Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Philosophical Fragments

Home
Evangelical
Hatred, Bigotry and Truth in the Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage Debate

Hatred, Bigotry and Truth in the Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage Debate

Last updated on: February 8, 2013 at 10:43 am by Guest Contributor

Hatred, Bigotry and Truth in the Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage Debate 2013-02-08T10:43:04-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The moral status of homosexuality and the legal advancement of same-sex marriage remain among the preeminent moral and theological issues confronting the church. I’ve published many pieces representing a diversity of opinion — including my own thoughts (see here and here, for instance), which do not neatly fall into the expected categories. I appreciate the way in which this blog has become a place for serious conversation about these issues.

Many will know already that more information emerged this week about the man who attempted a mass murder last summer at the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington DC. From time to time, I’ve published guest posts from Rob Schwarzwalder, who is a senior VP in charge of several teams at the FRC. The following piece from Rob represents his own opinion, of course, and I’m grateful to him for this guest post:

Hatred, Bigotry, and Truth

By Rob Schwarzwalder

The Bible’s teaching on human sexuality is clear: The only kind of sexual intimacy Scripture countenances exists between one man and one woman, within marriage. This teaching is restrictive, limiting, narrow. It also possesses the singular advantage of being accurate, in the sense of being a faithful representation of what the Bible says.

One need not agree with the Bible to acknowledge its clear teaching. Regarding efforts to diminish the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, specifically, former Benedictine monk Luke Timothy Johnson, now of Emory University, writes, “I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says.”

The text says that heterosexual fornication and adultery, and homosexual intimacy, are sins against God and those who bear His image. Agree or disagree – you’re free to make that decision. But have the intellectual honesty not to engage in the almost comical expositional gymnastics required to make the Bible say something it doesn’t.

Having read the above, many Americans will be dumbfounded: You mean there are people whose allegiance to an anachronistic collection of ancient writings which articulate an archaic moral code actually drives their thinking and behavior today?

Yes. Many intelligent, well-educated, independent-minded people have come to the conclusion that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments uniquely reveal the mind, the will, and the plan of God for humankind. That their meaning is adequately clear to have propositional authority. That their teachings are not subject to reinterpretation contingent on popular culture or personal whim.

Is everything in the Bible easy to grasp or accept? No. Were it, the Scriptures themselves would not so candidly acknowledge the realities of doubt and unbelief. But the labor with which one comes to and sustains his faith produces good fruit, since – yeah, here goes the Fundamentalist again – the Bible is true.

This is important to understand for two reasons: First, Evangelical Protestants, faithful Catholics and orthodox Jews don’t pick and choose their moral standards. We accept them, based on our belief in the divine inspiration of our written texts, and how we see them vindicated in human experience.

Second, our acceptance of these tenets is not merely intellectual. I affirm that the street outside my office is paved with black asphalt: This is the recognition of an obvious external reality, but one that does not animate my convictions about the purpose of life or the means by which I should live it. Unlike mere intellectual assent, since we believe our moral standards are issued by a God with Whom we have a relationship and to Whom we owe our core allegiance, we cannot keep them neatly confined to the space within our crania. In other words, we are obligated by our Creator not just to acknowledge the correctness of what He has said but to live accordingly.

That means we reject homosexual behavior as morally acceptable. It means we also reject the numerous heterosexual sins, as well, including sexual infidelity to a spouse and intercourse before marriage. We also affirm that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman, for life — and that this definition is unchanging.

I know of no conservatives who wish to disrupt homosexual homes. We don’t want to be invasive any more than we want to be coerced ourselves. But we reject the redefinition of marriage on theological grounds, as well as on a surfeit of sociological data showing that children benefit most by being raised by a mother and a father.

This is not bigotry. It is not hatred. It is not homophobia. It is, to quote one of my pastors, theophobia. We fear God, and thus we submit to what we believe is His revealed will. No one is requiring any homosexual to do anything. Catholics, Protestants and Jews who believe biblical morality is absolute and final are being asked to treat homosexuality as morally neutral behavior. Yet we do not believe it is, and thus cannot countenance its widespread social or legal acceptance any more than we accept heterosexual cohabitation.

No one is demanding that any homosexual become a heterosexual, or that homosexuals be in any way harmed, demeaned, or persecuted. To the contrary, true Christians should and do show the love of Christ to every image-bearer of God, whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual. Period.

We simply believe that sexual intimacy is reserved by God for heterosexual, monogamous marriage. That’s inconvenient and difficult for many of us, heterosexual and homosexual. It’s also what we believe the Word of God says. Therefore, for us it is determinative of not just belief but also practice.

Coercion and repression are the signs of fascism. No one, in any sphere, is either coercing or repressing homosexual men and women. Rather, homosexual activists seek to shut-down those who believe their behavior is immoral. Raise a moral concern about homosexuality and immediately accusations of bigotry and hatred are showered upon you. The outraged viciousness of the response is commensurate with the intensity of one’s allegiance to full cultural and legal affirmation of homosexuality. Since traditional believers won’t change on this point, efforts are made to bully us into silence or reserve our beliefs for our homes and the four walls of our houses of worship. We are called names, are threatened in late-night phone calls, or, in the case of my colleagues and I at the Family Research Council, we become the intended targets of a would-be assassin’s bullets, as last summer’s shooting at our building demonstrates.

Persons of biblical faith – who believe the Bible says what it means and look to it as the source of truth, not just comfort – have no alternative but to stand with Scripture. For this, we are accused of a lack of love. Nonsense: There can be nothing more unloving, or more cowardly, than ignoring a train as it is about to strike someone on its tracks. If we warn against the consequences of sexual sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual, we do so not with self-righteous condemnation but sincere concern for those wrestling with such sins.

The homosexual left insists that everyone endorse same-sex relationships as morally and legally valid. We will not. They want to redefine marriage. We refuse. The want homosexuality to be affirmed universally as morally good or at least morally neutral. We cannot. They want full and affirming integration into every social institution, whether it be the military or the Boy scouts or, for that matter, churches of all kinds. We cannot support it.

This is not hate. It’s moral conviction. It will not change.

Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us. Amen.

Rob Schwarzwalder is senior vice president of the Family Research Council.

Previous Post

February 7, 2013

The Christian Educator's Dilemma

Next Post

February 12, 2013 Why Football Is (or Can Be) Good for the Soul

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz