Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Goin' to the dawgs

Ellen Degenerate is having a cry-fest over a dog adoption gone bad.

Here's an idea: maybe, if she had a normal, heterosexual family life, as a wife (to a man), and mother, with kids conceived the old-fashioned way, she wouldn't get so carried away with a pet dog.

And she's not the only lesbian who suffers from emotional instability. Remember her one-time partner, Anne Heche, who went bonkers?

And would anyone claim that Rosie O'Donnell is an emotionally well-adjusted individual?

Then there's Denice Denton, Chancellor of UCSC—who was instrumental in getting Larry Summers fired from his job as president of Harvard. She later committed suicide.

This is stuff I happen to be aware of because the new media shoves it in my face. I'm not trying to keep track.

And I'm not trying to single out the lesbians. For it's not as if the male side of the homosexual lifestyle is distinguished by its emotional equilibrium and contentment.

The point, rather, is that when men and women deny themselves the natural, divinely-ordained channels of emotional fulfillment, their needs remain the same, but they transfer their needs to unsuitable and unsatisfying surrogates—with predictable results.

32 comments:

  1. However, I hope you're not tempted to use pragmatic arguments when arguing against the morality of this lifestyle. Even if a few people manage to make it 'work' (as slavery 'worked' as a relatively stable system), it's immoral because it's immoral, 'nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's nothing wrong with using a pragmatic argument in this case. That's not the only argument, but it's a valid argument all the same.

    God designed human beings to function in a certain way. When we defy the way in which God designed us, it doesn't work out.

    This isn't raw pragmatism, but pragmatism within a framework of natural law or God's creation mandates (Gen 1-2).

    Sexual morality isn't an arbitrary fiat. Sexual morality is tied to the way in which God has constituted human nature. Certain forms of sexual expression are deviant because they deviate from our natural physical and psychological constitution. We are creatures, and God has endowed us with our distinctive nature.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    Very helpful observation. We do go for substitutes and this is also true in our spiritual needs. When we deny the claim of God for us which is our need for forgiveness, when we deny that it is found in Christ, we go for substitutes. When we reject the Christ, we also make 'christ' out of other things.


    LPC

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to "get carried away" with a pet dog and not be a lesbian or a gay man. In fact, if you ask me, it's not the pet that has her worked up but the fact that she gave the pet to a single Mom with kids and then, because she didn't read the terms of the contract, the adoption agency went and took the pet away and then castigated her for it.

    On the one hand, there's some consistency in the agency's actions. If they didn't enforce the contract because she's a celebrity but did for you and me, that would be wrong.

    On the other hand, if one runs a business, one should be amenable to making exceptions in some cases. I agree with her - she made a mistake, but don't penalize the kids. Before going off the deep end, the agency should have tried to work it out. Take the pet - make sure this family is fit - give them dog back if so. That's a reasonable compromise. As it stands now, it looks a bit like the agency wanted to have Ellen on their list of celebrities who have adopted from them and then retaliated. That may or not be true, but there's a way to find out - and that's to work this situation out.

    This situation could have happened to my Mom, who was, herself a single, divorced Mom. It could have happened to any married couple too, and I know plenty of heterosexual, well adjusted females who are animal lovers who would still have had a meltdown. So, to be frank, Brother, I don't think this is a platform from which to address homosexuality. In fact, as a male, when I saw this, and then I listened to my Mom's reaction, I thought that her reaction is actually quite "female," and lesbians are often portrayed as being more "masculine" than "feminine" in the way they act and react emotionally. If anything, I'd say her reaction shows that the image of God for the female gender that carries with it the emotional characteristics of "female" was evidenced.

    ReplyDelete
  5. COuld we perhaps not mix up issues here?

    Plenty of people cry over dogs. The few times I observed my dad cry it was when our two family dogs died and when his parents died, that's it.

    Just look at the plethora of books written about dogs and boys and the emotional turmoil they are in when they die. Old Yeller? Sounder? Where the Red Fern Grows? And forget about dogs....The Yearling?

    Even Dobson has said that the boyhood incident that was the most traumatic was finding out his dog had died.

    Are we to accuse these gentlemen of innappropriate behavior?

    Or shall we go into another stereotype and label her as a sissy women who became hysterical because of her emotions?

    I agree with you that people can substitute and this is an astute observation. I just don't think you can take this as a argument against homosexuality.

    As soon as somebody shows some emotionally stable homosexual relationships, the argument disappears. I'm with anon. here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >As soon as somebody shows some emotionally stable homosexual relationships, the argument disappears.

    they're out there, you just don't want to see them or accept them

    argument over

    ReplyDelete
  7. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 12:14 AM

    "As soon as somebody shows some emotionally stable homosexual relationships, the argument disappears."

    But an emotionally stable homosexual relationship can't be shown. There may be the shell of emotional stability, but no substance to it. Indeed, there cannot be. Besides, Steve's point is just one facet of the argument against homosexuality. The ever-present condemnation of it stands immovable in Scripture...

    ReplyDelete
  8. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 12:17 AM

    This tidbit showed up while I was posting,

    "they're out there, you just don't want to see them or accept them"

    Where? Let's see one.

    Argument over.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Certain forms of sexual expression are deviant because they deviate from our natural physical and psychological constitution."

