In 1864 while making an address at the Sanitary Faire in Baltimore, MD, Abraham Lincoln spoke of the meaning of liberty this way:

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”

This is fascinating to me because it is the same thing that I am saying today regarding the different definitions of the same words by different populations of people – each of which mean something completely different, used in a completely different way, and each group believing they have the correct definition.

The biggest challenge for our culture today is to know what it means to work with people who have a different baseline moral framework than yourself. We haven’t figured it out yet. And from what Abraham Lincoln said, it looks like this struggle has been going on for a really, really long time. I guess it’s going to take that much for time to hopefully shift cultural engagement in a more peaceful and productive manner.

As cheesy as it sounds… That change in cultural engagement must start right now with you.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Yesterday there was an article posted on Huffington Post by two young evangelical authors about LGBT activists wrongly using the word ‘hate’ to describe those with a conservative theological framework. I have a few thoughts:

The article was written well with good thoughts. Thoughts that I do tend to agree with. But at the end of the day, coming from who wrote the article, they are just, well, written words. That’s all.

It’s a million times easier to write about something that you don’t have daily interaction with. It keeps you separated. It gives you a buffer. You aren’t fully invested in what you’re writing about. It takes no guts.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the fact that others are starting to go public with their thoughts on a new medium of engagement. I’m all about it – from both the LGBT and conservative worlds. I’m sure those guys who wrote the article are great guys – as I believe one, if not both of them, are represented by the literary agent that represents me.

But it would be like me writing about the environment (one of the article’s author’s area of expertise). Just because I, Andrew, recycle and take public transportation more than I drive, doesn’t make me someone with any amount of credibility to speak to the subject of creation care. What it does make me is someone who does care, is trying hard, and has a platform to toss my thoughts in the arena. Those are all good things. Things that I appreciate.

I just pray the author’s of that article are backing up their easily written, well crafted and articulate article with personal relationships with those in the LGBT community – especially those that don’t agree with them – that challenge their “thinking” and “writing” past thinking and writing and onto real life in real time. Only then will I be willing to listen.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org 

This is the last post in this series.

Here is the Intro to this series on Language in the Culture War about Tolerance.

Here is Part 2 on Reconciliation.

Here is Part 3 on Affirming.

Homophobic:

The word ‘homophobic’ has become one of those ugly, politically charged words that bring on a new (and incorrect) cultural understanding of the word’s original intent in definition and usage.

The culture war definition of Homophobic: Any person who does not completely agree with a fully affirming social and theological position regarding the GLBT community.

That is not what homophobic means!

My bridge building definition of Homophobic: A physically violent, bull-horn shouting, sign waving, slur (name calling such as fag and homo) propagating person against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I’ll be very clear on this: A homophobic person is not someone who disagrees (on any level) within the culture war. People are allowed to disagree—and that goes for GLBT disagreeing with conservatives, as well as conservatives disagreeing with GLBT people. It’s normal. I actually believe it can be a constructive way to end the culture war: People from both communities finally learn how to handle themselves immersed in each other’s lives without fighting or name calling; and without knowing the ending. What a thought?

In fact, the reason this culture war continues to be a culture war instead of a peaceful and productive dialogue is two simple reasons:

1. Most Christians keep throwing sexual behavior in the face of GLBT people as their only worthwhile characteristic,

and

2. Most GLBT people keep calling anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with them “homophobic.”

Neither one of those are even remotely close to being how to rightly handle this disconnect. In all of these posts, if there is one thing that is the underlying commonality in each of the words it is that:

All of the conclusions are the same: Believe what I believe otherwise you’re wrong, need to change, and you’re _____________ (insert derogatory term, which is funny to me because each community chastises the other for doing the same thing on a variety of levels; specifically name calling).

It’s disastrous that these extremes on both ends have set the par for the course in this dialogue (definitely the reason it’s a culture war and not a dialogue). Though I know how it happened:

Because they are both the loudest!

But I’m tired of being out-shouted.

We (as in all of us—gay and straight, liberal and conservative, women and men) need to start not out-shouting each other, but keep the Movement sprinting forward toward reclaiming love, language and true God-centered reconciliation in their proper role and definition! Unfortunately we have lost each of those things to a culture war that is dictating our path.

“No More” I say.

Reclamation starts now—and so does correcting everyone you know who falls into these old, worn out culture war traditions! So many people keep persisting in their old ways because they either don’t know anything else, or no one has the guts to tell them to stop perpetuating the newly adopted definitions of the culture war language.

It’s time to bring that something else. It’s time to end the back-and-forth once and for all.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Here is the Intro to this series on Language in the Culture War.

Here is Part 2.

