"One of the most important hermeneutical constraints one should adopt in order to avoid such reductionism is this: Permit the various attributes and characteristics of God to function in your theology only in the ways in which they function in Scripture; never permit them to function in your theology in such a way that the primary data, the data of Scripture, are contradicted. Thus one must not infer fatalism from the sweeping biblical data about God's sovereignty; one must not infer that God is finite from the constant biblical portrayal of God personally interacting with finite persons. From God's knowledge and sovereignty we must not justify prayerlessness; from the exhortations to pray and not give up, we must not suppose God is coerced by our much speaking (compare Matt. 6:7-8 and Luke 18:1). Precisely because God is so gloriously rich and complex a being, we must draw out the lessons the biblical writers draw out, and no others."
- D.A. Carson
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Yesterday in Obama's 2nd Inagural speech he spoke about rights for women, blacks and gays. And he linked them all in a way that hasn't been done before by any President ever. He said:
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall...
Seneca Falls -1848- The first women's rights meeting ever
Selma - 1965, police beat people marching for the right of black people to vote
Stonewall - 1969 standoff/riot - gays vs. the police outside a gay bar. (I had never heard of this before the President mentioned it today.)
And later he said...
It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
This kind of support, and tieing in of rights of the sexually deviant to race and gender is historic. (And by the way, my use of the word "deviant" here will one day be called hate speech. The dictionary defines "deviant" as "differing from the norm or the accepted standards of society".) The President of the U.S. is now going to do everything in his power to make sure that homosexuality is never considered deviant again.
Read this blog post by Al Mohler. It's important. Here it is, in it's entirety.
Jan. 10 - A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged yesterday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost twenty years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus.”
In other words, a Christian pastor has been effectively disinvited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches Christian truth.
The fact that Giglio was actually disinvited was made clear in a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:
“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”
That statement is, in effect, an embarrassed apology for having invited Louie Giglio in the first place. Whisenant’s statement apologizes for the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s failure to make certain that their selection had never, at any time, for any reason, believed that homosexuality is less than a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. The committee then promised to repent and learn from their failure, committing to select a replacement who would “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.”
The imbroglio over Louie Giglio is the clearest evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually “tolerant” age. During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses would be asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
In the version now to be employed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the question will be: “Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”
Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, is also founder of the Passion movement that brings tens of thousands of Christian young people together to hear Giglio, along with speakers such as John Piper. They urge a rising generation of young Christians to make a passionate commitment to Christ. In recent years, the movement has also sought to raise awareness and activism among young Christians on the issue of sex trafficking. It was that activism that caught the attention of both President Obama and the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Note carefully that both the White House and the committee were ready to celebrate Giglio’s activism on sex trafficking, but all that was swept away by the Moral McCarthyism on the question of homosexuality.
Two other dimensions of this story also demand attention. First, we should note that Louie Giglio has not been known lately for taking any stand on the issue of homosexuality. To the contrary, Giglio’s own statement withdrawing from the invitation made this clear:
“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”
A fair-minded reading of that statement indicates that Pastor Giglio has strategically avoided any confrontation with the issue of homosexuality for at least fifteen years. The issue “has not been in the range of my priorities,” he said. Given the Bible’s insistance that sexual morality is inseparable from our “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ,” this must have been a difficult strategy. It is also a strategy that is very attractive to those who want to avoid being castigated as intolerant or homophobic. As this controversy makes abundantly clear, it is a failed strategy. Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.
Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.
That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.
The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.
The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times yesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”
And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.
This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.
An imbroglio is a painful and embarrassing conflict. The imbroglio surrounding Louie Giglio is not only painful, it is revealing. We now see the new Moral McCarthyism in its undisguised and unvarnished reality. If you are a Christian, get ready for the question you will now undoubtedly face: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” There is nowhere to hide.
I wonder if this post will be used against me 20 years from now?
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6768.
Comments on "The Obama-Nation That Causes Desolation":
2. Flyaway
- 01/22/2013 9:47 pm CST
We know what Lot did when he was surrounded by the immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah. Will we do any better?
