In the crucible of what passes for discussion about the sin of homosexuality, I've noticed an insidious acceptance in Christians of one of the conditions that the gay lobby insists we make. This acceptance has crept in and is in fact a double standard. It is akin to the scenes in the old Seinfeld episode "The Outing." Let me explain.
Twenty years ago, in an episode of the comedy sitcom "Seinfeld," Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, lifelong buddies, are mistaken for a homosexual couple, and "strenuously deny that they are gay, conditioning their denials with 'Not that there's anything wrong with that.' The line would soon afterward become a catchphrase. Jason Alexander maintains that it is the most popular to originate from the series. The episode earned a GLAAD award . (source )
In each case when the catchphrase was uttered, the person would shrug, throw up their hands in a mock submission and shake their head. See this 17 second compilation:
In discussing homosexuality today, immediate ire rises from all quarters unless homosexuality is couched in the most glowing of terms. If a person does not give hearty approval to homosexuality, (Romans 1:32), one is immediately scourged. The scourging is fast, immediate, and vicious. Just ask Phil Robertson .
If it were up to the homosexual lobby, no one would ever mention homosexuality as a sin. Evah. Failing that, the double standard now is that we can't mention homosexuality as a sin unless we also mention all the other sins too, at the same time. To paraphrase many of the other discussions I've read, such as Rachel Held Evans's question, "Why is homosexuality the great biblical debate of this decade and not slavery?" a discussion along those "not that there's anything wrong with that" lines might go like this-
"Homosexuality is a sin".
"Wait just a minute, bub. Gossip is a sin, what about that? Or envy, that's a sin too. And drunkenness. Why single out homosexuality? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Not that there aren't other sins too!"
We are now supposed to cushion the sting of stating sodomy is a sin by including it in a list of all other sins.
The double standard enters in because the reverse is not true.
"Murder is a sin."
"Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn't mention that one. Or envy, that's a sin. And drunkenness. Why single out murder? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Why aren't you talking about them, too?"
"Gluttony is a sin"
"Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn't mention that one. Or drunkenness, that's a sin. And anger. Why single out gluttony? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Why aren't you talking about them, too?"
We have allowed ourselves to substitute the phrase, "Not that there's anything wrong with that" with "Not that there aren't any other sins!" And throwing up our hands in a mock submission and shaking our heads, in vain attempts to stave off anger and vicious comebacks.
Don't fall for it. This is just a temporary compromise to the gay lobby's ultimate goal: full-on prohibition of any talk of homosexuality being mentioned as a sin at all. (Romans 1:32 again). It's a diversionary tactic.
It is a given that we understand there are many sins. Lists and lists of them are given in the bible. (Romans 1:29-31, 2 Corinthians 12:20, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Jude 1:16). Committing even one of them disqualifies a person from heaven and Jesus is great enough to forgive them, no matter how many you committed. If a person is talking about the greatness of Jesus in His ability and desire to forgive any and all sins, then by all means, list the bunch of them to illustrate the breadth of His mercy and grace! That's what Phil Robertson was doing when he mentioned a hearty selection of sins, not just the one that must not be mentioned.
Even then, you see the gay lobby can't ever be satisfied, because they complained that in mentioning homosexuality together with a bunch of other sins, he was comparing homosexuality to them...you see the pointlessness of caving even an inch to their demands.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. (Galatians 2:5)While the discussion may legitimately call for an expanded list of sins, it is not necessary to hide homosexuality within a larger list of sins just to make it palatable to the LGBT lobby. If the discussion is about the sin of gossip, then the discussion will be about gossip. No one will suggest including adultery in the talk because it is in some way perversely fair to all the other sins to mention them too.
So if the discussion arises about homosexuality, it is disingenuous to force an inclusion of all sins along with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a protected class of sins, and it has biblical merit as a discussion point all on its own.
Here is where some, like Rachel Held Evans , make the mistake of selective literalism. The doctrinally ignorant will insist that if we are going to take the bible literally and include homosexuality as a literal sin (all I can picture is Sheldon saying 'Literally? Literally?') then we must also wear head coverings and gouge out our eyes if looking lustfully at another woman. Because, let's be literal. It's just another diversionary tactic.
Evans wrote: "We may laugh at these examples or dismiss them silly, but the biblical language employed in these contexts is actually pretty strong: eating shellfish is an abomination, a bare head is a disgrace, gossips will not inherit the kingdom of God, careless words are punishable by hell, guys who leer at women should gouge out their eyes. "
Below is a parable of incorrect biblical literalism as acted by the Big Bang Theory's Zack, posed by Evans above:
Correct use of literally:
So if you're discussing homosexuality as a literal and factual sin and that is the topic, don't feel you have to say "Not that there aren't other sins too!" We don't bow in subjection to them for even a moment, give not an inch. Here's why. Going back to the Galatians 2:5 verse above,
"The unyielding stand of Paul and Barnabas and their strong support by the Jerusalem apostles and leaders was to show the Judaizers that from now on, no Judaizer could ever say that Paul deceived you. No Judaizer could ever say that the prominent leaders of Jerusalem agree with us, not him... " (source)
Don't cave. Stay strong. Speak plainly the truth of the bible, not compromising its truths where and when we are called to proclaim them. Otherwise, all too soon, "Not that there aren't other sins too!" literally will become, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Twenty years ago, in an episode of the comedy sitcom "Seinfeld," Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, lifelong buddies, are mistaken for a homosexual couple, and "strenuously deny that they are gay, conditioning their denials with 'Not that there's anything wrong with that.' The line would soon afterward become a catchphrase. Jason Alexander maintains that it is the most popular to originate from the series. The episode earned a GLAAD award . (source )
In each case when the catchphrase was uttered, the person would shrug, throw up their hands in a mock submission and shake their head. See this 17 second compilation:
In discussing homosexuality today, immediate ire rises from all quarters unless homosexuality is couched in the most glowing of terms. If a person does not give hearty approval to homosexuality, (Romans 1:32), one is immediately scourged. The scourging is fast, immediate, and vicious. Just ask Phil Robertson .
