So then, I recently received an (indirect) question about my use of language that “demeans.” Why do I speak, for example, about “gay activists” as though they were the enemy, the adversary, the foe?
And the answer is that in a very important sense, they are the enemy — as testified by their unremitting onslaught against us. But I need to qualify this before I proceed. In another sense, they are not the enemy but rather what we are fighting over. The ultimate enemy is the devil. The evangelistic endeavor is therefore a war of liberation. Our goal is not to destroy our human enemies, except in the way that making them friends in Christ would destroy them as an enemy. When an enemy is converted, he is just as destroyed as if he were dead.
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will” (2 Tim 2:25–26).
We are to interact with those who oppose us with true meekness, in the hope that God will give them repentance. So in that sense, they are the captives we are seeking to set free, not the jailers we are seeking to destroy.
Now some might say that my robust adjectival missile launches are in no way “meek,” and that I am getting the way of the gospel by being so rambunctious in my opposition to things like the homo-jihad. But meekness is to be defined by the Bible, and not by your sainted great aunt Milly.
“Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3).
We are told this right before the Lord struck Miriam with leprosy for challenging the authority of Moses — meaning that Moses was not some pencil neck standing in the corner. Moses was meek, not a milksop.
And the Paul who told Timothy to lead with meekness is the same one who told Titus that he needed to deal with the Cretans sharply, and how he had to shut the mouths of certain vain talkers (Tit. 1:11). “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13).
In another place, he tells the Galatians that the whole law is summed up in this one thing, one word, which is that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (Gal. 5:14). Isn’t that wonderful? But two verses previous he had said that those who were so zealous for circumcision really ought to overachieve and, as he devoutly wishes, cut the whole thing off. The world would be a better place if they cut the whole thing off (Gal. 5:12). And in yet another place, he dismisses his circumcising opponents as, and I quote, “dogs” (Phil. 3:2).
Now one of two things is true. Either the apostle Paul was a thundering hypocrite, with that hypocrisy on display within the pages of Scripture itself, which no believing Christian can accept, or the Christian world at large has a really screwed up view of what love is supposed to look like.
This latter option is what has actually happened, and it was our redefinition of love that gave the opening to our enemies to take the next step and redefine marriage. Love and marriage go together, right? We were doing tranny experiments on what love means long before the bad guys were doing their number on marriage.
The river where we are stinks pretty bad. But there are more polluters upstream than anybody is letting on, many of them ostensibly conservative and evangelical. Pastors have been cross dressing in the pulpit for just a short time now. But multitudes of sermons have been cross dressing for decades now. Depending on the text, especially that one from the Old Testament somewhere about footprints in the sand, quite a few of them have been getting homiletic hormone shots. The church in North America needs to see a good part of the travesty we are now dealing with as the fruit of their own quietly accepted corruptions.
So this helps explain why I periodically use language that some say they find grating or offensive. I have actively sought to avoid the approved and sensitive terms (like gay). Now is that approach really in keeping with the high drawing room tone that we want our civil discourse to have? Well, no, it isn’t, but this is not that kind of situation. If we successfully create the kind of society where we can politely agree to disagree about such things, then we have abandoned our own principles, and have settled for advocating a lite version of the enemy’s principles. Don’t keep surrendering and wonder why we are constantly losing. Why do we never win any battles? Well, for starters, we should perhaps fight some.
So back to our foes. When a movement has formally adopted the tactic of being offended at EVERYTHING, it is not within their rights to then present themselves as experts on drawing the line between offensive and inoffensive disagreement. They have defined all disagreement as ipso facto offensive, and have resolved to shout down anyone that varies from their decrees. Here is the case of the Colorado baker who has done nothing offensive (as would be interpreted by normal people), but who must submit to “re-education.” Why are you hauling off the inoffensive guy? The answer is that anything short of enthusiastic North Korean mob-applause is considered offensive. So anyone who is okay with that kind of thing (which virtually everyone on the other side of this issue is) ought not be considered by us to have anything sensible whatever to say about what constitutes offensive language.
So with all that said, there are a couple of other factors to consider when it comes to this question.
The first is that in any given situation, the rhetoric ought to match the content of what is being said. To refuse to do so invites the people to disbelieve and disregard what you are saying because you obviously don’t believe it yourself. If you sit down in the back row of the theater and whisper to the person next to you something like, “Psst! The theater is on fire. Pass it on,” this means that you are not serious. Whatever it is you are saying, people should know that you mean it.
A good deal of the “sensitive” opposition to the fatwas emanating from our newly-established sexual tribunals is way too coy. There needs to be less of “at the end of the day, with all perspectives taken in consideration, reflecting on the fact that we too are sinners, we should want to retain, if at all possible, a small carve-out where traditionalists might be allowed, again at the end of the day, to think that some of our currently accepted behavior might be thought by some to be unseemly,” and more of “I would rather be dead in a ditch than go along with this demento-approach to sexual definitions.”
Second, I have been flamboyant in my opposition so that I can serve as a canary in the mine. In some respects, this might be a futile gesture, in that the floor of the mine is already littered with hundreds of dead canaries, but I am still hopeful. When I finally say poofter one time too many, and I am boarding the cattle car set to take me off to one of those new democracy camps, where I and my fellow writers will learn the true cabalistic meaning of the First Amendment, perhaps a handful of onlookers might whisper among themselves that somebody perhaps should have listened earlier.
What will it take? One imagines the thousands of Christian parents who have their kids in the educational equivalent of Obamacare finally rising up as one and saying, “That’s it! No more, we have had it.” This will happen ten years after all the discriminatory and separated restrooms and locker rooms have been outlawed in the gummint school system. Lots of folks tried to make their peace with that. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was when the Supreme Court decided that the junior high girls had to be willing to lather up the boys in the shower when requested.
Fix it in your minds. America can be straight, or it can be bent. The one thing it cannot be is both.