Jesus Is Not a Homophobe, and Neither Am I

Recently, a federal court in Cincinnati, OH ordered the Waynesville Local School District to change its decision not to allow a high school student, Maverick Couch, who is gay, to wear a controversial T-shirt to school. The court also ordered the district to pay Couch $20,000 plus court costs as "compensation for damages."

The shirt in question stated, "Jesus Is Not a Homophobe." Of course, this statement on face value is true. Jesus is not afraid of homosexuals, nor does he hate them. The Bible clearly indicates God’s love for all sinners, a love so intense that He put His own Son, Jesus, on the cross to eternally pay for their sins.

However, the implied message of the statement, especially when worn by a student who is open about his sexual orientation, is that anyone who worships Jesus and also takes the position that homosexuality is a sin is at least being ignorant of what Jesus actually stands for. "If Jesus loves me, then so should you" is the logical conclusion drawn from the message on the shirt. I have no problem with this conclusion. I do, however, have a great problem with the implication.

Couch’s shirt is offensive to many people. It is offensive to me. I am an imperfect but sincere worshiper of Jesus, and I know He neither fears nor hates homosexual people. But I also know His Word, the Bible, which has been the guidebook of my life for the past fifty years, in both the Old and New Testaments, clearly identifies homosexuality as a sin. It also clearly identifies Jesus’ love for sinners, a love His followers are also taught to express. But love does not endorse everything the loved one does. Love is not blind to faults and errors. The purpose of God’s love for sinners, and thus the purpose of my love for sinners, is to bring them to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and for the assistance of the Holy Spirit in dealing with and forsaking sin.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with the federal court that ordered the school district not only to allow Couch to wear his shirt, but also to pay him $20,000 for "damages." This is a waste of the school district’s resources, especially in this day of excessive taxation and the high costs of education. It is not a violation of one’s free speech rights for a school to forbid certain types of behavior on its property. Schools forbid their students from doing many things while on school property. It is not a violation of students’ rights to forbid them from attacking each other, either verbally or physically, or to forbid them from sleeping, playing video games, texting, talking to their neighbor or a wealth of other activities during class, or to forbid them from yelling obscenities at a teacher or administrator. Schools have a right and responsibility to protect their employees and their students from disruptive behavior while on school grounds.

I taught for nine years in a private school, which did not allow its students to wear any clothing that contained any message of any kind. Clothing served only the purposes of warmth and modesty; clothing was not used as a billboard. I believe this is a proper tool for schools to use to limit students’ abilities to be disruptive and divert attention away from the only reason they are in school — to receive an education.

My own education took place in Windsor, Ontario and across the Detroit River in Lincoln Park, Michigan. In both school systems, students were not allowed to express themselves freely; there were necessary restrictions placed on free speech because of the environment and the purpose for which the school existed. At Lincoln Park High School, I served as the editor of the school newspaper. However, the advisor, a teacher employed by the school district, had final say over what was published in the paper. He rejected very little of what I wanted to publish, but that is precisely because I did not attempt to publish material I knew he would be compelled by his position to reject. Was that censorship? Or just common sense.

I realize that a ban on messages on clothing in public schools would restrict Christian young people from displaying evangelistic messages on their clothing, but I am comfortable with that. A ban on such clothing on school grounds does not take away anyone’s right to wear such clothing elsewhere, or to express their beliefs with other students in private conversations while on school grounds.

Further, I do not believe that my insistence that the Bible correctly teaches that homosexuality is an aberration, a sin, an offense to God, is an instance of so-called homophobia. I am not afraid of homosexuality or of those who practice it. Neither do I have any hatred for such individuals. To accuse me of such actions because I am convinced that homosexuality is a sin is to grossly misrepresent me. I am a sinner, too. I have my own sins that I have struggled with, and continue to struggle with. I have my own sins for which Christ died. I have my own sins for which I have sought and received forgiveness from Christ. Sinners like me have nothing of which to be proud.

