1. Mike, if you are saying it changes the position of Scripture, then I agree you are absoultely right. However, it does represent another brick in the divide in the culture war. There is a cumulative effect that same sex acceptance across the board makes no difference in setting after setting. Two things are interesting about this decision. First it was brought by the “Log Cabin Republicans”, a gay orgnization. But this turns the idea of Republicans being religious right on its head. Ironically this situation calls to mind the saying, “politics makes strange bed fellows!” Utimately, the Christian’s objection to homosexual behavior is based upon the foundation that Scripture condemns homosexual behavior. And, as a result, the Christian considering this decision must recognize that politics is not our means of salvation. Ironically, I think there is merit to the idea that simply because someone is a homosexual that that alone is not an impediment to to performing in the service. The larger point is that events never occur in a vacuum. It makes perfect sense that if a state allows homosexual marriage, then the government has already sanctioned that behavior. There is a story which is unfolding in which the acceptance of homosexuality is is being pressed forward. Homosexuality has not been considered a mental illness for 40-50 years, there is gay marriage, one can be dismissed from a University counseling program for refusing to acknowledge the legitimately a gay relationship, and there is increasing activism in education at the lower level to make homosexuality acceptable.

    The challenge is for the Christain to keep the debate where it ought to be: “Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you for a reason regarding the hope that is in you, yet answer with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pe 3:15).

    This is in stark contrast to what occured in trial. The world really does not care for Christ. The nature of the debate from the the Log Cabin Republians point of view at trial is telling:


    I think this decision does affect the Christian community in the culture war. Our first response is to mind our focus, which is Christ. In a debate absent Christ, our battle is uphill. In a battle with Him, it changes everything.

  2. There is no way to preach the Gospel without bringing up the issue of sin. You cannot get them to the point of repentence without them recognizing their need to repent. What are you repenting of, if not sin? And if there is no pointing out the great divide between our guilt and the righteousness that only God possesses, how will they recognize the need for a Messiah that took their place?

    I’m still wrestling with whether we should be comdemning society, or, speaking out against homosexuality, wholesale to the public, or, if our own contrary actions should be what condemns them. If we are not to judge others, but, leave judgment to God, perhaps we should give them up to what they want. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that we should neglect spreading the Gospel, quite the contrary, but, perhaps we should focus only on sharing Christ and His work and just shake the dust off of our feet when rejected. We should, maybe, focus on planting a lot of seeds rather than condemnation. Only those who accept the Gospel will ever be persuaded of the need to change. The various ills of this end time society are overwhelming. We are swimming against the tide; exhausting our energy on those determined to have their way. I sometimes think we should focus on those within the body and on strengthening what remains. Our resolve should be to each other; in holding each other up and let them have their cake, and let them eat it too.

  3. Doug,

    It’s amazing how an activist judge can dictate policy and circumvent democracy in the process!

    Whatever happened to putting public policy to a vote? These secular progressives who impose their personal agendas upon our society by a simple arbitrary ruling is alarming.

    How can we stop this hijacking of democracy by liberal judges?

  4. Better Question:

    Is it the Gospel we preach, if we talk not about sin?

    The “good News” is that all have sinned, and that there is a plan that 1) spares us the penalty for sin and 2) changes our life.

    Those who habitually preach without talking about the elephant in the pew, may be “preaching;” but it is not the Gospel they preach.

  5. Doug, Dr Brown was exactly right – my response was, NO, you can’t preach the Gospel and not talk about sin. If there is no mention of sin, then what is there to be saved from, or saved for? A feel-good gospel is no gospel at all. I have no comment regarding the activist judge’s ruling other than to say I think it will be over-ruled.

Comments are closed.