Dignity and Sin

Earlier articles discussed dealing with the loss of faith in our currently secularizing society, and the difficulty of resolving conflict in society where there is no common moral basis. Moral conflict is especially difficult and painful, since what is righteous in one morality is unrighteous in another. Yet we can’t decline involvement in it, since we cannot live by what is in fact unrighteous.

But as the war intensifies against Christian sexual morality – which is quite fundamental to Christianity, with somewhat different versions in other religions as well – the adversary sexual morality of autonomy and consent is increasingly being translated into law, making Christian morality illegal. As Carl Trueman is so well explaining at the present time, by incorporating sexual behavior and inclination into personhood, the sexual revolutionaries are able to claim that the condemnation of sexual sin is an attack on the person. Thus “dignity” becomes the moral answer to the condemnation of sin. But pain and humiliation are exactly what the condemnation of sin is supposed to elicit, not pride and dignity. Indeed, pride (unless it is quite obviously deserved for some accomplishment) is among the gravest of sins. Love of God and remorse for sin are supposed to lead sinners to repentance.   

Recent articles (here, here, here, and here) by this writer have reviewed the legal offensive to make the expressed condemnation of sexual sin and exhortation to repent illegal, even in private. Thus, in Great Britain there is a commitment by the government to prohibit so-called “conversion therapy.” While the national government has said that this prohibition will not include prayer, LGBT activists want the meaning of “conversion therapy” to cover not only professional counseling against homosexuality or transgenderism, but any admonition or activity, including religious ones, and whether public or private, to turn people away from LGBT orientations and behavior.

But compliance with such a rule prohibiting the condemnation of sin is simply not possible for Christians. We must declare the truth of God in obedience to God, as Scripture indicates. As Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute in Great Britain recently explained, declaring that all people, not just LGBT identifying persons, are sinners is basic to Christianity, and cannot be prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights. Christians are obligated (as was true in the Old Testament) to declare the whole counsel of God regardless of secular law. Calvert also noted that the BBC and other outlets explicitly lump prayer with electro-shock therapy and “corrective rape.” Under some proposals, family members can be accused of “conversion therapy” simply for telling another family member that their sexuality is not what they believe it is. He said that the claim that non-directional counseling will be legal suggested that encouraging a particular outcome for sexual development (as Scripture would require) may or will be illegal.

While the outcome in Great Britain is unclear (and the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland want religious counseling against LGBT orientation and behavior prohibited), a draconian law prohibiting religious counseling is already enacted in Victoria state in Australia (with a potential ten year prison sentence), similar laws have been enacted in Canada, France, and (for minors only) in Germany. The French law, in particular, declares that telling someone that he or she is a sinner is “coercive.” This is a very direct attack on Christian doctrine, which has condemnation of and repentance from sin at its center. We need to clearly understand why it is wrong.

Christian morality is based finally on the will of God, who is held to be perfect and the source of all things. We attempt to appeal to the wider world with arguments from natural law, and the real life consequences of disobedience. Secularists and sexual revolutionaries respond that denials of their own will are cruel, even when their will involves demands on how other people conduct their lives. To justify this, they appropriate the Biblical doctrine of dignity for all people. This provides an apparent sanctity to their claims.

But the idea of human dignity originally depended on the reality of God and his righteousness, as he has revealed himself in the Bible. Claims to dignity independent of or contrary to Biblical revelation need some other justification. The United States Constitution doesn’t refer to or explain dignity; it has been read into its text by Supreme Court decisions in recent years. But this really gives no moral basis.

Since human beings are obviously a unique species, we might appeal to that, so that each person can claim dignity as a human being. This might serve as a practical basis for a common idea of dignity between religious and secular citizens (although the non-religious lack a metaphysical basis for dignity). But what is wanted in both the LGBT and abortion debates is dignity for one’s choices in life. And as this writer has written more than once before, this is simply impossible. Our choices must stand under judgment, if we are to have a law-abiding society (which is the only kind there can be). The advent of transgenderism has perhaps been helpful to social conservatives in this respect, since the freedom to make choices independent of any rules or external authority can no longer be restricted to sex, if sex is self-defined, and therefore meaningless. At least in principle, any demand can now be made as necessary for one’s identity, and thus one’s dignity.

And so the secular claim to dignity advanced against Christian morality is simply an act of will. A true claim to dignity must be based on reality, on one’s status as a human being. And human dignity, while it may be affirmed by unbelievers, can only be secure if it is rooted in a transcendent God. The confusion and conflict over dignity has notably followed secularization.

Telling people that they are sinners, or (respectfully) telling someone in particular that he or she is a sinner because of any sin mentioned in the Bible, is not coercive or “violent.” It has the most secure foundation possible – revelation by a transcendent God. We do not lose his image because we are sinners, but sin is no part of the image of God, and nothing to be proud of. We can claim equal dignity as human beings, One might also claim a variable dignity for other things, such as one’s education, occupation, community, family, or accomplishments in life. But the dignity claimed for sin is a sheer act of will, unworthy of consideration. Appealing to reality is not “demeaning” or “violent.” To be demeaning is to be unjust, and justice must be based on truth and reality, not self-assertion. Self-assertion advanced against reality, as we see in both the intense abortion and LGBT controversies, is the true violence.

But for Christians (and other traditional religious believers) who have to live in a legal regime that dignifies sin – really for anyone who holds to common sense above impassioned desire – we have the practical problem that appealing to faith or reason brings the condemnation of insulting someone’s dignity. Whether we are successful in legal or social conflict, we can only appeal to reality – that only biological sex is real, and “gender” only a mental construct, that the obvious purpose of sex is procreation through the union of male and female, that families are the natural result of this, and that unborn children are in fact human beings of equal worth and dignity as the rest of us. And supremely, that our overriding duty is to God, the ruler of our lives. It is those trying to live by reality who are being judged, coerced, and victimized. We simply cannot acquiesce in unrighteousness because sheer willfulness has prevailed.

The defense of faith and reason against self-will can be expected to have its victories and defeats in the future. People will have to take legal and social penalties for doing the right thing. But we must be careful to communicate that any appeal to dignity must be based on reality, not our own wills.