Since the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, chaplains have been concerned that they will be forced to equivocate and make compromising statements in matters relating to biblical sexual ethics. Westminster Presbytery’s overture, passed April 9, seeks to aid our chaplains who desire to make a clear and unequivocal witness against all violations of the biblical sexual ethic.
Whereas, our culture is experiencing a dramatic decline of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;
And whereas,such a decline in the culture is a symptom of decline in the visible church;
And whereas, this decline is being manifested in growing lawlessness expressed personally and corporately;
And whereas, our Lord requires His people to bear witness to the reign of Christ and the abiding validity of His Law in its application to men and nations;
And whereas, calling evil good and good evil has become the policy of civil leaders and institutions (Isaiah 5:20);
And whereas, one manifestation of this is the policy of requiring sensitivity training[1] designed to neutralize moral judgment of those condemning sodomy, as a practice that God calls an abomination (Leviticus 18:22);
And whereas, it appears that this sensitivity training may be forced upon chaplains and other specialists in the armed services in order to implement the new policy[2];
And whereas, Christian chaplains have the primary duty of faithfully serving the Lord Jesus Christ;[2]
And whereas, Christian chaplains may be placed in a position where they are ordered to promote a faith and practice that is destructive to the souls and bodies of individuals and that is an aspect of God’s judgment on a culture (Romans 1:24-32);
And whereas, the PCA has not publically addressed this matter as a denomination;
And whereas, the failure to do so will place our chaplains under greater pressure to yield to the policies of the command structure;
And whereas, it is vital that God’s people in such situation obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29);
Therefore, be it resolved that Westminster Presbytery overture the PCA General Assembly:
- declare the clear teaching of God’s Word regarding the destructive nature of sexual sin and the judgment that it must bring;
- appeal to the civil magistrate to repent of this public sin;
- and request the PRJC to provide guidance for chaplains and prepare to defend them in the event they should be subjected to disciplinary action for faithfulness to God and His Word.
Footnotes
[1] “Combat Troops To Get Sensitivity Training,” Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times Online, 2/24/11
[2] Ibid. “The training is broken down into three tiers. The first tier is for specialists like chaplains, lawyers, and investigators.” “Chaplains Predicted to Resist “Gay” Ban Repeal,” Brian Fitzpatrick, WorldNetDaily Online, 2/2/11. “The DADT repeal implementation will consist of three ‘tiers’ said Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley on Friday. ‘Starting out with our experts, that’s the first tier; the second tier deals with our commanders or our leaders….’” “The ‘experts’ will develop training programs ‘for those responsible for implementing changes to the policies involved and for those providing services relating to these changes to service members, including chaplains, judge advocates, and counselors’ according to a document distributed at the news conference.
[3] Presbyterian Church in America Book Of Church Order 21-5-6 “Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account?”
Tags: 39th General Assembly, chaplains, Homosexuality, overture, Westminster Presbytery
Thank goodness! I’m very glad that somebody is concerned that our PCA pastors not feel compelled to equivocate or make compromising statements about matters of sexual ethics. That is a very pressing concern for our day.
I’m watching this very carefully, as I have a son preparing for ministry as a chaplain. He is hoping that he will be able to serve in this capacity after he finishes seminary.
I just listened to a chaplain join the Rocky Mountain Presbytery out here. He said the federal law was explicit and still in force that military chaplains have freedom of speech and cannot be forced contrary to their consciences if that is what their denominations profess.
Of course, the real question is: how long will that last?
As a PRJC Chaplain currently serving in the US Army, I am in no way “pressured” by the unti command or commander in chief to preach contrary to my personnel beliefs. Even the tier training mentioned above states the chaplains are free to preach as they believe.
As I have mentioned during every training event held for the Soldiers under my charge, if you do not like the way I preach, do not come to chapel when I am in the pulpit. [And as an aside, I do not know of any pastor that preaches about homosexuality as sin at every service they speak. The PRJC is already aware of the issue and is working with us to protect our God given and Constitutional rights and duties.]
