Some of my conversations about religion might be a little confusing to long-time friends or even the casual observer. The piece I wrote a few days ago discussing gay men, christian or otherwise, and the christian church's reaction to them was an attempt to talk about christianity within christianity's own rule set. I should probably be clear that I myself do not identify as christian currently and probably will not in the future, assuming organizational christianity continues to insist ostracizing lepers is key to following a guy who went out of his way to show kindness to lepers. In other words, I cannot support it so long as their actions and rules seem so completely out of alignment with the broader principles they claim to be founded on.
Having said that, this does not mean that there is no redemption for Christianity, this does not mean I think all christians are intolerant assholes, this does not mean I can't see a way for them to be decent to gay people quite easily within the philosophies of their own religion. It does not mean I want to reconvert either, but I'm trying not to be pointlessly antagonistic when talking with christians about these things. And sometimes I do that by trying to argue one doesn't need to tear christianity down entirely or concede victory to the sexual revolution entirely to find a way to find brotherhood with gay individuals. Indeed, I'm pretty prudish for a gay man and I know many who DO consider themselves christian and DO have gay relationships and, as surprising as this might be to secular and religious alike, DO want to wait until marriage to have sex and value chastity. I'm not quite, ahem, as chaste as that, but I feel for the people in that position, who are actually more or less aligned culturally with the church congregations they want to be party of, and are on the same page regarding the sanctity of marriage between two people, but who the church members refuse to let themselves see as brothers and sisters.
So yes, I have my negative opinions about institutional christianity. I don't believe the modern incarnation is something I really want to be a part of, but part of that frustration is, having soaked in that religion for over 20 years, I can see clearly how there is plenty of 'wiggle' room theologically to abandon the culture war, let go of gay panic, and start being decent to people who are not them again. But in so arguing, I need to be decent to people who are not me, also. So sometimes, I try to write from that point of view, and make the argument using their own internal logic. Whether that's really the most effective kind of writing I should be doing is another question, of course. But I don't mean to dishonestly imply that I'm a true believer. Nor do I want to give the impression that "not of christianity" means "intrinsically hostile to christian people who just want to be better, kinder people."
And lets face it, that's kind of the default isn't it? So much online discourse starts from "you're not in my circle and you're ruining everything." followed by "no, YOU heathens are ruining everything!" Which, frankly, I'm completely exhausted by. So these are my halting, attempts to find my voice and find a way to actually talk to people about this stuff, rather than launch rhetorical cruise missiles from 20,000 ft, not caring who it hurts on the other end. Ideally I want a world where I can talk to Christians, and be listened to, and listen to them, without needing to buy into their worldview wholesale and vice versa. I mean that's basic pluralism, but it seems to be something most of us have a hard time with anymore. And that's not great, you know?
My writing is imperfect. My ideas are imperfect. But I am trying.
No comments:
Post a Comment