In the life of The Episcopal Church (TEC) there is one man more than any other man, possibly more than any other woman, who has contributed to the present policy and polity of TEC in which all are included except those Episcopalians who disagree with the present policy and polity. That man is Louie Crew. Recently a blog-worth-consulting-if-you-want-the-reappraiser-perspective, Preludium, blogged by Mark Harris, announced that Louie Crew (also known as Quaen Lutibelle) has a new blog, called Queer Eye on the Lectionary. Now Louie is both a learned man, and an excellent writer. The reflections offered on this blog so far are witty, insightful, and also interestingly autobiographical. Harmless enough, perhaps.
But there are other Crew writings on the internet. Explicit 'gay religious poetry' could be a description. No links here; but its not hard to find. These writings are ambiguous in respect of the ideology which drives subterraneously through the phenomenon which is the Louie Crew lobby in TEC. Is the ideology simply to be inclusive of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people? Or is it to 'queerize' the theology and christology of the church?
It is the inability of TEC to assure the remainder of the Communion as to what its 'deep' agenda is, and where its 'longterm' destination is, which is ramping up conservative opposition. TEC has an easy strategic response to that opposition: calling it 'homophobia', seeking to place opponents on an emotional back foot. I think it is 'ideology-phobia' which drives conservative opposition, who understand that when ideology drives theology, idolatry is not far behind. (To be sure, TEC is not the only member church subject to this critique: our own ACANZP in these islands runs perilously close when it talks about 'the Treaty of Waitangi' being of equal importance to the Gospel, or cements our 'Three Tikanga' arrangements as a permanent rather than provisional structuring of our common life). Our Communion's unity depends on a common mind. Finding that common mind is impeded when our theological conversation involves doubts as to whether the real agenda is being revealed or not.