CaNN

View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter

(Posted May 17th, 2001).

Concealed Weapons of War

It would also appear if the vote doesn't go the right way according to [Very Rev.] Peter Elliott [cathedral Dean, New Westminster] we are destined to be in dialogue until we get it right! I can hardly wait.

- from a recent computer conference posting.

The time is virtually upon us when believing Christians must take the hard step of rejecting the apparent comfort that comes from accepting plausible denial as a substitute for revealed truth.

Dialogue, and presentation of the gay point of view in general, has been presented as a reasonable, rational, and Christian course of action. Were it merely a presentation of all of the facts in the issue, to facilitate a pastoral response, no one could object that it is other than any of these things. However, it is, in addition, both a presentation of the gay agenda, and the employment of a tactic formulated to further that agenda, all rolled into one.

What is that agenda, and where does the tactic fit? There is no need to speculate here, as the passage below, written by two gay activists, makes clear.

Excerpt from:

After the Ball. How America Will Conquer Its Fear& Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s.
by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. New York, Doubleday, 1989 - pp. 177 f.

The third principle is our recipe for desensitizing Ambivalent Skeptics; that is, for helping straights view homosexuality with neutrality rather than keen hostility. At least at the outset, we seek desensitization and nothing more. You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing - meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders - then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. …

The fastest way to Convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more aboveboard. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable bloc - the most modern, up-to-date citizens - accept or even practice homosexuality. Though risky (because it can keenly arouse, and thereby reinforce, the homohatred ingrained in listeners), even serious debate between opponents and defenders can serve the purpose of desensitization so long as appealing gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. …

First, gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards. This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings. …

Second, gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. …

Where we talk is critical. … For once, Marshall McLuhan is right: where desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message … of normalcy.

Do any of you own (I do) a short wave radio, or something to encrypt your computer files (I have PGP)? Do any of you own a weapon of war? If you answered, “yes” to the first question, then the answer to the second question is also “yes.” Mind you, in peacetime, one is quite correct in viewing them merely as communication devices. But in time of war, each of these is considered a weapon.

In the present spiritual warfare situation, dialogue, media exposure, anything that gets the message out, is likewise a weapon, as the writers of the above excerpt (social scientists and marketing experts, I might add) clearly understood. Believing Christians must come to the same understanding, and the time in which to do so is becoming very, very short.

Each and every attempt to keep discussion continuing, to the furtherance of the gay agenda, is an act of war against those who hold to the Christian faith once delivered to the saints. It would be wrong and uncharitable to suggest that everyone who encourages the discussion is knowingly waging war; it would be pathetically naïve to presume that there are those who do not realize that they are doing precisely that in encouraging the continued discussion of the topic.

Recent suggestions, which surprise me not in the least, have been made that if, contrary to the expectations of those in control, the vote on motion 9 fails to pass, more dialogue will be decreed. If it is, the discernment of believing Christians will be put to the test - and this time, it could be the final examination, not just a midterm. Will believing Christians exhibit the courage of their convictions if they are again put to the test? We may well find out soon.