It was something of a lazy Saturday for me this past weekend, I didn’t have all that much planned and spent much of my time reading some Cleon Skousen and eventually grabbing an early lunch. As I was finishing my midday meal, I remembered that today was the day of the notorious Naples Pride fest, an event wherein which people of different “genders” and identifications gathered to practice the gasconade of their lifestyle choices and push for various other forms of social change, especially considering the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. For some reason unbeknownst to me, I found attending this event to be somewhat intriguing, so I finished my marbled potatoes and made my way for Cambier Park in Downtown Naples. I didn’t expect anything really to come of it, but I was pleasantly surprised by the experience.
When I arrived, I was quickly greeted by some familiar faces – the two street preachers who had gathered outside of the event also frequented the FGCU campus on the occasion. I made my introduction and talked with them as the passersby jeered and harangued incessantly. Many made obscene gestures and laughed maniacally as the good men tried to share the hope of the Gospel and bring people out of their deception. It was difficult to watch and I commend the men for their bravery and resolve.
Soon enough, I had the opportunity to actually go into the festival itself. The event layout was fairly similar to other fairs and pageants that have taken place in Cambier – they had tents set up selling homemade trinkets or advertising political candidates and petitions for legislative change; what differentiated it the most were the attendees themselves. There were probably a few thousand at the festival, most adorned in various flags and/or revealing clothing for the purpose of showing pride for their gender identity and sexual preferences. Gay men in short-cut pants and tank tops, drag queens parading around in full garb, and most concerning of all, teenagers and even small children accompanied by young friends or their family. Considering the lewd personalities as well as the nature of the festival itself, I found this distressing. Despite this, I continued making my way through the aisles of vendors, eventually running into Florida Voice’s Brendon Leslie and his accompanying crew as he was conducting an interview with one of the attendees. As the hour passed and the afternoon heat wave came, I prepared to leave out of the park and go about my day as I saw no further purpose in being there. As I was leaving the park, however, I noticed a woman beginning to confront one of the street preachers – she was an older lady, although not lacking in vitriolic passion, who carried with her a large, homemade sign that declared, “BANS OFF OUR BODIES”. The evangelist tried his best to defend his points with a Biblical and logical basis, but the woman continued to present new points and grievances. So, considering my growing knowledge regarding apologetics, politics, social issues, and the like, as well as my desire to remove the preacher from the conversation to prevent unnecessary escalation, I stepped in to continue the debate.
What resulted was one of the most intriguing and somewhat encouraging political experiences I’ve had thus far with someone from the opposite end of the spectrum. In many ways, it heavily informed me on how I myself as well as others should go about political debate in an effective and respectful manner. Here’s what I got out of it:
When I initially entered the conversation, the woman in question (who goes by “Kate”) was somewhat contentious at first as a result of her interactions with the preacher. To deescalate, I did a few things:
- Removed myself from a place of moral superiority, despite what I may believe to be morally correct or incorrect – while it is important to stand firm in your convictions, creating the assumption that you are morally above the other in political conversations comes across as condescending and will not advance the dialogue.
- Removed the assumption of contention and hostility – many enter into political conversations with emotions running high and a mindset geared for battle; this isn’t what we should be doing. What took place was a simple debate, so I treated it as such; I kept my points from being emotionally charged and conducted myself in a calm and collected manner.
- Provided opportunity for her point to be communicated and ACTUALLY listened – even if you already know what another individual might say and are hoping to ready a counter, be patient and don’t interject; allowing the other person to speak shows them that you’re willing to hold a legitimate discussion and may actually give you the opportunity to hear a viewpoint you’re not familiar with.
- Asked questions about where Kate stood specifically and didn’t respond flagrantly – this allows me to see her logical thought process and gives me a respectful opportunity to provide my opinion in a gentle manner afterward.
- Kept it light-hearted and honest – if I made a mistake or something drew attention away from the conversation, I didn’t allow it to steal my joy or enthusiasm – once it got to the point where I recognized that Kate would be understanding and amicable to a certain degree, I made sure to reflect compassion and jocularity.
As we got into the discussion further, I picked up on something quickly that I feel is incredibly important for politically-involved Christians to understand; in most cases, Biblical arguments do not perform well in debates, especially among those leaning more to the left. Even Kate, who stated that she loved Jesus, was not responding well to verses or Biblical assertions. After doing some thought on this occurrence, I came up with the “ordered revelation theory”:
In our plane of existence, there are two types of revelation that God provides us with to reflect His existence and His nature – special revelation and general revelation. Special revelation references the Gospel itself as well as continuing miracles that take place in the modern age. This revelation is the one that a majority of Christians are the most familiar with and it’s the revelation that many fall back on for their arguments. General revelation is regular, everyday phenomena that exist within the world that reflect intentional design from God Himself. This revelation is available to everyone at all times and is reflected in the findings of science as well as sociology, philosophy, and other schools of thought.
Both of these forms of revelation are integral to spreading the Good News and the accompanying ideals, however, I believe they need to be applied in a specific order. Special revelation, such as Biblical verses and certain schools of apologetics assert a specific view of reality and morality upon those that come in contact with it; when you are aligned with this perception, then the form of revelation can be used to help you better align with the Lord’s will and follow His commandments. However, while this may be the correct view of life, there are those who do not share the same perception of reality; they do not see a necessity to the belief in a God in their life and, therefore, they have no need to align themselves with that reality.
This is where general revelation comes in; it creates a necessity for the belief in God and alignment with His will. Because general revelation is attainable by anyone and is based upon basic, fundamental truths that quantify biology, society, and our existence, analyzing the right points can bring about a different thought process for other individuals that may eventually lead to a change in perspective. Rather than fighting with Bible verses, you are fighting with universal logic and truth, something that has a less abrasive connotation and can be better understood overall. Allow me to provide an example from my conversation with Kate:
While going through our conversation on abortion, the issue of sexual activity and relationships was brought up. Kate felt that people should be proud and free to engage with multiple sexual partners as they please outside of the confines of marriage. Rather than countering this with Biblical verses pertaining to marriage and sexual activity, I turned to my knowledge of human anatomy as well as sociology, and presented the following thought:
“What’s wrong with sleeping with whoever you want? It’s not hurting anything. During sex, a specific chemical is released known as Oxytocin – this hormone, which is also released during breastfeeding and hugging, is designed to build emotional bonds between the two involved parties and strengthen the existing relationship. When you reduce sex to a commodity and allow yourself to be with multiple partners, you are thus releasing excessive amounts of this hormone with multiple different strangers that you hope to not be reentangled with. Your body is not designed for this behavior – therefore, this can put a significant strain on overall mental and emotional health. When practiced between two people who are faithful to one another, oxytocin as well as various other pleasure-related hormones (such as dopamine) help to strengthen and maintain the existing bond between the two parties and foster love, compassion, and loyalty.
What’s wrong with not being married and just being committed to one person then? Well, it’s incredibly important in a relationship to maintain loyalty and commitment to one another. While Oxytocin is helpful at strengthening relationships, it does not guarantee devotion. When you are outside the confines of a marriage, there are no covenants or warrants that prevent that trust from being broken beyond that of your partner’s word. Marriage is the only existing institution that provides the necessary conditions for a committed relationship between a man and a woman. Outside of it, you have no actual promise of commitment and no legitimate consequences for inflicted harm upon the relationship. If you’re practicing intercourse without a proper marital covenant, and then you find your partner to be unfaithful, the neurological, and in some way spiritual, bond that has been formed with your partner is irreparably corrupted, leading to devastating effects on mental health and a never-ending process of healing and regaining of trust…”
Rather than initially representing Biblical truth within the context of verses and apologetics, I presented it through other accessible forms of study and knowledge that allowed the argument to appeal to someone who may not have a complete understanding or willingness to understand special revelation. This yielded a positive outcome.
By the end of our hour-long conversation, Kate was unconvinced but pleasantly surprised by the way in which I presented my points. “I don’t think you’ll ever convince me out of a women’s right to choose, but I am intrigued by your points and would really like to hear more about them,” she said (I’m paraphrasing a bit). I provided her with one of my cards and offered to go out for coffee or lunch to discuss the matter further, and she very much appreciated the idea. Afterward, I walked her back to the parking garage, shook her hand, and went on my way, emboldened and satisfied with my experience. I’m glad to say that Kate, in reality, was a sweet and respectful woman who allowed for open, constructive conversation. While we may still fundamentally disagree on certain core values, I’m confident that we left out of that conversation at least as acquaintances. A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one at that.
