A quick reflection:
A while back on XGW, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas objected to the expectation that Exodus should publicly criticize its political allies when they threaten or lie about gays and ex-gays.
Mr. Thomas’ point was that Christians are already infamous for bashing one another, and he did not wish to contribute to that.
Unfortunately, he overlooked a very basic fact:
Exodus is publicly blasting Christians — gay-tolerant ones — all the time. And it is defending allies such as Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition, which are arguably among the most un-Christian organizations in America. Certainly the latter two organizations’ lies and threats about their enemies make them far less Christian than moderate, apolitical, gay-tolerant organizations such as Dignity, the Metropolitan Community Churches, the Interfaith Working Group, or the majority of the Episcopal Church.
So my question is, Why is Exodus eager to blast fellow Christians in public and to condone hatred — against both gays and ex-gays — among its political allies?
That’s pretty easy to answer. Gay-tolerant and even moreso gay-accomodating Christians are their biggest threat. Let’s look at the latter category of which I belong. My very existence threatens them. Why? I am not a homosexual and I am an orthodox evangelical.
Grace and forgiveness is the warp and woof of the Gospel. I show that they are NOT orthodox and are not following the Gospel that they profess. They have to do something about it. This is done by the means of unconsciously morphing the virtues of kindness and forgiveness into the sins of compromise and accomodation. Since CWA and FoF do not challenge them here they can be nice to them. Furthermore, they are trying to recruit you. They have absolutely no need for me. I must become an apostate to them.
A quick note on my terms above. The way I have used the terms a gay-tolerant Christian believes that homosexual practices are not sinful. A gay-accomodating Christians believes that it is sinful but that it is not a “special” sin and certainly not the unforgivable sin. Since all Christians have remaining sin in our lives, it is unprofitable to make a big deal about a particular sin of somebody else. (Something about motes, beams, and eyes comes to mind. 🙂 BTW, the unforgivable sin is clearly identified in Mark. It is saying that Jesus did his works through the Devil.
Thanks so much, Rich.
I think I agree with what you’re getting ultimately getting at.
In my view, “affirming” might better describe the gay-is-not-a-sin folks, and “tolerant” might better describe both those folks and the “accommodating” folks. The latter word might erroneously imply special assistance or concessions, like in a hotel or in a facility that accommodates people with disabilities.
I don’t see you conceding or compromising on your morality, just practicing it in a hospitable manner.
But what do you think?
Yeah, that’s a better use of terms. I have been called an accomodater for so long that it just has stuck in my psyche.
Where do accommodators or “tolerators” stand on equality for GLBT under law? Where do they stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment? Where do they stand on making adultery, lying, etc., illegal?
In my tentative view, tolerance — unlike affirmation — is a gray area, and so the public policies likely to be affiliated with it would be gray as well — different, for different people. But still worth discussing.
Natalie, that’s hard to say. There is not a unified political agenda (we tend to be an apolitical bunch). So, I will speak for myself.
There already exists laws against assault and slander. They should be uniformly applied to everyone.
The “culture wars” are won not through legislation but by the work of Spirit working on the inside of us. If we are controlled by the Spirit, we don’t need laws to constrain us. If we are not, no amount of laws will keep this from being a hell on earth. As such, I tend to be against new restrictive legislation such as the FMA. I find your last question confusing. What are you driving at here?
Many of those who would have GLBT people kept as second-class citizens (as we are under secular law today) do not see the parallel with the fact that, for example, certain sinners — say, adulterers, tax cheats, blasphemers, and liars — can marry under law. You noted above that, in your eyes, homosexuality is a sin, but no more or less a sin than other transgressions (something about motes, beams, etc.). So, I was wondering if your comparatively enlightened view extended to the arena of civil law, which in my opinion, unjustly punishes an entire segment of the population.
I am not sure. I’ll start with the easy case and progress to the more difficult. It certainly stands to reason to decriminalize things. Thus, what the Supreme Court did with the sodomy laws is reasonable.
What makes marriage more difficult for me is that it has aspect of rights and also privileges. For example, there are age restrictions and in some places restrictions based on mental competancy. If marriage was purely a “right” then those have to go also.
My best answer at this point is that this is a state matter and the Federal government should stay out of it. The problem with my approach is obviously such things as taxes and states recognizing each other’s marriage licenses.
