Morality = Bigotry?

  

George Whitefield preaching

  In our last blog post we noted that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy virtually equated morality with bigotry. He pointed out that the House of Representatives, in passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stated that the intent of the legislation was to uphold Judeo-Christian morality. Justice Kennedy then went on to insinuate that this amounts to a purpose to "degrade," "demean," and "disparage" homosexual couples who wish to get married.
    Does this mean that Judeo-Christian morality is tantamount to bigotry? Let us be perfectly blunt and candid about this. The whole aim and purpose of morality is to stigmatize certain forms of behavior. What Justice Kennedy appears to be objecting to is the very idea of morality itself – the idea that certain forms of behavior, by their very nature, are wrong. But most laws have the same practical effect that Justice Kennedy found so obnoxious in DOMA. They criminalize certain forms of behavior. Those who engage in those forms of behavior are subjected to certain incapacities. Is this unfair discrimination? Not hardly. The whole purpose of the law, of any law, is to proscribe certain forms of activity. DOMA was no different.
    But passing beyond a court ruling on a piece of legislation, why do Judaism and Christianity consider homosexual activity immoral in the first place? What is so bad about being gay?
    Homosexuality is immoral because it runs counter to the creative purpose of God. Implicit in any monotheistic religion is the idea that all of reality was created by a single, intelligent Being. That being the case, everything in life has meaning and purpose. And so, when we ask the question, what is the primary purpose of sex, the obvious answer is heterosexual reproduction. This is why the great Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – have always looked on homosexuality as a perversion of something that God created for other purposes. The norm is that a man and a woman should enter into a permanent, intimate relationship with each other, and that that, in turn, would provide the basis for a stable family life. Anything else beside that and perpetual chastity is forbidden.
    But, it will be objected, gays are born that way and cannot help being the way they are. They should not be stigmatized for something over which they have no control.
    We would acknowledge that in some individuals same-sex attraction is very real, and not something over which they feel they have any control. Nevertheless, certain things must be borne in mind.
     First of all, there is no solid evidence that homosexuality is hereditary. No one has been able to identify a "gay gene." A homosexual male is still biologically a normal male, and is capable of fathering children the usual way. Instead, homosexuality is manifestly an emotional or psychological condition, what used to be known as "Gender Identity Disorder," and most likely it is the result of a problem in early childhood socialization.
    But beyond that, homosexuality is really no different from any other kind of sin, and should be treated no differently. Do homosexuals feel a predisposition to their particular form of activity? We all feel predisposition to some form of sin. We are all born liars and thieves. As one older woman of our acquaintance put it, "I have been a mother and a grandmother, and I never once had to teach a child how to steal cookies." Anti-social behavior comes naturally to us, and it is only with great difficulty that it can be driven from us. Nevertheless, we are still morally accountable for our own conduct. We can tell the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and can make a conscious choice to do what is good and right. The mere fact that we have a natural predisposition to do what is wrong does not excuse us. We are rightly condemned for our bad behavior.
    Therefore we should not single our homosexuals and treat them as social lepers. The fact of the matter is that the Word of God stands above us all and condemns all of our sin – that of the selfish, greedy executive in his corner office suite as well as that of the sexual libertine in the gay bathhouse. We are all sinners by nature, and we all need redemption.
    No one likes to be told that he is a hell-bound sinner, and it is only natural that some will react negatively, sometimes even violently. We would rather shoot the messenger than heed the message.
    And so that is the position in which the church finds itself today. We have a message that is decidedly unpopular. And yet it is our duty to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. We do no one a favor by hiding or disguising the truth.
    
