Comment on the Synchroblog Effort

If you're not aware of the Synchroblog effort, you can find it here:

http://btgproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/closing-and-reflecting-on-synchroblog.html

A gathering of bloggers are attempting to "bridge the gap" rending the Church apart over the issue of homosexuality. You can read some responses for yourself. I did, and found posts from a number of different perspectives. I didn't plan on posting on this topic, and won't in any exhaustive fashion, but I will venture a few observations.

First, I find it fascinating to observe the way in which language is couched in these exchanges. "Acceptance," "tolerance," "understanding," "diversity" - these are all common, agenda-driven catchwords today, used in ways that would befuddle educated people living only a century ago. Language is wielded as a weapon, oftentimes without the reading audience's knowledge. Language forms the terrain on which our battles are fought.

When I was a high school and college debater, it was the job of the first affirmative speaker to define the terms of the debate. It was boredom, listening to some earnest cheerleader define the precise meaning of the word "is," though Bill Clinton could probably have taken a pointer or two. The point is that words mean things. Words mean what the speaker wants them to mean, and if your opposition yields ground on words like "acceptance" and "tolerance," the battle is half over.

Those opposing increased sexual permissiveness need to make sure they are not fighting on disadvantageous terrain. Make sure you know what words mean, and - above all - don't be caught using politically-correct catchwords that originate from the very folks who advocate a major shift in Christian understanding about the nature of sexuality.

Second, I'm stumped as to why those who feel strongly that homosexuality is specifically prohibited by Scripture, common sense and two thousand years of Church history are so incredibly reluctant to state their position clearly. Of what are you afraid? I've read at least six blogs decrying the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin," and describing it as "clicheed," "shopworn" and "dated." What exactly is wrong with that phrase, save its clarity? My wife loves me, but doesn't love my temper. I love myself, but hate the sin I know infests my heart. What is wrong with that phrase? Just because mean, spiteful people have misused it in the past doesn't invalidate its perfectly sensible sentiment.

Third, it's remarkable to watch people selectively choose those items from Scripture and the life of Jesus that we like, while ignoring the rest. One pro-gay blogger doesn't want to hear anything more about the "five big Scriptures" (Romans or Leviticus, for example - she calls them "clobbers"); another conservative blogger seems to remember everything the Bible said about homosexuality, but nothing about being a pretentious jerk. I'm not going to delve into the whole debate over whether Leviticus is purely concerning itself with ritual law, or whether Paul was talking about pagan worship practices in his letter to the Romans. But I will say a little something about Jesus, if I may be so bold.

Jesus wasn't just a huggable teddy bear, "accepting" (whatever that term means to those who ride it like a horse) of anyone who came to Him. Jesus taught about the love and grace of God - yes! - and we're right to cherish those teachings and memorize them so they come to mind easily and carry us through tough times. But He was also demanding, stern and pointed. He offended people. As His ministry went on, the number of His followers dwindled. He was despised by many, and executed for ticking the wrong people off. He called the leading religious figures of His day a "brood of vipers." As His life hung in the balance (or so it was perceived), He refused to answer the pompous Herod a single word. He sparred with Pilate. He cleaned out the Temple with a whip of cords. In short, no one came to Jesus and stayed the same. He was a polarizing figure, and His Gospel calls each and every one of us to make some very hard choices. Again, I resort to Scripture:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to 'SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINT HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW,' and 'A MAN's ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matt 14:32-39, NASB)

Some pro-gay (I dislike the term, too, but don't know of a good substitute) bloggers grow weary of conservative (I prefer "orthodox") people comparing their sexual orientation to a bent for thieving, fornication, gossip and the like. They feel their "sexuality" (again, whatever that means, since the term is so loosely defined) in their core. Rightly, they don't like it when some arrogant jerk acts like they walked into Wal-Mart and purchased the gay "lifestyle." I completely understand their frustration. Sin is deeply seated in the human heart - a consequence of the Fall - and should never be treated lightly. I can no more choose to stop being a sinner on my own than I could choose to change my skin color. Sin cuts right down to the very core of our being. It's only by the power of God that it gets rooted out. We shouldn't act like it's as easy as changing socks.

That said, I cannot dismiss the witness of Scripture. As aggravating as it may be to those who want a more sexually permissive attitude among orthodox Christians, Scripture stands in the way of what we'd like orthodox attitudes about sex to be. It matters not a whit whether one believes she was born gay. I believe I was born with two or three things in my heart that are absolutely part of my make-up. Guess what? I have to give them up. I have no excuse in front of Jesus. It matters not whether it "feels" right to me to "allow" someone to love whomever they wish; my feelings are part of my sinful flesh, and must always yield to Scripture. When it comes to knowing what is right and wrong, neither my impression of myself nor my emotions (or mind, for that matter) can win out over Scripture. Scripture always wins.

At the root, I believe that much of the bruhaha over homosexuality - as critically important as a clear resolution to this "debate"* is for the Church - is based more on our complete unwillingness to part with our fleshly nature and exchange it for a spiritual one. We want Jesus as Lord, so long as He doesn't expect us to do hard, hard work. We want salvation, a sense of community with fellow believers, peace and joy, but not the sweat, the agony and the pain. We want our Jesus in a box.

Jesus is a gentleman, but He's a heck of a house guest. Oh, He'll ask you whether you want Him to come in, but once there, He expects you to arrange things as He wants them.

And that's where I think we have most of our troubles.

* Note: In the interest of making language clear, I use the word "debate" here only loosely. There is no debate whatsoever over what Scripture and the historical, orthodox Church teach about homosexuality; there is a debate only between those who want more sexual permissiveness and those who rely on the witness of Holy Scripture.