The term neo-nazi is way extreme and maybe even not worth addressing. Killing people for their beliefs is in a completely different galaxy than what Randy or Exodus do, and using exaggerations like that really does no one any good. "Godwin's Law" is really all I can say (wikipedia it if you aren't familiar).
You could have argued your concern with Randy's political stance so much better had you done it reasonably.
And on a side note- to Ellie- I've said this on my blog before, but when I read your words it brought it up in my mind again...I see and agree with your understanding of abortion, sex and other issues as moral issues, but I'd like to put it out there that I don't see homosexuality as falling into the issue of moral or immoral.
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
Brady, As you probably already realize, we're going to have to respectfully disagree on that.
Brady
· 1 year ago
Hey Randy. I feel what you're saying about stigmatizing, and in general, I give you the benefit of the doubt (being on the other side of the debate and all). I really do believe when you say you are not out to stigmatize, and most of the time I can see that here on your blog.
I agree with you that this video is just way over the top. I hate this kind of stigmatizing, whether it's this debate or politics in general. For those that think critically, it really is unbecoming of the people launching the assualt when it all boils down.
Anyway, my one thought was that even though you try hard not to stigmatize, some of your allies certainly do, and often make a career of it. You may not call them allies, but organizations such as Focus on the Family, CWA, and many others seem to almost make a career of stigmatizing. Do you feel the same frustration when they do it as you do when your opponents do?
Randy
· 1 year ago
Hi Brady,
I don't agree with you about Focus. Public policy is really just a small fraction of what they do. They are massive with *many* different outreach programs. Plus, I don't think Focus fits with the stigmatizing crowd in public policy anyway. All the people I know there are very dear friends to me.
CWA and I haven't always agreed about different topics in the past but we have agreed much more often than not. The few times we have disagreed they have always allowed me to speak my mind (when and where the door opens.) They have also given me a piece of their mind from time to time and I needed the correction. CWA does have a harder edge but they aren't anywhere near the "stigmatizing" that I had in mind when writing the above post. I believe them when my colleagues there have said they do what they do because they feel it is the best way to bring about good for everyone and "witness" to the gay community.
In a nutshell, I believe there is a big difference between "prophetic" "T"ruth telling and stigmatizing. That Christian-ese nuance is probably lost very quickly to those opposed to CWA and similar organizations.
Other Christians that I won't mention by name, who do make a career out of stigmatizing probably hurt me more than the fringe gay activists who operate in a similar manner. There is all kinds of obvious reasons I won't belabor here but ... gay stigmatizers usually don't bother me at all. I expect it. With fellow Christians ... it's much more difficult. I fail to see any redemptive value in such a practice.
Plus, when it comes to conflict like this. I always try to talk to the folks privately. Just like when I make a mess, I want to be told privately first :) ... I try to do the same. I only bring it here if the private dialog is futile and usually never by name. The purpose of blogging about it is to combat stigma. Fred Phelps is the only person I can remember ever blogging about by name in this type of context.
While I may have only blogged about Fred, he isn't the only one (who claims to know Christ) who has cursed what I am trying to do.
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
I think that for Christian organizations like Focus that deal with 'hot button' issues, there is a great disparity between what people understand them to be about from 'the outside' verse 'the inside' of the Christian community. People that listen to Dr. Dobson's radio broadcast everyday know that along with the occasional broadcast about homosexuality or abortion, there have been thousands on other topics like strengthening marriages (eg, preventing divorce, how to deal with cheating spouses, family finances, etc.), parenting skills, medical issues like heart attacks and strokes, inspirational stories from average people who have overcome great tragedy, interviews with major Christian musicians, and a great deal of other issues, none of which are political at all. People that don't listen to it probably assume that the daily broadcast is all about how evil the gays and feminists and liberals are, and is put out by this rabid evangelical boogey man who is trying to bring back the Middle Ages. The latter is a very poor view of what Focus is all about, but it's what the mainstream view of Focus would cause most people to assume.
This is the problem with engaging in 'political' causes outside of the church. I think we could argue that abortion and gay rights are social issues made political by a modern political environment radically different from any seen before, and that religious organizations do have a right to participate in these issues. But the view from the outside of groups dealing with them is going to be one based around politics, because the issues are so gigantic in comparison to other activities like the annual Brio Mother/Daughter cruise that they dominate what people see and crowd everything else out.
It's a PR campaign that very few (if any) religious organizations on the national stage have ever been able to win.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Good thoughts and perspectives Ellie. I completely agree with your comments on Focus.
On another part, I don't know that I agree that the modern political environment is "radically different" than before. It's seems like every Christian generation has had some sort of clash with public policy in its various manifestations throughout time.
Heck, they were BURNING people alive over differences concerning Baptism in the 1500's and differences over the Ana-Baptist view of the Priesthood of *all* believers vs. the Papal system. Prohibition, The Roman Coliseum, Crusades, Abolitionists ... on and on. Some of those things make our non-violent but very loud arguments seem small in comparison.
I guess I should ask ... what do you mean by "radically different?"
B.T.Carolus
· 1 year ago
Umm, well some of that isn't an example of the political environment at all, as far as I know governments don't (and haven't) routinely take positions on Baptism, for example.
What I really mean, I think, is that in the American political tradition we have had something of a radical departure from the usual political topics. It used to be that pretty much everybody believed the same things about abortion, marriage, sex, and other moral/social issues, and the disagreements were over typical political issues like taxes and the speed limit and things like that. It wouldn't make much sense for the Mount Zion Baptist Church (to just randomly cite a typical church name), or Focus on the Family, to take a position on the level of income taxes, or what the speed limit on the highway should be. It does make sense for them to have a position on what a marriage looks like, or whether abortion is morally right. This is because, to my mind, these are moral issues, and the church (and parachurch organizations) is in the business of offering moral guidance. The problem is that these issues have become major political issues, rather than just moral issues, and so parts of the church are now feeling that they need to take political stances (or their moral stances are just becoming political stances), something that wouldn't have happened before.
Although, you are correct that churches did speak out about Abolition. Temperance was more of a women's movement than a church based movement, per se. But it seems like for the most part the church has not been particularly involved in politics. Although I could be totally wrong.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Thanks for adding more to your thoughts. As for Baptism... the government was most certainly involved in the different European countries that allowed their citizens to kill each other or especially in England when the Church was a state church raised up for the sole purpose of defying the Pope.
Its like ignoring the fact that Roman politics had a LOT to do with the Crucifixion of Christ (on an earthly level.)
Nick
· 1 year ago
You have to wonder why people go to the trouble to do such things. If they have talent, they should use their talent for GOOD, not for stigmatizing or demeaning others. I wonder if this person actually thinks what they did was a good thing. Even most people on the other side believe "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I know you're praying for this person. That's the best you can do, really.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I agree Nick. It baffles me too. I also agree that most on the "other side" try to be civil. Every once in a while though I worry that our culture breeds it though through our media.
Brady
· 1 year ago
Hey Randy. I feel what you're saying about stigmatizing, and in general, I give you the benefit of the doubt (being on the other side of the debate and all). I really do believe when you say you are not out to stigmatize, and most of the time I can see that here on your blog.
I agree with you that this video is just way over the top. I hate this kind of stigmatizing, whether it's this debate or politics in general. For those that think critically, it really is unbecoming of the people launching the assualt when it all boils down.
Anyway, my one thought was that even though you try hard not to stigmatize, some of your allies certainly do, and often make a career of it. You may not call them allies, but organizations such as Focus on the Family, CWA, and many others seem to almost make a career of stigmatizing. Do you feel the same frustration when they do it as you do when your opponents do?
Nick
· 1 year ago
You have to wonder why people go to the trouble to do such things. If they have talent, they should use their talent for GOOD, not for stigmatizing or demeaning others. I wonder if this person actually thinks what they did was a good thing. Even most people on the other side believe "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I know you're praying for this person. That's the best you can do, really.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Hi Brady,
I don't agree with you about Focus. Public policy is really just a small fraction of what they do. They are massive with *many* different outreach programs. Plus, I don't think Focus fits with the stigmatizing crowd in public policy anyway. All the people I know there are very dear friends to me.
CWA and I haven't always agreed about different topics in the past but we have agreed much more often than not. The few times we have disagreed they have always allowed me to speak my mind (when and where the door opens.) They have also given me a piece of their mind from time to time and I needed the correction. CWA does have a harder edge but they aren't anywhere near the "stigmatizing" that I had in mind when writing the above post. I believe them when my colleagues there have said they do what they do because they feel it is the best way to bring about good for everyone and "witness" to the gay community.
In a nutshell, I believe there is a big difference between "prophetic" "T"ruth telling and stigmatizing. That Christian-ese nuance is probably lost very quickly to those opposed to CWA and similar organizations.
Other Christians that I won't mention by name, who do make a career out of stigmatizing probably hurt me more than the fringe gay activists who operate in a similar manner. There is all kinds of obvious reasons I won't belabor here but ... gay stigmatizers usually don't bother me at all. I expect it. With fellow Christians ... it's much more difficult. I fail to see any redemptive value in such a practice.
Plus, when it comes to conflict like this. I always try to talk to the folks privately. Just like when I make a mess, I want to be told privately first :) ... I try to do the same. I only bring it here if the private dialog is futile and usually never by name. The purpose of blogging about it is to combat stigma. Fred Phelps is the only person I can remember ever blogging about by name in this type of context.
While I may have only blogged about Fred, he isn't the only one (who claims to know Christ) who has cursed what I am trying to do.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I agree Nick. It baffles me too. I also agree that most on the "other side" try to be civil. Every once in a while though I worry that our culture breeds it though through our media.
Ellie
· 1 year ago
I think that for Christian organizations like Focus that deal with 'hot button' issues, there is a great disparity between what people understand them to be about from 'the outside' verse 'the inside' of the Christian community. People that listen to Dr. Dobson's radio broadcast everyday know that along with the occasional broadcast about homosexuality or abortion, there have been thousands on other topics like strengthening marriages (eg, preventing divorce, how to deal with cheating spouses, family finances, etc.), parenting skills, medical issues like heart attacks and strokes, inspirational stories from average people who have overcome great tragedy, interviews with major Christian musicians, and a great deal of other issues, none of which are political at all. People that don't listen to it probably assume that the daily broadcast is all about how evil the gays and feminists and liberals are, and is put out by this rabid evangelical boogey man who is trying to bring back the Middle Ages. The latter is a very poor view of what Focus is all about, but it's what the mainstream view of Focus would cause most people to assume.
This is the problem with engaging in 'political' causes outside of the church. I think we could argue that abortion and gay rights are social issues made political by a modern political environment radically different from any seen before, and that religious organizations do have a right to participate in these issues. But the view from the outside of groups dealing with them is going to be one based around politics, because the issues are so gigantic in comparison to other activities like the annual Brio Mother/Daughter cruise that they dominate what people see and crowd everything else out.
It's a PR campaign that very few (if any) religious organizations on the national stage have ever been able to win.
Janey
· 1 year ago
I have issues with the media. For the most part it's so left that the right is never heard. I don't know how many time Dr. James Dobson has been on the show correcting wrong messages and telling his listeners what the media has said and what he has actually said. Sometimes this has given me a mirgrain or two. But I've always trusted in Dr. Dobson's character. In the 15 years I've listened to Focus On The Family I've gained a respect for that ministry.
I think the media has done a very poor job in representing folks like Focus, and have done a poor job representing ex-gay ministries. It's like they simply neglect the heart of the message and in my opinion they lack showing respect.
Even when I was in the gay community I had way more respect for Focus, Love Won Out, and Exodus then I had for many of the Gay Activists that I've seen in action. This has only been my experience and not meant to be a stab against all people within the GLBT Community.
And I've also stopped listening to the majority of Christian radio preachers because I've lost track of the amount of times their words have been more hurtful then then have been redeeming. I just can't stand to listen to a preacher who shows no compassion, grace, or mercy for those caught up in homosexuality and yet try and present the gospel. I would often be left asking the question...where's the grace and where's the hope for me, a person who's been on a journey of walking out of homosexuality.
And here's this incredible God that we serve that this transcendant God would draw near in the person of Jesus Christ and become aquanted with our suffering. Oh, I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering.
It's almost as if those who scream the loudest for tolerance show the least tolerance. If they truly were tolerant they wouldn't make such video's as the one you've mentioned Randy. If they truly were tolerant then they would create an inteligent dialogue while respecting the other regardless of differing views, beliefs and convictions. And they would allow for the other to continue to believe what they do without degrading them and mocking them. They don't like it when they are degraded and mocked so....why demand respect when you don't show respect.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I hear you Janey. I do want to say that most of the gay activists I know wouldn't do anything like what I talk about in the post. Semi-Regular commenters here like Brian, Brady and Joe (and others) would never do that type of thing. Most of the "gay" activists I know tolerate what they might not personally accept and even oppose in the public square. That's what I hope to be doing too.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Good thoughts and perspectives Ellie. I completely agree with your comments on Focus.
On another part, I don't know that I agree that the modern political environment is "radically different" than before. It's seems like every Christian generation has had some sort of clash with public policy in its various manifestations throughout time.
Heck, they were BURNING people alive over differences concerning Baptism in the 1500's and differences over the Ana-Baptist view of the Priesthood of *all* believers vs. the Papal system. Prohibition, The Roman Coliseum, Crusades, Abolitionists ... on and on. Some of those things make our non-violent but very loud arguments seem small in comparison.
I guess I should ask ... what do you mean by "radically different?"
Leo
· 1 year ago
Focus on Family with your enthusiastic support has stigmatized and demonized gays for years.
And Janey: you demand that gays should show "tolerance" to their oppressors and people who lie about them and demonize them in exchange for money or political power. I'm sorry Janey but I see you and Randy Thomas precisely the same way a Jew sees a member of a neonazi group.
Both Randy and you know that it isn't about gospel, it is about crushing gays, reversing all advances gay movement has achieved and destroying gay lives though defamation and fear. Thomas has been especially active in using ex.-gay fraud as an excuse to deny equal rights and protections from gay in society.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Leo, to compare us to Nazi's is to become what you say you are against ... one very willing to stigmatize.
Opposing bad public policy and have a different moral system than yours doesn't automatically make us oppressors or you an innocent victim. And to say we destroy gay lives through defamation and fear is ridiculous. Exodus has been of great benefit to me and many others. Holding to our faith, the way we determine is best for us, has given us life where the promises of the gay community didn't quite come through or fulfill.
I am not and my life is not a fraud. It also can't simply be reduced to yet another stigmatized label of "ex-gay."
On that note, if you can't make your points without attacking other people leaving comments personally (name calling like neoNazi isn't exactly making a civil argument) than your comments will not be allowed to stand.
Ellie
· 1 year ago
Umm, well some of that isn't an example of the political environment at all, as far as I know governments don't (and haven't) routinely take positions on Baptism, for example.
What I really mean, I think, is that in the American political tradition we have had something of a radical departure from the usual political topics. It used to be that pretty much everybody believed the same things about abortion, marriage, sex, and other moral/social issues, and the disagreements were over typical political issues like taxes and the speed limit and things like that. It wouldn't make much sense for the Mount Zion Baptist Church (to just randomly cite a typical church name), or Focus on the Family, to take a position on the level of income taxes, or what the speed limit on the highway should be. It does make sense for them to have a position on what a marriage looks like, or whether abortion is morally right. This is because, to my mind, these are moral issues, and the church (and parachurch organizations) is in the business of offering moral guidance. The problem is that these issues have become major political issues, rather than just moral issues, and so parts of the church are now feeling that they need to take political stances (or their moral stances are just becoming political stances), something that wouldn't have happened before.
Although, you are correct that churches did speak out about Abolition. Temperance was more of a women's movement than a church based movement, per se. But it seems like for the most part the church has not been particularly involved in politics. Although I could be totally wrong.
Janey
· 1 year ago
I have issues with the media. For the most part it's so left that the right is never heard. I don't know how many time Dr. James Dobson has been on the show correcting wrong messages and telling his listeners what the media has said and what he has actually said. Sometimes this has given me a mirgrain or two. But I've always trusted in Dr. Dobson's character. In the 15 years I've listened to Focus On The Family I've gained a respect for that ministry.
I think the media has done a very poor job in representing folks like Focus, and have done a poor job representing ex-gay ministries. It's like they simply neglect the heart of the message and in my opinion they lack showing respect.
Even when I was in the gay community I had way more respect for Focus, Love Won Out, and Exodus then I had for many of the Gay Activists that I've seen in action. This has only been my experience and not meant to be a stab against all people within the GLBT Community.
And I've also stopped listening to the majority of Christian radio preachers because I've lost track of the amount of times their words have been more hurtful then then have been redeeming. I just can't stand to listen to a preacher who shows no compassion, grace, or mercy for those caught up in homosexuality and yet try and present the gospel. I would often be left asking the question...where's the grace and where's the hope for me, a person who's been on a journey of walking out of homosexuality.
And here's this incredible God that we serve that this transcendant God would draw near in the person of Jesus Christ and become aquanted with our suffering. Oh, I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering.
It's almost as if those who scream the loudest for tolerance show the least tolerance. If they truly were tolerant they wouldn't make such video's as the one you've mentioned Randy. If they truly were tolerant then they would create an inteligent dialogue while respecting the other regardless of differing views, beliefs and convictions. And they would allow for the other to continue to believe what they do without degrading them and mocking them. They don't like it when they are degraded and mocked so....why demand respect when you don't show respect.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Thanks for adding more to your thoughts. As for Baptism... the government was most certainly involved in the different European countries that allowed their citizens to kill each other or especially in England when the Church was a state church raised up for the sole purpose of defying the Pope.
