144, Confusing the Issues

Originally I was going to call this post "In Search of Trolls"

This week Trinity Western University’s case goes before the Supreme Court of Canada.  If you have not heard of this case, it is that graduates of the law school of the university will not be considered for the Bar in some provinces because of the code of conduct of the school. The code of conduct prohibits sex outside of the university’s definition of traditional marriage.

          Do not get bogged down in the details; I haven’t. The situation is an excellent opportunity to consider how to translate a moral stand into the world.  And, I see few sides, except the university’s as being right.

          What confounds the issues is that almost everyone has taken a binary approach to the issues.  If you are not in support of the school, then you are Pro-Gay. If you are supportive of the school, you are Anti-Gay. So, let me wade into the cesspool created by people trying to claim moral authority. Both sides of this issue are trying to do so. The truth is, there are more than two sides.

          I support the school.  It does not house the only law school in the province, let alone the country. I think the inclusiveness of the prohibition against sex outside of traditional marriage is rather convenient. Their definition of traditional marriage does not include those between people of the same gender. But, it is not a hidden requirement.  If you are considering going to Trinity Western University, then you would already know, or quickly be made aware, of their position.

          If Trinity Western was the only university offering degrees in law, then there might be a point to this claim of discrimination. What if my personal belief was that traditional marriage had more to do with the oppression of women, and had decided not to become betrothed to Wanna? Or what if she was a he, and thus by not honouring the morals of the only law school, I was denied an education? Then, there might be more to this claim of discrimination than what I see now. Further, it is not a ban on LGBTQ people, rather their behaviour as the person attends.

          From what I have seen in the discussion of this issue, given my position of supporting the university, is that I would be considered anti-LGBTQ.  Which if you have read my posts, or talked to me, you would know is not the case. I consider myself an ally. I believe that scripture has been used to endorse the politics of a heteronormative society.  I also firmly believe that the most of collective Christianity’s stance has more to do with moral license than it does with scripture. Moral license is that idea I can do this bad thing, because I do this good thing, or do not do that other bad thing.

          But to others, I would be considered Pro Gay.  That is kind of a confusing statement.  Yes, I am an ally.  I believe that one’s sexual expression should not be reason to discriminate against that person.  It is not a slippery slope to stand on.  The referencing to those who offend sexually betrays a significant ignorance regarding the difference between sexual expression and sexual pathology.  Sexual offending has little to do with sexuality. But I am not Pro Gay. I do not believe that you should go out and have gay sex over straight sex. But I don’t believe that a man who loves another man should be denied his rights of citizenship because of that love.

          The entire controversy with this situation allows us to examine broader issues. Can I realize that one belief or position does not mean another? If I decide that the mosque down at the end of the street is welcome, then does that mean I support terrorism? Does it mean that I am not sure about my own Christian faith? Can I support Muslims and not be anti-Christian?

          Can I pause in love, and listen to the other person? I mean really listen, not so that I can offer a counter argument, but so that I can understand their position. Can I accept that someone else might be right?

We live in a world that is increasingly diverse and tolerant. I welcome that development. I like it that people of colour are no longer considered only partially human. I like it that women are people. But we have to change how we are amongst ourselves if we are going to present the Love of Christ to the world.  I believe, that it is showing the Love of Christ to the world that we are called to do.