Sunday, April 8, 2012
Defeating Agendas Seminar
Starting Tuesday April 17th – A four part series for pastoral care givers and laypersons in traditional evangelical churches who want to build/sustain faithful relationships with the gay and lesbian community. Free transportation will be provided to students living in Wilmore, KY (contact loveboldlynow@gmail.com to reserve your spot). Hope you can join us!
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Open Letter to Kirk Cameron: Think About Compassion
If you have not read the introduction to this piece, do so here, then come back:
Piers vs. Kirk - Why They're Both Wrong
Dear Kirk,
Piers vs. Kirk - Why They're Both Wrong
Dear Kirk,
You had roughly two minutes to tackle some of the most emotionally, spiritually, politically and culturally charged topics of our time and, as an evangelical conservative Christian, it’s near impossible to knock it out of the park unless you’ve spent a stunning amount of time thinking about it. You really do seem sincere. You aren’t attacking or intentionally rude in this interview. In fact, quite the opposite. You seem to be very well aware of the minefield you are walking and with that knowledge, you seem reticent to offend yet still steadfast in your beliefs.
No matter what you had said in those two minutes, you’d be blasted by someone. In fact, at this very moment, I’m sure you are already being blasted on all sides. So let me be one who says, “job well done” for attempting to bravely engage an aggressive disagreement.” You took on a hard question, and you did it with boldness. I can respect how incredibly awkward it must have been to be put on the spot, knowing that you were instantly in the cross-hairs of every single Christian and every single LGBT(QQIA) person watching. How incredibly intimidating.
No matter what you had said in those two minutes, you’d be blasted by someone. In fact, at this very moment, I’m sure you are already being blasted on all sides. So let me be one who says, “job well done” for attempting to bravely engage an aggressive disagreement.” You took on a hard question, and you did it with boldness. I can respect how incredibly awkward it must have been to be put on the spot, knowing that you were instantly in the cross-hairs of every single Christian and every single LGBT(QQIA) person watching. How incredibly intimidating.
The next thing I’ll say to you is less affirming though and I won’t beat around the bush. Some of the things you said deserve to get blasted. You were wrong, flat out wrong, about some of it, and the way you framed some of your argument was particularly offensive. My intent here isn’t to cut you down to size and I don’t sense any bad intent on your part. All in all, this is a conversation I’d love to have with you over a cup of coffee, because I sense you actually are a well-intentioned man of God. But let’s face it – you’re a celebrity, so this forum will have to do. From your body language, as well as your tone of voice, it seems as if your attempt was to deal as respectfully and kindly as you could while not budging an inch on topics about which you feel convinced. I would like to unpack a few things you said however, because I wonder if you really understand what you were implying at times.
Kirk, if your goal was to make a stand against gay marriage, you achieved it. But if your goal was to engage the question faithfully (both as a Christian, and as someone who is considering the social and political issues involved), I think you missed the mark. Here are some of the things you said, and my response.
- God created marriage to be between one man and one woman – shown by Adam and Eve in the garden at the beginning of time. I won’t dispute your position because it is yours to hold, but I will dispute your reasoning. Though I think you seem well intentioned, your arguments about why marriage should be between one man and one woman do not show an adequate thoughtfulness to the matter. God did make one man and one woman and place them in the garden. When he put them together, he did say that it was good. But this narrative alone does not give an adequate defense for what God thinks about same-sex relationships. In fact, it does not even address same-sex relationships. If you want to make a Christian argument which asserts that same-sex relationships are sinful, you have to provide a much more thoughtful answer, rooted in the whole of Scripture and what it tells us about the nature of God and the nature of man in particular. God’s word is important to me, as it seems to be to you. Using one passage alone minimizes what Scripture as a whole tells us about the nature of God, and what he may think about homosexuality.
- Homosexuality is unnatural. First, what does “unnatural” mean? Does it mean uncommon? That’s true - it is somewhat uncommon, in the sense that it is the minority of people who experience and/or act on same-sex attraction (somewhere between 3-6% most likely). This argument does not, however, delegitimize, in any sense, the dignity or legal rights owed to those who experience or engage any type of “unnaturalness”. There are plenty of things, both moral and amoral, that could be characterized as “unnatural” in the sense that they are either uncommon or not preferable morally (moral example – some instances of divorce, amoral example – disabilities). You’ll note, however, that we don’t legislate against these things for reasons of them being “unnatural.” This is wise, because “unnaturalness” should not be made to become the standard for a legal code. Otherwise, minorities of all sorts would suffer and instead of having a legal code, we’d only have a moral code. There are also plenty of things that we could call “unnatural” that don’t make them morally lesser (because they are amoral). For instance, being double-jointed is definitely an “unnatural” thing (in the sense that it’s uncommon). This doesn’t mean that people with double-joints should hide them, be ashamed of them, or be excluded from say, sports, just because there’s something “unnatural” about the way their fingers bend. The bigger question here is, even if you hold that homosexual relationships are morally lesser, does that mean they should be legislated against? Not necessarily. There are plenty of Christians that hold moral values that they wouldn’t legislate. Finally, if what you mean when you say “uncommon” is that it makes you feel uncomfortable, then you should probably move past it. We’re always going to feel uncomfortable with things we’re not well acquainted with, but it doesn’t mean the problem is with the “other”. It means the problem is with us. I could go on with this point, but I’ll stop here – unless you actually want to take me up on that offer to buy you a cup of coffee and have a real conversation about it
- Homosexuality is detrimental. I honestly can’t respond to this one because it’s too vague. How is it detrimental? To whom? Do you mean to society at large? To a person specifically? To you personally? I’d like to hear more about why you made this remark specifically because without knowing, I can’t determine how to respond. This makes me sad, to be honest, because it feels like a sweeping generality that only serves as a condemnation of people I love. Sexual attraction is never detrimental. Sexual sin is detrimental (this includes lust). What you said though, is that “homosexuality is detrimental” which makes no more sense than if you had said “heterosexuality is detrimental.” If I choose to sexually sin, that is detrimental – to me, to the person I’ve sinned with/against, to my relationship with God, and maybe (it could even be argued) to society as a whole. But behavior and attraction are two different things. Some would argue that homosexual sexual acts are detrimental (to self, others, and God). Others would say they are not. In my opinion, we can disagree about this, but we can’t say that sexual attraction, in and of itself, is detrimental. That’s not Biblical in the least.
- Homosexuality is destructive to some of the foundations of civilization. Years ago, I actually made a statement very similar to yours to one of my good friends who was gay. He looked at me like I was an idiot, and it’s because I was. If you can make an argument for how exactly someone experiencing attraction to a member of their own sex destroys the foundations of civilization, I would love to hear it. I’ve yet to hear one that actually makes any sense. You could make a moral argument here that embracing a traditionally orthodox understanding of the Biblical sexual ethic (i.e., that God mandates sexual acts to be engaged only within the bounds of heterosexual, monogamous marriage) is the best choice for society at large. Some people, even Christians, would disagree with you and point to other evidence to support a different perspective. However, your statement sounds much more like an assertion that being gay or, more crassly, having gay sex, will weaken the strength of our social and political system. That just doesn’t make sense.
Lastly Kirk, I wonder if you might consider something for the future. I’d appeal to you to take stock of how hurtful it is to call someone “unnatural”, or to say that who they are (or at very least, who they experience themselves to be), is destroying civilization. It’s mean. It’s dehumanizing. There’s no two ways about it. Could you ever imagine looking at someone you love, perhaps your wife, or your child, and saying “You are unnatural.” Even if you are right (in the sense that what they experience is uncommon), even if it’s true, it’s not helpful or productive. It certainly isn’t loving. Words matter, and they matter deeply to my LGBT brothers and sisters who have been abused in the name of Christ for decades. Please be sensitive to that.
I will say, your best argument came towards the end of the interview when you mentioned the moral framework within which we each operate. You called into question how any one of us actually determine what is moral in the first place. This was the beginning of a very good dialogue which was blithely ignored by Piers (perhaps merely due to the time constraints of the interview but, nevertheless, it was dismissed and it shouldn’t have been). It recalled for me, in fact, some compelling arguments that C.S. Lewis has made in Mere Christianity, regarding our sense of “right” and “wrong” pointing us to the one who has created such a moral compass within us. You were beginning to make a good point with a solid apologetics backing from one of the best Christian minds out there.
Finally Kirk, you should know, many of my LGBT friends have already written you off as stupid, ignorant, or morally depraved, just because of the tone you took in this conversation. I wish they hadn’t. It’s their fault if they write you off, but it’s also yours. As a Christian, you did what you should have, voicing your convictions with boldness and courage. But you should have done more, because Christians are called to more. Jesus says that the world will know we are Christians by our love.
