Homophobia

The term “homophobia” could be used to describe sinful attitudes or actions towards homosexuals. Its typical use, though, is to describe opposition to homosexual practices and beliefs, which is assumed to be irrational. Used in this way, it is an unfair rhetorical ploy to discredit any opposition to homosexuality.
Debates are rarely won on the battlefield of terminology, but they are frequently lost there. This is certainly the case in today’s debates over sexuality. Virtually all of the key terms are so freighted with ideological ordnance that entire regiments of exegetical and philosophical argument can be wiped out at a moment’s notice by a careless choice of words.
One word that we must handle with care is “homophobia.” Of course, this term is frequently leveled at anyone who dissents from the mainstream view affirming homosexual practices. Frequently, though, the term is also used by Christians to describe sinful attitudes or attitudes toward homosexuals. The problem is that when Christians use this term, we are either using it in a highly restricted sense that our secular culture does not recognize, or we are buying into some unbiblical assumptions about homosexuality.
The second half of the term, “phobia,” signifies an irrational fear. For instance, “arachnophobia” is an irrational fear of spiders. You might have arachnophobia if you avoid opening cupboards because years ago you found a dead spider in one. On the other hand, running away from a tarantula is evidence of healthy fear, not arachnophobia.
But what exactly does a homophobe fear? What does the “homo” refer to? It could refer to homosexual people. In this case, “homophobia” would be a useful term to describe someone’s fear of speaking to a homosexual, of stepping on their lawn, or of eating one table over from them at a restaurant.
You Might also like
-
Presbyterians MIA (Missing in Actions)
We were told to pursue excellence in all things according to the gifts that we were given for the glory of God. Leaders today in the church should be identifying such men with unique gifts and encourage them to become leaders not only in the church, but in the world in which we live. Our history is full of great leaders who helped create this blessed nation from which we have benefited so much. I’m afraid, in a day when we need them most, such men, especially Presbyterians, are missing in action.
The history of Presbyterians who have served in leadership positions in America is rich and ubiquitous; but sadly, it appears now that Presbyterians have left the public square and are missing in action (MIA).
History is replete with examples of the importance of Presbyterians. Rev. John Witherspoon, President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence over many of those at the Constitutional Convention cannot be underestimated. One of his students was James Madison. Horace Walpole, a member of the British Parliament, said of Witherspoon, that America “had run away with a Presbyterian parson.” It is claimed that King George III called the American Revolution “a Presbyterian rebellion.”
At the Battle of Yorktown where General George Washington defeated Cornwallis, it has been noted that all of Washington’s colonels but one were Presbyterian elders.
Whether all of this is true or not, I cannot be sure, but there is no doubt that Presbyterians had a major impact on the Revolutionary War. Historian Paul R. Carson has estimated that when the number of soldiers in the Revolutionary War included not only Presbyterians, but Puritan English, Dutch and German Reformed, that “two-thirds of our Revolutionary forefathers were trained in the school of Calvin.”
J. Gresham Machen was respected so much as a leading clergyman in the United States that in the early 20th century he was asked to give testimony before a U.S, House and Senate Committee on a proposed Department of Education. John C. Breckinridge, a Presbyterian from Kentucky, who was the uncle of the Princeton scholar Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, was also Vice-President of the United States under President James Buchanan.
Maybe, the most well-respected Presbyterian in American history was the great Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, who was born in the mountains of what is now West Virginia, my place of birth and childhood home. His courage and piety in war are unparalleled.
I have not even taken time to speak of the Puritans who settled New England prior to the American Revolution. Although they were mostly Congregationalists, their theology also reflected the Calvinistic heritage.
Indeed today, I am sure that there are many conservative Presbyterians in leadership positions in every sphere of life in America. I have known a few of them myself including many in the military, in business, and in the civil government.
However, I am beginning to notice a trend. Presbyterians in such leadership positions are disappearing from public life. They are becoming very rare. For example, the United States Supreme Court contains no Presbyterians. Only 24 members of the United States Congress are listed as Presbyterians, and I doubt that any of them are conservative. You have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find a President who identified as a Presbyterian, at least later in life.
Yes, the capture of the Presbyterian Church by liberalism is part of the problem. Conservative Presbyterians and others from Reformed backgrounds are a small percentage of the American religious scene.
However, we should ask ourselves what has happened in the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian world that changed the landscape of Presbyterians participating in leadership roles outside of the church?
We may not need look any further than our young men in the church. Many of them seem to be confused, aimless, and lacking direction in life. I hear constant complaints about young Christian men in Presbyterian and Reformed churches who seem to have very little drive to excel. They seem unwilling to work hard. They often take what I call the easy road to avoid the sweat and tears it takes to succeed and rise to high levels of responsibility in accordance with their abilities. When they do choose a pathway or calling, they often do not persevere.
God gives different gifts to different men. For a man in a lawncare business, that is an honorable calling. For those who drive trucks, that also is an honorable calling. But for those with skills and gifts which could put them in leadership positions in their communities and even at higher levels, many of our young men, especially Presbyterians, are absent.
What has then happened? Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology has fenced up our young men into monastic cells inside the church walls. Pietism has chased away our young men from interacting with the world. Amillennialism has no victorious view of the future here on earth before Christ returns. So, many of our young men think, “What’s the use of fighting?” That’s what our theology is teaching our young men. In my own experience, I went through a period of despair, and came to believe that Amillennialism is incompatible with a robust Covenantalism which is future-oriented.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution acted to secure the blessings of liberty not only for themselves but for their posterity. Posterity was an important covenantal word among our early forefathers. They had a long-term view of their work, knowing they would have an impact on many generations not yet born.
The highest position for young men today seems to be reaching the office of an elder in the church, rather than a mayor in the town or even the Governor of a State.
We don’t look generations ahead and believe that we are responsible for the quality of life for those yet to be born. We have become less than conquers, and this attitude of ordained defeatism has been transmitted to our young men. Our anticipation of heaven has nullified our responsibility to future generations here on earth.
So, a listless floating and a dreamy drifting attitude without purpose has captured many of our young men. I’m glad I was raised in the previous generation where we knew what real manhood was in that we were expected to use our talents and gifts to the upmost. To fail to do this was shameful and dishonorable.
We were told to pursue excellence in all things according to the gifts that we were given for the glory of God. Leaders today in the church should be identifying such men with unique gifts and encourage them to become leaders not only in the church, but in the world in which we live. Our history is full of great leaders who helped create this blessed nation from which we have benefited so much. I’m afraid, in a day when we need them most, such men, especially Presbyterians, are missing in action.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.Related Posts:
.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning. -
Churchill Wasn’t the Bad Guy
Because Churchill insisted on fighting, Cooper [popular historian] suggested, he is the real villain of the war. Churchill, he said, wanted war to make up for his part in the disaster at Gallipoli in World War I. Though nothing in Churchill’s writings suggests this, Hitler clearly articulated his intentions and, despite what Cooper claimed, it was not to pursue peace.
Last week’s online controversy was the interview with Darryl Cooper, whom host Tucker Carlson called “(maybe) the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” In the interview, Cooper not only claimed that Winston Churchill was a psychopath but also that he was “the real villain” of World War II. Though Cooper admitted Hitler was evil, he also argued that history’s most notorious villain was, in fact, backed into a corner by Churchill, who was bent on war from the beginning. Thus, it is Churchill and not Hitler, Cooper claimed, who should bear most of the blame for the war and the Holocaust. Cooper, during the interview and afterward, chalked up opposition to his telling of the story to core elements of American identity since the war that are too deeply engrained to be questioned.
Typically, claims like these would be unworthy of a response, other than perhaps an eyeroll and quick dismissal. However, this interview has been viewed by millions and was conducted by the most popular news personality in the United States. Also, Cooper has since doubled down on his claims on X.
In his misrepresentation of the two most important figures of World War II, Cooper obscured several basic facts. First, in a claim that reveals his “extensive research” failed to consider basic history texts, he posited that historians never talk about why Hitler rose to power in Weimar Germany. In fact, many have and still do.
Cooper also argued that Hitler’s anger was the fault of England and France because they declared war on Germany after his invasion of Poland. Had they not, he claimed, the war would have been over before it really began. However, this claim ignores Hitler’s repeated goal of building “living space” for Germany in Eastern Europe, how he broke his word before the war by taking all of Czechoslovakia rather than just the German-speaking areas, and the treaty obligations England and France had to Poland.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Swagger
Written by J.V. Fesko |
Saturday, April 6, 2024
I believe, therefore, that when you finish seminary, you should be excited and proud. It’s a terrific accomplishment. But don’t think that you’ve arrived. You’ll likely spend the rest of your life learning, and such a journey is most definitely rewarding. I love learning new things and discovering how little I know. It’s actually quite comforting because it reminds me how great and omniscient our covenant God is.At seminary I always look forward to May because it means graduation! I’m excited for the students who have worked hard for a number of years and finally reach the end of their goal—they are the proud owners of a shiny new masters degree! For most, it’s an exciting time—they smile because they’ve finished and can now turn their attention to books of their own choosing rather than those that are assigned on the syllabus. But almost invariably I also observe something else—some exhibit a swagger. I can hear it in their tone of speech and in the looks on their faces—students ask questions in class or make comments and sound very confident.
From one vantage point I completely understand the attitude—“I have just spent the last three years of my life studying the Bible full time. I know Greek and Hebrew, I know philosophical, theological, epistemological, and eschatological terms! I’ve read Calvin, Bavinck, Aquinas, and Hodge, and I even know what the Enuma Elish is!” The assumption is, I have learned all there is to know. I even suspect that some students think they’ve heard and read it all—they hit a plateau and think that there’s probably little else.
Read More
Related Posts: