Welcome to Peepwis
People with wrong ideas
Participating in the same sex marriage debate has forced me to confront this question: what shall I call the people on the opposite side of this issue? I try not to call people my opponents or my enemies. When I am writing, I can put in the whole description: “those who oppose natural marriage” or “people who advocate same sex marriage,” or depending on the issue, “sex law radicals.” But these are long and awkward locutions, not easy to use in ordinary conversation.
While I was on the Summer for Marriage Bus Tour, I encountered some of these folks who came to oppose us. As I was watching the counter-rallies marching toward us in Albany, NY and especially in Providence, RI, the term that came to mind was simply: The Bad Guys. But that’s a term from a grade B Hollywood movie, unworthy of a Christian mind.
The counter-rallies made it clear too, that the disagreements run deeply and the potential for violence is genuine. I have been reading Rene Girard’s books this summer, Violence and the Sacred, and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Girard and his followers like Gil Bailie, make it clear that the escalation of hostilities into irrationality and violence is an ever-present possibility. We are capable of seeing our fellow humans as not fully human. We can go back and forth with self-justifying hostilities, until the original cause of the rivalry fades in importance, and nothing remains but the rival himself or herself. In other words, we can easily forget what we are fighting about, and remember only that we are fighting, and whom we are fighting.
I can feel this happening as I recall the rallies and counter-rallies, and as I look around the blogs and watch people’s description of what took place, watch the justifications and rationalizations. We could very easily leave the realm of the rational and descend into madness. In fact, I believe some people already have.
I don’t care which side of the issue you are on: you can’t want that. I can’t believe that of you. I know that I do not want the capitulation of my opponents, simply because my side overwhelms them with numbers. I want them to be converted, to have a genuine change of heart. And if they do not change their views, I hope that we can live together respectfully.
Which brings me back to the original question: what to call people?
We hear the term “peeps” to refer to “people.” When somebody says “our peeps” they mean people on their side of some issue or other. But I feel like everyone who comes over to the Ruth blog are “my peeps:” the people who agree with my views and support my arguments are obviously “my peeps.” But so are the people who don’t agree with me. I have a certain affection for nerdy girl and Heidi, and I think some of you do as well. I don’t agree with them, but I wish them no evil. They have come over here to engage with me and my friends and I feel responsible for them.
So here is what I’m going to call people: Peepwis. That stands for People with Wrong Ideas. “Peepwis” has the affectionate connotation of “peeps” and it keeps the emphasis on ideas. We disagree with one another’s ideas, while still recognizing each other’s personhood. It may sound a little harsh to assert that other people have “wrong” ideas. But honestly, that is what we each think. I think some of you are deeply mistaken. I believe it is far better to face that honestly and allow the discussion to be about the truth or falsehood of our ideas. The worthiness of each of us as persons should never be called into question, no matter how mistaken our ideas may prove to be.
Besides, “Peepwis” is far better than some of the things people are calling each other on blogs and in person. Please notice: the name-calling hides our common humanity. When we call someone a dehumanized name, we are giving ourselves permission to treat them as less than human.
Each and every person who has ever lived is a child of God, beloved by God. God wants each and every one of us to be happy with Him forever. Our choices determine whether we will achieve that happiness in heaven. And some of us believe that wrong ideas will, sooner or later, make us miserable even in this life.
We are not opposed to people. We are opposed to a set of ideas. The people who hold those ideas are deserving of our respect, and yes, our love. Those of us who are Christians believe that this is what we are called as Christians to do. We are to love our enemies, which to say we must recall the humanity even of people whose ideas are wrong, and at complete odds with every aspect of the Christian worldview.
This is the white hot glowing core of the radical Christian message.
So, welcome to all the Peepwis. We love you and pray for you, even while we debate with you and argue with you.
Loading ...
I guess “adversaries” is too… adversarial?
Who could disagree with such an eloquent appeal for courtesy and respect?
I don’t particularly like this idea, at least in the context of public discourse. Maybe I am just being an English language conservative here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don’t disagree with the spirit of what you are trying to do. The English language already contains suitable words. “Opponents,” “critics”, “counter-protestors” and “they/them” come to mind, depending on the context. These words don’t convey enmity, and I find them appropriate. Of course, if you are actually being attacked by a mob, lots of other words will naturally come to mind.
I certainly don’t like “bad guys.” Your opponents are not, in general, objectively or obviously bad, and it does sound a bit corny. Things can descend into violence and people can be genuinely bad, but that is, thankfully, still rare.
I appreciate that you may find Peepwis an endearing and appealing term, but at least until it gains common currency in the language, I don’t really like the sound of it. I would not like to be called a Peepwis. I am not particularly fond of “peeps” either. On the other side, I find the use of “bigot” and “homophobe” particularly offensive, and what is worse, it is often designed to be offensive. I think your opponents would find the terms “gay mafia,” “velvet mafia,” or “lavender mafia” offensive, so I try to avoid those terms. Homosexual or gay lobby, on the other hand, seems more neutral.
Finally, while a good many of those on your side are Christian, it is important to realize that many religious traditions in addition to traditional Christianity agree with you and also agree on the importance of charity and the worth of individual souls. To overemphasize the Christian perspective of your cause is, in my mind, to weaken it. To the extent that a cause is seen as a purely Christian one, the establishment clause arguments become more plausible. Until very recently in historical terms, marriage based on sexual opposites was a virtually universal definition of marriage, not merely a Christian one, and your case is much stronger put in those terms.
This is hilarious–and thanks for the shout out! I do appreciate the call to civility, because it is also MY Christian faith that asks me to engage in the spirit of love with those whom I believe hold wrong ideas! Now, being human, I often fall short in my desire to engage with respect and love for my “opponents.” Sometimes, it is exceedingly difficult to remain civil with those who you see as modern-day Pharisees, more concerned with their interpretation of the law than with the call to love. But that shouldn’t stop any of us from trying. We have more in common than we have that keeps us separate. Just as you love and defend your families, so do I love and defend mine. We would all do well to remember that. So, I will join you in the spirit of love and will try to remind myself that it is not people with whom I disagree, it is simply wrong ideas, including those that would keep us separated from the truth that we are all deserving of equality, dignity, liberty and love.
Dr. J,
Honestly, I would have gone with MOSTies. Matrimonial One-Step Thinkers. Sounds catchier, and more accurately describes the situation. Those who support marriage redefinition think only to one step– redefine marriage then everybody’s happy. They don’t seem to ask the question “What happens next.” MOSTies. That’s my suggestion.
Jennifer,
Great post. Because Christ taught us to love our enemies, some people consider it a religious duty not to have any. But if not having an enemies is one’s goal, being a Christian or a conservative or someone faithful to traditional morality will surely make that goal impossible.
Enemies we will always have, but loving them — even as we try to prevent them from wrecking the world — is mandatory.
Just before Christmas last year, I posted a blog entry in which I tried to capture the dilemma aphoristically:
“A person who has learned to love his enemies doesn’t have to spent his whole life trying not to make any or pretending not to have any.
“The first act of charity toward one’s enemies may well be to thwart their ambitions and, if necessary, bring them to their knees — figuratively or literally. At which moment, one can fall on one’s knees beside them and begin putting the world back together again.
Keep up the great work.
And then Gil accuses us of trying to wreck the world. Sigh. Is it too much to ask that one practice the whole “love your neighbor as yourself” command? I wonder whose civil rights Jesus would have voted against?
Dr. J,
There is the pro-SSM contingent and the pro-marriage contingent.
The first group attack the core meaning of marriage and seek an unjust merger between marriage and nonmarriage.
The second group defend the social institution of marriage and advocate that government, on behalf of society, protect and strengthen the influence of its core meaning for the sake of current and future generations.
The definition, or core meaning, of marriage is embedded in our laws today. Whatever SSM might be, and whatever its merits and demerits, it is not embedded in our laws nor in our Constitution nor in our system of self-governance. So it requires an imposition. Advocates of SSM, the pro-SSM group, therefore seek to enlist Government (capital G) to entrench something new and at odds with the marriage idea: the specious substitution of marriage, also known as S. S. M.
The supporters of marriage are marriage defenders who oppose the idea favored by the supporters of SSM. The SSM campaign is comprised of SSM[support]ers or ‘SSMers’.
Amongst those SSMers are some who are same-sex attracted, but most are not. Also there are SSMers who are outright against the special status of marriage in our society. They are usually found among those who support the manifesto of Beyond Marriage. These I refer to as beyonders. Heh.
Cheers,
Chairm
SSMers Explained
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-er-or-not-to-er.html