Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man’s life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair’s homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.

The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I’m mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.

I’ll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It’s understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we’re all sinners; however, most of us sinners don’t expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf. Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn’t have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It’s absurd.

If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don’t they?

This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible – if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was “brave.” I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you’re sorry.

Getting back to the church – the one that can still be called Christian – it’s time for some perspective. Let’s say that a mosque had agreed to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection. In our politically correct climate, I can’t imagine too many journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems. Multicultural imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities. For that matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected Moslems to brook homosexual displays? So, why are the religious convictions of Christians not similarly respected?

Then, you’ll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you’re a confirmed secularist, shouldn’t you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can’t imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you’d be told to expand your cultural horizons.

Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended? A teacher is thought insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the students may be of another faith and may take offense. Well, what are we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will likely evoke the same reaction?

But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along with a certain kind of provincialism. Many people are so awash in relativism nowadays that they just can’t imagine anyone who embraces authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could possibly consort. Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or Truth. Of course they’d espouse the tenets of the times. Doesn’t everybody?

It’s funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, “Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others.” So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family’s house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say “morals”). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it’s the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age’s unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer’s deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that’s afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

About Selwyn Duke

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Jaime, to those of us not afflicted by the god delusion, you are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with this cruel deception.

    Not only are you so dogmatically committed to your unshakeable delusion, you actually go so far as to admit that you are afraid of giving up your illusory comfort blanket.

    Truly, this is a most insidious disease of the heart.

  • Mark

    why insult those who have a faith in a god as being delusional ?

  • Nancy

    Because they go around insulting non-believers by accosting them & insisting they also believe, or will go to hell, or whatever the threat of the day is. It’s a lame threat, based on cowing the recipient into superstitious acquiescence & joining their herd mentality by bullying & the threat of impending eternal Doom, that’s why. I’m sick of spiritual bullies & con men. Keep it to yourselves. Believe whatever tripe you like, but keep it to yourselves & I won’t harangue you about Cheney being the ringleader of 9/11.

  • Nancy

    More to the point: you have enough to do to look after your OWN soul; leave me & mine alone.

  • gonzo marx

    don’t make me stop this car and come into the BACK SEAT OF THIS THREAD!!!

    i’m just saying…

    for those who like to think of their Bible as the literal Word and such…or that this book is either infallible or written by other than men…ponder your arguments first…

    than Ask yourself…why are the Commandments different between Jews, Catholics and Protestants?

    who changed the day of the Sabbath, and why?

    food for Thought…

    Excelsior?

  • The Reformer

    Thats funny….does Jamie do all the smiting?….lol….Tell ya what nancy, Jamie aint got nothing compared to what wrath you will suffer from God on YOUR day of Judgement. And also, on your faith comment up higher, there is only ONE faith, and that is in Jesus Christ, NO OTHER, any faith in budda, Allah, whatever, is like having faith in a roach,,…..it will get you nothing but HELL.

    Have A Nice Day

  • Jaime

    To Nancy and Christopher Rose.

    you two are so off the path..

    Where in my argument or debate to you did I “go around insulting non-believers by accosting them & insisting they also believe, or say you will go to hell?!!!

    Thats between you and the Creator (or Whatever your end will be. ) its okay with me that you die without a belief in the right one. I dont mind if you want to practice HOMO Sex. I really dont care What you do with your life. Just dont impose an agnostic or fallible law that would call the destruction of organization and solid foundations that made this country great!!

    Go do your gay things or promote all the lewdness you want but dont YOU DARE expect me to sit on the side lines an let you destroy Family and Good Character. I will fight you and all your acts that cause harm to decency!!

  • Jaime

    to: Nancy and Rose
    The freedoms that we have and the freedoms we continue to fight and Die for, we have, not because of celebrities or elites. The freedoms are because of ordinary people who did extraordinary things, who loved GOD and this country, more than life itself but who earned a place for you and I, to enjoy this great land we call home, this wonderful nation that we should love enough to protect and preserve with the kind of conservative, solid Christian values and principles that made us a great nation. We live in the Land of the Free because of the Brave! We are not and Will NOT be blinded by political correctness.

