Yesterday, Boundless did something they almost never do: they took down an entire blog thread. The one in question is Motte Brown’s post regarding the Christians who support the “gay agenda”. (I commented on it here.)
What was surprising about the taking down of that thread is that the discussion was not really out of control; in fact, compared to other discussions–notably the “marriage mandate” and evolution–this one was actually quite mild. And to his credit, Motte Brown indicates that there was a larger reason for the takedown.
For the record: I probably agree 99%–if not 100%–with Focus on the Family’s position on homosexuality. I have my gripes with them, but not on this issue.
On the other hand, here’s where I think Motte Brown sorta stepped in it…
When you’re discussing an issue like homosexuality–or even the “gay agenda”–you need to specify what you mean by “gay agenda”. After all, when any discussion involves homosexuality, there are often several issues–direct and indirect–at play simultaneously:
- The Biblical position on homosexuality
- The role of the Christian in addressing it as a matter of Biblical counsel
- The role of the larger Church Body in ministering to the homosexual
- The role of government in regulating homosexual–or any sexual–behavior among consenting adults (i.e. sodomy laws)
- The extent to which citizens, businesses, other organizations, and even government ought to recognize homosexual relationships.
- The slant of education of children regarding homosexuality
And I could even expand on that list.
Moreover, all gays are not united on all of those issues. Nor are all Christians, even those–like myself–who view homosexuality as Scripture calls it: an abomination.
I’m a very conservative, Bible-believing Christian. My political leanings are generally consistent with the John Birch Society. In other words, I’m pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, anti-UN, against large government, against unconstitutional wars, and for free markets.
On the other hand, I generally oppose efforts to get federal government–even through Constitutional amendment–to legislate against “gay marriage”, or even define what marriage is. Why? When the State is granted the power to decide what marriage is, then the State can impose on you to accept that definition.
Today, many Christians think they can get government to ban gay marriage. However, as we progress to a post-Christian society–and that IS the direction in which we are headed–government will always be able to take that new federal authority and change the definition.
From there, the FedGubmint can force businesses, charities, and local and state governments to accept that definition–under the nondiscrimination regulations–as a condition for the receipt of funding for roads, awarding of contracts, education funding, tax-exemption, or other tax advantages.
Ergo, one can easily see why an otherwise Biblical conservative like myself would rather get the government completely out of the marriage-licensing business, than see them enact new laws, even if those laws support my own moral sentiments on the matter.
Let’s take another issue: sodomy laws. For the record, I agree with the Supreme Court on the Lawrence v. Texas case. Why? I see sodomy laws–no matter how well-intentioned–as an avenue for governmental intrusion into matters involving consenting adults.
Technology exists today that did not exist in 1787. Conservative Christians may like the allure of anti-sodomy laws, but keep in mind that many legal definitions of sodomy also involve many sex acts common to heterosexual, married Christian homeschooling conservatives. (No need to discuss details here; we’re all grownups and we can fill in the blanks.)
So what happens when a local government official–like, uhmmm, you local sheriff–has an axe to grind with conservative Christian homeschoolers? He can always decide that the couple–”alleged to be engaging in sodomy”–is putting children at risk.
(Remember: Texas authorities seized dozens of children from a “polygamy ranch”, but have yet to establish that there was any abuses going on. Keep in mind that a state court has already ruled that the authorities had no right to seize those kids. Anyone want to bet me those kids aren’t being abused in the foster care system now???)
Ergo, one can see why an otherwise conservative Christian like myself–who opposes the legitimacy of homosexual behavior–opposes sodomy laws.
That also muddies the water when one is discussing “Christians who support the gay agenda”.