The Myth of Tolerance; or A Nation of Children

When was the last time you heard anyone on TV hollering about “tolerance”?  You do not hear many calls for “tolerance” for this sort of person or that sort of person anymore, do you?  To the contrary, the 1990s and early 2000s are over and there is a new political narrative in this country to talk about.  Let’s go over some events of the past twelve months:

1) December 2013: Duck Dynasty Controversy (with commentary)

2) April 2014: Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire | Reuters

Someone from the SFist blog reported on the matter at http://sfist.com/2014/04/03/mozillas_anti-gay_ceo_brendan_eich.php partly as follows:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla's anti-gay CEO, made the right decision to step down today. He will resign as CEO of the for-profit Mozilla Corporation as well as a board member of the nonprofit Mozilla foundation.

A comment on this last piece: undoubtedly its author, Brock Keeling, has the well-being of Mozilla in mind when he speaks of the “right decision.”  OkCupid’s opposition to Mozilla’s erswhile CEO obviously would have led to job layoffs at Mozilla and in turn led to a condition of hundreds of miserable, starving children of unemployed former employees of Mozilla if Brendan Eich had not stepped down.

3) April 2014: Magic Johnson on Donald Sterling: "He Shouldn't Have a Team Anymore" | Mother Jones:

“There’s no place in our society for it, and there’s no place in our league. We all get along. We all play with different races of people when you're in sports. That's what makes sports so beautiful. He’s put his own team in a tough situation. So I believe that once Commissioner Silver...does all his due diligence, gets all the information gathered, he’s got to come down hard. He shouldn’t own a team anymore. And he should stand up and say, ‘I don’t want to own a team anymore.’ Especially when you have African Americans renting his apartments, coming to the games, playing for him, coaching for him. This is bad for everybody. This is bad for America.

(...)

He's got to give up the team. If he doesn't like African Americans and you're in a league that is over 75% African Americans...When you've got the president of the United States saying that this is bad. You've got fans around the country—different races of people—saying it's bad, it is time for him to exit.”

“No place in our society”?  Even if your White next-door neighbor and his wife have regular, private discussions among themselves about how they think your new Black neighbors down the street have brought down property values in your neighborhood, how is that per se affecting (to say nothing of harming) Magic Johnson or any other Black person?  Meanwhile, Sterling is right about one thing in life: government has no legal right (except in extraordinary circumstances) to force anyone to sell his or her property.  Contrary to Magic Johnson’s assessment of the matter, Sterling does not have to give up anything, unless “got to give up the team” means I want Donald Sterling to give up the team.

4) May 2014: More recently the news broke concerning HGTV’s decision to render the Benham Brothers relatively jobless: CP | Believers Rally After HGTV Cancels Reality Show Starring Christian Twin Brothers Who Oppose Abortion, Homosexuality, Divorce.  This continuation of a trend, as it turns out, was only the first chapter of a larger story: SunTrust Banks recently broke financial ties with the Benham brothers, before quickly reversing their decision in a manner much like that of the Duck Dynasty incident:  CP | SunTrust Banks Reverses Decision to Drop Benham Brothers Following Strong Backlash From Conservative Customers.

5) May 2014: This last one dawned on me after Thursday, May 15 when for various reasons I had to sit and endure the audio of the Katie Couric Show.  “The Week That Was” was a guest-panel segment that ran on Thursday instead of Friday this time around, and one of the life lessons to be learned of the segment is that “sensitivity training” for Don Jones is a good thing: Michael Sam Kiss Cam & Donald Sterling Controversy – Katie Couric.  The background story is here: Miami Dolphins Fine, Suspend Safety Don Jones for Tweet Against Same-Sex Kiss | Christian News Network.

Never forget that training and education are two different things.  Training is what you do to your muscles and muscle groups.  Training is what you do to ensure that your brain recalls certain actions in a proper sequence.  Training is what you do to force certain results of different systems of the human body.  Education, on the other hand, is what you offer to intelligent beings such that they should make an informed decision on what course of action to take, whether right or wrong.  So if anyone thinks that “brainwashing” is a bad thing, then he should know that sensitivity training is no different and know that there are people in the Western World who approve of brainwashing.

---

Even before all this there was the whole matter of the Chick-Fil-A boycott of 2012, not to mention the continued trend of pseudo-obligatory apologies in national American politics.  What all of this suggests is the sum of two possibilities.  On the one hand, it could be that all the people who rhetorically and by propaganda used to beat people over the head to make them “tolerant” of Arabs, or non-Whites, or homosexuals as such were never interested in global tolerance but only particular tolerance--you know, the kind of Tolerance® that they want people to have or, in other words, tolerance for me but not for thee.  On the other hand, it could be that many of today’s liberals are simply hypocrites or children who forget that tolerance in general means exactly that: that people who believe in general tolerance are not exempt from the requirement to put up with people, deeds and beliefs that they do not like.

And let no one attempt to redefine what these people earlier meant in the use of the word “tolerance.”  For it is clear that in yesteryear “tolerance” meant more than simply restraining an urge to beat gay passers-by with baseball bat, but rather precluded various actions such as demands that certain people be punished with a lack of employment.  Despite whatever the word “tolerance” once meant from the mouths of liberals and the Gay Lobby, what it is now is something that should be considered in the light of both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.  Orwell’s cautionary tales were not written for people who live on a planet other than Earth and they were not written precisely for people who already exist within a societies like communist Cuba or the Soviet Union; they were written because of the innate ability within each of us to morph into that which we used to hate and abhor.

Re: The Grammys and the Myth of Marriage Equality

HT: to whom you ought to know, by now:

The Grammys and the Myth of Marriage Equality

One comment: it is amazing how the pro-“marriage equality” crowd tends to have no concept of reductio ad absurdum when it comes to this pet issue of theirs.  For we have already seen both that sexual deviants are now calling for marriage equality of their own and that if the logic behind the gay variety of “marriage equality” is merely taken to its logical conclusion--what propositions are implied or entailed by it--then these other sexual deviants really should be allowed to marry as they will: marriages of thruples, siblings, first cousins, etc.  Bear in mind that the people who scoff at the slippery slope arguments are probably some of the same people who refer to “homophobic” beliefs or ideas as “toxic,” with the idea being that one’s merely having certain beliefs or teachings will surely lead to anti-gay violence, slurs, or denial of “rights.”

Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage

Jonathan Leeman over at The Gospel Coalition offers a great look at why those who are Christians cannot support something like same sex marriage (SSM). This post is for believers who should be faithful to the Bible.

To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32...
I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.
My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Be sure to read on:

More and more commentators are saying that we have passed the tipping point on same-sex marriage in the United States. Almost daily another politician or public figure stands before a microphone to declare his or her support. It feels like the dam has burst; the paradigm shifted.

Whether or not same sex marriage is a political fait accompli, I don't know. What concerns me in the present hour is the temptation among Christians to go with the flow. The assumption is that the nation no longer shares our morality, and that we must not impose our views on others and blur the line between church and state. Besides, we don't want to let any political cantankerousness get in the way of sharing the gospel, right? So we might as well throw in our lot. So the thinking goes.

How hard Christians should actively fight against same-sex marriage is a matter for wisdom. But that we must not support it, I would like to persuade you, is a matter of biblical principle. To vote for it, to legislate it, to rule in favor of it, to tell your friends at the office that you think it's just fine—all this is sin. To support it publicly or privately is to "give approval to those who practice" the very things that God promises to judge—exactly what we're told not to do in Romans 1:32.

Further, same-sex marriage embraces a definition of humanity that is less than human and a definition of love that is less than love. And it is not freedom from religion that the advocates of same-sex marriage want; they want to repress one religion in favor of another.

Christians must not go with the flow. They must instead love the advocates of same-sex marriage better than they love themselves precisely by refusing to endorse it.

I am saying this for the sake of you who are Christians, who affirm the authority of Scripture, who believe that homosexual activity is wrong, and who believe in the final judgment. I don't mean here to persuade anyone who does not share these convictions.

My goal in all of this is to encourage the church to be the church. What good is salt that loses it saltiness? Or what use is light under a bowl? Rather, blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Deeper Understanding of Humanity

I believe Voddie Baucham is exactly right to say that "gay is not the new black," and that we should not formally equate sexual orientation to ethnicity or sex as an essential component of personal identity. It is amazing to me that recent legal battles simply take this equation for granted without holding it up to the light and looking at it.

There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say "I am a homosexual" in the same way someone might say "I am a male" or "I am black." First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don't hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

All the talk about "equality" depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple's union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.

Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of "civil unions." Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.

Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.

It is more mature because Christianity begins with the frank admission that fallen human beings are corrupted all the way down, all the way in. A child assumes that all of his or her desires are legitimate. Adults, hopefully, know better. And a mature understanding of fallen humanity recognizes that our fallenness affects everything from our biology and body chemistry to our ambitions and life loves. Same-sex attraction is but one manifestation. This is why Christ commands us to go and die, and why we must be born again. We must become new creations, a process that begins at conversion and will be completed with his coming.

Also, the fact that Jesus is Lord means his authoritative claim on our lives reaches all the way down, all the way in. We have no right to stand before him and insist upon our definitions of masculinity, femininity, marriage, love, and sexuality. He gets to write the definitions, even when they go against our deepest desires and sense of self.

Rooted in biology or not, there is a difference between gender, ethnicity, and "orientation." Orientation consists primarily of—is lived out through—desire. And the fact that it involves desire means it is subject to moral evaluation in a way that "being male" or "being Asian" are not.

Here is what's often missed: neither the fact of the desire, nor its possible biological basis, gives it moral legitimacy. Don't mistake is for ought. We understand this quite well, for instance, when it comes to the behaviors associated with some forms of substance addiction or bipolar disorder. The biological component of these maladies certainly calls for compassion and reams of patience, but it does not make their attendant behaviors morally legitimate. To assume they do means treating human beings as just one more animal. No one morally condemns a leopard for acting instinctually. Yet shouldn't our moral calculations for human beings involve something more than assent to the biochemistry of desire? We are more than animals. We are souls and bodies. We are created in God's image. To legitimize homosexual desire simply because it's natural or biological, ironically, is to treat a person as less than human.

All of this is to say, Christianity not only offers a more mature concept of humanity, it offers a deeper concept. It says we are more than a composite of our desires, some of which are fallen, some of which are not.

Remarkably, Jesus says that our humanity goes deeper even than marriage and sex, and certainly deeper than fallen versions of them. He says that, in the resurrection, there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Marriage and sex, it appears, are two-dimensional shadows that point to the three-dimensional realities to come. A person's humanity and identity in no way finally depends on the shadows of marriage. Dare we deny the full humanity of Christ because he neither consummated a marriage nor fathered natural children? Indeed, wasn't the full humanity of this second Adam demonstrated through begetting a new humanity?

There is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's version of the human being. It is inhumane to morally evaluate people as if they are animals whose instincts define them.

And there is something inhumane about the homosexual lobby's quest for same-sex marriage. It is inhumane to call bad good, or wrong desires right. It is inhumane to equate a person with the fallen version of that person, as if God created us to be the fallen versions of ourselves. But this is exactly what same-sex marriage asks us to do. It asks us to publicly affirm the bad as good—to institutionalize the wrong as right.

Christianity says that we are not finally determined by ethnicity, sex, marriage, or even sinful desire. We are God-imagers and vice-rulers, tasked with showing the cosmos what God's triune justice, righteousness, and love are like. The Christian message to the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle is that we believe they are even more human than they believe.

Deeper Love

Christianity offers a more mature and deeper concept of love, too. Love is not fundamentally about a narrative of self-expression and self-realization. It is not about finding someone who "completes me," in which I assume that who "I am" is a given, and that you love "me" authentically only if you respect me exactly as I am, as if "I" is somehow sacred.

Christian love is not so naïve. It's much more mature (see 1 Cor. 13:11). It recognizes how broken people are, and it loves them in their very brokenness. It is given contrary to what people deserve. We feed and clothe and befriend them, even when they attack us. But then Christian love maturely invites people toward holiness. Through prayer and disciple-making, Christian love calls people to change—to repent. Christian love recognizes that our loved ones will know true joy only as they increasingly conform to the image of God, because God is love. This is why Jesus tells us that, if we love him, we will obey his commands, just like he loves the Father and so obeys the Father's commands.

Christian love is also deeper than love in our culture. It knows that true love was demonstrated best when Christ laid down his life for the church to make her holy, an act which the apostle Paul analogizes to the love of a husband and wife and the husband's call to wash his wife with the word (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:22-32). The Bible's central picture of gospel love is lost in same-sex marriage, just like it's lost when a husband cheats on his wife.

The progressive position might call the orthodox Christian position on gay marriage intolerant. But Christians must recognize that the progressive position is unloving and inhumane. And so we must love them more truly than they love themselves.

Public Square and Idolatrous Religion

What then shall we say about the public square? Shouldn't our understanding of the separation between church and state and religious freedom keep us from "imposing" our ideas upon others? Why would the church being the church affect our stance in the public square among the non-church?

What people can miss is the distinction between laws that criminalize an activity and laws that promote or incentivize an activity. The laws surrounding marriage belong to the latter category. The government gets involved in the marriage business—to the chagrin of libertarians—because it thinks it has some interest in protecting and promoting marriage. It sees that marriage contributes to the order, peace, and good of society at large. Therefore, it offers financial incentives for marriage, such as tax breaks or inheritance rights.

In other words, institutionalizing same-sex marriage does not merely make government neutral toward unrighteousness; it means the government is promoting and incentivizing unrighteousness. The 2003 Supreme Court decision to overturn laws that criminalized homosexual behavior, by contrast, need not be construed as a promotion or affirmation of homosexual behavior. The irony of the progressive position on same-sex marriage is that it cloaks its cause in the language of political neutrality, when really it is just the opposite. It is a positive affirmation of a brand of morality and the whole set of theological assumptions behind that morality.

To put this in biblical terms, institutionalizing same-sex marriage is nothing other than to "give approval to those who practice" the things that God's word condemns (Rom. 1:32). And behind this moral affirmation, Paul tells us, is the religious "exchanging of the immortal God for images" (Rom. 1:23). To establish same-sex marriage, in other words, is an utterly religious act, by virtue of being idolatrous.

For the Christian, therefore, the argument is pretty simple: God will judge all unrighteousness and idolatry. Therefore Christians should not publicly or privately endorse, incentivize, or promote unrighteousness and idolatry, which same-sex marriage does. God will judge such idolatry—even among those who don't believe in him.

God Will Judge the Nations

Let me explain further. Both the Old Testament and the New promise that God will judge the nations and their governments for departing from his own standard of righteousness and justice. The presidents and parliaments, voters and judges of the world are comprehensively accountable to him. There is no area of life somehow quarantined off from his evaluation.

Hence, he judged the people of Noah's day, Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh in Egypt, Sennacherib in Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, and the list goes on. Just read of his judgments against the nations in passages like Isaiah 13-19 or Jeremiah 46-52.

It's not surprising, therefore, that Psalm 96 and many other passages make the transnational, omni-partisan nature of God's judgment clear: "Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns.' . . . he will judge the peoples with equity" (Ps. 96:10; also Ps. 2; Jer. 10:6-10).

Does the same principle apply in the New Testament era? Yes. The governors of the world derive their authority from God and will be judged by God for how they use their authority: Caesar no less than Nebuchadnezzar; presidents no less than Pharaoh:

• Jesus tells Pilate that Pilate's authority comes from God (John 19).
• Paul describes the government as "God's servant" and an "agent" to bring God's justice (Rom. 13).
• Jesus is described as the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
• Kings, princes, and generals fear the wrath of the Lamb and hide from it (Rev. 6:15).
• The kings of the earth are indicted for committing adultery with Babylon the Great (Rev. 18:3).
• Christ will come with a sword "to strike down the nations" (Rev. 19:13), leaving the birds "to eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty" (v. 18).

God will judge all nations and governors. They are politically accountable to his standard of justice and righteousness, not to their own standards. To depart from God's righteousness and justice—for every government in the world, Old Testament and New—is to incur God's wrath. 

The fact that we live in a pluralistic nation in which many do not acknowledge the God of the Bible makes no difference to God. "Who is the Lord that I should obey him?" Pharaoh asked. The Lord demonstrated in short order precisely who he is. The fact that Americans believe a government governs "by the will of the people" makes no difference either. A Christian knows that true authority comes from God, and so he or she must never promote and incentivize unrighteousness, even if 99 percent of the electorate asks for it.

This does not mean that Christians should enact God's judgment against all forms of unrighteousness now, but it does mean that we Christians should not publicly or privately put our hands to anything God will judge on the last day. Yes, politics often involves compromise, and there are times when Christian voters or politicians will be forced to decide between a lesser of two evils. And for such occasions we trust God is merciful and understanding. Still, so far as we can help it, we must not vote for, rule for, or tell our friends at the office that we support unrighteousness.

Does this mean we can impose our faith upon non-Christians? No, but endorsing same-sex marriage is another kind of thing. To endorse it is to involve yourself in unrighteousness and false religion, and an unrighteousness that God promises to judge.

In fact, same-sex marriage itself is the act of wrongful governmental imposition. Martin Luther wrote, "For when any man does that for which he has not the previous authority or sanction of the Word of God, such conduct is not acceptable to God, and may be considered as either vain or useless." And God has never given human governments the authority to define marriage. He defined it in Genesis 2 and has not authorized anyone to redefine it. Any government that does is guilty of usurpation.

Since same-sex marriage is effectively grounded in idolatrous religion (see Rom. 1:23, 32), its institutionalization represents nothing more or less than the progressive position's imposition of idolatrous religion upon the rest of us.

I am not telling Christians how many resources they should expend in fighting false gods in the public square, but I am saying that you must not join together with those gods. There is no neutral ground here.

Embrace and Stand Fast

Churches should embrace their brothers and sisters who struggle with same-sex attraction, just like they should embrace all repentant sinners.

And churches should stand fast on deeper, more biblical conceptions of love by loving the advocates of same-sex marriage more truly than they love themselves. We do this by insisting on the sweet and life-giving nature of God's truth and holiness.

In our present cultural context, Christian love will prove costly to Christians and churches. Even if you recognize the Bible calls homosexuality sin, but you (wrongly) support same-sex marriage, your stance on homosexuality will offend. A people's strongest desires—the desires they refuse to let go of—reveals their worship. To condemn sexual freedom in America today is to condemn one of the nation's favorite altars of worship. And will they not fight for their gods? Will they not excommunicate all heretics?

But even while Scripture promises short-term persecution for the church, it also, strangely and simultaneously, points to long-term praise: "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12). I'm not sure how to explain that, but I trust it.

Three More Thoughts on the Gay Marriage Debate

Pastor Kevin DeYoung offers some good thoughts and deals with some "compromises" some suggest in light of the SSM discussion. DB

I don’t intend to write on this every week, but the controversy is not going away and Christians need to be engaged, so perhaps a few reflections every now and then may prove helpful. Since last week’s post, I’ve been thinking about three more questions Christians may be asking.

1. Why don’t we just separate the religious and civil dimensions of marriage? The premise behind the question sounds promising at first. “Let the state do whatever it wants with marriage. The government can have its own licensing arrangement and the church can solemnize whatever unions it chooses. Won’t things be simpler if we let each institution do what it wants?” Well, on one level we already have this arrangement. Churches can hold all sorts of ceremonies. Your pastor can “marry” a dog to a cat or perform a commitment ceremony between a rock and a tree. The government doesn’t care, but it won’t give you a license and it won’t call it marriage. If the church wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, the government won’t object, but that doesn’t look like Christian conviction, or even compromise, more like total capitulation.

Then, someone may ask, why not take government of the marriage equation and leave it up to individual worshiping communities to decide whom they will marry and what constitutes marriage? Even if our politicians were entertaining such a notion (which they’re not), it would be utterly impossible and completely undesirable. No-marriage is worse than messed-up-marriage. From taxes to estates to child custody, the state has a vested interest in overseeing the legality of marriage. They will not give that up, and it would be an unholy mess if they did. Imagine the chaos if every church or synagogue or mosque handled marriage on its own. Eight people playing cards every Friday would call themselves a church, ordain someone as a minister, and start doing marriages on the side. Hormonal teens with a conscience about sex before marriage would quickly get married one night so they would no longer have to “burn with passion.” Child custody would often be a nightmare. Divorce would be easier than ever. Everything that marriage is supposed to protect and promote would be undermined. We need some institution that is nationally recognized and has the means to enforce its own laws? Whether we like it or not, that institution in the modern world is the state.

