It wasn’t until the day the 2012 US
Presidential Election results were announced that I finally took a little bit
of interest in it. I don’t normally have much time for news, from the
newspapers or from the radio or TV. I have become somewhat cynical about media
reporting, not only because of the way certain stories are reported, but
because I’m suspicious of the editorial decision-making over what constitutes a
newsworthy story in the first place. Be that as it may, I’ve observed over many
years that the British media coverage of US politics is pretty
anti-conservative. They largely poked fun at Reagan, ridiculed both Bush’s,
especially the last one; and Dan Quayle was especially targeted. We seem to
wring our hands in frustration that Americans could be so stupid as to vote in
their millions for such “idiots”. It’s very hard over here to feel we are
getting an unbiased view of US politicians in our news reports (or any foreign
politicians for that matter), so I tend to pay very little attention since I
don’t have to vote for a US President.
However, when I heard Mitt Romney being
referred to as a “moron” (a play on words on his Mormon faith), a “cretin” and
a “bigot” in social media discussions based on anti-Romney news articles, I
thought it all sounded a bit extreme. So I had a little look at what might
provoke people to name-calling and, to be honest, downright religious hatred. I
found that he’d been CEO of Bain & Co, a very well-respected international
management consulting firm, and Governor of Massachusetts. I also found it
interesting that, whilst he did not win the election, he was voted for by 59
million people (more than the entire population of England). So why was it we
Brits took such a dislike to the man?
Partly, at least, it appeared to be the
simple fact that he allowed moral principles arising from his faith as a Mormon
to influence his policies in public life. Probably most notable was his
opposition to legalization of same-sex marriage whilst Governor of
Massachusetts, which was played out rather awkwardly in a tussle over whether
same-sex partners could both be named on birth certificates of children they
either adopted or had born to them. Whilst it was hard to see through the
rhetoric and the editorial arm waving, and despite the fact that I could only
find the sound-bite quotations, rather than the speeches and discussions
reported more fully in context, it appeared to me that Mr Romney was acting out
of principled belief and not out of bigotry.
And what of Nick Clegg, the British Deputy
Prime Minister, who in September this year reportedly referred to opponents of
the redefinition of marriage as “bigots” in the first draft of a speech in
September (later redrafting to refer to “some people”)?
The gay rights charity Stonewall has an
annual awards evening that includes an award for ‘Bigot of the Year’. The 2012
award was won by Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic
church in Scotland.
As someone who is very concerned about, and
opposed to, the proposed redefinition of marriage to include long term same-sex
partnerships, in response to these kind of comments I have to ask myself, am I
a bigot? Am I being bigoted in saying that I think that homosexual
relationships are wrong, and therefore the concept of same-sex ‘marriage’ is
wrong? I’m an evangelical Christian, rather than Mormon or Roman Catholic, but
since I come to a similar position on this issue via similar logic, if Mitt
Romney and Keith O’Brien can be labeled bigots then so should I. Should I be
concerned? Offended?
Yes and No.
Of course, the position that views same-sex
relationships as wrong on the basis of religious conviction is not by
definition bigoted. One definition I found says that bigotry is the “stubborn
and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from
one’s own.” Disagreeing, begging to differ, debating, defending a position, having
a different view, has never been seen as necessarily intolerant. So given that
I’m not trying gag the gay rights lobby, however vociferous they are, and I’m
not trying to outlaw anyone from saying
that homosexuality is right or ok, and I’m not unwilling to engage in debate,
there is no way I can legitimately be called a bigot.
The historic legal position, or even the
taboo, which was intolerant of homosexual practice
also cannot be labeled bigoted, since bigotry relates to intolerance of having opinions. Western (democratic) society
was intolerant of homosexual practice because the majority believed it to be
wrong and perverted. That is simply what happens when you have a moral
principle: people who transgress are either criminalized or culturally
marginalized, or face some consequences, democratically decided. For example, we
have other moral principles that are still agreed on today – e.g. we don’t
think it’s right to cheat, so the Lance Armstrongs of the world face regulatory
consequences for their actions as well as the condemnation of the media. But
we’re not bigoted against cheating. (On the other hand, if someone wanted to
argue that doping is not cheating, and should be legalized, fair enough, let
them argue their case. And it would
be bigoted not to listen to that case!)
So it’s not a concern to be labeled a
‘bigot’ from the point of view of the fact that it’s clearly incorrect. However,
it is a concern and it is offensive, because it shows that
legitimate debate has given way to name-calling.
But as I outlined in my series ‘Whose RulesRule?’ on this blog, name-calling is all but inevitable when we are bereft of
common ground or a higher authority on which to appeal. Christians appeal to
the moral standards of God Almighty, the Creator and Ruler of the entire
Universe, as the basis for deciding what is right and wrong. Secular
non-religious Westerners only have themselves to look to as their ultimate
authority.
My fear, as I mentioned in one of those
previous articles, is that whilst Christians are not bigoted and intolerant (in
the main – although there are a minority of Christians who do not act in a
loving way), the opposition from unbelievers is becoming bigoted and intolerant. It is becoming culturally
unacceptable - open to condemnation, victimization and oppression - to say what
one thinks, especially in the realms of sexual freedom, feminism or pre-birth
human rights (or even, let’s be honest, in the realms of the creation of the
universe).
To the secular non-religious Westerner the
existence, in their democratic society, of opinions that would threaten to
stifle their freedom to choose their own moral path is becoming intolerable. Because
of our Christian heritage they want to be able to argue the case, but find that
with no common ground their opponents are immovable. And therefore, they resort
to the name-calling and fun-poking that we have seen over the past 40-50 years,
and are now moving to the active oppression and intolerance we have been increasingly
seeing over the past 10-15 years.
How then should we proceed?
My first appeal is to readers who are not
Christians: Please don’t be
intolerant and bigoted. Please don’t
write Christians off as such. We are not stupid, nasty or hateful (as I was
labeled in one social media discussion). Rather I appeal to you to engage with
the Christian worldview. Find out why we believe what we believe, and find out
what it is that we really believe. Find out why Jesus Christ is the focus of
God’s love and yet is the most divisive character in history. One place to
start, which is only convenient because you’re here on the blog already, is my
other articles on morality – the ‘Whose Rules Rule?’ series. Send comments and
questions. Discuss. Engage.
My final appeal is to readers who are Christians: Please don’t be
discouraged when you are verbally attacked and called a bigot, homophobe,
fundamentalist, Bible-basher, stupid, nasty, hateful, ridiculous, religious
nut, etc, etc. Our Saviour told us to expect it. “Blessed are you when people
hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil,
on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for
behold, your reward is great in heaven…” (Luke 6:22-23)
“If the world hates you, know that it has
hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love
you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)
If the unbelieving world with which we come
into contact does not hate Jesus then they have not understood him properly.
Once we do our job of explaining and showing Jesus to the world, they will
either hate him or repent. If we leave them to see Him as another version of
Buddha or Confucius, a kind man who teaches us to be nice to each other, then
they will not repent and then will not have any chance to be saved. Once they
understand that Jesus’ purpose in coming was to turn them back from their
sinful rejection of God’s rule over their lives, because they love their
autonomy, they will hate all that He stands for… and the people who preach His
name.
Remember the Jews liked the
miracle-working-Jesus, but hated the sin-defeating-Jesus. Remember the Roman
emperors didn’t mind the hard-working-Rabbi-Jesus, but they hated the
worship-me-alone-Jesus. And they hated Him, called Him names, and killed Him.
And He’s the One we are called to take up our cross and follow.
So let’s make sure that we don’t shy away
from talking about sin, about what’s right and what’s wrong, calling people to
repentance, because that’s what Jesus is all about. And as always, let’s “run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus,
the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him
endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the
throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners
such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or
faint-hearted.” (Hebrews 12:1-3)
