“The vast majority of those of us firmly combating cultural homosexualization hold no personal animosity whatsoever toward individual homosexuals. In many cases, they are acquaintances and even friends and colleagues. We treat them with the greatest respect and dignity, as fellow humans created in God’s image.”
Andrew Sandlin
Excerpt; Facebook post
Sandlin styles himself a cultural warrior reconstructionist. He views himself as someone seeking reformation along Biblical lines but here we see the lie given to that self understanding as he seeks to treat the wound lightly. Sandlin here is being nicer than God.
A few observations,
1.) Sandlin’s niceties towards individual sodomites goes a long way towards proving that Sandlin and our larger culture has already accepted sodomy as a way of life. I challenge anyone to replace the word “homosexuals” above with the word “necrophiliacs,” or “bestialics.” Would Andrew really have necrophiliac and bestialics over for tea and crumpets? Would Andrew really share with them a beer and a brat while taking in a ball-game? Would he really own those who make love to the dead and to farm animals as friends and colleagues? If not then why does Sandlin desire to own men who bed other men as friends and colleagues? Do you see Sandlin’s gross incongruity?
2.) Treating these people as those who share with us the “Imago Dei” is not to ignore their own desire to rip off the Imago Dei by exchanging natural affections for un-natural affections. Indeed, to treat them as Sandlin suggests is to show them hatred of the greatest intensity. These people need to be told, for the sake of their own souls, to repent. If that can be done over tea and crumpets then fine but tea and crumpets without a pressing for repentance is to treat them with hatred and not as friends.
3.) In my estimation part of the problem here is that we tend to view the sodomites in the same way that Jesus viewed the “sinners and publicans.” People like Sandlin fail to recognize that “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with were generally characterized as understanding their sin with a concomitant humility due to that sin. The “sinners and publicans” of Jesus day understood they were social outcasts. The “sinners and publicans” of our day are seeking to make Jesus and His people the social outcasts. The 21st century “sinners and publicans,” are the 1st century Pharisees. These sodomites are proud of their sin. They do not see themselves as the 1st century sinners and publicans saw themselves. Can you imagine any of our modern “sodomite sinners and publicans” crying out “God have mercy on me a sinner?” Can you imagine any our our modern flamers washing Jesus feet with their tears and drying his feet with their tears? No… the roles have been switched so that our modern Pharisees are at the same time an in your face defiant version of the 1st century “sinners and publicans.” Our modern sodomite “sinners and publicans” have absolutely zero sense of being “burdened and heavy laden,” and have no sense of the need for and so no desire to be forgiven. As such, treating them with respect and dignity does nothing but to feed their psychosis. Sandlin is compounding the problem and not helping his sodomite colleagues and friends.
4.) Of course Sandlin is in contradiction here. Sandlin wants to insist that he is a culture warrior fighting the general problem “cultural homosexualization” while at the same time embracing the particular people who are individuals of that very “cultural homosexualization” that he says he is fighting. This is a bit like saying that one is fighting forest fires while treating individual trees that are on fire with dignity and respect.
5.) Sandlin is caught up in the “hate the sin but love the sinner” wash cycle. We find him here divorcing the action of the actor from the actor themselves. This abstraction of the sin from the sinner has been taken way too far. Given the way we use this trope today one would expect God someday to throw only sin into hell while the sinner goes to heaven. The act of sin and the actor of that sin cannot be divorced from one another. We cannot find the sin disgusting and worthy of capital punishment and at the same time hold those involved in the sin to be friends and colleagues. Can we not see the incongruity.
Now, let’s be clear here. Should any sinner repent they should be seen as being part of the family of God but one simply cannot fight the “homosexualization of the culture” while at the same time feting individual sodomites as “friends and colleagues.”
In the end the question should be asked of Andrew … “Why do you own no personal animosity whatsoever toward individual homosexuals? After all, these are people who are in defiance of God and His commands and His order. These are people who are seeking to destroy your children, grandchildren and your neighbor’s children. These are people who would turn the whole world into a sodomite pride parade and a Queer library reading hour. Mr. Sandlin, do you think that somehow you get points because you don’t loathe them personally?”
Now, I quite get being as civil as is necessary in a given situation but having no personal animus? What’s wrong with you people? Such a lack of personal animus reveals that you are infected with the same kind of sickness as the sodomite in question.
Hi, Jetbrane–and whoever else may visit.
I “happened” to wander by and see your post, here. Prior to and apart from this post and what you say about yourself at the bottom of the page (“I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan . . .”), I know nothing about you. But you “challenge anyone” to engage in a certain thought experiment and then ask us a series of questions.
