Intellectual Diversity: Where Do You Draw the Line on Homosexuality?
As Brokeback Mountain continues to draw audiences, one has to wonder if the fight for diversity is over. More importantly, who won?
Jeff Spry, the minister of education at my church, today encouraged the congregation to ignore silly genetic differences like the amount of pigment people have in their skin. He suggested that it's as ridiculous as if we separated on account of our ear lobes. I have dangly ear lobes, but some people do not. I suggested after church that my wife and I have a mixed marriage. We are very different genetically. She is female and I am male. I suggest that the difference is greater than the difference between black and white skin tones. Genetically speaking, there is little diversity in a homosexual relationship.
Jeff also posted a blog disclosing Bill Gaither's lack of ability to rightly discern the difference between godly judgment and judgmentalism. Apparently, Bill thinks sexual sin is okay. I've loved his music and even sang a song of his or two. While such a high-profile figure coming out with such a position harms the witness of the Church at large, it is hardly devastating to those of us whose faith is not in Christian celebrity, but in Christ Himself. I'm sure the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas doesn't agree with Bill Gaither. Recently, they removed a church for holding a similar position.
The Roman Catholic Church has made a statement against Homosexuality in the priesthood. However, the timing of its release was delayed because of fear that homosexual activists would claim that the Vatican was blaming child sexual abuse on homosexual priests in the US. While the Vatican may have some common ground with the Southern Baptists on this matter, I doubt the SBC is as concerned with what homosexual activists think about them. What's so bad about making a general public statement against the sin of child abusing priests anyway? It would be a rather healthy way to weed out unrepentant padres (which should be confronted in private).
The college front has become more hostile:
A University in Britain has banned and frozen the assets of a Christian club in the Birmingham Guild of Students for refusing to allow homosexuals and non-Christians into leadership positions in the group.
In a subversive move, South Dakota lawmakers are passing a bill to ensure intellectual diversity on state universities. The goal, ostensibly, is to make sure that no one is harassed because of their views. My question is what determines whose expressed view "harasses" another's view? I could speak against homosexuality and be condemned because homosexuals feel harassed for being homosexual. However, if I complain that I feel harassed because a homosexual expresses his views, I may not receive the same treatment.
So where's the diversity? Who gets to decide?
Jeff Spry, the minister of education at my church, today encouraged the congregation to ignore silly genetic differences like the amount of pigment people have in their skin. He suggested that it's as ridiculous as if we separated on account of our ear lobes. I have dangly ear lobes, but some people do not. I suggested after church that my wife and I have a mixed marriage. We are very different genetically. She is female and I am male. I suggest that the difference is greater than the difference between black and white skin tones. Genetically speaking, there is little diversity in a homosexual relationship.
Jeff also posted a blog disclosing Bill Gaither's lack of ability to rightly discern the difference between godly judgment and judgmentalism. Apparently, Bill thinks sexual sin is okay. I've loved his music and even sang a song of his or two. While such a high-profile figure coming out with such a position harms the witness of the Church at large, it is hardly devastating to those of us whose faith is not in Christian celebrity, but in Christ Himself. I'm sure the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas doesn't agree with Bill Gaither. Recently, they removed a church for holding a similar position.
The Roman Catholic Church has made a statement against Homosexuality in the priesthood. However, the timing of its release was delayed because of fear that homosexual activists would claim that the Vatican was blaming child sexual abuse on homosexual priests in the US. While the Vatican may have some common ground with the Southern Baptists on this matter, I doubt the SBC is as concerned with what homosexual activists think about them. What's so bad about making a general public statement against the sin of child abusing priests anyway? It would be a rather healthy way to weed out unrepentant padres (which should be confronted in private).
The college front has become more hostile:
A University in Britain has banned and frozen the assets of a Christian club in the Birmingham Guild of Students for refusing to allow homosexuals and non-Christians into leadership positions in the group.
In a subversive move, South Dakota lawmakers are passing a bill to ensure intellectual diversity on state universities. The goal, ostensibly, is to make sure that no one is harassed because of their views. My question is what determines whose expressed view "harasses" another's view? I could speak against homosexuality and be condemned because homosexuals feel harassed for being homosexual. However, if I complain that I feel harassed because a homosexual expresses his views, I may not receive the same treatment.
So where's the diversity? Who gets to decide?
posted by Jim Pemberton at 12:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home