A Facebook conversation I recently had with some longtime acquaintances goes horribly right.
Arianne - Do I really live in this state?!
Store reverses decision to hide Elton John magazine cover
Kimberly
haha you should go buy the magazine in protest because the Elton John story in US Weekly this week is such a good interview (especially for a weekly gossip magazine lol) !!!
Natalie
If they really want to "protect young Harps shoppers" then why don't they cover up the Cosmo cover with the lady hanging out of her dress and promising to show you "50 new ways to drive him wild?"
Blatant hypocrisy.
Rhology
Natalie,
Yes, hypocrisy, but two wrongs don't make a right. One does not correct one wrong by erring the next time on the wrong side as well. I wish they'd cover all of the indecent mag covers tbh.
Arianne
Seriously, they don't cover up the trashy tabloids with stories about alien babies and extreme dieting but this they decided to hide? At least they reversed the decision. Nothing indecent about two people who love each other having a baby.
Rhology
I guess you know that we don't agree on that last, Arianne. :-)
Arianne
Indeed we don't.
But you probably don't agree with me having a child out of wedlock either, and just as I am content with loving same sex couples having babies, I am also quite content with my planned, unmarried, fertility treatment-induced pregnancy.
Rhology
Well, if you're content, you're content. It's just that contentment only goes so far.
Arianne
I'll keep that in mind as I make my personal decisions.
Rhology
OK. :-)
BTW, it's one thing to make personal decisions and another to publicise your opinion about controversial topics on a public Facebook wall. Which I'm sure you realise.
Arianne
I guess for most of my FB friends, my opinion about Elton John's baby isn't controversial. But since I'm not ashamed of my position on gay couples having kids, I'm feeling okay about talking about it.
Bob
I guess I missed where someone gave someone else the right to make tha call about what is controversial.
Rhology
If large amounts of ppl on either side disagree about a certain issue, that makes it controversial by definition.
Bob
"large amounts of people did not make the decision in quesstion. Supermarket management apparently did. Oh, and you.
Anne
In keeping with the above definitions of controversial, if the vast majority of Arianne's friends support gay rights, the topic is not controversial for this (her Facebook page) venue. Ergo, I do not find this to be a controversial topic.
Rhology
Bob,
Oh, I was just talking about whether the issue is controversial.
Anne,
Are you aware of some recent survey of Arianne's FB friends on this issue that would tell you that?
Anne
Rhology,
A. I did begin with the conditional "if."
B. If the current posts are any indication, you are part of a very small minority.
C. Did you?
I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm only making the point that some definitions are problematic.
Rhology
A. "If" - fair enough.
B. This is a pretty small sample size. :-)
C. No, but I didn't make the positive assertion.
Sonia
I agree, the decision to hide the cover is gross. Too much censorship based on individuals' definitions of 'moral' or 'decent' only hurts the rest of us. The Supreme Court ruled years ago on what constitutes "indecent", and this magaine cover does not fit within those terms. Unfortuneately (or fortuneately for freedom), private enterprise has much discretion on matters like this. Definitely makes me feel grateful to live in a heavily populated, relatively tolerant urban area. Btw, I'm impressed with the baby decision and think its awesome! You're an amazing woman!
Rhology
How does a private business deciding not to display sthg like that "hurt the rest of us"?
Bob
Do you really want to go there? Make profit the arbiter of morality? Are there more comsumers in San Fran or Springdale, Ark?
Rhology
Bob,
To be honest, I don't see how that is particularly relevant.
Sonia
Rhology: Bob's is just one of many reasons why censorship is bad- censorship based on morailty or any number of other reasons. Tolerance comes from education. Education comes from information. And, why not give us lots of information, teach us to think, critically analyze, and let us make our own decisions about what we choose to read or look at. Most of us can handle it. I'm certainly not afraid of what a magazine cover is going to do. But then, I'd argue this is as much about fear as it is about 'morality'.
Rhology
Hi Sonia!
Let's be clear, though - you also support censorship based on morality. Shall a newspaper run an ad from a neo-Nazi group calling for all whites to rampage thru black neighborhoods and skewer black babies?
Of course not. The question becomes: Whose morality shall we enforce?
Having thought that thru, I have come to realise that the Christian worldview is the most coherent and reasonable. Thus I conclude by commending the self-censorship of the business that didn't want to tacitly endorse perverse behavior of the sort in which Elton John is engaged.
I have zero problem with information, but the mag in question is hardly a source of information. It's celeb gossip, and perverse gossip.
