There is a clear distinction between
fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist forms of Christianity, the former
referring to those approaches that insist on the infallible and literal truth
of every verse of the Bible that is clearly not intended to be allegorical, or
on the infallibility of the teachings of a church or church leader on the basis
of claimed divine revelation. In other words, religious approaches that involve
adherents being dogmatic, blinkered, and impervious to logic and empirical
evidence. It is clearly the case that there are very many thoughtful and
reflective Christians who pursue a spiritual path that eschews fundamentalism: indeed,
quite a number of the latter continue to make a great contribution to the
struggle for LGBT equality, including equal marriage.
Most of those opposing equal marriage because they think the Bible
commands them to do so, or because the Vatican commands them to do so, realise
that, in the modern age, dogmatic religious injunctions will cut no ice with
mainstream opinion. This degree of historical progress in exposing the evils
and absurdities of religious fundamentalism is something worth celebrating.
Instead, the majority of fundamentalist Christians are trying to resort
to non-religious, rational arguments, as though their objections were based on
empirical evidence and logic above all else, and as though they would change
their mind in an instant if only the proponents of equal marriage could present
a compelling case. In reality, no argument has any hope of prevailing against
fundamentalist Christian faith, which enjoins we should all become like Mad
Hatters under extreme duress, believing six impossible things before breakfast
on pain of eternal condemnation.
Hence the people who once vigorously opposed civil partnerships now
declare that same-sex marriage is simply "unnecessary", because the
said civil partnerships apparently confer the same legal rights as marriage.
Not a word from them any more that exposes their aversion to civil
partnerships, and indeed to all things that might imply being LGBT is in any
way normal, acceptable and valid. Any such utterance would cause the mask to
slip, and reveal their real agenda: which, for some evangelicals and orthodox
Catholics, even includes opposition to the legalisation of homosexuality. What
the dogmatic Christians are about now is pragmatism, where the narrative of
eternal condemnation for "Sodomites" is being suppressed in the hope
of winning the support of as many non-religious people as possible to their
Crusade against equality for LGBT people in marriage.
The arguments that fundamentalist Christians present in opposing
same-sex marriage are easily hammered. This is not surprising, as these
"arguments" are not the reason for their opposition, which is instead
blind faith in a narrow and often distorted interpretation of text from an
ancient book written by ignorant and primitive people.
So let's get down to the real cause for the opposition. Should equal
marriage be opposed because homosexuality is condemned by Scripture, and
because it is therefore offensive to people of religious faith?
Richard Holloway, in 'Godless Morality' (p. 80) said:
"The rich always find it easy to call upon the poor to make
sacrifices they would never dream of making themselves. Heterosexuals,
especially Christian heterosexuals, are expert at calling upon homosexuals to
deny themselves consolations they themselves could not live without [...] The
heart of the message of Jesus was a challenge to the powerful to acknowledge
their complicity in the fact of human misery. Only the destitute were innocent,
he told them; only the wretched were guiltless; only those who had no bread had
no fault."
So many of those 'Christians' who profess to believe that Scripture
should be taken literally as the revealed word of God, prefer to overlook the
repeated and unambiguous New Testament warnings that the wealthy will not enter
the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Christian’s wealth should be given to the
poor. The following three quotations are probably the most unequivocal on this
subject:
“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich
man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It
is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:23-25
But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
-- Luke 6:24
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come
upon you. -- James 5:1”
Many anti-gay “Christians” manage to find a way of conveniently
reinterpreting Jesus' warnings about the state of sin associated with being
wealthy, while continuing to condemn others for breaking the letter of the
scriptural law with regard to sexual behaviour, including homosexuality.
This is nothing less than cherry-picking. As well as hypocrisy of the
first order.
To be consistent, Christians who quote from Scripture in order to
condemn gay and lesbian relationships, should already have sold their worldly
goods, and given their wealth to the poor. Any fundamentalist Christian with
any savings at all, or who has anything more than a very frugal lifestyle, is
breaking this rule while there are still children in developing countries dying
from diarrhoea and malnutrition. Millionaire evangelical Christians, or popes
wearing lavish vestments and custom-made red shoes, are simply living
inconsistently with the belief system they would impose on others: beliefs they
aren’t even willing to impose on themselves.
The vast majority of “Christians” who denigrate gay and lesbian sex and
relationships on the basis of a literalistic interpretation of Scripture have
certainly not shown themselves to be willing to give away their worldly goods.