The feds normally don’t ask me when they do things. You are free to seek redress from them and I don’t plan on stopping you. In short, because I am not an activist on this issue, my opinion is not terribly relevant.
Let me shift gears from a gay/straight perspective to a non-activist/activist perspective. Activists tend to take things more personally than non-activists. Both the activist and the non-activist can agree on the basic principle of equal justice under the law. I have observed that the activist will read differences of opinions on public policy as abrogation of that fundamental agreement.
So, even though I may believe in the status quo with respect to marriage regulation, you should not infer that I believe that you should be treated as second-class citizens. Nor should the activists on the other side infer my opposition to the MFA means I want to accord you “special” rights. I am simply trying to the best of my ability to work things out from the common principle of equity.
As the old schtick in the Odd Couple TV series put it when you assume U make an ASS out of U and ME.
Where did I assume anything, Rich? I merely asked questions. How am I to know what you think without asking questions? By not asking, I am only left with having to make assumptions. So I asked. I appreciate that you took the time to answer. I don’t appreciate what appears to be an accusation.
Now, getting to your answers: You say your opinion isn’t relevant. I disagree. As a human (and I am looking at it thusly — as a person treated differently by secular law than you are), not as an activist, I need to know how humans feel about the issue so I can determine how I have to approach them, whether they are friend or foe, as it were. I can respect someone who holds a point of view that opposes my equality (I have no interest in “special rights,” either; all I want is equality — that which you have), as they certainly have the right to hold that view, but that is a person with whom I would have to remain guarded.
In your case, and please correct me if I am wrong here, it appears you don’t agree that I am unequal under law. I know in fact that I am and that I am deserving of the rights and privileges afforded to you. The very fact that you can legally marry the person you love and that I can not is proof to me that I am second-class in the eyes of the law.
Apparently — and again, please let me know if I am in error — you disagree with what I see as fact. Additionally, you are OK with the status quo: You said you are OK with states discriminating against my kind of the issue of marriage — and also that if a state legalized gay marriage you wouldn’t fight it. Consequently, I would have to see you as someone I would have to keep at arm’s length for my own protection. Now, there are certainly people who oppose my equality (or disagree with my knowledge that I am unequal) for whom I care, but we both know their views and my diametrically opposed views will always stand as an impenetrable wall between us. I don’t deal well with “toleration,” though I firmly believe in your right to feel however you do. However, I wouldn’t lump you in with a Jerry Falwell by any means.
And I don’t take this personally because I am an activist. I take this personally because it affects my life negatively every day.
Oh, and I was asking only to get your point of view, Rich. I am not expecting you to be a spokesperson for anyone else. I try to deal with people as individuals.
I have addressed you respectfully. I trust that if you choose to respond, you will do so in kind.
Oh, please. Exodus is a business. Businesses don’t bite the hand that feeds them.
Which is what they would be doing if they were to “publicly criticize its political allies when they threaten or lie about gays and ex-gays”
Oh, please. Exodus is a business. Businesses don’t bite the hand that feeds them.
Which is what they would be doing if they were to “publicly criticize its political allies when they threaten or lie about gays and ex-gays”
You want me to be a friend or foe. Can I just be a non-combatant? I cannot control the government’s behavior, but I can control mine. So, at a personal level I try to be as respectful as possible.
In addition to my practical opposition to activism above, there is a principled aspect, also. In order to turn down the heat I will work this out on the activists on the right.
They view themselves as an oppressed minority (Evangelicals are roughly 6% of the American population). This is an honest emotion, so I will concede to them at least they feel oppressed and there is a possibility their emotions has at least has some basis in fact. (N.B. I would concede much more with you.)
So, assuming that they are in fact oppressed is political activism the best route to their goals? At least from the standpoint of Christian theology the answer is no. You may not be constrained by this, but those who claim to be Christians would be.
Why do I come to this conclusion? Because from the very founding of Christianity, there has been a tension with political activism. The people of God were oppressed (in fact) by the Romans. They cried out for a Messiah. They got one. They go: Messiah, go kick Roman butt. The Messiah says I won’t save you from the Romans but I will save you from your sin. I also plan on saving, not kicking Roman butt. The people of God didn’t like that so they killed their Messiah. This continues to this very day. There was nothing unique about the time or the people who killed Jesus. People always want their substitute salvation over the real one.
