Soul Searching

Via Digby and Steve Gilliard comes this story from the LA Times:

Recent gay-sex scandals involving evangelical pastors have prompted much soul-searching among conservative Christian leaders.

No one has proposed rethinking the theology that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, there's a growing consensus that the church must do a better job of helping pastors resist all immoral desires, such as a lust for pornography, an addiction to drugs or a lifelong same-sex attraction.

Digby seems to think that the recent revelations of closeted gay clergy in the evangelical movement will lead to a closer engagement with reality. I don't agree. (Yes, this is related to yesterday's post, which got posted today.)

It may lead, eventually, to acceptance of homosexuality as a facet of the natural in evangelical circles, much the same way that left-handedness is no longer considered a sign of Satan. (Yes, it was, truly.) In fact, left-handedness seems a better analogy for homosexuality than anything else I've seen: it's not immediately apparent, it can be hidden, people can be trained to resist it in favor on right-handedness, and it's intrinsic. If it does lead anywhere, though, it's going to take generations.

At any rate, the thrust of the article is still that evangelicals are in denial about homosexuality. It strikes me that's one of the main drawbacks of operating on received wisdom. In light of the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas, and the fact that the Bible as presently constituted was selected from a larger group of existing scriptures, to take it as God's dictum that homosexuality is "an abomination" seems ludicrous -- it's all been the result of human editing of divine write to begin with -- the whole literalist argument loses any credibility right there.

Digby sees it this way:

But there is actually some good news in this, I think. Under these peoples' belief system, being gay is one of the worst sins around. Yet they are carving out a moral exception for gay preachers -- the men who are supposed to set the standards and lead the people. Would they allow murderers to keep preaching? Thieves?

He misses the point that they already carve out moral exceptions for their leaders. Bearing false witness? It depends on who the target is. Worshipping Mammon? It funds the good fight. Render unto Caesar? Become Caesar. This won't be any different: pastors with "urges" will confess them to their peers, be encouraged to keep denying their basic nature, and go on to vilify gays some more. DIgby misses the point that, in their worldview, things like homosexuality are choices. These are not religious in the mainstream denominations who are, in all essentials, products of the Enlightenment, with an emphasis on reason, free inquiry, and the good of humanity at the core. (I except, of course, the pope, who is much more allied to the authoritarian evangelicals than anyone else.) These are authoritarians who don't question "traditional" intepretations of scripture, but merely restate them for their followers.

At any rate, I'm not sanguine about there being any impact on evangelical thinking by anything so irrelevant as reality. These sorts of scandals seem to happen about once a decade; these are not the first high-profile anti-gay preachers to be caught in compromising situations with men, and they won't be the last. The one thing I don't think we'll see is any genuine soul searching.