I've written in this column of my friendship with Glenn Stanton, a Focus on the Family employee whom I regularly debate on same-sex marriage.
There are different kinds of friendship, of course, not to mention different levels and layers. We're not "best buds," but we're not merely work acquaintances either. Despite our deep disagreements-which we express publicly and vigorously-we genuinely enjoy each other's company.
And so I looked forward to Glenn's recent Michigan visit to debate me at Saginaw Valley State University. Glenn would fly into Detroit on a Monday night and depart on Wednesday morning; on Tuesday we would drive the 100 miles to Saginaw together.
Naturally, I invited him to stay with my partner and me. Mark and I have two guest rooms, each with a private bath; we often entertain houseguests.
"You invited WHO to your house?" another friend asked incredulously. "The religious-right guy? I can't believe you'd welcome such a person in your home."
But I couldn't imagine doing otherwise. Even if Glenn were not a friend-even if he were just another debate opponent with whom I was traveling-I would have extended the invitation. I come from a family where hospitality is second nature. And while I am not a Christian, I find Jesus' lessons on hospitality to be some of the most moving parts of the Gospels.
So I extended the invitation, and Glenn accepted immediately. We talked about checking out the Henry Ford museum and other Detroit landmarks. I asked him, as I ask all guests, whether there was anything special he'd like us to have on hand for breakfast.
Then, on the day of his planned arrival, I got the phone call.
Glenn explained that he felt unable to stay with us, and so he had booked a hotel instead. On the advice of his colleagues he decided that staying at our home wouldn't be "prudent." It might suggest the endorsement of our relationship, and thus send the wrong message to Focus constituents.
This struck me as nonsense, and I told him so. Glenn has expressed his moral disapproval of homosexuality in his writing, in our public debates, and in our private conversations. Staying under our roof could hardly eclipse all of that. His disapproval is beyond dispute.
For example, in his Christianity Today article about our friendship, he affirmed his "opposition to all sexual relationships that are not between a husband and wife," and argued that whatever virtues might exist in a gay relationship (honesty, kindness, dedication), they did not redeem homosexuality itself.
But in the same article, he also described us as "dear friends." He elaborated:
"John and I constantly hear disbelief at how we can be so opposed on such a life-shaping issue yet remain friends…John has hosted me at his own campus and had me to his beautiful home."
Indeed I did. That visit was for a meal. This one would be for a place to sleep. I couldn't see the substantive difference.
Of course, I can speculate. A meal takes place in the dining room, whereas sleeping takes place in bedrooms, where you-know-what occurs. Glenn would be just yards away-albeit past thick plaster walls and behind closed doors-from whatever it is that Mark and I do in bed.
FYI, here's a play-by-play account of what Mark and I do in bed, at 1 a.m., after a two-hour post-debate drive: (1) I climb in trying not to wake him. (2) He grunts and rolls over. (3) We sleep.
I'm not naïve about the culture at Focus on the Family, but I was still angered and hurt by that phone call.
That's partly because of my family's culture of hospitality. Glenn's decision to stay at a hotel was like telling Grandma that you'd rather go to a restaurant than eat her food. Italian-Americans (like many other cultures) take such things seriously.
It's partly because I've defended both Glenn and Focus against charges of hypocrisy and have taken a lot of flak in the process. "Sure, John, they claim to be your friend. But just wait…"
It's partly because of the gross incongruence of calling someone a "dear friend" but not being able to stay in his home.
And it's partly because it underscores the ugly myths that I fight against every day, even in my debates with Glenn.
The opposition claims that they're interested in truth. But the reality of our lives-the fact that we brew our coffee and toast our English muffins just like everyone else-seems too much for them to handle.
22 Comments for “Hate the Sin…Shun the Sinner”
posted by Bobby on
I think the New Testament forbids breaking bread (eating, sharing hospitality) with sinners. Also, a lot of people prefer to stay in hotels, it’s nicer, you can walk around naked, it’s more comfortable.
Don’t fool yourself, John. Glenn works for an organization and this wasn’t a personal visit but part of his job, he has to adhere to the values of his organization. This is not different than rules against drinking alcohol with clients.
posted by davenport15 on
“I think the New Testament forbids breaking bread (eating, sharing hospitality) with sinners.”
