Living with Tozer's God

Current Issue Commentary

Article: Why Rush and O'Reilly are Right: Homosexuals Win

You don't have to be a news junkie to know that America is about to reach the culmination of an epic cultural battle between homosexuals and heterosexuals over the historic definition of marriage and the legalizing of same-sex marriages. The media coverage has been intensely focused on both the Supreme Court (as it hears arguments pro and con) and the commentators (especially conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly). What has really made news has been the comments by both of these men to the effect that they believe the homosexuals will win. While I would like to believe they are wrong, I believe they are right. Here's why, and why I believe we ended up here.

"Civil Rights" vs. Right and Wrong

To answer this question, we have to understand what has taken place in America over the last 50 years. There is no other nation on earth in which the clarion call of "freedom" resonates so deeply in the hearts of all its people. Our nation was founded on the premise that every citizen (not just a favored few) has "certain inalienable rights", rights that are not subject to the whims of government change, but which are so obviously part of the natural structure and order of society they are described as self-evident endowments of a kind Creator who saw them as necessary for the success of human society... at least that's what the Founding Fathers thought.

There were not many of these inalienable rights, but the few that were acknowledged were deemed as precious privileges, to be protected at any cost. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are words which all citizens know (or at least they used to). On their face, they would seem to be straightforward and obvious in their meaning. But, a little closer look can be concerning. How do you define life? If "liberty" is meant to be synonymous with "freedom", what are you free from? What are you free to do? Who will decide what "happiness" is? Who decides how this is to be interpreted? The real question is, "Who decides what is right and wrong?" Rest assured, someone will decide.

For the Founding Fathers, this was not a difficult issue. They all signed a document declaring that a Creator had exercised His authority and power to establish mankind with "certain inalienable rights". They also believed that He had given a moral compass to guide mankind in how we should live. That compass was the Bible. Not all of them agreed on all the doctrines and teachings of the Bible, but they did agree that it was the only sufficient and authoritative guide to regulate moral behavior.

Today, this will sound like foolishness to many. For the last 50 years our nation, especially our legal and legislative systems, have been used to attempt to systematically remove the moral component (i.e., authority of our Founding Father's "Creator" God) from our national life. Today, right and wrong are determined by what the civil law says it is. There is no longer an objective, moral foundation provided by a higher, morally superior authority to guide us. We now have a system which determines right and wrong by what the people want it to be. If we don't like what the law is, we elect representatives to change it.

This doesn't sound too bad at first, "we the people" determine what is right, fair and good for us. But, there are two problems with this approach. First, left to our own devices, we are not fit to determine what is right and wrong. The fact is, by and large, we are a deeply, morally flawed race. We are selfish, greedy, and often downright mean and nasty. And that describes the best of us. Without an objective, authoritative guide to prescribe for us what is truly right and wrong, we will determine it by what the majority or the influential minority wants at the moment. And this will constantly change, since our desires are neither stable nor ever truly satisfied.

The second problem is that it leaves our system of government potentially open to minority influence or outright manipulation. The die was cast for this in a landmark piece of legislation enacted in 1964. After over a hundred years of grievous abuses towards black Americans, legislation was passed that was intended to grant our "inalienable rights" to all black Americans. Legislation was passed which gave black Americans the right to vote. It was believed that this minority group was being denied a voice in our government and this law would right that wrong. JFK was the first president to push strongly for this legislation, but with his untimely death it was Lyndon Johnson who actually signed it into law in July, 1964. It was the right thing to do, but there may have been a wiser way to do it.

The real challenge lay ahead in the practical application of the law. The law specifically made it illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, creed or gender. Long-held prejudices did not die easily, especially in the South. I live in the South now. It's been quite an education. It's been difficult to square how such a deeply religious people could be so deeply prejudiced. Clearly, sometimes their religion didn't make it to the marketplace. Thankfully, most have made the transition...and are glad they did.

The problem with this transition is that the driving force to bring about the change took place in the legal/legislative realm instead of the moral realm. The argument for the wrongfulness and unfairness of the way blacks were treated was being done based on the constitutional rights of being a citizen of the United States and not on the Biblical, moral premise of "Love Thy Neighbor..." and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you..." It was here that the premise of future legal battles moved from being based on "right or wrong" and began to be based on individual "civil rights". Now, every battle would be fought on the basis of a legal claim of "discrimination" rather than a moral ground of right or wrong. Apparently, we still have not understood how devastating that transition was...but we are seeing it now.

Institutionalizing "Victimization"

For the last 50 years we have seen the cry of "discrimination" used to eradicate virtually every ounce of common sense from our legal/political arena. The amount of time and money wasted on trying to rectify every ridiculous claim of discrimination would be appalling (assuming we could figure out how to count it). But, it was just the beginning.

Once people figured out they could claim to be victims of discrimination, the moral issue of right vs. wrong was jettisoned in favor of the more legally powerful claim of "discrimination". If a claim could be constructed and worded so that it appeared that a person's rights were being violated (no matter how preposterous the claim), it stood a much better chance of success. Astute lawyers realized this. It's all about semantics. If you can frame the argument in a particular way, you can exploit the opportunity.

Liberals/Progressives realized that if you change the words and define the terms a certain way, you can exploit the system and eventually impose your will on the entire society. They did this with the volatile abortion issue. They framed the argument not in terms of whether an unborn child was being murdered, rather it was all about a woman's right-to-choose how her body is used. The wording was carefully chosen. It was not formed as pro-life vs. pro-death; that would imply murder and murder is still pretty much a moral issue. In order to avoid the moral element, the argument needs to be framed in terms of a person's "rights" being violated. Pro-death became Pro-choice. Conservatives still don't "get" it.

This is the same approach being used in the same-sex marriage issue. Homosexuality is a Biblically, morally unacceptable lifestyle. According to the Bible, God has declared it to be a sin which, if not repented of, will land a person in Hell (so will adultery, murder and lying, to name a few more). Those who end up there will know that God does not discriminate when it comes to unrepentant sinners. You can accept or reject this as truth (that is a God-given right), but it's clearly what the Bible teaches.

The proponents of the homosexual lifestyle don't want to argue this issue on a moral basis (whether it's truly right or wrong); they want to argue it on the basis of "equal rights". If that is the basis upon which this argument will finally be decided, then those who oppose it will lose. Without the moral component it is inevitable. Ultimately, it's just my opinion versus your opinion. What would make mine morally superior to yours? Nothing, unless it has an objective moral foundation. Unfortunately, moral equality tends to occur only at the lowest common denominator.

Once your laws and your perception of "rights" become untethered from a Biblical, moral foundation you are left with the whims of the majority or, in the current scenario, the most influential minority. In our case, we are saddled with the insanity of "political correctness" as our moral guide. The laughable result is that every conceivable "offense" is treated as legitimate and, as a result, every tradition we have cherished is being eliminated because it's offensive to someone. Is it possible to stop this insanity?

Theoretically, yes; realistically, probably not. We have convinced ourselves that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are best achieved without the moral authority of God constraining us. Those in power believe that social equality is the ultimate goal. The problem with this thinking is that social equality (i.e. social justice) is only achieved when the lowest common denominator is reached. When everyone is equally poor your goal is reached. But, most of us would not view this as "happiness".

The truth is that we are as morally bankrupt as a nation as we are financially bankrupt. Our endless efforts to provide welfare benefits to create the illusion of prosperity are the moral equivalent of our Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars to create the illusion of a nation that is not bankrupt. It will all eventually collapse and the truth will be revealed.

What most people don't realize is that we are about to cross a moral line which, IF THE BIBLE IS TRUE, will mean the end of the American political "experiment". The last few verses in the first chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans seems to describe in vivid detail the very scenario that is playing out in our nation right now. The judgment appears unavoidable.

The tide of support for homosexual rights is growing stronger, at least the media would have us believe so. What appears to be a lull around us now (as we wait for the Supreme Court decisions) may turn out to be like the ominous silence of the tide going out which signals a moral tsunami is building and a tidal wave of moral destruction is about to sweep over our nation.

All the signs seem to indicate that Rush and O'Reilly are right; we lose. But, at least we will find equality for all; we will all lose equally. After all, it's our right.

 R.I.P.