Thursday, December 4, 2008

Belligerence, Homosexuality, and Christ's Love

I get it when mainline Christians disagree with the practice of homosexuality. I understand their concern. What I don't understand is why homosexuality is a greater sin in need of garnering more public attention than, say, physical-social-metal-verbal abuse, war, toxic spirituality within the church, indifference, racism, torture, human trafficking, or any number of existing sins within the world.

For that reason, I'm not exactly sure why waging a war via popular media against homosexuals is a necessary manouever. It's not unknown that Christians traditionally disagree with the practice of homosexuality, but why pay for advertising space to push that point when everybody knows that the end of such a tactic is only going to be inflamed tempers, misappropriations, and mud-slinging?

Christians are called to a gospel that prompts love in, with, and through all our actions. Taking out advertising space as a war on homosexual lifestyles is effectively wielding popular media as if it's a firearm. And when weapons are wielded against sinful people, who of us can say that we don't deserve a firearm pointed back at us? Or, as Jesus said, "let the person who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

So, while I acknowledge the sin of homosexuality, I'm not concerned to crusade against it so much as I am to love the people who practice it. For which is the greater sin: to practice homosexuality, or to foist belligerence on a group of people all the while claiming it is love? I know my answer. Do you?

4 comments:

suneal said...

Chris, I agree with the spirit of your post, but upon reading the article, I wonder if there is a point to be made for the Christian perspective of publicly declaring Scriptural truth.

the article said:

“Therefore by determining that quotations of bible texts and their application have breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency), the ASA is taking the view that the printing and publishing of certain biblical texts is indecent.”

Do you not find this argument to have some validity? I know you make the point, why pick on this sin, but the context was a gay parade at the time in the locale. So, why not pick on this sin?

If I am in a church where lying is rampant, then why preach about debauchery? And to extend this further the church is the light and the salt of the earth. Why not be both? Love yes, but be salt too, and if they can't handle the salt, then how will they pervert the love?

What if God really did want them to print the article? What if the real point here is not "homosexuality" but freedom to express faith. If I believe it a sin, then I can say so. The real fight then becomes one of reversed-morality. What once used to be the moral, preaching and living a lifestyle against "sodomy," for that is the real topic here, has now become the enemy because saying publicly in an article that sodomy is sin is now deemed "indecent."

If "tolerance" wins the day, whatever the heck that hydra-headed chameleon is from moment to moment, then the bigger issue here is possessinbg any publication that is "indecent," and now suddenly all Christians and Jews and even Muslems are promoting hatred and indecency just by having a written copy of Old Testament and New Testament texts. If these texts are deemed "indecent" for public ads, then why are they decent for my child or anyone else's for that matter? Next thing you know Children's Aide will be knocking on my door, saying I am in breach of a form of child abuse.

suneal said...

And to add to the above comment. What the heck is so "decent" about a bunch of "over-sexed," 90% naked bunch of individuals (some not all), male or female, heterosexual or homosexual parading down major city streets mimicking or near-performing or even performing sexual acts in front of general citizenry, including children?

And if they feel such a need to be so overt as to parade and "ADVERTISE" this part of their life, so that the general populace has an in-the-flesh public for all presentation, then why be up in arms over one little advertisement in the local paper that "rains on their parade:)"? I thought dancing around naked could be more fun in the rain.

Maybe strippers should have a "stripper parade" to celebrate the love of their lifestyle choice, but in broad daylight. I wonder why it has to be behind closed doors generally speaking? Something to do with "offensive" to the general public or "indecent?"

toshido said...

“Therefore by determining that quotations of bible texts and their application have breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency), the ASA is taking the view that the printing and publishing of certain biblical texts is indecent.”

The article does not give enough information to decide if this statement is true.
The ASA did rule that the ad did breach decency codes but is it because of a biblical passage, or is it because of other statements in the ad. Without more information on this particular subject we will never know.

"And to add to the above comment. What the heck is so "decent" about a bunch of "over-sexed," 90% naked bunch of individuals (some not all), male or female, heterosexual or homosexual parading down major city streets mimicking or near-performing or even performing sexual acts in front of general citizenry, including children."

This statement, well is just basically uncalled for and out of place. The original article had no details of the parade. There was no mention of public sex acts, attire of this parading, or even time of day for the parade.
This statement just shows ignorance of the gay community. I have had many gay friends in the past. This statement does not apply to any of the people I have ever met and called friends.

Christopher said...

"The original article had no details of the parade. There was no mention of public sex acts, attire of this parading, or even time of day for the parade.
This statement just shows ignorance of the gay community. I have had many gay friends in the past. This statement does not apply to any of the people I have ever met and called friends."


Okay. But it does apply to those people who were involved in the parade where these acts were going on. Unless you'd like to deny that the acts happened? Or perhaps you'd like to deny that there was even a parade?

You may not have seen these things amongst the gay friends you've had -- I haven't either -- but that does not mean that these things do not happen during the gay pride parade, does it?