Duck Dynasty, Gays and the Kingdom of God

Recently a brouhaha erupted when the A&E network announced that it was suspending "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson for controversial remarks he made in a magazine interview.* Robertson told GQ magazine that homosexual behavior was sinful, and quoted a passage of Scripture, I Corinthians 6:9,10, to back his assertion.
    Was Robertson right? The passage cited reads as follows (in the New International Version, which Robertson appeared to be quoting loosely): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Similar passages can be found at Gal. 5:19-21 and Eph. 5:5, although neither of these other passages mention homosexuality specifically.
    The first thing to be noted about these passages is that homosexual behavior is just one of a series of vices that are condemned. It should also be noted that all of these vices involve various forms of human behavior. What is condemned is not a racial characteristic such as skin color or hair texture, but the conscious actions of human beings. In other words, God holds us accountable for the way we think and act.
    But what is wrong about homosexuality? To answer that question one must first ask what is the purpose of sex. It may strike some as odd that we would even ask the question. Who says that sex has to have a purpose other than our own sensual gratification? (Certainly not the editors of Cosmo!) But if it is true that everything was created by an Intelligent Supreme Being then everything has a purpose, a reason for which it was created. And the obvious primary purpose of sex is reproduction, which requires a heterosexual relationship. The Bible puts it this way: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it . . .'" (Gen. 1:27,28). Men are expected to marry women, love their wives, produce offspring, and raise their children. The nuclear family that thus results is the foundation stone of human society. The home should be a place where children are nurtured and socialized.
    It is for this reason that adultery is considered to be one of the worst of all sins. It is specifically condemned in the Ten Commandments, and it carried the death penalty under Old Testament law. Anything that deviates from the divinely ordained pattern and undermines the institution of marriage and the stability of the family is a perversion of what God intended. This would include prostitution, divorce and bestiality.
    Seen in this light homosexuality is an extreme form of lawlessness, a radical disregard for God's will. In the Old Testament God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah partially because of this sin. In the New Testament it is described as a sign of advanced moral decadence. According to Romans chapter 1 the problem begins with secularism – the stubborn refusal to acknowledge God as Creator and Lord (vv. 18-23). The text then goes on to describe the next step: "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another" (v. 24). As we advance even further into moral degradation we come to this: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (vv. 26,27). Note: the push for gay marriage is an indication of God's judgment on our society – God has "given us up" to our sinful passions and desires.
    What is assumed here is a sense of what is natural and decent. There is something unnatural and grotesque about sodomy. Homosexuals are using their sexual organs in a way for which they obviously were not intended, a bit like sticking your knife into your mouth when you eat. Even from a purely secular standpoint there is something profoundly unnatural and dysfunctional about homosexuality, which is why same-sex attraction used to be known as "Gender Identity Disorder," for indeed that is what it is.
    Which brings us back to a point that we made earlier. All of the forms of behavior condemned in I Cor. 6 involve conscious choices on the part of human beings. We are thinking, rational creatures. We can tell the difference between right and wrong. God holds us accountable for our actions. Ultimately all sin is a form of rebellion against God – a willful disregard for His commandments, which is why we are repeatedly told that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Can we really expect to disobey God and not suffer the consequences?

*We understand that Robertson has since been reinstated.

Related blog posts:
The Future of Playboy America 
God's Portrait of Modern Society 
What God Thinks About Modern Society 
The Queer Scouts of America? 
Morality = Bigotry? 
God Never Changes 

 

Morality = Bigotry?

  

George Whitefield preaching

  In our last blog post we noted that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy virtually equated morality with bigotry. He pointed out that the House of Representatives, in passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stated that the intent of the legislation was to uphold Judeo-Christian morality. Justice Kennedy then went on to insinuate that this amounts to a purpose to "degrade," "demean," and "disparage" homosexual couples who wish to get married.
    Does this mean that Judeo-Christian morality is tantamount to bigotry? Let us be perfectly blunt and candid about this. The whole aim and purpose of morality is to stigmatize certain forms of behavior. What Justice Kennedy appears to be objecting to is the very idea of morality itself – the idea that certain forms of behavior, by their very nature, are wrong. But most laws have the same practical effect that Justice Kennedy found so obnoxious in DOMA. They criminalize certain forms of behavior. Those who engage in those forms of behavior are subjected to certain incapacities. Is this unfair discrimination? Not hardly. The whole purpose of the law, of any law, is to proscribe certain forms of activity. DOMA was no different.
    But passing beyond a court ruling on a piece of legislation, why do Judaism and Christianity consider homosexual activity immoral in the first place? What is so bad about being gay?
    Homosexuality is immoral because it runs counter to the creative purpose of God. Implicit in any monotheistic religion is the idea that all of reality was created by a single, intelligent Being. That being the case, everything in life has meaning and purpose. And so, when we ask the question, what is the primary purpose of sex, the obvious answer is heterosexual reproduction. This is why the great Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – have always looked on homosexuality as a perversion of something that God created for other purposes. The norm is that a man and a woman should enter into a permanent, intimate relationship with each other, and that that, in turn, would provide the basis for a stable family life. Anything else beside that and perpetual chastity is forbidden.
    But, it will be objected, gays are born that way and cannot help being the way they are. They should not be stigmatized for something over which they have no control.
    We would acknowledge that in some individuals same-sex attraction is very real, and not something over which they feel they have any control. Nevertheless, certain things must be borne in mind.
     First of all, there is no solid evidence that homosexuality is hereditary. No one has been able to identify a "gay gene." A homosexual male is still biologically a normal male, and is capable of fathering children the usual way. Instead, homosexuality is manifestly an emotional or psychological condition, what used to be known as "Gender Identity Disorder," and most likely it is the result of a problem in early childhood socialization.
    But beyond that, homosexuality is really no different from any other kind of sin, and should be treated no differently. Do homosexuals feel a predisposition to their particular form of activity? We all feel predisposition to some form of sin. We are all born liars and thieves. As one older woman of our acquaintance put it, "I have been a mother and a grandmother, and I never once had to teach a child how to steal cookies." Anti-social behavior comes naturally to us, and it is only with great difficulty that it can be driven from us. Nevertheless, we are still morally accountable for our own conduct. We can tell the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and can make a conscious choice to do what is good and right. The mere fact that we have a natural predisposition to do what is wrong does not excuse us. We are rightly condemned for our bad behavior.
    Therefore we should not single our homosexuals and treat them as social lepers. The fact of the matter is that the Word of God stands above us all and condemns all of our sin – that of the selfish, greedy executive in his corner office suite as well as that of the sexual libertine in the gay bathhouse. We are all sinners by nature, and we all need redemption.
    No one likes to be told that he is a hell-bound sinner, and it is only natural that some will react negatively, sometimes even violently. We would rather shoot the messenger than heed the message.
    And so that is the position in which the church finds itself today. We have a message that is decidedly unpopular. And yet it is our duty to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. We do no one a favor by hiding or disguising the truth.
    
Related blog posts:
The Case for Moral Absolutes 
What Is Morality? 
What God Requires 
What God Thinks About Modern Western Society 

And on the subject of Judeo-Christian morality see:
Jesus and the Torah 

The Queer Scouts of America?

    Yesterday the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to allow openly homosexual youth to join the organization. The BSA will continue to ban homosexual adults from being scout leaders, and it is understood that the boys and teens themselves will be discouraged from engaging in sexual activity of any kind. Nevertheless, it is a monumental cultural change from an iconic American institution.
    The question is, is the Boy Scouts of America being true to its purpose? What is its purpose in the first place?
    The organization's website describes the Boy Scouts as a "values-based youth development" organization. It says that "the BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in responsibilities of participating in citizenship, and develops personal fitness." It says that "the mission of Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make moral and ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law."
    The Scout Oath says: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." The Scout Law, in turn, says: "A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."
    The stated purpose of the organization, then, is to build character. But what is "character"? The dictionary defines it, in this context, as "moral excellence and firmness." It suggests a firm adherence to principle. It implies a set of ethical norms to which we must conform. Hence the emphases on duty, trustworthiness, loyalty, and reverence. In short, the Boy Scouts of America is built on an altruistic moral philosophy that encourages self-discipline and devotion to duty.
    But how can we build character is we cannot define the norms and values? And if homosexuality is normal and morally permissible, then what are the moral norms regarding sex and marriage? Is anything between consenting adults permissible? What is impermissible? In that context how can we inculcate the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood?
    By being "inclusive" and "tolerant," aren't we really making a statement about morality itself? That nearly all things are permissible, that there is no universally binding "norm," that each person is left to make his / her own personal lifestyle choices? And if that is the case, what is there to teach young people? You're OK and God bless you in whatever choices you make? What, then, happens to "character"?  This is the dilemma problem facing all educational and youth organizations in a modern, pluralistic society. What exactly are they expected to teach the youth?
    In the case of the Boy Scouts in particular we have a philosophy based on ideals and standards that stand in direct contrast to the self-indulgent, narcissistic philosophy of contemporary society. The early 20^th Century world of scouting has collided with the post-modern world of today. From a modern, secular standpoint it could be argued that the Boy Scouts of America is an anachronism, a relic from the Victorian past. From a religious standpoint it could be argued that the Scouts are in a moral freefall, in the process of collapsing into the rubble of what used to be Western Civilization. Their position is similar to that of the mainstream liberal Protestant denominations. They abandoned their core beliefs and left themselves with little to say beyond a few vague platitudes. Once an organization reaches that point it is irrelevant – it no longer has anything worthwhile to offer.
    The Boy Scouts of America served a useful purpose in its time, but its time has passed. It is time to abandon the sinking ship.