Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The Gay Conversation

I found this on Bob Hyatt's blog which led to this, Eugene Cho's blog
You would have to read the back story on all of this, but it began with Dan Savage's visit to the church Eugene's leads as part of a 30 author rate the church's in Seattle article.
Eugene is a good guy. It seems to me he was attempting to dialogue with Savage around a very controversial issue for many different people of faith. How do people of difference move forward if we cannot have a reasonably respectful conversation from both sides of an issue? If you go and read, I am interested to know how you think the conversation can be framed to promote dialogue and learning from one another rather than combative polarizing?


Anonymous said...


I'm not sure "we" as Christians can enter the dialogue anymore unless we change our position. I don't know if we can change our position, but I don't know if we can't.


steven hamilton said...

...i think eugene is right to respond mostly individually. there is too much hatred bred by non-relationship between gays people and people who claim to represent the church. while i like the dialogue and nuanced conversation that eugene engaged in, many, many repsponses were less aimed at eugene's actual engagement and seemed to be prefaced on the reaction to others who claim to be followers of jesus and yet hold up signs saying something about God hating them, which mis-represents the gospel and christ.

that's not to say that this should not take place in the public arena, for that might very well be the place that Christians who follow Jesus can show the difference between hate and love and mercy...but talk is merely one part, and i wonder if the air can ever be cleared enough to engage the issue in a right manner by both sides in the blogosphere...which while part of the public arena, is only a part. our actions in the public realm and interactions with real people will be where the "rubber-hits-the-road" so to speak...my take is that it might be like mother theresa of calcutta, are we making a difference? ask the person i just imapcted this morning...

Mike Clawson said...

Eugene did the best he could with a bad situation. I agree with what he said about how these discussions are better had on the individual level and not as "official" statements by church leaders. At the same time, public conversation does need to happen. Eugene's mistake was letting himself be duped into having that public conversation with Dan Savage. I've encountered Slog before and as far as I can tell Savage is one angry dude out to rip apart anyone who offends him in the slightest way. He is not inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt or interested in constructive conversation. His whole MO, is to tear down, ridicule and attack. You can't have a constructive public conversation with someone like that.