|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sojourners Magazine and Homosexuality
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I'm sure Sharkshooter is not alone, in fact.
It's very radical in some conservative evangelical circles to suggest that gay couples and their kids should in fact be welcomed to church. Single gay people have literally been chased away from congregations - people here on SoF have stories to tell about this - so I can only imagine what a gay couple with kids would face.
Some of my evangelical relatives post (often defamatory and false) anti-gay news articles on Facebook, just as if it were still 1978: gay people are mentally ill reprobates, and we should just cut it the hell out. This, even when they know some of us in the family ARE gay.
So this issue is still a live one in some places and with some people. It actually would be taken as very "in-your-face," and not gentle at all.
[ 17. May 2011, 17:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
To address your specific point, perhaps I should clarify how I am using the word "dialogue". I am using it more in a metaphorical sense, not just in the conversational sense of thrashing things out verbally from different perspectives in direct debate. Dialogue could perhaps take place over time in a more indirect, fragmentary and even partly non-verbal form. Maybe it would be better to describe what I mean as "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" and allowing that to be a transformative experience.
Except that your assumption seems to be that any kind of "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" would automatically terminate whatever it is you mean by "dialogue". If just watching a video portraying open homosexuals as fellow Christians is enough to do that, I can't offhand think of a more oblique "meeting" or "encounter" that wouldn't pass completely without notice or effect.
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Are you denying that a coalition organisation of Christians from across the spectrum, that has in common a shared commitment to a wide range of social justice issues, can create an environment where hearts and minds might over time be changed?
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
I'm sure some of our despisers themselves would be happy if we took up this latter option, but why give them that kind of satisfaction... far better, I think, if LGBT Christians remain as much as possible in the mainstream of Christian witness. Sojourners has traditionally been one of the spaces where we can do that, and I hope despite this setback it will continue to be.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Seems only practical, since anyone who gets the vapors over something like the Believe Out Loud video would probaby collapse into a dead faint in the presence of an actual homosexual.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Are you denying that a coalition organisation of Christians from across the spectrum, that has in common a shared commitment to a wide range of social justice issues, can create an environment where hearts and minds might over time be changed?
Creating such an environment is certainly possible, though as noted above the dead faints and recoiling in horror might be an obstacle at first.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
I'm suggesting that someone who regards something like Believe Out Loud's ninety second video to be an unbearable marginalization of their views is unlikely shift their perception regardless of the approach taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
That seems to be the position adopted by Sojourners and its defenders, not so much that LGBT Christians and their supporters shouldn't work with other Christians, but that they should at least have the "decency" to do so from the closet. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You know, so no one feels "marginalized". [Yes, that's sarcasm.]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos, you make excellent points and currently I'm frustrated by the limitations of a tiny touch-screen. Back on 20 May when I promise to respond in some depth. There is not much difference between us but what there is may be worth spelling out.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
OK, Croesos, fair enough. I put the first line of the opening question in my last post rather badly, which then gave you an opportunity to go to town on the sarcasm. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
FWIW I'll just say that I'm not persuaded that it automatically follows that someone who finds the Believe Out Loud video too in-your-face (however ridiculous you or I may think that is) would not be able to work with an openly LGBT Christian on a social justice issue that didn't involve direct engagement with LGBT issues. Maybe it's unlikely, but you can't definitely say it's impossible. That's all I'm saying.
Believe me I know it's emotive issue, but a bad call by Sojourners and a less than satisfying explanation for it from Jim Wallis does not make me think they as an organisation are basically no better than the gay-rejecting Christians they may be trying to keep onside. Sojourners have been doing good work on social justice issues for forty years. And the manner in which Sojourners has been openly supportive of LGBT people in recent years contradicts your notion that they really want their LGBT supporters to stay closeted. In an ideal world, they'd have run the ad. In reality, they had to make a tough decision with a view to the bigger picture.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
I'm suggesting that someone who regards something like Believe Out Loud's ninety second video to be an unbearable marginalization of their views is unlikely shift their perception regardless of the approach taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
That seems to be the position adopted by Sojourners and its defenders, not so much that LGBT Christians and their supporters shouldn't work with other Christians, but that they should at least have the "decency" to do so from the closet.
