In response to Loud and proud complementarians: John Piper and Nick Roen. commenter Crude wrote:
I used to accept a version of what Piper and Roen talked about re: homophobia. That idea that you had to criticize gay marriage and sodomy for the *right* reasons – have all your philosophical and biblical t’s crossed and i’s dotted immaculately – or else your motivations were wrong and your position hard to defend.
Then I realized I had been had.
For one thing: no one ever demands that we scrupulously, with abundant biblical references, justify our giving to charity, helping the poor, being courteous and kind. No one ever says that if you help someone just because it feels nice to then you’re a wicked, poorly motivated person, and what you REALLY need is a plethora of biblical references and some philosophical grounding in Aquinas to even THINK about helping the poor. No one demands this for our inveighing against alcoholism, drug use, etc, etc, etc.
In fact, those are seen as just-plain-right views to have, admirable acts to engage in when they’re good acts, or proper things to condemn when they’re bad ones.
It’s only for very specific (and trendy!) sins that we had damn well better have all of our motivations in perfect accord, on pain of our entire motivation being wrong.
What a horror. Some people may find anal sex to be repulsive *without an exhaustive biblical rationale to back them up*. How wicked. It sure SEEMS like a natural inclination to regard sin as sin, but no, it’s wicked!
…Yeah, for that and other reasons I finally realized it was all a pantload, cooked up by Christian cowards.
While it is true that our heart matters in all things, the goal is clearly to tie traditional Christians up in a web of a thousand legalistic details in order to prove that they aren’t being legalistic. The goal is to make it so complex to confront the sin of homosexuality that ordinary Christians become exhausted and decide to leave it to the experts. Conveniently, complementarians have a team of Christian gay rights experts standing by for just such an occasion!
This is the same model complementarians followed for feminism, and it is a devastatingly effective tactic. When dealing with activist charges of sexism/abuse, you need a Christian women’s studies major or professor to take on the highly technical job of fighting feminism by explaining that the Bible was coincidentally feminist all along! We just didn’t discover this fact until the 60s came along and enlightened us. Likewise, when dealing with charges of homophobia and how intersectional theory should be incorporated into your biblical world view, you need a Christian gay activist who knows how to navigate this byzantine landscape.
For an example of this, see Rosaria Butterfield’s Desiring God article Gay Rights, Hate Speech, and Hospitality (LONGINGS OF A FORMER LESBIAN)
Originally, intersectionality dealt with material, structural oppressions — highlighting how race and class and the glass ceiling of sexism weigh heavy in a society made up of sinners. But when feminism shifted allegiance from Marx to Freud, when it turned from numbers to feelings, sexual orientation and gender identity took on new forms.
When ideas like “dignitary harm” (the harm accrued to your dignity by someone’s refusal to approve of your sin) found its place in civil law, intersectionality unleashed a monster. And with that monster came a message: homosexuality is not a sin; it is an aesthetic, an erotic orientation or way of looking at the world and everything in it. Today, the gospel is on a collision course with this message.
So sit back, put your feet up, and let our gay rights activists handle the culture war against their gay rights activists. Just be sure to support God’s team in this exciting contest, as you cheer them on from the sidelines!
See Also: She holds an authority you cannot hold.