Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Navy Chaplains to Perform Same Sex Marriage


Just over a week ago, I was glued to the television set, watching it with rapt attention, as President Obama testified to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. troops. It was some of the best news this country had received on the war on terror in quite some time. Watching Obama’s speech and listening to his description of the courage and the skillfulness of U.S. special ops personnel made my chest swell with pride. This was an “at a boy” moment if there ever was one. And well, now this: the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies -- if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed. "Stop the tape!" “Stop the tape!” Are you kidding me? Can it be true that we are really moving from the glorious headline of Seal Team Six taking out the murderous thug-in-chief of the al-Qaeda regime, to Naval Chaplains performing same-sex marriages in Naval chapels?

This is deeply discouraging news and reveals the heart of the insidious agenda of the gays in the military crowd. We have been told since Clinton's liberal pandering "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted back in the 1990's that it was all about allowing patriotic gay men and women to have the opportunity to serve their country. It is obvious what a lie that was. What gays in the military is about is evident now: it is about using the nation's most honored and respected institution to sanction and legitimize deviant social policy, same-sex marriage. Notice the craftiness of the same-sex marriage brigade; while they were busy distracting all the attention and debate toward the issue of patriotic military service, what they were really aiming for was legitimizing the same-sex marriage cause. What they realized is if the military sanctions such marriages, and the tax-payer funds the benefits of same-sex military couples through taxes, then there can be no argument left to stop this agenda at the federal level.

I wish I could say, "wake up people!" The fact is, I cannot, because while we were sleeping the Trojan Horse was slipped in, and now its soldiers have guns fixed on our heads, holding us all hostage. What can we do now? Well, we (Christians) must realize that while the Church's primary calling is to offer true worship to the Lord and preach the gospel, it is the Christian citizen's primary calling, to advance the kingdom of God on earth, right here and now. It is the duty of every patriotic, freedom loving Christian, to band together with other Christians, to articulate a clear agenda, and to proclaim the Lordship of Christ over the nation, calling for both magistrate and citizen to "kiss the Son" lest He be angry. I know I was supposed to say that we should pray, that is a given, but what is really needed is a fully-orbed political policy that is explicitly Christian.

As I call for this, I am aware that the radical two-kingdom crowd out there operating in Reformed circles, which spouts its false-neutrality propaganda and godless cultural agenda in the ivory towers of learning, and over the air waves, will complain that such a response is overreaching. They will say that church and state are to be separate, that the kingdom of power is neutral, and that natural law is all we need to promote a just and peaceful society. I say to that, NONSENSE! Look at how well the Greeks and the Romans faired with natural law alone; they became some of the most morally corrupt regime's in history, and were all toppled in just divine judgment for their decadence, arrogance, and wickedness. Unfortunately, policies such as Naval Chaplains marrying same-sex couples in Naval chapels indicates that this is exactly where the United States is heading. It is heading for the scrap heap of history, where all the rest of the godless, immoral, atheistic nations of the past rest in peace. People of God, we need to do more than just wake up, we need to arm ourselves with the sword of truth and begin to push Christ's kingship over the  nation with tactical genius.


Casey said...

Who allowed this policy? That is the guidance for me to NOT TO vote for the next time.

John Sawtelle said...

The short answer to that is that the the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains drafted this policy. The longer form answer is that Obama and the joint cheifs have pushed and authorized this, otherwise it would not even have been proposed.

Steve_Mac said...

There is little hope for the success of a "fully-orbed political policy that is explicitly Christian." We can hold an ideal political policy in theory with the hope of some future society implementing our ideas, but the reality of it materializing in the US during our lifetime is a mere wish, IMO. The secular state and it's ideological underpinnings do not allow for *any* theory to gain ground that can be labeled by any other group as extreme. We are on the same turf as radical Islam in that we are pushing a theocratic agenda based on our religious axiom, our holy scriptures, and we will be viewed as such. As much as I'd like to be part of a nationwide revolution where the majority turns to righteousness and submits itself to God's Law, I just don't see it happening. Maybe it's just the pessimistic Amillenialism in me.

JMS said...

Looks like they got ahead of themselves...

Navy halts move to allow gay unions by chaplains

John Sawtelle said...

I appreciate your cynicism, but the fact is, whether we can win or not, we are obligated to make the effort. Besides, if America keeps heading down the road of its travelling, it won't be here much longer. We abort babies by the truck loads, publicly promote atheism through the education system, and sanction the LBGT lifestyle, all the while we grow increasinly hostile to Biblical values in the public arena. I don't see how God permits this stuff happening much longer.

Oscar said...

I’m a baby in the Reformed faith – otherwise, an old ex- evangelical look what the cat dragged in type of fella. Nonetheless, regarding the civil realm, my brothers in the nearby Reformed neighborhood confuse me with their attitude of worry about the gospel only and let God’s Sovereignty take care of the rest, or in the same vein suggesting that Paul, in this present age, would have been a Libertarian. Moreover, another retort I got from the vicinity, about your point that the Greeks and Romans ultimately didn’t fare well with natural law, was a challenge to point out where Paul concerned himself with Rome’s civil realm. When I mentioned Romans 13:3-4 (rulers recognizing and addressing good and bad conduct) and Matthew 5:13-16 (in terms of believers being salt and light…), the response from the neighbors was basically that Romans 13 is simply about the government’s role and has nothing to do with our engagement in that domain; and as to believers being salt and light (Matt 5:13-16), it is in reference to testifying about the gospel, consequently not a reference to concern – on the believers’ part – for moral order according to God’s precepts, in the civil realm. In all fairness to my friends, I may not have constructed my argument correctly. All the same, our conversation was rather stimulating and educational. To be sure, Christ Kingship continues to cause disagreement in terms of quantity of Kingship – ruler of everything or some things.

John Sawtelle said...

I was fascinated to hear about your friends, because I have some that seem to believe what your friends do as well. Let's appreciate a couple of things about their position. One, they want the gospel to be exalted and clearly proclaimed. To that I say, "Amen!" Two, they, as Christians, are embarrassed by a lot of what has been pawned off as "Christian politics" in the past 30 years or so by the Pat Robertsons of the world. I can sympathize with that too.

My appreciation ends though, with their bad arguments. First, the Reformers were called "magisterial" which means that they worked hand in hand with the magistrate to bring about church reform, so it cannot be fairly or accurately argued that the Reformers hold this radical two-kingdom position about politics which our friends hold. Second, are we kidding? Paul really meant to say nothing to the Christian about their role in civic and political matters in Romans 13? If that is the case, then let's just skip over it when we preach through the book. Give me a break, that is a very weak and unthoughtful argument. The whole point of chapters 12 through 16 is to teach Christians how to live out their faith in a fallen world! Remember Romans 12:1-2 which calls believers not to be conformed to this age but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds? I guess Paul simply forgot about all of that stuff by the time he got to Romans 13. Third, are we supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, vested with all authority, and yet, he has absolutely no interest in the nations submitting to his law in the civil realm? The assumptions behind that position are staggering and ought to make a radical 2k advocate pause for a moment and cringe.

I would encourage you to read some of the articles I posted up on the post entitled, "About Face" and see for yourself what the magisterial reformers said about the duty of magistrates towards Christ, his church, and the enforcement of the moral law. Maybe sharing that with your friends will make them re-evaluate their position.