Brian McLaren (pro-gay Christian) responds to an anti-gay Christian

[Htom Sirveaux]

McLaren frequently posts letters he receives on his website and responds to them. This letter, from an anti-gay Christian, reads in part:

Second, I feel "stuck in conservative Christianity" as I watch and listen to you and others like Rob Bell and Adam Hamilton embrace a Christian position that embraces faithful, monogamous homosexual lifestyles. I consider myself fairly open to those biblical arguments that push to legitimatize faithful and love-filled homosexuality. In fact, I even offer to some of my friends better arguments than they have that push in that direction. But alas, I still find myself unconvinced.

I believe and hope I'm that person that truly loves and values those who are homosexual, wanting always to seek their good. I even know and have family members who embrace this lifestyle, and I truly think they know that I am for them and for God's best in their lives. But still, in the end, I'm one of those Christians that can't seem yet to accept any line of argument that endorses such behavior as God's best or desire for humanity. I really wish I could.

http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/-first-let-me-say.html

and from McLaren's response:

First, when you speak of people "who embrace this lifestyle," you are making assumptions that I would encourage you to question. For example, I don't think people "embrace the left-handed lifestyle," nor do I think people "embrace the extraverted lifestyle," nor do I think people "embrace the homosexual lifestyle." I think left-handers, extraverts, and LGBT people can hide who they are - "in the closet." But being who they are isn't "embracing a lifestyle." The fact is, there is no single LGBT lifestyle. I hope you'll give that matter a second thought.

Second, the idea of "God's best for their lives" is a more problematic concept than you may have considered. When men tell women "what's God's best for their lives," when whites tell people of color "what's God's best for their lives," when married people tell singles "what's God's best for their lives" and so on, I think we should be very cautious. Same when straight people tell LGBT people "what's God's best for their lives." These things don't often turn out well. I'm not trying to be critical - just to respond to your request for feedback. I hope it's helpful.

McLaren also recognizes that even Christians who oppose full equality can still want to reduce stigmatization and oppose violence towards gays, and that people closer to equality are in a better place, even if they aren't all the way there yet.

But should he have just called the letter writer a bigot? Would the writer have listened to encouragement to rethink his/her assumption if McLaren had done that? Or should the presumption be that the writer wouldn't have listened no matter what was said, so calling him/her a bigot would have had no negative consequence?

[merrily]

1. McLaren has a lot of patience.

As for the bigot's alleged desire for feedback, McLaren was exceptionally patient in not calling bs.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. I think you're right, it does take patience.

And a willingness to recognize the humanity of others even when those others are denying full humanity to all.

[trotsky]

3. And perhaps an acknowledgment that saying"I think religion is stupid" isn't quite equivalent...

to saying that "homosexuality is evil and should not be accepted by society"?

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. What if the statement is "I think Judaism is stupid" or

"I think Native American religion is stupid" or another group where considerations of social position are present?

Still not quite equivalent? Or getting there?

P.S. I read the essays you linked to in our other discussion, and I'm reflecting on them. I haven't forgotten.

[trotsky]

6. There is a person who posts frequently in this group, who flings the "bigot" label freely...

at atheists who don't like religion, yet who herself admitted she laughs at the book of Mormon on car trips.

Does that make her a bigot?

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. I didn't reduce Francis or Dawkins to the label "bigot" (EDITED)

Last edited Wed Jul 23, 2014, 04:21 PM - Edit history (3)

even as I criticized their statements/positions, so why would I do that to the person you mention?

Mormonism is an sticky case, because it's a hybrid. It's Christian, so part of the majority in this society, but on the other hand, it's a minority within Christianity and taken by itself is also a minority in society.

But it's also patriarchal, anti-gay, and authoritarian. So it claims for itself various kinds of privilege, claims that morally require criticism. And we're talking about criticising a book, and it's not clear to me that book criticism is the same as broad-brush condemnation of a movement as a whole.

Even criticism of a movement as an abstraction can be justified if the criticism is thoughtful and fair. "x is stupid" doesn't qualify.

EDIT: I could have organized my thoughts better, so let's try again:

Propriety depends on the level of abstraction. A human being should not be reduced to a label. Their actions or ideas can be. But if you're dealing with a whole movement, make sure you take into account the relative social position/history of said movement in the society of which you speak, and your own social position.

So book (idea or action) from a group (whole movement) claiming privileges (male, straight, authoritarian social position). The person you speak of is in the clear as far as the Book of Mormon goes. However, calling atheists bigots is questionable because now we have a label for a group of low social standing. So great care must taken.

[trotsky]

8. Orthodox Judaism is also patriarchal, anti-gay, and authoritarian, so there's that.

Personally I think the label is being thrown around so much it's becoming meaningless. Some appear to want to use it only as a weapon, to dismiss anything a person says because they slapped the label on them.

To me, the word means being intolerant of people because of something innate to who they are, that they didn't or couldn't choose - or change, like their race, or sexual orientation.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. I agree, meaninglessness, automatic dismissal, and also

if you reduce a person to a label, they may just stop caring what you think out of bitterness and resentment. If there is a goal is to encourage people to abandon bigotry and hate, mission not accomplished.

[libodem]

5. .

. [img][/img]

[trotsky]

10. Yeah, that.

The more I learned about the religion as I grew up, the less I could accept.

[okasha]

11. It seems to me

that the person McLaren is responding to is in a place of transition, rather close to where Barak Obama was when he said he didn't support equal marriage because "God isn't in the mix." Patience and clarity may give him the final push over the line to acceptance. Conversely, pitching an ego-gratifying fit and calling the guy a bigot could drive him straight back into hardshell fundamentalism on the question.

[merrily]

12. I don't know where Obama actually was then, except in

Warren's church campaigning to be President. In 1996, he had indicated on a questionnaire that he was in favor of equal marriage.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Obama_backed_samesex_marriage_in_1996.html\\

And I think a combination of sustained pressure from gay lobbyists during his first term, his re-election campaign the fact that many Democratic bundlers are gay, may have had as much to with his 2012 announcement as anyone's clarity and patience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-obamas-top-fundraisers-are-gay/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html

But, back to McClaren

Conversely, pitching an ego-gratifying fit and calling the guy a bigot could drive him straight back into hardshell fundamentalism on the question.

Good grief, though I don't know if I could be as patient as McLaren, I'd never do that or recommend doing that.

[okasha]

13. Obama has been all over the map on LGBT equality.

He's improved.

I didn't mean to imply that you would throw a tantrum at the guy McLaren responded to. Others would.

[merrily]

14. Sorry, I can't even pretend to be that naive.

Well, not anymore, anyway. I was once.

His position did not change. However, politicians can well seem to be all over the map when they have to reconcile a position taken in 1996 in hopes of winning a liberal district in a state race with a national campaign that involves them sitting in Rick Warren's church hoping to pick up some votes for Democrats from the religious right. And then have to get their gay rights donors and bundlers on board for re-election.

I didn't mean to imply that you would throw a tantrum at the guy McLaren responded to.

I'd be very tempted, but I wouldn't. On the other hand, I don't think I could have been as lovely as McLaren.

[cbayer]

15. Of course he shouldn't just call him a bigot.

This guys letter practically begs for someone to talk him out of his position and find a reason he can fully embrace homosexuality.

I think the response is appropriate. Did it make any difference? Most likely not, but it's always worth a shot.