In a remarkably prescient joke, Bob Hope said this back in the seventies. “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”
As we look at what remains of sexual ethics in America — the old sexual norms that somebody took a weed eater to — we need to come to grips with what is actually happening. There are two principles that we have to learn. We have to get them down in our bones. When we have done so, we will be able to understand what our only objective must necessarily be.
The first is the inescapable concept. This is a “not whether, but which” situation. It is not whether a sexual norm will be established for all society, but rather which sexual norm will be established for all society. But there is another layer. More is involved here than just competing norms. A battle between Islam and Christianity would be a battle between competing sexual norms, but what we are up against here is a collision between a norm and an anti-norm. The sexual devolution that is now clamoring for acceptance is not a stable norm with “some differences” that could simply replace the old norm.
This is not simply a choice between a tux and wedding gown on the one hand, and a tattered and stained overcoat on a dirty-old-man-hanging-out-near-the-city-playground on the other. No, the overcoat is expansive enough to cover a large amount of explosives, and the point of everything here is sexual smithereens, which is another way of saying societal smithereens. In other words, their enemy is not heteronormativity, their final enemy is civilization. Civilization requires norms, and Christian civilization requires heterosexual monogamous norms. This is simply anarchism.
The second point is that any normal person who predicts what is coming next will find that he is going to be labeled extreme twice. He will first be called extreme for arguing that if we allow x, then we will also have to allow y and z. “You’re crazy — nobody is arguing for the normalization of bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. You’re a loon from the fever swamps.” And then, when precisely this has transpired, right on schedule, he will then be called extreme for daring to oppose what all progressives have always known was the destination all along. He is clearly a hater, and the fact that he is a hater with a good memory — recalling that just three years ago all these same people were taunting him for his dire predictions — only helps to add another layer of irony to the whole affair. First he was extreme for predicting that this was all going to end by screwing the pooch, and now he has become extreme for objecting to the pooch having access to a mutually affirming relationship.
Asa and Jehoshaphat were good kings who had suppressed the demands of the sodomites in the land of Judah. First Asa: “And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” (1 Kings 15:12). Then Jehoshaphat: “And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land” (1 Kings 22:46). Neither Asa nor Jehoshaphat were well read in the latest developments of R2K theology. But what they did should not be whitewashed. They suppressed sexual perversion. But if we have been paying attention, we have learned above that it is not whether, but which. What is the only alternative? The only alternative is Bob Hope’s prescient joke. It is not whether we suppress something, it is what we suppress.
Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, assumed the throne upon the death of his father, and his first move was to have his brothers all killed (2 Chron. 21:4). He then sought to arrest, and then reverse, the sexual reforms established by his father and grandfather.
“Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto” (2 Chron. 21:11).
And so this brings us to our only reasonable objective in this conflict. We are kidding ourselves if we think that this downward slide can simply be halted. We are out of our minds if we think we can just say “thus far and no farther.” If we keep gay pride, we are going to get a lot more than gay pride. And if we avoid the final destination set for us by this long parade of the sad people, it will only be by reversing course. We cannot pitch our tents toward Sodom without eventually winding up in a townhouse there.
In other words there is hope, but the hope is to reverse the sexual revolution, to undo it. This would be sexual reformation. What is not possible is to simply fight the thing to a standstill, pausing awkwardly where we are in order to teeter for a bit. No, if Yahweh is God, follow Him. If Baal is god, then the pooch awaits.
Doug, Excellent points! However, I would take exception with one area of your argument. It seems to me that the battle is not between revolution and reformation, but rather between the moderating influences of Christianity on a society and the chaotic influences of sin on a society. What I mean is that the battle never really ends. We have either Victorians or Victoria’s Secret. Unless I am completely mis-reading history when Christian morality influenced society sin took place in secret, whereas now there are still faithful Christians but the sin is out in the open. Whether done in secret or… Read more »
Romans 1 says that that what we are seeing is a result of God removing his restraining hand due to God’s people not restraining themselves. The problem, in my opinion, is that God’s people first ignored God’s family/sexual norms. Rampant divorce, kids in government schools, mr. Moms, women in the military, attire on Christians that would have only been appropriate in the red light district to 50 years ago, and the list goes on, all within the church. We the church need to get our act in order and then maybe God will again restrain the evil in our land.
“Neither Asa nor Jehoshaphat was…” :)
Not just the pooch. The Old Testament teaches that when the ungodly society rules, instead of being taught to pray, children are preyed upon, their prayers being unanswered. After this: judgment. In the Weimar years, pedophelia was functionally legal in Berlin. The cops were paid off. We know how that ended. Take heed
For disjunctives “neither” and “or” the singular is correct. “Either he or I was in the house.” is the same as “Either he was in the house or I was in the house.” It doesn’t make sense to say, “Either he were in the house or I were in the house.”
Doug, does it occur to you that gay people seek to get married, not because they want to destroy Christianity or Western civilization, but because they love each other and want the same protection for their relationship that you want for yours? What you see as this sinister plot to eradicate Christianity is in reality nothing more than a relative handful of people who don’t fit heteronormativity, and who simply seek the same right to pursue happiness that you have. Plus the percentage of the population that’s gay, and that will actually enter into a gay marriage, is teeny-tiny, and… Read more »
TS “Romans 1 says that that what we are seeing is a result of God removing his restraining hand due to God’s people not restraining themselves.” Did it ever cross your mind that the church worshiped our Lord for 1900 years distinguishing the sexes in worship before Him and the holy angels, through the commanded use of a simple vestment which has been abandoned in modernity? Symbols matter. And yes, we have become how we worship, and it all starts in the sanctuary. 1900 years of practice, erased by every bible believing denomination. What amazing new insight and spirtual maturity… Read more »
Eric,
Are you suggesting that gays hold the higher moral ground because heterosexuals sin too and are greater in number?
Really?
By itself, I’d agree with Eric the Red’s last sentence, and think we’d do well to explicitly denounce ALL fornication, not just the cutting-edge forms that go back to Sodom, at least in a sentence or two in a paper mainly about some hot-button issue. And make clear what we aim at: inside holy matrimony, sex, some of it great; outside, none, as approximated in the New England Puritan villages where no bastards were born in the A.D. 1600s (or something along those lines). Christians want couples joined in holy matrimony to stay together and make love. Couples joined in… Read more »
“Plus the percentage of the population that’s gay, and that will actually enter into a gay marriage, is teeny-tiny, and I’m surprised you ascribe to it the amount of power that you seem to think they have.”
Eric, the bulk of the power doesn’t come from the small number of homosexuals who want to get married, but from the large group of people, both gay and straight, who support and advocate for it, and who use the government’s monopoly on force to coerce many in society into a superficial acceptance of it (like the Christian wedding cake bakers, photographers, etc.).
Hi Andrew, I appreciate that you want the gay-married couple to separate in order to make ongoing sexual sin less likely. Do you think it likely, however, that sexually active gays who are not in committed relationships will commit less sexual sin than those who are? Unless there is repentance, I don’t see that ending a particular gay marriage is going to make its participants decide to lead celibate lives; it is more likely to encourage uncommitted, impersonal, and sometimes promiscuous gay sexual encounters. Is this in society’s best interest? And, in purely secular terms, is it even in the… Read more »
What vestments are you talking about, Steve?
Ben,
Yes, and those who advocate for homosexual marriage (whether gay or straight) argue along the lines; “If two people love each other…”, yet will criticize the “futility” and “hypocrisy” of marriage; “People that love each other…”. They do not want to be included in a lofty standard, they want to knock that that standard down a peg. As doug said, the enemy is not social inequality. The enemy is civilization.
Good morning Jill Smith. You wrote: …it is more likely to encourage uncommitted, impersonal, and sometimes promiscuous gay sexual encounters. Is this in society’s best interest? And, in purely secular terms, is it even in the homosexual’s best interest? I have not thought this through , but on reading the bold text in your quote, my initial thought was, “I am not of these people” or “but, we are not the same society” Consider it an ‘aha’ moment for me where I begin to see the root of our disagreement. In secular terms, your argument is coherent (yet, there are… Read more »
Tom, I’m saying that even if I agreed with you that homosexuals cause harm to society, the amount of harm that they do is miniscule compared to the harm done by heterosexual divorce, teenage pregnancy and child abandonment. Doug’s obsession with it is comparable to a police department announcing that going forward all police effort and resources will be directed toward catching people who run stop signs. There are simply bigger fish to fry if your real concern is what harms society.
