Clever words or outright lies?

English: Hypocrite "Love" message. A...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 Everyone hates hypocrisy. When people smugly condemn other people’s behaviour yet do the same or worse, it winds us up more than almost anything else.

I’ve been thinking about a slightly different sort of hypocrisy recently, one which has less to do with a disconnect between speaking and acting (although I’m sure it works itself out in that way too) and more to do with headlines and small print. In evangelical Christianity, we’re often good at headlines, doctrinal slogans that sum up what we think on a particular issue. The more these slogans are honed and perfected, the more they get rolled out as shorthand for our entire thinking on a subject. The reason that they get used so much is that they seem to answer a difficult question without having to go into the details.

A few examples:

1) Isn’t God sexist for only allowing men to be the leaders in church and family?

No, comes the headline answer, because men and women are equal but different.

2) Is God homophobic? Why do Christians hate gay people?
We don’t, the slogan replies, we hate the sin, but we still love the sinner.

3) Why did God give me a sex drive if I’m not allowed to use it? Why is he against sex?
Ah, we say, it’s because he values sex so much, that we can only use it according to his blueprint. 

Recognise any of those? You might recognise them because I’ve said them to you at that point. I’m certain I’ve used each of them in this way in the past. Sorry. Knowing that might make you feel that the rest of this post is hypocritical in itself. But if you’ve known me a while, and if I’ve given any of these answers to you, I hope you’ll see my changing understanding of each of these issues as just that: honest change, an ongoing process and a journey, rather than deceit or hypocrisy.

So, if you’ve been given those answers, perhaps you were satisfied with them and didn’t feel the need to probe any further. After all, they defend a God who seems fair, loving, and wise, in the face of questions that might accuse him of being none of those. Good answers. But perhaps something didn’t quite sit right with you. Perhaps when you delved further into what these headlines actually mean, you found the small print told an altogether different story. That’s what I mean by hypocrisy here. Maybe they’re clever words. Maybe they’re outright lies.

“Equal but different” for instance, tends to mean this, to varying degrees:

God has created two types of people, men and women. Men and women are fundamentally different and so have different roles to play. Any roles which involve leadership, teaching, authority, decision making, bread-winning  being strong, providing, protecting and so on, those are men’s roles. Especially in the two most important contexts for Christian life: the Church and the family. Women’s roles in these context may include being submissive, being obedient, listening, learning, following, serving, trusting, cooking, raising children and possibly flower arranging. She may teach women and children, but not men. But they are equal.


I know that not everyone who uses the “equal but different” slogan would subscribe to everything I just said. Maybe they’d want to add in that men can also serve and be submissive in the right context, and that perhaps cooking and raising children may now be a joint task. But they are all things that come from this way of thinking about the different roles of men and women. For instance, see John Piper’s (respected evangelical leader) comments here on how “men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period”. So, given that small print as we could call it, that explanation of what the headline really means, how exactly do we maintain that that difference of relationship and roles is equality, in any recognisable sense of the word? When one group has all the leadership roles, the active roles, the speaking parts and the responsibility, and the other has the passive, receptive, supporting roles, in what sense are they still equal?

We might use phrases like men and women are equally made in God’s image (although if you’re to ask Piper again, God is masculine) but those phrases don’t seem to mean much if the reality looks so different. It would seem more honest for the equal but different tribe to say “men and women are different in all these ways, so actually they’re not equal in role or status or capability – but that’s okay because God loves us equally and still has things for women to do.” That’s a statement I’d fundamentally disagree with, but at least we’d be clear on where we all stand so we know what we’re disagreeing over.

Love, Not H8te.  Love Knows No Laws!

(Photo credit: inkandpen)

How about “Hate the sin, love the sinner”? This is an easy one to roll out when we disagree with someone’s choices or lifestyle. On the surface it’s attractive, much like the equal but different slogan, because it shows God and Christians to be good and fair, and only against bad stuff, not bad people. The problem again is in the details though. When it’s used in the context of an issue like sexual orientation, what it really means is:

I hate the fact that you are attracted to people of the same gender as you. I hate the feelings that you have for your partner, I hate the love that you show them, I hate the way of life you have together, I hate the plans you’ve made together. I hate this so much that I refuse to recognise it as part of your identity, although my heterosexual relationship is definitely a part of mine, and I deny the way that the relationships and community and love you’ve experienced because of your sexual identity have been a positive part of your life, because I hate it the source of  it all. But, I love you.

The same disclaimer applies as before, I know that not everyone who uses that sort of phrase would be so black and white about each part, but as far as I can see, that’s the expansion of the idea – when you say you hate the sin, you’re imagining it to be some abstract concept.  You’re thinking of it as bad stuff. You’re removing the idea of homosexuality from people and their lives. That might make sense to you, but in doing so you’re totally denying the experiences of the person themselves, their experience of their own identity. That doesn’t sound much like love to me. Wouldn’t it be more honest to say “no, we don’t love what you consider is a big part of yourself. We consider it sin so we hate it.” Then we’d have an honest disagreement on our hands.

I won’t say much about the last example because others have done so much better. In this blog post, on myths perpetuated by a culture that idolises purity and virginity, Joy says:

“Both men and women have shared heartbreaking stories with me of being shamed for even experiencing sexual desire, whether directed toward a specific person or not. In a climate in which we are also forbidden to masturbate, the underlying message is “Your sex drive is evil; therefore, you must shut it down.””

The headline says one thing: God isn’t anti-sex, he created good. Yet so often all of the small print says otherwise. It says instead that if you’re not married to someone of the opposite sex, then he is anti- every kind of sexual desire you have. If you never marry, then he always will be. Why does the headline try to defend God’s pro-sex stance if in reality, there’s so much of it that he’s against?

So here’s my request. Let’s be honest. Let’s not dress up controversial ideas with simple slogans, let’s not sugar coat or twist words. If you absolutely have to come up with a softer way of expressing what God thinks which hides the small print and makes it easier to swallow, maybe it’s time to reconsider whether we really know what God thinks on this one.


About Claire

@claireylegs Keen on Jesus. Keen on justice. Ministry assistant in the Great North East. Blogger. Find me in: coffee shop / church / pub / bed.
This entry was posted in Evangelicalism, Gender, Sex and sexuality and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Clever words or outright lies?

  1. jack says:

    In every era, there are groups of people who stubbornly insist that they can re-engineer the faith to be more pleasing to themselves and others, especially in order to be approved of by groups that are socially popular.

    I invite them to do as they please. But they should remember that Christianity is not a democracy. They can go ahead and convince a majority of Christians to agree with such views. They can even find ways to shame and silence opposing voices. But God never changes, despite how many of his “followers” are busily scouring His Word for loopholes and rationalizations that will allow them to adopt more socially favorable viewpoints.

    Feminism has been successfully adapted to the Church. Other than abortion, it is difficult to see any difference between the average Christian woman’s worldview and that of the most ardent secular feminist. It’s unbibllical, but the Bible will simply be re-interpreted to meet the requirements of feminist egos.

    The acceptance of open homosexuality in the church will be handled the same way. There are too many Christians who desire an outcome in this direction. They will all talk each other into whatever rationalization is necessary to bring it about.

    And this is all because people think that they are more loving and merciful than God Himself.
    Which would be humorous, if it was not so sad. This is why I left the Church. The Church is so very, very thirsty to be approved of by the non-believing world. They are famished for acceptance and validation. This is weakness, of course, bordering on cowardice.

    The Church does not have the moral courage to hold to core principles, so I think it is better to just let the Church collapse into irrelevance. Most modern evangelicals would prefer to lecture God about his intolerant Word.

  2. Claire says:

    Hi Jack,
    Thanks for your comment. I think you show the kind of honesty here that I was asking for in the post. Although I disagree with your stance on homosexuality and feminism, I think you raise an important point about how easily the church can be tempted to change its message to be more popular. Sometimes that’s a harmful thing to do, we end up preaching a Jesus who is nothing like the one we should be preaching, and a gospel that doesn’t look much like his message.

    Perhaps the flip side of that though would be to consider how Paul adapts according to his context – although he writes pages about the problems with circumcision, to the point that those who insist on it for Gentile Christians are called all sorts of things, we also know that Paul had Timothy circumcised as was necessary for the gospel to be accepted in a particular context. Context is important to Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9 he says:

    “Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

    I wonder what that would look like for us? What would Paul become in our context?

    • gracepennr123 says:

      Once again I find myself in awe of the words God has laid upon your heart and mind to speak in response to a post that would have inspired an angry response from many, including myself. I was scrolling down to response to Jack, but read your response first. I agree with your counterpoints but I would not have said them so elloquently. Thank you for showing me a better way… Thanking each person for her comments is an excellent way to set the tone for your response (especially because I hear the sincerity in it), and I pray I will have the same attitude as my blog progresses.

      I would ask Jack what his views on divorce is. It used to be that divorced people were shunned from the church, and I know one can still not be married in many churches once they have been divorced (unless one obtains an annulment from the Catholic Church), but I ask about a particular group of people… Those who did not ask God’s blessing on their union. Those married prior to coming under Christ’s law, those divorced prior to coming under Christ’s law, or after discovering they are not equally yoked in Christ. Are these Christians forgiven of their transgression and allowed to share their love (for simplicity we will say with someone of the opposite gender) with another Christian as God meant?

  3. arber says:

    If I may disagree with you on the “Equal but Different” part.
    I need to say that this are my personal thought on the matter and what I truly believe is my understanding of Gods creation.
    From the definition of equal (being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value) we start having some problems. How do you compare the quantity, size, degree, or value of a man? What about a woman? How do you weigh all this qualities? What is the base unit to measure them?
    We, christians are lucky to have smth to measure ourselves to and that is God. And we ALL fail at that in a epic way. If God is in the top of the graph of the bell curve (I like graphs) we are all in the bottom infinitely close to zero (we are not zero because of his grace). I know that this allegory makes no sense because that would mean God would have a defined limit, but that’s the best I could think of right now.
    So why do we feel the need to compare each-other? I think because of superiority or inferiority complexes that both men and women have inherited from out history. Why? Because of sinful nature of course. Of course man specially have the biggest blame on this, thats why I can’t blame all the feminist movements out there, but I want to remind what is the real enemy here. I think that if we go back in the beginning of time and somehow females ended up with a more powerful physique history would have still followed the same course with the inverted gender roles.
    I would say though that I applaud you for asking such tough questions and trying to answer them. I hope my post would serve as some food for thought and get all who read your blog to a better understanding of God and getting to know Him more personally.
    Thank you.

Have your say:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s