A better question: Having said this, let me give an even better question than the one in the title of the post. Here it is: “Why are you Christians always singling out homosexuality, why not talk about divorce and separation and all those other things you Christians do?” I think you will agree, this is an even better question, with a lot more to answer for. By the way, we should also throw Christian teen pregnancy rates into the mix! And it is true that the divorce rates are as high in the Church as they are in the World. The only difference is, it just takes a bit longer in the Church! So let's make the question even clearer by asking, are we not being hypocritical self righteous bigots when we condemn one form of deviance from traditional values, while at the same time are so guilty of another? Does God hate divorce or doesn't He?
Christian Hypocrisy? As I have said elsewhere there has always been self righteous hypocrites both inside and outside the Church, but whatever else it is, it is not by definition Christian (= Christ like). Let me answer the hypocrisy question as if it were being asked of me personally, I will let the rest of the Church speak for themselves. When I was eleven years old, and going to a new School, I got in with a crowd of boys who were into shop lifting. I entered in with zeal, and was clever enough not to get caught. Well it was before the days of hidden cameras. It seemed like a jolly good thing at the time. I could have all sorts of things I would not otherwise have had. However, not all of the boys were as brilliant as yours truly :-). One of the others boys got caught and spilled the beans on the rest of us. I think it was the disappointment in my father's eyes that got to me the most, and I admitted I was wrong and turned from my sin. To this day I am careful to be honest (though I am a bit careless with pens at work!). Now let me ask you: “Am I hypocritical to have taught my children the value of honesty?” If you say “yes,” I don't think I have anything to say to you that you will be able to hear! Let me say more, assuming that you are still reading. I learned from the school of hard knocks that lac of sexual purity is very, very destructive. Nearly forty years after conversion, and a miraculous delivery from my addiction in this area, I am still reaping some of the negative consequences of my “throwing off the repressive restraints of traditional morality.” I would save you the pain dear reader. Is it hypocritical of a former smoker to advocate abstention of smoking? Certainly the Church needs to clean up its act, judgement must begin at the household of God!
The World in the Church: Coming to the point of the widespread contamination of the new morality in the Church, I have been saying that what has happened to our society in the last few decades is that we have been subjected to a highly organized, deliberate well funded, determined propaganda to overthrow the above mentioned "repressive restraints of traditional morality.” In these terms, the facts of divorce and teen pregnancy in the Church, to my mind merely testify to the success of the aforementioned propaganda. The fact of the matter is, that our culture has become pornographic in and of itself. You can hardly go to a movie without some couple jumping to bed with each other, subtly saying this is perfectly normal there is nothing wrong with this, everybody does it (see May 22nd). And the trouble is under the influence of the propaganda it is more and more becoming the norm. It is not easy to stand for purity in such an environment! I have to admit the new morality is very seductive, it really is. It's not just about homosexuality, homosexuality is just the most visible tip of the iceberg.
Too young for the questions: If you think about it the reason statuary rape is called rape, is because it recognizes that it is far too easy to seduce those who are not of age. They are not in a good position to resist the gentle, smiling, affirming seduction of experienced predatory adults. We call it rape, and legislate against it because we recognize that minors need to be protected from such things. They are too young for the questions. But more and more, and earlier and earlier we are introducing the very seductive politically correct morality into the very curriculum of the schools with our “Johnny has two mummies stories.” I understand this is happening as early as kindergarten. Yes I do know the rational, children can be and are cruel. And children of homosexual couples are seemingly natural targets for it. Please do not misunderstand me, I am very much for the teaching of tolerance and sensitivity, but we need to have wisdom here. In particular we need to see where all of this is going, and we in the Church like the prophets of old need to lovingly and humbly warn this generation just exactly where we are headed.
So where exactly are we headed? One way to see is to understand how we got to where we are now. David Kupelian in his book “The marketing of Evil” documents how in a single generation Harvard business school training was used to change the prevailing value that homosexuality is wrong, and to bring us the place where homosexuals are our current cultural heroes and victims of “repressive traditional values.” Kupelian documents that this change is not, as the lie would have us believe, a spontaneous rejection of traditional values by the “moral majority.” The techniques used are the same as those used in advertizing and in politics. There are basically three stages. You flood the market with the propaganda, you jam (vilify, intimidate, shout down etc.) the opposition, and then finally you aggressively promote the new product/politician/morality. This last stage is called “conversion.”
So with this in mind what is next? Even staying away from euthanasia, mercy killing and the like, there are two areas that cause me grave concern. The first has been described as a mother's worst nightmare, I am referring to the move to decriminalize incest. You say “Phil you are being a scare monger, these things are unthinkable.” Well the sleeping Church was saying exactly the same thing about homosexuality just a generation ago. Are you aware that incest has already been decriminalized in several European countries? Try Googling “decriminalize incest,” and you will see that I am not exaggerating. If it sounds shocking, realize that in North America we are not yet ready for the “conversion” stage. But it is coming, and the values neutral position has absolutely no defense. “Who are we to judge?”