2. As long as we, as Christians, can have our view of marriage, what’s the big deal if the government allows for other kinds of marriage? Again, the question hints at an attractive ideal. “Let’s call a truce on this culture war stuff. The world will define marriage one way and we will define marriage according to the Bible. The state has to be neutral, right? People just want Christians to be tolerant of other views and other ideas on marriage. Where’s the danger in that?” The problem is that all the cultural arguments for “tolerating” gay marriage are not-so-thinly veiled arguments against the supposed bigotry of those who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage. What do you think the equal signs all over Facebook mean? They make a moral argument: those who oppose gay marriage are uncivil, unsocial, undemocratic, un-American, and probably inhumane.

If you believe homosexual behavior is wrong and gay marriage is a contradiction in terms, you are fast becoming, in the public eye, not simply benighted but positively reprehensible, like the last slave owner who refuses to get on the right side of history. I understand that Christians tire of the culture war, but it’s not a battle we started, and if (when?) we lose the debate on homosexuality we will lose much more than the gurus of tolerance let on. David S. Crawford is right:

The tolerance that really is proffered is provisional and contingent, tailored to accommodate what is conceived as a significant but shrinking segment of society that holds a publically unacceptable private bigotry. Where over time it emerges that this bigotry has not in fact disappeared, more aggressive measures will be needed, which will include explicit legal and educational components, as well as simple ostracism. [Humanum, Fall 2012, p. 8]

Many Christians are about to find out there is nothing in the modern world quite so intolerant as tolerance.

3. Will all of this spell disaster for the church? That depends. It could mean marginalization, name calling, and worse. But that’s no disaster. That may be the signs of faithfulness. The church is sometimes the most vibrant, the most articulate, and the most holy when the world presses down on her most. But only sometimes. I care about the decisions of the Supreme Court and the laws our politicians put in place. But what’s much more important to me—because I believe it’s more crucial to the spread of the gospel, the growth of the church, and the honor of Christ—what happens in our churches, our mission agencies, our denominations, our parachurch organizations, and in our educational institutions. I fear that younger Christians may not have the stomach for disagreement or the critical mind for careful reasoning. We’re going to need a good dose of the fundamentalist obstinacy that most evangelicals love to lampoon. The challenge before the church is to convince ourselves, as much as anyone, that believing the Bible does not make us bigots, just as reflecting the times does not make us relevant.

Briefly: On Same sex "marriage" and Fat People

Great thought by Dan Philips

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." 

Here's a great post from Cripplegate: "So did Jesus address homosexuality? Yes, He did. He did so by sending His Spirit to superintend the writing of Paul such that what Paul wrote was precisely what Jesus intended, so much so that it could be said to be “God-breathed.” Jesus condemned homosexuality by means of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. And therefore, to deny that homosexuality is sinful is to deny Jesus Himself, and is irreconcilable with true, biblical Christianity." Mike Riccardi

Is it True that Jesus Never Addressed Homosexuality?

by Mike Riccardi

A couple of months ago, I began responding to a couple of popular arguments for why some believe that homosexuality is reconcilable with Christianity. My hope was (and still is) that I might be able to serve those who are mistaken in this regard by helping them to see that faith in Jesus and His Word cannot be reconciled with attempts to legitimize homosexuality. I had addressed the semi-sarcastic objection that we as Christians are inconsistent in condemning homosexuality on the basis of the Levitical law, since we don’t also condemn eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. I also addressed the objection that in condemning homosexuality Christians are being unloving—getting caught up in the details while forgetting that our cardinal Christian virtue is love. If you haven’t read those, I hope you will.

But today I want to address another popular argument for reconciling homosexuality with true Christianity. And that is the objection that Jesus Himself never said a word about homosexuality. Those who make this argument grant that Paul condemned it as sinful (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–10). But the sentiment behind this objection is that Paul had corrupted the way of life and the ideology that Jesus came to propagate, and that Jesus would have been “loving” and “accepting” of homosexuals, just as they are.

But is it true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality?

Actually, just like the other objections, there are several reasons for which this objection simply does not hold up to biblical and logical scrutiny. Today I’d like to address five of them.

Argument from Silence

First, it must be noted that this is an argument from silence, and thus rests on a shaky rational foundation. Jesus also didn’t say a word about pedophilia, bestiality, or rape. But it would be absurd to seek to garner support for any of those abominable acts on the basis of such silence.

Special Pleading

Secondly, this objection rests upon a premise that the objectors reject—namely, that the Bible is God’s infallible Word. What I mean is: the only source of knowledge for the claim that Jesus never said something about a particular topic is the Bible itself. The argument is: “Jesus never said anything [implied: as we see recorded in the Bible] about homosexuality.” Yet it is the authority of this very Bible that these folks deny when they refuse to accept Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. So the argument itself is a case of special pleading. Those who employ it appeal to an authority that they elsewhere explicitly reject—namely, the Bible as God’s Word.

