Over at WorldMagazineblog (the main one - World View) a poster put up Jeff Sharlet’s Rolling Stone piece God’s Senator reporting on a day spent with Senator Brownback of Kansas.

What struck me is that Aaron Earls was upset that a reporter would point out a faux pas (French for false step),  a gaffe or erreur, which occurs when a word used in the course of conversation has unintentional double meaning. It can also be called a misstep.

This is the faux pas mentioned in the Rolling Stones article.

He has worldly proof, too. “You look at the social impact of the countries that have engaged in homosexual marriage.” He shakes his head in sorrow, thinking of Sweden, which Christian conservatives believe has been made by “social engineering” into an outer ring of hell. “You’ll know ‘em by their fruits,” Brownback says. He pauses, and an awkward silence fills the room. He was citing scripture — Matthew 7:16 — but he just called gay Swedes “fruits.”

I do this often, it can be momentarily personally embarrassing, awkward or funny for those who over hear. It’s a normal part of conversation, we’ve all been there. I’ve learned to laugh when I ‘hear’ my gaffe, most people do. It is not an intentional joke, it is a slip of the tongue we have all experienced.  
A. Earls attacked the messenger.

Is it possible to be any more biblical illiterate than Rolling Stone Jeff Sharlet? In an article entitled “God’s Senator,” Sharlet quotes Sen. Sam Brownback as saying, “You’ll know ‘em by their fruits.” He then notes: “He [Brownback] was citing scripture — Matthew 7:16 — but he just called gay Swedes ‘fruits.’” The attempted demogogue illustrates Sharlet’s and Rolling Stone’s ignorance instead of showing Brownback’s supposed bigotry. The senator issued a statement that his quote “was in no way referring to sexual orientation,” but the damage from the derision filled article has been done.

A few commenters understood the gaffe, most piled in to condemn Rolling Stone, Sharlet and anything they felt like that didn’t fit their beliefs. Most had no awareness of who Sharlet is, or his body of work. They also seem to be unaware of the extensive body of research and concerns about dominionism, VAT, etc.
Jeff Sharlet responded with a  professional and clear comment under the post. (comment 26) 
Some members of Gay and Lesbian groups also had trouble understanding the gaffe and this is the Brownback statement.

After gay and lesbian advocacy groups denounced the comments last week, Brownback issued a statement Monday saying his quote “was in no way referring to sexual orientation.”

“While this biblical passage was pertinent to our overall conversation about faith and deeds, it apparently led the writer to believe I was making a joke,” said Brownback, a frequent critic of gay marriage who is pushing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

“I was not and would never do so with such a personal and sensitive issue,” Brownback said.

Sharlet took the time to do the following in his response to WorldMagblog:

For the record: When I saw that HRC, a gay rights group, had picked up on this, I called them right away and I said as much as I’ve said above. Then I wrote Brownback, too. I told him I’d contacted HRC, that I would tell anyone who asked the context of the remark, that I thought the world had a bit more of a sense of humor. I said that I fully understood that the remark was an inadvertent faux pas, which is what made it funny to me, and, apparently, awkward for him.This was well before Brownback made his public statement. Which means that his statement is a lie.

I’ve responded to this forum with openness and no name-calling. I hope you good Christian folk can do the same.

That didn’t happen, the apology came with caveats, and with few exceptions the snark continued. 
When we post and comment we want to be taken seriously.
We want our opinion to be respected.  
That can’t happen if we continue to behave in defensive and immature ways.
Meantime we can learn healthy social communication from a reporter willing to dialogue graciously with upset readers.

I suggest Mr. Earls read: When and how to apologize.