Rankin File

Ruminations, fulminations, and cogitations on the spiritual life

Identity and Acceptance

Sometime around 1985, if I remember correctly, in the middle of my seminary tutelage, I had a conversation with a fellow student that has stuck with me over the years.  I include the date so that the reader will know just how long this topic has been on my mind, not to mention how long we’ve been discussing it publicly.

I cannot remember how the subject of sexuality came up.  We were in the middle of a peer review of a paper, a student discussion led by a faculty member.  I was the one in the hot seat that day.  I had not written about sexuality, so I don’t remember how or why the subject arose.  But I do remember this comment from my fellow student, an out lesbian (which I knew before this moment).  She said to me, “If you don’t accept my sexuality, you don’t accept me.”

I have heard or read this claim dozens of times since that day.  As I said last week, I hate writing about sexuality because it is so personal, so painful, especially right now.  I feel a growing alarm about statements I hear and read, so, once again, I feel I must say something.  And I want to analyze this claim, that if I do not “accept” (I use scare quotes for a reason, which will become evident in a moment) someone’s sexuality, then I don’t “accept” her or him.

First, let’s recognize the statement for what it is – a truth claim.  In other words, this person was not, at that moment anyway, describing her experience or simply offering her take on the matter.  She was making a claim that had direct bearing on my view.  More pointedly, her opinion was a judgment of my opinion, pure and simple.

Now, let me tell you why I’m alarmed.  In the current popular hostilities, “not accepting” seems increasingly to mean “hate.”  The if-then logic goes like this: if I don’t accept your sexuality, then I hate you.  This is a huge and dangerous jump – for everyone.  And there is a similarly ominous corollary claim: if you hold a “traditional” view of sexuality and marriage, even if you don’t engage in hate speech or do anything actively to oppose gays and lesbians, etc., you still are guilty of helping to maintain a threatening heterosexist system tantamount to the Anti-semitism of Nazi Germany.  And we all know how that ended.  Peter Gomes makes this very claim in his book, The Good Book.

There are a number of angles to take on this most difficult of conversations and I’m going to try to offer some coherent thought, without being able to take the space to go step by step on everything I’m thinking.  (This blog is already much longer than I prefer.)  Let me also readily acknowledge that I could be wrong.  But here is my first point: I can be wrong in my thinking about your understanding of yourself, your identity, and your behavior (in one class of behaviors – sexual), but being wrong in my opinion about how you understand and present yourself is not the same as my lack of esteem and love for you.  They are two different sets of thoughts.  I can still like you very much, affirm your right to live as you please and disagree with your understanding of yourself.  I may just be wrong about you while still esteeming you.  So, it seems to me at the start, that claiming that my being wrong is the same as hating you is a plain non sequitur.  And a dangerous one because it breeds suspicion and fear.  There is an irony at work here that I would love to comment on, but I’ll have to leave it at that.

Now back to my fellow-student’s claim.  Let’s think of “identity” and “sexuality” as two circles.  In her comment, she seems to be saying, without actually stating it this way, that the circle of who she is and the circle of her sexuality are the same.  There is an exact proportional identity.  In some sense, it seems, “identity” and “sexuality” completely co-inhere.  The implication follows that there is therefore no conceptual room for me to think about my fellow student in any other way.  And if I do, it must be because I am motivated by something sinister and morally wrong – an irrational fear (homophobia) or something like it.

I think the position I just sketched is an extremely difficult one to sustain and support.  There is far more to a person than sexuality.  (At the least we ought to be able to have a respectful discussion about this point!)  We all know people who do not want to be limited in their identity in this way.  They own their sexuality without problem, but they are also competent professionals and colleagues, neighbors joining us for cookouts and sports fans and musicians and a host of other qualities that make them who they are.  They want to live in freedom and dignity, but they don’t want to make an issue of their sexuality.

So, you see, I think I really can disagree with someone’s claim on (what look to me like) good logical grounds and I can still love that person very much.  In fact, I do.  When discussing other topics, this is obvious and we all know it.  Whether I love someone or not has little to do with how I evaluate a statement that person makes.  Why, then, do we seem unable to apply this same logic to our discussions about sexuality?

Now I come to the meaning of the word “accept” used above.  Remember, the claim I’m working with here is that if I don’t accept someone’s sexuality, I don’t accept that person.  It seems to me that “accept” in this statement actually means that I must morally affirm and agree with that person’s sexual self-understanding.  Or, to say it this way, it appears that”sexuality” and “identity” mean the same thing.  Part of the difficulty with this claim is that it trades on an understanding of “accept” that, so far as I can tell, we do not use in any other situation.  The truth is, we very commonly accept one another without agreeing with one another on all manner of other issues. If sexuality is that different, such that we must dramatically alter how we use language around it, then someone needs to help me understand what makes sexuality that different.

You might object that I’m not taking account of bias or subjective feelings, etc.  Of course I am.  I’m fully aware of my biases and I know that language has power and talking about “logic” has its own power dimension, as if appealing to “logic” somehow makes my thoughts more important and impact-ful.  Yes, language has power, but one of the reasons it has power is because it helps us talk about what we believe to be true and real.  Again, I wish people saw the irony, but apparently we don’t.

You’ll notice that, even though I am a Christian, I have not mentioned the Bible once.  Part of my agonizing over the raw public animosity is how much time we waste arguing back and forth about what the Bible does or does not say.  It is a legitimate concern to search the scriptures, but there are quite a few other questions besides just what the Bible says that we Christians need to engage if we really want to have a serious, respectful and substantive discussion.  Can we please stop using the Bible as a tool in the culture wars?

So, I come back to my major concern: the either-or logic that demands either full approval or hateful rejection and possible violence.  Let me say it again: I could be wrong in my thinking about sexuality.  Off and on since 1985, I’ve been reading, thinking, praying, listening and talking.  And I still am.  I have two books on my desk right now, written and edited by serious scholars, gay men in long-term relationships.  One is a historical study and the other deals with theoretical questions about sexual identity.  (By the way, so far I’ve read much more in these books about “desire” than I have about “identity.”  Even among those who fully support gay marriage and easily affirm same-sex activity, the term “identity” is apparently a challenge to understand.)  But even if I’m wrong – even if I just “don’t get it,” it is still a dangerous, destructive jump to conclude that I therefore must hate gay people.

Finally, not one thing I’ve written in this blog actually says anything about what I think about sexuality per se.  I know that you can scour through my comments and read between the lines and draw your own conclusions.  But be very careful when you do.  You might be wrong.  My sole purpose in this post has been to focus on one of the problems I think I see in how we talk about the issue.  That’s it.

August 10, 2012 - Posted by | Bible, Pop Culture, Religion, The Church


  1. Great blog, Steve! Thanks for helping us to look at the way that the escalation of language prevents true dialog and “holy conferencing.” If disagreement is the same as hate, then we will really have a problem living together in the church!

    Comment by Tom Lambrecht | August 11, 2012 | Reply

  2. Thanks for writing, Steve. I really admire how you are open and say that you “could be wrong.”
    I think one reason sexual orientation is closely tied with identity is because it weighs so heavily on the different aspects of each persons life. It determines what churches we feel safe/comfortable in, who we build families with, the people we meet and connect with, etc. Your heterosexuality does not just affect who you share your bed with, but is a part of who you know yourself to be; it is as much a part of your identity as your skin color or gender.
    People are also more likely to identify with the characteristic most under stress at any given time. For example- if I, a white person, were traveling in Africa, I would feel like the color of my skin was making me stick out like a sore thumb, so my whiteness would be at the forefront of my identity. In our society, some people really ARE hateful towards gays, and institutional heterosexism is a reality; and for this reason sexual orientation becomes a defining part of an LGBT persons’ identity formation.
    Thirdly, gay people have long been over-sexualized and defined by the act of sex rather than their orientation. While sexual expression is a part of healthy partnerships, it is only one component along with emotional connection, spirituality, shared values, etc. Gay people often feel the need to tie sexuality closely with identity because they are tired of being over-sexualized. They want to be seen for more than their sex.
    Sexual orientation is indeed an important part of each persons’ identity, regardless of whether they’re gay or straight.

    Comment by Britt | August 28, 2013 | Reply

  3. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
    Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

    Comment by this contact form | December 16, 2013 | Reply

    • No one else has reported trouble with the images loading. Thank you for asking.

      Comment by steverankin | December 16, 2013 | Reply

  4. What’s up it’s me, I am also visiting this web site daily, this site is genuinely fastidious and the users are really sharing pleasant thoughts.

    Comment by frais de déménagement | April 17, 2014 | Reply

  5. Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an very long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear.

    Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyhow, just wanted to say wonderful

    Comment by paint spray guns reviews | May 19, 2014 | Reply

  6. These include Aloe Vera Gel, Aloe Vera syrup, Aloe Shampoos, and so on. Aloe Vera
    was created to take in all the water mainly because it needs and after that survive off what it saved through periods where it’s got limited entry to water which made it perfect to search with.
    This is not a serious condition from the eye, but one that
    you should treated to further improve your comfort.

    Comment by aloevera | June 16, 2014 | Reply

  7. Wow that was odd. I just wrote an incredibly long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t show up.
    Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Anyways, just
    wanted to say fantastic blog!

    Comment by Le Papillon On The Park | June 20, 2014 | Reply

  8. Thanks for some other wonderful post. Where else may
    anyone get that type of information in such an ideal method of writing?
    I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at the search
    for such information.

    Comment by http://www.slideshare.net/omeremberlin | July 3, 2014 | Reply

  9. Here we will look at a few of these hundreds of golf courses in Alberta so you can begin to get
    an idea of why many golfers flock here to enjoy the goods. The
    official language of this island nation is English
    but French and Creole are also widely spoken. It makes for a perfect gift on any occasion if he’s a sports lover.

    Comment by golf swing trainers | July 4, 2014 | Reply

  10. I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this
    post was great. I don’t know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

    Comment by creative landscapes | July 7, 2014 | Reply

  11. Here we will look at a few of these hundreds of golf courses in Alberta so you can begin to get an idea of
    why many golfers flock here to enjoy the goods.

    This is where the feet, hips, and shoulders are in line with the target.
    You’ll be amazed at the difference to your speed and strength of your golf swing because of doing these exercises.

    Comment by golf shoes reviewed | August 8, 2014 | Reply

  12. Good day! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog.
    Is it difficult to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but
    I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about
    setting up my own but I’m not sure where to start. Do you
    have any tips or suggestions? With thanks

    Comment by electronic pest repeller | August 20, 2014 | Reply

  13. Today, I went to the beach with my children. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed.

    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
    She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic
    but I had to tell someone!

    Comment by Pest Controls | September 8, 2014 | Reply

  14. Hi there, every time i used to check webpage posts here early in the daylight, for the reason that
    i like to find out more and more.

    Comment by galvanized fence | September 16, 2014 | Reply

  15. Whats up this is somewhat of off topic but I was wanting to know if
    blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code
    with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no
    coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Comment by Palm Harbor certification for fitness instructor | September 24, 2014 | Reply

  16. Saved as a favorite, I like yourr site!

    Comment by young coconut for sale | September 30, 2014 | Reply

  17. Wow! At last I got a blog from where I be able to genuinely obtain valuable facts concerning my study and

    Comment by video seo services New Port Richey fl | September 30, 2014 | Reply

  18. Car title loans are usually intended for the short term.

    Comment by title loan ga news | October 17, 2014 | Reply

  19. Came across this post you wrote a while back and would be interested to know the evolution of your thoughts on this subject since then. It seems to me our society has become overly attentive to sexuality — “sexual identity” or “gender identity” or “sexual preference.” Good grief! If sex is all these people can find to talk about, aren’t they pretty shallow? If we devoted the same amount of attention to hunger, for example, or illiteracy, think about how much further along we’d be solving those problems instead of leaving them to languish while we spend all our time and energy on issues that are better left to one’s privacy.

    Comment by Steve Schuller | July 25, 2015 | Reply

    • Thank you, Steve Schuller. I think that, as we look at the past 50 years of history in the United States, we see a dramatic pattern of increasing libertinism (another contentious word, I know) regarding sexuality. If we frame the picture this way, same sex marriage is simply one part of a much larger dynamic process. Our society has spent a lot of time, money and effort focusing on sex.

      Your last comment introduces an idea that is hard to support, I think, in our current situation. Many people would be quite happy to leave what happens in people’s bedrooms to the realm of “private,” but that is no longer possible. Again, the past 50 years of history regarding sexuality and sexual expression in this country is very telling. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, it has become an unavoidably public matter.

      Comment by steverankin | July 25, 2015 | Reply

  20. My point was that, although these matters have become part of the public discourse, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, they have distracted us from focusing on problems and issues that I endeavored to posit are more important and deserving of our attention. It is certainly possible — indeed, preferable in an enlightened society — to leave one’s sexual preferences and proclivities in some private realm and focus publicly, instead, on issues to which Jesus directed our attention: poverty, hunger, and the daily suffering that our brothers and sisters endure. I only mean to suggest that our society’s current attention to sexual relationships and preferences is a waste of time and resources that could better be spent on solving more serious, pressing and pervasive problems. To be sure, we are in a cultural revolution in this country that focuses on issues such as sexuality that are no where near as important as, for example, those in our society who do not know where their next meal is coming from. I expect sexual preferences and the rights of those who wish to make such choices are the last things on the minds of those who would just like the pain in their bellies to go away. How is this idea so hard to support?

    Comment by Steve Schuller | July 26, 2015 | Reply

  21. It’s not hard to support at all. I’m with you on easing the pain in hungry bellies.

    You seem to be asserting that churches who ought to be feeding the hungry, etc., are not doing so or are doing less because of the sexuality debates. I don’t know how to comment on that point, except to say that I have my doubts. I think churches that feed the hungry are still feeding the hungry and those who aren’t probably weren’t before we started fighting about sexuality. I know the church of which I am part is very focused on meeting such needs.

    Comment by steverankin | July 27, 2015 | Reply

    • I guess I’m not cut out for participating in these blog discussions because I am NOT making my position clear at all! My comments have nothing to do with the churches. I think the churches are doing a fine job. My complaint is directed to what I think is undue attention given by our society in general to sexuality issues when our time and resources could be better devoted to more serious problems. Next time I’ll just walk next door instead of trying to participate in a blog discussion! 😀

      Comment by Steve Schuller | July 27, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: