I love these recent spate of comments lamenting just how "hateful" liberals are.
What a laugh.
These are people who deny the basic humanity of LGBT people, and they call us "hateful?"
They throw around words like "apostate", "heretic", "abomination", "pervert", "juvenile" and a thesaurus of other insults and they call us hateful?
And, apparently they can read minds now? LOL.
Most liberals I know believe that bigoted behavior is "a self and other destroying behavior condemned clearly and pervasively within and across the testaments, that its destructive behavior is clearly manifest in its negative impact on the physical and emotional health of most who engage in it and that it therefore is an act of love to stand with scripture and speak God’s truth to fallen humanity (which includes us)." That of course was a direct quote from one of the commenters over there. Funny that they can say such things about gay people and somehow not believe that's hateful. However, when we point out similar things about them, it's hate.
I don't hate them, even if they are hypocrites. When one of them rebukes any others for all the sarcastic, mean, angry, insulting comments I've received at their blogs I'll believe they're actually serious.
Until then, they can drop the phony indignation, no one's buying it.
As a side note, it amuses me how much these folks remind me of the Parent's Television Council. The PTC are the folks who will watch hours and hours of supposedly nasty, filthy network television shows and then document all of the naughtiness therein. You know, they just *had* to watch it all the way through because there was so much sexual content. LOL
These folks constantly stalking the posts around here remind me of that. Funny how they know so much, in detail, about what gets written here, even though they claim never to stop by. ;)
I guess it's true, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. :)
God have mercy, Alan. It's not about what the other folks are doing. But, how are we showing the love of Christ even in our choice of words.
I think, in part, it's a matter of the heart. There's a difference in expressing strong disagreement, concern, and disrespectful name-calling, and personal attacks meant to cause hurt.
Frankly, I'm feeling there are sincere, well-meaning Christian people on both sides of this whole sexuality issue.
For instance, even though we don't agree, I can see from just a short acquaintance with Viola Larson, that she is a caring Christian women, very much wanting to honor our Lord, and to do the right thing.
I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty.
And, of course, there are plenty of conservatives who don't have the best spirit either.
God give us wisdom, and help us to come to a unity in this together, and around the gospel.
I caught your comment on another blog (and I think you mentioned it here, too) that you are looking for a congregation that is both lgbt affirming and fits your theology.
When I was searching I looked at congregations in other denominations that were gay-friendly. I even sent out feelers.
I found that my theology wouldn't fit as they were strongly evangelical (not that there is anything wrong with that)!
"I can see from just a short acquaintance with Viola Larson, that she is a caring Christian women, very much wanting to honor our Lord, and to do the right thing."
"Name any NWAC blogger, representative, or member who speaks like John Shuck does. Considering our enforced marginalization over the decades, I feel that our discourse has been reasonable."
I posted that I thought Parker Williamson fits the bill.
But I lied.
You can't hold a candle to Parker. He raised millions of dollars over the years to bring down the mainline progressives, and wrote numerous books, and traveled far and wide with his inflammatory message of intolerance and hatred. Plus he has a following that numbers in the tens of thousands.
But you still have time to catch up, if you really try.
grace wrote, "I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty."
I don't know what that means.
Sharing the gospel and LGBT inclusion means that the pews will be empty? Sorry I just don't get what you're saying here Grace, could you expand on that a bit?
So many progressives that I've talked with naturally assume that everyone who disagree with a GLBT inclusive position does so out of hatred, fear, or bigotry.
Those who disagree are labeled facist, homophobic, and bigoted, many times mocked and riduculed.
I think this just turns off, and alienates folks that we need to reach the most.
We need to be caring, and sensitive in relating with people, willing to think the best in sharing concerning GLBT inclusion in the same way that we are in sharing the gospel with people who may feel alienated from the church, or who are misunderstanding the gospel.
Of course, this is no easy task, and we all fall short, but we surely need to try and express the love of Christ in everything with God's help.