Affirming:

The word ‘affirming’ has become one of those ugly, politically charged words that bring on a new (and incorrect) cultural understanding of the word’s original intent in definition and usage.

The culture war definition of Affirming: Similar to reconciliation, in that all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are born with a same-sex attraction, acting out on those attractions is not a sin, and living in a same-sex committed monogamous relationship is a happy, healthy, God-ordained way of life. And whoever does not agree with any of these statements in homophobic or out of touch with reality.

In essence ‘affirming’ means to completely agree with another’s definition of what is correct and acceptable. In the case of the culture war it would be what is considered, from a GLBT perspective, as a ‘pro-gay theological belief system.’ For more details in that belief system see Love is an Orientation, Chapter 4 or read this.

But that is not what affirming means, nor hits on its intent either!

My bridge building definition of Affirming: Validating one’s experiences that have led them to their current psychological, emotional, spiritual and social states as legitimate to them.

My understanding is that affirming was never meant to be a whole-hearted leap to believe what the ‘other side’ (in either direction) deems as the solely acceptable personal, theological and historical baseline worldview of a social construct (though in this case Affirming is being used specifically by the GLBT community). Rather, its original intent was meant to be an affirmation in one’s experiences, thoughts and perceptions.

But there is an extreme invalidation pandemic running rapid throughout this culture war.

Many people/organizations within both communities don’t want to know anything about what it means to validate (actually, the correct cultural (not culture war) definition in this case would be ‘affirm’) the other, because that is seen as ‘giving in’ (capitulating seems to be a favorite word of many) to the other’s “ludicrous demands and evil agenda.” This is ridiculous; and quite confusing at times. Thus, we are now able to see why there is such a need to have a clear, and culturally accurate definition of these politically divisive and exorbitantly sensitive words; because this current culture war is leading hot-button vocabulary in the wrong direction.

The uniqueness of this word in the culture war is such that my bridge building definition of ‘affirming’ is actually the culture war definition of ‘validation.’ I speak extensively of the difference between validation and affirmation, and for an expansion of these thoughts, see some past posts here.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Here is the Intro to this series on Language in the Culture War.

Reconciliation:

The word ‘reconciliation’ has become one of those ugly, politically charged words that bring on a new (and incorrect) cultural understanding of the word’s original intent in definition and usage.

The culture war definition of Reconciliation: People (specifically conservative Christians) have to fully agree with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people (and GLBT Christians) who are sexually active in a committed, monogamous relationship.

Within this new definition of reconciliation, it means that GLBT people reconcile their faith and sexuality with the understanding that people are born with a same-sex attraction, acting out on those attractions is not a sin, and living in a same-sex committed monogamous relationship is a happy, healthy, God-ordained way of life. Thus, whoever does not agree with any of these statements in homophobic or out of touch with reality.

That is not reconciliation! In fact, I think that definition is the exact opposite of reconciliation because if the gospel is all about reconciliation (which I believe it to be)—it’s purpose is to draw people closer to God and closer to each other. The culture war definition actually separates people from each other, and therefore can only separate people (and warring communities) from God as well. In no way, shape or form does the culture war definition represent any biblical (I am not talking about theology) form of reconciliation.

My bridge building definition of Reconciliation: Torn apart and ruined relationships through the Fall and through one another’s actions with each other, are all now redeemed in Christ; together, bonded in relationship with each other and God through Christ’s death on a cross.

“The only purpose of the gospel is to reconcile people to God and to each other. A gospel that doesn’t reconcile is not a Christian gospel at all. But in America it seems as if we don’t believe that. We don’t really believe that the proof of our discipleship is that we love one another (John 13:35)…

To be reconciled to each other, then, we must bear the burdens created by each other’s pasts. And to be reconcilers in the world, to bring others together, we must bear the burdens of both the parties we seek to reconcile…

We must be reconciled to both God and man. The gospel’s first work is to reconcile us to God (2 Cor. 5:18), then, if our relationship with God is right, it will show up in our relationships with each other (1 John 4:20). For my worship to be acceptable to God, I must be reconciled to my brother (Matthew 5:23-24). To be reconciled to my brother I must first be reconciled to God; to remain reconciled to God I must be reconciled to my brother. I cannot have one without the other…

If the purpose of the gospel is to reconcile us to God and to our fellowman, if your mission is to be God’s ambassadors of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20), how do we fulfill that mission?

We must model the kind of relationships into which we want to invite others. Our love for each other gives credibility and power to our witness. We must begin by being. Being, though, is not complete until it results in doing. As James says, “Faith, if it has no works, it’s dead”. A faith that doesn’t express itself in works is not a true faith. Now that’s good, but it’s not enough. It’s not enough to just be a reconciled fellowship, though that is where we have to start. We must be a reconciled fellowship on a mission. And our mission is to bring others into fellowship with God and with us.

And many of the people in the Christian community movement seem to lack this vision. They love each other, yet they lack the drive [to live it out].” Excerpts from racial reconciliation leader Dr. John Perkins in his book With Justice for All.

I have said many times that by in-large the Christian community has the God to human portion of reconciliation down. It’s the human to human piece many are missing. And on our last Live Chat I was corrected with an eye-opening revelation by someone named Blaser85:

“Andrew, you talk about the God to us part as we have it all figured out; that we’re just lacking the ‘us to us’ part. But I wonder if we really do understand and “get” the ‘God to us’ reconciliation part? My thought is that if we really did understand the ‘God to us’ part, then the ‘us to us’ part wouldn’t be hard at all! I don’t think we really understand how much God truly loves us and wants a relationship with us, giving us the freedom to choose Him and the relationship with each other. I think reconciliation with others would be much easier once we finally and correctly understand the ‘God to us’ reconciliation relationship.”

I am truly taken back by Blaser85’s insight—who couldn’t be more right! Well, I guess it’s time we all start reworking our understanding and subsequent reactions of what it means to have a reconciled relationship with God, because we obviously don’t have that figured out yet. If we did have it figured out, we wouldn’t be in this situation. So how are we then able to start learning how to reconcile each other to God and other people and communities? It’s a work in progress with God and each other.

Here is my understanding of the movements to reclaiming biblical reconciliation:

1. Legitimately enter into this journey with someone exactly opposite (theologically and socially) than yourself

2. Center God in the middle—not the culture war, sexuality, religion, work, hobbies, commonalities, clear differing points, etc.

3. Be committed for the long haul no matter what happens (the weak and those with excuses just give up); no matter who turns their back on who (go and relentlessly pursue them); who says whatever about the other (only face to face meetings to directly talk about it); who gets annoyed, angry, bored, frustrated, etc with the other (persistence in commitment is the only way growth happens).

4. Keep a consistent place (email, journal, blog) for individual and dual reflections of meetings, discussions and life experiences.

5. After a significant amount of time watch the bitterness fade away, the person flow forward and God light it all up. And if that doesn’t happen, keep repeating until Jesus returns.

Peace. God-centered. Biblical reconciliation. Out to the world.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Recently there was a vigorous stream of dialogue in the comment sections of some recent posts (here and here), as well as conversations on my most recent Live Chat regarding language within the culture war between conservatives and the GLBT community (and how that language is used). As one of the commenter’s suggested in a post on his own blog, it’s good to understand and good to be understood. In building on that thought I want to talk about some of what I see as the key lingual fighting points that are not only misunderstood and misrepresented between communities, but also have taken on new cultural meanings that are at the core of the disconnect.

Four words come to mind right away:

Tolerance. Reconciliation. Affirming. Homophobia.

In my opinion these four words make up the roots, stem and branches in the tree of separation. I believe so strongly that both communities (gay and straight) need to start reclaiming language if anything is to move forward from our current interactions! Here are my thoughts on reclaiming language … within my own life, it started with the reclaiming of the word LOVE, and it’s time to build on this first wave of the Movement.

Tolerance:

The word ‘tolerance’ has become one of those ugly, politically charged words that bring on a new (and incorrect) cultural understanding of the word’s original intent in definition and usage.

The culture war definition of Tolerance: If you don’t agree with me being _________ (fill in either GLBT or conservative Christian), or anything that comes with it, you’re ___________ (fill in either homophobic or deceived liberal). Therefore you’re wrong and need to change because you’re not tolerant.

That is not tolerance! That is a backhanded manipulation through cultural pressure.

My bridge building definition of Tolerance: A freedom to unconditionally love while still holding on to your belief system.

Tolerance is not pacifying someone else by ‘putting up with them’ – “them” being defined as belief system, life actions and lived experiences. True tolerance, bridge building tolerance, is to incarnationally listen and learn in the middle of places where you’re the extreme minority as you continue to go back week after week, month after month, year after year—wrestling with uncomfortable and very, very difficult topics rooted in extreme differences that bring out the most passion in people. And it is always done face to face. The only thing that can keep us learning what tolerance is really all about is a commitment to purposefully form an intentional broken community to humbly, and mutually understand each others felt-needs and filtration systems in a personal way through intimate relationship with the other [that is traditionally held as] “opposition.” In the end, the goal of a bridge building tolerance is to not necessarily agree (but that doesn’t mean agreement can’t happen), but rather contextually putting a personal life experience to the spiritual, emotional and social grappling’s of another human being’s perspective and experience. 

Part 2 will be on Reconciliation, Part 3 on Affirming and Part 4 on Homophobia. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org