The second cause of major concern is pedophilia. If we want to do this, we have to start by changing the language. So we must no longer call it child abuse, we must use softer language. Let me see, how about “man boy love?” If you think I am joking try Googling NAMLBA (North American man love boy association), and read their propaganda (or not). And again the values neutral position has absolutely no grounds to say it is wrong. It is easy to see that at the “conversion” stage of this issue in our propaganda war, we would invent words like “pedophobe” meaning those who fear pedophiles. Well it is healthy to fear some things, snakes, predictors etc. And all this name calling and shouting down the truth needs a name too. I call it eleuthiaphobia a fear of the truth. I don't mean this seriously. You see when you have truth on your side you don't need to resort to name calling, you don't need to “jam” the arguments of the opposition.
The sleeping Church: Part of this is our own fault. In the Church we have been embarrassed to talk about sex at all (except in some circles to imply that it is somehow dirty!). We have failed to recognize the seductive power of the new morality, and have sat back and ignored the signs, that for a long time we have not been able to take traditional Christian sexual morality as a given. We teach on everything else but sex! It's God's gift, not to be devalued and squandered in one night stands. When we do so it becomes practically meaningless, and results in the moral chaos both in the Church and Society. There are always practical reasons for Biblical prohibitions. I will be saying more about this larger principle in the book I am writing “God's Math. Take away what hinders, add what helps.” I will also say there that we in the Church need to obey the admonition not to be conformed to the World, and that we really do have to deal with the issues.
The boot is on the other foot: So why do we pick on homosexuals? As I said in a related post (Nov. 23, 2010) we did not pick this issue, it was forced on us by the above mentioned persistent provocative propaganda put out by the militants of the new morality. These militants vilify us and then shout "foul." So the boot is actually on the other foot, it is the in your face (inconsistent) militancy of the gay lobby that is forcing the issue on us. I personally think, given the direction in which we are heading, that these continued attacks are a good thing. Perhaps it will cause us in the Church to wake up, and to start thinking and praying about how to deal with the issues, and to answer the many accusations that are leveled against us, and last but by no means least, to ask God to intervene. We need a move of God, that will bring us all back to Him and hence back to purity!
I acknowledge earlier that there are rednecks in the Church, but that the Church does not have a monopoly on rednecks! As to the rest of us, if you think about it you will realize that the vast majority has either capitulated, or cowed in self defense, withdrawing altogether from the “debate.” I understand the reluctance, nobody wants to be called a homophobe or a hate monger. But to make the same point twice, though bigotry exist, this is not the stance of the vast majority, nor is it by definition Christian! Certainly the conservative Church thinks that Homosexuality is wrong, but is it necessarily hate if when we speak of these things, we do so in gentleness and humility? If I tell my son that taking things that do not belong to him is wrong, am I a kleptophobe stirring up hate towards thieves? Let's get real here, and let's stop the name calling!
Who is intolerant of who? Proponents of the “values neutral position” often justify the stance by saying that to take any other stand is to be insensitive and intolerant. In this way they appeal to the deeply felt values of fairness, generosity of spirit and tolerance of our culture. Actually sensitivity and tolerance are a vestige of our Judeo Christian heritage, not found elsewhere. Where we have been insensitive and intolerant we do need to repent, we do. But does the "values neutral" position practice what it preaches? Are the militants of Political correctness sensitive and tolerant towards those of us who hold traditional values? I think you know the answer!
Judge a World view by how it treat it's dissenters. If we are checking out a world view, one of the things we can look at is what it teaches about, and how it's leaders treat, its dissenting members, those who no longer want to belong. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, who not only showed them where Jesus was, but clearly identified Him by the traditional Middle Eastern greeting of friendship. Though He was clearly sad, Jesus did not rail against him, but responded only by saying “Judas do you betray me with a kiss?” Jesus was practicing what He preached when He said “Love your enemies.” We Christians have not always followed Jesus well in this regard, but true Christians want to be like Him. It is not always easy to be a true Christian!
So what do the militants of “neutral values” teach and do in this regard? The teaching of tolerance, is one place where Christians and “neutral values” advocates agree. Both preach tolerance though, as in many things, both sides fail. What bothers me the most (and this is certainly not true for the average person) is that they, the founding fathers and mothers of the propaganda actually advocate intolerance and the imposition of their values, not only on those of us who see through the absurdity of the view, but also towards those who no longer want to go along with it! There are strong moves to have any speech by dissenting gays classified by law as hate speech. There is currently a law before the senate in California which would severely limit the rights of gays to seek help with their unwanted same sex desires. So who is intolerant of who, and who trying to impose their views even on their own community? This is not just the mindset of some on the fringe, it is the mindset of those who drove "Political correctness" in the first place and continue, to use their own accusations, to “sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us”. These are the ones who advocated that “We must demand liberation from such 'mighty engines of repression'.”
Conclusion: So should we be “neutral values” or not? You can't have it both ways! If it is your view that “We must not impose our values on others, because to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant,” you cannot without being a hypocrite then turn round and be insensitive and intolerant and repressively impose your “neutral values” values those who value traditional values.
The propaganda is saying that we Christians picked on the homosexual issue, that we are constantly picking on homosexuals and are homophobes etc. It is one of many lies. The fact of the matter is, that it is the militants of the new morality who are using the homosexual issue to provoke and bludgeon traditional morality, cry foul and then in a very intolerant, insensitive and repressive way, vilify those of us who hold it disrespecting and marginalizing us in the process. It is pure hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment