A preoccupation with homosexuality?

Perhaps you have noticed the near tidal wave of articles, books, and blog posts reaffirming what the Bible says about sexual ethics, particularly homosexuality. "What is this pre-occupation with homosexuality?" you may be wondering.

What is with all these responses is that they are just that: responses. The ever-expanding big tent called evangelicalism is producing an increasing number of voices advocating for the normalization of homosexuality generally and same-sex marriage specifically. There are others who don't go quite that far but express a sort of agnosticism suggesting that the Bible is not at all clear concerning homosexuality.

So, Christians who believe the Bible (rather redundant isn't it?) do what they have always done: contend for the authority and clarity of God's Word. And God's Word is exceedingly clear concerning homosexuality. It is sin. It is, like all sin, damning. But it is also the sort of sin that does profound damage emotionally, relationally, and physically as well.

The following is a sampling of particularly helpful articles on the subject:
Kevin DeYoung - HERE, HERE, and HERE
Al Mohler - HERE and HERE
Jonathan Parnell (Desiring God) - HERE
Eric Teetsel (Patheos) - HERE

Of course, part of the declaration of clear Biblical truth must also be the invitation for sinners to repent and receive the mercy of Christ. That mercy is available to all who repent and believe.

In this post I link to some excellent resources focused on bringing hope and healing to those who struggle with same-sex attraction.

World Vision endorses homosexual practice

Sad news from Rich Stearns who announced that World Vision (the organization he serves as President) has now changed its hiring policy. The Christian charitable organization will now hire practicing homosexuals. What a tragic endorsement of that which destroys the bodies and souls of so many. In this decision Stearns inexplicably claims that World Vision is not taking a position on the issue of same-sex marriage. He goes on to justify the decision by saying that various theologians and denominations disagree about homosexuality.

I have written a post over at Ref21 on this unfortunate news.

Check out the responses from Franklin Graham and Russell Moore.

Thinking biblically about the death of DOMA

Rosaria Champaign Butterfield has written a thoughtful and thoroughly biblical reflection on the Supreme Court's decision to demolish DOMA and thus pave the way to make homosexual "marriage" the law of the land.

Also, her thoughts on the closing of Exodus International and reparative therapy are, in my opinion, exactly right.

Mrs. Butterfield writes:

This has been an electric few weeks for a former atheist, now Christian disciple. First, Exodus International closes down. Truth be told, this is fine by me. Reparative therapy was never part of God’s method, and Jesus Christ did not die to make any para-church his bride. But Exodus detonated with a colossal bang, and took with it gospel integrity, leaving even more theological turbulence in its wake.

Now the Supreme Court, using strong, cosmological, moral language defending the human dignity of same-sex unions, overturns DOMA and Proposition 8, sending a resounding rebuke to the Christian ideal of creation ordinance, and with it, the normative (albeit not always redeemed) heterosexuality that undergirds it...

So I did what parents across the country did — believing parents and unbelieving parents, gay parents and heterosexual ones. I gathered my children in close, and I talked with them. You probably did this, too. No big surprises in my talk.

No new news. No identity bombs were dropped. My children have always known that their mother used to be an atheist and a lesbian. They cut their teeth on this vocabulary, and could say the words before they knew what they meant. Saved by grace. Closets are for clothes, after all.
Here is what I know: God is bigger than my sin. And God is sovereign over Supreme Court decisions and shifting worldviews. He has had the first and he will have the last word on all matters of sin and grace.

The Church, Christ’s bride, is a God-made institution and will sustain herself in majesty in times of persecution or revival. Context matters not. Providence will paint the walls of this worldview.

Read the entire piece HERE.

SCOTUS on DOMA

History was made today by the Supreme Court of the United States. The door is now fully open to require all 50 states to recognize homosexual marriage. Time will tell how this will further our decline as a society. But in the short run it will certainly speed the rate at which Christians are dismissed as bigots and haters. There is nothing new about that. The tricky difference is that very soon pastors and churches will be faced with the fall out of standing against state and federal law. We must be ready for the new challenges this will present.

