Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Shouldn't We All Just Get Along?

A couple weeks ago, the Coeur d'Alene Press ran an article I wrote in response to the "Add the words" campaign being pushed by the LGBT group. It generated a bit of controversy and I wanted to follow up on a few comments that were made. I have submitted this response to the editor of the paper but he decided not to print it.

It seems my recent My Turn piece has caused a bit of turmoil in some circles. How dare I condemn the LGBT community? How dare I create the acronym PIGLET to criticize their behavior? That’s so judgmental! Shouldn’t we all just get along? Shouldn’t we just be tolerant? So in the interests of genuine peace, permit me to respond.

Don’t I think we should all just be tolerant? Well, frankly, no. But then again neither do you. The person who asks the question doesn’t really mean it. No one wants absolute tolerance. We want limits; we demand limits. Which of you will say, when your home is burglarized, “Well, that’s OK. We’ve got to be tolerant and big hearted”? No – we don’t want such behavior tolerated. We want it prohibited. Why? Because we know that if we tolerate such behavior we’ll get more of it.

There’s an old adage – “You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you penalize.” Any teacher knows this. Start the school year as the permissive teacher and what happens come November? Pandemonium; frustration; chaos. In 1969 the state of California, that great bastion of societal wisdom, led the way in legislating no-fault divorce. “We’ve got to be tolerant.” And the result? Divorce has skyrocketed. So begin publicly tolerating perverse behavior and what’s going to happen? Well I think you can do the math.

Regarding the issue of tolerance there are two questions to ask; and both are deeply religious questions – sorry, but I’m a pastor, and it’s my duty to point out such things. Just because certain people want to deny that the Creator exists doesn’t mean that He doesn’t; anymore than my dislike of chicken means that chickens aren’t real.

So what are our two questions? First, what are the limits of tolerance? What types of things should be publicly tolerated and what should be prohibited? Some suggest that we should tolerate anything as long as it doesn’t harm others. But in the area of human behavior, how can we know what actually causes harm? Scientists can’t even agree which foods we ought to eat! Left to ourselves we simply cannot identify the proper limits of tolerance. The only One who truly knows what causes harm is the One who has created us, who knows how we’re intended to operate. And His moral law, revealed in the Bible, is the instruction manual and has been the framework within which our laws and rights have historically been applied. As President John Adams remarked, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” God’s moral law sets the limits of tolerance.

Second, how should we define tolerance? Many are confused here. I think that what many mean by “tolerance” is simply compassion. And I have profound compassion for those who are caught in degrading sexual sins – both heterosexual and homosexual. I trust you do to. I have counseled numerous men enslaved to pornography and, thanks be to God, some have been freed from its shackles. But let us be clear – they are shackles. And how compassionate is it to tolerate behavior that will enslave yet more people? Does the father of the drug-addict say, “It’s okay son; let me help you with that needle”? Is that compassion? Should that father really tolerate his son’s behavior? Or should he not, in true compassion, urge his son to change?

So let us indeed be compassionate as a people – let us publicly condemn all sexual perversion, let us rid it from our homes and object to it in our communities, while helping those ensnared by sexual sin to recognize what it truly means to be a man or a woman created in the very image and likeness of God.