Related blog posts:
The Case for Moral Absolutes 
What Is Morality? 
What God Requires 
What God Thinks About Modern Western Society 

And on the subject of Judeo-Christian morality see:
Jesus and the Torah 

A Postscript on the DOMA Decision

As we noted earlier ("Redeeming the Culture") the U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down its decisions on a pair of same-sex marriage cases. In one of them, United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down provisions in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage, for purposes of federal benefits, as a union between one man and one woman. Under the Court's ruling the federal government will now be obliged to recognized same-sex marriages that were solemnized in states where such unions are legal.
    When one reads the fine print of the Court's opinion a chilling specter arises. Justice Kennedy, writing for

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

the majority, reviewed the legislative history of the statute, and noted in particular that the House of Representatives, in passing the bill, had declared that the legislation expresses "both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality" (H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, p.16). Justice Kennedy cited this as "evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class [i.e. gay couples]. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages" (opinion, pp. 20-21). He went on to say that "the principal purpose and the necessary effect of the law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage." He declared that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in this way this law does . . ." (ibid., p. 25. What Justice Kennedy is evidently referring to here is a legal concept known as "substantive due process"). Justice Kennedy concluded by saying: "DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriage of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity" (pp. 25-26).
    What Justice Kennedy has done, in effect, is to equate "traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality" with a purpose to "degrade," "demean," and "disparage" one class of citizens, and to treat their marriages as "less worthy" than others. Morality, in other words, is tantamount to bigotry.
    Justices Scalia and Alito both delivered scathing dissents. Justice Scalia, in particular, noted a disturbing implication of the Court's decision. Even though Justice Kennedy had concluded his opinion by saying "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages," i.e., those that have been declared legal by the states in which they were made, Justice Scalia observed "How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status" (dissenting opinion, p. 23). In other words, it is only a matter of time before gay couples will sue the states where same-sex marriage is still illegal, and the federal courts will find those laws unconstitutional using the same legal reasoning as Justice Kennedy did in his opinion.
    Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, noted that "The long-term consequences of this change are not now known and are unlikely to be ascertainable for some time to come" (dissenting opinion, p.8). In a footnote he added, "As sociologists have documented, it sometimes takes decades to document the effects of social changes – like the sharp rise in divorce rates following the advent of no-fault divorce – on children and society" (Ibid.). And he concludes by saying, "At present, no one – including social scientists, philosophers, and historians – can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be" (p. 9).
    And yet accepted is what same-sex marriage is rapidly becoming. For better or for worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the fateful plunge, and it is probably too late to turn around now. Supreme Court decisions are notoriously difficult to reverse.
    It is perhaps only a matter of time before those churches who wish to remain faithful to Christian standards of morality will find themselves branded as bigoted hate groups. The Court's decision does not augur well for the continued freedom of religion in this country.


Other blog posts on related topics:
The Queer Scouts of America?
The Real Issue in the Gay Marriage Debate
Same Sex Marriage:What Is at Stake

Redeeming the Culture

    