We also must keep in mind that the state is not the church. The state does not bear the same responsibilities nor exist for the same purpose as does the church. However, this does not lessen the state's obligation to God Almighty. His laws are not rendered irrelevant outside the church or Christian home. Sin is a blight on any nation. And we should expect dire consequences as a nation when we affirm and celebrate what God abominates.

Earlier today, Al Mohler offered an initial reaction to the SCOTUS decision:
Even though the Court did not rule today that all states must legally recognize and allow for same-sex marriages, the handwriting is on the wall. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion implicitly invites any citizen who resides in a state that does not allow for same-sex marriage to claim that his or her constitutional rights are violated on the basis of the Court’s opinion handed down today. You can count on a challenge of this form arising in short order.

As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent today, “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

The Court’s majority did not want to pay the political price that a decision as immediately sweeping as Roe v. Wade would have cost. Instead, the majority decided to send a clear signal that such a case will now be well received. It struck down DOMA by employing a logic that, as Scalia noted, cannot stop with the striking down of DOMA. It can only stop with the full legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states by judicial fiat.

But wait, for there are more shoes to drop...Continue Reading

A Place To Stand

Today, President Obama, looking strangely uncomfortable, announced his support for homosexuals to marry.

Given the deadly combination of pragmatism and biblical illiteracy so common within evangelicalism, confusion on moral issues is sure to abound.

Michael Yussef has written a timely call for Christians to stand upon God's Word in the face of cultural trends:

Recently I read a masterful article in The Christian Post by Dr. Albert Mohler, who is nothing short of a modern-day prophet. In the article, Dr. Mohler warns, “The urgency to reach people with the Gospel can, if the church is not faithful and watchful, tempt us to subvert the Gospel by redefining its terms.”

Specifically, Dr. Mohler drew attention to how some evangelical megachurches appear to be softening their positions on homosexuality. He calls on evangelical leaders to steer clear of the sinking sand of celebrating homosexuality—a quicksand that the mainline churches, I believe, have fallen into. Many evangelicals today need to take a hard look at what happened to their mainline forebears.

Having once served as a priest in the Episcopal Church, having warned my denomination’s leadership against sinking sand, having walked out before the denomination enveloped me, I offer my plea to my friends in some of these churches.

I am hearing the same language I heard 25 years ago: “We must love without passing judgment,” they say. “We need to accept people regardless of their moral practices.”
But my concern goes far beyond those misleading statements. The questions that no one seems to ask in the midst of this muddled thinking are: Why is the homosexual lobby adamant that their practice should not only be accepted, but celebrated, especially by Christian leaders? When they know full well what scripture says? Why does the homosexual lobby feel that it’s not enough for the church to love and care for them as individuals?

Recently, I was discussing that with a man who is gay, a man whom I care deeply about. His argument was, “If you truly love me, you must accept me into membership.”

He agreed that his lifestyle was against the clear Word of God; he even agreed that it was against God’s created order. Nonetheless, he wanted me to “get on” with accepting that this is a new day and that a new model is needed. Never mind that I would have to compromise the Word of God. Sadly, many believers today are thoroughly confused. With respected church leaders sending them mixed signals, no wonder they don’t know what to believe anymore. 

Read the entire article HERE.

John Piper on Same-Sex Marriage

John Piper has weighed in with some worthwhile thoughts on same-sex marriage and the recent New York law endorsing the practice.

Piper calls it a "calamity" and "an assault on God and His image in man."

On June 24 the New York legislature approved a Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual marriages will be institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).

My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing—new for America, and new for history—is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act—just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)

What’s new is not even the celebration of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia. What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity.

My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such. My reason for writing is to help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man.

Christians, more clearly than others can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery: “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

And on top of sin’s self-destructive power comes, eventually, the wrath of God: “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).

Is Marriage (as traditionally defined) worth protecting?

Take time to read this excellent article entitled Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles.

Al Mohler on New York's "Moral Revolution"

Dr. Mohler writes:

One of the lessons learned in this sad spectacle is the fact that enough Republican senators changed their positions on the issue under intense pressure, thus enabling the passage of the legislation. The same was true for the minority of Democratic senators who had previously voted against the measure. One of these, Carl Kruger, changed his vote because the nephew of the woman Kruger lives with was so outraged over the issue that he had cut the couple off from an ongoing relationship. “I don’t need this,” the Senator told a colleague, “It has gotten personal now.”

Well, of course it has. But what this statement really means is that many Americans, including many in the political class, simply fold their moral convictions when they conflict with the lifestyles or convictions of a friend or relative.

Thus far, whenever the people of a state have had their say, marriage has been defended as the union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage has been made legal by courts (such as in Iowa and Massachusetts) and by legislatures in some northeastern states. If current trends continue, the American map of marriage will reveal a deep and consequential division between states which recognize same-sex marriage and those who do not.

Given the central importance of marriage to our civilization and culture, it is hard to imagine how such a mixed moral landscape can last. Add to this the fact that President Obama has instructed his own Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in courts.

In the end, it is difficult to know how one can exaggerate the importance of New York’s shift on marriage. New York is not merely a highly populous state — it also includes the nation’s most significant city in terms of economics, business, and cultural influence.

The legalization of same-sex marriage represents nothing less than a moral revolution, for what the law allows and recognizes, it also approves. Last Friday was a sad day for marriage and, if the advocates of same-sex marriage are right, it was also a sign of things to come.

Read the entire post HERE.

Floundering to Sodom

New York is the latest state to approve same-sex marriage. That makes the Empire State the sixth and largest state to approve of the practice.

Make no mistake, these are defining moments for the United States. As marriage goes, so goes the culture. Marriage has a very particular meaning. By its very nature marriage is between a man and woman. Procreation and the stabilizing of societal norms are fundamental to marriage.

Certainly we ought to reject all notions of theocracy. God's kingdom will not be established in this dying era. The state cannot be the church. We can even debate the propriety of laws banning homosexual acts. However, the state must never put itself in the position of approving that which God has condemned.

The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is an abomination. It is a sin that characterizes a people in the final death throes of moral and societal decay. It is a sin that is particularly degrading to our identity as those who are made in the image of God. It reeks havoc upon the offender physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Homosexuality is the evidence of a people who have been given over to a wicked mind (Romans 1:18ff).

Granting that the state is not the church, the civil magistrate is nevertheless provided by God for the purpose of ordering society and suppressing evil (Rom 13). In this way God provides common grace to believer and unbeliever alike. It is therefore a frightening reality when the state becomes blind to obvious evil and even celebrates wickedness.

The following are a few articles that are helpful in the same-sex marriage debate:

What is Marriage? by George, Girgis, and Anderson

Offense and Criticism in the Marriage Debates by R.J. Snell

The Abolition of Marriage by Christopher Wolfe

So, What's Really At Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4 by Al Mohler

The Compassion of Truth by Al Mohler

Marriage is not whatever we want it to be...

Robert George, Sherif Gergis, and Ryan T. Anderson make the case against same-sex marriage.

"The Path of No Resistance"

The deadly combination of unchallenged liberal presumptions and casual intimidation of dissenters is probably at its worst in the most prestigious universities, which set the tone for the rest of the country, on this issue as on many others. But in all except the most resolutely religious colleges, there is no doubting that the default position of the American academy is to dismantle the institution of marriage and remake it on a new basis. The result is a good deal of self-silencing—self-exile into the “new closet” on issues involving sexuality—not just by students but by faculty, too. The path of least resistance turns out to be the path of no resistance. For institutions that claim to be homes of diverse views and free inquiry in the pursuit of truth, this creeping orthodoxy is a sign of wounded institutional integrity and failed leadership.

- From Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Institutional Integrity « Public Discourse

Enforcing Laws, Defending Marriage...

In what can only be described as a cynical political move, the Obama Administration informed Congress that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. That means that any challenge to DOMA in the courts will not be countered by the Administration even though the President and Attorney General took oaths to defend the law of the United States. Of course, this is an egregious violation of the Executive's responsibility to enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President and Attorney General simply do not have the power to act as the judiciary and decide which laws are or are not constitutional. What is more, this happened while hundreds of United States citizens are unable to escape an increasingly dangerous situation in Libya. How can it possibly be a Presidential priority to attack the historic and, yes, biblical understanding of marriage during a time of profound challenges in foreign policy?

The Defense of Marriage Act provides much needed protection for states by allowing them to deny the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. For instance, if two homosexuals get married in San Francisco or Boston, Pennsylvania is not required to recognize that marriage. DOMA was passed by congress, signed by President Clinton and upheld by the courts. President Obama's decision to not defend DOMA in the courts all but guarantees that homosexual marriage will become the law of the land. There is now nothing protecting Pennsylvania or Texas or Iowa from having to accept as legitimate the marriage of two homosexuals married in San Francisco.

Scripture makes clear that homosexuality represents the lowest forms of human foolishness and degredation as man drifts farther away from honoring God as God (Romans 1:18ff). The state is not the church. However, any nation which celebrates or honors what God has clearly condemned as an abomination stands under His condemnation.

Al Mohler writes:

Clearly, the President believes that he has sufficient political support to make this move. While gay rights groups have been pressuring the administration for this kind of action, in the first two years of his term, the President clearly felt that such a move would be too politically expensive and risky. No longer.

Is the President right in thinking that he will not be hurt politically by this action? The game played by many liberal politicians in general, and by Democratic politicians in particular, is to say that they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, even as they work to remove all defenses against it. The political game played by many conservatives, by the way, is to pose as defenders of marriage without taking any action that would draw political risk. Remember that when conservative politicians now call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Where were they when such an action would have required courage but was politically viable and clearly needed?

In the press briefing, Jay Carney said that the President’s personal position on same-sex marriage is “distinct from this legal decision.” Last December, President Obama told reporters that his personal position on same-sex marriage is “constantly evolving.”

Well, there may be issues in which the distinction between the legal and the moral arguments makes a real difference, but this is not one of those issues. To suggest that President Obama does not personally support same-sex marriage is to posit a dualism within him that is nothing less than Gnostic. Mr. Carney would do better to stick with his argument that the President’s support of the gay rights movement is consistent. It is not credible for the President now to play Hamlet on the question of his own position on same-sex marriage.

The most immediate meaning of this announcement is two-fold. In the first place, it means that the constitutionally appointed defender of the nation’s laws, the Attorney General of the United States, has now been ordered to cease defending this single law in the courts. That alone is almost surely sufficient to spell the doom of DOMA in short order.

In the second place, this announcement means that President Obama and his advisers now believe that the full legalization of same-sex marriage is both inevitable and without major political risk to the President and his plans for re-election. That, in itself, represents a moral earthquake. The President clearly believes that a sufficient number of Americans will either support or accept same-sex marriage — and this comes just a few years after a majority of the states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and most by huge margins.

The President has made his decision. The Attorney General has now made his announcement. Mark your calendars for yesterday. That day now represents a tragic milestone in the betrayal of marriage.

Read the entire post HERE.

A Christian response to the normalization of homosexuality

It feels a bit hopeless at times. We are, in the words of one commentator, a "70/30 country." That is, we are a country where the majority of citizens (70%) are being ruled by an ideological minority (30%). These ruling elites mock, among other things, biblical sexual ethics. The most recent and public example of this is the overturning of Proposition Eight in California, the law declaring that the state will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. The law was declared unconstitutional by an openly homosexual judge whose "findings of fact" were nothing more than cliched pro-homosexual bigotry.

That said, what is the church of Jesus Christ to do? It is true that we live south of heaven and should not be surprised by the continuing fruits of our fallen-ness. What is more, the kingdom of Christ is still not of this world. Those Christians on the political left and right should remember this. It is not our mandate to build God's kingdom on earth. And yet, when the laws of the land stand in open mockery of God's law Christians should not shrug it off as nothing more than a reminder that we live in a fallen world. This is true of course, but the redeemed people of God are to live as holy leaven in this fallen world. Jesus taught us to pray, "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And, of course, one day this will come to pass. Until then we live in the shadow lands.

I was helped by a recent post by Kevin Deyoung. In it, DeYoung offers a list of suggestions for Christian action in a culture where the normalization of homosexuality seem inevitable.

1. We should not disengage. It’s tempting to say “We’re going to lose this one. So let’s just try to love people and not put up a fight” But laws do have consequences. Seeking the peace of the city means we defend marriage because we believe it is for the common good. We need thoughtful, winsome Christians engaging with this issue on television, in print, in the academy, in the arts, and in politics and law.

