LifeLineLive, the online entertainment news service of USAToday, reported the following. “Anne Hathaway, . . . says in the new British GQ that her family left the Catholic Church over its intolerant views on homosexuality. Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay. ‘The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out,’ she tells the magazine. ‘Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?’ But the Episcopal church plan didn't really work out for her either. ‘So I'm ... nothing,’ she said. ‘I'm a work in progress.’”
While Ms. Hathaway’s decision may appear on the surface to be principled, when one looks more deeply at her comments, several questions are raised. Let’s look first at the matter of principle itself. Which decision would have shown the deepest commitment to principle: to leave the church or to stay? Being a Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, implies a commitment to a biblically-based belief system, i.e. a catholic or protestant theology. Traditional Christianity, from both the catholic and protestant point of view, assumes biblical truth, the basis for its theology, to be immutable and eternal.
In Ms. Hathaway’s world, commitment to a human being and his sexual behavior trumps commitment to universal truth. At some point in life, though, for any of a variety of reasons, we all become sexually inactive. What happens to our fundamental identity if we can no longer perform in either a heterosexual or homosexual manner? Do we cease being who we are? If we are defined by sexual behavior, then to not engage in that behavior must have some impact on our basic identity. Ms. Hathaway replaced eternal truth with changeable behavior as the center of her moral universe.
On the other hand, the biblical view of a person’s identity has nothing to do with performance. First, we are human beings, made in the image of God. Second, we are either male or female, the only two categories of human identity having any real significance. Race, ethnicity, sexual preference, nationality, etc. are all human constructs. We have given meaning and value to these categories. But, we must ask, in what sense does race matter, or ethnicity, or national origin, or sexual preference or social category. The only way these groupings matter is related to how we perceive them.
No category, other than sexual identification, can be shown to have any universally demonstrable, unchangeable impact. One’s race or skin color determines nothing about a person. Those Asians who perform well in mathematics do not do so because they are Asian any more than the success in athletics by some African-Americans is because they are African-American. Human effort, regardless of race, determines success.
What is known, though, is a range of differences does exist between males and females. From the most basic biological and physical design to the way brains process information, male and female human beings differ in perceivable, quantifiable ways. Attempts to prove environmental factors are the basis of these differences has failed and failed miserably. For reasons having nothing to do with child-rearing practices, on the whole, little girls prefer dolls and little boys prefer trucks.
So, Ms. Hathaway has chosen to jettison conviction about eternal truth in favor of beliefs about temporary behavior (historically, humans have understood and reacted to homosexual behavior in a variety of ways). Of course, other statements by Ms. Hathaway tell us the real story. She turned her back on an organization, not a belief-system. Proof of the this are her comments about her choosing to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. That choice did not work out, the article stated, so Ms. Hathaway declared, “So I'm ... nothing, . . . I'm a work in progress.’” Obviously, Ms. Hathaway and those like her have trouble committing to anything requiring real conviction. To maintain one’s convictions as a believer in Jesus just may require a break with family. Jesus himself said as much.
One final thing many fail to see: commitment to another person does not require approval of their decisions or behavior. Many times, we must be honest with those we love and tell them their actions are both wrong and destructive. Further, our disagreement or disapproval of the actions of a loved-one does not mean we must end our relationship with them. Regardless of how the world of Anne Hathaways perceives the ethical stands taken by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, these convictional positions are not a rejection of people, but of behavior.
Love for a person demands unyielding loyalty. We must be loyal in all things to Christ; only them will we truly be able to be loyal to those we love. Likewise, to be loyal to Christ demands we be loyal to his people, the church. We do not turn our back on Christ over temporary issues.
