Comments
August 10, 2010
SEVERAL READERS argue that it is not cruel to laugh at the video of the man hit while he is dancing in the street. They defend their view, however, instead of simply sneering, as the commenters at AltRight did.
Also, the discussion over the stroller and lesbian neighbors continues. I wrote:
There are ways to minister to these neighbors (how about praying for them?) without giving children the impression that homosexuality is normal. That’s what having homosexuals over for coffee and accepting gifts from them does. It sends the message to young children that homosexuality is just one of several acceptable choices. When we minister to the poor or to Cambodian refugees, we don’t have to worry about our children becoming poor or Cambodian refugees. We do have to worry about them becoming homosexual. Older adolescents under guidance may be capable of making the more subtle distinctions implied by friendly overtures and socializing, but not young children. And it’s pointless to wait for years to help them make these subtle distinctions once they have received a different message repeatedly.
I don’t think James M. needs to go out of his way to make a point of tolerance and acceptance. These women are probably accepted many places they go but even if they are not, that’s the way it should be. They are violating norms of civility and decency by living openly as homosexuals and raising a young son. Youngfogey is right that the culture is overwhelmingly on their side. How is it possible to increase their sensitivity to the other side? That is the challenge. It’s not much, but maintaining some distance seems reasonable. I am not advocating incivility.
— Comments —
David K, writes:
If not the stroller, then what about a cup of sugar? Watering plants while they’re on vacation? Other neighborly acts? The distinction is a hard one to draw; hence, I think, your original hesitance.
As for turning one’s children into lesbians. Don’t worry. As parents, we read the Bible to our very young children. Not an edited Children’s Bible, but the words of God. In the Bible are graphic depictions of homosexuality. If you teach them, even very young children know right from wrong. The Bible promises that if you train a child up in the way he should go, he will not depart. This is hard, good work.
For example, we’ve taught our young daughters the importance of modest attire. When we are in social situation with people who are not modestly attired, the children will often later say, “Mama, that girl was not modest.” We then use it as a teaching moment. I’m not worried my girls are going to go slut it up. Neither would I worry that showing Christian love and charity to lesbians would turn my girls into lesbians. (Now, pushing them into women’s sports on the other hand ….)
Laura writes:
I never talked to my sons about homosexuality when they were very young. I’m not saying that it is wrong to discuss it with young children, it just seems a hard thing for them to understand. But maybe in today’s world, that is the best way to go, early exposure and direct confrontation with the issue. What a sad thing, to have to explain homosexuality to your four-year-old. Again, when children see two mommies raising children and having fun with their own parents, it seems that they would get the sense that two mommies is, if not normal, not such a weird thing. But I can accept David’s scenario for training them to make these judgments. So in James M.’s neighborhood, in which there are at least three homosexual couples, and possibly more on their way, I imagine David K. would have to put aside quite a bit of time for coffee with the neighbors and long chats about homosexuality with his children.
As for the difference between a cup of sugar and stroller, I think the latter is a substantial gift. Yes, I would water their plants, I suppose, and help them in emergencies and lend them things myself. These are intuitive distinctions. Drawing the line at an expensive stroller is a gut reaction for me. I should reiterate that I find it unnatural to be cold and distant to neighbors.
Samson writes:
I’m reading the lesbian/stroller discussion with keen interest. It seems readers adopt one of two general approaches. The first is the “non-judgemental”, “ministerial” approach – become friends with these women and hopefully lead them to the truth. I’ve got to admit that this is my natural inclination, too – but not because it’s the correct approach; rather, because this is the sort of Christianity currently in favour with our society. The other position is the one you advise: minimal association with this couple. To me, your position serves as a valuable reminder that yes, in fact, this lifestyle is abnormal, harmful, and not something kids should be exposed to, and for that reminder I’m really glad I read what you’ve written.
Still, my mind can’t help playing devil’s advocate: how far does this go? Should we also forbid our children from playing with kids whose parents aren’t married, for instance? With the kids of a single mom who has a rotating series of boyfriends?
Laura writes:
As I said in my original discussion of the lesbian issue, children should not be prohibited in most cases from playing with other children in the neighborhood. But, it’s better that they play outside (under some supervision) or at the house of the family that is normal. Needless to say, I would never let a son play at the house of two homosexual men. Parents have always had to oversee their children’s play as there have always been unhealthy families. Ideally, they do this with a balance of freedom and supervision.
David K. writes:
This is the first time I’ve ever been accused of favoring “the sort of Christianity currently in favour with our society.” The Bible says not to judge non-Christians for acting like unbelievers. That is not
pluralistic at all. Otherwise there’s no reason to be wise as serpents.
Being quite honest, I’m much more concerned about Christian friends posting to Facebook about the latest episode of “Glee.” Somebody else will have to minister to such folks cause I’m avoiding them like the plague.
