Is There A Christian Defense For Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Laws?

 In the 6-part docudrama series on intergalactic history, one of the lead protagonist gives us an insight into human behavior that is as profound as it is concise. That protagonist said

'Fear is the path to the dark side' 

 

That protagonist went onto explain the dynamics of his claim:

'Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering'

He then gives a prognosis for those who have given in to fear:

'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will'

And Obi-Wan's apprentice is evidence, not proof because one cannot prove by example in this case because our sample size is uncountable, to what the protagonist claimed about fear.

If the protagonist's prognosis is true, then we here, both in society and The Church, are in a heap of trouble. If the prognosis is true, then society is in a heap of trouble because a significant portion of a very influentially powerful segment of society has given in to fear of the rest of America. And if the prognosis is true, the Church is in even bigger trouble than society because a bigger percentage of its people belong those who have given in to fear.

Now the model of thought shown above is one way to analyze the article we are about to review. Another way is to look at the article from the perspective of a psychological look at authoritarianism. For example, the following is a list of those who are described as having an authoritarian personality type (click here for the source):

1. 'Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong'
2. 'Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different'
3. 'A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity'
4. 'A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power'
5. 'A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days'
6. 'Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview'
7. 'A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group'
8. 'A preoccupation with violence and sex'

First, I'll add a disclaimer. I am not diagnosing any one as having that personality type. But, we can say that the above criteria is an indicator of a person taking an authoritarian approach on a given set of issues. 

We should note two things about the following list. First, the study of the authoritarian personality started in around the 1930s and was a triggered by the rise of fascism in parts of Europe during that time. Second, regarding the first trait listed above, what is 'conventional' is relative because it depends on the circles, especially but not exclusively  the ideological and political ones, one belongs to.

So what is being reviewed today? The article is on how Christians should approve of Uganda's laws prohibiting homosexuality. Spoiler alert--no graphic descriptions will be used in this article. I might refer to parts of the text of the Uganda law prohibiting homosexuality and that article does contain graphic descriptions. But I will not include those descriptions in this article But our focus here will be elsewhere.

On the American Reformer website (click here for the website), there is an article by an anonymous contributor who goes by the pen name of 'PhiloTheos' (the literal meaning from the Greek is 'loves God.'). His/her, though I am guessing that it is a his, article not only supports Uganda's latest laws prohibiting homosexuality, it claims that all Christians should also support such laws (click here for the article). To make his/her points, the writer strongly takes a fellow Christian, Russell Moore,  to task for criticizing Uganda's law and trying to distance that law from Christianity (click here for his article). 

So what this article will do is to look at the descriptions of homosexuality and those, like Moore, who oppose the Ugandan law in the light of what was cited above.

First, here are some of the descriptions of homosexuality in PhiloTheos's article:

1. immoral and a threat to society
2. a 'living death'
3. same-sex marriage is a 'metaphysical impossibility'
4. wicked
5. an 'egregious sin' 
6. destroys families
7. leads to other degenerate sins in society
8. because homosexuality 'shrivels' the souls of those in the nation, it leads to tyranny
9. homosexuality is against the traditional values and morals of our nation

Now let's read what PhiloTheos has to say about Moore and others who have or would oppose anti-homosexual legislation:

1. Moore bitterly attacked the Ugandan law
2. Moore does not know what he is talking about when he refers to separation of church and state when arguing against anti-homosexual laws
3. Moore is riding on the gay ship
4. those who oppose the Ugandan law are now part of the gay cult
5. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority view in the Obergefell decision, is an agent of the modern Libertarian and Gay regime
6. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy us a vanguard for the post-communistic Global American Empire (GAE)
7. the GAE forces LGBT ideology on nations using bullying tactics
8. GAE enforces gay colonialism

The above are just some sample views from the article being reviewed. And the question being posed by this article is how well are the views from the representative of the Christian faith. Or, are these views Christian views that have been contaminated by fear and an authoritarian approach to the subject?

The first issue to tackle is to judge how well do the claims made about homosexuality in the article agree with what is said in the New Testament. We should note here that perhaps the best part of the New Testament to read to evaluate what was written in the article is Romans 1:18-28 (click here for the passage). 

Here we should note that Paul is not gentle when talking about homosexuality. In the Romans passage he says that because people worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator, God gave people over to shameful desires that go against nature as God designed it. And so homosexuality is one of the shameful desires that God gave some men and some women up to.

But we should notice something else here. Just as homosexuality is against nature as God intended it, it should be no surprise to see homosexuality outside of the Church. And shouldn't that play a role in how we regard and treat homosexuals in society? We should also note here that in terms of shock, I Corinthians 5 contains a heterosexual sin that is so shocking to Paul that he states that it is not even tolerated by the pagan unbelievers in Corinth--and that is really saying something.

We should also note  Romans 2:1ff warns those who believe in God not to judge those who commit homosexuality and the other sins listed in the rest of Romans 1. Why was that? It was specifically because those who would be doing the judging commit, generally speaking, the same sins as those whose sins are listed in Romans 1.

Going back to I Corinthians 5, verses 12 and 13 tell us something about Paul's concern for sexual purity in society: he has none. Paul is concerned solely about sexual purity in the Church. In the expelling of a person for sexual immorality from the Church, Paul is describing their situation as being unprotected from society because, for the time being, they are no longer in the Church. And that says something about what Paul expected from society.

While the writer of the American Reformer article cites Romans 13 as justification for laws like Uganda's anti-homosexual law because Paul described the government as having a sword to punish those who do evil and reward those who do good. The good and evil that Paul says the government should respond to were never explicitly defined.

Let's be clear here, Paul does describe homosexuality as a serious sin that merits eternal condemnation. But the subject of the article being reviewed is about how the state and society should regard and treat homosexuality. And perhaps I am blind but I see the writer of the article being reviewed being more influenced by other factors than by the New Testament when he writes to not only support the Ugandan law, but claims that all Christians should support it too.

Now let's look at whether PhiloTheos's reaction to those who do or would oppose the Ugandan law is at least partially consistent with the Scriptures. Note, like his/her reaction to homosexuality, PhiloTheos speaks in extremes. He says that Moore is basically on board with the gay agenda, whatever that would be, and that SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy is part of a Neo-colonial effort to make nations submit to the GAE and force nations into accept homosexuality.

But let's look at that more closely. If Moore is a part of such an effort, why doesn't he tell the Church to pronounce that homosexuality is no longer a sin? Moore is very orthodox regarding sexuality. He sees homosexuality as a sin that must be repented of. Is such a belief about homosexuality part of the gay agenda? Likewise, is the belief that homosexuals should be treated as equals in society, which would include the legalization of same-sex marriage, mean that Justice Kennedy is no longer just a SCOTUS justice, he is part of a global effort to control and even bully nations into joining not just the GAE, but a global, neo-colonial effort to impose the LGBT ideology and agenda on nations? Again, is PhiloTheos reading the situation right or has hyperbole been injected into his assessment through either fear or a preference for authoritarianism?

Perhaps we should take a look at one more facet here. When PhiloTheos describes homosexuality as being a threat to traditional marriage, isn't he really saying that the lack of conformity is an attack on tradition?  And yet, isn't it people from the Christian community, like PhiloTheos, who wrote the article being reviewed here, who is trying to prohibit homosexuality and not the other way around? And thus, is PhiloTheos really relying on the New Testament for his views or is something else influencing him?