Courageous?

There's something I really like about not writing a popular blog - that's that I don't get zillions of comments from people.  Reading these comments always raises my blood pressure ever so slightly, especially if the content strays even slightly towards the Christian.  Organisations and Markets a little while back posted about what they described as the most courageous man in academia, who has written a paper purporting to prove that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality.

I think the title of this blog makes posting on this paper somewhat necessary.  I think it's a pointless and wrong exercise, and a waste of an economist's time to be writing something like this.  Why does it matter?  What is the point to be proved?  The economist clearly has some odd Christian ideas in his head, and maybe I'm being a little harsh, but I don't see how this kind of writing is going to leave anyone more predisposed towards Christianity - and at the end of the day, for the Christian this is the ultimate aim - to bring honour and praise to Jesus.

Furthermore, as I think many have pointed out in other places (I know New Deal 2.0 commented on this too), even if we stick to biblical principles, a very narrow heterosexuality is superior in that it is not sinful - that is heterosexual sex within marriage.  Then, the teachings of Jesus ratcheted this up about a million notches by saying anyone who even looks at a women lustfully has committed adultery with her.

The point is, none of us are without sin, especially this economist who wrote this bizarre paper.  So it's hypocritical as well as being wrong.  Jesus didn't tell Christians to moralise - that's been proven to be about the best way, over the years, to turn people off Chrisitanity.

That can be well seen by the various comments on this paper.  Firstly, people interpret it as homophobia and thus dub all Christians homophobic - which is not true.  As said, there are many things that are sinful, and nobody managed to avoid sinning.  It's not PC to say homosexuality is a sin, but so are all my lustful glances.  The Christian abides by a moral code (and fails by it too) given in the Bible.  Others take other sources to base their morals on - neither can be claimed to be superior, although liberals of course claim theirs is vastly superior.

The Christian believes that despite his or her sin, that Jesus's death on the cross took the punishment for that, and hence the Christian is forgiven and can know God.  So there's nothing there to start acting superior to others over, no room for complacency, boasting or anything.  Certainly no room for this academic paper.

Instead Christians should be loving, and telling people about the good news - about what Jesus' death can do for them.

The Other Thing That Annoyed Me

New Deal 2.0 is a good blog reporting less right-wing stuff from the US, and as such it appeals usually to my left-leaning tendencies.  However, this article annoyed me greatly.  Now I'm not bothered about the idiot they are commenting on.  Trying to prove the superiority of heterosexual sex of all other kinds of sex is simply stupid and a complete waste of time.

But I get annoyed by the discussion of the "natural law".  Somehow, the fact that us humans can't keep up with the natural law seems to mean that therefore it's a pointless concept not to be dabbled with.  The author (Bill Black) asserts as some kind of proof of this, the fact that all Catholics don't keep it.

Of course they don't!  They are sinful humans like the rest of us!  But does our inability to keep up with this natural law somehow mean it doesn't exist?!

I could have misunderstood what the author is trying to say, as he is paraphrasing the guy he is criticising at this point - but I can't imagine the guy he criticises would be suggesting the natural law is useless.

I'd suggest anyone who has thoughts and interests in this "natural law" should read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

Render unto Caeser

There's an article in today's Economist, 'Render unto Caeser', (sadly a subscription article) that I fully disagree with, perhaps unsurprisingly. It relates to the furore about Catholic adoption agencies standing up and saying that these rules will force them to do something Scripture forbids, and hence the agencies will be forced to close, lest they break the law in continuing to not put kids into the care of gay couples.

For once a good example of Christians standing up for Scripture, and not capitulating into our "anything goes" liberal-minded culture. There are limits, we are made in certain ways. If we start thinking it's ok to do these kind of things, what comes next? This is a tired argument liberals always despair over, but it is true. Once society becomes used to one thing that used to be taboo becoming normal, they look to the next thing they can attack.

However, God made the world, and made us in particular ways. Even if you don't believe that, you have to believe men and women are different; they just are. There are absolutes, and there always will be, and at times we have to discriminate based on them. For Christians, this is one.

So well done to the Catholic church. It's worth emphasising that despite the strong words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians, cited below, the Christian church does not shut out homosexuals, just as (thankfully) it doesn't shut out those that have sex outside marriage, those that do the many other things that make them sinful. Else I'd have no chance of getting right with God, and no-one would. Thankfully Jesus did engage and accept these people, and even died on the Cross for them (us) - though not without warning them what following Him meant.

Here's my letter I just whacked out to send to the Economist, for whatever it's worth:


Dear Sir/Madam,


I am writing in response to the article ‘Render unto Caeser’ in the Economist, 27th January 2007. It goes without saying that the use of the title is quite inappropriate, in that Jesus was referring to paying taxes and not whether or not a Christian should submit to the law when the law is openly contradictory to Scripture. For example, 1 Peter says ‘Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men’. Now if that same New Testament also says in 1 Corinthians 6:10: ‘Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ‘Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God,’’ then how can the Bible believing Christian abide by a policy forcing him or her to put children in the care of any of the people described in this verse?

To argue that views will change in time is a very weak argument to attempt to coerce Catholic organisations to put children in the case of gay couples, not least because the areas listed are irrelevant. The Christian is not compelled to lend without interest. While the Old Testament did prohibit it, Jesus came to fulfil the law, and hence particular parts of it have been superceded. In contrast to homosexuality, there are no New Testament commands relating to the taking of interest. With black people, this is not a policy that was ever supported by Scripture. If Christians went along with societal prejudices against black people, this was plain wrong, not least from James 2, which says in verse 1: ‘My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism’.

When Christians are forced, as this law will introduce, to choose between obeying the law and obeying the Bible, their clear instruction is to do the latter. Is it discrimination? It is, in the world’s eyes, but then those eyes have large planks in them. Our world discriminates on the basis of nationality every single day as just one example, and discrimination will continue to be a huge part of this fallen world until the day Christ returns.