4. Bill
- 01/22/2013 11:10 pm CST
Phil, to many people, even to many in the Christian church, we're already bigots, not 20 years from now or 2 years from now, but yesterday.
In my lifetime a stance held by almost everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, that homosexual marriage is not good and out of bounds has been completely reversed. Mostly just in the last few years.
It won't matter that we speak of love and grace, of the equality of sins in the eyes of God, of all of our need for Jesus, or if we act out that love in reaching out to the homosexual community. If we don't embrace this lifestyle as normal, indeed celebrate it, we'll be lumped in with the racists with the dogs and the hoses. And often the people doing the lumping will be our own Christian brothers and sisters.
Interesting times.
5. damien
- 01/23/2013 8:38 am CST
as serious a matter as this is, it does remind me of the huge gathering at woodstock chanting, "no rain, no rain!" as if pronouncements of man can affect actual reality. there's only one who can speak things into (or out of) existence. the rest of us are subject to him and his cosmic rules. as a coward i find that heartening.
6. Troy
- 01/23/2013 9:14 am CST
If Nebuchadnezzar wants gay marriage for the State, does it seriously really matter to Christians? Sure, it is deviant, but so is having to submit ANY marriage to the approval of the State. I think that's the bigger issue anyhow: keep marriage out of the business of the state and keep it ecclesiastical, and let the state call marriage whatever it wants, no matter how twisted.
7. Scott Roche
- 01/23/2013 9:27 am CST
Here's something interesting:
“Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”
The quoted blogger seems to conflate homo/bi-sexuality with transsexuals. Is "transexualism" a sin?
Also, as one who's come to believe that homosexuality is not always a sin, I wouldn't call anyone here a bigot. What I would ask is, given all of the areas that the church today (and for the last thirty+ years) is silent on, why are we making a big deal about this issue? And I say "the church" and "we" knowing that not all churches are silent on these others issues and not all of "us" are making a big deal about homosexuality. FYI.
As much as there are people on the left that have an agenda re: who you bash naughty bits with, there are people on the right who do to. For every "God Hates FXXX Christian" out there, there's certainly a lot of "all Christians are bigoted, narrow minded idiots". What do those of us in the middle do?
8. Scott Roche
- 01/23/2013 9:32 am CST
Also, I think it needs to be said, historically the visible Christian church has supported plenty of things visibly using the Bible that we today would cringe at. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
9. Scott Roche
- 01/23/2013 9:54 am CST
Also also:
1. deviant - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behaviordeviant - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
degenerate, deviate, pervert
fetishist - one who engages in fetishism (especially of a sexual nature)
masochist - someone who obtains pleasure from receiving punishment
nympho, nymphomaniac - a woman with abnormal sexual desires
child molester, paederast, pederast - a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner
paedophile, pedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children
miscreant, reprobate - a person without moral scruples
sadist - someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain or others
sadomasochist - someone who enjoys both sadism and masochism
lech, lecher, letch, satyr - man with strong sexual desires
bugger, sodomist, sodomite, sod - someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male)
Adj. 1. deviant - markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrant behavior"; "deviant ideas"
aberrant, deviate
abnormal, unnatural - not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm; "abnormal powers of concentration"; "abnormal amounts of rain"; "abnormal circumstances"; "an abnormal interest in food"
You will note that in almost no case is being a deviant considered a compliment. So you might understand if the use of that term causes the short hairs on the back of some necks to rise.
Until the early 70's being gay was considered a mental illness. I'm sure there are still people that do, particularly in our Christian community. Do any of you consider that to still be the case?
10. Jared
- 01/23/2013 10:27 am CST
Scott, I know some Christians make homosexuality out to be a bigger deal than other "deals," but I don't believe it's Christians who are making the homosexual "problem" a big deal. It was foisted upon us when efforts to normalize its acceptance began.
It's similar to the question of division over heresy. Somebody introduces heresy in a church. Church kicks them out. Church is then excoriated for being divisive. But it was the heresy that started the division.
