In a January 29 article in The Washington Post concerning a Swedish pastor’s condemnation of homosexuality as a cancer infecting Swedish society, one passage jumped off the page summarizing a position that is endemically problematic, and currently is the cause of increasing polarization around the world. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality:

“In the interview, [Pastor] Green said he had nothing personal against homosexuals. "I'm only preaching Christian love," he said. "I'm saying God's words. As a preacher, it's my duty to say what's in the Bible. I have a duty to say if someone is living the wrong way according to the Bible."

The presumptuousness of people of faith who claim to be speaking for God, rather than merely about their understanding or experience of God, is one of the most potentially dangerous forces in any society. It can easily breed totalitarianism, intolerance, and hatred of those whose experience or belief differs from the speaker’s. Infallibility is a doctrinal weapon that scorches the seeds of real faith and prevents them from flourishing or bearing fruit. And however elaborate the rationalizations created to justify it, such posturing is largely irrational, often anti-intellectual, and generally ego- and fear-driven.

Consider the disingenuous logic of Pastor Green’s initial comment, “I’m only preaching Christian love”. Since when is labeling as a “cancer” an entire group of people (which as Kinsey’s research has made clear, is historically a small, consistently stable percentage of society even in Nature) a demonstration of any kind of love, Christian or otherwise? What twisted notion of love finds hatred or condemnation of others compatible with love’s mandate of acceptance? What Pastor Green seems to be preaching is not love at all, but rather, attachment to a cherished, if misinformed or even delusional belief. In the guise of pastoral responsibility, he has expressed a position for which there is no biblical evidence that Jesus would have supported it. Quite aside from the many examples of his forgiveness of others’ transgressions, nowhere in the Canonical Gospels does Jesus even address the issue of homosexuality, and he was hardly shy about speaking out about things he found contrary to the will of God.

Even if we sidestep the debate over biblical literalism, and agree to disagree as to whether the term “The Word of God” means that every word in the Bible is God’s, as if by divine dictation, or is merely expressive of the authors’ experience of that revelation, we are still confronted with a doggedly difficult issue. Pastor Green, like most Christian clergy, insists he as a duty to speak out when he perceives someone is “living the wrong way according to the Bible”. Notions of right and wrong, however, are highly subject to cultural conditioning and often vary greatly from society to society. Yet the Christian faith (like many others) transcends the confines of any one culture. We find ourselves in a dilemma, for each of us must discern right from wrong, yet we often abdicate to others our authority to do so, and then balk when they exercise that authority. There is much moral passing of the buck, to say the least.

Religious scholar Karen Armstrong is fond of a particular litmus test of faith that is appropriate to cite here. Faith that does not result in what she has called “compassionate action” is not worthy of the name. She is, of course, paraphrasing Jesus’ brother James, who insisted that faith without works is dead. So whether examining Pastor Green’s position, or Jerry Falwell’s, or Dr. James Dobson’s, or any other alleging to be a confidant or spokesperson for God - whether self-appointed or institutionally ordained - we must ask whether their words promote compassion and whether their actions give evidence of it. But if we discover they do not, it is not sufficient to simply condemn them, in turn, for their shortcomings, or to regret that there seems to be such a discrepancy between their words and actions. We actually owe a debt of gratitude to those who claim to represent God while preaching condemnation, for their choices awaken us to our own abdication of responsibility for compassionate action. It is then incumbent upon each of us to do something about it in our own words and deeds.

True spirituality and faith are not easy. The path to universal love is a razor’s edge, requiring both great sacrifice and discernment- virtues largely lacking in modern society. In an episode of the popular TV drama, The West Wing, President Josiah Bartlett delivers a blisteringly discerning rebuttal of the type of position taken by Pastor Green. Visiting a White House gathering of radio talk show hosts, he singles out a woman with a Ph.D.. in English Literature who postures as “Doctor Laura”, offering her advice to callers on her show. That advice is filled with homophobic and arch conservative rhetoric, couched in biblical references to give them additional weight. So Barlett, complimenting her on her show, begins quoting chapter and verse from the Old Testament to support his asking her if he can sell his daughter into slavery, and what a fair price for her would be, or whether, since his Chief of Staff works sometimes on Sundays, must Barlett himself stone him to death, or can he merely delegate that task to the police. The point is breathtakingly well made that scripture can be and has been used to support all manner of demagoguery, bigotry, and vilification of others.

If Pastor Green, or any of those who take similar stands, are convinced that homosexuals are a cancer, or that Muslims worship a different God, or that the Jewish relationship to God is inferior to the Christians’, or that Hindus mistakenly worship demons and animals, there is no end to delusion, but people are free to believe whatever they want. Believing it, doesn’t authorize the believer to teach such positions to others as absolute and unimpeachable “Gospel” truth. I admire people who hold strong convictions. It is interesting to note, however, that we use the word “conviction” to refer both to the virtue of having strong beliefs, and to condemnation for a crime. Those who present themselves to the public as religious or spiritual leaders, claiming some sort of divinely ordained or approved authority, should be especially careful that the former definition not lead them to the latter condition. Inflicting one’s beliefs on others is an action that bears bitter fruit. All the more so when those beliefs are predicated on misinformation, questionable theology or factual lies, as ethnic, sexual, religious and cultural phobias inevitably are.

Freedom of belief and freedom of speech are treasured foundation stones of democratic society. But the exercise of such freedom, like all our actions, bears an inescapable responsibility, and reaping the consequences of our choices is unavoidable. Believing something, morover, no matter how sincerely, does not make it so. That scientific fact, objective observation, or cultural bias, may challenge or disprove the passionately held beliefs of Pastor Green and others is not what matters most. If more clergy felt a responsibility not to presume or imply that they speak for God, passing negative judgement on the Almighty’s behalf, true faith might better flourish in the ground of that humility. Furthermore, if they were to take more seriously the notion of the omnipresence of the deity, they might find a more uplifting revelation in discovering that presence in those on whom they seem so intent to pass their judgement, and the world would be a better place for it.


Robert H. Stucky is the Executive Director of Faith In Diversity Institute.

Copyright © 2005 by Faith In Diversity Institute