Why Focus on Behavior?
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
Go to: =>
TOP Page; => Episcopal
Library; => ROAD MAP