Worldviews in Conflict

By Thomas M. Parsons

Part 3: Morality

Every worldview embraces a moral system by which it makes judgments concerning what is acceptable and what is not, what is beneficial and what is not, what ought to be done and what ought not.

Secular Humanism has constructed a moral system that is generally identified as a relative moral system. This means that the moral laws are open to change and evolve over time as the needs of human beings change. The Humanist Manifesto declares that "modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values." Humanists reject any source for moral laws other than what human beings find enjoyable or in some way beneficial to themselves.

The relative morality of humanists has produced cultures in which virtually everything is acceptable, even valuable, to the human experience. Since humanism began growing in acceptance in western culture at the beginning of the 20^th century, the acceptance of things once thought to be immoral has spread like the ever increasing circle that pushes out on the surface of water after a stone enters. Thus, adultery, once thought to be a shameful sin not to be discussed in polite society, is now not only acceptable, but normal, even necessary to human health and well-being. Abortion was once forbidden in western culture; it was considered to be even worse than murder since its victims had no way to defend themselves. Now, abortion is considered to be a woman’s right to be defended vigorously against those who ignorantly cling to outdated moral values.

Homosexuality is another issue that has been dramatically changed by the spread of humanism. In the 1920s and 30s in America, there was a popular and gifted lyricist who collaborated with Richard Rodgers to produce many musicals and songs that are still known today.. This lyricist was a homosexual, but he and his associates worked hard to keep this a secret for fear of public outcry against what was considered to be abnormal and immoral behavior. Thus Lorenz Hart, writer of hundreds of clever and still-remembered lyrics lived his secret life until his early death at the age of 48.

Today, of course, the homosexuality of Elton John and Ellen Degeneres are public knowledge and have not limited these talented people from pursuing their very public careers. Secular Humanism stands firm in its belief that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and that it should not be judged negatively by others. Humanism also is now involved in the promotion of homosexual marriage as a basic human right that should not be denied to anyone by the government, by the public, or by the church.

Biblical Christianity, of course, looks to its authority, the Bible, for the basis of its moral positions. Since the Bible is regarded as the eternal, unchanging Word of God, its moral pronouncements are deemed to be absolute. Thus Biblical Christianity embraces a system of moral absolutes, judgments which God has already made and revealed in His unchanging Word.

Because its moral system is deeply rooted in God’s eternal Word, its moral pronouncements do not change, indeed, cannot change. Adultery, condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, is still a sin today according to Biblical Christianity just as it was throughout history, a threat to the stability of marriage and family relationships.

Also, Biblical Christians cannot accept abortion on any level because the Bible clearly identifies human life as such in the womb. To destroy an unborn baby is murder according to the absolute morality of Biblical Christianity. The destruction of more than fifty million (50,000,000) babies in the United States since Roe. v. Wade is deemed as more than significant cause for divine judgment on America by Biblical Christians.

Homosexuality is regarded in the absolute morality of Biblical Christianity as the ultimate insult to the Creator of male and female and the blessed relationship these are to enjoy in marriage. The Bible could not be more clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, naming it as a major sin in several verses in both the Old and New Testaments. Biblical Christians regard the acceptance of homosexuality as promoted by Secular Humanists as another indicator that America and other nations are sitting on the edge of serious judgment from God.

Absolute Morality. Relative morality. These are the polar extremes embraced by Biblical Christianity and Secular Humanism. Secularists believe there is no authority other than human experience that should judge a person’s morality. Morals are relative, which means they change to fit man’s evolving culture and needs. In an absolute moral system, as embraced by Biblical Christianity, morals eternally pronounced by God are not negotiable or subject to change. In modern western culture, Biblical Christians who look to the revealed Word of God as their authority and Secular Humanists who look to the human experience for authority are locked in a no-compromise battle over the moral issues of abortion and homosexuality. Biblical Christians cannot yield on these divinely revealed moral issues, and secular humanists insist that people are free to decide whatever moral laws they find beneficial to themselves. As always, these two worldviews divide over the matter of authority. Did God say it? Or is man free to decide for himself?

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.

Hooray For McDonalds

In May, I reported my objection to a plan by the McDonalds company to donate money to an organization seeking the legalization of so-called gay marriage in the United States. One member of McDonalds' governing board, himself a homosexual, appeared to be largely responsible for the donation.

Many, including me, objected on the grounds that a corporation such as McDonalds needed to be neutral in an area as controversial as this one is. Not everyone is convinced that it is legitimate to give legal marriage status to non-traditional couples. After all, the definition of marriage for thousands of years has been a legal relationship between people of the opposite sex, one of the objectives being reproduction, something gay couples can never do.

My wife and I did choose to eat less often at McDonalds, but we chose not to be involved in a boycott of the giant restaurant chain, especially since our vacation trip (reported here on this blog) was about to begin and the thought of spending two weeks on the road without McDonalds was a little overwhelming.

But now I read that McDonalds has changed its mind and decided to remain neutral on the issue. Also, the board member who promoted the decision in the first place is no longer on the board.

I am so glad. Now, once again, I can eat a Big Mac and not feel like I am supporting something I cannot endorse. That Big Mac may or may not clog my arteries. But it will no longer clog my conscience.

Photo: The McDonalds in Wolf Point, Montana, our refuge in a rain storm in July of 2008 on our trip to the northwestern United States.

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.