|
ISN'T
IT TIME TO STOP PUSHING THE "HATE" BUTTON?
A
standard American dictionary defines the verb “hate”
as: “to feel hostility or animosity toward; to detest.”
In contrast with this, the lexicon of contemporary political correctness
appears to define “hate” as: “to hold to Christian
principles and values; to stand for biblical morality,” and,
quite specifically, “to take issue with the homosexual lifestyle.”
Pushing
the “hate” button has proven quite effective, since
the moment it is pushed, all rational discussion ceases and one’s
ideological adversary is quickly reduced to a small-minded, mean-spirited
bigot. Immediately, the playing field becomes unequal, and the opponent
becomes a monster whose ideas are unworthy of serious consideration.
And should that opponent happen to be an evangelical Christian,
then pushing the hate button becomes all the more useful. The Bible-believing
Christian is caricatured as a modern day crusader, witch-hunter,
and “jihadist” rolled into one, a self-righteous, insensitive
hypocrite who gleefully consigns all but a few likeminded fanatics
to eternity in hell.
Does
this sound extreme? Then consider some of the descriptive quotations
in Richard Rubin’s article in the May 8 edition of the Observer
entitled, “Protesters eager to share beliefs at gay pride
festival.”
Mr.
Rubin writes that, “Christian protesters in red shirts mingled
with gays attending the Charlotte Pride festival Saturday [May 7],
singing to them, preaching to them and pulling them aside for conversation
and argument,” a fair summary of the activity, although countless
eyewitnesses would attest that there was certainly a studious attempt
by the “protesters” to avoid getting into arguments
with the gays attending the event. Nowhere in the article, however,
are these red-shirted, Christian protesters allowed to explain the
actual content of their message, with only a passing reference from
one of them to “the cause of Jesus.” What exactly does
that mean?
The
reader is quickly educated: “Do something constructive with
your time instead of telling us we’re going to hell,”
said one, presumably lesbian, attendee. In keeping with this was
the statement of Mette Andersen, executive director of Time Out
Youth, described as an advocacy and support group for gay teens
and young adults: “I’m very concerned about the message
of hate,” she said. “Our youth are very vulnerable,
they’re insecure and to be hit over the head with the Bible
like this is unsettling.”
So
there you have it: These red-shirted Christian protesters, representing
the “cause of Jesus,” were hitting people over the head
with their Bibles – notice that some of their prime targets
were “very vulnerable” young people – telling
them that they were going to hell, proclaiming a “message
of hate.” How terrible! But what else could be expected from
Bible-toting Christians?
Sadly,
once the hate button is pushed, many readers instantly see red –
and I don’t mean the color of the shirts – failing to
ask if, perhaps, a fair picture is being painted. Is it possible
that there was disagreement without hatred? Is it possible that
the protesters were actually motivated by love? Is it possible that
their main theme was not hellfire and brimstone? Is it possible
that using the rhetoric of “hate” and “hell”
is actually a ploy to avoid discussion of the real issues?
The
vast majority of the protesters were young people themselves, their
red shirts emblazoned with the words “Liberated!” and
“Transformed by the blood of Jesus.” How is this a message
of hate? And if it is acceptable for gays and lesbians to celebrate
their “liberation,” why is it inappropriate for followers
of Jesus to do the same? The red shirts proclaimed a simple message:
Ultimate freedom is found only in Jesus, through his shed blood.
Is this a message of hate?
Some
of these red-shirted Christians lived overtly sinful lives in the
past, having been enslaved by pornography, alcohol, or drugs. Others
had been “decent” church-going people who came to realize
that they too needed to find mercy through the cross. Others still
were former lesbians or homosexuals. All of them wanted to share
the message of God’s transforming love with as many people
as they could, offering them the same mercy and kindness they too
had received from the Lord. Yet this is branded a message of hate.
Based on what criteria?
As
for “hitting people over the head with Bibles” –
another totally subjective claim – if it is right for homosexuals
to fill a public park in downtown Charlotte and openly proclaim
their views, is it wrong for Christians who differ with them to
make their presence known as well? Must this be described as hitting
someone over the head with a Bible? And if male transvestites were
bold enough to gyrate in Marshall Park in the presence of little
children, should others be condemned for believing that such behavior
is wrong? Does that really constitute hate?
The
red-shirted Christians simply proclaimed the gospel, the good news
that Jesus died to save all of us – heterosexual and homosexual
alike – from our sins. Yet it is this good news, along with
all honest dialog, that is completely obscured whenever the hate
button is pushed.
If
some still choose to push this emotionally charged button, others
can choose to make it ineffective by determining instead to seek
out and hear the truth, recognizing that whoever uses the rhetoric
of “hate” is most likely deflecting discussion from
the real issues at hand. And it is only through bringing the real
issues into the light that we can render the hate button obsolete.
Isn’t it time?
The
Coalition of Conscience is a network of Christian leaders and believers,
currently based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, who
are working together for moral and cultural change through the gospel.
Dr.
Michael L. Brown is the Director of the Coalition and serves
as its voice to the local and national community.
|