Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 62

The CRC, the Banner, Rev. Bob DeMoor and Homosexuality

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the July issue of the Banner,

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/2015/06/don-t-walk-away

soon to be departing Rev. Bob DeMoor, makes a case for the CRC denomination not fracturing over the potential future doctrinal embrace of practicing homosexuality. DeMoor’s comment are, politically speaking, quite genius. DeMoor will be leaving the Banner soon and so there is little fallout he will have to face over his advocacy of the Denomination accepting practicing homosexuality via the local option. Once Rev. DeMoor is gone, other bureaucrats can respond to complaints by merely offering, “that’s Bob, and Bob’s gone now.” In the way this has been done the next policy step has been pointed to in a very clean and surgical manner.

Rev. DeMoor implores his readers and the denomination to allow each local congregation to choose for themselves whether or not their local congregation will acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin. What Rev. DeMoor doesn’t tell the reader is that if such a decision was arrived at what that would mean is that those who work for the bureaucracy of the denomination (including the Seminary) would at least have to subscribe to the idea that Scripture both teaches and does not teach that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin, or at the very least that Scripture is so ambiguous on the subject that it is a matter of adiaphora. As such, with such an embrace of the “local option” as policy the consequence would be a bureaucracy and Seminary that would, by its required muddledness on the subject, be pro-homosexual practice and lifestyle. How long could local churches hold out in upholding God’s clear word against sodomy when the whole Denominational institutional infrastructure is, at best, unable, due to denominational diktat, to be anti-homosexual lifestyle and practice?

Rev. DeMoor enjoins that the denomination should take upon itself the 1980 example of making remarriage after divorce a local option issue. Rev. DeMoor doesn’t mention that there was a long history, in the Reformed World in general, that allowed divorce after remarriage. For example, John Calvin allowed for remarriage in the context of adultery, believing that the penalty for such adultery should be death. Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, Calvin held, for Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to “unlawful and frivolous divorces.” Although Calvin was very conservative in his theological view of divorce, like Luther his practice was more liberal. His “Ecclesiastical Ordinances,” adopted by the Little and Large Councils of 1561, allowed three grounds for divorce and remarriage other than adultery: impotence, extreme religious incompatibility, and abandonment. Calvin also provided for annulment where a spouse could not, because of some physical infirmity, perform the conjugal act.

Similarly the Westminster Confession of Faith Article 24 has taught since the 17th century,

“In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

We could just as easily appeal to Tyndale, Bucer, Knox and other Reformed luminaries for the acceptability of remarriage after divorce in some cases.

We conclude thus that the CRC 1980 decision had historical precedents to reverse previous Synods and to allow Churches to employ the local option on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Where are the centuries long historical precedents in the Reformed world for suggesting that homosexual practice and lifestyle is a valid option so that the determining of its acceptability can be decided on a church by church and case by case basis? Rev. DeMoor is comparing apples to bananas by suggesting a parallel can be drawn between the local option as exercised for the allowance of divorce and remarriage and the local option as exercised for the allowance of men sodomizing men and women doing whatever it is that women do to one another when sharing a “conjugal” bed.

Rev. DeMoor then asks the question if such an approach would erode our teaching to biblical commitment and then answers his own question by saying “no” and then citing Scripture that communicates, in Rev. DeMoor’s world, that unity trumps all matters. However, as has been communicated by many a Divine throughout history, Unity is always only a byproduct of shared truth. Where truth is not shared the closest to unity a organization can come to is the empty shell of administrative and bureaucratic unity. This is a unity only for the sake of unity. It is a unity that stands for nothing, that strives for nothing, and that achieves nothing. It is a mirage that progressives are forever seeing.

Rev. DeMoor would have us “have the humility, love, and grace to affirm that we may have to reexamine our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word.” This sounds so high minded and pious but what if, after reexamining our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word, we have to say, “Here I stand against the communal discoveries, I can do no other”? My Mother always had a word for communal discoveries after I would appeal to her on that basis. Mom would simply say, “If everyone decided to jump off a cliff would you jump off with them?” Mom was pretty wise that way.

Rev. DeMoor fears denominational hemorrhaging, and well he should. However, Rev. DeMoor and others should keep in mind that hemorrhaging only happens where a wound has been inflicted on the body. The sanction and embrace of homosexual practice and lifestyle by the denomination would be a case of a self inflicted wound that results in to be expected hemorrhaging.

One thing I do agree with Rev. DeMoor and that is his observation that, “We won’t agree on what’s pastoral until we agree on what’s sinful.” There is a good deal packed into that sentence. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different visions and understandings of the Character of God. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different understandings of just exactly why the Lord Christ was raised upon the Cross and so raised from the grave. Different visions and understandings of sin give us different understandings of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. In point of fact different visions and understandings of sin give us different Gods, Atonements, and Spirit filled living. Those differences give us different Christianities.

May God be pleased to grant to the Christian Reformed Church the wisdom to embrace the Christianity displayed in Holy Writ.

The US Policy of White European Cultural Genocide

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Bertolt Brecht

Brecht’s poem has become quite useful as we are living through a time when the State is seeking to, as Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America.” It is past apparent now that part of what Obama meant in his promise to “fundamentally transform America” was to diminish and perhaps even dissolve America of its Historic White Anglo Saxon Christian heritage.

A key rule of thumb when it comes to politics is to never listen to what politicians say but to always watch what they do. If we follow that rule of thumb we find that our political class is intent, in Brecht’s words, in dissolving the people and electing another. Thomas Fleming put it well in a recent article when he wrote, “The secret is out. The American ruling class in both political parties despise the people they rule. They hate their religion, their traditions, their culture, and their history.”

The evidence of this is ubiquitous. From the illegal immigration policy that has been pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations to the tune of the relocation of 25% of Mexico’s population to these united States to IRS pursuit and harassment of overwhelmingly White Tea Party Organizations to Democratic Presidential contender Martin O’Malley apologizing for saying that not only to black lives matter but so do white lives and all lives matter to Obama’s insistence that, “We are no longer a Christian Nation,” to the SCOTUS decision to legalize sodomite marriage,” to Obama’s dowsing the White House in Rainbow Sodomite lighting in celebration of the SCOTUS decision to the exact opposite response wherein Obama initially refuses to fly the US Flag at the White House at half mast in honor of five dead white soldiers murdered by the 1965 immigration act, to the Federal Government’s recent HUD decision to bribe communities into forcefully integrating to the distribution of the 2009 Missouri Information Analysis Center report warning Missouri police against Americans who know the Constitution as potential terrorists what has been consistently pursued by the our political class is the dissolving of America of both its White European ethnic substratum as well as the Christian faith which made the White European people the people that they have historically been.

Now when you combine all this with the recent push by many Church denominations in insisting that somehow if a White Church is not integrated then Jesus is displeased as well as the constant media push that racially blended families are the ideal what one sees is a confluence of cultural gatekeepers working to fundamentally transform America from its White European Christian roots to an America that is minority white wherein the prominent religion is cultural Marxism often masquerading and mislabeled as “Christianity.” This is not accidental and all of this borders on fulfilling the United Nations definition of “genocide.” Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The underscoring of this is found in the recent assault of the symbols of Historic Christian America. In South Carolina, second generation Indian Nikki Haley, though Christian, testifies that she remains proud of growing up in the Sikh faith and would “never disown her roots” while finding herself more than willing to disown the roots of her White Christian constituents by taking down the St. Andrews Cross flag. In Memphis, Tennessee they’d like to disinter the remains of a White Southern Hero and his wife so as to scandalize and criminalize white Southern History. All of this is the attempt to steal the History and so the identity of a people so as to force upon them a new identity. Quoting Milan Kundera here, “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history.” Without a past, we are not a people, we are just abstractions of the Cultural Marxist Utopian minds, to be eliminated whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. And the expedient moment has come: The white man must be eliminated, to make way for a new people purged of the sins of the past and ready to live and strive in the new non-Christian, non-white utopia of the future.

If not ethnic genocide it is at the very least cultural genocide and always the policy of those who were intent on vanquishing and squashing conquered nations.

This policy of subjugation was captured in the film Braveheart where Uncle Argyle says to young Wallace, upon the death of their kin and as observing the midnight mourning of their clan around the grave, “They are saying goodbye in their own way. Playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.” True, to paraphrase Lincoln, we can not absolutely know that all these moving parts are the result of a premeditated plan. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — George W., Barack, Russell Moore, and Nikki Haley, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that George W., Barack, Russell Moore, and Nikki Haley, and their many co-laborers all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It is simply the case, when one objectively examines the facts, that White Anglo Saxon Christian America is being subjugated by Rainbow Cultural Marxists. And though it is a sin to notice, you will forgive me if I notice when war is being waged against me and mine and if I object to my faith and my people being subjugated.

Please forgive me as I seek to wake up the remnant.

Ravi Zacharias on the “Sacredness” of Race and Ethnicity and Sexuality

“She said you know I have a problem with Christianity. And here’s my problem. Christians are generally against racism but when it comes to the homosexual they discriminate against the homosexual. How do you explain that?…

Here is want I want to say to you. The reason that we believe that discrimination ethnically is wrong is because the race and ethnicity of a person is sacred. You do not violate a person’s ethnicity and race. It is a sacred gift. And the reason we believe in an absoluteness to sexuality is because we believe sexuality is sacred as well…. You will help me if you would tell me why you treat race as sacred and desacralize sexuality.

Ravi Zacharias
6 minute mark of video

sa·cred

ˈsākrəd/

adjective

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

So, according to Ravi sexuality is sacred therefore one is not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sex (i.e. — men with men or women with women). Likewise, according to Ravi, race or ethnicity is likewise sacred. Therefore it would seem we must likewise conclude, according to Ravi, that one is not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sacred race just as we are not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sacred sexuality. If both race and sexuality are sacred, per Ravi, then both race and sexuality as sacred constituent aspects of who we are and of who God created us to be and so must be respected and honored when it comes to entering into marriage. If Ravi is going to say that Christians can not abide homosexual marriage because of the sacredness of sexuality then, if race or ethnicity is equally sacred, per Ravi, how could Ravi consistently, and without contradiction, advocate that entering into inter-racial marriage is something a Christian should advocate?

Ravi might want to rethink this one. If these connections were widely made Ravi’s popularity would suffer, I’m sure.

Horror and the Modern Church

“Modern critics can not understand the genre of Horror because they can’t understand the Enlightenment, and they can’t understand the Enlightenment because they are inside it so to speak, espousing its goals; the critics, virtually to a man, espouse its values so completely they can’t conceive of any alternative to it as the project which orders their lives.”

E. Michael Jones
Monsters from the Id — pg. 296

There is something in this quote that the modern Church needs to hear as a principle. The modern Church, like Jone’s critics, too often are of little use to Christians today because the modern Church has swallowed the Enlightenment core principle of Egalitarianism. The modern Church can not fight where the fight is of most import because the modern Church is inside the Enlightenment and holds as dear to God the Enlightenment’s most core principle. This does not mean that the modern Church can never give profitable counsel. It DOES mean that any counsel the modern Church gives pertaining to the most animating issue of our time (Egalitarianism) — an issue owned by the enemy — is counsel that smells of the sulfur that besots our enemy. In the words of Pogo, In the modern Church “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

In time the modern Church will overwhelmingly fall on the sodomite marriage issue, on the Confederate flag issue, and on the Transgender issue because the modern Church owns as a principle of Christianity the core principles that drive those issues. Borrowing from Jone’s, “Egalitarianism is the project that orders their lives.”

McAtee Contra Intown’s Prentiss

“The humanists want Christians to stay out of politics as Christians. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that there are valid biblical blueprints that apply to this world. The pietists agree. The humanists argue that Old Testament laws, if applied today, would produce tyranny. The pietists agree. The humanists say that the civil government should be run in terms of religiously neutral laws. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the God of the Bible brings predictable sanctions in history against societies that do not obey His law. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the preaching of the gospel will ever fundamentally change the way the world operates. The pietists agree. The humanists say that Christians should sit in the back of cultural bus. The pietists agree. This is why both sides hate the message of Christian Reconstruction.”

Dr. Gary North

God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world”…“Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

Below at this link,

http://intownchurch.com/blog/2015/6/26/what-a-consequential-week

we find an example of the pietists that Dr. North wrote about years ago. In this case it is Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) pietism that is at the forefront. One could easily also argue that what we are going to look at below is an example of postmodernism, or of just plain cowardice.

