Usually Jonah Goldberg talks good sense, but yesterday I heard him defending the Indiana law as nothing more than a pitiful little consolation prize for the religious right. He was saying that the same sex mirage juggernaut has carried the day, and all conservatives are asking for now is the right to be left alone. I want to explain why this is not the case. I want to provide a theological explanation on why this is not what is happening at all.
For those of you who check this site regularly in order to get your daily dose of whimsy, that mild, unassuming form of humor that I use to put a smile on your face, and a politically-correct spring in your step, I am afraid that today might be a little different. Usually I write with high levels of restraint, but I am afraid that we are now in a position where I cannot explain what is happening without getting into what is actually happening.
First, opponents of same sex mirage have often failed to recognize that rebellion against God’s order for marriage can fail on multiple levels, and not just one. In other words, homosex is not just immoral, as opposed to moral. It is not just disgusting, as opposed to alluring. It is not just kinky, as opposed to straight. All observations along those lines would be correct, but they do not explain why the current battleground is made up of florist shops, bakeries, and photography studios. That is what I wish to explain.
Homosexual sex is not just a sinful abomination, although it does remain that. But in addition to the sinfulness, it is also lame. God’s design for faithful marriage is glory, and to pair up a couple of guys is inglorious, and a couple of girls is just plain sad.
The sin of our age is egalitarianism, wherein we release the hounds of leveling, and declare war on everything that might adorn anything. We have done this to heterosexuality first through feminism, confounding equality before the law with equality as sameness. Pointing to the latter, De Tocqueville put it this way almost a couple centuries ago: “Attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women” (p. 211). We started by employing feminism to turn first rate women into third rate men, and recently we have found ourselves turning third rate women into fifth rate men. And we are rapidly approaching the nadir, where a woman’s highest achievement will be considered as matching the worst behavior of male slobs everywhere.
I am reluctant to use ridiculous examples because we live in a day when satire is dead, and I am hesitant to give anybody any ideas. But the example, for all its absurdity, is exactly where we are right now. Suppose, in our ongoing egalitarian battle against lookism, the Supreme Court mandated a heavyweight division in the Miss America contest, with sumo wrestling replacing the swimsuit competition. Suppose Indiana declined to send any of their three-hundred pounders to the national competition because it was “just stupid,” and we were dealing with the resultant national outcry.
When something really lame is receiving public honors in a parade down Main Street, there will have to be a lot of policemen around with billy clubs, in order to silence those snorting in the crowd gathered along the sidewalk. The emperor has no clothes, and so the empire is weighing in with the full majesty of the law to prevent anyone from acknowledging the obvious. The reason for the bedlam is this — they cannot afford the accurate observation.
Homosexual mirage is sinful, yes, but it also lame. It has no glory.
Christian marriage, by way of contrast, is glorious, because the woman is the glory of the man. When you have two men, there is no crown. When you have two women, there is no head for the crown to rest on.
[Concerning 1 Cor. 11:1-16 and Is. 4:5] “The NKJV translates it this way: ‘For over all the glory there will be a covering.’ This is what Paul is referring to — a godly wife is to her husband what the Shekinah glory was to the tabernacle. Now this is how it all ties in with our foundational theology of marriage, and what we believe marriage actually is. The Bible teaches that a woman is the glory of her husband. She is his crown: ‘A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband’ (Prov. 12:4a). And a man does not walk down the street kicking his diadem in front of him in the hopes of making himself look better or more important” (For a Glory and a Covering, p. 37).
The feminist movement declared war on women being the glory of the man, and the homosexual movement completed the task by insisting that no one be the glory of anyone else. And when man in his rebellion rejects the glory of God (Rom. 1:23), the next thing that happens is that he is turned aside from how the glory of God manifests itself in the world, which is through the marriage of a man and a woman — true glory.
When Paul teaches us that the woman is the glory of the man, having already said that man is the glory of God, this sets up a standard Hebraic superlative, like we see in the example of the Song of Songs, or the Holy of Holies. Woman is the glory of glories. Homosexual men have thrown that glory away. Because they are homosexual, they have rejected their glory, but because they are still men, they still yearn for glory.
Now bring it all down to the present moment. It is no coincidence that the battleground professions are those professions which glorify an event. And homosexuals are stuck — through their own demands — with an event which has no glory. So they turn to the Christians, to the evangelical florists, and they demand that we share our glory with them. And this is something we cannot do. Glory doesn’t work that way.
So homosex is in fact detestable, but the main thing we need to notice about it right now is that it is Ichabod. The glory is departed. So perhaps we could compromise and just call it Ickybod.
How do you see as polygamy fitting into this equation? I understand that God prefers monogamy, but polygamists are lawfully married, at least in some countries, right?
I am wondering, what would the response be if the Westboro Baptist Church went to a homosexual baker asking them to bake some treats for their next anti-homosexual rally?
Besides being a nice insight; its profound.
Thank you.
It is kind of funny watching the ‘smart set’ be clown themselves on this, but it is also revealing; for all the erudition, I am left asking “where is the “there”, there?”.
When push comes to shove, it ain’t there, which tells me it never was.
A glorious article on an inglorious topic. Now I have seen everything. Great job.
Doug, if you want to write a column about the single premise that separates you from the pro-gay side, you’re missing the obvious: Everything isn’t about you, and everything isn’t about your religion. You think everything is. And that’s the central point on which we differ.
Eric the Red: The central premise of our religion is that Jesus rose from the dead. If that’s true, and it is, then everything is about Him and our religion.
No Eric, that is not the “central point on which we differ”.
This is the central point: We speak about what God says; These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
You already know this. You are only deceiving yourself.
And it’s no coincidence that the glorifying professions are largely carried out by the glorifiers, so that mostly women are coming under attack. For all their sexual confusion, they still know to go after the weaker sex.
(And didn’t Ben say it wasn’t quite like a standard superlative, but carried an echo of the superlative? I especially liked his comparison of man’s glory to beer, and women’s to whiskey — more intensely distilled.)
If you think women are the weaker sex in this fight you’d better go study up on your intersectionality.
Theology is sound but I have to catechize our modus operandi. Is the Church mandated to accost culture via politics or to win people via truth in love? Culture cannot be mandated through politics: politics follows culture. The early church’s success was not manifested by its political warfare, but rather by its community influence. For many Christians and churches, there is no distinction between patriotism and religion. Our flag is on the same level as our cross. By drawing up lines in a political war, we automatically separate ourselves from the very people we are attempting to reach. It has… Read more »
Barnabas, I looked it up on Wikipedia, but was too weak to read farther than the first paragraph.
Basically it is the study of victim status hierarchy. White woman trumps white man but is in turn trumped by gay white man. It may sound silly but a lot of people debate it explicitly and many others have internalized it. With a conflict like this fought in the courts and in the courts of public opinion those concepts are very much in play. Since you are higher on the intersectionality totum pole, in this case you are the stronger sex.
The original intersectionality reference was meant to be a humorous quip. I should add a smiley emotocon or something but those things are gay.
John Peterson,
I think that anyone who has read or heard Pastor Wilson long enough can testify to his positions:
1. Jesus saves 2. politics needs saving like everything else.
I do not see his posts as anything except the outflow of a mindset and worldview that the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, and that the King of king’s is also the King of the U.S.
What would you counsel Mr. Knox if he gave you a pre-publication edition of “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women”?
@John Peterson
Yes! and other attributes such that he would say…
Luke 12:51
@Barnabas
Not sure if you saw this, but your posts made me think of the recent action by the National Union of Students, which condemned white gay men for acting like black women. In their explanation for why white gay men had to immediately stop “emulat[ing}…the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE- African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to black women”, the group stated:
“…even gay white men are able to hide behind their privilege, black women have no such privilege.”
Except, apparently, the privilege of asserting hegemony over certain mannerisms and speech patterns.
This kind of thing would be really funny and entertaining if it were a fictional reality.
@John Peterson,
There are some laudable successes in the culture-Phil Robertson’s humble, steadfast testimony, the rally around chik-fil-a, the model of the colorado baker’s, etc. In each of these, a bright, holy, dividing line was drawn, attacked and defended without apology;
But in this war, all and every means will be used to defeat our enemy on every front, commensurate with the promptings of the Holy Spirit and the defense of the church.
One tactic should be to make more lines, not less.
meekly,
t
Onward Christian Soldiers.
To the death… or bankruptcy court, more likely.
Thanks Doug.
FTFY
The more “victim” statuses you can rack up, the more oppressed you are, and the more other people (…who buy into this tripe…) must defer to you. I’m pretty sure they have a scorecard to determine who gets to be Most Oppressed Victim of the Evening when they have meetings.
It’s kind of the inglorious inverse of warriors boasting about their battle prowess and how many men they’ve slain.
Jaquan – Polygamy is not one big marriage. The wives are not married to each other. Each is married only to the husband, who is in turn married individually to each of them. The sin of the polygamist, then, is not that engages in some other expression of sexual desire, calling it “marriage” when it is not. Rather it is that he, already being married, gets married a second time (and a third and so on). Each marriage in which the polygamist engages is a marriage, but it is wrong for the same man to engage in more than one… Read more »
@Pastor Wilson wrote:
What do you mean by ‘this’?
The “…carried the day…” part, the “…be left alone” part or both?
thx.
Doug, if you can, I have a real question… First – I affirm: “The feminist movement declared war on women being the glory of the man, and the homosexual movement completed the task by insisting that no one be the glory of anyone else. And when man in his rebellion rejects the glory of God (Rom. 1:23), the next thing that happens is that he is turned aside from how the glory of God manifests itself in the world, which is through the marriage of a man and a woman — true glory. When Paul teaches us that the woman… Read more »
Welcome to the blog, George.
God bless.
t
Pastor Wilson, Another great piece — I especially liked the De Tocqueville quote. This whole farcical situation reminds me of another great, modern, political writer (and leader) — Vaclav Havel’s famous piece about the greengrocer: {4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the… Read more »
“I am reluctant to use ridiculous examples because we live in a day when satire is dead, and I am hesitant to give anybody any ideas.” Love it. A couple of thoughts – gay sex is about glory, but an inordinate appreciation of it which leads to inglorious acts. It is about the glory of men appealing to men and the glory of women appealing to women. As you have pointed out before, it is based in envy. Idolatry is always about easy glory. And also, the Bible calls such things futile, not lame. This puts more focus on the… Read more »
George, if they are gifted as Paul was, then they don’t yearn for that glory personally for themselves, but they long to see it manifested generally. If they are not so gifted, and it is hard providence that has them single, then it is the same as any other misfortune. They need to pray for contentment, stay free of resentment, and become a cheerful participant in a culture that is generally gathered around marriages. Does that get at what you are asking?
Doug Sayers,
Here is an echo of your statement from a provocative article: “Now, that battle is out in the open, and it will not end with florists, bakers, or photographers. It will only end once religious people have been made to abandon their principles under the threat of fine or jail from the tolerant left.”
Luke, I don’t think that the subjects are separate. All of the sexual stuff is interrelated. I am thinking of evangelism on a global scale into the IslamicWorld where polygamy is legal. Certain Muslim regions,vpolygamy is rare. Certain places it is common. Say a Polygamous Muslim woman is converted. There is no immediate physical threat from relatives. Should she stay in the marriage? What if the man is converted, what then .does the Biblical command to stay married apply to staying with all of the wives, if they are willing to stay with them? Does he claim Christiaity as an… Read more »
@RFB
The link to Ben Shapiro is excellent; and so, the battle is joined.
Note also that ‘The Left’ in the person of hrclinton in her remark about ‘adult fun camps’ has opened up the idea of re-eduction camps. After that comes ‘up against the wall’.
“Not whether, but which” is here; Johah Goldberg’s hope of co-existence will evaporate and he, like all of us, will have to choose this day who we will serve.
Thank you Doug,
Yes, I do believe that helps me better understand.
-George
Our so my Indiana pols are men without chests. They are going to amend the religious freedom law so it provides no protection for religious people.
“…amend the religious freedom law so it provides no protection for religious people”
So that their definition of freedom will correlate with their definition of marriage…
Eve was created glorious, thus all women are glorious. Women are the glory of man based on creation, not marriage.
And by the way, what about unmarried men? Are not all men still the glory of God? “For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” The creation narrative, not marriage.
Seems National Review has their own retrograde old ass in the person of Kevin D. Williamson, who, with this column, essentially restates what Pastor Wilson has been arguing.
Would inglorious be the same as shameful? If homosexuality were not shameful we wouldn’t need all the pride marches.
That’s partly because you have no credibility on this. The distinction is a real one, but when you are on record repeatedly denying the assumptions behind civil rights law, no one actually believes that you are just going to stop there.
“you have no credibility on this”
I and others give Doug much credibility, you give him none; neither matter in the end. Any ultimate credibility on this issue or any is derived from the ultimate Authority, who is God and His Word. That’s all that I presume matters to Mr. Wilson, which is at it should be.
Freedom of association and private property are civil rights.
They are not, however, the only civil rights.
They are true and achievable civil rights as opposed to utopian schemes to make the inherently unequal equal. You can burn up all your social capital and stomp out existing civil rights by trying to force everyone in the world to mouth a lie but it will not change the true nature of things.
The CRA wasn’t a utopian scheme. The contention on these gay marriage induced cases is whether they pertain to ‘who is served’ or ‘what type of service is provided’, or whether and how the two can be untangled. Claiming you have a general right to discriminate on any basis because private property QED is just throwing your credibility out the window.
With who?
Credibility with whom? The CRA was part of a larger utopian scheme to create equality of outcome. Being utopian it must fail and we must double down. Any other option would not be “credible”. Gays are already socioeconomically advantaged but have a deficit of honor. The cargo cultist believes that baking them cakes will make their actions honorable. Causality is inverted so the celebration is thought to make the object laudable.
Matt,
Please tell me what you consider as the source of “civil rights”.
Credibility with the wider culture. It’s easy to skewer people who oppose the effort to end Jim Crow as being closet bigots. The issue is that no one really believes conservatives when they say that they don’t intend to discriminate against gay people, so the distinction they draw makes no difference (exacerbated by the religious freedom laws not making that distinction either).
The government. What else could be the source?
Matt, with all due respect, that’s silly. Those who formed our government didn’t even claim that the government could determine civil rights.
And if it did, and what basis are Jim Crow laws to be opposed?
Well, that settles everything.
A civil right that depends on the whims of Gawker culture is no right at all. I believe that the religious exemption is not a logical line to draw. Much better would be to uphold the right of people to serve or deny service on their own private property. Being compelled to labor against one’s will is called slavery and its theworstevilthateverhappenedanywhere. Gays may be getting high on the heady will-to-power rush of humiliating rubes but they are still a very small percentage of the population. This ugly totalitarian genie may turn on them in the end. Think Weimar Germany… Read more »