Customer Reviews

The Christian Argument for Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Essays by Mainline Church Leaders

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The Christian Argument for Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Essays by Mainline Church Leaders" is edited, and with a preface, by John J. Carey. Published in 1993, the book also features a brief foreword by D.S. Evans of Mellen University. This is a brief volume of just 44 plus xi pages. The six short essays contained in the book are as follows: "Some Perspectives on the Bible and Homosexuality," by Victor Paul Furnish (pages 1-8); "A Plea for Revision to Satisfy an Enlightened Reason," by Kenneth Cauthen (9-17); "Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military: Is It Time to Change Policies and Practices?" by John J. Carey (19-23); "Three Ethical Issues in the Homosexuality Dilemma Facing Churches and the Military," by Karen L. Bloomquist (25-29); "On Homosexuals in the Military: A Question of Professionalization," by Herbert Richardson (31-35); and finally, "Hypocrisy, Bibliocracy, and Democracy: Implications for Gay and Lesbians in the Military" [sic], by William R. Jones (37-44).

In his preface, Carey notes that this book contains the texts of presentations made in Washington DC in June 1993, as part of a panel discussion of religious ethicists. He also notes that the panelists represented five different denominations, although "no one spoke as an official denominational representative." The book includes biographical notes on the contributors which clarify their denominational affiliations: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian, American Baptist, United Methodist, and Unitarian Universalist.

As the title indicates, the book has an activist agenda of opposing the ban on gay people serving openly in the military. In his piece, Furnish briefly explores what the Bible actually has to say about homosexual activity, and warns that much of what the biblical writers presupposed on the topic "has to be corrected." Cauthen sees the ban as analogous to "slavery, racial segregation, and the denial of the vote to women." Carey condemns the "myths and prejudices" that he sees as impacting this issue; he also looks to historical precedent, such as the 1948 order to desegregate the military, as being relevant to the debate. Bloomquist notes that the debate over the ban is part of a greater "culture war," and condemns the ban as a fundamentally immoral policy: "An ethos of lying and deception is perpetuated." Richardson calls for a "gender-neutral military" comparable to various civilian professions. Jones compares the military's position on gay people to that of his own religious body, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

The contributors do offer some interesting thoughts and compelling arguments, particularly on how the Judeo-Christian Bible is used and misused in public policy debates. Particularly intriguing is Jones' observation that he "was born and raised a fundamentalist," and his description of the "splice" method he once used to manipulate the scriptures. But overall I found the book disappointing, and at times troubling. While the concept of the book is a good one, I found the essays overall to be too short and underdeveloped, as well as lacking in enough strong insights. The contributors in general rely heavily on Randy Shilts' book "Conduct Unbecoming," a monumental history of lesbians and gay men in the U.S. military; the book is often cited, but the contributors add little to Shilts' work.

This book often felt like the work of a bunch of outsiders who have little insight into the realities of military life, and who are examining the military from an elitist perspective. At times some of the writers seem to have a disdain, and even a hostility, towards the military; they also seem to lack understanding and appreciation for the positive aspects of military culture and heritage. And in the end I believe that, as a whole, they fail to effectively tie their arguments to a coherent vision of the fundamental purpose and core values of the U.S. armed forces. The book ends on a particularly weak note with Jones; his rambling essay completely loses focus and goes off on tangents about cockroaches and crabgrass. Surely the gay servicemen and servicewomen on whose behalf the authors wish to advocate deserve better.

I do think that all the contributors came to this project with sincere and honorable intentions, and I give them credit for attempting to take the moral high road in this debate. But maybe they needed to have done more homework before making their statements. As I write this review, it has been over a decade since this book was published, and in that time the U.S. military has engaged in historic conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps it's time for a new panel of religious ethicists to revisit this topic. If that happens, I hope that the participants produce a book far superior to this one.