Thursday, 28 April 2011

Kookaburra gay your life must be: one Christian view

When my son was born I had this inordinate fear, an overwhelming fear, totally illogical fear, that he would be gay (not in the "happy" sense).

After years of parenthood now I realize that even if he did decide to be gay, I as a parent, would still love him. I would not abandon him.

My Christian response to this debate is -- and I am not ashamed to say that I am a committed, Bible-believing Christian -- this is how I imagine God would respond to homosexuals. He still loves them nonetheless. They are still his creation, and he loves them one and all.

Some Christians shorten this principle as "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Of course it is not nice to be called a sinner, but that is what we are, if we believe in what the Bible says about our "fallen nature".

What would Jesus do? (WWJD?)

We read in the Gospels that Jesus associated with those who are the lowest of the low in his time on earth: the prostitutes, the lepers, the tax-collectors. Indeed, those who are not sick do not need a doctor. [I am thinking, should I underline "do not need a doctor"? ]

Some people ask, "Why are you Christians so homophobic, so hung up on a person's sexual orientation?" My response to this is I have no problems with anyone's sexual orientation. But the Bible does not condone sex outside marriage, full stop. It does not matter whether this be premarital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual sex, or sex with animals, etc.

Just as the Bible forbids theft, whether this be stealing biscuits from a supermarket, paper clips from your employer, or money that your friend, client, taxpayer, investor, etc has entrusted to you, it is theft.

Of course a "gay agenda" scares me. It scares me stiff.

Recently a gay couple went to a B&B in Cornwall run by a devout Christian couple. They state clearly on their website that only married couples are allowed to use the room with the double bed. The gay couple arrived and when the B&B owners realized that this was not the "married couple" they expected, offered them separate rooms.

The gay couple sued for discrimination. In court the gay couple won because the judge deemed that the right of the couple to protection from discrimination was stronger than the B&B couple's right to religious faith and conscience.

There are lots of B&Bs who would have gladly let this couple share a bed. Why they deliberately chose a B&B which clearly states that it is run by a Christian couple on Christian principles, I will never understand.

If I am a meat eater I won't choose a "vegan B&B" and then complain they refused to serve me meat. Why did this gay couple go and "kachow" this Christian couple? I don't go to a gay bar and complain I can't find a straight guy there.

I don't wish Singapore to come to that where churches are forced by law to hire out rooms to Satanists or face the full wrath of discrimination legislation.

However, as a Christian, I won't have a problem voting for VW.

Let me rephrase that: In a truly democratic system I have no problems with voting for VW even if he is gay if I know that he would represent my voice better than the alternative candidate.

Simple. In a truly democratic system I can -- Singaporeans please note -- vote him out at the next election!

Elected MPs are not, if I may borrow a slogan from the Dog Trust*, "a dog"; they are not for life. (*A dog is for life, not just for Christmas.)

Let's say I, as a Christian, am a bit uncomfortable about a candidate's sexual orientation (that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his/her abilities as an MP) gives this person a chance. He gets into parliament. He speaks on my behalf. I am happy. I vote him back.

Then he begins to push for the "gay agenda". I am not happy with that. I write to him, "Please stop," I say.

He says, "Cannot. I cannot act against my conscience. The rights of gay people are very important to me."

Then I can vote him out. I can gather as many people as possible who would vote him out. I might have to start my own "Christian Democratic Party" to succeed, but that is the whole point of a democratic system.

Wish-list: Candidates must stop saying to opposition candidates "What is your track record?" This is a non-argument.

How can a candidate who has not yet been in parliament talk about a "track record"?

It is like my own experience of being "over-qualified and under-experienced". Impressive CV when it comes to education, internship, practical experience, etc. But no track record of being in a paid job.

Who would employ such a person?

You see, unless you are a government scholar, bonded to serve the government, most of us in the real world would have, at some time or other, experienced the pain of not being offered a job because "we have no track record".

Until an enlightened employer comes along to say, "I see the potential in you," and makes you an offer.

Remember, "no track record!" is a non-argument. Voters must think as prospective employers. After all, MPs are indeed the employees/servants of the electorate.

Incidentally I read in the Bible (Matthew 20:25-28) yesterday Jesus teaching his disciples:

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

No comments: