Okay, so that's an exaggeration. But as I have read the
many commentaries offered by various evangelicals on the Phil Robertson flap I
cannot help but wonder if some of the discussion confuses categories. Some,
while in sympathy with Robertson's view that homosexuality is sin, are
scandalized by his, shall we say, "earthy language." Same sex
attraction requires more sensitivity and nuance, we are told. It is a
complicated matter. And indeed it is. But same sex attraction is not what Mr.
Robertson was addressing. He was addressing the specific sin of homosexual acts
which is a related but different category from same sex attraction. We have
brothers and sisters in Christ who, while struggling with same sex attraction,
persevere faithfully in God-honoring chastity recognizing that homosexuality is
a sin. The church ought to be a place where these saints can be honest about
their particular area of temptation so that they can be spurred on toward love
and good deeds. You know, just like those saints who struggle with lustful
thoughts, dishonesty, pride, disobedience to parents, greed, anger, gluttony,
etc.
Homosexual acts, however, do not merit such sensitivity
and nuance (nor does lying, coveting, murder, etc). The Scripture's
condemnation of such acts is clear. But God's book of nature is just as clear.
Paul appeals to natural revelation in Romans one where homosexual acts are
described as self-evidently unnatural. We live among people who reject outright
the Biblical prohibition against such acts. That much is clear. But, as Paul
points out, these same folks have exchanged in favor of a lie God's truth
revealed in the natural world as well. It is a knowledge that is clear enough
to render them without excuse. Is this not what Phil Robertson was pointing
out? Could it be that his words were just too clear for the more sophisticated
among us?
There is an inescapable "yuck factor" to
homosexual acts that ought not be diminished by Christians. I'm not talking
about juvenile snickering. I'm talking about a mature disgust generated by acts
that have gone desperately awry of what is natural. Any medical doctor worth
his salt will tell you the sorts of destruction done to the bodies of
homosexuals. I would suggest that the greater ignorance is to be silent to such
physical realities rather than pointing them out.
It seems to me that some of the condemnation of Phil
Robertson coming from evangelicals has the aroma of cultural elitism. That is,
a faith that is expressed in very ordinary and "un-nuanced" ways
tends be sneered at by those Christians who prefer their cappuccinos be crafted
by free range baristas (Okay, that was just a little cheap shot but I've got to
keep your interest). My point is that those of us who have attended seminary
and enjoy coffee from independent coffee shops need to remember that the Faith
we embrace goes to the unschooled and uncouth. It is a faith for duck hunters,
children, stock brokers, middle school dropouts, physicists and those who love
the pancakes at Cracker Barrel. If that is embarrassing to some of my fellow
evangelicals then perhaps Christian Science may provide a bit more insulation
from the ruffians of Munroe, Louisiana.
No comments:
Post a Comment