Its like ignoring the fact that Roman politics had a LOT to do with the Crucifixion of Christ (on an earthly level.)
Brady
· 1 year ago
Ellie- I definitely realize and understand that. It basically came to my mind again when you brought it up, and I realized that I had posted it on my blog, but never really elsewhere. I just kind of wanted to do that to differentiate my view a bit, which is basically not that I don't think being gay is immoral, rather that I don't think it is, or should be, an issue of morality at all.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Hey Brady, if you click on the reply link underneath the comment you are responding to it will open up a text area and will notify the original commenter of your reply.
Leo
· 1 year ago
Focus on Family with your enthusiastic support has stigmatized and demonized gays for years.
And Janey: you demand that gays should show "tolerance" to their oppressors and people who lie about them and demonize them in exchange for money or political power. I'm sorry Janey but I see you and Randy Thomas precisely the same way a Jew sees a member of a neonazi group.
Both Randy and you know that it isn't about gospel, it is about crushing gays, reversing all advances gay movement has achieved and destroying gay lives though defamation and fear. Thomas has been especially active in using ex.-gay fraud as an excuse to deny equal rights and protections from gay in society.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Leo, to compare us to Nazi's is to become what you say you are against ... one very willing to stigmatize.
Opposing bad public policy and have a different moral system than yours doesn't automatically make us oppressors or you an innocent victim. And to say we destroy gay lives through defamation and fear is ridiculous. Exodus has been of great benefit to me and many others. Holding to my faith has given us life where the promises of the gay community didn't quite come through or fulfill.
I am not and my life is not a fraud. It also can't simply be reduced to yet another stigmatized label of "ex-gay."
On that note, if you can't make your points without attacking other people leaving comments personally (name calling like neoNazi isn't exactly making a civil argument) than your comments will not be allowed to stand.
Randy
· 1 year ago
I hear you Janey. I do want to say that most of the gay activists I know wouldn't do anything like what I talk about in the post. Semi-Regular commenters here like Brian, Brady and Joe (and others) would never do that type of thing. Most of the "gay" activists I know tolerate what they might not personally accept and even oppose in the public square. That's what I hope to be doing too.
Brady
· 1 year ago
Leo,
The term neo-nazi is way extreme and maybe even not worth addressing. Killing people for their beliefs is in a completely different galaxy than what Randy or Exodus do, and using exaggerations like that really does no one any good. "Godwin's Law" is really all I can say (wikipedia it if you aren't familiar).
You could have argued your concern with Randy's political stance so much better had you done it reasonably.
And on a side note- to Ellie- I've said this on my blog before, but when I read your words it brought it up in my mind again...I see and agree with your understanding of abortion, sex and other issues as moral issues, but I'd like to put it out there that I don't see homosexuality as falling into the issue of moral or immoral.
Ellie
· 1 year ago
Brady, As you probably already realize, we're going to have to respectfully disagree on that.
Brady
· 1 year ago
Ellie- I definitely realize and understand that. It basically came to my mind again when you brought it up, and I realized that I had posted it on my blog, but never really elsewhere. I just kind of wanted to do that to differentiate my view a bit, which is basically not that I don't think being gay is immoral, rather that I don't think it is, or should be, an issue of morality at all.
Randy
· 1 year ago
Hey Brady, if you click on the reply link underneath the comment you are responding to it will open up a text area and will notify the original commenter of your reply.
The Screaming Neenies Fear Pal
· 1 year ago
[...] And there is SOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOOoooooo …. soooOOOOOOOoooo much more. Did someone say something about the art of stigmatization? [...]
All Comments
The term neo-nazi is way extreme and maybe even not worth addressing. Killing people for their beliefs is in a completely different galaxy than what Randy or Exodus do, and using exaggerations like that really does no one any good. "Godwin's Law" is really all I can say (wikipedia it if you aren't familiar).
You could have argued your concern with Randy's political stance so much better had you done it reasonably.
And on a side note- to Ellie- I've said this on my blog before, but when I read your words it brought it up in my mind again...I see and agree with your understanding of abortion, sex and other issues as moral issues, but I'd like to put it out there that I don't see homosexuality as falling into the issue of moral or immoral.
As you probably already realize, we're going to have to respectfully disagree on that.
I agree with you that this video is just way over the top. I hate this kind of stigmatizing, whether it's this debate or politics in general. For those that think critically, it really is unbecoming of the people launching the assualt when it all boils down.
