Imagine John Lennon as Converted

Imagine there’s no ISIS
It’s easy if you try
No Muslims among us
Around us no PC lies
Imagine all Nations
Living for God’s Praise

Imagine there’s no Marxists
It isn’t hard to do
No equality BS
And no dialectic too
Imagine all God’s people
Living as postmills

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the World will be then won

Imagine no Progressives
I wonder if you can
No envy or malice
The fulfillment of God’s plan
Imagine all God’s people
Conquering all the world…

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be then won

Homosexuals Resent the Word “Homosexual”

“The word homosexuality is still in wide use as a general term to describe same-sex sexuality; however, the word homosexual as a noun applied to persons is no longer considered respectful by the majority of those it once aimed to describe.  For that reason we do not use homosexual as a noun in this report.”

CRC Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage (majority report) 

Yes, and Pedophiles resent being called “Pedophiles.” Necrophiliacs resent being called “Necrophiliacs.”

The unwillingness to use a perfectly legitimate word to speak of sodomites and lesbians is indication that the battle was lost before it was even started. Are we now going to allow the perverse to instruct how nomenclature will be used for everyone else? If it is not even allowed to use a perfectly legitimate word how can it ever be the case that the Church will stop the politically correct agenda in the Church?

Part of the problem here is the fact that Christians who remain chaste but are same sex oriented are still self identifying themselves in the same category as people who do not remain chaste and are also same sex oriented. Christians who are chaste but still struggle with a same sex orientation should just refer to themselves as “Christians.”

It is interesting to know that the word “homosexual” was invented by the early homosexual movement in 1860s Germany to accomplish the impossible goal of sanitizing the movement that was naturally associated with the word “sodomite.”  In order to escape the negative branding, a new word, “homosexual,” was invented to replace the term “Sodomite.”  “Homosexual” was intended to sanitize the lifestyle defined by the practice of sodomy, but instead the word “Homosexual” became so corrupted in the public mind that the movement eventually felt compelled to abandon it in favor of “gay.”

Keep in mind that whoever controls the language controls the conversation. This committee, with its instructions informing us that we must separate same sex marriage from homosexuality, and now informing us that they will not use the word “homosexual” (and so signalling that we should not either) because it is insensitive looks to be an attempt to control the language and so control thought.

Civil Marriages and Religious Marriages … An Examination of the Concept

E. Comments and cautions

Before turning to the body of the report, the committee makes the following observations and issues the accompanying cautions about its report: 1. Marriage—Until recently the term marriage could be used without qualifying adjectives to describe at one and the same time a legal status recognized by the state and an ecclesiastically approved covenantal relationship. The two concepts were conflated—not surprisingly, since a single ceremony, often presided over by a minister, initiated and solemnized both relationships.

Our report will distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage because there is increasing awareness of the distinction between these concepts. Some may question whether it is proper to use the term marriage in the context of monogamous, covenanted same-sex relationships. This report will follow Synod 2013’s use of the term same-sex marriage in its mandate to the committee as well as legal usage in Canada and the United States.

CRC — Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage
(majority report)

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Lewis Carroll
Alice In Wonderland

1.) Marriage is what God says it is. There is no where in Scripture where we find taught that there are God free zones where man can redefine reality and take up a godlike authority to create via a anthropocentric fiat word.

2.) Hence the artificial and contrived invention of a category designated “civil marriage,” apart from religious premises, is a surd … a no thing.

3.) Keep in mind that where this kind of reasoning lands us is the possibility of all kinds of “civil marriage” which we would be required to accept. Does the State recognize marriage between a Father and his daughter? Then Christians must recognize that in the God absent Civil realm. Does the State recognize marriage between a Farmer and his prize Holstein? Then Christians must recognize that in the God absent civil realm.

4.) What religious authority gives the committee the authority to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage? To create such a separate sphere is saturated with religious premises. A “non religious” marriage in a putatively religiously naked civil square is drenched in religious presuppositions and driven by religious considerations. What God, except the God State, authorizes a God free zone?

5.) And yes, all Christians question how the word “Marriage,” which denotes a static meaning of one man and one woman entering a covenantal bond that God has established, can be used instead of one man and one man entering a covenantal bond that God has nowhere established. If the word “Marriage” can be used to mean everything from one man and one woman entering into a covenantal bond that God has established to various and sundry numbers of people having warm fuzzy feelings towards one another wanting a party recognizing their warm fuzzy then the word “Marriage” means nothing.

Discussing Same Sex Marriage Without Discussing Homosexuality

“Consistent with our mandate and synod’s understanding of pastoral advice, we are asking that this discussion of same-sex marriage be separated as much as possible from church conversations about the broader question of homosexuality.”

CRC — Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage
(majority report)

This is like requesting that the discussion of water be separated from conversations about its wetness or that discussing playing Chess be separated from conversations regarding the differing Chess pieces or that discussing funerals be separated from conversations regarding dead people. This is Bill Clinton testifying before the Grand Jury saying,  “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.” It is to ask people to participate in Wittgenstein language games. It puts the Zen in Zen Buddhism.

One suspects that the reason that this request is being made is that the Committee knows that their work can only be advanced as long as the reality of what is being discussed is shielded from our thinking, or, alternatively, there was no possibility for them to make progress in their work if they had to deal with homosexuality head on.

Certainly same sex marriage can happen apart from homosexual behavior but study Committees are not formed and large sums of money are not spent in order to give advice on statistically insignificant occurrences.

Face it … where there is same sex marriage there you find the broader question of homosexuality. To ask that people separate these out from one another is to ask them to hear the sound of one hand clapping.