Christianophobia

The Bible is to Blame

One of the fascinating aspects of public argument is that over time the truth often wills out.   And so it appears to be with the issue of homosexuality.  Finally, some homosexual advocates are confirming what Christians have argued all along: the Bible condemns homosexual beliefs, thoughts, and practices.

For a while the debate was muddied by some fellow travellers arguing that the Bible's condemnation upon homosexuality was not universal.  There were a variety of views proffered in the Scriptures on the matter, we were told.  Moreover, even if some passages condemned homosexuality, other teachings were "higher"--such as the command to love one's neighbour as oneself.  That command meant that one may not condemn homosexual ideology and practice, because after all that's who my neighbour is.  Just as one could not condemn my neighbour because he was of a certain race, so the higher command to love my neighbour forbade condemning him because he was homosexual.

But over time these equivocations wear thin.
 The cavilling nature of the arguments eventually becomes apparent.  The Guardian recently published a piece by Australian Keith Mascord confessing what we all had known all along.  The Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin.  Homosexuality is in the same ethical category as murder, theft, adultery, covetousness, pride, and idolatry.

But there is another, perhaps even more influential prejudice at the heart of Christian opposition to same sex marriage.  This too-often-unacknowledged prejudice is the belief that what the Bible says or implies must take precedence over every other source of knowledge. If the Bible says or implies that something is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of what anyone might say, regardless of how sensible alternative ways of looking at things might seem.

There are many subtly different forms of this way of thinking, which reaches all the way back into the Bible itself, but the bottom-line prejudice is this: if the Bible clearly and plainly asserts that something is true or right, it is true or right. 

Notice that Mascord alleges that orthodox beliefs in the Bible as the Word of God is a mere prejudice.  It is a bottom-line prejudice.  He and his fellow travellers, of course, represent the non-prejudiced amongst us.  Actually, that's not the case.  Mascord has a deeply held conviction which (to use his own nomenclature) he should own up to as his own "bottom-line prejudice": namely, "My ratiocinations are the ultimate arbiter of all truth." On the one hand we have the bottom-line prejudice of the Bible; on the other we have the bottom-line prejudice of Mascord.  Take your pick.

Mascord senses that this is problematic.  He attempts an explanation:

I call this a prejudice because it involves pre-judging, making a judgement before the facts, and often irrespective of the facts.

Has Mascord made "a judgement before the facts"?  Yes, of course.  He has commenced his deliberations by presupposing his own autonomy in determining what shall be factual and what shall be mere prejudice.  In doing so, he has presupposed his own prejudicial bias as the measure of all things. He has already pre-determined what he will consider to be factual, and what should not be regarded as fact.

Nothing unusual here.  It is the normal prejudice of Unbelief.  But, out of evil good often comes.  Such is the case here.  Mascord has publicly affirmed what so many have attempted to equivocate over for so long: the Bible actually does condemn homosexuality as evil.  You have to make a choice: either you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, or you believe your word to be so.  Either you believe the Bible has authority over you, or you believe you have authority over the Bible.  Pretty straightforward really.  We Christians have known this all along.

But, here we must skewer Mascord a bit.  He is manifestly less than honest in that while he is prepared to acknowledge the Bible's clear teaching on homosexuality, he mumbles and prevaricates over his own prejudices.  Mascord has unequivocally stated that the Bible condemns homosexuality; but he has been entirely equivocal in declaring by what authority he condemns the Bible.  His authority, of course, is Mascordism.  He is asserting his own infinite, eternal, and unchangeable authority.  Well, not him alone.  He and all others who believe that, "Man is the measure of all things, and nothing human is foreign to us".

It is this context that we cannot avoid bursting out with laughter.  We know it is bad form to mock and laugh at an opponent.  But Mascord cannot help himself.  He is compelled to move beyond ethical argumentation and start calling his opponent (the Christian) names.  Yes, the most terribly irrelevant slur of the age is unfurled and hurled.  Christians are homophobes.  Oooh, that hurts.  That powerfully pulls me away from devotion to Christ.  That is hard to bear, indeed.

Although Christians might now distance themselves from homophobic attitudes, these historic and Bible-based understandings of homosexuality have clearly contributed to homophobia, along with the terrible and inexcusable mistreatment of LGBTI people which continues to this day.

Yup.  Christians are homophobes.  But what about you, my friend.  Do you condemn theft?  Ah, you are a kleptophobe.  Do you condemn calumny?.  You, sir are a calumniophobe.   Do you consider despising other people to be wrong.  You my friend are a despicophobe.  We could go on.  A bit closer to home, by your own lights, you are obviously a Christianophobe.

Where does all this name-calling get you?  It certainly doesn't advance your argument.  By definition, according to your own rules, you can be legitimately accused of phobia whenever you disagree or contest a position held by others.  How droll.

One final bit of ridiculous nonsense demanding mockery.  What's with the ever lengthening string of  capital letters?  One fine day it used to be LG--referring to lesbian and gay people--that is, male and female homosexuals.  Then "B" was added, whereby bi-sexuals were added to the list.  Recently "T" was added referring to trans-sexuals referring to anyone changing from female to male or vice versa, or from gendered to neutered.  But, now the latest fad it to add an "I" which apparently refers to "intersex" people.  We are waiting for the "N" as in LGBTIN, where "N" will refer to those neutered.
We confidently predict that by year's end we will have the whole 26 letters of the alphabet in the string.  There has to be at least 26 classes of non-heterosexual people suffering "inexcusable mistreatment".  What a hoot.

No doubt you will take explosive umbrage at our mocking such holy pieties.  We would never mock differences grounded in genetics.  But in this case, mockery is the only appropriate response.  Sometimes things are so foolish that laughter is indeed the best medicine.