Love or Unity?

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16 (NIV)

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. Matthew 10: 34-36 (NASB)

The biblical verse declaring that God is love is the sort of verse almost everyone likes. Love is the quality most often associated with God, and hearing the phrase “God is love” stirs warm feelings in the hearts of most believers. The other verse I chose for this article does not stir warm feelings. In fact, this is one of the verses that frighten people. I would like to suggest, however, that both of these verses are very closely related, and that both speak to the current debates in the church relating to homosexuality.

Many commentators have noted the cordial, respectful tone of the recent debates at General Synod in Canada. Generally, people seem to be very happy that the debate on same sex blessings was respectful and dignified. I can recall similar debates in the Diocese of Massachusetts (where I am originally from) a few years ago—they were also mostly cordial, but had a few unpleasant moments. One speaker began reciting a lengthy list of questionable behaviors that gay people are purported to engage in with frightening regularity. I won’t go into detail, but apparently if it’s perverse, gay people do it in massive numbers. This is, of course, an absurd argument. Even if it were true (and this list, by the way, has been widely discredited) it would not mean gay people should not marry. In fact, every time I hear this list of gay perversions, I always stop and think: “So why stop them from getting married? It sounds like these people, more than any other, really need to settle down and get married!”

Nowadays, however, it’s a little harder to get away with the sort of extreme gay-bashing argument that attributes every variety of perversion to gay people, and we hear these silly gay lists less often. Believe it or not, I actually miss them. At least then those opposed to gay rights had an argument. A sad, silly, nonsensical argument—but at least there was an argument. Now we are frequently assaulted with something nicer sounding, but more sinister. We must not allow gay people to be treated the same as straight people because we have to be concerned with “unity”. A schism must be avoided at all costs, so this argument goes, and therefore gay people cannot be allowed to receive all the blessings and benefits of Christian marriage, because too many in the church would not tolerate it. This sounds like a nicer argument, but it’s not. In fact, it’s not an argument of any sort, it’s a capitulation. It gives veto power over church policy to whoever is angriest. It’s also insulting to the traditionalist opponents of gay marriage. I disagree intensely with Archbishop Peter Akinola’s position on homosexuality, but I am not going to pretend our differences are smaller than they are and then offer him some concessions to placate him. I respect him and the office he holds enough to say, clearly and without fear, the truth as I see it: his views on homosexuality are hateful to the point of being a grievous sin, and it’s my hope that he repents of this evil. It may be easier to wring your hands and say “Can’t we all get along?”; but it’s also condescending, and it’s not honest. If you honestly believe that gay people are loved by God, and that the love they share is of God, have the courage to say it clearly and boldly. If you do not, feel free to say that as well. I will never ask anyone to leave the Anglican Church because of our differences on the issue of homosexuality. This, despite the fact that Akinola and many of his admirers support legislation in his country that would throw gay people in jail for up to five years simply for the "crime" of being gay. After your five year prison term is over, if you are still gay (which seems likely), you can be arrested again. Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I find it impossible to believe that after five years in prison a person will come out less gay than he was when he went in. The recidivism rate for "gayness" must be astronomical. The point I am trying to make is that I am willing to share a church with a person that thinks I am not fit to be. If I can share a Communion with people who have such hostile intentions towards people like me, then I believe I have earned the right to stay in the Church. Is it reasonable to say that I, and other gay people and their straight supporters, are the ones threatening church unity? We have never asked anyone to leave the church, we have never threatened to leave the church and start a new communion, and we have certainly never advocated killing our opponents in this debate. Homosexuals do not threaten church unity. All we ask is equal treatment, and even though we’ve never got it, we remain in the Church, and do not ask anyone else to leave, no matter how strongly we disagree with them. Our desire for unity, however, does not mean we should deny what we know to be true: if gay people share real love, and they do, then that love is of God, and God lives in us as we live in him. That is why I quoted the passage from 1 John. God is love, and those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them. Attacking the love we share is literally to attack God. If you are attacking God, the only loving thing I can do for you is to try and convince you that you are wrong and pray that you repent. If I do any less, even if it is for the sake of unity, I am not showing you any love at all. That’s the problem with the debate on homosexuality today: we are afraid to speak the plain truth for fear of disrupting unity, when what we should really be afraid of is our refusal to acknowledge the presence of God in the lives of millions of loving gay couples.

This is why I included the second quotation. Unity is not our highest good; love is. We must not hide our love in a closet, even if it means divisions will occur. If we do that, we are giving more value to unity than love, and that is unchristian. Christ knew divisions would occur, and he wanted to make sure we did not allow our fear of conflict to prevent us from following him.

If love is more important than unity, and if gay people share real love that is of God, then they must be treated the same way straight people are. I not only believe the Anglican Church should bless same sex marriages; the church should be performing these marriages. Gay people should not only be allowed to serve as priests, they should be able to do so without staying in the closet and hiding their love, and they should be allowed to serve the church they love in any capacity, including the episcopate.

The only argument that can be made against this view that love is more important than unity—and therefore that the love gay people share must be defended even if it causes division—is that gay people don’t actually share real love: that homosexuality is not a normal, natural part of the human condition, but a random perversion, like pedophilia or bestiality. The problem with this argument is it’s been proved false. Look up the research done by virtually all of the major professional organizations representing mental health care providers, including the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Medical Association, and all of their counterparts in the U.S., and you will find they are unanimous in their support of equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples. Long term scientific studies going back decades have been completed by respected social scientists like Dr. Nanette Gartrell and John C. Gonsiorek, they have been subjected to rigorous peer review, and the results are clear and irrefutable: homosexuals are perfectly capable of entering into and maintaining stable, long-term, loving relationships; they can raise healthy, happy children; and they are almost always happier and healthier when they come out of the closet. This research cannot be duplicated using polygamous unions, which usually end up treating women like cattle; or pedophilia, which is obviously injurious to children; or bestiality, which is absurd to even suggest. There are such things as perversions, but homosexuality is not one of them.

Even without the overwhelming body of research supporting the recognition and normalization of gay unions, we know that gay people are capable of participating in stable, healthy relationships that are based on real, shared, romantic love from the witness of millions of gay couples worldwide. There are too many happy, healthy gay couples to ignore, there are too many excellent gay priests and deacons to deny, and there are too many children being raised happily in gay homes for us to continue treating gay people as if they were different from or inferior to straight people. In my own family, the relationship that I share with my husband is indistinguishable from the heterosexual relationships my siblings share with their spouses; and we are not an exception, there are literally millions more just like us.

I understand the desire to maintain unity. I don’t want anyone to leave the church because of me. I do not wish to see a schism and for that reason I am happy to tolerate and even love those who would deny my marriage and my love. But I must continue to insist that homosexuals share real love, and God is love. While I do not desire conflict or division, we know from the teachings of Christ that divisions are inevitable, and we must not shy away from them in fear. Love is the highest Christian virtue, it is the essence of our faith, it is the highest possible good. Love is, in a real way, God. And we must be prepared to defend love, and to defend God, even if it results in serious divisions.

Dan Josselyn, Toronto