Recently the CRC mandated committee to provide guidance on applying the denomination’s policy on homosexuality has been conducting a “listening tour,” and that “Listening Tour” touched town in the Classis of which I am a part. Never mind that it is not possible for someone to “listen” unless someone is speaking, the “Listening tour,” as it is officially sold, is intended to get people talking (and Listening) and to unofficially poll the denomination on its views on sodomy. In my estimation the purpose of this “Listening tour” is to get the denomination talking about sodomy so as to put a “human face” on it to the end of making sodomy more acceptable.
Alexander Pope wrote of this technique in the 18th century when he wrote,
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Of course, as the Dutchman Abraham Kuyper hinted at, given his doctrine of the antithesis, that neutrality is impossible and so the facilitators of the listening tour were anything but neutral though I do believe that in their own minds they were seeking to be as neutral as possible. I also think though that their presuppositions were driving their own attempt at neutrality. At one point of the Listening Tour one of the Facilitators said that the discussions that were taking place in the break out groups was not to include our Reformed Theology. He was quickly called out on that statement by one of the participants and immediately attempted to walk his comment back. Another facilitator ended the meeting by telling a sentimental story that was intended to make the participants feel sorry for homosexuals, though the story was given the cover of being an example of how and why the CRC needs the committee to provide guidance on applying the denomination’s policy on homosexuality.
The story that was told and which officially ended the “Listening tour” went as follows.
“There was a Pastor who had an Elder who had a son who was ‘marrying’ another man. The Pastor had determined to go with his Elder since the Pastor had determined, ‘I wasn’t going to let my Elder go alone.'”
Immediately the natural response of the Modern to this story is to feel sorry for both the Pastor and the Elder in this situation and so the climate is created for a positive disposition towards what is being called “hommosexual marriage.”
Why couldn’t the Pastor, instead of giving a tacit endorsement of homosexuality and perverted marriage instead of told the Elder that both of them are commanded to, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them, for it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret”(?)
You see the facilitators are supposed to be facilitating and being neutral and yet we can see that, as much as they might try not to, they have an agenda. It is not possible that they wouldn’t.
The way the “Listening Tour” started is that we gathered at separate tables of 8. The funny story there, that I was later told by someone who had the inside skinny, is that the biggest supporter of homosexual “marriages,” a respected octogenarian, waited to choose his seat until he saw where I was going to sit. Upon my seating he then joined the table I was at. He did this because he apparently believed there needed to be a strong voice to counteract my own voice on the issue. He was successful at being irrational in his support for his perversion.
Some dialogue between us,
Don — “Here we have two people who desire to be married and what does the Church tell them? What does the Church say? The Church says ‘no.'”
Bret — “Homosexuals and Lesbians are allowed to marry anybody they want who fits the definition of marriage — Men go with Women. I’m not saying ‘no’ to them. I’m telling them to find the correct matched set. Homosexuals and Lesbians are allowed to marry anyone they like who allows their marriage to fit the definition of marriage.”
Don — “Can you believe that the Culture and Corporations are fully invested in giving homosexuals “marriage” rights and yet the Church is lagging so far behind.”
Bret — “Why not get ahead of the curve then Don and have the Church advocate Necrophilia Marriage or Bestiality Marriage? Now there’s a church of which one could be proud.”
Don — “Do you use that word ‘sodomy’ whenever you talk about this issue?”
Bret — “Yes, and I use the word “Necrophiliac” whenever I talk about living people who have a sexual fetish for dead people and I use the word “Incest” whenever I talk about two people in the same family having a sexual tryst and I use the word Bestiality whenever I talk about people who have sexual liaisons with animals. Yes, I always refer to sodomites as sodomites. Are you suggesting that there are people who don’t? And if they don’t why wouldn’t they?”
Don — “You are so unloving.”
Bret — “I’m trying to warn people of the consequence of their sin, both temporally and eternally, while you’re encouraging them to recreate God in their own image and I’m the one who is unloving? You’re trying to normalize what God calls vile behavior while I’m pleading with them to give it up and I’m the one who is unloving? I’m thinking about a social order where children grow up thinking sodomy is normal and consequently those children will potentially be more easily be drawn into that lifestyle and so out of love for children I warn against this and you accuse me of being unloving?”
As the conversation rolled on and as I was pressing for the necessity to agree with God’s word on the issue another Pastor at the table piped up and made the following statement which was intended to mute my observations regarding the necessity of obeying Scripture,
“I think one of our problems in the CRC is that many of our Pastors belong to the intellectual class and they have this overwhelming necessity to be right. They sense that being right is of ultimate importance. They are always studying, always reading and so being right is important to them. And I think we must agree that is poisonous to the Church.”
There was a brief awkward silence since this was obviously aimed at me. Finally I said,
“So, tell me Robert, are you insisting that you are right about that observation?”
And in true post-modernist fashion he said, “I don’t know.”
You see, the modern churchmen cannot even be certain regarding his observation upon the dangers of certainty. He must even be uncertain when decrying certainty.
Some might ask, what are your greatest concerns, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?
Here are my concerns.
1.) the sodomite agenda is about destroying heterosexual marriage.
see — http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/
see — http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/
2.) People will begin to believe sodomite marriage is possible. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then being an accomplished rider of a two wheeled unicycle can be accomplished. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then the drawing of a square circle. Sodomite marriage is not possible given the very definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Are we forgetting the Scripture by even talking about the possibility that sane Christians can subscribe to “sodomite marriage?” Will we advocate next that Christians subscribe to the reality of Fairies and Goblins?
3.) I am greatly concerned that the Church is going to rebel against God on this matter by normalizing sodomy and sodomite marriage and so diminish His glory among men and incur His wrath.
4.) I am greatly concerned for the souls of sodomites, that are precious to God, will end up being confirmed in their sin and be told that God loves them “just the way they are.” I am concerned over how hateful and cruel any action that “normalizes sodomy or sodomite marriage would be to sodomites.
If I have any great hopes, concerning same-sex marriage it would be that it will be seen as an absurdity and will be recognized as always characteristic of a social order about to flame out.
Resources recommended for those who want to become informed,
Homosexuality; A Biblical View — Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control — Dr. E. Michael Jones
Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior — Dr. E. Michael Jones
Redeeming the Rainbow — Scott Lively
The Born Gay Hoax — Ryan Sorba
On the “Listening Tour” we were asked to discuss these questions. I have put my responses beneath the question
1. What are the pastoral priorities should a same-sex couple begin attending your church?
It should be noted first that “same sex couple” is as an euphemistic term as ever existed and a phrase that supports the advocates of this program since is it not possible for two people of the same sex to be a “couple” the way the word “couple” has always been used. By using this phrase repeatedly and the phrase “same sex marriage” the facilitators are prejudicing the conversation from the outset in the direction of their agenda.
a.) We have to think of the children and do all we can to make sure that the children are not given the idea that what God calls “sin” is normative.
b.) We need to realize that the “same sex couple” have eternal souls and have a need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course, as the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that Gospel begins with the law as the hot needle that pulls through the crimson thread of redemption. As such, out of love to them, we must at some point preach God’s law to them which informs us that such behavior is sinful and must be repented of. This is the same way we deal with anyone who shows up to Church and is outside of Christ.
c.) We should, as Van Til used to say, always be willing to buy them the next cup of coffee. That is to say, as long as they are willing to engage the conversation we should be willing to go the extra mile to engage them.
d.) So, if a “same sex couple” shows up at church we treat them the same way we would treat any other person who is outside of Christ. We call for them to repent and we offer the Gospel.
It was interesting that one breakout group seemed to suggest that “if a ‘same sex couple’ became members they would have to realize that they would not be able to work with the children and they would not be able to be leaders.” I found myself wondering, “If they are actively involved as a “same sex couple” why would a orthodox church ever bring such a “couple” into membership?”
2. What do you need most from the CRC to help you navigate questions that arise in response to same-sex marriage?
I merely need the CRC to stand by Scripture and to encourage other of their Churches to stand my Scripture.
3. The survey the committee sent out is revealing very diverse perspectives within the denomination. What would you see as implications arising from this reality.
Implications
a.) The church has not been teaching our undoubted catholic Christian Faith.
b.) The church has not been practicing discipleship and discipline.
c.) If there really are diverse perspectives on this issue then that would be promissory of an eventual split.
I must say that the asking of this questions bothers me. It is, as if, the committee is suggesting that we come to truth by counting noses. Further, one might also see in this question the desire to muffle all disagreement with the committee by suggesting that their eventual report was trying to be sympathetic to all sides, when in point of fact if the committee reports are favorable to “same sex marriage” (an eventuality that has to occur if the committee is committed to be sympathetic to all perspectives) it is obvious that those who are opposed to the Church condoning sodomy will not be pleased with the committee work.