Are Anti-Gay People/Groups Hateful and Mean?

It is rather astounding that the straight/gay issue seems to be the most debated, most divisive, and most destructive point of contention among Christians and Christian organizations today. Is there any way to lessen the discord caused by this contentious wedge issue?

Opposition to the Nashville Statement

The gay/straight problem was thrust into the spotlight anew by the issuance of the “Nashville Statement” on Aug. 29. That statement by conservative Christian evangelicals vigorously upheld traditional marriage and rejected same-sex marriage. (Here is a link to the complete document.)

As could have easily been predicted, there was prompt opposition to the Nashville Statement, including derogatory comments about the signers, many of whom are Southern Baptist pastors and leaders of SB institutions and agencies.

Soon there were public statements from the other side, such as the one by the noted pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber. On Aug. 30, she issued the “Denver Statement” which counters point by point the articles of the Nashville Statement.

Bolz-Weber’s statement does not denigrate or malign the signers of the Nashville Statement; she merely contradicts their arguments one by one.

But other opponents have called the signers of the Nashville Statement mean and hateful (homophobic).

Some of the signers may, in fact, be mean and hateful—but are they all and should they all be disdained in that disrespectful way?

Opposition to the SPLC

Perhaps emboldened by the Nashville Statement—or challenged by the opposition to it—on Sept. 6 forty-seven conservative evangelicals sent a letter (see here) asking the mainstream media not to cite data on hate groups compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

In part, they wrote:

The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a “hate group” label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it.

That is a rather defamatory statement against a group whose founder, Morris Dees, has been repeatedly targeted by his opponents.

Moreover, if SPLC identifies some anti-gay Christian organization as hate groups, it is because they have seen how some people have “acted out” against LGBTQ people on the basis of the stated position of those groups.

Opposition to the Opposition

Here is my stance on this prickly issue:

(1) I strongly disagree with the Nashville Statement and basically agree with the Denver Statement. Further, June and I have been supporters of the SPLC since we came back to the U.S. to live in 2004; we have sent monetary gifts to them every year since then and will continue to do so.

(2) Still, it is most likely that those who signed the Nashville Statement did so not because of malice but because of their religious convictions—and those convictions are held primarily because of the way they interpret the Bible.

(3) Admittedly, the anti-gay sentiments of the signers of the Nashville Statement can be, and have been, shamefully used to treat gay people in mean and hateful ways. But for most of the signers that is not their intention; many of them probably seek to be loving without being affirming.

(4) Since many gays and lesbians have been caused to suffer as a result of the teaching and/or preaching of conservative evangelical organizations and churches, the SPLC has every right to oppose the hateful activities which have been spurred by those groups.

(5) Judging others, calling them names, and ridiculing their beliefs only creates greater division, larger wedges, and more animosity. Thus, it is imperative for us Christians to work on building bridges between people with conflicting convictions and incompatible interpretations of the Bible.

What about the Benedict Option?

Have you heard of “the Benedict Option”? It has been emphasized for years by Rod Dreher, and his new book, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, was just published on March 14. On that very day, David Brooks wrote in the New York Times that Dreher’s work was “already the most discussed and most important religious book of the decade.”

THE AUTHOR OF THE BENEDICT OPTION

     Rod Dreher (b. 1967) is an interesting guy. He is a senior editor and prolific blogger at The American Conservative (TAC), a bi-monthly journal co-founded by Pat Buchanan. According to their website, Dreher is one of eight, all white men, on the TAC “team.”

Dreher was raised as a nominal Methodist, but he converted to Catholicism at age 26. In 2006 he converted again, this time to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. His views on Christianity are as conservative as his social and political views.

Although his only university degree is a BA in journalism (from LSU in his home state of Louisiana), Dreher seems to be well-read. His emphasis on the Benedict Option (BenOp) comes from Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s influential book After Virtue (1981).

To a large extent, Dreher seems to be a pessimist—or an alarmist. For example, he thinks the world now is “growing ever more hostile” toward true Christians (p. 2). “Progressives, he writes, “sneer at claims of anti-Christian discrimination or persecution.” But, he warns his readers, “Don’t you believe them” (p. 179). 

THE GIST OF THE BENEDICT OPTION

     Dreher’s main point is fairly simple: Christians who wish to maintain their faith (and that of their children) must separate from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities—although not necessarily “in the hills.” This is not just for their own sake, but also for the future of the Christian faith.

Benedict of Nursia (480-547), for whom the BenOp is named, is known as the father of medieval monasticism, which, in turn, has been heralded as the “preserver of Western civilization.” If not completely in the same way, Dreher is calling Christians today to the same task: withdrawal from the dominant culture in order to help preserve traditional Christianity.

As a true conservative, in the primary sense of that term, Dreher sees the BenOp as a needed strategy for conserving or preserving the true faith, keeping it from not only from being swallowed up by secular society but also from being perverted by liberal “Christians.”

A BRIEF EVALUATION OF THE BENEDICT OPTION

     I first became aware of the BenOp when I read the Winter 2017 issue of Plough, the quarterly publication of the Bruderhof. (See here for what I wrote about Plough elsewhere.) I was both attracted and repelled by what I read.

As a committed Anabaptist Christian, I agree with Ted Grimsrud, a notable Mennonite theologian, who wrote a long (29 pages!) four-part blog article about the BenOp: “I believe that Christians should always think in terms of living in countercultural communities and having a countercultural sensibility.”

I also agree with Dreher’s strong rejection of the consumerism and hedonism rampant in Western society.

My main disagreement, though, is with regard to what he says about gay rights. Throughout much of the book (e.g., see pp. 179ff.) Dreher seems to assert that being Christian clearly means being anti-gay.

According to Dreher’s analysis, the present discrimination against or persecution of Christians—harsh treatment most likely to grow stronger in the future—is (or will be) primarily because of their refusal to countenance the full equality of gays/lesbians in society.

This aspect of the Benedict Option, however, which denies some people’s civil rights, is certainly neither good nor necessary.

The Problem with Being a Centrist

Does calling for a radiant center in politics mean that people of good will should be, or seek to be, centrists? Is being a centrist always a positive thing? Is there anything negative about being a centrist? These are some of the questions I began to think about after posting my Feb. 8 blog article and reading the thoughtful comments made about it.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST IS GOOD

Assuming that being in the “radiant center” as proposed in that blog article makes one a centrist, the positive things about such location must be considered.

Centrists are persons who don’t like extremism and want to live in peace and harmony with all people as much as possible. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who want to accept, and be accepted by, people who disagree with them and who promote inclusion over exclusion. That’s good.

Centrists are persons who appreciate and affirm truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it is found, no matter the label or the location. That’s good, too.

WHY BEING A CENTRIST CAN BE BAD

Sometimes being a centrist is not a good thing, however. That is particularly true when, or if, centrality means neutrality in the face of injustice.

In one of his oft-quoted statements, Desmond Tutu said, 

In the 1930s, what benefit was it to the Jews for many (most) Germans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing Hitler and the Nazi fascists?

In the early 1960s, what benefit was it for many (most) white Americans to be centrists rather than being on the left opposing the Jim Crow laws supported by the segregationists on the right?  

In the 2010s, what benefit was it for many (most) “straight” people to be centrists rather than being on the left supporting the civil rights of LGBT people buffeted by prejudice and discrimination by those on the right?

And looking toward the future, if human habitation on this planet is in jeopardy because of effects of global warming, as it most probably is, what benefit is it for citizens of the world to be centrists rather than being on the left and in vocal opposition to the global warming deniers on the right?

If being a centrist means not taking a stand against injustice and against the mistreatment of people or the environment, then clearly that is not good.

ANOTHER WAY OF BEING A CENTRIST

Soon after posting the Feb. 8 article on the radiant center, I realized that I had mixed metaphors in talking about the center. That realization was partly due to reading Mennonite theologian Ted Grimsrud’s Feb. 7 blog article titled “The Left/Right Schema Must Go” (see here).

Grimsrud stressed the importance of holding to “core values.” This means that the center is the core, not the position between the right and the left on a linear spectrum. This is what Easel Roberts was suggesting, I came to realize, with the image of the merry-go-round—and what I had missed by staying with the right/left schema.

So, moving toward the center, which represents core values, is another way—and a good way—to be a centrist.

But, alas, that doesn’t seem to solve the problem of the division (“polarity”!) so prominent in contemporary society. Why? Because people disagree on core values. For example, conservatives (people on the right) see their opposition to abortion (“killing babies”) to be an immovable core value. But people on the left see women’s reproductive rights (“pro-choice”) as an important core value.

So, being this kind of centrist is also a problem.

Why Conservatives Christians Will Vote for Trump

The Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority 2016 gathering in Washington, D.C., was held last weekend. I attended that meeting on Friday, and among the speakers was a man you may have heard of: Donald Trump.

You may have even heard or read about that meeting and Trump’s speech there. Among other things, he was interrupted by some protesters, led by Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. (I mentioned her in a blog article back in Nov. 2012; see this link. Here is a link showing what happened on 6/10.) 

The Faith and Freedom (F&F) Coalition was founded by Ralph E. Reed, Jr., in 2009. Reed was also the founder executive director of the now defunct Christian Coalition of America in 1989.

This was the second F&F meeting I have attended, and I wrote about my 2011 visit here. This year’s seemed to be a smaller and less significant meeting than the one five years ago—and this one was co-sponsored by Concerned Women for America, the conservative Christian organization founded by Beverly LaHaye in 1979.

At the “gala dinner” on Saturday evening (which I did not attend for more reasons than one), Mrs. LaHaye, whom I imagine doesn’t want to be called Ms., was awarded the 2016 F&F’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Dr. Ben Carson delivered the after dinner keynote address.

The first principle F&F mentions on its website is “Respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society.” The most common emphases at last week’s meeting was the need to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage—and the use of cross-gender bathrooms by transgender people.

(In his speech on Friday morning, Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas spoke mostly about the transgender issue—repeatedly saying that transgenderism is a “mental disorder.”)

To his credit, near the beginning of his speech Reed said, “We are Christians first, Americans second, and members of a political party third.” But before he finished it was quite obvious that he thought for patriotic Americans being a Christian and being a Republican were pretty much the same thing.

Reed, who is an excellent speaker and a skillful executive, emphasized that this election is a fight between good and evil. Abortion was his first example of the latter. The second evil he railed against was gay marriage.

He urged support of Trump because of these two issues—and because of the upcoming SCOTUS justice appointment.  

Reed then praised “imperfect people who will work for God’s will to be done.” That idea is highlighted in an online article I recommend: “A Theological Case for Low Expectations.”

Another article, also worth reading, is “Conservative Christian Women Confront Their Doubts on Trump.”

The latter article explains why many conservative Christians are hesitant to vote for Trump. But I am quite confident in predicting that most of them, with perhaps the exception of those who are quite young, will end up voting for him.

Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will vote against Hillary and for Trump’s party. They may not like Trump or know if they can trust him, but they know they can trust Hillary—to do the wrong thing.

Hillary will clearly do the wrong thing in their eyes on abortion since she is clearly pro-choice. She will clearly do the wrong thing regarding same-sex marriage and LBGT rights. 

If those are two of the greatest evils in the country, as was repeatedly emphasized at the F&F meeting, how could conservative Christians not vote for Trump?

Clobbered by "Truth"

Those of you who have had some theological training will likely recognize the Greek word aletheia. It is the word used many times in the New Testament and translated into English as truth. According to John 14:6, Jesus claims to be the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια).

Well, last week I was trolled by someone who gave his (surely it wasn’t a her!) name as Alethia 21—and I assume that name means the same as aletheia. That person, about whom I was unable to find any other information, left very negative comments on four different blog articles of mine.

All along I have encouraged people who disagree with my views/ideas to speak up. I have welcomed dialogue—and there has to be some disagreement for there to be any real dialogue. But I have also expected civility, and I have always tried to be civil toward those with whom I have disagreed.

Alethia 21, though, didn’t mince words—and didn’t seem to pay much attention to civility. In the comment he posted on my Feb. 19 blog article, he said, “But now I realized your [sic] a sanctimonious sarcastic liberal. Quite ignorant of what really goes on in life I might add!”

(Well, I may be somewhat ignorant of what really goes on in life, but at least I know the difference between your and you’re! And you should read some of the harsh things he said!)

At the beginning of another comment—and true to his Internet name—Alethia 21 declared, “The issue is always TRUTH! We can say the truth but we can do so in a Christian manner!” Then, just before referring to “Lucifer Obama,” he wrote, “If truth insults then so be it!”

(Actually, these latter comments were later removed by Alethia 21.)

Several times I have seen conservative Christians insisting that it is more important to be biblically correct than to be politically correct—although I have not been able to see why it has to be one or the other.

The insistence on being biblically correct is almost always tied in with a literalistic reading of the Bible considered to be inerrant. Among other things, but at or near the top of the list of what it means to be biblically correct, is the gay/lesbian issue.

Much of Alethia 21’s emphasis on truth, and much of his anger toward me, was directly related, it seems, to his vociferous opposition to gay/lesbian rights. What looks to us “liberals” as political incorrectness (as well as ignorance and bigotry), seems to people like Alethia 21 to be adherence to the truth of God’s word.

That kind of polarity in society, and among people who claim to be Christians, seems to be insurmountable in this present time. How can people be so greatly divided about the truth? And why do some professing Christians think it is all right to clobber others with the truth (as they see it)?

Perhaps the over-confident and overbearing use of truth fueled development of the post-modern view that denies there is any “absolute truth.” Everything becomes relativized: you have your truth, I have mine.

Back in 1995 a helpful book dealing with the challenge of post-modernism to Christianity was published under the title Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be. That title expresses the present reality.

Certainly, the post-modern view of truth is much kinder than old views such as that the one held by Alethia 21. But is it the truth? Probably not.

But, admirably, this view at least rejects the legitimacy of clobbering people with “truth.”

Four Concerns about the New Congress

In early January 2015 the 114^th U.S. Congress will convene for the first time. As a result of the Nov. 4 election, both chambers will be controlled by Republicans.

Senators in the 114th Congress

Some of the new senators, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, are quite conservative. Consequently, I have four serious concerns about the new Congress.

Personally, I will likely be impacted little by the new Congress. In fact, my modest portfolio might grow even more than it has in the past two years. So my concerns are not personal.

But my Christian faith compels me to love all people, especially the weakest and most vulnerable people in our country, as well as to care for the earth God has placed us on. So from this perspective here are four of my greatest concerns about what the new Congress and the new Missouri legislature will, or will not, do.

(1) My first and biggest concern is for the poor people across the nation, the people (and especially the children) who do not have enough to eat, who do not have adequate housing, and who do not have sufficient health care.

Conservative, Tea Party type legislators seem to be primarily interested in reducing the size of government and lowering taxes. Cuts in welfare, or the so-called safety net, are common proposals for those with this mentality.

But, for the well-being of a sizable percentage of people in poverty, in addition to sustaining their welfare provisions there needs to be an expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Missouri is one of many states where the latter is badly needed. But with the new General Assembly, that likely won’t be done.

And while their efforts will not be successful, the U.S. Senate will possibly try to repeal “Obamacare,” removing millions from healthcare insurance.

(2) I am also concerned about the new Congress exercising adequate care for the environment. Republican congresspeople, such my Missouri Sixth District Representative Sam Graves, repeatedly criticize regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose purpose is to protect the earth for the coming generations.

And it is quite likely that Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a global warming denier, will be the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Heaven help us!

(3) Concern for the children of “illegal immigrants.” Immigration reform has long been a major desire of the President and many legislators.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year, but the House never even took it up. I am very concerned that this needed legislation will not be passed and that the President will take executive action leading to turmoil and even greater dysfunction in Washington.

(4) Concern for women and gays/lesbians as there is the likelihood of further anti-abortion laws and rejection of LGBT rights.

One does not have to agree with women who seek an abortion or of gays/lesbians who want to have legal marriages in order to uphold their civil rights.

If the new U.S. Congress passes legislation necessary to help the poor of the country to survive and to raise what is often a wretched standard of living, passes legislation that will protect the environment for the sake of our grandchildren, passes legislation that will give dignity and stability to the past and future immigrants into this country, and if they pass legislation that respects the freedom and dignity of women and LGBT people, then perhaps the election results were all right.

But until I see all the above happening, I will continue to have grave concerns about the election outcome on November 4.

Moore of the Same

Back in August, “This is Moore Better” was the title of my blog article about Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. I meant the positive things I said about him then.

But now I’m afraid I can’t be so positive about him. The upcoming ERLC national conference looks as if it is going to be more of the same old anti-gay rhetoric that has been so prevalent in Southern Baptist and other conservative evangelical churches.

The Oct. 27-29 conference title is “The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage.” The website for this gathering lists the speakers, many of whom are known conservatives and opponents of same-sex marriage or acceptance of gays/lesbians.

Among the many speakers in addition to Moore, who is the person mainly responsible for planning the conference, are the following:

—    Rosaria Butterfield, author of “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into the Christian Faith,” in which she tells about her transformation from a postmodern lesbian professor to a pastor’s wife and homeschooling mother.

—    Jim Daly, President and CEO of Focus on the Family; while not as strident as his predecessor, James Dobson, he is still a strong opponent of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

—    Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the best known and most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage and acceptance of gays/lesbians.

—    David Platt, recently elected president of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and as the others, strongly against gay/lesbian sexuality. His YouTube sermon “The Gospel and Homosexuality” has been accessed 37,300+ times, and many of the 450 comments are in agreement. But here is one of many negative comments: “Such hate in the name of Jesus, how many lives will be destroyed because of this preacher, how many will reject Jesus Christ, and His grace [because of his] hate.”

—    Christopher Yuan, a pastor and co-author (with his mother) of “Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope” (2011); I have not read this book, but it seems to promote only celibacy for homosexuals.

While there are several other speakers, it seems quite clear that there will be little opportunity at Moore’s ERLC conference to hear from more than one side of the issue, which, of course, they see as the only correct position.

A promotional blurb for the conference includes this question, “Are you and your church prepared for the moral revolution surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage happening across America?”

In continues, “While human sexuality and social institutions are being redefined before our very eyes, the Bible presents marriage as an unchanging picture of the gospel through the union of one man and one woman.”

By contrast, there will be a “regional training conference” held in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 6-8. That gathering will be “a prime networking opportunity for all Christians who want to advance the dignity of LGBT people.”

One keynote speaker will be my friend Dr. David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and a lifelong Baptist. But his position on the gay/lesbian issue is quite different from that of Moore and the ERLC.

In addition, the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists want to have dialogue with the ERLC conference people.

I wish that Moore and the ERLC were open to Gushee’s position and the AWAB leaders’ request. But I am afraid all they will consider is more of the same: rejection of LBGT people. What a shame!

Civil Rights—Then (1964) and Now

One of the most important pieces of legislation of the twentieth century was signed fifty years ago this week, on July 2, 1964. That was the day President Johnson, just a few hours after House approval, signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.

That 1964 piece of legislation was highly significant. An article in the Huffington Post asserted that it “affected the nation profoundly” and “changed American history.” While it did not solve all the problems of discrimination against African-Americans immediately, it did lead quickly to great improvements.

To give but one example, in Mississippi voter registration of the eligible black population increased from under 7 percent in 1965 to more than 70 percent in 1967.

Back in 1964, the term “civil rights” was used almost exclusively for the rights of African-Americans. In recent years that same term has increasingly been applied to the rights of LGBT persons.

Last semester one of my African-American students, who was considerably older that most of the other students in the class, objected to my use of “civil rights” to refer to what are also called gay/lesbian rights.

But civil rights should be enjoyed by all Americans, and gays/lesbians are the main segment of society today whose rights are often unprotected.

In recent years, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill proposed in the U.S. Congress would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees.

On November 7, 2013, such a bill passed by the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64-32. President Obama supports the bill’s passage, but opposition in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives has kept the bill from becoming law.

Consequently, on June 16 it was announced that the President plans to sign an executive order banning discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees by companies that do business with the federal government.

The President’s order will implement on a limited scale what the White House would like to see Congress pass into law for the entire nation.

A June 23 article in Bloomberg Businessweek is titled, “Most Americans Think It's Illegal to Fire Someone for Being Gay. They're Wrong.” That article goes on to point out,

Most U.S. states lack explicit legislation barring discrimination against LGBT employees; current U.S. law is uneven, limited, and ambiguous. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia bar firing employees for their sexual orientation. Of those, 18 (and again, Washington) also ban firing transgender employees.

The President’s upcoming executive order is surely a step in the right direction. It’s a real shame, though, that there cannot be bipartisan support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2014 as there was for the Civil Rights Act fifty years ago.

I remain baffled that the Republican Party wants to be known as the party that is for discrimination against a sizeable segment of the U.S. population.