What Is Really Going On?
By Regis Nicoll|Published Date: January 29, 2010
Last December, the District of Columbia council voted (11-2) to make D.C. the sixth place in the union to legalize same-sex “marriage.”
Our church is the first and only traditional black church in the District of Columbia to perform same-sex unions.
Revs. Dennis and Christine Wiley |
Currently, same-sex couples can be legally married in five states: New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa.
The opposing votes were cast because, according to the two dissenting members, the majority of their constituents were against the measure. Those votes may have been small in number, but they represent a problem that is deep and wide for the gay lobby: popular opinion.
Against the handful of victories for gay “marriage” in recent years, are referenda defeats in 31 states. In fact, in every instance where the novelty of same-sex “marriage” has been put “to the people” in a public ballot, it has been voted down. So what accounts for this negative public attitude toward gay “marriage?”
A couple of inner-city pastors believe they have it figured out.
Homophobia?
Dennis and Christine Wiley are the African-American pastors of a congregation they describe as a “traditional black church” in the DC area. Theirs is also the “first and only” black church in the nation’s capital to perform same-sex unions—extraordinary, given that African-Americans are one the most resistant groups to same-sex “marriage.”
As the Wiley’s see it, the sentiment toward gays in the black community is the result of “homophobia” which, according to the Anti-Defamation League, is “the hatred or fear of homosexuals.”
That’s a serious charge. And notice how it frames the debate by placing opposing voices, from the outset, on the bottom of the social-moral spectrum. If you disagree with the gay agenda, you are irrational, ignorant or hateful. It is a shop-worn script that I am well familiar with.
In discussions with members of the gay community over the years, I have been told, on more than one occasion, that my views are nothing but hatred, bigotry, or ignorance. Recently, one suggested that my views were a challenge to the very existence of gays; as if the defense of traditional marriage is tantamount to promoting the genocide of the gay community. Ridiculous.
Playing fast and loose with the homophobia card may generate a quick, emotional pop, but it is a sure sign of desperation. When you can’t advance your position through rational discourse, you play the victim of misanthropes targeting you for the endangered list.
Bibliolatry?
What accounts for the putative homophobia in the African-American community? According to Wiley and Wiley, it is the over-emphasis on “what the Bible says.” In their “innocent” (read: naïve) approach to Scripture, religious blacks in particular and Christian America in general have succumbed to “’bibliolatry’—the practice of worshiping the Bible rather than worshiping God.”
No—unlike Muslims who do treat their Book as an object of worship, Christians worship the Author of theirs by taking seriously the words He has written and applying them in their lives.
Then, arguing for their privileged viewpoint, the pastors claim objectivity for their take on Scripture, while charging that the understandings of traditionalists have been unwittingly shaped by cultural influences. Well, that has things quite turned around—as it is the traditionalist who searches for the plain meaning of the text within its cultural setting, and the gay advocate who imposes culture, modern culture, upon Scripture with “personal experience” as a moral touchstone.
Personal experience
I’ve been lectured a number of times by professed Christians for not properly considering the “personal experiences” of gays. I’ve responded that those experiences may be genuine, intense, and heart-felt, but they are not a reliable guide to the truth, for them or the general population.
If we depended on our experiences for truth, we would still think the earth flat in a geocentric cosmos where time and space are absolute. It is only because we have discovered laws transcending personal experience that we know that reality is something radically different than what our experiences suggest.
That goes for moral truth as well. The experiences of one person convince him that homosexuality is intrinsic to his personhood, while the experiences of another convince him that it is not. A woman named Kim is of the latter:
As a person who was once in a same sex relationship for many years, I know first hand how people can be fooled to think that this is the will of God for their life… I was unable to stop the lifestyle that I was living no matter how hard I tried, but when I really started to seek God for deliverance through prayer and His Word, I was able to stop seeing myself as someone who was gay and started to see myself as God created me to be. I have only been delivered from homosexuality for 13 years and in that time God has given me a loving husband and 2 beautiful sons, but as the years go by I see more and more how God has given me everything back that I was so willing to give up.
Like the 5’4”, 130-pound NFL wannabe who pursues a career that is incompatible with his physical make-up, Kim realized that there was a mismatch between her desire and God’s design. She also realized that God’s design has a purpose, a purpose that her misaligned lifestyle could never fulfill. Lacking the complementary physiology of a matched-pair, she could but mimic and transmogrify a sexual act intended for the life-welcoming union between a man and woman.
Love and inclusion
Another criticism leveled against traditional marriage is that it is counter to Jesus’s teaching on love and inclusion. Well, no it’s not.
The foremost Object of our love once said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Among His commands is the prohibition of sex outside of marriage. And as He gave no expressed or implied allowance for same-sex “marriage” but, instead, affirmed the institution as originally designed, His prohibition includes entertaining homosexual desires and engaging in homosexual behavior, regardless of a “committed” relationship, church “blessing,” or civil union.
As to loving others—if I believe that my neighbor’s lifestyle is not in keeping with God’s best for him, and I keep silent, I am not loving him as Jesus loved me.
But what about Jesus’s warning, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged?” Contrary to popular sentiment, Jesus was not suggesting that “love is never having to say you’re sinning.” Rather, as made clear in the full passage, He was warning the disciples to, first, examine their own moral conduct, so that they could discern the truth about themselves and their neighbors.
Far from telling His followers to be silent about moral judgments, Jesus said, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.” Jarring words falling on modern ears, but no more so than what He had to say about inclusion.
Jesus’s comforting invitation, “Come to me, all you who are burdened, and I will give you rest,” includes a tough condition: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me.” Elsewhere, Jesus stipulated that the Christian life requires denying self, carrying our cross, and following Him.
The yoke is a symbol of submission and obedience. In wearing it, we yield to his instruction, direction and correction. Our cross is a symbol of death. In carrying it, we crucify those attitudes, desires and behaviors that are out-of-sync with God’s Word and His created order.
Thus, while it is true that Jesus’s invitation is inclusive, extended to all of humanity, his selection is not. Of the numerous examples that could be mentioned, the parable of the wedding banquet is particularly pertinent here.
It was a lavish event, complete with wedding clothes for all attendees. But after the invitations are sent out, astonishingly, all of the guests decline to attend, prompting the king to extend his invitation to the streets and alleyways. The banquet hall is filled, the festivities underway, when the king notices a man dressed in his own apparel. Incensed over the man’s impropriety, the king has him tossed out into the darkness, “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
The story has haunting similarities to the present discussion: God has invited all of us to his heavenly banquet, providing us everything we need for abundant life: His Word, His commands, His laws. Yet some of us will come to Him, saying, “Yes, Lord, I know all about your laws and commands but, y’see, I had these personal experiences...”
Jesus’ final word on the matter, contrary to the pastors Wiley, is that “many are called, but few are chosen.” For those intent on affirming self, spurning their cross, and following their desires, it is an unsettling word; especially, when an obdurate public refuses to go along with their fantasy.
Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. His "All Things Examined" column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as a men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at: centurion51@aol.com.
Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or Prison Fellowship. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content. |
