Debates, youth groups, and bridging the gap

Last night at youth group, the kids and the leaders watched the last thirty minutes of the presidential debate together. Happily, this was not something that the two adult leaders (myself and a co-volunteer) imposed upon them -- it was the choice of the youth, and one we were pleased to honor. (Tangentially, I notice a much higher level of political engagement among both my high school and college kids election than in 2000. That ought to be encouraging for everyone, regardless of party.)

There were about 20 kids in group last night, and almost all of them were commenting irrepressibly throughout the debate. (Lots of ineffective "shushing" from me.) Not surprisingly, the comments were entirely pro-Kerry and decidedly anti-Bush. All Saints Pasadena is indeed a liberal community, and while we are racially, economically, and sexually diverse, we are politically almost monochrome. Only one child admitted to having even one parent who was voting to re-elect the president, and he hastened to say that he agreed more with his other parent, who was voting for Kerry.

After the debate was over, we turned off the TV and opened things up for discussion. Though I share my kids' basic political views (and I thought Kerry was a clear and convincing winner of at least the final third of the debate), I admit to being troubled by their intolerance of conservatives. I asked them how many of them had gotten into arguments with friends or family members over the election, and just over half of them raised their hands. We then launched into a serious, thoughtful, and very productive discussion of how to handle "disagreeing in love." We talked at length about the importance of seeing other people's opinions as valid, even when we find those opinions offensive. It's critical that the kids see that true liberalism involves a constant receptivity to others, and that progressive Christianity (a phrase often bandied about at our church) has tolerance of others -- even conservatives -- as one of its core principles. I asked them "how do you think Jesus would want you to talk to people with whom you disagree?"; I got some terrific responses.

A few years ago, I regularly attended services at Pasadena's largest non-denominational evangelical church, Lake Avenue. (This was while I was on the Vestry at All Saints, actually.) I got to know one of the many pastors there, and he and I had some preliminary discussions about a goal of mine: getting the high school youth from one very conservative and one very liberal church together to work on a service project. The idea would not be to have debates over homosexuality and salvation -- the idea would be to put Christian love into action with folks that we are accustomed to thinking of as "the enemy." We talked about various volunteer works that we could do as a team, and we had some brief exchanges on what we hoped our "kids" would get out of it. But we both lost touch, and not long thereafter I went on my two-year sojourn into the Mennonite Church.

Last night, I approached the All Saints youth with the idea. Somewhat disappointingly, most of them were -- initially -- flatly opposed. "Conservative kids hate us", one said. "They don't think we're real Christians, and that makes me so angry" said another. "They think we're all gay!", said a third. "They'll tell us we're going to hell", said a fourth. "It'll never work -- we're too different", offered still another. But I persevered, trying (somewhat manipulatively) to get them to see that their fear and their intolerance contradicted their professed values of love, outreach, and inclusion. Again, I snuck Jesus into it: "Would Jesus want you to hang out with the kids from a conservative church, or would he tell you to avoid them?" The kids were trapped!

The issues are charged. Three of the kids in youth group have at least one openly gay parent; one is being raised by two fathers. It is imperative that these children be emotionally protected from bigotry. They deal with enough at school, and I'll be darned if I want to expose them to more through the church. But I feel -- and many on the staff feel -- that some of the most valuable outreach work that liberal Episcopalian kids can do is with their counterparts in the evangelical world.

The temptation for both sides to see the other group as a "mission field" will be tremendous. Ground rules would have to be established to ensure a basic level of civility and respect. But I think I've got my kids excited at the prospect, even as they are also a bit scared too. I want to make sure they are emotionally and psychologically protected -- but I also want to make sure that they are spiritually challenged. That's a fine line to walk, but I am optimistic we can do it.

I'll be in touch with my Lake Avenue contacts soon. But if any of my readers are associated with conservative churches and youth groups in the Los Angeles area, and think they might know of some kids who might be similarly interested, have them drop me a line. Perhaps a day of feeding the homeless in downtown LA? An ongoing tutoring program with elementary schools?

We are a bitterly divided nation. We are also, as Christians, living in a divided body. Many of us on the Christian left find we have more in common with secular liberals than with our own fellow Christians on the right. Many right-wing Christians feel more in cultural solidarity with conservative non-believers or practitioners of other faiths than they do with us. While that is understandable, I think it reflects badly on all of us.

I am a liberal Democrat on (almost) every issue. I'm an Episcopalian with pacifist anabaptist leanings. I teach gender and gay history. I went to Berkeley. But for all that, my life is made both richer and more challenging by my friendships with folks with whom I disagree about almost everything. (One of the men I love best in the world is a true Five Point Calvinist, bless his misled heart!) I thank God for my friends who are gun-ownin', traditional marriage defendin', inerrant scripture believin', red-meat eatin', Fox News watchin', George Bush votin' conservatives. I'm a better man for knowing them and being loved by them. They have not changed my core beliefs. But they have softened my heart and tempered my self-righteousness -- and those are good things indeed.

Comments

[Brandon]

lol...we calvinists sure are an 'easy jab' aren't we! ;) (commented in the most jovial defensiveness.)

[Col Steve]

When you said Kerry was the clear and convincing winner, I was reminded of the Anais Nin's quote: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." I thought for the most part, both candidates ignored a great deal of the actual questions (flawed as many of them were) and simply reiterated erroneous or misleading facts, unrealistic promises, and trite soundbites. But applying Nin to me, that perhaps is a result of watching "sausage being made" for too long in DC. Goodthing Household 6 (aka my wife) controls the remote.

I would be curious to the reaction to the last question on strong women - the talk at least on several talk programs - albeit ones with right leaning hosts - is the fact the President talked about his wife while Senator Kerry talked about his mother (and her last "words") and the meaning of the phrase "marrying up." It seemed to rub my wife the wrong way and she tends to lean left.

Having deviated from your main post, your endeavor is quite noble and I wish you success.

[Hugo]

I just thought it was a softball question, Col. Steve -- I thought it was Bush's best moment of the night, actually. To say that one has married up seems patronizing, to say the least -- and in the case of Heinz Kerry, borderline offensive. Still, it hardly diminshed his outstanding performance in my eyes.

Calvinists are indeed an easy jab. They also have been my best and most effective teachers. My favorite spiritual director was a fine old reformed Presbyterian.

[John]

It's a good idea, Hugo, but of course the safe environment will have to cut both ways. I don't imagine the conservative kids will enjoy being lectured on inclusion any more than yours on holiness.

[Hugo]

Absolutely, John -- I would insist on loving quid pro quo...

[Xrlq]

I thought the "marrying up" comment was Kerry's high point. For once he made a self-deprecating remark, and was mildly funny to boot. The one thing I did find offensive was his dragging Mary Cheney into the debate. Very classless.

Overall, though, I think the winner of last night's debate is whoever you were supporting before the debate.

[Rhesa]

Is it ignorant of me to overlook the liberal/conservative leanings of congregations? Identifying a church in that sense always perturbs me, for some of the reasons you described in this post. I'd rather forego the political aspects of church and just focus on church, but apparently that's not as easy for others as I make it for myself.

[Hugo]

It's tough, Rhesa, because so often when one doesn't pay attention, one gets slapped in the face by reality! I've been to plenty of churches where those who are "unsaved" are told they are headed for the fires of hell. I think churches are called to be active in the world -- we can't ignore issues of peace and justice and ethics. The Gospel calls us to certain stances. At the same time, the gospel is more than just politics.

[John]

Rhesa, politics I don't care about. Theology, I emphatically do. If the church is preaching false doctrine, I need to know, and then I need to act.

I didn't see the debate, I read the transcript instead, but I thought Dubya won. (More ammo for your theory, XRLQ). His description of his family and faith hit all the right notes to assure Evangelicals he really is one of us (Much more important than actual policy for many, IMHO), and Kerry was very fake. "I respect your totally out-dated backwoods morality, I know everything there is to know about being a Christian, I was an altar boy in 1952". And then that rubbish about "understanding and respecting" social conservatives when it is transparently obvious he didn't and doesn't even try. Give me a break. My favourite Bush line was : "They taught me to stand up straight and don't scowl", which had just the right Dutch/German tone to be believable. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I really like this chap. He also tarred Kerry with the liberal lefty brush, a good move, and hammered "people issues", education, faith-based intiatives, medicare, which count with undecided voters. He did well. But then, I'd be won of those people your Youth group think hate them.

As a side note, have you ever noticed that it is the people least qualified to decide an election that do? If you have thought through the issues, and come to a coherent world-view, you are usually either a Conservative or a liberal. The Independents who vote for third parties don't count, so the people who decide the election either:

1. Don't regularly vote
2. Are terminally indecisive
3. Are swayed by stupid stuff, like hairstyles and media handling

Is it my imagination, or is that a bad thing?

[Nate]

Hugo,

Insightful as usual.

A few years back, in my mid-20s, I was part of the Episcopal campus ministry at Berkeley, and we found that we saw ourselves as having more in common with Jews and Buddhists around us than with our fellow Christians. So we embarked upon a project. We decided to invite other students from the various Christian groups on campus to eat dinner with us, and we had three questions that we could talk about (in small groups with reporting back).
1. How does your faith help you as a student at Berkeley?
2. How does your faith make your life hard as a student at Berkeley?
3. What is most important about your faith in your day-to-day life as a student?

The results were amazing.

For the groups that took us up on the invitation, we learned the most amazing things about each other and from one another. We met with Mormons, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. We tried to meet, but could never work it out, with generic evangelicals and one other group (which I can't recall).

The Mormons and the Orthodox were sort of the "most different" from us, you would think, but we found ourselves over and over saying the same things about how our faith in Christ affected our lives. The Mormons and our Episcopal group got on SO WELL that they came back a couple times more.

