Yesterday the internet exploded with Louie Giglio’s ‘change of plans‘ as he respectfully withdrew his acceptance to lead the benediction at the President’s Inauguration on January 21.

ThinkProgress and others demanded the withdrawal in days past, as a sermon surfaced from the 1990′s in which Giglio advocated for dangerous ‘reparative therapy’ for gay and lesbian people and impelled Christians to ‘firmly respond to the aggressive agenda’ to prevent the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ from becoming accepted in society.

(For those who want a detailed breakdown of the past 72 hours of controversy, click here.)

Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee responded to Giglio’s bowing out in a statement, saying



Adding a helpful voice to the conversation, Andrew Marin rightly pointed out yesterday that rather than circling the wagons to protect our point of view, or ensuring that one must first be ‘on our side’ in order to create peaceful and productive dialogue,


Yet ‘irrevocable divisions’ seem to be precisely what is taking place.

Blogger/researcher Ed Stetzer highlighted these divisions with a pie chart to emphasize the nearly 50/50 split in our country on the closed-ended, yes or no question ‘Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?‘ and included more research later in the day saying the same thing.

SBC heavy-hitter Al Mohler quickly posted an article entitled – The Giglio Imbroglio :: The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism.

Cute title.

<it means :: an extremely confused, complicated, or embarrassing situation: As in, ‘the Watergate imbroglio.’ I looked it up.>

There were a few other clever names floating around the inter webs ::Giglio gate, L’Affaire Giglio, or Deuce Bigalow, Male Giglio to name a few.

But I digress.

As one might expect, Mohler likened the ‘imbroglio’ as he called it (multiple times, in fact) to the infamous McCarthy hearings, in which witnesses were asked if they were or had ever been a member of the Communist Party, concluding ’There is nowhere to hide.’

Declaring evolution on homosexuality is ‘precisely what biblical Christians cannot do,’ Mohler (and countless others) drove their wedges deeper, drawing an ever-increasingly-fierce line in the sand.

One blogger even called taking this stand against the normalization of gay relationships ‘the quintessential Christian Gospel.’

Words like ‘marginalized’ and ‘neandrathalized’ and ‘persecuted’ were peppered throughout social media.

Again, I ask – are we insane?

As Andrew said yesterday,



But for the Evangelical community to cry ‘foul!’ seems at best hypocritical.

RLC friend Jimmy Spencer, Jr. suggested via Facebook, ‘Can Evangelicals imagine they’re simply reaping what they’ve sown w/ #Giglio events? Shoe’s just on the other foot now.’

The shoe is on the other foot, indeed. As our culture changes to a post-modern, pluralistic and even post-evangelical divided United States of America, the accepted medium of engagement between opposing worldviews is to essentially excommunicate those with whom we disagree.

It seems a bit odd that both sides of this conversation are fighting for their own inclusion in the marketplace, while simultaneously fighting against the acceptance of the Other.

If our job as Christ followers is to be ambassadors of reconciliation then we must be willing to live in the tension of building bridges rather than armies; of entering peaceful and productive dialogue with those with whom we disagree rather than retreating to foxholes filled with the faithful to our own preferred perspective.

Particularly in a conversation most often characterized by polarizing, back-and-forth, win-lose || us-them || right-wrong || in-out rhetoric, we must commit to setting aside our secondary convictions about issues and get about the work of helping people see God’s unconditional love.

While the easier path would be to try to persuade people to convert to a particular worldview or way of thinking about the gay community, I am convinced the better way – the narrow path – the way of Jesus – is to treat all people with dignity and respect – no matter their theological position.

We can’t demand someone change what they believe – but we should expect change in how we behave toward one another.

Perhaps that begins with a posture of humility, and the possibility that God may be up to something greater than our firm positions on sexuality.

Perhaps this ‘imbroglio’ can serve as a catalyst to push each of us toward a better way of engaging – to building bridges rather than armies, to finding respectful language and a true desire for tolerance (toward more views than just our own) and a commitment to create safe and sacred spaces which passionately promote peaceful and productive dialogue rather than a pontification of our preferred perspectives.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/the-evangelical-reaction-to-louie-giglio/

I posted this here because I think this is what I needed to hear this morning.

As most of you know, I am a passionate liberal - passionate about many political viewpoints and ideas which I often times defend and post vigorously.

This article really hit me between the eyes this morning and made me realize that I, too, am guilty of "building armies" rather than bridges.

I, too, am guilty of intolerance towards other viewpoints.

Sigh! I need to climb down from my ivory tower of liberalism and take the Christian, humble path towards "promoting peaceful and productive dialogue."

Giglio is an Italian Surname the one you are after is this!

gig·o·lo (jg-l, zhg-)
n. pl. gig·o·los
1. A man who has a continuing sexual relationship with and receives financial support from a woman.
2. A man who is hired as an escort or a dancing partner for a woman.