Talking to Blossom

[Daniel]

Ok. I'm using the title of this thread to make a point.

Blossom, as some of you may know, is a conservative who was posting here as recently as two weeks ago, but, for all intent and purposes has left the scene as far as I know. We dialogued via PM's for a while before the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan. I won't bore you with the dirty laundry of things said and not said. I have other matters to ponder here.

How, in point of fact, does one talk to the likes of a Blossom? I've been mulling this over for a good while now and found resonance for my 'dilemma' in an article in Tricycle magazine (Fall 2006) where the author, Sallile Jiko Tisdale, writes of her Zen Buddhist community maintaining a dialogue with an evangelical community.

Paul told me recently the "all truths are God's truth." But what if we don't agree on what constitutes truth in the first place? Part of my labor to know the evangelicals is that I must continually consider what it means to think I "have the truth." They don't- or can't- do this internal examination in the same way, but I must. Among the other less attractive things, I have found in myself both the desire to confront and a wish to avoid confrontation.

Tisdale also goes on to observe:

I like these people: they are easy to like. They are curious, interesting and kind. They are happy people. While I'm dubious about the source of that happiness- it stems from sharing an absolute conviction of being right- I'm honest enough to see the parallels. What's the difference in their happiness and in mine- in their group identity and in mine? What's the difference in my deep faith in my own path, and theirs?

-----

We talked about abortion, gay rights and marriage, the political scene, the war in Iraq, and - again and again- what we believed about the divine, the world, the human being, the meaning of our lives. We tried to explain to each other what we have trouble explaining to ourselves. At times, our meetings have been exquisitely painful, at times warm and tender, and always humbling. I did not expect them to be inspiring, but I am inspired- they are not what I thought they were. I hold these questions now: What does 'beloved" mean to a Buddhist? What does it mean to let go of the enemy? What happens when we let go of being sure of ourselves, and move towards our former enemy, hands outstretched? There, in the center of the battlefield, it isn't always easy to know what to do or what to say. I would have thought it impossible for us to get this far. How much father can we go?

Or course, my own dialogue with Blossom never got as far as these two communities did in their discourse. But then, we weren't meeting for dinner every few weeks, face to face, and, you might say, knee to knee. The author, though not gay, shares one essential quality with that of a great many gay people: the ability for self inquiry. We learn, as it were, from an early age that we are different. And that difference leads us- by and by- to examine a great many things.

The difficulty I encountered in talking to Blossom was this: I found myself talking to someone for whom many things, if not all matters of faith, are fixed, a position which, it seems to me, greatly limits self-inquiry.

It is a great irony to me that many of us, as gay people, start the process of self inquiry at a very early age, one that can be full of both terror and beauty. We learn to look hard at things. And now, for all intent and purposes, we find ourselves- after having found our 'love'- engaged in still deeper inquiry when we dialogue with those who oppose us: their fixed positions force us back upon ourselves continually, but in another way. We ask ourselves, in the face of such unblinking opposition, how can we keep loving? It seems cruel to ask so much of those who have been oppressed. But that, it seems, is what we are being asked to do: Love them. That's the kicker. We are asked- indeed- impelled by our self-inquiry-to give them the very thing we think we need from them.

Such may be the nature of love and nonviolence.

What do you think?

[keltic63]

love your enemy as yourself.
do good to those who persecute you.
bless those who curse you.
offer the other cheek to the one who strikes you.


they are tough sayings indeed.

[dewdrop_world]

This reminds me of my last (as in final) post on the UMC board. The context is that one of the more extreme voices stated the opinion that all gay people are children of the devil, and his opinion was supported by others as having a basis in scripture (again, the relentless focus on the letter, to the detriment of the spirit).

I really had to meditate on this one. My first impulse was to tell them all how stupidly they were behaving. But I knew I would remain hurt if I reacted that way. So I resolved that no matter what, I would not leave the board in anger.

Hence this. A difficult message to write but good, healthy closure.

Not surprisingly, Pastor Steve, whom I was addressing in this post, did not see fit to respond. I suppose he was not getting from me what he wants... at least I did my best not to attack.

James

Steve,

Your view of what it means to have an impact strikes me as somewhat narrow. When you express your frustration that your words are having "no impact," I think it would be more accurate to say that you are expecting a certain, specific outcome within a certain time frame (a time frame which, after all, is very short in comparison to the span of a life). It appears to me, though I admit I could be mistaken in this assessment, that your frustration stems from the fact that you do not see this outcome.

Everything that anybody does has an impact. It may be small, but the impact is there. We're told that one who has faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, but it does not say that the mountain will be moved within a day, a week, a month, or any given person's lifetime. We take an action; it bears fruit. What you and I write here, today, will touch someone's heart, and we will probably never know whose heart, in what way and when the fruit comes into being.

I will leave this board very soon, mainly because I need to refocus on my music, a gift God has given me and which I want to repay in full. I had hoped for a number of things when I came here. Many of them didn't happen. Yet I know that my time here was not wasted. I have grown. I have confronted some of my fears, come to know them, and let them pass through God's grace. I'm learning to let go of my own desire for a certain outcome within a certain time frame and allow the rain to fall where it will.

Do you believe it's possible that your words might have a positive impact on me? Even if it isn't the impact you want, and even if you don't see the impact? I haven't talked about this until now, but my time here has caused me to reevaluate some aspects of my life that needed improvement, and strengthened my commitment and resolve to make changes. I've kept it to myself because I have reason to believe some here would use any admission of moral fallibility on my part as a weapon against me, to prove how awful gay people are imagined to be. You have had an impact, in spite of my antipathy to your style of ministry. Did you lose faith because you were looking for a different outcome?

I remain concerned about the unseen, negative impact of the most recent postings. You long for gay people to get the message, but you proclaim the message in way that is guaranteed to drive gay people away! So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy: when gay people react predictably to words that most people would take as insults, to you it becomes just more evidence that gay people are beyond hope -- and, consequently, deserving of even harsher words. The only thing you can gain from this is the feeling that you are right -- somewhere in your heart you must know that this is a hollow victory.

What really is the goal? Is it to communicate the good news, to reach people with the right words for the person? These words do not reach gay people. They don't work. They don't meet your goal. By alienating gay people, they actually prevent you from having the impact you want to have. If you discipline your children harshly and they become so angry that they run away from home, did it work? This is the situation with gay people.

Why, then, continue to use a failed strategy? I can think of only two reasons: an inflexibility of thinking, i.e., a belief that the transaction between the minister and the congregant must follow a formula (with the corollary that if it does not, the transaction is a failure solely because the congregant did not behave correctly); or, there is some other goal that takes precedence over communication with those who need the healing touch of God.

What's missing is that Jesus did not merely proclaim the good news; he was also a gifted communicator with a profound sensitivity to the listener's condition. He knew the right thing to say to the right person at the right time. There may be a time and place to state your opposition, but if the intent is to reach gay people, rather than just to lecture at us, it is a conversation-killer rather than a conversation-starter.

I have been asking for stories of God's grace because it helps build trust. If you tell me simply that I am a child of the devil, I cannot trust you. If you tell me that you believe I am not right with God because you have been changed in certain ways, I may still not agree with your assessment of me but I can respect your faith. This is of very high value! The effect of building this trust may not be visible immediately, but I have faith that God can use that trust for much more than either of us can imagine.

I am sorry that we may not able to continue with a respectful conversation. I have done my best. I will not, though, shake any dust off my feet. My door is always open to you in hospitality, friendship and well-being.

Peace to you,
James

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

I have been asking for stories of God's grace because it helps build trust. If you tell me simply that I am a child of the devil, I cannot trust you. If you tell me that you believe I am not right with God because you have been changed in certain ways, I may still not agree with your assessment of me but I can respect your faith. This is of very high value! The effect of building this trust may not be visible immediately, but I have faith that God can use that trust for much more than either of us can imagine.

James- what a power letter. Thank you for posting it here. What stood out to me, among many incisive things you wrote, is the line I've emphasized above. There is real genius in the desire to connect via 'story's of God's grace'. Telling one's story- no matter what side of the religious and political fence one is on- is not only revealing but personal. It brings one, as it were, into the heart of the matter.

And what you mention about doing your best not to attack, well, that says it all, doesn't it? This leads, of course, to the words quoted by Steve (bless you buddy).

Tough medicine indeed.

Other words come to mind here: "Truth needs no defense." A statement which is certainly on the esoteric side of things, but worth contemplating I believe. Perhaps, when we aren't so busy defending our truth, whatever that is, we'll all feel safer telling our stories.

[Zerbie]

This is such an important conversation, and I'd like to participate when more rested and less scatterbrained than right now, but the present moment will have to do.

James, I loved your entire post.

Daniel, you nail it there at the end of your last post. Indeed, if we stop defending, decide we are going to create our emotional/spiritual safety within ourselves, then and only then are we able to relate. Talk to the other person as a person, a peer, not as an enemy. Talk to them as if they have the best of intentions. Almost everyone does. Talk to them expecting the best part of them to be listening.

[Emproph]

They are blind to their fear of fear itself.

It's the only thing that separates us.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

How, in point of fact, does one talk to the likes of a Blossom?

what if we don't agree on what constitutes truth in the first place? Part of my labor to know the evangelicals is that I must continually consider what it means to think I "have the truth." They don't- or can't- do this internal examination in the same way, but I must. Among the other less attractive things, I have found in myself both the desire to confront and a wish to avoid confrontation.

what if we don't agree on what constitutes truth in the first place?

-That’s half the problem - not recognizing and acknowledging that fact up front.

Part of my labor to know the evangelicals is that I must continually consider what it means to think I "have the truth."

-My way of putting it would be, There are two kinds of Christians. Those that believe in Love and those that believe in Law. A distinction – when possible – needs to be made. -- with them.

At least then we can agree THAT we disagree. The ability to start there I think is paramount.

They don't- or can't- do this internal examination in the same way, but I must. Among the other less attractive things, I have found in myself both the desire to confront and a wish to avoid confrontation.

The author...shares...the ability for self inquiry. We learn...from an early age...to examine a great many things.

