Conservapedia and the homosexuality question

Amen, brother!

I am in no way an inerrentist. But there is a real tension between the claim of inerrency on one hand, and, on the other hand, what is actually, concretely, and empirically written in the Holy Bible about “homosexuality.” That tension sits there like a big fat target just waiting.

It is difficult to claim inerrency about the issue of “homosexuality” when it is clearly not in the Bible. The point has to be to insist on the contradiction and hypocrisy of maintaining that tension. Call the claim and tension into question. Make “homosexuality” in reference to the Holy Bible a facile gesture—an illegitimate gesture.

We have to stop talking about “homosexuality.” It is a category that carries far too much baggage because of recent political debates (1980-present), especially in the US.

At the same time, the issue (whatever you want to call the issue), will not disappear. But it can be changed, reframed, reformulated, looked at anew, talked about anew, etc.

Where do we draw this language from? The Holy Bible, of course. The problem is that the tie that binds “homosexuality” to the Bible is strong—seemingly fixed. But we know that meaning is not stable. The tie that binds can be dissolved and new language introduced from the Bible with imaginative interpretations. Look at what Paul actually says—the language he actually uses. Look at the relationship between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-5). And there are countless other ways to approach the issue.

I’m in full agreement with john doyle—loud repetition, like the hammering of a piece of metal, is warranted at some level. But that can’t be all of it. Repetition is key, although maybe not so loud. A multipronged approach, perhaps, where some are turning over tables in established institutions and others are teaching and healing according to a generous message of compassion and neighborly love and demonstrating a community spirit enlivened by God.

There was a fascianting discussion on Jesuscreed not long back and even more recently one at theosproject, both of which had to do with ‘the issue of ‘homosexuality’ and in which the conservative voice was not that prominent. I’m wondering whether with this issue in particular, the conservatives haven’t painted themselves into a corner?

For one thing, homosexuality (still very hidden in the closet) does seem to be quite prevalent amongst conservatives - whatever be their public stance.

For another thing, even conservatives do not eseem to believe most of the hype about the ills of homosexuality as a part of one’s lifestyle. The prevalence of worse problems that largely come from the breakdown of heterosexual families are much more worrying though not acknowledged as easily by conservatives,  e.g. fact is that the proportion of single parents is rapidly increasing, having a tremendous negative impact on society. it may soon be felt that having two homosexual parents is better than having one struggling heterosexual one.

The fresh air of a healthy dose of pragmatism does seem to be in the air a bit more than it was say a decade ago and a good thing too. There is also the fact that while the cultural dominance of conservatism was taken for granted in the past, there are some indications both in politics and in culture that the conservative hegemony is at least now questionable.

Somehow, I don’t see that things like conservapedias are a force to be reckoned with however popular they may be. Just as there is growing resistance to the lists of ‘approved’ conservative scholars and exegetes, so too while there will be a guaranteed readership for conservapedias, the more this readership reads, the less they will be able to square what they read with the reality of life especially in a ‘question everything’, postmodern culture.

I also do believe, foolishly perhaps, that as our brothers and sisters get to know their Lord a little better, personally, and as he himself speaks and acts in the Gospels, they will realise that in the name of doctrine they are being fed with stuff that dishonors the Lord who always stood for the outcast, the downtrodden, the crushed in spirit, and all those shunned by conservopedic and law-enslaved culture.

Live to serve : Serve to live

Mike Huckabee now trails only Rudolph Giuliani in popularity among Republican candidates for the presidency. Here’s what he said about AIDS and homosexuality when he was running for the US Senate in 1992:

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population… I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

So if we want to give this another shot, how is the emerging church going to offer alternative ways of thinking about homosexuality in light of all this hullabaloo?

Might I suggest that the Church shouldn’t get sucked in to the questions politicians are asking? Like Jesus, perhaps we need to reformulate and/or reframe the question. So rather than debating "what laws should we have about homosexuality?" which is just shy of asking Christians to run the world (or at least the U.S.), perhaps we can use our Christian metaphors, stories and virtues to talk about sexuality (because homosexuality is just one subset ‘issue’ in this larger question, right?).

Constructive proposal anyone?

Here’s the introduction to the Conservapedia entry on Global Warming:

Global Warming is any increase in average air temperature at the Earth’s surface over a period of decades or more. Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming.

As an issue, it is a political battle over the science of climate change and is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to restrict carbon dioxide production on the grounds that it accelerates the "greenhouse effect."

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth or on reports issued by the UN’s IPCC. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific."

Politician Al Gore calls it a moral issue, while scientist Richard Lindzen says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won’t conveniently get it." However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until ‘green’ energy generation becomes predominant.

In general, the term global warming can be used for any upward trend in the global mean temperature, but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. Boston Globe writer Ellen Goodman wrote: "23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it."

As we learn more about climate, the "settled" conclusions of global warming alarmists appear more and more ridiculous. "Clinging to alarmist scenarios for which there is no evidence, is simply exploitation of public gullibility."

The main theme of this piece seems to be that "global warming" belongs in irony quotes because its effects are trivial and its causes uncertain, and that it is a political ploy of Democrat strying to show that Republicans are immoral and unconcerned about the environment. I don’t want to critique this "educational, clean and concise" entry point by point, since I suspect OST readers recognize its as conservative propaganda. However, as we watch the US once again weaseling its way out of a multilateral agreement for restricting fossil fuel emissions, we realize how this sort of thinking continues to be used as a "smoke screen" disguising America’s refusal to do the right thing.

Emerging American Christians need to decide how best to respond to this short-sightedness. Part of the debate hinges on whether environmental science is presenting an unbiased empirical forecast of likely changes in climate, water levels, etc. Emerging Christians often express a postmodern skepticism regarding the scientific "metanarrative." Isn’t this philosophical skepticism likely to play into conservatives’ hands when it comes to global warming? Then there’s emerging emphasis on a renewed creation — is this an eschatological concept, to be revealed in the life to come but not in this one? Does that absolve the church from getting involved in efforts to reduce emissions, not just among Christians but in the broader society?

“I’m not even a Christian — but I get a sense that the conservatives continue to hold the high ground, not just exegetically but psychologically and politically.”

I am curious, when did the persecution of others become the “moral high ground”? Or when was it established as a Christian principle or where in the Bible does Jesus say that Christians should persecute homosexuals.

I am new at being a Christian so I would like to hear from those more experienced as to where these references are located so that I can show them to the godless atheists when I am confronted by them.

Thanks