Finally, I have to strenuously object to the "fear" comment. I'd like to ask you to clarify what you mean. Who here is afraid, and of what?
Sonia
Hi Rhology- We're not in agreement. I do not favor censorship on any level except that which is provided for by law- that which incites immediate violence. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. (Your example *might* enter this realm depending on facts of the situation.) There's also a legal distinction between what a private and public enterprise may do. This, of course, is a legal discussion I don't have time for on FB.
What you don't like is that the cover offends your sensibilities, your religious worldview, etc. It doesn't offend mine. While we both may have theories on why that is let's just conclude by agreeing that it's cool we can argue and disagree in this country and neither of us will go to jail for it.
10-4. I'm out.
Rhology
Yeah, I didn't want to discuss legal complexities either. Just moral. :-)
But as for the "offend my sensibilities", eh, kinda. I'm far from naive; I expect it, but I don't want society to accept such behavior.
And your comment is ironic as well - the store's initial "censorship" of the mag offended your sensibilities, clearly. So do be careful about the stones you chuck. On that note, you didn't answer any of my 3 challenges from last comment.
And yes, it is quite cool. As the Left grows in power in the US, voices such as mine will be progressively (pun fully intended) silenced, and you won't have as many debate partners. But perhaps Jesus will have mercy.
Sonia
The cover, Rhology. The magazine cover offends you. It doesn't me. The censoring of the cover does offend me. No stones indireclty thrown. In fact, no stones thrown.
Have a good night, man.
Arianne
After a long and busy day, I've had some time to reflect on all the postings. I have determined that I am still totally okay with a. gay couples, b. gay couples having/adopting children, and c. gay couples and their children on magazine covers at the check out aisle. Further, I have decided that a. I am glad gay people don't judge/condone my relationship choices (that I know of anyway) and that b. my tolerance for intolerance is waning which makes me scared that I am also becoming intolerant, which is something I more and more despise. Good night, everyone!
Rhology
Sonia,
Well, really, I don't know if it's correct to say the cover **offends* me. More like it disgusts me, but I certainly understand why it might offend others.
And of course, I think a simple turnabout will demonstrate that you're not really interacting with the heart of the issue.
The hiding of the cover, Sonia. The hiding of the magazine cover offends you. It doesn't me. The censoring of the cover does not offend me. No stones indirectly thrown. In fact, no stones thrown.
What I'm trying to say is that it seems like you're taking the "we're objective and tolerant, while those fundies are easily-offended bigots" approach. I'd like you to either retract that position (b/c as we've seen, it's not true) or tell me that I mistook your position and explain what your position really is.
Arianne,
I commend you, b/c it's clear you're thinking this thru. And please don't mistake me - I'm not trying to say that I'm way ahead or superior or anything like that. OTOH I have thought about these issues in some detail and it's always gratifying to see others do so as well. I'd like to ask this of you: Does this drift towards intolerance of intolerance, thus becoming a self-contradiction, not lead you to think that perhaps the tolerant/intolerant issue is far less important than truth? And have you ever asked yourself how you know that homosexuality is morally acceptable?
Arianne
Sorry Rhology, you missed the sarcasm in my last post. Rest assured, I've thought a lot about my position on such issues long before I posted this. I think what you define as truth and what I define as truth is likely quite different, and I long ago decided that I have absolutely no moral qualms with a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. Perhaps because I am not as tied to a religion as you are, these decisions are easier for me to make, and frankly, I'm okay with that. Because in my mind, Jesus came from a place of love, not hate, and the hate filled crap people claim in "his name" disgusts me, just as my position on these issues disgust you. That is why tolerance is in fact very important to me. I am not of the opinion that I have it all figured out, and likewise, I do not think anyone probably has it all figured out. So we must coexist, and tolerance would make that much more pleasant. I am now done with this discussion. I'm not budging, you are not budging, and I don't find it all that stimulating. Not trying to be rude, just saying that the questions you pose are not questions I concern myself with the way that you do.
Rhology
Oh, my apologies for missing the sarcasm.
But does that mean that you don't in fact see the irony and contradiction in being intolerant of intolerance? How that makes one into a constantly self-referential ideologue?
Most definitely we define truth definitely. It would seem you define moral truth in terms of what you happen to like at that moment. I derive my definitions from what Jesus said and did, and He has much better credentials than you or I. Sure, He loved. He loved sinners, and especially sinners **who repented of their sin**. When was the last time you repented of your sin? You've got some, you know, as does Elton John. I've got you both beat in terms of how bad a sinner I am, but Jesus' forgiveness extends to me too, thankfully. That doesn't mean you're off the hook - you are responsible to both repent of your sin and to stop thinking you have any idea or right to define morality for anyone (including yourself). And Jesus hated sin.
