I made a mistake today. I did a web search for an old friend.
Sometimes it’s better not to know.
This was a guy who, once upon a time, was (to quote Proverbs) “closer than a brother” to me. A guy I shared long road trips with, prayed with, shared confidences with, and sat up late with over pizza, talking about Jesus and how to win the world for Him.
I haven’t been in contact with him in years. We were drifting apart even then. I knew he was a pastor. I now learned that he’s been, for some time, an aggressive advocate, within the Very Large Lutheran Church Body Which Shall Remain Nameless, of what’s called “gay issues.”
My thoughts went back, inevitably, to an evening long ago, when I’d had dinner with him and his wife. The subject of homosexuality came up and I (on the basis of some very superficial recent reading) said that I thought I could make an argument for evangelical Christians supporting the homosexual movement.
“They seem to be just fighting for the right to be different from everybody else,” I said. “I think maybe we ought to support that. We can’t be confident that America will always be a Christian country. Someday we may be the ones who are different. We need to make sure that there’s a right not to conform in this country.”
My friend and his wife disagreed, spiritedly. I don’t clearly remember what they said, but I have the idea they pointed out that homosexual activists showed no particular inclination to respect the rights of those who disagreed with them. They pointed, I think, to the shameful treatment received by Anita Bryant, who paid with her career for daring to oppose their agenda.
In hindsight, I think it’s clear that they were right and I was wrong. I did not cling to that point of view much longer.
But, in one of those ironies that seem to me so common in life, today I’ve taken their side, and they’ve taken what was mine at the time (and gone far beyond it).
And I have to wonder, was that conversation the beginning, for them, of their movement to feelings-based ethics and zeitgeist-uber-alles theology? Or a significant step on the way?
I honestly can’t recall any argument I’ve ever won, in my whole life.
Is it possible the only one I did win was one in which I was completely wrong?
And I have to wonder, was that conversation the beginning, for them, of their movement to feelings-based ethics and zeitgeist-uber-alles theology? Or a significant step on the way?
At the risk of sticking my nose where it does not belong, no. This guilt is not yours to bear.
You made a rational argument, based on a commonly accepted ideals, that tolerating a diversity of life styles would increase tolerance to Christianity in the future. Your argument may have been true, false, or irrelevant (the main task of Christians is not to be tolerated). But it in no way, shape, or form, pointed to way to feelings-based ethics.
That’s a good point, Ori. We can’t take the blame for other people’s choices, generally speaking.