ackb

I’m listening to a radio interview with a woman I admire tremendously much, Rev. Dr. Rebecca Ann Parker. She’s speaking along with her co-author about their book, A House for Hope: The Promise of Progressive Religion for the Twenty-first Century. 

They get a caller, who is Catholic, who wants to discuss moral relativism and cites the “danger” of progressive religion, which suggests “any type of behavior is acceptable these days…” Her co-author takes the bait, and talks about being a straight man working on Freedom to Marry (which he is, and is great, don’t get me wrong!)

But Rebecca says this:

The notion that any type of behavior is acceptable as a characterization of progressive religion is not a characterization I would accept. I certainly don’t believe that any type of behavior is acceptable or that anything goes. I come from a long line of very progressive Christians and anybody who thinks that’s what progressive Christianity is has not met my mother. Or my grandmother. We were trained, and raised with a very strong moral and ethical sense. So what is characterized as moral relativism is an inaccurate characterization of progressive religion.

Let’s just break that down for a minute. She doesn’t jump for the wedge issue. She doesn’t preach her point of view over the caller’s or her co-authors. She doesn’t address the question he hints at, she addresses the question he asks, which is about moral relativism, not queer issues. And while she’s at it, she states unequivocally that she and the caller actually share a perspective, which is that they both have a strong moral and ethical sense. When she speaks out about abortion, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other issues (which she does), she does so from a strong ethical, moral, and religious sense. I love that.