Last month Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, called on David Cameron and the Commonwealth Games organisers to speak out against the criminalisation of homosexuality in many of the countries represented at the Glasgow Games. Tatchell and others point out that homosexuality is a punishable offence in 42 of the 53 Commonwealth nations. Penalties range up to life imprisonment and even, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan, the death penalty. These measures are in place despite every Commonwealth country having signed up to the Commonwealth Charter which states: "there shall be no discrimination against any country or person on any grounds whatsoever, including race, colour, gender, religion or politics" (Article 7).
Some Christians may wonder why they should be concerned about this, or indeed rally to the side of a campaigner like Peter Tatchell who has not been, shall we say, a great friend of the church in recent years. Further, Christians may be asking where such high profile media campaigns for fundamental human rights are being made when it comes to religion. In the same period that Peter Tatchell received considerable airtime on this topic, a brutal programme of persecution against Christians was being carried out by ISIS in the city of Mosul without any great outcry among the Western political class.
Nonetheless this is an issue that Christians would do well to make their voices heard on – and do so by supporting Peter Tatchell in his call to end persecution against homosexuals wherever that happens. Believing that someone should not be persecuted (or vilified) is not the same as agreeing with them. There are many things that Christians would regard as inappropriate, sinful even, but would see no benefit in criminalising – e.g. hetrosexual adultery or promiscuity. The same Bible passages that warn against homosexual activity include injunctions against gluttony, gossip and boasting – woe betide all of us if these should become grounds for imprisonment or state sponsored harassment. Law and morality are complex bed-fellows but we can all recognise that State Law can’t deal with all immorality – indeed often the best Law can do is mitigate the effects of fallen human behaviour by facilitating and thus managing the consequences of things we’d rather didn’t happen (e.g. the OT divorce laws).
There is also an issue here of Christians having to treat others the way they themselves would want to be treated. Again this is a complex area and one that doubtless requires a number of nuanced qualifications. However, Christians cannot expect that in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies (where they themselves may be in a tiny minority) that their beliefs will be privileged. We may feel we are right and it would be better if our beliefs were privileged (i.e. held sway over others) but that is not going to be countenanced by a majority who don’t share our basic convictions and faith premise. Christians can, however, make the case that their beliefs and the resulting way of life should be protected – that is, allowed the same freedom to be held and expressed as others. If I would wish such freedom for myself – I should (indeed will need to) be prepared to grant it to another, even if I might personally be appalled by their use of it. In the end God will judge on such matters and we can confidentially leave that to Him.
For those outraged at the treatment of Christians in many places today; for those who would be horrified at the thought of LGBT friends or family members being publicly hounded or castigated; for those who believe that tolerance is more than, our secular culture’s definition of, insisting that everyone hold the same beliefs, but actually involves standing up for those you disagree with – then this is an opportunity to show that Christians are not just another pressure group only concerned with themselves.
This piece has also been published on CHRISTIAN TODAY
3 comments:
This is a well reasoned piece . All people , whether religious of not , should stand up for equality for all and for tolerance towards those who may hold a different view from them. If we believe we should have freedom to worship. freedom of speech / unless it is against the law/ we should be prepared to stand up for all people to have that freedom . The 49 Commonwealth countries need pressure and help to change.
Making such common cause with the Lord's enemies is a denial of the Gospel as it is saying that Biblical belief is equal to the lies of the devil. Sodomy is not a different belief but a clear denial of God's created order. To believe what the Lord says is not to "feel we are right" but to honour Him. Do we honour Him or the world's ideas of tolerance and rejection of Divinely-revealed truth?
William -
My blog point is fairly narrow one regarding the criminalisation (and in some cases draconian punishments) in many countries for that particular sexual sin. I was hopefully clear in stating that opposing criminalisation did not equate to endorsement or indeed promotion of such activity. So while I would never be a 'Gay Rights' campaigner I would want to defend the rights of Gay people to be treated on the same basis as other sexual sinners. In that regard I think that Criminal Law is not the tool best suited to deal with sexual acts between consenting adults.
Or put it this way, I've been situations where people are having to deal with and think through how to respond to a range of sexual sins - e.g. a promiscuous son; an unmarried pregnant daughter, an adulterous husband etc. While Christians grieve over and would call people to repent of those sins, I've never heard anyone say that it would be great if they could call in the police and get them to prosecute those involved. So it's really just calling for consistency - because otherwise people will think we're not so much concerned about sin as just a bit homophobic.
On the issue of Freedom of Speech, this is a complicated area, but I think few of us would argue for the State suppression of other religions - even though all false religion is harmful and damaging to people's ultimate welfare. A few years back there were calls for councils to ban the loathsome 'Jerry Springer The Opera' - something deeply offensive to Christians. The danger is that Jewish people might argue that John's Gospel is deeply offensive (anti-semitic) to them and demand that it be banned. We could say, and it would have a certain consistency, that the Christian position (being right) should be the only one given protection and freedom regardless of our numbers or the beliefs of others - and demand an 'all or nothing' recognition. It seems to me, however, that outside of Christendom that the church hasn't operated on that basis - but guarded and held out the truth of the life-transforming and soul-saving Gospel to the societies around them. Rejoicing when those societies embraced that truth and were consequently transformed - and persevering under trial when those societies rejected that truth and languished in moral and spiritual darkness (a godless nation will want bad laws - that being part of the inbuilt judgement that comes with rejecting God). But in both cases the hope was always in the Gospel and not in Law to improve things. And in that situation what is of utmost importance is that we have the freedom to proclaim rather than the power to enforce.
I hope that clarifies what I'm saying and crucially what I'm not saying in the post.
Post a Comment