I believe in the Scriptural admonition that, to the best of our abilities, we Christians should live at peace with all men. Yes, of course, I understand that doesn't preclude the use of rhetorical tactics like satire, sarcasm, and even scorn. Highlighting the absurdity of life lived in rebellion to God is something that the faithful have done effectively since the days of Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.
Even famed abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass knew the value of such an approach as he confronted the moral treachery of slavery nearly two centuries ago:
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! Had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, today, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that it is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder.
There is a time when such an approach is most effective, provided that we Christians are properly discerning our motives.
"Am I seeking to embarrass and humiliate others in an attempt to puff myself up, or am I truly desirous of exposing the foolishness of evil in order to glorify God?"
This is always a wise question to ask prior to unleashing our tongue or its typing proxies.
It is essential that Christians remember that Jesus taught the "peacemakers" are blessed, particularly in a social media culture where lofting rhetorical bombs has never been so simple nor so enticing.
But there is an equally important attribute for believers wanting to navigate the tumultuous ideological environment we find ourselves in, and that is to refuse to allow Satan to turn our Christian humility into weakness or passivity.
An example is in order to help illustrate what I mean.
As the sexual revolution has gained steam in recent years and months, things that would have once shocked the conscience of even the most progressive mind has become increasingly normalized. Specifically, the sexualization of children.
While talk of "grooming" has at times slipped into the realm of intentional overuse as political conservatives have wielded it as an in-kind retort to progressive accusations of bigotry whenever the right resists LGBT dogma in schools, the presence of "adult" and sexual themes in elementary curriculum and children's programming is a real concern.
The practice of schools hosting drag queens, or culturally sophisticated parents bringing their children to drag shows is a real thing.
As the cultural right has reasonably and righteously pushed back against this, there has been a tendency among some to temper our objections by refusing to impugn the sexual immorality itself. Those voices will steadfastly say that it is not "age appropriate" even as they add the Seinfeld-esque "not that there's anything wrong with" the behavior. Drag shows and gender bending aren't bad, in other words, just that they are marketed for, or performed in front of, children.
While such a position is politically and culturally logical and defensible – a pluralistic society includes freedom for those whose preferences, penchants, and lifestyle choices we disagree with – it is inappropriate for Christians to not explicitly acknowledge that we do not condone the conduct itself.
Moral objection, voiced firmly but charitably, to the sexual immorality of things like drag shows is important. While some argue that it is an important delineation to establish for what is likely to be future litigation, I have my doubts that it will make much difference.
The argument goes that when public education became compulsory through the 12th grade, it contradicted the long-held convictions of the Amish community. The Amish successfully challenged the laws in Wisconsin v. Yoder and won back their constitutional right of religious freedom on the matter. As unlikely as it may seem to some that drag shows might ever become compulsory curriculum for grade school children, the slippery slope has shown no signs of plateauing, and so we would be wise to make the distinction clear and well-defined now. Maybe I'm a pessimist but I don't see modern courts treating orthodox Christians with the same deference that the Amish received.
No, my reason for vocal objection is simpler than some protracted legal strategy. I support it because it is bearing Christian witness to a hopelessly lost world. We Christians live differently because we believe differently. We adhere to a different ethic of sexuality not out of some combative animosity or self-centered moral superiority, but because of a humble submission to an Authority we recognize knows what is better for us humans than our own passions, urges, and desires.
While such a testimony may rub others the wrong way at first (no one likes to be told what they're doing is wrong), it will also provide an alternative for those who grow restless swimming in the tide of relentless and badgering cultural conformity.
In so doing, we need not be contemptuous or divisive, but we have every right to be unapologetic and unashamed.
