gut check (part ii).

March 7, 2013 in dream. with 13 Comments

gutcheck2

a gut check for my progressive friends

(a follow up post from this one) ::

your voices are loud, growing in an ever increasing cacophony calling for inclusion, equality, justice, tolerance and acceptance.

you rightly demand the right to believe in an understanding of God unhindered by cultural mandates of 2000 + years ago, and instead desire to contextualize a message of love and unconditional inclusion for all.

but does your ‘all’ include everybody?

is there room in your inclusivity for the fundamentalist?

the modern conservative traditionalist ‘evangelical’?

the hyper-calvinist?

the person who believes same gender erotic behavior is a sin?

if our demand for inclusion dictates an exclusion of anyone, it is no longer inclusion – just a new form of segregation.

is our commitment to diversity large enough to include those whom we’re reacting against?

what do you think?

  • Eric Masters

    I’m definitely guilty of this. I’m not arrogant enough to think a hyper-calvinist or fundamentalist won’t go to heaven, but I tend to think they have excluded themselves from bringing heaven to earth. I think there’s room for everyone, but I can’t help but speak out when somebody within the church is actively trying to stall God making all things new. As a cynical jerk, this is definitely where my view of grace could use some stretching.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      i found the last chapter of mclaren’s ‘a new kind of christianity’ particularly helpful in seeing the value in the different expressions of the faith. he used the illustration of a switchback trail going up a mountain, where you could look down and back and see where you’d come from.

      another bit i’ve found helpful is the concept of streams of consciousness and spiral dynamics from dr. don beck :: http://www.spiraldynamics.net/

  • http://www.facebook.com/charliedean2 Charlie Dean II

    It’s hardest to show grace to the places I’m from. I don’t know why, but it’s true.

    • Jim Powell

      agree charlie. i have a harder time loving people from my tribe (past or present), than I do people who i disagree with from outside my own circles. trying to work on it.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      i know for me, this is difficult because as i grow and learn the ways in which my former ways of thinking were unhealthy and even hurtful to other people, i react against others doing the same.

      it helps me to remember it wasn’t *all that long ago* that i may have held similar beliefs or exhibited similar behavior – and recall the ways in which others extended grace to me – even when that must have been difficult.

      thanks for reading!

  • X-gay Apologist

    Excellent!

  • http://twitter.com/ExistentialPunk Existential Punk

    i
    disagree. Allowing KKK people into a place where African Americans are
    is not creating safe space. Allowing homophobic people where queer
    people are is not creating safe space. KKK and homophobic people come
    from a place of privilege and have plenty of other places to go.

    • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

      i can see that point – although i suppose this depends upon our agreed definition of ‘homophobic.’ certainly protecting the physical (and even emotional, spiritual) safety of every individual – regardless of race, creed, gender, orientation, belief, et cetera must be a priority.

      i’m certain we agree on that.

      but an individual who interprets their sacred text (the hebrew bible, the new testament, the mormon bible or the qur’an) to define appropriate sexual ethics and behavior to be within the context of marriage between one man and one woman does not necessitate homophobia per se.

      though sadly many individuals who hold to a modern conservative traditional view ACT OUT in word and deed through homophobic rhetoric and intolerance, i know a great many people who are mature enough to simply disagree with others in a peaceful and productive way – engaging in deep and authentic friendships with folks who don’t believe the same thing they do.

      when our demand for acceptance simultaneously demands conformity to a certain viewpoint, it is no longer equality we’re after – but conversion. if we’re unable to coexist with others whom may or may not disagree with our worldview, we’re pushing some sort of twisted theocratic dictatorship, entirely dependent upon our (whether conservative or progressive) interpretation of what is ‘right.’

      our addiction to an answer culture (which i’ve written about here :: http://www.mjkimpan.com/dont-tell-anyone/) demands conformity of belief, not just adjustment of behavior. i am convinced that’s not only unrealistic, but unhealthy. there will always be an ‘other’ or an ‘opposite’ to my belief – the beauty in diversity comes when i can accept that fact and live in a way that creates room for sustainable dialogue and provides opportunity for significant things to happen in the context of relationship, regardless of whether or not i agree with someone else.

      does that make sense?

      • http://twitter.com/ExistentialPunk Existential Punk

        i hear what you are saying, but equality for queer people IS a social justice issue. We queers are to be treated equally under the 14th Amendment i believe. We live in a nation founded upon separation of church and state and NO religion is to be imposed. Fundies can believe whatever they want about me but that does NOT give them the right at all to prevent me being treated equally and justly under the laws of the land afforded to all people.

        If we go by your logic, if i am understanding you correctly, then we should have never allowed blacks and whites to marry, civil rights or women’s suffrage. Thus, i demand acceptance because it is a social justice issue. Again, it comes back to a place of privilege holding their narrow views over marginalized people. It perpetuates injustice.

        • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

          agreed! i am not arguing against equality – only pointing out the continued injustice if we marginalize those who once marginalized or oppress those who once did the oppressing.

          true tolerance would dictate the opportunity for those who have an opposing worldview to coexist in a society that values BOTH of their places (this is in conjunction with your 14th amendment, shown most clearly in the first). this conversation dictates the acknowledgment of both.

          i don’t believe interracial marriage, woman’s suffrage or LGBT rights should be abolished because *some* people think they should. all should be treated equally under the law. yet in that equality, there is (or should be) room for folks who interpret their sacred text in a less progressive way and *for themselves* uphold a different standard.

          yet we agree – to impose that standard upon others (as many have tried to do) is foolish and unconstitutional.

      • Ford1968

        No, religion based anti-gay bigotry is not tolerable. It is not a healthy diversity dynamic contributing to a better society; anti-gay bigotry is destructive.

        And no, refusing to tolerate anti-gay bigotry is not a new form of segregation.

        Can we co-exist? Sure. I’m with Jonathan Rauch on this – we need to share the world. Now that people who are gay-affirming are the moral majority, we need to be careful not to subject non-affirming people to the tyranny of the masses. It’s a big temptation to judge the whole group (and the whole person) on their answer to the litmus test question of homosexuality. And it’s equally tempting to want those who have caused such hurt and harm (and continue to do so) to get a taste of their own medicine. But, for me, that’s neither a Christian nor a productive outlook.

        HOWEVER, Anti-gay bigotry is not something we can agree to disagree about. There is no moral middle ground here. Non-affirming churches are doing real harm to flesh and blood people. It is emotionally abusive to tell the gay kid in the front pew that he is grossly disordered (or diseased) and unworthy of even the possibility of romantic love. It is emotionally abusive to say, in effect, live alone or burn in hell.

        How many Christians who are gay felt like, because of what they were taught to believe in church, suicide was a good option? That’s not the loving fruit of diversity. That’s evil.

        So no, I cannot and will not tolerate these destructive beliefs in my community any more than I would tolerate racist, antisemitic, or misogynistic beliefs. If you think that makes me intolerant, then I’ll happily own that epithet.

        • http://www.mjkimpan.com/ michael j. kimpan

          thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

          i agree that many churches are doing real harm in their positions and rhetoric concerning the LGBT community. anyone desiring to be taken seriously in the context of this conversation can readily admit what we’ve done thus far has not been helpful.

          telling someone they are disordered or diseased due to their orientation is not only morally repugnant, but both biblically and scientifically ignorant. creating spaces where it’s too scary to openly discuss one’s sexuality to the point suicide becomes a more acceptable alternative than honest conversation is abhorrent, and *should not* be tolerated.

          yet i also am aware of a number of churches and organizations whom have a modern, traditional conservative perspective on the topic of their interpretation of the passages dealing with homosexuality, and are able to communicate and live out that position in a way that is not interpreted as ‘anti-gay.’

          even the Gay Christian Network has an entire population of people (side B perspective) who believe celibacy is a viable option for LGBT people, and simultaneously maintain the inherent worth and dignity of those individuals.

          certainly their perspective on the biblical mandates concerning human sexuality does not make these LGBT people anti-gay, does it?

          • Ford1968

            Michael,

            Let’s be careful not to blame the victim here. You cannot hold up Christians who have chosen celibacy solely because of their church’s teaching as proof of the moral acceptability of emotionally abusive dogma.

            If a woman raised in an IFB church was taught and believes that women hold less worth than men, does that make her inferior to men? If a parent raised as a Christian Scientist believes in faith healing, does that mean it’s morally acceptable to withhold essential medical care from his child?

            Rachel Held Evans is currently hosting a discussion on Wesley Hill’s book Washed and Waiting. What’s clear in the book and the comments is that the Christians who are gay and have chosen celibacy have not done so because they have willingly offered their sexuality to God as an offering; instead, they choose celibacy because their understanding of the Bible is that God demands this sacrifice from them. They were raised to believe that they could not consider a life with the possibility of giving and receiving romantic love. Would they have come to this same understanding if they had been raised in a gay affirming church?

            Non-affirming churches offer people who are gay a terrible and false choice: live your life alone or displease God. The gay person raised in that church has to choose between horrible alternatives.

            - Make this awful sacrifice or risk my relationship with God.

            - Make this sacrifice or risk the most important relationships in my life.

            - Stay in the closet or be forced to make this sacrifice.

            - Pretend to be straight or live my life alone.

            I’m not saying that a belief in a conservative sexual ethic is motivated by animus toward gay people. Fear for the salvation of loved ones is a powerful motivator.

            However, just because a belief is sincerely held does not make it morally acceptable. It is impossible for a non-affirming to live out their beliefs in a way that is not anti-gay.

            Any non-affirming theology is devistating to the gay kid in the front pew. I reject the idea that an inclusive society must accept the unacceptable for the sake of inclusion.