Denny Burk wrote a piece on the Four stages of "evangelical" affirmation of gay marriage which was interesting and helpful. Rosaria Butterfield offered one more. I think her observation was key and important for our day.
Burk says there are more than 4 stages and was just highlighting the arc, so his 4 stages started with 1) opposing gay marriage, then 2) opposing taking a stand on the question, then 3) affirming gay marriage, and finally 4) attacking biblical marriage proponents. Burk was pointing out that the process begins with agreement -- "Yes, the Bible is clear on the topic and gay marriage isn't biblical" -- and ends with two groups that were once united and are now at war. Rosaria wanted to add a step between 1 and 2. She argues that the step between "It's wrong!" and "Let's not talk about it" is the buy-in to the "born that way" concept. She uses the terms "how" and "who". That is, "Gay is who I am" rather than "how I am." You see, "who I am" is morally neutral. "By birth" carries with it no moral weight. When Christians buy that, they are on the way to the rest of it.
This is part of the normalization process, process by which we come to think of the unusual as the normal. If we're told that people are "born that way" enough times, then we begin to think of it as normal. You don't have to show it; you don't have to prove it. We just accept it. In fact, many actually argue, "God made me this way" with the consequent "so it must be good." And most Christians are buying into this thinking simply because we've been told it so many times. Now, the truth is I have no position on "born that way". It may be so and it may not. That's because to me it's irrelevant. I don't know the subtleties of genetics (and neither does anyone else) nor hormones nor the effects of upbringing and ... all that stuff, but I do know that if X is a sin (by God's definition, the One authorized to call something "sin") and I'm "born that way" to do it, I do not have the option of saying, "Because I'm born that way, I can and should do it" thinking that God will agree. Most males, for instance, are "born that way" when it comes to lust. So? The command is clear -- don't lust. So most males need to choose not to do it rather than tossing God out the window and saying, "He made me this way, so it's good."
When we buy into defining ourselves by a sin condition and calling it normal and, therefore, good, we've left behind the Author of good and will find ourselves wallowing in places God told us not to go. On this topic, it is the difference between "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior". One is a "nature"; the other is a choice. The choice remains a sin and buying the argument that it is purely nature puts the onus on God to either repent of His mistake in making a person that way or change His instructions ... both of which make Him no longer God.
7 comments:
I've never agreed with the "born this way" argument, but like you, I believe it is a moot point. They are discovering that some people are born with the tendencies of a serial killer. But just because they were born that way, doesn't make their murders okay. We are all born with a sin nature, but that doesn't excuse us from responsibility for our actions. Bottom line, if God says something is a sin, then natural or not, it's still a sin.
I'd agree that we're all "born that way" with regard to some sin or another, but that doesn't give us license to live that way.
Exactly (both David and Craig). They say, for instance, that some people are born with tendencies toward addictive behaviors. The "born that way" argument would say, "Indulge it!" Any moral person would say otherwise.
"Born that way/That's just the way I am"...I've always found the argument to be among the cheapest of rationalizations. To find that people in authority dare give it the time of day is even worse. But it does open opportunities for my own inclinations. Hmmmm. What can I get away with??
Re the "who v how", this is why the language we use is so important, and why Satan insists that we adopt the new meanings of old words. If there really was such a thing as a "transgender", for example, then (your point not withstanding) they deserve consideration. So, when we acquiesce to the language, we forfeit the argument. Of course we know that no one is born an Islamophobe, homophobe, bigot, misogynist, etc, etc, and so on, so it's ok to be evil to these types.
Exactly. And who gets to decide which is "who" and which is "how"?
"He who controls the language controls the masses."
This is proving true by the day.
Post a Comment