Thoughts on an Article: Three Lies of Pride Month
I read this article by James Jeffery, a friend of mine, and below are some thoughts on the article.
General thoughts on LGBT criticisms, and better ways to do it
Although I am in support of progressive and LGBT thought, I believe all ideas should be fairly challenged. My criticism to individuals providing supportive, or critical feedback, is that they establish in a decent way that they are not against the concept based on bias, or vice-versa.
The more straight way to communicate this, is "prove to me you're not homophobic", in the case of LGBT criticism. How is this done? I'm unsure, but one must introspectively look to their heart, to work out where Godly influence ends and ones mankind begins.
Reductionism and comments on sexuality
I do believe sexuality-as-a-lens can and could create reductionisms, but I do not believe it is necessarily a negative reduction of life. One of our aspects is sexuality, and it is unclear to me whether any ideology properly dispells of reductionism resolving into sexuality. It is possible, therefore, that the greatest way to address this aspect is to be upfront and accepting of it.
But, my point makes no real sense, without the view of how sexuality is baked into other ways of thought, faith, or ideologies. I'll do a quick, rough analysis on Christianity:
A reduction of Christian sexuality could portray sexuality as a vice outside of biblical prescribed pathways, and a virtue when on the pathway. Using this model, we do not need to critique whether or not this is the correct model of sexuality - we can just see that the pathway of sexuality is presented differently.
Instead of being accepting, open, and needless, it is constrained, holy, and divine (in Christian perspectives).
Christianity's sexuality aspect strives for divinity, man-woman-god commitment, constraint, biblical prescription, and hard, strong rope between two people. The LGBT aspect of sexuality varies widely and from individual to individual (just as it does between Christian denominations), but generally focuses on openness, acceptance, uniqueness, intimacy and freedom, among many other virtues.
Briefly - the contention between the aspects of Christian sexuality and LGBT sexuality (both super generalised, reduced) then becomes against the pathways chosen, as well as the non man-woman-ness of the act, which requires clarification.
"The LGBT thought leads to reductionisms" is a reduction of the group, movement and individuals apart of this group. The same way media from either side will reduce concepts in order to provide news, or facts, to one's chamber of pals. Therefore, one can easily believe the other side has a reductionistic view of life, whereas our group has the keys to the castle - a view from atop the world.
Name our sins
We must name our sins, yet not be named by them. This is especially relevant in a time when identifying some believers as ‘gay Christians’ has become commonplace.
Within the context of Christianity, labelling ones-self as a gay Christian does indeed seem funny to most denominations I assume, unless one prescribes to a doctrine of Christianity which resolves the biblical tensions between non-heterosexual relationships and proper Christian pathways.
I like the message in an altered form - do not label ones self, unless it is your highest moral belief. If homosexuality is ones highest moral belief, especially if one has had a rough time and closely associates themselves with the difficulties and challenges they have accrued based on their beliefs - I see absolutely no problem adding that to ones label on their identity.
To use a more serious analogy, we would not be against an individiaul labelling ones self as an individual who survived a great torment - unless we were a denyer of that great torment.
Pride is a Vice
This is one I've heard a lot from the conservative community in general - and it is quite an interesting one.
I generally believe that this is just a completey miscommunication and misunderstanding of what pride means to the LGBT community.
One can be proud, or one can be prideful. We accept pride to one another (a father proud of their son), but we are much finer about self-pride.
Pride in the LGBT sense is not necessarily self-individual pride (although it can be), it is pride towards the community, and pride as opposed to supression and social stigmatisation.
As is mentioned in the article;
Pride is a person having too high an opinion of himself.
Pride for ones movement through their group, sexuality, historic trauma, historic injustices, historic decriminalisation, is much more complicated than simple pride for ones-self.
It is not that straightforward to say one of the three lies of Pride month is Pride as a virtue itself - it's hand waving.
Pride stops one from embracing the grace of God
A more poinient point is that:
The greatest danger of pride is how it prevents us from embracing the grace of God in Jesus Christ. He declared:
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Deconstructing this, the pride of the LGBT movement (using the logic above and in the previous heading) could only deny one the grace of God if that grace of God is understood through a denomination which provides the acceptance one needs to comfortably read and understand the Bible.
Part of this problem is circular, where the anti-acceptance of these general LGBT ideas indeed creates a barrier and fold between Christians and LGBT individuals from attaining the grace of God asymmetric knowledge.
To put this another way - some of these points could only be used or applicable by people on the Christian side - to serve what purpose? The points become almost useless for LGBT individuals - completely confusing a non-biased or non-Biblical reader.
LGBT is not family friendly
First - the first two (TED + Balenciaga) were publicly ridiculed by both sides and removed.
One can have quams about drag queen story time - but one has to make the argument that the individuals have some malicious or sexual bad intentions (ad hominem unless proven), and that non-participation is not good enough. One's quams can also be expressed without pejorative.
The mural was controvercial to both sides, and ended in defacement.
I don't even need to mention the Catholic Churches oopsies. Yes, the Catholic Church is separate, I understand, but one must reflect on the nature of belief, and where these differences yield in such a high rate of unchecked sexual assault.
One more concern
Upon reading this paragraph:
There is nothing more loving than to protect our most vulnerable (children) whilst proclaiming to our nation their need for Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is the duty of Australian Christians to refuse to take part in Pride Month, and to expose the evil that is happening.
I felt a concern.
As referenced, there is no direct connection with LGBT thoughts and child-destroying practices, unless personal. There is no orchestrated movement to, do whatever, to children - rather, there is more cases of the opposite.
The statement "It is the dury of Australian Christians to refuce to take part in Pride Month, and to expose the evil that is happening" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Why not promote unity and understanding of people who differ to you? Promote interest in ideas you don't like, and promote introspection on why these are such big issues which take up so much clickbait - why must we fight and expose when it is not clear there is anything to fight for?
These are just poetic intellectual schisms, but I wish for more promotion and common belief between what look like completely separate belief systems.
Finally
Lots of love to the author, James Jeffery! He's a good man, I love him, and he's offered great guidance, modelling, and advice which I still hold today. I love open, fair, heated and opinionated discussions. Writing helps me center and runaway with my thoughts, so I enjoyed using this medium to collect them.
My thoughts are always changing and I have a darker, scuffed sense of humour. I do not claim any of these statements in absolute. I have the most respect for one who can change and shift their thinking openly and respectfully, and I always hold myself to that standard.