The difficulty I encountered in talking to Blossom was this: I found myself talking to someone for whom many things, if not all matters of faith, are fixed, a position which, it seems to me, greatly limits self-inquiry.

It is a great irony...that many of us as gay people start the process of self inquiry...full of both terror and beauty. We learn to look hard at things. And now...we find ourselves...engaged...with those who oppose us: their fixed positions force us back upon ourselves continually, but in another way. We ask ourselves, in the face of such unblinking opposition, how can we keep loving? It seems cruel, to ask SO MUCH of those who have been oppressed. But that...is what we are...asked to do: Love them. That's the kicker. We are...indeed- impelled by our self-inquiry-to give them the very thing we think we need from them.

Such may be the nature of love and nonviolence.

What do you think?

I’m sure you’re sure of all this, I just want to show it in the way I get it too.
And:

Originally Posted by James

I've kept it to myself because I have reason to believe some here would use any admission of moral fallibility on my part as a weapon against me,

That’s a theme of mine, learned from experience. Agreement is seen as acquiescence. Acknowledgment of any potential fallibility/or error is seen as CONFIRMATION of perceived error.

This is why I have been so resistant to the “non-violence” part of expressing the truth with them. I think I am learning though.

First, there are 2 kinds of “Christians” – Love or Law.
-To be clear, I consider atheists who believe in the Golden Rule (Love) – as the ‘law’ of life – to be Christians. As far as I’m concerned they believe in God they just don’t know it yet.

Think about it. They KNOW there is NO life after death, no god of any kind to make sense of the evil that exists. No ‘eternal’ reward for any good deeds done, and live amidst a mass of others who imagine, hallucinate, and construct their lives around a god of choice that does not exist.

Is that not the ultimate challenge? To decide Love in the midst of the ultimate fear?

This is the FEAR of God.

Not fear itself, but the acceptance of the existence of fear, as being a NECESSARY aspect of the creation of Love. Love is already beautiful. The creation of it requires evil.

The creation – the understanding – of MORE Love, requires the idea of the ABSENCE of Love. This is the “knowledge of good and evil.”

As gays we have been challenged to face our worst fears and have “overcome.” We are no longer afraid of our worst fears, thus no longer afraid of the idea of fear. (I’m generalizing to be sure.)

Everyone is afraid of fear (pain), but we in particular are no longer afraid of acknowledging fear, no matter how “worst” it is. This is our strength. Without the ability to face the worst, there can be no opportunity to overcome it. This is what they lack.

The idea of a god of Love who knows the future yet creates even so much as the POSSIBILITY of an eternal hell, is the worst fear there could be, and the ultimate confusion. Unconditional and infinite Love itself is associated with the ultimate injustice, thus the need to compartmentalize, thus the strict adherence to separateness.

God is love, the devil is evil, they are separate from each other and we are separate from them. Running around willy-nilly in the process trying to decipher right from wrong in order to avoid burning alive for all eternity.

-AVOIDING THAT thought is the hamster on the wheel that runs their lives.

The difficulty I encountered in talking to Blossom was this: I found myself talking to someone for whom many things, if not all matters of faith, are fixed, a position which, it seems to me, greatly limits self-inquiry.

My point is that I don’t think it is so much what is “known” that is fixed, it is what is necessary to be NOT known that is paramount. Pain/fear IS INTOLERABLE. When it exists -- There's no way around it.

They are afraid to BE afraid, there IS NO GREATER FEAR.
Thus the stranglehold on self-inquiry.

Again, not to suggest embracing fear itself per se, but to embrace the acknowledgment of the understanding of fear.

It seems cruel to ask so much of those who have been oppressed. But that, it seems, is what we are being asked to do: Love them. That's the kicker. We are asked- indeed- impelled by our self-inquiry-to give them the very thing we think we need from them.

Such may be the nature of love and nonviolence.

What do you think?

Originally Posted by re above quote

Love them. That's the kicker. We are asked- indeed- impelled by our self-inquiry-to give them the very thing we think we need from them.

This is the third time I’ve read this sentiment in as many weeks. Shirt of Flame, Religion Gone Bad, and now you. This exactly what I think too.

Our capability for introspection is the skill of loving ourselves. We are no longer afraid of seeing the ugliness inside – for the sole purpose of correcting it.

The Face of God IS the Fear of God.

Fear itself is ultimately rooted in confusion.

The fear of fear is rooted in the idea that confusion itself cannot be understood.

-Thus their resistence to the very idea of facing it.

P.S. Whoever said it was right – James should be nominated for sainthood.. You’ve definitely been an inspiration. I’ve changed because of you. I understand better the meaning of the ‘relentless’ part of “relentless non-violence.”

-So Thanks Daniel, thanks James. Your examples don't go unheeded.

[Daniel]

Well, if this article has any validity, there may be many less Blossom's to talk to in the coming years. What came to mind instantly was the recollection- somewhere- of a similar forecast being made regarding young fundamentalists in Iran. The young are more liberal (?) At least, that's what this article seems to suggest.

What do you make of it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/us...rtner=homepage

Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers

Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves.

Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John Cooper of the Christian rock band Skillet at last month’s Acquire the Fire event in Massachusetts for evangelical teenagers.
At an unusual series of leadership meetings in 44 cities this fall, more than 6,000 pastors are hearing dire forecasts from some of the biggest names in the conservative evangelical movement.

Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation.

[Dash]

Some of you may have read these points, which I posted over on "that other forum." I was trying to articulate some reasons why it is difficult to converse with conservatives. This is what I came up with:

1) Gays do not experience their orientation as a "life-choice." It is as integral to their identity as a straight person's orientation. Straight people are not asked to justify their feelings toward the opposite sex. They are not asked to explain how they became. Conservatives want to discuss something that they would never be able to explain about themselves...then they don't listen to our attempts to explain something that we should never have to explain.

2) Gay Christians have often worked very hard to understand and accept themselves. Their faith is costly beyond anything conservatives can understand, for their very identities seem to prove them unworthy, unlovable, and unwanted by God and society. Gay Christians have often given untold energy, scholarship, and spiritual practice to understand themselves in relationship to the Bible, Church tradition and their faith. For my part...even though I have exerted every effort of my mind and spirit in this regard, I ultimately have cast myself onto the bosom of Christ. I cling to his garment and weep on his feet.

It's been said repeatedly here that we have cheap faith. How do we discuss our faith, which is so precious, so intimate, so holy to us, when conservatives don't really respect it. Honestly...even the fact that we are asked to justify our faith is an egregious affront to the dignity of our intimacy with the Divine.

Let me put it to you another way: I don't know if you are married, but if someone said, "Your spouse really doesn't love you...please prove that he loves you," would you even lower yourself to enter into the discussion? But we must do this all the time!

3) The discussion makes use of the same kind of language that gave birth to lynchings. A list of reasons given for lynching blacks between the 1880s and 1930s includes: acting suspiciously, quarreling, adultery, race hatred; race troubles, aiding murderer, rape, arguing with white man, rape-murders, arson, inciting to riot, inciting trouble, running a bordello, inflammatory language, sedition, being disreputable, slander, being obnoxious, injuring livestock, spreading disease, insulting white man, suing white man, child abuse, defending rapist, demanding respect, trying to vote, disorderly conduct, mistaken identity, unpopularity, molestation, unruly remarks, murder, enticement, non-sexual assault, extortion, violated quarantine, plotting to kill, voting for wrong party, frightening white woman.

As a group we are discussed in the same kinds of terms (note I say "kinds"). No distinction is made between a criminal element that might exist among both gay and straight people and our orientation. The best and kindest of conservatives label us as disordered, and compare us to drugged-out addicts. They distance themselves from the burden of responsibility for this language by saying, "The Bible says it, not me. It's God's word, not mine."

The language of lynching used today bears the same violent fruit it bore in the past. How do we discuss an issue when the discussion itself is a language of violence?

4) We are called to witness in a trial in which defense of ourselves is dismissed as gay propaganda. We are not really allowed to offer evidence in our behalf in this kangaroo court. We will only be allowed to incriminate ourselves. The discussion therefore is inherently inhumane and unjust.

5) Conservatives seem to have one main reason for avoiding real discussion: fear of damnation...whether theirs or ours. Every rebuttal, every point, every dismissal of prima facie evidence reeks of this fear. Gay Christians have found courage in the grace of Christ through faith. As we say, "Perfect love drives out fear." How shall the courageous discuss the nature of their courage in a paradigm of fear?

6) The age old case of Law v. Grace hinders our discussion. Gay Christians feel that conservative Christians want to put them back under the Law. What's worse, there appears to be a double standard that crops up again and again. It is revealed most keenly for me in the question of Adultery. Conservative Christians are pleased to find grace and mercy in the Bible for people who divorce and remarry, though Jesus himself made it clear that they are committing adultery. They not only commit adultery, they live unrepentantly in their sin. However, there is no similar, compassionate desire to find grace and mercy in the Bible for their gay and lesbian siblings in Christ. Why do we deserve less than adulterers, when it would be far easier for them to change their marriage status than for us to change our entire psychosexual being?

How can we fairly discuss the requirements of gay Christians in terms of law, when other "sinners" are given grace to live in their "sinful" state? The conversation is desperately, and inherently unjust under such circumstances.

As it turned out, the double standard from point 6 became even more painfully apparent in trying to converse with a conservative feminist. It was ultimately impossible to get an acknowledgement of the conservative double standard...one that ignored scriptures that opposed a woman's vocation as a pastor, yet hypocritically held gays accountable to the life-denying interpretation that holds them in the same kind of oppression that she had escaped.

It was the parable of the ungrateful servant come to life....

[Steven E. Webster]

Dash,

Your last point is about the Evangelical Christian acceptance of divorce and remarriage as acceptable behavior for Christians. I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church still preserves the traditional teaching on divorce and remarriage, denying divorced and remarried persons access to Holy Communion.

Of course, they make exceptions, especially for people who can afford to go though the church's legal process to have earlier marriages "annulled"--nullified. Andrew Sullivan recently was fuming about some Catholic celebrity was having a second or third marriage in a very elaborate and high-profile church mass. However, "the exception proves the rule," as they say--and the rule seems to be that the privileged (in this case heterosexuals) get what they want and the disfavored have to "follow the rules" or "pay the price."