Love cannot exist with conviction and boldness and courage. But neither can conviction, boldness, or courage exist without love. I wonder what could have happened if you had dropped your agenda to make a political or religious statement, and replaced it with true compassion for those who have been mistreated in the LGBT community, and a greater understanding of what you were saying. Maybe some of our LGBT brothers and sisters would be able to drop their defenses as well, and maybe we’d all be able to deal more compassionately, faithfully, and productively with one another. Maybe my LGBT friends could understand, believe, and feel (some of them for the first time in their lives) that God truly loves them. Maybe gay teenagers would stop taking their lives because of the ways they get bullied and abused and treated as less than God’s favorite. Maybe some hearts and lives would be transformed by God’s saving and sanctifying grace if we stood for people’s hearts and lives instead of dehumanizing them with poor theology and irrational judgment based on our own sense of discomfort. Maybe it could happen, in time. I’m just naive enough and optimistic enough to believe it’s possible.
Love cannot exist with conviction and boldness and courage. But neither can conviction, boldness, or courage exist without love. I wonder what could have happened if you had dropped your agenda to make a political or religious statement, and replaced it with true compassion for those who have been mistreated in the LGBT community, and a greater understanding of what you were saying. Maybe some of our LGBT brothers and sisters would be able to drop their defenses as well, and maybe we’d all be able to deal more compassionately, faithfully, and productively with one another. Maybe my LGBT friends could understand, believe, and feel (some of them for the first time in their lives) that God truly loves them. Maybe gay teenagers would stop taking their lives because of the ways they get bullied and abused and treated as less than God’s favorite. Maybe some hearts and lives would be transformed by God’s saving and sanctifying grace if we stood for people’s hearts and lives instead of dehumanizing them with poor theology and irrational judgment based on our own sense of discomfort. Maybe it could happen, in time. I’m just naive enough and optimistic enough to believe it’s possible.
I want to thank you for speaking passionately about the God I love and expressing with conviction that he calls us into lives of holiness that reflect Him. In the same breath, I’ll say this: Don’t make the LGBTQQIA community engage their fight or flight in these conversations. Help them to feel your love and care, listening to their concerns and fears, speaking their language, and holding out the truth of God’s love in the midst of all the tension. That’s when great things will happen. I hope you’ll be a part of it.
(Now that you've read my response to Kirk, click here if you'd like to read my response to Piers).
(Now that you've read my response to Kirk, click here if you'd like to read my response to Piers).
Open Letter to Piers Morgan: Think About Utility
If you have not read the introduction to this piece, do so here, then come back:
Piers vs. Kirk - Why They're Both Wrong
Piers,
You ask good questions. You usually do. As a rule you are witty, sarcastic and straightforward and I can get behind that. There are times when you become a bit aggressive, which I’m sure you realize, but I think you held it fairly at bay during this interview. Every good reporter has to have your level of gumption or else we’d never get the real story from people. Ruffling feathers in instances is necessary. If the intent of the interview was to “get the story” so to speak from Kirk, job well done. I believe you achieved your end goal. However, if the goal was to challenge the broader conservative Christian moral stand on this issue, I think you’ve likely failed miserably.
You made Kirk your opponent. You challenged him in a way that automatically made his perspective lesser. You may well believe it is lesser. I may too, for that matter. But you imposed your own thoughts and beliefs rather than hearing him in a way that you could challenge him according to his own value system. Kirk’s response to your challenge shows he is clearly feeling threatened by your questions. This is clear in various ways, but especially through his body language and tone of voice. Some would say he felt threatened simply by the question itself. This is probably true, but your approach worsened the threat. Fight or flight easily engages in these situations, and particularly on this topic. Opponents often flee the questions (as Christine O’Donnell recently did with you when she walked off the set), or they will fight back. Both responses achieve very little in the long run, except to make the topic all the more divisive.
I wonder what would have happened if you would have dropped the arms and after posing the questions in the way you did (non-threatening and inquisitive) followed by thoughtfully pointing out the holes in Kirk’s reasoning without becoming engaged through the lens of your own values. This is difficult to do, and perhaps even too much to ask given 1) the public arena this conversation was had in and 2) the brevity of the conversation. So, I’ll be glad to point out the holes in Kirk’s reasoning, since you did not either have the time or presence of mind to do so in the moment. However, I will say that when you start trying to shoulder conservative Christians with your own value ideals, morality, etc. they’re going to stop listening almost immediately. And I’m afraid that’s what happened not just with Kirk, but also with most of the conservative Christians who were watching. What ends up happening is that you defeat the very thing that is (at least seemingly) important to you in this conversation – to change a person’s mind.
If you could only have dialed the aggressiveness back a notch, both the LGBT and the conservative Christian community could have gained something truly spectacular from this 2.5 minute portion of your interview.
I’m sure you know this already, but most Christians aren’t listening to or caring about the LGBT community. Neither is the LGBT community listening to or caring about the conservative Christians around them. No doubt, most of my conservative Christian friends are writing off your questions and concerns as part of the “gay agenda.” while my LGBT friends are writing off Kirk’s comments as crazy Christian propaganda.
Your questions were thoughtful and insightful though and, I have no doubt, spurred out of personally seeing the destruction that results from bigotry. Some of my Christian friends would actually have been challenged by your thoughtful questions had you asked them without your usual smirking, know-it-all attitude. (It’s endearing, but sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot). You may be stunned by the number of conservative Christians who would stay open to your questions if you weren’t so damn condescending in the end.
Expressing even one ounce of concern for the position Kirk was in would have gone miles towards actually being heard. The result would be that more Christians would end up posing thoughtful questions and change could actually start to take place. As it was, you probably just stirred up more controversy (good for ratings, but bad for the utility of actually making progress towards thoughtful engagement of the issues at hand). I am so bummed that your own passion (or frustration) got in the way and you missed the opportunity to engage more productively with a conservative evangelical Christian who has a voice and influence within his faith community.
You had an opportunity to model, in your conversation with Kirk, a means of engagement that would not threaten the dignity, sincerity, and freedom of conservatively minded Christians, even in the midst of the disagreement. If others like Kirk could have seen this, they might be more open to venture towards the sort of friendship and welcome with the LGBT community that would change hearts and minds. Christians too, not just the LGBT community, need to feel like there might be enough generous spaciousness to ask the questions they really want to ask, without immediately being pegged as bigoted or stupid.
My Christian friends are afraid of being treated with disdain by the LGBT community. They’re also afraid that the rest of the Christian community will cast them off if they start asking thoughtful questions about difficult issues. As it is now, the minute a conservative Christian responds with an ounce more compassion towards the LGBT community than Kirk did, their own faith community gangs up on him/her and total character assassination occurs. Maybe my conservative Christian friends could feel safe extending welcome to the LGBT(QQIA) community around them if they thought they wouldn’t be plowed under by the very people they are seeking to understand.
Piers, it’s not right or fair, but many of my conservative Christian friends have already written you off as stupid, ignorant, or morally depraved, just because of the tone you took in this conversation. I wish they hadn’t. It’s their fault, but it’s also yours. As a reporter, you did what you should have, pushing for the hard answer and inciting controversy. But as a person who seems more broadly invested and interested in this particular “issue” (though I despise that term), you should have done more. You should have engaged in a way that could actually help you be heard by your opposers. I wonder what could happen if you dropped your defenses to engage the conversation? Maybe the doors to conservative Christian churches, the minds of society at large, and the opportunity to foster compassion, faithful engagement, and productive dialogue would open wider as a result. Who knows? Maybe it could happen, in time. I’m just naive enough and optimistic enough to believe it’s possible.
I want to thank you for going to bat for my LGBT friends who have been mistreated by conservative Christians. In the same breath, I’ll say this: Don’t make conservative Christians engage their fight or flight in these conversations. Speak their language so you can get through to them. That’s when change will happen. I hope you’re a part of it.
(Now that you've read my response to Piers, click here if you'd like to read my response to Kirk).
Piers vs. Kirk - Why They're Both Wrong
Piers,
You ask good questions. You usually do. As a rule you are witty, sarcastic and straightforward and I can get behind that. There are times when you become a bit aggressive, which I’m sure you realize, but I think you held it fairly at bay during this interview. Every good reporter has to have your level of gumption or else we’d never get the real story from people. Ruffling feathers in instances is necessary. If the intent of the interview was to “get the story” so to speak from Kirk, job well done. I believe you achieved your end goal. However, if the goal was to challenge the broader conservative Christian moral stand on this issue, I think you’ve likely failed miserably.
You made Kirk your opponent. You challenged him in a way that automatically made his perspective lesser. You may well believe it is lesser. I may too, for that matter. But you imposed your own thoughts and beliefs rather than hearing him in a way that you could challenge him according to his own value system. Kirk’s response to your challenge shows he is clearly feeling threatened by your questions. This is clear in various ways, but especially through his body language and tone of voice. Some would say he felt threatened simply by the question itself. This is probably true, but your approach worsened the threat. Fight or flight easily engages in these situations, and particularly on this topic. Opponents often flee the questions (as Christine O’Donnell recently did with you when she walked off the set), or they will fight back. Both responses achieve very little in the long run, except to make the topic all the more divisive.
I wonder what would have happened if you would have dropped the arms and after posing the questions in the way you did (non-threatening and inquisitive) followed by thoughtfully pointing out the holes in Kirk’s reasoning without becoming engaged through the lens of your own values. This is difficult to do, and perhaps even too much to ask given 1) the public arena this conversation was had in and 2) the brevity of the conversation. So, I’ll be glad to point out the holes in Kirk’s reasoning, since you did not either have the time or presence of mind to do so in the moment. However, I will say that when you start trying to shoulder conservative Christians with your own value ideals, morality, etc. they’re going to stop listening almost immediately. And I’m afraid that’s what happened not just with Kirk, but also with most of the conservative Christians who were watching. What ends up happening is that you defeat the very thing that is (at least seemingly) important to you in this conversation – to change a person’s mind.
If you could only have dialed the aggressiveness back a notch, both the LGBT and the conservative Christian community could have gained something truly spectacular from this 2.5 minute portion of your interview.
I’m sure you know this already, but most Christians aren’t listening to or caring about the LGBT community. Neither is the LGBT community listening to or caring about the conservative Christians around them. No doubt, most of my conservative Christian friends are writing off your questions and concerns as part of the “gay agenda.” while my LGBT friends are writing off Kirk’s comments as crazy Christian propaganda.
Your questions were thoughtful and insightful though and, I have no doubt, spurred out of personally seeing the destruction that results from bigotry. Some of my Christian friends would actually have been challenged by your thoughtful questions had you asked them without your usual smirking, know-it-all attitude. (It’s endearing, but sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot). You may be stunned by the number of conservative Christians who would stay open to your questions if you weren’t so damn condescending in the end.
Expressing even one ounce of concern for the position Kirk was in would have gone miles towards actually being heard. The result would be that more Christians would end up posing thoughtful questions and change could actually start to take place. As it was, you probably just stirred up more controversy (good for ratings, but bad for the utility of actually making progress towards thoughtful engagement of the issues at hand). I am so bummed that your own passion (or frustration) got in the way and you missed the opportunity to engage more productively with a conservative evangelical Christian who has a voice and influence within his faith community.
You had an opportunity to model, in your conversation with Kirk, a means of engagement that would not threaten the dignity, sincerity, and freedom of conservatively minded Christians, even in the midst of the disagreement. If others like Kirk could have seen this, they might be more open to venture towards the sort of friendship and welcome with the LGBT community that would change hearts and minds. Christians too, not just the LGBT community, need to feel like there might be enough generous spaciousness to ask the questions they really want to ask, without immediately being pegged as bigoted or stupid.
My Christian friends are afraid of being treated with disdain by the LGBT community. They’re also afraid that the rest of the Christian community will cast them off if they start asking thoughtful questions about difficult issues. As it is now, the minute a conservative Christian responds with an ounce more compassion towards the LGBT community than Kirk did, their own faith community gangs up on him/her and total character assassination occurs. Maybe my conservative Christian friends could feel safe extending welcome to the LGBT(QQIA) community around them if they thought they wouldn’t be plowed under by the very people they are seeking to understand.
Piers, it’s not right or fair, but many of my conservative Christian friends have already written you off as stupid, ignorant, or morally depraved, just because of the tone you took in this conversation. I wish they hadn’t. It’s their fault, but it’s also yours. As a reporter, you did what you should have, pushing for the hard answer and inciting controversy. But as a person who seems more broadly invested and interested in this particular “issue” (though I despise that term), you should have done more. You should have engaged in a way that could actually help you be heard by your opposers. I wonder what could happen if you dropped your defenses to engage the conversation? Maybe the doors to conservative Christian churches, the minds of society at large, and the opportunity to foster compassion, faithful engagement, and productive dialogue would open wider as a result. Who knows? Maybe it could happen, in time. I’m just naive enough and optimistic enough to believe it’s possible.
I want to thank you for going to bat for my LGBT friends who have been mistreated by conservative Christians. In the same breath, I’ll say this: Don’t make conservative Christians engage their fight or flight in these conversations. Speak their language so you can get through to them. That’s when change will happen. I hope you’re a part of it.
(Now that you've read my response to Piers, click here if you'd like to read my response to Kirk).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)