People who have read Iron Ink with any consistency know, that over the years I’ve been relentless against R2K. I point this out because in my estimation what we are looking at below is the fruit of R2K theology ripening. I’ve warned about where R2K is headed by pointing out the errors of R2K thinking,

R2K … “Rubber meets Road”

And now we see that it is true that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.

In this case we have a PCA Church (Intown Presbyterian). The Pastor is one Brian Prentiss. It looks like Brian is the author of the piece. Now, I don’t know Brian Prentiss from Molly Hatchett so none of this is personal. I’m merely going to point out the irrationality in all this. There will be parts of the original article I will delete as irrelevant, so if you want the whole article you need to go to the link provided.

Intown Presbyterian Church (IPC) writes,

“I’m a pastor of a church where members are not uniform in their response to this (SCOTUS sodomite ruling Obergefell vs. Hodges – BLMc) ruling, and I actually find that to be one of the most beautiful things about our church. Some of us are putting rainbow filters on our Facebook avatars while others are disappointed in the SCOTUS decision but are holding our tongues on social media for fear of being labeled in an unfortunate way.

And both of these “sides” will show up tomorrow and worship together!

Bret responds,

Brian Pastors a church where some favor marriage being redefined so as to include sodomites and lesbians while others in the congregation think that marriage should be reserved for one man as unto one women. And Brian thinks it is wonderful that those people with different worldviews and morals can worship together. After all, a group of people cannot have elements within it that both support and oppose this ruling without at the same time having different and opposing worldviews, different and opposing Christianities, and different and opposing moralities.

Secondly, this unspoken division in Brian’s congregation is also evidence that there is a lack of understanding that law is warfare. It is warfare against other law structures. All law is reflective of and descends from some understanding of a god, God or god concept. People who are divided on this ruling as law are at the same time divided in their respective understanding of who God is. The fact that some of Brian’s people support this law means they serve one god and its law as it makes war on the God of the Bible and His law. Brian has one congregation that is worshiping different gods when they worship. So, it may be the case that both sides will show up at Intown “Church” tomorrow to worship but while they are in the same building “worshiping” together they are at the same time worshiping different deities. And Brian thinks this a wonderful thing.

Now, obviously, it is possible for a church to be agnostic about some legislation that is passed. No one is going to suggest that a Church is in trouble because of different convictions about zoning laws. But we are not talking about zoning laws here. We are talking about a ruling that in time will be seen as that ruling which began the criminalization of Christianity.

Thirdly, the rainbow avatar people that Brian talks about have been consistently bleating about freedom for the LGBQT people but with this Obergefell decision suddenly the people who oppose it no longer have the freedom to speak their opposition for fear of being smeared.

IPC writes,

As a pastor of a beautifully-diverse church like this, I find myself wanting to offer counsel to both sides of this debate (even while lamenting the unfortunate bifurcation of this issue into two sides aligned against one another.)

For those of us who find the SCOTUS decision something to be celebrated, we should remember Romans 14, where the Apostle Paul advises those of us with less scruples to be gracious towards our brothers and sisters with more. (The “weaker” brother language is unfortunate here, because it seems to suggest one is right and the other is wrong. But, what Paul is asking the Romans to do is to not quarrel over, or judge your brother over matters of dispute.) For you, this ruling might be self-evident and long-overdue, but there are brothers and sisters who are reading the same Bible who are coming to different conclusions than you, and their voices shouldn’t be excluded. Many Christians are convinced, and they’re not without historical precedent, that while the church should be a welcoming place for all people, it can never be a place that affirms every behavioral choice. In their mind, the Bible speaks with a unanimous voice that marriage is a holy institution and is reserved for a man and a woman. And we should remember that some, if not most of the persons who hold this commitment would indeed advocate for gays and lesbians to possess the same legal rights that are generally accorded to married men and women, but would prefer because of biblical and historical precedent to call it something different.

Bret responds,

1.) “Beautifully diverse church” — Yes, well, I suppose that diverse is one way of describing a Church full of pro sodomite Christian and anti-sodomite Christians. Heretofore the designation has not been “diverse” but rather “wolf vs. sheep.”

2.) Unfortunate bifurcation — Yes, Scripture abounds with words about these unfortunate bifurcations.

¹⁴Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?¹⁵And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? ¹⁶And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

¹⁷Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”
¹⁸“I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.”

