Is "Homophobia" Equivalent to Racism?

by Emmett Smith
In an article discussing the appointment of John Sentamu as the new Archbishop of York, there were some rather interesting statements quoted. Sentamu is a native Ugandan and is Britain’s first black archbishop. He also happens to be among the African contingent of the Church of England that still rejects homosexual practice and disagrees with the concept of homosexual “marriage.” This contingent nearly broke communion with the Anglicans following the appointment of a homosexual bishop in the United States.
So it should not come as a shock that homosexual activists within the are outraged, deeply troubled, and “disappointed that a person that has not shown himself to be a particular friend of the lesbian and gay [sic] community has been appointed.” I’m sure these same disappointed activists feel that Sentamu’s appointment will have a chilling effect on their agenda. Some readers will probably have noted the use of certain key words and phrases that are popular within the activist community in general. They have long since learned that how they use our language, in and of itself, can make a difference in influencing others.
Another significant weapon in their arsenal is the use of the false comparison. For instance, the same article quoted the claim that “homophobia and racism are equally damaging.” Many casual readers may simply nod in agreement ? but what are they really agreeing with? What precisely is homophobia? The prefix “homo-” simply means the same. Are many of us afraid of things that are the same? And even if we are, has that fear been as damaging as racism? No, that appellation is intended to brand anyone who disagrees with their assertions. Its purpose is to stifle discourse and intimidate the opposition.
And it has been very effective. Many who may casually disagree will not consider speaking out to avoid being labeled. And almost everyone can agree that racism has done significant damage to many people, and not just in the modern world. However, just because one disagrees with the homosexual activist’s agenda does not make one an evil racist. Quite the opposite, in fact ? the Bible clearly states that God “made from one blood every nation of men” (Acts 17:26). This truth is easily confirmed because blood can be transfused between people of any “race.” The concept of race itself is a misunderstanding.
And those who would have us view opposition to homosexual activity as equivalent to racism are promoting an even greater misunderstanding. Because the Bible is very clear that Christians may not continue to indulge in sexual sins upon being born again. Let’s look at an accurate comparison. Paul wrote the Corinthian brethren that “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.” He then listed a number of unrighteous behaviors that were prohibited. Among them were those that practice homosexuality and thieves.
So a proper comparison would be as follows: if a Christian may continue to be a thief after conversion, then he may also continue to practice homosexual acts. I don’t know very many who hold that position. Paul certainly didn’t! He made it clear that such behavior must be in the past tense for a Christian.
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Continue reading “Is "Homophobia" Equivalent to Racism?”

Selective Reduction

When I was a child of four or five, a Chinese missionary visited our home. I remember that he called himself Mr. Ding Dong Bell. That name really “rang a bell” in the mind of a child! But one thing that I also remember is some discussion of how differently the Chinese culture valued life. One particular example that was cited was of boat passengers’ refusal to even reach over the side to assist a struggling swimmer who had fallen in. They just watched the person drown. That, too, made a deep impression in a child’s mind.

Fast-forward forty plus years. The July 18th edition of the New York Times Magazine contained an article titled When One is Enough, which chronicled a young unwed mother’s decision to kill two of the triplets she was carrying. The procedure is referred to as selective reduction by the medical specialist she consulted. Her decision was based primarily on the fact that she would be tied down, would have to scale back on expenditures for herself, etc. Although there was a part of her that knew she could work around these problems, she concluded that it was a matter of, “Do I want to”?. Perhaps the two who were “selectively reduced” are the lucky ones after all.

It’s hard to fathom the changes that have occurred in 40 years. Men have walked on the moon. And women have bought the lie that they may “choose” whether or not to let their unborn babies live. I suspect that a solid majority of our society in the late fifties and early sixties would have said, “it can’t happen here”. What went wrong? How did a generation of children, many if not most of whom were reared in comparative luxury, decide that the traditional family was optional?

They bought the lie. And if you buy the lie, you die.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, `You shall not eat of any tree in the garden??" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.?" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

(Genesis 3:1-5 ESV)

Men want to be like God. Such hubris has always led to trouble.