How Christians and gays talk past each other, part 3

(For parts 1 and 2 of this series see here and here.)

Recently a gay reader wrote in about my use of the terms "homosexual" and "gay":

To many of us, "homosexual" used to describe a person is faintly (or not so faintly) insulting, since it really describes a behavior, and we are not a behavior -- we are people, which is rather more complicated. "Gay" denotes an identity (which has as wide a range of variation as you will find in any other group); "homosexual" merely denotes an act.

I am aware that many gays feel this way about those terms. However, not all the readers of this blog are gay. Many are also straight conservative Christians who are admirably trying to grapple with these issues. And guess what? Conservative Christians view these terms in exactly the opposite way. To many Christians calling someone "gay" suggests they are living a promiscuous and morally irresponsible lifestyle, whereas the term "homosexual" is more generic and polite.

Case in point, check out this excerpt from SeeJaneMom (the Republican, conservative Christian wife and mother I linked to a couple of weeks ago):

Hear me. Jane does not hate homosexuals. I am not "afraid" of homosexuals. Homosexuals are created by God in His image and given traits we find different from the norm. Nothing more. They exist in our midst and we might never know unless they choose to tell us.

However, "Gays" are a creation of Hedonistic American Pop Culture and are nothing more than self-loathing moral relativists who seek acceptance for their flamboyant behavior by attempting to co-opt society's most norming institutions to project their Liberal values on larger society.

To underscore my point, go back and reread the email at the top. That was written by a gay man. Now reread SeeJaneMom's blurb. That was written by a conservative Christian straight woman. See the problem?

Frankly, I think we ought to call people what they prefer to be called. That is just good manners. When I am with someone who is gay I call them gay. I talk about gay people, gays and lesbians, the gay community, etc.

However, when I'm at church I use the term "homosexual" if I want to play it safe, especially when I'm talking to someone who is over 40 years old. It's a cultural thing. It's also a generational thing. At church I will talk about my friends who are homosexual, or how I'm studying the issue of homosexuality, or what I think is a biblical view of homosexual people. There is already so much potential for misunderstanding on the broader issues. Why make it worse with misunderstood terminology?

What do I do about this blog? I prefer the terms "gay" and "lesbian," particularly in contexts where I am referring to real people I've gotten to know and befriend. However I will use the term "homosexual" when I am putting words in the mouths of Christians who are expressing their point of view on gay issues. I will write about Christians who believe people "choose to be homosexual" or who condemn the "homosexual agenda." But when I present my own view, I use the terms I think my gay readers would prefer. ("Being gay isn't a choice." "Gay and lesbian people are asking for basic rights, not special privileges." Etc.)

My advice to gays is to realize that Christians who use the term "homosexual" think they are engaging in civil dialogue. Try to remember that in their minds, the reason they are not calling you "gay" is because they don't want to sound like they are passing judgment on your morals. Besides, if you really think about it, you are probably more offended by the context in which Christians use the term "homosexual" than the term itself. Focus on what's wrong with what they are saying rather than the label they've chosen.

My advice to Christians is to get used to hearing, and maybe even using, the term "gay." Nowadays "homosexual" sounds backwards and somewhat ignorant. If you look around, you'll realize that most people under the age of 30, whether gay or straight, are now comfortable using the term "gay." People will talk about having a gay neighbor, a gay relative, a gay friend. It sounds better than saying, "My nephew is a homosexual." I mean, come on, right? "Homosexual" sounds cold, almost clinical. It is not a word you would want to use when referring to someone you know and care about, whom you are seeking to love with the love of Christ.

Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007)

Dr. Kline served as a mentor to my husband and me since the time we were students at Westminster Seminary CA, as well as to many other students who took his Old Testament classes over the decades. His most important contribution to my own thinking was demonstrating that the Old Testament theocracy of Israel was uniquely a type of heaven, and thus we may not appeal to it as a model for establishing a modern day theocracy in America as many of today's evangelical leaders attempt to do.

Of the articles I have written for my website, the one that rests most heavily on Dr. Kline's teachings is "Should Biblical Law Rule Society?", which is summed up in this excerpt:

The Bible simply does not support Christians going around trying to set up modern day theocracies. To the contrary, the New Testament instructs Christians to view themselves as "just passing through" this present world because they are citizens of a heavenly country, not an earthly one . . . Yet by rallying Christians to try to set up their "land of Canaan" in the present world instead of encouraging them to wait for the coming of a future paradise that God specifically promises in the Bible, the Christian Right implicitly denies the promise and hope of heaven, one of the most essential doctrines of the Christian religion.

Heaven was one of Dr. Kline's favorite topics, and I remember having the distinct impression when I was around him that a part of him was already dwelling in that other place. I guess it doesn't seem so strange to me, then, that he's passed on to be more fully there.

A theology of adoption

Check out this surprisingly civil exchange between SeeJaneMom and her gay and lesbian readers, considering her very outspoken approach. She is straight, Republican and Christian, supports same-sex civil unions, but has strong opinions against gay marriage:

If we won't allow homosexuals to "marry" in the eyes of the State, why should they work so hard to be monogamous and socially invested? As we discussed it, the answer asserted itself. Because God has standards for all His creatures.

It follows then, that if God makes one a homosexual, He does not intend for you to produce off-spring. By its simplest definition, marriage is a contract for the stability of children born of a genetic union between a man and a woman. When two men can organically produce a child, they can be "married".

A lesbian reader makes some great points here. But most interesting was a gay Christian reader who offers this perspective:

I appreciate the blogger's thoughtful consideration of the meaning of marriage, and her clear non-hostility to gay and lesbian folk in general. I would just like to raise one point I haven't seen yet as regards the reproduction argument; the theology of adoption. Yes, gays cannot biologically reproduce, but is that the only legitimate means to expand a family? I would argue that to claim so is profoundly unbiblical. It is like the conversation Christ had with Nicodemus, about being born again - Christ made it clear that it was not a physical rebirth, but a spiritual matter. In the OT (Old Testament), the command was to increase the number of God's people through birth; in the NT Christians are called to make disciples of all of the peoples - overall, a trend away from mere physicality to spirituality, and thus a greater likeness to God in a way. Gays raise children by choice, and through adoption they can provide parents to children who otherwise would not have families... or wouldn't exist at all if not for invitro. It is a less tangible sort of parenthood, perhaps, but it is no less real. Call it a parenthood of faith. Thus I would argue that gays are indeed adding life to the world, and following God's commands for them - that they adopt children as He adopts us as His - and the marriage bond facilitates this role. Just something I think about sometimes, and thought I'd offer, particularly given the season. God bless.

Jane's response:

Well said, indeed. Jane can "do" rational. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful contribution.

I'm thankful too. I have had similar thoughts about what this reader calls a "theology of adoption," but I couldn't have expressed it nearly as well. In Genesis Adam and Eve were called to "be fruitful and multiply" and populate the earth. In the New Testament era Jesus Christ, the second Adam, populates the earth by commanding his followers to "make disciples of all nations." Given the New Testament's emphasis on becoming children of God through spiritual birth, it is truly surprising that the church should put so much emphasis on the glories of physical reproduction, let alone use it to make gay and lesbian people feel like second-class human beings because their relationships can't bring about biological offspring. Jesus never emphasized the primacy of the biological family, but of the spiritual family.

And someone said to him, "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to you." But he answered the one who was telling him and said, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Behold, my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother. (Matthew 12:47-50)

Repentance of a former AFA columnist

Last week some of you may have seen the link to this interview on Andrew Sullivan's blog. Joe R. Murray, former columnist for the anti-gay American Family Association, now supports gay rights, including civil same-sex marriage, and explains why he no longer believes homosexual relationships are immoral.

For recent readers of this blog you can find my own view on homosexuality, which differs slightly from Mr. Murray's, posted here. That aside, there is so much he says that I can relate to in my own journey regarding this issue, particularly the following.

. . . I have always been concerned about the values coming out of the Castro District [in San Fransciso]. I see the hatred some of these people have towards my Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and I just took their anger as proof that some folks on the Christian right were accurate in their depiction of the "homosexual agenda." I failed to investigate the matter and just adopted the party line-this was a monumental error on my part.

It was not until I began to look closer at the issue that I came to realize that: (a) not all of the gay community is represented by those marching in the streets of San Francisco and (b) those in the streets had a right to be angry, for they have been told for years that they were immoral, sinful and shameful. How horrible must it be to be condemned due to a trait you had no control over. I thought, hell, I would be angry, too. Even further, when I looked at society, I found that most of our societal institutions worked against the gay community.

I believe that the gay community is a strong community and is as equally diverse as the Christian community. And just as some of the radicals on allegedly representing Christianity, i.e. Fred Phelps, should not be used to describe the Christian church, those radicals on the gay issue should not define the gay community.

Pam's House Blend has now done a follow-up interview with Mr. Murray, where he answers questions from LGBT readers. I thought his answers were again very encouraging, especially the humility he shows here:

[Question:] There are a lot of people who will react to your change of heart with mistrust, and who believe that you are either insincere or are not undoing anything you've done to the LGBT community. How would you respond?

JRM: They have every reason to be cautious, I know I would be. I would ask that I be given time to prove myself, and then I can be judged by the LGBT community. I guess I am saying what my grandmother has always told me, "Actions speak louder than words." Give me time and I will give you action.

Rev. Albert Mohler's article

I can't tell whether the uproar over Rev. Albert Mohler's blog post has more to do with how he upset fundamentalist Christians or how he upset the gay community. I guess it is a little of both.

Here's what upset the Christians:

We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

Here's what upset gays:

If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

If you read the entire article, I think Mohler's overall position represents a notable triumph of reason over past fundamentalist irrationality, and I wish the gay community would pause for a moment and realize that. For a prominent Southern Baptist leader to exhort evangelicals to open up their minds to the possibility of a gay gene, and draw direct implications to 1) the ways Christians have sinned against gays and 2) how Christians can better minister to gays in the future, is huge. Huge. The social implications. The political implications. The ministry implications. All these would be profoundly affected if Christians would just realize that the possiblity that homosexuality isn't chosen does not undermine the teachings of the Bible.

Do I know for sure whether there is a genetic origin? No, I don't. But I have found, interestingly, that when I view and treat people "as if" their homosexuality were genetic, it ends up making the most sense out of their feelings and actions and choices. It is just an interesting observation I have noted as I await further developments from the scientific community.

Now what about Mohler's other, rather off-handed comment that if sexual orientation could be reversed in utero, Christians should "unapologetically" support such treatment. I would say that two things come to mind. First, his comment was brief and somewhat out of the blue, so he would need to explain what he means by "support." But given that not everyone in society agrees that homosexuality is a sinful/fallen condition, Christians should definitely not be out there rallying in favor of such treatment in our usual loud-mouthed way, because we would come off as if we were advocating the eradication of gay and lesbian people from society. This message is not merely offensive. It is personally threatening to gay people in a way that the rest of us can't imagine or appreciate.

Plenty of gay and lesbian people think their gayness is a perfectly natural part of who they are. Plenty of gay and lesbian people who are Christian think that God created them to be gay. I disagree with them. But there is a chance I may be wrong. And because I may be wrong I am not going to go around advocating a means to achieve their non-existence. Even if I was completely convinced I was "right" I wouldn't do it, because it is not my place to try and implement an orientation make-over on the human race.

That said, my second reaction to Mohler's comment yanks me back in the opposite direction when I consider this question privately as a parent. What if the decision about my own child's sexual orientation rested upon me alone, and this decision had to be made while the child was in utero? What would I do?

I should say first off that as a parent I am prepared to handle a situation where any one of my children might turn out gay. I am not upset, distressed or panicky over the thought. I have given it quite a lot of consideration. So my concern in this hypothetical scenario would not be for myself, but for my child.

Now suppose I were to decide that I can fully accept a gay child and I let things take their natural course. But suppose that child grows up and is not able to love and accept him- or herself as I do. My love and acceptance is simply not enough to counteract the hostility and rejection they feel from the church and society around them. Then they find out that I could have had them turn out straight, but I chose not to, and they tell me, "Why did you let this happen? You've screwed up my life." I'm telling you, if my kid were to say that to me, I think the sadness and guilt would kill me.

I am not interested in exterminating gay and lesbian people from the human population. They have enriched my life. Yet if a decision regarding my own child were placed solely in my hands as a parent, then I would be forced to guess about what my child would want me to do, and I would feel safer guessing that they would want to be straight rather than gay.

I know a lot of the readers of this blog are gay. What would you have wanted your parents to do for you in that situation? Would you resent them if they could have changed your orientation but didn't? What if you had to make a decision regarding your own child? As a parent I'd be interested to know.

"Immoral" and "faggot"

I once heard a pastor speak at a gay evangelical Bible study where the members affirm same-sex relationships for Christians. I am friends with the leaders of the Bible study, and for years they have graciously allowed me to attend even though I hold to more conservative views on homosexuality than the group.

The pastor, who was gay, had been invited to speak on the subject of relationships. It is a sensitive topic because any gay Christian seeking a committed, monogamous relationship is really looking for a needle in a haystack of sexual temptation, having to deal with a community that is hostile to their Christian values. So the study was fairly well-attended.

Yet what surprised me was the very first thing this pastor said as we opened up our Bibles at the beginning of the study. He told us that even though he himself was seeking a relationship, he believed that God’s original plan in Genesis was for a marriage relationship to be between a man and a woman. He did not believe God had homosexual relationships in view as the ideal when he first created the world. This is my own view, which I had always kept politely under wraps during past group discussions. So I was all ears after that. The pastor then went on to share about his own personal struggles in trying to find a partner. It went, to the best of my memory, something like this:

I used to be married to a woman, but after ten years our marriage fell apart as I realized I was gay and that that wasn’t going to change. I was pastoring at that time. Today I’m still pastoring, except now at a gay and lesbian congregation, because I’ve always felt called by God to serve in that capacity.

Like many of you I’m hoping to find someone I can share my life with. But it’s hard and it’s lonely. I know you can relate. I come home after work as late as I can into the evening, and then I stay up watching TV until eleven, twelve o’clock at night. You guys know what I’m talking about, right? I sit there in front of the television because I hate having to face an empty bed. I stay up and stay up until I’m so tired I know I’ll be out as soon as my head hits the pillow. That way I won’t have to lie there, awake and alone.

Sometimes I ask God about it. I say, ‘Lord, all my life I’ve served you. I’ve always pastored as you’ve called me to do. I got married because I was trying to do the right thing. I stayed with my wife for ten years, even though it felt like I was having sex with my sister. It felt so unnatural. And now after the divorce I’m still serving you in the ministry, and yet I have to come home every night to an empty apartment. Why, Lord? Haven’t I tried to do what was right? Haven’t I always sought to please you? After everything I’ve tried to do for you, why am I left with this loneliness, with nothing but an empty bed to come back to?’

The next day I told my husband what this pastor had shared. He shook his head and said, “Whenever Christians talk about ‘homosexuals’ we have all these ideas about what big sinners they are. But we have no idea what it's really all about. We just have no clue.”

It’s been a year and a half and I still tear up whenever I think about that pastor, how incredibly difficult it must be for him. I just hope that brother in Christ has found the strength each day to soldier on.

And so if you really want to know what I think about these recent events that have hit the news cycle . . .

No, I don’t think Ann Coulter should be calling anyone a “faggot.” No decent person does who cares about the feelings and lives and struggles of other human beings.

As for General Pace’s views on the immorality of homosexuality, I suppose the obvious question is whether his personal moral views should have any bearing on military policy at all. Yet the deeper question is whether General Pace has any idea what he’s talking about when he places the label “immoral” on all openly gay and lesbian people without qualification. Sure, we have a right to our personal and religious viewpoints. But isn’t it better to have some insight into what you’re talking about before you use words that make sweeping, simplistic judgments on other people’s lives?

I remember sitting under theological scrutiny in session meetings in my former denomination, having to affirm the statement that “homosexual acts are immoral” without any breathing room for nuance or explanation. I remember how a respected leader in this same denomination once lamented that our society no longer tolerated the word “faggot,” how he went on as if this were some great loss to our modern culture. I think about these words we throw around, carelessly and even jokingly, and then I think about that gay pastor. Do “immoral” and “faggot” sum up the essence of who he is? Do these words properly characterize what his life is all about?

You can always justify putting offensive labels on entire groups of people by appealing to "free speech" and "the right to your own opinion." Fine, go right ahead. But don't expect that decent people who make it a practice to stay in touch with real life issues pertaining to the human race are going to find much pleasure in your company, or have much regard for your point of view.

"Normalizing" gay relationships

A Christian reader writes in:

This weekend I spent time with a lesbian couple that I just loved. It was hard to reconcile how loving, supportive, and wonderful they were to each other with the idea that they're these horrible people that the church often claims they are . . .

I honestly had never been an up close witness to a lesbian relationship, and I guess it was a little surprising if I'm being totally honest. It was just so...normal I guess is the word. They weren't trying to prove anything; they weren't defensive or aggressive about their sexuality. It amazed me the stereotypes I held once I was confronted with the reality, and I have been praying to be free of those now that I'm so aware of them.

Yep. I also remember the shock when I was first confronted with the contrast between the image of homosexual people I was presented with in my church culture, versus the real people I actually met for myself.

One of the big complaints that leaders in my former denomination had against my writings was that I was seeking to "normalize" homosexual relationships. This accusation has troubled me and I believe I finally understand why. It's not so much that I'm seeking to normalize homosexual relationships. It's that I view homosexual people themselves as normal people. I think they are no different than anyone else except, for whatever reason, they have found themselves to be homosexual and are dealing with that reality in the best way they know how.

But problems apparently arise when such people seek out relationships and their normalcy spills over so that now their relationships become normalized too. In the minds of some Christian leaders this simply cannot be, and they expect me to answer for this outrage.

I don't know about how "normal" gay relationships are "supposed" to be. But frankly, when I picture a gay couple living together in a committed relationship, I do think their life is probably not much different from any other marriage. Sitting at the breakfast table reading the newspaper over coffee. Taking turns walking the dog. Griping when the other person hogs the computer. Asking about the long distance call that showed up on the phone bill. Gelling on the couch together watching the eleven o'clock news, until someone finally gets up and mumbles something about having to wake up early the next day.

I'm afraid I really don't know how to answer for such normalcy. But I do think it would be helpful if, in the church, we acknowledged that this is probably how things really are. That way we could at least avoid discrediting ourselves when people discover the vast difference between the sterotypes we set up about gay relationships and the ones they encounter in the real world.

LegalTolerance.com

There's another conservative Christian out there who has come to the same conclusion I have, that attempting to legislate morality in this country is a completely inadequate political strategy that does not serve the interest of Christian citizens or comport with Christian morality.

With regard to homosexual issues he writes:

I feel that it is immoral for our government to deny equal rights to homosexuals. There is simply neither a solid Biblical or legal precedent for denying rights based upon sexual orientation. Besides, a central idea of legal tolerance is that preventing behavior (which we know isn't even accomplished by legislation against homosexuals) doesn't change the heart. But even if anti-gay legislation curbed homosexual behavior, we know that it would not make anyone "less gay". So, when we remove sexual orientation from the mix, we're simply denying rights to a specific group of people. (Hint: That's wrong.)

In yesterday's post Legal Tolerance addresses the civil same-sex marriage debate. He advises Christians not to fret about how the government chooses to define a God-given institution. Since we already understand how God defines marriage in the Bible, that's all we need. Why should we care what the government thinks? He further proposes that government get out of the marriage business altogether and have legal benefits granted to any household group that wishes to be considered a unit in the eyes of the state, not just to married couples. It's a radical proposal. But at least someone in the conservative Christian camp is trying to think outside the box.

Don't ask, don't tell

Readers of The Daily Dish debate whether gay soldiers such as Eric Alva (who lost a leg and a finger while serving in Iraq) threaten military cohesiveness if they refuse to abide by the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

One reader says this.

Another responds with this.

I believe the times are a-changing.

My neglected profile

Some of you have been reading me for awhile and when you've checked my profile in the sidebar you've probably noticed how barren it is. For some reason I've never felt very motivated to fill it out. Birthday? Wishlist? Occupation? Interests? Bo-ring.

I had more fun filling out this media questionnaire that my pastor sent out to all his congregation members today. I'm not sure what he plans to do with the info, but I learned something about myself doing it. I like movies and books. I don't like television, radio or magazines. And I have somewhat dark tastes. So if you've been disappointed by my neglected profile, let this questionnaire serve as a substitute.

1. What are your favorite TV shows (past or present)? What shows do you watch regularly?

Present: Criminal Minds, CSI Miami, CSI NY
Past: Twilight Zone, Homicide

2. What are your top 10 favorite movies?

1) The Shawshank Redemption
2) Pulp Fiction
3) The Matrix
4) The Abyss
5) Brokeback Mountain
6) The Empire Strikes Back
7) Groundhog Day
8) The Ice Storm
9) Seabiscuit
10) The Exorcist

(Runners-up: Chariots of Fire, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Glory, 12 Angry Men)

3. What websites/blogs do you visit/read regularly?

Andrew Sullivan’s blog (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
Post Secret (postsecret.blogspot.com)

4. What radio shows do you listen to regularly?

None.

5. What magazines/journals do you read regularly?

None.

6. What newspapers do you read regularly? What sections of the newspaper do you read regularly?

L.A. Times: front page, calendar, local, sports

7. What are your favorite books? What books are you currently reading?

Favorites:
Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)
The Lord of the Rings (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Love Undetectable (Andrew Sullivan)
The Remains of the Day (Kazuo Ishiguro)
Dune (Frank Herbert)
Ender’s Game (Orson Scott Card)
Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte)
The Kid from Tomkinsville (John R. Tunis)
Bang the Drum Slowly (Mark Harris)
Dracula (Bram Stoker)
The Chocolate War (Robert Cormier)
Bruchko (Bruce Olson)
Something Wicked This Way Comes (Ray Bradbury)
The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand)

Current/recent reading:
The Conservative Soul (Andrew Sullivan)
The Body (Stephen King)
On Writing (Stephen King)
Bruchko (Bruce Olson)
Bruchko and the Motilone Miracle (Bruce Olson)
Bird By Bird (Anne Lamott)
Pendragon Book Three: The Never War (D.J. MacHale)
Hostage to the Devil (Malachi Martin)

8. What other sorts of media do you enjoy?

None.

Bruchko

In the fall of 1986, six months after I had become a Christian, I felt God calling me to become a missionary one Sunday morning while I was sitting in the pew at the Chinese church I used to worship at. I was eighteen years old. More than twenty years later I am still waiting for God to bring about the fulfillment of that call. But in the waiting period I have done a lot of thinking and reading on the subject of missions. The one book that I keep picking up and rereading is called Bruchko (1978) by Bruce Olson. I reread it again for perhaps the tenth time last week.

"[Until] you really understand a people, don't judge." This is what Olson learned from his brief stay with one South American Indian tribe called the Yukos. The Yuko chief greeted Olson into his village by flogging him with whips, throwing him inside a hut and ordering his men to shoot arrows at him through the walls until he was covered with bloody welts. Olson said he later learned that two of the tribe's young men had just been killed by white settlers, so the Yuko chief had reason to be touchy about a white man's presence in the village. Later Olson would go to live with the Motilone Indians who gave him a similar reception. They shot him in the thigh with an arrow, marched him three hours to their village and held him hostage for a month while he developed a severe infection with fever and dysentery. He escaped, but returned to the village a month later and has lived with the Motilones for the last forty years. Since the Motilones couldn't pronounce "Bruce," they named him "Bruchko." Not only did he learn not to judge them, he became a part of their tribe.

Because of Olson's unintrusive, self-effacing way of sharing Christ's love, the Motilones' spiritual transformation took place without having their traditions and way of life upended. Olson reports in his more recent book that currently nine out of ten Motilone Indians consider themselves followers of Saymaydodji-ibateradacura (their name for Jesus Christ). Yet it was the missionary who became conformed to Motilone culture instead of the other way around. "We had to teach him how to speak our language, how to suck the juices from insects, how to survive in the jungle," the Motilones will tell inquiring outsiders. "When he was naked we clothed him. Bruchko is not the leader who brought peace to our people . . . It is Saymaydodji-ibateradacura. God incarnate in human flesh."

Fundamentalists are naturally suspicious of missionaries because their cross-cultural experiences force them to think outside the box. I learned this the hard way when I tried to explain to the leaders in my former denomination that my writings on homosexual issues are, for lack of a better analogy, a kind of missionary endeavor. You have to understand people before you judge. You have to be self-critical about your own way of thinking and doing things. You have to abandon your fears and prejudices and allow God to show you a new perspective. You can share the love of Christ with people, but you have to understand that they need time and space to find Jesus Christ for themselves in a way that makes sense out of their own context and situation. I had hoped this analogy would click with my former leaders, but I don't think they were very impressed.

People write to me all the time and say, "Where are the real Christians who really try to live as Jesus Christ once did?" For all of you who've asked me that, I recommend that you read Bruchko. It's an unpretentious story about a frail human trying to walk by faith, not a saint practicing a rock-hard piety. I can't think of many Christian books I'd recommend to both Christian and non-Christian readers without hesitation. This might be the only one.