Really? Does Jesus instruct people on how to sort these sinners out from non-sinners?
posted by Bobby on
Davenport15, I used to watch a lot of christian TV (TBN), and televangelists love quoting St. Paul who told his followers not to break bread with sinners. He wanted to prevent associations between unrepentant sinners and the repentant sinner.
Some christians won’t even do business with a non-christian, they have their own christian yellow pages, so if a toilet clogs, one of their own can deal with their crap (no offense).
posted by Lorenzo on
“Hate the sin, love the sinner” has always been crap in this context. Try “love you, hate the fact that you are black/a Jew/a woman …”
And staying at someone’s house confers a legitimacy on their normality which is precisely what is to be denied.
posted by Scotts Take on
Jesus frequently broke bread with sinners (prostitutes, tax collectors). He shunned the established “moral” class.
posted by David on
John:
It’s clear Glenn was insincere in his description of the two of you as “dear friends.” True friendship requires respect and acceptance. He is treating you like an acquaintance in rejecting your invitation. That’s not to say that Glenn is a bad person, but he obviously is incapable or afraid of creating an intimate space with you where he can feel safe and loved in your home, without feeling that his values or his person are being violated. He has chosen peer pressure from his associates over the friendship. It seems he is more worried about appearances that he might be perceived as gay or gay-friendly than hurting your feelings. I feel the hurt in your article. I feel for you.
posted by Bobby on
Good points, David. I would also like to say that it’s hard being friends with someone that sees you as a sinner and prays for you. It’s not impossible, but expecting sleepovers is a bit too much at this juncture, maybe in 5 or 10 years.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
John, I hope you’re reading this. It has been my experience that sometimes, those of us from unpopular minorities, however much we think we’re giving the other side an opportunity to know us as we really are, the point is…they don’t want to.
And at some point, will eventually show us and betray that.
There is much in ordinary American life that make social encounters impossible to have.
Glenn Stanton is only as civil to you as he can stand. After all, there IS a public image he has to maintain, and civility he’s required to as a representative of FOTF.
But behind another closed door, the privacy of the ballot booth and within the social circle that is exclusively peopled by those who think as he does…you are NOT anything alike, nor at all equal.
There is no more reason for him to assume less of a gay person, than to think less of someone with black skin.
Or for being a Jew or a woman.
There is nothing in the heterosexual orientation required to BE superior to anyone who isn’t, nor is heterosexuality an indicator of virtue or character any more than white skin would be.
But you, a gay man…and me, a black woman, are taken much for granted.
Overcoming what OTHERS have decided we are, instead of what we actually are is exhausting to live down.
Time was, blackness, especially black sexuality wasn’t thought of in any more equal terms than homosexuality.
So those who hide behind their religious belief have done it before to the extent of stretching ANY credibility that it’s what is standing between you and the equal opportunities you require and deserve.
My white in laws at one point did something profoundly cruel and destructive to my marriage to my white husband. In the eighteen years he and I were together, I thought they loved me and truly cared.
They did not. And at some point it’s one of those betrayals us blacks might believe is inevitable, despite our need and willingness NOT to be suspicious of white people.
We are easily accused from anticipating white/straight hostility and betrayal. Carrying chips on our shoulders as if there is no justification for it.
But Glen Stanton belongs to a social majority who has enjoyed much unchallenged freedom in this country, and has participated in judging who deserves it over who doesn’t.
Were he, as I’ve noted ANY straight person that claims gay friends, but yet votes to deny those friends quality of life opportunities.
THEY have decided LONG ago, you would NEVER be their friend.
They are users, for the purpose of assuring their public persona isn’t so uncivilized.
We are props, and convenient tokens.
Glen Stanton won’t take the opportunity he had to share your roof because it’s too much like what HE does every night in his own home.
You’re more alike than different and THAT costs him cred among his more influential peers.
I appreciate you trying to give him such an opportunity, but it’s wasted on him. You’re NOT his friend, John. And never will be.
He must know the stakes. We’re coming up on the anniversary of the classroom execution of 15 yr old Lawrence King. We’ve heard about Romel and Juan Suszchanay. We know that from hospital bedsides to child custody battles, the spite and cruelty against gay people (or those thought to be so) is real, and widespread.
What does it profit a man…
Glen Stanton is a coward. So is my ex and his family. What they are willing to do with their TWO FACES, is insufferable and anyone who says that it’s the minority whose rights have yet to be fully realized that’s carrying a chip, have the luxury of such judgement. Their lives aren’t affected like ours is.
And they really know it never will be.
I would never tell anyone he’s a friend, he’s not.
He’s a user and a phony. Period.
posted by Marc on
So are you his “friend,” or his mission as a good Christian to covert you from your evil, sinful ways? Sorry, but your assessment of this man is assinine, and I would think this incident proves that you were both looking at this “friendship” in different terms. I dont have “friends” who give me the “love the sinner, hate the sin” crap, and I frankly don’t understand why any self respecting gay person would allow him (or her)self to be demeaned by it. User and a phony sounds just about right.
posted by Jess on
Hello Mr. Corvino-
I’m a dedicated reader of your column, and I’ve seen a couple of your talks with Mr. Stanton. I am sorry you have had this hurtful experience. I admire you tremendously for being the sort of man who can engage…(I’m trying really hard not to say “THOSE people,” but I think I’m going to have to)…who can engage those people with compassion and respect. Vitriol (as tempting-and fun- as it can be) isn’t going to change anybody’s mind, and our lives don’t get better if minds don’t change.
Don’t give up, I think is what I’m saying. I’m sorry that your friend hurt you, but the work you do to together, and the relationship you’ve built, has tremendous value on so many levels. Just, don’t ever stop doing what you do.
posted by Jeri on
It sounds to me like he was initially sincere about accepting the invitation. I can imagine his colleges were as appalled with the arrangements as your friend was incredulous. He caved to the criticism, and to your credit you didn?t. If he had the courage to think for himself the outcome may have been different?.but they sign his paycheck, and he needs to follow a certain behavior code. That would take more guts to question than he has. Please don?t ever stop reaching out with the hope that you can find common ground?.because sometimes you can. I think he?s weak and spiritually shallow more than insincere.
posted by Jorge on
There are some people in this country who won’t bring themselves to stay at the home of two people who are in a relationship they cannot endorse. It’s not a popular or politically correct stand to make, but it’s still considered noble when the relationship in question is that between an unmarried man and woman. It’s also a dispute that happens when people put up unmarried male/femal couples as guests in their homes: how can they allow them to sleep in the same bedroom, thus enabling them to live in sin? It’s called standing by your beliefs.
Most people would bite the bullet, but the failure to do this is not prejudice any more than is silence a sign of acceptance. The only prejudice is in what Glenn Stanton’s beliefs are, not in whether or when he chooses to stand by them or not.
posted by Elboe on
It was always impressed on me at primary school that good manners were more important than good morals.
Elboe
(London, UK)
posted by Bobby on
“That would take more guts to question than he has”
—Oh really? When was the last time you put your job in jeopardy?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Jorge, I appreciate that John reaches out. But he and Stanton are set up in public forums to debate. I’m also of the mind that education is tantamount above all things.
Stanton believes that too.
But Stanton has the choice to believe what he wants and the government doesn’t enforce or care what he does with his religious beliefs.
John and every other gay person doesn’t choose to be gay, not only that, but unlike an unmarried man and woman, John and his partner DON’T have the choice to be married, thanks to Stanton and HIS ilk.
So the point is, placing governmental favor, on something that someone can choose, as opposed to what they can’t as a condition of friendship means that Stanton is wrong.
What he foments as educational is wrong, and so is his moral principle that alters the intention of one of most religion’s important tenets: to treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated. Not treat your neighbor the way you can most get away with, especially because you get paid to do so.
posted by Jorge on
It was always impressed on me at primary school that good manners were more important than good morals.
I don’t disagree, but you can’t leave out the lesson that sometimes you have to stand up for what is right. Very few people do that, and that’s a very dangerous human trait.
posted by Christopher? on
John, I admire your willingness to extend grace and friendship to someone of Glenn Stanton’s standing on the other side of fence. However, I think you’re confusing “being nice” with “being good.”
Glenn may be pleasant to be around, and even someone you can share jokes and pleasantries with. But his claim that you are a “dear friend” is completely disingenuous. A true friend–and one that would be defined as “dear”–is not ashamed of you, will stand up for you to others, sees you as a person of equal standing, and even when they may not agree with your relationship choices, a friend would never think of finding (and funding) legal ways to invalidate them.
Glenn is nice to you. But Glenn is not good to you. And in your valiant effort to bridge the divide and create some common ground, you are missing that.
Glenn may be a good sparring partner in debates, and a pleasant individual outside of them. But he’s NOT your friend. That may seem harsh, but it’s true. Even though Glenn would never, ever admit this publicly–and perhaps, not even to himself–he sees you and your relationship as second-class, a poor imitation of God’s primary intent for human relationships.
And given his dogmatic understanding of Scripture on this issue–and, more significantly, the fact he’s employed by someone who expects him to stick to that understanding in order to pay his bills and take care of his family–that will never change.
So, be cordial and extend grace. But don’t fool yourself for one second by calling Glenn a friend.
posted by Tavdy79 on
John, is someone who is willing to place the opinion of others over your friendship someone you can truly call a friend?
posted by Jorge on
Glenn may be pleasant to be around, and even someone you can share jokes and pleasantries with. But his claim that you are a “dear friend” is completely disingenuous. A true friend–and one that would be defined as “dear”–is not ashamed of you, will stand up for you to others, sees you as a person of equal standing, and even when they may not agree with your relationship choices, a friend would never think of finding (and funding) legal ways to invalidate them.
What? You’re saying friends don’t stab each other in the back?
Wow, what a concept.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Well SAID, Christopher! You articulated the deal here, much better than I did.
And THAT is what I have been fooled by time and again, even with people whose family I married into, and knew me for nearly twenty years.
It caused me a great deal of trauma, which they didn’t feel at all.
And you’re right, big difference between being nice, as opposed to being good to and for a person.
How strange that I tried to articulate something along those lines with the Marj Christofferson/El Coyote kerfuffle.
She was obviously nice to and profited from her gay patrons in her restaurant, but when the chili hit the cheese, she showed that the gay people she knew, were NOT her friends.
Because, as I said, a friend would know the stakes involved with a quality of life issue.
She would know that gay people are treated to different degrees of threat and cruelty, it’s just impossible to know in what way.
But marriage equality would be a step in the direction of protecting her so called friends, without any compromise to OTHER Americans and THEIR freedoms and choices.
But, because gay people aren’t her friends, she didn’t know the difference between being conditionally nice, and being GOOD to gay people either.
posted by Joel on
So you’ve been debating this person for how long…?
And neither of you are willing to ever concede?… what kind of endless, circular debate is that? But, well, there are those debaters that can’t concede unless their whole paradigm and reality crumble, and that… is too much to handle.
I would love to attend one of your conferences and see if the final note Stanton leaves at is, “if your a christian, you’ll do this”… Or you simply get overwhelmed by Stanton’s prowess and leave at some merely sensational statement.
Im not entirely sure how i would take it if my best friend( a devout catholic) voted yes on something like proposition eight. I let her understand that i am not like her, i let her understand that it can mean as much to me as it does to her to get married with ‘the one’. I let her understand that her beliefs are not the same as mine and that i wish she can respect that when she voted. But one does not need to wait for a private vote, friends are much more transparant than that.
Glenn Stanton is on a league all on its own though, he doesnt argue against homosexuality/homosexuals on the mere basis of belief. But he grounds his arguments on history and the detrimental aspects of gay relationships. Interesting to have a friend like that. That, probably, if he had the chance to vote. Hed probably also vote for the incarceration of homosexuals/sodomites. Why wouldnt he? Isn’t that what law does? Do justice, uphold a moral stance? And dont most at APA(scratch that… christians) LOVE/YEARN for a theocracy? It would be, literally… the closest to perfect as you can get.
posted by Billy Glover on
If you think about the alternative-that we can never have non-gay friends, or trust them, we face a future of the same-as we are at best 10% of the population.
But where did all the people come from since 1950 when we started, that helped change the laws, etc. And there are people in all religious institutions working to change views. I am not religious, so who years from now will say wich of us got our equality-those who isgnored the churches, or those who stayed in them and tried to change them/educate them?