    We will continue to our dying breath to protect and spread the good news of Christ and believe in true Sovereignty.
    We also know concerning Liberty and Peace on or ally to our soil, It’s far later in the game than most realize, for the enemy has accomplished much in terms of their infiltration, population and entrenchment on our lands and in so many hearts of the people. Many including radical Islamist barbarians truly believe that America is their’s for the taking. They’re convinced that their imperialistic drive to conquer our nation is far stronger than our willingness to fight for what’s rightfully ours. A scant few of us are willing to make the necessary changes within ourselves first then our country and to resist these cretins.
    Their victory would mean the end of the United States and the end of the free world as we know it. To them, it is not about politics, it is about religion, a radical religion where the law allows for beheadings, stoning and maiming; a radical religion that uses terror as its tool of choice to keep the masses in line.

  • gonzo marx

    for Jaime in #509 – please do demonstrate and/or cite examples of how in any way , a homosexual relationship harms or diminishes anyone else’s relationship?

    while you are at it, i’ll extend my usual challenge..please do find me a single quote from Jesus that calls homosexuality a sin

    good luck…i’ll wait

    Excelsior?

  • Jaime

    Gonzo,
    Jesus didnt but Paul did. he also called it perversion. Romans 1:27 and dont forget the destruction of Sodom.. If you dont find that the new testament is divine and true, then I cant help you or even win an argument with you. All I can do is tell you that I disagree and begin a frontline from there.

  • Jaime

    Mark,
    wanted to let you know that I respect your ability to be open and Kind with your thoughts. I currently am the Chancellor of a group called the Western Knights of Peace. So I wanted to make the below statement about our committment, drive and spirit.

    I promise you “that every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause; that nothing shall be lacking from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work. In this world no person, no party or organization can guarantee anything. “The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism”, Diversity, Liberalism, Islamic Radicals, and “not to cringe before the bully of communism” nor socialism or the Principalities of the world.
    “The tide has been running against freedom”. “Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways– not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom”. We can be freedom’s Knights of Honor in a doubting world with the strength of a good man and gentlemen. “Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government”. Knights will make a movement to hold accountability for it from everyone holding any public office.
    We Knights are now the Light of the World to shout and to take action.
    “Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom”.

  • Catey

    Gonzo, I read somewhere that a gentile believer should not practise the sabbath the same as a jew.It is for the same reason that the jews discourage coverting to judaism,aswell as the keeping of all the laws expected of the jews.

  • gonzo marx

    Jaime, thanks for correctly stating that Jesus said nothing about it…

    i am well aware that Paul said a lot of shit, so..you are taking as literal gospel the ravings of a delusional man who claimed to know the Mind and Will of God..and using this as your theological basis for argument?

    just wanting to be clear, especially since 21 of the (normally) 27 books of the NT are attributed to Saul of Tarsus…hence making what passes for “christianity” in today’s context really equate to the following of Paul, NOT Jesus..despite all protestations to the contrary…

    scroll up earlier in the thread..i openly refer to myself as both apostate and heretic..but i am a knowledgeable one on some of these subjects, for all that i completely reject not only the correctly attributed Pauline texts, but the vast majority of them thta were written after his death, but with his name on them..and then included into the unified (catholic) bible by a single bishop(Iraneus) around 150 ad

    these simple and verifiable facts destroy whatever credence you care to make about the divinity or even the accuracy of the texts you appear to revere so…not that there isn’t some good stuff in there on how to live a life…but there’s a lot of shit in there too

    and so it ever is with the works of Men and the hubris of those who claim to know the Mind or Will of *god*

    Excelsior?

  • gonzo marx

    Catey – i’d be interested in seeing where that came form..i’ll bet it’s something from a christian in the Middle Ages or later during the rise of Dispensationalism

    see, it was changed by Constantine to usurp the day that Roman’s worshipped their sun-god at the time (it was also the time period halos were introduced to christianity, stolen form the holy glow of the sun-god’s prophets))

    but if the Laws and the Prophets are to be followed by christians..then the ONLY direct words of god to man, the Ten Commandments as given to Moses, would be paramount..would they not?

    not only do they disagree on the sabbath, there are many differences between the traditional 10 kept intact by the Jews since Moses…the Catholic verison..and the Protestant verisons…go and look them up

    the fallacies and foibles of Men appear to corrupt even the direct *word* when carved in stone by the Divine, eh?

    a lesson that Faith is a private thing for the Individual..but Religion is a political tool and serves only itself

    Excelsior?

