Things to note:

(1) This post was written by my Christian alter ego.

(2) Some of the quotations I have included are from Michael Smith’s posts. Despite this, I am not suggesting that anything I have written necessarily represents Michael’s position.

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:34:15 -1000, “Rowland C. Croucher” <> wrote:

[…]

>When we attack a lifestyle and the persons engaging in that lifestyle do

>not feel loved, we are acting more like the pharisees than Jesus. Simple

>as that.

>

>Oh, but ‘we hate the sin but love the sinner’. Really? Then show it, as

>James says, by your works. As I wrote in my article ‘Homosexuality: an

>Interview with Jesus’ (it’s on our website) if Fred Nile were to sponsor

>a ministry, say, to AIDs victims, I would support his stand on all

>this…

Thank you for this post, Rowland; I think you hit the nail on the head.

A supporter of Fred might respond to your post by saying that, regardless of his hypocrisy, at least Fred is out there preaching the truth, and that we should therefore give our support to him. Initially that seems plausible. However, I think we can extend your argument to show that Fred does not deserve any support at all.

To ask whether we should support Fred Nile is to ask whether he is doing the right thing. In one sense, the answer is clearly “yes”: he is preaching the gospel to the unsaved. In another sense, it is clearly “no”: his insensitive style of preaching is objectionable. To reach a verdict, we must examine the “yes” considerations and weigh them against the “no” considerations. That will be my concern in the remainder of this post.

Weighing up considerations is largely about asking the right questions. The most instructive question here, I think, is this. What is the goal, or “final cause”, of preaching the gospel? Is it “preaching God’s truth to people who desperately need God’s truth”? Perhaps. But this is too idealistic; it ignores the practical side of evangelism. The fundamental reason for preaching the gospel is, I think, more pragmatic. That reason is salvation. We do not preach God’s truth as an end in itself, but rather as the happy means to an end, with the end being salvation. Consider: if we preach to someone, and they remain unsaved, we do not see our task as complete simply because we have preached God’s word. How can we explain this fact? Simple: the end is salvation; the means is the truth. That is the essence of evangelism.

If this line of thought is correct, then the mere fact that Fred is preaching the truth is not sufficient to warrant our support. What _would_ be sufficient? Well, in addition to preaching the truth, Fred must also be saving souls. Unfortunately, his insensitivity makes it doubtful as to whether this condition is met.

“But can there be any doubt at all?” one might ask. Sure, given his style of preaching Fred is not going to win as many converts as he otherwise would; but he cannot fail to win _some_. So ultimately what he’s doing is for the best (it’s the right thing), and on this basis he deserves our support.

This argument misses the point. For it considers only the positive side of things, the people who _do_ become saved. It fails to consider those who do not. And how can we say that we are doing the right thing if we end up damning more souls than we save? I raise the question because this seems to me a very real possibility regarding Reverend Nile. Sure, his aggressive style will win a convert here and there. But in the process of bringing those select few towards the gospel, how many will he turn away?

It seems pretty clear that the gay community do not perceive Fred in a positive light. To them, he is a hateful and intolerant bigot. Now the effect of this scenario should be obvious. When the gay community perceive that Nile represents hate, intolerance and the gospel, the result will be a psychological association between the two. They will associate the gospel with those same negative feelings of hate and rejection. And unless they are maximally masochistic, they will not want anything to do with hate, rejection, or things they associate with such feelings — e.g., the gospel. Quite simply, Reverend Nile and his ilk will cause many gay people to reject the gospel — to continue down the slippery-slope of the unsaved. And that is not merely “unfortunate”; it is a tragedy.

Now, perhaps these gays can later be shown that the gospel is about love, not hate, and acceptance, not rejection. Perhaps the damage can be undone. Then again, perhaps not. How can we ever ensure that their false impressions are corrected? Do we have their names and addresses?

Of course it is impossible to give concrete figures on such matters, but it seems a reasonable bet that Fred Nile’s preaching will end up damning more souls than it saves. And even if we think it _could_ be the other way round, that he might save more than he damns — why take the risk? His preaching fails to convey the true nature of the gospel to his intended audience. His preaching, however unintentionally, distorts the gospel message in the minds of his audience, and should therefore be opposed, being a significant impediment to salvation. A tangential but important issue is this. How are we to preach the gospel in a way that does not impede salvation? How can we preach so that the homosexual does not feel hated? A common response is to point out the following. As Christians, we believe that if the homosexual continues along his or her present path, he or she will end up in hell. If we hated them, we would “sit back and smile in the knowledge that they are bound for hell.” Thus, that we do _not_ sit back — that we tell them their behaviour is wrong — indicates a definite care for them. As one poster put it, “Fred Nile loves [homosexuals] enough to tell them they’re wrong.” I do not suppose the average homosexual finds this explanation compelling. And for good reason, too: it is too simplistic, failing to distinguish between different levels of hate. I could easily hate someone quite strongly: not enough to desire their eternal punishment, mind you, but enough to take pleasure in telling them that what they do is wrong. Indeed, would we not be more likely to tell someone they’re wrong if we _hate_ that person than if we _love_ them? No doubt it seems that way to many. Since there is no contradiction between hating homosexuals and telling them that what they do is wrong, it is false that “if we hated them, we would do nothing”. And since the explanation was based upon the truth of this premise, that explanation is completely unsatisfactory.

Another common strategy is to make the old distinction between hating the sin and hating the sinner: we hate the sin but love the sinner. Perhaps this is sufficient to rationalise the situation in our own minds; but again, I do not suppose the gay community finds it very convincing. Why? Because the sin/sinner distinction is not as easy to maintain as it may first appear.

An analogy will help to illustrate the point. Many Vietnam veterans feel that the Vietnam experience was a tremendously significant part of their lives — for better or, more usually, for worse. Their experience shaped the way they see themselves, and the world. Now, suppose I were to say to a Vietnam veteran “it is wrong to fight against other countries, and those who have done so deserve to be punished”. In that case, and regardless of my intentions, my attack is not directed at an act that just _happened_ to be committed by this person, and which has no relation to him as a person. I am in fact attacking a significant part of that person, and my attack will be perceived as such.

The reason for this state of affairs is that the Vietnam experience was a long-term hardship, and as such was integral to the personal identity of (many or most) Vietnam veterans. Now, can anyone doubt that being homosexual is also a long-term hardship? As C. David Hess puts it in his sermon “Gays — No Easy Answers”:

To gays I say: There are no simple, easy answers for you. Of course, you already know that. You can choose to live in the closet, always in fear of discovery. You can choose to come out of the closet and risk being ostracized, totally or partially, by your family, your friends, your church, and your employer. To come out of the closet may mean your expulsion from the rest of society into a gay ghetto. You are the most ostracized people in our society. Blacks may be discriminated against in housing and employment, but at least they can count on the support of family, friends, and church. You cannot. You have no simple choices.

Because homosexuality involves long-term hardship, being gay shapes the way the world is perceived by those who are gay. It is a significant part of the lives of these people — integral to their personal identity. What is included in this identity element? In the vast majority of cases, it means more than being attracted to members of the same sex; it includes _actually enjoying_ sexual relations with members of the same sex. In the same way, being Christian does not mean simply believing in God, but includes _actually having_ a personal relationship with God.

