We who read our Bibles as if they mean something understand that one sexual sin included in Scripture is the sin of homosexual behavior. And alarm bells go off. People load their "weapons" and prepare to fire. "It's hate!" they shout. "Bigot!" they fire. Some might even threaten legal action or get together a committee to see about outlawing such hate speech.
Why? What about that statement is hate? Why does my view that the Bible clearly calls X a sin get labeled as "hate"? I didn't suggest doing anything about it. I'm not suggesting we need to rally and drive them from the streets or some such nonsense. I think that the best place someone in the sin of homosexual behavior to be would be in my church. I'm not in favor of excluding or tormenting them. Oh, I won't participate in their sin, but I wouldn't want to encourage a bank robber to rob banks or give a burglar pointers on breaking and entering while I consider their behaviors sin, too. They want me to give them what they want; I want to give them what they need. Why is it hate? (And why am I "hateful" but you're not hateful for hating me for it?)
Part of the reason that many classify it as hate, to be sure, is the shameful response some Christians have to the declaration that it is sin. "Yes! It's sin! Let's beat the devil out of them!" As if something like that can be done. Family and friends spurn friends and family because they're engaged in "that" sin while not doing the same for other, just as obvious sins. "Oh, you're sleeping with your girlfriend. Well, then, invite her over for dinner, too." "Oh, you cheated on your taxes? Well, come over and show me how." But it appears as if too many self-proclaimed Christians don't sin much themselves but are in the business of pulling specks out of other people's eyes and do so with vicious vigor. So that would be considered "hate" even by me. The goal of the Gospel is not to make bad people better; it's to make dead people alive. A more moral person will still end up in hell if he or she doesn't have a relationship with Christ. Better laws don't fix the problem.
So why do I continue to point out that the Bible clearly calls "that sin" a sin? (I put "that sin" in quotes because this isn't just about homosexual behavior. A lot of things fall in the "that sin" category.) I am not hoping to make them stop doing that. I am concerned that they might not be aware of the jeopardy they are in. Now, frankly, I can't save them from that jeopardy. I suppose, if they claim to be a Christian, I have an obligation to avoid them (1 Cor 5:9-13), but the goal there is restoration, not punishment or banishment (Gal 6:1). But my concern for those who don't know Christ is not to make them into better people. My concern is that they would come to know the One who actually can fix their problem, and I'm not talking here about "that sin"; I'm talking about all sin. And that is not hate. Unless "hoping for their very best" is classified as "hate." But, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. We live in a mixed up world.
8 comments:
So much of this seems to be related to the desire to minimize sin altogether.
Why is it that "I read that it's bad for you to eat red meat" may or may not be true, but it is not classified as "hate" while "I read that homosexual behavior is sin" is? You may be right. It may be about removing God's version of what is and is not good. "I want to do what I want to do." But I still don't get the "hate" label. "I think x is sin" doesn't necessarily qualify as hate, does it?
I completely agree that calling it hate is not appropriate. Words like hate, and evil, are now applied so frequently and with so little thought that the tendency is to minimize what hate and evil actually are. I think it also is related to redefining love to mean "enthusiastically and uncritically supporting/encouraging/endorsing whatever I choose to do." If that is love, then failing o do that must be hate.
If you look at the documented physical and mental health risks associated with homosexual sex, it seems like the loving response might be to steer someone away from it.
Unfortunately, it's just one more verbal cudgel wielded by folx who don't want anything to intrude on their desires.
What you say is true, but it's interesting to me because I'm not intruding on anyone's desires. I don't say, "Stop!" I don't demand better laws or better law enforcement to make them stop. I don't do anything to actually intrude.
It's also interesting to me that they are angered at me "intruding" on their desires which I'm not doing, but they are keen to force me to embrace their desires, by legal means if necessary. They are intruding on my beliefs and complaining that I'm intruding on their desires.
Apparently anything less than wholehearted endorsement of their every desire actually is intruding.
Anything less than my endorsement of their every desire. The reverse is not true. They have no compunction to endorse my beliefs or even allow me to hold them.
It’s almost like they have a double standard and aren’t tolerant.
Almost.
Post a Comment