I get a range of comments to posts at QTC, some supportive, some posing useful questions, and some downright hostile. Hostility I tend to publish (I dislike censorship) but ignore. Useful questions and observations I like to respond to (but not always as conscientiously as I should do), and supportive statements I enjoy: I am at least as vain as the next man. Sometimes, I get a comment that raises a really important question – like this one, to my post on Evangelical and Catholic “Gays for Jesus”.
This began with a huge compliment, describing the post as “the most articulate writing on this issue I have seen on the web”, but went on to raise a challenge. Implying that perhaps I was simply preaching to the converted, he put a question for a future article: are our opponents, those we need to reach by changing hearts and minds, motivated by reason?
This raises important questions about my purpose at this site, questions about which I am clear in my own mind, but which I have probably not articulated clearly. This was Phil’s comment, beginning with the good bit:
First, it must be said that you are offering the most articulate writing on this issue I have seen on the web. If your goal is to bring comfort to those of us who already agree with you, it seems you’re doing an excellent job.
“The most articulate on the web” is definitely something I can live with. But then, the sting in the tail:
If your goal is to change hearts and minds, perhaps a future article might address what for me is the most interesting question.
Are rejections of the gay community based on reason? Is that really why otherwise intelligent and decent people turn to their gay neighbors and say,
“You don’t deserve the rights that I claim for myself.”
A careful application of thoughtful reason may reveal that careful thoughtful reason isn’t the channel those making such claims are listening on.
If that is true, it’s possible we face a challenge similar to that faced by those struggling with homophobia, a need to step out of routine patterns that have become comfortable to us.
I have always been clear in my own mind that it is not my intention to change hears and minds, precisely because I do not see this as something that can be done by reason. The concept of bigotry is hotly disputed in current discourse, with many opponents of LGBT equality, and specifically of gay marriage, insisting for instance, that their opposition is not based on prejudice, but is founded on sincere Christian belief. For some people, I accept that claim as entirely true. There are undoubtedly many people of good will whose opposition is rooted in faith and and their understanding of the biblical message. They may well be open – minded, and susceptible to rational debate on the theology and appropriate methods of biblical interpretation – but this is probably best done in direct discussion, not on- line, not at a site such as this. They are not the people I am directly aiming to address.
For others, I’m not so sure of their openness to reason. For example, many of the supporting statements made for their belief, claims that gay marriage “is harmful to children”, or about a supposed “gay lifestyle” are made without any foundation in evidence, or on stereotypes, applying perceptions of an extreme sub-group to the entire populations. Frequently, arguments in favour of same- sex relationships or inclusion are met with simple non- sequiturs. A common response I have heard to the fact that Jesus said nothing at all on the subject is, “Yes, but he did say sin no more”. So? That’s completely irrelevant unless you have already decided that homosexuality is in fact a sin – prejudged it in fact.
Furthermore, the scriptural evidence quoted, based on a mere half dozen verses, is extremely selective, ignoring the many other biblical prohibitions that are no longer considered binding, or the far more numerous supportive Gospel texts on inclusion of all, and rejecting all forms of judgement against others.
These examples of negative judgements made without regard to evidence, or applying stereotypes to an entire group, or reaching conclusions based on unfounded assumptions, all fit into the very definition of prejudice, which is the foundation of bigotry.
While I prefer not to use the term “bigot” myself, I have to agree that much of the opposition is not based on reason, and cannot be countered by simple reason. So, what is to be done?
At the same time, if all I am achieving is “to bring comfort to those of us who already agree with you”, I would be disappointed. Leaving us all feeling good about each other may bring warm feelings and is pleasant in its way, but it’s not enough. It’s certainly not a sound justification for the immense time and thought that I put into the exercise. So, what is my aim? As I explained in my response to Phil, I aim for something in between:
In fact, my intention is precisely to bring comfort – not to those who already agree, but to those who are troubled by the apparent conflict, between what they know from their inmost beings, and the received opinions from the churches.
It is not my aim to change hearts and minds. I don’t believe this can be done by reasoning, because I don’t believe that at bottom, the prejudice is based on reason. Boswell has shown how in pre-modern history, the strongest church persecution followed, and did not lead, popular prejudice. Modern history has shown that hearts and minds are most often changed when it becomes personal – when straight Christians are forced to confront the phenomenon of gay and lesbian peoples in their own families, or as friends, colleagues, or as fellow parishioners, sitting in the pews alongside them.So, my aim is not to “convert” anyone, but to encourage the queer community to have confidence in who they are, to show them that they are not in any way in conflict with authentic Christianity, and so to be open and out in church, as in their secular lives. That visibility will be of value to younger LGBT people who are still struggling, and will challenge our straight colleagues to adjust or renounce their prejudices.
Related articles
- Gays for Jesus: Catholic and Evangelical (queeringthechurch.com)
- Nicolas Chinardet Asks: “What Exactly is a Bigot?” (thewildreed.blogspot.com)
- Anti-homophobia campaign launches (mumbrella.com.au)
- Sex and God (chaplainmediacity.wordpress.com)
Terrence, thank you for giving my comments such thoughtful consideration.
You asked what can be done about changing views that are not based on reason. This seems a very interesting, challenging, and practical question which I look forward to discussing with you.
Your goal of helping gays have confidence, come out, and be themselves seems a useful strategy as it increases the odds that straight traditionalists will meet and know gays, and thus begin the transition from abstraction to personal experience. We agree that’s key.
My experience has been that challenging emotion driven views with reason is addictively easy, but the most likely outcome is resistance and ego inflation, not the changing of minds.
Coming out for me is the unfolding admission that sticking with a method that rarely works, simply because I have a knack for it, is my own irrational emotion driven psychology at work.
And to prove it, I’ve cleverly whipped up a carefully reasoned argument warning of the limits of carefully reasoned arguments, so that my own statement will be an argument with itself!
Sigh…
Um, maybe you need to start serving beer here on the blog Terrence, I think I could use a cold one.
Phil, don’t put yourself down. Your ”
a carefully reasoned argument warning of the limits of carefully reasoned arguments” is perfectly sound – and as you are not using it to deal with those driven by unreason, but with yourself and with me, it’s perfectly valid.
My conviction that you are right is deeply rooted in my experience living for half a century surrounded by racial prejudice in South Africa, where I fell into the same traps you describe: indeed, “challenging emotion driven views with reason is addictively easy, but the most likely outcome is resistance and ego inflation, not the changing of minds”.
Political change in SA has been remarkable, but I don’t believe too many prejudices were broken down by reason, or arguments on morality. What did happen, was the experience of the damaging consequences of discrimination – to the economy, in international isolation, and increasing violence and conflict inside the country. The gradual erosion of social apartheid, by legal repeal and by civil disobedience, together with the emergence of a band of articulate middle class Black professionals, gradually contributed to the erosion of racial stereotypes – a process that was accelerated after the formal dismantling of apartheid, with the prohibition of discrimination and the start of non- racial democracy.
In precisely the same way, the best strategy for combating sexual prejudice is simply to get as many of us as possible to come out, as fully as our circumstances permit – in church, as in our secular lives.
Hi again Terrence,
Wow, South Africa, that’s quite a training ground. That seems a very strong background to bring to the issues you address here.
So, how do we best use a medium that is inherently abstract, the web, to encourage a heart and mind opening experience that must be considerably personal to be effective?
We can ask this question in regards to the gay and straight communities, and in regards to the traditional and progressive Catholic communities too.
I’ve been reviewing hundreds of Catholic blogs recently, and it appears everybody has run to their own little corner, and there is a heavy focus on competing ideologies.
As example, after two months of searching, I’ve yet to find a single online forum that is equally welcoming to both Catholic traditionalists and progressives. In all the world, not a one, or so it seems.
How are Catholics supposed to provide leadership to the larger community if we can’t even bring peace and communion to our own house?
I look forward to your insights on this in coming days, as I surely don’t claim to know the answer here, but the question burns brightly.
The best I can do for now is to imagine online environments that are entirely welcoming to the minority gay and progressive Catholic communities, but are somehow (how?) branded as “a Catholic community” instead of “a progressive community” or “a gay community”, or “a traditionalist community”.
It seems that as Catholics we should have bigger and better things to do than to get so wound up in factional divisions.