The headline reads "Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God." And the link said "fox-sports-fires-craig-james-homophobic-comments". Apparently former NFL and politician, Craig James, made some comments during a campaign debate in Texas that those who engage in homosexual behavior "have to answer to the Lord for their actions." Now, on the face of it you'd have to ask, "So?" I mean, all humans will have to give an answer to the Lord for their actions (Rom 14:12). And, look, whether or not you believe that folks like that are "born that way", what anyone does with it is a choice. Those choices are accountable to God. So what's the big deal?
Well, of course, it's that Mr. James is "homophobic". Now, I could follow down that road like so many others about religious freedom and its erosion. I'm not willing to go there in this case. No one said Mr. James couldn't hold his view. They just said that his view would not reflect well on their organization. They didn't say he couldn't express his views. They simply said, "He couldn’t say those things here." Now, if Fox Sports finds a biblical view offensive, you may or may not want to choose a different channel on which to watch your sports, but this isn't a case of restriction of religious liberty. So I'm not climbing on that "losing our religious freedoms" bandwagon here. What I'm looking at is his "homophobia".
Now, "homophobia" is actually a fairly new word. It showed up at the end of the decade of the 1960's. And it is an odd construction, because, while "phobia" typically indicates "fear", the aim of this word appears to be more at "antipathy". Byrne Fone says it's "condemnation, loathing, fear, and proscription of homosexual behavior."1 So, first, is this an accurate term? Well, I'd say the "phobia" -- fear -- isn't (typically) an accurate depiction, although I suppose there are some who are phobic about the homosexual behaviors. As for Fone's version, I suppose there are those who would outlaw the behavior ("proscription") and loathe the behavior. But I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Craig James was doing any of that. What is reasonable to assume is that Mr. James was condemning the behavior (which, by the way, is not the same thing as condemning the person doing the behavior). In that sense and in that sense alone, sticking with Fone's definition, I think it could be said that his remarks were "homophobic".
But, wait. If homophobia is "condemnation, loathing, fear, and proscription of homosexual behavior", what is the equivalent of "condemnation, loathing, fear, and proscription" of Christian views? Christophobia? Christianphobia? Whatever term you wish to coin, is it not the same thing that is being condemned in Christians? That is, there are people in this country -- a loud group of people if not a majority -- who look at Christians with condemnation, loathing, and fear, and some who would even like to proscribe it -- make it illegal. At least the parts they don't like. (Which, by the way, is the same thing you see from those who are "homophobic". No one protests "one man loving another", for instance, because that's a good thing ... as long as you don't define "love" as "sex", which is a mistake. No, it's the sexual component that is the problem.)
Is it a step too far to classify their reaction as "phobic" in the same sense that they're using it about Christians? Not only would I suggest it is not, but I would also suggest it is biblical. Paul wrote, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Rom 8:7). It would stand to reason, then, that to the extent that we reflect God to a world whose mind is set on the flesh, we will encounter their hostility. Jesus told His disciples, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19). John wrote, "Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you" (1 John 3:13). We bring them good news -- the Gospel -- and they consider it "folly" and "a stumbling block" (1 Cor 1:18-24). It isn't, then, mere opinion that those outside of Christ would be "Christianophobic" or whatever word you'd care to design. It is a given.
Homophobia, then, is a fairly new word, while the hatred of the world for Christ and His people is thousands of years old and hatred for God is from the Fall. So which is the newer phobia?
The only question that remains is whether or not they will own the truth of it. They decry our condemnation of the act of sex between two people of the same gender (or two people of any gender who aren't married) and call it "anti-gay". The truth is that the Bible condemns the act, so we must also. The question is will they admit to their condemnation, something they consider to be despicable, of biblical Christianity? Are they going to own up to being in the same condemning, loathing, fearful, and possibly even proscriptive boat here? Or will they hold a double standard? "When you do it it's evil, but when we do the very same thing, it's good." Because there is no difference at the bottom line, except, that a biblical worldview would require agreement with God and urge others for their own benefit to agree and their anti-Christian sentiments are not intended for the benefit of Christians. That is, the Christian side, at its core, is love and the other is hate. And it may not be the one that is most often expressed as hate.
________
1 Fone, Byrne. Homophobia: A History Metropolitan/Henry Holt NY. 2000 p.3
3 comments:
I think it is fairly clear that this constitutes a double standard of the type they have always decried in us. They will NOT own up to the comparison and WILL insist that their condemnation of Christians is justified.
For some time I have been using Yahoo as my home page and search engine. I never took much notice of the articles until recently and it seems they have a policy of "something gay, every day". (Or at least most days.)
In any case, I've taken to leaving comments which have attracted all sorts of examples of this double standard. I really can't believe they can't see it themselves. I also can't believe they'd dare accuse the Christian as the hateful side of the issue. But there it is. Their fear and loathing knows no bounds.
It really does seem to come up in multiple places.
"You evil Christians are so judgmental and intolerant" which is both judgmental and intolerant.
On a forum discussing a post I wrote about a discussion with an atheist they sat around and complained, "These people only want to sit around and pat each other on the back" where everyone sat around and patted each other on the back for the complaint.
The double standard seems quite obviously to be there. I suppose all we can do is make sure we don't do the same.
I think that perhaps the word would be "homophobicphobe". But the more accurate word would probably be "Theophobicphobe", for the hatred, judgement and condemnation of the "homophobe" is a byproduct of but one of the battles being waged in man's war against God.
Post a Comment