Andrew Sandlin & His Opposition to “Cultural Homosexualization”

“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 they 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 here part of the problem 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 individual 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.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *