Articles
A Difficult Conversation
More than one person has asked me about the challenge of having conversations on homosexuality after the mass shooting recently in Orlando. I touched on this briefly last week, but we will address it further. One brother wrote:
"But the whole 'healing' process has taken on an attitude of 'join with our gay brothers and sisters' and show them love. Well, they deserve to be shown love. Whether they are gay or not gay ... But I can't ‘join’ with them and pretend that their chosen lifestyle is not a problem for me. I love them and feel concern for their eternal destiny, for their soul, for their relationship with God. And I am sure that Jesus wants us to reach out to them … and get to know them and be a Godly representation of Christ in their life.
But how do I do that when the rainbow has become a symbol of their lifestyle and everyone around us has just embraced this rainbow symbol on the t-shirts they are selling to raise money for victims, and on the banners and on the advertisements. It's everywhere. It is often said, 'we must show them we stand with them, that we should not give in to hate, that love conquers hate, that these people deserve to be able to live their life in a manner that they are comfortable with … and loving the people that they chose to be with.' As always, there is some truth and some falsehoods in these statements. But if you disagree with any of it, you are labeled a hater, or a bigot, or even worse, 'narrow minded' … It’s very hard. It’s hard to talk about, it’s hard to explain. It’s hard not to feel guilty for trying to be a godly person and show love and concern without giving the impression that ‘we are all ok, that they are gay, and that’s fine' … How does a thoughtful Christian respond when both the murderer and the murdered and injured all have rebelled against God in such a public way, even denouncing those who do not believe God to be sovereign in our lives? How do we show God’s love without appearing to be just like some religious people who don’t really care about their souls but mostly appear to care about being seen as tolerant, popular, accepted by everyone else? Any ideas?"
One can easily sense the stress this brother feels because we all feel it. And we feel it because our present cultural atmosphere promotes tolerance – no, celebration – of the “lifestyle” choices of others. This is not accidental; this is precisely how Satan inhibits godly people from opposing and exposing the dark underbelly of sin (cf. Eph 5:11). Homosexuality has been effectively framed as a benign “lifestyle choice,” as harmless as choosing caffeine-free over regular or Ford over Chevy.
Let’s note some things about moral conversations in our culture:
1. The deck is stacked against those who take definite moral views in general. This is the fallout from decades of moral ambiguity that judgmentally criticizes judgments and intolerantly insists on tolerance.
2. For a long time the left has used a “slash and burn” tactic in dealing with dissension. In response to the inquiring brother I noted:
“The pro-gay crowd is going to make hay with this incident. They will pressure government and society in general to threaten and punish any kind of disparaging comments no matter how balanced and moral. This is the way the left operates, whether the subject is racism or sexual liberty or anything else. Demonize, name-call, impugn motives, scream, curse … anything to shut down dialog that they don’t want taking place … marginalize, even criminalize the moral people. Silence the opposition. Make rational discussion impossible.”
3. The Bible has been ridiculed as antiquated, out-of-touch, even worse the cause of hatred, bigotry and small-mindedness many believe is characteristic of believers. To say, “I believe _____________ is wrong because the Bible says …” is often a conversation ender. The liberal, skeptical, “enlightened” sort deems such an observation beneath consideration.
So, how do we handle controversial conversations in such an atmosphere?
1. Last week I suggested restraint in the use of social media. Sometimes responses are not well thought out. Lack inflection leads to misunderstandings. The conversation often gets off-track or highjacked by someone with their own cockeyed agenda.
2. There is practically no way to oppose homosexuality without being labeled hateful. Paul counsels us to “walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Col 4:5-6). Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro are aggressive, brilliant apologists, but their weapons are carnal. We must wade into these polluted swamps with purity and humility and trust that God will accomplish His designs through fragile clay pots (2 Cor 4:7; cf. 1 Pet 2:15-16; 3:15).
3. This conversation is most effective one-on-one. Crowds don’t encourage dispassionate discussions. The best chance to sway people’s thoughts is by sharing a balanced view with someone who is not looking to defend himself in front of his peers.
4. We must also be prepared to discuss the cultural, psychological and moral ramifications of homosexuality. Yes, it is spiritual corruption that separates from God. But it is also a behavior rife with disease and infidelity and a high rate of drug use and suicide. What is lost in the rhetoric is the detrimental impact homosexuality has on its adherents. But it is not politically correct to discuss this because it has been marketed as harmless.
Christians are being asked to wrestle more seriously with the question: “What am I willing to suffer to stand with Christ?” Many still cling to the notion that there is a residual goodness in America, a sensibility that can be restored if only we had the chance to be heard. Pardon me, but my skepticism is showing. There are individuals we may yet reach, but I’m not optimistic about a wholesale cultural turnabout. You can’t beat the atheistic/Darwinist/hedonist message into impressionable young minds for decades without altering the social construct, especially when spiritual perspective has been effectively banned from the public square.
Last week, when Dustin Johnson played the last seven holes of the U.S. Open not knowing if he would be assessed a one shot penalty at the end of the round, TV commentator Paul Azinger said: “He must control the controllable and forget about the rest.” Good advice. Dustin did just that and won. We can focus on one person at a time; offer loving, logical arguments from Scripture and common sense; pray for spiritual renewal; accept persecution with contentment. There’s no magic formula here. We, like Abraham, endure life in a foreign land and wait “for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
