[Note: Please read comment thread for important clarifications and dialogue.]
Behind every sarcastic meme or inflammatory facebook rant is a real person who perhaps spent a lot of time settling into his or her beliefs. And in front of every sarcastic meme or inflammatory facebook rant is a real person who is perhaps deeply hurt by what they read. Remember that.
The recent bout of activism, anti-activism (or shall we combine these into a single term, “slacktivism”) on the facebook and blogosphere regarding the Supreme Court case seeking to overturn DOMA and prop 8 has caused a lot of frustration.
Now, being that I’m a pastor in a traditionally conservative denomination, you might assume my frustration is due to the vocal and visible acts of advocacy for LGBT rights, most recently symbolized by a red equal sign in place of peoples’ profile pictures. That assumption would be wrong.
And if I’m not angry at the pro-LGBT folks, then my frustration must be at the reaction from the conservative folks who started posting anti-memes or strips of bacon or red crosses instead of equal signs. They bit the bait; they drew their lines in the sand; they marked their territory. Or at least they made jokes. If that’s not what facebook is for then I don’t know what is.
In reality, the whole scene was rather disheartening, and has been for quite some time. The recent “equal sign” campaign was one more experiment showing how good we are at reducing issues to the simplest, and thus least nuanced or sensitive talking points, so that when our opponents disagree, we can – with the wave of a hand or the click of a meme – show them to be ignorant, bigoted, or destined for hell.
And we do this because we have a lot to gain in doing so. If we can reduce the marriage debates to slogans like, “It’s about love!” or “Equality for all!” then we can prove to ourselves that those who disagree are clearly anti-love and anti-equality. This is great news, because if they are anti-love and anti-equality, then I don’t have any obligation to listen to them, or consider why they may have come to the conclusions they’ve come to. In a way, I get to dehumanize them. Because after all, that’s what they’re doing.
But when we do this, we ignore the very real possibility that our opponents have come to their conclusions through a lot of tears and anguish. A lot of real conversations with real people full of real pain. Perhaps a lot of prayer, and maybe even a trepidatious searching of the Scriptures. Or they might have come to their conclusions because they happen to disagree with you about what makes for good social policy or American jurisprudence. Oh yah, there’s always that.
But the other side has a lot to gain by reducing the conversation as well. If we can show that our opponents celebrate complete amorality, or are entirely anti-God, or blindly ignorant of Scripture, then we are able to reassure ourselves that we have no reason to listen to them. Why would I listen to someone who tossed their moral compass in the creek at the last fundy youth camp they ever attended? Why would I listen to someone who is so blatantly against family values and so sadistically violent toward Scripture? They don’t deserve the dignity of a conversation.
And when we do this, we ignore the very real possibility that our opponents have come to their conclusions through a lot of tears and anguish. A lot of real conversations with real people full of real pain. Perhaps a lot of prayer, and maybe even a trepidatious searching of the Scriptures. Or they might have come to their conclusions because they happen to disagree with you about what makes for good social policy or American jurisprudence. Oh yah, there’s always that.
So yes, each side has a lot to gain by reducing the conversation to red equal signs and crosses. We get to end the conversation right there, we get to be right. That just feels good.
But we all have a lot to lose.
The Birdseed Desk 