Check out this interview with David Kinnaman, author of unChristian, over at New Wineskins.
At the bottom of the interview, you can find links to several teachings I’ve recently done that are based on the research in the book. The series is still in progress.
My favorite so far has been They Say We’re Antihomosexual.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
A great series so far, It’s been thrilling to hear you “preach” what you have believed for so long. I’m glad that you’ve been able to create an atmosphere where this message is able to be told and, I assume, received so well.
Like I said. Its my 2nd favorite of yours. Which yours are my favorite over all.
Its really cool to tell family members who are weary of church or not Christian about your sermons. They look surprised most of the time.
I enjoyed the mp3 sermon and agreed with most of the things you said in it. Christians have often treated one sin (homosexual behavior) as more serious than other sins (e.g. adultery, premarital sex, etc.) without Biblical justification.
However, I don’t think you fully understand the gay marriage struggle when you call on Christians to accept it. The basic principle of political liberalism today is the anti-discrimination principle: No law or sanctioned institution of society shall treat any persons unequally. Anything that discriminates will be attacked until it is destroyed.
For millennia, societies helped preserve and propagate themselves by positive discrimination in favor of husbands and wives with children. Inheritance laws, property laws, who can and cannot be conscripted into military service, systems of taxation, all favored such families for the simple reason that the preservation of a civilization depends on such families far more than it depends on single people, the childless, unmarried cohabitants, or homosexuals. Most societies also learned that monogamy was far superior to polygamy. I will not take time to establish any of these common sense points unless someone really needs me to.
In modern liberal society, this positive discrimination in favor of the one group is perceived as a negative discrimination against all the other groups. Hence, the institution of marriage itself must be changed or destroyed if it defies the anti-discrimination principle.
If I were talking to a liberal in the 1950s, and said, “So, you are saying that government cannot discriminate in any way against any group? I suppose you are in favor of homosexuals getting married!” His response would have been that this was a preposterous straw man argument, that no liberal was proposing any such thing, that this was a rhetorical diversion and scare tactic on my part, etc. Yet, we are where we are today, for one simple reason: The anti-discrimination principle is marching towards its logical conclusion.
Today, when conservatives point out that the arguments supporting homosexual marriage equally well support polygamy, consenting adult incest, etc., they are told that this is a scare tactic, that no liberal is proposing any such thing, etc. But principles have logical conclusions, including the anti-discrimination principle, and the libertarian principle that “consenting adults” should be allowed to do whatever they wish. Are not polygamists, or adults engaged in incest, consenting adults? Why then have laws against such things?
So, we either accept the non-discrimination principle in ALL its implications, or we pretend that we can accept it piecemeal (pretending that it will not march on to obvious conclusions in the future), or we reject it as an absolute principle and say that it must be tempered when it conflicts with other goods that society pursues (like self-preservation and propagation!) That means that we have the courage to advocate legal discrimination (e.g. for monogamy as opposed to polygamy), and unashamedly say why this is the case.
I choose the latter approach, rejection of anti-discrimination as an absolute principle. What do you choose, and why?
Hmmmmm? Gay folks in church..Wow..
I remember teaching singles sunday school back in the day. One student said “we should be out there next Sat and fight that gay parade on brookside”
You know…Using signs and stuff. Yelling with red faces. Wassup?
I told them I would not do this. I suggested we have a ice chest full of water and pop and give it away to the parade gay’s as they walk by. Invite them to church.
Wait? Are they allowed in the church? I guess they could just tell everybody they are “roomates” It’s not a lie after all..