This week was an interesting one. On Tuesday afternoon, a friend, via Facebook, told me Steve Viars, pastor of
Faith Church, had written a Guest Column for the local newspaper. I clicked on the link and started reading. When I finished, I felt like someone had come up behind me and tripped me, and as I fell, was gleefully shouting, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
[If you haven't already read Pastor Viars' column, it's at the end of this post, in italics.]
I knew I wanted--no,
needed--to respond, so when I got home that night, I started gathering my facts. The emotional response would come later; first I needed some facts. Karen offered to help, and so we sat side by side, each willing our laptops to find the information we needed. At the end of the night, I had a 675+ word response, and I hoped our local paper would see fit to print it (or at least post it on-line).
[If you haven't already read my response, it's at the end of this post, below Paster Viars' column.]
The next day, the Opinions editor contacted me, and I was pleased to hear they would be publishing both columns in the paper--his on Thursday, mine on Friday. My response went up on-line that afternoon.
I knew then it was time to e-mail Pastor Viars a copy of my response, and ask if the offer for coffee was still on (he had offered, a while ago, to buy me coffee when Cafe Literato opened at Faith West). I was glad when he wrote back promptly with an offer to meet on Friday afternoon. And then I was nervous. Very nervous--what would I say? All I wanted to do was understand, but how could I first prove to him that we were far more alike than we were different? And how could I communicate my thoughts and feelings? I felt I had been double-crossed; I felt all the naysayers were right, and I heard the words, "I told you so!" loud and clear.
We talked. For a long time. We connected as two people often do when they sit down to have coffee. We listened to each other. I told him how I felt: how I had never taken a stand (in publicly supporting Faith West) that was so unpopular with people I care about, and what it took for me to defend my position. I told him that his choice of words and images made it hard for people I know to listen and understand what he was trying to say--his message got lost. Then I listened. And I tried to understand. We questioned each other. And we responded honestly to each other.
Was it a perfect conversation? No. But it was good and it was useful.
And it added a couple of bricks to the bridge of understanding.
*********************************************************************************
Here's what Pastor Viars recently wrote as a Guest Column for our local newspaper:
Lowell Kane, the director of the Purdue Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
and Queer Center, was proud to bring Gene Robinson, the “openly gay retired
bishop” to speak to Purdue this past weekend. Supported by several
organizations, including the Rev. Peter Bunder’s Church of the Good Shepherd,
Kane said the purpose was to “engage the campus in conversation around all
sorts of identity issues and develop the university as what we call the
marketplace of ideas.”
I fully support free speech in our community. Healthy discussion and
deliberation is always a good thing, especially in a university town. And I was
not surprised to hear Robinson say that “undoubtedly, we’ll talk about gay
marriage.” Here in Indiana, like it or not, that topic is going to be
frequently discussed in the coming months as our legislators and possibly even
voters determine what we believe should constitute legal marriage in our state.
My question for folks like Kane, Robinson and Bunder is: Why are they being
so narrow in their focus? Isn’t limiting their efforts to those who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer rather intolerant of others who
wish to have their relationships celebrated and defined as marriage as well?
Consider last Saturday’s article by CNN’s Emanuella Grinberg, “Polyamory:
When Three Isn’t a Crowd.” She says, “Revelers in the rainbow-washed crowd
smiled and cheered this month as the little blond girl in the parade float
pageant waved to the B-52’s ‘Love Shack.’ Next to the float, the girl’s father,
Billy Holder, handed out fliers to the Atlanta Pride Parade crowd. His wife,
Melissa, carried a banner along with Jeremy Mullins, the couple’s partner.”
Seriously — you can’t make this stuff up. Lest anyone wonder what polyamory
is, the “family’s” banner actually provided the definition; “Polyamory: having
simultaneous close emotional relationships with two or more other individuals.”
Grinberg makes an important observation about the group when she says, “It’s
not just a fling or a phrase for them. It’s an identity.”
Robinson made the same point when he said, “I really felt like God was
calling me to be true to myself — to come out and be an example.” There’s an
ethical standard for the ages — just be true to yourself.
But that is precisely where we are as a culture. One person in Grinberg’s
article said, “We want to promote the idea that any relationship is valid as
long as it is made by consenting adults. In this regard, as in most things,
promoting public acceptance is the first step.” Exactly, because after all,
don’t we have to celebrate all forms of diversity?
So here’s my question for Lowell, Gene and Peter: Is polyamory right or
wrong? If a group of five polyamorists wanted to have a family because that is
their perceived identity, should that desire be celebrated? And if they wanted
to be married, should Indiana law allow them to be? Progressives used to say I
was baiting them when I posed that question, chiding me that such a possibility
would never occur. Welcome to the chicken that has come home to roost.
