Gang Rape, Tolerance, and the Rev. Warren’s Words

December 23, 2008

[Anita's note: I was fortunate to become acquainted with Christopher while we were in seminary and when I read the essay below he'd posted on his Facebook page, I was moved not only by the eloquence of his words but in his framing of considerations that are vital to us as people of faith as we engage in conversations around not only this occasion with Rev. Rick Warren but in other times as well. Christopher was gracious in granting me permission to share his writing with you.]

As I listened to the radio while preparing dinner Saturday evening, the reporter noted that in Richmond, the city where I live, a woman was gang raped repeatedly. Her attackers made it known to her they did this because of their perception of her being lesbian. Such attacks are not a new thing. Ever since I came out and began hearing stories within the LGBT community, I have known of stories of women, and sometimes men, raped on the perception of being lesbian/gay. In many parts of the world, rape is used as a means to control, humiliate, and “convert” sexual and gender minorities.

No, the Rev. Warren’s words to describe us cannot be directly traced to this horrendous violation of a fellow human being. But his dehumanizing and objectifying words and the words of others, having stirred up the basest imaginations and emotions, give permission to others with less restraint to violate us with impunity–for centuries. His use of comparison terms like “incest” and “pedophilia” in describing same-sex affection across the gamut from random sexual encounters to committed partnerships is more than a specious way to argue ethically and morally. His use of these terms in connection to Holy Writ is more than a misuse of Scripture to tell a tale other than God’s love for all in Christ Jesus. The use of these terms to describe an entire set of affections and the behaviors that go with those affections, from promiscuity to partnership—the same range found among heterosexuals, mind you, has the moral equivalence of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, or calling Christians “baby eaters” during sporadic third-century Roman persecutions, or calling the Jews “baby eaters” and “child killers” during a Holy Week procession in the Middle Ages. Such use of words instigates fear and panic, giving permission for violation to stop the offense, and immediately, and by whatever means if necessary. And his use of those terms have along and sordid histoy among Christians to attack sexual and gender minorities.

Some in the press and in religious organizations are accusing LGBT people of being intolerant for objecting to the Rev. Warren at all. I think they confuse tolerance with lack of boundaries. To say “no” to such a use of language and to the actions to which they give permission is to have integrity and a right sense of God’s love for us in the way of a lot of fallen words and actions toward us. Being a follower of Jesus does not mean being a doormat for Jesus. Sometimes being a follower means saying “no” and being prepared to take the consequences for doing so.

It is one thing for the Rev. Warren to disagree with legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, and to do so with cogent arguments. And to live in a society where we can disagree using other cogent arguments. That is tolerance. It is quite another to stir up the basest emotions of fellow human beings to win his argument and then act as if his words have no effect beyond him. He has chosen to do the latter, and it is the responsibility of others, and not just lgbt persons, to say “no”. In truth, it is the use of language in this way, and not disagreement about the marriage of same-sex couples, that is intolerant, because it is willing to use words to stir up destruction of one’s opponents without admitting that that is the intent. And destruction of one’s opponent is precisely the opposite of a tolerant society wherein we can civilly disagree. Tolerance does have limits. But the boundaries of tolerance cannot be guarded by meeting kind with kind. Rather what is required are better words, more loving words, better actions, more loving actions, and a willingness to say “no” without meeting kind with kind, no matter the consequences. Tolerance itself is not a virtue, but tolerance requires virtues to thrive.

Posted in News and Events