Earlier today I read how the biggest Baptist University in North America removed homosexual behavior from their list of punishable sexual behaviors. In their words, they did this to reflect their values that they are accepting of people. The LGBT activists point out that no college can survive if it is going to be hateful towards people.
Let’s just deal with these two ideas: 1. accepting people, and 2. being hateful.
ACCEPTING PEOPLE
A significant problem in this culture is confusing people with actions. Homosexuality is a behavior. A homosexual is a person who engages in homosexual behaviors. Any homosexual can stop being a homosexual if they chose as has been demonstrated socially and genetically (identical twins). Conversely, heterosexuals can stop being heterosexual and become homosexual. This change occurs when the actions change because action defines homosexuality.
This is not to be confused with race. A person cannot stop being Asian. But an Asian person can act like a Westerner. An Asian person can adopt Western culture, a western name, eat western food, and live in the West. However, that Asian person is still Asian by decent. “Asian” does not describe actions in this case, it describes ancestry. The person is of Asian descent, and this cannot be changed.
Now, perhaps this Asian person has Asian customs, some of which contradict or conflict with Western customs. When going to a Western school that has policies against such actions, the Asian person must conform to the Western culture for civil and legal reasons. The school does not require them to “stop being Asian,” for that would be impossible. But they must stop whatever actions conflict with the school. The person is accepted but not the actions.
Back to the homosexual. If a school rejects a homosexual, it’s because the practice of homosexuality is not acceptable at that school. If the homosexual says that his homosexuality is “what makes him who he is,” then we near the true heart of the issue of the homosexual movement. Because to identify oneself with one’s actions is to force a choice: Institutions must accept all actions of all people, or they must reject all persons who engage in prohibited actions because the actions are not permissible, not because the person is rejected.
In fact, Christians have a mantra, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” All theological opinions aside, it makes for good practice of the Christian faith. However, the homosexual community has so closely aligned the person with the action, that there is no way to differentiate between “sinner” and “sin.” They are bound together at the request of the homosexual community. This leads to the second issue:
HATEFULNESS
If Christians cannot separate the sinner from the sin, then one of two things must happen: 1. Christians must stop practicing Christianity because the acceptance of sin runs contrary to the gospel which is the core of Christianity, or 2. Christians must reject the action and with it, the person. Consider the position from the historic Christian perspective: If a Christian accepts the sin with the sinner, then the Christian is doing the most hateful thing possible. The Christian is allowing the person to remain in their sin, and according to the historic Christian perspective, such a person is lost and will face eternal punishment. Also, if a Christian rejects the sin and the sinner with it due to the sinner’s identification with the sin, this is in fact the most loving thing to do because it demonstrates to the sinner that their sin is unacceptable. Does it make them feel guilty? Yes. Does it hurt their feelings? Yes. Does it cause them great mental anguish? I would hope so, because from the historic Christian perspective, the person’s eternal destiny is at stake, and unless that person repents of their sins and accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will face eternal separation from God. Do Christians relish this guilt, pain, and anguish? If they do, they need to reexamine their Christianity, so I would say, NO. I know I don’t like causing pain because I have a son whom I must discipline. I hate doing it. But I love my son enough TO do it.
If Christianity is true, then it is the most backwards, upside down notion of Christians that “the loving thing” is to embrace homosexuality when according the Bible that Christians claim to follow, that embracing of sin is an eternal death sentence. It’s worse than me allowing my children to experiment with crack/cocaine. How could I possibly be seen as a loving parent for letting my children destroy themselves? Likewise, how can Christianity be seen as loving allowing ANYONE in sin to destroy themselves with sin?
However, if Christianity is not true, then at the very least, Christians are doing what they believe is the loving thing by rejecting homosexuality. If Christianity is false, they are misguided, but they are definitely NOT hateful.
Either way, Christians who stand firmly against homosexuality should do so in favor of protecting and redeeming and helping those who practice it. After all, the homosexuals are practicing the very intolerance they claim to hate when they force their views on the Christians. And forcing one’s view on someone else isn’t very accepting or loving, is it?
Thomas is the creator and editor of faithdefense.com. He is a pastor, professor, and philosopher. Recent years have divorced apologetics and ministry. His passion is to reunite the two and to give reasons for the hope within him so others can place their hope and faith in Jesus Christ.