Greetings. Every day I see some
sort of post or comment or article about homosexuality, with regard to its
moral rightness or wrongness, and the moral rightness or wrongness of weighing
in on the matter. Much of what is said is in little combox snipes, drive-by
commenting, little barbed sound bites tweeted with no substantive argument given,
whether pro or con. I do not like that. It is in my own unwritten code of
conduct that I shall try to refrain from such. Well, I violated my code of
conduct earlier today, and that prompted me to write something lengthy,
hopefully with substance and logic. That way, when I am tempted to give a snide
drive-by comment I can say to myself, “No, I have said my piece and I have
posted it in the place where the only people I actually care about (and not
just random strangers) read it. I need not enter the fray again.”
My
purpose in this little letter is not to argue about the morality or immorality of
homosexuality, but to argue for the morality of being able to argue for the
morality or immorality of homosexuality. Or I might title my argument “You Can’t
Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too.” And I figure I had better do this now because
I fear that before too long it will not only be considered immoral for me to
express my thoughts, but also illegal. By the way, when I use the word “argue”
or “argument” I am not referring to passionate verbal warfare. I am using those
words in the technical sense used when discussing logic or debate.
I shall
begin by honestly stating my presuppositions. I believe that the Christian
Bible is true and authoritative. Therefore, I believe that homosexual behavior
is sin (along with certain heterosexual, gastronomical, economical, etc. sins—I
am equal opportunity in reading the Bible). That is my position. Your position
may be that I am a bigot in saying this, and I would assume that you would
define bigotry as a moral evil. Or to put it another way, you believe that my
belief about homosexuality is a sin. Fine and good. We each believe something.
The problem arises when you claim that it is intolerant for a person to say
that something is a sin. Do you see the problem? Let me diagram it for you, in
case you can’t see it.
Statement A: x is a sin.
Statement B: It is a sin to say that something is
a sin.
Statement C: Saying Statement A is a sin.
Conclusion: Statement C is in violation of
Statement B. This amounts to saying that Statement B is itself a contradictory
nonsense statement.
All
I want you to see is that this accusatory knife cuts both ways. You can’t have
your cake and eat it, too. At this point I am not concerned with whether
Statements A or C are right or wrong. What I am stressing is that Statement B
is total rubbish and will carry no weight with me if you ever try to use it
against me in argument.
Now
let us get back to our specific point of conflict. I do not expect you to agree
with me on homosexuality because you do not agree with me on the
authoritativeness of the Bible. You do not believe that the Bible is true and
authoritative, so why should you care what it says about any number of issues?
I understand that. I wouldn’t necessarily believe something from a source that
I don’t consider authoritative, either. And I can’t get too upset if you call
me slanderous names like “bigot,” “moron,” “Neanderthal,” “hate-speaker,” etc.
After all, that Bible that I believe in promised me that I would be reviled for
Jesus’ name sake. Indeed, it even commands me to rejoice when this happens. But
being the sort of fellow who is more on the logical, bookish side, I get
frustrated when reason lies slain in the street and people can boldly proclaim
without any sense of irony, “I can’t tolerate intolerance,” and, “It is hateful
to denounce anybody or their behavior, and I denounce you,” thinking all the
while that you are the paragon of loving-kindness. The knife cuts both ways,
you see.
Let’s
summarize: If you declare that it is morally wrong for someone else to declare their
belief that something is morally wrong, you are being hypocritical and illogical.
If you can, like a certain CBS sportswriter, accuse the pastor of First Baptist
Church of Dallas of being “monstrous,” a “cretin,” and full of “hate-speech”,
then you are being hypocritical and illogical. If you can’t see words such as “monstrous”
and “cretin” as being hateful, then you are also illiterate. If you call me a hypocrite
then (guess what?) you are a hypocrite. This accusatory knife cuts both ways.
You can’t have your cake and it, too. I am not saying it is hypocritical to say
that my beliefs are wrong, but it is hypocritical to try to silence me.
But
let’s suppose for a moment that you are Post-modern. You don’t care if I say
that your statements are illogical because logic is just a false construct of
Modernity. There is no such thing as true Truth because all truths are equally
valid and there are no moral absolutes. Alrighty then. If there is no Truth,
then what you have to say doesn’t make any difference. For you to say that I am
wrong and that you are right is, by your own admission, not the truth. Or are
all truths equally valid? Then that means that nothing you or I say can be
considered hateful or untrue. You should be able to live and let live with us “gay-bashers.”
Oops, I guess you don’t believe that tenant of postmodernity either. How about
your truth that there are no moral absolutes? Well I guess that means that it
is not immoral to say that homosexuality is a sin because there is no such
thing as immorality!
Well,
I suppose that none of you truly embrace those postmodern tenants because when
somebody robs or rapes you, or proclaims something you like to be sin, you
suddenly believe in objective, moral truth. After all, you know that the violation
of your person was objectively, truly, wrong. Even Yoko Ono protests the parole
of her husband’s killer. She’s not singing “Attica” anymore.
So
let’s go back to the issue of authority for a moment. By what authority is my
speech to be declared hateful? Why are you right and I am wrong? Further, why
is it wrong for me to declare my wrong belief? It is not my opinion that
certain things are sins. This is the word of that which I and many others believe
to be authoritative. In other words, my authority is outside of myself. What
about you? Who is your authority? Who determines so dogmatically that what I
believe or say is wrong? Is it yourself? Why should I or anybody else bow
before you? I appeal to the One who created all, and in whom we all live and
move and have our being. I don’t have my being in you. Is it popular opinion that you appeal to? That
won’t work. Only a few states have voted to redefine marriage. Most of the eastern
world is anti-homosexuality, even considering it to be criminal. But of course
they are bigots, too. So now it is not only Christians that are morally
primitive. That disgrace belongs to Jews, Muslims, and Communists as well. That
just leaves the few, the righteous elite. Perhaps it is social progress that
you appeal to. Of course the majority of people in the past disagreed with you,
but that is because they were backwards. We are so much more sophisticated now.
Good luck with that argument. I guess that means nuclear bombs and world wars
are much better than tribal conflicts with spears. And please don’t tell me
that your authority is the opinion of Hollywood celebrities or I will just have
to check out of this conversation right now, having concluded that you have
gone quite insane.
So
what do you appeal to? Apparently to yourself, who is so righteous as to be
able to define right and wrong, or to your little group of like-minded
westerners, who are so righteous as to defame everybody else as bigoted
cavemen. At least, as I had said, my authority is outside of myself. That also
means that my righteousness is from outside myself. There is another who is
righteous enough to declare what is or is not sinful, and He also loves enough
to forgive those who are sinners, of whom I am the chief. All this leads to
another slice of cake that you cannot have and eat simultaneously. You can no
longer call me self-righteous in an accusatory manner without being guilty of
the same, for it is yourself that is so righteous as to accuse me.
Well,
in this little letter, I have made no effort to prove that the Bible is true or
that you should believe its testimony. What I have striven for is to convince
you of the hypocrisy of calling those like myself slanderous names like “bigot,”
and of the illogic of declaring in a public forum your belief that my belief ought not to be
allowed in a public forum.
As
a postscript, I have not, as I said, made any effort to convince you of the
Bible’s authority, only that I hold to it. But I would urge you to just read
it. And especially, do not dare to quote it to me, thinking you can score some
sort of rhetorical points, until you have actually read the whole thing. Oh, I
know it is fun to say, “Well, the Bible also says to stone so-and-so, and that
we shouldn’t wear polyester, etc.” But until you have read the whole book from
cover to cover and can tell me the difference between moral law based upon God’s
unchanging nature and the theocratic law given only to ancient Israel, and how
to know that difference, as well as other principles of textual interpretation,
do not quote the Bible to me.
Thank
you for your time.
