On Homosexuality

The "West Wing" watcher series--Volume 2.

In Season 2, Episode 7, entitled "The Portland Trip", President Bartlett is on a trip to, yes, Portland. There are several big political issues on which the White House must make a decision. One of those, a marriage protection bill, has passed both houses and is now on the President's desk. Josh speaks with a Republican Congressman, who happens to be gay, about the issue. He is trying to determine whether or not the President should veto the bill. President Bartlett states at one point that the bill is "gay-bashing." Josh says to the Congressman that the government is trying to tell him who he can love. These are two examples of the misdirection often used in the gay-marriage debate, and any type of "gay-rights" debate for that matter. There are many issues involved in the homosexual debate, and there are many issues not involved in the homosexual debate. Both sides need to be honest enough to distinguish between the two.
The first issue not related to the homosexual debate is the issue of love. In our modern culture, it is almost impossible to talk of love without talking of sex. The two have almost become synonymous. A sexual relationship is going to be part of a loving relationship, but a sexual relationship does not indicate a loving relationship. Most people understand that sex and love don't always walk together. When a persons says that he believes a homosexual relationship is wrong, others incorrectly infer that to mean that love between two homosexual people is wrong. That is unfair and untrue. The Bible clearly says that we should love all men. The Bible also clearly says that sexual relations between two men or two women is wrong. The latter can and should exist without the former.
A related issue is the confusion between the act and the actor. Condemning a homosexual act is far different from condemning a homosexual person. The well-worn phrase, "Hate the sin; love the sinner," is very applicable here. Any person who demonizes any other person for their actions is a hypocrite. We must realize that all sin is wrong. The sin of homosexuality is as wrong in God's eyes as the sin of lying. How many more liars than homosexuals are there? Is condemning a person's lies the same as condemning the liar? There are certain acts that are morally wrong. People condemn these acts all the time. Yet, the people who commit these acts are still people. They are people like every other person. Our worth as a human does not stem from our actions. Whatever worth we have stems from our humanity. Everyone is a sinner, therefore everyone sins. We are not our sins. If God sees us as our sin, then we are hopeless, for sin cannot enter heaven. God sees us a people who sin. The cross separates us from our sin, so that one day we might enter into heaven sinless. A non-Christian mindset is the least philanthropic, for it does not distinguish a man from his actions. There are cruel Christians, but Christianity is not cruel. It treats people with more respect and more dignity than any other religion.
In the episode is another issue not related to the debate. A bill that recognizes heterosexual marriage as the only legal marriage does not automatically "outlaw" homosexual relationships. A marriage is, among other things, a legal entity. One of the responsibilities of government is to define various legal entities. There needs to be specific definitions for a business. A bum with Windex and a squeegee is not considered a business. A lady with a cart full of light bulbs cannot apply for a business license and sincerely expect to receive one. She may have a bright idea. She may have extensive ability. She may have every intention of starting a successful business. None of these are valid enough reasons for giving her a business license. Does that men she cannot sell her light bulbs? Does that mean she is less of a citizen because she cannot get a license? God forbid. There must be guidelines, and government must determine those guidelines, though they must have valid reasons for their decision. The decision regarding a marriage protection amendment is a policy decision, not necessary a moral one. Morals will of course play an enormous role in it, but the end result isn't an attempt to implement a specific morality. A homosexual couple can enter into a communion that, for all practical purposes, is a marriage. However, they will not be able to get the legal privileges of marriage. Some consider that discrimination. It is, in the same sense that it is discrimination to refuse a business license to the light bulb lady.
The homosexual debate contains many complicated issues, non of which can be easily resolved. Neither side is doing any one any good by compounding the complexity with non-related jetsam. The only way to honestly deal with the issue is to take the issues as they are, without distorting or expanding them.

Better than I

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post on capital punishment. I recently read this old essay by C.S. Lewis that says all I wanted to say, only much better than I could have said it. There are many ways to win an argument. One way is to be right, and to effectively deliver your argument. C.S. Lewis does this as well as anyone. Another way is to frame the debate around an unessential and unrelated point. If you can do this, then you don't have to be right about the main point. You can distract from this and confound the issue. The only way opponents of capital punishment, and many other issues for that matter, can argue is by framing the debate around some ancillary point.

Where is choice to be found?

One of my favorite films is a science fiction film called Gattaca. It takes place in the future when mankind has the ability to determine certain traits from a person's genes. Parents can look at a sampling of their eggs/sperm, and determine which ones are most likely to produce a child with specific characteristics. Elias Koteas plays Antonio, a man chosen by such a method. Ethan Hawke plays Vincent, who was conceived "the old fashioned way." Vincent's dream is to go to space with the Gattaca program. He cannot since he is "genetically inferior." He contrives a way in which he can use the genetic material of Jerome, played by Jude Law. Jerome was injured and unable to continue in the Gattaca program. This is a fascinating study of free will, determinism, and the human spirit. It was one of the best sci-fi films of the past decade.
Recently, it seems that this film may not be all that sci-fi. Al Mohler has a blog post discussing studies that seem to show animals, and possibly humans, are biologically predisposed toward a specific sexual orientation. Scientists are actively, intently looking for the alleged H-gene, that gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality. Mohler has some great insights into this issue. Among other things, he insists that we "stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.

We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation."

He also notes that homosexuality, in Biblical terms, is no worse than any other sin. All humans are "predisposed" to sin. Should it then be surprising that we find a biological connection?
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds introduces an extended quote from David Powlison's book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Powlison notes that these findings can strengthen Christianity's teachings.

The facts that “prove” the legitimacy of homosexual orientation – chiefly the experience of ongoing struggle and cases of recidivism among those who attempt to change – equally “prove” the legitimacy of the historic Christian view that homosexuality is a typical sin from which God progressively redeems his children.

But sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.

Christians need to be careful not to decry these studies too quickly. Seeing that our inclination to sin is more biologically "necessary" than we once thought can only strengthen in our minds the necessity of Grace. This re-emphasizes the fact that we truly cannot save ourselves.
This topic brings to my mind two questions for which I have not the answer.
1. Is homosexuality a matter of love or lust? Is it the search for commitment and intimacy, or is it merely a search for sexual satisfaction? Many people in our society confuse the two. The fact that two people lust for each other does not mean that they truly love each other (I don't know if unredeemed people are capable of true love). If homosexuality is simply a matter of lust, what makes it different than the sexual lust that all people posses? If person cares only for sexual gratification (and nearly all people want sexual gratification) then they might not care where that gratification comes from. We were not made to have sex without a relationship. Do people that have these homosexual cravings create feelings of love to complete the sexual picture? Powlison rightly points out that for many men, homosexuality is a search for satisfaction; for many women, however, lesbianism is a search for intimacy. This is no different than in heterosexual people. Man want sex, and women want security. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals?
2. How do can we know that the biology causes the feelings, instead of the feelings causing the biology? We can safely assume that biology and emotions are intricately linked together. Studies have shown that biology can effect emotions, and vice versa. How are we to know which it is? Can we look at a homosexual person and know that his biology is causing his behavior instead of his behavior affecting his biology? Happiness is the best medicine. Laughing is good for you. Depression can cause ulcers. There are many examples of emotions affecting your physiology. Is it possible that those who choose homosexual behavior will see a change in their biology?
Whatever these findings reveal, they cannot reveal anything the Bible has not already taught us. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We are sinners. We are born with a sin nature. It would be reasonable to discover that this sin nature has a biological equivalent. We are hopelessly sinful. We can do nothing good without God's grace. Glory be to God for His mercy on such a sinner as I.

Living a moral life

Living the Christian life is not a matter of following a specific list of rules. Living the Christian life is not taking the specific path that all Christians must take. Living the Christian life is about making moral choices. It is an individual path. All paths follow the cross and biblical teaching, but my path will not look exactly like yours. Within our path we should develop individual convictions and follow those convictions. No one can make those choices and develop those convictions for anyone else. We will all stand before God based on what we as an individual have done. We all need to make these choices for ourselves.
There are, however, several spheres of influence at our disposal for determining right from wrong. These can help us develop our Biblical convictions. The wise man will take advantage of these influences. The foolish man builds his life upon the sand of his arrogant conceits.
The innermost sphere is that of Biblical authority. Anything that violates clear Biblical teaching is clearly wrong. This is were all morality, all convictions must start.
The next sphere is that of authority. For the child, it is parental authority. Whether or not a child feels the rule is justified, and most often they will not, it is their duty to obey their parents. When a child leaves home, he still is responsible to honor his parents, but their convictions are no longer his convictions. He should seek advice from his parents, but his parents no longer have authority over him. For the grown person, the authority is their political authority. Once again, it is not a matter of our agreement with the laws. There are many laws we do not like. Our appreciation of a law is not the prerequisite for our obedience to the law. We must do what our authority tells us to do.
Please note that these spheres are concentric spheres. We should always look to the innermost sphere first. If an outer sphere conflicts with an inner sphere, we should follow in the inner one. We do what God commands no matter what our parents or the government says. If what government requires is not in conflict with what the Bible says, then we follow the law.
The third sphere is that of expediency. We should do only those things that will benefit us spiritually. Some things may not be wrong in the Biblical sense, but they may not be beneficial to us. I cannot find a clear command in Scripture for avoiding wine in all situations. In most situations, though, it is probably not beneficial to our Christian walk to engage in "social drinking."
The absolute last and widest sphere is that of personal preference. When we have gone beyond every other sphere, we look to that which suits our tastes. We may not find any objection to a type of music in any of the other spheres, but we may find it objectionable to our taste. This sphere is not solely about right and wrong. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong. It may just mean it is wrong for me. The other spheres are very dogmatic. We can be sure that is wrong to violate Scripture, to dishonor your parents, and to break the law of the land. My tastes, however, are not divinely inspired. If I have no basis in the other spheres, I shouldn't be condemning someone for their tastes.

Where is morality to be found?

Many of the kids in society today have very little sense of right and wrong, at least, a proper sense of right and wrong. Few of these kids know any effective method of determining right from wrong. A great example of this deficiency is the proliferation of pirated music amongst teenagers. Tim Challies notes that this type of theft is prominent even with Christian teenagers. I myself have noted that many teenagers at Christian high schools will not think twice about pirating music and software. Many of those that do have no clue that it is illegal. Even the ones that know it is illegal don't seem to care. Most of the perpetrators I have spoken with try to justify it in someway. The main reason, though, why they do it is that it is easy. The technology is available to them, so they use it. They like their friend's music , so they copy it. Few of them stop to think about the morality of their actions. Much of their morality is based on self-satisfaction. This is a decidedly un-Christian worldview. This is very disconcerting to me.
Tim states:

People who commit music piracy are, at some place in their lives, forsaking a Christian view of the world, a Christian way of seeing life. They are thinking like the world rather than thinking like Christ. Most of them know this, but continually violate their consciences and continually thumb their noses at what they know to be right.

Even in Evangelical circles children are not being taught the proper worldview, and the proper way to implement that worldview into their lives. In most of the cases I have seen, the fault lies squarely on the parents. Either they do not know what their kids are doing, or they know but they do nothing. Whichever the case, the parents are failing in their responsibility. Until the child leaves the nest, their morality must come from the parents. A lack of proper morality in the child is due in great measure to some delinquency of the parents.
My eldest son is only 4 right now, so I don't have many serious problems with him, unless you consider throwing a fit when he isn't allowed to play with a certain toy a serious problem (it would be a problem if he did this when he is 15, like some of the kids at my school). I know that problems will come, and that handling them will not be easy. I also know that, as a parent, my responsibility is to be the discernment my child lacks. I am to give him knowledge about what is right and wrong. Furthermore, I am to help him determine for himself what is right and wrong. Many parents, I fear, do not themselves know how to determine this, much less teach their kids to do this. We are living in an era of a serious morality crisis. Parents need to take careful stock of the worldview they are inculcating in their children, for every parent, whether intentionally or not, passes to their progeny a moral blueprint.

With what blessing?

As I woke up the other morning, I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, "God has truly blessed me. Just look at that luscious, full head of hair. God has been so good to me. What astounding, rippling biceps He has given me. Every beautiful square inch of golden tan skin on my finely chiseled physique is a testament to God's goodness to me."
What does hair, and muscles, and tanned skin have to do with God's blessing? No more than any fiduciary fitness we may experience. God's blessings cannot be contained in material goods. God's blessings go far beyond the worldly. Most evangelicals know this. No evangelical that I know of would deny this. Yet many evangelicals, even pastors, see to place a high premium on material goods. Tim Challies notes that tax time is a good time to see in numerical form how God has blessed him. What difference does it make if we have any financial goods? Is the person who sees on his 1040 that he made only $5000 in the year any less blessed than the person who made $500,000? How is any material estimate an indication of Christ's blessings? A friend of mine recently pointed me to a quote by C.S. Lewis. He says, "The man who has Christ and everything has no more than the man who has Christ and nothing." Evangelicals know this, but do they talk like this? I hear many pastors speaking frequently on blessings in terms of finances. What good do finances do us? How are they a blessing? A full bank account can be as much as blessing as a burden. God's blessings are not measurable, they are not quantifiable. God's blessings simply are. He that is in Christ has everything. God has given us in Christ everything necessary for life and godliness. Why need we speak of blessing in any other form?
Fred Sanders has an excellent post on Ephesians 1. No other book of the Bible more effectively enumerates the blessing God has given us. Not once in that entire passage does one see a material qualification. Would anyone claim that a nice house or car exceeds the inheritance we have in Christ? Why are we so earthly minded, that our perspective stays chained to the things of this orb?
Most certainly God gives us everything we have. Most certainly God takes from us everything we loose. Where we are is where God placed us, be it Malibu or Morgantown. We ought to thank God for the dirt and as well as the dough. More importantly, we ought to realize that the blessings God has given to all His children are transcendent, immaterial blessings. Anything else would be far less.

On teaching

It took me several years to teaching to realize what Paul Spears discusses in this post. Even now this idea is not predominate in my daily routine. Teaching, especially on the grade school and high school level, is not about expounding details, but about encouraging desire. The art of teaching lies not in producing the learned, but in developing the learner. If all I do as a teacher is to produce students that know many facts, I have fallen short. As I teacher, I should seek to produce students who desire to know God and His world more each day. As we often hear, learning is a lifetime activity. People are always learning new ideas, but they are not always learning worthy ideas. A true learner seeks not just knowledge, but good knowledge. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better serve His Savior. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better fulfill his commission. Education is merely a starting point. If we as teachers cannot see beyond the quizzes and tests, then we cannot really see.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.

Christianity in the theater

This past weekend the movie Amazing Grace premiered in theaters. I have not seen it yet. Many Christ-bloggers I read are very excited about it. The movie is about the life of William Wilberforce, a prominent Christian statesman who helped bring about the abolition of slavery. He was a tremendous individual. Many people are unaware of his contribution to society. He is as important a person in the history of abolition as Abraham Lincoln, probably even more important. The Christ-bloggers who have seen the film say it is really good. Its rating on IMDB is 7.8s/10 stars (with only 159 votes). Secular critics are mostly impressed by it (RottenTomatoes.com has its Tomatometer at 70%, meaning 7 out of 10 critics liked it). I hope to see it eventually. I think many people hope that this film, and others of its ilk, will hope to spread the message of Christianity. Thinking about this film lead me to think of Christian films in general.
There are two kinds of Christians films--films aimed at Christians, and films with Christian themes aimed at the world. From the few that I have seen (and there are not many), neither type is very good. We are far from the days of The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Both Hollywood and America are far different than they were in the 1950s. I think that Christians are doing a poor job representing themselves in film. Many of the Christian films out there are cheesy and ineffective.
Before we talk about Christians effectively expressing themselves in film, we need to discuss whether or not films can effectively express anything. I wrote a post a while back in response to a series of articles discussing Christians and the theater. The author of the articles espouses the idea that theater, particularly film, is inherently unable to carry the Christian message. I disagree with many aspects of the articles, and I now disagree with many things I wrote in my post. I am not sure that film is able to convey any message, that is, convey it to the point where it effects the way people think. I cannot think of any film that made any significant impact on the world. Most films, like most art, reflect the culture in which they are born All that films have ever done is express the sentiments alive already in the culture. Films exist in a self-contained sphere. Their primary impact is on other films, and the way in which people see film. It is rare that films reach out of their sphere to effect the lives of people and society. While all films have a world view, and while all films express a particular philosophy, I do not know if the language of film is strong enough to make a significant imprint on society. Films are above all else entertainment. They may entertain intellectually, emotionally, or even physically, but they all merely entertain. People in Hollywood especially have a bloated opinion on the role of film in society. I am amused when people talk of an "important film." I suppose they mean that the film is making an important comment on society. I suppose that they hope this statement with result in tangible societal change. I do not think this has ever happened. Film is film. I think it has a small role to play in society, but it has a role nonetheless.
All that being said, and at the risk of contradicting myself and obliterating my own thesis, films can still express ideas, whatever impact it has. The problem that I have with many Christian films is that they so ineffectually carry their message. They are many times either very simple morality tales, that blatantly and prosaically expound their message, or they are biblical tales, that try their darnedest to be germane to modern culture. Most of the time their cinematic value is very low. I enjoy watching films. I watch about one or two each week. I have seen many films that carry post-modern themes. These films are very effective. They have high cinematic value that effects you deeply, and they have a deep thematic value that force you to think about what they are about. I do not see any reason why Christians cannot make such films.
Two of my favorite authors are Dostoevsky and Graham Greene. Each of these were Christians. Each of these where able to very profoundly deliver their religious themes in a highly skilled manner. They wrote interesting stories that dealt with all kinds of horrid themes--parricide, prostitution, murder, lying, stealing, drunkeness, and other types of debauchery. They didn't exploit these themes. They used these themes to convey their message. They wrote very powerful pieces of literature. If you have never read Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky or The Power and the Glory by Greene, you should. They are wonderful Christian novels. Is it possible for us to make films with such artistic values? Is it possible for Christians to use the language of cinema as effectively as such post-modernists as Bergman, Fellini, and Kurosawa? I think we can. Granted, their is probably always going to be a prejudice against Christians in Hollywood. Yet, with the grassroots, Independent cinema that is so popular, and so inexpensive, their is no reason why Christians cannot make good films.
We need to change our mindset. We need to understand that we don't always need to be explicitly Christian. While we don't need to be explicit in portraying sex and violence, we should not shy away from stories that contain sex and violence. Graham's novel contains sex and violence. As I said before, he does not exploit it. It is not bawdy or inappropriate. It is appropriate to the story he is telling, and that story effectively carries the message he wants to convey. I am not calling for barroom evangelism here. I am calling for a more artistic, realistic approach to cinema. I am calling for films that establish some artistic credibility. Christains had this credibility in the past, but we have lost it. Some Christians think you either have to be "Christian," or you have to crossover and become secular. I don't think these are our only options. We can have artistic credibility without sacrificing our Christian principles. Films like Facing the Giants may entertain Christians. That is great. I think that we can do better.

