Responding to the Gay Rights Movement

Dan Olinger, Ph.D.

In the years since the Stonewall Riots, from which the gay rights movement officially dates itself, there has been an aggressive campaign to gain acceptance for homosexuality and homosexuals in American society. Unless you have been in a coma for that time, you have certainly noticed it. A good many people, however, have not been able to understand the movement's main tactics; and others, including many Christians and Christian organizations, have been unable to respond effectively. So what's going on? and what should we do about it?

Leaders within the gay rights movement have set forth several key tactics for increasing the level of acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal (Landes, 1994).

• First, the movement deemphasizes public displays or discussion of homosexual behavior, since such behavior is instinctively repulsive to most Americans, Christian or not. For example, media coverage of gay rights rallies focuses on marchers chanting slogans and waving signs in a manner reminiscent of the civil rights marches of the 1960s, rather than on the obscene behavior occurring nearby.
• Second, activists promote public discussion of the subject, so that the public will become used to hearing about it and the "shock value" of homosexuality will wear off.
• Third, the movement emphasizes examples of "normal" homosexual couples, who appear to be nice, normal people, not overtly threatening to the social order.
• And finally, those who oppose homosexual behavior or gay rights are caricatured as hateful, intolerant bigots. For example, the word commonly used in government and the media today for opposition to homosexuality is homophobia, a word that denotes irrational fear (and connotes ignorance). Since any opponent is irrational, then, he need not be answered rationally, and his opinions need be neither heard nor respected. The truth or relative value of arguments is thereby completely sidestepped, and the issue becomes one of emotion: the winner is the one who makes the most noise.

Evidence of the success of this strategy is abundant, and we need not recount it here. The direction of government attitudes toward homosexuality has changed completely in the last 20 years, and this change was well under way before President Clinton took office. Corporations and schools (from elementary on up) are engaged in aggressive programs to "re-educate" their constituencies about the normality of homosexual behavior. And the homosexual movement has succeeded in changing the discussion from one of morals to one of civil rights.

The church's response to this societal shift has been mixed. In the mainline denominations the gay rights movement has found a willing ally; some denominations now routinely ordain practicing homosexuals to the ministry and aggressively engage in the "re-education" of their members. Other more conservative groups have opposed these changes with varying degrees of finesse and success. And Bible-believing Christians everywhere are wondering what these changes bode for them and their ministries.

Of course Christians need to consider what their response will be to potential charges of discrimination against homosexuals or related matters. The good news is that it is not likely that ministries will be liable for simple discrimination charges against homosexuals on the basis of their homosexual activity; the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempts any organization that has fewer than 15 employees, is a religious educational institution, or for whom religion is a bona fide occupational qualification. (For example, a school's requirement that its teachers be converted is legitimate.) Furthermore, all employment decisions by religious organizations are exempt as well. All of this could change as quickly as new legislation and regulations are proposed. Typical of such moves is legislation recently proposed by Senator Ted Kennedy (S-2238) which would amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. If passed, the legislation would have the effect of extending special rights based on sexual behavior. A similar bill has been introduced in the House by Congressman Gerry Studds (H.R. 4636).

But beyond this, how can we be both as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves? Ministries can take several steps to lower their chances of being victims of malicious prosecution:

1. Formulate and officially declare your biblical position on homosexual conduct. This declaration should appear in your church bylaws, your school teacher and student handbooks, and your employment contracts. You can base this position on the key biblical passages: Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:18; Judges 19; Rom. 1:24-27; I Cor. 6:9-13; and I Tim. 1:10. Exegesis of these passages is readily available from other sources, but two key principles are worth noting here. First, the Genesis and Judges passages demonstrate that when homosexuality has been sanctioned in a society, judgment has fallen on the entire society, and not merely the practitioners. Second, these condemnations extend to the New Testament era and cannot be dismissed by a sarcastic reference to prohibitions on the eating of shrimp.
2. Establish careful and specific screening procedures for the selection of employees and volunteers who could be placed in any supervisory role over minors. Your declaration of opposition to homosexual conduct will cause others who agree with you to rely on reasonable enforcement of that policy, and your failure to do so can leave you liable to a charge of negligence. In order to guard against any possible case of molestation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) in your school, you will need to demonstrate extreme care in the hiring of your employees and volunteers. Failing to do so, you may face an overwhelming financial penalty on top of the horror of having the incident occur.
3. Reasonably supervise all employees and volunteers, e.g. establishing sensible policies for their conduct with minors under their care, instructing about acceptable and unacceptable physical contact, and limiting the prospect that an adult might be alone with a minor for an extended period. If you face a negligence charge, you will need to show that you demonstrated reasonable supervision as well as care in hiring.
4. Deal with any problems as privately as possible, in harmony with Matthew 18:15-17; and never publicly reveal intimate facts about someone who is no longer a member of your organization. Churches and religious schools are not generally obligated to demonstrate the adherence to due process required of government schools, and so long as you have made your standards and expectations public beforehand, you should be free to reject applications and to terminate or discipline those involved in infractions. But you are not exempt from a charge of defamation or invasion of privacy, and you need to act in a way that respects those principles.
5. Do not accept any federal or state financial assistance. Those who do so face increased liability regarding due process and discrimination, since they are viewed as arms of the state by virtue of government support.

Beyond these legal matters, ministries also need to consider carefully their treatment of the homosexual community in the light of Scripture. It is easy to react with vitriol to the subject of homosexuality. This is understandable, since homosexuality is in fact contrary to nature and a disgusting practice; and strong confrontational action and language are biblically supported, and not "un-Christian." (I would only wish that my personal revulsion against all other sins was as strong as the disgust I feel toward homosexuality!) Yet in this one area many Christians have been unable to separate the sin from the sinner; and if we are to follow Christ's example, we need to reach out to the homosexual with the same kind of love and compassion we accord everyone else; in this very real sense, we need to stop discriminating against homosexuals. We don't scream epithets at the proud man, who is engaging in one of the seven things God hates (Prov. 6:17), nor do we make snide remarks behind his back; and such behavior is no more effective in reaching homosexuals than anyone else.

A second ineffective response has been to engage in debate over the origins of homosexual impulse: is it a choice, or are they "born that way"? And if the latter is true, we wonder whether the inclination is genetic, or hormonal, or chemical. Who cares? It's an irrelevant question. The homosexual movement has committed the grave logical error of making the two statements "I was born that way" and "God made me that way" synonymous. They are not. "Original Sin" is a Scriptural doctrine: we are all born with a sinful nature and consequent sinful impulses. To phrase it differently, God didn't make any of us the way we were born; there was an intervening factor. I was born with all kinds of sinful impulses that were not placed there by God, and so were you. Many of these impulses I'm still battling as an adult, and so are you. My daily battle is to conform my behavior not to my natural impulses, but to the pattern Christ has set in His life and the Holy Spirit has set forth in His Word. Homosexual activity clearly falls outside that pattern, according to the clear and unambiguous statement of Scripture. So it does not matter whether the homosexual was born that way; to behave that way is sin.

In short, we need to treat the practicing homosexual as we would treat any sinner: he's depraved by virtue of his standing as a child of Adam; he's in need of the cleansing blood of Christ; and once he has accepted that payment for his sins, he needs the power of the Holy Spirit and the support of loving Christian brothers and sisters in his battle to overcome daily the temptations that assault him. His continuing temptation to engage in homosexual activity is no more sinful, or a sign of perdition, than your continuing temptation to gossip, or to be proud, or to envy, or to think lustful thoughts; and he needs to take his place as a contributing member of the body of Christ.

Reference

Landes, T. (1994). Gay rights in America: The ultimate pr campaign. Rutherford, 3 (7), 3, 8-11, 23.

Reprinted from Balance, a publication of the School of Education, Bob Jones University. Used with permission of Bob Jones University. Please write BJU Press, for permission to reproduce this article.