Well, first of all Grace, do you recognize that there are indeed bigots and homophobes out there? Do you believe, as I do, that those are not just names one throws out there like "poophead" but are words that have actual meaning? That is, bigotry is an actual real live thing, as is homophobia. Is it wrong to call someone who is clearly bigoted or homophobic a bigot or a homophobe?
Do you believe every liberal calls every evangelical a homophobe or a racist? Do you believe that if a liberal were to call Fred Phelps a bigot and a homophobe, that means that liberal also believes that everyone who shares Fred's views is also a bigot or a homophobe?
Do you believe that if one liberal calls someone a bigot that all liberals are responsible for those remarks and should be painted with the same brush?
Because it's clear that these folks believe the answers to those questions are No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order.
And what about the other side? Do they have any responsibility for the language they use, such as "apostate", "heretic", "pervert", "abomination", "false teacher", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "so-called Christian"? These are all words I've been called, or seen used on various conservative PCUSA blogs, and not a single one of the conservative PCUSA-ers out there in the blogosphere ever said anything against the use of those words.
So, perhaps you can see why I dispute the assertions of the phony martyrs out there, who seem to have the vapors anytime anyone says anything they don't like, as they troll around the blogosphere, obsessed with what gets said on other people's blogs.
And finally can you see how some of us might not be so concerned that they're all bent out of shape about a little name calling, when they are doing much worse -- denying us the right to live our lives? I mean, which is worse, calling someone homophobic, or denying another person their basic human rights?
Name calling vs. actual actions? Perhaps when the situation is framed that way you can see why I'm not going to get too upset over their feigned indignation. If they were really hurt about it, and really wanted reconciliation, then they wouldn't try to use the name-calling issue simply to score yet more cheap points in a pointless debate. "Oh gee, someone called me a name, look how hateful they are, therefore they're just as evil as we say they are!"
I certainly think they are folks out there who are truly homophobes and bigots. No question about it. And, I understand that not all progressives who disagree with the conservatives label them in this way.
But, I think there is this tendency among at least some of the progressives to paint everyone who disagrees with the same brush. And, you're right conversative people can do the same thing in reverse.
You realize, Alan, that all these terms are subjective. I don't consider myself really progressive, but yet I totally agree with GLBT inclusion, and the ordination of women.
For what it's worth though, when I argue for gay and lesbian concerns, there is often strong disagreement, but, no one yet has called me a heretic, or apostate from the Christian faith. I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet.
I think Alan many of these conservatives don't understand your deep hurt, how this is all seen as an attack on your whole personhood. They are looking at the whole issue in a very different way.
Maybe you would like to go over to Jim Berkley's blog, and see the recent comment by Debbie. You will see what I'm saying.
In the Second World War many ordinary soldiers would not have agreed with all of Hitler's psychotic, evil ideas. But they still, quite willingly, pulled the triggers on their guns when they were told to.
"Maybe you would like to go over to Jim Berkley's blog, and see the recent comment by Debbie. You will see what I'm saying."
Um, yeah, here's the double-talk I hear over there...
"For an evangelical, it is not hateful to say that something someone does is sinful, because it is a way to help that person. It is not unlike when a parent cautions a child about doing something dangerous. The parent is doing this for a loving reason; the parent wants the child to be safe."
So in other words, they rationalize away what some might call "hate" while denouncing the identical motivation by some progressives. No, it's not hate to call someone an "abomination" or a "pervert" they say, because they're only doing it to be loving. But it is hateful to call someone out on their bigotry.
Rather convenient that such a clever rationalization creates a story about themselves as loving and kind, while their opponents are hateful, evil, apostate, perverted, abominations.
Or how about this lie?
Debbie wrote, "But apparently to progressives the first is hateful, and I am baffled to understand the progressive defense of the second [using four letter words] that I have found here in the comments."
Now, I've read all through all the comments over there and I didn't see one defense of anyone using foul language. Have you? Notice too how that sentence lumps all progressives together? Clearly when you write, "But, I think there is this tendency among at least some of the progressives to paint everyone who disagrees with the same brush," you see that not everyone approaches this dialogue in the same way. Can you see that some of the folks over there are only out to demonize the entire progressive camp?
Notice as well how they keep bringing up Fred Phelps as a foil. Oh, we're not like him, don't lump us all together! Yet they do precisely the same thing, lumping everyone together.
And, again, I believe this is all just a weapon of mass distraction. "Don't look too closely at what folks like the IRD are actually after: the complete removal of LGBT people from the life of the church, and the complete denial of their basic human rights to gainful employment, marriage, safety, and health care. Instead focus on some insults we've received." [see John's latest post about the IRD for more info.]
It's a clever rhetorical device, isn't it? Again, notice how conveniently it makes them out to be victims. They, who deny our basic human rights, they set themselves up to be the victims here? It would be hilarious if it weren't so twisted.
"I think Alan many of these conservatives don't understand your deep hurt, how this is all seen as an attack on your whole personhood. "
BTW, I would caution again about overgeneralizing.
I have met and know LGBT people who have been deeply hurt by the church's policies of exclusion.
However, I would not characterize my experience that way at all. I don't feel hurt at all, nor have I ever. I'm angry, to be sure. But not hurt. Again, that is just MY experience and I am not saying that I speak for every LGBT person.
And I wouldn't say necessarily that an attack on my sexual orientation is an attack on my whole personhood, as I don't see my sexual orientation as defining my whole personhood. However, notice that their attacks do not simply stop with my sexual orientation. Not only do they attack my sexual orientation as perverted, or an abomination, but they have attacked me as a heretic, or as apostate. Those are clearly attacks on my whole personhood. So, while I believe my sexual orientation is one part, a very important part, but only one aspect of my being. They believe that this one aspect of my being, my being gay, makes my whole life heretical and/or apostate.
no one yet has called me a heretic, or apostate from the Christian faith. I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet.
Grace, believe me this is coming. One famous example is Dr. Jack Rogers (a former moderator of the General Assembly), a self-described evangelical who came 180° on the GLBT issue unusually not through the experience of a family member coming out, but through a lengthy process of study and conversation. He is now smeared mercilessly by the ilk of the IRD for his apostasy, even though he has remained faithfully evangelical the entire time.
I appreciate your openness to folks like me in the church. I just hate for you to have to face the slime machine. It's horrible, and all done in the name of Christ.
I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty.
Respectfully, I would submit that my church and John's church are living counterexamples to this argument.
The one thing guaranteed to empty pews IMO is to prolong this same. old. tired. fight. MOST people don't want to go to church to fight. Even those who care passionately enough about the church to be willing to take on these fights are sick of the arguments.
Like I say, I am very tempted to John's POV that we should change our Tammy Wynette track from "Stand By Your Man" to "D-I-V-O-R-C-E".
"I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet."
Yup, or how about another example: Dr. Mark Achtemeier, an evangelical whom they also smear because of his participation in the PUP Task Force. They say he has "abandoned the legacy of faith" is "pushing chaos" that he "mocks God" and that he has "gone off the deep end theologically and ethically."
LOL!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou, junvenile???
Whazzat all about?
"On February 20, Shuck’s humor consisted of posting condescending photos of rednecks, with mocking captions about renewal leaders, myself included."
ReplyDeleteGolly. Jim says that like it's a BAD thing...wtf?!?!
Four times now, I've written comments for Jim's blog, and I've had to remind myself that it is a terrible idea to comment on Jim's blog.
ReplyDeleteThey don't excite or inspire me, but at least your angry posts are honest.
I love these recent spate of comments lamenting just how "hateful" liberals are.
ReplyDeleteWhat a laugh.
These are people who deny the basic humanity of LGBT people, and they call us "hateful?"
They throw around words like "apostate", "heretic", "abomination", "pervert", "juvenile" and a thesaurus of other insults and they call us hateful?
And, apparently they can read minds now? LOL.
Most liberals I know believe that bigoted behavior is "a self and other destroying behavior condemned clearly and pervasively within and across the testaments, that its destructive behavior is clearly manifest in its negative impact on the physical and emotional health of most who engage in it and that it therefore is an act of love to stand with scripture and speak God’s truth to fallen humanity (which includes us)." That of course was a direct quote from one of the commenters over there. Funny that they can say such things about gay people and somehow not believe that's hateful. However, when we point out similar things about them, it's hate.
I don't hate them, even if they are hypocrites. When one of them rebukes any others for all the sarcastic, mean, angry, insulting comments I've received at their blogs I'll believe they're actually serious.
Until then, they can drop the phony indignation, no one's buying it.
As a side note, it amuses me how much these folks remind me of the Parent's Television Council. The PTC are the folks who will watch hours and hours of supposedly nasty, filthy network television shows and then document all of the naughtiness therein. You know, they just *had* to watch it all the way through because there was so much sexual content. LOL
ReplyDeleteThese folks constantly stalking the posts around here remind me of that. Funny how they know so much, in detail, about what gets written here, even though they claim never to stop by. ;)
I guess it's true, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. :)
God have mercy, Alan. It's not about what the other folks are doing. But, how are we showing the love of Christ even in our choice of words.
ReplyDeleteI think, in part, it's a matter of the heart. There's a difference in expressing strong disagreement, concern, and disrespectful name-calling, and personal attacks meant to cause hurt.
Frankly, I'm feeling there are sincere, well-meaning Christian people on both sides of this whole sexuality issue.
For instance, even though we don't agree, I can see from just a short acquaintance with Viola Larson, that she is a caring Christian women, very much wanting to honor our Lord, and to do the right thing.
I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty.
And, of course, there are plenty of conservatives who don't have the best spirit either.
God give us wisdom, and help us to come to a unity in this together, and around the gospel.
Hey Grace,
ReplyDeleteI caught your comment on another blog (and I think you mentioned it here, too) that you are looking for a congregation that is both lgbt affirming and fits your theology.
When I was searching I looked at congregations in other denominations that were gay-friendly. I even sent out feelers.
I found that my theology wouldn't fit as they were strongly evangelical (not that there is anything wrong with that)!
You might check out the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church)
They are evangelical and lgbt-affirming and I am sure they would love to have you involved in their ministry.
Another resource is Gaychurch for a list of congregations that are lgbt-friendly. Many of them are also evangelical.
If you want Presbyterian, I recommend going to More Light Presbyterians to locate a congregation. Again, each is different.
The Gaychurch website has a lot of resources and links to find congregations and ministries from a variety of theological perspectives.
Blessings on your search!
"I can see from just a short acquaintance with Viola Larson, that she is a caring Christian women, very much wanting to honor our Lord, and to do the right thing."
ReplyDeleteI thought so too, at first.
Tom Grey commented
ReplyDelete"Name any NWAC blogger, representative, or member who speaks like John Shuck does. Considering our enforced marginalization over the decades, I feel that our discourse has been reasonable."
I posted that I thought Parker Williamson fits the bill.
But I lied.
You can't hold a candle to Parker. He raised millions of dollars over the years to bring down the mainline progressives, and wrote numerous books, and traveled far and wide with his inflammatory message of intolerance and hatred. Plus he has a following that numbers in the tens of thousands.
But you still have time to catch up, if you really try.
I want to see your worked out theology of the Juvenile Jesus, Son Of God, by the end of the week.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, John.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, John.
ReplyDeletea profane, juvenile blog, appropriately named “Shuck and Jive.”
ReplyDeleteNow that is high praise! Maybe you should redirect him to MadPriest!
Oh you profane, juvenile blogger, I love you.
And as for juvenile, didn't Jesus tell us to suffer the children?
Just sayin'...
BTW you big baby - have any interest in this?
ReplyDeletegrace wrote, "I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty."
ReplyDeleteI don't know what that means.
Sharing the gospel and LGBT inclusion means that the pews will be empty? Sorry I just don't get what you're saying here Grace, could you expand on that a bit?
Well, Alan,
ReplyDeleteSo many progressives that I've talked with naturally assume that everyone who disagree with a GLBT inclusive position does so out of hatred, fear, or bigotry.
Those who disagree are labeled facist, homophobic, and bigoted, many times mocked and riduculed.
I think this just turns off, and alienates folks that we need to reach the most.
We need to be caring, and sensitive in relating with people, willing to think the best in sharing concerning GLBT inclusion in the same way that we are in sharing the gospel with people who may feel alienated from the church, or who are misunderstanding the gospel.
Of course, this is no easy task, and we all fall short, but we surely need to try and express the love of Christ in everything with God's help.
Do you see what I mean?
Well, first of all Grace, do you recognize that there are indeed bigots and homophobes out there? Do you believe, as I do, that those are not just names one throws out there like "poophead" but are words that have actual meaning? That is, bigotry is an actual real live thing, as is homophobia. Is it wrong to call someone who is clearly bigoted or homophobic a bigot or a homophobe?
ReplyDeleteDo you believe every liberal calls every evangelical a homophobe or a racist? Do you believe that if a liberal were to call Fred Phelps a bigot and a homophobe, that means that liberal also believes that everyone who shares Fred's views is also a bigot or a homophobe?
Do you believe that if one liberal calls someone a bigot that all liberals are responsible for those remarks and should be painted with the same brush?
Because it's clear that these folks believe the answers to those questions are No, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order.
And what about the other side? Do they have any responsibility for the language they use, such as "apostate", "heretic", "pervert", "abomination", "false teacher", "wolf in sheep's clothing", "so-called Christian"? These are all words I've been called, or seen used on various conservative PCUSA blogs, and not a single one of the conservative PCUSA-ers out there in the blogosphere ever said anything against the use of those words.
So, perhaps you can see why I dispute the assertions of the phony martyrs out there, who seem to have the vapors anytime anyone says anything they don't like, as they troll around the blogosphere, obsessed with what gets said on other people's blogs.
And finally can you see how some of us might not be so concerned that they're all bent out of shape about a little name calling, when they are doing much worse -- denying us the right to live our lives? I mean, which is worse, calling someone homophobic, or denying another person their basic human rights?
Name calling vs. actual actions? Perhaps when the situation is framed that way you can see why I'm not going to get too upset over their feigned indignation. If they were really hurt about it, and really wanted reconciliation, then they wouldn't try to use the name-calling issue simply to score yet more cheap points in a pointless debate. "Oh gee, someone called me a name, look how hateful they are, therefore they're just as evil as we say they are!"
Give. Me. A. Break.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI certainly think they are folks out there who are truly homophobes and bigots. No question about it. And, I understand that not all progressives who disagree with the conservatives label them in this way.
But, I think there is this tendency among at least some of the progressives to paint everyone who disagrees with the same brush. And, you're right conversative people can do the same thing in reverse.
You realize, Alan, that all these terms are subjective. I don't consider myself really progressive, but yet I totally agree with GLBT inclusion, and the ordination of women.
For what it's worth though, when I argue for gay and lesbian concerns, there is often strong disagreement, but, no one yet has called me a heretic, or apostate from the Christian faith. I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet.
I think Alan many of these conservatives don't understand your deep hurt, how this is all seen as an attack on your whole personhood. They are looking at the whole issue in a very different way.
Maybe you would like to go over to Jim Berkley's blog, and see the recent comment by Debbie. You will see what I'm saying.
Peace.
In the Second World War many ordinary soldiers would not have agreed with all of Hitler's psychotic, evil ideas. But they still, quite willingly, pulled the triggers on their guns when they were told to.
ReplyDelete"Maybe you would like to go over to Jim Berkley's blog, and see the recent comment by Debbie. You will see what I'm saying."
ReplyDeleteUm, yeah, here's the double-talk I hear over there...
"For an evangelical, it is not hateful to say that something someone does is sinful, because it is a way to help that person. It is not unlike when a parent cautions a child about doing something dangerous. The parent is doing this for a loving reason; the parent wants the child to be safe."
So in other words, they rationalize away what some might call "hate" while denouncing the identical motivation by some progressives. No, it's not hate to call someone an "abomination" or a "pervert" they say, because they're only doing it to be loving. But it is hateful to call someone out on their bigotry.
Rather convenient that such a clever rationalization creates a story about themselves as loving and kind, while their opponents are hateful, evil, apostate, perverted, abominations.
Or how about this lie?
Debbie wrote, "But apparently to progressives the first is hateful, and I am baffled to understand the progressive defense of the second [using four letter words] that I have found here in the comments."
Now, I've read all through all the comments over there and I didn't see one defense of anyone using foul language. Have you? Notice too how that sentence lumps all progressives together? Clearly when you write, "But, I think there is this tendency among at least some of the progressives to paint everyone who disagrees with the same brush," you see that not everyone approaches this dialogue in the same way. Can you see that some of the folks over there are only out to demonize the entire progressive camp?
Notice as well how they keep bringing up Fred Phelps as a foil. Oh, we're not like him, don't lump us all together! Yet they do precisely the same thing, lumping everyone together.
And, again, I believe this is all just a weapon of mass distraction. "Don't look too closely at what folks like the IRD are actually after: the complete removal of LGBT people from the life of the church, and the complete denial of their basic human rights to gainful employment, marriage, safety, and health care. Instead focus on some insults we've received." [see John's latest post about the IRD for more info.]
It's a clever rhetorical device, isn't it? Again, notice how conveniently it makes them out to be victims. They, who deny our basic human rights, they set themselves up to be the victims here? It would be hilarious if it weren't so twisted.
"I think Alan many of these conservatives don't understand your deep hurt, how this is all seen as an attack on your whole personhood. "
ReplyDeleteBTW, I would caution again about overgeneralizing.
I have met and know LGBT people who have been deeply hurt by the church's policies of exclusion.
However, I would not characterize my experience that way at all. I don't feel hurt at all, nor have I ever. I'm angry, to be sure. But not hurt. Again, that is just MY experience and I am not saying that I speak for every LGBT person.
And I wouldn't say necessarily that an attack on my sexual orientation is an attack on my whole personhood, as I don't see my sexual orientation as defining my whole personhood. However, notice that their attacks do not simply stop with my sexual orientation. Not only do they attack my sexual orientation as perverted, or an abomination, but they have attacked me as a heretic, or as apostate. Those are clearly attacks on my whole personhood. So, while I believe my sexual orientation is one part, a very important part, but only one aspect of my being. They believe that this one aspect of my being, my being gay, makes my whole life heretical and/or apostate.
no one yet has called me a heretic, or apostate from the Christian faith. I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet.
ReplyDeleteGrace, believe me this is coming. One famous example is Dr. Jack Rogers (a former moderator of the General Assembly), a self-described evangelical who came 180° on the GLBT issue unusually not through the experience of a family member coming out, but through a lengthy process of study and conversation. He is now smeared mercilessly by the ilk of the IRD for his apostasy, even though he has remained faithfully evangelical the entire time.
I appreciate your openness to folks like me in the church. I just hate for you to have to face the slime machine. It's horrible, and all done in the name of Christ.
I'm telling the truth folks, if we shared the gospel in the same way that many progressive folks affirm, and advocate for GLBT inclusion in the churches, our pews would be empty.
Respectfully, I would submit that my church and John's church are living counterexamples to this argument.
The one thing guaranteed to empty pews IMO is to prolong this same. old. tired. fight. MOST people don't want to go to church to fight. Even those who care passionately enough about the church to be willing to take on these fights are sick of the arguments.
Like I say, I am very tempted to John's POV that we should change our Tammy Wynette track from "Stand By Your Man" to "D-I-V-O-R-C-E".
"I guess someday there may come that time, but it hasn't happened yet."
ReplyDeleteYup, or how about another example: Dr. Mark Achtemeier, an evangelical whom they also smear because of his participation in the PUP Task Force. They say he has "abandoned the legacy of faith" is "pushing chaos" that he "mocks God" and that he has "gone off the deep end theologically and ethically."
And that, Grace, is how they treat their friends.