Addendum: I came across this article that discusses Christianity in the movies. It has provoked by thoughts.

Concepts of God

Theologian Paul Helm (about whom I know little) has a rather lengthly article on his blog on "The Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God". This is a scholarly and well-constructed discussion of some of the major views of God, with specific emphasis on His foreknowledge and predestination, throughout Church history. He begins with the Calvinist view of God, which is in truth the view outlined by the "'A' team"--Augustine, Anslem, and Aquinas. He compares this view with Scripture and very effectively demonstrates that they are congruent. He then compares three other views with the first one--the Arminian view, the Open Theistic view, and the Modified Calvinistic view. Helm eruditely discusses each view, and its conflict with Scripture. He concludes with some very germane comments on philosophy and understanding.
This is a challenging article. It deals with some difficult Theological concepts. Yet, these concepts are very important. One might say these are the central concepts in a Theological belief system. It is well worth the time of any Christian to ponder these thoughts. We may not come to a conclusion, but we can surely come to a deeper understand than what we once had. Too many Christians are too ignorant regarding these discussions. Most are content to accept what their pastors tell them. Many pastors I have known are not to enthusiastic about tackling such "controversial" topics. They will try to explain it away with a simple analogy. One pastor describes man's free will and God's sovereignty as being like the rails of railroad tracks. Close to us they look like two tracks, but as we gaze into the distance they appear to merge into one. This doesn't explain the relationship between them at all. This doesn't come close to a logical, Scripture explanation at all. Many pastors will state that God is sovereign and we have a free will, they do not conflict, and that is the way it is. Again, no logical, Scriptural explanation.
I doubt that these pastors are too lazy or unintelligent to tack on such a task. I would say that they are afraid. They are afraid of where these concepts will lead. They may lead into a very frightful abyss. Helm explains in his conclusion that we may not be able to follow these concepts to their end.

"We have some understanding of what predestination is, but we lack the sort of knowledge that would free us from all the difficulties that it presents to our minds—difficulties about fairness, or about the way in which the divine decree meshes with human freedom, or about the manner in which God's choice is grounded. These matters are at least presently beyond our full grasp, but they are not completely ungraspable.
We should expect mystery, but it is 'targeted' mystery. We can identify the mystery, and say why it is so. In the noble tradition of ‘faith seeking understanding’ we should do what we can to understand the mystery insofar as we have warrant to do so in Scripture, but not at the expense of what Scripture actually teaches."

This is a tremendous paradigm. Not being able to find the end of a thread of thought is no reason not to seek the beginning. We should take the ideas giving to us in Scripture, and, by His Grace, seek them as far as they will take us. The Truth, no matter how difficult or mysterious, will set us free.
Note that I have spoken about the article rather than commenting on the article. I am far from qualified. Helm brought up many theological terms and concepts with which I am not familiar. Sad to say I have studied theology very little. One aspect of the article I found interesting was his assertion that, when we look at God's sovereignty and man's free will, we must make one unmovable. That is, when we develop our position, we must either make God's sovereignty the unmovable post about which man's free wheel pivots, or vice versa. His opinion is that the Scripture clearly states that God is sovereign. He predestinates us according to His will, not according to His foreknowledge of our faith or good works. In a sense, our will is according to His will. This is one of those concepts that can be very frightening. Does that mean that we really don't have a free will? Does that mean that God wills sin? I have not the answer to that.