Thinking case study: "Gay versus Evangelicals"

As part of the continuing series on how to improve one’s skills in faith and reasoning, and particularly one’s intellectual and discernment faculties, here are some thoughts prompted by an editorial I read. The editorial was really a, how do I describe it; I guess “witty gloat” about how a recent anti-gay boycott effort by evangelical Christians has generated no press. The editorial was entirely focused on gloating, and being as word smithy and mocking as possible. And that is cool, if that is the purpose. But once again I was sad at a missed opportunity, and I emailed the writer saying so. I could reproduce what I wrote here, but it was brief and chatty, and not instructive, and that is what I want to provide here instead.

Regular readers know I am no fan of evangelical Christians as a movement or a bloc. They have been very unkind, in general, to Catholics, and show an incredible lack of charity. While they consider themselves the standard bearers of morality, they missed huge opportunities to put their money where their mouths are, for example, stopping abortion in the bud by using their money and influence to promote adoption and monetary and societal support structures for those with unplanned pregnancies. Further, many make money off of crass lies about scripture, such as the “Left Behind” series. No, I am no fans of theirs.

But having said that there are two things that are commendable and undeniable: most of them love Jesus Christ in truth, heart and soul, and they firmly and honorably believe in God and his teachings. Their ardor for Jesus is unmistakable, though their perception of God is somewhat more obscured. For that and for the many good things they do, especially keeping their own lives and families within grace, they deserve a lot of credit. And here is the point I am leading up to: secular critics of theirs need to understand that these people genuinely fear for EVERYONE’s soul and salvation. Let’s use a secular example.

Suppose a man bursts into your home and points a gun or a knife at you and your family. Would you say, “Um, I don’t believe that the technology to build a gun or make a knife exists. “ And then conclude, “So what you are holding is not real.” Of course you would not. I’m not saying you think it is a fake gun, which is why I say in this example a gun or a knife. I mean, would you deny that the person is holding any sort of weapon at all, and that his hand is really empty? Not on your life; even a crazy person recognizes a weapon in the hand.

The pious faithful, from the most private and low key believer all the way to the screaming zealot, all believe one thing in common: they believe in the reality of God, and they believe in the reality of eternal reward or eternal punishment. You cannot have an intellectual thought about faith dialogue without reminding yourselves that the truly pious, even if they are quiet, “See the gun or the knife.”

Suppose that the gunman bursts into a public place, where you are there with your family and strangers. If he started to shoot, would you shout out, “Don’t hit us! Hit that gay guy over there!” Of course not, and neither would a pious Jew, Muslim or Christian. They would share equal alarm and dread based on anyone and everyone being a victim of the threatened shooting or knifing.

So using the evangelical Christians as an example, they “See the gun or the knife” and they fear for not only themselves, but their children, their community and yes, even the gay guy over there. They fight against what they see as grave moral sins and acts because they fear that very real “gun or knife” on everyone’s behalf, including the guy who sits there and says, “You morons. That man is not holding a gun or a knife. I don’t believe the tech exists to create a gun or a knife. What are you shouting about? You just want me to leave the public place because I’m gay. You hate me. I hate you.” Etc. etc.

So do you see what I mean? Modern people are so factionalized and anti-intellectual that they are unable to perceive the stance of the very people they argue against. They assume that God fearing people are mean morons. They do not recognize that these people genuinely fear for not only their personal, community and societal safety, but also for the safety of the very people they seem to be “against.” They see the gun or the knife.

Where discernment needs to take place is that what one does when one sees a gun or a knife can differ according to your charity and trust in God. Since I cannot appeal to secularists who are anti-God or disbelieving in God about trusting God, I have to appeal to them to be more charitable. Gays who are angry at “anti-gay” evangelical Christians are missing out completely in seeing that for the most part, sincere evangelical Christians are afraid on their behalf, not just repelled or feeling repugnant about a lifestyle choice. Evangelical Christians who are sincere, and most are, see the gun or the knife, and fear on behalf of the gays too. If gays could exercise charity, they would have much more fruitful and less confrontational dialogue, and could even collaborate on common ground, such as keeping children safe.

So I wrote to the editorial guy saying yeah sure, you had a good gloating mocking rant (and he used imagery where he claims to know what God would really think about those bad evangelicals, just to be provocative). But his piece could mock and gloat all it wanted with cleverness, but would it not have been also zesty and a great opportunity to insert just a few charitable sentences, pondering what next, and how both sides could do better?

Many anti-Church bashers and they include lots of post Reformation Christians, like to drag up killings and persecutions of the past, such as of course that favorite “Spanish Inquisition.” You need to understand that my “seeing the gun and knife” analogy applies and explains those horrible events too. Each side has a genuine and real perception and fear that they see the gun or the knife in the other’s hands, because that side is “disobeying God” and will feel his wrath someday. People in those days literally thought it was better to torture someone into your “true” faith than risk their heresy imperiling you, your family, your community and yes, the person they were torturing. I’m not saying that’s cool. I’m saying that no one can claim to be a scholar or historical analyst, or even an armchair expert, if they do not understand that. One needs to use wisdom and charity when interpreting the Inquisition, the Crusades and yes, the other side, the Muslim invaders and conquerors. Each side genuinely “sees the gun or the knife” and fears the consequences both personally and societally, including “the heretic” or “the infidel.” Believers kill other believers when they feel that they cannot convert them AND they see a gun or a knife rather than the possibility of peaceful co-existence.

Those who oppose gay agenda items see the gun or the knife pointed not only to them personally, and their families, but toward the community, society in general, and the people whose actions they oppose. Vilifying the evangelical Christians and/or anyone who opposes any part of the gay agenda is not only uncharitable, but it is intellectually flawed and it is stupid, because you eliminate the possibility of peaceful co-existence. If peaceful co-existence comes because the other side is finally “defeated” and “silenced” rather than gloat, you ought to be a little disconcerted. Why is that? It is because they have stopped caring about your soul.

I know secularists who either don’t believe in God or “believe in a different, kinder, more all inclusive God” may say “Hurrah” if the evangelical Christians no longer care about your souls and/or dampen their concern about their own family, community and society in general. But I do not think that is something to celebrate and neither does God. Whether you believe in God or not, you should not celebrate if a community of believers no longer gives a rat’s ass about your soul or well being. There are both pragmatic and character based reasons you should care. The pragmatic reason is that someday you will need a hand and you will not have it extended to you. You may think that you can build Gay Nation where you do not need the concern and collaboration of your ideologue opponents, and who knows? You may be right. But it is not wise to assume that you never need the help of a group of tax paying, food growing, and school building God fearing people. Think about it. I did not hear of any evangelical Christians who refused to look into a microscope when the AIDS epidemic was first identified. People may have said unkind things, had ignorant unkind thoughts, and argued about remedies, but the tax dollars, the public health drives and the research came from God fearing and secular people alike. That is just one example, and a highly pragmatic one.

The character example is something that is easier to feel but harder to describe. When one hates and writes off an entire group of people, even if, like ignorant children you point and yell, “He started it first,” you shut down part of your own character diversity and humanity at the same time. There is a terrible ennui that at first looks wonderful when one has something goes entirely your own way. When you beat or mock opponents into the ground because you hate them or their message, it does not make your character better or stronger and it sure does not make your character more diverse. Isn’t it interesting how “diversity” is the new idol to many, yet you prune away your own character so it loses rather than gains “diversity?” Character is what takes you through the many stages of your life, and through the unforeseen challenges. If you pound your ideological opponent into the dust, hating and mocking them, how does that enhance your character, your life skills, and your options when difficulties and challenges arise? And what if you inadvertently shut down someone who in the long run could give you the wisest advice?

So the evaporation of a pious person’s opposition to some of your actions should not be something you celebrate. I speak from experience, as someone who has been repeatedly rebuffed, despite my good intentions, until I have reached the point that I genuinely no longer care about people I once did so deeply… and I no longer care if they fall into the pitfalls that I’ve only been mocked and hated for pointing out, and for trying to find mutually agreeable compromises. It is not a thing to brag about when nice people, even if you hate their specific ideology, no longer care about you and drop their emotional investment in you.

I hope you all have found this mind expanding and helpful, perhaps even thought or wisdom provoking.