Gagging on the Truth

A couple of  weeks ago Pastor Thabiti Anaybile wrote a blog post where he graphically described homosexual and lesbian acts.  His point was that people often have a gag reflex to homosexual or lesbian acts. He said we should use that to our advantage in dealing with sodomy, and in doing so force people to come face to face with what is actually happening.  Perhaps not surprisingly (and perhaps intentionally), many became offended by Pastor Thabiti’s post. It was interesting how many critics reacted with a gag reflex to the article and yet condemned Thabiti for doing the same with homosexual acts. Though late to the party I may be, here are my thoughts on said-post and some of the critics who responded.

Why This Article was Helpful

The primary reason this article was helpful is that it exposes what is true.  Pastor Thabiti drug sodomy out into the light of day. Our effeminate public speakers, including pastors, are masters at hiding the truth and thus they are masters at castrating the gospel. When we stop talking about sin in polite terms it is easier to see it for what it is.

Many critics argued that the post was pastorally insensitive. And of course, most of the people who argued this are not pastors. If they were they would understand that sin likes to hide. It likes to hide in dark rooms. But it also likes to hide behind polite language: I am not beating my wife, we just had a disagreement. That was not murder, it was abortion.  That was not slander, I was trying to get my brother some help.  I am not a porn addict, I just struggle with lust.  Pastor Thabiti was not primarily talking about how to counsel a homosexual in private. His main point was public discourse and our refusal to acknowledge what a specific sin act is. But his reasoning would not be out of line in a counseling scenario especially if someone’s heart is hard to what they are doing.  I wonder if all those who cry for “pastoral sensitivity” understand the destructive nature of sexual sin? Would they demand “pastoral sensitivity” if a man was molesting his daughter? Would they be upset if Pastor Thabiti forced a man beating his wife to acknowledge that he hit her with his fist? Would it have been “pastorally insensitive” for William Wilberforce to show his colleagues the scarred back of a slave? The cries for “pastoral sensitivity” are curiously selective.

Conscience

I found it odd that some readers could not translate Thabiti’s “gag reflex” to mean conscience. He clarifies this in a subsequent post. When I read it, I felt it was clear he was referring to conscience, not to the equivalent of gagging on peas. Some readers tried to trivialize his point by comparing a revulsion at homosexual acts to a revulsion of mushrooms. This was a pathetic attempt to discredit his argument instead of dealing with it.

Also why are so many critics upset when someone uses a negative reflex to get to the conscience, but would never do the same with a positive reflex of conscience. For example, would those critics who were all upset at Pastor Thabiti’s language also be upset if he used the glory of the heavens to try to awaken men’s consciences to God’s majesty? Of course not.  They would rejoice when God uses his glory in creation to show his majesty. Book after book comes out explaining to Christians how the beauty of God’s world can awaken men’s consciences. So why can we not use the depravity of man in same way? If a sunset or a old couple sitting on bench can spark something in man’s conscience, why can a act of depravity not do the same thing?

The Critics

Professor Trueman argues that taste is no ultimate indicator of truth, which is true. But it was clear from the post that Pastor Thabiti was not arguing that the gag reflex was an ultimate indicator of truth. The question was can we use it to arouse men’s sleeping consciences at all? Maybe Professor Trueman doesn’t think we should appeal man’s conscience. But this seems strange. Is disgust over a woman being raped merely a judgment of taste even for a pagan? Is disgust over a child being beaten to death by their father merely a judgment of taste? Taste/gag reflex/yuck factor cannot be the ultimate decider of truth. But it is not inconsequential or irrelevant. Trueman also says that we have no gag reflex for pride. Well that is true, but for the same reason we have no gag reflex for homosexuality. We have no conscience. The problem is not that pride isn’t revolting. It is that we haven’t got a conscience left to be revolted.

Over at Firstthings Ron Belgau challenges Pastor Thabiti on  many issues.  I just want to make one point from his article. He ends his article with this sentence. “To deal with social issues as sensitive as the debate over same-sex marriage, we need an approach grounded in objective theological and philosophical arguments, and applied with pastoral sensitivity.” What does Belgau think we have been doing for the last two decades?  There have been many well-reasoned theological, exegetical, and philosophical articles and books written over the last 20 years.  Robert Gagnon, though not perfect, has and continues to contribute to the literature in this area. Christians are constantly writing new books about how to approach sodomy with true Christian love. Rosaria Butterfield’s book on her conversion from lesbianism to Christianity addresses in a winsome, uncompromising way many of the shortcomings of the Christian witness to homosexuality. Christians still have a lot of work to do here. But to argue that Christians need to do more objective, reasoned discourse seems blind to the history of last twenty years and a capitulation to the sodomite narrative within the church that they have not been treated properly or understood. And of course, Pastor Thabiti is not arguing against objective, theological discourse. He is simply saying that one weapon at our disposal has not been used: a clear description of what homosexuality actually is.

One critic argued that Pastor Thabiti’s post stigmatize homosexuals. He wants a more “nuanced discussion.” Meanwhile his discussion was not very nuanced at all. How does Pastor Thabiti’s post stigmatize homosexuals by accurately describing their sins? How does Pastor Thabiti’s post dehumanize homosexuals? If we think accurately describing sin dehumanizes people then we are have gotten a hold of the wrong end of the stick. Isn’t it sin that dehumanizes a person? How can sin be dealt with if the sinner does not acknowledge what is actually done? Was Jesus dehumanizing the woman at the well by telling her she was a serial adulterer? Was Paul dehumanizing the Corinthians by saying that they tolerate sexual immorality that even the pagans don’t? Was Peter dehumanizing false teachers by calling them dogs returning to their vomit and pigs? And that is just the New Testament. Let’s not even go to Ezekiel. Pastor Thabiti’s language is not out of line with Scripture. If rape was an accepted practice in our culture and politicians were pushing for rape to be legalized wouldn’t we explicitly describe what rape is so people would understand what is happening? Would we be dehumanizing the rapist by describing exactly what is going on to a culture whose conscience is hard as stone? Isn’t this exactly what pictures of the holocaust or beaten slaves were meant to do?

Many of Pastor Thabiti’s critics were thoughtful and tried to engage him in a Christian manner. But a lot of critics just don’t think sodomy is a big deal. They pretend like they are upset with the specific content of Thabiti’s post. But they are really just upset that he opposes sodomy.  They resort to childish comments and slander, like Pastor Thabiti does not preach the gospel, because they want sodomy to be treated with “sensitivity” and “nuance.”  Translation: They don’t like the truth.

Two Things I Would Like to See Him Address

These are not criticisms, but rather clarifications and expansions that I would like to see.  He has issued a clarification of certain points, which I appreciated, even though most of what he says in the second post was clear in the first post.

First, I would like to see him address more thoroughly the effects of pornography on our view of sexual sin in general and how we talk about sexual sin. He does this some in the comments and he may have done this in a blog post somewhere else. This was brought up in the comments and is important. Does the rampant use of pornography demand a more explicit discussion of these issues? How does heterosexual porn affect our view of sodomy?

Second, I would like to see him be more specific about how to use this particular tool. A lot of complaints from Christian brothers were that the post was not pastorally sensitive. I disagree. A man cannot say everything that needs to be said in every post. The context of the post was a private meeting with other leaders about homosexuality. It was not meeting in his study with someone struggling with homosexual tendencies.  I believe he is saying that public discourse demands a proper understanding of what the sin actually is. He is not saying that every time we meet a sodomite we need to say this. But I do think some clarification as to when to use this tool would be helpful.

<>имидж организации

pastoral, Sodomy