Anything but homosexual

I didn't miss Ted Haggard’s announcement last Monday. I’ve just been through a crazy busy week and got sick again on top of it. But even aside from that, it’s hard to know what to say about a guy who is so sadly self-deluded.

As evangelical Christians we freely admit to being sinners. Great. Except a lot of us apparently don’t believe it. Why else would people go through so many strange contortions just to deny struggling with this one sin of homosexuality? I mean if 1) homosexuality is a sin and 2) we are sinners, then it should be no surprise that 3) some of us will struggle with the sin of homosexuality. It may not be a happy conclusion but it is a logical one, right?

Yet Haggard is willing to admit to being Anything But Homosexual. He’d rather admit to lying . . . publicly. He’d rather admit to deceiving people in his own congregation. He’d rather admit to buying illegal drugs for crying out loud. But homosexuality? Nooooo. We thought he had made a breakthrough when he finally admitted to getting those massages for three years from a male prostitute and committing “sexual immorality,” whatever that means. But now he’s digging in his heels on terminology. He “acted out” he says, but he’s “completely heterosexual.” You feel kind of dumb asking the obvious question: “If you’re completely hetero, why didn’t you ‘act out’ by having, uh, a heterosexual affair?”

I’ve read enough ex-gay literature to know what the answer will be. He was acting out because of “emotional needs that became sexualized,” “unmet needs for same-sex love that became eroticized,” “the need to feel affirmed as one of the guys,” or “feeling inadequate before attractive men.” It will be words piled upon words with terms like “neurological pleasure pathways” thrown in for good measure. All to avoid having to use the One Word that he doesn’t want to use.

I guess if Haggard wants to believe that about himself, that’s his private business. But it makes me cringe that this man the evangelical church had exalted to such a high position appears at his core to be so delusional and self-deceived. As long as so many evangelicals would rather hear anything but the truth about homosexuality, we'll have to come to grips with the fact that Ted Haggard was a fitting leader for us in more than ways than we realized.

Joey Oglesby, not Joel

If you clicked on the link from Monday's post, you would have seen the correction that the comedian who calls himself "Donnie Davies" is actually Joey Oglesby, not Joel Oglesby. Has anyone else had the refrain of that song playing crazily in their heads all week? That tune is catchy.

"Donnie Davies" parody video

I'm sure many of you have already seen the music video "God Hates Fags" that made the Internet rounds last week. But if you haven't here it is:



The fact that there was controversy about whether this was a parody or an actual Christian music video is itself a sad commentary on the public image of evangelicalism. We now know that "Donnie Davies" is really comedian Joel Oglesby (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan), but the discussion was interesting while it lasted.

When I first saw the video, I was taken aback by how polished and professional it looked. I could tell right away it was a parody, but I became concerned that people would think this was for real. Then the more I watched it, the funnier it seemed.

Pretty soon I began to think: Knowing it is a parody, should Christians be upset about it? Well, before you send Donnie Davies/Joel Oglesby a nasty email complaining about how he is "misrepresenting Christians," consider that for many years the Rev. Fred Phelps has been running an actual ministry in which he seriously promotes the message that "God hates fags." Now isn't Phelps' very public, dead-serious ministry a much more alarming misrepresentation of our Christian faith than Oglesby's poking-fun-at-us music video? We stand aside and let Phelps to do the damage he does, but are quick to get upset at the guy who's just making fun of us for allowing Phelps to get away with it. It raises the question of whether most evangelical Christians really do disapprove of Phelps, or whether some like to keep him around because he does their dirty work.

If the latter suggestion offends you as a Christian, then can you explain why hasn't there been a bigger outcry against Phelps' ministry in the evangelical church? I've never heard of an organized effort to oppose Phelps the way I've seen evangelicals organize vocal opposition to, say, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the gay marriage movement, or the appointment of "activist judges."

Maybe that's the point of Oglesby's video. It's brilliant when you think about it.

Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan debate

The debate these past two weeks between atheist Sam Harris and Catholic Andrew Sullivan on Beliefnet has been heating up lately. Excerpts from their most recent exchange:

Harris:

You seem to have taken particular offense at my imputing self-deception and/or dishonesty to the faithful. I make no apologies for this. One of the greatest problems with religion is that it is built, to a remarkable degree, upon lies. Mommy claims to know that Granny went straight to heaven after she died. But Mommy doesn't actually know this. The truth is that, while Mommy may be rigorously honest on any other subject, in this instance she doesn't want to distinguish between what she really knows (i.e. what she has good reasons to believe) and 1) what she wants to be true, or 2) what will keep her children from grieving too much in Granny's absence. She is lying--either to herself or to her children--but we've all agreed not to talk about it. Rather than teach our children to grieve, we teach them to lie to themselves . . .

Sullivan:

I believe I can offer an adequate response. It may not be adequate to you; but it is adequate to me, and to many, many others - in fact, to the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived. My response rests on an understanding of truth that is not exhausted by empiricism or materialism. I do not believe, in short, that all truth rests on scientific premises and can be 'proven' by empirical or scientific methods. I believe science is one, important, valuable and respectable mode of thinking about the whole. But there are truth questions it has not answered and cannot answer . . .

One thing I appreciate about atheists is how they force you to consider whether your faith is as silly as they make it seem, or whether it is based upon something more than just a fairy tale fancy. It is one thing to go out and do "apologetics" for the purpose of evangelism, sounding smart, or just saving face. It's another thing to ask, "Why do I believe?" privately and honestly within your own heart and mind.

Someday I will be lying on my death bed facing the great unknown beyond, if there is a great beyond. In that moment I will be alone with my faith, and none of the people I've wrapped my life around, whether family, friends or church, can help me through it. None of the things I've done to try to impress people with my knowledge or deeds or great Christian witness will count for anything once the finality of death draws near. The thought of death is a reality check for a Christian. And so are the criticisms of atheists who think that I've entrusted my soul (except that they don't believe in souls) to something akin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm still trying to get caught up in reading the entire debate. If you want to read the whole thing, you can start from the beginning here.

Update: The morning I posted this I wrote to Andrew Sullivan and shared similar thoughts with him. On 1/27 he posted my email on his blog here.

Leave Shawn Hornbeck alone, please

Today's post is a little off the regular subject of this blog and has nothing to do with my usual topic of Christianity, homosexuality and the Bible. But I've decided to go ahead anyhow and say what's been on my mind this past week.

The public reaction to the kidnapping and safe return of fifteen year-old Shawn Hornbeck, in what is being called "the Missouri Miracle," has been bothering me. Nobody seems to understand why Hornbeck didn’t try to escape during his four year stay with his alleged abductor, Michael Devlin, even though he had access to the Internet and a cell phone while Devlin was gone at work. The implication that is maybe he didn't want to escape. It has been reported that while living with Devlin, he was even out late biking one night and was picked up and driven home by a police officer, yet he never said a word to the officer about his identity or situation.

Bill O’Reilly has even suggested that “there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances . . . The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted.”

Yesterday, Hornbeck told Oprah Winfrey off-camera that he was “terrified” of trying to contact his parents or seek help. He also told police officers that Devlin threatened to kill him and his entire family. He spent most of his time sleeping and playing video games--and praying he would be found.

The few words Shawn Hornbeck has spoken on the matter tell me everything I need to know. His behavior makes perfect sense to me.

It is not that hard for authority figures to control someone mentally and emotionally through fear. Abusive husbands do it to their wives. Abusive churches do it to their congregation members. Abusive bosses do it to their employees.

Now imagine being Shawn Hornbeck in his situation. You are abducted at gunpoint when you are eleven years old by a 300 pound stranger who threatens to kill you and your family if you should try to escape. He is an adult, he is bigger and stronger than you, and he possesses a gun. He’s the one who decides whether you eat or drink anything on any given day. He decides whether you get to watch television or play video games as opposed to say, being locked in a closet or chained to a bedpost all day. He decides whether he’s going to do his thing with you or leave you alone on any given night. He is the person that you, as an eleven year-old kid, have to negotiate with if you want to stay alive.

I can imagine how the rules were set up for Shawn Hornbeck by his abductor: Be a good kid and maybe I’ll get you a burger, let you watch a little TV, allow you some time to yourself in your room. Being a good kid means you play by the rules and don’t try to escape. Don’t try to talk to anyone or catch anyone’s eye, especially an adult or police officer. Give them the line about how you live with your dad, are homeschooled, are having a good time. Because if you don’t your family is dead.

Is it stupid for a kid to believe his abductor is capable of killing his entire family? Suppose the guy were to come home some days and say things like, “I saw your mom shopping at Target today.” Or suppose he tells you he stalked your sister to her school and describes to you what she was wearing. Do you think an eleven year-old kid, or even a fifteen year-old kid, wouldn’t get in line under threats like that? Michael Devlin would only have to have driven an hour to reach Shawn Hornbeck's home. If he did make such threats, they would have sounded real.

And if you were that kid, you can be sure that your abductor would have asked you questions if he saw you talking to anyone. He’d accuse you, threaten you, make you beg and plead and do your damnedest to convince him that you were good, you didn’t give the game away, you played by the rules, so that maybe he won’t beat you or starve you or rape you tonight. You learn that the only way you can negotiate with this bastard, win his trust and earn the small kindnesses you need from him to survive this ordeal, is to make sure that you have absolute integrity in the way you play by the rules. So when the police officer picks you up from biking and brings you back, you are able to hold your own when you are questioned and threatened and accused all night long about whether you said anything. You can insist, literally on your mother’s grave, that you did not give anything away. And you hope and pray that the officer doesn’t drop by the next day and make it look like you lied, because maybe then the guy will go off and make good on that promise about what he’d do to your family.

A person can feel pretty helpless and locked in after four years of living in that kind of terror. You wind up sleeping all day and playing video games, just to pass the time and get through each day. Every privilege you have is hard-earned, through years of making progress toward earning your captor's trust. Going out with friends or going to a sleepover is your reward, and these things make life bearable, so you sure as hell aren't going to jeopardize that because somebody joked about you looking like that missing kid Shawn Hornbeck. You watch people carefully now, and you can tell that they don't get it. If anything, jokes like that are dangerous and it's better to get people to shut up so that they don't end up getting you or someone you care about killed.

