Band of Lovers

The possible repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the U.S. military has, as you might guess, brought great dissention and consternation on both sides of the issue. Senate Republicans Block ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal and of course, the women of The View have weighed in. What is the right answer to this question? That depends on your starting point. Your worldview informs your answer. Would Jesus have an opinion on this and would it be politically correct or politically incorrect? Again, that depends. Let me explain.

In an atheistic, agnostic or polytheistic culture, or some combination of these, morals are arrived at by cultural consent. It doesn’t even have to be by the majority of the culture but simply by the ruling elite who establish and enforce the rules as well as control the flow of information which goes out to the masses. By enacting laws which support their utilitarian morals and creating peer pressure through legislation, public teaching and media. There is nothing inherently wrong with the way they attempt to make their set of morals the predominate view of the land, monotheistic groups; (Jews, Christians and Muslims) attempt to do the same thing. Whatever group is in control at any particular time tends to attempt to reorient or change culture to adopt and live by the groups moral values and compass. Regular readers of our blog and Journal are aware that we have pointed out repeatedly that the worldview and consequently moral values and culture Western civilization have been adopting over the past 40 years is more like the 1st Century Roman Empire than any other time between then and now. Alvin Schmidt’s excellent book, Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization lays out how Christianity changed a society which was highly sexualized (rampant adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia), low view of women, abortion and child abandonment were regular practices among quite a few other issues to a predominately Christian worldview which valued women, monogamy, children, etc. Sadly, in some ways, the church seems to have lost its way along with culture today. Much of this was covered in A Constitutional Right to Marry? other than this one short quote:

So vast is biblical illiteracy inside and outside the church that Brian McLaren and other emerging church leaders claim we need to wait for 5 years for the Holy Spirit to tell us what is true about homosexuality. The confusion seems to be that unbelievers and Scripture don’t agree and McLaren and others are waiting for the Holy Spirit to bring unity between them

On the biblical side, Jesus was definitely not politically correct. Although He didn’t address homosexuality directly He did indirectly when He was questioned about divorce in Matthew 19:

When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Several issues come to light from this response. For Jesus, the marital relationship is clear. One man, one woman, committed for life. He was Jewish, and speaking to leaders in a Jewish nation. By that time they had shaken off polygamy and were monogamous or, in some cases, serial monogamists (married to one woman at a time with one or more divorces between marriages). If it is male and female, with the male leaving “his father and mother” and being “joined to his wife” that excludes other possibilities. If cannot be a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a man and multiple women or a woman and multiple men, or a man and his sheep, or … You get the idea. Anything other than one man and one woman for life is sexual sin. Can sin be forgiven? The answer is yes. Should sexual sin be made culturally normative? According to Jesus, no. This is not just applicable to homosexuality by the way, but adultery, fornication, pedophilia, etc. Sex outside of God’s original intent is sin. This needs to be taught and practiced within the church. But what about those outside the church? We don’t really find Jesus addressing those outside the family of faith (the paganism of the Roman Empire) but those in the family of faith (Jews). The Apostle Paul continues this practice and comments on it in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13:

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

This is a section that is dealing with sexual sin. In this case, a man having an affair with his step mother. Paul’s instruction to the church was to deal with it but that he, and by implication, they, were not to judge those outside the church. That falls within God’s domain alone. But what has this to do with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell question? Everything really. If the nation had a predominately Christian worldview, this policy would remain in force and follow the politically incorrect position of Jesus on sexual sin. As it is, the prevailing worldview is not rooted in Christianity which brings another set of considerations to bear. That is, the desire of the part of activists in one small segment of the population, to be able to advertise the mechanics of their sexual pleasures.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, essentially says that the military has policies on sexual morality, including homosexual acts, but does not want to know about the preferred mechanics or an individual’s sexual pleasures. That would be true whether it is male on male, female on female homosexuality, male and female fornication (having sex while both are unmarried), adultery (one or both male and female are married to another) or even officer/non-officer fraternization. Currently, any of the above are grounds for discharge. Homosexual activists are seeking special rights whereby they can not only engage in their particular sexual proclivities but be able to advertise or make publically known what they are doing without consequence. How do we respond?

From a Christian standpoint we have a 2 part response. As citizens we need to try to persuade legislation to favor our view. That is our right and responsibility as citizens. In doing so we need to, as Jesus practiced and Paul specifically wrote, not judge those outside the faith. That is God’s domain. That also means that those who are outside the faith and are citizens have as much right as we do to try to persuade legislation to favor their view. But what are the implications and will the application of implementing their demands be consistent throughout the military?

For example, currently there is segregation of males and females in bathroom, shower and barracks. The reason is, of course, to limit sexual contact, attraction and acting on the temptations which result from such intimate settings. This segregation is an accommodation which provides a certain sense of safety and protection from invasion in very vulnerable settings where one may be inclined to be “sizing up” a potential sexual conquest where nothing can be hidden. If “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is removed, the very restraints which safeguard this behavior in same sex settings is eliminated. In this situation, everyone of the same sex become fair game to those of their gender in these intimate settings. Some, like the women of The View have pointed out that we may be showing with homosexuals in health club showers and not know it. But that is the key. We don’t know it. If it is publically announced we have the option of not showering there or even going to another health club or none at all. Those options are not available in the military. Unless, of course, further segregation is mandated and homosexuals have separate facilities provided for them. This is not likely and certainly cries of discrimination would rise loudly. So, to be consistent all segregation in these facilities should be stopped immediately on the elimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Will all sexual restrictions be removed. Will a Private be allowed to cohabit with a Captain to whom they are not married. Will a Sergeant be permitted to go on a dinner and recreational sex date with a Major General? If not, why not?

Will enlistment forms be modified with an optional section where new recruits can freely announce the mechanics of how the most enjoy sex? Something like:
_ Male prefers females _ Female, prefers males _ Male, prefers males _ Female, prefers females _ male, prefers co-ed orgies _ Female, prefers co-ed orgies _ Male, prefers teenage boys _ Female, prefers teenage boys

I could go on but you get the idea. Since permission to announce the mechanics of one’s sexual satisfaction is the issue being fought over, on what basis would we stop with same sex announcements? I am certainly not going to solve the issue, especially in a short blog piece. But, regardless of what the final outcome may be, we can confidentlypoint out that Jesus is politically incorrect on this issue for He affirmed, one man and one woman for life as God’s original intent.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *