Does 'Christian' mean 'homophobe'?
I’m getting concerned about labels again. And this time it’s a big problem. What with the arguments within the Anglican church over gay priests and the rights of gay people in general, and protests from Christians in the UK against the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), what face are we showing to the world? Is it really getting as bad as Ruth Gledhill is saying?
The whole SOR debate concerns me for a number of reasons.Tell anyone outside the Church that you’re a Christian these days, and they make one assumption about you. It is not that you are spiritual, or ascetically-minded, or dedicated to helping others, or opposed to the culture of consumerism. It is that you are a homophobe.
This worries me because I fear that she may be right. Does this incessant ranting from within the Church against gay people mean that the main impression the rest of the world has of us is simply that we’re “anti-gay”? It’s all too likely, because this stuff makes up such a huge proportion of what churches choose to campaign publically about. And yet there are so many more important things that we should be shouting about. Ruth Gledhill continues:
This year we are celebrating the bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade, a campaign led by evangelicals such as Clapham’s William Wilberforce. Would Wilberforce today be campaigning against the gays who go cruising for custom on Clapham Common? I suspect not. He would be campaigning still on behalf of the persecuted and oppressed – such as women forced into prostitution, or women stoned to death for adultery…
[Some] would take the line that in Christian doctrine, the practice of homosexuality is sinful. So is adultery by a heterosexual, gluttony, greed, envy, sloth. But there aren’t many Christians demanding that Christian restaurant owners be entitled to exemption from the principle that fat people be allowed to consume as many chips as they want with their dinner. Or that City workers who benefit from the annual bonus bonanza be forced to tithe. Further, not all Christians support traditional Christian doctrine on this matter, just as not all Catholics follow their Church’s teaching on birth control…
it is certainly the case that the regulations, when introduced to Britain as expected in April, should be framed in a way that they do not conflict with religious liberty. There is no harm in the churches campaigning on these grounds. But the regulations should not be opposed outright…“just as the followers of different faiths should be protected against unfair discrimination in the provision of goods and services, so too should people on account of their sexual orientation. It seems to be an unanswerable argument.”
I know that Christians genuinely disagree over whether homosexual practices are sinful or not. But I know of no theological reason (I have never heard a single one) to suggest that gay people per se are objectionable. That is, we have no justification at all as Christians to distinguish between people based purely on their sexual orientation. We have no mandate from God to single out gay people and treat them differently as a result – and every reason not to do so.
We, as Christians, must stop this objection to “gay rights” – we cannot with good conscience claim that gay people ought not to receive the same services from the Government and all other companies and organisations as straight people. And that’s all that the SORs are doing. Christians have always maintained that all human beings are created equal, and that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female”. Today, we must surely add “neither gay nor straight”.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
I really cant expand sufficiently on what you said but here I go trying anyway.
[Jenny S.] (URL)
01:38am on 15 January 2007
Here’s the short version:
It is appropriate to add that designation – provided that we recognize that the verse is (1) about the value of different people, and (2) the distinctions are distinction of being, not of behavior. A “Gay Christian” is one who has been redeemed by the blood of the lamb and renounced their sinful homosexual behavior, despite possible continued struggles with it. We are not one in Christ unless we are in Christ. While I recognize that you disagree with me and the historical Christian faith regarding homosexuality as sin, I wanted to affirm that someone is of no less value due to their previous sin, no matter if it was murder or lying.
Hammertime () (URL)
7:04pm on 15 January 2007
Nice to see you back here – sorry about the config problems that kept you (and presumably any other blogspot users) from commenting!
Your two points, I agree with totally. However, you go on to make a implication with which I disagree. You imply that a “gay Christian” is only one who does not sin sexually (whichever way we define that sin). This is surely not tenable. We do not demand this standard of perfection from any other Christian. We do not say that someone is “not a true Christian” or not “in Christ” because they eat too much, or gossip, or have lecherous thoughts of a heterosexual nature. Why, then, do we hold gay people to a higher standard than straight people? Would it not be better to say that a “gay Christian” is one who tries not to sin in any way – and who earnestly seeks to understand God’s will? You and I disagree about whether gay people should be able to live in committed, faithful, sexual relationships, without anathematising one another. If a gay person shares my view, does that render them “non-Christian”?
To look at this issue by comparing it with another similar issue: I do not believe it proper to be a Christian and to support wars, in general or in particular. You disagree with me. Surely the issue of killing human beings is (if anything) even more important than sexual matters. And yet we do not hear pacifists en masse declaring with such determination that the “militarist” is damned unless and until they repent their sin.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
08:21am on 16 January 2007
I could not disagree with you more. Your statement above is based on the false assumption that everyone outside the church considers homosexuality to be normal. I put it to you that quite the opposite is the case, and that the majority of people outside the church would consider homosexuality as ab-normal despite perhaps their acceptance of it.
I make no comment here about Gods grace and forgiveness covering the situation, as it might and would with any other “fallen” situation. I just take issue with your assertion.
Martin
10:05am on 31 January 2007
First off, welcome. Nice to have you around here.
Second, one thing about Bloglines is that it’s not always clear when I’m quoting what someone else wrote. As you’ll see above, that section is something I quoted from Ruth Gledhill. My point was not that I definitely agree with her (and remember, she’s a journalist so she often writes provocatively in any case) but that I fear that she might be right. There is a definite tendency for the Church to present itself to the world primarily as “against homosexuality”. Now, whether that is a correct stance or not in the abstract, it’s surely not the centre of the Gospel.
We should be making far more noise about justice and peace and climate change than we do about homosexuality. That we don’t only shows how far we are from truly sharing Jesus’ standards.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:16am on 31 January 2007