  • Mark

    It seems that the preaching (secular or not), and insulting from any side, from any belief can be problematic. People don’t respond well to it.

    However I will state my thoughts:

    I believe there is a god that is beyond what is being discussed here, not swamped in religion or dogma. There are many ways for god to communicate.
    I also believe in science, such as evolution and geology, being the method of creation.
    I believe it is part of human nature to have faith even though not everyone has it.

    So, where does all this division and opinions leave us?

  • Catey

    Gonzo,

    Maybe Ruvy knows .There are things that non Jews are forbidden to do in the same manner as Jews.

    Your theories sound like Jack T. Chick , who published comic books about the evils of the catholic church…

  • LeeAnn

    An earlier comment says that “resentment against Christianity is understandable” (yes, I’m paraphrasing). I am forever astounded that I live in a world that, in 2007, has such a strong phobia and hatred when it comes to Christianity. Those of us that are believers and followers of Christ are not bad people. We are not hateful, misguided, or “close-minded”, among other negativism thrown our way. Most of the “great” religions have had issues, directly related to the people, not the religions themselves, and have amassed numerous reasons they can be “resented”. Why should Christianity be singled out? I don’t understand the hatred and YES, intolerance thrown our way. Especially here in America we are free to believe what we believe, just as you are free to believe in something else, or not believe at all. I am constantly floored by the expectation that I give on everything, yet so many have no give for me.

    I’m rambling a little bit here, I know, but the point is that Christianity is no worse than any other religion out there and I’m frustrated by those of you that insist it is. Despite my frustration, I will continue my prayers for all of you: that God will touch your lives as He has touched mine. Good luck and God Bless.

  • Hobart Stinson

    On sinners: Their god is their own appetite, they glory in their shame, and this world is the limit of their horizon. Philippians 3:19

    That statement applies to the family who did not respect the basic tenets of the Christian church when displaying images of a man’s homosexuality inside the church.

    To those who say Jesus would have welcomed this funeral think this: would Jesus have exalted a prostitute and prominently displayed images of her plying her trade at her funeral?

    *****************************************
    Discussion is the exchange of knowledge. Argument is the exchange of ignorance.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jesus’s closest female disciple, Mary Magdalene, was a prostitute. Read your New Testament, you dogmatic dunce.

  • http://Justusbros Anthony

    First time blogger. LOL. serious. I wish to thank everyone of you for a very interesting ; and educational evening. Most FUN Ive had in a while. GOD BLESS.

  • bliffle

    “Those of us that are believers and followers of Christ are not bad people. We are not hateful, misguided, or “close-minded”,…”

    Nevertheless, your armies marched and killed millions where they lived in their own countries, your torturers savaged innocents, and your priests destroyed the cultures of millions and provided moral excuses for plunder and murder. And you wonder that people are suspicious, wary and resentful as they are?

  • troll

    funny that you should bring up the 10 commandments:

    in the 10th where we are instructed not to covet our neighbor’s ass

    now god in his omniscience has known forever what connotations this phrase would take on through the ages and therefore the admonition against homosexuality is clear……

  • gonzo marx

    Doc D sez “Jesus’s closest female disciple, Mary Magdalene, was a prostitute. Read your New Testament, you dogmatic dunce.”

    actually Doc..that is a fallacy…there was a scribe ..Barnabbas i think, some minor clergyperson…who mistakenly conflated an unnamed woman in an earlier Story..a prostitute who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair…with Mary of Magdelene

    current studies posit that the two are NOT the same, and that the error may have been perpetrated by a patriarchy uninterested in a strong female figure

    to see why, you would need to understand the strife between early christian factions…the Valentinians versus Iraneus and the Unified(catholics)…but is the Gospel of Mary, check chapter 4, verse 26 for pertinence to this discussion

    on that website is also the Valentinian theology…an interesting read for those who like such things, and a far cry indeed from what we know as church dogma in history

    but my poin tis that the unnamed prostitute is NOT Mary of Magdelene, but just another mistake by church elders involving the scripture they chose to utilize

    Excelsior?

  • Jaime

    Gonzo,
    Im going to hav the last word here. You spew out your venomous hate and claim yourself a scholar but Jesus made comment agains those who thought themselves scholars and literalists. John 5:39.

    Perhaps you’ve seen newspaper reports about the “Jesus Seminar,” a group of scholars who claim that Jesus didn’t say most of the things the Bible says he did. Or perhaps you’ve heard of other scholars who say that the Bible is a collection of contradictions and myths.
    Many well-educated people dismiss the Bible. Many other equally educated people believe it is a trustworthy record of what God has done and said. If we cannot trust what the Bible says about Jesus, for example, then we will know almost nothing about him.
    The Jesus Seminar began with a preconceived idea of what Jesus would have taught. They accepted the sayings that fit this idea, and rejected the sayings that didn’t, thereby, in effect, creating a Jesus in their own image.

    This is not good scholarship, and even many liberal scholars disagree with the Seminar.
    Do we have good reason to trust the biblical reports about Jesus? Certainly—they were written within a few decades of Jesus’ death, when eyewitnesses were still alive. Jewish disciples often memorized the words of their teachers, so it is quite possible that Jesus’ disciples preserved his teachings accurately.

    We have no evidence that they invented sayings to deal with early church concerns, such as circumcision. This suggests that they are reliable reports of what Jesus taught.
    We can also be confident that the manuscripts were well preserved. We have some copies from the fourth century, and smaller sections from the second. This is better than all other historical books. (The oldest copy of Virgil was copied 350 years after Virgil died; of Plato, 1,300 years.) The manuscripts show that the Bible was copied carefully, and we have a highly reliable text.

    and as you think you may know dont forget that before Jesus was flesh he was the Word of GOD whom all things the father Does, this included the destruction of SODOM.. GOT IT GONZO!!?

    The words of David were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36); a prophecy was given “through” Daniel (Matthew 24:15) because its real origin was God.

    Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-5 that the Creator said in Genesis 2:24: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.” However, Genesis does not describe this verse as the words of God. Jesus could say that God said it simply because it was in Scripture. The assumption is that God is the ultimate author of all of Scripture.

    The evidence throughout the Gospels is that Jesus viewed Scripture as reliable and trustworthy. As he reminded the Jewish leaders, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Jesus expected it to be valid; he even upheld the validity of old covenant commands while the old covenant was still in force (Matthew 8:4; 23:23).

  • gonzo marx

    Jaime – no hate for any living individual here, quite the contrary…

    and you might want to look more deeply into the reality of the Jesus Seminar…far different than what you state

    as to your assertions on provenance of scripture…look up the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts, both of which i reference earlier

    while you are at it, look up Iraneus and his “Book of Five Heresies”..and do note that it was he who is considered the first individual to set down the texts acceptable and referred to now as the New Testament

    then c’mon back and i’ll be happy to discuss some of this with you…but there’s no hate from me

    just some Questions, and a rejection of dogmatic pronouncements no matter the source

    thus i remain, apostate and heretic…

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    …and hands down winner of that mini-debate…

    The earliest known writings so far discovered, BTW, were written in 5500 BC and discovered in Pakistan in 1999.

  • gonzo marx

    well now, Clavos…good eye on the old writings bit, tho there are some Chinese scholars who dispute the claim to oldest writings…

    but i digress

    my point is not just about how old some writings are, but their overall provenance and authenticity…not to mention the dubious quality of “inspiration” when it comes to source for the material

    case in point, Saul of Tarsus…known as Saint Paul, the alleged author of 21 out of 27 books in the New Testament…we are supposed to believe that this old reprobate fell down and was “inspired” to write out all of this as if it was the direct word of the allmighty..

    yeah..and blue monkeys could fly outta my butt (royalty to Mike Myers)

    but, ya get my point…

    Excelsior?

  • STM

    Straight and proud wrote: “I am so tired of the homo agenda being rammed down my throat.”

    Lol. Classic S and P. But as Clav’s question poses, was it accidental?? How the fuck did I miss this.