While I appreciate your private email, and myself prefer private confrontation to public scolding, I guess I wonder why you asked
Brady - do you know of anyone in the pro-gay tolerant crowd denouncing this behavior toward Hutch? I would look for it but I don’t have time at the moment. Do you think they should denounce this rude behavior?
After an individual booed Ken Hutcherson (something obviously less flagrant than advocating violence).
It is my impression that the perceived "silence" of gay-affirming voices was inappropriate, or possibly even that it constituted acceptance or indifference.
If there is a difference, could you please clarify for us.
Randy
· 1 year ago
The difference is the question marks. I didn’t call on a specific person to denounce this action. I didn’t condemn anyone by name for not doing so.
also, who is "us." Do you speak on behalf of more than yourself?
Brian
· 1 year ago
By "us" I meant the readers of your blog.
Randy
· 1 year ago
What did you appreciate about the email?
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
"the above letter won’t go very far to satisfy some militant gay activists."
But militant gay activists will never convince the people that say rude, insensitive, dumb things to be more tolerant like they (the activists) want (or more loving, which is the real issue). And the people that say rude, insensitive, dumb things will never convince the gay activists of anything, either through those remarks or when they say other things. Obviously private e-mail from a friend who understands both sides will be much more effective than yelling at someone or publicly castigating him.
I think that there is a problem because both sides see each other through a thick layer of stereotypes. Your e-mail was humanizing.
Brady
· 1 year ago
"Your e-mail was humanizing."
I saw that too, and in the end, I think that's the key. I liked the email, Randy.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Good! That "humanizing" is an answer to prayer.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I am glad Brady
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
I don't have time to flesh this out right at this moment, but this reminds me of an article (you wrote?) on Boundless about how God hates homosexuality as an inanimate 'it' but loves homosexuals because they are people.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I look forward to when you do write more about it. I have written a couple articles for Boundless. Another one is going to be published next week :).
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
Randy's Boundless article is in fact linked on the 'articles' page of ETC. I realize that I'm quoting from the middle of an episode, but here is the relevant quote (and I can't do any funky kind of HTML blockquoting because I am an English major and my technological know-how is inversely proportionate to my knowledge about grammar, punctuation, and obscure Medieval texts):
"At that point I felt the Spirit asking me, "Randy ... what is the sin?" The only Scripture I knew was Leviticus 18:22 (that's only because it was on the signs that the Christians held up at pride parades and outside of clubs). I told the Lord that I didn't like that Scripture. But He persisted, "What is the sin?" I thought through the verse again: "When one man lies with another as a woman it is an abomination before the Lord," (emphasis mine). The word "it" jumped out at me. I sensed the Spirit asking, "What is 'it'?"
I answered, "A gender neutral pronoun?" I was a little surprised that in the middle of this powerful time the Holy Spirit would be giving me an English pop quiz. I felt Him say, "EXACTLY!!!"
Then my world fell apart over one little word. "It" meant that I was not the abomination, Ron was not the abomination. It was the abomination — the act itself was keeping Ron and me looking toward each other and not to God for fulfillment of who we were and what God intended."
Basically it seemed to Randy, as a gay man, that *he* was considered 'an abomination' by Christians (and/or the Bible). But after this experience he realized that it was not him, or any other people, who were bad, but that it was what they were doing that was bad. Randy's original view, of being under personal attack, seems to be the usual understanding that the average gay person has of 'mean Christians' (Randy's words) and their ideas. This view of course gets reinforced by idiots who do things like bringing guns to gay bars and saying horrible things in the public square.
But I also think that the concept of 'it' v. 'them' is what causes a lot of the insensitivity from the right. The people on the right who engage in the broad range of 'homophobic' behaviors can't see past the 'it' to the people engaging in 'it.' They don't recognize that what they say/do is hurting real human beings. In particular, the people who say things (often as jokes, albeit jokes in very poor taste) don't recognize that what they are saying will be heard by the people standing on the other side of the fence, and, once heard, interpreted within a completely different context and from a completely different frame of reference. One that remembers and has experienced actual acts of violence, and is therefore not likely to take threats of it lightly.
Someone who doesn't recognize that different, legitimate frame of reference and the people behind it, won't ever be able to reach them in any positive way.
Hopefully that all made sense :)
(I would also like to point out that this illustrates that if everyone knew their grammar better, and applied it to their daily lives and readings, we would all be happier :) )
Randy
· 1 year ago
It did make sense and I am glad you liked the English pop quiz part of my testimony. Good summation!
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
Thanks. Yeah, I don't know if the English part is why it stuck in my brain or not, but I honestly have been thinking about that section of that article since it was published (what, a year ago?). Not realizing that you wrote it until today...I think I'd better get off my English shtick, though, before it gets too old. Did I mention I'm a history major, too? Do you think that comes with any good jokes?
Randy
· 1 year ago
Are you kidding me? :) History is full of jokes. I understand what was important to you... I was boiling it down to that one sentence.
It's humbling to hear how the Lord uses something to causes us to pause, then we reflect and share ... then others pause. It is a blessed thing to watch unfold.
All Comments
After an individual booed Ken Hutcherson (something obviously less flagrant than advocating violence).
It is my impression that the perceived "silence" of gay-affirming voices was inappropriate, or possibly even that it constituted acceptance or indifference.
If there is a difference, could you please clarify for us.
also, who is "us." Do you speak on behalf of more than yourself?
But militant gay activists will never convince the people that say rude, insensitive, dumb things to be more tolerant like they (the activists) want (or more loving, which is the real issue). And the people that say rude, insensitive, dumb things will never convince the gay activists of anything, either through those remarks or when they say other things. Obviously private e-mail from a friend who understands both sides will be much more effective than yelling at someone or publicly castigating him.
I think that there is a problem because both sides see each other through a thick layer of stereotypes. Your e-mail was humanizing.
I saw that too, and in the end, I think that's the key. I liked the email, Randy.
"At that point I felt the Spirit asking me, "Randy ... what is the sin?" The only Scripture I knew was Leviticus 18:22 (that's only because it was on the signs that the Christians held up at pride parades and outside of clubs). I told the Lord that I didn't like that Scripture. But He persisted, "What is the sin?" I thought through the verse again: "When one man lies with another as a woman it is an abomination before the Lord," (emphasis mine). The word "it" jumped out at me. I sensed the Spirit asking, "What is 'it'?"
I answered, "A gender neutral pronoun?" I was a little surprised that in the middle of this powerful time the Holy Spirit would be giving me an English pop quiz. I felt Him say, "EXACTLY!!!"
Then my world fell apart over one little word. "It" meant that I was not the abomination, Ron was not the abomination. It was the abomination — the act itself was keeping Ron and me looking toward each other and not to God for fulfillment of who we were and what God intended."
Basically it seemed to Randy, as a gay man, that *he* was considered 'an abomination' by Christians (and/or the Bible). But after this experience he realized that it was not him, or any other people, who were bad, but that it was what they were doing that was bad. Randy's original view, of being under personal attack, seems to be the usual understanding that the average gay person has of 'mean Christians' (Randy's words) and their ideas. This view of course gets reinforced by idiots who do things like bringing guns to gay bars and saying horrible things in the public square.
But I also think that the concept of 'it' v. 'them' is what causes a lot of the insensitivity from the right. The people on the right who engage in the broad range of 'homophobic' behaviors can't see past the 'it' to the people engaging in 'it.' They don't recognize that what they say/do is hurting real human beings. In particular, the people who say things (often as jokes, albeit jokes in very poor taste) don't recognize that what they are saying will be heard by the people standing on the other side of the fence, and, once heard, interpreted within a completely different context and from a completely different frame of reference. One that remembers and has experienced actual acts of violence, and is therefore not likely to take threats of it lightly.
Someone who doesn't recognize that different, legitimate frame of reference and the people behind it, won't ever be able to reach them in any positive way.
Hopefully that all made sense :)
(I would also like to point out that this illustrates that if everyone knew their grammar better, and applied it to their daily lives and readings, we would all be happier :) )
It's humbling to hear how the Lord uses something to causes us to pause, then we reflect and share ... then others pause. It is a blessed thing to watch unfold.