The Dawn of a New Day

This is just a brief note about the Supreme’s latest on the same sex mirage issue. I don’t want to say very much before all the legal ramifications are clear (they appear to be mixed), but at the very least, the force of Scalia’s dissent should indicate that we are still in the hand basket, we continue to bounce along merrily, and that eerie glow on the horizon grows ever brighter. Must be the dawn of a new day.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, off-topic, or semi-Pelagian.

23 thoughts on “The Dawn of a New Day

  1. How does the Homosexual victories coincide with Postmillennial eschatology? Seems like things are moving away from Christianity. Is this just a bad period in the war?

  2. Brian,

    If you are only focusing on Western nations, then yes, it may seem a dramatic setback. But you only have to look in other places to see the gospel spreading like wildfire. South America, Africa, and China being some prime examples.

    America != the Eschatological Christian Hope

    You never know. In the next 50 years, we might be getting missionaries from Uganda coming over to help convert the heathens.

  3. This kind of stuff isn’t really so bad for us. The aggressive same sex marriage proponents don’t realize what a favour they are doing for traditional orthodox Christians. Right now there’s a gray area where people like Rachel Held Evans, Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis can play around in. They currently get the benefit of being the “cool” Christians in secular circles and they get some respect in traditional evangelical circles as well, which is still the only place with any life left in it in the church. Now they’re going to be forced to choose. When orthodox Christian organizations start to get attacked, they’re going to have to take a stand and that means they’ll either have to affirm the old standard or be run out of evangelicalism. When the secular world stops being willing to accept the “personally opposed” but affirming in public life position, they’ll either have to get with the new program or be denounced as bigots. The middle ground is rapidly dwindling.

    Sucks to be them. Being stuck on the mainline/emerging/liberal circuit sounds like the worst thing in the world. You’re basically hanging out with a bunch of 60 year old ladies and a few really weird dudes. Sounds lik hell.

  4. Thanks for the recommendation of Black and Tan. I see many parallels between the overarching point of the book and the state of American culture and society today. I see (and am somewhat pleased and welcoming of) a future separation of “wheat” and “tares” in the Church. Who will abide under the authority of God’s Word and who will waffle to appeal to the masses?

  5. Somehow this whole homosexual “marriage” thing has offered several oppurtunities for me to stand up for the integrity of the gospel with coworkers and friends on several occasions. Yet, I must admit that I’ve entered these conversations with profound hesitations. I also know that I have friends who are terrified to have these conversations in our day.

    I enjoy what Pr Wilson regularly offers here in terms of cultural analysis; however, I am curious if he would like to offer a lay-level way of dealing with this issue in terms of our personal conversations with close friends and relations. I’m thinking of something like a post involving a “dreamed-up” conversation between a Christian with either a liberal Christian or non-believer (potentially homosexual) about the ideas surrounding this issue, perhaps à la mode de “Persuasions: A Dream of Reason Meeting Unbelief ” wherein the philosophical underpinnings of the pro-homosexual agenda are dealt with by reason and gospel truth.

    At least I think that would be helpful.

  6. Maybe there needs to be two dialogues. A persuasive meeting between reason and a homosexual neighbor, and another dialogue between wisdom and a homosexual lobbyist. The difference between an enemy civilian and an enemy combatant would regulate where and how the rhetorical bombs are dropped, or not dropped. Jesus certainly distinguished between civilian sinners and combatants in the manner of His speech. He showed both tenderness, affection and patience, as well as rebukes, a whip, and curses, depending on the target.

  7. Kudos for avoiding the “sky is falling” hysteria of most conservatives on this issue.

    Gay marriage is a done deal at at least some level (there is some hope that federalism will prevail). In my generation, it is just assumed that you are pro-gay marriage, and if you outed yourself as not being so people would look at you like you were some kind of neanderthal transported from the past. I think the official statistic is something like 85% of <30s in favor.

    But the interesting question is whether gay marriage is a symptom or a cause. Marriage seems to be on the wane even without gays getting married. We'll see where it all goes, I guess.

  8. I agree with Matt. Pastor Wilson, I’d love to read something from you regarding how church laity can prophetically speak the Word of God in a effective way.

  9. Katecho says: “Jesus certainly distinguished between civilian sinners and combatants in the manner of His speech. He showed both tenderness, affection and patience, as well as rebukes, a whip, and curses, depending on the target.”

    I think the distinction was quite clear – he saved the harsh words for the leaders of his own people. The in-house power brokers – Pharisees, scribes, lawyers, temple officiants, and Herod – were the ones who got the rebukes. Those without power – women, children, the disabled, the demon-possessed, prostitutes, lepers and other unclean, sinners, etc – got the tenderness, affection, and patience, as did those from outside his own religious tradition – Samaritans and Romans.

  10. Christian Kemp said:
    “I am glad this has happened. Another victory for equality of people. Means we no longer have to discriminate and hate gays.”

    Sure, because condemning them to death via the diseases that their sexual behavior infects them with is so much more compassionate.

  11. Arewn B you said
    “Sure, because condemning them to death via the diseases that their sexual behavior infects them with is so much more compassionate.”

    I hope you realize that all STD’s can be transmitted both heterosexually and homosexually. And sometimes without even having sex. So that comment does not make any sense.

  12. And, in fact, most STD’s are less likely to be transmitted in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual ones. So that line of attack makes even less sense.

    But most people who try to reflexively repeat the hateful side of anti-gay arguments are only imagining male-on-male sex in their heads when they make such claims.

    This kind of unhelpful and silly attacking makes it REALLY hard for the rest of who want to, like Jesus, lead those who are lost to repentance via love. Remember, you can prophetic powers, all knowledge, all faith, and understand all mysteries, but without love it is nothing. You’re just a clanging cymbal. The mere fact that you preach repentance does not mean that you are preaching repentance in love.

    Is the love here patient, kind, non-arrogant, and non-rude? I have a real hard time imagining that there are homosexuals who are coming to this site, reading the posts and comments, and finding that sort of Biblical love there.

  13. According to the CDC, there have been about 620,000 AIDS deaths in the US alone (since about 1981), and somewhere between 50 to 60% were among men who had sex with men. Jonathan would rather talk about lower rates of STDs among lesbians, but will he or anyone explain the over 300,000 homosexuals that have died, just in the U.S.?

    Doug’s point was that in recent times, far, far more homosexuals have been handed a death sentence by their own partners than at the hands of vigilante heterosexuals, let alone by faithful Christians in government office. Hypothetically, if there had been some sort of civic penalty for homosexual acts, how many of those 300,000 might still be alive today? Jonathan sidesteps this issue completely. Where is the outrage among homosexuals for the disproportionate cost they have inflicted on themselves by their promiscuity? Where is the sense of proportionate anger in light of who is really responsible for the modern carnage? Why do they get a pass? Is it because death is part of the lifestyle choice?

    Jonathan wrote:
    “Is the love here patient, kind, non-arrogant, and non-rude? I have a real hard time imagining that there are homosexuals who are coming to this site, reading the posts and comments, and finding that sort of Biblical love there.”

    I have a real hard time imagining Jonathan not using the same reasoning to rebuke Paul for writing Romans 1. Was Paul supposed to test the politically correct winds by anticipating and accommodating the homosexual’s reaction in coming to read Romans 1? Is this how our words are to be measured, by the reception of the audience? Remember it was Paul who wrote the bit about the clanging cymbal. Who was Paul loving by writing the strong words that he wrote?

    The mere fact that one preaches love does not mean that they are, in fact, loving. Sometimes love refuses to tickle ears.

  14. Katecho, I wouldn’t “rather talk about” men or women in homosexual relationships. I’m just pointing out that the reasoning is completely bunk. The AIDS infection rate among women in lesbian acts is virtually nil. So if you’re hanging yourself on that reasoning, then you’re only opposing man-on-man sex – your argument becomes useless for women. So how could you use that reasoning against homosexual men, but not admit that the same reasoning would work in favor of homosexual women?

    This is called “selection bias” – you consider an argument to be a good one if it produces the bias you want, and you simply ignore the argument whenever it goes the other way.

    As far as Romans 1 goes, you seem to forget that its connected to Romans 2. “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?” – Romans 2:1-4

    If you try to use Romans 1 to judge someone other than yourself, you’re missing the whole point.

    This is perfectly in line with the passages RFB was quoing, with “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent”, and “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” God is speaking to ALL of us, and asking you to realize the sin that you still need to rid yourself of, with fear and trembling. The longing you focus on the logs in other people’s eyes (or wherever), the more you’re going to ignore the logs that are still stuck in our own eyes.

    p.s. – Denmark approved gay marriage 24 years ago, and since then the life expectancy for gay men in marriages has now surpassed the life expectancy for unmarried/divorced single men, and is approaching the life expectancy for married men. That isn’t an argument that gay marriage is moral, but it’s certainly a clear argument against your current line of reasoning.

  15. Jonathan wrote:
    “This is called “selection bias” – you consider an argument to be a good one if it produces the bias you want, and you simply ignore the argument whenever it goes the other way.”

    This is precisely what Jonathan has done. He has employed selection bias to consider only subgroups, like Lesbians and Denmark gays. Evasion 101.

    Meanwhile, there are still 300,000 dead homosexuals that died at the hands of their homosexual “partners”. Jonathan hasn’t addressed that carnage at all. He is blind to their deaths, as are, apparently, the remaining general populace of homosexuals. He would rather join in the chant that Doug is a hater. Thus he hasn’t addressed Doug’s point about who has engaged in the actual bloodbath upon homosexuals in our day.

    The sad part is that some kind of civic penalty against homosexuality might have spared some of those homosexuals. It is odd that Jonathan can’t even bring himself to acknowledge this possibility. He would rather obfuscate and misdirect using selection bias.

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” — Romans 1:26-27

    Is Paul a hater for writing that? Jonathan didn’t respond to that question. How would a homosexual react upon reading it? Might they react the way that Jonathan has reacted against Doug? Why does Paul get a pass, or does he? Does the homosexual’s reaction, or Jonathan’s negative reaction, inform us that we are using the wrong tactic? Or are our methods to be informed by Scripture, regardless of political correctness?

    It seems that Jonathan’s objection has less to do with Doug, and more to do with Paul and with Scripture.

  16. christian said:

    “I hope you realize that all STD’s can be transmitted both heterosexually and homosexually”

    Very true! Which means that we as a culture need to stop treating our bodies as experimental petri dishes (this will involve everyone refraining from sexual intercourse of any type with anyone to whom we are not married).

    One, (maybe two generations, at the outside) of exercising self-restraint and actively seeking lifelong monogamy will see the near total eradication of all sexually transmitted diseases, without the use of any drugs or “health-care” expenditures whatsoever.

    christian said: “And sometimes without even having sex.”

    Also true, if you are A) a druggie who shares needles with somebody infected with an STD, B) a hemophiliac who received a transfusion “compassionately” donated by somebody infected with an STD, C) a child born to a mother who has an STD, or D) the patient of a dentist who got an STD from his male lover, and somehow infected you while he was cleaning your teeth.

    The point is that all STD infections can be traced to someone, at sometime along the transmission chain, having engaged in sexual intercourse with someone else. Hence “sexually transmitted disease.”

    None of which negates the point that STDs kill homosexuals at a rate far in excess of the rate at which they kill the rest of the population, and it is cruel and (dare I say) ~hateful~ to not tell these men that it is the lifestyle and behavior that they have made the core of their identity that is killing them.

Comments are closed.