Sensitivity
So, I attended a sensitivity workshop yesterday. Working on a university campus, these things are unavoidable from time to time. And to be honest, it really wasn’t all that bad, especially compared to some that I’ve been exposed to at other places of employment. But I digress…
It was pretty standard “awareness-enhancing”/”diversity” type of stuff, but there was one exercise where I’m sure that my response raised some internal eyebrows. More specifically, we had to choose one of four things that we would least like our children to be. The choices? Drug Addict. Mentally Ill. Convicted Felon. Gay/Lesbian.
I was the only one that chose “Gay/Lesbian”… 
Fortunately, I had a little time to come up with my reasons why, as we were required to give a brief explanation. Now, I think that I generally did ok with my explanation, but I’m not totally pleased in retrospect, especially as I would’ve liked to done a better job of preemptively addressing the implicit disapproval that was shown by the folks who felt the need to couch their answers by explicitly stating that they would (of course/obviously) have no problem if their kids were gay/lesbian.
I based my answer on two things:
- Social - in our current culture being gay/lesbian is not an easy row to hoe, even though in many circles it’s very accepted. There’s still a lot of sinful behavior directed against gays/lesbians. Frankly, I wouldn’t want either of my kids to end up like Matthew Sheppard, or any of the other folks who’ve been beaten by misguided folks who thought that physical violence was an acceptable response.
- Theological - I clearly stated that I also had theological/religious reasons for not wanting my kids to be gay/lesbian. For good/bad/right/wrong, I didn’t elaborate the reasons why, but just left it at the statement that I had strongly held, faith-driven reasons for my choice.
I wish I had been a little more explicit in better fleshing out my reasons/thought processes. Fortunately, as I have my own little forum here, I can do so now!
- The other three choices (drug addict, mentally ill, convicted felon) are all things that are generally recognized by most reasonable folks as things for which help can & should be provided. IOW, they are viewed as negative states that must be addressed.
- This is not the case with being gay/lesbian, if you are approaching it from a truly Biblical perspective — IOW, that which the Bible clearly shows to be sinful, is something that society increasingly views as ok & even to be celebrated rather than prayerfully addressed.
- There are (rightly) medical & support options for addicts & the mentally ill. We can, and must, be compassionate in helping these folks overcome these circumstances that result from our sinful condition. The same is true of rehabilitated felons — many folks realize that convicted (and rehabilitated) felons need help in rebuilding their lives.
- Society doesn’t give the same benefit to those whose lives are impacted by the sin that is homosexuality. I don’t want my kids to have society encourage their sinful tendencies any more than is absolutely unavoidable. I wouldn’t want them to be unnecessarily tempted by societal approval of over-drinking and/or over-eating, either.
- It doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t love my kids. I will always love my children. I may not always like them and/or their choices/responses, but I will always love them & try to faithfully execute my vocational responsibilities re: their spiritual well-being. That I wouldn’t want them to be gay/lesbian should never be misconstrued/misrepresented as a lack, or withdrawal, of love. Approval, possibly/certainly, but love, never.
I guess it largely boils down to this: Current “tolerance” & “sensitivities” seem to dictate that it is wrong (or at the very least ignorant) to view all four things as negative/unfortunate conditions that need to be addressed with compassionate support & concern for folks’ temporal & eternal well-being.
I pray that, should the opportunity present itself again, I’m able to more resolutely confess based upon that which has been given to me!
-ghp
Kids as experiment fodder
I’ve long detested the entire premise behind postmodernism. It’s evil, it’s destructive, and it’s flat out wrong. Relativistic thought yields folks nothing more than a whole heap of trouble & woe.
Get Religion has a posting (Postmodern parenting: Only time will tell) that describes the latest gem to come out of the postmodern parenting arena — adults who checked-out of organized religion wanting to check their kids back in. Not for eternal truth/Truth, mind you, but for more worthy goals like the senses of “spirituality” and “community.”
What troubles me most about this latest trend can be summed up in the last sentence of this excerpt/quote from the article that inspired the post (emphasis mine):
So she and Gauri are dishing up a religious smorgasbord: Islam from one grandma, Hindu from the other, a Quaker school, a Buddhist retreat and a bit of evangelical Christianity via their former nanny. As Khan acknowledges, “Only time will tell if we were creating great confusion or great enlightenment.”
I’m horrified by the blithe acceptance & intent to use one’s own child(ren) as fodder for an experiment based on one’s own hubris. If you want to sacrifice yourself on the altar of your own hubris, fine. But to do it to your kids? Horrifying! Logical in the context of the whole twisted, postmodern milieu, but horrifying nonetheless…
-ghp
Why Doctrine Matters
The always solid Rev. Stiegemeyer (of The Burr in the Burgh) has once again shown why he’s a leading member of the must-read club of Confessional Lutheran Bloggers.
It seems like doctrine is viewed by so many folks these days as a bad word. You know, the kind of word that generates lots of self-congratulatory intolerance amongst the oh-so-tolerant crowd…
Rev. Stiegemeyer clearly, cogently, and forcefully exposes the fallacy behind anti-doctrine arguments in his posting Doctrine vs. God’s Word. Doctrine — that is teaching — is necessary. It is good, although it can also be false. Good doctrine is based on God’s Word. It summarizes God’s Word. It is normed by/against God’s Word. It is not in opposition to/against God’s Word — false doctrine is.
Kudos to Rev. Stiegemeyer for reminding us of all this!
-ghp
Sexism? No.
Ok, I’m slightly worried about making this entry, but I’m still gonna do it. [I know, you're shocked, just like Capt. Renault in Casablanca... ] I’m worried for two reasons:
- That by linking to what I consider to be (at best) ignorant theology (aided & abetted by past pastoral malpractice), if not (at worst) outright heresy, I might cause some folks offense and/or confusion, and
- That this entry might be construed by some as being, shall we say, malicious, because it’s going to refer to another blog (and blogger) that I’ve never read before today (so, there’s no historical context for my opinion, beyond that gleaned by reading many posts today…)
Even so, I’m still going to do it (obviously) because it’s a topic that is quite common in today’s social & theological environments.
Yesterday, a message came across the CAT41 TableTalk mailing list that pointed to a blog posting in which the blogger lobbed the grenade of sexism at the LCMS (see: http://brendagrolle.blogspot.com/2005/10/lcms-and-sexism.html). It was also problematic in that it brought out into stark relief the sad state of theological understanding and apologetics amongst the upper echelons of the LCMS political hierarchy (e.g., at the District President level).
A visit to the blog to read the entry, the subsequent reading of other postings there, and a visit to the discussion forum that the blogger uses instead of enabling comment-based discussions to her postings, yielded a disturbing glimpse of the level to which emotionalism & feminist theologies have infected the LCMS. Such an infection is neither new, nor unique, to the LCMS mind you, but it’s still greatly troubling to see them so staunchly defended to their logical conclusions (e.g., the rendering of Holy Scripture as a cultural relic & example of “patriarchy,” written by “chauvinists” like St. Paul, that has been used to keep women “in their place” over the centuries — I mean, setting the inspired writings of Paul over & against Christ Himself? Please spare me such heretical drivel!).
I’m not sure exactly what can come of reading & commenting on such error. Perhaps nothing more than an increased awareness that we are constantly engaged in battle with the wily foe, along with the reaffirmation that we must always pray for the loving & protective deliverance of all sinners. I certainly wish neither for anyone to be drawn astray, nor for anyone to be offended; however, error needs to be brought to light, and public error can (and must) be called to public account.
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