So I engaged in the experiment. And I thought I would share my answers to your questions.
Your proposed thought experiment: “I challenge anyone to replace the word ‘homosexuals’ above with the word ‘necrophiliacs,’ or ‘bestialics.’ Would Andrew really have necrophiliacs and bestialics over for tea and crumpets? Would Andrew really share with them a beer and a brat while taking in a ball-game? Would he really own those who make love to the dead and to farm animals as friends and colleagues? If not then why does Sandlin desire to own men who bed other men as friends and colleagues? Do you see Sandlin’s gross incongruity?”
First thought: “I need to define homosexual.” Are we talking about a male who finds himself mentally-emotionally-visually attracted to men (in the same way that the majority of males seem mentally-emotionally-visually attracted to women)? And to make the point clear, do I need to go into detail of what heterosexual attraction seems to look like: the self-discipline heterosexual men–even (and perhaps ESPECIALLY) heterosexual men who are committed to living holy before the LORD–seem to require in order NOT to “look” at certain human females . . . because the attraction is so strong?)
Start from that base and, it seems to me, Sandlin’s comment is wholly unworthy of your response . . . and your comments are horribly offensive. Would you dare to make such comments about yourself and your heterosexual male colleagues–whether 7 years old (the age I remember I first happened to sit down next to a college-age female lifeguard at the camp where I was receiving swimming lessons and happened to be at an angle where my eye caught a glimpse of her breast through the top of her bathing suit; oh my!) or 80-something (an age where one’s ability to “do” much of anything is likely abated, but the memory of the desire is still there)?
I would hate to condemn homosexuals of the variety I have just described–who are, by the nature of their interest or desire, it seems to me, no more worthy of condemnation than are the heterosexuals
who experience similar interests or desires for members of the opposite sex.
POINT: I don’t think the DESIRE, per se, is worthy of condemnation. But/and it is the DESIRE that is in
sight when we are talking about homosexuals and/or homosexuality AS DEFINED.
And you may reply: “But I’m NOT talking about mere ‘desire toward’ or ‘interest in’ members of one’s own sex. I am talking about people who engage in sexual relations with members of their own sex.”
Question for you: Are you sure those are the people Andrew Sandlin was talking about in the article you are quoting?
But let’s push to the “next level.” Let’s suppose we want to define homosexual as someone who not only experiences the kinds of desires we have referenced, but actually engages in sexual acts with (at least one) member of his own sex: “A homosexual is someone who has the desire and, as a result, engages in sexual activity with (at least one) member of his own sex.”
Let me not extend this discussion longer than necessary.
If you (and I and Andrew Sandlin, etc.) adopt such a definition, then, it seems to me, we must treat those who meet this definition the way we treat liars and fraudsters, fornicators and adulterers, people who curse their enemies rather than bless them, etc., etc.
So.
You conclude your commentary, “Why do you own no personal animosity whatsoever toward individual homosexuals? . . . [D]o you think that somehow you get points because you don’t loathe them personally? . . . [H]aving no personal animus? What’s wrong with you people? Such a lack of personal animus reveals that you are infected with the same kind of sickness as the sodomite in question.”
I am assuming you would NOT make similar comments about the people you know who don’t QUITE speak the unvarnished truth in every circumstance; and the ones who engaged (or are RIGHT NOW engaging) in sexual relations outside of and/or prior to marriage; or the ones who think evil thoughts and/or cause certain words of less-than-positive nature to go out of their mouths when someone on the highway makes a foolish and/or seriously dangerous move. . . .
“Why do you own no personal animosity whatsoever toward [such people]? . . . [D]o you think that somehow you get points because you don’t loathe them personally, . . . having no personal animus? What’s wrong with you . . . ? [Does s]uch a lack of personal animus [reveal] that you are infected with the same kind of sickness as the [liar/fraudster/fornicator/adulterer/curser/___] in question”?
Hello John,
I’ll let Melanchthon speak for me.
“Although the papists speak of original sin, they are fundamentally Pelagian, for they say that inborn doubt and EVIL TENDENCY are not sins, but things indifferent, like eating and drinking.”
Philip Melanchthon
Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine — p. 79
STOP THE PRESSES!
Do you understand the implications of this quote? What if I said the same thing as this Reformer but only by changing a few words;
“Although the Side-B speak of original sin, they are fundamentally Pelagian, for they say that inborn sin and EVIL TENDENCY like a boy desiring to bed another boy are not sins as long as they don’t act on it, but things indifferent, like eating and drinking.”
Greg Johnson call your office. Melanchthon has a message for you.
I suspect we are not going to agree here John.