consistency of Christian discrimination

I'm finishing up Ravi Zacharias's book on apologetics, Beyond Opinion, and the last chapter, The church's role in apologetics and the development of the mind, is written by himself. He is the editor of the book, but also contributes a couple chapters, this one and one on evil. I will set up his position on discrimination by quoting his take on truth.

You see, truth by definition is exclusive. If truth were all-inclusive, nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true? Furthermore, if nothing were false, would it be true to say that everything is false? It quickly becomes evident that nonsense would follow. p. 314

If I tell you something is true, then I am also telling you something is not true. If I tell you that the apple is red, then I am also telling you it is not blue. This plays out in a conversation he had with a reporter.

I had just finished lecturing at a university. She [the reporter - jpu] had very graciously stayed through the entire length of the lecture even though she had other pressing engagements. After the lecture was over, she was walking beside me and asked, "Can I ask you a question that really troubles me about Christians?" I was glad to oblige. "Why," she asked, "are Christians openly against racial discrimination but at the same time discriminate against certain types of sexual behavior?" (She was more specific about the types of behavior she felt we discriminated against.)

I said this to her: "We are against racial discrimination because one's ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate the sacredness of one's race. For the same reason, we are against the altering of God's pattern and purpose for sexuality. Sex is sacred in the eyes of God and ought not to be violated. What you have to explain is why you treat race as sacred and desacralize sexuality. The question is really yours, not mine. In other words, our reasoning in both cases stems from the same foundational basis. You in effect switch the basis of reasoning, and that is why you are living in contradiction." pp. 322-323

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I trust his definition of marriage, Matthew 19:4-6, and his gentle condemnation of sex outside of marriage, John 4:18. I've heard gay marriage defended by fellow believers in the name of trajectory, that Jesus could not reveal his accommodation for their orientation, but their trajectory is only apparent to their gnostic priests. Only those with the secret knowledge, because those of us with public knowledge cannot read the same words they do and arrive at the same conclusion except self-delusion or cognitive dissonance. Others say it is all about love. But doesn't the author of love get to define it?

Paul writes about it famously in 1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I am focused on the these four verses with the affirmations of love. He wrote this to a church formed in the midst of a sensual city, composed of sensual people who, before their salvation, had partaken in all sorts of sensual, but empty, delights. Some were having a hard time letting go of the anything goes mentality. I'm drawn to verse 6. Who gets to define what is evil? Someone is good, all good and only one is good, God, Matthew 19:17. He defines it through his prophets. But God is patient and kind and not rude nor easily angered. We are no more than toddlers fighting over crackers and toys. But leading an insurrection in the playroom will only succeed in timeout. God wants us rejoice with Him, the truth.