By Selwyn Duke

There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington,
Texas.  Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual
man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests
and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man’s life.
However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair’s
homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display.

Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin,
and its offer was rescinded.

The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I’m mad too.  What
irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their
sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply
to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their
rules. 

I’ll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example
will be different.  It’s understandable that Christians may offer their
services to known homosexuals, as we’re all sinners; however, most of
us sinners don’t expect our characteristic sins to characterize a
church service held on our behalf.  Why, if a man had been a
recalcitrant philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn’t have
a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with
gaggles of gals?  It’s absurd.

If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were
a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual?  Do they want to be
treated like everyone else or don’t they?

This much reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric
who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some
Episcopagans.  It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a
bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up
their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before.  Seldom
pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and
children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany.  If a normal man had
done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected
bishop?  No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be
labeled unfaithful and irresponsible – if not a pig.  Rev. Robinson,
though, well, was “brave.”  I guess being a homosexual means never
having to say you’re sorry.

Getting back to the church – the one that can still be called Christian
– it’s time for some perspective.  Let’s say that a mosque had agreed
to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party
would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection.
In our politically correct climate, I can’t imagine too many
journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems.  Multicultural
imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes
about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities.  For that
matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected
Moslems to brook homosexual displays?  So, why are the religious
convictions of Christians not similarly respected? 

Then, you’ll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the
bereaved, but just how dull are these people?  Even if you’re a
confirmed secularist, shouldn’t you at least suspect that a Christian
church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality?
What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing?  After
all, I can’t imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should
make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their
prohibition against pork.  On the contrary, I think you’d be told to
expand your cultural horizons.

Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended?  A teacher is thought
insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a
public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual
content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the
students may be of another faith and may take offense.  Well, what are
we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will
likely evoke the same reaction?

But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along
with a certain kind of provincialism.  Many people are so awash in
relativism nowadays that they just can’t imagine anyone who embraces
authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could
possibly consort.  Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some
backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and
home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves
encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or
Truth.  Of course they’d espouse the tenets of the times.  Doesn’t
everybody?

It’s funny, though, our askew conception of rights and
responsibilities.  I can hear it now, “Oh, those intolerant
Christians!  Always imposing their values on others.”  So, before this
refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something.  If the
Christians entered the family’s house or business and insisted that
photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty
of imposition of values (I would say “morals”).  In this case, though,
who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value:
Broad-mindedness.  Many people treat prejudice as if it’s the first and
last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age’s
unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state.
Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the
bearer’s deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by
him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes.  And the
prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone
warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a
color-blind world that’s afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a
certain assumption.  It is the idea that anything they choose to remove
from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the
disposition of the junk is to be respected.  In their philosophical
chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them.  You have
a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want.  This right
ends, though, where my property line begins.