Yesterday I received an email from Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a fellow blogger on the Christian website Crosswalk.com. Last year Dr. Throckmorton founded an initiative called “The Golden Rule Pledge.”
This April 16th, students in middle schools through colleges across the country will be participating in the 14th annual Day of Silence, wherein they will not only stop talking for the day, but will also be handing out cards reading:
Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence (DOS), a national youth movement bringing attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by anti-LGBT bullying, name-calling and harassment. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward building awareness and making a commitment to address these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today.
Many conservative Christian parents will respond to the DOS by keeping their teens home from school.
Instead of staying home, Dr. Throckmorton would like conservative Christian teens to go to school, and, when handed one of the DOS cards, hand back a card of their own. That card would be his “The Golden Rule Pledge” card, upon which is printed this:
This is what I’m doing. The Golden Rule. I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31)
Dr. Throckmorton wrote me to ask if I “recommend” his GRP card and initiative. In response I sent him this:
Hi, Warren. I certainly appreciate you asking me about this, but I’m afraid that [handing out your GRP card] is just not something that I personally would recommend. The (too blunt, I’m afraid: forgive me!) truth is, if I were gay, that card would piss me off, insofar as I would understand it as both condescending and a lie. I would know that the Christian offering it to me does not, in fact, extend to me the same respect he certainly wants for himself (making it a lie), and that without question he feels that he is morally superior to me [making it condescending]. If I were gay, I would much rather have a Christian classmate of mine stay home than hand me one of those cards. I don’t think it’s possible for those cards to do anything but further divide gays and Christians. But … no offense to you personally! I certainly appreciate what you’re trying to do.”
I then sent him a follow-up email to say that, if he’d liked, I’d post on my blog … well, all of the above, as a means of presenting the matter to my four or five readers, and perhaps thereby discovering their thoughts on it. (“I think a lot of them probably would like the idea,” I wrote.) If you have anything to say about the DOS, or his proposed response to it, Dr. Throckmorton is listening.
**********************************************************************************************************
Fan me, baby
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
If you really wanted to apply the GR to gays, you'd be telling Christians to reject the idea that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being LGBT, to actually restructure their conception of their theology so that it grants full and absolute okayness with anyone being gay. THAT'S respect. If you really wanted to show full respect to gays, and to fully "honor" them, you'd be advocating those kids hand out cards that say, "I reject the idea that God has any problem whatsoever with homosexuality."
I am really thinking about how to apply the Golden Rule in this situation. I feel it is not constructive for you to say I am asking people to lie when I am clearly not doing that. I believe it is constructive to disagree with a viewpoint and say so. However, saying that Christians who hand out those cards don't respect and honot LGBT persons is just not accurate. Maybe some don't, but you cannot know the hearts of all those who do and have done this the last two years.
But "that kind of thinking" isn't yours to reject, Warren. It's a fact. It already exists. It's got a long, deeply-entrenched, new-every-day history. Jesus/God may or may not utterly reject and condemn gays, but CHRISTIANS do, everywhere, all the time, in overwhelming numbers, with astounding constancy. And Christians DO use the Bible as their moral justification for actively and vociferously condemning LGBT people.. And all LGBT people know it–and have lived with it, and have been insulted and maligned and hurt by it, all of their lives.
The intention of you or anyone handing out the Golden Rule cards is completely, absolutely irrelevant. A Christian—much less a conservative Christian, who are the people you most directly target as potential users of the GR card—handing a LGBT person a card with a Bible quote on it as a means of communicating how much they see that person as their "peer and equal" is manifestly absurd. The Christians who'll be handing out those cards don't "respect and honor" the LGBT person. Saying they do is a lie. You're telling young people to go out and purposefully, consciously, methodically, smugly lie. I really, really don't like that.
Spray painting dog mess pink doesn't make it candy.
Julia said: The problem is, like Sharon said above, is the gapping chasm in the different messages Chrisianity and Christians send; ‘Jesus loves you, but God hates everything else about you, especially your gayness.’
I am aware that some interpret the Golden Rule as a backhanded way of justifying condemnation. However, we completely reject that kind of thinking. The GRP intends to send a much different and very simple message. I pledge to respect and honor you.
"I think the issue with the GRP cards and Christians more conservative than me (CMCTM) is that many believe vocal opposition to homosexuality IS living the golden rule. As in: “If I’m sinning, I WANT someone to correct me — to rebuke me and to help me, with love, to be restored to a right relationship with God.”"
