Sunday News – 30 March 2025

Where is the battle?

A particular societal conflict has recently been making headlines in my country concerning ‘drag queen’ story times put on for children in public libraries, and the protests by one church group against these events. These matters raise so many questions for me about Christian faith and its proper expression in the community that I wonder if I may struggle even more than usual to stay focused on a reasonably defined subject for this Sunday News. And I cannot help but consider with some irony how simple these things perhaps are for many others.

To the ‘drag queens’ and their supporters – sexual and gender ‘diversity’ is a normal part of human life and society which has been wrongly suppressed and marginalized, and should therefore be promoted to correct the wrong. And the approach of this group seems to be that the way to normalize something in society is to begin with the children, so that they do not inherit the perspectives – believed by this group to be wrong – which characterize the society of their forebears, which in their view have harmed some members of society. I do not hold these views myself (though I accept that society and the Church have in some cases harmed people, for these or other reasons) so I expect in the minds of those who do hold such views I have probably misrepresented them to some extent. Nonetheless, I cannot write about these matters without saying what I am writing about. See – even that was difficult.

To the church protest group, the ‘story time’ events are ‘sexualizing our children’ which in their view is wrong. There – at least I have a quote from this group – though no doubt I have taken it out of context and would displease them also. But I think I should add, it is my understanding that sexual and gender ‘diversity’ are themselves also wrong in the minds of this group, so to promote those things to children is a great offence. Most of that is implied in statements by the church group who have limited their direct criticisms mainly to ‘sexualization’ without entering the cauldron of what type of sex they are talking about, but I do not think I have misrepresented their views unduly. I have not seen protests about Cinderella being read without the ’drag queen’ element, despite that Cinderella does marry a prince and live happily ever after – presumably in bed, as is fundamental to marriage, as well as in other settings.

What I aim to talk about in this article is not the morality of sex in its various forms and expressions. The subject of this article is how, in faithfulness to Christ, we should address what we feel is wrong in our world. But to avoid a total cop-out, I will briefly give my own view on the subject. Because although I have made no secret of my own faith in Christ, it is also true that the ‘drag queen’ story tellers have many supporters who identify(!) as Christian, and it seems there are many Christians also who appose the church protesters. (Some church leaders have spoken out to that effect.)

My view (as context only to this article): I do not think the Bible affirms acts or lifestyles which are homosexual, transgender or transvestite (or any other of the LBGTQ+ ‘orientations’ and variants which may now be in the list). I do not have an opinion on this myself. Except I believe that the Bible, taken as a whole (so that each statement is viewed in light of the whole message) is a good and faithful witness to God, and an accurate guide to the truth, which is ultimately an expression of Jesus himself.

Before I found faith in Christ, or believed the Bible to be true, I had no objection to any form of sexual expression ‘so long as no one was hurt’. Which required me to set aside the obvious reality, that sexual relationships and everything that goes with them (not just sex) are a major source of hurt in most people’s lives at least at some point.

For those who may be outraged that I characterize the Bible as not affirming sexual and gender ‘diversity’, I can say that what has emerged for me as a central guide to these matters is found in Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when they challenged him over his rejection of their practice of divorce. (And you might say, what has this to do with ‘diversity’? But every society has its ‘front line’ in the conflict over sexual practice – what is approved and what is not. And to the Jews of Jesus day, LGBTQ+ was not approved. That was not a matter in dispute to those who professed adherence to the Old Testament law. But whether it might be permitted to divorce – that was in dispute.)

Jesus replied – and I exhort the reader to read the whole of the incident and Jesus’ whole reply in Mark chapter 10 – ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ (Mark 10:6-9)

And there are other passages which express the displeasure of God with same-sex and transgender practices e.g. Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:26-27. But in essence, Jesus’ statement expresses to me the sum of the whole matter. And I like that fact it is a positive statement, not focussed on rejecting other expressions of sexuality (and thereby incidentally avoiding the need for a list and to keep adding letters to it) but identifying the essential duty of man and the way we should live i.e. to give the greatest possible recognition and expression to everything about our Creator. It is not about us. Whatever promotes God the most, that is what we should do and how we should live.

So as Jesus describes it, sex was created by God to be expressed between one man and his own wife, permanently so long as they both shall live. Anything else does not give the greatest honour to the pattern created by God, and therefore does not honour God himself. This does not put sexual sin in a different category to any other sin, nor identify ‘diverse’ persons as worse than anyone else, nor deny that all people are born with sexual tendencies or ‘orientations’ which according to the above may be regarded as sinful. (In the Bible, all sin is in part hereditary – Exodus 34:7 – so we should not be surprised if that is reflected in our genetic makeup, as are other aspects of our nature.) And there are physical and other variations which are not adequately addressed by this article.

There, I have got that out of the way. And as I feared, it has taken more than half of the vague extent I have set for these articles. But now to the actual topic: if we sincerely believe that something occurring in our world is wrong, something that other people are doing – what should we do about it? If we believe that ‘drag queen’ story times are wrong, should we publicly protest? Should we go to the library to confront the ‘offenders’? Is there any general principle to this? Or does it depend entirely on the particular circumstance?

In other words, where is the battle? And what is our part? If we are to fight, then how?