   Today the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long awaited decisions involving two same sex marriage cases. In one case the court struck down provisions in a federal law that restricted marriage, for purposes of federal benefits, to heterosexual couples. In the other case, involving a referendum in California ("Proposition 8") that outlawed same sex marriage, they dismissed the case on technical grounds – the appellants had no "legal standing," i.e. they were not entitled to bring the case before the Court because they had not been injured by the lower court ruling overturning the proposition. Thus homosexuals will soon be able legally to wed in California. The decisions are lamented by the conservative religious community. It is hard to see how the institution of marriage can remain viable if virtually any sexual behavior is tolerated by society.
    As it so happens, hundreds of thousands are determined to do something about the moral decline of our country. On this coming Sunday, June 30, 2013, over a million and a half Christians are planning on participating in a mass event called "Call 2 Fall," in which believers in churches all across America will literally fall on their knees "in repentant prayer to reshape our lives and renew our land." The "Call 2 Fall" purports to be based on the familiar passage found in II Chron. 7:14: ". . . if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land" (NKJV). The sincerity of these believers can hardly be questioned, but it remains to be seen whether a brief gesture during a church service will be sufficient to arrest the moral and social decline of the nation.
    Conservative American Christians have been concerned about the direction of the country for quite some time now. As early as the 1960's there were Christian thinkers such as Francis A. Schaeffer, Rousas J. Rushdoony, and C. Gregg Singer who were warning about the direction of western culture. Encroaching secularism was already having a corrosive effect on morals and manners, undermining the core values of Western Civilization. But the dramatic turning point in American culture came in 1973 when the Supreme Court handed down its infamous decision in Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion throughout the entire nation. The conservative religious community reacted with alarm.
    A host of books appeared urging Christians to organize and take action. One book in particular provided some insightful analysis of the legal aspect of the problem. It was The Second American Revolution (1982) by noted attorney John W. Whitehead. He demonstrated the ways in which our constitutional rights and liberties were slowly eroding as society in general gave up belief in God and in moral absolutes.
    But the question was, what can we, as evangelical Christians, do about it? Whitehead criticized the church for being too "Pietistic" – for being too narrowly focused on personal salvation while ignoring the culture at large. His solution was for Christians to become politically active, and he goes so far as to say, "Getting involved in local politics will eventually mean Christians running for office. This will include attending and eventually taking control of party conventions where grass-roots decisions are made" (p. 166).
    But it is precisely here where the trouble begins. Winning elections requires forming broad-based coalitions, and broad-based coalitions are bound to include non-Christian elements as well as Christian ones. The inevitable result is that the Christian message is compromised. It is one thing to bear witness to society at large, to preach and to teach, to publish and to broadcast; it is quite another thing to get involved in the hurly-burly of electoral politics.
    In retrospect the attempt to take over the culture has been a dismal failure. We have tried for forty years to reverse Roe v. Wade, and what we got instead was same sex marriage. The culture is clearly moving away from Christianity, not closer to it.
    The problem with the attempt to use the political process to reverse the country's moral decline is that it badly misconstrues the mission of the church. It is perfectly fine to want to influence the culture in a positive direction, but how do we do this?
    The first thing that we must understand is that the central task assigned to the church is contained in the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. . ." (Matt. 28:19,20). The reference to baptism clearly indicates that what is in view here is winning converts to Christ, i.e., personal salvation.
    When we look at the contemporary scene in America, however, we do not see this happening. Why? Because the church has gone about it the wrong way. It is not that we haven't tried – we have tried every strategy, method and technique imaginable. But all of it failed. It failed because the blessing of God was not upon it.
    Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Christians trying to Christianize the Roman Empire through politics, law or the arts. Rather, the primary means of advancing the Kingdom of God is the preaching of the gospel. But in order for preaching to get results the blessing of God must be upon it. "And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power . . .," the apostle Paul could declare (I Cor. 2:4).
    And why don't we experience that today? It is because we have failed to pray. We are disunited. We are careless and indifferent about our own relationship with God. We have grown carnal and worldly. Our "worship" is little more than entertainment. And we have substituted human organization, psychology, and marketing for the work of the Holy Spirit. The results speak for themselves.
    Yes, we need to fall on our knees and cry out to God. But it will require more than just a brief pro forma prayer one Sunday morning. It will require real repentance, and real confession. The sad part about it is that the average Christian today probably does not realize what the church is doing wrong, and scarcely knows what he should confess.
    We need to pray that God would open our eyes, especially the eyes of our pastors and "spiritual leaders." Only then will real reformation and revival come.

Articles in which you may also be interested:
Was the "Relgious Right" a Mistake? 
Christianity and Politics 
William Jennings Bryan: A Lesson in Faith and Politics 
The Real Issue in Gay Marriage Debate 
The Legacy of the Counterculture 
The Future of Playboy America 

The Real Issue in the Gay Marriage Debate

    Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases involving same-sex marriage. The first case centered on California's "Proposition 8," which overturned, by popular referendum, the state's law allowing same sex couples to wed. The second case involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a union between one man and one woman, thereby denying federal spousal benefits to homosexual couples who were legally married in states that permit such unions. Rulings in the two cases are expected in June.
    Recent polls show that public opinion is shifting in the direction of acceptance of gay marriage. One option at the court's disposal would be to treat the matter as a states' rights issue, and let the political process take is course in the individual states. If the court pursues this course, it is possible that in the next two years seven more states may legalize same sex marriage, in addition to the nine states and the District of Columbia which have already done so.
    But why the change in public opinion? Why were people opposed to gay marriage before? Why was it illegal in the first place?
    During the argument over DOMA, Justice Elena Kagan noted that the report of the House of Representatives attached to the statute cited "moral disapproval" of homosexuality, and she called that "a pretty good red flag" for discrimination. Press reports indicated that her comment caused a stir in the courtroom.
    This, however, begs the question. All morality entails discrimination: discrimination between good and evil, between virtue and vice. The court itself discriminates every time it decides a case, ruling in favor of one party against another.
    Moreover, if morality itself involves discrimination that is impermissible under the Constitution, is morality itself unconstitutional? Is America legally constrained to be an amoral society?
    It should not have surprised Justice Kagan that the House of Representatives, in passing a bill dealing with a subject like homosexuality, would cite moral considerations. Homosexuality was roundly condemned by both Judaism and Christianity.
    The traditional belief is was that sex was designed to fulfill a specific purpose, viz., heterosexual reproduction. To that end there is a natural attraction between members of the opposite sex, and in order to promote social stability sexual activity was supposed to be confined to marriage. Homosexuality was regarded as a grotesque anomaly, the very antithesis of what marriage was supposed to be.
    It was also regarded at one time as a mental disorder. A pivotal turning point in the way society views homosexuality came in 1975 when the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove the condition from its Diagnostics and Statistics Manual. The APA arrived at its conclusion, however, not because of any new clinical findings, but because of political pressure: a group of young activists campaigned for it. The rationale for the new policy is that since many homosexuals do not feel any subjective distress over their sexual orientation, it should not be considered a pathology. But under this standard almost any form of compulsive, antisocial, and even criminal activity could be considered "normal." If the alcoholic is not willing to admit that he has a drinking problem, is he mentally ill? What if he's perfectly happy being drunk, and thinks that he can control his drinking? Is the benchmark of mental health simply feeling good about one's self?
    The anomaly presented by homosexuality should be readily apparent. If one is biologically male, and yet is sexually attracted to other males, there is something obviously dysfunctional there, a disconnect between a person's psychology and biology. It is absurd to call such a condition "normal."
    The argument is often made that gays are born that way and therefore cannot help being the way they are. Yet numerous studies have been done to find a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality, yet none have produced conclusive results. What has been demonstrated, however, is that a common pattern among male homosexuals is a close binding mother and a distant father, suggesting that homosexuality is a learned behavior acquired during early childhood socialization.
    The gay lifestyle, at least among male homosexuals, is highly eroticized and notoriously promiscuous, whereas marriage is about restricting sex to one partner. How many gays who want to get "married" are willing to practice strict monogamy within an exclusive relationship?
    The overriding interest of the state in marriage is to encourage stable family units, and this calls for

Van Gogh: Mother and Child

responsible, committed heterosexual relationships. Children need to be connected, wherever possible, to their natural, biological parents. Marriage is meant to recognize these realities.
    The push to legalize same-sex marriage threatens to redefine marriage in a radical way. The effect will not be felt immediately. Gays will be able at first to claim that they have not undermined anyone else's marriage. But what kind of expectation will be created for future generations? That anything goes? That any pairing of sexual partners is permissible? That a permanent, committed relationship between a child's biological parents is unrealistic?
    As we have said before, gay marriage is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the end, the end of a long process of moral and social disintegration that began with feminism and the sexual revolution of the 70's. Today the wreckage lies all around us – a whole generation of young people raised in unstable, single-parent families. Of course they support gay marriage by large majorities: traditional family life is foreign to them. The question is, will the Supreme Court deliver the final blow?

Related blog posts:
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal? 
Same Sex Marriage: What Is at Stake 
The Future of Playboy America