My mind boggled when a friend assured me the other day that Rick Warren is James Dobson with a friendlier face. HRC doesn't go quite that far, but it does say this: "Rev. Warren cannot name a single theological issue that he and vehemently, anti-gay theologian [sic...Dobson is a psychologist; should HRC know this?] James Dobson disagree on."
True, Warren is a transitional figure, hardly what gay people would call enlightened. But he is no Dobson or Wildmon or Robertson or Falwell. He has tried to move the evangelical movement away from politics. He thinks too little about homosexuality, instead of obsessing on it. By mostly ignoring homosexuality, he puts it in reasonable proportion to other (as he sees it) sins-and, with the religious right, mere proportionality is half the battle.
It's worth actually reading the BeliefNet interview which has become the locus classicus for those who call Warren a hater. He calls same-sex marriage a redefinition on the same order as adult-child marriage. Obtuse, to say the least. He also says, "Civil unions are not a civil right." Meaning, he explains, that the constitution doesn't mandate them.
But he also says he does not oppose California's domestic partner law (which is a civil union law, whatever the statutory name). And he says it's a "no brainer" that divorce is a bigger threat to family than gay marriage. And that the reason gay marriage gets so much more attention than divorce is because "we always love to talk about other [people's] sins more than ours."
Of course he is an evangelical preacher and he does think that homosexual relations are a sin which should not be dignified with public sanction. But he represents a major step forward over the generation before him (as the generation after him is better still). I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.
Corvino, John
{ 58 comments }
← Previous Comments
bold off
Thank you, Priya; your little screaming fit did exactly as I intended, which is to demonstrate what Rosendall and the editors consider “acceptable”. You have showed clearly that they do not ban people who tell others to commit suicide, who accuse others of child molestation, and who insist that all Christians want to kill gays — which, given that they ban that with which they disagree, makes it obvious that they endorse and support your words and attitude.
Now to Pat: of course it is. But the difference is that you made it obvious that you didn’t support Bush and that you were doing everything in your power to block, stop him, and get him removed. Richard is doing nothing of the sort with Rogers, and is in fact praising and endorsing him.
Now to Pat: of course it is. But the difference is that you made it obvious that you didn’t support Bush and that you were doing everything in your power to block, stop him, and get him removed. Richard is doing nothing of the sort with Rogers, and is in fact praising and endorsing him.
Thanks, NDT. I guess I saw the opposite regarding Richard. It seemed to me it was more of a criticism of another poster as opposed to an endorsement of Rogers.
And I thank the editors here at IGF for restoring my full posting privileges. Obviously they are interested in giving voice to opinions of dissent, and that makes it clear that I was wrong when I accused them of doing otherwise. My apologies.
I hope that, beneath the denunciations, the folks on our side understand this.
======
I’m unconvinced that these nuances will amount to much, in practical terms, even if they are good to “know” (in quotes, because Warren himself has distanced himself from is ‘mis-statements’, etc.).
Two issues:
True or false – we fool ourselves if we think that there is a moderate wing among evangelicals that will be strenghtened, over time.
It’s not clear the Warren isn’t *more* pernicious than his forerunners. His “message” is more sly. He has the convenience of ‘doing nothing and saying nothing’, because of the laws that were passed, rendering gay relationships …er, formally against policy. In other words, his sin will be / can be one of indifference, right?
Though I am homosexually oriented, I am embarrassed to be called “gay.” The typical behavior of the so-called “gay community” and the political/social positions and associations that seem obligatory within that framework are enough to make me feel I am not a member of that club (and would likely be unwelcome in any case).
Though I am a believer and (imperfect) follower of Christ and student of Scripture, I am embarrassed to be called “Christian.” The various organized religions calling themselves “Christianity” and the political/social positions and associations that seem obligatory to that paradigm convince me that I am not a member of that club either.
Many members of both “clubs” would insist that membership is (or should be) exclusive to one or the other. Those persons who seek or declare membership in both clubs simultaneously seem to be denounced as apostates by the leaders of each respective club more vigorously than most any other class of person.
However, I am undaunted. For I am still a gay Christian regardless of what I want to say, or what other individuals or groups do; regardless of how I feel about it. However alienated I may feel toward either of these “identities” at times, and for whatever reason, for me it is like a law of nature I cannot divorce myself from by will. I can no more cease being about a 4.5 on the Kinsey Scale than I could cease being 6’1″ tall: destructive surgery would be required. I can no more stop believing God exists than I could stop believing gravity exists.
But I still don’t want to join the clubs. I don’t agree with so much of what is said and what is done, how can I wear a facade and pretend to be among them? Perhaps it is only semantics. No group speaks for me. Only I can speak for me. Who is Rick Warren to think he knows my relationship with God? Or my relationship with my partner? And who is anyone to think that because my partner is also male, that means that I must be politically Liberal, go to the bars, march in the parades, bareback with multiple partners, have an “open relationship,” dance competently, or any of a thousand stereotypes? We are together for life (only 13 years so far, but we know), and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference if it were recognized by the State or the Church. Yes, it would make certain things in life easier, but it would not change our commitment to each other an iota.
God does not require the rituals, blandishments or politics of an organized religion to commune with His creation. And He is certainly not restricted by our imagination of Him or His will for others. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4)
Danny, I appreciate your feelings regarding the gay and Christian communities. There are things about the gay community that I disagree with, and I don’t subscribe to all of the stereotypes you listed. And while it may be true that many in one community insist that one cannot be a member of both, that is simply not true. Most gay persons I know consider themselves also as Christian or Jewish. And even though the vast majority of gay persons appear to be liberal and/or Democrats, about a quarter are Republicans and/or conservative.
As for Christianity, it depends on the religion. They run the full extreme in attitudes and dogma regarding homosexuality. Some are fully accepting of homosexuals and believe that we should have equality. So I don’t think there has to be a dichotomy for gay Christians.
I particularly don’t worry about whether I’m joining a “club” or not. I have my views, and I act and behave as I do. I’ll leave it up to others whether they feel I’m worthy to belong to their community or not. Whatever, we’re all entitled to our opinions. I don’t really consider whether or not I am “alienated” by the gay community. It’s diverse and not monolithic. I suspect they are many who don’t I’m a good gay, and wouldn’t issue me a gay card. So what?
The important message here is that despite your many qualms with both the gay community and Christianity, you have not used that as an excuse to live a miserable life. You were able to find a life partner despite the fact that many Christian religions say you should be celibate or change your orientation. You and your partner are able to conduct the relationship as you both see fit despite the (real or perceived) notion that gays cannot or should not be monogamous.
There are a lot of influences in our lives, and we have to take in what we’ve been taught and continue to hear. But, at some point, we have to weed out the immoral and/or irrational stuff, and decide for ourselves what is right and what is best for us.
“I particularly don’t worry about whether I’m joining a “club” or not.”
—Neither do I. Although I have to admit that human beings are “joiners” by nature. They need to feel they belong somewhere. Few people can remain independent an unafiliated, or join organizations without such organizations affecting them.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.