For myself I can say, holding views about sexuality as described above (or more particularly, an adherence to the Bible and views about what I think it says) – I am inclined to wonder whether my absence from any protests at the library, or any other obvious, direct action against anything else in my world which seems wrong, simply may mean I am a deserter from the army, afraid of what people would think of me if I made my views public, and shirking my duty to ‘put things to rights’ in the world, and to ‘fight a good fight’.

As the saying goes – ‘all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’?

(But that is not from the Bible and I do not vouch for it, though it is thought provoking. But ultimately, evil does not triumph, and there is none good but one – God himself, who is one man, Jesus Christ our Lord.)

But – ‘a good man who does nothing’ – is that my failure?

It seems to me that this issue strikes at the heart of the difference between the Old and New Testaments, as described by some statements of Jesus:

‘Ye have heard that is hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not though away.’ (Matthew 5:39-42)

Now it can be pointed out immediately that all of the above offences mentioned by Jesus in this case are by others against one’s own self – and that the direction to ‘resist not evil’ concerns evil only against oneself, not evil we may see being inflicted on others, or evil simply being promoted in a general sense. But it is also true that to assist any person who is ill intentioned – as in the cases Jesus speaks about – must risk harm to others, and in theory could promote evil.

For example, when I give an evil man my coat, or carry his burden, do I not assist him in whatever he does? Which no doubt will be to harm others. Yet Jesus says, ‘resist not evil’.

Or in the more general sense as Jesus gave response to Pilate, ‘My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.’ (John 18:36)

These are in some sense extraordinary statements. Because Jesus was born as a man for this very purpose, to resist evil, and to destroy it. ‘For this purpose the Son of Man was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.’ (1 John 3:8)

And indeed, though Jesus himself did not always outwardly resist evil in its worldly appearance, by his preaching of truth in life and in deed he so effectively destroyed the works of evil and disempowered the perpetrators of evil that they were prepared to go to any lengths to destroy him. For which cause (though in fulfilment of the scripture and the will of the Father, and for our salvation) he was crucified.

So I will summarize my understanding of this issue – ‘where is the battle?’ – and I will do so briefly without much justification, because my words now must be few.

God commanded his people of the Old Testament to fight his battles – those battles to which he directed them – and to resist evil works, both among themselves and among the peoples around them. This they did, and in doing so, blood was shed. By contrast, Jesus has directed his people of the New Testament that it is not our part to fight in this manner.

It is worth considering that Jesus himself in his earthly ministry lived in a nation, the nation of Israel chosen by God no less, that was unjustly occupied by a foreign, despotic power – the Romans. And those people brutally oppressed the local population as they pleased, and Jesus was surrounded by injustice and suffering among the people of God. Furthermore, those of Jesus’ own people, the Jews, who were in authority under the Romans (as it so appeared) further inflicted suffering and injustice on the children of God over whom they ruled. Yet Jesus did not direct his followers to fight nor even resist these blatant perpetrators of evil who were all around them.

Should I then go to the library, to oppose the ‘drag queen’ story time sessions?

There are no rules in the New Testament as to what we should or should not do. As Paul the apostle said, ‘All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.’ (1 Corinthians 10:23)

The issue here is that opposing the ‘drag queen’ story crew will not change their minds. So in that sense, evil (as I view it) will not be destroyed – at the most it could be suppressed until it finds other expression.

But what of the children – should they not be spared the influence of the ‘drag queens’? Might they not be led astray?

But Jesus said, ‘when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.’ (John 10:4-5)

And: ‘There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.’ (Mark 7:15)

How comforting that knowledge must have been to Jesus as he prepared to leave his young flock in the hands of all kinds of actors, from faithful servants through to deceivers and abusers.

And I think it is worth looking back at last week’s News, how that Jesus, having led a woman to the point where she would receive him as the Messiah, and as her Saviour, told her first to go and call her husband. Not that the husband had any reputation for righteousness, nor for minding the wellbeing of the woman (though he may have).

Such was the respect Jesus had for the rightful roles of persons in the life of the woman, though he himself is Lord of all. And in this case, the position of the husband was questionable, whether he even met that description in a lawful sense. Yet Jesus would not override the apparent authority of the man.

So, as for my own child, were he still young and in my care, I would direct that he should not attend the ‘drag queen’ story time. That is my privilege and duty, according to my best understanding of what is right for my child to do.

The children of others are under the authority of their own mothers and fathers. It is not my duty to direct them. And when the church group in this case accused the ‘drag queens’ of ‘sexualizing our children’, I doubt it was in fact their own children they were speaking of. Not that we should have no regard for the children of others – but we should respect the authority over them of their own parents. Even, it would seem from Jesus’ example, when that authority may appear to us to be poorly exercised.

We must be fearless to bear witness to the truth. We must ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear’. (And to answer when asked, I would say, is to be more mindful of where the hand of the Lord is at work than to proclaim when not asked. Notwithstanding, we may be asked by those who oppose us so that they may condemn and attack us, as well as by those who in sincerity seek the truth.)

Call it a cop-out if you will. But I will not be waving banners at the library, nor blocking the street to obstruct the pride parade. But I hope I will be ready to answer whenever the opportunity arises, and that I will do so without fear of man, but in meekness and fear of the Lord. Be it so in Jesus’ holy name.

Amen.