Re: Compromise? I certainly hope not.
I was able to track down some more information about Evangelicals and progressives cooperating, which Matt discussed earlier. Christianity Today has an article about evangelical and progressive leaders coming together under a program dubbed “Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Progressives and Evangelicals.” Of particular importance to InterstateQ readers:
On gay rights, for example, progressives and evangelicals found they both shared a commitment to human dignity and the Golden Rule.
For evangelicals, support of human dignity is based on the ultimate belief that all humans are created in the image of God, explained the paper. As a result, all humans deserve respect regardless of what they do and believe.
“Protecting the human rights and dignity of all, even for those with whom one disagrees, is not only a consistent thing to do; it is a proud American tradition and a high moral and religious calling,” read the joint paper.
However, the group also agreed no legislation should infringe on the right of religious groups to manage their communities, regulate their religious practices, and to express their beliefs publicly on issues around homosexuality.
I hope this is something we can all agree upon. On Equality Ride, I often responded to the question “So are you here because you want to make us change our policies?” My answer was always, “No.” I don’t want to force a school or a church to change their policies. I want them to know me, to seek the truth, to gather understanding together and I’m confident that any change which needs to occur will.
If these leaders can honor their commitment to honor and respect all citizens–including equal protections under the law–it looks like this might be a great starting point.
Here’s to hoping!
About the Author: Brian
5 Responses to “Re: Compromise? I certainly hope not.”
This sounds like a great idea. I think the challenge, however, is going to come when trying to come to a mutual understanding of what things fall under the topic of civil rights. Same sex marriage is a primary example of this. Many conservatives don’t consider it a civil right for various reasons. And to be honest, I don’t think we progressives always do the best job of presenting a reasoned case for why it is.
But hopefully, many will rise to meet and even start overcoming that challenge.
By Jarred on Oct 12, 2007
Hi Brian: Regarding the following: “However, the group also agreed no legislation should infringe on the right of religious groups to manage their communities, regulate their religious practices, and to express their beliefs publicly on issues around homosexuality.,” that last phrase is inappropriate, in my opinion, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that clergy carry a moral authority that defines such concepts as “sin” and “immorality” in the minds of many people.
Hence, when a religious group condemns homosexuality, it is fomenting and reinforcing condemnation of LGBT people, and helping to create suicides, as well as assaults and murders of LGBT people by people, many of whom think they’re doing God a favor by assaulting and even killing those whom most in the institutional Church are condemning.
It is a very fine line to distinguish the condemnation of a “practice” from the condemnation of an “individual who engages in that practice,” so that when clergy speak from ignorance and condemn same-sex love, they are helping to destroy LGBT people, and they don’t have the right to do that.
The attempt to find common ground between those who heed Jesus’ admonition to us not to judge or condemn anyone, and to be agents of God’s grace in this world on the one hand, and those who feel the need to condemn same-sex love on the other, is not only futile, but implies that there can be an agreement reached that embraces, or can accommodate, both points of view at the same time, and that goal is unobtainable, and should be unobtainable.
There is only one Gospel to be found in Christianity, and that is the Gospel of grace (God’s unmerited favor to all those who implacably trust Him.), faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances), peace, love, reconciliation, and inclusiveness.
There is no place for the false gospel of legalism, perfectionism, and exclusion that characterizes those who, in the name of God, in any way demean or call sinful and immoral what they are unable or unwilling to understand.
There can and should be no common ground between these two groups! Best wishes, Jerry.
By Jerry Maneker on Oct 12, 2007
Jerry,
I absolutely agree with you that God completely affirms LGBT individuals and that any message to the contrary does a disservice to God and the Gospel. As someone who was “on the front lines” so to speak with Equality Ride, I have seen the devastating effect anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit has on individuals so I’m in full agreement with you there too.
I think straight Equality Rider Bram Wispelwey put it best when he said, “Causing or even allowing any of God’s children to feel like something less than His perfectly loved child may be the greatest heresy of the Christian faith.”
That being said, America cherishes its First Amendment rights, one of which is Freedom of Religion. As a Christian, I am appalled to see anti-gay rhetoric spewed from the pulpit, but as an American, I am aware that such a right exists. It is as distasteful as when preachers supported slavery, the second-class citizenry of women, and bans on interracial marriage. But I believe that the first amendment protects not only those things with which I disagree, but those which I find disgusting.
As a Christian, I will continue to stand up against anti-gay doctrine. As an American, I will work towards full equality under the law.
And it looks like I might have the opportunity to both things at once.
By Brian on Oct 12, 2007
Once again, Brian pulls me back to where I should be. What would I do without him?
My post to which Brian responded here was full of anger and of mis-trust. Granted, they are emotions that are understandable but they are also emotions that are wrong.
Ask any person involved in the Equality Ride, especially on the East bus, and they will tell you that I certainly had a hard time keeping my mind on the non-violent (in thought, word and deed) spirit we all so desperately needed when going in to converse with those who disagreed with us. It’s folks like Brian and my friends Katie and Jarrett who kept me focused.
The discussion in the comment thread here, while short, was a good one. Thanks Brian for the post and for pulling me back (once again).
By Matt on Oct 13, 2007
Though I do think that a bit of hesitation, as you and Jerry have called for, is appropriate. It is one thing to come together in places where we agree, but it’s an entirely other thing to capitulate basic values and rights out of niceness. It’s also important to continue to assert our humanity and our needs and to call attention to things that need changing, even while working towards a common goal.
By Brian on Oct 13, 2007