Great Big Tents, Hastily Erected, Collapsing America

5
276

The parallels between uncertain Christian apologies and  Republican political waffling in these modern times are sometimes striking.  And troubling, if you call yourself an American.  While scanning the traffic today we noticed something about a call for Evangelicals to rethink their fight against legalization of homosexual marriage.  We get this all the time from one quarter or another and directed toward one sect or segment or another, or self-directed as here, but it was the word ‘evangelicals’ that piqued our curiosity.

Evangelical – often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist

Turns out the author of the piece declares himself steadfastly in the camp of one man/one woman marriage, going so far as to equate the obviousness of God’s intent with the scientific analogy that  chemical compounds are by definition made up of certain elements, and not others.  It is that basic, that elemental,  a real no-brainer.

And yet incredibly he argues that in the end it is not worth the fight to keep up the struggle to have American law be compatible with even that basic a no-brainer because, well, it just drives people away and…..somehow…..detracts from the mission:

It is, in other words, a question of prudence.  Granted, we should continue to profess the truth as best we understand it.  But are we so losing the culture on this issue that continuing to fight against same-sex marriage legally will so harm our witness, and thus harm our broader mission and our most important purposes, that the time has arrived to abandon the fight over American law?  Is it now the case, or could it ever be the case, that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage laws would become such a massive obstacle to our mission that it’s no longer worth it?

    ?

 


Now, we don’t want to beat on the fellow too much for whatever might be his conception of the “mission”. It’s probably something along the lines of spreading the gospels of love and mercy and peace and joy and all those Good Christian things.  He never really says.  He just complains thus:

I confess that I’m tired of being hated for my stance on something I consider secondary, especially when that gets in the way of communicating over the primary matters.

If the fellow is tired of being hated for his stance, wonder how tired he would be, if he were a minister, of being jailed for violating someone’s civil rights by refusing to marry that guy over there and his buddy?  Look down that road, Evangelical.
Anyway, to our way of thinking, what could be more elemental, more basic, more of a “primary matter”, if you are an American Evangelical, than that the mission is to profess that God created not only the heavens and the Earth but that He created Man and Woman?  And to insist that the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence be the supreme foundational basis for all legality flowing forth from it and the Constitution. If that weren’t important, then we wouldn’t be having these fits at all.

God created Man and Woman …..for what?

 

It’s not just a question of whether people with differing moral standards can co-exist, not just saying “Render unto Caesar” and letting the State define marriage, something you have argued the State could not define for you personally .
 It’s saying that something so basic to the concept of humanity and humanity’s relationship to it’s creator and the truth of what he created is not worth fighting for under laws that we are bound to live by every day. Then it’s not a matter of maintaining your standards, in your own little world. It’s a matter of aquiescing in the denigration of  God’s design, and to what purpose?…..bring people to God? That is, if you really do believe in the definitional meanings of God, man, woman, and marriage.    Of  course if you are, like the fellow above, just tired of not being popular, well…….yeah. Understandable. Lot of Republicans are that way too these days.

The other thing about not standing your ground on fundamental definitions in the public square is that you are unilaterally surrendering. For those pushing for the official sanction of homosexual, bisexual, polysexual and whatever other arrangements do not stop at insisting the government leave them alone, or even issue them a license. They demand in addition praise and favor, and will not cease the politic of it just because you do. The question then becomes, how long can you continue to abide in a State where God-given things are rent asunder? If it’s not really all that important to “your mission” what things God endowed people with, then marriage will not be the only thing to fall by the wayside.  You can secularize your surroundings all the way out to the ‘gulag’, or the gallows.  It’s been done.

In the partisan political arena, we see today the same abandonment of not only core beliefs but core definitions. Examples abound, but the key element is that this nation was founded as a Republic. While it is possible to coexist with those factions who insist that we are a “democracy,” or some other sweet-sounding construct, and while it is possible to come to some accommodations in order to prevent chaos and slaughter, once concessions are granted that allow the others to set the everyday rules while we smugly hold on to our “beliefs,” our beliefs will eventually be buried with us. When Nikita S. Khrushchev famously declared “We will bury you!” he didn’t mean just our bodies.

Coexistence for Republicans, as for Christians, may be an end of sorts. Think ‘Peace and Love and Harmony’. For the other side, co-existence is not an end, it is a transitional state.

We often hear these days “reality,” and “cultural reality” and are admonished that if we want to “win” we have to open our doors to every type, and to tolerate not only their flaws and blemishes, but even their antagonism. We hear not just from without but also from within our own ranks that it is more than just acceptance – different practices and tenets must be given equal footing.
Whether it’s in party platforms or in the evangelical spirit, we can only ask this:  If we put away our banners and scripts and have a non-denominational, non-judgemental hall where the communists can come in and take their fair share from us, will we ever, will we ever, be able to convince them that, heh heh, long term, this arrangement won’t work? If the words of the founders – pursuit of happiness, liberty, property, freedoms of this and that, tripartite government – if insistence on basing our daily, public conduct of our affairs on founding principles detracts us from “the mission,” then what is “the mission”?  If we think our mission is “No Taxation Without Representation” we had better heed that their mission is “No Representation.”

Finally, it is almost, were it not so perilous to our survival as a nation under God, comical to see people who profess to be fearing of that God, and defensive of the mystical concept of America, fail to insist that God not be left out. It is foundational. It is fundamental. It is basic. It was written. The founders were the scientists who created the chemical compound: God+We the People=America. One might even say, like the author of the piece above, it is akin to the union of hydrogen and oxygen. It is water. No matter whether you think it’s good for you or whether you think can get along without it, that’s what it is.

When evangelicals start fearing “losing the culture,” start marginalizing the need to support at every turn and in every arena the sacred foundational basis of our very existence as humankind, the union of man and woman as ordered up by The Creator, we have lost more than “the culture.” When Republicans fear “losing elections” more than they fear the adoption of a new national slogan – “From each according to his bank account, to each according to a government-directed formula” – then we have lost more than the election.
*******************************************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? 

___{Rhetorical question from some ancient manuscript}____

0 0 vote
Article Rating
bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lady Penquin
December 1, 2012 3:13 pm

It simply comes down to one’s basic beliefs and following of the Christian faith, and it doesn’t just fall on Evangelicals. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, considers it an abomination for a man to lie with a man, etc. So, anyone who wants to just “give in” to the idea of condoning and sanctioning homosexual marriage, they can, but don’t tell me you’re a Christian. Because there is nothing in the core faith tenets of Christianity which support such a concept. I’ll go further and say that I do believe homosexuality lends itself to pedophilia, otherwise there wouldn’t… Read more »

Lady Penquin
December 2, 2012 12:39 pm

This push toward homosexual marriage is being done by the radical Left/communists in order to destroy the religious concept of marriage and the stabilizing elements of society which are sourced from a faith foundation rather than a statist/communist doctrine.

BTW, the picture of the big tent reminds me of a circus, and that’s exactly what the so-called big tent of the Republican party has become, a circus. More apt than one might think.

texasgalt
Editor
December 2, 2012 10:39 pm

Hang on Bob. There’s a reckoning coming . . . and don’t look back upon it, if you know what I mean