2. Pastors need to teach on sexuality, preferably in the regular course of expositional preaching. A special series on sex is needed at times, but that can look like special pleading. It’s better for congregations to develop a biblical view of sexuality as they go through Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, Genesis, and the Gospels (yes, Jesus did talk about homosexuality; see Mark 7:21).

3. We should assume that there are people in our churches right now struggling with same gender attraction. Leaders need to verbalize this (not specific names obviously) in sermon application and in pastoral prayers. We need to convey that the church is a safe place for those fighting this temptation. Second to Jesus Christ and his gospel, those struggling with same gender attraction need gospel community more than anything else.

4. Youth groups need to talk frankly about sex and sexual identity. The public school teachers I talk to tell me that teenagers are more and more likely to experiment with their sexuality. They’ll choose to be gay for a season just because they can. These issues will only become more prevalent.

5. We must not be afraid to talk about homosexuality. Don’t be silenced by Christians calling for umpteen more years of dialogue or those who say you need at least one gay friend before you can open your mouth. The Bible speaks openly about sexuality and we must not be embarrassed to open God’s word. BUT when we do speak we must do so with broken hearts not bulging veins. A calm spirit and a broken heart are keys to not being tuned out immediately.

6. Preaching and discipleship must exhort Christians to flee all kinds of sins. If churches take sin seriously and address specific sins all the time, it will be less jarring when homosexuality is brought up.

7. We must accept that no matter how hard we try, some people will conclude we are bigots, homophobes, and neanderthals for thinking homosexuality is wrong. Our goal must not be to stop people from viewing us in this way. We can’t control perceptions. Our goal is that those ugly perceptions do not match reality.

8. We need some of our best theological writers and thinkers to explore the nitty-gritty issues that perplex Christian families affected by homosexuality. How should Christian families relate to loved ones who are gay? If your homosexual friend gets “married” should you attend the ceremony? Should families welcome their relative’s partner in the house? In the same room together overnight? How should parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles talk about these issues with younger children? What should a Christian do if he or she is put together with a homosexual roommate in college? These are just some of the very practical questions that pastors and families need help considering.

9. No gay jokes. None. It doesn’t help our witness and they’re not funny. Plus, the more we laugh at sin the more it gets normalized.

10. We must be prepared to suffer. We must not revile when reviled. We must choose to love those who work at cross-purposes to God’s ways. We must be willing to be called names, discriminated against, or worse.

11. We must put away “hate the sin, love the sinner” and put homosexuality in the context of the Bible’s metanarrative of creation, fall, redemption, re-creation. This is one issue just screaming for the bigger picture.

12. We must be people of hope not despair. We know the Lord and he knows us. This is not the worst crisis in the history of mankind. Homosexuality is sinful, but God specializes in sin. Look at what he’s done with us.

Carl Trueman on Gay Marriage

In a recent article at Ref21 Carl Trueman points out the uncomfortable reality that for Americans under the age of 35, "gay marriage is not even an issue." As much as I would like for that not to be true, it is inescapable. Trueman also observes that for those of his generation opposition to gay marriage usually has more to do with being weirded out (my own technical phrase) by homosexuality than zeal for biblical sexual ethics. The "generational divide," Trueman writes, "indicate clear challenges to come. The list of such is no doubt long but here are a few:

1. We can no longer assume our children will just agree with us on this issue; they are going to want arguments for holding that homosexual practice is wrong. We need to go back to scripture and sharpen our swords, so to speak, as we can no longer assume that the cultural bias will play our tune anyway.

2. The impossibility of criticising gay culture without being labeled a homophobe means that a whole heap of other cultural traits will fly in under the radar, a point made in a recent Spectator article about the arrival of cell phones `apps' to facilitate cruising and anonymous sexual encounters -- a technological development welcomed by leading gay figures and the media at large. As the gay community prides itself on promiscuity and camp outrage, so any criticism of it on this score is anti-gay. But what of heterosexual promiscuity and outrageous behaviour? It too gets a pass as the behaviour of the gay community stands above criticism and comes to set the cultural agenda.

