PUP-Force Failure
 
The Peace, Unity and Purity Task Force report said many nice things about Christianity. Bravo. Nonetheless, it needs to be rejected for what it fails to say about homosexual marriage and/or ordinations. When did we turn the corner to thinking that human desires are self-legitimizing? One implicit proclamation of the PUP report is that homosexual desire must be honored, or at least it must be honored if experienced by a baptized, confessing Presbyterian. But why is homosexual desire to be respected? One reason is that American culture believes so strongly in protecting individual rights, which is good. But that virtue becomes tyrannical when it eclipses concern for the general health of the society as a whole. The protection of boundless individual rights, combined with the all-touted but ill-defined freedom to "pursue happiness" has resulted in a culture that loves itself and its own pleasures more than the duty to any higher good. This has rubbed off on too many Presbyterians. It was Alexander Fraser Tyler who said "a democracy. . . can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury." This is also true of intellectual property. As long as true doctrine and the right interpretation of scripture remain subject to the votes of church governing bodies, truth is expendable; it is Monopoly money, valuable only as long as you play the game. This is an unprecedented position for Christians. In fact, it is not Christian at all; it is anti-Christian and is not to be tolerated, accepted, or otherwise welcomed. Those that call themselves Christians yet hold nothing to be absolutely true deny the confessional nature of faith and the One to whom that faith is directed. In place of truth we have elevated love of self and desire. "Whatever I want to do" has become the god, and any obstacle to that will is backward, repressive, bigoted or hateful. This idolatry has infiltrated the Church--specifically through liberal protestantism, including the PCUSA--and has come to a head in the debate over gay marriage and/or ordination. Defense of idolatry has found its home in "conscience" arguments. Yes, we must show mutual forbearance and differ in good conscience. But what is good conscience? Any conscience that does not square with scripture is not good conscience, it is bad conscience--neither to be respected nor defended by the denomination. Hidden (or not-so-hidden) within the PUP force rhetoric are several unargued, unquestioned-but-questionable, foregone assumptions: 1. There is no need or hope for healing via reparative therapy. 2. The church must come alongside the host culture in its wholesale abandonment of biblical morality regarding sex. 3. There is no alternative to welcoming Christian homosexuals into ordained, church offices. 4. Homosexual couples who at least resemble married couples are more acceptable than promiscuous homosexuals. One at a time: 1. Reparative therapy is dismissed as irrelevant. In private sessions, the PUP force likely agreed that the cure is worse than the disease. Comparisons to bloodletting or forced exorcisms (hmm. . . .) likely dismissed any more serious research. The facts about reparative therapy portray something very like successful AA programs, which seem the most appropriate analogy for the kind of healing ministries churches ought to have been providing from day one. None are even considered by the report, which is a grave failure. 2. Liberals love to don the self-proclaimed "prophetic voice" mantel only so long as doing so does not bring them into sharp contrast with other liberals. The true prophetic voice of the Church is most clearly revealed when it refuses the temptation of "people pleasing" by giving in to the whims of the sinful host culture. If the idea is that "we must come alongside culture in order to continue evangelizing it," then it is clearly time to define where, if anywhere, a point-of-no-return is located. A reasonable expectation of this report is that it would present one or two reasonable boundaries–lines beyond which our integrity would be fatally sacrificed. The fear is that many Presbyterians believe no such lines exist. For them, integrity was clearly lost some time ago. The rest of us must not follow them any further. 3. The PCUSA still has choices. We can still say no; we are not beyond that choice. The report fails to make that option clear. 4. This may be the most embarrassing gaff of the whole report. The positive caricature of homosexual couples--gays in the image of the ideal, American couple--reveals a bias for normalcy. Adding the terms "monogamous," "committed," and "presbyterian" to homosexuality is supposed to make us say "well. . .alright then." But it's an ugly lie. If the gay thing is okay, then why do they need to look like Christian heterosexuals? This is window-dressing: bourgeois, skin-deep, drag-in-reverse. It is gay phony. If they believe that gay life is something to be celebrated in all its diversity, then why tart it up for the straights except to help it pass? This is simple wolvery in sheep's clothing. A farce, a fake, a dandied up con. We are idiots if we fall for it. In fact, it could be argued that in expecting homosexuals to be "monogamous" or "committed," we would be forcing them out of their true nature, out of their orientation into the confinement of a bigoted church's idea of normal. . . wait, this is sounding familiar. The Task Force report should be rejected, or accepted with no action to be taken as a result. Thank the members for their hard work, and congratulate them for not going postal on each other, otherwise, let the denomination call it what it is: namely, yet another belabored study group that speaks only for itself. Just like GA.
Monday, September 18, 2006