Similarly, it is the widespread attempt to normalize homosexuality into cultural acceptance that started the "big deal." It's a little disingenuous to argue as if Christians just suddenly started picking on some rare, random sin to elevate to "bigger sin" status.
11. Karl
- 01/23/2013 11:56 am CST
I agree with Jared to a point. As Anglican David Mills wrote some years ago during debates over this issue within the Episcopal church:
“To forestall the usual criticism that we are “obsessed” with sex, I should note that if orthodox Anglicans seem to talk too much about sex, it’s not our fault. Of course some “traditionalists” are homophobic, and some organizations do raise money by trumpeting the horrors of homosexuality in a way that approaches gay bashing . . . [y]et I and my colleagues think far less about sex than the Bishop of Newark, Integrity, and the faculty of the Episcopal Divinity School . . . But if we tend to talk a lot about sex, we do so only because it is the aspect of biblical teaching most obviously challenged by our culture and powerful and vocal movements in the Episcopal Church. The use of sex is the question of the hour. To accuse orthodox Anglicans of being obsessed with sex is somewhat like accusing firemen in a city victimized by arsonists of being obsessed with fires.”
BUT at the same time, as long as Christians who maintain the traditional view on this issue continue to speak of the "sin of homosexuality" as if the fact of the orientation/temptation itself is a sin rather than focusing on sexual behavior, then a wide gulf will continue to get even wider and all the talk in the world about love and grace and "no sin is bigger than another" will go unheard. We will continue to alienate young people whose experience mirrors Justin Lee, author of the book "Torn" who points out that when he, as a teenage evangelical Christian virgin committed to remain celibate until marriage, realized that he was "gay" it had nothing to do with any physical acts, but rather meant that he was - and always had been - only attracted to the male form and to guys, in the way that heterosexual Christian virgins were and always had been attracted to the female form and to girls. The question remained: what to do with that attraction. He writes:
“These words [homosexuality, gay, lesbian, etc.] don’t tell us anything about the person’s behaviors, beliefs, or plans for the future . . . they only tell us to who the person is generally attracted…When I called myself ‘gay,’ I wasn’t referring to any kind of behavior in my life. I had never had any kind of romantic relationship with a guy…
So Christians who carelessly throw around "homosexuality is a sin" are, whether they realize it or not, saying that Christian, celibate and committed to remain celibate Justin Lee is sinning by not being heterosexual, even though he hasn't acted on his orientation and fights lust just as hard as (if not harder than) any heterosexual Christian teenager. Is that really the message we want to send? Not me.
You guys should read "Torn." You won't agree with his conclusions and exegesis in the latter third or so of the book. But his personal story and his experiences in the church and the ex-gay, reparative therapy movement are eye-opening. If nothing else it will give you a filter through which to run the way you speak with and about people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.
12. Tony
- 01/23/2013 12:27 pm CST
Scott, It is a big deal in the way they are 'normalizing' it. Like Phil's premise, Pastor Giglio couldn't even pray for the president because of what he preached 20 years ago. Giglio seems to have changed his view point in this area: to be more pro-gay, however he was disinvited because of 'the left's' militant political correctness. Furthermore, the association of gay rights with woman’s and black’s rights within President Obama’s speech paints every conservative Christian, generally speaking, as a bigot, does it not? It won’t even matter if one takes the common sense approach: It seems to be the design of our creator (even if you don't believe in Jesus - Christianity) for a male-female sexual relationship; or even if you are a staunch Darwinist - survival of the fittest demands a male-female relationship to continue the human species - you're a bigot and a hateful person. The logical conclusion for associating race with sexual orientation is frightening to say the least. I suspect this will be a platform in the future to demonize any GOP candidate who has attended church, even if he/she is the nicest person. Many on the left claim that right wing conservatives are the ideologists, pushing our ideals and morals unto others, but in comparison to what is happening on this front, I dare say that liberalism is more idealistic than the right could ever dream up.
13. Bird
- 01/23/2013 1:14 pm CST
I'd say evangelicals are seen now as, at best, unenlightened or, at worst, bigots. The rift will continue to become more pronounced even within the church.
The world right now is saying that the acceptance of gays is the great civil rights issue of our time. In reality the wholesale destruction of human life via abortion is the real great civil rights issue of our time. Problem is gays can talk, persuade, argue, and demand. Babies can't.
Misdirection is a powerful tool for a magician.
14. Tony
- 01/23/2013 1:36 pm CST
Karl, I just read your post and I have to agree with you - to a point. Now that I got my political response off my chest in #12, at a more personal level, the approach to demonize the sin of homosexuality over any other sin is not going to win points for the Kingdom of God. I realize there is a fine line there with repentance though. There is a time when sharing God with someone to mention that God doesn't like their sin and what sin means, but it shouldn't be any different with any other person's sin.
But now that everyone is hyper sensitive about hating gays and what not, we can't even call sin, sin. Or maybe anything but homosexuality.
15. Bill
- 01/23/2013 4:17 pm CST
Tony,
I think you've hit on something. For just about every other sin (except for the ones, like idolatry, that one usually becomes more aware of after conversion) there is at least an agreement among people of faith and people of no faith that the sin is not an optimal way of living. Usually the argument is more about the intensity of the sin - is it a "big" sin or a "little" sin. This is true with all manner of sins: adultery, divorce, stealing, gossip, even abortion. Most people agree that we'd be better off without them, but again disagree on how bad they really are.
Even most abortion supporters would agree that it's not a good thing - they want abortions "safe, legal, and rare" because abortion is not optimal.
With homosexual activity, however, we aren't arguing about where it falls on the range of Bad. We are being told that it's not bad at all, and that if we don't recognize it as a good thing (akin to women's suffrage or civil rights for african americans) and even celebrate it, we are committing the sin of bigotry.
I think things are going to get very, very bad for the church regarding this issue over the next few years. The path of least resistance will be to just fall in line.
I will say this: regarding damage done to our culture, by FAR the biggest tragedy we face (which no one really seems to be tackling) is the problem of fatherlessness in our society. That is the sin that just keeps on giving (or should I say "taking")
I think the church should do everything she can to strengthen families, and as part (but only part) of that effort to stand for God's standards on the topic of gay marriage. We won't be able to stop the redefinition of marriage in our culture, but if at the least we can convince the government to leave us alone and not force churches to conduct marriage ceremonies that violate their conscience we'll probably be alright, although further marginalized in our culture.
We need to focus intently on building the kingdom. That's what we're supposed to do and will result in the redemption of lives and cultures. We all (and I'm pointing at myself chiefly) need to quit goofing around and focus on what Jesus has commanded us to do.
16. Brian
- 01/23/2013 7:35 pm CST
To pick up on what Bill said, issues such as gay marriage are fringes of a much larger cultural problem. I have come to the conclusion that the church surrendered its authority on the issue of marriage in general years ago when it (by 'it' I mean most modern denominations) accepted divorce. Marriage was once a lifelong bond between a man and a woman... we have dropped the "lifelong" part, so what does it matter now if we drop the "man and woman" part?
We as the church have to stand our ground on the Word of God, or throw it away and go wherever the current of culture takes us. Trying to split the difference, trying to compromise halfway, will not do at all.
17. jez
- 01/24/2013 6:16 am CST
It may not be as bad as Mohler fears. This particular inauguration, which Obama used as a platform to make high profile statements about inclusivity, is not a typical one. With that in mind, Giglio may still be considered suitable for other inaugurations, but not that one.
I'm still unable to see why there's any need to treat homosexuality differently from other anti-biblical behaviours such as polytheism. You don't condemn Hinduism, and you can embrace them as citizens and extend to them all the legal protections the Republic offers anyone else. Yet a Hindu breaks more than one Commandments every time he prays, which he does much more often than even the most prolific homosexual "defiles himself." Is this another example of what Bill was saying about "sins" which the rest of the world don't agree are even a little bit bad.
Bill said a lot of good things, as always, especially about absent fathers.
Tony, re the common sense credentials of heterosexuality: I think you're wasting your time if you're worried that heterosexuality will be usurped by alternatives: heterosexuality is still as popular as ever, a run-away success in fact, and no amount of tolerance and equality is going to harm the brand.
18. Tony
- 01/24/2013 6:58 am CST
Bill, well said. You are very eloquent in your writing. I would agree that fatherlessness (I think you made up a word :) ) is more damaging, for lack of a better term, to our society than gay marriage.
Jez, I'm not worried about 'the brand' :) I like your choice of terms btw. I dislike the politics surrounding the incident more than anything. President Obama is the poster child for governing by compassion instead of by standards. I think this is a disastrous method of governing. It may seem well intended on the surface but in the long run it is harmful. The problem is if an individual Christian 'governs' their life by standards over compassion. That is a problem and where Christians get into trouble that cause non-believers to have a 'bad taste in their mouth' for Christianity. I state all this because I was a bit ferocious with post #12 and seemed to give in a bit on #14 but the difference is big vs. small picture. Let me make it clear, if a gay couple move in next door to me, I will greet them and treat them the same as my other neighbors. I will reach out to them and try to be friends with them like I would any other person. I would invite them to Church and tell them, if anyone looks down on them to just remember each time that God doesn't.
I think your analogy of Hindu's is perfect. You are correct! At an individual level, we Christians need to be accepting but a have a problem with the federal government telling me that I 'have' to be compassionate to gays and if I'm not I'm a 'demon' of society.
19. Bill
- 01/24/2013 9:16 am CST
Hey Jez! Good to see you,
You wrote: I'm still unable to see why there's any need to treat homosexuality differently from other anti-biblical behaviours such as polytheism. You don't condemn Hinduism, and you can embrace them as citizens and extend to them all the legal protections the Republic offers anyone else.
Well, of course! This is one area where I think people are a bit sidetracked, though. No one (or very few people) is arguing that homosexuals (or Hindus for that matter) should not enjoy the very same rule of law and rights as everyone else. The sticking point here is that a new right, a historically almost unheard-of right, is being asserted, that of a person to marry someone of the same sex. Not to get pedantic, but up until recently no one had that right. A heterosexual couldn't marry someone of the same sex either (and, of course, in most cases wouldn't want to). And - again, I'm being a bit pedantic - a homosexual in Texas today has every right to get married - provided it's to someone of the opposite sex. So we're not - technically speaking - arguing about withholding an existing right from someone just because of who they are, but rather we're discussing a new definition of an ages-old institution. I've argued in other threads that the current logic about homosexual marriage could be used to apply to almost any arrangement. If three people love each other, how about triad marriages? I was a bit surprised, though not really, to find that advocates of homosexual marriage were kind of OK with that too. Because that's where the logic leads.
I'm becoming more of a fan of getting Christian marriage out of the orbit of governmental control - let the government sanction any kind of marriage they want, but don't make us call it Christian marriage.
To Tony's point. the danger we are facing as believers is that over the years the idea of a "hate crime" has been cooked up, and it's a small step from that to a "thought crime". So a Christian church that refuses to conduct the marriage ceremony of a gay couple could, conceivably, lose their tax-free status or worse, simply for freely exercising their religious conscience. I think that is the next step of where we're headed, but I hope not.
20. Scott Roche
- 01/24/2013 9:34 am CST
it is the widespread attempt to normalize homosexuality into cultural acceptance that started the "big deal." It's a little disingenuous to argue as if Christians just suddenly started picking on some rare, random sin to elevate to "bigger sin" status.
Okay, let's talk about "normalization". I will grant you that monogamist heterosexuals overwhelmingly make up the majority of what we consider "normal" sexual expression. Within that group there are all sorts of expressions that you or I might not view as normal or healthy, but they don't get arrested and no one calls them mentally ill.
Up until relatively recently if you were openly gay you risked being hospitalized or jailed for expressing it. Can we agree that that's not the way to approach it?
And of course gay people want us to view them as normal people. They are normal people. The kind of love they express isn't average or in the majority, but in nature I'd argue that it is normal. The law and the psychiatric community both agree. Whether we as Christian view it that way or not I would say is immaterial. No one's asking you to lay with a man as you do with a woman. No one's telling you to say it's "okay" or not a sin if that's what you believe.
To say that it'll become a hate crime to express that opinion is engaging in scare tactics. People express all kinds of unpopular opinions without being jailed. They may lose their job or be ostracized. I've got atheist friends that won't come out for that very reason. So I'm not going to say that one day the opinion that homosexuality is a sin may be just as old fashioned or frowned upon as the idea that women should be chattel. That may be. Both notions are equally "Biblical". You're welcome to believe both and I wouldn't for one second say you should be jailed, fined, or otherwise legally punished. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
If churches lose their tax free status so what? If they're challenged by the government or the majority of people doesn't that mean they're doing what, in your opinion, they're supposed to be doing?
Also, I'm not saying that it got elevated to some "bigger sin" status. I'm just saying that most mainstream Christians don't make as big a noise about feeding the poor/widows, the sin of gluttony or avarice, or the state of the heterosexual marriages in this country as they are about the GAY AGENDA. Why? I believe that it's a distraction from the sins in their own lives. It's the log/speck thing all over again.
21. Scott Roche
- 01/24/2013 9:40 am CST
Also, are there churches that are being forced to marry homosexuals? I'm not for that idea. If an individual church says we won't recognize or anoint a certain kind of marriage that's their right. They will get flack for it just like the church that recently refused to marry an interracial couple because they never had before got some flack. Did the law get involved even though it would have been illegal for the state to do that? I don't think so.
22. Scott Roche
- 01/24/2013 9:43 am CST
I'm becoming more of a fan of getting Christian marriage out of the orbit of governmental control - let the government sanction any kind of marriage they want, but don't make us call it Christian marriage.
I don't know that anyone can "make" you call any thing something. If I were a gay Christian and I got married to another gay Christian I would consider it a Christian marriage. If you didn't that would be your right. I don't think the marriage of a Christian man and a Jewish woman or a Atheist man and a Christian woman, or a Muslim man and a Hindu woman are "Christian" marriages are they?
23. Bird
- 01/24/2013 2:41 pm CST
Hi, Scott.
I think the rub is that society as a whole is asking us to accept and celebrate homosexuality as if it's not a sin. Not only that, they're demanding that we acknowledge gay "marriage" as if it's the same covenant that has existed for thousands of years. The reason, I think, the church intuitively is offended by that demand is because marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5), and society is asking us to accept and celebrate a perversion of what marriage actually is.
About normalcy, I'd agree, Scott, that homosexual behavior is "normal," in that in our normal, fallen state, we naturally rebel against God's standards. So, yes, there is a sense of normalcy to homosexual behavior. On the other hand, if you take a dictionary type definition of "normal" (e.g., conforming to a regular pattern), homosexuality is not normal even in the world's eyes.
Also, I'm not saying that it got elevated to some "bigger sin" status. I'm just saying that most mainstream Christians don't make as big a noise about feeding the poor/widows, the sin of gluttony or avarice, or the state of the heterosexual marriages in this country as they are about the GAY AGENDA. Why?
My guess would be that it appears that way sometimes because there's not a government or group of people trying to force an acceptance and celebration of the other sins you mentioned down the church's throat. For example, if government and society saw murdering children as acceptable I think the church would have a big problem with that. Oh, wait, we're already there -- and that's why abortion is such a big deal in the church's eyes.
24. Bill
- 01/24/2013 3:13 pm CST
To say that it'll become a hate crime to express that opinion is engaging in scare tactics.
I didn't say that expressing the opinion would be a hate crime (or at least that's not what I meant). I said that refusing to sanction a homosexual marriage in a church could become something that eventually brings legal action against the church. I'm not trying to engage in scare tactics, but do you really believe that's all that far-fetched?
Both notions are equally "Biblical".
We're going to have to disagree on that one.
You're welcome to believe both and I wouldn't for one second say you should be jailed, fined, or otherwise legally punished. That's what freedom of speech is all about.
Well, if I really believed that women are "chattle" and thought I could divorce my wife and cast her out in poverty just by repeating "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee" and spitting on her shoes or something, then I'd be up for some legal action, wouldn't I?