This gets to an interesting question of ethics versus calling. As we’ve seen, it’s quite difficult to try to frame up a systematic set of ethical dos and don’ts for the stroller dilemma.
It’s simpler to talk about such issues in terms of calling. For instance, Peter went to the gentile’s house. In contrast, Noah “when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save
his family. By his faith he condemned the world.” Maybe James needs to build an ark. Maybe others don’t. There’s room for both approaches.
Laura writes:
This is an excellent point. There is room for both approaches. However, most of us don’t have the option of “building an ark.” We can create invisible barriers, though, between ourselves and those who openly celebrate perversion and bring an anti-social stance into our neighborhoods.
Josh writes:
There can be civility in NO interaction.
The black “aggressor” and the devout dyke “couple” should both be seen in the context of aggressive self-annihilators each seeking liberation in their own “special” way. The black collective wants to put it to the white individual. Black liberation revolves around the notion of living outside “white supremacy.” Some blacks are in a state of hopelessness and anti-Supremacy.
And then the devout dyke “couple…” are radical autonomists in disguise and on a mission. The more “normal” homosexual “couples” attempt to be, meaning, the more they act like husband and wife — the more that their sexual orientation looks like a chosen preference. And that is what it is, mere preference. These devout dykes are either “pretenders” or their “union” and raising of child is a farce, an act of diabolical persuasion. The real homo-sexual is a radical autonomist. He desires self-sexualization, first and foremost as evidence of his radical autonomy.
Laura writes:
Returning to David K.’s recommendation for warm and friendly advocacy to homosexual neighbors, this approach has generally been tried by Christians in connection with divorce. The idea was not to stigmatize divorced couples: don’t make them feel bad for who they are. That has led to the wholesale acceptance of divorce by practicing Christians.
In short, there is no way to uphold ethical standards without the threat of ostracism and without sometimes causing emotional suffering.
Robin writes:
I am following the commentary here with great interest, because in my own spirit, I tend to misunderstand and misapply Jesus’ teachings on the differences between loving “unbelievers” and loving Christians (those with the Spirit of God living in them). What a difficult scenario it is with the lesbian neighbors. The first thing that comes to mind when I read this is James 1:27: Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world; and Isaiah 1:17: Learn to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Now, I realize that light has no fellowship with darkness, and thus the lesbians and their adopted child should not be dear friends with the other neighbors struggling with the stroller issue. Further, I agree that the receiving the stroller as a gift for the child is just too much, and opens the door for increasing levels of intimacy in the neighborly relationship that might not be desired. However, I think that the highest goal in the ordeal is to ensure that the adopted child of the lesbians is “visited as an orphan” and cared for as the fatherless. After all, simply put, the straight neighbor couple is comprised of a mother AND a father, and the adopted child of the lesbians has no father at all.
Also, these two women living in “sin” do not posess the Spirit of God to guide them in all Truth. It is not our job as Christians to attempt to “be” the Holy Spirit to these two women who know not Christ. It is our job to live in such a way that we are doers of the Word, and therefore expose them to the Love of Christ by which all men are drawn unto Him.
Again, I do not believe that this means that the two couples should be having coffee every day; I am simply saying that we are to be in the world, but not of it. How can we be in the world when we are shut away in fear, cringing at the thought of being “exposed” to the evil of lesbianism, or exposing our children to such?
The child of the Christian couple does not need to be told explicitly what lesbianism is; this is no different than those silly books in public school about “Mary having two mothers”. Rather, the girl should be included in prayer time with her parents, at which time the father can teach his daughter to lift the lesbians up to the Lord, because they do not KNOW the Lord, and lift the adopted child up to the Lord, because she does not have a FATHER, and let that be that. The Christian child will know inherently that there is something awry in the adoptive child’s life by way of her fatherlessness.
At every opportunity, the child of the lesbians should play with the child of the hetero couple, in order that the adopted child be exposed to a normal, traditional, nuclear Christian family and home. It is of utmost importance that this occur, as this is what the child will remember and pray for as she grows. Thus, perhaps it will lead her to the family of God through a Bible-teaching church as soon as she is able to make a choice. This playtime should be done ONLY at the home of the Christian couple, or at a neutral locale such as a neighborhood park, without the lesbian parents. I think this should be clearly spoken as an expectation to the lesbians, without apology and worry of offense. If they will not allow it, then God has allowed the door of the matter to be closed in this way for this season.
I see no difference in setting these boundaries with the lesbians than in setting such boundaries with a single mother who is raising children alone as a heterosexual. It is not right to simply refuse any contact with people in sin; if this were the case, Jesus would never have been accused of being a drunkard and having a devil!
Just a few thoughts to ponder.
Laura writes:
Yes, because children are involved this is a tricky thing. That’s why in my original entry, I said that James should allows his children to play with their child.
