Last week Congress overturned the ban on gays serving in the military. President Obama will sign the bill into law this week. Some see this as a civil rights milestone on a par with the end of racial discrimination. Others are indifferent and have no idea what the fuss is about. Put me in the category of those who are deeply concerned about the implications of this decision.
The law that was repealed was passed in 1993 (10 U.S.C. – 654b). It prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
Of course, it’s not that our military accepted homosexual activity before that time. In fact it was cause for discharge going back to the Revolutionary War. But before 1993 no act of Congress was necessary. It was simply understood that this was behavior that would weaken our military forces.
It may be a surprise to some, but the repeal will not immediately go into effect when the President signs the bill into law. It takes effect at the discretion of top military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has been supportive of overturning the ban. First, the President and the Pentagon must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military will undergo a 60-day waiting period before any changes are made. In a statement, Gates said he will begin the process immediately. But, he added, certification won't come until after "careful consultation" with the military service chiefs and combatant commanders. This could take up to a year.
Even if there is some time involved, however, I’m convinced that this new law will harm the effectiveness of our military in a time of war. Here are some of the issues that apply:
1. Orientation v. life choices. In spite of the fact that much research has attempted to support the “born that way” hypothesis, there is no clear and convincing evidence that anyone has been born gay. The reality is that the human race is not divided between straight and gay. We’re all just people who were created with a sexual nature. Unfortunately, that part of our nature has been distorted by sin in a number of ways and homosexual behavior is just one of many examples. In other words, life style choices are no justification to latch on to the moral high ground of the civil rights movement.
2. Mental health. Did you know that until 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental illness? (It was then that the American Psychiatric Association removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as a result of social pressure, not because of any new research.)
I agree that gay behavior is not a mental illness but there are some good reasons to be concerned about the mental health of homosexuals. For example, a study made on male twins who had served in Vietnam concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5 times more likely to exhibit suicide - related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Another study followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, among those who were homosexually active. These are not qualities I’d like to see in the guy carrying a loaded weapon next to me.
3. Guilt. I’m not talking about guilt feelings that may be imposed on people by a repressive society that doesn’t understand their behavior, but true moral guilt. When Paul wrote about homosexual sins in Romans 1, he described them as “against nature”. When the Bible describes these sins it uses the word abomination, meaning something that’s abhorrent by its very nature. We all live in a world that was created with a fixed moral order. There is no exemption for soldiers. When a person’s actions place him or her in conflict with God’s created order, the result is guilt and the effects that it has on personal behavior and thinking.
4. The ripple effect.
The repeal is far more than just a single policy shift. The overturning of "don't ask, don't tell" will trigger a series of other gay-rights issues. Many states continue to debate same-sex marriage and the right of gay partners to share benefits the same way legally married couples do. With gay service members serving openly, we can expect the same battle in the military. It will become difficult for policy makers to justify withholding visitation rights or survivor benefits to the same-sex spouse of a wounded or fallen soldier. It will take very little time before a gay couple approaches their chaplain to request a military wedding.
5. The true agenda.
If gays, insisting that they were born that way, are patriotic citizens who simply wanted to serve their country, would it be too much for their service to include a period of celibacy while serving? Probably not, but I would suggest that patriotic service is not the true agenda behind this new law. The true agenda is acceptance and normalizing of what the Bible considers deviant behavior.
For these and other reasons, I encourage our leaders to set their personal agendas aside and let our military decide who is qualified to serve without interference from those who aren’t in the game.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Sign of the Virgin
“The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 7:14
What kind of sign is this? Babies are born every day. There were 700 years between the giving of the sign and the birth of Christ. Christmas was a sign of … what? I’ll be glad to answer that question this morning.
Ahaz was an Eighth Century B.C. king of Judah, and one of the worst. How bad was he? He was so bad that when he died they didn’t even bury him in the same area with David and the other kings of Judah. He was ungodly and yet at the same time was very religious. He was the kind of man who was willing to worship anyone and anything - except the Lord. He sacrificed one of his own children to a pagan idol. When Isaiah 7 was written he had trouble with a coalition of nations that were on the march toward Jerusalem. Two large armies were coming for Ahaz, and it’s tempting to think that it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bad guy. The Lord is rich in mercy, however, and promised to defeat both invaders but it was important for God to receive the credit for the victory. A sign was needed.
There are a number of times when the Bible describes an event as a sign. It’s something tangible people can see or hear that confirms a spiritual truth. For example, when a paralyzed man was brought to Jesus He said, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” The forgiveness of sins is a spiritual reality. No one who was there that day could see sins flying away. However, the Lord next told him, “Arise, take up your bed.” When the paralyzed man did just that everyone understood that not only could Jesus heal, He really did have the authority to forgive sins. The healing became a sign.
In the case of the Lord’s rescue of Jerusalem, it may have been possible to credit their successful defense to brave soldiers, the deal Ahaz was making with Assyrians or even plain luck. So God gave Ahaz the privilege of choosing any sign to provide clear evidence that God was saving His people. He could ask God to change the weather, for example, perhaps a blizzard in Jerusalem in the middle of July. That should do it. But Ahaz was not willing to even name a sign. It’s not that he had such high regard for the Lord, but he simply didn’t think the Lord was worth the trouble.
So the Lord designated the birth of Jesus as a sign, even though He would not be born for centuries. How could that be a sign that would apply to the problem Ahaz was facing? Go back to verse thirteen where the prophet said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?” It’s important to note that when God gave His sign in verse fourteen the word “you” is plural in Hebrew. The offer was originally given to Ahaz, but the sign was given, not to him alone, but to all the descendants of David. When Jesus was born it was evidence that the defeat of these two armies really was the result of divine intervention.
The amazing sign was that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. You may remember that in Matthew 1:23 this verse is used as evidence that Mary really was a virgin when she was expecting Jesus. The phrase, often translated “the virgin shall conceive”, may give the impression that a girl who is now a virgin will conceive at some point in the future, as if it’s part of the verb. Not so. In Hebrew it’s actually an adjective that describes the virgin. The sign is the miracle of a pregnant virgin and the birth of a son who would be Immanuel, God with us.
The birth of Jesus was a miracle but even more than that it was a sign. It is proof that God’s limitless mercy is so great it will even rescue the worthless hide of a pagan king. It is tangible evidence that God does care about people here on earth. It is confirmation that God is mighty to save any sinner who will turn to Him.
Isaiah 7:14
What kind of sign is this? Babies are born every day. There were 700 years between the giving of the sign and the birth of Christ. Christmas was a sign of … what? I’ll be glad to answer that question this morning.
Ahaz was an Eighth Century B.C. king of Judah, and one of the worst. How bad was he? He was so bad that when he died they didn’t even bury him in the same area with David and the other kings of Judah. He was ungodly and yet at the same time was very religious. He was the kind of man who was willing to worship anyone and anything - except the Lord. He sacrificed one of his own children to a pagan idol. When Isaiah 7 was written he had trouble with a coalition of nations that were on the march toward Jerusalem. Two large armies were coming for Ahaz, and it’s tempting to think that it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bad guy. The Lord is rich in mercy, however, and promised to defeat both invaders but it was important for God to receive the credit for the victory. A sign was needed.
There are a number of times when the Bible describes an event as a sign. It’s something tangible people can see or hear that confirms a spiritual truth. For example, when a paralyzed man was brought to Jesus He said, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” The forgiveness of sins is a spiritual reality. No one who was there that day could see sins flying away. However, the Lord next told him, “Arise, take up your bed.” When the paralyzed man did just that everyone understood that not only could Jesus heal, He really did have the authority to forgive sins. The healing became a sign.
In the case of the Lord’s rescue of Jerusalem, it may have been possible to credit their successful defense to brave soldiers, the deal Ahaz was making with Assyrians or even plain luck. So God gave Ahaz the privilege of choosing any sign to provide clear evidence that God was saving His people. He could ask God to change the weather, for example, perhaps a blizzard in Jerusalem in the middle of July. That should do it. But Ahaz was not willing to even name a sign. It’s not that he had such high regard for the Lord, but he simply didn’t think the Lord was worth the trouble.
So the Lord designated the birth of Jesus as a sign, even though He would not be born for centuries. How could that be a sign that would apply to the problem Ahaz was facing? Go back to verse thirteen where the prophet said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?” It’s important to note that when God gave His sign in verse fourteen the word “you” is plural in Hebrew. The offer was originally given to Ahaz, but the sign was given, not to him alone, but to all the descendants of David. When Jesus was born it was evidence that the defeat of these two armies really was the result of divine intervention.
The amazing sign was that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. You may remember that in Matthew 1:23 this verse is used as evidence that Mary really was a virgin when she was expecting Jesus. The phrase, often translated “the virgin shall conceive”, may give the impression that a girl who is now a virgin will conceive at some point in the future, as if it’s part of the verb. Not so. In Hebrew it’s actually an adjective that describes the virgin. The sign is the miracle of a pregnant virgin and the birth of a son who would be Immanuel, God with us.
The birth of Jesus was a miracle but even more than that it was a sign. It is proof that God’s limitless mercy is so great it will even rescue the worthless hide of a pagan king. It is tangible evidence that God does care about people here on earth. It is confirmation that God is mighty to save any sinner who will turn to Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)