|
| ISN'T
IT TIME TO STOP PUSHING THE "HATE" BUTTON? A standard American dictionary defines the verb “hate” as: “to feel hostility or animosity toward; to detest.” In contrast with this, the lexicon of contemporary political correctness appears to define “hate” as: “to hold to Christian principles and values; to stand for biblical morality,” and, quite specifically, “to take issue with the homosexual lifestyle.” Pushing the “hate” button has proven quite effective, since the moment it is pushed, all rational discussion ceases and one’s ideological adversary is quickly reduced to a small-minded, mean-spirited bigot. Immediately, the playing field becomes unequal, and the opponent becomes a monster whose ideas are unworthy of serious consideration. And should that opponent happen to be an evangelical Christian, then pushing the hate button becomes all the more useful. The Bible-believing Christian is caricatured as a modern day crusader, witch-hunter, and “jihadist” rolled into one, a self-righteous, insensitive hypocrite who gleefully consigns all but a few likeminded fanatics to eternity in hell. Does this sound extreme? Then consider some of the descriptive quotations in Richard Rubin’s article in the May 8 edition of the Observer entitled, “Protesters eager to share beliefs at gay pride festival.” Mr. Rubin writes that, “Christian protesters in red shirts mingled with gays attending the Charlotte Pride festival Saturday [May 7], singing to them, preaching to them and pulling them aside for conversation and argument,” a fair summary of the activity, although countless eyewitnesses would attest that there was certainly a studious attempt by the “protesters” to avoid getting into arguments with the gays attending the event. Nowhere in the article, however, are these red-shirted, Christian protesters allowed to explain the actual content of their message, with only a passing reference from one of them to “the cause of Jesus.” What exactly does that mean? The reader is quickly educated: “Do something constructive with your time instead of telling us we’re going to hell,” said one, presumably lesbian, attendee. In keeping with this was the statement of Mette Andersen, executive director of Time Out Youth, described as an advocacy and support group for gay teens and young adults: “I’m very concerned about the message of hate,” she said. “Our youth are very vulnerable, they’re insecure and to be hit over the head with the Bible like this is unsettling.” So there you have it: These red-shirted Christian protesters, representing the “cause of Jesus,” were hitting people over the head with their Bibles – notice that some of their prime targets were “very vulnerable” young people – telling them that they were going to hell, proclaiming a “message of hate.” How terrible! But what else could be expected from Bible-toting Christians? Sadly, once the hate button is pushed, many readers instantly see red – and I don’t mean the color of the shirts – failing to ask if, perhaps, a fair picture is being painted. Is it possible that there was disagreement without hatred? Is it possible that the protesters were actually motivated by love? Is it possible that their main theme was not hellfire and brimstone? Is it possible that using the rhetoric of “hate” and “hell” is actually a ploy to avoid discussion of the real issues? The vast majority of the protesters were young people themselves, their red shirts emblazoned with the words “Liberated!” and “Transformed by the blood of Jesus.” How is this a message of hate? And if it is acceptable for gays and lesbians to celebrate their “liberation,” why is it inappropriate for followers of Jesus to do the same? The red shirts proclaimed a simple message: Ultimate freedom is found only in Jesus, through his shed blood. Is this a message of hate? Some of these red-shirted Christians lived overtly sinful lives in the past, having been enslaved by pornography, alcohol, or drugs. Others had been “decent” church-going people who came to realize that they too needed to find mercy through the cross. Others still were former lesbians or homosexuals. All of them wanted to share the message of God’s transforming love with as many people as they could, offering them the same mercy and kindness they too had received from the Lord. Yet this is branded a message of hate. Based on what criteria? As for “hitting people over the head with Bibles” – another totally subjective claim – if it is right for homosexuals to fill a public park in downtown Charlotte and openly proclaim their views, is it wrong for Christians who differ with them to make their presence known as well? Must this be described as hitting someone over the head with a Bible? And if male transvestites were bold enough to gyrate in Marshall Park in the presence of little children, should others be condemned for believing that such behavior is wrong? Does that really constitute hate? The red-shirted Christians simply proclaimed the gospel, the good news that Jesus died to save all of us – heterosexual and homosexual alike – from our sins. Yet it is this good news, along with all honest dialog, that is completely obscured whenever the hate button is pushed. If some still choose to push this emotionally charged button, others can choose to make it ineffective by determining instead to seek out and hear the truth, recognizing that whoever uses the rhetoric of “hate” is most likely deflecting discussion from the real issues at hand. And it is only through bringing the real issues into the light that we can render the hate button obsolete. Isn’t it time?
Michael L. Brown, Ph.D., is president
of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord and director of the Coalition
of Conscience, an association of secular and religious leaders working
together for moral and cultural revolution in America.
Download this document in Word format: click here
Dr. Michael L. Brown |
