When Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson was invited to deliver the invocation at the inaugural kickoff event, I expected some conservative evangelicals to complain. And they did.
Forget the fact that Robinson's invitation seemed like a token gesture after the controversial choice of evangelical pastor (and Prop-8 supporter) Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation-a far more prominent platform.
Forget the fact that Warren himself praised the choice of the openly gay bishop as demonstrating the new president's "genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground."
Indeed, for the moment, forget common ground. As one right-wing blogger put it, a good evangelical doesn't seek common ground with the "Bishop of Sodom."
And so they complained. Not only about Obama's choice of Robinson, but about the prayer itself.
What grieved them so? Was it the prayer's failure to mention Jesus? Its lack of scriptural references? Its line about blessing the nation with anger-"anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people"?
Yes, yes, and yes.
But those were not the parts that worried the evangelicals who contacted me a few days ago. They were concerned that Robinson's prayer expressed a theme that they "have been trying to warn people about for some time now," and they wanted my comment.
What is this worrisome theme? What sinister agenda had the "Bishop of Sodom" expressed in his prayer, wittingly or unwittingly?
It turns out that the troubling line was this: "Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance, replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences."
Puzzled? The line strikes most of us as innocuous, or even benign. "Genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences"-who can argue with that?
But that's not the part that bothered them. They were worried about "freedom from mere tolerance."
We will not appreciate the right-wing mindset-or for that matter, the culture wars-until we understand why that sentiment scares our opponents.
When Robinson says "Bless us with freedom mere tolerance," our opponents hear "It is not enough for you to tolerate us. You ought to embrace us. You ought to approve of who we are, which can't be easily teased apart from what we do. After all, our relationships are a deep and important fact about our lives-just like yours are. So what we are asking is for you to give up your deep conviction that these relationships are sinful and instead affirm them as good."
That is in fact precisely what we are (or should be) asking for, and precisely what Bishop Robinson is praying for.
No, we don't seek such affirmation because we need our opponents' validation. Rather, we seek it because it reflects the truth: our relationships are just as good as theirs.
We seek it for another reason as well, one that frightens them even more. Statistically speaking, some of their kids will turn out gay. I want those kids to know that there's nothing wrong with them. I want them to be able, insofar as possible, to count on their parents for affirmation and support.
And that's where the culture war really is a zero-sum game, and "common ground" is impossible without dramatic concession: we want their kids to believe something that is diametrically opposed to what they want them to believe. There's no point in sugarcoating that conflict.
If I were religious, I might pray over it, as Warren and Robinson do-although when it comes down to specifics, it seems they are praying for very different things.
Or are they? One need not be a relativist to recognize that we all have an imperfect grasp of the truth, a truth that we nevertheless seek. When we find it-or at least, firmly believe that we have-we don't want it to be merely "tolerated."
That's as true of Rick Warren as it is of Gene Robinson.
As I pointed out to my evangelical caller, I'm sure that he wants me, a skeptic, to move beyond "mere tolerance" of Christianity to embrace Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.
No one who values truth wants it to be merely tolerated. We "tolerate" nuisances; we embrace truth.
That doesn't mean that we believe that truth ought to be forced upon people, as if that were even possible. And this is where I think our opponents' fears, while palpable, are ultimately unfounded.
We want them to move from mere tolerance to embracing the truth. They want us to do the same-although they see the truth quite differently. We will attempt to persuade each other.
But we cannot force truth-not by legislation, not by court decisions, and certainly, not by prayer.
7 Comments for “Gene Robinson’s Scary Prayer”
posted by TS on
“One need not be a relativist to recognize that we all have an imperfect grasp of the truth, a truth that we nevertheless seek. When we find it?or at least, firmly believe that we have?we don’t want it to be merely “tolerated.” ”
+
“As I pointed out to my evangelical caller, I’m sure that he wants me, a skeptic, to move beyond “mere tolerance” of Christianity to embrace Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.”
Inasmuch as this points out that everybody wants to promote the acceptace of their truth, and nobody has a right to criticize it for promoting our own: this is an encouraging thought.