You know, so no one feels "marginalized". [Yes, that's sarcasm.]
Sorry to double post, but just a further thought to address the specific point you make about "marginalization". My own take on it is not that I think that Christians who are prejudiced against gay people are themselves being marginalized, or are in any danger of it, even if they feel they are. However, as someone who really has been marginalized by mainstream Christianity, I have to consider whether I want to respond to anti-gay prejudice within the church with the same viciousness with which I have sometimes been treated. I just don't think it helps anybody, least of all myself, if I do. Hence my conviction that it's best to seek common ground first and try to work from there.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
My own take on it is not that I think that Christians who are prejudiced against gay people are themselves being marginalized, or are in any danger of it, even if they feel they are. However, as someone who really has been marginalized by mainstream Christianity, I have to consider whether I want to respond to anti-gay prejudice within the church with the same viciousness with which I have sometimes been treated.
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos, you've misread me. Please will you do me a favour? I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from further comments on my posts until I'm in position to respond with something better than a tiny touch screen and a mobile connection which keeps coming znd going. My mistake for re-engaging with limited means and I apologise for thar. Back home friday evening.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos, you've misread me. Please will you do me a favour? I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from further comments on my posts until I'm in position to respond with something better than a tiny touch screen and a mobile connection which keeps coming znd going. My mistake for re-engaging with limited means and I apologise for thar. Back home friday evening.
But the world ends the next day! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Thanks
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Seems only practical, since anyone who gets the vapors over something like the Believe Out Loud video would probaby collapse into a dead faint in the presence of an actual homosexual.
...
Your opinion is unfounded. But then, I expect you know that.
The issue is not about marginalizing anyone. It is about whether both sides are willing to put an issue on the back burner for a greater good. In this case, the issue of homosexuality would be shelved for the sake of dealing with poverty.
Let's try something else. Because this is a theological issue, let's see if another theological issue helps to illustrate what I am trying to say.
If a Baptist and a Catholic wanted to work together to resolve economic issues, they should not continually challenge each other on the issue of communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist and the meanings behind the bread and wine (or grape juice). If one party insists the other conform to their theology on that issue in order for them to work to gether to help the poor, then they will go their separate ways, to the detriment of the poor. Then who wins? No one.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos, in view of your "end of the world" concerns .... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This looks like it was a close call. I'm a long term supporter and admirer of Sojo and Jim Wallis, and I can see where they are coming from, but I've got a feeling that what is probably perceived by them as a prudent decision may in the end turn out to have been unwise.
This was my first post on the thread and should have given you a sufficient clue that I had misgivings about the refusal to run the ad. I'm not sure the term "innocuous" covers it, but if allowing it provoked a negative reaction amongst some more conservative Sojo supporters, it is pretty easy to defend that allowing in line with the pre-existing Sojo stance. Or so it seems to me. Hence my gut feel that in the end the position adopted might not turn out to be wise.
But to make things clear let me spell out my personal position.
1. If the decision had been down to me, I would have run it. I agree with the view expressed in this thread that you cannot separate social justice in general from any particular prejudice.
2. If it was a collegiate decision, I would have advocated running it. But my position did not prevail I would not resign, rather I would seek to work for change from within. That's because I believe Sojo has been "on the side of the angels" on social justice issues in general for forty years. So if they got this wrong in my view, that wont stop me supporting them.
Now to the "marginalisation" point. I did not foresee the effect of my use of the term. I've been marginalised by majorities in a number of different ways in my life and I do know what it feels like. And there have been times when I retaliated in kind. But I learned that in the process of doing that I did damage to myself.
I learned that "turning the other cheek", "not repaying evil with evil", "love of enemies (or those who would enemise or demonise me)", were better principles to apply. In general I characterise this as "coming in the opposite spirit to that I have received". What I was trying to do was illustrate that principle in this case, in the belief, as I said, that it is the right moral principle. At least I am sure it is for a Christian. Bertrand Russell said about love of enemies that there was nothing to be said against it as a moral precept - except that most people found it too hard.
But it would have been better to have stuck to that kind of language, rather than experiment with the marginalisation metaphor. I can see now that my use of language didn't help - in fact it confused the issue. The above para is I hope a clearer picture of what I was trying to say.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
I don't think the video marginalises people who see gay relationships as wrong (no matter how stable). I think it might provoke them, but that's another matter. If you look at what I said "don't marginalise back" is basically a general guideline. It was not intended to convey that the video did that specifically. But I guess you weren't to know that, given its clumsiness.
Croesos, I'm happy to put my hand up to misrepresenting myself to some extent in this thread. Looking at all my posts on this thread (and a fair number of others over the years), I've adopted a pretty consistent stance in favour of acceptance of what Golden Key describes as all kinds of "left-handedness". I'm not in the business of derailing threads or nannying the inappropriately sensitive. As plenty of other threads have demonstrated.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
I don't think the video marginalises people who see gay relationships as wrong (no matter how stable). I think it might provoke them, but that's another matter. If you look at what I said "don't marginalise back" is basically a general guideline. It was not intended to convey that the video did that specifically. But I guess you weren't to know that, given its clumsiness.
The problem with citing general guidelines as a response to specific situations is that it's implied that the guidelines are applicable to that specific situation. In other words, despite the fact that "don't go on a psychotic killing spree" is a good general guideline, saying "don't respond to the current situation by going on a psychotic killing spree" implies that the speaker thinks there's at least a good chance of that actually happening (or has already happened).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's a fair point. I was quite specific about my response to the advert and "what if" questions if I was part of Sojo decision-making.
If there is no journey from principle to practice, we're just shooting the breeze. But I guess you may be thinking about other scenarios, e.g.
'What would I do if I was a gay Christian and experiencing marginalisation or rejection in a local congregation? What courses of action might be compatible with "coming in the opposite spirit"?'
Or maybe you had something else in mind? What would you do, yourself?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's a fair point. I was quite specific about my response to the advert and "what if" questions if I was part of Sojo decision-making.
If there is no journey from principle to practice, we're just shooting the breeze. But I guess you may be thinking about other scenarios, e.g.
'What would I do if I was a gay Christian and experiencing marginalisation or rejection in a local congregation? What courses of action might be compatible with "coming in the opposite spirit"?'
Or maybe you had something else in mind? What would you do, yourself?
Nope, I was thinking about the current scenario and wondering where the idea of gay rights groups "marginalizing" people came from. Given the actual actions of a group promoting gay equality (Believe Out Loud) didn't seem to be marginalizing, it seemed like concern trolling.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
I think the key question for GLBT* people viz a viz Sojourners is "how far does social justice extend?" We are, after all, quite used to being marginalized in the church. Many have left the church permanently. I expect some GLBT* folks with Christian background or inclination look at Sojourners and wonder, "Do they really mean what they say?"
Sojourners have made a decision based on a political calculus that was explained by Wallis and McLaren (Wallis' explanation disappointed and read to me as a waffle; McLaren's made more sense even though I don't agree with it).
For this gay Christian, Sojourners has drawn their line in the sand. They have said quite clearly "No; our social justice remit doesn't include you."
Wallis, et al should simply stop talking about acceptance of LGBT folks in the church and the need for recognition of "civil unions" (which I read as "let the faggots have their second class status"). He has no credibility with me at this point.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I get you, Croesos. (Finally).
It is much more helpful to say that I think its a good idea to be more generous to others than they've been to us, which was what I meant to convey in the first place. How we do that is a matter of individual choice. The red herring was inadvertent and I regret using "marginalise" in that way. It did not convey what I meant. I hope you can accept my sincerity in that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Along with iGeek I think the way Sojourners has handled this sends a negative and even ominous message to LGBT Christians and to our friends in the churches. The most charitable interpretation might be that this is in the too hard basket in terms of engaging the more conservative elements of Evangelicalism that Sojourners seek to engage with social and environmental issues. I am dissapointed but hardly surprised.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