7 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

3.) Prentiss is actually suggesting that being opposed to State sanctioned sodomy is a issue that is adiaphora? And that the pro-sodomites should be patient with those who are Biblical Christians? How generous of him.

4.) “Reading the Bible and coming to different conclusions.”

Once again this is astounding. Pro and anti sodomite marriage convictions has been reduced to not eating or eating meat offered to idols.

Has Brian forgot his own BCO? Right at the beginning of the Books of (Church) Order of both the larger Presbyterian Church (USA) and its little sister, the Presbyterian Church in America, is this (fourth) Preliminary Principle of Presbyterian polity:

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness; according to our Saviour’s rule, “by their fruits ye shall know them:” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or absurd, than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, they are persuaded, that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth, or to embrace it.

What Brian is doing here is that putting truth and falsehood upon a level. Brian says we cannot affirm every behavioral choice and yet that is precisely what he is doing. When SCOTUS comes out ruling that men can marry their farm animals will Brian find it wonderful that people who support men marrying farm animals and men who do not support marrying farm animals can “worship” in the same facility at the same time. How ludicrous do we have to be before Brian will say … “well, maybe people who hold to supporting this perversion du jour, shouldn’t be seen as being Christ honoring as those who oppose it.” (?)

This is where the postmodern edge comes in. There is no such thing as capital “T” Truth. All we have are little “t” truths and people with different “truths” need to get on with one another.

ICP writes,

For those of us on the other side, who find the SCOTUS ruling to be at best unfortunate, and at worst, a sign of America’s continuing spiral into moral confusion, we should remember a few things. First, the Supreme Court is more or less codifying the will of the American people – the wishes of our friends and neighbors. This ruling is not judicial activism in the sense of forcing a minority decision upon a powerless majority. Secondly, we should remember that it’s possible hold views about what the Bible teaches without necessarily advocating for the government to hold those views. If we lived in a theocracy, when the government strayed outside of what the Bible commends and condemns then there would be a need, if not a moral mandate to remind the government of it’s foundational commitment to God’s word. But, our government operates as a pluralistic democracy. And like God’s people who were exiled to Assyria, Babylon, and Persia in the 8th-6th centuries, to expect our government to reflect our religious principles could be short-sighted. As Christians in Portland, we don’t live in Jerusalem but in Babylon. So maybe, part of loving our neighbors means withholding our concern over the expansion of someone else’s rights, as recognized by the federal government, and choose to wish them well in the lives they’ve chosen for themselves. That sort of posture might actually open up the type of conversation that we’re hoping to have with our gay friends and neighbors rather than confirming their suspicions about engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality.

Bret responds,

1.) Note how Brian navigates this whole article as writing from the Moral Zombie position. He has no scruples on the matter. He is part of the “us” who is opposed to supporting sodomite and lesbian marriage and he is part of the “us” who supports sodomite and lesbian marriage. How postmodern of him. How wonderful that he can be all things to all people. How deliciously cowardly of him. What is Brian’s conviction on the matter? Well, it all depends on who is writing the largest checks.

2.) Since when do Christian ministers believe that codifying the will of the American people has anything to do with notions of transcendent law. Law isn’t supposed to be about counting noses. Such a rule of law is mob rule. Does Brian believe in mob rule. Second, on this point, how does Brian know what the American people think on this matter so he can say that SCOTUS is merely codifying the will of the American people? Has he polled every single American in order to find out? To borrow and paraphrase a line from my Mother when she raised me, “If every single one of your friends wanted to jump off a cliff would it be right for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench cliff jumping for all”? This is most certainly judicial activism at its best. This is legislating from the bench. Read the opinions of the dissenting Justices to see this teased out.

3.) As Christians, if we don’t advocate what Scripture advocates then all that is left is advocating for what Scripture is opposed to. Is Brian really telling us that Christians as Christians should advocate what they know God is opposed to? Are we to reason that because we are ruled by pagans we should always be ruled by pagans and the laws of pagan gods?

4.) Brian misses the point that we do indeed live in a theocracy. The name of the god of this theocracy is Demos and anybody who walks contrary to the will of the god Demos is to be diminished. Demos has a law order that is called legal positivism. Brian should spend some time reading Oliver Wendell Holmes or Christopher Columbus Langdell to see how the god Demos works. Brian so desperately wants to avoid a Christ honoring theocracy that he will support a theocracy headed up by Demos, who will inform all the lesser gods just how far they can walk in the public square.

