I like Carl Trueman from Westminster Theological Seminary. I like him because he has a certain penchant for independent thinking which is often missing in many of my fellow Conservative Christians. And so when he weighed in on the current skirmish between the Conservative Christian community and those supporting gay rights and equality, it was time to read what he had to say.
In the current conflict, Conservative Christians have felt attacked. For not only has there been a successful lawsuit filed against a Christian businessperson for refusing to provide photography services for a same-sex wedding, a law "protecting" Christian businesspeople from such litigation was vetoed in Arizona and now a CEO from Mozilla was pressured into resigning because he contributed money to the passage of California's Proposition 8, a law that would ban same-sex marriages in that state.
And while many Conservative Christian bloggers have already spent an inordinate amount of time lamenting over the current direction of our culture with regard to gay rights, the already here "gay-mafia" "persecution" of Conservative Christians, and the approaching criminalization of the Christian faith for its opposition to the gay and other progressive agenda, Trueman made an attempt, though inadequate, at fairness. For he writes in a Reformation 21 blogpost about the Brendan Eich incident that what served the Conservative Christian interest with regard to World Vision, hurt the same in Mozilla. And thus what Trueman is saying invokes what Jesus said to Peter when he was defending Him in the garden about living by the sword.
So Trueman's point is one about consistency. If we can use economic pressure on World Vision to change their policies toward gays, then we can't complain when gay advocates and sympathizers turn the tables on us such as what happened at Mozilla. Of course some details are missing here. In the effort to protest World Vision's inclusion of same-sex married couples as employees, approximately 10,000 child sponsorships were withdrawn (click here) as a protest. Here, we might ask who paid the real price for the changing of the policy?
But Trueman's attempt to be consistent and fair only goes so far. For example, when he predicts further hardships for Christians over gay issues, such as what Eich experienced, he didn't mention fairness when he could have. After all, under Christian influence, homosexuality has been criminalized, been grounds for losing one's job, and marriage between gays has been highly resisted by the Christian community. When we consider the history of how the Conservative Christian community has treated homosexuals, should we regard it as fair should the gay community try to ban Conservative Christians from being married or from having certain jobs, or should they try to criminalize the Conservative Christian faith? Nobody I know would feels that way but such is the logic that Trueman uses when he tells Conservative Christians that because Christians used economic pressure to change World Vision's allowance for same-sex married couples, then it is only fair that gay advocates or sympathizers can exercise similar kinds of pressure as what happened between Eich and Mozilla.
This brings us to the basic problem my fellow Conservative Christians have with regard to how respond to society's acceptance of homosexuality. Allowing Conservative Christians and gays to treat each other in same way does not make such treatment by either side fair. And perhaps, the Conservative Christian treatment of homosexuals has contributed to society's acceptance of homosexuality because we have equated opposing homosexuality with legislation that prevents gays from being treated as equals in society. So it is easy for nonConservative Christians to accept homosexuality because to oppose it has come to mean relegating homosexuals to a second class status.
We might also ask ourselves whether our society's drift from Christianity and its values might have to do with how Conservative Christians handled society when Christianity was society's dominant influence. Did we attempt to rule over those who were different? Did we assume a privileged status that would allow us to dictate laws and societal values?
The above questions are important considering that we have entered a post-modern period and one of the main concerns of post modernism is that of combatting empire and domination. Post-modernists are all too familiar with exclusive claims to knowing absolute truths being followed by feeling entitled to rule over others, and that rulership is, of course, always for the benefit of those who would be submitting.
What is really needed by the world in order for it to see the sinfulness of homosexuality is for the Church to distinguish between opposing homosexuality and trying to rule over homosexuals so as to control them and deny them equality in society. For as long as the Church equates opposing homosexuality with legislation that denies homosexuals equality, most fair-minded people will defend equality for homosexuals and thus will reject what the Church teaches about sexuality.
We should note that this blog has had to address this issue more times than I really care to. And the driving force for the frequency in covering this issue is the number writings by Conservative Christians who lament the current circumstances regarding the status homosexuals in society and the Church's loss of influence in the same.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label equality for gays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality for gays. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2014
Friday, August 2, 2013
Saying The Wrong Thing For Almost All Of The Right Reasons
Trauma can have many effects on people. It can cause phobias. A child who is bitten by a dog could become afraid of all dogs. And what is easy to observe here is that that trauma has inhibited the child from telling the difference between dogs that are friendly and dogs that could be threatening.