In my opinion, DADT was a failed policy anyway. It allowed secret sin (you can serve as a homosexual, just do not tell anyone about it).
I preach about Christ every time I am in the Chapel or hold a service in the field. There is nothing in the current training or policy repeal that affects the way Chaplains do ministry. I would hope that all Chaplains would show the same courtesy and respect to the gay Soldier as they would to any straight Soldier.
I apologize if I come across as blunt or cold. I am tired of people trying to “help” me or asking, how am I going to deal with this. I have had gay Soldiers in every formation in which I have served. The dropping of DADT changes very little in regards to what is already currently happening in the US Army. I cannot speak for the other branches of the US military.
Chaplain Mike, thank you for your service. Since I live outside Fort Leonard Wood, we may run into each other at some point.
You and I both know that at present, the Army is quite evangelical-friendly; even among mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic chaplains, it’s pretty common to find Catholic priests who support the “charismatic renewal” and mainline Protestants who are on the conservative end of their denominations — sometimes even to the point that their main concern is their endorser, not their uniformed superiors or colleagues!
However, I’m sure if you’ve spent any significant time in uniform, you’ve learned that the only DoD constant is change. Think of the problems going on now in the Navy chaplaincy and at the Air Force Academy. Yes, I’m fully aware that some of these issues involve O-3s and O-4s who perhaps would have been better advised to remember their ranks and “stay in their lane.” Certain personalities are not necessarily compatible with military service, even in the chaplaincy.
I live in the district that until the last election was Ike Skelton’s district, the framer of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and a conservative Democrat regarded as being one of his party’s leading experts on the military. Even as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, he was not able to convice President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to back off their radical agendas, and he paid for his compromises on numerous issues by becoming one of the most senior Democrats to lose his seat in Congress.
Repealing DADT is a major step. If not accompanied by crystal-clear protections for evangelicals, as well as by strong political pressure to make clear that weakening those protections will have dire political consequences, can we really trust our President and the San Francisco wing of the Democratic Party to honor the consciences of evangelical chaplains?
Chaplain Mike, I understand you cannot and should not be getting overly involved in the political process. I have no idea what your rank may be, and if I’m talking to a senior officer, then you have every right to your professional opinion that there is no threat to evangelical religious freedom in the chaplaincy. However, especially if you are a junior officer, I encourage you to carefully consider whether the actions being taken on your behalf by the PRJC member denominations may, not that many years from now, become key in preserving the rights you know have.
For the record, the military is not requiring Chaplains to act against their conscience or religious beliefs. That is, they are not requiring them to recognize gay marriage, perform gay marriages or recognize homosexuality as being legitimate or normal. They are requiring them to be tolerant of gays in the military (as all military personnel are required to do). The military knows that if they attempt to force Chaplains to do things against their conscience (e.g., conservative Evangelicals performing gay marriages, Muslim chaplains being forced to perform Catholic services) it would defeat the purpose of having chaplains and no one would serve in the military as a chaplain. And the miliatry understands the need for chaplains to maintain a strong fighting force. A strong military entails troops being supported physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Likely, what will happen is we’ll begin to see more gay chaplains in the military serving gay troops. For further information here’s an article from Fox News that is worth reading. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/11/navy-halts-allow-gay-unions-chaplains-complaints-lawmakers/
Mr. (or is it Rev., or Chaplain?) Hexon:
Much of what you say is valuable and crucially important for civilian church leaders to understand. However, I wish I could agree with you that “the military knows that if they attempt to force Chaplains to do things against their conscience … it would defeat the purpose of having chaplains and no one would serve in the military as a chaplain.” The problems come up when evangelical chaplains or conservative Roman Catholics have fundamental problems with “politically correct” issues being pushed by the military’s top leadership. It’s a lot easier for a theological liberal in the chaplaincy to live with an evangelical or conservative Roman Catholic senior chaplain than the reverse.
There are reasons why there are a lot of O-3 and O-4 evangelicals in the chaplaincy, but it becomes increasingly difficult for evangelicals to reach the O-5 and O-6 levels. Running into an intolerant liberal colonel in the chaplaincy can be a career-ender for an evangelical, or at least one that causes him to choose to go into the National Guard or the Reserves.
Think, for example, of the longstanding problems in the military chaplaincy over how to handle “proselytism.” The chaplaincy is founded on the concept that chaplains perform religious services for members of their own faith groups while making arrangements to provide such services for others. I remember a particularly effective Assembly of God chaplain telling Buddhist soldiers that if they’re Buddhist, it’s his job to help them become the best Buddhist they can, citing the Bushido warrior code as an example. Of course, he’d be the first one to say that he’d love to see that Buddhist become a Christian, but it’s up to the soldier which chapel service to attend, if any. As Calvinists, it’s not a problem to say that God converts, we don’t, and our focus needs to be on faithful preaching of the Word rather than getting more notches to our roster of converts made through soulwinning.
The military chaplaincy is virtually the only thing we have left in the United States that is comparable to the issues faced by evangelicals in the state churches of Europe. If tax dollars are going to be used to pay clergy — and even the ACLU agrees that is legitimate, since there’s no other way to provide for the free exercise of religion by deployed troops in combat environments, and in garrison environments in some foreign countries where the choice of off-post churches is limited at best — the government must seek out and recruit people who can meet the religious needs of its servicemembers.
Unfortunately, if the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” actually gets implemented (and that’s not yet a settled issue), you’re entirely correct that the military will probably have to not only accept but also seek out chaplains to serve homosexual troops. It is impossible to repeal DADT and not get homosexual chaplains on the same “religious need” grounds that we have chaplains for relatively low-density religious faiths, the two most obvious being Judaism and Islam.
Realistically that will probably end up being some female UCC or PCUSA lesbian chaplains, plus a few tokens from the Metropolitan Community Churches, which have been trying for years to get a chaplain candidate approved. The reality of the military environment is such that it will take a long time before very many enlisted combat troops are even slightly tolerant of homosexuality. Southern “good old boys” are not exactly likely to give more than lip service to command directives to tolerate homosexuality.
Evangelicals represent a huge portion of the military, and when combined with Hispanic Roman Catholics, are probably the largest two blocks of servicemembers who are actually attending religious services. If the military is going to pay people to perform or provide religious services (and yes, I understand the difference), it has to have evangelical chaplains not only for minority faiths but for the major religious groups.
The problem, however, is that a military chaplain will unavoidably have to cooperate with as well as submit to other chaplains who would never be allowed to be ordained in his denomination, and to chaplains who would not be allowed to join his church as a private member, and even in some cases to chaplains he considers to be unconverted. This isn’t anything new; there have been Roman Catholic and Jewish chaplains in the military for a very long time.
As long as that’s limited to longstanding doctrinal differences between denominations, that’s not a major problem. A Mormon LTC serving as an installation’s family life chaplain is not going to try to tell a Roman Catholic priest to stop celebrating the Mass, regardless of LDS teachings on “priestcraft” — on the contrary, the Mormon LTC is going to encourage the Roman Catholic chaplains to use their own Catholic family life resources and is going to encourage the evangelical chaplains to use resources by people like James Dobson and Focus on the Family.
Respect for the tenets of servicemembers and chaplains of other religious faiths is fine. Evangelicals have long understood that it is necessary to serve in the chaplaincy. Most problems of “religious intolerance” in the military chaplaincy aren’t coming from evangelicals — they’re usually very clear that if you don’t like what they preach, don’t come to their chapel, and the problems take care of themselves.
However, how is a lesbian female chaplain who is a full bird colonel going to handle the preaching of a junior OPC or PCA chaplain who tells a homosexual soldier in a counseling session that he needs to repent? Let’s complicate the situation by adding that the junior chaplain has just a couple of years in military service rather than being prior service enlisted, is only an O-3, and is a bit rough around the edges in his counseling, but because he’s a good preacher has much higher attendance at his chapel services than the full bird colonel and other mainline Protestant chaplains, leading to some jealousy factors?
That kind of scenario, without some very clear policies in place to protect evangelicals and the clear political warning to Congress that it’s an issue on which evangelicals will fight, could make life extremely hard on evangelical chaplains. If the result is an exodus of evangelical chaplains, it will have serious negative consequences for the military.
People are going to “doom and gloom” the repeal and I have a hard time understanding why. Why are we defending DADT? It is defending sin! It is defending a policy that allows homosexuals to serve as long as they don’t mention they are homosexuals. The only change with this policy is that when a homosexual Soldier is exposed as such, they will not be chaptered out of the service solely on that basis. I can, did, and will continue to call sin sin, regardless of whether or not DADT is in place or not.
We are so focused on this one event, what about the other sins that the Scriptures warn us against: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11 ESV) I have more Soldiers that fall into these other categories than I do homosexuals within the ranks.
As an O-3 with a few years in and two deployments, I do not see this as the end of the world. I appreciate the concern expressed here but telling the PRJC to do what they already are doing is not exactly counter productive but not really helpful in my mind either. Of the conclusions above, number 2 is the most helpful (the PRJC already sent a letter in that regard to the Chiefs of Staff of all the branches of service). Number 1 leaves out all the other “major” sins that lead to destruction that the prophets and apostles were concerned about and number 3 should be reworded to “commend the PRJC in their guidance and defense of…” The PRJC is already doing what this overture is requesting of them and therefore, in my mind, a wasted effort.
As for the promotion issue mentioned by Mr. Maurina, first, it is very narrow at the top ranks for Chaplains in the Army (and I assume in the other branches as well). Only one two-star General, three, one-star Generals, and a handful of colonels at the MACOM, Corps, and Garrison level. Considering there are about 1,600 O-3 (Captain) level positions in the Active Component of the Army, it is a fight with my peers, not my seniors, for promotion. My senior rater comments (a line officer) on my evaluation weighs much more heavily than the intermediate rater (a Chaplain in the case of the Chaplain rating chain) or even my rater (the battalion XO for Captain Chaplains). The promotion boards are made up of line officers and Chaplains (three line and two Chaplain).
In the case you mention above, that COL (CH) is not anywhere in the rating chain of that Battalion Chaplain. And even if he/she did go to them directly saying that they should change their preaching on regards to this issue, that is an unlawful order by the US Constitution, USC Title 10, and Army regulation.
It is not the time to hit the panic button. Right now, I have enough problems explaining to my homosexual troops how I differ from the Westboro Baptist “church” even though I agree the homosexuality is sin. Coming out with pronouncements stating what has already been said before puts up another barrier as I try to reach these troops with the gospel and do what I can to help them with their stuggles with same sex attraction.
Chaplain Mike,
As a recently retired 22 year USAF fighter pilot, I partially understand what you’re saying. But, let me help you understand some practical difficulties you will face once DADT is repealed:
- A homosexual soldier comes to you to want to be in a leadership position in the chapel (teach Sunday school, be on the Protestant Men/Women of the Chapel council, etc.). Can you deny them based on the fact that they are living in unrepentant sin? For any of the other sins the military outlaws in the UCMJ or that you can still freely call a sin, no. For homosexuality, I would bet that you will not be allowed to deny that person’s participation, especially in a leadership role.
- A gay chaplain wants to appoint a gay soldier to leadership, as just mentioned. Can you deny that, based on their homosexual sin alone? I would think not, and see that as a law suit waiting to happen, on multiple fronts.
- A gay soldier comes to you to help arrange their homosexual union. As a chaplain, aren’t you supposed to facilitate their religious accomodations, so now are you helping them to further their sin? Would you be allowed to help a heterosexual married service member cheat on their spouse? NO, but you will be REQUIRED to help this homosexual service member commit sin.
- When (not if, as the training supposedly says the administration is putting on the fast track the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act) homosexuals are allowed to marry, you’ll be required to help make accomodation for homosexual marriages … to take place in the base chapel. What if you’re deployed, and the ONLY chaplain available? Will you be allowed to deny marrying two homosexuals who just want to ‘tie the knot’ prior to going out on their next combat patrol?
You are correct, the repeal of DADT is not the end of the world. You are also correct in that DADT was bad policy. The only policy that makes sense is what we had when I first entered: no homosexuals allowed. In fact, during security clearance interviews, they used to ask if you were homosexual, as that was something that could be used to blackmail you to reveal classified information.
Prayerfully, in His service,
“Cricket”
If the Army wants to force me out based on me holding a line, then so be it. But as it stands now, they can’t. We’ll have to wait and see about the future.
As to the questions:
- I would decline allowing them into a leadership position (not that we have any, the Chaplains do most/all of the work for the chapels and services).
-If a gay Chaplain is in charge of the service then I cannot. But I do not have to be there either and the congregation can vote with their feet when that Chaplain is conducting the service.
-I would tell the Soldier that I cannot arrange their union as it is against my theological beliefs. I currently do not know of any Chaplains on my current post who would but they can always go to a justice of the peace in that regard.
-Why would I be required to make accommodation for homosexual unions? That would be dictating belief and theological system which is a clear violation of the 1st amendment and Army regulation. [We currently do not make accommodation for straight Soldiers to marry in a deployed environment as your forth questions seems to posit at the end, so that one would not be an issue either.]
But here is the issue, change homosexual to any other of the sins listed in 1 Cor. 6; do we take those as seriously? I would hope we would but we are quickly fast-tracking to homosexual relations being the only one we seem to care about because it is the only one we talk about.
Chaplain Mike,
I’m glad to see you’ve thought through some of the issues. I pray you are correct in your estimation of how this will all play out. However, in regards to being required to make accomodation, aren’t you expected to make accomodation for those of different beliefs, even if it goes against your own? In other words, if you have a Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim, etc., aren’t you, as their chaplain, required to find them a place to worship or bring a chaplain of their faith to them? If so, don’t you find there might be some similarities to homosexual issues?
And, as regards your denying a homosexual a position of leadership in the chapel, I disagree that you will not be allowed to deny them. Also, you could very well likely have an openly homosexual as your chaplain assistant. Could you request someone else based on that? No, I don’t think you will be able to. [By the way, I got those thoughts from a USAF chaplain friend of mine.]
I also agree that we need to take ALL sin seriously. The difference in this issue, however, is that this is one of the very few unrepentant sins I can think of that the military is now going to demand toleration of. In the 1 Cor 6 list, our military still kicks out thieves, drunkards, and swindlers … however, in the area of sexual sin, adultery is ignored now (due to some famous cases in the 1990s). Which of these other sins, though, has been a national political issue that Congress passed a law on? Also, do you think your soldiers will be able to speak out to their fellow soldiers about homosexuality as a sin? Definitely not. You, as a chaplain, will, but the other soldiers won’t.
Finally, homosexuality is such a big issue because, as Dr. Peter Jones says, it preaches the paganistic lie that all points of view are the same (one’ism he calls it). In other words, it makes all points of view equally acceptable. That’s not the truth that Christ died for, and DADT repeal is just another step in enforcing a false gospel.
I hope these ramblings make sense,
In His service,
“Cricket”
Do I have an obligation to point them to another service where they might be comfortable? I just tell them what the options are. If they have nothing, I try to give them an area to use for their faith group (I have had buddists, wiccans, muslims, and jews as part of my formations). The last time I checked, homosexuality was not a faith group.
Is having a homosexual Chaplain Assistant any better or worse than having an atheist or wiccan Chaplain Assistant? I do not know. My Chaplain Assistants typically do not lead worship or take part other than setting up the area to use.
I can only think of one other time where congress passed a law regarding one of those sins and that was prohibition. That did not turn out well in the end.
Chaplain Mike,
Again, you are right in several respects, but I think you don’t see where this will go.
Homosexuality is not recognized as an official faith group — yet. Although its practicers are probably more faithful than many so-called Christians. Many “Christian” denominations accept homosexual pastors–now, the military will also accept them. I would guarantee it will not be long after this policy change for the PCUSA or some other such denomination to push homosexual chaplains to the military. Then, when they choose to preach in their sermons that homosexuality is not wrong, who can complain? When that homosexual chaplain is in charge of religious education and picks a pro-gay curriculum, who can complain? Very similar to when I left a protestant chapel a few years ago, because the head chaplain (despite several people approaching him on this subject) appointed a female chaplain to lead the service I was attending — man, that service dried up so quick, it would make your head spin. But, when that happens with a homosexual chaplain being appointed, would any airman or soldier be able to approach the head chaplain with that concern? Won’t that be perceived as discrimination? What if the person complaining is a commander–won’t he now be subject to an EO complaint?
A homosexual assistant is not better or worse than a wiccan — they are both sinners in need of God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ. However, will you be able to tell the homosexual that he’s living in obvious, unrepentant sin? If you’re preaching, yes. If you’re ministering to soldiers in the field, I don’t think so.
You’re right, prohibition did not turn out well. But, the UCMJ does still prohibit public drunkenness, doesn’t it? Lumped under “conduct unbecoming an officer”? All laws are based on some morality — what morality is enforced acceptance (not just toleration) of the gay lifestyle based upon?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely not in the “America is a Christian nation” camp, but this change in law will, in some ways, make your job harder. Those I fear for even more, however, are the Christians in the military who are NOT chaplains — they will have their religious beliefs muzzled.
And, finally, let us not underestimate the power of sin. The homosexual lobby will not sit back and be happy with this change. They will then push for and aggressively pursue law suits where there is perceived discrimination based on someone’s flagrant homosexual lifestyle. When the DOMA is overturned, homosexual partners will be given full benefits (health care, base housing, etc.)–at which point our government is then endorsing this sin as a morally acceptable lifestyle choice.
In His service,
Cricket
Chaplain Mike,
Look at another post on this website: http://www.weswhite.net/2011/05/bad-gets-worse-pcusa-votes-to-ordain-gay-clergy/, scroll down to the comment
Brian Carpenter says:
May 14, 2011 at 9:29 AM
He said it much more eloquently than I have.
Cheers,
Cricket
I am not ready to panic about this yet. I do not deal in what-if’s as they do not affect how I do ministry.
Thank you for your input and I will continue to think about this issue.
But back to the original overture, I still think #3 should be changed as the PRJC already does what this overture is asking. If Westminster Presbytery wants to send an overture up, send one that will commend the PRJC for all of their excellent work on this issue thus far?
To request the PRJC to do what they are already doing implies that this presbytery does not think the PRJC is doing its job. That is not the case as the PRJC leadership and fellow Chaplains have labored long on this from prior to last year’s GA.
To imply that the PRJC has not done this either shows ignorance (in that they are not aware of what the PRJC has already done) or insulting (which I do not think was the Presbytery’s intent).
Chaplain Mike, I want to agree with LTC (Ret) Renner in thanking you for having thought through these issues. He has done a better job than I could of outlining the problems inherent in repealing DADT. I’m not so convinced that DADT was a bad policy, but then again, I work in the world of practical politics whereas military personnel and pastors are able to deal with the bright lines of UCMJ for the military and of confessional integrity for the church.
I might not say that if we were living in the America of 1811 when political leaders had serious debates about the original intent of the Constitution — even a “liberal” like Thomas Jefferson was deeply concerned about whether the Constitution gave the president the written authority to do things like the Louisiana Purchase and what precedent he would set if he did something that was not specifically enumerated among his presidential powers — but in 2011, we’ve moved far beyond that point. Our political system is now one in which the current majorities rather than written documents are the only real limits on what our politicians can do. Despite constitutional requirements or longstanding precedents for “supermajorities,” vetos and veto override votes, court decisions, and a Senate elected for six-year rather than two-year terms, those things can only provide “speed bumps” to slow down the will of a group willing to aggressively push its agenda if that group is successful in getting enough consecutive majority votes on its side.