Well, I hope you get the picture. It really isn't that hard to understand why Shawn Hornbeck behaved as he did while in that situation. If you think about it, it happens on a smaller scale all the time to adults. People who won’t leave a bad situation--a marriage, a church, a job--but will in fact cover up for it because they are afraid of what might happen if they don’t. It’s really no different at all.

Let’s have a little more understanding, and leave the kid alone.

Update: Michael Reagan provides sane commentary, bravely sharing his own personal experience here.

Quote for the day

"Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for."

Earl Warren (1891-1974)

Life lessons and homeschooling

I've been homeschooling our two older children largely because the local schools here in the L.A. school district are pretty dismal. Homeschooling isn't my preference, but when in 2003 I saw that only 39% of the students at the school my daughters would be attending qualified as proficient (yep, proficient) in reading according to national standards—well, that did a lot to convince my husband and me to look at other options.

The idea of homeschooling was never a big deal for me because for a long time I'd been surrounded by parents who already did it. At our former church every single family homeschooled except for one. But I learned that people have varying reasons for doing it. And if you become a member of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), as I made the mistake of doing for a year, you realize from their newsletters and onslaught of email updates that HSLDA assumes all Christian homeschoolers are a right-wing voting bloc that they can exploit for their hyperventilated campaign against same-sex marriage. Pretty obnoxious. Did I mention what a mistake it was to join?

Our reasons for homeschooling have little to do with avoiding "government schools" that promote "the homosexual agenda" as HSLDA puts it. It is about good education, not the right politics. Ironically, even if you are homeschooling to avoid the politically charged atmosphere of a left-leaning school district, by joining a homeschooling group you are just entering into another politically charged atmosphere, quite often right-leaning. Since our focus is on old-fashioned academics, not training up future voters, we have been content to bypass both public schools and homeschooling organizations and forge ahead solo.

And it's funny how the right kind of "life education" takes place when you just let it come about naturally. I'm weak in science so I asked my friend Doug Taron, whom I came to know through my website, for advice on a science unit. Doug is a conservation biologist who specializes in restoring endangered butterfly species. Well, one thing led to another in our email exchanges and pretty soon he had us hooked onto the project of raising Painted Lady Butterflies. We started with the caterpillar stage and took it all the way through metamorphosis, the emergence of adult butterflies, mating, egg laying, and the hatching of several hundred larvae. The larvae died because of toxins from fungus in the cage (my mistake), but otherwise the girls went to town with the project and had a fantastic time. They took photographs, made sketches, observed the eggs and larvae under a microscope. Finally we put together a complete report, a copy of which we gave to Doug when he and his partner came over for dinner shortly afterward. It was by far the most memorable project we have done so far in our homeschooling adventures.

But there was an unexpected educational bonus that came out of that project. Our kids are approaching that age when they're asking questions about issues they overhear adults talk about. When they came to me asking what "gay" meant, not only was I comfortable explaining it to them, but better, I could point to a number of people they already knew that we've had over for dinner, one of whom was our friend Doug. Remember how he was the one who helped us with the butterfly project? Yes, of course they remembered. The butterfly net and butterfly calendar and butterfly educational DVD's they've asked for subsequent to doing that project attest to the fact that they remember him very well.

I feel much more comfortable with that kind of introduction than having them get their first exposure to "gay issues" by going to school and hearing whispers and gossip about whether some teacher or fellow student is gay. Then seeing their friends divided over whether it is or isn't a choice, is or isn't a sin, or should or shouldn't be considered a big deal. Or worse, getting a unit about it in the classroom and seeing parents fight teachers over what should or shouldn't be said. Sure, kids will have to see that stuff eventually. But it seems to me we'd all be better off if everyone's first exposure to this issue took place in a spirit of calm, after having already become acquainted with people who are actually gay.

My friend Doug, by the way, has a blog that is a balanced and interesting mixture of his professional and personal interests. If you like insects, nature, ecology and/or cooking, you can check it out here.

A stem that scored the hand

I'm home from church this morning, sick. While tidying up my computer files I came across this poem that I had saved from someplace I can't remember. A satisfying mixture of pessimism, wisdom and hope.

“...Therefore, since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure
Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure,
I’d face it as a wise man would,
And train for ill and not for good.
’Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale
Is not so brisk a brew as ale:
Out of a stem that scored the hand
I wrung it in a weary land.
But take it: if the smack is sour,
The better for the embittered hour;
It should do good to heart and head
When your soul is in my soul’s stead;
And I will friend you, if I may,
In the dark and cloudy day...”

-A. E. Housman
A Shropshire Lad
1896

Dialogue between camps

A gay reader writes in response to my Reformed reader:

I take hope from postings like your letter from a reformed reader. Sometimes it's easy to fall into a mindset that says that people of faith are all just a bunch of intolerant folks who are out to get us. It's gratifying that there are folks out there who are finding ways to do genuine soul searching and to ask the difficult questions without abandoning their faith. Unfortunately, people on my side of the argument often respond to questions that are raised by asking these folks to do just that. I'm including an expectation that these folks adopt a much more liberal interpretation of scripture as one form of abandoning their faith. I'm truly grateful for the hard work that you have been doing trying to find a way though these questions.