And that is what angers me about ex-gay ministries is they, also, have substituted two false salvations for a real one. They either provided for a political salvation or salvation through heterosexual marriage. Neither can fulfill our deepest needs.
If you get what you want it will neither be the end of Western Civilization nor as satisfying as you imagine. That is because you will discover what heterosexuals already know: marriage cannot fulfill you. You have to be fulfilled prior to marriage. That’s why there is such a large divorce rate. Too many people entered into marriage trying to be fulfilled. This is not an argument against marriage, because I am married. But, it is a warning to both heterosexuals and homosexuals to not place a burden on the institution that it cannot bear. This is where so-called “family friendly” groups should be placing their focus: making sure that people are sufficiently mature to get married rather than on political activism.
Raj: Absolutely right.
Rich, you wrote: “If you get what you want it will neither be the end of Western Civilization nor as satisfying as you imagine. That is because you will discover what heterosexuals already know: marriage cannot fulfill you. You have to be fulfilled prior to marriage.”
Are you assuming now? How do you know I don’t know that? How do you know I haven’t been married or that I am not married? I see marriage as commitment, not fulfillment. But the piece of paper is important for many reasons. The lack of it is what causes so many *families* so much suffering.
And again, I am not speaking as an activist, merely as a human being suffering from the burden of being unequal under law. I have no interest in kicking anyone’s butt.
You also asked: “Can I just be a non-combatant?” Yes, if that can be defined as someone who means well but must be kept at arm’s length for my own peace and protection.
And I will get what I want. I will be moving to Canada , where GLBT people can marry legally (barring any legal maneuvers blocking what is now in place) and is one of the few places on Earth where my kind is treated the same as hets under law. I will be moving as a human being, mom, and spouse — not as an activist.
I think you are confusing contexts here. I was talking about activists — and right-wing ones at that. If we saw — and family-friendly groups pushed for — marriage as commitment, then everyone would be better off. Currently they are pushing (heterosexual) marriage as fulfillment and people are dying as a result.
As for what I consider being a non-combatant you won’t need to keep me at arms length, I will already be there. My political opinions are my own and I have no intent on promulgating them. You asked an honest question and I gave an honest answer. I am happy with the laws and you aren’t. You are free to seek to change them and I plan to do NOTHING to stop you.
I closed the discussion because I thought things might be getting too personal. But I was wrong. So I’ve reopened the discussion.
Should I start a separate message about tolerance? I think we’re a little off-topic here.
How about discussing this?
I think Tony Campolo is a good model of what you call a homosexual-tolerant Christian and Peggy Campolo is a good model of a homosexual-affirming Christian.
I think we should explore how this relates to personal relations between homosexual-tolerant Christians and homosexuals and not politics. Tony and I are polar opposites politically. This would not be a problem between us because, unlike homosexual-opposing Christians, our identity is in Christ, not our politics.
As a Christian, I am willing to worship Christ with anyone who believes. And I’ve done it on many occasions. But when in homo-unaffirming/homo-merely tolerant settings, it doesn’t take long for the wall I described earlier to make its presence felt. It isn’t about politics; it’s about comfort and emotional safety.
Gay-tolerant vs gay-affirming churches?
Where you stand on this will also depend partly on
what you think, or feel, the church is
Since much of this discussion is from people from Protestant traditions, let me just add the perspective of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches’ traditions. There, many gay people feel that they do not have the option of creating their own gay-affirming denomination, or moving into one which already exists. I think that some (I emphasize some) in those traditions view, or relate emotionally, to the institutional church differently than Protestants. And regardless of what Protestants may feel or believe about some Eastern Christians’/Roman Catholics’ feelings or theologies about the institutional church it is a part of the psychological and theological makeup of at least some members of those traditions. The insitutional chuch is not a “choice”, it is there, it is a tradition which one cannot entirely leave as an institution.
