c. 2004 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. Visit his Web site at http://www.onajourney.org)

(UNDATED) Now that Methodists have joined other denominations in dancing close to schism over sexuality, two questions arise.

Can the center possibly hold? When extremes square off, can anything find life in the scarred ground between them? The answer probably is yes, for American religion, like American politics, tends eventually to find a middle ground, where paradox is tolerated and extremes find few takers.

The more puzzling question is: Why doesn’t the sexuality issue run out of steam? Why has a minor biblical concern fractured friendships, congregations and denominations? Jesus focused on wealth and power. Why doesn’t that divide us? Why do we allow sexuality to tear us apart?

Sadly, sexuality in religion seems another expression of our culture’s disturbing obsession with sex, an obsession that greets us wherever we turn. The sexual nature of abuse in Iraqi prisons seems a grim face of that same obsession.

We have made sexuality a symbol for all that seems wrong and dangerous, or right and life-giving, about modern religion. To some, sexuality is a final line in the sand, expressing cumulative resentment over issues we stopped debating but didn’t resolve, such as women’s changing roles or cultural sea changes. To some, sexuality is the perfect wedge issue, opening the way for a power grab.

Sexuality also seems a way to avoid dealing with real evil, with our own shortcomings, and with the Bible’s actual concerns.

I see two other possibilities. First, this issue exposes a fundamental flaw in American Christianity, namely, we don’t have an operative paradigm for who we are.

Despite our slogans, we aren’t “family,” for healthy families know how to argue but remain intact. We aren’t “community,” for community seeks common ground and higher purpose.

Despite our creed, American Christianity has never been “one,” in Paul’s sense of “being of one mind.” Or “holy,” in the biblical sense of awe and wonder before God. Or “catholic,” in the sense of all-embracing. Or “apostolic,” in the sense of being sent out to do what Jesus did. We seem more intent on gathering briefly with the like-minded and getting our way.

Second, the sexuality issue reveals fundamental differences in the ways we think about faith. Consider, for example, John 14:23, where Jesus says: “Those who love me will keep my word, and my father will love them.”

Do you hear an “or else”? Do you hear Jesus saying, If you love Jesus and obey his word, God will love you; and if you don’t, God won’t love you? Or do you hear something else, such as: Loving Jesus will lead to keeping his word, because love transforms the will; and God also will love, because that is God’s nature?

I’m not saying one reading is correct and the other wrong, but they certainly are different. One looks to set boundaries, to name the conditions for attaining a desired end. The other looks at possibilities, promises and expansiveness.

One values adherence to community norms, because the alternative is mob and madness. The other values change and challenge, because what we know couldn’t possibly be all that God promises.

One looks back to inherited wisdom, settled questions and history’s lessons. The other sees all knowledge as emerging and evolving.

Every argument brings forth bigots and brigands, shallowness and shouting. But let’s imagine that this argument over sexuality is an honorable, albeit acidic, difference of opinion and thought process. What could we do differently?

First, we could stop demonizing each other. None of us is so perfectly attuned to the mind of God that we can pass judgment.

Second, we could look at our church relationships and say, “These people are dear to me. I must not put this asunder. Whatever they do at convention, I have a duty to my faith friends.”

Third, we could seek larger perspective, not to “correct” our views, but to turn down our volume.

Fourth, we could ask what “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” actually would look like. If not what we have, then what?

Finally, we could understand that God’s love is the foundation for all that matters. Not right opinion, not victory in controversy, but mercy, compassion, healing, acceptance and hope.

DEA/PH END EHRICH