Some of us have experienced a phobia after the horrendous attacks of 9/11. Some of us reacted with a fear of some from the Middle East or of Muslims. In some, that fear grew to hatred that led to attacks. And like the child who loses the ability to distinguish between a friendly dog and a dangerous dog after being bit, some Americans have become xenophobic to certain groups.
It is with this knowledge that we should attempt to understand the recent statements on homophobia (see BBC article) by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The most alarming statements that came Bishop Tutu are as follows,
and
To us religious conservatives, rejecting these statements is a slam-dunk, a no-brainer because we know what the Bible says about homosexuality and we know what it says about God and eternal life. However, how should we regard the person who made these statements? Also, in so easily denouncing these statements, are we missing some grains of truth which could be hidden deep inside these statements? To answer these questions, we must look at the context of the statements made. The first part of the context is to look at the Bishop Tutu, the man who made these statements. And the second part of the context is to look at the people he is defending. And in both cases, we should look to see if trauma has played a role in blurring distinctions.
Bishop Tutu grew up and lived under horrible racist conditions in South Africa for decades. The apartheid system sought to separate the races, Black, Colored, and White, and to separate nonWhites from wealth and power. Blacks and Colored, with the Colored consisting of people who were of mixed races, had land stolen from them and were often placed on unproductive land called "homelands" which plunged many into poverty. In addition, they were stripped of their South African citizenship though they were ruled over by the South African government. Both Blacks and Colored faced constant humiliation, police repression, torture and even murder by death squads. Dissent was harshly punished and sometimes met with deadly violence. There was resistance which sometimes included violence.
Despite these horrors, Bishop Tutu headed the Truth And Reconciliation Commission after Apartheid. This commission sought to peacefully resolve the conflicts and hatred that came because of the atrocities. Since then, Bishop Tutu has spoken out or has been active against other instances of racism in places including Zimbabwe, the Solomon Islands, Israel and Palestine, and China. He has been harshly condemned by some for some of his work such as his criticisms of Israel's actions against the Palestinians.
Lately, Bishop Tutu has been working for equality for gays. Approximately one-third of the nations in the world make homosexuality a crime and there are some countries that punish it by death. Though homosexuality is legal in his own country of South Africa, some in the LGBT community there have been harassed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, and even murdered. Since Bishop Tutu rightfully equates this persecution with racism, it seems that he might attribute homosexuality to physical causes.
What we should note here is that we who have lived as privileged people haven't a clue when it comes to understanding the atrocities that Bishop Tutu has had to endure, resist and work through in his life. When he is defending gays, he is defending people, some of whom are oppressed, and working for equality. And what I would add here regarding those who have criticized his statements on preferring hell to a homophobic heaven is that they have neither mentioned nor criticized the horrible atrocities being committed against some in the LGBT community. How is it that people offering a "Christian" analysis on Tutu's not so good choice for eternity are so quiet about the persecution and even murdering others which he is reacting to? How?
Just as Tutu could not be more wrong in saying that he would prefer "the other place" to a homophobic heaven, he could not be more right in both opposing the brutal abuse some in the LGBT community have to live through as well as working for equality for gays. And Tutu could not be more correct than when he equates persecution of those in the LGBT community with the racism he has so heroically opposed in South Africa and other places.
So with all that he has lived through and all the good that he has done, can we understand why he confuses man's inhumane acts of homophobia with God's judgment on sinners? Is it possible that Tutu would not have made his statements if Christians had not so harshly persecuted those in the LGBT community or had not remained silent about the severe abuse some of them must live through? In other words, are Tutu's current sentiments and confusion a reflection on some of us Christians?
Tutu's startling statements are not new, they have been said before. Consider what the Indian chief Hatuey from Haiti said before he was to be burned at the stake by Spanish "Christians." This chief sought refuge in Cuba because of the Spanish atrocities in Haiti and the surrounding islands which, according to Bartolomé de Las Casas, a contemporary of Columbus and an eye witness to the Spanish violence in Haiti, killed millions of Indians. Being tied to the stake in preparation for his execution, a priest told Hatuey what he must believe in order to go to heaven. Hatuey asked the priest if all Christians went to heaven. The priest said yes. Hatuey then told the priest that he preferred to go to the other place.
References
Some of us have experienced a phobia after the horrendous attacks of 9/11. Some of us reacted with a fear of some from the Middle East or of Muslims. In some, that fear grew to hatred that led to attacks. And like the child who loses the ability to distinguish between a friendly dog and a dangerous dog after being bit, some Americans have become xenophobic to certain groups.
It is with this knowledge that we should attempt to understand the recent statements on homophobia (see BBC article) by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The most alarming statements that came Bishop Tutu are as follows,
I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place
and
I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.
To us religious conservatives, rejecting these statements is a slam-dunk, a no-brainer because we know what the Bible says about homosexuality and we know what it says about God and eternal life. However, how should we regard the person who made these statements? Also, in so easily denouncing these statements, are we missing some grains of truth which could be hidden deep inside these statements? To answer these questions, we must look at the context of the statements made. The first part of the context is to look at the Bishop Tutu, the man who made these statements. And the second part of the context is to look at the people he is defending. And in both cases, we should look to see if trauma has played a role in blurring distinctions.
Bishop Tutu grew up and lived under horrible racist conditions in South Africa for decades. The apartheid system sought to separate the races, Black, Colored, and White, and to separate nonWhites from wealth and power. Blacks and Colored, with the Colored consisting of people who were of mixed races, had land stolen from them and were often placed on unproductive land called "homelands" which plunged many into poverty. In addition, they were stripped of their South African citizenship though they were ruled over by the South African government. Both Blacks and Colored faced constant humiliation, police repression, torture and even murder by death squads. Dissent was harshly punished and sometimes met with deadly violence. There was resistance which sometimes included violence.
Despite these horrors, Bishop Tutu headed the Truth And Reconciliation Commission after Apartheid. This commission sought to peacefully resolve the conflicts and hatred that came because of the atrocities. Since then, Bishop Tutu has spoken out or has been active against other instances of racism in places including Zimbabwe, the Solomon Islands, Israel and Palestine, and China. He has been harshly condemned by some for some of his work such as his criticisms of Israel's actions against the Palestinians.
Lately, Bishop Tutu has been working for equality for gays. Approximately one-third of the nations in the world make homosexuality a crime and there are some countries that punish it by death. Though homosexuality is legal in his own country of South Africa, some in the LGBT community there have been harassed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, and even murdered. Since Bishop Tutu rightfully equates this persecution with racism, it seems that he might attribute homosexuality to physical causes.
What we should note here is that we who have lived as privileged people haven't a clue when it comes to understanding the atrocities that Bishop Tutu has had to endure, resist and work through in his life. When he is defending gays, he is defending people, some of whom are oppressed, and working for equality. And what I would add here regarding those who have criticized his statements on preferring hell to a homophobic heaven is that they have neither mentioned nor criticized the horrible atrocities being committed against some in the LGBT community. How is it that people offering a "Christian" analysis on Tutu's not so good choice for eternity are so quiet about the persecution and even murdering others which he is reacting to? How?
Just as Tutu could not be more wrong in saying that he would prefer "the other place" to a homophobic heaven, he could not be more right in both opposing the brutal abuse some in the LGBT community have to live through as well as working for equality for gays. And Tutu could not be more correct than when he equates persecution of those in the LGBT community with the racism he has so heroically opposed in South Africa and other places.
So with all that he has lived through and all the good that he has done, can we understand why he confuses man's inhumane acts of homophobia with God's judgment on sinners? Is it possible that Tutu would not have made his statements if Christians had not so harshly persecuted those in the LGBT community or had not remained silent about the severe abuse some of them must live through? In other words, are Tutu's current sentiments and confusion a reflection on some of us Christians?
Tutu's startling statements are not new, they have been said before. Consider what the Indian chief Hatuey from Haiti said before he was to be burned at the stake by Spanish "Christians." This chief sought refuge in Cuba because of the Spanish atrocities in Haiti and the surrounding islands which, according to Bartolomé de Las Casas, a contemporary of Columbus and an eye witness to the Spanish violence in Haiti, killed millions of Indians. Being tied to the stake in preparation for his execution, a priest told Hatuey what he must believe in order to go to heaven. Hatuey asked the priest if all Christians went to heaven. The priest said yes. Hatuey then told the priest that he preferred to go to the other place.
References
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23464694
- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/i-would-not-worship-a-homophobic-god-tutu/story-fni0xqll-1226686648794
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3yxFzs73Ss
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2PEfZvthxg
- http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
- http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
- http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
- Voices of a People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, pg 35-41
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)