Instead, you are likely to find the fundamentalist, “Bible-believing” Christian
claiming that Jesus' warnings about wealth have to be "taken in
context", and that he was only saying it was "very difficult"
for a wealthy person to get into heaven, but not impossible - with the
implication that people could justifiably hang on to their cash and assets
without undue concern, so long as they otherwise lived a life of devotion to
God.
They will claim that Jesus was simply teaching that it is not the
possession of wealth that is a sin, but instead allowing one’s relationship
with it to get in the way of one’s relationship with God. They will also refer
to Old Testament passages where God expressed approval of people who were
clearly wealthy. This convoluted reinterpretation and contextualisation of the
uncomfortable and highly unambiguous condemnation of wealth in the New
Testament stands in stark contrast to the stubborn inflexibility in the way the
same people treat any biblical quotations that seem at first glance to condemn
homosexuality.
The New Testament condemnation of wealth is a very uncomfortable truth
for financially comfortable fundamentalist Christians, and for the pastors who
demand such people donate a biblical one-tenth tithe of their ample income to
the church.
Secular arguments and evidence will not prevail against blind faith and religious
dogmatism. It seems that the only thing that will prevail against the narrow
and literalistic interpretations of religious fundamentalism is the self-interest
of the “believer”, and particularly his or her personal attachment to material wealth.
Dogmatic forms of Christianity are a closed system, and those within
such a system are wedded to it emotionally, to the extent that their proud attachment
to the identity of “evangelical Christian” or “Catholic”, and their egotistic
attachment to believing they are a member of God’s elite, will prevail over any
evidence or argument encountered from outside that system, no matter how
compelling to non-fundamentalists.
Trying to change the mind of most of these dogmatic religionists by any
appeal to justice or empirical evidence is, therefore, a lost cause. We should
therefore focus our efforts on exposing to the wider public the fact that the
vast majority of those campaigning against equal marriage are people with an
implacable and barely concealed religious fundamentalist agenda. And when
challenging such fundamentalists, we must focus on their hypocrisy in opposing
LGBT equality whilst they ignore the clear New Testament condemnation of
possessing wealth. But be prepared for them to jump through burning hoops
backwards in an attempt to justify their inconsistency: their blind faith can
be as impervious to simple logic as it is to evidence. Yet pointing out the
internal contradictions in their theological system can, at the very least,
take some of the arrogant wind out of their sails, and it can positively influence
those religionists who have not yet been fully drawn into the system, or in
whom the indoctrination process has not been fully successful.
LGBT people, and our supporters, must never tolerate
attacks by the hypocrites of dogmatic religion on our right to equality.
Instead, we should be attacking the hypocrisy and irrationality of those who cherry-pick
those parts of the Bible that suit their convenience and their prejudices.
Once we have got the so-called “Bible-believing
Christian” on the back foot, by challenging their selectively liberal
interpretation of the New Testament warnings about wealth, we can deliver the coup de grâce, which is a
reference to Romans 13:1-2:
“Let
everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority
except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been
established by God. 2 Consequently,
whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has
instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
In other words, according to the Good Book, it seems that
David Cameron has been placed in authority by God, and that anyone who rebels
against his will to legalise equal marriage in this country is also opposing
God’s will, and will be judged for doing so.
As we have seen from the debate about equal marriage,
dogmatic religion is rarely something
that brings out the best in people: especially as its adherents are forced by
the internal contradictions it contains to spin themselves into a web of
subterfuge and convolution that is as abusive to logic as it is to the decent
human beings they condemn as “sinners”. If their creed commands them to condemn
homosexuality and the social approval of LGBT relationships, then it equally
commands them to obey those in power, who have apparently been put there by
God: which paradoxically means they should be supporting David Cameron’s
unwavering commitment to legalise equal marriage. Yet neither this injunction,
nor the commandments to give away all wealth to the poor, survive the
cherry-picking process. Instead, the banner headline is how the Bible condemns
homosexuality and, by implication, any measure that implies it is in any way
acceptable or normal. Ironically, a cynical religious movement characterised by
destructive prejudice, hypocrisy, and a lack of respect for basic logic and
evidence, is helping to produce something beautiful and wonderful as its
antithesis: an increasingly solid, compassionate and interconnected global
community of LGBT people and our non-LGBT supporters, who put brotherly and
sisterly love and solidarity, as well as respect for basic logic and empirical
evidence, before the selectively proclaimed edicts of a self-contradicting
religious book.
© Gary Powell, 2013
