On November 29, Buzzfeed writer Kate Aurthur wrote an article "exposing" HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines of Fixer Uppers as attending a church that opposes homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." This is not the first such recent attack by media personalities on people and churches who hold orthodox views on sex and homosexuality, and it will not be the last. It is a recurring problem that Christians are having to learn to cope with. Homosexual activists are a powerful and determined foe, and they show no signs of letting up until everyone is forced or cajoled into affirming the homosexual lifestyle to be natural and right.
A number of Christians have written and spoken well on the subjects of homosexuality, American culture's embrace of the homosexual lifestyle, and the national and international battle to normalize homosexuality through the power of money and government. Not everyone can be involved in writing books on this battle and in keeping up with all that is going on. Not everyone can or should follow all of the public discussion that takes place on the position of Christianity relative to homosexuality. However, it is a debate that every Christian in America needs to be prepared to address.
There is an opportunity at this point in our political life for Christians to have some influence on the direction of the public discourse about homosexuality. The Gainses are simply the most recent lightning rod for the rage of the LGBT lobby, but the moment chosen for it is one when some in that community are particularly apprehensive about an imminent backlash against the lobby's coercive tactics. One such critic of these tactics is Brandon Ambrosino, who criticizes Buzzfeed in his Washington Post article today, Buzzfeed's hit piece on Chip and Joanna Gaines is dangerous.
Ambrosino's argument is that the recent election triumph of Donald Trump should show LGBT activists that it is not safe to try to shut up their opponents. He says that the nearly 40 per cent of Americans the Pew Research Center shows not supporting same sex "marriage" can not be ignored. He recognizes that the issue of homosexuality and in particular homosexual marriage is one hot-button issue that is alienating many Americans from the mainstream media, particularly outlets like Buzzfeed. He argues for respecting the rights and engaging the arguments of critics.
Needless to say, there is cause for encouragement here. As I have said, one doesn't have to be a supporter of Donald Trump's campaign to feel threatened by and indignant toward public figures who dismiss opposition to the LGBT agenda as "homophobia." While the president-elect's position on LGBT issues is not a clear rejection of the status quo, the motivations of a significant number of his supporters lie near the social fault lines on those issues. Ambrosino seems to believe, I think rightly, that the strongest pushback is coming and coming soon. I agree with him that it was a mistake for the LGBT lobby to use political and social coercion against opponents, and that they may soon be forced to have the kind of philosophical and theological engagement that they should have had from the beginning.
As far as Ambrosino himself, though, it seems he is more of an LGBT strategist and diplomat than a theological and philosophical debater. His article, while giving the broad outlines of a suggested polemic, offers no resources on the debate over Christianity and homosexuality. He seems to have written no books on the subject. The only place I can find where he addresses the subject in any detail is an article from July of 2015, in which he bluntly claims that the Bible gets it wrong on homosexuality. But that's okay because, according to Ambrosino, Jesus' teachings and the teachings of the apostles and prophets aren't infallible. He thinks we can respect and learn from them while at the same time believing that if they were around today, their views would have evolved the way those of mainstream American society's have.
Ambrosino's estimate of his ability to answer critics far outstrips the public fruits of his study and thought. Perhaps his smugness is partly the result of a lack of response to his writing. Owen Strachan posted a reply to Ambrosino's article, but did not cite extra-biblical sources like Ambrosino did. Perhaps conservative Christians were too busy debating former President Jimmy Carter's views and dealing with heterodox theologians like the ones Ambrosino cites--Peter Enns and then-professor at Fuller Daniel Kirk--to interact much with Ambrosino. (Ambrosino also cites C.S. Lewis, a popular yet sometimes very heterodox author whose contributions and heresies have been around longer.) Perhaps he is more important to conservatives as a political and social link with the LGBT community than as a thinker in his own right.
If Ambrosino is going to cast himself as an ambassador, however, perhaps more attention should be given to his philosophical and theological ideas. I would rather give the honor of debating him to someone better known than I am, but I may extend the challenge if no one else does.
No comments:
Post a Comment