But to move beyond that, it illustrates a severe snag. “We want their kids to believe something that is diametrically opposed to what they want them to believe.” Just by identifying myself as complacently gay, I am staking my identity on my truth and against their truth. How could it be defensible for me to say my truth is objectively valid and their opposing idea is flawed when I have such a tremendous vested interest?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When Robinson says “Bless us with freedom mere tolerance,” our opponents hear “It is not enough for you to tolerate us. You ought to embrace us. You ought to approve of who we are, which can’t be easily teased apart from what we do.”
Probably because they know what the gay community wants them to embrace as part of “who they are”.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Or this:
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Or relative to gay relationships:
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
Or the gay community’s demands that parent-child, sibling, and “more than one conjugal partner” relationships be treated identically to marriage.
posted by bls on
North Dallas Thirty, the argument has actually progressed quite a bit in the past 30 years, and calling up a few bizarre anecdotes doesn’t change that fact.
For instance: here’s a study that makes the claim that Gay and Lesbian Youth Want Long-Term Couple Relationships and Raising Children.
For instance: here’s the Episcopal Church’s formal position on the existence of – and on what’s expected of – gay relationships: “that ‘We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God,’ and that such relationships exist throughout the church.”
This is where we are today, and these are the serious arguments – and BTW, the existence of that Episcopal Church resolution doesn’t seem to change many “conservative” minds in regard to that dust-up.
And of course, there are lots of weird heteroseuxals out there – but all of them – including murderers in prison – are allowed to be married, and the majority of straight people aren’t disdained because of what the minority of weirdos get up to.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is where we are today, and these are the serious arguments – and BTW, the existence of that Episcopal Church resolution doesn’t seem to change many “conservative” minds in regard to that dust-up.
Probably because those conservative minds are more interested in actions than they are in pronouncements, and there seems to be complete unwillingness among the gay community to actively condemn the gay people who, as brought forward, are using their sexual orientation as an excuse for particularly-antisocial behavior.
posted by Amicus on
If I were religious, I might pray over it, …
===
Didn’t you, when you wrote this? Or, would your prefer the word “meditation” to describe the above?
As for forcing the truth … that’s done all the time. We just hope that our political system handles it better than, say, Iran’s, right?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John Corvino wrote, “There’s no point in sugarcoating that conflict.”
Exactly right. As to ND30’s parade of horribles, many of us have in fact stood up publicly over the years for the protection of youth, and as I have pointed out before, I was active in the International Lesbian and Gay Association’s expulsion of NAMBLA and other pedophile groups in 1994. Many of us support groups like DC’s SMYAL that protect sexual minority youth rather than exploit them. As to various fetishes that ND30 finds repugnant, as long as the participants are consenting adults and do not bother others, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business. As to individual cases of children being abused or other illegalities, let them be duly prosecuted. But I see little reason to believe that ND30 cites those cases out of concern for anyone; he just wants to smear gay people in general. It seems odd to me that ND30 takes the attitude that any given gay person should be judged not on what he or she does and says and stands for, but on whether he or she worries about what her neighbors are doing and denounces them sufficiently. How boorish and tiresome.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It seems odd to me that ND30 takes the attitude that any given gay person should be judged not on what he or she does and says and stands for, but on whether he or she worries about what her neighbors are doing and denounces them sufficiently.
The entertaining part, Richard, is that you think there is something wrong with denouncing gay and lesbian people who have promiscuous sex using the excuse that “men are pigs” and that adultery “doesn’t mean anything”, who argue in front of a governmental body that having sex with underage children decades younger than they are is normal and common among gay people, who dress up children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” for adults, and who insist that marriage should be extended to parent-child, sibling, and multiple-partner relationships.
As for your attempt to argue that you “expelled NAMBLA” from ILGA, it would be more precise to say that you threw NAMBLA under the bus because the fact that they were a part of ILGA was publicized and led to ILGA being kicked out of UN consultative status. Certainly the issue had never been brought up before — mainly because the gay leftist organizations that make up ILGA never saw anything wrong with what they were doing. It certainly is consistent with your attitude that denouncing gay people who sexually exploit children and teens as in the examples I provided is somehow abnormal.