At this link,
We once again see the absolute absurdity that is R2K in action.
“There seemed to be a moment where we could debate the value of marriage from radically different worldviews and yet remain committed to the common good.”
Do you really want to send your son to a Seminary where one of the leading professors actually thinks that people with radically different worldviews can agree on the common good?
If they can agree on the common good then they don’t have radically different worldviews. After all, it is one’s worldview that dictates what the common good is defined as and if you have two radically different worldviews you are, ipso facto, going to have two radically different definitions of the common good.
Obviously, one of the two parties with a “radically different worldview” needs to surrender his radically different worldview in order to come to agreement on the common good. Dr. Michael Horton did just that some time ago with his offer of going along with “domestic partnerships for the protection of legal and economic security”.
“On Saturday, we were lamenting the decision. But then this response came back from one friend, who happens to be a U. S. Senator: “Yes, it’s a big disappointment, but tomorrow’s Sunday, Christ is risen, and ‘trust not in princes.’
I’ll cry on Saturday, but I’ll laugh on Sunday.”
Trust not in princes? How about we add “Trust not in Seminary Professors or “Christian” Senators”?
So … on Saturday Christ is not risen so we must lament but on Sunday Christ is risen so we can laugh?
Horton is R2K and this is just one more example of the absolutely asinine reasoning that emanates from R2K wisemen. When we live in common time we lament but when we live in sacred time (Sabbath) we laugh. We are living and doing the bifurcated rumba.
In another snippet Horton opines,
“… more tragic is the fact that mainline Protestantism has been at the forefront of the movement for same-sex marriage and, although a majority of evangelicals still disapprove, the tide is turning. “
Horton styles it “tragic” what mainline Protestantism has done, and yet according to Horton’s own deeply flawed “theology” R2K churches share in the mainline Protestantisms culpability in all this because R2K Churches, as they have been consistent with their own theology did not, have not, and do not resist as Churches, this wickedness about which Horton laments on Saturdays. How can Horton point a finger at the Mainlines when his own theology has repeatedly insisted that the Mainlines should not be resisted, overturned, or challenged by R2K Churches since the Church as Church has nothing to do with those issues?
Hearts have changed. Part of that is due to the fact that we all are friends with LBGT neighbors who are decent people.
I know someone who likes to bed his dairy cows. He is a decent person also.
Has the word “decent” so devolved that we can consider someone decent as long as they bring a meal when someone is ill and they keep their lawn up nicely, even though they are involved in what God calls an abomination? I’ve read that Stalin was a charming and wonderful host for State dinners … really quite a decent chap.
In any case, the culture war has been lost. Now what?
Thanks, in no small part, to Horton’s own R2K retreat-ism and constant bleating for 20 years about how the culture war was lost. Horton has been aiding and abetting the loss of the culture war by saying things like,
“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”
Can anyone tell me the difference between a state-licensed marriage and a civil union? There is none and these types of “solutions” that Mike offers is one reason why reason why Mike can say the culture war has been lost. Here we see that surrender is easy. Even a prominent R2K professor can do it without much practice.
Horton wants to draw a sharp dichotomy between our culture as battlefield and our culture as mission field. I would insist that is a false dichotomy since every culture that a Christian is engaged with is simultaneously battle field and mission field. Does Horton really believe that mission fields are not battle fields? The Apostle Paul would have found such a notion at best naive and at worst just plain stupid.