Born This Way?

Born This Way?

Christians are finding themselves under much scrutiny and pressure, and since it is our nature as American Christians to blend our faith culture with our national culture, we have allowed the voices of our larger community to impose an unneeded guilt, telling us that we are not tolerant enough, not understanding enough, and not compassionate enough because we affirm our orthodox position against certain ways of life. We have accepted this false dichotomy between reactions to such issues. Christians are presented with two opposing options as if these options are our only two choices. Either we shut our mouth in acceptance and tolerance, or we shout hate as judgmental bigots. There exists no real model for Christians to be loving and accepting while remaining firm in conviction and adamant to help any who wishes to be helped. Our culture has hounded us so mercilessly that many have set aside doctrines because society says such ideas are outmoded and biased. But, are the popular arguments valid?

I was recently checking in on friends (creeping if you will) on a popular social network, and a particular comment by a long forgotten acquaintance caught my eye. I do not know much about this person, so this is no real comment upon this particular person, other than to say that I regret that she has bought into this position that the only way the church can be credible is for it to be acceptable to modern sentiments. Her post read as follows: “This is absolutely incredible. Such a beautiful, loving message from a church - imagine that. I wish more would see it this way. There's still hope.” Of course, such a comment caught my eye and I was eager to read the link, until I saw its title: “Being Gay is a Gift From God.” This church, whose desire to show love to hurt and marginalized persons, has allowed the predominant, cultural claims to define how they should demonstrate this love: by taking a stand against the majority, orthodox church. Oh how I wish this church would have taken its drive to show love to hurt persons and used this drive to start a campaign to show how orthodox believers can be loving in light of biblical truth, instead of going against it. My heart further broke when I saw this church was a part of my beloved denomination and had modified our symbol to promote this campaign. The United Methodist cross and flame now displays a rainbow colored flame; a flame that is meant to represent the Holy Spirit is now used to represent an alternative lifestyle not supported by the orthodox church. And what is their main argument to support their claims: “You were born this way.”(Note: The purpose of this post is not to explore the truthfulness of this claim.)

In an age of political correctness, persons have been given much leeway to be who they wish to be and/or act as they wish to act. In reaction to abusive comments that in the past were allowed and even commonplace, reactionism has swung the pendulum to the other extreme as persons are more and more censored in what they are allowed to say concerning the moral development of others, and the faith community is taking the brunt of the censorship, either through explicit censorship or implicit ignoring of our voice by mainstream media. This censorship is not just a silencing by the media. Instead, the media often finds the extremist who will spew hatemongering, and they will make fools out of the rest of the faith community that has really little to do with this or that extremist. In times past, society had expectations of others and these expectations were transmitted to others as ‘what it takes’ to be in. Sometimes these expectations were damaging, but, often, they were character forming. The task of correcting the wrong doings of others who abuse the privilege of admonishment should not have been to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that is indeed what has happened.

The PC crowd has offered many counterpoints to mainline thought, shifting societal positions on certain topic under the guise of being tolerant and accepting, and some of these points have conceivably reformed society in a positive manner, helping to rid society of certain forms of prejudices. However, often times, the PC arguments have led to the stripping of character forming beliefs, and have demonized well-intentioned persons. Perhaps the most forceful argument that has arisen in recent times concerning certain social hot points, as demonstrated by the church mentioned above, is that people should be accepted for who they are based on their predetermined dispositions. In other words, determination and perseverance to overcome one’s birth state is no longer valued, but seen as an insult to others born like you. On the surface, this seems right and good. If it was indeed the case, and most persons think this is certain, that Michael Jackson had his skin color altered based on popular notions of society telling him his color was inadequate, then we must question the sensitivity of that culture and the message it is sending to others. If I am white and you are black, should we be blamed for this? Of course we should not. But, does this simple example somehow prove this argument is valid and useful in all situations relating to all topics.

What society seems to miss is that certain dispositions people are born with are not always valued and cannot be used as an argument to silence others for wanting to help others change. For example, it has been well known for some time that there is a direct link between genetics and heart disease. Are we to then tell the cheerio eating runner who has based his life habits on altering his predetermined condition that he is an insult to heart disease suffers worldwide and that he should be happy with his high cholesterol because, “Baby, you were born this way”? Should parents belonging to a long line of alcoholics not warn their children of the dangers of their genetic predisposition to alcoholism because, “Baby, you born this way”? Should a person predisposed to violence be allowed or even encouraged to act out his or her rage simply because, “Baby, you were born this way? Should we shun prenatal surgeries that can extend a child’s life by years, telling the child when he or she is old enough that the reason we did not help is because, “Baby, you were born this way”? In a simplistic way, all these examples show another side of the coin, that the argument of birth disposition does not always warrant lifestyle.

It should be obvious by now that I am speaking most specifically of the argument against the Christian orthodox position concerning homosexuality. Certain persons reading this blog might wish to argue that certain dispositions, such as sexual preference, should not be compared with heart disease, alcoholism, violence, prenatal malformation or the like. Instead, certain dispositions should be compared to the first and only positive analogy given above: race. Perhaps it is the case that the church culture's position against homosexuality is like taking a position against skin color. However, is it sufficient to tell someone feeling inadequate due to his or her race that it all is okay because, “Baby, you were born this way”? I think not. Would not the conversation include much more consideration such as ethnic heritage, cultural uniqueness, beautiful diversity and the like? I think so. In other words, the argument that, “Baby, you were born this way,” is, at least in many if not all cases, insufficient when trying to affirm someone in their dispositions. Much deeper consideration needs to be pursued.

While this argument does not prove homosexuality as implicitly immoral, since this is not the nature of this argument, it does prove that arguments for a positive outlook based on disposition are lacking, which is the purpose and nature of this argument. In other words, I wanted to show how the pressures of the predominant culture are, while seeming valid, not always as valid as they seem. The church should not be bullied without thinking the issue through. Whether this blog changes others’ minds or not, it does throw strong doubt towards the argument: “Baby, I was born this way,” and shows that this 'obvious' display of the outmoded state of orthodox Christianity is not as strong as some assume. So, in closing I will sum up what I have argued thus far:

(1) Some have argued that disposition lends to proper behavior and lifestyle.
(2) However, many dispositions have led to improper behavior and lifestyle (e.g. predisposition to alcoholism and violence)
(3) Therefore, not all dispositions lend to proper behavior and lifestyle, and such argumentation is inadequate.

In the end, persons may wish to argue for the validity of certain dispositions based on claims other than disposition itself, and that is precisely my point. This is not an entire treatise against certain immoral actions, merely a rebuttal to some existing arguments for the disposition.

In other words, try again, Gaga.

In closing, I want to be clear. I hate no one. I love people no matter their sexual preference. I also want all to be a part of the faith of which I am a part. It is not lost on me that it is difficult to give up our desires, and it is sometimes hard to understand why God would ask persons to suppress their predisposed desires. I myself have had to give up certain wants to follow God. While I have never struggled in this particular arena, I certainly have given of myself in ways that makes me sympathetic, but that does not change my understanding that one still must give up certain wants for the sake of following Christ. We must count the costs. While you might not understand now, if you will give of self for Christ, you will be blessed and might even, through relationship, come to understand why He asks of us certain things.

Humbly,

-TM