Desmond Tutu takes a step backward on biblical truth
Like most clergy who’s picked up and frantically waved the gay rainbow banner for perverse theology, the former South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu seems to have become particularly engrossed in trying way too hard to make a wrong be a right.
Tutu is one of the gay movement’s heroes because he doesn’t adhere to the bible, but to the broad social gospel which has no standards, just “love”. And of course following God’s Word would mean that you would have to say that not all sexual activity is good and acceptable. So Tutu and those like him conveniently navigate around the heart of the issue and erect ridiculous strawmen as if the Bible is nothing but a suggestive afterthought on moral issues.
Writing in the Washington Post, the Nobel prize winner unsuccessfully tries to draw a parallel using the more than debunked argument that sexual conduct and skin color are one in the same. Its an glaring example of how compromise is a sure killer of spiritual credibility.
Hate has no place in the house of God. No one should be excluded from our love, our compassion or our concern because of race or gender, faith or ethnicity — or because of their sexual orientation. Nor should anyone be excluded from health care on any of these grounds. In my country of South Africa, we struggled for years against the evil system of apartheid that divided human beings, children of the same God, by racial classification and then denied many of them fundamental human rights. We knew this was wrong. Thankfully, the world supported us in our struggle for freedom and dignity.
It is time to stand up against another wrong.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are part of so many families. They are part of the human family. They are part of God’s family. And of course they are part of the African family. But a wave of hate is spreading across my beloved continent. People are again being denied their fundamental rights and freedoms. Men have been falsely charged and imprisoned in Senegal, and health services for these men and their community have suffered. In Malawi, men have been jailed and humiliated for expressing their partnerships with other men. Just this month, mobs in Mtwapa Township, Kenya, attacked men they suspected of being gay. Kenyan religious leaders, I am ashamed to say, threatened an HIV clinic there for providing counseling services to all members of that community, because the clerics wanted gay men excluded.
Archbishop Tutu would have been much more accurate to say “sin has no place in the house of God”. He wouldn’t say that because he knows the gay community he is beholden to, hates that word. To them, this isn’t about being against sin, its about a selective application of false love. Certainly, humanity is grateful for Tutu’s work to help end South Africa’s oppressive racial system, but there’s no comparison to the oppression of sin which has permeated and enslaved much of the entire world. For the record, I personally don’t support imprisoning or executing people for homosexual acts. At the same time, I support a country’s sovereign right to make and adjudicate their own laws whether good or bad.
While racial hatred and discrimination is an outgrowth of sin, the same is true of homosexuality. Saying that one is good and the other is evil is a disservice to practitioners of both sins. Both deserve to be told the truth so that they can experience true freedom made available by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Tutu’ argument is centered on the still unfolding drama in Uganda. He says the proposed law is a “terrible backward steps for human rights in Africa.” Indeed it is, but even if the law was never proposed, homosexual conduct would retain its sin designation. Even if Uganda passes a law giving homosexuals full legal rights, homosexuality would still be an abomination. The point Tutu intentionally refuses to acknowledge is that the destruction of sin is incalculable and cannot be legalized away. Thus, hate is a mislabeled problem with a problematic outcome.
Our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters across Africa are living in fear.
And they are living in hiding — away from care, away from the protection the state should offer to every citizen and away from health care in the AIDS era, when all of us, especially Africans, need access to essential HIV services. That this pandering to intolerance is being done by politicians looking for scapegoats for their failures is not surprising. But it is a great wrong. An even larger offense is that it is being done in the name of God. Show me where Christ said “Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones.” Gay people, too, are made in my God’s image. I would never worship a homophobic God.
“But they are sinners,” I can hear the preachers and politicians say. “They are choosing a life of sin for which they must be punished.” My scientist and medical friends have shared with me a reality that so many gay people have confirmed, I now know it in my heart to be true. No one chooses to be gay. Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family. Isn’t it amazing that we are all made in God’s image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love?
A homophobic God? Perhaps Tutu is revealing who he is worshipping and it is not the God of the Bible. It makes one wonder if this “homophobic God” is this the same one who said that the unrighteous would not enter into his kingdom? In case you didnt know it, in the spiritual matrix world of the tolerance and diversity adherents, the top transgressions are homophobia and judging. Beyond that, little else angers them.
Tutu’s last question is an interesting one which immediately prompts another of the same. Can human wisdom exceed or supercede the wisdom of the Creator? If he in his unparalled wisdom, created man and woman, oriented them to each other sexually, relationally and emotionally, then pronounced it all good, who are we to say that he intended or worse created something so different and foreign as homosexuality?