We worshippped with all of the groups who came, helping to accommodate their own understandings and practices with ours. (E.g., since Mormons don't drink alcohol, and we had Eucharist one of the times they were with us, we explained that the bread alone was sufficient for the Sacrament, as we understood it.)

And we became friends with them. And once that happened, we were able to open up, to talk about the controversial stuff, like gays in the church, abortion, and what have you, without descending into diatribe, working in the Spirit of love. I was able to ask the Mormons, as a gay man who's been shredded by conservative evangelicals, what they thought of all the stuff around homosexuality (is it a sin?, what should you do with regard to gays in the church?, etc.), and I learned that these average people were unsure, that they didn't think their church had it all down, and that some issues of faith may be more important than others.

It was amazing.

So I deperately hope you can do something like this. As I see both the sides on the gay issue lining up in ECUSA and spitting bile at one another, and as this election rips us all apart on the lines of religion drawn by the politics of our time, I think back to the weeks when the Mormons and the Anglicans shared at the Table together. When I find myself getting worked up and frenzied about these debates, I know that our meetings with various other Christians are just the smallest glimmer of what's possible. Not only is there infinitely more that can be done like this (and that God will and must accomplish to complete His making of the heavens and the earth), this sort of work is what we're called, as the people of God, to do.

[Camassia]

Interesting idea, Hugo. It's been a while since I've been around evangelical L.A., but I've shaken a few trees for you and hopefully something will fall out.

[Hugo]

Nate and Camassia, wow. Thank you for such generous feedback. I'm humbled.

[Jody]

When I was a little girl attending Lake Avenue, the church was called Lake Avenue Congregational Church, so I was surprised to hear you call it non-denominational. Knowing these things can change, I poked around on their website and found that they are "a member of the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference." From the description of the denomination, I'm not sure this is the same denomination Lake Avenue belonged to in the '60s. But perhaps so.

And let's not forget to thank God for the vegetarian Bush supporters who wouldn't have a gun.

[Hugo]

Absolutely right, Jody; this is something I had known but forgotten. But my goodness, it is something I never hear mentioned at Lake.

[Lisa]

Wow Hugo, I love your blog. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and insight. I myself am a liberal Mormon surrounded every day by conservatives, and this idea really struck a cord with me. I hope you can make it work.

[Troy]

Thanks for your post, Hugo. Your project seems very important!

As someone who is approaching the church (returning in adulthood), I have to say that it is very dismaying and even frightening. Unsure of what to believe, I am hesitant to enter an arena of combat.

[Jody]

Hugo, I was sure that was the case--that Lake Avenue fails to flaunt its affiliation. Currently my family and I attend a Free Methodist church. It's a tiny denomination, stateside at least (something like 90% of its membership is overseas due to vigorous and successful missionary efforts).

We learned from fellow worshipers that many of the denomination's congregations have dropped the "Free Methodist" designation and have names like "Grace Fellowship" (I made that up). Our own congregation has considered doing the same in an effort to have broader appeal.

Et tu, Lake Avenue? One would have thought its appeal was broad enough. But I guess everyone knows what's happening to the mainlines. There's a cachet to being non-denominational. Also many Protestants don't identify strongly with their denomination, preferring to think of themselves as Christian. So publicly neglecting to state a denominational affiliation would be congruent with the private reality.

[Barbara Preuninger]

Hugo,

This is a WONDERFUL idea. I am so pleased to hear that you are trying this! I'm often dismayed at the youths' intolerance and predjudice towards conservatives in my Unitarian Universalist fellowship. But we don't have the "Christianity thing" in common to do the same kind of activity you propose.

I also wanted to address John's comment:

"If you have thought through the issues, and come to a coherent world-view, you are usually either a Conservative or a liberal. The Independents who vote for third parties don't count, so the people who decide the election either:

1. Don't regularly vote
2. Are terminally indecisive
3. Are swayed by stupid stuff, like hairstyles and media handling"

As a radical moderate, I take a strong exception to your comment! In this election, I happen to be decided, but in 2000, I definitely was not. I have regularly voted since I was 18 (even in school board elections), I am certainly not terminally indecisive, and I'm hardly persuaded by stupid stuff! I'm starting to think that maybe I should get organizing a "Million Moderate March". We'll use slogans like "Ambivalent? Well, yes and no..." and "Moderates are unique, just like everyone else" :o) :o)

As a moderate, I've completely had it with this characterization of being spineless &/or easily swayed. It's proof of my *very strong spine* that I don't kowtow to ANY party line!

[Christian]

It doesn't state anywhere in the Bible that homosexuality is okay but it does clearly state that it is wrong. As difficult of a temptation as it may be for some it is stil wrong. This is not my personal opinion. I am just curious as to what your understandings for it being right are.

[Hugo]

Christian, it says nowhere in Scripture that homosexualITY is wrong. What Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and all the other proof-texts say is that in certain contexts, certain homosexual ACTS may be wrong. We must distinguish between identity and behavior.