Now, of course "the formula" can work across all social and political spectrums, both left and right. But I'd like to focus on how it has been modified and used effectively by one lobby in particular to subvert the natural order, normalize it's place in society, and attempt to take down the Church from within.
How an argument is framed determines how an issue will be understood and acted upon. The one doing the framing is the one who often has the upper hand in a debate. A really interesting analysis of the rhetorical devices employed in President Obama's 2010 Nobel Prize acceptance speech can be read here. Take, for example, the appeal to emotions through stories, an effective tactic of the Left:
"Emotions can be elicited through the use of metaphors and images, as in the succession of three vivid scenarios in Obama’s penultimate paragraph: the outgunned but valiant soldier; the protestor marching despite brutal oppression; and the mother sacrificing herself for her child’s education ‘because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.’ Further metaphors in Obama’s speech include faith in human progress as ‘the North Star that guides us on our journey’ and acts as our ‘moral compass.’"
Typecasting is another method used:
"The use of pronouns is not limited to an US versus THEM divisiveness, but can also promote credit-seeking and responsibility-shunning. In Obama’s speech it is notable that when he wants to share the responsibility for actions undertaken, and perhaps even defuse blame, he uses the first person plural ‘we’ pronoun, but when he wants to take credit for actions and achievements, and thereby show his leadership, he uses the singular pronoun ‘I’. In the following passage, Obama shifts from ‘we’ to ‘I’ and back. The plural pronoun is used when community-building and identity-defining values are being spoken about, and the singular pronoun when he lists the measures he personally has undertaken in order to contribute to those values and the community and identity that go with them."
And appeals to authority and precedent:
"Another persuasive framing strategy involves the appeal to authority and precedent, in the form citations of great men. Ghandi, Kennedy and Martin Luther King are all cited by Obama, to dual effect. First, he aligns himself with the thinking of these men by quoting them, and this creates a frame of reference within which he can then situate himself more precisely."
There are many more examples of argument framing that you can read about in the context of President Obama's speech. But I don't want to get bogged down in rhetorical analysis; I just use it to set the stage to show how effective LGBT activists have been at eliciting sympathy to their cause, and how they have effectively gone from sympathetic underdog to punishing juggernaut.
Everybody loves an underdog. I'm in Eagles territory in this part of the country, and when they won the Superbowl this past year over the Patriots, Philly went nuts. The Eagles were the underdogs--they had the heart and drive; the Patriots were pretty "establishment," self-assured and confident they would notch another championship in their bedpost. It was a great game, the Birds came out ahead in a legendary kind of way, and everyone loved it.
I remember being taken in by the narrative, pre-Obergefell, of gays as a persecuted minority. This was in light of the horrible death of Matthew Shepard which I heard about when I began college, and generally being sympathetic to the plight of those who were oppressed and without power. Everyone wants to be liked, and no one wants to be on the 'wrong side of history.' I was no exception. On the eve of Obergefell, I, like many others, just did not know the implications of the agenda. We were stuck on the surface level of the social, watching haplessly as the whole thing unfolded. After all, who could be against love? Who didn't want to stand for civil rights? What young person wanted to be seen as an oppressor?
Of course, the agent of oppression par excellence, the conservative Goliath of the day, was the Catholic Church. The laws of government, they could change. The culture, it could change. But the teaching of the Church--they could never change. They were beyond the reach of political activism and social momentum. And that, in many ways, induced an impotent and smoldering rage against the Church that could only be attacked through infiltration and subversion.
All this had started years before, of course. When the Trojan horse was wheeled in, the Church in it's clumsy armor and lumbering beaurocracratic stature was slow to respond. The faithful didn't have the weapons to fight with or a map to see where they were being flanked. As we are seeing now, it was also weakened and paralyzed from within by the moral hypocrisy and secret lives of many of its leaders. In short, the foot soldiers and activists in the gay rights were effective by their sheer determination to manifest change and their grass-roots activism. Like a start-up trying to compete with an established corporate giant, they may not be able to outspend them, but they can outwork them. After all, for them this was not an abstract "issue"--it was personal; it was their lives, and they were willing to fight to enact change.
We are fighting a political battle, but beneath that we are in a spiritual war, as many of the faithful are starting to wake up to. When we see drag queens leading children's story time in public libraries, the altars of Catholic churches blasphemously draped in rainbow flags, and indoctrination in public schools, Catholics and Christians are recognizing that we are being targeted not only from the outside, but within our own ranks.
The story of David and Goliath is a famed story in the Bible. It has been referenced in many different contexts, both religious and secular. Whereas pre-Obergefell one may have regarded the LBGT movement as the Davids fighting the religious and social bigotry of clueless but powerful Goliaths like the Catholic Church, this narrative has been inverted. The LGBT lobby has corporate backing, social support, civil standing, and powerful allies. They have become a fearful Goliath for the faithful, as we do not have the support of our Church to fight. They (both lay and hierarchy alike) have, effectively, run away like the Israelites who "fled from him in great fear." (1 Sam 17:24) while the Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who stood up and fought all the way to the Supreme Court, trust in the Lord their God with sling and stone.
In many ways, the LGBT Goliath is like a "fist of iron in a glove of velvet." I've often wondered why most gay people I've met are "so nice." I've watched shows like Will & Grace, and just assumed that reflected the reality of most gay relationships. They have the money. They have the backing. They have the rhetoric and stories. But they don't have the Truth, because what they fight for is opposed to it.
I always found it interesting that Augustine, the master orator, before his conversion was put off by the crude and clumsy language of the Bible. It was "unworthy" when compared to the words of Cicero, Virgil, Seneca and others who set the standard for proper language and literary expression. The Latin bible of Augustine's day was an affront to his rhetorical and literary sensibilities--rough and inelegant. "In Augustine's culture, there was a strong aesthetic assumption that truth and beauty (style) had an important reciprocal relationship. The poor style of the Latin Bible made it seem unconvincing and, as Augustine himself describes it, unworthy."
And yet, it was through reading the crude and clumsy words of Scripture when he heard the words of a child saying "Take and read," that he was converted. It cut through his dress and went straight for his heart. This is the power of Truth, the power of God.
When David fearlessly approaches and accepts the challenge of the uncircumcised Philistine, Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. But “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off. Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine. (1 Sam 17:38-40)
I fear for the institutional Church. I retain faith in her supernatural role as the bulwark and pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), but I am losing faith in Her leaders. We need to be less like Sauls, attempting to fight our enemies wearing the clumsy, cumbersome amour of religious institutionality, and more like Davids armed with sling and stone--personal holiness, faith, prayer, fasting, mortification, sacramentals--and a fearless and righteous standing against those who would oppose the Living God. We know what faith the size of a mustard seed can accomplish. We know the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. We know the power of God who has won the war in Christ, even when we lose battles on the cultural, social, and political front. We are fighting for our lives, yes, but the real persecution has yet to come.
The real battle in these coming days will not be over laws and culture, but souls. They may have eloquent words and corporate backing, but the faithful, the remnant, will be the ones fighting as the world acquiesces to spiritual defeat by way of assimilation and approval. We may be fighting the Lord's battle against His enemies with sling and stone...but we will be fighting and will remember the words of David, "All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”" (1 Sam 17:47)
Comments
Post a Comment