Couch expressed his satisfaction with the federal court’s decision saying that he was proud of who he is, and that he hoped his victory would encourage other students to be proud of who they are. We all know what pride precedes. If you have forgotten, read Proverbs 16:18.

I Don't Hate Anyone

McDonalds has made its response to the Christian community quite clear. In a statement issued very recently, McDonalds claims that those of us who are opposed to their support of homosexual causes are "motivated by hate."

Come on, McDonalds, give me a break! That is the same tired old line the gay community has been using for years.

Let me make this perfectly clear so even Ronald McDonald can understand. My opposition to the homosexual agenda is not rooted in hatred of those who have adopted this lifestyle. My opposition is rooted in love for God, love for the family, and love for people. To say that I hate someone because I do not agree with them is foolish and unfounded and quite frankly shows a lack of logic on the part of those who make such a statement.

I could make the same silly argument against McDonalds. I could say that they are motivated by a hatred for the Christian faith and for those loyal customers who are believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since McDonalds assumes I hate homosexual people, I guess I will have to assume they hate me and the dollars I spend at their restaurants here on the west side of Columbus, Ohio and wherever I travel. So, why should I go to a restaurant that is motivated by hatred of me and all I believe in?

The answer is simple. I won't.

No More Big Macs For Me?

I first discovered the joys of eating at McDonalds when I was in my twenties. That's when a McDonalds opened in Lincoln Park, Michigan where I lived at the time. The time was the early 1960s. Later when my wife and I were dating, we spent a lot of time, and a lot of money, at McDonalds, and I consumed many of their Big Macs. Later still, each of our three daughters learned to appreciate the golden arches early in their lives.

Our consistency as McDonalds customers has not wavered over the years. We still visit them regularly, especially when travelling.

How disappointing, then, to discover that McDonalds is now an endorser of homosexual causes. Their famous golden arches are now featured on the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce where McDonalds is identified as a corporate partner. McDonalds admits it has given a large, but undisclosed, sum of money to the NGLCC. Further, Richard Ellis, Vice-President of Communications for McDonalds, also serves on the NGLCC board with McDonalds' blessings.

The purpose of the NGLCC is to "promote gay business," according to press reports. McDonalds claims it regularly supports a variety of organizations that promote diversity, and that the fact that "one McDonalds employee" serves on the board of a homosexual cause does not indicate McDonalds is promoting homosexuality. Critics have pointed out, however, that Ellis is not a "teenager flipping hamburgers" at McDonalds, so he is not "one employee." He is a vice-president, an officer.

So, am I going to have to end my love affair with the Big Mac? Well, I certainly am going to have to think twice about supporting a business that is so open about its support of something I consider to be a grave denial of God's wisdom in creating human beings male and female. I probably will give the giant corporation a little time to reconsider, now that the Christian community is letting them know we are not pleased with their decision. But if it becomes necessary I am prepared to give up the pleasures of McDonalds' food for the sake of what is right. I cannot in good conscience support homosexuality in any way. Not even for a Big Mac.

I can survive without McDonalds, and McDonalds will probably survive without me. But, as Wal-Mart learned a few years ago, supporting homosexuality and losing the support of the Christian community is costly. After all, homosexual "couples" do not have an easy time creating families with children who will become future customers. Christian couples do.

A Travesty in California

Tuesday, June 17 is the day the state of California takes a drastic step backward as it makes same-sex unions legal in the state. This is the result of a tragically immoral decision by the state's supreme court sanctioning such unions.

There are many residents of the state of California, I am sure, who find this decision by their state's supreme court to be reprehensible. Their position in this matter was completely ignored by the members of the court.

Same-sex couples are already lined up to secure "licenses" and to have ceremonies performed. But the fact is that even the supreme court of California cannot change one simple truth.

Marriage, by definition, involves a man and a woman. It is that simple. To define it any other way is to destroy its significance and importance in society.

God created marriage. He presented Eve to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and that forever established marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It matters not what politicians, lawyers, activists judges, ministers, or any others decide.

California has taken a step down a slippery slope by attempting to change the legal and moral definition of marriage in order to appease a vocal but immoral minority.