In a world where homosexuality is no longer something offensive in much of the civilian world, the blackmail argument against homosexuals in the military is less compelling, and in the 1990s environment of President Clinton’s military drawdown, DADT was probably the best that could have been hoped for. Surprisingly, it worked fairly well and I am not yet convinced the Congress won’t find a way around President Obama’s 11th-hour repeal of DADT in the last lame-duck Congress.
Chaplain Mike, you ask why we focus on one sin to the exclusion of others. With all due respect — and I sincerely mean that — I fear you’re unwittingly echoing a liberal line here.
Of course we should preach against all sins, not just this one. However, Romans indicates that homosexuality **IS** different from other sins. It is a punishment given to societies, such as the Greek world, for wilful and deliberate rejection of creational norms. General revelation itself is sufficient to show that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and many non-Christian societies have been far more severe in condemning it, implementing punishments much greater than the Christian faith requires.
Furthermore, based on the political history of the homosexual movement in the United States, I think it’s obvious that the advocates of homosexuality simply do not play by the same rulebook. Can we expect Rep. Nancy Pelosi, with her San Francisco constituency, to honor a compromise that affirms a religious right to oppose homosexuality? The compromise on this matter **WAS** “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The advocates of homosexuality believe it is a justice issue and one of fighting discrimination, comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. If they’re right, their actions make sense and dissent cannot be tolerated any more than racial segregation.
The one good thing is that servicemembers can and do vote with their feet. Look at the attendance of chapel services run by mainline chaplains. Unless they’re conservative members of a mainline denomination, it’s a pretty safe guess that the mainline chaplain has lousy attendance at his (or her) chapel services. I certainly agree that a committed religious liberal has every right to attend a chapel service that preaches what he/she believes, but the fact of the matter is that liberal laymen often aren’t very committed to their beliefs — they just want to be left alone and not bothered by annoying calls to repentance — and are more likely to sleep in on Sunday than get up for chapel.
The real problem is that in the modern all-volunteer military, servicemembers can also vote with their feet on whether or not to re-enlist. The modern military is heavily rural and heavily Southern. That means it is skewed in a strongly conservative direction. I’m seriously concerned that the repeal of DADT is not an isolated part of a San Francisco agenda but rather part of a broader liberal agenda either to wreck the military’s effectiveness or eliminate its current conservative culture.
Well said, Darrell.
There was a secular book I read many years ago that outlined one of the underlying issues. In a democratic society, is the military to be used as a social experiment, or is its main purpose to be the most efficient at winning the nation’s wars?
I think if it’s the first, then repeal of DADT makes sense. If it’s the second, then it makes no sense. I would be willing to bet there will be more issues with the repeal (once enacted) than with the years of DADT — more lawsuits, more discimination complaints, time & money wasted investigating claims, etc. And, yes, there will be discipline cases of kicking out excellent members of our military based on a belief that sin is sin.
Finally, all sin is sin, but there are graduated degrees of it. That’s why our law imposes a different punishment for going 5 mph over the speed limit than it does for rape and murder. So, chaplains and Christians in the military need to be able to lovingly, with grace, but firmly point out the gospel to their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the need for repentance from sin. But, this is now a “protected” sin, that will bring with it not just tolerance (isn’t tolerance of sin bad enough?!) but enforced acceptance.
FYI, take a quick read of this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/dont-ask-dont-tell-training_n_862463.html?page=1
One thing in the middle jumped out at me. The attitude of the pro-homosexual group that stated, “There seemed to be an attitude of ‘No need to change your beliefs,’ rather than, ‘We will treat everyone equally’ the group said.” So, they don’t want just equal treatment, but they are looking to change our/ your beliefs.