Recently, Gordon College sought
exemption from an executive order banning employment discrimination against
LBGT persons. The reason is that Gordon
College is a Christian institution which asks its employees to abstain from
extra-marital sex of any kind and from homosexual sex. Why would Gordon College do this? Because, apparently, the people who run it
actually believe in what the Bible proclaims.
I
find that one of the fundamental problems people have is they don’t truly
understand what orthodox Christianity means.
What they know is the caricature they’ve been handed by many in the media
and movies. For instance, I checked the
Huffington Post story and comments and found that virtually all commenters came
from the same position – namely that any kind of discrimination is absolutely
intolerable. As one commenter stated “No
one should be able to discriminate no matter what!” The same commenter later stated that because of
the school’s “bigotry” all its accreditation should be revoked.
Christian
orthodoxy doesn’t demand that everyone toe the Christian line. As someone most people would label a conservative,
evangelical Christian, I have no animus against anyone who wants to practice
their homosexuality. I think they’re
engaging in sin, end of story. If the
government allows people to engage in homosexual behavior, so be it. I’m not against associating with
homosexuals. I’m not against eating a
meal with homosexuals, or sitting next to a homosexual on a plane, or bus, or
at the movie theater, or in a restaurant.
I’m fine with a homosexual cutting my hair, doing my taxes, operating on
my knee, or whatever else needs to happen in life. If I tried to avoid doing anything that meant
engaging with other sinners, I’d have to find a cave and never see another human
being. In fact, even then, I’d still be
there, so I’d still be engaging with myself, a sinner saved only by the grace
of God.
Anyone
who is a true Christian does not seek to harm homosexuals by ostracizing them
or otherwise doing things meant to be spiteful, mean, or hateful. What I want is for homosexuals, like any other sinners, to come to an
understanding of just how fantastic the grace of God is and how spectacular
life can be when one gives in to the gospel message that Jesus has paid the
price for those sins through his death, burial, and resurrection.
The
problem is the gospel message demands we confront our sins. We must look into the mirror of our soul and
see how vile and contemptible we appear when measured against the holiness of
God. As a Christian who struggles with
my own temptations and my own indulgences, I seek forgiveness every day for my
failures. The beauty, however, is I know
God is willing and able to forgive, and, has, in fact, forgiven me for all
time.
Generally
bigotry means that someone has an irrational hatred of another person. First, no Christian should hate
homosexuals. I don’t. Second, my position on homosexuality is
simply that it is sinful – not that homosexuals are somehow grotesque monsters
on whom I should heap outrage. Third,
while non-Christians may not comprehend why I believe what I believe, is it too
much to ask for the same consideration you seek from me? The Huffington Post commenters seemed almost
of one accord that anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is automatically
some kind of bigot and deserves to be
scorned and treated as some sort of grotesque monster. The irony, of course, is that this is the
self-same crime of which I am accused for holding my belief – namely that I treat
people badly based on what they are.
I
am a Christian. It defines me. If homosexuals claim their sexual orientation
defines them, so be it. However, I would
ask this question: why does that self-definition matter more than mine? How do you logically and reasonably claim as
much? This is what is happening right
now with the kind of language used by so many of the Huffington Post readers. I say we both have a right to live by our
definitions, but we have to come to an understanding that accounts for
both. Isn’t that part of what it means
to have religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of association in our
country?
When
I was a child there were certain things you could say that ended an argument,
liar, for instance. But often it wasn’t
that the other person lied, it was just that I didn’t agree with them. We all knew, though, that liars didn’t
deserve any respect. So you just yelled
liar loud enough until the other person gave up. The word bigot has the same quality about
it. It’s the kind of word people use because
it’s an easy way to avoid engaging in meaningful discussion about this
issue. You win because the other guy is
a bigot.
If
you don’t want to talk with guys like me because you simply want to make a one
word argument, then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. However, understand what you are ultimately
doing. You are saying that homosexuals
deserve a hearing based on their self-definition of who they are, but I don’t.
The
irony is that I’m not claiming homosexuals don’t deserve to be heard, nor am I
saying homosexuals deserve to be treated badly.
The opposite, however, is unfortunately not true. Those who disagree with my view, if the
comments I read are representative, don’t think I deserve to be heard and do
think I deserve to be treated badly.
Ultimately,
the difference of opinion I have with so many who would claim that I’m a bigot
is that my worldview and theirs are utterly different. This
clash of worldviews means that we simply will not see things the same way. Isn’t that, however, precisely the kind of
thing our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was designed to protect?
I
offer this solution. I will respect your
right to be heard and will treat you considerately and you will do the same for
me. We can, as one old lawyer taught me
many years ago, agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Shouldn’t that be the simple answer here?
No comments:
Post a Comment