In general terms, if we hate or attack something that was formative to a person’s personal identity, then we hate or attack a significant part of that person. We do not hate merely the sin, but also a significant part of the sinner. So it is with homosexuality. If homosexuality is formative to personal identity (and who can doubt it is?), then we can understand why Fred Nile’s preaching is met with such opposition from the gay community. His attack on the homosexual lifestyle, being an attack on a significant part of their personal identity, is perceived as a _personal_ attack — not merely an attack on the sin itself. And, in a sense, rightly so. Because in this case the sin/sinner distinction fails; it is a false dichotomy. This is a rather inconvenient fact; but it is a fact nonetheless. It is also a fact that explains why the sin/sinner “distinction” consistently fails to prevent the negative psychological association mentioned a few paragraphs ago. One can never fully divide the sin from the sinner; even more so in cases like this.

It seems we must find a way of preaching the gospel that is more sensitive to the dignity of those whose behaviour we admonish. For how else can we assure that our preaching will not turn undue amounts of people away from the gospel? It seems our approach must gently rebuke, but never attack.

The task of “preaching without causing hurt” will be not easy. All I have done is to point out the inadequacy of two common approaches. And no doubt it is true that no matter _what_ approach we employ, somebody is going to feel hated somewhere along the line. Later, I will suggest that this difficulty can be circumvented — that admonishing the immoral behaviour of the unsaved is in fact pointless, and that our efforts should be focused on preaching about the truth of the gospel. At any rate, we know this for certain: Fred Nile’s preaching causes a significant amount of hurt; hurt that is not obviously absorbed by any outweighing good; hurt that could be so easily avoided by having Fred stop preaching. And this is grounds to oppose what Fred Nile is doing.

Those are the main considerations in discussing support for Fred Nile. But our discussion does not end there. When we focus on the specifics of an issue, as I have done here, it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. For this reason, I will present an analogy that will help us evaluate the situation as a whole.

Suppose a “Quit” centre is established to help people give up smoking. Mr Ned LeFri is a counsellor who sees the “Quit” message as important, and so volunteers his services to the centre. His offer is accepted, and he begins to work there, counselling people to help give up smoking. Now the standard method of “Quit” counselling is to offer gentle guidance and support to those one is trying to help. Not so for Ned; his style of “counselling” is altogether different. A typical burst of his wisdom: “Smoking is dangerous, and those who smoke are causing themselves massive amounts of damage. Smoking is a foolish, reckless, irresponsible activity. Those who continue to engage in this disgusting habit deserve to be punished, and so they will be: they will have their just reward when they contract lung cancer! They will pay the price!!” Needless to say, many of those who see Ned are hurt and insulted by this, and either leave immediately, or else meet Ned’s tirade with forceful opposition. A few are won over by his words, mind you — and manage to give up smoking. But the vast majority do not.

Question: does Ned LeFri deserve our support?

I suggest he does not. To be sure, there is in his favour the fact that his intentions are correct: the message he wants to convey is the right one to convey. And perhaps this means that if there was nobody better around to fulfil the job, then we had better support him. But let us suppose that there are any number of other counsellors around who could fulfil the job, and who do not possess Ned’s insensitive manner. In that case, Ned must either change his manner, or be fired.

The reason is as follows. There is a means of conveying the desired message that is significantly more effective, causes much less hurt, and involves no greater effort than the present method. Now if this better method is available to us, then as a general principle it is indefensible to support the inferior method. Why? Because we must always support the option that leads to greater good. To illustrate, suppose we have an “either/or” situation. Either Kerry Packer gives $1,000,000 to an inefficient charity (where a good deal of donations goes towards administrative costs), or Rupert Murdoch gives the same amount to an efficient one. The only morally defensible option is to support the Murdoch donation, since that will lead to greater good.

So it is with Ned LeFri’s real-life counterpart and anagram, Fred Nile. However good Fred’s intentions are, his apparently compassionless style is no way to preach the gospel. With Fred, as with Ned, we have a choice. We can support Fred, and thereby support a rather inefficient ministry: long on energy and short on salvation. (As John Wooden would say, “Don’t mistake activity for achievement”; Fred is loud, but what does he achieve?) Or we can offer our support to a more efficient ministry. We could support any number of talented people — perhaps even ourselves — to go out and preach the gospel with sensitivity, effectiveness, and in such a way as to avoid much of the hurt and suffering that is a necessary by-product of Fred’s preaching style.