And I would deserve it. I don't believe women are chattel, of course (and I don't believe the Bible teaches that, and I'm wondering if you really feel that it does, and to the same degree and consistency that it teaches against homosexual behavior).
If churches lose their tax free status so what? If they're challenged by the government or the majority of people doesn't that mean they're doing what, in your opinion, they're supposed to be doing?
Yes, and of course receiving persecution for standing for what we believe to be the truth will be a badge of honor. Doesn't mean that I want to see it happen.
25. jez
- 01/24/2013 4:25 pm CST
Bird: just on the subject of "normal", I don't think you need to be in the majority to count as normal. For example, only about 10% of all people are left handed, and about 2% of all people have red hair. I would not consider either of these minority conditions to be abnormal.
27. jez
- 01/26/2013 7:00 am CST
By that reckoning, every ethnicity is abnormal. The most common race (Asian) accounts for about 30% of all people, which is still a clear minority.
I understand "normal" as meaning "conforming to a standard", which allows there to be more than one "normal". Abnormal hair-colours do exist, but I don't think the naturally-occurring "red" is one of them. Normality is a social construct, so if calling red hair abnormal is somehow of use to you and your peer-group, go ahead. It doesn't have any objective meaning though.
"refusing to sanction a homosexual marriage in a church could become something that eventually brings legal action against the church."
Firstly, I hope that doesn't happen. My sober opinion is that it is far fetched for independent churches, but definitely on the cards for official national churches.
28. Tony
- 01/26/2013 9:58 pm CST
Jez, Isn't your analogy a bit apple/orangish? I understand what you are trying to emphasize that homosexuals are born that way and I don't disagree there but at the same time, there is a behavior aspect to all sexuality (even with heterosexuals) - attraction, identity, expression etc... So, you can call behavior (sexuality) normal or abnormal in relation to the culture and society we live in.
29. Bird
- 01/27/2013 4:48 am CST
Jez, I think you're perhaps getting stuck on the idea as "abnormal" as pejorative. I'm merely stating the fact that when the vast majority of something falls into an A category, then the small minority that falls into the B category would be considered, by definition, abnormal (i.e., not the norm).
The ethnicity argument makes no sense because the majority of humans don't fall into a specific ethnicity.
30. jez
- 01/27/2013 7:08 am CST
I'm not stuck on that, I just disagree about what a norm is. It's a bit of a nerdy distinction, but I don't see any reason why (and know of no dictionary that says) there can't be multiple, opposing social norms in place at once (for examples: right-handed / left-handed, blonde hair / red hair, straight / gay).
I think "normal" is a broader term than "mode", or "mode where the most common value is shared by more than half the data set". I think it's got more to do with social convention than statistics, but if it were a statistical property, I think it would mean something more like "not an outlier".
34. Karl
- 01/28/2013 12:37 pm CST
Since the term "abnormal" IS taken by many as pejorative, if you don't mean it pejoratively why not use a different term like "uncommon" or "minority" that isn't so frequently taken as a negative? Dictionary definitions of the term aside, most of us wouldn't tell a red haired person or someone with green eyes or a dark-skinned person living in Maine "you're abnormal" or "you're not normal" unless maybe that person was a friend and we were ribbing them good-naturedly about being in the minority, or maybe if we were trying to make a point re. the technical meaning of the word "abnormal" vs. its common usage.
35. Scott Roche
- 01/28/2013 12:45 pm CST
Not only that, they're demanding that we acknowledge gay "marriage" as if it's the same covenant that has existed for thousands of years. The reason, I think, the church intuitively is offended by that demand is because marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5), and society is asking us to accept and celebrate a perversion of what marriage actually is.
Marriage existed before and outside of Christianity and Judaism. We don't own the definition.
And I would deserve it. I don't believe women are chattel, of course (and I don't believe the Bible teaches that, and I'm wondering if you really feel that it does, and to the same degree and consistency that it teaches against homosexual behavior).
All throughout the old testament women are portrayed as second class citizens and property. For centuries if not millennia the church used the Bible to reinforce that idea. Just like they are with homosexuality. Does that happen in the NT? Not so much though they don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men. You and I might say that that's the way God wants it and whether it "seems" right or not, that's the way it should be. Doesn't mean that we're right.
36. Bill
- 01/28/2013 3:00 pm CST
Not so much though they don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men. You and I might say that that's the way God wants it and whether it "seems" right or not, that's the way it should be. Doesn't mean that we're right.
Scott, I consider you a friend and don't think continuing to debate this is going to sway either one of us, but there's a large, large distance between "women are chattel" and the belief that men and women are both equally valued and loved by God but have been designed to have different roles (the common complementarian view believed by many today).
I get tired of the constant "gotcha" (especially coming from fellow believers) of having to explain every wrong opinion or everything dumb ever said by a person of faith, while simultaneously proof-texting the Bible to show how awful it is and we are.
FInally:
Marriage existed before and outside of Christianity and Judaism. We don't own the definition.
Of course not. I never have said I, personally, or people like me own the definition. God owns the definition.
37. Bird
- 01/28/2013 7:00 pm CST
Since the term "abnormal" IS taken by many as pejorative, if you don't mean it pejoratively why not use a different term like "uncommon" or "minority"
Because in comment 20 Scott wanted to talk about "normalization." I was staying with the terminology.
Marriage existed before and outside of Christianity and Judaism.
Correct. It existed "from the beginning," as Jesus said, referring back to Gen. 2:24. But the mystery of marriage's full meaning wasn't revealed until NT times, specifically whenever Paul wrote Ephesians 5.
38. Scott
- 01/28/2013 7:23 pm CST
The OP and Jared talked about normal/ normalization before I did.
Bill/Bird - Marriage as the promise between a man, a woman, and God to make a loving and supportive union is certainly an ancient tradition, but it's not the only type of marriage recognized by societies throughout the history of man. You may not consider any other sort of marriage a Christian or "Godly" one and that's your right. I might agree with you. But we can't say " that's not a marriage". That's what I mean.
Bill - My main thrust isn't a " gotcha" so much as it's the notion that believers throughout the ages have been misguided on social issues such as slavery, the role of women, and how we treat "heretics" and they used the bible to support their views ( thus the scare quotes around biblical). What makes this different? Is allowing secular gay marriage a hill worth dying on?
39. jez
- 01/29/2013 7:25 am CST
Bird's #33 is brilliantly clever but it brushes off a sincere question. I agree with #31.
By the way, google's answer is
1. Something that is usual, typical, or standard.
2. A standard or pattern, esp. of social behavior, that is typical or expected of a group: "the norms of good behavior in the civil service".
I don't know if that's the same answer it gave you (google includes context such as location and search history to give each user answers that he wants to here #Orwell) but I don't see anything in that which insists there can't be multiple, mutually exclusive norms at once.
40. Karl
- 01/29/2013 8:26 am CST
I wish you guys would read this post (url below) in light of the discussion we've been having. I know the blogger in question is not a favorite here and has a "history" with one of the Thinklings. But this isn't about her, but the author of the book that I mentioned in comment #11 above, and what it was like for him to grow up as a committed and fervent evangelical Christian, yet realize that he was "gay" in his orientation - and the reception he received from fellow Christians simply for disclosing that fact - despite the fact that he'd never acted on his orientation physically and had no plans to do so. I'd be interested in your thoughts:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/torn-chapters-7-11-internalizing-the-culture-war
42. jez
- 01/29/2013 1:16 pm CST
OK Bird. I don't think it's about pinheads, I think it's about letting yourself off a hook. You don't want to accept your (my) participation in declaring homosexuality to be an abnormal (normal) orientation. I genuinely can't read what you claim is in the dictionaries -- might it be eisegesis?
Having already gracefully bowed out once, I don't expect an answer, thanks anyway. :)
Leave a Comment:
It is the same conundrum that has faced every generation of the church: Conform or resist. The ones who conform have it easier, but the ones who resist are never forgotten.