Christianity - Is it Homophobic?

What is Homophobic?

A good place to begin is with the examination of the term “homophobic.”  The word is made up of two root words, “Homo” or same and “phobic” or fear.   Of course “homo” refers to homosexual and “phobic” which is defined as “…Excessive or irrational fear of ….”  It also is inclusive of the notion of “…panic fear of…”

Definitions available at http://www.etymonline.com

Thus the term “homophobic” suggests that the Christian Church is in fear of those who identify themselves as or engage in homosexual behavior.  However as with other elements of the language there is a problem—a semantic problem!

Semantics Problem

The problem is not so much that the Christian is afraid of homosexuality as much as the move to redefine anything that Christians say that is less than supportive and accepting of homosexuality as “homophobic.”  This makes no sense logically and as well semantically. 

Applying this same semantic logic to other matter with which one might disagree would test the validity of the term.  Let us say for example, one expresses dislike of Wal-Mart.  So then does that make one “Wallyophobic?”  What about someone who does not like Ford automobiles and expression his opinion.  Does that make such a person “Fordophobic?”

One may smile at the ridiculousness of those terms but there is a great issue.  Such a distortion of the language and the sensitivities involved does not allow for honest discussion of the differences and of the issues involved in those differences.

However to view the original source that prompts this series of postings will show that such liberties with language and literature are a part of the anarchist, liberal, progressive strategy to disrupt and destroy American culture in general and Christianity in particular.   (See reference at end of posting)

Inconsistent Standards

Another issue to consider is that of the standards involved.  While Christians are disparaged for saying anything that can be taken, even remotely, as denigrating homosexuality, the homosexual movement is not held to that same standard. 

The same voices that demand Christianity accept their life-style and in doing so seek to impose their beliefs upon Christians, seem to have no trouble taking offense when Christians seek to share faith with them.  It seems that if you are going to demand your right to impose on one side of the question, one must be willing to be imposed upon by those on the other side of the question.  To not do so is to be at the very least inconsistent and at the most overtly unfair.

One need not look long at the news to see the great disparity in the treatment of both groups.

Fear and Acceptance

Repeatedly the Bible enjoins the Christian-the follower of Jesus to not be in fear or to “fear not.”  Depending upon the version or translation consulted those words may appear as many as 60 times in the English Bible.

The second issue that bears on the subject is that matter of acceptance.  Scripture is clear that those who follow Christ are to be accepting of others.  However to accept a person does not imply that one must accept his or her life style and in this case, the choice to engage in a homosexual life style.  Incidentally, this goes far beyond the matter of homosexuality to include quite a number of other issues in which the Christian is to be accepting of the person but not his behaviors (cf Jude 1:20-23).

Basis of Behavior

To consider the question in an effective way calls upon one to consider what is the basis for one’s behavior?  If on the one hand the unchanging Judeo-Christian Scriptures provide the standards of and basis for behavior then the question of homosexuality will be answered in one way.

If on the other hand the individual view himself as the basis for truth then such a person’s personal appetites are paramount in his authority structure.  It is then that the question will be decided in an all together different way—a way that is both personal and based upon desires.

So then key to the discussion is the question of what one is willing to presuppose to be true.   Therefore one arrives again at which of the truth paradigm is acceptable.  See previous posting, “Are These Truths Universal” along with the three additional related postings.*

*http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/10/are-there-universal-concepts.html

The Effects of Authority Structures

The acceptance of such authority structures as one holds to be valid is not without outcomes.  This is much more than an academic exercise.  Such notions as one holds to be true is far reaching in one’s beliefs and of course such belief then has an effect upon one’s standards, attitudes, and actions.     

The problems come when one does not have a firm grasp on a stable standard for behavior.  Such a situation will result in a mindset that seeks external validation.  Such has been the case in the homosexual movement.  Individually and corporately there is a great need for external validation. 

One of the milestones for validation was gained in the 1973 edition of the Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders when homosexuality was no longer listed as a mental disease.  This came as a result of a decision by the American Psychiatric Association. 

Many places homosexuals were granted minority status.  Another instance of seeking validation was the 2011 end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”   The 2012 validation of homosexual marriage in several states pushed forward the homosexual agenda.

Considerations

What is one to make of this notion of “homophobic?”

1. The term “homophobic” is another instance of the breakdown of the English language—to lump together all who do not agree with homosexuality into one group is inaccurate, unfair, and illogical. 
2. Dialogue is key to understanding and acceptance.  To grant one group in society special standing and thus treatment is to disadvantage others and thus make dialogue increasingly difficult.
3. To demand is to impose and to impose tempts the possibility of push back.  Such can only create further misunderstanding and separation.
4. The demand for external validation strongly suggests an internal validation that at best is weak.

Clint and Darrel (not their names) were in a homosexual relationship.  Their belief was to live and let live and incidentally they had done so for many, many years.  They had no agenda other than being left alone to live together and to collect their Persian rugs.  If you were to visit in their home as I did, you would find them to be typical of many couples, one outgoing and warm the other reticent and quiet.  To imagine that one or both of them would march for homosexual rights is something of a stretch.  The problem is that with all the notoriety of today's homosexual movements one can only wonder if they would be left alone?  

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see my blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear? http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/11/christianity-is-it-faith-driven-by-fear.html).  Contained within that blog is a reference, 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.

"What Does Man's Sense of Right Mean?"

Think about it.

In every person of any age at all, there is a notion of right.  That is to say that whether the person is a narcissist, a sociopath, an eccentric, a humanitarian, a humanist, a creationist, or an atheist there is within that person a sense of something that tells that person that this is the way you should behave.

That is not to say that such is the same for the humanitarian's sense of right and that of a sociopath will be radically different.  Still in all, there is that instinctive sense of right and wrong, a standard of some sort.

Why?  Why is it that there is within each of us some sense of standard by which to measure right or wrong behavior?  Some would argue it is a product of material naturalism.  Others would argue that it is a product of divine creationism.  How would you answer the question?

There is however another attendant question.  It goes like this.  Why is there such a common threat which runs through the various cultures of mankind?  For example, there is a sense in most people of behaving for the greater good.

There is a universal though unwritten sense within people of the need to care for infants.  Only the hard hearted among mankind do not respond to the pitiful cry of an infant.  Yet, there were those Canaanites and others who sacrificed infants by placing them in the red hot hands of an idol made in the likeness of their god Moloch. 

Why would people do such a thing?  The simple answer was that they thought that by doing so their god would be appeased and thus any anger that might interfere with their having a fruitful harvest would be appeased.

There are other universal standard which are found in the preponderance of mankind.  Other examples would include but not be limited to the following.

Property – the unit of ownership, that is to say the unit that owns property may be the individual, the family, or even the village but there is some sense of owner/non owner.

Murder - how murder is defined may differ but murder is seen as being wrong

Justice – though standards may be different there is a sense of justice

Family – though the family structure may differ (polygamy) the structure of the family is present.

Love – not the self centered love that demands fulfillment but the giving of one’s best to another.

Ancestors - how it is expressed may differ but there is respect for one’s fore-bearers is present.

Children – Again how it is lived out may differ but the care for children is prevalent in culture after culture.

Self-sacrifice – the example would be the sacrifices of a parent for a child.

To be sure there are others.

Now comes the question.  How did these and other universal standards come about?  And for the material naturalist who embraces the premise of “survival of the fittest” maybe you could answer the question as to how such could be more than a questionable theory (as opposed to a law)?

 The question deserves an answer when you consider that some of the items listed above property ownership, justice, family, etc. would seem to militate against such being true.  If this notion is not true, then how many other of man’s good ideas are not to be trusted?

The writer of the Proverbs, King Solomon of Israel observed this two times in his writings.

"There is a way which seems right to a man, but its ends is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25, NASU)

Continuing the question that deserves an answer then is this.  When you push the answer out to its logical conclusion, just where do you find yourself?