The Fundamentalist and Homosexuality

The modern Fundamental Church has a real tiger by the tail when it comes to gay rights, marriage, and homosexuality in general. On one hand, there is the belief or thought that being gay is nothing more than a life style choice. To say it a different way, it is a free will choice. Then if being gay is a choice, it is no different than someone choosing to smoke, drink, or any other vice that one might chose or that the Church might deem as an offense or a sin before God. If however, that is not the case and being gay is more of natural phenomena or genetics then Fundamentalist have a different problem on their hands. My intent is not to debate the validity of either view, but to look at the problem that each presents to the Fundamentalist.

The first problem in this two part essay is that of choice, which in the eyes of Fundamentalist makes it a sin before God. Depending on the Church or the denomination they will certainly quote a whole set of Scriptures and for the most part Scripture may be the only basis for their belief. This then makes it purely a religious concern. An atheists or agnostics certainly would not see it as an offense against God. To further complicate the matter not all Christian communities agree on the issue. Some denominations are going as far as to allow homosexual priests and clergy. So, clearly this is not a simple black and white issue even within the Christian community at large.

When it comes to religion, America is one of the most pluralistic nations in the world. You can find everything from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and everything in between. All of these will have varying beliefs concerning homosexuality. As a pluralistic society whose religious view or belief should override everyone else’s concerning this or anything else for that matter? Can it be as simple as a democratic vote or is it a bit more complicated?

We can look to the 17^th century British philosopher John Locke (1634-1704) for some insight on how to deal with this issue. For Locke, the government not the Church was not given the care of men’s souls. This was left solely in the hands of the individual. He would argue that the political leaders in charge should not limit the practice of another religious group for a very simple reason; the other group might be in charge one day and do the same. For example, what if this nation became predominately Wiccans or Druids? The Fundamentalist would not want their religious beliefs or practices prohibited by these groups.

It is also important to keep in mind, as Locke would argue, the only power that the government has is force. You cannot force someone to choose a religion even with the point of the sword. Under the threat of death, everyone would choose the religion only to save their life and not because they believed it. What makes this even more complicated is that everyone believes that they have the one and only true religion, which is a very good reason to keep the Church and State separate.

If one religious group manages to force its religious laws onto the land via the government, are we not repeating the history of intolerance and violence that went on in Europe? There was a period in time as the leadership changed in Europe so did the national religion. Many times this ushered in an era of Christian persecution against other Christians and kept the cycle of violence and hatred going. This leads us back to Locke and his view of the role of government. The government’s only concerns should be matters of defense, property, liberty, and health.

Part of the problem is that the religious Fundamentalist can only see good in whatever they do. Much like Charlemagne walking a town through the baptismal or to the gallows, it was for the good of individual and to serve the will of God. Again, I must agree with Locke, in that religion must be a passive force in the world so that conversion is genuine and any benefits or condemnations are gained voluntarily.

The Fundamentalist should reconsider their approach to this issue. If it is a choice and a sin, it would seem that a genuine conversion is what is needed to solve the problem. This would require action on their part to create disciples in a loving and non-violent way, but instead they have chosen to use the rule of law to enact their beliefs. All the while, some of their most vocal leaders are caught in the very sin that they have been preaching against. Obviously, some soul searching needs to occur.

So, if we come back to the issue of the freedom to choose, then we must allow these people the right to choose how they wish to live. As a society we must not step on or hinder their belief or their pursuit of happiness because another group disagrees with that belief based solely on a religious view. To do otherwise would place one belief system over another and risk creating a society of hate and prejudice. We should seek to build a society where we live peaceably with open and free discussion on the things that we disagree about and strengthen those that we do agree on.

Abortion is NOT the Only Issue

We are getting close to another political season, if it ever really ends. This will cause various groups to start mounting their offenses and building defenses for their causes. In response to this political fire storm I have to ask; can a single issue be the only criterion for evaluating and selecting a political candidate? To be more specific, should abortion be the only issue by which a person selects a candidate? It should be a thought provoking notion. For many Christians it is the only basis for selecting a person who is running for public office. I first must ask, does that really make sense given all of the social, economical, political, and military problems that the country faces? Is it so big of an issue that we must forget all other issues and make no progress on these other problems? Does making abortion the only issue cause more problems and maybe even worsen the abortion issue? These are but a few of the questions that a person must answer or else they deceive themselves into believing that there are no other problems in the world today, which is why the answer is a resounding no. No, abortion must not be the only issue.

Let me explain why abortion must not be the only issue. First, we must go back to the Reagen era when the Christian Right and the Moral Majority crawled in bed with the Republican party. At the time, I thought that this was a good thing, but I am now convinced that it has been devastating to the Church and the Kingdom work. What has transpired over time is that the Republican party has built a base of loyal voters based primarily on a single issue, though a few others can be thrown in to form a type of political trinity being made up of abortion, homosexuality, and the Ten Commandments.

This new political trinity combined with some mass consumerism now leads the church at large. The politics of man are quickly becoming the new theology and doctrines of the church. With little effort, you can get a large portion of a church to attend an anti-abortion rally. These people will be willing to scream and shout obscenities to get their voices heard or work tirelessly for the cause. Yet, make a call for volunteers to help the poor or visit and share the Gospel, you will be lucky to get the deacons to show up much less any of the members.

As the marriage of the Church and the Republican party has matured so has the indifference to others, which has created an attitude of hate. The indifference shown towards the poor should not be a surprise. Remember Reagan successfully daemonized the welfare mom as someone squirting babies out as fast as she can to collect welfare checks and drive a Cadillac. I have observed this indifference during visitation. As a deacon returned, he had nothing but contempt for those he had visited. He critiqued how they lived and dressed. I did not find the broken heart of Christ in this man. All I saw was the pride of life and the arrogance of “I am better because I am a Christians”. This is a common attitude among the faithful. Another deacon, who also runs a visitation group, explained to an individual that their kind was not welcomed. As the leadership leads so goes the Church.

As political activism has grown to be synonymous with a good Christian walk, I have seen the message of Christ being perverted. Churches are tying salvation and/or church membership to having a Republican voting record. The news has been and will be littered with examples of this very thing. A deacon or Sunday School teacher will be ask to leave the church because they have the wrong political view. I have even been in deacon's meetings where someone would give a warning about voting for the “right” person. The problem, at least in part, is that much of the Church's leadership has substituted Spiritual power for political power and wealth. They enjoy rubbing elbows with the powerful. It provides a sense of power and importance that is much different from helping the single mother who is struggling to get buy on a minimum wage job. So, now the game is to stay in control and keep the power at any cost. Keep in mind that power is a very strong narcotic and when combined with pride, anything can happen. Just like an addict justifies his habit so does the leadership.

As the church's leadership writes more articles or gives interviews, watch as they hyperbole the issues and the consequences. Invariably the end of society, the Republic, or the world as we know it will be the results if the issue is not confronted. They always attempt to illicit fear amongst the faithful. Why? Has Christ given the Church the spirit of fear? Also, why are they willing to spread innuendo, lies and half truths? The reason is to ensure that the faithful vote or act “correctly”. The leadership is acting just like the political establishment where ethics is an “anything goes for the cause”.

To get back to the issue of abortion. This myopic view for selecting and judging a candidates has allowed other harmful policies and corruption to permeate the system while other issues are ignored. What about stewardship? More importantly, shouldn't we be concerned about the human trafficking? Shouldn't we be concerned that people are going hungry? Shouldn't we be concerned that people are denied basic health care? Shouldn't we be concerned about literacy? Don't these lives count for something?

I also question the sanity of the single mindedness of only one issue. It seems to fit some compulsive mental disorder or some type of imbalance. This lack of balance and extremism mirrors the rest of society. Maybe the culture is having a bigger impact on the Church then the Church is on the culture? Another problem with this single mindedness is that it seems to exclude the whole counsel of God. Doesn't the Bible also talk about:

How we conduct business and economics...

• false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight. (Proverbs 11:1, ESV)
• Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights? (Micah 6:11, ESV)
• The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. (Proverbs 22:7, ESV)

How we treat People...

• ... I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me (Matthew 25:40, ESV)
• ... Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (I Peter 5:5, ESV)
• Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed. (Proverbs 19:17, ESV)

Some of the Church's problems get back to the fact that statistically there is no differences in the lives of Christians verse non-Christians. For example, Proverbs 22:7 is really counter culture but most Christians are enslaved to debt just like the rest of America. If Christians could live differently, they could draw more souls into the Kingdom, which would help solve some of these problems. There must be more to being a Christian than attending Church on Sunday and the occasional political rally where they can declare all that they hate.

Additionally, abortion is a symptom of a much larger and more complex social issues. If the abortion problem is to be solved, the root causes within society must be addressed. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, the under lining problems will still exist. This will require that the Left and the Right compromise. This compromise cannot occur while the Christian Right views this as a compromise against God. This is wanting to implement “Christian Law” while the membership itself doesn't even follow it. It would seem that the Church needs to get its house in order before making the rest of the world do it.

To sum up why abortion must not be the only issue. One, it has or is converting the Church into a political organization. This leads to the second, the mission, message, and purpose of the Church is being perverted. Thirdly, the political impact is more negative than positive in that the Church is an anti-poor organization. Fourthly, the individual remains a secular and worldly creature. And finally, God has been or is being removed from Church and replaced with the idol of Power. The result is that it is creating the Church of Laodicea as noted in Revelation 3:15 (ESV) I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

If you think that I am being a bit harsh on the Church, I would suggest that you read the book unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. My personal experience validates the book as well as over ten years of being a deacon in a Southern Baptist church. I am ashamed of the hate within the secret walls of the church. As a companion book you should reference The Divine Commodity by Skye Jethani. Jethani reviews the affect of consumerism on the Church.