How Wide the Divide: Sexuality at the Forefront, Culture at the

Crossroads
Posted by Ravi Zacharias on July 15, 2015

A century ago these times were imagined and they are now here. How do we
live as Christians in such times?
My mother-in-law is ninety-five years old. She has lived through several
wars and numerous other cataclysmic events in her life. Nothing has her
more perplexed, shocked, and almost emotionally stunned as the culture
wars that have been waged and have changed our world. I see her sitting
in church when I am visiting her, obviously wondering why all of her past
memories have been lost in the present format of worship. She is not at
home either in the world or in her church and eagerly awaits the day when
she can be in the City of God, her eternal home.
What has changed? How did we get here? As Nietzsche would say, Is there
any up or down left? Who gave us a sponge to wipe away the horizon? Will
lanterns have to be lit in the morning hours? What sacred games will we
need to invent? Yes, a century ago these times were imagined and they
are now here. While the secular world has invented its secular games,
many churches have invented their own sacred games.
The most daunting question for us today is how do we live as Christians
in such times? The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
sent tremors around the globe and I have received scores of messages
asking whether we, at RZIM, are going to say anything in response. What
more is there to say? The spectrum of views that were immediately
expressed said all there was to say. When the law passed, the first
thought that came to my mind was Chestertons prophetic comment more than
half a century ago: For under the smooth legal surface of our society
there are already moving very lawless things. We are always near the
breaking-point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what
is lawful. Unless we have a moral principle about such delicate matters
as marriage and murder, the whole world will become a welter of
exceptions with no rules. There will be so many hard cases that
everything will go soft.
That breaking point is here.
After hours of pondering and praying, I would like to say something to my
fellow believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Naturally, some
who disagree with my views will probably be reading this as well so I
have to expand the justification a bit. I am keenly aware that on this
subject winning the approval of all is not only impossible but if done,
would be at the risk of substance. I shall try to walk through this
minefield.
As Christians, we often look outside of ourselves and wonder why the
world is so different from us. We seldom pause and ask how the Church of
today has become so different from what it was and so indifferent to the
world around us. Liberalism is not just a political term. What has
happened in our world was foreseen a few decades ago. Changes were
underway then and we were taken by a storm from within. Culture at large
moved unabashedly towards the mockery of the Christian worldview; Eastern
religions were spared that, either because of the cowardice of the

Western critic or simply to not be seen as attacking another ethnic

group. But the Church is really where the titanic shifts in the culture
started. As the liberal church swung to the extreme of religion without
absolutes, the evangelical church flirted with emotionalism without
intellect, while some of the mass distributors of spirituality peddled a
cosmetic version of truth that was hollow and hairstyles became more
important than what was going on in the head itself.
Of course, there are exceptions to these generalities. Some of the most
thriving churches today are those that have a deep allegiance to the
gospel message. I am honored to often be in their midst and I have hope
because of them. But for now, let me just talk about how wide is the
divide between secular society and the Church, and why it is.
There are three starting points that separate the historic Christian view
from those who called for the legalizing of gay marriage that is now the
law of the land, albeit by one vote.
One, we come from two different definitions of what it means to be human.
For the Christian, life is in the soul. The body is the temporal home.
George MacDonald said it well: You do not have a soul; you are a
soul, and have a body. For the one living with a secular worldview
there is no such thing as the soul. To be sure, that is not true of all
in that disposition. I know many who would not deny the essential
spirituality of human life and will admit to a deep struggle between
their attractions and their cautions. Strangely, there has also arisen a
strained view that seeks to justify the marital bond between any two
consenting adults as biblically permissible. I shall not wander into an
apologetic countering that. But there are those within their own ranks
who seriously challenge such distortion. Fine theologians have argued and
demonstrated the cracks in their foundations.
For the most part, in secular terms NOW is all we have and NOW is the
moment to enjoy whatever one pleases. A soul-less existence makes the
body the sole means of fulfillment. When one starts that way, sexuality
is a thing to be restricted only by parameters that are materially
referenced. As the songwriter said, In the dark it is easy to pretend
that the truth is what it ought to be. Touch becomes defined by feel and
taste, nothing more than that. I feel I enjoy it so please stay out of
my way.
The contrast here between the Christian worldview and the secular is a
big one. For the Christian, not only is life in the soul, but the body,
in Jesuss words, is the temple of God. That is the highest locus of
communion between a human being and God. For the one who recognizes no
such thing as the sacred, the body is the playing field of life and
pleasure sets the rules. This is a significant difference as a starting
point.
Two, the Christian believes in absolutes. For the secular person, moral
relativism is the only absolute. No one ever really says what something
is relative to, but the implication here is that there is no boundary for
behavior. Even the economic destruction of those with whom they disagree
can become the water-boarding and the slow kill of the secular armory.
For the relativist, no decision is determined by a transcendent
definition of life, and where there are no absolutes, there had dare not
be any prohibition by anyone else. The banner of the atheistic society in
England during Christmas two years ago said it all: There probably is no
God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. Relativism is the open door

to fun, absolutes the closed door that destroys fun. That is the way it
is seen.
Three, the defender of sexual freedom sees a parallel between what is
seen as anti-gay prejudice today and racial prejudice as it was practiced
at its lowest point decades ago. Here, a word game has entered the
vocabulary. Relativist convictions are supposedly prejudice-free, while
absolute convictions are branded as phobias. Any stigma can lick a good
dogma, it is said. With that verbal deconstruction of a worldview, all
questioning of sexual freedom is castigated as a phobia. Quite amazing
that atheists are not called theophobes or that those against
Christians are not called christophobes. Pejoratively, the counter
positions have been appended with phobias till we may have a whole new
polyphobic dictionary.
But that is the lesser problem. I contend that equating race with
sexuality is actually a false premise and an unfortunate analogy. In the
matter of race it simply doesnt matter how I feel about it; my ethnicity
transcends my preferences or inclinations. In the Hindi language there is
a mildly mocking expression to describe one who acts different to his or
her essence in race: Desi murghi pardesi chal this is a local bird
with a foreign walk. As was recently established, a person may feel like
one race, associate primarily with that race and think like that race,
but that doesnt change who she really is. Why is this analogy
unfortunate? Because it moves the debate from what is right to what are
ones rights. Ironically, the political party now most aligned with
arguing for rights was once the same party that argued against the
emancipation of slaves because of the slave-owners rights. In that
case, those rights were overruled by what was right. Interesting that a
new word wasnt coined then to describe those who made moral arguments
against the slave-owners rights as slaveophobes. Thankfully, essential
human worth and moral reason trumped existential and pragmatic
preferences and by Gods grace, what was right was deemed to be right and
the slave was freed.
There are absolutes. To the Christian, every person is made in the image
of God and is loved by God. He sent his Son for the whole world, not just
for those of a particular race or sexual proclivity. Sex is a sacred
trust with deliberate boundaries. It is at once one of the greatest gifts
and one of the greatest struggles. The 5000-year-old struggle in the
Middle East has its roots in polygamy when two half-brothers shared a
father but not the same mother.
The violation of race is a violation of the sacred and for the Christian,
the violation of sex is seen the same way. The secularist does not see
the latter as a violation where there is consent, but this is simply not
so for the Christian. Desacralization is an emptying of essential purpose
and meaning and leads to the loss of essential purpose in life itself.
This is why it is vacuous to say that if two people love each other they
may express it in any way they choose. Love is not defined in a way that
is self-referencing. It ultimately hangs on the peg of Gods love and how
He defines love.
But here a caution is critical. All violation of the sacred, not just
sex, is ultimately in need of Gods grace and forgiveness. That is the
Christian view. That is why the good news is that Gods gift of salvation
and redemption is offered to all. That is why what is right has to win
the day over what we may see as rights. As hard as this may seem to some,
it is the only hope to avoid the misuse of reason for other attractions.
Can we not, on the same argument presently usedadult consentsomeday

justify a multitude of proclivities? Even more, what is to keep Sharia

Law from being brought into the culture to respect the rights of a
particular group only to have it one day used by extremists to overrule
our present laws? After all, extremists have ways of dictating for all.
Isnt that what we witness time and again? This is not a slippery slope.
This is an irrational, runaway train driven in the name of rights and
tendentious reasoning. It can happen. I suspect it will happen. The
cultural plausibility can shift. Not everything that is fatal is
immediate.
With these three chasms, the heart sinks and exclaims, how wide is the
divide!
This, then, brings me as a follower of Jesus Christ to the three most
important bridges between all of us, regardless of our views on this
issue. The gay community rightly cries out for identity and intimacy.
These are, after all, the longings of the mind and heart of every human
being, regardless of our position on this issue. This is where the gospel
enters as the only way to bring us together. Indeed, the first bridge of
the gospel is that my identity is found in Jesus Christ because of whom I
must tame my passions. My identity dictates my behavior. Before I
committed my life to Jesus Christ, my identity within my culture was
dictated by the status of my family: who my father was, how I did in
school, what my grades were, how much money I had access to. All these
were and are systemically woven into my culture. I had no choice. This is
how I was viewed. Take a look at the matrimonial section in Indias
newspaper today. Color, caste, education, wealth, beauty all are
repeatedly mentioned as parents seek what they consider the best partners
for their children. Its so clearly discriminatory. When my sister
married a Hindu convert to Jesus Christ, the challenge for his parents
was huge. But amazingly, their understanding of what Jesus Christ had
done for their son changed everything. This is the only bridge I know of
that can change the human heart.
It is because of this relationship that we change our behavior from what
attracts us to what we act upon. This connection is crucial. If I know
what it is to be a man, I know how sexual attraction works. Over time you
learn that giving in simply does not bring lasting happiness or purpose.
It is only in the keeping of the body as the temple that the sacred is
upheld and the grace of God brings conviction and restraint. The Bible
says we are not to place our offerings on every altar. One psychologist
describes indulgence as short term fleeting relationships with long term
bitter disappointments. This is true of all behavior and of all sexual
expression that runs afoul of Gods design. He has built this law into
the human fabric. Deep inside we know this. Temporal allurements are
ultimately unfulfilling without a spiritual bonding and binding. It is
the eternal that must guide the temporal.
The second bridge the gospel brings is intimacy. We all long for touch.
This is true even in the most senior years of ones life. I have talked
to people working in homes for the aged and they have remarked on how
much the elderly miss a physical touch and embrace. This is how we are
made. Carrying that concept into sexuality, consummation is the allembracing act of intimacy. Being as consummate as it is it demands
exclusivity, otherwise it is rendered profane and common place.
Experience tells us this repeatedly. Cultures that totally desacralize
sexuality are non-existent. Even the polygamous guard the numbers. Even
the unclad have boundaries. There are laws that govern against rapacious
acts.

The biblical description of marriage is for one man and one woman in
sacred commitment. So profound is this union that the relationship of God
to the Church bears that comparison. He is the bridegroom; the Church is
the bride.
Is this so abstract that it doesnt come down to where we are in our
individual yearning for intimacy? Not in the least. According to the
gospel, God offers us his indwelling presence where spirit touches spirit
and the deepest, truest intimacy results. I am fully aware that to one
who has never tasted intimacy with God this seems absurd. But it is here
that I think we as Christians need to awaken to the unpleasant reality
that we have not taught and proclaimed Gods Word faithfully and
demonstrated true holiness.
How can my mind be transformed so that intellectually I understand
perspectives and counter-perspectives? How do I so embrace Gods truth
that it transforms my heart and my inclinations, or at least gives me the
ability to control my inclinations? I have a colleague who confessed to
having same sex-attractions. He went on to say that on a given day he
thought and thought about the Christian message and finally and
wholeheartedly surrendered himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In
his words, he sensed a presence of being overcome from the top of my
head to the soles of my feetI have tasted a glimpse of heaven; why would
I stoop to what is below? Are there days of struggle for him? Is there a
certainty of his new affections in Christ? Yes, he says to both
questions. I have a huge respect for him and his sacrifice.
For the Christian, the question is this: How do I so walk with God that
ALL my affections are brought under Jesuss Lordship, whether my
inclinations be same-sex or opposite sex or any other struggle? How may I
love those with whom I disagree on these serious matters? The bridges
will always be the identity and intimacy offered in the heart commitment
to the Savior, first lived out then lovingly taught.
Also, for the Christian we must remember that we cannot make this realm
the eternal order. Our earthly cities are not what eternity alone will
bring. Augustines two most memorable masterpieces are his Confessions
and his City of God. As he lay dying in his home city, barbarians were
already scaling the walls of Rome. Even as many churches were being
destroyed, the main ones he had planted withstood the carnage.
Incredibly, even though his mortal frame was breaking down, people
continued coming to him so that he could pray for them. That is a
glorious picture. His body was meeting its end. But his soul was not. He
had confessed his need for his Savior and he looked to a city whose
builder and maker was God. All earthly cities will at some time crumble
and fall, as will our mortal bodies. Our eternal place of abiding is in
Gods presence, no longer merely in a counter culture but in a place
prepared for us. Augustines life enfleshed all those truths.
The third and final bridge of the gospel is that of community: the love
of God working through us as a Church where worship brings together all
our inclinations, surrendered to Gods sacred call for all of us. That is
worked out in love and grace. Our worship will have to have theological
integrity, not just in form but in substance; worship that is not just
moments of exhilaration but is co-extensive with life itself and sermons
that are not merely heard but are also seen. The outreach of love will
then be embodied and not be mere talk. The Church must not be a fortress
guarded by a constabulary but a home where the Father ever awaits the
return of each of us who is in the far country.

For those who follow Jesus Christ, our message to the world must be
clear. God transforms the heart and mind and we become his children and
his ambassadors. Let us so live that we will never be accused of hate or
indifference. But let us also know that compromising the truth is a
serious blunder and ends up celebrating that which is not in the will of
our Father. This is a painful tension for a believer. To be seen as
rejecting a belief or a behavior is not the same as rejecting the person.
But God helps us to carry that burden.
By contrast, when Truth is lived out in love and grace, it will always
make the faith attractive and even the one who opposes us will recognize
the fearful symmetry of a conviction for the sacred that will swim
against the tide and a commitment to the person that will find a bridge
of hope. We must so live the gospel that men and women will call upon
Gods name and make this body his home until we reach our Eternal City
bought with the precious sacrifice of Jesus Christ. His body was broken
for us so that ours might be mended for Him.