Thursday, September 06, 2007

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

While driving home from running errands late this afternoon, I heard the last nine paragraphs of a commentary called Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians which was written by Selwyn Duke and shared with the public today via the Michael Savage radio show.

I thought that Duke had many excellent points! I was hoping that I might find the transcript at Savage's website. He did have a link to the original published article, however, it is a bit difficult to read at the website because some letters have been inadvertently cut off on the left side.

Therefore, I took the liberty to re-post it here:


Blogcritics is an online magazine, a community of writers and readers from around the globe.

Publisher: Eric Olsen
OPINION
Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians
Written by Selwyn Duke
Published August 21, 2007

There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man's life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.

The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I'm mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.

I'll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It's understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we're all sinners; however, most of us sinners don't expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf.
Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn't have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It's absurd.

If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don't they?

This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible - if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was "brave." I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you're sorry.

Getting back to the church - the one that can still be called Christian - it's time for some perspective. Let's say that a mosque had agreed to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection. In our politically correct climate, I can't imagine too many journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems. Multicultural imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities. For that matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected Moslems to brook homosexual displays? So, why are the religious convictions of Christians not similarly respected?

Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.

Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended? A teacher is thought insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the students may be of another faith and may take offense. Well, what are we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will likely evoke the same reaction?

But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along with a certain kind of provincialism. Many people are so awash in relativism nowadays that they just can't imagine anyone who embraces authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could possibly consort. Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or Truth. Of course they'd espouse the tenets of the times. Doesn't everybody?

It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist, public speaker and Internet entrepreneur whose work has been published widely online and also in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, has a regular column in Christian Music Perspective Magazine and does commentary on the award-winning Michael Savage Show.

HT: Michael Savage.com

HT: Blogcritics.org

10 comments:

ebsfwan said...

I'm glad to see that one of the labels you used here is hypocrisy as that church is rather guilty of it.

Let's say that homosexuality is a sin. So is divorce. A person who divorces for spurious reasons and marries again is committing adultery.

Would the church refuse to bury him if his new 'wife' came along or if the man's family wanted to put photos of him and his new 'wife' wanted to be there?

glynis said...

I stumbled upon your blog while looking for something else and now I'm going to bookmark it. YOu make excellent points. Thanks for sharing your faith so beautifully with the world.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Andrew,

Perhaps you missed the portion of the article that discussed the fact that Gene Robinson was once married to a woman and had kids with her, then divorced her and left his kids to take in his homosexual lover. He was then "consecrated" (in their liberal eyes) as a Bishop with the reprobate wing of the Episcopal church.

No condemnation from you for his divorce?

Therein lies the genuine hypocrisy and why I included it in the labels for this post.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Glynis,

Welcome to TalkWisdom! I'm so glad you found this blog. Thank you for your kind words. I truely believe in the importance of sharing genuine, biblical Christian faith despite the moral relativism and "worldly, fleshly desires" of secular humanistic belief that tries to invade those who are steadfast in the faith.

I look forward to your future comments. Stop by often!

In Christ,
Christine

ebsfwan said...

You've still ignored my point that the church is very selective about which 'sins' it denounces.

Christinewjc said...

Not necessarily, Andrew. I think that you are confusing the concept of sin with the concept of "freedom of association." Ever hear of it?

Neil said...

I think the church is too soft on divorce and heterosexual adultery. That makes it harder for it to hold the line on homosexuality. But the answer, of course, is to get back to what the Bible says.

Re. the photos in the service - I haven't seen the pictures, but it sounds like they would have shown "approval" of homosexual behavior moreso than pictures of a divorced person would highlight the divorce.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Neil,

Many times, I think churches are too soft on sin, period!

A year ago, the pastor from the church where we formerly attended actually was forced into a discussion on abortion from the pulpit only because there were people from Operation Rescue holding huge signs outside in the parking lot showing the terrible deaths of aborted babies.

Before entering the church, I went up to one of the guys holding the signs and asked, "why are you doing this here? Aren't you, in fact, 'preaching to the choir'?" He went on to inform me that hundreds of thousands of Christians aren't pro-life, but should be.

When I entered the church, people were weeping in the audience as our pastor talked about the sin of abortion. Of course, he emphasized how healing can take place with confession, repentance and the ultimate forgiveness of God.

It was one of the most powerful sermons, ever.

Usually, the subject of sin (at this church) is discussed in general; probably for the reason of not wanting to offend anyone. This is the result of the touchy-feely emergent church influence today. Can't offend anyone!

However, we know that the cross of Christ is a "stumbling block" and an "offense" to those who are perishing.

The truth is, we would all be perishing without his sacrifice for our sakes! No one has the right not to be offended!! Of course we will be offended! We should be! It is only then that we reach the point of humbling ourselves before Almighty God, confess, repent and ask for forgiveness. It is only then that the grace, mercy, forgiveness and atonement through Christ can be applied to save our souls!

So much has been "lost in the shuffle" of the "new" christianity out there that wants to "tone down" or even eliminate the need for the Cross of Christ in worship today.

Neil, I think I recall glancing through a post where you talk about the "worship of worship" rather than worship of God? Wasa that at your blog?

"Worship of worship" is what happens when the cross of Jesus Christ is eliminated from the gospel. Thus, there is no gospel; just "crowds of people worshipping for the sake of worship." But then, just who or what is their object of worship? I think we all know...

I just tried to locate it at your blog, but didn't find it. Maybe I saw it at another blog. Should have bookmarked it! However, your post today is even better! Discussing the Importance of sound doctrine is badly needed in today's churches. Why? Because Jesus told us that "false prophets and teachers would creep in unawares."

Your post is excellent, Neil! I think I will bring this comment to a new blogpost so that more will go over and read it!

God bless in Christ,
Christine

P.S. It's unfortunate that the commenters at your blog just don't get the significance of your post. This verse tells us exactly why they don't get it:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

In addition, the Bible tells us that they are unaware of the "deep things of God" primarily because they do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God" (yet...that is!)

1 Corinthians 2 instructs us even further on this issue:

1 Corinthians 2

Neil said...

Thanks, Christine. I don't think I did the "worship of worship" piece, but it is possible (isn't that sad that I'm not sure?!)

P.S. Just noticed that you earned a Christian Apologetics Certificate from Biola. That is very cool! I heard lots of good things about Biola on the Stand to Reason Podcast (str.org).

Christinewjc said...

I know what you mean! Sometimes my memory isn't as good as it used to be. *sigh*

However, it is most likely that I probably saw it on another blog. I need to do a better job of bookmarking!

Thanks for recognizing my little "achievement" at Biola. Ever since I started blogging, it has been my goal to use what I have learned in defense of biblical Christianity in the blogosphere.

Over the course of several years, I attended many lectures done by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. He is a really nice man as well as excellent ambassador and apologist for Christ's kingdom! I need to get back over to his site and listen to the latest podcasts!

Thanks for all you do in standing up for Jesus Christ at your blog. You are on my blogroll and I have noticed that many other Christian blogging friends have added your blog to their blogrolls too!

God bless!
Christine