I've been reading through Greg Boyd's The Myth of a Christian Nation. It's outstanding. Here's an excerpt--little long, but worth the read. Buy this book. If you want to argue with me or the author, at least read it first before you do. :)
...more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about "the sanctity of marriage," namely, evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world! Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarrassment, but none of them are convincing--or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law 'the sanctity of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate others' behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?"
Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called "marriages." To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called.
Why then are so many evangelicals publicly obsessed with cracking down on this particular sin? There are undoubtedly a number of reasons, not least of which is that the loss of the traditional definition of marriage is a poignantly symbolic indication that the quasi-Christian civil religion of America is on the wane. And as we've said, many evangelicals believe that preserving and recovering this civil religion is their central kingdom duty. Whatever the reasons, however, outsiders have the impression that evangelicals go after this sin because it's one they don't generally have.
We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!
So despite the paucity of references to homosexuality relative to the sins we minimize or ignore, and despite empirical evidence that some of the sins we minimize are far more harmful to people and to society than this sin (for instance, greed and gluttony arguably kill millions!), this is the sin evangelicals as a group have decided to take a public stand on. Why? Because by drawing a line in the sand on this point we can feel that we're doing something righteous. We're standing up for truth and godliness; we're defending "God and country"; we're playing the role of moral guardian that (we believe) God has called us to play.
Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone--except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it cause multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he's not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account.
There's nothing beautiful or attractive about this sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing.
Posts
3 comments:
Thought provoking stuff. I agree, in a qualified way. Lewis has something similar to this written in Mere Christianity:
"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, [one] is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all the sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I'm not sure I totally agree with Boyd on this point. I don't think there's a higherarchy of sins (I don't think they really do either). But I agree with he and Lewis that the human tendancy is to make more of certain sins than others. So, to the extent that this kind of writing brings the balance back, I applaud it. However, the subtext here seems to operate on the tu quoque fallacy, the "you too" fallacy. Someone reading Boyd COULD get the idea that because Evangelicals do so many things wrong (you do it too), we therefore have no right to call Homosexuality a sin. When in point of fact what's needed is not more leniency on homosexuality, but more stern rebuke of infidelity, pride, avarice and greed in our midst.
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I think it's a subtle distinction that needs to be made. It's dangerous to downplay one sin (homosexuality) because other sins (greed, pride, etc) aren't being emphasized. Just as dangerous as the opposite Boyd's pointing out.
Yes, grace and love should characterize everything we do, but we dare not minimize certain sins at the expense of others.
In this sense, Boyd's argument falls prey to it's own logic. He chastises the church for focusing on homosexuality without noticing the other sins, but then he advocates less focus on homosexuality to concentrate on the others.
I know he's stating his case to an audience that's hard of hearing, but the answer doesn't reside in making a hierarchy of sins. As Lewis points out, "it's better to be neither.. . ."
That's what happens when I cut things off for dramatic effect. I should have included the rest of the section. I think that in reading it you will see that he is not downplaying homosexuality. His desire here is to get the evangelical church to see how ridiculous they have been in walking around with this particular "log" in their eye.
"To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the church should publicaly take a stand for gay marriage, nor am I trying to influence how evangelicals vote. Some may feel it best for society to outlaw gay marriages--others to allow it. In a democracy you're asked to give your opinion on such matters, so give it according to your conscience. I'm simply maintaining that, in our role as public representatives of the kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people (as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.
If your particular burden is to free people from their homosexuality, then go about it in a Calvary-like fashion. Commit to suspending judgment, start befriending gays, and then serve them in love--for years. Perhaps your loving kindness will lead some of them to faith and open doors for dialogue as God gently works in a trusting, committed relationship in which you are invited to address issues in a gay person's life as you invite them to address issues in your life, for God uses relationships like this to lead us all into greater conformity to Jesus Christ."
VERY well done! Thanks for including that. . . it totally completes and answers my objection! I have to say, Boyd makes a great case. I can't believe this hasn't been vocalized before.
Post a Comment