The problem is, like Sharon said above, is the gapping chasm in the different messages Chrisianity and Christians send; 'Jesus loves you, but God hates everything else about you, especially your gayness.'
I dont think that is the message Jesus was trying to send.
Then again….
"Also, we all know how a lot of Christians feel about gay people, and we all know what the Bible says about the way we should treat each other, and if there hadn’t been such a huge disconnect between what Christians claim they believe and what they actually do, no one would need a Day Of Anything, so the GRP card only emphasizes the hypocrisy gay people have had to live with for eons."
Well said, Sharon.
Kara, thanks for the info. Very enlightening, and disturbing.
Hmm…I guess I see the GRP card as Christian groups stealing someone else's thunder, horning in on another group's statement. You know, like, leave us alone, stop preaching AT us, butt out and get your own Day of the Golden Rule already.
Also, we all know how a lot of Christians feel about gay people, and we all know what the Bible says about the way we should treat each other, and if there hadn't been such a huge disconnect between what Christians claim they believe and what they actually do, no one would need a Day Of Anything, so the GRP card only emphasizes the hypocrisy gay people have had to live with for eons.
haha. borrowing ice!
Like I would actually bring it back!
I'll actually be handing out GPRs to CMCTMs.
After reading her post, I did a quick google search on Laurie Higgins and found some quotes that I think provide a little context and background to her comment.
"What is alarming about the account of the German Evangelical Church's reprehensible failure [in combating Hitler] is its similarity to the ongoing disheartening story of the contemporary American church's failure to respond appropriately to the spread of radical, heretical, destructive views of homosexuality."
(I cannot help myself: I call Godwin's Law.)
"Dr. Throckmorton misapplies the "Golden Rule" in his efforts to promote heretical views of the nature and morality of homosexuality."
"Dr. Throckmorton believes that "Christian students should be leading the way to make schools safe and build bridges to those who often equate 'Christian' with condemnation." In this statement, Dr. Throckmorton glaringly omits the truth that Christians must condemn volitional homosexual conduct. And to those who view homosexuality as moral, this necessary Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior renders homosexual students unsafe."
I found these quotes illuminating, so I thought I'd share them.
Janelle and Kara: All right, you two—get a room.
No, DON'T!! That would be wrong.
Okay, do.
No don't.
Okay, do—but don't answer the knock at your door. It'll be Ric, trying to pretend like he wants to borrow some ice, or something.
I'll have to come back to read all these comments… probably not today (the way today is going).
I'm glad Dr. Throckmorton calls upon your insights here, John.
I think GRP cards have the potential to be seen as not only an insult to gay students but also as an insult to the conservative Christian student being handed a stack to hand out. As in, "What? Are you implying I'm not already doing this?"
I think the issue with the GRP cards and Christians more conservative than me (CMCTM) is that many believe vocal opposition to homosexuality IS living the golden rule. As in: "If I'm sinning, I WANT someone to correct me — to rebuke me and to help me, with love, to be restored to a right relationship with God."
Ric: Nice. Thanks. (And I'm totally stealing CMCTM. Love it.)
High-five to you, Janelle, and major kudos on raising your kids to respect other people. Language is so problematic in this kind of debate, and so is the toneless, faceless, gestureless medium of internet communication.
Two-way street was exactly the wrong phrase for me to use, and I'm not really sure why I chose it. I guess what I meant to say was that genuine respect takes more than just saying you respect someone else. My parents, whom I disagree with on this theological issue, still show me genuine respect through both their actions and their words.
I really appreciate your kind response. For bridge-building efforts to succeed, the world needs more people willing to go beyond the negativity and treat everyone on all sides with full human dignity. Thanks again.
Kara: Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the tone you have taken and I am not trying to minimize the struggle you face. I have family members and friends who are gay and their struggles are definitely real and, well, complicated as you say. And, of course, they are passionate about the struggle because it is theirs. I cannot truthfully say that I am as passionate as they or you are, just as you would not be as passionate about the things that deeply touch my heart. What I am trying to say is that I am one mother, in one family, trying to raise compassionate, caring, serving children. And, no matter the peoples or issues they will face in their lives, I pray they will face them with compassion and respect. Because I don't see it as a "two way street". That's my point. The only weapon I have to fight the negativity and the hate, no matter which side of the issue it comes from, is my goal of respectfulness. It is how I sanely deal with the drug-addicted parents of my foster children, the anti-gay people in my church, my atheist friends, the grumpy store clerk… (Not always perfectly, of course!) Anyway, thanks for the conversation. God bless you.
John: I get what you are saying. Thanks for saying it.
I haven’t had the time to read all of the blog posts here, but I am the person who started the boycott of high schools that allow students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence.
I guess I am also a member of what Warren Throckmorton refers to as the “far right.” If he’s referring to my religious convictions regarding the ontology and morality of homosexuality, I hold the same orthodox views as Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Henri Blocher, Joseph Bottum, Michael L. Brown, Don Browning, D.A. Carson, Charles Chaput, Mark Dever, Anthony Esolen, Douglas Farrow, John S. Feinberg, David F. Forte, John Frame, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Arthur Goldberg, Wayne Grudem, John Finnis, Harold James, Stanton Jones, Walter Kaiser, Meredith Kline, Peter Kreeft, Daniel Lapin, Al Mohler, Douglas Moo, Russell Moore, Jennifer Roback Morse, Mark Noll, David Novak, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Patrick Henry Reardon, Leland Ryken, Thomas Schreiner, Roger Scruton, Janet E. Smith, Katherine Shaw Spaht, John Stott, Seanna Sugrue, Bruce Ware, Thomas Weinandy, W. Bradford Wilcox, Christopher Wolfe, N.T. Wright, and Ravi Zacharias.
But perhaps Warren is describing me as “far right” because of my unease with and opposition to the Day of Silence which brings social and political action into the classroom.
Unlike Warren, until August 2008, I worked full-time for a decade in a public high school. I object to the Day of Silence first because it asks students to remain silent during instructional time.
Public schools have an academic mission. Their mission is to teach history, economics, foreign languages, science, literature, writing, mathematics, art, music, and P.E . Students should be free to attend class without being confronted by divisive issues–even issues which I staunchly support, like the life issue.
We need to think more carefully about what the proper purview of government schools is and what the implications of allowing political action in the classroom are. What if an anti-war group wants to remain silent during class to draw attention to the voices of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; and what if another group wants to remain silent during class to draw attention to the silenced voices of women in Muslim countries; and another wants to remain silent during class to draw attention to the plight of persecuted Christians around the world; and an animal rights group wants to remain silent during class to draw attention to animals killed during medical research.
But my objection to the Day of Silence is not merely to its means of exploiting instructional time to promote GLSEN’s unproven, non-factual, a-historical views of the ontology and morality of homosexuality.
I have other objections to the Day of Silence that I don’t we don’t have, for example, to the Pro-life Day Of Silent Solidarity–which, by the way, I do not think should intrude into instructional time.
First, the Day of Silence is entrenched in thousands of schools, including middle schools, whereas, to my knowledge, the Day of Silent Solidarity takes place in very few schools.
In addition, and more importantly, the Day of Silence is problematic not merely because of its intrusion into the classroom but also for its ultimate goal which is the normalization of homosexuality. With the Day of Silence, I object to the means, the message, and the goals.
I am deeply troubled by the use of public funds and government schools to promote unproven ontological and moral views of homosexuality. Censorship in curricula of resources that affirm conservative views is pervasive and absolute. The Day of Silence is just one more effort on top of countless others within public education to affirm “progressive” views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder.
While students read plays, novels, essays, editorials; hear speakers; watch films; and are exposed to homosexuality-affirming “anti-bullying” resources, they are never exposed to even a single essay by a conservative scholar. What schools should be doing is requiring that equal time be spent on both sides of any controversial issue, and that equivalent resources be presented to students.
It’s fascinating to me that those who claim to value diversity, to honor all voices, and to foster critical thinking, censor with carefree and absolute abandon the voices of all scholars who articulate conservative views on homosexuality.
What I find both fascinating and hypocritical is that civil libertarians don’t rise up in righteous indignation over this pervasive censorship.
I know from working full-time in a public high school that many parents, students, and teachers–both liberal and conservative–intensely dislike the Day of Silence. Teachers don’t like the controversy that the day generates, and they don’t like having to create lesson plans around student silence. Students don’t like having to deal with the controversy in every class. And parents don’t send their children to school to have political action intrude into the math, science, foreign language, social studies, and English classes of their children. GLSEN and its student disciples have no right to impose their moral views on public school classes.
When GLSEN asserts that the Day of Silence is centrally about ending bullying–a goal that all decent humans share–they deliberately omit a description of the means by which they seek to end bullying: they seek to end bullying by normalizing homosexuality and demonizing as hateful bigotry all conservative moral propositions about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Equally troubling is that they seek to use public funds and public schools to undermine the beliefs of other people’s children.
Laurie: Just to help us understand, when you say, "I am the person who started the boycott of high schools that allow students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence," what do you mean by "the boycott." What form does the boycott of which you are a proponent take? Is the idea that you want kids on that day to stay home from school?
Laurie: I’m sorry, but you lost me at your very first line, “I haven’t had the time to read all of the blog posts here, but…”
The problem with this is, it’s clear you believe YOUR post to be, by definition, more important than anyone else’s. You might not have taken the time to read the thoughts of everyone else, but you certainly took plenty of time to formulate your own, well-thought out and lengthy reply. Unfortuantely, this is, I think, at the very crux of what is wrong with us all — the idea that, because it’s mine, my belief system is inherently more correct and more important than yours.
Kinda hard to preach the Golden Rule, if you don’t really believe it.
Janelle: I don’t think it’s complicated at ALL; it’s actually hard for me to imagine anything much simpler.
Oneman’s: Well, that’s awfully kind of you to say. As to where I got my understanding of the way conservative Christians view homosexuality … I’m not actually sure of the question. I think everyone knows that conservative Christians believe that the unrepentant homosexual is destined to spend eternity … away from God, or in Someplace Bad, or however any individual conservative Christian might put it. But, you know: homosexuality is BAD. Conservative Christians believe that homosexuality is extremely wrong, and in blatant violation of the Bible and its edicts and prescriptions, and something that the homosexual, through the power of accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior, should CHANGE about him or her self, but pronto, before he or she dies and then has to suffer the consequences of their sinful “lifestyle” throughout all eternity.
Anyway, ya’ll this has been fun. But enough; I’ve certainly done my share of writing on this subject, and no doubt will write more. But not anymore. Not here, in this way. But carry on, of course. I’ll be reading, and monitoring. Just not responding. Love.
John: I know, I’m living on the edge…
You’ve stated in comments on this post and others that conservative Christians believe that gays will spend eternity in hell. Where do you get this belief? Is it from the words and attitudes of conservative Christians? Is it from Scriptural references provided to you by conservative Christians?
I ask, because I would possibly fall in the realm of conservative Christian (okay, I’m a fundy and believe the Bible is the literal Word of God) and I find no biblical basis requiring hellfire for any sin. The rejection of Jesus as Lord (and sacrifice for sin) is the only reason for eternal damnation.
I do not ask to engender strife, I just wish to understand…
Keep in mind, you are my favorite living author…
Should you die, you drop a couple notches
John: “If you’re gay, you understand that conservative Christians don’t disagree with you a little. They think you’re so very, very wrong, about so very, very much, that as punishment for just how wrong you are, they’re convinced you’re going to spend eternity and hell. They know that conservative Christians think they’re about as wrong as wrong gets. You aren’t constantly being compared to a child molester, and/or the most craven kind of sinner, and not pretty clearly get that message.”
Indeed.
Even though I applaud Dr Throckmorton’s idea with the DOS and bridge building between Gays and conservative Christians, I think the conservative Christians are just going to errect more baricades to the bridge.
Janelle: But there’s such a massive difference between “I don’t agree with you in certain areas,” and “it’s in the Holy Book of my religion that my God will condemn you to hell forever for the way you live and the things you think.” That’s not a disagreement about “certain areas.” That’s the most profound disagreement with every area.
If you’re gay, you understand that conservative Christians don’t disagree with you a little. They think you’re so very, very wrong, about so very, very much, that as punishment for just how wrong you are, they’re convinced you’re going to spend eternity and hell. They know that conservative Christians think they’re about as wrong as wrong gets. You aren’t constantly being compared to a child molester, and/or the most craven kind of sinner, and not pretty clearly get that message.
John: “You either see GLBT people as your moral equal, or you don’t. And you don’t, because your understanding of the Bible will not let you.”
This was my point the other regarding your post respecting another’s non-Christian faith; one cannot respect another’s non-Christian faith (or sexual orientation in this case) while simultaneously looking down one’s nose at them.
Janelle: “My only thoughts are: Is it not possible to view something a different way than someone else, or even to live a different way than someone else, and yet treat that person decently and respectfully? ”
That too is my querry.
Between all of the acronyms and the attempts to explain points of view, I am probably not understanding everyone totally correctly. My only thoughts are: Is it not possible to view something a different way than someone else, or even to live a different way than someone else, and yet treat that person decently and respectfully? Am I lying if I say that I will commit to treating someone respectfully (which is how I want to be treated) even if I don’t agree with them in certain areas?