Dash, you live in Chicago, don't you? You should make the acquaintance of Bishop Hee Soo Jung (United Methodist). Hee Soo is an old friend of mine from way back before he was a Bishop or even U.M clergy. Hee Soo is a learned and wise man and I once heard him say flat out that "morality is what those in power impose on those not in power." I believe he was speaking out of the experience of people who have experienced colonialism, but he was applying it to LGBT people in this case.

I believe you mentioned Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher (United Methodist), I know her as well. If you speak to either Sharon or Hee Soo, I'd appreciate your mentioning my name.

Steven Webster

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

I want to point out that the Roman Catholic Church still preserves the traditional teaching on divorce and remarriage, denying divorced and remarried persons access to Holy Communion.

Steven, are you sure about that?
In mass last night the priest gave the homily on marriage. One of his key points was that divorced Catholics are welcome in the church. He encouraged the congregation to contact divorced, non-practicting Catholics and invite them to return to the church.
I have found that Catholics are much more tolerant and accepting in practice than a look at the official church positions would lead one to believe. There is sort of an attitude of "Yes, that is the official church teaching, but how do we deal with things in the real world?"
I'm a fairly recent convert to Catholicism and don't know a lot about how things were delt with in the past. Maybe the official position has changed.

By the way, Dash, your statements about the troubles dealing with conservatives are awesome. I made a copy of them to save; hope you don't mind.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Emproph]

I think the unwillingness for meaningful communication is an inherent symptom of this fear condition, but the desire to appear willing – to themselves and to others – is of paramount importance. Anything less would be “unChristian.”

As we’ve established before, for them to be wrong about anything would be to be wrong about everything. If homosexuality is not a sin then the Bible is wrong and there is no God, or if there is a god they lose control over its meaning. They lose everything either way. Control - their god.

It is our ‘sin’ and thus our “unsaved” status that helps ensure their own saved status. To love what should revolt us the most, AND not recognize it as fundamentally unnatural if not fundamentally evil, just goes to show them how 'put together' they really are. Perhaps it's our inability to "see” our condition as unnatural (if not evil) that is the very thing that CONFIRMS for them that they have no need to question themselves.

If we do not understand something as basic and elemental as the nature of nature itself – opposites attract – then surely there is no need to question less consequential matters such as their own ability to determine Biblical inerrancy, interpretation, the nature of sin etc.

Categorizing something as fundamentally repugnant to them as same-sex attraction is, into the category of evil itself (murder, theft, rape etc.) seems perfectly natural for them. They just can’t explain HOW it’s actually evil, but they don’t have to. They already understand that it would be “evil” for them to be that way. The implication of the malice part, the harm part – the otherwise “evil” part is understood.

They look at us and they imagine loving what they hate (sexually/intimately). We are then seen as loving what we were designed by God to hate. Our "blindness" to this obvious and fundamental perversion is evidence of it’s evil origins. Our love is evil (giant missing segue) thus we love evil (1). By demanding inclusion and acceptance we are promoting the love of evil.

Who needs to explain how consensual 'evil' love is synonymous with the love of evil itself when they're already promoting their love of evil to our children?

Which leads to probably the most important distinction that needs to be made between those who are against homosexuality: the difference between those who love and those who love to hate (2). They both believe homosexuality is wrong, but one group ENJOYS thinking so. They have no desire to be reached, we “complete” them.

For them, our very refusal to recognize of our ‘sinfulness,’ in addition to our ‘sinfulness’ itself, elevates their state of holiness and rightfulness without having to do anything at all, the mental comparison does all the work. It's a never ending source of free holy pride. Now that's cheap grace.

I suspect the other group runs the spectrum, from those who struggle against their desire to hate us, to those who would change their minds in a heartbeat if they just knew us.

But back to the first group. This might also explain their responses to the presentation of evidence of misused studies, inconsistent Biblical beliefs etc.

We’ve already been diagnosed as insane, we love evil. Of course we're going to see any simple honest mistakes by their well-meaning-can-do-no-wrong religious leaders as being a conspiracy. And even if our complaint is valid, surely there must be some truth behind it. Thus no need to investigate further, those who are evil are only capable of seeing evil, case closed.

Such concerns regarding their integrity (misused studies, inconsistency etc.) call into question their claims of moral superiority. When they do happen to respond, the usual retort is, “that still doesn’t justify your sin.” In other words, “Oh yeah? Well two wrongs don’t make a right!” Proving in an instant the true nature of their morality - depravity. What it really says is, "look at your sin, that justifies my/their sin."

In other words, two wrongs DO make a right. Thus the essence behind the logic of their moral superiority. (3)

And I think that’s where this connects with my fear post above. They rely on their leaders to ensure that they do not have to be aware of their fears let alone have to deal with them. That’s why the fear mongering tactics of the Bush administration/Republicans work so well on them. “Terror Alert Elevated.” It may as well read “Red Alert!”

For them to believe that their moral leaders are morally fallible, let alone willfully immoral, strikes to the heart of their terror.

And if the morally upstanding Republican party/Bush administration can’t be trusted, who’s going to keep us safe from the terrorists, the liberal democrats? We already know from the republicans that liberals don’t even think the terrorists are a threat. And if Dobson and his ilk can’t be trusted with their information on gays, who will protect us from them? As long as there’s panic overload they’ll listen to anyone who says they can “save” them from the threat.

Terror from within, terror from without. The ‘war on terror’ is a war OF terror ON terror.

So it seems that the communication issue would revolve around the nature of this fear. But until they can face the true source of their fear – specifically that of their lack of faith in an All Powerful God who is Love – I don’t see much hope in any meaningful communication.

In conclusion and as we’ve established before, it’s not them we’re after, it’s everyone else watching the conversation. As simple as that sounds, and as much as I’ve heard it before, I think there’s a profundity to it in that I really haven’t taken it to heart. My expectation and pride in regard to the individual has been my emotional focus.

Maybe we need to establish the concrete recognition of this understanding first, and then go about how to communicate that understanding in regard to our dialogues with those like Blossom.


_______________
1) The love of evil is the definition of evil. (my definition anyway)

2) The love of hate is the love of evil.

3) Wrong. Drawing attention to a wrong, in defense of a wrong, is an additional wrong.

-Double wrong. Coming from someone who considers themselves to be morally superior they should know it’s wrong.

-Triple wrong. We aren’t trying to justify our sin, we’re calling into question their claim of moral superiority.

-Quadruple wrong. How can we be trying to justify our sin when we don’t even believe it is a sin?

If one cannot recognize simple logic like this, how then can one say they are in a better position to recognize what is a sin and what is not a sin?

Their superior ability to recognize wrong is the basis of their justification of moral supremacy.

[Pablo Rafael]

Emproph,

To add a little to the idea of religion as an "appearance" of righteousness.

Sometimes we as Christians are so concerned that we will appear "unChristian" if we question a certain stance. The appearance of being correct and upright is more critical than a search for the truth. Peer pressure is a very strong force.

In order to really look like a "Christian" in the American culture, you have to be opposed to gays and anything they represent. (I overgeneralize, I know.) However, God told Samuel when he was annointing David as king. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but I look at the heart."

Pablo

[Dash]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Dash, you live in Chicago, don't you? You should make the acquaintance of Bishop Hee Soo Jung (United Methodist). Hee Soo is an old friend of mine from way back before he was a Bishop or even U.M clergy. Hee Soo is a learned and wise man and I once heard him say flat out that "morality is what those in power impose on those not in power." I believe he was speaking out of the experience of people who have experienced colonialism, but he was applying it to LGBT people in this case.

I believe you mentioned Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher (United Methodist), I know her as well. If you speak to either Sharon or Hee Soo, I'd appreciate your mentioning my name.

Hi Steven...sorry to take so long in getting back to you. I'm having a hard time finding things to say these days, even with so much going on in the world.

It's Bishop Sharon Rader (retired) that I have mentioned before. I always wanted to highlight the diversity in the Methodist Church for those conservative voices who pretend that THEY represent Methodism. Such pretension falls apart when one considers some of the important liberal leaders who have risen in the Church (not to mention the broad diversity of congregations within that denomination). And we should not forget that the fundmentalist movement within the Methodist Church is actually quite opposed to the leadership...desiring to give power into the hands of those who are less educated and who have not earned the responsibilities of governance. Such is the published intent of movements like the Institute on Religion & Democracy.

Bishop Rader, I believe, offices just a few blocks from me. I need to get off my duff and find an opportunity to hear her, or meet her. Hee Soo looks like someone I should research as well. Thanks for the information.

Thanks, Pablo, for your kind words. Mel White's article, "Why We Can't Wait... To End This Debate!" on this very website highlights some other problems that crop up when we debate with conservative Christians. I guess it was hard for me to understand some of what he writes about till I had earnestly tried to talk to conservatives myself.

And, Emproph, I'm thinking a lot these days about one of the great lies that Christians who obey the fundamentalist doctrine tell themselves: that they love us ("we just hate the sin"). They don't love us. They tell many lies about us, including among other things that we are pedophiles, that we are sex-obsessed and that our expressions of intimacy are unnatural and dangerous--all myths and misunderstandings that they perpetuate despite the clear refutations by scholars and scientists who actually do more than just guess about gay behavior or try to gross each other out by their gut fears of those who are different (as our conservative friends often do). They don't love us...we know this...it's plain to see, for you don't lie about those you love. You can't bear false witness against someone, and paint it up like love. It's still a disgusting affront to the truth and to love. Just as the trade of prostitution bears no resemblance to a relationship based in love, so their false compassion and hatred cannot be prettied up enough to make it pass for Christian love.

(And my use of prostitution in this metaphor does not reflect any scorn for those who find themselves in that profession. While I think there are better ways to live, and feel for anyone who may be caught up unwillingly in that work, I'm more sorry for the unflattering comparison with fundamentalism that my metaphor makes. Prostitutes deserve better. )

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Sometimes we as Christians are so concerned that we will appear "unChristian" if we question a certain stance. The appearance of being correct and upright is more critical than a search for the truth. Peer pressure is a very strong force.

In order to really look like a "Christian" in the American culture, you have to be opposed to gays and anything they represent.

Pablo, I missed the meaning of that the first time around. That’s a really good point, and I agree. A couple of things come to mind.

At least one response I got when pressing someone about Biblical inerrancy or interpretation, was something like “and it’s not just me who thinks this, LOTS of other people do.” He may have been referring to historians but the point remains, he considered his beliefs to be more valid because of the beliefs of others.

And from an article: “Unfortunately, it is also often a tenet of faith that to question God is itself an immoral act...”

Your point on peer pressure makes that sentiment all the more pungent, leading to a suspicion I’ve had for some time but have not pursued. To what extent does their desire for social acceptance influence the 'conviction' aspect of their beliefs?

As outcasts we don’t normally experience the practical sense of community that many church members do. Constant support, your best friends, everyone’s connected, etc.

Keltic made this point here recently and I’ve seen it on at least one other forum where Christians who make it clear that they are against homosexuality are attacked for pointing out general Christian hypocrisy in condemning homosexuals.

They’re against homosexuality but are attacked for expressing that in a Christian way. They are essentially attacked for NOT attacking.

So kudos, point well taken.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Dash

Thanks, Pablo, for your kind words. Mel White's article, "Why We Can't Wait... To End This Debate!" on this very website highlights some other problems that crop up when we debate with conservative Christians. I guess it was hard for me to understand some of what he writes about till I had earnestly tried to talk to conservatives myself.

I absolutely concur with that thought.

Don't debate? What do you mean don't debate?... Oh... now I get it.

And, Emproph, I'm thinking a lot these days about one of the great lies that Christians who obey the fundamentalist doctrine tell themselves: that they love us ("we just hate the sin"). They don't love us... their false compassion and hatred cannot be prettied up enough to make it pass for Christian love.

I’ve been thinking about that more so too. So much of the logic behind our complaints with them are unrecognizable because of the core assumptions that the rest of their beliefs are based on.

They assume it’s not possible to be created by God to be homosexual and instantly and forever we are “confused” heterosexuals – fueling and justifying all subsequent assumptions "in love" about us.

The biggest justifier is the assumption of Biblical inerrancy, and those who don’t ascribe to inerrancy can see the scriptural condemnation of homosexuality as confirming common sense. God condemns homosexuality or God now condemns homosexuality.

The unlove on their parts regarding us is their desire to condemn us before understanding ENOUGH** as to how we are confused, so that we can see that we are confused.

One cannot be “unrepentant” or repentant for that matter until they are convinced that they are sinning. That’s why we’re not supposed to convict insane people of their crimes, because they don’t or didn't know the difference between right and wrong. In our case this distinction seems to be of little priority for them.

If those who claim to be the experts on the meaning of right and wrong, judge those who do not know the difference between right and wrong, before ensuring that they do know that difference, then this is wrong.

If they do not see this as wrong, then they do not know they are wrong. If in addition they think this is right, then they do not know the difference between right and wrong. Thus they are insane and cannot be judged for their crimes.

How's that for motivation to "outlove" them? How do we express that truth "in love?"

I think when it comes down to it they’re equal opportunity unlovists, we’re just an easy target. Entropy is god when you’re terrified. Their god is entropy.

We should start adopting children and families who’s lives have been ruined by the Iraq war. I’d love to see them justify the war and “love” Iraqi American citizens to their faces after hearing first hand, the accounts of having to literally pick up the pieces of loved ones. “We love you, but the Bible commands us to hate your terrorists that had nothing to do with 9/11.”

They’d justify it to be sure, I’d just love to see it on the news shows on a regular basis here in this country.

Hmmm...that sounds like a plan...

Originally Posted by Dash

(And my use of prostitution in this metaphor...sorry for the unflattering comparison with fundamentalism... Prostitutes deserve better. )

Good one.

_______________
** I say “enough” because the nature of their partial explanations are absurd on more than one level. The childhood molestation / distant parent theories are an attempt to explain fundamental confusion consistent with “brokenness.” The love involved in that attempt to explain, stops there.

1) For that to be legitimate it would also have to explain why those who experience the same do NOT become homosexual.

2) If abuse and distant parents were a factor in subverting sexuality, then the subversion of sexuality would be contingent upon the level of the effect of the abuse/distant parent experience, resulting in a MAJORITY OF BISEXUALITY of VARYING DEGREES. Furthermore the fluid nature that caused that bisexuality would result in EVIDENCE of fluid sexual attraction over that persons life.

The theory itself demands a regularity of sexuality / gender identity fluidity. Is there even one ex-gay who can say they remember being completely opposite sex attracted before they were abused and "became" completely same sex attracted? <That’s another one we gotta scream with a bullhorn.

3) “ The development of sexuality is complicated,” to explain the rest of us who did not experience that is a first class COP OUT!

4) I’m sure more will come to me.

[keltic63]

I found myself fighting this battle in a forum yesterday. of course, this good christian poster stated that it is not possible to be homosexual and christian. I made a few simple statements such as: "I am a gay Christian" "I am Christian. I happen to be gay" and finally, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Until finally the poster said, "even the devil knows that Jesus is the Christ."

so now I am compared to satan

redirect argument: poster then goes on to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. "maybe the pedophiles should create a sect. Maybe you'd feel compassion for them."
my response: It is sinful to call love something other than it is; my love is not the actions of a pedophile.
poster: Are you suggesting that Love and Sex are the same thing?
my response: you are the one who made the comparison.

so once again we see that we are accused of the very things these zealots do. He equates homosexual love with pedophilia, I call him on it, and he accuses me of equating the 2 things that have nothing to do with each other.

[Steven E. Webster]

Pablo,

To respond to your post a little while back. Yes, I believe I have stated the official Roman Catholic position on divorce correctly. Divorced and remarried Catholics should not take communion. As long as their first spouse is living and they are living (and having sex with) a second spouse, they are committing adultery.

Notice that your priest spoke of divorced Catholics as being welcome. They are welcome, I am sure--but the sticking point is the question of whether they meet the requirements to take communion.

In practice, I am sure many local Catholic churches do not police the lines of people going to receive communion. I, a dyed-in the wool Methodist, have taken communion in the Roman Catholic Church, but it wasn't "legal." I am certain of my information on this topic because of a graduate seminar I took at a Roman Catholic College. One of my fellow students presented a rather detailed paper on this subject because she was personally effected--her mother is divorced and remarried and her mother, a devout woman, believes she cannot, in good conscience, go forward to take communion even if the priest "looks the other way" and would allow it. The mother, in conscience, is obeying the correct Roman Catholic practice. The student was arguing for a change in policy.

Kara Spelz elsewhere describes her very gay-friendly Catholic congregation. I'm glad there are local congregations that do everything they can to "bend the rules" to be more truly Christian--but the official rules, regulations and doctrines continue to do a great deal of harm to gay people and many others (like the divorced and remarried.)

A question to ask your priest--would he marry a couple with one partner having a living, divorced spouse? I think not--unless they manage to get through the difficult and problematic process of a church annulment of the first marriage.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I found myself fighting this battle in a forum yesterday. of course, this good christian poster stated that it is not possible to be homosexual and christian. I made a few simple statements such as: "I am a gay Christian" "I am Christian. I happen to be gay" and finally, "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Until finally the poster said, "even the devil knows that Jesus is the Christ."

so now I am compared to satan

Wait... how does he know the devil knows that?

Oh, that’s right, the inerrant Christian...I mean Bible.

This pride is uniquely difficult to identify, for it is well cloaked in the garb of pious humility. What makes it so elusive is that it appears as a faith in God, when in reality it is a misplaced faith in one's own judgement. It may well be that God is just and perfect and incapable of error, but we most certainly are none of these things, and to act with the firm belief that one is in perfect harmony with God's perfectly just wishes is to lose sight of that truth. Indeed, the person who acts in this way is guilty of the greatest pride, for she puts her moral judgement on a level with God's. She claims to know with absolute certainty that which can be known only to God. The faith here, then, is not in God at all, but in the individual's own reliability in knowing God,and if we understand idolatry as the sin of ascribing divine significance to a human artifact, the pride involved is idolatrous when the individual believes her knowledge to be perfect in this regard.

Further, consider the virtues that we strive to develop through moral exercise, and their dependence upon adversity. Courage, for example, is utterly meaningless without fear. It is the person who knowingly faces danger and acts in spite of fear whose courage we praise; without fear, the same act is indistinguishable from stupidity... It is one thing to act, knowing that one is right, but it is quite another to act with imperfect knowledge, hoping that one does good but recognizing one's fallibility and accepting responsibility for one's action right or wrong. The former is suitable for angels; the latter is the best we mortals can hope for. This is what is meant by acknowledging that we are sinners.

I would also add that the need to state that 'we are all sinners' is in and of itself the belief in it's opposite and goes right back to the need to "appear" Christian while "loving" the sinner.

Remember Animal Farm? "We are all equal. But some of us are more equal than others." Replace the word equal with the word sinners. Only those who consider themselves "more equal" would state the obvious fact that we are all morally equal.

redirect argument: poster then goes on to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. "maybe the pedophiles should create a sect. Maybe you'd feel compassion for them."

Or maybe you could create a political party that condones pedophilia to "feel compassion for."

[keltic63]

well, after more than a month of soulforce members pulling out of the UMC forums, it seems that someone over there has resurrected their 20 page gay marriage thread. Looks like it's ready for a re-hashing from the looks of things.

On 10/18/2006 12:27:35 PM daveo wrote:

God made us all sinners- what are you gonna do about it, the law is clear. ----------------

yes B., but are we not born sinners?
i think God made it that way to set the stage,
so we have to make a choice, right?
isn't that what he wants?
so yes, God's creation is wonderful & good, but we are not created sinless-Jesus was. am i crazy?
so what do you think?
dto

when I left over a month ago, I expected that those who opposed our presence there would eventually turn on each other. From other threads, as well as this one, I think I see the beginnings of this.