Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
From 1990: Second-Hand Values or Can Conservatism Save America?
I wrote this in 1990. It was, I think, published in a local newspaper. See what applying Biblical logic (rather than listening for holy mumbling) can do for anyone. Sure worked for Machen, whose writings from the 20s and 30s are chillingly current.
I post this without editing, overuse of parentheses and all.
I post this without editing, overuse of parentheses and all.
It is disappointing when a plant dies. It is even more frustrating when a plant blooms, shows apparent health — and then keels over, limp and dead. What happened? Could be shallow soil, could be lack of nourishment, could be hungry bugs…. Regardless, the plant is gone.
Conservative values seem to be "blossoming" in a number of ways. We have a professedly conservative President [George Bush, at the time of writing]. Ads for William F. Buckley's stimulating National Review are hard to miss, on radio and television. Everyone and his brother is a Rush Limbaugh "ditto-head," and can quote the deservedly well-known (and notorious) talk-show host on many given subjects. Surely anyone who holds conservative values (as I do) would be beside himself with glee and optimism.
But I'm not. Not yet. Here's why:
Once upon a time there was a generation of Israelites who were delivered by God from Egypt. They turned out to be a terrible disappointment: whiners, rebels, closet idolaters almost to the last man. So God sentenced them to a few "laps" in the desert: forty years' worth.
The next generation showed more promise. Apparently humbled by their parents' bad example, they pledged and displayed loyalty to God's appointed leader (Joshua 1:16-18). This devotion even surpassed the "inconvenience barrier," as the males all submitted to the at-best painful rite of circumcision (Josh. 5:2ff.). With a few inevitable glitches, that generation basically performed adequately. As the inspired historian tells us, "the people were serving Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who prolonged their days after Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh which He did for Israel" (Josh. 2:7).
So far, so good. Then what? Then Joshua and his generation died, and "a different generation arose after them, which did not know Yahweh, nor even the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10b) This generation had second-hand divine viewpoint values. And "second-hand" proved to be not good enough, as these folks proceeded to get involved in compromise, spiritual and moral gutlessness, idolatry, and the inescapable consequence: divine judgment (cf. Judges 2:10-15).
Now, none of this was necessary. God never promised to give "command-performances" of His miracles in the desert. These miracles, and what they taught of God's character and ways, were not to be re-produced, as the modern "signs and wonders" crowd mistakenly imagines. No, their lesson was to be transmitted through teaching from parent-to-child, parent-to-child (Exodus 12:26, 27; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 32:7ff., etc.) Future generations would internalize the same truth of God by the Word of God, and by faith in that Word (Ps. 78:3, 4).
The problem: though God's Word provided the answer, Israel did not accept that answer. The nation did not obey God. The result was that devotion to the truth perished with the first beneficiaries. And so the outward trappings of religion can survive the death of the inward reality, resulting in external religious form without internal power and conviction (cf. 2 Timothy 3:5). In short, we end up with people who hold a few selected religious values, without knowing why, and without an overall, deeply-rooted rationale and game-plan.
I think that this is what we see today. The "plant" appears to be blooming —— and understandably so, given the manifest bankruptcy of liberalism across the board. But modern "conservatives" are rootless, and the prognosis is not particularly good. What symptoms are manifesting themselves? Take a recent issue of National Review (July 9, 1990). It contains a letter from a Mr. Liebman, who counts arch-conservative Buckley as his "best friend" (p. 16). Liebman says that he has been a Roman Catholic for ten years, an active conservative for over three decades, and a homosexual. Buckley's response (p. 18) is vague, tepid, and affectionate. Although he expresses misgivings about homosexuality, Buckley fondly embraces Liebman as a fellow-conservative, calling him his "dear friend" and "brother in combat" (p. 18).
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh has said in effect "I don't care who sleeps with whom," and makes it clear that he is bothered by organized homosexual politics and rowdiness, rather than by homosexual orientation and behavior per se. He has received and welcomed politically conservative "gay" callers. By contrast, Limbaugh angrily dismissed a caller who dared to suggest that "sodomite" would be a more fitting appellative than "gay." It seems that bad taste bothers Limbaugh more than questions of bad morality.
And so, on what basis can either of these public figures, or any others, register complaints about organized "gay" activities? To my knowledge, neither clearly appeals to any objective, unchanging, absolute standard; such an appeal might backfire. Neither clearly says, for instance, "My personal feelings in the matter are irrelevant. I am bound by Biblical revelation, which records God's attitude towards homosexual practices." Accordingly, the publicly "conservative line" concerning homosexuality appears to boil down to personal bias — which plays right into homosexuals' common counter-complaints of "hate" and "homophobia."
Other examples could easily be multiplied. Just think of the ever-waffling Republican party (pro-life...pro-choice...pro-life...pro-choice — "What do the polls say I should be today, honey?"). "Conservative" becomes more and more difficult to define; and "conservatives" in power are desperate to distance themselves from religion or religious people — except so far as to garner their votes. Overlap between "conservative" values and (say) Biblical teachings is fortuitous, but sheerly eclectic and coincidental. Therefore, a "conservative" today ends up being in effect someone with certain ideas about economics, politics, and morality, but no deep diagnosis of the cause of man's problem, no unchanging basis for his own values, and therefore no rationale as to why anybody else should embrace those values.
This is a prescription for long-term failure. It will result in a "plant" which may bloom brilliantly for awhile, but which is doomed to die for want of soil, roots, and nourishment.
The Bible provides what "conservatism" lacks, and what men and women desperately need. It gives an absolute, objective, revelatory basis for thought and life. (The phrase "Thus says the Lord" alone occurs in some 416 verses in the New American Standard Bible). It diagnoses man's problem as being twofold: his legal standing before God ("through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death came through to all men, because all sinned"; Romans 5:12), and his nature ("the mind-set of the flesh is hostility towards God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"; Romans 8:7). Too, the Bible puts man's crisis in its proper perspective: it is not the deficit nor the Dow, but "the wrath of God...against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).
The Bible also prescribes the only solution which will abundantly address our fundamental problem: the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes care of believers' legal standing before God ("being declared righteous as a gift by His own grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"; Romans 3:24), and He changes believers' hearts ("if one is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old things passed away; see, new things have come into existence"; 2 Corinthians 5:17).
As long as "conservatism" imagines itself as containing within itself the ultimate answers to man's dilemma, it is doomed to die like our "plant." But the man who trusts in Christ, and learns and obeys His word, has hope, has direction, and ultimately has the answers that this tired old world needs: "Jesus Christ...the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), and "the living and abiding word of God" (1 Peter 1:23).
If only we would listen.
So you see, it was evident in 1990 that the only real solution was the world-tilting Gospel of Christ.
This is all the more evident, today.
Conservative values seem to be "blossoming" in a number of ways. We have a professedly conservative President [George Bush, at the time of writing]. Ads for William F. Buckley's stimulating National Review are hard to miss, on radio and television. Everyone and his brother is a Rush Limbaugh "ditto-head," and can quote the deservedly well-known (and notorious) talk-show host on many given subjects. Surely anyone who holds conservative values (as I do) would be beside himself with glee and optimism.
But I'm not. Not yet. Here's why:
Once upon a time there was a generation of Israelites who were delivered by God from Egypt. They turned out to be a terrible disappointment: whiners, rebels, closet idolaters almost to the last man. So God sentenced them to a few "laps" in the desert: forty years' worth.
The next generation showed more promise. Apparently humbled by their parents' bad example, they pledged and displayed loyalty to God's appointed leader (Joshua 1:16-18). This devotion even surpassed the "inconvenience barrier," as the males all submitted to the at-best painful rite of circumcision (Josh. 5:2ff.). With a few inevitable glitches, that generation basically performed adequately. As the inspired historian tells us, "the people were serving Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who prolonged their days after Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh which He did for Israel" (Josh. 2:7).
So far, so good. Then what? Then Joshua and his generation died, and "a different generation arose after them, which did not know Yahweh, nor even the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10b) This generation had second-hand divine viewpoint values. And "second-hand" proved to be not good enough, as these folks proceeded to get involved in compromise, spiritual and moral gutlessness, idolatry, and the inescapable consequence: divine judgment (cf. Judges 2:10-15).
Now, none of this was necessary. God never promised to give "command-performances" of His miracles in the desert. These miracles, and what they taught of God's character and ways, were not to be re-produced, as the modern "signs and wonders" crowd mistakenly imagines. No, their lesson was to be transmitted through teaching from parent-to-child, parent-to-child (Exodus 12:26, 27; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 32:7ff., etc.) Future generations would internalize the same truth of God by the Word of God, and by faith in that Word (Ps. 78:3, 4).The problem: though God's Word provided the answer, Israel did not accept that answer. The nation did not obey God. The result was that devotion to the truth perished with the first beneficiaries. And so the outward trappings of religion can survive the death of the inward reality, resulting in external religious form without internal power and conviction (cf. 2 Timothy 3:5). In short, we end up with people who hold a few selected religious values, without knowing why, and without an overall, deeply-rooted rationale and game-plan.
I think that this is what we see today. The "plant" appears to be blooming —— and understandably so, given the manifest bankruptcy of liberalism across the board. But modern "conservatives" are rootless, and the prognosis is not particularly good. What symptoms are manifesting themselves? Take a recent issue of National Review (July 9, 1990). It contains a letter from a Mr. Liebman, who counts arch-conservative Buckley as his "best friend" (p. 16). Liebman says that he has been a Roman Catholic for ten years, an active conservative for over three decades, and a homosexual. Buckley's response (p. 18) is vague, tepid, and affectionate. Although he expresses misgivings about homosexuality, Buckley fondly embraces Liebman as a fellow-conservative, calling him his "dear friend" and "brother in combat" (p. 18).
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh has said in effect "I don't care who sleeps with whom," and makes it clear that he is bothered by organized homosexual politics and rowdiness, rather than by homosexual orientation and behavior per se. He has received and welcomed politically conservative "gay" callers. By contrast, Limbaugh angrily dismissed a caller who dared to suggest that "sodomite" would be a more fitting appellative than "gay." It seems that bad taste bothers Limbaugh more than questions of bad morality.
And so, on what basis can either of these public figures, or any others, register complaints about organized "gay" activities? To my knowledge, neither clearly appeals to any objective, unchanging, absolute standard; such an appeal might backfire. Neither clearly says, for instance, "My personal feelings in the matter are irrelevant. I am bound by Biblical revelation, which records God's attitude towards homosexual practices." Accordingly, the publicly "conservative line" concerning homosexuality appears to boil down to personal bias — which plays right into homosexuals' common counter-complaints of "hate" and "homophobia."
Other examples could easily be multiplied. Just think of the ever-waffling Republican party (pro-life...pro-choice...pro-life...pro-choice — "What do the polls say I should be today, honey?"). "Conservative" becomes more and more difficult to define; and "conservatives" in power are desperate to distance themselves from religion or religious people — except so far as to garner their votes. Overlap between "conservative" values and (say) Biblical teachings is fortuitous, but sheerly eclectic and coincidental. Therefore, a "conservative" today ends up being in effect someone with certain ideas about economics, politics, and morality, but no deep diagnosis of the cause of man's problem, no unchanging basis for his own values, and therefore no rationale as to why anybody else should embrace those values.This is a prescription for long-term failure. It will result in a "plant" which may bloom brilliantly for awhile, but which is doomed to die for want of soil, roots, and nourishment.
The Bible provides what "conservatism" lacks, and what men and women desperately need. It gives an absolute, objective, revelatory basis for thought and life. (The phrase "Thus says the Lord" alone occurs in some 416 verses in the New American Standard Bible). It diagnoses man's problem as being twofold: his legal standing before God ("through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death came through to all men, because all sinned"; Romans 5:12), and his nature ("the mind-set of the flesh is hostility towards God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"; Romans 8:7). Too, the Bible puts man's crisis in its proper perspective: it is not the deficit nor the Dow, but "the wrath of God...against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).
The Bible also prescribes the only solution which will abundantly address our fundamental problem: the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes care of believers' legal standing before God ("being declared righteous as a gift by His own grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"; Romans 3:24), and He changes believers' hearts ("if one is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old things passed away; see, new things have come into existence"; 2 Corinthians 5:17).
As long as "conservatism" imagines itself as containing within itself the ultimate answers to man's dilemma, it is doomed to die like our "plant." But the man who trusts in Christ, and learns and obeys His word, has hope, has direction, and ultimately has the answers that this tired old world needs: "Jesus Christ...the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), and "the living and abiding word of God" (1 Peter 1:23).
If only we would listen.
So you see, it was evident in 1990 that the only real solution was the world-tilting Gospel of Christ.
This is all the more evident, today.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Profiles in cowardice
This may be an occasional series.
We're in a day where heroes have never been more needed, nor more in short supply. Who can blame them? I daresay they'd be pilloried and left hanging, even by the very people on whose shoulders they should be borne. In fact, there may be a thousand, a hundred-thousand heroes now, toiling in anonymity. More's the loss for us.
So today I think of the situation of the sexually perverted basketball player and the sports commentator.
A basketball player named Jason Collins decided to tell everyone that he was subject to unnatural, corrupting sexual desires — and that, so far from seeking help or freedom from them, he yielded to and pursued their indulgence.
But Collins, didn't stop there; he had to add that he was a "Christian."
ESPN reporter Chris Broussard was asked his thoughts and, as a Christian, Huffington Post reports his response thus (bolding added):
That's not at all a bad statement. But of course, Broussard had committed today's unpardonable sin: being a Christian out loud in public.
So Broussard added this:
Who was brave? Of course, only Chris Broussard was to any degree brave, by to any degree indicating that he might agree with God's view of sin. He did it rather timidly, but to do it at all today is potentially to commit career hari-kiri.
Who was cowardly?
Well, I have to say Chris Broussard again, for saying that "Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today." How? In what universe? Surely not in America. In America, this instantly guarantees Broussard protected-martyr status (see below). Further, how is it brave to say "I'm giving in to base desires"? I guess in a perverted way, it's a kind of bravery to dare to associate yourself with a God who so totally condemns such behavior while insisting that you intend to rebel against Him and still count on His approval... but still, I'd chose words like gall and arrogance and lunatic hubris. Not "bravery."
And of course ESPN are cowards. They have to apologize for a Christian answering a question like a Christian. They have to say that "ESPN ...welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement." Why do they? What business of theirs is it to do so?
But worse, in so doing, they throw their own employee under the bus. They welcome Jason Collins' announcement — but do they welcome their employee's enjoyment of his First Amendment rights, and his conscientious practice of his own religious faith, which they have to know will surely expose him (not Collins) to excoriation and abuse?
We're in a day where heroes have never been more needed, nor more in short supply. Who can blame them? I daresay they'd be pilloried and left hanging, even by the very people on whose shoulders they should be borne. In fact, there may be a thousand, a hundred-thousand heroes now, toiling in anonymity. More's the loss for us.
So today I think of the situation of the sexually perverted basketball player and the sports commentator.
A basketball player named Jason Collins decided to tell everyone that he was subject to unnatural, corrupting sexual desires — and that, so far from seeking help or freedom from them, he yielded to and pursued their indulgence.
But Collins, didn't stop there; he had to add that he was a "Christian."
ESPN reporter Chris Broussard was asked his thoughts and, as a Christian, Huffington Post reports his response thus (bolding added):
"Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly ... like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says 'you know them by their fruits.' It says that, you know, that’s a sin," Broussard said during a segment that also included gay ESPN columnist LZ Granderson. "And if you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality -- adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals -- whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."(More here.)
That's not at all a bad statement. But of course, Broussard had committed today's unpardonable sin: being a Christian out loud in public.
So Broussard added this:
Today on OTL, as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today's news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.To that, ESPN felt compelled to add:
“We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”Ah me, so much to comment on.
Who was brave? Of course, only Chris Broussard was to any degree brave, by to any degree indicating that he might agree with God's view of sin. He did it rather timidly, but to do it at all today is potentially to commit career hari-kiri.
Who was cowardly?
Well, I have to say Chris Broussard again, for saying that "Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today." How? In what universe? Surely not in America. In America, this instantly guarantees Broussard protected-martyr status (see below). Further, how is it brave to say "I'm giving in to base desires"? I guess in a perverted way, it's a kind of bravery to dare to associate yourself with a God who so totally condemns such behavior while insisting that you intend to rebel against Him and still count on His approval... but still, I'd chose words like gall and arrogance and lunatic hubris. Not "bravery."
And of course ESPN are cowards. They have to apologize for a Christian answering a question like a Christian. They have to say that "ESPN ...welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement." Why do they? What business of theirs is it to do so?
But worse, in so doing, they throw their own employee under the bus. They welcome Jason Collins' announcement — but do they welcome their employee's enjoyment of his First Amendment rights, and his conscientious practice of his own religious faith, which they have to know will surely expose him (not Collins) to excoriation and abuse?
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Briefly: on homosexual "marriage" and fat people
Citing the benefits of marriage to explain why two homosexuals should be able to force others to call what they do "marriage" is like citing the benefits of physical fitness to explain why fat people should be able to force others to call them "thin."
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
On squaring circles and the loss of liberty
From a very thoughtful essay (h-t Turk):
That article quotes from another which observes that there is no law against anyone calling any relationship he has "marriage," nor against any religious institution performing a ceremony for such persons/animals/things and calling it a "marriage" ceremony. Here is what is at issue:
Though I'd not yet read either essay, this is the point I was making yesterday, in what became one of my most-retweeted Tweets:
What this is really about bringing the power of government to force others to say "Yep, if you say so, that circle is a square," and sanctioning anyone who says and lives and conducts business otherwise.
Here's one other point which I've often made:
It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought.Look at Canada, for instance. Changing the dictionary meant that the government deprives Christians of the right to say what they believe without official sanction.
That article quotes from another which observes that there is no law against anyone calling any relationship he has "marriage," nor against any religious institution performing a ceremony for such persons/animals/things and calling it a "marriage" ceremony. Here is what is at issue:
What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these ‘marriages’ and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.There you go.
Though I'd not yet read either essay, this is the point I was making yesterday, in what became one of my most-retweeted Tweets:
This isn't about (wo)men being able to marry (wo)men. They never will. It is about *forcing* you and me to *say* they can.— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 26, 2013
No man will ever be able to marry another man, nor will any woman be able to marry another woman, and they know it. There is no act of Congress nor any despotic tyrant on earth that will square that circle.
What this is really about bringing the power of government to force others to say "Yep, if you say so, that circle is a square," and sanctioning anyone who says and lives and conducts business otherwise.
Here's one other point which I've often made:
The problem with this position is that it again assumes the myth that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The reality is that no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.
