December 24, 2008
Due to a recent church related event involving a close friend of mine, my posts received some additional scrutiny – and the scrutiny made me a bit anxious. Blogging is not something I do without reservation. The reservation is due to the fact that I cannot assume everyone shares my understanding of what a post represents.
Blog posts can be described in several ways:
1) Sustained thought – these posts represent thought the author has been working on for some time (e.g., a piece of a published paper, essay, or dissertation).
2) Premature/Initial thought - these posts represent stuff the author gets really excited about and cannot help but post – but this stuff is only a beginning or false start.
3) Links – other people’s stuff – posted because the author likes the other’s thought and wants to share or discuss – or because the blog is rather slow.
messages = queer correspondence is a mix of all three types of posts – but I think most of the posts here fall in categories # 2 and # 3…
The anxiety I have about blogging is quite simple. I think thought/theology is serious business. And, as many of us know, there is a lot of crap thought/theology out there (on the internets [the man-friend tells me I must stop using this word cuz it makes me sound old…but I like it] and elsewhere). I don’t want to be a part of all that…so I like the idea of posting sustained thought = careful, informed, logical, helpful, etc.
The politics of blogging, however, make posting solely sustained thought impossible. I think it was Sullivan who noted that blogging is about the NOW (RIGHT NOW!!!) – a lot of stuff is happening, etc. It is also clear that authors of blogs are encouraged by the number of people who visit their blog: a slow blog = a dead blog.
My posts are often the # 2 type. I get excited about a lot of topics – and there are an infinite number of issues demanding theological attention - especially from people like Matt and I: gays committed to the good Lord. So my posts are simply fragments – (great) beginnings or false starts – stuff I just feel like I must or want to say - always subject to additional editing. Hence the anxiety, thoughtfulness about whether or not readers understand the thought expressed is often (and obviously) only a beginning, an indication of what I may (or may not) think.
I began to blog many years ago not only because I felt like I had something to say – but because I wanted to be a part of a larger group of people risking thought…risking to communicate…risking to build coalitions…risking honestly and vulnerability….risking to throw stuff out there and see what comes of it. The hope, of course, is something good for the people of God – something that builds up – will come of it all. So I blog on….and I risk being out of control – the very thing public writing, necessarily, entails.
Posted by Tony 
Posted in Journal, Posts by Tony, Re: Messages 
No Comments »
December 23, 2008
This is an interesting reflection on Proposition 8 from University of Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey Stone, a supporter of same-sex marriage. Money quote:
“Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81 percent to 19 percent, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84 percent to 16 percent. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85 percent to 15 percent and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83 percent to 17 percent.
What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.”
Thoughts?
Posted by MATT Posted in Uncategorized No Comments »
December 19, 2008
I am fairly certain that in order for one to torture another or to inflict violence upon another - one must, at some point, fail to see the other as a human being. It was Levinas, I believe, who said the human face appeals to the 6th commandment (thou shalt not kill) - therefore, in order for one to commit a violent act against another - one must first peal the other’s face off - that is, one must fail to see in the other the Word of God (just as the “accursed” in Matt 25:31ff)
I am thinking about this as the question of torture is re-emerging in W’s final days in the WH. The question I have found myself asking: is torture ever justified? It seems to me torture is justified only if the one to be tortured is, for some reason, no longer a human being. One may ask: does terrorism or hate speech, etc. successfully result in the destruction of one’s face. Let me put it in theological terms: does sin result in the destruction of one’s face? Can sin = a new, inhuman nature?
Drew is offering a set of posts on the topic of sin; he is asking: is it possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. Before making any definite conclusions about his analysis, I think it is wise to wait for him to complete his series. However, I will note that I am suspicious of his methodology.
Read the rest of this entry »
Footnotes:
Posted by Tony Posted in Current Events, Posts by Tony, Queer / Theology 3 Comments »
December 19, 2008
I figured I would post this article because it reflects how the mainstream press is finally discovering that evangelicals are not a single-issue monolith. It’s a shame that Obama’s advisors didn’t get this memo before appointing the only evangelical they apparently have ever heard of to deliver the Presidential invocation. One of the most interesting story lines of the next few years will be how younger evangelicals react to Obama as he begins to develop a more fleshed out public profile. I take our website to be, among other things, an attempt to engage this generation of evangelicals on LGBT issues. As the article mentions, a few days ago Richard Cizik, the former Senior VP of the National Association of Evangelicals was fired for stating that he supported civil unions for gays, despite his theological disagreement with gay marriage. My hat is off to him. When we encounter such principle and thoughtful people, it is hard not to get angry about Rick Warren. There are a number of very intelligent, thoughtful evangelicals in my life that are friends, pastors, and professors and it really is such a lost opportunity to lump them into the same category as Rick Warren. For those of you tired of listening to me complain, I don’t plan on posting about Rick Warren ever again : )
Posted by MATT Posted in Current Events, Posts by Matt, The Church No Comments »
