The confirmation by the Episcopal Church of the election of the openly gay priest Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire is the latest development in the continuing struggle of mainline churches to define the role of gays and lesbians in their midst.

Indeed, the very convention that confirmed Bishop Robinson also authorized Episcopal priests to preside over same-sex unions. From the standpoint of the conservatives in the Episcopal Church, it was a one-two punch that left them reeling.

The Vatican has already made it clear that the Roman Catholic Church intends to oppose gay marriage in whatever form it is advocated and has warned Catholic politicians that their support of such unions is a “gravely immoral” act.

On the Protestant side, few churches have gone as far as the Episcopalians to accommodate Christians who are gay and lesbian. The United Methodist Church, which separated from the Episcopalians in the late 18th century, has taken a much harder line. It will not ordain gays who are not celibate and forbids its ministers to preside at same-sex marriages.

It may seem surprising to outsiders that so much attention has been paid to developments in the Episcopal Church. It is, after all, a very small denomination by American standards. There are more than 20 Catholics for every Episcopalian and more than seven Southern Baptists. Even the Methodists outnumber them 4 to 1.

But the Episcopal Church has had more than its fair share of members who played important roles in American society from George Washington to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Moreover, it is a denomination that appears, to a greater degree than most, to be shaped by venerable Christian traditions. Robin Williams once quipped that the Episcopal Church is “Catholic light.” If this upper-class, tradition-minded church takes a giant step to the political left, it is, to say the least, newsworthy.

One way to see this development is to regard it solely as a chapter in the American culture wars that have been raging since the 1960s. And it certainly is part of that story. But it is also important, especially for people who stand outside the Christian tradition, to see the events in the Episcopal Church as part of a distinctly and distinctively Christian civil war.

Everybody in this intra-Christian battle understands that the church cannot simply adopt the standards of the world around it. The words of Romans 12:2 in the Phillips translation are in some form or other accepted by all Christians: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould.” Advocates on both sides want to do not only what is right, judged by some abstract moral norm; they want to do what God wants them to do. The norm for this conflict is the will of God as they understand it. The problem is, they understand it very differently.

In part the two sides come to different conclusions because they read the Bible and Christian tradition in very different ways. When the question was women’s ordination to the priesthood (a clear break for Episcopalians with longstanding tradition) the liberals found that they had to oppose texts from the Bible that urged women to keep silent in church with texts that called the church a new creation in which there was “neither male nor female.”

In this case, the most ancient level of the church’s tradition trumped its later patriarchal traditions. Why not in the case of homosexuals? If they are fit subjects for baptism, why not ordination?

And if ordination, why not high office in the church? Isn’t the church a new creation in which there is neither straight nor gay? Besides isn’t this the just and fair thing to do?

For the conservatives, the biblical case for the ordination of gays and lesbians is by no means clear.

There are texts in the Bible that seem to them to condemn homosexual acts as sinful in themselves and therefore impossible to redeem by monogamous behavior. More important, the conservatives argue that there is a longstanding Christian norm for sexual behavior, supported by both Scripture and tradition: namely, the permanent and faithful monogamous union of a man and a woman.

How can the approval of homosexual behavior (sinful in itself and not merely in its use) ever be a just act for the church?

Besides, isn’t the preservation of the institution of marriage and the promotion of stable and loving homes a just and fair thing to do, especially for the welfare of children?

How will this all turn out? Will it lead to schism?

At this point no one knows. The Episcopal Church is a small part of the 77 million-member Anglican communion, the majority of whose archbishops support the position of the conservatives.

Undoubtedly, there will be leakage as some Anglo-Catholics become Roman Catholic and some Evangelicals join the dissident Anglican congregations already in existence.

Over the longer haul there may be a reconfiguration as some gay activists leave more conservative denominations to join the Episcopal Church and conservative Episcopalians who wish to stay in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury may find a way to do so through an overseas Province.

One thing is certain: The end of the Episcopal convention in Minneapolis is not the end of the controversy.

David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns professor of the history of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.

Copy the Story Link