3. Churches that have sold the pass on other issues -- most notably women's ordination -- are going to find themselves skewered by the need to oppose homosexual practice with a consistent hermeneutic rather than the appearance of arbitrariness based on simple bigotry. I suspect many evangelicals were able to live with women's ordination because, hey, they liked women; women's ordination may have been wrong, but it was not distasteful in the way that two men in bed together is distasteful; they never in their wildest dreams imagined what was coming round the next corner, even though enough people pointed it out to them. Now, if they stand against homosexuality, they look like homophobes. Better to look like an outdated fundie than a bigot. Churches that have held the line on women's ordination can at least say `Nothing personal against homosexuals; we simply follow scriptural criteria' when asked by a practising homosexual why he should not be ordained.

4. Those evangelical leaders, academics and evangelical institutions that prize their place at the table and their invitations to appear on `serious' television programs, and who enjoy being asked to offer their opinion to the wider culture had better be prepared to make a choice. As I have said before in this column, we are not far from the place where to oppose homosexuality will be regarded as in the same moral bracket as white supremacy. Those types only appear on Jerry Springer; and Jerry generally doesn't typically ask them their opinion on the ethics of medical research, the solution to the national debt, or the importance of poetry to a rounded education.

Carl will be relieved to know that I could not agree more. The conclusion he draws in point number 3 is vital. Churches that have practiced a compromised hermeneutic will find it increasingly difficult to oppose homosexuality in an environment where a growing number of people within the church will view such opposition as bigotry. And do not dismiss the connection he makes with the ordination of women. Clearly not all those who favor the ordination of women favor the blessing of homosexual unions. However, once compromises are made with the biblical text in one arena it becomes increasingly difficult to construct boundaries in another. Such attempts appear arbitrary (which, of course, they are).

The death throws of a denomination

In the 1920's J. Gresham Machen knew that his denomination, The Presbyterian Church USA, was in deep trouble. It was not because they were blessing homosexuality or holding pagan ceremonies. Those things would follow later in the 20th century. During Machen's time, the PCUSA departed from the doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy. Today, rejecting the Bible's inerrancy seems to many like a non-event and is even encouraged by some.

Machen, however, saw the danger. In fact, the pressure he exerted upon the PCUSA to change course led to his being removed from the denomination. It should surprise no one that the PCUSA continues its long journey down the road of apostasy.

Gay Marriage and the cult of self-fulfillment

Mark Galli has a great article on gay marriage at Christianity Today.

‘Evangelicals are sensitive to this reality, but are less aware of how much we proactively participate in the culture of individualism. While stopping short of abortion, we have not given much thought to our easy acceptance of artificial contraception. I’m not arguing for or against contraception here, only pointing to the reality that contraception has separated sex from procreation. That, in turn, has prompted most couples, evangelicals included, to think that sex is first and foremost a fulfilling psychological and physical experience, that a couple has a right to enjoy themselves for a few years before they settle down to family life.

‘In essence, we have already redefined marriage as an institution designed for personal happiness. . .

‘We are, of all Christian traditions, the most individualistic. This individual emphasis has flourished in different ways and in different settings, and often for the good. . . But it is individualism nonetheless, and it cuts right to the heart of one of our best arguments against gay marriage.

‘We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years.

‘In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue.’

Read the entire article HERE.

The NEA takes its stand

From a post by Gene Veith:

The National Education Association, the country’s major teachers’ union, had more than education on its mind at its annual convention:

The National Education Association has thrown its full support behind homosexual “marriage.”

The NEA recently held its annual convention in San Diego, California, where members voted on two issues of importance to those involved in the culture war. One of those issues was whether the union would support same-gender marriage. According to Jeralee Smith, co-founder of the Conservative Educators Caucus, the resolution passed by roughly a two-thirds majority.

“There are quite a few items where the NEA absolutely puts its political muscle behind taking down any legislation in any state that they consider to be discriminatory to homosexuals,” says Smith. “And some of the language in the resolution also hints that the NEA will try to take down the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] on the federal level.”

Smith told Baptist Press that when a representative of the Conservative Caucus spoke against the resolution and mentioned the words “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” the speaker was booed.

Also up for a vote was a resolution for the NEA to take a “no position” stance on the issue of abortion. That proposal was voted down 61 percent to 39 percent.

How about voting on improving math instruction? Or passing resolutions about homework?

And yet, the voice of the union must be emblematic of where our nation’s public school teachers stand on these political, moral, and cultural issues.

Why it may become increasingly difficult for me to vote...

Adam Nagourney from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — It was only five years ago that opposition to gay marriage was so strong that Republicans explicitly turned to the issue as a way to energize conservative voters. Yet today, as the party contemplates the task of rebuilding itself, some Republicans say the issue of gay marriage may be turning into more of a hindrance than a help.

The fact that a run of states have legalized gay marriage in recent months — either by court decision or by legislative action — with little backlash is only one indication of how public attitudes about this subject appear to be changing.

More significant is evidence in polls of a widening divide on the issue by age, suggesting to many Republicans that the potency of the gay-marriage question is on the decline. It simply does not appear to have the resonance with younger voters that it does with older ones.

Consider this: In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, released on Monday, 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40 said they supported gay marriage. By contrast, 57 percent under age 40 said they supported it, a 26-point difference. Among the older respondents, 35 percent said they opposed any legal recognition of same-sex couples, be it marriage or civil unions. Among the younger crowd, just 19 percent held that view.

Steve Schmidt, who was the senior strategist to Senator John McCain of Arizona during his presidential campaign, said in a speech and an interview that Republicans were in danger of losing these younger voters unless the party comes to appreciate how issues like gay marriage resonate, or do not resonate, with them.

“Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters,” he said in a speech.

Read the entire article HERE.

Steve Schmidt demonstrates one of the key deficiencies with political strategy - the message must change with the whims of popular sentiment. For a people shaped by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the reality is precisely the opposite. At the risk of being labeled a cynic, my days as a voter may be very limited.

Carl Truman on the Obama/Warren Flap

Westminster Seminary's Carl Truman has weighed in on the controversy surrounding President-elect Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration.

For many years, on many issues, I have seen myself as a man of the centre left; I am embarrassed at the inability of those whom I have admired on so many issues to hold to any kind of moral hierarchy onwhich issues really count. Even if I were not an evangelical Christian, I'd like to think I could see which is the more important matter: stopping the international child sex trade or getting Melissa Etheridge a marriage certificate.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the day is probably not far off when those who regard homosexual practice as wrong will be consistently presented as the moral, cultural and intellectual equivalents of white supremacists. Al Mohler
(who seems to have spent the whole week writing or speaking on the issues of Lisa Miller and Rick Warren) has pointed out that this issue is set to shatter any possibility of traditional, biblical Christians being considered cool. You can have the hippest soul patch in town, and quote Coldplay lyrics till the cows come home; but oppose homosexuality and the only television program interested in having you appear will soon be The Jerry Springer Show when the audience has become bored of baiting the Klan crazies. Indeed, evangelicals will be the new freaks.

Read the entire post HERE.

Which is it? Gay unions or gay marriage?

Al Mohler has a typically brilliant response to the fury over President-elect Obama's decision to have Rick Warren pray at his inauguration. In the process he asks some important questions concerning Mr. Obama's real position on the issue.

Dr. Mohler writes:

Now here is an interesting point. The protest against Rick Warren is that he is an opponent of same-sex marriage. But when Candidate Obama was asked to define marriage during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, he appeared to leave no room for same-sex marriage: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union." When asked follow-up questions by Warren, Obama endorsed civil unions and opposed a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as a heterosexual institution.

So, what's the difference? Well, as Obama indicated, he is "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Even as he defined marriage in a way that apparently excluded same-sex marriage, he steadfastly refused to do anything to prevent same-sex marriage. Most pointedly, he opposed California's Proposition 8 whereas Warren publicly endorsed it. Before the election, the Obama campaign also provided a message from Michelle Obama expressing hope for the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriage.

In other words, the gay rights community knows that the President-elect will be a reliable friend when it comes to policy. The President-elect virtually promised to do nothing to prevent or slow down the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Read the entire post HERE.

Any thoughts?