The Sad, Sad Ethic of Modern Man - Part 2

As I mentioned in the previous post, the "MAIN and ONLY real argument given for justifying homosexual behavior" basically boils down to "I feel like doing this". Oh, sure, it is piled high with lots of psychological or politically correct jargon, but in the end that is what they say. Usually we are given a tear-jerking anecdotal story about someone who realized that they were just "wired differently" and how they had to hide it all their lives. I am not in any way denying that people have different inclinations. Science has shown that some people are more laid back while others are more excitable, some have higher metabolisms and can eat huge amounts of food and stay thin while others can't, some can drink responsibly while others will become addicted easily. Tall, short, white, black, smart, not-so-smart, blind, deaf, ugly, beautiful - we play the hand that we are dealt. I do not find it hard to believe that there may be some people in which the usual programming of attraction is askew in some way. In spite of all this, though, God gives certain commands and expects them to be obeyed. Here is where the whole "I feel like it" morals fall down.

If we are going to commit someone to permanent "gayness" and justify it morally by saying "you were made this way", why is this the only thing that we would apply this rule to? I'm not joking and I'm not being flippant. If we are going to talk about "natural" we need to define the term. There are two definitions that we could use: (1) "natural" means that which is observed when looking around at people - average or normative or empirical, or (2) natural means what we were generally designed to do by our creator (and commanded to do) - correct, right. The Bible uses natural in both senses so even as Christians we need to be careful. In 1 Corinthians, for instance, it is used in the first sense ("the natural man does not understand the things of the spirit") and it is condemned as sinful, worldly, and the opposite of good and spiritual. In Romans 1 it is used in the second sense, where those people who supressed the knowledge of God are "given over" to do that which is "not natural".

So, if "doing what is natural" (in the first sense) makes something good (or at least not subject to condemnation or correction), what is natural? Let's change the aformentioned story about Ray Bolz, who left his wife and kids for another guy. He said "I'd denied it ever since I was a kid, ... I became a Christian, I thought that was the way to deal with this and I prayed hard and tried for 30-some years and then at the end, I was just going, 'I'm still gay. I know I am.' And I just got to the place where I couldn't take it anymore — when I was going through all this darkness, I thought, 'Just end this.'" Okay. Make one small change to the story and see how it flies. Let's say someone named Fred, who is straight, leaves his wife and kids for another woman. He says "I'd denied it ever since I was a kid, ... I became a Christian, I thought that was the way to deal with this and I prayed hard and tried for 30-some years and then at the end, I was just going, 'I'm still just not a monogamous person - I know I need to have sex with lots of women.' And I just got to the place where I couldn't take it anymore — when I was going through all this darkness, I thought, 'Just end this.'" Just like Ray, Fred's feelings are keeping him in "darkness", but of course we have no sympathy for Fred. Nope. He's a jerk, but Ray is a suffering saint. WHY? Why condemn Fred? The poor guy was SUFFERING with just one woman. Weep for him! He's a victim - a victim of God! What, you don't feel sorry for Fred? You must be promiscaphobic! (Hey, a new word!) No, we rightly condemn Fred, and therefore Ray, who's justification is EXACTLY THE SAME, should also be condemned. Not just for violating his vows and indirectly spitting in the face of the millions of people who work hard to NOT be unfaithful, including fantasizing and flirting with others, whatever gender they may be.

Let's take this example further. What about other moral issues? Can they all be dismissed? "You can't condemn me for beating that guy up! I was always under stress until I realized that I am just an angry person - it's the way I'm built. Now I am free to serve Jesus with a whole heart now that I know it's okay to scream obscenities at strangers who look at me funny" or, "I was born a kleptomaniac and now I know that my stealing is okay! Praise God!". Sounds stupid? Consider that the guy who crashed the Exxon Valdez and spilled all that oil up by Alaska was drunk, and successfully contested his being fired for driving a tanker drunk under the Americans with Disabilities Act because drunkenness was a DISABILITY. So my examples are not far out at all. Hey, If it's okay to violate scripture in one area, simply because you feel like it, there is NO reason why you can't do it for other reasons.

Okay, so what is the answer you will get if you make the kinds of arguments I am making? The guaranteed response will be a sob story. "You just don't understand! I have suffered my whole life denying who I am! You are so mean!" Seriously, tell that to the person who tries to give up alcoholism because his conviction from scripture is that it is wrong. Tell that to the person trying to stay away from internet porn who has a lifetime habit but wants to break the cycle. Tell that to the person whose spouse has Alzheimers or some sort of injury and they faithfully stay with them, caring for them, and loving them as their vows specified. Would they rather be free? Do some of them miss sexual intimacy or an easy life? Yes, but that is what makes someone a good person vs a bad person. Choices. The Bible talks about false teachers coming in "whose god is their appetite" and "whose end is destruction". Lord save us from these phonies whose gospel message is "let's sing feel-good songs about Jesus and do whatever we feel like doing in the meantime because the Bible doesn't mean what it says".

The Sad, Sad Ethic of Modern Man

I was very saddened to hear recently of two different Christian music artists who had "come out". One young female singer was 'hooking up' with other girls while on tour singing Christian music, and another left his wife and kids to move in with his boyfriend. The latter was quoted giving the usual blather about how he was "living a lie" and how free he was now that he was not denying who he was. In fact, he was working on another "Christian" album, which was going to include a song that basically asked 'who are you to tell me who I can marry?'. Vows? Superfluous. Loyalty to family? What lie was he living? Evidently that he was a person of personal integrity. Yecch!

I'm sorry, but this is stupid. Nobody with *any* integrity can justify this and claim to be following the Word of God. Puhleeeze! It is a very sad thing, but it exposes a larger problem that is afflicting our culture - a completely bankrupt way to determine morality and values that affects our society (and our churches) more than you might think. Many years back, now, a song from a major movie was on the charts for a while titled "you light up my life". This particular song was a decent example of the simple, sweet sounding love song that is so prevalent today, but one line from the song always bothered me (even more so because the singer was a well known Christian that should have known better). The line was "it can't be wrong if it feels so right". (Incidentally it is similar to another line in a the popular hymn which gives having "a feeling like this" as proof that God loves us. Uggh.)

Anyway, this ethic is now the moral imperative of our day, and it is the MAIN and ONLY real argument given for justifying homosexual behavior. Really. Other than that LaVey guy who occasionally makes it into the news by measuring finger lengths and other silly studies, what other justification is given? I believe that the American Psychological Association (I may have the name wrong) used to consider it a pathology to be treated. At some point, a certain number of their members called for a vote, and it went from a pathology to something natural. By a vote? Instead of trying to help people deal with it they all switched to "you were born this way" and "no treatment works". Now we have at least five genders in the world (including one created by surgery) and the culture war has moved on to polygamy, polyamory, bisexuality, body modification, same-sex marraige, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Homosexuality? Nah, if you think it might be wrong you are a combination of a "flat earther/global warming denier" and a "KKK member filled with hate". Now someone with any problems along that line is herded away from anyone who might try to help them have victory over it and toward a big crowd of cheering supporters who can pat them on the back and give them the sad news that they can never change "but that's okay - celebrate it instead!"

The gospel, on the other hand, is a message of hope. Read Romans 7 and then 8. Look at the transition from Paul's frustration through justification and then hope. Chapter 8 is filled with hope, including hope for those in bondage to sin and habituated, frustrating difficulties. We are saved "to hope". We don't have to sin. Now we have Christians falling prey to the deterministic fatality of the world and calling it "freedom". How heartbreaking! How do they deal with passages like Romans 1 ("God gave them over", "not natural", "dishonor themselves") and the lists of those who are not in heaven ()? Evidently they are told that Romans 1 refers to those who were born heterosexual and *switched* contrary to that nature to doing homosexual acts, and that those who are born homosexual are not being referred to, because they are not "abandoning" their natural function. This is what passes for an argument in this post-modernist world. We must weep for these people, whose teachers "promise them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption."

So what is wrong with this ethic? Next time....