YOU READ STEPHEN KING!
People are sometimes surprised when they learn I read Stephen King. Seen more than one guest pause at my bookcase and examine the portion dedicated to King first editions and unique stuff. "Why do you read Stephen King?" the bold ones ask. I read Stephen King for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I think he's a good writer.
The reason people in my circles are surprised I read Stephen King is because I'm usually a political conservative on social issues and I'm a pastor of a church. If CBU and Seminary taught me anything, it's that I can read people I disagree with. In fact, most higher education is just assigned reading. They force you to read a lot of stuff by people who see (saw) the world completely different than we do. I didn't agree with a lot of things Luther wrote, but that didn't stop me from benefiting from reading his work. Same with Calvin, Barth and more importantly Charles Schulz. I don't agree with Rob Bell or the modern atheist Richard Dawkins, but I read them both. You can't have dialogue, conversation or understand where another person is coming from unless you take time to read.
Reading Stephen King often gives me a perspective that I don't agree with, but should at least be informed of. His is a more liberal worldview. Do I benefit from getting a glimpse? Of course! I don't always like it when King injects a lot of politics into something, but at least I know where he's coming from.
ENDER'S GAME
I'm surprised when people think we should boycott certain writers. When you choose to avoid a writers entire body of work because you disagree on some points of politics or religion, you miss the opportunity to learn where they are coming from. More importantly, if the door is shut, you are assuming EVERYTHING they say must be wrong. Here's the thing -- I might disagree with Luther on a lot of stuff, but most stuff I agree with him on.
It is disappointing that some in the gay community are calling for a boycott of Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game," because he supports traditional marriage.
Greg Gilman at THE WRAP writes,
Gay advocacy and fandom group Geeks OUT launched an online campaign earlier this week asking moviegoers to skip the Nov. 1 release of "Ender's Game" due to Card's previous comments against gay-marriage.
"Do not buy a ticket at the theater, do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand. Ignore all merchandise and toys," the organization's website reads. "By pledging to skip Ender's Game, we can send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of anti-gay activism -- whatever he's selling, we're not buying." (movies.yahoo.com/news)Should we boycott people we disagree with? This same tactic drives me nuts in the religious community. Not quite the melting pot we were promised in grade school. Remember the SBC Boycott of Disney? Didn't break Disney, did it? The Last Temptation Of Christ was set to be a total failure, until religious groups protested it and got everyone interested in what all the hubbub was about.
READING DOESN'T = ENDORSEMENT
Here's an important point to remember: You aren't politically endorsing someone's work by reading or watching it. And saying, "Well, I didn't read that!" doesn't make you look smart. Boycotts only make boy-cotters look narrow minded.
EW posted a response from Card, in which he said:
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
Orson Scott Card (insidemovies.ew.com)DANGEROUS CROSSROADS
America is at a dangerous crossroads -- we've stopped talking to one another. We're shouting, but we're not talking. It concerns me when Republicans don't know any Democrats, and when Democrats don't have any Republicans they count as friends. When we think the whole world must think like we do -- or we will find ways to punish them -- we are participating in intellectual intolerance.
I believe marriage can only be defined as being between a man and a woman. I don't think government can change that definition. That conviction doesn't cause me to stop reading liberals who would totally disagree. And I would suspect those liberals would want me reading their work, in hopes I might see the world from their point of view. For many of us, our understanding of marriage is a Biblical issue more than a social issue. It has to do with how we interpret Scripture. Those same Scriptures show us how we are to treat those we disagree with; something I wish many in my own camp would take a closer look at.
I would say to conservatives that they would do well to read non-political novels by liberals. Why novels? Because through characters writers are showing us the world from their point of view. That's worth understanding. The same goes for liberals, they should try and read people who don't see the world the way they do. Slamming the door and calling people names only makes your position look childish.
I have read a post from people who argue Stephen King should stay out of politics. I disagree. And I'm on the other side of the aisle from him. But just because he is an artist doesn't mean we should not be interested in how he sees the world. Or, what he might say that either builds bridges or we might agree with (gasp!)
So here's a real question --
Is there anyone you read that you totally disagree with ?