The only question to be asked here is: which option will lead to greater good? The answer is obvious. Quite simply, given the existence of people who are willing to preach the gospel with sensitivity (and unless we want to say that Christianity is effectively dead, such people must exist), support for Fred Nile and his ilk is simply indefensible.

There is a further consideration in these matters. Astute readers may have noticed a flaw in the analogy I presented above: the analogy is altogether too kind to Ned LeFri. When Ned pointed out that smoking is dangerous, and that those who continue to smoke will probably pay a heavy price, he was speaking with the backing of a wealth of evidence. This probably made it seem as though he had more of a right to conduct himself that way than he actually did. Now when Fred Nile or any other Christian says to a non-Christian that (active) homosexuality is wrong, the Christian does not speak with such backing. The condemndation of active homosexuality is a divinely revealed truth, not an empirically verifiable one. Homosexuality does not have obvious ill-effects like murder and paedophilia do. So how seriously is the average non-Christian going to take one’s suggestion that active homosexuality is morally wrong? Answer: not very.

Indeed, we are entitled to ask this: what, essentially, is Fred Nile saying? Let’s be honest; ultimately his message boils down to “Christianity says it is wrong; therefore it is wrong.” Now that sort of argument is perfectly convincing — _if_ you happen to be a Christian! And if you’re not? The obvious truth is that anyone who is not independently convinced of the truth of Christianity will find nothing instructive in what Fred Nile has to say.

This is why Fred’s Mardi Gras protest strikes me as fundamentally pointless. For what is the point of preaching X to a group of people when X relies on an assumption that those people reject? There is simply no point at all. Further, the only way to make progress is to convince these people to accept the assumption. If Fred’s agenda is truly pro-salvation, and not (as many believe) anti-gay, then his message should be one about the truth of the gospel. Only then will he address the assumption. Only then can progress be made.

Fred’s moral crusades, then, are at best a waste of time — time that could be spent more productively on more fruitful and more purposive activities. He does not, therefore, deserve our support.

If this reasoning is correct, then our previous difficulties regarding impediments to salvation no longer occur. The reason: preaching that active homosexuality is immoral will no longer concern us. Of course, that it _is_ immoral will remain one of our beliefs. But our concern will be to preach the truth of the gospel; and this is something that does not hurt anyone. Thus, causing hurt would no longer be a concern. Indeed, given that the condemnation in question is a matter of divine revelation, the homosexual’s immorality is of necessity something to be dealt with _after_ he or she accepts the gospel. Once he or she comes to know the love of Jesus, any feeling that the gospel involves hatred and rejection will simply disappear — as will our difficulty.

Thus, we have a double incentive to focus our preaching not on the sin of active homosexuality, but on the truth of the gospel. For not only will this “truth focus” actually achieve something; but it will also cause much less hurt and offence — something that all Christians should support. In conclusion, the issue of whether Fred Nile deserves our support is more complex than simply “is he preaching the truth?” There are other factors to be considered: the balance of good over evil, or vice-versa; the dignity of the intended audience; and the outcome or achievement of the preaching. Factor these considerations into the equation, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that Fred Nile is doing the gospel more harm than good. Why?

Because there are only two possibilities. Number one: he is damning more souls than he saves. In this case, he must be opposed. Number two: he is promoting a ministry that involves inefficiency, unnecessary hurt, and an (unintentional) distortion of the gospel message. In this case, he must be opposed. Either way, it is indefensible to offer our support to Fred Nile.

Saving souls is like trying to herd a bunch of cats. If you try to do it by shouting and waving your arms, you will achieve nothing, for they will run away scared. If they are to do what you want, they must be coaxed, not forced.

Somebody send Fred some cats for Christmas.

Best regards,

Dean Stretton