Christ and Liberalism

One of the new arbiters of public morality, that's to say, a female pop star, has recently criticised somebody who taught in a school that refused to accept homosexual students as the worst of all Christians. This is not unexpected from a person of that background. What is relatively new is the seriousness with which this pronouncement has been taken by the media. It shows how far the takeover of the establishment by the left has proceeded. Even if you say that it's to sell copy, which is undoubtedly true, in the past that would still have been a priority but it would not have resulted in such widespread reporting of the incident, with the sub-text that any right-minded person will obviously agree with the pop star. 

Now, I certainly think that to refuse to accept homosexuals as students is wrong as long as they abide by whatever the rules of the school they go to may be. That should go without saying. But that was not really the point being made. The point is the old one of how being a Christian means loving your neighbour and being tolerant (for which read not put up with but be fully accepting of) any differences he might have. We're all one and no one is better than anyone else as regards their 'lifestyle' choices, and most other things as well. 

But this is not what being a Christian means at all. If it were, you might as well say we should love Satan and think his behaviour was also a 'lifestyle' choice, no different, really, to that of Jesus. Christianity means loving God and "if you love me, keep my commandments". That's to say, there are two things for the Christian and both are equally important. There is love, intelligently directed, and there is the law, and you cannot have one without the other. If there was no law, as the pop singer appears to think, certainly in this case, then there could be no sin but the idea of sin is a fundamental part of Christianity for that is what Christ came to save us from, the sin of ignorance of the law, on the one hand, and rebelliousness against it, on the other.

For Christians there are two acceptable states as regards the sexual instinct. There is marriage and there is celibacy. Because the sexual instinct is the strongest we have, its proper functioning is essential, and past societies, Christian or not, have mostly known this and sought to regulate it. But we have jettisoned this wisdom with the result that we are separating ourselves more and more from any spiritual connection. For it is the case that atheism leads to sexual licence and that in turn feeds back into more atheism. It does this partly because it increases identification with the physical body and partly because it accentuates self.

Christians are enjoined to love their neighbour, yes. But they are also enjoined, primarily enjoined actually, to love God. God is truth. If my neighbour flouts truth in his behaviour, which the practice of homosexuality obviously does as it distorts and deforms the creative energy which is a sacred thing,  I should still love him but I do not love his behaviour and am entitled, or even obliged, to condemn that.  Love your neighbour means exert yourself to his spiritual good. It does not mean accept behaviour which will lead him away from God. It certainly does not mean giving sinful and virtuous behaviour equal consideration. That is not love. It is contempt for the good.