Discerning the difference between inclination and action
The Vriend case surfaces a fundamental principle
Time after time during the seven years that Delwin Vriend has been fighting his anti-discrimination suits in the courts and presenting his case to the media, news writers and broadcasters have explained the origins of the controversy by saying that Vriend was fired because he was gay.
Technically this is not true. Vriend did not lose his job because of his sexual orientation; he was dismissed because he insisted on flouting his employer’s standards for sexual behavior. As Henk Van Andel, president of The King’s University College in Edmonton, has written, "Vriend could have remained an employee at the college had he not insisted that his sexual preference must be expressed in an active relationship."
It’s easy for Christians to be cynical about the persistence of incomplete reporting on this point. Doubtless some will interpret the inaccuracy as an act of media complicity in a pro-homosexuality crusade. A more likely explanation, however, is that the writers and editors responsible for the reports on this story consider the distinction too fine to disrupt the convenient shorthand explanation. Some, I suspect, see it as a sophistry the school is using to weasel out of a potential liability.
Liberating concept
This is unfortunate, because the Christian understanding of a distinction between inclination and action is a most liberating concept. It derives from a paradox at the heart of Christian thought, which teaches that people are a) created in the image of God; and b) that every person fails to meet God’s standards of right living. Ultimately it means that while God cannot abide sin, he does not abandon the people he created in spite of our persistent tendency to make poor life choices.
Christian teaching does more than acknowledge this perpetual gap between divine expectation and human performance. The main thrust of the biblical record is about how to reconcile these conflicting demands.
The good news is that God makes gracious provision for human shortcomings. Our improper actions need not condemn us forever. The principle is clearly stated in 1 John 2:1,2: "I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
It is ultimately liberating to realize that God sees in us his own perfection even though we do not deserve it.
It is also liberating for human beings to realize that they need not be enslaved to the often-unholy passions, compulsions, habits, tendencies and inclinations that frequently influence our actions. Many areas of our behavior are under our control–or ought to be. Temptation, to use the spiritual word, is not insurmountable. We need not be slaves to our own desires.
Proper restraint
Sexuality is one of those areas where urges can be very strong and control is often difficult. And precisely because it is such an important aspect of human existence, ethical teaching has developed around it. Every major religion and responsible society regulates sexual activity. Mainstream Christian thinking throughout the millennia has encouraged sexual activity between husbands and wives, and forbidden it in all other relationships.
Vriend was familiar with this teaching. Obviously he did not agree with it, however, and at some point chose to contest it. The public conflict arose out of his desire to see King's become more open to same-sex sexual activity. (For the record, the school would no sooner tolerate sexual activity by a heterosexual instructor with anyone other than his or her spouse.)
Adhering to these strict parameters runs against the sexually permissive tide of our day and age. Many powerful voices (including entertainers, advertisers, educators and judges) apparently assume that because a person feels sexual urges, he or she is compelled to act upon them. A problem with this is that it identifies the person with the passion, which is ultimately demeaning. In the Christian worldview, individuals can know which of their passions are worthy, and can choose not to be controlled by those which ought to be restrained.
Christians cannot expect mainstream society to adopt these biblical standards for personal behavior (although it ought to respect the rights of Christians to maintain such standards in their own institutions). But we can hope that the wisdom of distinguishing between inclination and action will become more evident.
The distinction is not really that difficult to draw. Progressive child rearing literature affirms the principle of separating the deed from the doer (a child is not "stupid" even though he or she may be taken to task for doing "stupid" things). This approach accords full value to the worth of the individual, and allows everyone the freedom and the dignity to take responsibility for their own actions.
Doug
Koop
Editor
