’s integrity”. Perhaps the ACI might follow your advice the next time they feel the urge to make broad based assumptions about the motivations and intentions of those who disagree with their views. In the absence of such assumptions I would think our conversations might bear more fruit.