Thought it was boiled down all the way. My apologies. In the immortal words of Miss Emily Litella…. “Nevermind”
I’m sorry, but I have the feeling I’m not going to be able to suss out a helpful response to this. I’d have to go back and, every time I see that I or anyone else has written or implied the word “gay,” in my mind insert the word “lying”—and then compare how that makes me feel with how I felt about the original statement.
And you’re saying that you’re not asking me to equate “gay” with “lying”? Because … that seems to be kind of exactly what you’re asking?
Is there any chance that you could boil down what you’re meaning to ask into something more … direct, if you see what I mean? Do you know what it is that you’re … sort of meaning to ask me?
No sir, I am not asking if you equate lying Christians with gay Christians. Suppose the title of this post was “Christian Teens and Lying Teens: It’s in the Cards”… Would your responses be in the same vein?
I’m sorry; I’m afraid I’m not quite grasping the question? Do I … equate lying Christians with gay Christians, you mean?
John: Would your responses above be the same if gay Christian in this discussion was replaced with lying Christian?
You lost me at "John Piper", but the basic misunderstanding of the First Amendment still managed to stand out. Just saying. (Also, the Day of Silence isn't publicly funded.)
Wow. So … logic just isn’t your thing.
I give up on this little … tangent.
Glad to hear it, John. I'm the kind of person who gets mega-stressed by saying stuff I've said a trillion times before, myself, but for our sakes and yours, I'm certainly glad you aren't. (Still pray for you, though. "I'm OK" changed my spiritual world, and y'know, you wrote it, so lifting you up seems like the least I can do.)
Kara: Wow. That's … extremely touching of you to say. Thank you!
John-
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your provision of the forum for this discussion. Sorry if it gets stressful for you; please know that I pray for you regularly. In essence, you da man.
Janelle-
Does it really have to be so complicated? I just want to teach my kids to be respectful. Treating others with respect is the essence of true Christianity, I think. And respect must be the essential starting point, middle point, and ending point of any meaningful conversation, no matter how inflammatory the subject matter.
I wish it didn't have to be. I like to hope that someday it won't be. But the very issue that the DOS is addressing is part of why it is and will be complicated. Gay kids get beaten up, mocked, threatened, and generally tormented because of who they are. People still get to vote on our legal, secular, civil rights. Pastors (and beauty queens) still say that God wants us to die. That the world would be better if we were dead. Or they don't say that directly, but say we're rapists, child molesters, without conscience, etc. And just because most readers here don't think those things doesn't mean anyone gets to deny that that's the reality LGBT people live with. It'll be uncomplicated when everyone recognizes us as true equals, but not before.
: Is it not possible to view something a different way than someone else, or even to live a different way than someone else, and yet treat that person decently and respectfully? ”
Yes. This is how I'm still able to have a relationship with every single one of my relatives except for my brother.
However, it's a two-way street. Part of "treating me decently and respectfully" involves treating me like a grown-up, and not harping on how wrong they think I'm living my life. They support gay rights, even though they don't agree with my interpretation of scripture. They don't question my salvation, or the health of my relationship with God. They don't treat me like a project to be fixed. They don't disrespect me by implying that being happily gay is the same as lying, stealing, cheating, or drunkenness, because they know that I'd never want to do anything that doesn't respect or show love for another person.
I don't care what anybody thinks about the Greek meaning of Romans 1:26-27, or about the cultural context of Levitical law. Not really. As long as they recognize my equality. That's basic respect.
Kara: No, no stress: but thanks for concern/love. But … no. I mean, I do this, like, ALL the time, for years now. I didn’t say anything today that I haven’t said a trillion times before. My whole book “I’m OK” is about this EXACT topic. So, for me, it’s …. natural, I guess. But, again, thanks for regards.
Nice comment!
Warren-
I thoroughly admire and support the goals of GRP, as you’ve just explained them. Please understand that my skepticism is only because of the extreme negative reaction that the DOS has faced from evangelicals in the past.
Bridge building is always wonderful, and I’m truly saddened to realize that the current cultural atmosphere has made me question the motivation of something as simple as handing out a card with the Golden Rule on it. It’s a sign of how much bridge building still remains to be done, I suppose.
Thank you for being willing to reach out and make an organized effort to show LGBT students that not all who profess faith in Christ view them as the enemy. As an LGBT Christian, it’s not something I saw much in my local Christian community. So for taking a stand against those who oppose anti-bullying efforts, I salute you.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →