Let me be clear
So I am not taken out of context and made the apologist for every weird thing a Christian teacher has ever said, let me be clear: I am not defending everything that has ever happened at Bethlehem College. I am 29, which makes me ten years younger than David Farrier, which further means I was seven when he graduated high school. I could not possibly be aware of all that has happened there.
Further, many stories have been shared in the comments on Shaneel Lal’s Instagram post that, if true, are indefensible. I have a bit of a reputation for getting salty about Christians saying dumb things, and I’m not at all surprised that well-meaning teachers have tried to speak into people’s lives over the years and have done more harm than good.[1] My own coming-of-age story involves all sorts of youth group nights and Christian camps where all manner of well-meaning, but ill-informed sermons were preached and advice was given. Honestly, I don’t look back on my teen years with particular fondness (but that could also be because I hit puberty at 25). Bad theology hurts and confuses people, and I’ll be the first to point it out.
The real issue
Now that I’ve cleared that out of the way, and I know I’m not going to see a single person twist what I say (come on guys you can do it), let’s move on to what’s actually going on here: David Farrier, Shaneel Lal, and many others simply hate orthodox historic Christian teachings on marriage and they want to make an example of Bethlehem College.
Shaneel Lal’s Instagram post is laden with so many logical fallacies and examples of utter ignorance of what he’s attempting to critique that I don’t even know where to begin. I tried to engage in conversation with him today and truly found him to be a textbook example of a bigot. With some nice things to say, Farrier[2] is more measured but still approaches the topic in a way that will get us nowhere.
By what standard?
As a kid, I would have watched The Lion King 100+ times. Early on in the film, Mufasa takes Simba up Pride Rock[3] and shows him his future kingdom. Simba asks about “that dark, shadowy place,” and Mufasa tells him it is off-limits. In other words, here are the boundaries. You can go here, but not there. This is good, but that is not. Every perspective, excluding perhaps the most extreme nihilism, has these boundaries. We have codes by which we measure behaviour. This is certainly true of Christianity. Like our Saviour, we are to “love righteousness and [hate] wickedness” (Hebrews 1:9).
Farrier criticises environments that cause “people to feel hated and excluded,” but seems to miss that both he and Lal do some hating and excluding of their own. Though they are very ‘loving’ and ‘affirming,’ they too have their dark, shadowy places that we must never enter. For them, it is absolutely off-limits to have a problem with any sexual expression or sexual act as long as it is consensual.
Lal calls the mainstream Christian view “extremist,” “homophobic,” “abusive,” “hateful,” “in it for the money,” and “scared of [queer people’s] beliefs.” Farrier says that it “sends a sh**y message,” “f***s a lot of people up,” is “nutty,” fills people with “guilt and shame,” tells people to “repress things,” is “terrible,” and “creates an environment where some people are less than.” He is also convinced that Jesus’ opinion on all of this would have been: “I don’t give a sh** if you’re bi or not, just be kind and respectful to other people because we’re all in this thing together.”
Deep stuff. I can’t believe I never thought of that myself. He also has a problem with our belief in original sin, saying sarcastically that it is “quite a take.” I tend to think it explains a lot, actually.
The point is clear. What we have here are two competing systems. It is analogous to two students completing a problem in a Maths textbook and coming up with two competing and contradictory answers. One student (Christianity) wants them both to check their working to make sure they got the right answer. The other wants to assume his answer is definitely correct, and cuss out anyone who dares to disagree (after all, if someone disagrees with him, they are for sure wrong).
But this is senseless.
Each student is going to think the other is wrong. Each student’s answer ‘excludes’ the other’s. How do they progress? Lobbing insults at each other will not move either of them forward. At some point, they’re going to have to go back to check their working.
Every time I read Lal or Farrier or any of their ilk, I’m intrigued that they simply don’t want to show their working. They gin up this outrage against the Christian perspective, as though in all of our working, we are exactly the same as them, and then, for some inexplicable reason, right at the very end, we part ways and end up spouting “hate” and “homophobia.” But if you were to look beneath the surface at our presuppositions, you’d see that we parted ways a long time ago. If they’re wanting people to agree with them, they’re going to have to convince us that the premises we bring to the conversation are wrong, which explains our wrong conclusions on the matter.
It’s much like weeding a garden. I’m concerned that their rhetoric shows either an inability to follow a syllogism or this cynical view that there really is no debate to be had, and so instead of trying to actually convince us to change our minds, they want to bludgeon us with peer pressure or the arm of the state (I imagine if we let Lal speak his mind about what he thinks the state should do to “protect” trans people, it would be some Orwellian stuff).
We need to actually examine our underlying worldviews.
Everyone, including Farrier[4] and Lal, has a worldview by which they interpret reality. Put simply, one’s worldview answers questions about what one thinks about metaphysics (What exists? What are people? Is there a God?), epistemology (How do I know things? Is certainty possible? What are legitimate ways of knowing?), and ethics (What is good? What is evil? Is anything binding upon me?).
I am a Christian. I believe the triune God exists and that he made people in his image, to represent him on the earth. I know things through God’s special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (Nature + conscience). I determine right and wrong based on what the triune God says, and regularly read the Bible to check and adjust my beliefs. Lal calls my beliefs about sexuality “extreme” and “hateful.” But given my starting point, they’re not extreme at all. They’re the natural outgrowth of my Christianity. If Farrier and Lal want us Christians to change our minds, they’re going to have to do the hard work of making thoughtful criticisms of our underlying worldview. Describing us as “abusive” “or “f***ed up” is only correct if you don’t share our beliefs, and have shown your own to be correct.
So, what are Farrier and Lal’s underlying assumptions? Honestly, I don’t know. They don’t seem to talk much about them. I read in vain through Farrier’s replies to comments on his own article to try and find an actual argument for why he lands where he now does. He pats people on the back who have left the fold but doesn’t offer the faithful any reason to join him. Are they Darwinian atheists? Then why do they care about the opinions of evolved pond scum whose actions and thoughts are only the necessary result of the synapses firing in their brains? The universe doesn’t care about hate speech. You have as much worth as a snail. Ask Richard Dawkins. Are they agnostic? Well then they’re admitting that they don’t know the answer to life’s biggest questions anyway, and for all they know my hateful bigoted views could be right. Are they pragmatists/utilitarians? They would still need to establish what the “greater good” is. Are they statists? Well then by definition they’d have to agree with anything a government does or says (I can’t imagine how that could go wrong).
In Farrier’s article we meet Pastor David, who wants to tell us that words have “the power of life and death,” and so basically we need to say things that agree with his views. Both he and Lal want me to be filled with guilt and shame. They want me to repress and suppress aspects of who I am in order to keep them happy. They want to treat me like a “have not.” Ditto. So where do we go from here? We need to hear solid critiques from Farrier and Lal about foundational theological issues. Until then, I ain’t changing my mind.
Jesus never said anything about this?
Farrier outright says that Jesus would not have had a problem with homosexual practice. This is wrong. Jesus, LGBTQ*&% advocates will say, never talked about queerness. This assumes Jesus existed in a vacuum. In reality, he was a first-century Jew who explicitly said multiple times that he viewed the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative (see for example Matthew 5:17; 19:4; 22:29, 31, John 10:35). What do these texts say about LGBTQ?^@ issues? I’ll let you guess.
Further, Jesus taught that “sexual immorality” comes out of “the heart” and “defiles a person” (Matthew 15:19). Where do you think Jesus got his definition of “sexual immorality?” Jesus also taught that God made us male and female and that this maleness and femaleness is why marriage can make two one. This oneness is not possible, according to Jesus, without one of each gender coming together in a marriage union (Matthew 19:4-6) What a bigot, right? Further, his Apostles explicitly spell out the nature of the relationship between Christianity and homosexual practice (Romans 1:18-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 1:7): Those who follow Jesus must turn away from anything he defines as evil, including, but not limited to, this. This is basic Christian teaching.
Secretive bigots?
I always find it interesting that whenever the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality is brought up in New Zealand—Farrier and Lal are no exceptions—it is heavily implied that Christians are these nefarious and secretive people, who preach love your neighbour, but behind the scenes are scary bigots. Articles are written and posts are made on social media as though they’ve finally uncovered the truth and now have undeniable proof that Christians are homophobes. Documentaries are made where presenters look in vain to find representatives of Christianity who will talk freely about it. I rather think they’ve been watching too many movies.
The truth is much more simple.
None of us is hiding this. It’s in our documents, it’s in our history, it’s in our Scriptures. The vast, vast majority of evangelicals in New Zealand believe that God’s design for sex is exclusively within the confines of heterosexual marriage. If you want to have a good-faith conversation about it, many doors—including mine—are open.
Questioning the experts?
During the pandemic, one thing I learned was that you do not question the experts. People with degrees from the University of Facebook and Google Graduate school were mocked and told to listen to the real epidemiologists. Fair enough. So I was interested to see Lal write that Bethlehem College’s views on these issues are “Christian extremism.” Really? I’d love to know what mainstream Christianity is, then. I wouldn’t necessarily call myself an expert, but I’d like to think I’ve done a little more reading than Shaneel in this area.
I’d encourage you to dig into our Scriptures. Read Justin Martyr. Read Clement of Alexandria. Read Tertullian. Read Eusebius. Read Cyprian. Read John Chrysostom. Read any commentary on the book of Romans written before 1980. Don’t take Shaneel’s word for it. It’s a lie.
A pluralistic society
I realise that my tone has been rather strong throughout this piece. Rest assured that I make distinctions between people who practice homosexuality and people who are trying to condemn me to secular hell because I don’t agree that it is moral. I know a good number of same-sex attracted people, and we seem to get along fine. Furthermore, I read their books, listen to their music, and if I were an employer (in a field that’s not trying to propagate the Christian faith) I would happily hire them. It’s a cliche worth repeating: just because we don’t agree does not mean I hate you. This is the pluralism we signed up for in the West. You probably have neighbours that don’t agree with you on all sorts of things. And guess what? There are schools—public and private— that teach things I don’t agree with. So what? If you’re not a fan, you don’t have to engage.
Lal complains that “we have colleges telling students that marriage is only between a man and a woman,” when “there is not a single school telling heterosexual young people they’re wrong for who they are.” This would be sophistry if it were clever. In reality, we do have plenty of schools that will tell young people that their Christian views are hateful and outdated. So, many Christians, who also pay taxes, want to raise their children in schools that reflect their values. That Bethlehem is partially state-funded seems completely fair. If Lal wants the state to stop supporting these schools, it should surely follow that these parents would get some form of tax credit so they can pay to enrol their children into completely private schools that reflect their own values. Why should parents have to pay for their own child’s education and the system they pulled them out of?
But I suspect this is only the first step for Lal. In reality, I presume the long-term goal would be to outlaw any school (even those funded completely privately) that dares to question the narrative. I assume Lal would want any form of homeschooling to be made illegal also (as it is in a number of countries already).
A word to the angry mob
Not a lot surprises me these days, but I was surprised by the number of comments on Lal’s Instagram post expressing disdain for Bethlehem College. A few raise genuine concerns. But I would be shocked if the staff there were not likewise gutted to read that those things have happened on campus.
However, they are not the whole story. I know many of the staff and leadership at Bethlehem College. I would call many of them friends. The ones I know are stellar people. Their work is frequently thankless, they go above and beyond, and they genuinely love their students. They believe Christianity is true and have sacrificed time, sleep, and yes, even money to teach the next generation God’s ways.
I know this first hand because I myself have been a teacher at a satellite campus of Bethlehem College in Rotorua (To be fair, I spent very little time at the Tauranga Campus, and because I mainly taught year fives and sixes, I didn’t really spend time talking about queer issues with my students, so I don’t know the details of how this has been done). But, I do know these people and can tell you that Lal is way off here. Further, I have had current and past Bethlehem students messaging me to express absolute frustration with the one-sided commentary about their school. They love their school and they love their teachers.
So a word to the angry mob: Most of you are not victims. You have been exposed to ideas that you don’t agree with, and are now forming new ones. This is the experience of, like, basically everyone who’s ever lived. I have had negative experiences in both the church and my public school, but many positive ones as well. Experiences I didn’t enjoy have stretched me, forced me to think hard, and made me into the person I am today. I have heard unhelpful advice, taken it, and then had to redirect many times. So much of what I know now, I would never have considered were it not for the rough patches. Show some gratitude. You live in one of the greatest times to be alive in the history of the world. Further, remember that for every angry comment on Lal’s post, there could be a comment from one of Christ’s sheep who left the clutches of the world and found their rest at the cross.
No redemption?
One of the best takes I’ve ever heard on the perspectives of Farrier and Lal, is that they think we basically view life the same way as them, but with opposite values: Both sides have heroes and villains, and the hero’s job is to crush the villain. This is not the whole story. They believe in the redemption of victims and the cancellation of culprits. I believe in the redemption of victims and culprits.
Farrier and Lal’s ideas might bring comfort to you if you’ve been wronged. But they have no comfort for those who have wronged others. But this is unrealistic and hopeless, because “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). They are us. You may be a genuine victim, but you’re also the villain in someone else’s origin movie.
I criticise harmful things that people say, but I myself have said harmful things. Some BC teachers may have gotten it wrong, but what will the next generation say about you? How often have you been mean and vindictive? How often are you angry with those around you? Have you been violent? Have you lied about and slandered those around you? Have you been unable to celebrate the victories of others because you’re overcome with envy? Have you been watching porn? Are you lazy? Have you always thanked your creator for everything going well in your world? Are you having sex when you’re not married?
The topic at hand deals with one kind of sin. But we must always keep in mind that the Bible has a problem with everyone. The message of Jesus works so that “every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Romans 3:19), not just homosexuals. We have all sinned against our creator and our neighbour. But the message of Jesus comes to bring redemption, forgiveness, and salvation to “everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Call upon him. He is not far from you.