Eric the Red, “What you see as this sinister plot to eradicate Christianity is in reality nothing more than a relative handful of people who don’t fit heteronormativity, and who simply seek the same right to pursue happiness that you have.” This is merely counter-asserting. The intellectual equivalent of “nuh uh!” Notice Doug said, “the hope is to reverse the sexual revolution” – responsible for all sorts of sexual deviations. That “there are bigger fish to fry” does not mean the smaller (and I don’t agree that it’s smaller) ones don’t need frying. People don’t hold rallies for “small fish.”… Read more »
As always, brilliantly presented…to which I offer a [significant] paraphrase of 19th century revivalist Charles Finney as quoted in an article by Chuck Bladwin called “Chrsitians and the Freedom Fight.” Finney effectively stated that “Societal ills are due to weakness in the pulpit.”, however he used the more direct word “responsible” in place of weakness in his laundry list of societal indicators. Nevertheless, as Baldwin pointed out (and you do as well), we see the result of too little steadfastness coming from modern Christians…leaders as well as congregants.
@Jill Smith – Yes, I expect whatever it is they do they’ll be doing it with or without a piece of paper. What we should want to see is an end to the legitimization of homosexuality, which is from a cultural (only) standpoint conferred by acknowledging same sex “marriages”. In societies interest, if dark deeds are going to be done at all it is best if they are done in dark corners where no one applauds. The homosexual’s interest can only be served by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is not made more likely by the… Read more »
Seth B., I believe Steve it talking about women wearing a head covering while worship as 1 Corinthians 11 commands.
Matthias, I don’t know if you’re married or not, but if you are, I strongly suspect that you didn’t think too much about the societal impact your marriage would have when you proposed to and then married your wife. Most likely, you simply decided that she was the one you wanted to spend the rest of your life with, and that was that. So, why would you assume that gay people make marriage decisions for any reason other than you do? You seriously think that gay couples sit down and say, “What would be a really good way to destroy… Read more »
Eric,
It gets a bit muddy when you compare sins with crime. There are many sins that I don’t believe should be crimes including homosexuality.
The police will always fry the wrong fish (like busting some one selling lose cigarettes while there is insider trading going on a few stories above) and criminals will often get away with crime, but we will all be held accountable for our sins.
EtR said, Matthias, I don’t know if you’re married or not, but if you are, I strongly suspect that you didn’t think too much about the societal impact your marriage would have when you proposed to and then married your wife. Most likely, you simply decided that she was the one you wanted to spend the rest of your life with, and that was that. Well, I think an argument against your statement that homosexuals get married solely for love and not for societal change could very easily be presented if one only looks to how the issue is presented… Read more »
As if on cue, the Red shows up claiming that homo “marriages” won’t hurt anyone and here we have another story of just the opposite:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/great-grandmother-florist-is-the-latest-victim-of-the-secular-leftist-gay-inquisition/
And this all ignore the harm to the truth about the nature of marriage, the harm to children raised by these false unions, etc., etc.
Amen, Wesley.
Eric, I would add one thing, that it is you who writes in a way that shows a dislike for those acting on homosexual desires. We want to warn them of God’s wrath. Eternity is what is at stake. It is dislike at the very least to stand by and watch someone condemn themselves to an eternity in hell, and sinful to condone it.
God tells us to love our brothers as we would love ourselves.
Wesley, that’s fine until someone comes along and says, “The true God that I worship says homosexuality is beautiful and wonderful and magnificent, and those of you who claim otherwise are worshiping a false God who is really the Devil.” And at that point, I’m supposed to be able to sort out which competing set of claims – yours, that the true God says homosexuality is evil, or his, that the true God says homosexuality is good – is true. Despite the fact that there’s no real evidence for either claim or for either Deity. There are about a dozen… Read more »
Except, Eric, that you have chosen one. You cannot help but choose one. You do not have “the view from nowhere.” You have chosen the religion that says homosexual relationships are good. It is very fashionable to choose it right now, very trendy, very cool, but it has no evidence to make it true. It is false, it is wrong and it will condemn its believers to a life in hell.
EtR said, You’re a Christian because that’s the religion you were exposed to; earnest Muslims are Muslims for the same reason. I can go eeny-meeny-miney-mo and just pick one. And you’re an atheist because you’re a fool (Psalm 14) :). Yes, discrediting someone by claiming, without knowledge, that they only believe what they believe because they haven’t examined it, in order to arbitrarily take for yourself the moral and intellectual high ground is great fun, but I hope we won’t be so simplistic. But, to give you credit, your statement does actually have some credence to it! I’ll move on… Read more »
Eric the Red,
“And at that point, I’m supposed to be able to sort out which competing set of claims – yours, that the true God says homosexuality is evil, or his, that the true God says homosexuality is good – is true.”
Indeed, this is the task that faces you. Here, you speak correctly. You complicate things by ignoring that if God created everything, then there isn’t *but* evidence for his existence. But you have motivation for this. Anyone can see that.
But Eric, to be frank and plain with you, without any of my attempts at rhetorical flair (and I do mean “attempt”), I’m Christian because the LORD is good and I have seen how needful I am of Him. It’s sometimes fun for me to see myself as being better than those who don’t believe, or than those who are homeless from drug addictions, or than liberal celebrities, or than homosexuals, but when I do so, I am exactly the one that Christ condemns, I act as one deserving Christ’s hatred–not for acknowledging the right morality, but for grossly misunderstanding… Read more »
Wesley, re-read Psalm 14:1 again. It does not say, “The fool has said WITH HIS MOUTH there is no God.” No, it says,”The fool has said IN HIS HEART there is no God.” A subtle difference, but very important, and the reason that passage doesn’t apply to atheists. The speaker in Psalm 14:1 may very well profess belief in God and be an active churchgoer. It’s deep down in his heart that he doesn’t really buy it. That said, anybody can write a book that says “You’re a fool if you don’t believe this book.” Your challege is to come… Read more »
Wait a minute, Eric, the burden of proof is on those who want to change the law. I cannot open your eyes to the truth and make you have faith, only God can do that. But if laws are going to be changed for homosexuality, why should they not be changed for other sexual sins? That is the point of this post, right? What standard will prevent others from ripping apart our moral fabric further? We do not believe that atheists will stop with homosexual marriage. Can you prove to us that they will?
Carole, to answer your question, let’s use pedophilia as an example since that one gets thrown around a lot. There are two separate issues: 1. If gay marriage is legal, does that require the legalization of pedophilia? Answer: No. The two issues are separate and each of them stands or falls on its own. Legalizing tobacco and alcohol does not require also legalizing cocaine. Each one has to be evaluated separately. 2. Evaluating pedophilia on its own, is there a reason to keep it illegal? Answer: Yes, two reasons in fact. First, there is an inherent power imbalance between adults… Read more »
We? Eric? This is the problem that worries me. You use the word we, but what does that mean if our laws come tumbling down? Not all countries have the age of consent that the US does. And the US has them because this is a country founded on Christian ethics. When you say, that we may no longer use the light of Christ to guide us, why should we keep the age of consent the same?
And an easier one (that will be very quick to follow) why not polygamy?
And thank you for answering my question.
Eric, are you suggesting that atheists only claim to deny God with their mouths, but don’t actually think that?
Psalm 14:1 certainly applies to religious people who deny God in their hearts, as you say, and in context those are the primary target of the saying, but it’s nonsense to suggest it doesn’t apply to people who also deny Him in with their mouths.
Jane, it’s nonsense to assert that only a fool would disbelieve the existence of God, and that would be nonsense even if God existed. But more to the point, I think that read in its entirety, this psalm is about people who claim to believe one set of principles while actually living by another set. And Christians and atheists alike can agree that that’s pretty foolish.
Any attempt to employ some logic-chopping approach to either this situation or the Scripture is simply a depraved reverse legalism which seeks to determine just how close to the line one can go before they sin. This, in itself, is sin. Repent and believe the Gospel. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is… Read more »
I have a friend in a secular social psychology PhD program at a major public University. This friend told me of a time when a professor was talking about ethics and how we determine them and then posed the question: If a brother and sister are both adults and decide to experiment sexually once and then break it off. Both are unable to have children and they wear a condom to be double safe (so kids are impossible). They tell no one. Is their action wrong? The answer (other than from my friend) was unanimously stated as an awkward but… Read more »
Eric,
You might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4
I think some definition of terms is needed. “suppression”, for example. If we’re talking about the age of sodomy laws (barely ten years ago, BTW), suppression seems like an apt descriptor. But where are the reverse sodomy laws, where heterosexual sex is outlawed? I’m afraid the case that Christian morality is being suppressed is rather flimsy. Loss of social privilege isn’t loss of fundamental rights. In other words there is hope, but the hope is to reverse the sexual revolution, to undo it. Well if that’s your win condition then I pity you, because there really is no hope. Short… Read more »
ETR all you have to do is change age of consent laws. In the state I live a 15 year old can legally have sex with an 18 year old. Statutory rape doesn’t kick in until 19.
Matt,
Who has made the case that Christian morality is being suppressed? Christian morality is liberation by definition.
The lie perpetrated by Crosby Stills and Freud was that sexual freedom would result in liberation, yet the sexual revolution has brought with it the breakup of marriage and the breakdown of the family, resulting in social ills like the welfare state and the soring crime rate.
Yes “suppression” is an interesting word indeed.
Tom, I can’t speak for Matt, but I think what he means by suppress is that nobody is forcing Christians to abandon Christian sexual ethics. Nobody is telling Christians that they have to get gay-married, or fornicate, or have abortions. And what Christians really find so objectionable about the sexual revolution isn’t that Christians are being persecuted, but that Christians are being ignored in their attempts to run other people’s lives. Well, if your only real complaint is that you’re no longer free to run other people’s lives, then you’ve led a charmed existence and have a massive sense of… Read more »
EtR.
The quality of your arguments is getting worse. I am not going to list them as I assume you know what they are.
What I want to convey is that the quality of them will continue to degenerate–until you find yourself running frantically on nothing–like prey in a predators mouth–gaining no traction and going nowhere.
That is where thought goes when it is unmoored from reality and bound by sin.
It will get worse, Eric.
Eric the Red, What in the world are you arguing for in Psalm 14:1? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You say further down that, “I think that read in its entirety, this psalm is about people who claim to believe one set of principles while actually living by another set.” Well, alright. But many of us have argued to you that this is exactly what you’re doing, whether or not you recognize or agree with it. So where are you getting this interpretation from? Are there other commentators that can corroborate this? It’s not saying that… Read more »
Timothy, I’m at least making arguments.
Eric,
We can agree that “suppress” is not the right word, but progressives in office have and/or are currently passing legislation that will mandate that our kids be taught sex ed as early as kindergarten, they can use whatever restroom they feel comfortable with, and they can use contraception and get abortions with our tax dollars and without our consent.
When we make the slightest peep that this is unconstitutional, we are the ones accused of trying to run other peoples lives.
Eric the Red, What you see as this sinister plot to eradicate Christianity is in reality nothing more than a relative handful of people who don’t fit heteronormativity, and who simply seek the same right to pursue happiness that you have. Plus the percentage of the population that’s gay, and that will actually enter into a gay marriage, is teeny-tiny, and I’m surprised you ascribe to it the amount of power that you seem to think they have. I posted a link in response to that to which you haven’t responded. I’m curious to hear your response. In case you… Read more »
Running people’s Is it running people’s lives to make laws against murder? Eric, it seems like you rely an awful lot on a common sense of what is right and what is wrong in our culture. In our culture we believe having sex with children is wrong, evil. There are many cultures that disagree. That common wethat you keep referring to is western culture andweare inexorably linked to a triune God. If you take the foundation away from the ethical structure of our culture, do you not think it will crumble? Please respond to the pastor’s argument. How will the… Read more »
Ree, so long as there has been feminism, it has had a radical fringe that hates marriage because it considers it a patriarchal institution. I don’t think that fringe, or this woman, represent the views of most gay people. I think most gay people just want to be able to marry the person they love. It’s a little like arguing that because some civil rights advocates were also Communists, that therefore everyone who thinks ending Jim Crow was a good idea is also a Communist. Or, alternatively, that become some Christian clergy are pedophiles, that therefore Christianity is pro-pedophilia. Don’t… Read more »
It seems to me, EtR, that a lot of folks who are arguing for homosexual marriage are like the folks who move into gated communities but don’t want to follow all the specific rules. People count on, rely on our culture to uphold Christian ethics, like no polygamy, no pedophilia, until it comes to a command that they don’t want to follow…then suddenly they are atheists. What will be the new standard for right or wrong? It usually sounds like hurting someone’s feelings is the compass; so, won’t it hurt the polygamists feelings if they can’t get married? Won’t we… Read more »