Anyway, my one thought was that even though you try hard not to stigmatize, some of your allies certainly do, and often make a career of it. You may not call them allies, but organizations such as Focus on the Family, CWA, and many others seem to almost make a career of stigmatizing. Do you feel the same frustration when they do it as you do when your opponents do?
I don't agree with you about Focus. Public policy is really just a small fraction of what they do. They are massive with *many* different outreach programs. Plus, I don't think Focus fits with the stigmatizing crowd in public policy anyway. All the people I know there are very dear friends to me.
CWA and I haven't always agreed about different topics in the past but we have agreed much more often than not. The few times we have disagreed they have always allowed me to speak my mind (when and where the door opens.) They have also given me a piece of their mind from time to time and I needed the correction. CWA does have a harder edge but they aren't anywhere near the "stigmatizing" that I had in mind when writing the above post. I believe them when my colleagues there have said they do what they do because they feel it is the best way to bring about good for everyone and "witness" to the gay community.
In a nutshell, I believe there is a big difference between "prophetic" "T"ruth telling and stigmatizing. That Christian-ese nuance is probably lost very quickly to those opposed to CWA and similar organizations.
Other Christians that I won't mention by name, who do make a career out of stigmatizing probably hurt me more than the fringe gay activists who operate in a similar manner. There is all kinds of obvious reasons I won't belabor here but ... gay stigmatizers usually don't bother me at all. I expect it. With fellow Christians ... it's much more difficult. I fail to see any redemptive value in such a practice.
Plus, when it comes to conflict like this. I always try to talk to the folks privately. Just like when I make a mess, I want to be told privately first :) ... I try to do the same. I only bring it here if the private dialog is futile and usually never by name. The purpose of blogging about it is to combat stigma. Fred Phelps is the only person I can remember ever blogging about by name in this type of context.
While I may have only blogged about Fred, he isn't the only one (who claims to know Christ) who has cursed what I am trying to do.
This is the problem with engaging in 'political' causes outside of the church. I think we could argue that abortion and gay rights are social issues made political by a modern political environment radically different from any seen before, and that religious organizations do have a right to participate in these issues. But the view from the outside of groups dealing with them is going to be one based around politics, because the issues are so gigantic in comparison to other activities like the annual Brio Mother/Daughter cruise that they dominate what people see and crowd everything else out.
It's a PR campaign that very few (if any) religious organizations on the national stage have ever been able to win.
On another part, I don't know that I agree that the modern political environment is "radically different" than before. It's seems like every Christian generation has had some sort of clash with public policy in its various manifestations throughout time.
Heck, they were BURNING people alive over differences concerning Baptism in the 1500's and differences over the Ana-Baptist view of the Priesthood of *all* believers vs. the Papal system. Prohibition, The Roman Coliseum, Crusades, Abolitionists ... on and on. Some of those things make our non-violent but very loud arguments seem small in comparison.
I guess I should ask ... what do you mean by "radically different?"
What I really mean, I think, is that in the American political tradition we have had something of a radical departure from the usual political topics. It used to be that pretty much everybody believed the same things about abortion, marriage, sex, and other moral/social issues, and the disagreements were over typical political issues like taxes and the speed limit and things like that. It wouldn't make much sense for the Mount Zion Baptist Church (to just randomly cite a typical church name), or Focus on the Family, to take a position on the level of income taxes, or what the speed limit on the highway should be. It does make sense for them to have a position on what a marriage looks like, or whether abortion is morally right. This is because, to my mind, these are moral issues, and the church (and parachurch organizations) is in the business of offering moral guidance. The problem is that these issues have become major political issues, rather than just moral issues, and so parts of the church are now feeling that they need to take political stances (or their moral stances are just becoming political stances), something that wouldn't have happened before.
Although, you are correct that churches did speak out about Abolition. Temperance was more of a women's movement than a church based movement, per se. But it seems like for the most part the church has not been particularly involved in politics. Although I could be totally wrong.
Its like ignoring the fact that Roman politics had a LOT to do with the Crucifixion of Christ (on an earthly level.)
I agree with you that this video is just way over the top. I hate this kind of stigmatizing, whether it's this debate or politics in general. For those that think critically, it really is unbecoming of the people launching the assualt when it all boils down.
Anyway, my one thought was that even though you try hard not to stigmatize, some of your allies certainly do, and often make a career of it. You may not call them allies, but organizations such as Focus on the Family, CWA, and many others seem to almost make a career of stigmatizing. Do you feel the same frustration when they do it as you do when your opponents do?
