Mark Twain is supposed to have quipped that ‘No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.’ The situation may be even worse if there is a Senate Committee trying to drum up work for Anti-Discrimination Boards. At present, Australia has a Senate Committee looking to revise and extend our anti-discrimination laws. It is proposed to add ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as new categories to be protected by magistrates armed with legislation requiring interpretations. It is also proposed to outlaw conduct that ‘offends, insults or intimidates the other person’. Much might be said against these proposals, but let us note three points.
1. The truth is offensive.
The Bible does tell us to give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God (1 Cor.10:32), but this is referring to secondary issues where salvation is not necessarily at stake. On more significant issues, the Bible makes it clear that God’s truth is offensive. The committee’s proposal invents a new and dangerous right. We do not have a right not to be offended. To only hear what is bland and innocuous is to be imprisoned in immaturity. George Orwell has been often cited in this regard but he deserves to be heeded: ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’
Back in King Ahab’s day, in Israel, it was the false prophets who told the king exactly what he wanted to hear (1 Kings 22:6). Jehoshaphat of Judah was a godly king and he tried to confront Ahab with the truth, but Ahab responded: ‘There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil’ (1 Kings 22:8). Micaiah would never have been granted a job on an Anti-Discrimination Board because he put truth above offense.
People took offense at Jesus saying what He said, especially in His hometown of Nazareth (Matt.13:57). When Jesus made a clear distinction between the divine Word of God and human traditions, the disciples were rather shocked and said: ‘Do you not know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?’ (Matt.15:12) If Anti-Discrimination Boards existed then, Jesus might have been reported, and an expensive court case might have resulted. The point is that the gospel of Christ crucified is offensive to both Jews and Greeks (1 Cor.1:18-25).
2. These laws become instruments for propaganda and coercion.
The most obvious recent example of this is the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, passed in Victoria in 2001, which made it an offence to offend, insult or humiliate anyone on racial or religious grounds. This led to a prolonged and costly court case. Finally on 17 December 2004 justice was supposedly done, and Judge Michael Higgins found two pastors, Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, to be dangerous criminals. Truth is no defence in this kind of case. What matters is that people’s feelings are hurt. Such legislation tends to undermine respect for the law.
One commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has declared: ‘There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win.’ I suppose it ever was so. John the Baptist confronted Herod Antipas about his divorce and his subsequent marriage to Herodias, who had been his brother Philip’s wife. John had the temerity to say that the second marriage was not lawful (Mark 6:18). Herod ended out beheading John. Presumably, he had not thought of the possibility of a court case and a massive fine.
3. The whole approach is contrary to the Bible’s approach to law.
An apostate Christendom has given way on this. A Uniting Church minister, Elenie Poulos, argues against any discrimination on the grounds that ‘The miraculous healing stories in the gospels, regardless of whether you believe in their literal truth or not, are demonstrations of a love that reaches out to those suffering prejudice, a love that challenges the systems, religious or otherwise, that force people to the edges of society, where they have no chance of flourishing.’ That is all very eloquent, but one is reminded of Mark Twain again: ‘Few things are more irritating than when someone who is wrong is also very effective in making his point.’ Sober reflection tells one that if the healing accounts are not historical, they are hoaxes, and we have no reason to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Also, it stretches credibility for all but liberal ministers to think that Jesus saw His mission in terms of condoning immorality and sodomy.
According to the Senate committee, sexual orientation and gender identity are givens. However, sexual conduct, like any other conduct, is what people do, not what they are. The logic of the committee’s approach is that there could be nothing in the sexual area that could be classified as wrong. This would lock the sinner into his sin. With the Bible, there is condemnation by God’s law but also the possibility of forgiveness by His grace (1 Cor.6:9-11). In fact, only because there is identifiable sin can there be heartfelt forgiveness.
Is the gospel offensive? I should hope so. To remove its offensiveness would be to remove its truth, clarity, and freedom, and would jeopardise salvation itself.