Mere gay-tolerance on the part of those churches would be welcomed by many gay members as a great step forward. In fact, some Roman Catholic parishes in big cities have become unofficially gay tolerant. This is problematic, since given the nature of authority in the Catholic church, that unofficial gay-tolerant stance can be withdrawn in a second. It is also problematic in that it reduces members’ willingness to activiely push for more official “tolerance” or even, in the very long run, acceptance. Dignity, of course, is another option, being somehow within the church (albeit “in exile” and opposed by the official bodies – – but then the church is a pilgrim church and we are all “exiles” in some sense, so perhaps organizations like Dignity are one of the more authentic versions of the church today), and at the same time definitely a gay-affirming group and one pushing for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians on an official level. But, even for many active in Dignity (not all), some form of affiliation with the institutional church is still important, and they wait for the day when at least gay-tolerance emerges.
I wonder if some more conservative evangelical gay Protestants feel similarly, although perhaps for different reasons?
Mike and I have already struggled with terminology. We are not talking about “mere” tolerance here. Maybe I should have gone back to the word accomodate. Independent of the label, and given what Tony Campolo said, would you have felt a wall with him? Why or why not?
DW said:
At the present, the evangelical church is not institutionally safe, either. If you stick your neck out, this happens.
If this happens to us, then it’s got to be more dangerous for you.
Of course there would be a wall between Tony Campolo and myself. He sounds like a great guy and, obviously, Peggy is a better man than I. Then again, Tony does not see his wife as non-deserving of marriage with the person she loves. I, however, am, in his eyes.
Whatever his compassion — which I appreciate as much as I appreciate compassion in any human — and whatever his reasons, he still sees his marriage as superior than my relationship with a woman I love. For all he and I have in common, we have differing views of my equality, my full humanity. There is no escaping that — hence, a wall. Because I will always feel its presence. If that makes me a bad, unworthy person — and it probably does — than that is the way it is. No doubt we would have an acceptably nice time over tea and cookies, but I would still know his feelings on the matter. To me, yes, they matter.
Try thinking about being in my shoes for a second, Rich. How would you feel?
By the way, I am not saying that to say that you should change your views. Not at all. Besides, it is improbable that you could ever change what you believe to be true. Just as mine could never change. I am just saying that they create a wall that can not be crossed. Doesn’t mean that you aren’t a good person, not at all.
Natalie said:
That’s why I am asking the question. I am a parent whose child has died. Those who have not gone through that experience, no matter how well-meaning, simply cannot relate. I suspect that I have a similar situation here with you. Thus, I distrust my intuition and simply ask questions.
You are right that most likely I won’t change my position on whether homosexual behavior is sin(although my faith tradition holds out the hope that change is possible). But, everything else is on the table. The same conscience that won’t allow me to fully agree with you also compels me (and more strongly) to attempt to be at peace with all people.
No person made in the image of God should be treated with contempt. Rather, we should be kind and compassionate to all. Jesus tells us that the measure of our compassion is not how we treat our friends, but how we treat our enemies.
Evengelicals in general and myself in particular have failed miserably in this regard. I just would like you to know there are people, like myself, who understand that. We are seeking — albeit imperfectly — to remedy the situation. We are not trying to fix you. Rather, we are trying to be fixed ourselves.
I get your meaning. I recently lost my father — unless someone has suffered something similar, there is no way for them to know how I feel.
I think all intelligent people should be in the business of fixing themselves rather than others. Lord knows I have many flaws to correct. Helping others is another matter, and I am always glad to be of help to any fellow human in need.
By the way, I have no enemies, merely opponents. There is a big difference.
And I am terribly sad to hear about your child, Rich. I have lost a parent, spouse, grandparents, and friends to death, and I still don’t think I can fathom what your experience must be like. (Reminds me to hug my children tightly when next I see them.) I can only pray that your child is safe and loved in the Creator’s arms and that you can find some small measure of comfort in that.
Natalie said:
I agree. I was just following the Scriptural language to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. If you do that, it is impossible for them to be your enemies any more.
Rich, I have a broader question for you, since you seem to be one of the few Christians who will discuss the issue of homosexuality and gay rights without condemnation.
It is my understanding (8 years of Catholic CCD classes, followed by 4 years of Catholic High School) that the bible is supposed to be the revealed teachings of God. It is clear (e.g., the Jewish dietary laws) that His teachings have changed over the years, and in part seem to have changed to reflect the increased “maturity” of human civilization.
That being said, why is it that so many professed Christians cannot believe, whether we are talking about evolution or homosexuality, that God’s truth continues to be revealed. Yes it may have been a really good idea in ancient times to concentrate on child-rearing, but I think we have fulfilled the “go forth and multiply” edict. Couldn’t those of us who argue for the equality, and in fact the God-derived nature of homosexuality be simply relaying a more nuanced and mature version of God’s truth – even perhaps inspired by Him?
The nature of the Law is an inherantly difficult subject. Classical Reformed theology has three uses for the Law. The first use is so that we are without excuse before God. The second use is to bring us to the end of ourselves and seek grace. The third use is (after we are saved) as a guide for living. The third use is particularly tricky because of what you alluded to. Some of the Law ceased to be because it was fulfilled in Jesus. So, I differ from you in that I believe that revelation ceased with the coming of Jesus. Other issues include the fact that the OT law was also a case law and it sometimes difficult to extract the underlying principles.
The strongest Biblical argument homosexual Christians have is that much of the prohibitions against homosexuality are in the same chapters of the Bible that are clearly ceremonial law. The sole reason why I haven’t acceded to this argument is that it appears to be re-iterated in the NT.
One problem I have with the character of the debate is that it seems to be an exercise in ethics. Christianity is not about ethics, it is about grace and freedom in Christ. Going back to the three uses, two of the three have nothing to do with establishing rules of conduct.
Even if my read of Scripture is correct, there is a never-ending danger of being a legalist. I will stand before God based on Christ’s righteousness and not my own. I ought not try to earn my rightousness nor should I expect others to do so. This is very difficult, as legalism is so deeply embedded in my soul. So — please forgive me — I will fail here.
As my long answer shows, this is hard stuff. This means the possibility of error is high. Thus, my lack of dogmatism on the topic.
One last comment on continuing revelation. I believe that the Bible is the final word on what it speaks to. The problem comes up where people make the Bible say things that it doesn’t, e.g. the age of the Earth and whether there are biological components to sexual orientation. If I can be convinced that monogomous homosexual relations is also in that category, I could be flipped here. Where the Bible is silent, it is valid to find truth by other means.
Rich says: ” Christianity is not about ethics,”. My first spiritual teacher alway maintained that Christianity is an attempt to have religion without having ethics. Which explains much of the Christianity gay people encounter. I would suggest this comment shows the problem with the whole religion. It is devoid of ethical character. Which strikes me as a fatal flaw.
Maybe so, but what you see as a flaw I see as a strength. BTW, your argument parallels Benjamin Franklin’s. He dropped out of the Presbyterian church because Cotton Mather refused to make ethical demands on his parisioners. So, Franklin coined the famous phrase, “God helps those who help themselves.”
That’s all fine and dandy but what about those of us who can’t help ourselves? That’s why much of the imperatives of Scripture involve how society treats the weak and helpless. God is not concerned with the “righteous” (those who can help themselves) but “sinners” (those who can’t).
I don’t agree that Christianity is not about ethics. Much of Jesus’ teachings center on right and wrong ways to deal with one another, and while “traditional” Christianity does not make ethical behavior a tenant of so-called “salvation,” in practice, even the most conservative branches place importance on ethics as part of living a Christ-like life.
Let me be more precise. Christianity is not primarily about ethics. While good works are not a necessary cause of salvation they are a necessary consequence.
Well said, Rich. I would agree with that.
Rich says: Christianity is not primarily about ethics. While good works are not a necessary cause of salvation they are a necessary consequence.
And how are ‘good works’ related to ‘ethics’? Seems to me that they are something that bears no necessary relationship to ethical conduct. The necessity of good works can be got around through social amelioration, unrelated to what one does. While it may be helpful to give money to beggars, it is probably better long run policy to campaign for candidates who will vote for social programs to prevent the fall into beggary in the first place. It seems to me that without ethical reflection, good works can easily be a way of avoiding social responsibility.
Ethics is neither purely personal nor purely corporate. I do not believe in compartmentalization. Both aspects are necessary.
If poverty could be completely eliminated, there is still need for personal good works. I should not be mean to you just because you are not poor. So, social responsibility does not eliminate duty for personal good works. The opposite is also true. Just read the Minor Prophets where God judged people with lots of religiosity but no social conscience.