Matthew Vines’ outreach efforts among evangelicals will yield far more results through dialogue than the ugly efforts of those who are suing small religiously conservative vendors for not servicing gay weddings, or unleashing internet hate mobs against them.
A Better Way
ADVERTISEMENT
16 Comments for “A Better Way”
posted by Jorge on
I wonder how they got the Catholic Church to do that all those years ago?
It was probably during confession. No, that’s too simplistic and self-serving, but it’s close. It happened because of encounters people had as priests with their congregation to be sure, but that can’t be the only reason–how could that explain the Church’s moderation coming from the top down? It ultimately had little to do with homosexuality and much more to do with the Church’s longstanding relationship with the force of darkness, going back centuries. It has come to develop an ingrained view of the very nature of humanity that allows it to administer directly to people and ignore that which it considers the legacy of evil–a self-denial of hatred.
With evangelicalism we’re dealing with the maturing of some very young religions.
posted by Kosh III on
Once again S. M. has it backwards. The hate mobs have for decades and centuries been avowed Christians and political conservatives.
“Kill a queer for Christ”
“AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality”
“Got Aids Yet?” (gay)
No bakery has been torched, but over the years numerous gay-friendly churches have been burned to the ground,, not to mention other types of establishments. People have died at the hands of gay-bashing avowed Christians and Republicans.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
And gays continue to die in nations that we liberated, or have close friendships with.
posted by Jimmy on
It always bewildering how clueless Miller can be along these lines. I wonder if he is really so blind to his double standard.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know what drives Stephen into such a frenzy (“mobs” and all that) about American’s resistance to the so-called “religious freedom” excemption for conservative Christians, but he’s beating a dead horse.
From the June 2015 PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Survey:
Even the white evangelical Republican base barely (51%) supports singling out gays and lesbians for business services discrimination, and the rest of the country really doesn’t like the idea.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Yes, and when a customer makes the mistake of ordering a cake from a cake maker, he or she is clearly hoping to have a sensitive and thought provoking dialogue in what is normally a mundane business contract.
Ser
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
This is not the first or the last time this sort of academic discussion has taken place. Will good things happen? Hopefully, but an a comfortable chat with academics is a wee bit different than the situation of a customer being refused service in a business or losing a job or home because they are gay.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let’s unpack this a bit, with an eye to what “results” (in the sense of “will yield far more results“) might mean:
(1) Matthew Vines is working to persuade Evangelical pastors to change their theological opposition to same-sex marriage. His is a theological effort with the Evangelical community, attempting to change Evangelical interpretation/understanding of inspired, inerrant passges of scripture most recently held to stand for the proposition that God instituted marriage is to unite one man and one woman for life for the purpose of procreation. Vines is attempting, if the article is accurate, to expand that narrow understanding of the God’s purpose to include non-procreative purposes, such as affective bonding.
(2) Vines’ efforts, obviously, are aimed at softening Evangelical opposition to homosexuality, and perhaps to same-sex marriage, but his efforts do not directly address the question of whether an Evengelical doing business with the general public can/should/must, in order to remain true to Christ, refuse to provide goods and services for a same-sex wedding, wedding reception, a venue for the event, or lodging for the quests invited to the event. His efforts may indirectly influence Evangelical thinking on that issue, in the same way that other theological efforts within the Evangelical community largely removed the theolocial onus of remarriage after divorce, removing the issue when it comes to Evangelical business owners offering goods and services of one sort and another to second and subsequent marriages, despite Scriptural condemnation.
(3) Public accommodations laws, on the other hand, do not address theological concerns at all. The laws require a business doing business with the general public to offer its goods and services to all and sundry, regardless of the personal beliefs of the business owner. The laws are indifferent to the personal beliefs of the business owner, religious or otherwise, with respect to the customer or the purposes to which the goods or services will be used.
The question of which approach “will yield far more results” depends on the result sought.
If the result sought is to eliminate/reduce public accommodations controversies over same-sex marriage, then Matthew Vines’ efforts will, however indirectly, help achieve that result, in time. If and when “homosexual marriage” becomes the theological yawner for Evangelicals that divorce after remarriage has become in the law three decades, the problem will go away.
But it won’t happen anytime soon, and to be blunt about it, I think that you are mixing apples with oranges, Stephen.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Note: “… becomes the theological yawner for Evangelicals that divorce after remarriage has become in the law three decades …” should read “… becomes the theological yawner for Evangelicals that divorce after remarriage has become in the last three decades …”
The way in which divorce after remarriage has become a non-issue for Christians — including but not limited to Evangelicals — over the course of my lifetime is astonishing to me.
In the 1950’s, divorce was a big deal (in rural Wisconsin, anyway). Remarriage after divorce was a really big deal, and it was considered courageous for “decent” (meaning married, Christian) people to continue friendships with people who were remarried after divorce.
These days, Evangelicals have a higher significantly higher divorce rate than non-religionists in this country, according to the Barna Institute and other studies, and the issue has largely disappeared from the list of conservative Christian concerns. If divorce and remarriage remains a sin, it is a sin oft celebrated.
It is almost laughable to conjure up the idea that any significant number of conservative Christian business owners refusing to provide goods and services to a bride planning a remarriage after divorce, right down and including the white dress.
The same will happen, in time, with same-sex marriages, as Evangelicals start to figure out that just being born again is not a rabbit’s foot that is going to save them from having gay/lesbian children, and sooner or later, that will have an effect on Evangelical theology, such as it is.
Meanwhile, though, the problem of equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians in the area of public accommodations will continue to need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
posted by Jorge on
Let’s unpack this a bit, with an eye to what “results” (in the sense of “will yield far more results“) might mean
(Oh, *no*, go away!)
The question of which approach “will yield far more results” depends on the result sought.
Well thank you for impeaching Mr. Miller directly. This is precisely why I’m shutting my ears.
But it won’t happen anytime soon, and to be blunt about it, I think that you are mixing apples with oranges, Stephen.
I am sure that in the past I have essentially accused you of separating fruits from fruits.
…
Food from food.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well thank you for impeaching Mr. Miller directly. This is precisely why I’m shutting my ears.
Might be more effective if you kept your eyes wide shut.
posted by clayton on
Even if I were to grant Stephen’s premise (which I don’t), it ignores the fact that movements resulting in more equality have historically had–and needed–both the angry activists and the soft-spoken people with a more assimilationist vision. The civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s was able to advance precisely because we had Malcom X calling for a separate nation of Islam, and MLK, who had a dream of black children and white children playing together. To get rid of slavery, we needed John Brown’s armed revolt at Harper’s Ferry and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s vision of a passive resistance that transformed the black Uncle Tom in to a Christ figure.
This isn’t a zero-sum game. There is room–and need–for people to engage in both approaches. Very often, the angry activists (can you believe they want me to bake them a cake??!!) have the effect of making the broader society look at the underlying injustices–thereby creating and facilitating dialogue.
I’m not much of an angry activist myself, but I recognize their necessity, and appreciate their efforts.
posted by Jorge on
This is a point I often make and acknowledge.
I also point out that there is a certain point where “angry activists making the broader society look at the underlying injustices” results in the broader society looking at the underlying injustices, and kicking the activists to the curb for crying wolf. This has happened to the black civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the labor movement, the moral majority, and most recently the police’s good ol’ boys’ network.
posted by Lori Heine on
As a playwright, I can understand that idea. Every character in the cast has a meaningful part to play in the production.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
In Utah — hardly a perfect result, but a decent one. The State passed a LGBT civil right bill with the backing of the Mormon church and the gay community. That sort of thing would be more comparable to the issue of religious freedom and public accommodation laws, then these academic speeches.
Yes, theoretically, if the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestants agree to what Vine is saying (which they won’t in any substantial way) fewer ‘Christian conservatives’ would probably want to invoke ‘religious liberty for me, but not for thee’ laws.
However, I do not think Vine is trying to get the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants to work on a LGBT civil right bill.
posted by JohnInCA on
I might be recalling incorrectly, but when HRC announced their “Project One”, didn’t Miller lambaste them for daring to try and work with people in the south?