Nothing in Christianity requires an end, outlawing, or assault on homosexual perspectives. That may sound strange, so let's back off for a second to "safer ground". Nothing in Christianity requires that Christians put an end to any sin. We are not commanded to stop theft, end murder, or prevent covetousness. We are commanded to do that in ourselves, but the Bible is abundantly clear that Natural Man is a sinner by birth and will, repeatedly, violate God's laws. Nowhere are we commanded to force an end that. So while the Scriptures clearly put homosexual behavior in the "sin" category, Christians are not told to end sin in the world.
So why is it that those immersed in homosexual activity cannot tolerate those who believe it is wrong? Why is it that the Christian baker who is not comfortable providing a cake for a celebration of something he finds immoral is deserving of legal censure? Why is it that the Christian photographer who demurs on endorsing an event she cannot is not allowed to have that religious freedom even when she recommends an alternate photographer? You see, there was no coercion on the part of the photographer or the florist or the baker, but there is coercion from the other direction. The Christian business person would say, "While you are certainly free to engage in whatever sin you wish, please don't ask me to endorse it." The LGBTLMNOP1 side, on the other hand, would counter, "While I am certainly free to engage in whatever lifestyle I wish, you are not and must bend to my wishes here." And they'll do it by legal means or force of threats ... or more.
It's interesting. At least as far as biblical Christianity is concerned, there would be very few areas that a Christian's worldview would prevent him or her from dealing with homosexual (or any other sinning) consumers or employees. A waitress can serve a practicing homosexual without endorsing his lifestyle. A mechanic can fix a lesbian's car without celebrating her sexual choices. A store owner can hire someone who prefers both genders in the bedroom without agreeing with or celebrating his or her preferences. Most businesses have no connection between the choices a customer makes and approval of their sins by hiring or serving them. A very few exceptions exist.
But the objection is that "Gay is the new Black." They're "born that way" and, as such, deserve "special protection" and "equal rights" commensurate with their ... what ... sexual race? Comparisons are drawn between racial discrimination and personal religious restrictions against endorsing sexual sin. "These are the same," they tell us. That appears to be the argument. Does it work?
Many see similarities between race and orientation. Both represent minority status. Both are targets of prejudice. Both claim differential treatment -- they are treated differently because of their status. (I'm not sure about this one. Isn't everyone treated differently for some status or another?) Both face opposition. Now, look, if you continue down this path, you'd also have to include "Christian" in this category, so there must be something else included to differentiate. "Well," they will respond ("they" being all those on that side of the question), "it is something that is integral to that person, something they can't help, something they are." I'll set aside for the moment the simple fact that my Christianity is not something I can simply discard at will -- it is integral to me -- and examine this idea.
Is it, in fact, a part of their make-up? "Born that way" is the phrase, isn't it? Oddly enough, they have found no genetic links here. Science is striking out right and left trying to find that "cause" thing. They suggest a "tendency", a "sensitivity", a combination of nature and nurture along with proclivities that push them in that direction, but there is no "born that way" condition they can point to. Race, on the other hand, is precisely a matter of birth. Race is also morally neutral. There is no good or bad in black or white racial connections. No one is evil because they are Asian. Race is morally neutral; homosexual behavior is not. (Thus, to argue for "tolerance" meaning an agreement that "homosexual behavior is positive, right, good, and desirable both for those who engage in it and for the society in which they live" is a demand for the overthrow of biblical morality.) And, of course, for us, the Bible distinguishes between race (no moral codes) and homosexual behavior (defined as sin). No one is damned because they are Hispanic. On the other hand, Scripture is abundantly clear that homosexual behavior and sexual immorality puts a person in direct conflict with God (e.g., Eph 5:5; 1 Cor 6:9-10). These are significant, even definitional differences. You see, "born that way" doesn't work in any context. If there was some "gay gene", it would simply indicate a proclivity toward a sexual preference. Science gives us other "born that way" conditions such as addictive personalities, alcoholism, and even babies born without limbs. The way that they come into this world is not the issue. The issue is the choices they make in how to deal with those conditions. "Born that way" is not a reason to make choices that go along with that way. And it is the choices we make that are at issue here.
The arguments are that homosexuals deserve the same special rights that other minority races do. The arguments are that for me to hold to my religious beliefs and view that behavior as immoral would be the same thing as discriminating against a black man or a Jewish woman2. And there are even those who argue that Jesus would require it. It's the "What Would Jesus Do?" argument. "Jesus ate with sinners. Why would we contend with homosexuals?" Jesus ate with sinners, indeed, but when faced with a woman caught in adultery, He did not say, "Go and sin all you want." We do not (or, perhaps better, should not) condemn sinners (of all stripes). We warn them. I suppose this is the key difference. Love demands that we say, "God said the act is abominable -- worthy of judgment -- and, since I care about you, I thought it best to warn you." Jesus did associate with sinners. That's not the question at hand. Jesus did not endorse sinners. That is the collision of religion and "gay rights".
Make no mistake. This isn't about equal rights. This is about an assault on Christianity, an assault on biblical morality, an assault on marriage ... when it comes down to it, an assault on God. It is popular today to suggest that "the Church needs to change" as if the Church is a democracy governed by the people. It isn't. God was never elected; He is Sovereign. He gets to decide without respect to your preferences. So when He says, "This is right and that is wrong", your perceived rights aren't a consideration. As such, there will be a collision of religion and rights. Given history, it won't go well for religion. Given God's Sovereignty, it won't end well for those who stand for rights opposed to God's commands. I suppose I'll stand with the latter.
________
1 I know ... too many letters, and not the right ones. I just can't keep up with the changing acronym. You'll forgive me for that, I hope, and understand to what I'm referring even if the letters are not completely accurate.
2 Side question: What religion currently exists that commands, as part of its religious tenets, racism? We're constantly offered this argument. Does it actually exist? Despite arguments that racism was defended by Christians, you'll have a hard time demonstrating biblically that even their arguments held water and no one argued that it was biblically mandated. They argued that it was biblically admissible. I'd contend that it's wrong, but neither is it the same thing as a religious requirement. So what religion currently exists that commands racial discrimination? Is there one?
6 comments:
Stan,
I'd suggest that Islam as well as Shinto both are more supportive of racism than Christianity.
I've also seen a couple of news stories recently about parents being able to "design" their children on a genetic level. While it sounds great to be able to reduce or eliminate genetic defects and disease, how do you think the response will be when some couple decides that want design out the (probably mythical) "gay gene"?
I'm not familiar with Shinto, but I'm unaware of any religion, Islam included, that commands racism. I know some have used religious arguments to defend it, but I am not aware of any that command it. It is the difference between "I can" and "I must".
As for designing out the "gay gene", that ought to be interesting because, as you say, it's "probably mythical" (I would say that science has decided it's actually mythical). But it won't go over well.
As I said, that there are religions that are more supportive of racism than Christianity. It could be that the racism of the culture where the religion is has more racism, which is then tolerated/encouraged by the religion.
I agree that the "gay gene" is more than likely mythical, but you just know that there are folks out there who would design it out in a heartbeat if they had the chance. I suspect, that a surprising number of people in line to do so would be those on the left.
The "born this way" argument really starts breaking down when you start looking at other actions that are taken based on natural inclination. They say that many serial killers are born that way, sociopaths, and several other violent offenders. We still convict people of their actions when they act on those presumed predilections. As long as they don't act on those thoughts, they're not in trouble. I know of a guy who has been certified as a sociopath, but works a normal job and has a wife and kids. He merely chooses not to act on something he was born with.
I think Judaism might be the only one that even comes close to allowing for racism, but that's the original Israelites.
I thought of Judaism as well, but Judaism simply prohibited Jews from marrying non-Jews. They allowed conversion outside of the race and were even required to be hospitable to strangers and foreigners, so arguing that it was religious racism doesn't seem to work. Arguing that they tended to be racist because of their faith might, I suppose.
Post a Comment