it strikes me as odd that in an increasingly pluralistic and post-modern society, there is still a seeming addiction to closed-ended, one-word, YES or NO answers that sum up an entire worldview and perspective that tells me if you’re one of ‘us’ or one of ‘them’ – if i can trust you or if i should despise you, if you’re for me or against me — and all that i stand for.
i’ve written about that here, here and here and The Marin Foundation has written about the reasons we avoid engaging in the polarizing, back-and-forth rhetoric responses repeatedly – and yet once again andrew and The Marin Foundation has been placed onto the chopping block – a place we’re growing increasingly accustomed to and comfortable with – from both sides of the conversation.
it certainly is an interesting place to be.
— Dan Savage (@fakedansavage) April 15, 2013
here we go again.
one person wrote in the comments section of andrew’s latest post ::
He could [answer in terms of yes or no] but then lose all credibility with evangelicals. At that point he would just be one more blogger in favor of gay rights. Instead of just swelling our numbers by one, he is one of the few people I know… who can stand in the middle and I think has value. Obviously there will still be people on either side who don’t trust him because he isn’t really ‘on their side.’
This only further illustrates why he needs to keep up what he is doing. If you will only listen to people you completely agree with then there will be no true dialogue.
this is why, as andrew stated in his post, ‘The Marin Foundation works to live in the tension of these disagreements by building bridges (e.g. peacemaking). And when a bridge building/peacemaking organization takes a side, it loses the right to standing in the middle to facilitate a new medium of engagement with each opposing worldview.’
that is why, as we state on our website ::
A new example must be set for the rest of our society to see a new vision of what bold reconciliation looks like between LGBTs, liberals, conservatives and the faith world. So many have been working off of a paradigm of reconciliation based on a mainstream worldview of strength in numbers that either forces ‘the Other’ to conform or be ostracized.
But reconciliation based on a love of God giving us the strength to relentlessly pursue those that are thought to be most unlike ourselves will ultimately connect humanity on new levels of faith, relationship, action and sustainable impact.
in our bi-weekly gatherings called ‘Living In The Tension‘, participants know that the goal of these gatherings is not for folks to convince others sitting across the table that they are right and ‘the Other’ is wrong, but rather to build a community where individuals can feel safe not only to share their experiences and beliefs with those with whom they may not agree, but to learn to excel in constructive tension by engaging in peaceful and productive conversation with them.
we do not exist to facilitate a debate that converts one side to the opposite worldview or perspective; rather, we create safe and sacred spaces to provide active engagement in learning what relationship with ‘the Other’ tangibly looks like.
in. real. life.
with. real. people.
it amazes me that advocating for a theology of unconditional love toward all people – gay or straight – brings with it such vitriolic and hateful rhetoric as has littered the internet, with false accusations and name-calling being lobbed across twitter feeds and the blogosphere toward andrew and The Marin Foundation.
it doesn’t make any sense.
just yesterday i was in a conversation with a gay friend of mine who has expressed reservations about The Marin Foundation.
in response to the idea that many folks in the LGBT community don’t benefit from the fact that andrew and i (two straight white dudes) get invited into conservative evangelical churches to talk about a better way of engaging the gay community – oftentimes churches that otherwise wouldn’t engage in the conversation (as our friend tony jones pointed out in his post here), i communicated the following ::
it’s true that many LGBT folks don’t benefit from these conversations inside the walls of the church, at least not directly – and that perspective may be aggravated by the fact that certain evangelical folks continually say it’s great to have The Marin Foundation come and speak. many in the gay community have experienced tremendous ostracization and pain at the hands of similar communities of faith – who themselves are enslaved to communicating their conservative doctrines through the same addiction to answers which is at the core of this conversation. ask a biblical literalist the same question posted above and you’re likely to get an unfavorable answer.
but it is equally true that for the LGBT individuals who are a part of those churches – or for their family and friends who attend them and have not yet wrestled through the tension of their conservative theologies and the reality of living in relationship with their gay friends or family – it’s been extremely helpful.
there are countless stories – quite literally from across the globe – that have ended well as a result of an introduction to a different type of dialogue rather than the ironically dogmatic cultural mandate to ‘change what you believe.‘ perhaps as a result of living in relationship with and proximity to their LGBT neighbors, people may potentially alter their perspective and adopt a more progressive theological hermeneutic.
but it doesn’t always happen.
and it doesn’t need to.
what does need to happen is a paradigm shift in the way we have these conversations.
many (most? nearly all?) christians believe they have a corner on theological and doctrinal truth. at the crux and center of our faith is the concept that God is best reflected, seen and known in the person and teachings of jesus christ.
not buddha. not moses. not the prophet mohammed. not crystals or reincarnated animals or even the pope. jesus.
and we think we’re right.
yet, as brian mclaren so eloquently pointed out in his most recent book, that belief does not necessitate an inherent hostility toward the Other. it does not dictate nor demand disrespecting those who believe differently.
it is possible – necessary, even – to disagree in generous and hospitable ways.
the demand for conservative evangelicals to engage the gay community differently are well founded, even overdue. yet the demands to change their theology are unrealistic.
i would agree that in many cases, the outworking of that theology is problematic – from fighting a legal battle against gay rights and protesting marriage equality (which i’ve written about here), to arguing against anti-bullying campaigns (which i’ve written about here) and defending violence against the LGBT community (which i’ve written about here) :: each of these are deplorable. un-christlike. embarrassing. unacceptable.
yet if both sides of the faith and sexuality debate could take their cues from jesus – standing in solidarity with the Other, regardless of their perspectives, beliefs, or opinions – there would be an opportunity to elevate the conversation.
and folks, it works. we do it all the time.