Is a Rainbow Logo a Moral Demand?

The parade of rainbow-plus logos demands one of three responses: celebrate it, tolerate it, debate it.

I caved this week, as the annual performances of the digital LGBT+ rainbow-plus logos paraded through my Facebook feed. I try to ignore obnoxious, performance posting from both left-ish and right-ish folks on Facebook. Sometimes I don’t try hard enough. Maybe because the digital pride parade aligns with the end of school, and a full dose of dad duty left me too tired to just scroll on through. Maybe for some other reason, or a combination.

Like every other public company and organization looking to show their current “with-it-ness,” my favorite sports team changed their logo to a rainbow-plus design.

Obviously, this didn’t surprise me, because I’ve been rooting for the San Francisco Giants for three-decades and more. Still, it bothered me, so I caved and commented on the Facebook post. Here’s what I said: “Not a big fan of my team making moral demands on its fans. Just play baseball ⚾️ 👍🏼.”

Queue the comments, some supporting but many calling me a whiny, bigot who hates America and freedom. Whatever. Those are par for this particular course. One comment recurred, though, and this one struck me as more important. It boils down to this: how is a picture a moral demand? I initially answered this way: “For those commenting that this picture isn’t a moral ‘demand,’ look at the nature of the responses. Saying I am a ‘bigot,’ that I ‘hate freedom,’ etc only illustrates the point that this is indeed a moral demand. The picture says, ‘Celebrate and support, or face consequences.’ That is absolutely a moral demand.”

I still agree with myself.

The parade of rainbow-plus logos demands one of three responses: celebrate it, tolerate it, debate it. No other options avail themselves. Specifically, I could have “liked” or “hearted” the picture; I could have scrolled past it, ignoring and thereby tolerating it; or I could have opposed it directly and engaged in a debate about its appropriateness. I chose the third option. Often I choose the second one, and you do, too. That’s a reasonable response in a diverse society. Lots of folks choose that when I post a theological thought or a Bible verse, even when they disagree with it. Some celebrate or “like” it and a few post disagreement. I don’t mind public disagreement. Actually, I think respectful dialogue online is a kind of new public square, which can be healthy. The fact that it often isn’t healthy doesn’t mean that a forum for discussion is inherently bad, anymore than someone getting shot at a presidential speech makes presidential speeches bad.

But don’t make a mistake. My theological posts create a moral demand upon those few who stumble upon them. Celebrate, tolerate, debate. No other options exist. So too a rainbow logo demands a moral judgment from anyone who sees it. Will you celebrate it? As a Christian who believes the Bible, that’s not an option. Will you tolerate it? As a Christian in a diverse society, that will be something we have to do sometimes. Notice also that “tolerate” is very different from “celebrate,” which too often people think are the same thing. Tolerate by definition means you put up with something you disagree with or you don’t like. Will you debate it? Yeah, sometimes, that’s what we have to do. The folks who pushed back and said, “The Giants aren’t demanding anything of you,” are just, plainly, wrong.

More than that, though, the logos demand at least moral tolerance and encourage moral rejoicing. As I said in my follow up comment on Facebook, the third option of debate puts someone onto the side of the devils for many these days. Tolerance itself is barely tolerated. It’s celebrate or bust for so many.

If you have read Godology or anything I’ve written for more than a minute or two, you know that I’m not trying to enlist for the culture war. But the aggression from some sometimes requires a response. It seems like things are tipping toward an inflecting point. Every new color striped onto a flag that used to be a rainbow presents the “rainbow” as a parody of reality. Every attempt to convince us that Mr. Rogers was naive when he said, “Boys are boys from the beginning. Girls are girls right from the start,” is showing itself to be more laughable all the time. Folks seem more fed up than ever. Just look at Bud Light and Target stock.

A guy we see every week at our church’s men’s Bible study at a local coffee and bagel joint told me recently, “You need to get off your butt and preach against that LGBT stuff. It’s out of hand.” Mind you, this is a guy who has literally told me he would never visit our church (famous last words, I told him!). I also told him, that I believe the Bible and I am not afraid to teach anything the Bible says. I also said that we need to have compassion and love for our neighbors. I share this story to say that I’m not trying to be a culture warrior on a hobby horse—and that lots of people, again, are fed up. (Also, pray for our friend at the coffee shop!).

Ultimately, these responses are natural, because a statement visual or verbal, rainbow or cross, always demands a moral judgment and a moral response. Some will celebrate, and others will tolerate. But as the rainbow logos and performances parade into view, more and more, folks are voicing a debate, opposing the moral demand. I think the metaphor of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendnego refusing to bow before a false god applies here. A moral demand always includes the possibility of moral opposition, even if at great risk and cost.

I guess last week on Facebook, I decided in a small way that I was not going to bow down.