LearnTheAddress.Org

My Week in Words

 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 13^th 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.