If it were up to the homosexual lobby, no one would ever mention homosexuality as a sin. Evah. Failing that, the double standard now is that we can't mention homosexuality as a sin unless we also mention all the other sins too, at the same time. To paraphrase many of the other discussions I've read, such as Rachel Held Evans's question, "Why is homosexuality the great biblical debate of this decade and not slavery?" a discussion along those "not that there's anything wrong with that" lines might go like this-
"Homosexuality is a sin".
"Wait just a minute, bub. Gossip is a sin, what about that? Or envy, that's a sin too. And drunkenness. Why single out homosexuality? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Not that there aren't other sins too!"
We are now supposed to cushion the sting of stating sodomy is a sin by including it in a list of all other sins.
The double standard enters in because the reverse is not true.
"Murder is a sin."
"Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn't mention that one. Or envy, that's a sin. And drunkenness. Why single out murder? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Why aren't you talking about them, too?"
"Gluttony is a sin"
"Wait just a minute, bub. Homosexuality is a sin, too. What about that? You didn't mention that one. Or drunkenness, that's a sin. And anger. Why single out gluttony? Hey, bub, there's lots of sins. Why aren't you talking about them, too?"
We have allowed ourselves to substitute the phrase, "Not that there's anything wrong with that" with "Not that there aren't any other sins!" And throwing up our hands in a mock submission and shaking our heads, in vain attempts to stave off anger and vicious comebacks.
Don't fall for it. This is just a temporary compromise to the gay lobby's ultimate goal: full-on prohibition of any talk of homosexuality being mentioned as a sin at all. (Romans 1:32 again). It's a diversionary tactic.
It is a given that we understand there are many sins. Lists and lists of them are given in the bible. (Romans 1:29-31, 2 Corinthians 12:20, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Jude 1:16). Committing even one of them disqualifies a person from heaven and Jesus is great enough to forgive them, no matter how many you committed. If a person is talking about the greatness of Jesus in His ability and desire to forgive any and all sins, then by all means, list the bunch of them to illustrate the breadth of His mercy and grace! That's what Phil Robertson was doing when he mentioned a hearty selection of sins, not just the one that must not be mentioned.
Even then, you see the gay lobby can't ever be satisfied, because they complained that in mentioning homosexuality together with a bunch of other sins, he was comparing homosexuality to them...you see the pointlessness of caving even an inch to their demands.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. (Galatians 2:5)While the discussion may legitimately call for an expanded list of sins, it is not necessary to hide homosexuality within a larger list of sins just to make it palatable to the LGBT lobby. If the discussion is about the sin of gossip, then the discussion will be about gossip. No one will suggest including adultery in the talk because it is in some way perversely fair to all the other sins to mention them too.
So if the discussion arises about homosexuality, it is disingenuous to force an inclusion of all sins along with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a protected class of sins, and it has biblical merit as a discussion point all on its own.
Here is where some, like Rachel Held Evans , make the mistake of selective literalism. The doctrinally ignorant will insist that if we are going to take the bible literally and include homosexuality as a literal sin (all I can picture is Sheldon saying 'Literally? Literally?') then we must also wear head coverings and gouge out our eyes if looking lustfully at another woman. Because, let's be literal. It's just another diversionary tactic.
Evans wrote: "We may laugh at these examples or dismiss them silly, but the biblical language employed in these contexts is actually pretty strong: eating shellfish is an abomination, a bare head is a disgrace, gossips will not inherit the kingdom of God, careless words are punishable by hell, guys who leer at women should gouge out their eyes. "
Below is a parable of incorrect biblical literalism as acted by the Big Bang Theory's Zack, posed by Evans above:
Correct use of literally:
So if you're discussing homosexuality as a literal and factual sin and that is the topic, don't feel you have to say "Not that there aren't other sins too!" We don't bow in subjection to them for even a moment, give not an inch. Here's why. Going back to the Galatians 2:5 verse above,
"The unyielding stand of Paul and Barnabas and their strong support by the Jerusalem apostles and leaders was to show the Judaizers that from now on, no Judaizer could ever say that Paul deceived you. No Judaizer could ever say that the prominent leaders of Jerusalem agree with us, not him... " (source)
Don't cave. Stay strong. Speak plainly the truth of the bible, not compromising its truths where and when we are called to proclaim them. Otherwise, all too soon, "Not that there aren't other sins too!" literally will become, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
No comments:
Post a Comment