Dangerous Methods: The Homosexuality Discussion in The Cayman Islands
Saying that the discussion on homosexuality is a live issue is an understatement. With the definition of sexuality (and marriage) targeted by a relentless barrage of advocacy for the gay lifestyle, the virtual landscape of human civilization and society is sought to be rewritten. The questions of: what is a marriage, what is a family, what constitutes normal and healthy sexual activity, are no longer axiomatic - and any worldview (championed by the Judeo/Christianity) that supports those once undoubted empirically adequate understandings concerning sex (sexual identity), marriage and family, quintessential to human flourishing, are at best disregarded as archaic.
Last year I launched what I called a "pre-emptive strike" on the raging discussion on homosexuality (see here). Up until that point, at least in my estimation, the topic had not ventured into the marketplace of discussion in the Cayman Islands, with any meaningfulness or sense of urgency, even among those in the gay community and/or their advocates. Its been relatively quiet, though pass these beautiful shores a global cultural shift is occuring, which has homosexuality being engrafted into normalcy, It's been quiet - until now.
Something New?
Local journalist Monica Walton adds to the discussion: not a new narrative; not a necessarily untrue narrative; but certainly a predictable narrative. When the discussion involves homosexuality/LGBT v. Christianity/the Church - homosexuality advocates, pundits, celebrities, athletes, philanthropist and others in the US and other places seem to read from the same script, which paints a familiar scene. That is, the backwards, narrow-minded, hypocritical, point of reference is an ancient book, outmoded thinking and inept church vs. the disenfranchised, discriminated against, loved denied, ostracized homosexuals. It is an easy table to set for public consumption, with disappointing and imperceptibly dangerous results. The above video is an example of the talking points that are usually disseminated:
- The church, at best, is caricatured as being capable of restating our position on homosexuality, albeit from that ancient book, without being able or shown to be able to make plausible that position in today's culture (Torrance Bob / 1:10-2:34). Pastor Torrance Bobb was biblically accurate in all his responses, loving in tone, while communicating the "newness of life promised through hearing the word of God." But this type of response may fall on opposing ears as mere prescriptivism.
- Then there are the red herring questions, like that on "beard shaving", found in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:27). The objective, I'm presuming, was to determine continuity of the practice (beard shaving) and the abhorring of homosexuality. As it stands, not shaving ones beard is not an imperative for Christians today. So in asking to "reconcile", the implied question is – “does this mean homosexuality should be omitted as a don't as well?” Other such red herrings tossed out for comparison were Sabbath keeping (see here), tattoos and eating pork.
The Bible's coherent rejection of homoerotic behavior is very clear - with the New Testament (e.g. Romans 1) in perfect chorus with Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus). For revisionist these days, it's not so much about revising the scriptures to be in favor of homosexuality, as trying to show or create a canyon size gap between the biblical world and today's world. For example, suggesting that the type of homosexuality being described in the Bible is somehow different than the love-filled, committed and consensual relationships being advocated for today. This argument of course, among other things, is made from silence, as the scriptures tone focuses more on the act (encompassing all sorts of homosexuality) and not the emotional intent behind the act or the varied cultural versions that exist then or now. The OT and NT reconciliation argument, in this case, ultimately attempts to suggest that not even Christians can live or are living coherently to the requirements in the scriptures.
- More often Christians are portrayed as surly, hypocritical or even unbiblical (Pastor Dave Kelly and his congregant / 2:35-3:59). Similar to Pastor Bobb, Pastor Kelly quoted scripture accurately, but it is the "how" he answered, that I feel is being illuminated.
It is as much how you say; as it is
what you say. Surly and aggressive, usually begets ridicule and well, surly and aggressive. Pastor Kelly's "congregant" doesn't help matters, as he provides the sound-bite of
all sound-bites, muddying the waters further. By the way, the
biblical/Christian position is that two women engaging in homosexual activity,
is as much a sin as two men (Rom. 1:26-27). It is the inclusion of such obvious
arrant contradictions that concern me - but more so, solidify the
methodology I feel that is in use.
- The coup de grace had to be the juxtaposition of the two pastors and the misinformed congregant's statements, with that of the young homosexual's John (not real name) accurate, but incomplete (making it inaccurate) revamp of what Christianity is - "God loves us", his words (5:07-5:32).
You almost miss the sleight of hand, of what the comparison suggests - it's as if to say "we're not saying Christianity is the problem per se, just Christian's version of it." My heart aches for John because a) I can't imagine what it's like - the fear, isolation, loneliness, confusion, anger, all experienced because of something that feels so inextricably tied to your identity and b) it seems he knows of no one to embrace him in love and tell him of what God's redemptive measures He took to reconcile man to himself. Loving him and engaging him in friendship even in the midst of potential lifelong disagreement.
Dangerous Methods!
It is suggested (though not singularly attributed) that this collision of world-views intensified over last few decades with the "discovery of AIDS in the early 80's and its reported prevalence within the homosexual community, and that the level of disdain for the lifestyle was increased substantially, even more so than it already was in the Church" - with this a touch of fear was added as an accelerant. By and large Christians/Churches responded to the epidemic horribly. The response was one of bigotry, hatred, and fearful ignorance instead of compassion, mercy and charity. I feel a remnant of that knee-jerk reaction, remains today, certainly in the Church cultures of the Caribbean. Couple this with an unbalanced fervor to which some Churches/Christians oppose other sexual sins (e.g. adultery, fornication) presents a messager unfit to engage in the discussion positing what it feels is healthy sexual practices. Whats needed is a biblically informed, gospel motivated, realignment of the head, heart and hands as it pertains to how we engage sexuality, not just homosexuality.
A wise man once said "we should never judge a philosophy based on its abuse." Threats of violence, denigration, aggression, unkindness etc. are not synonymous with the core beliefs and the proper outworking of the Christian faith. So to charge Christianity or the Bible as a cause for the hostility aimed at any group is an incorrect judgment, and a misplaced accusation. The Christian is to endure persecution, not dish it out (Matt. 5:44). With that said, the Church cannot escape culpability in the aggressive denunciation homosexuals experience in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. So, in a sense, the advocacy, like that of Ms. Walton's video, and ardent denunciation of any anti-homosexual rhetoric, as push back against such abuses are understandable, and quite frankly justified. And while the Church forgot that we were engaging fellow image-bearers of God, I exhort my homosexual friends not to make the same mistake.
It is suggested (though not singularly attributed) that this collision of world-views intensified over last few decades with the "discovery of AIDS in the early 80's and its reported prevalence within the homosexual community, and that the level of disdain for the lifestyle was increased substantially, even more so than it already was in the Church" - with this a touch of fear was added as an accelerant. By and large Christians/Churches responded to the epidemic horribly. The response was one of bigotry, hatred, and fearful ignorance instead of compassion, mercy and charity. I feel a remnant of that knee-jerk reaction, remains today, certainly in the Church cultures of the Caribbean. Couple this with an unbalanced fervor to which some Churches/Christians oppose other sexual sins (e.g. adultery, fornication) presents a messager unfit to engage in the discussion positing what it feels is healthy sexual practices. Whats needed is a biblically informed, gospel motivated, realignment of the head, heart and hands as it pertains to how we engage sexuality, not just homosexuality.
A wise man once said "we should never judge a philosophy based on its abuse." Threats of violence, denigration, aggression, unkindness etc. are not synonymous with the core beliefs and the proper outworking of the Christian faith. So to charge Christianity or the Bible as a cause for the hostility aimed at any group is an incorrect judgment, and a misplaced accusation. The Christian is to endure persecution, not dish it out (Matt. 5:44). With that said, the Church cannot escape culpability in the aggressive denunciation homosexuals experience in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. So, in a sense, the advocacy, like that of Ms. Walton's video, and ardent denunciation of any anti-homosexual rhetoric, as push back against such abuses are understandable, and quite frankly justified. And while the Church forgot that we were engaging fellow image-bearers of God, I exhort my homosexual friends not to make the same mistake.
The Freedom to Disagree
At the core of this discussion on methodology is communication. I find it quite ironic, that in an advanced social media age - where people around the globe are more connected than at any time in our history, civil communication between parties with opposing points of view is rare. More often the comment-boxes and tweets have become cost effective alternatives to flights, car journeys or phone calls we would have to make with the sole purpose of giving our neighbor a black eye. So how do we disagree without disrespecting our own world-view and more importantly those we disagree with? Are we truly engaging in tolerance when we disagree by any means?
The brick and mortar of the campaign for homosexual normalcy is and has been tolerance - tolerance " the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with." At the very least, the aspiration is to establish a "live and let live" temperament in the discussion and societal ethos concerning homosexuality. As oppose to the, more rampant, harsh at times cruel contention and ostracizing that is the usual reaction gays have been known to encounter. This is a reasonable request, one that should be extended to any viable worldview - to be engaged in a peaceful, respectful and patient manner.
The brick and mortar of the campaign for homosexual normalcy is and has been tolerance - tolerance " the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with." At the very least, the aspiration is to establish a "live and let live" temperament in the discussion and societal ethos concerning homosexuality. As oppose to the, more rampant, harsh at times cruel contention and ostracizing that is the usual reaction gays have been known to encounter. This is a reasonable request, one that should be extended to any viable worldview - to be engaged in a peaceful, respectful and patient manner.
My fear however, which I alluded to earlier, is that my homosexual friends in denouncing denigrating and demeaning anti-homosexual rhetoric, have also (inadvertently though it maybe) denounced the freedom of others to properly disagree with their lifestyle in public discourse. In the struggle for normalcy, it is perceived, that the mood adopted by some, if not most, homosexuals, advocates and even corporations/businesses is to hoard the right to tolerance - "you must tolerate us; we need not tolerate you."And/or taking on the more aggressive tone of "agree, or else!" Seeming to say that nothing in opposition can or should be uttered, however gracious or measured. We've seen it, for the athlete, entertainer or any public figure who dears to disagree (properly disagree) with homosexuality is met with thunderous backlash and even threat of financial crippling - lost of endorsements, support and even employment.
I wonder if my homosexual friends realize the tectonic shift that their movement has made? When those with a bent towards traditional sexual practices and thought, and who make it known, are demeaned and denigrated, ostracized and labeled backwards, ignorant, close-minded, bigoted. I wonder if they've noticed the cracks in their mortar? That tolerance cannot be exercised nor is it really needed, if everyone agrees. Whats more, that the societal conformity they're hoping for is seemingly being compelled through the suppression of contrary thought. The inference of tolerance should lead us to value the person over our "opinion" however inextricable we feel that our opinion is to our ontology "being." So is it intolerance masquerading as tolerance? Because a true measure of a worldview's viability is its ability to stand under scrutiny; not its ability to suppress it.
So, my homosexual friend, my friend advocating for the LGBTQ community, can we talk? Can we engage peacefully, respectfully, honestly, patiently? Can I be respected and not have my intellect or faith attacked if I can't present an articulate existentially satisfying basis for my disagreeing with your lifestyle? Can I ask you to try to approach the table of thought with fresh ears, without presupposition? May I disagree with you and love you at the same time - for its a core ethic of my worldview? Will you heed the warning, to not replicate the same mistakes that I/we (Christians) made, of not being gracious, loving and patient in an attempt understand you? I sincerely hope so.
Thanks to Ms. Walton for her efforts, and her contribution to the discussion. Thank you for bravely engaging the culture.
Grace and peace!
Referenced:
Comments
Post a Comment