The ultimate question here is one of epistemology. How does a person or a
culture or anything in-between determine what is right and wrong? Clearly
pastors like Robinson and Bunder have abandoned Scripture as their source of
moral authority. Robinson, described as “the world’s leading religious
spokesperson for gay rights,” says that “religion should not be forcing its
values on the secular culture.” Bunder in his capacity as a West Lafayette City
Council member has openly condemned me and our church’s biblical view of human
sexuality in city council meetings.
In his talk Sunday evening at Purdue, Robinson explained that “the so-called
simple reading of Scripture is an illusion,” and that “I believe the Bible is
the word of God, but I don’t believe the Bible is the words of God.” That’s
liberal-speak for, it’s OK to make it up as we go along so that every man can
do what is right in his own eyes.
Pastors and churches have the freedom in our country to ignore or change whatever
Scripture they no longer wish to believe and practice. As a Baptist, I believe
strongly in the principles of religious liberty and the separation of church
and state. But then people like Lowell, Gene, and Peter need to explain to the
community how individuals or a state are ever supposed to determine moral
standards. Is every idea any human being could possibly conjure up one that
must be celebrated and applauded? Do they support polyamory? Why or why not? By
what objective standard?
If the best these community leaders have to offer is, “just be true to
yourself,” they need to face an important sociological trend. That is exactly
what the polyamorists say — as they ride on the parade float with the little
blonde girl. God help us.
And here's my response to his Guest Column:
I read Pastor Steve Viars latest guest column with interest
and dismay. And confusion.
I am not an expert on religion, nor am I an expert on much
of anything, but I do read a lot, and I listen.
I try to understand, and I look for facts.
Here are some facts:
from almost the beginning of time, people have “pair bonded”, to provide
stability in child-rearing and organization for the larger group. One man and one woman were together for
purposes of pro-creation, and then it behooved them to stay together to protect
their offspring and the larger group from predators. Over time, people signed a legal document of
“marriage” in an effort to form alliances, to produce legitimate heirs, or for purely
economic reasons. But over the
centuries, societies have recognized all sorts of definitions of a “family
group”. People who have read the Bible
will remember that a one man, one woman relationship was not always the case;
for instance, King Solomon had 500 wives.
In western cultures, the Christian religion did not get
involved in defining or even “blessing” marriages until the fifth century AD,
and it was not until the 13th century that the Catholic Church
declared marriage to be a Holy Sacrament, thus needing to be a ceremony
involving a priest, and also involving only one man and one woman.
In the United States, it’s been left up to individual states
to define the legal contract of marriage—a contract recognized by the
government for taxation purposes, division of property, and for determining
responsibility for minor children. Every
state has a minimum age for marriage, most have guidelines on marriages between
first or second cousins. Some states
declare legal marriage to be between “one man and one woman”, whereas others
allow marriage between two consenting adults. Each state issues the legal document to
qualified couples, and then it’s entirely up to the couple whether their
already-recognized union is blessed by a church. No matter what else each individual state
espouses, we all agree: committed
relationships between two people are the “gold standard”. Is it any surprise to discover that most of us
want this very thing; to have the state “bless” our commitment to another
person?
Yes, I do believe Lowell Kane, Peter Bunder, and Gene
Robinson were offering the absolute “best advice”, which according to Viars is,
“Just be true to yourself.” Please DO
put yourself under your own “microscope” and take a good look. Are you really the person you know yourself
to be? Are you doing the very best you
can for you, your family, your friends, your community, our world?
Are you following the “rules” of life, given to all of us at
such an early age? You know: treat others the way you want to be treated,
don’t hit other people, look after your elders, give to the poor, take care of
animals, pick up after yourself, protect the environment. Many great teachers and religious figures
have said it, but it bears repeating:
“Love one another.”
Perhaps Steve Viars missed this Gene Robinson quote: “God calls all of his children to the table. We can disagree and even say a lot of hateful
things, but what we can’t do in good conscience is leave the table. Or demand that someone else not be at the
table.” As I read Viars’ words in the
Journal and Courier, all I could think was, “A phone call or two, an invitation for coffee, and maybe he, Lowell
Kane, Peter Bunder, and Gene Robinson could have reached some common
understanding.”
A little over a year ago, I spoke publicly about a “Bridge
of Understanding” that I was trying to build.
As a liberal person, I was excited about my “Bridge” and the fact that
there would be no “Exit Ramps” for those I might disagree with.
As long as you followed the Golden Rule, I hoped to see you on my bridge. I still have hope; two steps forward, one
step back—we’ll eventually meet in the middle.
