Answering a Critic

Recently a reader took me to task, essentially, for saying that homosexual behavior is a sin. This reader (was anonymous, so I'll call it a "he" just for ease of discussion) told me that homosexuality was just fine, that religion was bunk, and that calling it sin was "hate". The arguments he presented went something like this:

1. Someone who calls himself homosexual did something helpful (unrelated in any way to "homosexual"), so it must be okay.
2. The Bible is flawed, archaic, outdated, and pretty much useless.
3. Good and bad are determined by "your heart".
4. You have no right to declare that some people are not worthy and you are.
5. It is hate to call it sin.

I would point out, at the start, that the arguments are, almost entirely, not rational or reasonable. That is they are assertions, not evidence or arguments. An "argument" would be an assertion with reasons given that the assertion is true. The only evidence or reason offered in this set of assertions was "Someone who was a homosexual did something good." How this demonstrates that any of the assertions are true is beyond me. I only point this out because I think you will find in the vast majority of cases that the objections offered are not thought out, but "felt". But it might be helpful to consider some of the ideas because I'm pretty sure you've heard most, if not all of them.

Skipping the first (silly) assertion, we have to examine the claim that our beliefs, based on the Bible, are based on a flawed, archaic, outdated, useless standard. Is this true? We can examine the reliability of the Bible with some reasonable certainty. While the original documents are no longer extant, over 6,000 documents for the New Testament written in Greek, some dating back to the 2nd century AD, still exist. Comparing these documents to themselves and the 21,000 others in other languages gives us something along the order of 99.5% textually pure. Further, among the possible misprints or differences in manuscripts, a reasonable examination of the disagreements leaves us with a question of 1% of anything of any consequence. Further, internal evidence (such as the claims of a certain authorship to a certain text) suggests that much of the Bible was actually written by eyewitnesses. The significance of such a claim is that eyewitnesses are subject to contradiction by other eyewitnesses, so that what remains is likely reliable. External evidence is equally remarkable. Historical events listed in the Bible have repeatedly been confirmed by archaeology even in cases when they were originally sure the Bible was wrong. More interesting are such things as the prophecies made far in advance and then borne out much later in history as happening as predicted. The very fact that the Bible was written by some 20 or so different authors over a 4,000 year period with a non-contradicting and a coherent result testifies to something remarkable. No, all evidence indicates that the Bible is reliable, both textually and historically, and, as such, divinely inspired. Note: I found it somewhat amusing that, despite my critic's claim that the Bible is flawed and useless, he also opted to suggest he knew something about what Jesus would think and to quote or refer to the Bible to support his view. Isn't that a problem?)

Having demonstrated that it is not irrational to believe the Bible, how about the assertion that we determine right and wrong by "our hearts"? Well, that is problematic at its core. If morality is up to the individual "heart", and my heart says something is wrong while your heart says it isn't, who wins? You see, if it is "in the heart", then no moral code can be applied to everyone. In this condition, morality is relative and I can be perfectly right in saying "X is evil" while you deny it. Logically, of course, this can't stand very long, which is why there are arguments over it. Either there is no right and wrong, or there is. If not, no one can say I'm immoral in my views. If there is, there must be a reliable and authoritative source to make the claim. Oh, and that would be the Bible! Relative morality is, at its core, a nonsensical concept. (Moral relativism, by the way, is a highly dangerous place for the relativist to stand. If Bob believes it is immoral to kill but Bill believes it is okay, Bob is in danger of being terminated and cannot claim it is wrong.)

Is it true that we have no right to declare some worthy and not others? This accusation is rampant, but completely fails to see the point. Christianity does not claim "some worthy and not others". Never. Christianity claims none are worthy. That, in fact, is the primary problem Christianity aims to solve. Repeatedly we are told "All have sinned" and "there is none who does good" and the like. What are we to do? So Christianity doesn't apply a moral bandaid. "Be good and you'll make it." Christianity applies a solution in the form of Christ crucified and resurrected. We are never worthy. We are only saved by God's unmerited favor on the basis of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. I guess, then, the answer to the original question is "Yes! We don't have the right to declare some worthy and not others. But we don't."

Is it hate? This is my last question, but it is by far the most common objection. Is it hate? The question rarely gets addressed because the questions get crossed. "It's not hate because we believe homosexual behavior is sin." "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" And the question about hate is forgotten. There are, then, two questions that must be distinct. First, is it or is it not sin? Second, is it or is it not hate to say it is sin? The first is answered by the reliability of the Bible. The second, however, does not depend on the first. It depends, instead, on what the person making the claim that it is sin actually believes. Imagine, if you will, two friends. One is completely convinced that there is a bomb in other's car. Regardless of the truth of the conviction, what would "hate" look like? If he is convinced there is a bomb, would it be hateful to tell his friend or to fail to tell his friend? Clearly the loving thing to do is to warn the friend. And clearly it wouldn't matter about the accuracy of the conviction. The question at this point is about what is loving or hateful, and it should be clear that a person convinced that Action X is going to bring dire consequences to someone they care about should prompt them to speak up, not remain silent. Now, a bomb in the car can kill, but unrepented sin can damn. And the Bible is quite clear that the one who practices homosexual behavior cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10). There is no more dire consequence than that.

It may be that the Bible is not something to be trusted. It may be that good and bad are determined internally. It may be that we are completely wrong in our accepting the biblical claim that this particular behavior is sin. But if we are convinced that such an act is sin, it is not hate to warn people. And if it is true that the Bible is unreliable, that morality is purely relative, and that we are wrong in calling the behavior sin (you can see that these three are all tied together), then nothing is moral or immoral except to any given individual, no one is worthy or unworthy, righteous or unrighteous, good or bad, and the whole exercise of telling us we're evil for saying so is an exercise in contradiction. But, I don't anticipate the critics will be seeing that as rational anytime soon.