One of the greatest misunderstandings in our culture involves “individual rights.” For example, pornography and other similar forms of so called “personal expression” that harm individuals, as well as society, do not fit within the perimeters of exercising personal rights—logically, biblically, or historically. Ironically, many cases of sexual violence can be traced directly back to pornography. Personal rights were intended to operate freely, but only within the framework of God’s word, and social responsibility. For example, few can dispute the significant relationship between STDs and promiscuous sex, AIDS and homosexuality, broken homes and adultery, and so on.
Those who vote for gay-marriage claim that it’s about “rights.” But when we speak of Constitutional rights, we are referring to “God-given” rights. God orchestrates these rights—the definition and the perimeters—they correspond with His nature, His will, and His word. When we replace “God-given rights” with “man-given rights” we create an environment where there would be little recourse, and no end to what man could advocate. Yes, we will always have the “freedom” to choose what we do, but no one has the “right” to do what is wrong.
God’s word is very clear on the dangers of homosexuality, adultery, pornography, and other sexual sins; if our sexual preferences run contrary to God’s word we must change our preferences, not the other way around. Proposition 8 is not about “rights”—it’s about sexual “choices.” With approx. 48% of Californians supporting gay-marriage as a “right,” our departure from God has never been more obvious. Isaiah warns: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (5:20).
You may say, “Times change.” And you are correct, but God’s standards do not. No matter how many laws are passed in favor of same-sex marriage, it will not change God’s mind. His principles are guardrails through the canyons of life. They don’t prevent us from enjoying life; they protect us from falling.
When we fail to confront destructive lifestyles that impact society, beginning within our personal lives, we are, in essence, confirming them. We cannot change what we will not confront; we must speak the truth in love.
“Speaking the truth in love” reminds me of an experience I had with my daughter when she was 18 months old. My wife and I had the opportunity to take her to a small feline zoo. Before leaving, we took a ride on a miniature train. As we rounded the first turn, I was shocked to see a full-size lion leaning against the chain-link fence as his massive paws slammed against it.
As the train moved slowly through the lion exhibit, I looked down, and to my horror, my daughter was unbuckling her seat belt. She shouted, “Daddy, hug the lion; play with the lion,” as she desperately tried to get out of the train. I replied with an emphatic, “No,” as I refastened her seat belt. To her, and others looking on from a distance, I may have appeared narrow-minded and overly reactive, but had I let my daughter play with the lion she would have been mauled.
That’s the truth in love—loving someone enough to tell him or her the truth, even if it hurts. If being labeled narrow-minded, bigoted, judgmental, and intolerant is the cost of speaking the truth in love, so be it. If we know there is a roaring lion waiting to devour, we should lovingly speak the truth. How can we warn if we never confront; correct if we never challenge; and contend if we never question?
Another point of clarification is critical: Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual behavior, also strongly believe in unconditional love and forgiveness. To say that authentic Christians hate or fear those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the principles of the Christian faith. To “confront in love” simply comes from a desire to honor God, and to truly love and care for others. In the future, we would be wise not to confuse hate-speech with loving confrontation, intolerance with biblical truth, and rights with sexual preferences.
