I have been reading C.S. Lewis’s work, Mere Christianity, and have recently come across some thoughts which I feel illustrate my bewilderment of how one (specifically a Christian) can claim homosexuality destroys the purpose of God; yet, in the same breath, this same one can label those who promote gay lifestyles as good and/or respectable people.
Now, don’t tort my meaning – I am not confused how one can believe a person involved in a bad lifestyle can still be a good person; I am confused how one can believe a person promoting a bad lifestyle, proclaiming such as good, can still be a good person. Such the latter is deceit – and deceit in itself is bad, but deceit that leads to an innate damnation of one’s divinely appointed purpose is much, much “more bad.”
Also, don’t confuse the intent of this post. I do not want to convince anyone of any specific belief or stance except the stance of how I feel I should be seen and treated (whether positively or negatively).
To perhaps backtrack for a moment and paraphrase from the aforementioned work, Lewis describes the Law of Nature as an innate sense of what one “ought/ought not to do” in terms of what is good and what is bad. Lewis also mentions that every [sane] person knows at least deep down when he/she is doing something that one should not.
This is a universally Christian belief, and this post is dependent upon this belief.
If a person is being deceitful then this person is doing something one ought not do. Accordingly, the Law of Nature will tell this same person that he is, indeed, doing something one ought not do. If he ignores the Law of Nature, then he is being doubly deceitful – and will be told so by the Law of Nature. Now, if he continues to be deceitful about his deceit and continues further and further with this pattern of deceit, he will be infinitely wrapped up in deceit and becomes therefore either a madman (who cannot recognize the Law of Nature) or a devil.
Such Lewis applied (though with different wording) to Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed to be God. He proclaimed to be perfect in all things, including humility and meekness. If Jesus was not truly God, then he was being deceitful – and not just a little bit – and the Law of Nature would have told him of this error. Yet he never backed down from his claims; therefore, he would have to be 1) God, Himself; 2) a madman; or 3) the Devil of Hell.
Again, Lewis doesn’t necessarily term things as I – using deceit – but the concept (meaning not just the concept of deceit but the concept of my post in general as well) I feel is the same as found in Lewis's statement:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
The same ought to be applied to those of us who are proclaiming a gay lifestyle as a good lifestyle. If such is not a good lifestyle (specifically if such is a lifestyle directly attacking the goodness and nature of man), then we are being deceitful; we are doing something we ought not do, and we therefore, deep down, know we are acting contrary to goodness. Yet we persist, and therefore are 1) Proclaiming actual good doctrine; 2) madmen; or 3) deceivers and devils who cannot be trusted in any way.
Let me be clear of one specific concept: persistent, cognisant deceit. If one is ardently persistent, never backing down in doing what one ought not do, despite the natural prompting that one is in violation of goodness, then that one is a deceiver and a devil. I believe the common Christian term is ‘unrepentant.’
This is where a sinner can be a good man but an unrepentant promoter of sin cannot.
Therefore, one cannot call me good if one believes homosexuality is absolutely evil. As I am sane, I cannot be good in this context. I simply cannot. I would be a devil and deceiver, and no part of me could be trusted (after all, I could simply be putting on a “good” façade in order to perpetuate my lie). This is especially true as I am becoming more and more persistently supportive of a homosexual lifestyle – specifically committed, monogamous, parenting couples.
As I would be completely untrustworthy in this sense, one who believes homosexuality is evil ought not respect me or anything about me. “[One] can shut [me] up for a fool, [one] can spit at [me] and kill [me] as a demon; or [one] can [shed one's belief that homosexuality is absolutely subversive to God’s plan]. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about [me] being a [respectable being]. [I have] not left that open to [anyone]. [I do] not intend to.”
Let me be clear of one more specific concept: absolute subversion. I do not propose here anything that concerns the eternal nature of gender roles, what will be in the next life, but only that which concerns the innate damage and damning effect practicing homosexuality here and now would have on society and on one’s eternal salvation. I am proposing that monogamous, committed homosexual coupling is the best life here and now for gays, no matter what the eternities hold, that such a sincere life will not detriment, in any way, one’s eternal salvation, let alone society.
Again, to paraphrase Socrates, “This is my doctrine. And if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, then I am a mischievous person.” One should, therefore, not patronize with “respect” if one believes my doctrines are corruptive and mischievous in any way. Such, as Lewis says, is a “really foolish thing” to do.
However, if one cannot feel honest in treating me as a mischievous person, if one's “ought nots” flare up, I would hope that such would reveal something to that one concerning the doctrine I propose.
***I feel I should also mention that such a conclusion cannot be applied to those who are seemingly persistent that homosexuality is absolutely evil. That is to say, if homosexuality is not absolutely evil (please be aware that any following statement is dependant on and a child of this conditional statement), then those who are proclaiming such cannot be deemed devils and deceivers... You see, their stance is softening – even if it’s in the slightest of degrees, there is nonetheless some repentance – therefore, they can be trusted and respected according to the belief system presented in this post.
I feel I should also mention that such a conclusion cannot be applied to those who would propose any type of gay lifestyle as a good lifestyle... You see, their stance is showing signs of repentance in terms of my presented belief concerning the best possible life for gays.
The only stance that is not showing any signs of repentance were it wrong is the one I have adopted. Such is the only stance that would draw my presented conclusion. And I am fully aware that this conclusion makes me 1) a madman; 2) a deceiver and a devil; or 3) a proclaimer of some goodness. One could furthermore argue that I could not possibly be a madman as I am fully aware of the consequences and logics; therefore, I am then either 1) a deceiver and devil; or 2) a proclaimer of some goodness.
Again, it would be foolish for anyone to respect me were I a deceiver... but, again and again, if one's “oughts” are telling one that I deserve respect, then I would hope such would tell that one something about my proposed beliefs – and that one would at least listen to the words I hold concerning my beliefs with the same respect one's “oughts” are encouraging.