5.) Pluralism is a myth. (see #4)

6.) We were never a “pluralistic democracy.” We were a Constitutional Republic. Maybe Brian should spend some time boning up on the differences.

7.) Short-sighted — God commands all men everywhere to repent. He commands it of Potentates as well as of well intentioned but clueless ministers.

8.) Brian insists that we are living in Babylon and his “theology” will insure that we will never live in anything but Babylon. Brian’s theology is a self fulfilling prophecy where because he believes that the Church will only ever live in exile, it is guaranteed that we will only ever live in exile. Brian’s theology says, “don’t resist,” “don’t stand for God’s standards,” “relax, all of our existence is a Babylonian existence.” It is a theology of defeat, doom, retreat, exile and escapism. The only thing it will fight for is the principal that Christians must not fight.

9.) Nobody’s rights have been expanded all this unless one considers that the right to vileness, perversion, and death is a human right.

10.) If all we have is Babylon in this life, how can we, as Christians, even begin to talk about the nowness of the Kingdom of God?

Yes, yes, I know … we see the Kingdom of God present in Churches that have no moral fiber. I get it.

11.) Wish them well in the life they have chosen? — And this is the loving Christian response? To wish people well with the life they have chosen when that life they have chosen means death? Would Brian also suggest that I wish a person well with the life they have chosen to th person who has slipped a noose around his neck and is about to hang himself? Is that Brian’s notion of Christian love? “Love you buddy. Wish you well, Hope you break your neck quickly so you don’t suffer. Have a good day.”

12.) Engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality — There seems to be some kind of idea floating in the Church today that people can be converted by being nice to them as if the Law must not do its not nice work of convicting. At some point, no matter how nice you are, you have to confront sinners with the fact that sin is sin. Sinners don’t typically like being told that sin is sin. It’s why they are sinners. This idea that people can be niced into the Kingdom is doing the church a world of hurt.

And this is no argument that people can be “mean(ed)” into the Kingdom. People are brought into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit of God by using the law to kill and the Gospel to make alive.

ICP writes,

This isn’t an easy conversation. Those of us on the “left” side of this conversation feel that advocating for our gay and lesbian friends puts our Christian commitments and orthodoxy into question by fellow Christians, even while we feel we’re being guided by the Golden Rule. And, those of us on the “right” side of this feel that we can’t hold our biblical convictions without being labeled something terrible, like a “bigot”, even while we pursue loving relationship with gay and lesbian friends in our neighborhood and workplaces.

Bret responds,

Invoking the golden rule here teeters on blasphemous.

It is the golden rule that compels people to speak openly and directly to their “gay friends” about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come. It is a lack of love that would treat the wounds of our friends lightly and would speak “peace, peace,” when their soul’s destruction is at hand.

Notice the use of the word “feel” in the first sentence above. That is not insignificant.

2.) We must understand that people are dealt with differently depending upon where they are at. If a homosexual is repentant one deals with them one way. If a homosexual is rebellious and defiant against God and His Christ then that calls for a different type of demeanor. Regardless though, like adultery, sodomy must be spoken of as sin while those who give aid and support to the sodomite lifestyle as legal must be spoken to as in the sin of hatred towards people created in the image of God.

ICP writes,

The thing I love about Intown is that people on both sides of this debate, as well as those in the middle, can find their views on this and other controversial issues being drawn up into and relativized by our union with Christ. Not only do we bring different convictions to his Table, we also bring our sins and failures, and there, if no other place, we should look across the aisle at our brothers and sisters and see equals – equally in need of grace and equally possessing the dignity of God.

Is it possible that this posture could enable us to bring compassion toward those who hold different opinions than us? And, could it cause us to inspect our own?

Bret responds,

Here we go from teetering on blasphemy to going over the edge.

Union with Christ is being used to excuse sin. It’s OK to be in sin because, after all, we have union with Christ. Is it possible to be in union with Christ while championing positions that are anti-Christ? Can this kind of blatant embrace of sin be relativized by our union with Christ?

The visible Church is ill folks. You have to arm yourself to think through these matters because there are very very few Churches or Pastors that you can trust to help you think through these monumental issues.