I don't agree with you about Focus. Public policy is really just a small fraction of what they do. They are massive with *many* different outreach programs. Plus, I don't think Focus fits with the stigmatizing crowd in public policy anyway. All the people I know there are very dear friends to me.
CWA and I haven't always agreed about different topics in the past but we have agreed much more often than not. The few times we have disagreed they have always allowed me to speak my mind (when and where the door opens.) They have also given me a piece of their mind from time to time and I needed the correction. CWA does have a harder edge but they aren't anywhere near the "stigmatizing" that I had in mind when writing the above post. I believe them when my colleagues there have said they do what they do because they feel it is the best way to bring about good for everyone and "witness" to the gay community.
In a nutshell, I believe there is a big difference between "prophetic" "T"ruth telling and stigmatizing. That Christian-ese nuance is probably lost very quickly to those opposed to CWA and similar organizations.
Other Christians that I won't mention by name, who do make a career out of stigmatizing probably hurt me more than the fringe gay activists who operate in a similar manner. There is all kinds of obvious reasons I won't belabor here but ... gay stigmatizers usually don't bother me at all. I expect it. With fellow Christians ... it's much more difficult. I fail to see any redemptive value in such a practice.
Plus, when it comes to conflict like this. I always try to talk to the folks privately. Just like when I make a mess, I want to be told privately first :) ... I try to do the same. I only bring it here if the private dialog is futile and usually never by name. The purpose of blogging about it is to combat stigma. Fred Phelps is the only person I can remember ever blogging about by name in this type of context.
While I may have only blogged about Fred, he isn't the only one (who claims to know Christ) who has cursed what I am trying to do.
This is the problem with engaging in 'political' causes outside of the church. I think we could argue that abortion and gay rights are social issues made political by a modern political environment radically different from any seen before, and that religious organizations do have a right to participate in these issues. But the view from the outside of groups dealing with them is going to be one based around politics, because the issues are so gigantic in comparison to other activities like the annual Brio Mother/Daughter cruise that they dominate what people see and crowd everything else out.
It's a PR campaign that very few (if any) religious organizations on the national stage have ever been able to win.
I think the media has done a very poor job in representing folks like Focus, and have done a poor job representing ex-gay ministries. It's like they simply neglect the heart of the message and in my opinion they lack showing respect.
Even when I was in the gay community I had way more respect for Focus, Love Won Out, and Exodus then I had for many of the Gay Activists that I've seen in action. This has only been my experience and not meant to be a stab against all people within the GLBT Community.
And I've also stopped listening to the majority of Christian radio preachers because I've lost track of the amount of times their words have been more hurtful then then have been redeeming. I just can't stand to listen to a preacher who shows no compassion, grace, or mercy for those caught up in homosexuality and yet try and present the gospel. I would often be left asking the question...where's the grace and where's the hope for me, a person who's been on a journey of walking out of homosexuality.
And here's this incredible God that we serve that this transcendant God would draw near in the person of Jesus Christ and become aquanted with our suffering. Oh, I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering.
It's almost as if those who scream the loudest for tolerance show the least tolerance. If they truly were tolerant they wouldn't make such video's as the one you've mentioned Randy. If they truly were tolerant then they would create an inteligent dialogue while respecting the other regardless of differing views, beliefs and convictions. And they would allow for the other to continue to believe what they do without degrading them and mocking them. They don't like it when they are degraded and mocked so....why demand respect when you don't show respect.
On another part, I don't know that I agree that the modern political environment is "radically different" than before. It's seems like every Christian generation has had some sort of clash with public policy in its various manifestations throughout time.
Heck, they were BURNING people alive over differences concerning Baptism in the 1500's and differences over the Ana-Baptist view of the Priesthood of *all* believers vs. the Papal system. Prohibition, The Roman Coliseum, Crusades, Abolitionists ... on and on. Some of those things make our non-violent but very loud arguments seem small in comparison.
I guess I should ask ... what do you mean by "radically different?"
And Janey: you demand that gays should show "tolerance" to their oppressors and people who lie about them and demonize them in exchange for money or political power. I'm sorry Janey but I see you and Randy Thomas precisely the same way a Jew sees a member of a neonazi group.
Both Randy and you know that it isn't about gospel, it is about crushing gays, reversing all advances gay movement has achieved and destroying gay lives though defamation and fear. Thomas has been especially active in using ex.-gay fraud as an excuse to deny equal rights and protections from gay in society.
Opposing bad public policy and have a different moral system than yours doesn't automatically make us oppressors or you an innocent victim. And to say we destroy gay lives through defamation and fear is ridiculous. Exodus has been of great benefit to me and many others. Holding to our faith, the way we determine is best for us, has given us life where the promises of the gay community didn't quite come through or fulfill.
I am not and my life is not a fraud. It also can't simply be reduced to yet another stigmatized label of "ex-gay."
On that note, if you can't make your points without attacking other people leaving comments personally (name calling like neoNazi isn't exactly making a civil argument) than your comments will not be allowed to stand.
What I really mean, I think, is that in the American political tradition we have had something of a radical departure from the usual political topics. It used to be that pretty much everybody believed the same things about abortion, marriage, sex, and other moral/social issues, and the disagreements were over typical political issues like taxes and the speed limit and things like that. It wouldn't make much sense for the Mount Zion Baptist Church (to just randomly cite a typical church name), or Focus on the Family, to take a position on the level of income taxes, or what the speed limit on the highway should be. It does make sense for them to have a position on what a marriage looks like, or whether abortion is morally right. This is because, to my mind, these are moral issues, and the church (and parachurch organizations) is in the business of offering moral guidance. The problem is that these issues have become major political issues, rather than just moral issues, and so parts of the church are now feeling that they need to take political stances (or their moral stances are just becoming political stances), something that wouldn't have happened before.
Although, you are correct that churches did speak out about Abolition. Temperance was more of a women's movement than a church based movement, per se. But it seems like for the most part the church has not been particularly involved in politics. Although I could be totally wrong.
I think the media has done a very poor job in representing folks like Focus, and have done a poor job representing ex-gay ministries. It's like they simply neglect the heart of the message and in my opinion they lack showing respect.
Even when I was in the gay community I had way more respect for Focus, Love Won Out, and Exodus then I had for many of the Gay Activists that I've seen in action. This has only been my experience and not meant to be a stab against all people within the GLBT Community.
And I've also stopped listening to the majority of Christian radio preachers because I've lost track of the amount of times their words have been more hurtful then then have been redeeming. I just can't stand to listen to a preacher who shows no compassion, grace, or mercy for those caught up in homosexuality and yet try and present the gospel. I would often be left asking the question...where's the grace and where's the hope for me, a person who's been on a journey of walking out of homosexuality.
And here's this incredible God that we serve that this transcendant God would draw near in the person of Jesus Christ and become aquanted with our suffering. Oh, I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His suffering.
It's almost as if those who scream the loudest for tolerance show the least tolerance. If they truly were tolerant they wouldn't make such video's as the one you've mentioned Randy. If they truly were tolerant then they would create an inteligent dialogue while respecting the other regardless of differing views, beliefs and convictions. And they would allow for the other to continue to believe what they do without degrading them and mocking them. They don't like it when they are degraded and mocked so....why demand respect when you don't show respect.
Its like ignoring the fact that Roman politics had a LOT to do with the Crucifixion of Christ (on an earthly level.)
And Janey: you demand that gays should show "tolerance" to their oppressors and people who lie about them and demonize them in exchange for money or political power. I'm sorry Janey but I see you and Randy Thomas precisely the same way a Jew sees a member of a neonazi group.
Both Randy and you know that it isn't about gospel, it is about crushing gays, reversing all advances gay movement has achieved and destroying gay lives though defamation and fear. Thomas has been especially active in using ex.-gay fraud as an excuse to deny equal rights and protections from gay in society.
Opposing bad public policy and have a different moral system than yours doesn't automatically make us oppressors or you an innocent victim. And to say we destroy gay lives through defamation and fear is ridiculous. Exodus has been of great benefit to me and many others. Holding to my faith has given us life where the promises of the gay community didn't quite come through or fulfill.
I am not and my life is not a fraud. It also can't simply be reduced to yet another stigmatized label of "ex-gay."
On that note, if you can't make your points without attacking other people leaving comments personally (name calling like neoNazi isn't exactly making a civil argument) than your comments will not be allowed to stand.
The term neo-nazi is way extreme and maybe even not worth addressing. Killing people for their beliefs is in a completely different galaxy than what Randy or Exodus do, and using exaggerations like that really does no one any good. "Godwin's Law" is really all I can say (wikipedia it if you aren't familiar).
You could have argued your concern with Randy's political stance so much better had you done it reasonably.
And on a side note- to Ellie- I've said this on my blog before, but when I read your words it brought it up in my mind again...I see and agree with your understanding of abortion, sex and other issues as moral issues, but I'd like to put it out there that I don't see homosexuality as falling into the issue of moral or immoral.
As you probably already realize, we're going to have to respectfully disagree on that.