Multiple interconnected issues: Actually my heart went out to this couple. I wanted to make sure they did not feel condemned by me, so I went smiling to them and shook hands. In fact, I think because of this, they approach me first, rather than the Pastor. However since it was not my Church I referred them to her, knowing she would speak the truth in love. Jesus is our role model here (see John 8:1-11). I am not about to cast the first stone, I have nothing to be self righteous about. I have my own struggles in the area of sexuality, and perhaps because of this I feel compassion for all who struggle with theirs. But right here I have a problem, because I also feel compassion for those whose same sex attractions are unwanted, and want out. And I cannot please both sides. If I affirm the rights of the last group to seek help to change, I am in deep trouble with the militants in the Gay community who regard such people as betrayers of the cause. What I am saying is that you cannot get into same sex issues without, at the same time also getting into a whole host of related issues. It's something of a Pandora's box. We need to be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. And I need to say a few things before I respond to the presenting issue here. Please bear with me as I do this.
Feeling trapped by our desires: I have heard some say they feel trapped by their same sex attractions. I have struggled with unwanted sexual desires myself, so I know at least something about that. Perhaps it is for this reason that I feel a particularly deep compassion for this second group mentioned above. I read an article recently entitled “Cheated by the Affirming Church,” it's Googleable. In it the author asks “Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice?” He goes on to say “My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me.” That it is bad for him is a whole subject in and of itself. But Christians have always maintained that when God says “no” it is for our provision and protection. What a coincidence that my doing everything my heart desires is bad for me :-). You can Google “homosexuality physical emotional health” and check it out for yourself. You will of course get a mixture of views, and you do need to know that both sides accuse the other of using bias in their studies. In his book “The Marketing of evil,” David Kupelian documents the use of falsification and extreme bias at the beginning of the politically correct propaganda war. I can thoroughly recommend this book, it's an eye opener! In terms of damage, the physical and emotional health risks and the emotional pain are far greater than can be explained as resulting from guilt trips by bigoted Christians!
The right or wrong encouragement? But back to my point, the author of the article who wanted to remain anonymous (I wonder why!) further says “I wanted to believe the message of the affirming church—that I was born this way, that I couldn't be happy without accepting my homosexuality, and that I couldn't change.” He emphasizes that wanting to believe it was indeed the problem. He tells of the years he spend in bondage to lust. He says “Over and over, I would quit, shamed beyond measure. But the message that I should embrace my identity as a 'gay Christian' continued to entice me, and I would return to my self-made prison.” The very last thing that he needed was to be told to embrace it. He likens it to the physician who tells her patient to embrace his cancer, or to telling the alcoholic to celebrate his alcoholism “It's who you are brother!” We do need to respect the alcoholic as a person. The Christian has every reason to do this, because we know that the alcoholic, the homosexual etc., no less than we are, are made in the image of God, and therefore are precious souls worthy of dignity. We Christians must do much more than tolerate such people, we must afford them love and dignity. We can, and must, do this without withholding life giving truth to those who will listen!
Is disagreement the same as hate? We Christians are accused of hating homosexuals for doing nothing more than disagreeing with them, but would it be hate or compassion to tell the alcoholic to embrace his identity as a drunk? If disagreement is the same as hate, then the proponents of political correctness certainly hate us Conservatives! Clearly disagreement and hate can coexist, but they are not synonymous. On the other hand, if as we Christians claim it is the truth (spoken in love) that sets us free, would it be loving or unloving to withhold the truth from those who are in denial? J. Budzsizewski sums up well what I want to say here, he says “Real compassion aught to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl to prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner, give the alcoholic a drink, send the girl to the abortionist and tell the kid just to give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”
The need for a working principle. One more thing, I said earlier that there are a whole bunch of associated issues that we (at least I) cannot ignore. I also called the same sex issue a presenting issue. It's a symptom issue if you like, that is very much tied in with the “values neutral” lie (see June 3rd blog). So the one more thing is that there is a core issue which we must address first, and that is to discover a way, a principle if you like, of how to deal with all of these related issues. We can then apply the principle to the same sex marriage question. The task then involves coming up with a working principle that is fair and tolerant, but one which looks for the greatest good, rather than getting hung up and deciding general rules/laws that apply to all, but are based only on trying to solve only the especially difficult special cases.
Laws based on the exception rather than the rule, make bad laws. And this last thing, getting hung up on the especially difficult special cases, is what we have done. In particular we have made laws that deal with special cases, but leave normal cases in chaos. The implications for the rule (as opposed to the exception) are ignored. But laws based on difficult exceptions are notoriously bad laws, which in turn lead to even worse laws. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, I do not think that you can say that what we currently have in Canada is a good thing. It all started with the pleading of special cases but lead ultimately to the non-existence of any law at all on this issue. So one day before delivery abortion is not illegal, but one day after delivery it is. How much sense does that make? And what a mockery of the original rational which argued the special cases of rape and mother's health, morphing to questions of viability, and/or of the place in time where the fetus feels pain, etc., etc. Similarly the making bad laws on issues like euthanasia and assisted suicide, likewise arose by special pleading in Scandinavian countries. The weakening of the law there has lead there to widespread abuse that can be perpetrated with relative impunity. No, laws changed to respond to particularly difficult cases have left defenseless those the original laws were intended to protect.
Principle: To prohibit, permit or promote? So what shall we propose? Well there are basically three (and only three) positions an authority (government, Church etc.) can take on a moral issue. Firstly they can prohibit it, secondly they can permit it, or thirdly they can promote it. Let's look at them, homosexuality was prohibited in the past, and like prohibition (of alcohol) in the states, it does not work. People do it anyway, and decriminalizing homosexuality was, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Secondly we can permit it. In a free society there are a multitude of harmful things that we permit, and rightly so. So we permit smoking, and we permit alcohol. What we must not do, is to promote these things. Why? Well there is a reason for the law that says we must put warnings on cigarette packages? It is because the behavior is harmful. It is true that some people who smoke outlive some who do not, but these special cases are not, and should not be taken as a reason to revoke the law. The permitting part of the trio of positions has to do with tolerance, sensitivity and freedom. The problem with the whole politically correct agenda, is that is it not satisfied with the second option, it wants us all to say that homosexual and promiscuous heterosexual behaviour is harmless, healthy and wholesome. But the research does not show this. Even by using biased samples those with the politically correct agenda have not been able to overthrow the evidence that those engaged in such activities are at much higher risk of all sorts of heath concerns, have more Psychological problems, higher suicide rates etc., etc. In short the "harmless, healthy and wholesome" bit is a lie!
Applying this to the same sex marriage question. So to come to the special case. I would ask first of all, if loving, monogamous, faithful long term relationships are the rule or the exception to the rule among homosexuals. If you don't know the answer Google does! Check it out for yourself! They are indeed the exception not the rule. Next, “who is it hurting?” I think it is hurts us all to promote it. I think it is hurts those who might not otherwise get involved, if it were not promoted as a good thing. I think it hurts the homosexual him (her) self, as he or she indulges in the risks of it all. I think it hurts society, as it has to deal with the cost and the consequences of this highly risky behaviour. And lastly it ultimately hurts me, as I worry that the highly seductive nature of the in your face everywhere present propaganda will impact and lead my grandchildren and others I love, astray. The promotion of it encourages them to experiment with highly addictive and destructive behaviour. You see there is absolutely no doubt in my mind firstly, that the propaganda is being very, very successful, and secondly that is harmful in many, many ways. Last but by no means least, I fear that it will seduce many away from the comfort and peace and joy and hope of a close relationship that by experience, I know they can have with God. It is true that He will welcome the lost and repentant sheep home at any time, and that heaven will rejoice if and when it happens, but I, and I believe He, would spare them and you, all the pain. Please note that this is not "do as I say, not as I do." This is saying "Please do not do what I did, because as the school or hard knocks has taught me, it will lead you into endless pain and problems.
In a nutshell. So with respect to the trio prohibition, permission or promotion, I do not advocate the prohibition of homosexual activity, I do advocate that we tolerate and permit homosexual activity. But when you ask me if I am willing to advocate and encourage the promotion of a behaviour that has been shown to be medically fraught with risk, I am sorry but the answer is no. And I do not think the government or the Church should advocate promotion of medical and Psychological risky behaviour either. And to give the bottom line answer to the question, that is exactly what making same sex marriage legal, or affirming it in the Church, does. Does this show lack of compassion? As I have already said, true compassion speaks the truth in love. My primary role model says it well. To the woman caught in the very act of adultery He said “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” (John 8:11). He also provides the way to escape, for He also said "If the Son shall set you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).
No comments:
Post a Comment