You can read about the ban here.

Let’s make one thing clear from the outset. I am a confessional Christian. I believe, with the historic Christian church, that the Bible deems homosexual practice as inconsistent with the Christian faith. I believe that this does not imply that we ought to be hateful toward those who identify themselves as homosexuals, nor does it imply that we ought not show love toward them. I have many friends who identify themselves as such, and I am happy to remain in friendship with them. In writing this I am not implying that the ban was made from a self-consciously Christian form of reasoning.

Yet, and perhaps precisely because I am a Christian, I believe that the ban sanctioned by the NLB on these books is a fundamentally misguided decision. I believe that the same reasoning holds for the ban of any form of literature.

The LGBT movement presupposes a coherent worldview. The activism of the whole cannot be sustained apart from a shared conviction about the nature of reality: what are human beings? What is sexuality? What is the purpose and meaning of existence? What constitutes love? Why am I here? The answers to these questions inform all of our basic life decisions, and the LGBT movement is no exception to this. Their answers represent their worldview – a worldview entirely distinct from that of Christianity, Islam, forms of atheism, Hinduism, or Confucianism, to give a few examples.

The library is supposed to be a place where all of these worldviews are represented. Because each worldview determines the way in which we live and the way in which we see everything, each worldview will inevitably have a distinct take on the issues of marriage and family as implied by the answers that they have given to the primary questions stated above. The books banned by the NLB, in part, represents the LGBT movement’s take on these issues. Because they have a distinct worldview, they will feel the necessity of educating their children in a specific way – using their authored books, and other resources that presuppose their shared worldview.

Of course I disagree with that worldview. But is the way to disagree with them through an exercise of force, such as censorship or banning? I do not believe so. I have taught bible studies, preached in churches and in many other contexts where many would come to me, asking me questions about specific religions or philosophies. My answer to them will, of course, come from a distinctly Christian perspective. But I will always advise them to go home and to read the authoritative texts from those worldviews. Struggling with Islam? Go read the Qur’an. Struggling with Feminism? Go read some of the best literature by the best feminists on the subject. Struggling with Confucianism? Go read Confucius. Struggling with Kant? Go read him. Stressed about Christianity? Go read the Bible and its best theologians.

The proper response to disagreement is not to bury our heads into the sand or to silence those who disagree with us by means of a unilateral act of power. Rather, the proper approach is to utilize wisdom and courage, to remain firm in one’s convictions while engaging in an intellectual, mild-mannered dialogue with the other, for the purpose of persuasion and mutual understanding. Only then will fruitfulness come. Interestingly enough it seems that resorting to the use of power often comes (though not always) when either wisdom or courage is lacking to counter the opposing view’s claims and arguments – something that us Christians are often guilty of, manifesting an air of anti-intellectualism alien to the biblical faith (2 Cor. 10:5).

Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security Question * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.