Finally, at no extra charge, a little exchange between Il Presidente and your faithful correspondent:
Every American should be able to marry the person they love. #LoveIsLove, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 25, 2013
.@frank_turk @barackobama Why only one person? Why only a person? #IsLoveLove
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 25, 2013
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Borrowed ethics question: how to respond to an associate pastor who confesses to homosexual "orientation"?
Mark Lamprecht poses a question, framed as coming from a faithful good-guy associate pastor:
But here's my more-serious response. First, I acknowledge that there are many good ways to respond. Mine will feature the response that I think is (A) less likely to be given, and (B) probably more important than the likelier touchy-feeling good-sounding responses.
I think it's important to tell him that the first step in dealing with any problem is correct diagnosis of both the problem and the desired solution.
Next, it is important to tell him that he does not seem to have done either.
Third, by way of explanation, I'd point out to him that there is no help from God for an "orientation." The Bible doesn't know of such an "orientation." This may be why his only goal as to his "orientation" is that he "[has] no plans to" act on it — as I have "no plans to" visit Canada or live in New Jersey... though either could happen, and there's no moral or absolute reason why they shouldn't.
What do you do with an "orientation"? Since it is an un-Biblical category, forget the Bible. There is no forgiveness or redemption for an "orientation." So I guess you have to do therapy, or meditation, or yoga or something. No idea. Can't help you.
Or perhaps by "orientation," he is meaning to say "I struggle with sinful temptations to have sex with other men"? Okay, fair enough. Now we are getting somewhere Bibley.
But in that case, how do you say you "have no plans to" act on them? Picture a man standing up and saying he struggles with temptation to commit adultery with the senior pastor's wife, but he "has no plans to" act on it? Or that he struggles with temptation to have sex with little children in the church Sunday School, but he "has no plans to" act on it? Or that he struggles with temptation to rape some women in the congregation, but he "has no plans to" act on it?
Well now, that's very different, isn't it?
No, actually, it is no different. It's just that, at the moment, the particular sin of homosexuality enjoys a martyred, romantic celebrity-status among sins. It's a special sin. People tempted to it are special cases.
But you see, while I believe that a certain amount of motivation behind evangelicals who (should know better but) give in to this trend is loving and compassionate, the net-result is actually disastrous and unhelpful.
"Disastrous and unhelpful" because, as I mentioned, God offers no help that I know of for dealing with "orientation"... unless you mean that orientation to sin which afflicts all natural sons of Adam (Rom. 8:7-8). Now, if it's a sin, like every other sin in being a sin, then we're on Biblical grounds. Now there is all sorts of help to be found in Scripture and in the truths of the Gospel.
But then he does lose his romantic, martyred status, and has to queue up with the rest of us plain old, garden-variety sinners, who don't go up to the pulpit and say we have a "polyamorous orientation" or a "hyper-acquisitive orientation," rather than saying we struggle with lust and covetousness. Why don't we? Because we know it! Unless we're far off from Biblical truth, we already know that there are only two kinds of people this side of heaven, viewed in one way:
As you all know I’ve served as a pastor here for several years. You also know that I have remained single the whole time. What I am about to tell you is not easy to openly admit.My first, non-serious response is "What — now they hold orientation-meetings for this?"
The fact is that my sexual orientation…is…homosexual.
But please hear me out. I am fully convinced, and professes to you now, that theonly justifiable and acceptable sexual expression is heterosexuality within a heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman committed for life.
I have put specific guidelines in place to protect myself and the whole congregation. For example, I always leave the door open when counseling people. I am accountable to other pastors about this issue and I even have internet filtering software on my computer.
Finally, it is important for you all to know that I have not engaged in any illicit sex and have no plans to. I also meet with a Christian counselor about the same-sex attractions. Please stand with me in prayer on this issue. Thank you.
But here's my more-serious response. First, I acknowledge that there are many good ways to respond. Mine will feature the response that I think is (A) less likely to be given, and (B) probably more important than the likelier touchy-feeling good-sounding responses.
I think it's important to tell him that the first step in dealing with any problem is correct diagnosis of both the problem and the desired solution.
Next, it is important to tell him that he does not seem to have done either.
Third, by way of explanation, I'd point out to him that there is no help from God for an "orientation." The Bible doesn't know of such an "orientation." This may be why his only goal as to his "orientation" is that he "[has] no plans to" act on it — as I have "no plans to" visit Canada or live in New Jersey... though either could happen, and there's no moral or absolute reason why they shouldn't.
What do you do with an "orientation"? Since it is an un-Biblical category, forget the Bible. There is no forgiveness or redemption for an "orientation." So I guess you have to do therapy, or meditation, or yoga or something. No idea. Can't help you.
Or perhaps by "orientation," he is meaning to say "I struggle with sinful temptations to have sex with other men"? Okay, fair enough. Now we are getting somewhere Bibley.
But in that case, how do you say you "have no plans to" act on them? Picture a man standing up and saying he struggles with temptation to commit adultery with the senior pastor's wife, but he "has no plans to" act on it? Or that he struggles with temptation to have sex with little children in the church Sunday School, but he "has no plans to" act on it? Or that he struggles with temptation to rape some women in the congregation, but he "has no plans to" act on it?
Well now, that's very different, isn't it?
No, actually, it is no different. It's just that, at the moment, the particular sin of homosexuality enjoys a martyred, romantic celebrity-status among sins. It's a special sin. People tempted to it are special cases.
But you see, while I believe that a certain amount of motivation behind evangelicals who (should know better but) give in to this trend is loving and compassionate, the net-result is actually disastrous and unhelpful.
"Disastrous and unhelpful" because, as I mentioned, God offers no help that I know of for dealing with "orientation"... unless you mean that orientation to sin which afflicts all natural sons of Adam (Rom. 8:7-8). Now, if it's a sin, like every other sin in being a sin, then we're on Biblical grounds. Now there is all sorts of help to be found in Scripture and in the truths of the Gospel.
But then he does lose his romantic, martyred status, and has to queue up with the rest of us plain old, garden-variety sinners, who don't go up to the pulpit and say we have a "polyamorous orientation" or a "hyper-acquisitive orientation," rather than saying we struggle with lust and covetousness. Why don't we? Because we know it! Unless we're far off from Biblical truth, we already know that there are only two kinds of people this side of heaven, viewed in one way:
- People under sin's unchallenged lordship
- People struggling with sin
There is no saint this side of heaven who doesn't struggle. Period.
So on the one hand, he has to give up his "Special Sin" card. He loses Tragic Hero status. He also mortifies the "no plans" out. Sin is to be mortified, and that means "deaditized." On the other, he gets to tap in to the same glorious Gospel help that all struggling saints have enjoyed for 2000 years. Gospel, repentance, forgiveness, regeneration, justification, mortification, sanctification, with the sure promise of ultimate glorification.
Hopeless pop-psychology for redemption in Christ. Not a bad trade, I'd say.
Postscript: as I've often said, I have great sympathy for anyone struggling with this sexual temptation as a temptation. I can only imagine how difficult it is, I know that. In fact, I think it's too difficult and too important to abandon such folks to pop-psychological mumbo-jumbo with a sprinkling of God-talk. They're sinners. I'm a sinner. The Gospel is for sinners like us.
That's terrific news, and it's the news we should stick with plainly, emphatically, insistently, and confidently.
Postscript: as I've often said, I have great sympathy for anyone struggling with this sexual temptation as a temptation. I can only imagine how difficult it is, I know that. In fact, I think it's too difficult and too important to abandon such folks to pop-psychological mumbo-jumbo with a sprinkling of God-talk. They're sinners. I'm a sinner. The Gospel is for sinners like us.
That's terrific news, and it's the news we should stick with plainly, emphatically, insistently, and confidently.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Michele Bachmann and husband "accused"!
Onoes!
Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused! Of what? Child abuse? No. Theft? No. Murder? No. Adultery, abusing a subordinate, lying under oath? No; though if she were, that would make her a good presidential candidate for the other party. But, regardless, no.
No, it is much much worse. Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused of being genuine, practicing, Bible-believing Christians! In public! (Audience: gasp!)
Okay, that isn't the exact wording of the headline. As the political commentary item in the Los Angeles Times actually has it — and I am not making this up — here it is: Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays. Breathlessly relating that there are accusations and proof, proof!, that Christian counselors in a Christian clinic gave counsel aimed at helping people find freedom from homosexual obsessions.
The author snidely observes, "It will be curious to see whether the allegations damage the momentum Bachmann has enjoyed over the last few weeks." Right. Because...?
In their reporting, ABC and NBC evidently made use of material deceptively obtained by a homosexuality advocacy group. As usual, they presented only one side in a positive light and, as usual, it was the anti-God side.
The UK's Daily Mail is no less breathless: 'Pray away the gay': Michele Bachmann and her husband accused of using fake treatments to 'cure' gay people. One wonders many things. First, did they really say this? Second, what makes them "fake treatments"? Third, of course, what would be the "genuine treatments" that would help people find freedom from perverted passions? The Mail is, evidently, the authority on such issues.
However, one reads the extraordinarily biased article for answers in vain. All one receives is shocked, shocked reports of Christians practicing Christianity, unsourced quotations, and howlers like this: the idea that God created us to be heterosexual or that prayer can bring freedom "has been rubbished by psychiatrists who say that it can be incredibly damaging for a gay person to hear." Right! Because psychiatry is monolithic, all psychiatrists have reached final agreement on everything, and psychiatrists purvey sheerly objective truth that is only resisted by knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
Or, in other words, Christians.
So here it is again: sincere Christianity disqualifies from holding public office. Only hypocritical professors such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, whose ideology is contrary to Biblical truth, are permitted.
I have no opinion about the Bachmann candidacy. I like who hates her; that's a "plus" for me. In this media-manufactured crisis, she is being depicted as running away from the issue, refusing to answer questions.
I do not know where Bachmann stands on many spiritual issues; however, if the reports are accurate, I think Bachmann is making a mistake. She should not allow herself to be put on the defensive. I have offered similar thoughts in the past here and here and here.
In fact, I'll just close with an edited form of what I wrote more than three years ago.
Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about [the MSM Thing of the Day]. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.
First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."
Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say
And the MSM would hate me.
But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"
Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused! Of what? Child abuse? No. Theft? No. Murder? No. Adultery, abusing a subordinate, lying under oath? No; though if she were, that would make her a good presidential candidate for the other party. But, regardless, no.
No, it is much much worse. Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused of being genuine, practicing, Bible-believing Christians! In public! (Audience: gasp!)Okay, that isn't the exact wording of the headline. As the political commentary item in the Los Angeles Times actually has it — and I am not making this up — here it is: Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays. Breathlessly relating that there are accusations and proof, proof!, that Christian counselors in a Christian clinic gave counsel aimed at helping people find freedom from homosexual obsessions.
The author snidely observes, "It will be curious to see whether the allegations damage the momentum Bachmann has enjoyed over the last few weeks." Right. Because...?
In their reporting, ABC and NBC evidently made use of material deceptively obtained by a homosexuality advocacy group. As usual, they presented only one side in a positive light and, as usual, it was the anti-God side.
The UK's Daily Mail is no less breathless: 'Pray away the gay': Michele Bachmann and her husband accused of using fake treatments to 'cure' gay people. One wonders many things. First, did they really say this? Second, what makes them "fake treatments"? Third, of course, what would be the "genuine treatments" that would help people find freedom from perverted passions? The Mail is, evidently, the authority on such issues.
However, one reads the extraordinarily biased article for answers in vain. All one receives is shocked, shocked reports of Christians practicing Christianity, unsourced quotations, and howlers like this: the idea that God created us to be heterosexual or that prayer can bring freedom "has been rubbished by psychiatrists who say that it can be incredibly damaging for a gay person to hear." Right! Because psychiatry is monolithic, all psychiatrists have reached final agreement on everything, and psychiatrists purvey sheerly objective truth that is only resisted by knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
Or, in other words, Christians.
So here it is again: sincere Christianity disqualifies from holding public office. Only hypocritical professors such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, whose ideology is contrary to Biblical truth, are permitted.
I have no opinion about the Bachmann candidacy. I like who hates her; that's a "plus" for me. In this media-manufactured crisis, she is being depicted as running away from the issue, refusing to answer questions.
I do not know where Bachmann stands on many spiritual issues; however, if the reports are accurate, I think Bachmann is making a mistake. She should not allow herself to be put on the defensive. I have offered similar thoughts in the past here and here and here.
In fact, I'll just close with an edited form of what I wrote more than three years ago.
Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about [the MSM Thing of the Day]. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.
First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."
Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say
So what are you asking? Am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the Bible? Yes. Do I support full Constitutional rights for people who are neither Christian nor Bible-believing? Yes. Now, here is my question for you in the mainstream media: is the American public at large really pressing you to pursue this issue? Or are they more concerned about the ruin that President Obama has done to our economy, morale, and international standing? Have you figured out yet why the mainstream media is held in such universal contempt, and do you think maybe this is a classic example? Is it your agenda to make it hard only for Bible-believing Christians allowed to run for public office? Are only hypocritical Christians allowed to hold office? Will you be grilling all the candidates and office-holders of both parties and on all tiers on this issue? On what other similar issues will you be demanding specifics — abortion, adultery, lying, theft, rape? What experts will you rely on? How will you choose them? Or could we perhaps get back to discussing political philosophy and political proposals?I simply would not allow the MSM to control the conversation.
And the MSM would hate me.
But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Deeper and more relevant than it means to be
Now, class, tell me why I say that.
(Hey: I figure, if I have some of the smartest commenters on The Intrawebs, why not let them shine?)
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Homosexual judge rules to validate his actions
The sweeping and off-topic nature of some of U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's language reveals his agenda as being other than what his job called for. Had he focused on whether the Constitution requires the redefinition of "marriage" to accommodate various sexual perversions (hint: it does not), the trial would have been short and decisive. However, the judge was out to marginalize "religious" Americans and mainstream one particular class of sexual pervert and, by golly and by his robe and gavel, he did.
Judge Walker did not examine the proposition to see if it was constitutional. Had he done so, as I said, it would have been a pretty brief trial.
Rather, Walker put the voters on trial, read their minds, weighed the value of their religious/moral convictions, and decided they did not impress him. We who voted for Proposition 8 were tried and found guilty, and now we are disenfranchised, as an activist judge invents something (as far as I know) never seen nor embraced in any society.
I don't have time for much more just now, so I'll point you to some good essays.
Frank's is super, of course
Al Mohler just begins to hint at some of the breathtaking enormity of the judge's overstepping
Then transition from Mohler's cool discourse to James White's red-hot diatribe, noting what I pointed out yesterday about the judge's vested interests.
Fred Butler's thoughts
I'll add any other bright lights as they pop on.
Judge Walker did not examine the proposition to see if it was constitutional. Had he done so, as I said, it would have been a pretty brief trial.
Rather, Walker put the voters on trial, read their minds, weighed the value of their religious/moral convictions, and decided they did not impress him. We who voted for Proposition 8 were tried and found guilty, and now we are disenfranchised, as an activist judge invents something (as far as I know) never seen nor embraced in any society.
I don't have time for much more just now, so I'll point you to some good essays.
Frank's is super, of course
Al Mohler just begins to hint at some of the breathtaking enormity of the judge's overstepping
Then transition from Mohler's cool discourse to James White's red-hot diatribe, noting what I pointed out yesterday about the judge's vested interests.
Fred Butler's thoughts
I'll add any other bright lights as they pop on.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Study says: kids of lesbians "healthy," "fewer behavior problems"
Perhaps you heard about a recent study that announced the Scientific Results of a long-term study: kids of lesbian "parents" are actually better-adjusted than kids of "straight" parents.
Well, that's it, then, right? Science has spoken. You don't want to argue against Science, do you? Be a knuckle-dragging troglodyte, a hater?
No, we don't want to oppose actual science. Is it still OK if we ask questions, though? Like, for instance, who did this survey?
Well, the "researcher" quoted in this article is Nanette Gartrell, MD, the Williams distinguished scholar at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Science propels Dr. Gartrell to cut right to the chase:
Gartrell is a "wife" of sorts, it turns out. She is the "wife" of another female, named Dr. Diane Mosbacher, who did a documentary called "Straight From the Heart," which was "about religious parents coming to terms with the homosexuality of their children." Axe to grind, much?
We learn elsewhere that Dr. Gartrell was "the first out lesbian on the Harvard Medical School faculty," and that she has made the lesbian agenda a focus of her career. This study is in line with her previous activities. So perhaps instead of simply calling her "researcher," as the article does, it might be more informative to say "researcher and lesbian activist"? Isn't that worth factoring in?
It is at least interesting and worth noting. If the "researcher" in a study praising the joys and health benefits of obesity weighed in at 650 pounds, for instance, I think it would be noted. Or if the lead researcher in a study lauding Oreos as a health-food were a major Nabisco stockholder, again, the fact would be noted.
But if that's all we had, we could be reasonably accused of the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." You know a poison-well argument: it singles out some adverse trait of a person, and tries to invalidate his argument thereby. For instance:
No, we don't want to oppose actual science. Is it still OK if we ask questions, though? Like, for instance, who did this survey?
Well, the "researcher" quoted in this article is Nanette Gartrell, MD, the Williams distinguished scholar at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Science propels Dr. Gartrell to cut right to the chase:
"Contrary to assertions from people opposed to same-sex parenting, we found that the 17-year-olds scored higher in psychological adjustment in areas of competency and lower in problem behaviors than the normative age-matched sample of kids raised in traditional families with a mom and a dad."Once again, that sounds pretty weighty. But is that the objective, untainted force of the evidence? Doesn't evidence have to be interpreted by a person? Who is the person doing the interpretation? Is it possible Dr. Gartrell has a dog in this hunt? Is she a member, perhaps, of John Piper's church? Wife of a pastor at John MacArthur's church, maybe — a faithful Christian, forced to this conclusion by the sheer weight of evidence?
Gartrell is a "wife" of sorts, it turns out. She is the "wife" of another female, named Dr. Diane Mosbacher, who did a documentary called "Straight From the Heart," which was "about religious parents coming to terms with the homosexuality of their children." Axe to grind, much?
We learn elsewhere that Dr. Gartrell was "the first out lesbian on the Harvard Medical School faculty," and that she has made the lesbian agenda a focus of her career. This study is in line with her previous activities. So perhaps instead of simply calling her "researcher," as the article does, it might be more informative to say "researcher and lesbian activist"? Isn't that worth factoring in?
It is at least interesting and worth noting. If the "researcher" in a study praising the joys and health benefits of obesity weighed in at 650 pounds, for instance, I think it would be noted. Or if the lead researcher in a study lauding Oreos as a health-food were a major Nabisco stockholder, again, the fact would be noted.
But if that's all we had, we could be reasonably accused of the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." You know a poison-well argument: it singles out some adverse trait of a person, and tries to invalidate his argument thereby. For instance:
- John Calvin was connected to the execution of Michael Servetus
- Therefore Calvinism is false.
Is that my argument in this case?
As I said, I think it's worth considering. The study was not done and analyzed by a tire iron or a CPU; it was done by a person, and persons have grids. But more worth considering are the premises of the study. What is "healthy"? What is "normal"? What is "well-adjusted"? Are there other ways of interpreting the data?
For instance, the article specifies that the children of lesbian "parents" (for instance) were less likely to engage in "problem behaviors such as rule-breaking and aggression."
Reading that, I wonder: does that make them more "healthy"? Or more feminine? And is that a good thing, for boys? A number of analyses have suggested that our educational system and culture seem Hell-bent on turning boys into girls. Is it surprising to learn that a boy raised by two women might take on more feminine characteristics? If so, is that good?
Is it legitimate to ask whether the standards of measurement in a test conducted by a woman who rejects her own God-created, God-defined sexuality might be severely skewed, and whose career seems to reflect a focus on normalizing what God calls abnormal?
Is it legitimate to ask whether the standards of measurement in a test conducted by a woman who rejects her own God-created, God-defined sexuality might be severely skewed, and whose career seems to reflect a focus on normalizing what God calls abnormal?
What are the specifics that define "normalcy" and "health"? Take the term "normal." Now, there's a word capable of a broad array of nuances. If "normal" were used and understood to mean statistical average, I'd have no quarrel. However, the usual nuance is healthy, acceptable, good. But that is misleading. One could say quite accurately, for instance, that it is "normal" for the products of government re-education camps to be lazy-minded, ignorant, and incapable of logical thought. But does that mean it is good? Not at all.
Never forget the statistician who drowned while wading across a river with an "average depth" of four feet.
So what is the standard for normalcy and health in studies such as this one? What, for instance, if our model were Jesus Christ, instead of the average of our fallen, lost, corrupt culture? What if it were derived from a vertical source rather than a horizontal, or an internal? Suppose these were the standards for measuring health and normalcy:
Never forget the statistician who drowned while wading across a river with an "average depth" of four feet.
So what is the standard for normalcy and health in studies such as this one? What, for instance, if our model were Jesus Christ, instead of the average of our fallen, lost, corrupt culture? What if it were derived from a vertical source rather than a horizontal, or an internal? Suppose these were the standards for measuring health and normalcy:
- Faith in the Bible as God's inerrant, binding word.
- Faith in the triune God revealed in Scripture alone.
- Values derived from the Word.
- Heartfelt love for God and passion to be conformed to His will.
- Consistent attempt to conform to the Word in thought, aspiration, and behavior.
- Moral categories derived from the Word (i.e. identifying immoral behavior such as homosexuality as wrong under any circumstances).
...and the like? If that were the norm, what would the study's results be? Would being raised by couples definitionally devoted to moral anarchy and rebellion against God still turn out looking so rosy?
Bring these thoughts to bear in considering this latest "scientific research" spun as invalidating God's Word — because, don't be deceived, that is the ultimate agenda: to make the world safe for sin.
Here, then, are my points: we should never forget that —
Here, then, are my points: we should never forget that —
- Humans conduct tests
- Human thought-processes are skewed and twisted by sin
- Evidence must be interpreted
- Terms must be strictly defined
- God's word alone provides the Creator's norm for human behavior
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
California law on the books IDs homosexuality as deviant, calls for research into cause and cure
This is an interesting read, on a number of levels.
The law was written in the very different world of 1950, and was "designed to find the causes and cures of homosexuality." It categorized homosexuals as "sexual deviants."
Of course, California legislators being what they are, they are working to repeal the law, or at least its labeling as "sexual deviant" people who are... well, sexually deviant.
Of course, agenda groups cry foul and characterize the bill as institutionalizing "bigotry" (i.e. treating homosexuality as deviant behavior for which a cure should be sought).
And equally "of course," Democrat Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, said, "It's offensive that somebody 60 years ago would try to include that as a disorder when we know it's not."
Of course, I wonder: how do we know that? Physically, it is pretty much the textbook definition of deviant behavior. So Portantino's assurance and offense must arise elsewhence. Were I the reporter, I think I would have asked him; which is why my career as a reporter would be short and memorable.
One can only suppose that it is not deviant because homosexuals say it is not deviant. It feels natural to them, they say (leaving aside issues of the complete candor of the reports). In Debbie Boone's immoral immortal words, "It can't be wrong when it feels so right." I daresay that a great many perverted, violent, horrid acts committed by our fallen race felt "so right" during their commission.
This is where the sensitive sniffer detects worldview. A statement like Portantino's issues from a man-centered view, where "man is the measure of all things." He devises norms and standards designed to accommodate his passions and desires, then pronounces it good, yea, very good.
Where does that issue? From the Matrix. We're all in the Matrix designed by our first parents. Serpent told Eve, "Eat this, and you shall be as gods." "Okay, sounds good to me" said our idiot grandmother; "Whatever you say, honeybunch," echoed our idiot grandfather.
The rest, quite literally, is history. Literally. Wars, rise and fall of empires, petty despots, rotten husbands, spoiled kids, witchy wives... that's history this side of Eden. Every one of us insisting on being little gods, until the real and actual God comes along and tips our pedestal.
We're like a bunch of Canaanite gods, each with his own turf. This one wants to do perverted acts with another man. But he wants to feel good about it. So he sets about "creating" a universe in which his abnormal passion is normal... because he and his drives are at its center.
Ditto this promiscuous, love-starved girl; that drug-addicted man; this thief; that apostate; this hedonist. And on and on.
So you might think I'd favor the 1950 law. On balance, while I miss a society that could call deviant behavior deviant behavior, I (A) don't see the research as a valid governmental function, for a great many reasons; and (B) don't in any way trust the government to come up with the right answers. After all, apart from Christ, what is a government but a bunch of wanna-be gods trying to mold the universe after their notions? How do they know what is right or wrong? Maybe deviance is right, and normalcy is wrong.
Nor do I have any hallucinations that government could come up with a cure. The cure is beyond man's reach. The cure for the deviancy of the lost homosexual is exactly identical to the cure for the deviancy of the lost straight-laced workaholic monogomous hetero. The cure is radical.
The cure is found in the good news of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We must be born again.
Which is beyond government research, funding, taxation, or regulation.
The law was written in the very different world of 1950, and was "designed to find the causes and cures of homosexuality." It categorized homosexuals as "sexual deviants."
Of course, California legislators being what they are, they are working to repeal the law, or at least its labeling as "sexual deviant" people who are... well, sexually deviant.
Of course, agenda groups cry foul and characterize the bill as institutionalizing "bigotry" (i.e. treating homosexuality as deviant behavior for which a cure should be sought).
And equally "of course," Democrat Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, said, "It's offensive that somebody 60 years ago would try to include that as a disorder when we know it's not."
Of course, I wonder: how do we know that? Physically, it is pretty much the textbook definition of deviant behavior. So Portantino's assurance and offense must arise elsewhence. Were I the reporter, I think I would have asked him; which is why my career as a reporter would be short and memorable.
One can only suppose that it is not deviant because homosexuals say it is not deviant. It feels natural to them, they say (leaving aside issues of the complete candor of the reports). In Debbie Boone's This is where the sensitive sniffer detects worldview. A statement like Portantino's issues from a man-centered view, where "man is the measure of all things." He devises norms and standards designed to accommodate his passions and desires, then pronounces it good, yea, very good.
Where does that issue? From the Matrix. We're all in the Matrix designed by our first parents. Serpent told Eve, "Eat this, and you shall be as gods." "Okay, sounds good to me" said our idiot grandmother; "Whatever you say, honeybunch," echoed our idiot grandfather.
The rest, quite literally, is history. Literally. Wars, rise and fall of empires, petty despots, rotten husbands, spoiled kids, witchy wives... that's history this side of Eden. Every one of us insisting on being little gods, until the real and actual God comes along and tips our pedestal.
We're like a bunch of Canaanite gods, each with his own turf. This one wants to do perverted acts with another man. But he wants to feel good about it. So he sets about "creating" a universe in which his abnormal passion is normal... because he and his drives are at its center.
Ditto this promiscuous, love-starved girl; that drug-addicted man; this thief; that apostate; this hedonist. And on and on.
So you might think I'd favor the 1950 law. On balance, while I miss a society that could call deviant behavior deviant behavior, I (A) don't see the research as a valid governmental function, for a great many reasons; and (B) don't in any way trust the government to come up with the right answers. After all, apart from Christ, what is a government but a bunch of wanna-be gods trying to mold the universe after their notions? How do they know what is right or wrong? Maybe deviance is right, and normalcy is wrong.
Nor do I have any hallucinations that government could come up with a cure. The cure is beyond man's reach. The cure for the deviancy of the lost homosexual is exactly identical to the cure for the deviancy of the lost straight-laced workaholic monogomous hetero. The cure is radical.
The cure is found in the good news of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We must be born again.
Which is beyond government research, funding, taxation, or regulation.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Homosexuals (among others) cannot love
Definitions
Homosexualty is engaging in sexual acts with another human of the same sex.
Love is a commitment to pursue the greatest good of the object of one's love, with the revealed person and will of God as one's core motivation and ethical framework.
Only those born of God can love (1 John 3:10-18; 4:7, 16, 19; 5:1-2; 2 John 6).
Essay
It's tempting to say, "I'm done," because, really, I am.
