MORALOPHOBIC
In the 1930s, Roman Catholic priest and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin discovered a very effective way of discrediting people he considered political threats. He would appeal to the anti-Semitism and isolationism shared by much of his audience by denouncing various individuals as “atheistic Jews” or “imported radicals.” It mattered little to Coughlin that the sources of his “information” were often untrustworthy. He know that once he used the power of the broadcast medium to slap labels on people, those people would find them very difficult to remove from their reputations.
In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy used the new medium of television to boost his political career by taking advantage of Americans fear of Communism. No evidence was too slight, no testimony too tainted, no logic too specious for him to use it to label various individuals as “Communists” of “subversives.” Reputations were destroyed. Careers were ruined. For decades after McCarthy himself was discredited and died, his victims struggled to rebuild their shattered lives. McCarthyism has come to be synonymous with intimidation through labeling and blacklisting and has often been mistakenly portrayed as a “right-wing” tactic. The fact is, however, that McCarthyism is equally useful to demagogues of all political persuasions. In fact, it has become a favorite tool of the Left for stifling opposition to their agenda today.
Conservatives are often labeled “Uncle Toms,” if they are black, or “racists” if they are white, for daring to voice opposition to any aspect of the Left’s “civil rights” agenda. People who oppose gay “marriage” are labeled “homophobic.” Men and women who oppose abortion on moral grounds are dangerous “extremists,” and so it goes. Thus, opposes are allegedly motivated by “hate” or “fear” rather than rational disagreement. Name-calling, then, becomes a very effective substitute for rationally defending one’s case-- legitimate viewpoints are summarily de-legitimized and thinking is short-circuited by knee-jerk reaction to an emotional appeal. Whenever you hear someone slap a label on someone else without providing careful definitions and clear evidence, you are more than justified if you suspect you may be listening to a propagandist rather than someone who truly desires to inform the pubic. (1)
These words penned in 2003 and published in our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life are just as relevant today as they were than. The art of name-calling can often be a useful tool to marginalize or even silence those with opposing views. It masquerades as defending the rightness of a position without actually ever defending the position itself with clear, logical and actual precision. If done well, name-calling keeps those with another view so busy trying to demonstrate they have been maligned, that they rarely have the opportunity to address the actual original issue.
This is true in the area of religion, where groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs aka Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) write about “The Whore of Babylon, World Empire of False Religions” as a description of all groups which claim to be Christian., but who are not JWs. At times when confronting false teaching, I am accused of being mean, narrow-minded or even bigoted. But since I am aware of the gamesmanship here, I elect not to begin defending myself from the accusations, but instead I respond with something like; “You might be right, I might be mean. I might even be short and perhaps even fat. All of those things can be true, and we certainly can discuss them, but the question we need to answer first is: Where am I wrong?” I am often met with a blank expression at that point.
You Are Homophobic
In the current cultural battle, name-calling really has replaced reasoned debate and discussion. If someone holds to historic Judeo/Christian moral values--the values which have been central in the founding and history of our nation--they often find themselves or their group the object of name-calling and character assassination. Anyone who is opposed to “same-gender marriage” is labeled “homophobic.” Those opposed to abortion are “misogynists.” Is it really true those who oppose abortion hate women? I clearly remember in the days leading up to the Gore vs. Bush election in 2000 watching a woman in tears at the local Post Office begging the postal clerk to vote for Gore because, according to her, “Bush wants to kill women!!” I suppose I missed Bush’s plan for the mass extermination of women.
Is opposition to same-gender marriage actually “homophobic?” The definition of phobia is fairly straightforward and simple:
…usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. (2)
Of all of the people I know and with whom I have spoken, including some homosexuals, “fear” of homosexuals--much less “irrational” “fear” -- simply is not present. But many people are often cowed by the accusation; because like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar-Baby, (3) the more they fight to defend themselves against name-calling, the more stuck they become.
I have wondered: Are those who support abortion, same-gender marriage, and other “Progressive” social issues “moralphobic?” That is, do they have an irrational” “fear” of morals, or would using that term just be name-calling instead of sound, reasoned debate as well? I have come to two conclusions on this question. First, it would be name-calling and, as tempting as it may be to me, it comes across as a playground squabble ending with “So is your mother!” The accusations that Progressives and Liberals are moral phobic lacks reasoned debate and comment on the issues at hand. Second, it is actually not true. They don’t have an “irrational” “fear” of the morals which have been the fabric of our nation since its inception--the ones contained in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Rather, they have a rational fear and hatred of those morals. They are not opposed to morality per se, but they are working to change morals to accommodate the way they desire to live rather than how God says we ought to live. Fear of condemnation can be assuaged--if not eliminated altogether--by making the change. It is being accomplished a little at a time.
The big push now is to normalize same-gender, sexual relationships. The line from married to non-married sexual relations had been shifted a few decades ago. Now that unmarried sex is more acceptable, there is just a small shift in cultural thinking to embrace same-gender sexual relationships. “How can you deny someone sexual satisfaction solely because they are attracted to others of the same gender?” we are asked. The highest moral values in this area today: Personal Satisfaction. Legitimizing same-gender sex happens simply by moving the martial requirements one (albeit huge) step to include these homosexual relationships. But then, why not include polygamy or eliminate the age of consent and include children in the mix? Well, that would absolutely be met with near-complete cultural rejection …right now. However, by moving the boundaries one-step-at-a-time, it is easier to change morals. The new morality becomes, “How could you deny the right of two people who love each other ‘the right’ to marry.” Once that is accepted, it then becomes immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. The next part of the process is to create peer pressure to conform to the new morality.
Thought-Shapers and Peer Pressure
Changing morals across culture is perhaps an easier task than one might think. For many, the change appears to be sudden and drastic but that is really only because they have just noticed. This has been in the works for the last century as the battle between Progressives (in the early twentieth century Marxists/Socialists) and Conservatives has been waged. As we have pointed out in numerous articles in the past, those who believed in the fundamentals of the faith abandoned the colleges and universities in the 1920s and 30s, while Marxists/Socialists used those institutions to spread their philosophy pretty much unchallenged. The college student rebellion of the late 1960s and 1970s were the fruition successfully reeducating the children of the “Builder Generation.” (4) The abandoning of the faith and changing of national morals was already well underway, but we still had a Christian hangover. Many still live by Judeo/Christian morality, but it was not attached to any foundation. It would give way to the morals of self. Self-centeredness would become the guide for determining the shape of national and individual morality. What we are now witnessing is the clearing away of the hangover of Judeo/Christian morality and the codifying of the new moral expectations.
Most of the population are followers. It is not that they are unintelligent or uncaring, but they are mostly focused on the day-to-day aspects of their lives. Their opinions on big issues in life are informed mostly by the media to which they are exposed, the organizations in which they participate, and friends with whom they interact regularly. It is falsely assumed that news organizations are philosophically neutral and simply reporting the facts. Church leaders, it is believed, are there to be caretakers of the soul and guide their followers with the wisdom God has imparted whether directly from the Scriptures or not. The combination of these influences set up guidelines as to what someone should believe; and the peer pressure follows from it and enforces how one ought to behave. As our culture has made what are now substantial shifts away from Judeo/Christian values, that shift has been guided by those thought-shapers who have the biggest public voice.
The news media and government officials have been near giddy with the elevation of acceptance of the homosexual practices, and they vilify anyone who publicly expresses a contrary view. In 2012, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, was quoted as supporting the biblical definition of marriage: One man and one woman. When asked, he said he was “guilty as charged.” It became a media circus as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that these are “not Chicago’s values.” When Emmanuel made that assertion, I wondered how many Chicagoans in a one-man,-one woman marriage realized their marriage did not fall within the bounds of “Chicago values?” It wasn’t that Chick-fil-A, as a company, discriminated against homosexuals. They did not and do not ask about sexual orientation in hiring. In fact, how one is sexually satisfied is not a concern with the company as long as it isn’t being pursued on the job. It doesn’t impact promotions or in any way impact one’s employment. Chick-fil-A also does not ask customers about their preferred sexual encounters before taking their order. How someone has sex has nothing to do with whether or not they can purchase a sandwich and fries. But here is where the media and government ban together to bring peer pressure to bear: Dan Cathy and others who looked on were bullied--in no uncertain terms--that no one may have an opinion which is different than the news media and government, or they will be punished.
The “new morality” was forced into the military. Sexual relations between non-married troops have always been discouraged. Males and females, even if they want to have relations, are segregated when it comes to sleeping and showering arrangements. The reason is fairly understandable. It is a practical way to diminish sexual tension, as well as to protect those who would be the objects of sexual advances from potential predators. Now, it is politically correct to force the military not only to allow but to endorse those who prefer same-gender relations to publicly advertise their preferences. However, there is no segregation to alley sexual tensions from those with whom they may want to have relations. The result?
More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults. (5)
In 2004, roughly 12% of sexual assaults were against males. In 2012, approximately 54% of sexual assault victims were male. (6) Now, it should be noted that there are far more males in the military than females, but that was also the case back in 2004. The basic change has the implementation of the new morality by Federal fiat. In reality, if the military were to be truly fair and liberated about this social experiment, they would eliminate any reference to gender or sexual orientation and make all facilities--barracks etc, --gender-neutral. Anything less is discrimination.
The legalization and recognition of same-gender marriage as no different than opposite-gender marriage will not be the end of the changing morals I the nation. As Denny Burke points out in “The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper,” polygamists and polyamorists are just waiting in the wings for the door to be open by same-gender marriage.
The redefinition of legal marriage in our culture will not end with same sex “marriage.” The polygamists are waiting in the wings for the opportunity to make their case--a case that will be all the more compelling as arguments for gay “marriage” take hold across the country. If marriage becomes defined as legal recognition of whoever it is that you love, on what basis will the polygamists be excluded?
But redefinition won’t end with polygamous marriage either. The polyamorists are beginning to make their case as well. In an article for Slate magazine, Jillian Keenan argues that polyamorous unions should be on an equal footing with all other marriages. The polyamorous “family” featured in the article includes two men and two women, all of whom share one another sexually. Their relationship is defined as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.” (7)
Where is The Church in All Of This?
Our friend, Advisory Board member, and co-author of the article, addresses the issue of how the Black church has been captured by what he calls, “The Cult of Black Liberation Theology.” Over 90% of the Black vote for President went to Barack Obama. Barack and Michelle Obama had been members of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, Illinois. Trinity United Church of Christ not only embraced Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (8) under the leadership of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but it was a flagship church of Black Liberation Theology. BLT was central to the teaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and it promotes Marxist idea of class warfare between “oppressed groups” and “established groups.” The United Church of Christ is the first denomination in America to ordain gays/homosexuals as ministers. The influence of BLT on the Black church along with Obama’s views on homosexuality have had a big impact upon the Black church and the Black community. Even though Black churches may lean toward being theologically conservative, they tend to be socially liberal through the influence of Black Liberation Theology. It is very difficult to be of African-American descent and go against the tide here. Those who do are called, “Uncle Tom” or are labeled as being not really Black. In this setting, one’s race is no longer a matter of ancestry, but rather one of political affiliation. The recent stand for same-gender marriage by Black pastors in Chicago claiming it is “about civil rights, not religion” (9) is a demonstration of the effective power of peer pressure to achieve the implementation of the new morality.
There is a similar assault on the White church. It is coming from the Emerging Church movement. Brian McLaren made slow moves away from affirming biblical views on sex and marriage. In 2006, he called for a five-year moratorium on asserting firm views about homosexuality:
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When dicisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing refection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course. (10)
Six years later, McLaren affirmed the rightness of same-gender marriage by leading the “Commitment Ceremony at Son’s Same-Sex Wedding.” (11) Rob Bell, another well-known and widely read luminary, also came out in favor of homosexual relationships and was fairly unhappy at the questions directed at his position:
“Do you believe that this is an area where actually God is ahead of the church, that affirming same-sex partnerships is actually a God thing and that we will eventually all get to see that in the course of time. Brierley asked Bell of comments he made in March.
The former Mars Hill Bible Church pastor revealed in March his acceptance of gay marriage, having said, “I believe God [is] pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and pastors and friends and neighbors and coworkers.” Previously Bell had also stated that he was for “marriage….for fidelity…for love” whether it was with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. (12)
The young adults and teenagers within the Evangelical, Fundamental and Confessing church read and are greatly influenced by these and other well-known leaders who are going down the same path. They are--whether intentionally or unintentionally--thumbing their noses at God. The moral code god handed to Moses (the Ten Commandments) does condemn all of us. Paul calls it “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones.” (2 Corinthians 3:7a) and writes the “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The moral code reflects God’s holiness and is not able to make us live holy lives, but rather, it was given to teach us how sinful all of us really are and to point us to the solution to our sin:
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:23-25)
If we get to write our own moral standards, we can do it in such a way that we can come out looking righteous and those who disagree and regarded as immoral by the standards of the newly defined morality. This is not a new issue; it has been the pattern of humanity nearly since The Creation. Noah’s descendant, Nimrod, established a kingdom “in the land of Shinar” (Gen10) and his descendants turned from God to create their own religion (Gen. 11) The plan to build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves (rather than hallow God’s name) would obviously include their new moral code. We see examples of this in the leaders of the Nation of Israel when Jesus walked among them. For example, sons created a way not to have to assist parents(s) in need by keeping the money that should go to assist them, and employing it for their own use, while maintaining the appearance of being righteous. How? They developed a doctrine called Corban which means dedicated to God. As long as it was “dedicated to God,” they couldn’t give it to someone else; but they, themselves, could use it as they wished. Jesus spoke to this issue as, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:8). He went on to say:
…”You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God,’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” (Mark 7:9-12)
Notice the common thread of self-centeredness as regarding the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11:4 they say, “…let us make a name for ourselves.” We find Lucifer weighing in similarly in Isaiah 4:14 as he asserts, “I will make myself like the Most High.” In Mark, the Hebrew concept of “Corban” was a demonstration of self-centeredness. Today’s equivalent of working to redefine morality is also based on self-centeredness. It comes from the now-pervasive idea that “God wants me to be happy.” Let me say for the record, God is more concerned about our holiness than He is about our happiness. For unbelievers, His focus is on their being clothed with His holiness by being redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. For believers, He is more concerned they practice the holiness to which they have been called rather than whether they are happy or not. That doesn’t mean He is unconcerned about our happiness, but He has other priorities. An example from the life of an earthly father may be helpful here. I love my son, daughter and grandchildren. There have been times when each of them have fixated on doing something which they convinced themselves would make them happy. For reasons they didn’t understand, but was in their best interests, I would prevent them from carrying out their intentions. Sometimes their response was, “I hate you,” or “You must hate me.” Neither was true. I just had something better for them. It is the same with God. He has something better for us which our self-centeredness will never fulfill.
Is There Hope?
There is hope, but the hope should be focused toward the Lord. Left to ourselves, we will manage to spiral into the abyss of the immoral. The task of Christian leaders is to train and to shepherd their flock in understanding and living out the Word of God. Church is the place for equipping, binding up the wounds of living in a fallen world, being examples to the flock of selfless lives in service to the Master who bought us. In turn, the flock goes into the world as missionaries, or as Paul put it, “…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Cor. 5:20)
©
2013 Midwest Christian Outreach Inc.
Veinot.jpg)
LL (Don) Veinot, Jr. is co-founder and president of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, IL with offices in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio. He and Joy, his wife of 42 years, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts including The John Ankerberg Show. He is a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Christian Outreach Inc. Journal and is co-author of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, contributing author of Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials as well as author of articles featured in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. Don is a charter member of ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics) and is also the current President of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of counter-cult/apologetics and discernment ministries from around the country. 
Dr. Jerry L. Buckner graduated from California Baptist College in Riverside and earned his Master’s at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary where he is currently an adjunct professor. He earned his Doctorate at San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, CA.
Dr. Buckner lives in the San Francisco Bay Area where he serves as pastor of Tiburon Christian Fellowship hosts Contending for the Faith a live call-in-radio program that airs on KFAX (AM 1100), one of the largest Christian radio stations in Northern California.
Midwest Christian Outreach
Website Link: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/
ENDNOTES:
1. Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, (Midwest Christian Outreach, inc, 2003) 175-176
1. Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, (Midwest Christian Outreach, inc, 2003) 175-176
2. Phobia
3. The Tar-Baby is a fictional character in the second of the Uncle Remus stories published in 1881; it is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Be’er Rabbit. The more that Be’er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.
In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “stickly” situation” that is only aggravated by add ional contact.”
Tar-Baby:
4. Generations in our Nation; http://aimysgeneration.blogspot.com/p/buiders.html
5. Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men, Rowan Scarborough, http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all
6. Ibid
7. The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper” Denny Burke http//www.dennyburk.com/the-case-for-plural-marriage-the-slippery-slope-gets-slicker-and-steeper/
8. We discussed this in the Fall 2009 Issue of the MCOI Journal article “Barack and the Borg.” http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2010/Fall%202009%20FINAL
9. Chicago-Sun-Times April 4, 2013 , ‘Gay Marriage support about civil right, not religion, pastors say’ http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/19274300-418/gay-marriage-support-about-civil-rights-not-religion-pastors-say.html
10. Brian MaLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response; Brian McLaren; Out of UK. Christianity Today, http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html
11. Brian McLaren Leads Commitment Ceremony At Son’s Same-Sex Wedding. Melissa Steffan, Christianity Today, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/09/brian_mclaren_l.html
12. Rob Bell Grows Frustrated Amid Questions on Sinfulness of Homosexuality; Nicola Menzie; The Christian Post; http://www.christianpost.com/news/rob-bell-grows-frustrated-amid-questions-on-sinfulness-of-homosexuality-95209/