Also, just FYI, while it's true to say Jesus loves sinners, it's *also* true to say He hates them.
...for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:11-13)
The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. (Psalms 5:5)
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalms 11:5)
...do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4)
Anyway, I don't mean to pile on, but you raised some important issues in your comment.
Thanks for the interaction!
Arianne
Um, Rhology, please quit preaching at me now. And yes, my comment about intolerance for intolerance was in fact intended to be ironic and sarcastic. But perhaps you think folks aren't smart enough to know that? I think it is clear now and as I said in my earlier statement, I think this discussion has run its course.
Rhology
No, the mistake was mine and mine alone. I meant to imply nothing about anyone else's intelligence.
And sorry you thought I was preaching at you. I meant simply a point of information (since you made an incorrect assertion about Jesus), and also I wanted you to know where I'm coming from. Unless you have some prejudicial bias against the Christian position...
15 comments:
"Because in my mind, Jesus came from a place of love, not hate, and the hate filled crap people claim in "his name" disgusts me"
-------------------------------
Its funny, people have these perceptions of Jesus "in their mind". Nothing from scripture. Its the build a bear Jesus! She walked right into it though with that comment!
And then got all bent out of shape when I corrected her. Typically liberal, is what she is.
Tolerance, you should know, is all about how you treat me. It has nothing to do with how I treat you.
As a fellow believer, I'm all about truth. That said, wouldn't you agree that there's a little Romans 2 missing in the Christian side of this argument? Isn't it God's kindness that led us to repentance? Do we think that we Jesus ate with sinners that he was just waiting to pounce on their epistemological fallacies? Or was he showing them kindness that led them to repentance?
It's actually a little disheartening to hear that, tbh. I really tried to improve my tone by asking more questions and such.
OTOH, Jesus DID pounce on ppl's epistemological fallacies, and more. He really was a 'jerk' sometimes. Lacked tact. His tone wasn't lovey-dovey.
I value your input, so I'd like to know
1) whether you'd've engaged with Arianne, given that she was the one who posted the comment directly above the link to the article about the magazine and Elton John;
2) if so, how; and
3) how you would've responded when the liberals spoke against your position.
1) whether you'd've engaged with Arianne, given that she was the one who posted the comment directly above the link to the article about the magazine and Elton John;
Of course I haven't engaged with her.
3) how you would've responded when the liberals spoke against your position.
It has varied greatly and depends on the individual and the setting.
I'm sorry to hear that it's disheartening, honestly. I didn't intend that. I actually did notice your tone was cordial and kudos on the questions, especially as you "preached." Much of my motivation came from the comments, since I know that non-Christians read this. I understand what Darren's getting at, but I'd hate for him to leave the impression that "Jesus loves us," is not scriptural. Similarly, I'd hate to be Arianne, read this, and feel labeled, categorized, and dismissed as if I'm only worthy of your or God's love if I agree with you.
He really was a 'jerk' sometimes. Lacked tact. His tone wasn't lovey-dovey.
True. Sometimes. And as you said - towards the proud. But my questions were aimed at Jesus' behavior towards those in lives of sin, as you pointed out - prostitutes and tax-collectors (traitorous thieves). He "welcomed" them and was their "friend." And as you said, that's not to say that he condoned their actions; by no means. But he showed them they had value as people despite their sins and skewed worldviews, and ultimately forgave those who responded to his love, truth and/or power. You spoke well.
But I doubt they were repentant and/or humble until they received a strong dose of his love and acceptance ala Rom 5:8, especially in contrast to the judgment they were used to receiving from the religious folks.
I know I'm not telling you something new - I've seen that you know this in tangible ways. My comment was intended more as a challenge regarding when to engage in judging an individual rather than simply identifying sin as sin. (Loving the sinner, hating the sin - again thinking along the lines of Rom 5:8 and Rom 2:4.)
That said, I also humbly admit that for some reason I didn't read your "preaching" comment closely. I'm sure I would have nuanced my comment differently had I read it more closely. I'm sorry about that. :)
Oh, I missed your double contraction on #1. I thought you were asking if I have engaged with her as in "do I know her?"
I don't know if I would've engaged with her. It would depend on how I knew her and what relationship we had.