Our glandocentric, relativistic, pomo culture focuses exclusively on feeling. So it is being argued (without much of a response) that homosexual "marriage" is as valid as any other kind, because homosexuals can love just like anyone else. For instance, one utterly mixed-up voter in Maine gave us the full benefit of her 26-year-old wisdom thus: "They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love." Armed with this "reasoning," she voted for forcing all the citizens of Maine to redefine repeated acts of sexual perversion as "marriage." So agree the great sages of The Intrawebs.
In response, Christians tend to get into that mud-pit and try to wrestle, or they just ignore the argument.
I have this novel notion that Christians need to be Christians. Believe what we believe, and do it both out loud and without simpering or temporizing.
No, as a matter of fact, homosexuals cannot love. Because
- Only Christians can love, and the embrace and practice of homosexuality marks one as a non-Christian.
- Nobody committed to pursing the highest good of the one he loves would seek to involve him or her in that which will surely destroy him as a human being, and drag him down to Hell, where he will suffer the wrath of God for all eternity.
Now, note: I am not saying that homosexuals do not say that they love. I am not saying that homosexuals can't have warm, fond feelings for each other, nor passionate feelings. Nor, for that matter, am I saying that people who engage in bestiality nor pederasty never have such feelings for the objects of their perverse desire.Nor, for that matter, that the man or woman who "sleeps around" may not have such feelings, and call such feelings "love."
It's just not love. By definition, it can't be.
This takes us right to the heart of why Christians are and always will be hated. People who would be infuriated by my argument may themselves not be slaves to these particular perverse desires. But they would insist on this: they should be free to pursue their heart's desires without criticism or interference, no matter where that pursuit takes them.
This is The Gospel According to Hollywood, and it's the most popular Gospel there is. Follow your heart. Your heart is never wrong. You must do what is in your heart.
Who could possibly stand against such a message?
Answer: the infinite-personal, transcendent, immutable God of Scripture.
That is why, even if we do not propose a single law nor a single penalty, just by virtue of believing what we believe, Christians are often so hated. We stand on the other side of the "You shall be as God" sales-line.
We know that in fact our heart can and usually does steer us wrong. That is why we — every one of us, no exceptions — need a new heart. It is why, as Jesus says, we need to be born again, so that our heart that hates God and refuses to submit to His law can be given new life as a gift, and re-created into a heart that loves God, believes Him, and flees from sin to embrace His will.
None of that happens by our re-defining sin. I can redefine a baseball bat as a pillow, but if you hit me in the head with it, I'm still eating dirt.
Redefining the perversion of sin as anything else simply tightens the chains on its captives. Only the power of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ truly frees us.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Ah, Britain; against the law to say homosexuality is a sin?
My distant (very distant, geographically speaking) pastor friend Gary Benfold alerts us to this chilling interchange:
Gary knows Andy, says he's a humble, genuine Christian man with a very challenging ministry.
It would be interesting to ask President Perversity-Pretense-and-Mutilation Pride what he thinks of this exchange.
Gary knows Andy, says he's a humble, genuine Christian man with a very challenging ministry.
It would be interesting to ask President Perversity-Pretense-and-Mutilation Pride what he thinks of this exchange.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Homosexual unions: discussion of a proposal
Two Pepperdine professors from opposite sides of Proposition 8 argue that the state should have no more involvement in marriage than it 
does in bar mitzvah's or baptisms. Which is to say, none. Instead, the state should "give gay [sic] and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union - anything, really, other than marriage." If they want, the happy couple (triplet? sextuplet?) could then go to a church (or other religious institution) and have a ceremony.
The "civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples."
I've heard some Christians float ideas like this, as a way to slice the Gordian knot. I can see the appeal; marriage was invented by God and should be sacred, should be guarded and kept holy. the state doesn't do that. The church should.
But here are some of the problems, as I see them:
does in bar mitzvah's or baptisms. Which is to say, none. Instead, the state should "give gay [sic] and straight couples alike the same license, a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a civil union - anything, really, other than marriage." If they want, the happy couple (triplet? sextuplet?) could then go to a church (or other religious institution) and have a ceremony.The "civil-union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states and in federal law for married couples."
I've heard some Christians float ideas like this, as a way to slice the Gordian knot. I can see the appeal; marriage was invented by God and should be sacred, should be guarded and kept holy. the state doesn't do that. The church should.
But here are some of the problems, as I see them:
- The homosexual lobby is not only concerned with robbing rights and standing that should not accrue to their particular perversion; their goal is to force societal approval of that perversion. The label matters to them.
- On the other side are those who are "against not just gay [sic] marriage but also gay [sic] couples - and especially against government sanctioning of those relationships, no matter what they are called."
- If the government does give false sanction to this particular perversion, then
private citizens will be forced to approve of it as well. Private business owners will be forced to recognize first that perversion as equivalent to marriage, and then whatever else is queued up after it. - Though homosexual activists swear up and down they have no intention of targeting churches — show of hands: how many believe them? Oh, I'm surprised, I do actually see a hand or two. So now, remember the death threats and raging specifically against Mormons for daring to support Proposition 8. How many hands now? Right.
Monday, December 29, 2008
If Melissa Etheridge is to be believed, Rick Warren apparently...
...saw his meeting with her as something other than an opportunity to point her to Jesus.
In case you don't know, Melissa Etheridge is yet another performer who sees herself as heroic for having yielded herself to degrading passions, and as a martyr for not having succeeded in forcing everyone to approve of her perversion... yet.
If she is to be believed, Warren used his encounter with her mainly to try to make her like him, Rick Warren. Warren assured her that he's a fan, he affirms equal rights for gays, he's conflicted, he's sorry for what he said about her perversion... you know, talking about her perversion like it's a perversion or something.
Now, just in case I'm ever considered for such a situation, I don't want the "against" case to be unnecessarily weak. So let me be plain: I do unhesitatingly mention homosexuality and "gay"
"marriage" in the same breath as pederasty and bestiality. Ethically, it's a "duh."
Homosexual advocates hate this argument because it's irrefutable: if you redefine "marriage" to include two same-sexers indulging in serial perversion, there is no rational, consistent case to be made against any redefinition of marriage, including incest, polygamy, a man and five women (or men or goats) — or a man and his favorite five-iron.
Here's the whole problem with the Etheridge-mindset. They want to exclude practicing Christians from public life, while denying that that is what they're doing. They're not opposed to Christianity, they say; they're opposed to homophobia — that undefined word that ends up working out to mean "admitting out loud that homosexuality is always and definitionally immoral."
They just don't get the difference between worshiping God and trying to be God. If you're opting for the latter, then of course they're right. Anything goes, literally anything. Define perversion as morality, sum up 2+2 as 2304985 - whatever. You're God. You get to call it. It's a perk.
But if there is an infinite-personal God, He gets to do the defining. And He defines homosexuality, bestiality, rape, and such things as always and everywhere immoral, no matter how much the perp "feels in his heart of hearts" that it is the right thing to do. Because if there is such a God, then it is He, and not mankind, who is the measure of all things.
So, while I'm waxing prolix, I'll anticipate the snippy snipe certain types would want to throw at me. "What would you have done, in Warren's shoes? Told Etheridge she
was going to Hell?"
I'll answer straight up — after one disclaimer.
Disclaimer: As I've often said, I do not equate my big talk from the safety of my keyboard with actual Daring Deeds Done. Talk is talk, action is action, the two are not synonyms. God knows I have failed and buckled and chickened-out far too often to feel proud and boasty about what a wonderful job I would have done if I were in ____'s shoes.
HSAT:
Straight-up answer: What I hope I would have done is seen it as maybe the only time Melissa Etheridge has been in the same room / on the same line as a preacher of the Gospel, ever. What I hope I would have done is told her that she and I are in the same boat. We're sinners, lost and hopeless. Her sin-of-choice is a sexual perversion; but I've played host (even if only mentally) to enough sinful passions and schemes to send me to the deepest Hell forever and ever, justly and righteously. We are different peas from the same pod.
I hope I would have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus, the whole package. That I believed He was who He said He was - God in human flesh, come to save sinners like her and me. That I believed He was right in affirming the Word of God that condemns her darling passions as surely as it condemns mine.
Further, I hope I'd have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus was truthful in say
ing that He was the way, the truth and the life, and that no one could have a relationship with the Father except through Him. That the only hope and chance for her and me is that Jesus pays for our sins, and secures forgiveness and hope and deliverance for us.
And finally I hope I'd have told her that, believing in Jesus as I do, I take his word as non-negotiable. That if He said homosexuality was fine, I would too. But since He says murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery and such things are sinful, so must I. Because I believe Jesus, and He's Lord. Not me.
And because being a Christian isn't a process of negotiation.
That's what I hope I would have said.
And I think Warren, had he been more concerned about her soul than his popularity, might have said something like that.
If she's reporting the conversation accurately.
In case you don't know, Melissa Etheridge is yet another performer who sees herself as heroic for having yielded herself to degrading passions, and as a martyr for not having succeeded in forcing everyone to approve of her perversion... yet.
If she is to be believed, Warren used his encounter with her mainly to try to make her like him, Rick Warren. Warren assured her that he's a fan, he affirms equal rights for gays, he's conflicted, he's sorry for what he said about her perversion... you know, talking about her perversion like it's a perversion or something.
Now, just in case I'm ever considered for such a situation, I don't want the "against" case to be unnecessarily weak. So let me be plain: I do unhesitatingly mention homosexuality and "gay"
"marriage" in the same breath as pederasty and bestiality. Ethically, it's a "duh."Homosexual advocates hate this argument because it's irrefutable: if you redefine "marriage" to include two same-sexers indulging in serial perversion, there is no rational, consistent case to be made against any redefinition of marriage, including incest, polygamy, a man and five women (or men or goats) — or a man and his favorite five-iron.
Here's the whole problem with the Etheridge-mindset. They want to exclude practicing Christians from public life, while denying that that is what they're doing. They're not opposed to Christianity, they say; they're opposed to homophobia — that undefined word that ends up working out to mean "admitting out loud that homosexuality is always and definitionally immoral."
They just don't get the difference between worshiping God and trying to be God. If you're opting for the latter, then of course they're right. Anything goes, literally anything. Define perversion as morality, sum up 2+2 as 2304985 - whatever. You're God. You get to call it. It's a perk.
But if there is an infinite-personal God, He gets to do the defining. And He defines homosexuality, bestiality, rape, and such things as always and everywhere immoral, no matter how much the perp "feels in his heart of hearts" that it is the right thing to do. Because if there is such a God, then it is He, and not mankind, who is the measure of all things.
So, while I'm waxing prolix, I'll anticipate the snippy snipe certain types would want to throw at me. "What would you have done, in Warren's shoes? Told Etheridge she
was going to Hell?"I'll answer straight up — after one disclaimer.
Disclaimer: As I've often said, I do not equate my big talk from the safety of my keyboard with actual Daring Deeds Done. Talk is talk, action is action, the two are not synonyms. God knows I have failed and buckled and chickened-out far too often to feel proud and boasty about what a wonderful job I would have done if I were in ____'s shoes.
HSAT:
Straight-up answer: What I hope I would have done is seen it as maybe the only time Melissa Etheridge has been in the same room / on the same line as a preacher of the Gospel, ever. What I hope I would have done is told her that she and I are in the same boat. We're sinners, lost and hopeless. Her sin-of-choice is a sexual perversion; but I've played host (even if only mentally) to enough sinful passions and schemes to send me to the deepest Hell forever and ever, justly and righteously. We are different peas from the same pod.
I hope I would have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus, the whole package. That I believed He was who He said He was - God in human flesh, come to save sinners like her and me. That I believed He was right in affirming the Word of God that condemns her darling passions as surely as it condemns mine.
Further, I hope I'd have told Etheridge that I believed Jesus was truthful in say
ing that He was the way, the truth and the life, and that no one could have a relationship with the Father except through Him. That the only hope and chance for her and me is that Jesus pays for our sins, and secures forgiveness and hope and deliverance for us.And finally I hope I'd have told her that, believing in Jesus as I do, I take his word as non-negotiable. That if He said homosexuality was fine, I would too. But since He says murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery and such things are sinful, so must I. Because I believe Jesus, and He's Lord. Not me.
And because being a Christian isn't a process of negotiation.
That's what I hope I would have said.
And I think Warren, had he been more concerned about her soul than his popularity, might have said something like that.
If she's reporting the conversation accurately.
Monday, December 01, 2008
"Gay" "marriage": a parable
One day a man woke up and decided he'd had enough. Things would have to change.
He was bone-weary of discrimination and shame and reproach. The way he could feel people looking at him, mocking him — sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The way people talked about him, about people like him. The sneering, caricatured representations in movies. Everywhere, the pressure, the rejection — singling him out as a second-class citizen, as substandard, as (at best) silly and ridiculous, or (at worst) weak and deficient. Not good enough.
But it was all ignorance and lies. He was born this way. God made him the way he was. He could never recall a time when he was any different. And no one had a right to say it was wrong.
He'd tried to change, and his efforts had always failed. So, early in life, he'd accepted the way he was. He'd told his parents and friends that he was what he was, and they must accept him as such. Stop pressing him to change. The way he lived was natural to him, and he wasn't going to spend his life in misery and guilt trying to change something he not only was powerless to change, but had no real reason to change.
So, now fed up, he found ways to take legal action, and political
action. He formed PACs and organizations. It took years, and money, and a lot of hard work. But finally he had success.
Victory came the year that his state's legislature passed, and the Supreme Court upheld, the "Bariatric Freedom Act." It was now there, set in law: anyone weighing under four thousand pounds must be called "thin," and must be protected from all forms of discrimination.
The ramifications were instantaneous, and widespread.
Medical research was funded for the purpose of proving that all weight-ranges were equally healthy. What were formerly viewed as health-risk factors were attributed to negative societal pressure and stereotyping. Medical groups redefined their weight charts and standards to accommodate and approve all weight-ranges equally.
Clothing stores were required by law to carry shirts in sizes up to 10X, pants in sizes up to 125 waist, 27 inseam, and dresses up to size 75. It became illegal for WalMart, Kmart, or any other store, to charge more for "extra" sizes, since that category was rendered illegal. Any clothiers with terms like "big" and "large" in their titles found themselves
athwart the law, with all people now legally "thin." Thousands of small clothing stores went out of business in the first year, and department stores took to selling only one pattern, since the size-range took up their entire department. (Then the government took over the clothing industry.)
Businesses who used visual ads were required by law to prove that they employed models of every weight-range equally. Alternately, they were permitted to hire "blind," using a number system, contracting models sight-unseen. Gyms were required to install equipment equally accommodating every weight; their instructors were required to tell every customer that he was at his perfect weight, and shouldn't change. (The government took over that industry after three months.) Body-building competitions were required completely to rewrite their criteria, and closed down after one month.
Surgeons who performed liposuction and other plastic surgeries were required to document recommending lipo-insertion surgery to patients who weighed under 4000 pounds.
Airlines were required to install an equal amount of roomy, extra-size seats. This cut the amount of tickets they could sell per flight by 50%. They were also prohibited from raising prices to compensate. When every airline declared bankruptcy the following week, the government took over the airlines. Inter-state travel ground to a halt.
Movie studios became vulnerable to lawsuits if their products contained language or materials discriminatory to "alternative bodystyles." Movies and TV shows went into production portraying the "ample" lifestyle as healthy, happy, normal and desirable.
Gymnastic and other sports events were required to issue "weight-suits" to the competitors, bringing their body-weight up to the national average. Ratings plummeted, and eventually the events were taken over and hosted exclusively by foreign nations. Athletes emigrated en masse.
The automotive industry was required to manufacture cars that accommodated any size driver. (After a month, the government took over that industry as well.) Restaurants had to retool all chair-to-table ratios, to make sure all diners could fit comfortably. Charging extra for "super-sized" meals was prohibited.
Anyone telling a "fat-joke," or in any way making an "alternatively bodied" individual feel bad about his profile, could be found guilty of a hate-crime. Social workers were authorized to do a family profile, to mandate sensitivity re-education, and even to take custody of children, if any child was found taunting other children because of their weight.
Girls (or men) who declined invitations to dates could be sued and forced to prove that weight played no factor in their decision.
Publishers were required to recall and edit dictionaries so as to redefine "fat" and related terms, to accommodate the new, legally-enforced mindset. Schools were required to include instruction highlighting the positive contributions of plus-size Americans. "Orson Wells Day" became a school holiday.
Nor were churches left unaffected. Government standards were created for pew-to-pew and row ratios, so that any congregant could fit comfortably in the seat of his or her choice. Any sermon touching on subjects such as self-control or moderation could be sent in for legal review, to be sure they weren't perceived to contain hate-speech against alternative bodystyles.
All this came to pass because one man asked, "What gives them the right to call me 'fat'?"
After a year under the new state of legislation, that man was enjoying a government-run buffet with a friend. His friend lamented that he wasn't having as much luck with girls as his formerly-"fat" friend.
The large man shrugged as he reached for his seventh dessert. "Maybe it's because you're bald."
"'Bald'?" the man frowned, putting down his fork.
He was bone-weary of discrimination and shame and reproach. The way he could feel people looking at him, mocking him — sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The way people talked about him, about people like him. The sneering, caricatured representations in movies. Everywhere, the pressure, the rejection — singling him out as a second-class citizen, as substandard, as (at best) silly and ridiculous, or (at worst) weak and deficient. Not good enough.
But it was all ignorance and lies. He was born this way. God made him the way he was. He could never recall a time when he was any different. And no one had a right to say it was wrong.
He'd tried to change, and his efforts had always failed. So, early in life, he'd accepted the way he was. He'd told his parents and friends that he was what he was, and they must accept him as such. Stop pressing him to change. The way he lived was natural to him, and he wasn't going to spend his life in misery and guilt trying to change something he not only was powerless to change, but had no real reason to change.
So, now fed up, he found ways to take legal action, and political
action. He formed PACs and organizations. It took years, and money, and a lot of hard work. But finally he had success.Victory came the year that his state's legislature passed, and the Supreme Court upheld, the "Bariatric Freedom Act." It was now there, set in law: anyone weighing under four thousand pounds must be called "thin," and must be protected from all forms of discrimination.
The ramifications were instantaneous, and widespread.
Medical research was funded for the purpose of proving that all weight-ranges were equally healthy. What were formerly viewed as health-risk factors were attributed to negative societal pressure and stereotyping. Medical groups redefined their weight charts and standards to accommodate and approve all weight-ranges equally.
Clothing stores were required by law to carry shirts in sizes up to 10X, pants in sizes up to 125 waist, 27 inseam, and dresses up to size 75. It became illegal for WalMart, Kmart, or any other store, to charge more for "extra" sizes, since that category was rendered illegal. Any clothiers with terms like "big" and "large" in their titles found themselves
athwart the law, with all people now legally "thin." Thousands of small clothing stores went out of business in the first year, and department stores took to selling only one pattern, since the size-range took up their entire department. (Then the government took over the clothing industry.)Businesses who used visual ads were required by law to prove that they employed models of every weight-range equally. Alternately, they were permitted to hire "blind," using a number system, contracting models sight-unseen. Gyms were required to install equipment equally accommodating every weight; their instructors were required to tell every customer that he was at his perfect weight, and shouldn't change. (The government took over that industry after three months.) Body-building competitions were required completely to rewrite their criteria, and closed down after one month.
Surgeons who performed liposuction and other plastic surgeries were required to document recommending lipo-insertion surgery to patients who weighed under 4000 pounds.
Airlines were required to install an equal amount of roomy, extra-size seats. This cut the amount of tickets they could sell per flight by 50%. They were also prohibited from raising prices to compensate. When every airline declared bankruptcy the following week, the government took over the airlines. Inter-state travel ground to a halt.
Movie studios became vulnerable to lawsuits if their products contained language or materials discriminatory to "alternative bodystyles." Movies and TV shows went into production portraying the "ample" lifestyle as healthy, happy, normal and desirable.
Gymnastic and other sports events were required to issue "weight-suits" to the competitors, bringing their body-weight up to the national average. Ratings plummeted, and eventually the events were taken over and hosted exclusively by foreign nations. Athletes emigrated en masse.
The automotive industry was required to manufacture cars that accommodated any size driver. (After a month, the government took over that industry as well.) Restaurants had to retool all chair-to-table ratios, to make sure all diners could fit comfortably. Charging extra for "super-sized" meals was prohibited.Anyone telling a "fat-joke," or in any way making an "alternatively bodied" individual feel bad about his profile, could be found guilty of a hate-crime. Social workers were authorized to do a family profile, to mandate sensitivity re-education, and even to take custody of children, if any child was found taunting other children because of their weight.
Girls (or men) who declined invitations to dates could be sued and forced to prove that weight played no factor in their decision.
Publishers were required to recall and edit dictionaries so as to redefine "fat" and related terms, to accommodate the new, legally-enforced mindset. Schools were required to include instruction highlighting the positive contributions of plus-size Americans. "Orson Wells Day" became a school holiday.
Nor were churches left unaffected. Government standards were created for pew-to-pew and row ratios, so that any congregant could fit comfortably in the seat of his or her choice. Any sermon touching on subjects such as self-control or moderation could be sent in for legal review, to be sure they weren't perceived to contain hate-speech against alternative bodystyles.
All this came to pass because one man asked, "What gives them the right to call me 'fat'?"
After a year under the new state of legislation, that man was enjoying a government-run buffet with a friend. His friend lamented that he wasn't having as much luck with girls as his formerly-"fat" friend.
The large man shrugged as he reached for his seventh dessert. "Maybe it's because you're bald."
"'Bald'?" the man frowned, putting down his fork.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
People worth patronizing: Prop 8 supporters
The poor souls who are trying to redefine a circle as a square... er, I mean repeated sodomy as "marriage"... are publishing high-dollar supporters of Proposition 8 for boycotting. Towards that end, they're publishing lists of financial supporters.
So, it seems to me, these are perfectly fine lists of businesses to patronize!
Here's one.
What's odd is that I know a local eatery named Leatherby's supported Pro 8 financially, and has been targeted. But I can't find it on any of the lists. (Let me know if you see it.)
Regardless, we plan to go out of our way and enjoy some of their fare.
Michelle Malkin offers some ironic observations about how conservatives deal with loss, versus the make-me-feel-better-about-my-perversion crowd.
So, it seems to me, these are perfectly fine lists of businesses to patronize!
Here's one.
What's odd is that I know a local eatery named Leatherby's supported Pro 8 financially, and has been targeted. But I can't find it on any of the lists. (Let me know if you see it.)
Regardless, we plan to go out of our way and enjoy some of their fare.
Michelle Malkin offers some ironic observations about how conservatives deal with loss, versus the make-me-feel-better-about-my-perversion crowd.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Next stop down the slope: incestuous "marriage"
Over the years I've observed that those who are selling the sleds despise "slippery slope" arguments. They despise them most when they're vivid, accurate, and alarming.
For instance, when folks like Jack Rogers and other "evangelicals" of the Fuller Seminary ilk more formally assaulted the Biblical doctrine of the inerrrancy of Scripture, Harold Lindsell and a host of others argued that a host of doctrinal and practical perversions would necessarily follow. The earlier champions of an unreliable Bible scoffed. History has proven the scoffers to be fools.
Now, with the heretofore unimaginable advent of "gay" "marriage," we critics have once again peered down the slope, and again described what we saw coming. If two men indulging perverse sexual practices together can be legitimatized with any legal status ("domestic partners"), it can also eventually be called "marriage." If it can be called "marriage," then no other sexual practice can be ruled out. Incest is the most likely successor, followed perhaps by pederasty and bestiality.
Peddlers of sleds for this particular slope scoffed, predictably. They hated the argument. They hated it because there was no counter, and it was so damning.
Now comes the case of brother and sister Allen and Patricia Muth, whose sexual relationship produced four children. They were roundly condemned by Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher, and thrown into prison, their parental rights repealed.
But that was 1997. A lot has changed since then. Allen is appealing his conviction, on the basis of -- you guessed it -- the legal recognition of the validity of homosexual relations. Read about it in the great Jeff Jacoby's Trying to outrun Lawrence.
Every step away from God is a progressively ugly one. That reality is spelled out in Romans 1:18-32, to say nothing of the entire Old Testament. Yet professing Christians don't seem to get this message today, as they repeatedly "improve" on what God says about Christian living and thinking, marriage, church, and child-training.
If they don't get it, one can hardly expect non-Christians to get it.
But if we don't make the case, if we don't describe the slope and warn against heading down it (Proverbs 10:11; 11:9, 11; 24:11-12), who will?
For instance, when folks like Jack Rogers and other "evangelicals" of the Fuller Seminary ilk more formally assaulted the Biblical doctrine of the inerrrancy of Scripture, Harold Lindsell and a host of others argued that a host of doctrinal and practical perversions would necessarily follow. The earlier champions of an unreliable Bible scoffed. History has proven the scoffers to be fools.
Now, with the heretofore unimaginable advent of "gay" "marriage," we critics have once again peered down the slope, and again described what we saw coming. If two men indulging perverse sexual practices together can be legitimatized with any legal status ("domestic partners"), it can also eventually be called "marriage." If it can be called "marriage," then no other sexual practice can be ruled out. Incest is the most likely successor, followed perhaps by pederasty and bestiality.
Peddlers of sleds for this particular slope scoffed, predictably. They hated the argument. They hated it because there was no counter, and it was so damning.
Now comes the case of brother and sister Allen and Patricia Muth, whose sexual relationship produced four children. They were roundly condemned by Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher, and thrown into prison, their parental rights repealed.
But that was 1997. A lot has changed since then. Allen is appealing his conviction, on the basis of -- you guessed it -- the legal recognition of the validity of homosexual relations. Read about it in the great Jeff Jacoby's Trying to outrun Lawrence.
Every step away from God is a progressively ugly one. That reality is spelled out in Romans 1:18-32, to say nothing of the entire Old Testament. Yet professing Christians don't seem to get this message today, as they repeatedly "improve" on what God says about Christian living and thinking, marriage, church, and child-training.
If they don't get it, one can hardly expect non-Christians to get it.
But if we don't make the case, if we don't describe the slope and warn against heading down it (Proverbs 10:11; 11:9, 11; 24:11-12), who will?
Thursday, February 24, 2005
The Gannon/Guckert "scandal": a golden opportunity
I hope President Bush is reading his Bible these days. If so, here's praying that he attends closely to Proverbs 21:22 --
So surely they would fully support such an effort. Right?
Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.
UPDATE: I see gratefully that Jeff Gannon noted the thoughts offered here, as did Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. Kincaid correctly observes that sending out my proposed questionnaire would not be the equivalent of what was done to Gannon. In that case, the reporters would have the opportunity of volunteering the requested information. In Gannon's, his trashcans were pillaged (so to speak), and his family reportedly was harrassed, in a targeted search for scandalous material.
UPDATE II: Cliff Kincaid has another fine essay putting the accusations against Gannon into perspective.
A wise man scales the city of the mighty
and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.
Since Democratic leadership joins call for Gannon inquiry, and various other liberal sources keep expressing outrage that an uncredentialed and politically-motivated individual could actually break into the hallowed ranks of the White House presstitute corpse [double sic on myself], I think the Bush administration should pull a deft Judo move.
They should propose performing the exact same investigation on all WH reporters. Send out a questionnaire that reflects the matters that find them in such breathless anxiety when it comes to Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. To wit:
- Ask if any reporter is a homosexual.
- Ask if any has ever exchanged sex for anything.
- Ask them to list all web sites with which they have ever had any involvement.
- Review all of their questions and articles for any bias, agenda, or tendentiousness.
- Ask for a list of all political associations, involvements, activities, financial giving.
- Once step five is completed, the same investigation must be performed on the organizations that employ them.
- Report the results.
So surely they would fully support such an effort. Right?
Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.
UPDATE: I see gratefully that Jeff Gannon noted the thoughts offered here, as did Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. Kincaid correctly observes that sending out my proposed questionnaire would not be the equivalent of what was done to Gannon. In that case, the reporters would have the opportunity of volunteering the requested information. In Gannon's, his trashcans were pillaged (so to speak), and his family reportedly was harrassed, in a targeted search for scandalous material.
UPDATE II: Cliff Kincaid has another fine essay putting the accusations against Gannon into perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
