What a fascinating time to be alive. Here we are ... about to celebrate the 2008th anniversary of Jesus' birth, and a whole bunch of us are still squabbling like cats and dogs about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, proving - to a lot of people - that we haven't got a clue.
My friend Rick Warren is in trouble with one set of critics for being too tough on gay folk. And my friend Rich Cizik is in trouble with another set of critics for being too soft on gay folk.
President Obama is in trouble with one set of critics for being too soft on Rick Warren, and Rick Warren is in trouble with another set of critics for being too soft on President Obama.
I know a little about being in trouble, as I am blessed with many passionate and loyal critics. So I'm sympathetic to everybody who is in trouble.
What the people in trouble have in common is not agreement. Obama, Cizik, and Warren have widely differing views on the hot-button issues which energize critics. What they have in common, I think, is that they are seeking to create a new space that isn't clearly defined as "left" or "right." This is a space of civil disagreement, engaging with the other, crossing boundaries. Just yesterday, I heard somebody define this space as being homeless ... ideologically homeless.
If Rick were the right-wing nut-job that some of his hefty-lefty critics are painting him to be, he wouldn't dare accept an invitation by a Democratic pro-choice pro-gay President. If the President-Elect were the left-wing nut job his tighty-righty critics paint him to be ... he wouldn't invite Prop-8-supporting Rick Warren to give the invocation. If Rick were the compromising apostate his tighty-righty critics claim him to be, he wouldn't outspokenly disagree with the President-Elect on gay marriage and criminalizing abortion. And so on ... you get the point.
Meanwhile, what the critics have in common is that they have a home. They know where they stand - left, far left, right, far right, etc. They know who's in and who's out, who's orthodox and who's not, whom they're cold toward and whom they're hot about.
That's why Rich Cizik is such an interesting person to me. For his "soft and maybe still softening" stance on gay civil unions and maybe gay marriage, he "got resigned" ... from the same organization, by the way, that had to release its previous president (who held the hard line on homosexuality) for indulging in secret indiscretions of a homosexual nature. If he had kept quiet about his changing views (as a lot of people do), he could have kept his job ... but he decided to gently tell the truth: that his mind is changing, that he's still in process. He was moving out of his old comfortable "home" on the right, and now he is homeless.
Homeless folks wander around. They're in motion. And that, it seems to me, is fascinating and hopeful. If we dig in our heels and stand firm in our warring camps - left and right, pro-choice and pro-life, blah blah blah - we're insane if we expect to get different results from the ones we've been getting. Nothing will change.
But what might happen if we begin to reach out ... seeking the common good ... seeking to build bridges rather than bombs ... seeking to throw out invitations rather than insults ... making friends of former enemies ... admitting we're rethinking and changing rather than defending the orthodox no-rethinking-zones in which we've been raised?
If you step out and extend hospitality to one of "them," as the President-Elect did ... if you expose your heart and admit you're rethinking, as Rich Cizik did ... if you accept a gracious invitation by someone with whom you disagree, as Rick Warren did ... yes, you'll get criticized and maybe worse. But you'll also be opening up new possibilities, putting a crack in the insane polarization we've been stuck in for too long. So ... those who want to criticize, feel free: you've got some good things to say. But at the same time, give the homeless guys a chance. They may be your best friend in disguise.
I'm thinking about ... not committing yet, just thinking about it ... making a New Year resolution - to try to drop polarizing words from my vocabulary in 2009 - including words I've used in this short piece: left, right, liberal, conservative, pro-life, pro-choice, and so on. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of us tried it ... as a way of breaking with the insanity of always doing what you've always done while expecting to get otherwise than what you've already got. Hmm.
As we near Christmas, let's remember that the one whose birthday we're celebrating was homeless, wandered around, couldn't be tamed or contained by conventional categories, accepted and extended invitations to the wrong people, and had a boatload of critics. We won't be celebrating the critics' birthdays, you know?
Warren, Cizik, Obama, left, right, pro, anti, etc.
Friday December 19, 2008
Categories: Abortion, Catholics, Christians, Defining Progressive, Evangelicals, Homosexuality, Mainline Protestants, Media, Religion in the Public Square
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
About Progressive Revival
Diana Butler Bass and Paul Raushenbush both stand firmly within the Mainline Protestant tradition and, along with guest bloggers of all religious backgrounds are dedicated to the revival of religious progressivism and its influence in American politics.
Contributors
Diana Butler BassDiana Butler Bass is a commentator and scholar in American religion. She is the author of seven books including A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story (HarperOne, 2009).
» Posts by Diana Butler Bass
Paul RaushenbushModerator of the Progressive Revival blog and the Associate Dean of Religious Life at Princeton University.
» Posts by Paul Raushenbush
Subscribe
Recent Posts
Most Popular Posts
- Psalm 109:8--A Prayer for Obama or Ourselves?:
- New Catholic Hardball: Trading the Poor for Doctrinal Purity:
- Vatican Woos Conservative Anglicans: This is News?:
- The Fort Hood Shootings and the White Privilege of Disassociation :
- The Stupak Amendment and why the Post Card Campaign would make it easy to Hate Catholics Right Now:
- Election 2009 Mixed Blessings:
- Burn In Hell Halloween:
- Pro-Football, Injury, and Clear Christian Conscience :
- All Saints Day: A Progressive Call to Remember:
- Halloween 2009 vs All Saints Day (Eternally):
Sam, it doesn't matter if the Bible is "God's word" or not when it comes to secular laws governing civil marriage. Not in a land that 'promises' freedom of religion to all citizens. We don't have to believe what you believe to be treated equally before the law.
"we are able to believe this way and still love gay people.
Sorry Sam, but comparing gay marriage to pedophilia is not loving - far from it. It's a vile, hateful lie - aka, the bearing of false witness about God's gay and lesbian chldren - aka, a sin.
"In fact, we are not the hate-mongers that people have made us out to be."
I disagree. Your side always makes comparisons like incest and pedophilia, not to mention "marrying a plant" (or an "orange" or a "rock" or a "bicycle" or a "child"), "worse than terrorists", "cannibals", "beastialists", "necrophilacs", "rapists", a "cancer", "Satan's minons", Sons of Molech".
Literally, ALL of these things have been said, continue to be said, are allowed/encouraged to be said on many blogs, even right here on Beliefnet (much to its eternal shame).
These are NOT 'loving' things, Sam. They are hateful lies. They are un-charitable untruths, spread to vilify, diminish, demean, debase and denigrate gay American citizens. If they aren't perfect examples of hate-mongering, I do not know what is.
"We just believe marriage has a certain definition, and we are trying to protect it."
You seem to be wanting to "protect" a definition and seem to care little about the actual institution of marriage itself. Christ said divorce was not to be permitted, yet you allow it.
If you want to "protect" marriage, go "protect" it from Britney Spears and her type of 55-hour "marriage". Go "protect" it from Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell who turned marriage into a TV game show prize. Go "protect" it from Mickey Rooney and his eight "marriages". Go "protect" it from drunks in Las Vegas who get "married" to a stranger (albeit still legally) on a whim.
I would assure you (but it seems your side can't be assured) that marriage is not under attack from committed, loving, human (awful that we have to even bother to include that on this site), consenting, adult, same-sex couples.
Rick Warren's point, in his comment, was to say that "marriage" (by definition) has a specific meaning: the formal union of a man and a woman. THAT is what marriage means and what it has always meant.
ummm... ok, if you remove from consideration the fact that up until about 150 years ago, it was primarily a financial transaction in which women were seen as chattel and property to be passed from father to husband. You also have to remove from consideration the fact that up until about 40 years ago, it was the formal union of a man and a woman who happened to have the same skin color. If you're going to talk about what marriage has always meant, you can't ignore its problematic history as a force for the oppression of women and people of color in Western culture.
When pedophiles and polygamists are mentioned in this context, the point is to say that marriage has a specific meaning and not any and all unions between people meet that definition.
You really think it's that innocent? Honestly? Comparing lesbian and gay couples to pedophiles - perhaps the most reviled people in our culture - is just an innocent side effect? This claim is so preposterous that I have a hard time believing you actually believe this. This is pretty weak spin.
Out of all the ways God could choose to illustrate the intimate relationship He has with His people, the primary one He chose was the union between a husband and wife. This is significant.
God chose a number of ways to illustrate the relationship God (who, I might remind you, is not a "He" or a "She" as God has no genitals) has with God's people. One of them was the marriage relationship. The other was that of a shepherd and sheep. Like you said, all analogies break down.
This "picture" that God has painted (through ordained marriage in Genesis 2), is why Rick Warren and many others (myself included) cannot support gay marriage. It distorts the "picture" that God has painted.
...which should not matter one iota in American government, which explicitly prohibits the establishment of religion. You may believe that same-sex marriages are a "distortion of God's picture" (which, in my opinion, is putting pretty red lipstick on the same homophobic pig), but you do not have the right to use the coercive force of law to impose your religious beliefs on others, or to privilege your view of "God's picture" over others' view.
And believe it or not, we are able to believe this way and still love gay people. In fact, we are not the hate-mongers that people have made us out to be.
I'm going to stop being polite: That is a huge load of bull. What kind of "love" is it to tell people that they do not deserve equal civil rights - and that thus they are essentially subhuman? What kind of "love" compares the love between two consenting adults to incest or pedophilia? What kind of "love" tells people that their only choices are to live a celibate life, never loving a person romantically as they are made to do, or burn in Hell?
If this is what you think a "love" position is, then you need to seriously reconsider the meaning of the word. If what I just named above - which is Rick Warren's position, and the position of evangelical Christians who agree with him - isn't hate, then I don't know what is. You can protest that you have gay friends, or that this is really a loving position, but as long as you stand in the way of equal rights for all, you are not acting out of love but out of something else.
James wrote: "I'm going to stop being polite: That is a huge load of bull. What kind of "love" is it to tell people that they do not deserve equal civil rights - and that thus they are essentially subhuman? What kind of "love" compares the love between two consenting adults to incest or pedophilia? What kind of "love" tells people that their only choices are to live a celibate life, never loving a person romantically as they are made to do, or burn in Hell? If this is what you think a "love" position is, then you need to seriously reconsider the meaning of the word."
Two thumbs up!
I think there are a lot of reasons why Christians should expect to be disliked by society. But we should never be accused of being hateful--that may be the one sure indication that we're off track. People should be able to accuse us of all sorts of offenses against the status quo, but not of being hateful.
No matter how strongly people disagree with our stances on politics, economics, morality, and even religion, the one thing that every one should be able to agree on is that we are a kind, generous, loving people. Is this not what Paul meant when he spoke of believers as beyond the reach of the law, because we are so filled with Love that no one can speak against us?
Okay James, let me tell you where you're wrong about my views. My point is that marriage is a formal union between a husband and wife. That DOESN'T mean it has not been used immorally, as a means of oppression. You pointing that out takes nothing away from my fundamental point of God ordaining marriage for a specific purpose and "picture."
And I was not "spinning" my second point. I really do believe what I said. And for you to believe that what I said isn't true, you logically must think that Rick Warren places pedophilia (the rape of children) on the same level as consensual homosexuality. That is preposterous. I will reiterate the point of his analogy: Marriage does not mean any union can be formalized. It is a formal union of a man and woman.
Third, I am aware that God chose a number of ways to express His relationship with His people, which is why I used the word "primary." Furthermore, God can't be expressed as a "He" now? Really? I mean, I know this is a liberal site, but open up your Bible for crying out loud.
Fourth, I know we have a government that doesn't establish a religion, which is why nothing I said is remotely relevant to that comment. The United States is a representative republic, and the people of 30 or so states (so far) have not allowed marriage to be re-defined (that's every state that has had marriage on the ballot). And this happened through the democratic process. The Biblical point is my reasoning. Other people have different reasons. The bottom line is this: The people of this country want the traditional definition of marriage to be upheld. That doesn't make us hate-mongers and that isn't a civil rights violation. Words have meaning, and it's clear what the people of this country (and currently what the people of California) have decided what they want "marriage" to mean. (Don't worry, I'm sure some judge will usurp the will of the people and legislate from the bench to overturn Prop 8.)
Finally, I don't think a homosexual is a "subhuman" that "doesn't deserve equal rights." Do you really believe that someone can't be for the traditional definition of marriage but also have nothing against gay people? I'm for civil unions. I believe gay couples should have the same civil rights of straight couples (because I don't view them as less human). However, that doesn't mean I have to turn in my view of marriage. I also don't believe a man should be able to have two wives (even if it is consensual). That doesn't mean I view them as subhuman. I just don't believe that such a union should be classified as a "marriage." Furthermore, I would never say that such a lifestyle would make a gay person "burn in Hell." Salvation comes through faith in Christ, not through works (Ephesians 2).
If I recall correctly from Brian McLaren's chapter on boundaries of the kingdom the criteria for inclusion were becoming like a child, humility, compassion, committed to contributing to building the dream of God.
As an Episcopalian believer I have seen the conflict that comes when there is a movement to allow people who fit the criteria for inclusion into the fold who are gay or lesbian. I was at the national convention where the issue of Bishop Robinson was discussed and a vote allowed him to be a Bishop in our church.
A careful study with an open mind of the Scriptures leads me to believe that gays and lesbians can be part of the church, even in roles of leadership if they are in committed relationships. I am ready to admit that committed Christians are on both sides of this issue and that tels me that the Holy Spirit is working on peoples hearts to open them up to inclusion of gays and lesbians. I used to be on the other side of the issue and I respect those who identify with the position I once held.
The crux of the issue is a hermenuetical one. How does one understand scripture; is it to be used to support my views by bending it and parsing it to tell me what I want to hear, or is it a source of insprited guidance that must be understood in the cultural and spiritual context of the time it was written? Simply stated, does one use the historical-critical method or the literalist-proof text approach. The conflict in the Anglican communion over gay and lesbian inclusiveness all goes back to differences in the church regarding biblical interpretation.
The institution of marriage has changed dramatically in modern times as has been mentioned above. The threat to marriage today is not from gay marriage, but rather from the lack of respect for the institution from men and women who neither respect marriage or each other. As a humble Christian who kneels with humility at the foot of the Cross and prays to be a compassionate, loving person I am not threatened by the fact that Bishop Robinson, or my own female lesbian priest (who is the most powerful example of a disciple of Christ that I know) are allowed to be leaders in God's church. Nor is my marriage or the institution of marriage degredated by allowing my priest or any gay or lesbian person to solemnize their relationship with a marriage vow.
Let us continue to dialogue on this issue and love and respect each other even though we may disagree.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.