How Do I Justify My Presence?

I came across a very interesting thread on Facebook over the weekend, and really feel compelled to respond to it in a longer form than is possible in a Facebook discussion. Here is the product!

To paraphrase the question raised, “how does a transgender man preaching in conservative Indiana justify his presence in the pulpit using the Gospel?” My answer: he shouldn’t try.

You see, to the extent that we continue to try to justify our very existence, no matter the reason anyone might call our existence or presence into question, we legitimize an illegitimate question. Can you see that? If someone says to me, “you have no right to be here,” and I respond to that nonsense then I make the very question of my right to be here seem legitimate. If someone said to you, “I see you have three arms,” and you started arguing that you only had two arms, you would be giving the question of how many arms you have credence. Rather than argue our arm count, most of us would either walk away or call the local mental health crisis line.

The world is full of diversity, and that diversity has threatened people since humans first crawled out of the primordial sludge. We are psychologically programmed to be suspicious of the different, to interpret it as a threat until we learn otherwise, as a basic survival instinct. Those of us who have learned to use more than our reptilian brain have learned to use reasoning to overcome those instincts when they are faulty. Our friend Bob might be profoundly unattractive, but we learn that doesn’t make him a danger. Despite this knowledge, we tend to want to keep crawling back into the sludge in the hopes that the reptilians among us will come to see that we are okay and admit that truth out loud. Guess what? It ain’t gonna happen, so it’s time to move on.


Debating Integrity

When I was a kid, which I must now confess was a few decades ago, We were taught things like debate, argumentation, and persuasive writing. Those things have gradually disappeared from schools in America, and the result is plain to see. Quite simply, we no longer know how to construct an argument and we no longer are embarrassed if we are dishonest in our attempts to do so. This is as true in the private sector as the public.

C-S-Lewis-Integrity-e1368209736261I was sent a theological paper a few days ago that was an excellent example of this. It was filled with short quotes from the individual it criticized, taken out of context, while accusing him of taking things out of context. The author obviously hadn’t done a good job of researching her “opponent,” because she accused him of “making up” ideas that have been existence for over one thousand years. The list went on and on. When I learned how to construct arguments and write papers, my teachers would have given this paper an “F” and its author would have hung her head in shame. The fact that the kinds of teachers who taught us these important skills no longer exist is glaringly obvious, the impact on our communication abilities and public discourse beyond obvious.

We have come to believe that knowing facts, mostly in the hard sciences, is much more important that being able to communicate them effectively. What we say and how we say it matters. In fact, it matters more than whether or not we win an argument because it speaks to a much more fundamental and important value, our integrity. It is much more important to be able to live with ourselves than to accumulate victories.  If you doubt that, just ask Charlie Sheen.

Shutting Down Dialogue

The perceived need to shut down dialogue on any topic is always a sign of a weak shut downargument. If I feel like I can make a solid case for my point of view, then I’m not threatened by an honest discussion or a different point of view. On the other hand, if I know my position is on shaky ground, I’ll want to end discussion before it even starts. Watch and you will see I am right.