"I understand what Darren's getting at, but I'd hate for him to leave the impression that "Jesus loves us," is not scriptural. Similarly, I'd hate to be Arianne, read this, and feel labeled, categorized, and dismissed as if I'm only worthy of your or God's love if I agree with you"
---------------
Totally agree Daniel. I would not want to leave that impression either. It was more attitude of the Jesus loves everybody so do what you want.... rather than basing it on the Jesus of scripture.
My prayer for this lady is that she does cry out to Jesus for mercy & repents of her sin so that she can see the true love of Jesus.
Daniel,
Most of the discouragement comes from a preexisting context, which I'll explain to you privately.
As far as your replies here go, you say you don't know whether you'd have engaged her. May I ask how you propose for kindness to be shown to her if you're not even talking?
Also, just to make sure I understand what you said, are you tempering/qualifying/withdrawing your "lack of kindness" criticism on the grounds that you hadn't read well my "preaching" to her?
If so, cool.
If not, may I ask what greater kindness I might render to her, in your opinion?
You said:
Sometimes. And as you said - towards the proud.
With all due respect, all you know of her is a few 100 words, and I changed her name. You don't know anything about her; I can assure you she's proud and well-educated (and proud of her education).
You said:
I'd hate to be Arianne, read this, and feel labeled, categorized, and dismissed as if I'm only worthy of your or God's love if I agree with you.
Read what? My calling her a liberal? I doubt it, since she's proud to be one.
May I ask how you think she might be justified in thinking she's only "worthy" (which, as I'm sure you're aware, carries its own baggage and would be a bad choice of words) of God's love when I just finished preaching the Gospel of reconciliation to her?
Especially given how she mocked and blasphemed it?
But he showed them they had value as people despite their sins
May I ask in what way I have intimated that she lacks value as a person, for any reason?
I guess I'm left wondering what could have gone differently here. I'd thought it actually went pretty well; you seem to think it went not so well. Now there's this battle inside my mind between "he's being too thin-skinned" and "but what if he's onto something, although I have no idea what?"
Grace, peace, and a strong HVAC system to you.
Do you mind clarifying this question?
May I ask how you think she might be justified in thinking she's only "worthy" (which, as I'm sure you're aware, carries its own baggage and would be a bad choice of words) of God's love when I just finished preaching the Gospel of reconciliation to her?
I'm not sure specifically what you're getting at, especially with the word "only."
Sure, sorry about that.
You'd said:
Similarly, I'd hate to be Arianne, read this, and feel labeled, categorized, and dismissed as if I'm only worthy of your or God's love if I agree with you.
I mean that I don't see how she would be justified in thinking so. What did I say that would reasonably lead someone to that conclusion? And where did I introduce the concept of "worthy of God's love"? If I didn't introduce it, why did you mention it?
Especially since I told her how she can be right with God?
@ Darren
I hear you, man.
@ Rhology
I don't think it'd be helpful for me to give my opinion publicly on every point of your interaction, but I'd be glad to do that privately and in good faith if it's helpful. I appreciate that you want to consider what I have to say. And to be clear again, my intention is not harsh in the least. Yes, I'd temper my implications that you should've emphasized kindness more because I later realized that you'd explicitly affirmed Jesus' love and forgiveness to her as a sinner, and that speaks volumes. There are still points where I'd offer a brotherly challenge, as iron sharpening iron.
As far as your replies here go, you say you don't know whether you'd have engaged her. May I ask how you propose for kindness to be shown to her if you're not even talking?
If we'd already been talking, had an established communication, and I'd shared with her joys and tough times previously... And in this context, if I was already a regular part of her facebook wall discussions... I might well have engaged her.
But if I knew that a first point of contact between us in a long time would be to tell her how wrong I think she is for imposing her morality on others, I'd be showing her more kindness to refrain. Not just because I'd expect a negative response, but moreso because that negative response would be justified. Why should she have any reason to listen to me if the only time I show that I care about anything in her life is to tell her she's wrong? Though in a spiritually legal way and logical way, she's wrong, in a relational way, I'd be quite wrong (and have been in similar situations). This has challenged me to love unbelievers in day-to-day life as Jesus loved them and not just be a source of theological truth to them.
And this day-to-day love, for me, is anchored in the way that Jesus himself approached sinners. Take the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, for instance. She was living in deep, shameful, and long-standing sexual immorality. Did Jesus approach her by telling her, "turn or burn" or "I hate you because you're a sinner"? Not by a long shot, though by some theologies, that should be the first thing he should tell her. Rather, he refrained from certain things out of kindness. He was able to see into her heart and acknowledged the deep need for satisfaction in her life that was yet unfilled. He demonstrated that he loved her and that he was the one who could fill that need. He spoke to her in the way that she needed as a person, and he showed her she was worth his time, love, and attention even while she was in her sin. Moreover, he refrained from answering a doctrinal question technically (re: temple worship) in order to reveal the heart of the issue. (That's not to say that there isn't a place for more impersonal calls to truth, like preaching. It's also not to say that I shouldn't know or teach doctrine, or God forbid, shouldn't identify sin as sin, hate it, and call people to repent.) I don't think Jesus was either "lovey-dovey" or harsh; I'd say he is wise with a wisdom that I'd like to have.
All that to say this, in summary: Our history and her life experience would determine whether or not I thought it would show kindness to engage Arianne on that issue. And those same things would determine how I'd engage if I did.
(cont)
You [Daniel] said:
Sometimes. And as you said - towards the proud.
[Alan:]
With all due respect, all you know of her is a few 100 words, and I changed her name. You don't know anything about her; I can assure you she's proud and well-educated (and proud of her education).
Based on what you've told me and this post, I do have some sense of her needs. And in general, I've also found that external pride and defensiveness is often just a wall that relational love breaks down, but that perceived hostility builds up. But that doesn't take away from this: You're right, man. I don't know her myself or anything about how you may have interacted with her in the past. That's why I honestly don't judge your choice to engage her on this issue. I agree that my comments should be interpreted in that light.
Read what? My calling her a liberal?
Yes, that's what I was referring to, but more the way you did it: "that's what she is." It's a label. And while in a strictly logical way, it's helpful to define things, I also know that using a label to a person can be hurtfully dismissive of experiences, joys, wounds... life in general - like reducing someone to a number. I can hear her or anyone saying what you once said sarcastically: "Label me quick before you hear what I have to say." I think the sentiment behind that is true even after we've heard what someone has to say. And I should add that I believe that people want others to see past labels even if they apply labels to themselves.
And above, I say "using a label to a person" because this is a public blog. Though I believe you don't intend it in a hurtful way at all, from my vantage, there's real potential that a comment like that or even posting this whole thing on your blog, could burn bridges to future life-giving conversations. Yeah, it's possible I'm being too thin-skinned - possibly more than she would be - but I've gained some reasons to think that that's not usually the case.
May I ask in what way I have intimated that she lacks value as a person, for any reason?
I'd say one way is in the labeling comment that I just addressed.
A second way is how you told her, "it's true to say Jesus loves sinners, it's *also* true to say He hates them." I'll address that below with these questions:
(cont)
What did I say that would reasonably lead someone to that conclusion [that Arianne is only worthy of your or God's love if she agrees with you]? And where did I introduce the concept of "worthy of God's love"? If I didn't introduce it, why did you mention it? Especially since I told her how she can be right with God?"
I admit "worthy" is a tricky term. Nonetheless, I think you introduced the concept of "worthy of God's love" when you told her, "it's true to say Jesus loves sinners, it's *also* true to say He hates them." Yes, the Bible contains those quotes. And I think I know what you were trying to communicate (demonstrating God's attribute of justice in response to her universalistic mindset). But my concern is that if not thoroughly explained and placed in its proper context - and that from a sound place of friendship - that kind of comment can leave someone with a ton of confusion and an unnecessary impression of Christians and God as hateful and angry, which just affirms what she already believes.
Maybe she has a greater context than I'm aware of. But my concern is that what she is prone to think is "Why should I care anything about about a God that hates me?" And left there, she'd be right not to want him, because the emphasis, in my opinion, is all wrong. That bothers me, and this is where my original comment comes in. He created us out of love. He gave us intrinsic value by putting his image upon us. We may have been God's enemies without excuse (Rom 1), but God was kind to us even while we were unrepentantly aggressive towards him, like Paul (also Rom 2:4 & 5:8-10). Even though evil men killed Jesus, as he was dying, he asked the Father to forgive them. In the same way, I believe we're called to treat our enemies and his enemies with respect they don't deserve, because we were treated with respect we didn't deserve. Bottom line, I was concerned that that love and respect wasn't really being communicated in the eyes of non-Christians.
All this said, I know your heart and know your love. I know you're not trying to hurt or de-value anyone. I believe you're exposing people's inconsistencies and failures in order to show them love. After all, how much more loving could one be than to expose sin, reveal the need for a savior, and introduce someone to their God?
Hope all this is helpful.
Post a Comment