Every-once and awhile I search through sites that are linking to my blog. Political conservatives largely rule the internet and the same is true for conservative evangelicals on the web. That means a lot of the feedback I receive is more on the negative side.
The site Scattered Words has been upset over my views on homosexuality.
Chuck says Jesus taught tolerance, then references Matthew 22:36-40. That passage is a well-known one to most evanglicals:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I can't find the word tolerance in there. I can't find it in the greek either (I checked in case this passage was loosely translated).
Lets put it this way. Say I have a son. I find out my son has a malignant cancer growing in his body. I find a doctor who can treat him, first with surgery, then radiation, then chemotherapy. The treatments are rough. They involve cutting him open, barraging his body with toxins -- just to get rid of something that eventually will overtake him and kill him. He gets sick, he can barely get out of bed. His hair falls out. The treatments I've chosen for my son have ravaged him -- it doesn't mean I don't love him.
It means that I really did love him -- I just wouldn't tolerate something being inside him that was going to eat away at him until there was nothing left. I did whatever I could to save him, even if it meant causing him some temporary pain and discomfort.
Comparing homosexuality to a disease ignores modern science and offers us a pre-modern view of human society. The writer is within her rights to take such a position. Her church is even free to treat gay and lesbians as sinners. However, a solid case can be made that she misinterprets the teachings of Jesus. That becomes problematic when voters endorse ballot measures taking rights away from gays and believe it is the Christian position to do so. The same theology that was used to defend slavery is used today to defend the subjugation of gays and lesbians.
Several conservative Roman Catholics took umbrage over recent posts taking the Vatican to task for their positions on abortion and homosexuality. SoDakMonk – a Catholic blogger – had this to say:
There are anti-Catholic extremists both on the right, e.g. Jack Chick & his comic tracts, and on the left, e.g. this "Chuck Currie" persona. Don't waste your time arguing with them. I did do a quick scan of this UCC seminarian's blog, enough to make the following observations.
1) What Mr. Currie says about the Catholic Church is technically true. The Church is a large, inclusive organization, with over 60 million members in the US alone. Not to mention all the other nations and cultures around the world. There is room for people of different political views, as long as those views do not intrinsically conflict with Catholic doctrine. This makes the Catholic Church much different from the UCC, a former Protestant church that has now lapsed into politically correct irrelevancy. People of traditional views are not welcome in such a church.
2) If people of liberal politics are also committed to the sanctity of human life on issues like abortion and euthanasia, they are more than welcome in the Church. In fact they are needed, because Democrats should hear the Good News too. But, there are some who have compromised their faith for their political views, or just see the church as an organization they can use to spread their own views. These are the type that would be better off leaving the Church. Sometimes they choose to do just that. In rare cases, the Church will formally excommunicate them. But the Church is slow to give up on anyone, because we know people can change.
3) We can all take comfort in the fact that someone like this Chuck Currie would never pass the screening process to be a Catholic seminarian. Can you say, "Unresolved issues with male authority figures"?
The response wasn’t surprising. After all, the radical Catholic League sent out a press release last summer claiming that my blog was anti-Catholic. All the notes from Catholics defending my posts were very heartening. We need to remember – even when we face difficult issues – that it is best to treat people with respect and dignity.
When is a blog a blog? That is a technical answer that I cannot provide. But the folks at the conservative anti-UCC site UCCtruths know a blog when they see one and mine doesn’t fit their criteria:
UCC seminarian Chuck Currie has a blog... but he doesn't quite get it either. Instead of making good use of excerpts of newsworthy information and applying his own context to it, he habitually posts whole press releases and statements. Some of the information is interesting and thought provoking - if you don't fall asleep trying to read it all. Oh... and don't think about disagreeing with Chuck or challenging his facts and expect the posted comments to last more than an hour. One of the great thing about blogs - and the internet as a whole - is the ability to interact collectively. When you restrict comments in blogs to just those comments that are supportive, it loses credibility, fast. Chuck doesn't get it.
My policy, by the way, is only to ban people from commenting that are making comments meant to simply offend others – or that are personal attacks. It appears the policy of the UCCtruths folks is to make personal attacks against UCC leaders while pushing a conservative social agenda. Their message board is filled with talk this week about teaming up with the group Biblical Witness to pass conservative resolutions at the UCC's General Synod. Though to be honest the content is less political and more personal. You get the feeling they really hate anything that has to do with the UCC.
One of the blogs that has routinely attacked my site has vanished. Ecumenical Insanity was written by conservative North Carolina pastor who hoped to keep his identity secret. His site was used as a tool for spreading false information about the National Council of Church USA and the United Church of Christ. I posted his identity and church affiliation on this site several weeks ago. Now his site has been taken down. The issue begs a larger question: should people blogging on the internet be allowed to hide their identity while making political statements and sometimes personal attacks? How do you hold them accountable for their actions if they hide behind a mask? My position is that if you’re going to take political and social stands – and do so from a Christian perspective – you have no business trying to conceal your identity. You ought to be able to know the context in which attacks are being made against you.