No Reason to Say What Everyone Agreed Upon

Third, a great portion of Jesus’ ministry related to Israel and those familiar with the Law of Moses. They were living in an age under the Mosaic Covenant, which explicitly condemned homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Unless there was some precipitating issue that would force Jesus to comment on homosexuality, the only reasonable conclusion—especially in light of the fact that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the very Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43) which was infallible (John 10:35)—is that His view of homosexuality was the Old Testament’s view (i.e., God’s view) of homosexuality.

What Jesus Did Say about Marriage

Fourth, when Jesus did speak about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now, if Jesus wanted to simply and efficiently answer the Pharisees’ question about divorce, He could have done so by skipping immediately to verse 5: “Have you not read that the two become one flesh?” That’s really the answer to the question about divorce. God joins spouses together as one flesh, and man shouldn’t separate what God has joined together.

So why does He start, in verse 4, by reminding the Pharisees that God made human beings male and female? For two reasons, at least. One, He goes out of His way to make this point in order to underscore that marriage, by its very nature, is a divinely-ordained institution—that the originator of marriage is the Creator Himself. Number two, He makes this point, which would otherwise seem superfluous, in order to make it clear that that divinely-ordained institution exists only between one man and one woman. God created man as male and female, and then brought them together in one flesh as the husband-wife relationship illustrates the complementarity and unity-in-diversity that characterizes God’s own nature as one Being who eternally exists in three Persons.

All of Scripture is the Word of Jesus

But all of those responses are really supplementary to this final one. It concerns the inspiration of the New Testament. While it’s true that we have no record of Jesus speaking about homosexuality during His earthly sojourn, the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to speak His words (John 16:12–14), superintended what Paul wrote so that he wrote exactly what God desired to be written (2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21).

See, strictly speaking, Jesus did not stop speaking when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John finished their Gospel accounts. While Jesus was still on earth, He told the disciples that He had much to say to them, things which they could not bear at that time (John 16:12). But He promised that the Holy Spirit would come to the disciples and would guide them into all truth. This is a promise from Jesus Himself that the word that the Holy Spirit would speak through the disciples would be Christ’s own words (John 16:13). In this way, the Spirit would glorify Jesus (John 16:14).

And the Holy Spirit did just that. As the Church was being built, the Spirit spoke Jesus’ words to the writers of the New Testament. All Scripture (which, according to 2 Peter 3:16, included Paul’s writings) is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16)—that is, it is the very Word of God, His own breath. “But,” you ask, “didn’t men write Scripture?” Yes they did. But the Holy Spirit so superintended the minds and wills of the writers of Scripture such that the words they wrote under their own recognizance were precisely what God wanted to say to His people (2 Pet 1:20–21).

So the Book of Acts, the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude, the letter to the Hebrews, and the Revelation given to the Apostle John are all the word of God Himself. And, since God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Spirit, and since Jesus is Himself God the Son,all of the New Testament is the Word of Christ. Even the words not appearing in red type are nevertheless the Lord of the Church speaking to His Church by means of the Holy Spirit through the agency of human writers.

So did Jesus address homosexuality? Yes, He did. He did so by sending His Spirit to superintend the writing of Paul such that what Paul wrote was precisely what Jesus intended, so much so that it could be said to be “God-breathed.” Jesus condemned homosexuality by means of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. And therefore, to deny that homosexuality is sinful is to deny Jesus Himself, and is irreconcilable with true, biblical Christianity.

The Wrong Side of History

(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse any the websites behind the hyperlinks that follow.  The last source at the close of this post also is not for the squeamish, but it is also a poignant reminder of exactly what it is that we are talking about here and how the Scriptures could treat homosexuality as being something less than perfect.  Caveat emptor, and all apologies if two hundred other bloggers have already made the same point that I make below.)

---

“The Wrong Side of History” is a phrase that was used repeatedly in 2012: one of those phrases that people suddenly pick up on and end up using ad nauseum.  In the broadcast and information media it was used most often in favor of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, as it were.  For example, in the month of May the phrase was in vogue after Amendment One was passed in the Tar Heel State.  It was followed by Shepard Smith’s infamous usage of the same phrase during one of Smith’s many broadcasts on Fox News Channel where the man cannot keep his opinion to himself.

So there it is: people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (as if such a phrase were not oxymoronic) are on the wrong side of history.  Translation: Everybody else has already run and jumped off the cliff, so why don’t you conservatives get with the program already and do the same?  Alternate translation: Humanity only grows wiser and wiser with the passing of time and with every new era; so you will be proven in the future to be unwise or to be barbarians.

Okay, I’ll play Shepard Smith’s game.  I would really hate to be on the wrong side of history; I really would.  And because I do not want to be on the wrong side of history, I hereby announce that I will not do anything to esteem or dignify homosexuality; in fact, this means that I may also find myself actively opposing so-called same-sex marriage on the grounds of benevolence vis-à-vis biblical teaching about sexuality.  After all, people talk so much about history, but have they already forgotten the history of the Western world when it comes to homosexuality?  To quote Wikipedia:

It was expected and socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role.

However, we later read in the same entry:

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.^[192] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.^[193]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.^[194] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.^[195] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:^[196] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.^[197] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.^[198]

Oh, but it’s Wikipedia.  Can’t trust anything they say, right?  To the contrary; the pendulum of history swings in both directions.

The Big Charlotte Rally the Democrats Shunned

By Michael Brown

There was a lot of talk about the Islamic prayer meeting last Friday in Charlotte. It was sanctioned by the DNC and was expected to draw 20,000. It drew perhaps 200. There was a lot of talk about the Occupy protests that were expected to add a disruptive presence to the city, but less than 1,000 protesters showed up, despite months of hype and build up. There was, however, a rally that drew multiplied thousands of attendees on Sunday and was officially shunned by the DNC. Oh, you didn’t hear about it?

I’m speaking about the Charlotte 714 rally (based on the biblical text found in 2 Chronicles 7:14) where Christians from more than 100 different churches in the region attended a 7-hour, non-political rally at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. (According to the figures released by the amphitheater, there were 9,000 total attendees over the course of the day.)

A few weeks before the DNC, the churches involved in the event made an effort to “adopt a delegation,” offering to send welcome baskets with information about their churches and the city. But the “Democrats denied the evangelical group permission because of its pro-life stance.”

According to David Benham, the organizer of Charlotte 714, “The mayor’s office texted me and said, ‘We regret to inform but we ask that you not send those letters, and not engage in ‘Adopt a Delegation,’ because your views on women are contrary to the convention.’”

It appears, then, that to deeply honor women as wives and moms and singles who make an immense contribution to the well-being of our society and to highly esteem babies in the womb (including female babies) is to hold to a view of women that is “contrary to the convention.”

It’s also quite ironic (or should I say hypocritical?) that, while rejecting these pro-life Christians, the DNC endorsed the Muslim prayer meeting. Were these Muslims who gathered to pray pro-abortion? Did they embrace feminism? Did they support same-sex “marriage”?

But it’s not just Charlotte 714 that was shunned by the DNC. According to Rev. William Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, “By taking this grave and unnecessary step of endorsing gay marriage in the party platform, President Obama and the Democratic party are once again putting black Christians at the back of the bus.” He continued, “Every other constituent of President Obama, every other key part of the party base—gays, latinos, women—gets a hearing except black voters whose voices and values are ignored. This is more than a shame, it’s an outrage. We are here to warn the Democrats: do not leave out black Christians, do not take our votes for granted.”

And could it be that the DNC is also taking the Jewish vote for granted? The 2008 platform stated explicitly that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” That entire statement has been removed from the 2012 platform, among other important changes.

But there’s more: God himself has been removed from the platform. The 2008 platform stated that, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” It now states that “each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Thankfully, God was front and center at the Charlotte 714 event, an event that was significant because it was, far and away, the largest gathering in Charlotte outside of the DNC itself; it gathered together a diverse group of pastors, leaders, and congregations; and it was totally non-political in tone. In fact, the only really “political” moment of the day came when a black minister urged his fellow African-Americans not to vote for President Obama because of his radically pro-abortion stance. Yet there was not the slightest call to vote for Mitt Romney, whose name may not have been mentioned once.

Instead, the focus was on our sins and failings as the Church in our nation, recognizing that America’s greatest problem is not so much the presence of darkness as it is the absence of light. As I said in the closing message of the night, “The only reason that abortion of demand still exists in Charlotte and there is not a greater hope for the mothers and their babies is because of the apathy of the Church. And no-fault divorce among heterosexual Christians has done more to destroy marriage than all the gay activists combined.”

Thankfully, the response was heartening, as thousands pledged themselves afresh to be “the salt of the earth and the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16), wanting to make Charlotte 714 into a movement more than an event. It’s a shame that you probably didn’t hear about it until now.

Update: I think the Jerusalem and God portion has been added back into the platform. D 

Are Christians Inconsistent?

The Left is making a very fallacious argument today about the Chick-fil-A controversy, and (sadly) some conservatives are buying it. We’re told our case against same-sex marriage is bogus because we’re inconsistent. That is, because we do not oppose No Fault Divorce with the same fervor we oppose same-sex marriage, our case collapses.

I disagree. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are inconsistent. What follows—that same-sex marriage is permissible? The Left is making the dubious claim that not speaking against No Fault Divorce makes same-sex marriage justified. The logical conclusion, though, from this line of reasoning is that both SSM and NFD are wrong, not that both are OK. Secular people argue this way all the time. They try to find an inconsistency and then claim that everything is permissible.

An example of this faulty reasoning is justifying bad behavior for women (say, promiscuity) because men get a pass on that same bad beh
avior. But just because men do something immoral, doesn’t justify women doing the same immoral activity. Seems to me that the solution is to hold men to the same standard, rather than lowering standards for women.

Moreover, SSM and NFD are not parallel cases that demand equal responses. No-Fault Divorce does nothing to change the definition of marriage. Rather, it makes leaving a marriage easier—which is regrettable. Same-sex marriage, however, involves roughly six percent of the population forcing the rest of us to radically define marriage to suit it’s tastes. That demands a much stronger response.

