RE: rumor control

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

As someone who is a part of the “et al” of New St. Andrews, Christ
Church, and Bill London’s note, I’d like to offer the following thoughts
on his last question: 

>
>Third, what is your goal regarding the presence of the gay community on
the >Palouse?
>

As for a “goal” regarding the presence of the gay community on the
Palouse, can I also be straightforward and ask: doesn’t the question
assume a natural, modern love for political control? Modernity delights
in political power far more than Christianity cares. We tend to think
politics is rather boring and petty, and we’ll continue to tease those
locals whose lives obsess about it. What a waste. Politics is so often
an idol for those who resent life and want to push others around by
force. There are much richer things to do in life. 
	The gay community isn’t different from any other community on
the Palouse, except that it deserves a compliment if it reflects the
national gay community. That broader community certainly deserves praise
for seeing life as an integrated whole and that sexuality affects all
areas of life and culture. The national homosexual community does not
compartmentalize things into private and public, secular and sacred.
Everything touches everything, just as Christianity finds the Trinity
and the Incarnation affecting all of life -- literature, math, history,
language, recreation, etc. Everything reflects one’s basic commitments
(hence, the recent discussion about public education).
	The paradigm of historic Christianity obviously clashes with
other community paradigms, including gay pride assumptions. That should
be expected, and we shouldn’t be shocked to shrillness by it. But
wouldn’t it be fascinating if Moscow could dialogue more and better than
most communities across the nation? We would probably never convince
each other, but at least it would be harder to demonize each other so
easily. Talk of politics always polarizes because it threatens violence.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could talk about something else? Wouldn’t it
be great if the various conflicting communities could talk about beauty
and goodness, comparing and criticizing each other, over these topics?
(And wouldn’t it be nice, if we could do this without your implicit
political threat of violence that moderns so chirpily hold on to? –
levies, thought crimes, etc.) Yes, we think modernity is ugly and
intolerant, and gay pride assumptions are very conformist and resentful
at heart. And all these folks return the charge against Christianity
quite quickly. 
	But let the Jerry Falwells of the world run their political
boycotts and freak-out over gay library books. Yes, the same tolerance
wouldn’t be granted to Christians. Recently, four sandwich boards
provoked Second Coming type headlines in the paper; imagine what a
“Christian pride” parade would do. That would be silly, but it would
instantly invoke red-faced protests from many locals. But we prefer to
tease moderns for their rather incessant hypocrisies and smallness. Life
is much bigger. In the long term, beauty will win out. 
	The real question is about living life well now. Why not talk
more openly about our differences and let the most beautiful worldview
and culture seduce the others? That would be a grand “goal” for the
Palouse. 

Most sincerely,
Doug Jones