 |
| The School of Life © 2014 |
I want to focus my
comments not so much on the issue itself but more on how followers of Jesus
have conversations about controversial issues, both with other believers and
with those who are not yet believers.
There are several reasons for this, one of which is that although Latvia
has been my home for 20 years, and probably will be my home for the rest of my
life, I cannot claim to be true insider in Latvian culture. I cannot claim to know all the ramifications
of, for instance, EU policies on what will actually happen on the ground in
Latvia.
But I am certain
that it will be bad news for the Kingdom of God if discussions on social and
political issues here in Latvia are conducted in the way they are currently
conducted by Christians in America. Extremely polarized is the way I would
describe the atmosphere.
1. People very quickly apply labels like “liberal” or “conservative” and have all sorts of assumptions based such a label.
1. People very quickly apply labels like “liberal” or “conservative” and have all sorts of assumptions based such a label.
2. People
very quickly assume bad motives on the part of anyone with whom they disagree:
“If that person is wrong on this question, it must mean there is something bad
about that person."
3. People
become simply reactionary. If we
disagree with a person on one issue, we feel we have to react negatively to
anything else that person might do or say.
Or we think, “I don’t want to be associated with that person in any way,
so I will distance myself as far as possible from him or her on all issues.”
4. People react to information without taking the
time to actually investigate what was really said or done, without thinking
through the context or whatever.
I would not attempt to lay blame about who is most
responsible for the polarized and poisonous atmosphere in America, “liberal” or
“conservative,” “Christian” or “non-Christian.”
But I am convinced the atmosphere would instantly be transformed if just
the followers of Jesus would simply choose to be wholly Christ-like in how they
discuss things. They would not have to
change their actual opinions on the issues—let them believe as they believe;
they would just have to choose to be salt and light in how they listen and
speak.
In the hope that we in Latvia will learn to have discussions in a way that might actually glorify God, that might actually help others take steps toward the truth (and toward the Truth, that is, Jesus), could I say:
1. Let us refuse to label people. People are individuals. There is much more to any individual than being a “liberal” or “conservative.” And people are much more than their sexual choices, whether good or bad, right or wrong. If we apply a label, then we think we know a person, and then we think we don’t need to do anything more to know them.
2. Let
us always remember that a person might disagree with us, a person might be wrong, but not necessarily have bad motives for
their belief. We are not going to have
the fragrance of Jesus Christ if we assume bad motive on the part of the other
and judge them accordingly.
3. Let
us stop being merely reactionary. We observe certain extremes: Westro Baptist
Church in America, Putin and his policies closer to home. We find them un-Christian and
despicable. But we should not merely in
reaction to them go to some other extreme.
We must first be convinced what we believe (and have evidence for) the
Bible teaches about sexuality. And as
part of that, we need put that into the larger context of Christian
ethics. That is, our sexuality is NOT the
most important issue in Christian ethics.
4. We don’t glorify God when we appear stupid. So before
we speak, investigate and think. For
instance, before commenting, actually read the EU Statement on Homosexuality. What questions do you need to ask of the
document before you comment? If there is
disagreement, where exactly is the point of disagreement? Is there any way of finding common ground,
any value that can be confirmed? What do
we think will actually happen? Why?
Paul wrote: “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making
the most of the opportunity. Let your
speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you
should respond to each person.” ~ Colossians 4:5-6
Thoughts on the Lunacek report*:
First, it is necessary to actually read the report—carefully—before
simply reacting. And in reading it, we
should look for any common ground where it might be possible to have a
discussion, or if we find something that we identify as a problem, we should be
able to state exactly what it is and why.
1. Common ground: Note especially points C to K on page 6, dealing with non-discrimination in a number of areas. These are values that a Christian can confirm, even if we do not agree with the lifestyle. Why? A) Just because a Christian thinks something is a sin does not mean government law should seek to hinder it. I think adultery is sin, but that does not mean I think it would a good idea for there to be some kind of laws against it. B) If our voice is heard in favor of some kind of discrimination, there is a real possibility of it turning against us one day. Martin Niemoller was a pastor and a friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who spent most of World War 2 in prison. He famously said, “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” The document itself wants to protect “religion and belief” (see B on page 4) as part of its non-discrimination policy. If we want to not be discriminated against as people of faith, then there might be times we need to speak in favor of non-discrimination more generally.
2. A specific area of concern: Most of the document is about non-discrimination, where I think a Christian can support a law even if not favoring the lifestyle it protects. Where problems might arise is in the interpretation of “homophobia” and “hate speech.” Those can almost certainly be defined in ways open to abuse, ways that could severely limit free speech. If and when any actual laws are enacted, it would be important to pay attention to how they are worded, how exact or subjective they are.
Second, keep in mind that this Lunacek report is “a motion for a
resolution for a roadmap.” It is a long
way from a proposal for specific laws to be enacted immediately. There might be some hidden agenda behind this
motion, but it is probably not helpful for the Truth to start a fight before it
is necessary.
Mark R. Sandberg
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru