This piece is written by a gay person reflecting on his experience with his friend Michael. Michael used to be a passionate gay activist but later in life became a Christian and repented of his gay lifestyle. It's a very engaging article on a variety of levels but this short paragraph is what I wanted to comment on. The author is speaking with another friend of his named Ben. They both knew Michael well when he was strongly advocating for the gay lifestyle in his younger years.
Ben went on. “To me, Michael is a victim of this insane society we live in, where we grow up with all these conflicting messages and pressures around sexuality and religion, and where we divide into these camps where we’re always right and the other side is always wrong. Some people are susceptible to buying into that, and I think Michael is one of them.”See what is implied there? The weak minded people are the ones who believe in real right and wrong.
Whether you think Michael is a complete nut job or a great example for us is not the point. The point is that we can't allow these statement to be made with out correction. In the end it doesn't help his perspective or any other for that matter.
To believe in the truth or to have secure convictions about a matter, if different from Ben, is viewed as being a "victim" or "insane" and some people are "susceptible" since they fall prey to his horrible idea that truth is not subjective.
But the great irony here is that Ben is making a truth statement himself that he wants us to believe in. If he didn't he wouldn't have said it. His truth statement is not relative but rather is the Truth as he sees it. Sadly, his logic implodes upon itself as he rebukes someone for believing in Truth while making a Truth statement himself. See how that works?
Why don't we all forsake the silly arguing about "your truth" and "my truth" and admit that we all think we know the truth. You can't hardly function honestly in this world until you confess this reality. So let's move on from the foolish wandering around the edges of true discussion through dismissive notions of relativized knowledge and actually speak to each other with reasons for why we believe what we believe. Let's have a true marketplace of ideas, not a marketplace that only includes people who agree with us.
Ben sounds very tolerant but in fact he is quite intolerant of anyone else's perspective on the matter. So let's aim for true tolerance. One that can handle disagreement without claiming "hate" or "bigot" or "fundamentalist". We are all fundamentalists. We just don't agree on the fundamentals. Let's cease the labeling that accomplishes nothing. Let's be prepared to listen to another perspective and give solid, nuanced, and thoughtful answers for why we believe what we believe.
8 comments:
Excellent stuff.
You really see both Glatze and Ben as "fundamentalists?" While I have no doubt Ben is secure in his decisions for his own life, Glatze is not content with that, instead deciding what is right and wrong for everyone else's life. Ben was gracious throughout that article:
“I don’t know for sure what you are,” I said. “I just wish you wouldn’t write such inaccurate things about gay people.”
That sums up his attitude towards Glatze, while Glatze imposes his distorted view of gays on Ben and everyone else. These two are night and day, the antithesis of your supposition.
Keep in mind also that Glatze is behaving himself in that article. His other rantings are vile and hateful at best.
David,
Thanks for your comment. I think you may be misunderstanding me. My only point is that everyone believes they have the truth no whatever what you think of the article. We are ALL fundamentalists. Meaning, we all believe we know the truth.
We should all be honest enough to admit this. None of us are "tolerant" if tolerance means I have to agree with everyone.
Even you are not tolerant of Glatze based on your comments and you too believe that you know the Truth, or else you wouldn't have written a long comment.
I think all this is great. Let give reasons for why we believe what we believe instead of labeling people. Labeling is really easy. Giving well reasoned thoughts for why we believe what we believe is hard. Let's do the latter.
Makes sense?
Labels are just language, we can't get away from that. Words are labels for things and ideas -- traits of people included. Labels are not bad in and of themselves.
I think the problem is your definition of fundamentalism. It does not mean to just believe one is correct, but a strict adherence to a set of rules or doctrines.
Of course, in our society the primary meaning is further defined as a protestant group that stresses the infallibility of Christian scripture in all ways. When we add Evangelical to this we often find an intense desire to require that others follow those rules as well.
If you are just trying to say that everyone tends to think they are right in their own ideology, well that's probably true for most but that alone can't determine if one is a fundamentalist, or even intolerant.
And yes, to respond to your personal comment, I'm not very tolerant of intolerance, which I think is pretty consistent with my being rather tolerant of most everything else. I find that acting otherwise leads to a need to control others, which would land me in fundamentalist territory ;)
What if I just labeled your post, "hate-filled", "bigoted", and "mean" and left it at that without giving you any reasons for why I believe what I believe? You probably would not dig that and my labels of you would completely shut down the conversation right?
That is what happens in the discussion of this broader issue and I am simply saying that that needs to stop. Completely unhelpful. Does that make sense?
You are right in your general understanding of that word "fundamentalist". But to your point, in your last sentence, you agree. So that is good that we are on the same page with that. Everyone has a perspective that they think is right. Most people don't want to listen to anyone else's perspective. Do you want to listen to me or do I have to agree with you in order for you to humbly listen to my perspective?
It is good to see you at least admit that you are not tolerant. I am not that tolerant either, but just because I think that some things are objectively right and wrong doesn't mean that I hate you or anyone else. It should come as no big shocker that I disagree with lots of things that people do. Even my friends! That doesn't mean I "hate" them or want to kill them.
Thanks for the discussion.
Great stuff, Zach. And I might add a good discussion here with David Roberts. My best to you both as you pursue the truth.
Hello,
This is really very interesting blog post found here.... Really its great to be here.... Thanks very much for sharing such an awesome blog post.
Thanks!
Thanks Zach! I enjoyed reading your response. As we walk though this with my family it's helpful to hear other's processing
Post a Comment