Why Focus on Behavior?

Earle Fox

The following is my response to various responses from conservative friends on my testimony given at the consecration of Gene Robinson, to be the first openly practicing homosexual bishop in Christendom, held at the skating arena, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, on November 2, 2003.

For a description of the event, go to  Testimony at the Consecration of Gene Robinson

        I am grateful for the many responses, both pro and con on my involvement at the events in NH.  The important discussion about the event will not be among the revisionists, but among ourselves, to discern what God is up to. 

        Some have asked, Why focus on such ugly behavior?  as if my language was the problem.   But the problem is not that someone gets up and truthfully describes ugly and terribly destructive behavior, the problem is rather that people are engaging in that behavior and now consecrating it.  (For a full description of the homosexual lifestyle and behavior, read Homosexuality: Good & Right in the Image of God? especially chapter V, section A. "Homosexual Behavior: a Profile".)
       When trying to free up a logjam, you do not aim at the best log, or the nicest looking log going to the lumber mill, you aim at that particular log which is the key to the jam.  It may be a very poor log.  But if you remove that key log, the rest will begin to flow.  Homosexual behavior is the jamming log in our present debate.  Neither side will talk about it.  We are too squeamish, and they cannot afford to. 
        What I was addressing primarily was not the problem on the revisionist side, but the problem on the "conservative" side, namely that, due to our timidity, we have succeeded in conserving almost nothing.  That timidity has been most of all precisely our failure to expose the horrendous behavior inherent to homosexuality.  The problem has not been theological, it has been lack of spiritual backbone, inability to confront the enemy where he is attacking.  Far more repugnant than (say) anal intercourse is the lack of courage on our own side to force honest discussion of the issues.  The other side has manipulated us and we have weakly accommodated them.  That is why we lost the battle for the Episcopal Church.  We lost it.  They did not win it. 
        Some have thought my language (see Testimony) was insensitive to the children who might have been  present at the consecration.  Yet, what school children themselves are openly talking about might devastate many who objected to my language.  The public education system of Massachusetts (which is neither public nor education) is teaching children as young as 12 years old (and they are aiming for cradle to grave) those behaviors to which I referred.  I did not get to "fisting" on my list in New Hampshire. 

        But GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network -- I think) in Mass. is getting to it.  They are working with the Mass. Dept of Ed to teach fisting to children.  It is all on tape and written up.  They are not denying it, and they keep on having their conferences to do more of it.  They were exposed a few years ago, but have continued right on with their program.   Why???  Because the parents are too self-satisfied, too cowardly, too comfortable to stand up and protect their children from this criminal sexual abuse.  

         Many of those children at the consecration, especially those children of pro-pansexual, pro-homosexual parents, could teach any one of us a thing or two about sexual behavior.  Especially if they had been among the blessed at the Massachusetts' GLSEN conferences.  
        Most news accounts of my talk did not mention the graphic specifics.  But the Washington Blade Online (one of the premiere homosexual publications) had no such compunctions.  They quoted my speech word for word, including the parts that were censored by Griswold.  Homosexual advocates talk with gay abandon about sex among themselves, but they do not want the opposition talking about their sex when it makes them look bad.  (On the other hand, the article was well, and objectively, written, maybe the Blade just has honest reporters.) 

        Sexual abuse of our society is what Griswold & Co. are promoting.   If they deny it, they are either lying or terminally ignorant. 

        Why focus on the behavior?  Because that is where they are winning the battle and we losing it.  They are winning this battle because we do not expose the behavior.   Griswold did not have to shut down any of the other protesters because he could "work around" (reinterpret pluriformily)  what they talked about: the authority of Scripture, splitting the Church, etc.   He cannot work around behavior.  Behavior is not pluriform, it just is.  If we do not expose it right out in the light, they are able to continue the idiotic illusion that what they are doing is really quite benign.  It is not benign.  It is criminal behavior and it is killing people. 
        So, the issue I was addressing was not primarily their behavior, it was our incompetence or unwillingness to address the behavior.  We pseudo-conservatives (who cannot conserve anything) are the primary culprits.  And forcing truth onto the table, not sex, is the primary issue.   Behavior is the one area where they are absolutely vulnerable, and we give them a pass on it.  I was addressing....  well, anyone who would listen, but chiefly ourselves, our pseudo-conservative selves.  
        What was stunningly clear to me at both the New Hampshire event and at a week or so earlier press conference held by Frank Wade, rector of St. Albans on the DC cathedral grounds, was their absolute vulnerability.  They simply have no defense against the exposure of their behavior.  And they know it, which is why they have to work around it with talk about "process" or shut the discussion down.  Wade replied to my list of behaviors (which he did not censor) that the Episcopal General Convention was not interested in what people touched or kissed, only about whether their decisions were arrived at lovingly.   Yes, really. 
        People who object to my language focus on the shocking part, the behavior.  But, as Griswold asked for, "Get to the point..."   The point of my protest and of lighting up the behavior came after the shocking list of behaviors.  I concluded: 

"The physical and spiritual health consequences of such behavior are devastating. There are 6000+ images [actually only about 3000, as it turned out] of a loving God in this arena.  Both reason and love would tell us that persons made in that loving image could not rightly engage in, bless, or consecrate such self-destructive behavior." 

My point to the consecrators was about their facing the full truth of their actions. 

        A bit of background.  On the way to the arena, the Lord showed me a picture of the arena building with dark shapes swirling around in it.  He said, "That is your target.   You are to command them to stand up! because I am going to shine the Light upon them."   Our targets are not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers -- who are sometimes represented in flesh and blood. 
        God did exactly what He said He would do.  All of a sudden, there was the array of apostate bishops, captives of the dark forces, red-faced, embarrassed, squarely in the glare of the whole world watching -- as they were shutting down the truth.  

        There is no way on earth that I could have orchestrated that event.  I just bumbled into it (see details of the event in Testimony at the Consecration of Gene Robinson).   The first issue was not sexual behavior, but honesty and truth (which happened in this case to be about sex). 

        And, by reflex, about our own cowardice.   We are getting what we deserve.  Kyrie, eleison.  We have all the live ammunition (fact and logic), and they have only blanks (ignorance and deceit). Why are they winning?  Because we are scared to shoot, or do not know how. 

        We are getting what we deserve.  Kyrie, eleison.

        Frank Wade was partly right.  It is about process.  Not about the feel-good process ignorantly disguised as "love", but about the truth-seeking process as the foundation of intelligent love.  As one commentator said, the strength of the Anglican Way is our ability to say no.  Which logically requires the equal ability to say yes when appropriate.  And the wisdom to know the difference.  Process is valuable only as it leads to truthful and righteous conclusions. 

        If homosexuality promoters knew that every time they arose to promote their cause, they would have to defend their behavior, they would think twice about presenting their case in public.   And so, if we want to turn the momentum around, we must ensure that they can expect precisely that to happen --

1.  we must learn the names of the half-dozen or so relevant behaviors, in their clinical (not street language) descriptions, which we are willing to share gracefully at appropriate times; 

2. we must learn the health consequences of such behavior -- so that we can point out the substantial reasons why a loving God would say "no";

3. and we must be able to point out where and by whom these behaviors are being publicly promoted to fend off those who think that "there is no real problem". 

        The homosexual agenda will not long sustain a persistent campaign of that sort. 

[For related articles, see the two "strategy" sections in the Episcopal library.] 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page; => Episcopal Library;   => ROAD MAP