Christianity Today goes way over the line

I like Christianity Today. I read it weekly online; I love their Books and Culture section (the evangelical answer to the New York Review). But I am furious at the tone and tenor of this piece posted today by a James Berkley, entitled "A Methodist Mob Mugging." Referring to the Karen Dammann trial (which I posted about here, and about which fellow blogger Jay Voorhees has had much goodness to post), Berkley spews:

A deceptively docile mob mugged United Methodist Church law last week in Bothell, Washington, near Seattle. The mob was passing as a United Methodist jury in the Rev. Karen Dammann case, but it definitely was a mob nevertheless, dispensing mob justice. It broke into Methodist jurisprudence, spoke utter inanities, freed a properly charged defendant, and trampled on the rule of law, leaving a host of victims in its wake.

So a mainline denomination's court fudged on its clearly written polity. Okay. You call that news? Wouldn't it be news if a mainline denomination actually followed its written doctrine and polity these days?

You got me there, but this instance just has to be one of the most egregious denominational examples of the breakdown of law and reason. It could hardly be more clear-cut and dramatic, more ridiculous and disgusting.

Look, good folks can disagree about homosexuality; good folks can disagree about the logic behind the Dammann decision. But good folks also know their history. Gays and lesbians (like Dammann) have been the real victims of "mobs" and "muggings" in American history. In this country's recent history, Methodists have no history of being physically attacked merely for being Methodists! Gays and lesbians have been assaulted, mugged, and murdered on countless occasions. Evangelical Christians -- in the USA -- haven't been. I am sick and tired of having disappointing court decisions compared to "muggings"! Only those who have never endured real beatings and real intimidation would ever appropriate the language of physical violence for such nakedly political purposes.

The Supreme Court may have been wrong in its ruling on Lawrence v. Texas (though I think not), and it may well rule the wrong way on the current (and ridiculous) Newdow case. Christians do live in a culture that is, at times, openly hostile to people of faith. But that hostility is generally expressed through a series of non-violent measures that seek to redefine traditional morality -- not through actual physical assault. Traditional evangelicals like James Berkley have a right to feel offended and disappointed, and they have a right to criticize the recent successes that gay and lesbian Americans have enjoyed in our culture. But those who have not truly suffered do not have the right to claim for themselves the language of victimhood; they do not have the moral right to claim that they are the victims of violence. To do so -- even rhetorically -- is to diminish the reality of the suffering of those who have actually been raped, mugged, and beaten. With all due respect, brother James, you owe your readers an apology.

Comments

[John]

Sorry, mate. I think he's quite right. He appropriated the language of violence in order to make the point that this group of cowboys had done something illegal, outside of the rule of church law, and had done violence not only to Methodists (particularly Wesleyans), but to the whole covenant which binds the UMC together. Both are violent things to do. Both are theological and emotional violence. His rhetoric is entirely justified. If you don't believe that the conservative Methodists are feeling violated now, read some of the Bishop's statements at Good News. Or maybe you could talk to my Aunt. She wouldn't and couldn't say her liberal catechism on gay relationships (despite her personal involvement with many gay people), and they forced her out of her pulpit, and her church into a corner labelled "Bigoted". You don't think that's theological violence? You don't think that the AAC is feeling violated by an illegal mob about now? I think it's entirely justified. (And, for the record, I have been a victim of physical violence. If we're comparing victim badges here, that is. ;-))

[Nate]

A couple of points.

The AAC may or may not feel "violated" by an mob, but the AAC hasn't responded in an irenic way. With the threats of schism, its own commission of illegal acts under canon law (irregular confirmations and such), falling prey to Donatism, and immovable demands, the AAC is at least as guilty of the types of sins that it accuses more liberal Episcopalians of committing.

And second, it's very interesting that we're all so focused on church law here, considering the relationship that Christ had to the Law. Not that I'm saying that law has no place, but it's worth questioning whether our service to our law gets in the way of Christ's transformative life for each of us, not just with respect to LGBTI issues but to the whole of our lives on earth.