No 'Buell': I'm actually applauding Chuck Colson
Believe it or not, I'm actually going to pay a compliment to ardent anti-gay voice Chuck Colson. That's because unlike NOM's Brian Brown, who actually trumped Jerry Buell's own nasty rhetoric by invoking words like "jihad" and "fatwa," or any of the other social conservatives who've refused to note the obviously troubling nature of a public school teacher who uses words like "cesspool" and "vomit" to refer to certain people's lives and loves, Colson is at the very least stepping up and calling out the way that Mr. Buell stated his beliefs:
However much we sympathize with the substance of Mr. Buell’s comments, I hope you’ll agree that he earned a zero on style points. Of course it’s ridiculous — and alarming — that Mr. Buell’s livelihood and religious freedom came under threat. But that’s nothing new with the gay-rights movement, which frequently attacks one person’s rights to gain someone else’s. That, I’m afraid, is the world we live in.
As frustrating as this debate can be, prudence dictates that we Christians be especially mindful of our responsibility to remain civil. First of all, it’s the right thing to do. Secondly, the supporters of gay rights are waiting for any opportunity to pounce on their opponents if we give them any opening.
But there’s another point I want to make here, one you’ll hear me to return to again and again. We Christians are very good at saying “No.” We’ve got to better saying “Yes”: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing: That His ways — including faithful, live-giving marriage between one man and one woman — lead to human flourishing, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
The Gay "Marriage" Debate:Substance and Style [Chuck Colson's Breakpoint]
Now, of course Colson took as many (or more) opportunities to slam those mean, nasty gay rights activists who are supposedly the ones on the attack here. However, buried in there is his recognition of the truth, which is that Buell's usage of words like "cesspool" and "vomit" were inappropriate for anyone engaged on the self-professed "values" side of this debate, much less a public school teacher tasked with serving all students equally. So as far as that goes, I so actually applaud the onetime-Watergate-personality-cum-conservative-activist. When dealing with the anti-gay movement's self-reflection and/or repudiation, one must grade on the curve.
**But now Chuck might want to turn that reflection even more inward. Like maybe, onto the time when he himself warned about gays' marriages leading to "Cultural Armageddon," for instance:
Or when he compared Manhattan Declaration supporters' mission as constituting "non-cooperation with evil," for another:
"This kind of principled non-cooperation with evil won’t be easy—there are signs of a reduced tolerance for that most basic of American values, religious freedom. As we’ve discussed many times on BreakPoint, Christian organizations are losing tax-exempt status for refusing to buy in to homosexual “marriage.” Some are going out of business rather than cave into immoral demands—such as placing children for adoption with homosexual couples."
The Manhattan Declaration
Or perhaps my favorite: The time when Chuckles admitted just how he sees the tens of thousands of soul-crushed people who took to the streets in the national, almost entirely peaceful protests against Proposition 8
"When I watched the violence on television, memories came back of earlier generations of thugs: Bull Conner, who, with the help of brutal cops, used violence and intimidation to chase African Americans out of the public square. Or roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts who ruled the streets of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power. Do opponents of Proposition 8 who attacked Mormons and their churches think they’re any better than Bull Conner, or nicer than Nazi thugs? I don’t." [SOURCE]
Is that style, Chuck?
comments powered by Disqus