Finally, conservatives aren’t inconsistent, only prudent. As Ramesh Ponnuru once said (paraphrase), there’s nothing wrong with preventing the growth of a new evil that you can stop (SSM) rather than fighting an entrenched one that you can’t (NFD).





Scott Klusendorf

But Why Not Let Three People Get Married If We Can Redefine Marriage? Or How COnstitutional Is It To Force Americans To Purchase Products?

This is a blog post from Boundless, an offshoot from Focus on the Family for the college/Single, though they have many good articles. Also,if you get a chance, be sure to read the Terrance Jeffery piece. Though of course, either offer interesting commentary.

D.B.

Custody Case Highlights Artificiality of Same Sex Marriage

This is a great article that illustrates some of the potential difficulties that come as a result of same-sex marriage and what happens to the kids when it doesn't work out.

The story in a nutshell: Two lesbians "marry", they have a baby "together", the one who gave birth becomes a Christian, denounces the gay lifestyle when the child was around 1 yr old, they break up. The still gay woman, after many years of not seeing the baby (in part because the stright woman didn't want to raise her child in the gay scene), sues for custody, gets it, and the straight woman takes off with the now 7-yr old.

Here's the main problem: The woman now granted custody has no tie to the child. She is not the birth mother, but the rejected girlfriend- but she is allowed to take this child from the birth mother...

The worst part of the case is the creation of a new position of entitlement awarded to Janet Jenkins on the basis of gay sex alone. If shed been a non-romantic room-mate of the little girls mother, or even a dear old auntie who helped with the infants care, its hard to imagine the courts would have granted her custody years later.

One of the most common arguments by gay marriage advocates involves the insistence that the expansion of matrimonial rights will merely enlarge marital opportunities, with no impact at all on existing couples or the institution itself. The Miller-Jenkins case shows the absurdity of this contention and demonstrates the way that redefining marriage inevitably changes parenthood as well, turning the most fundamental, natural, elemental human relationship of mother-and-child into an officially sanctioned fiction altogether dependent on governmental fiat.

Schools: Same-Sex marriage "Teachable Moment"

A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher - putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

Can you imagine what would happen if the public school field trip was planned for a church service? It could just as easily be "justified" as a "teachable moment" considering the moral discussion that surrounds this issue. (or any issue with moral significance)

Dennis Prager has often talked about the damage to chidren (particularly females) when they grow up thinking that it is ok to marry anybody they want. I do not think we would realize the damage for a while, but one need only consider it for a moment to see the possibilties.

Culture: Same Sex Marriage cont...

Here is a short look at which campaign supports what.

Biden says he "absolutely, positively" supports gay rights. "There will be no distinction, from a constitutional standpoint from a same-sex or heterosexual couple [in an Obama-Biden Administration]...that's only fair it's what the Constitution calls for"...but that he and Obama are both personally against it.

Palin says, "I will tell Americans straight up I don't support defining marriage as anything but as between a man and a woman" but that she is "tolerate" and would not stand in the way of their private relationships.

It sure doesn't seem that Palin is trying to establish a Theocracy. It seems possible that one can have moral standards and not want to establish a Theocracy (as some have erroneously suggested for Palin- and Bush, prior to that)

Morality: Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage is a Vote For Tolerance

Here is an article by Frank Turek describing what the same-sex marriage debate is and is not about.

It is NOT about list:

It is not about equality or equal rights.

It is not about discrimination against a class of people.

It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.

It is not about love or private relationships.

It is not about bigotry or homophobia.

It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.

It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.

It is not about interracial marriage.

It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.

It is not about the separation of church and state.

It is not even about religion.

“But that’s all I hear about,” you say.
Of course, that’s because the propaganda campaign continues to be successful. Those topics are all smokescreens designed to divert you.

He goes on to say that data from countries with same-sex marriage that 96% don't get married even when given the opportunity.

Since most homosexuals don’t want to get married or stay married, then why are homosexual activists so adamant about government recognition of same-sex marriage? Because same-sex marriage will win them what they really want—validation and normalization. In other words, the activists want same-sex marriage because they understand that government-backed same-sex marriage will validate and normalize homosexuality throughout society.

This is not an issue of rights or stopping someone from loving another person of their liking. They are already free to do that. It is not homophobia, since many folks who think marriage should be between one man and one woman don't do so because they are afraid of or hate homosexuals.

Greg Koukl puts this very well: “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It is about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.” Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan understands this. He writes, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.”

Once they get social (or governmental) approval, they are going to aggressively pursue, as the true villian, those that would dare suggest that this lifestyle is destructive, contrary to nature, or offessive. Don't think so? Look at the news. It is already happening. And will only become more and more frequent.

In fact, this intolerance is already happening and will get worse if same-sex marriage spreads. A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there. Also in Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors rather than provide children to homosexual couples as the state now demands. In New Jersey, a Christian ministry was investigated for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony. In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian. Several other examples of gay intolerance can be found here, and the unbelievable forced normalization of homosexuality in businesses, schools and charities throughout Massachusetts can be found here. (Click on that link if you really want to see how bad the intolerance can get.) And has already begun.

Stand up for traditional marriage and family. Vote Yes on Prop 8 (if you live out in CA)

D.B.