    This from a guy who once defended masturbation tooth and nail. Hmmm

    ReplyDelete
  10. "This isn't raw pragmatism, but pragmatism within a framework of natural law or God's creation mandates (Gen 1-2).
    ...
    Certain forms of sexual expression are deviant because they deviate from our natural physical and psychological constitution. We are creatures, and God has endowed us with our distinctive nature."

    True. It's just that I've seen so many blog threads go down rabbit trails with orthdox and homosexual activists slinging studies and counter-studies at each other, without reference to biblical or moral principles.
    It would be funny to watch the activists try that *here*.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "this from a guy who once defended masturbation tooth and nail."

    Would you like to provide your arguments against Steve's position?

    Or are you simply too lazy to engage a viewpoint meaningfully?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I notice that some commenters are ignoring the fact that I cited other examples besides the case of Ellen Degenerate.

    There's nothing wrong with being an animal lover. But we're also seeing a moral and emotional transference in progress, especially on the Left.

    Many liberals have dogs and cats instead of kids. There's an antinatalism movement afoot.

    Animals now enjoy more legal protections than children. Pets are taking the place of kids, as a substitute for normal human relationships.

    Or, to take a somewhat different example, consider the families who refused to evaculate New Orleans during Katrina because they couldn't bring their pet dog along. That they feel this way is understandable. But it also reflects a deranged set of moral priorities.

    As the culture becomes more effeminate and secularized, the effect is to overvalue some things and undervalue others. Feeling is everything.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve,

    I love your blog and have learned much through reading it for quite a long time. BUT, this was way overboard. Certainly you are a better writer than what you convey here. You make a blanket statement in which you state, "There's nothing wrong with being an animal lover. But we're also seeing a moral and emotional transference in progress, especially on the Left." This is very much an opiniated statement. I am a deeply commited Reformed Christian and have been involved in breeding Labrador Retrievers for years and know many very committed Christians who are involved in raising and showing the breed. It is a hobby just like blogging may be. You could be accused with being obsessed with writing or blogging. You could also be mistaken for being an overweight computer geek with your coke bottle glasses sitting in front of a computer 24/7. Would that be fair? I will ask you to comment on what your particular sin is in which you replace God because each of us has one. Might it be over eating? How about too much television watching?

    I am also concerned with the harsh manner (whether intentional or unintentional) in which you convey what you have conveyed here. Quite frankly, if this is the best you can do, you might as well give it up. I definitely disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. It is sinful and wrong. The greater question is, how do we communicate that to the homosexual? How many Christian's who have struggled with same sex lust or desire and who battle it on a daily basis did you offend and hurt in this piece? What about your own battle with sexual lust? Does it cause you to be addicted to computer view so much that you venture into pornographic sites because you are addicted to it? Fair?

    What about men like John Piper who speak of his love of his now dead favorite black dog and his belief that he may see the dog again in Heaven? Is Piper to be accused of being a leftist or out of wack because of his love of his dog and some how justifying that with a belief that a dog will go to heaven?


    I am sorry if you detect my frustration. I usually do not get this way, especially with someone who I have respected and enjoyed. But, to overtly equate love of animals with Ellen, the left, and homosexuality is way off base and concerning. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize but I really am offended by what you have written here. You may have a few faithful that will agree with you but I am sure that far more would say you are just simply wrong.

    I will so say that talented men like John Piper will reach more (and offend less) with his outreach toward homosexual and his gentle approach toward animal lovers than you will ever hope to in your lifetime. It is so obvious that you have lost the ability to be charitable or kind with much humility.

    ReplyDelete
  14. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 1:54 PM

    I understand your point Steve, and it's a valid one. Not sure about all the cryin' over it though...

    ReplyDelete
  15. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 1:57 PM

    Interesting that this assertion is made on the basis of one post,

    "It is so obvious that you have lost the ability to be charitable or kind with much humility."

    Wow. Was that charitable?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think some people are missing the larger picture, which is: no matter how much you think your cat loves you, if he was bigger than you he'd eat you.

    On a more serious note, while I disagree with the correlation Steve made here in particular, I think his overall point is spot-on. To clarify: I don't think that Ellen Degenerate's (not a misspelling) actions about her dog are due to the fact that she's a lesbian. I think any Leftist who values animal life over human life would do the same thing (and that's point I think Steve brought up, using Ellen as an example because she's the one in the news). You don't have to look much further than Senator Byrd (D-KKK) for confirmation of this either. Compare his reaction to Michael Vick with his reaction toward abortionists, and ask yourself if something is not askew here.

    And the fact that people are more shocked and upset by what happened to this dog than they are when children are erroneously taken away from their parents by social workers tells of the moral decay in our culture. Ellen's lesbianism is a side-issue to the main point. If she was hetero, I'd still say she's over-inflating this issue with her dog.

    By the way, I'm not knocking pet ownership either. I've had several family pets, and when they die it's not fun. Further, I know of just this past winter when my Grandpa had to put down one of his cats. He lives in the middle of nowhere, has limited funds, but owns a rifle. Since the cat was suffering, he knew the humane thing was to put it down; but he couldn't do it. My brother-in-law came over to do the deed instead. But I also know that, were the options limited to the cat dying or someone else in the family dying, my grandpa would have killed the cat in a heartbeat. He wouldn't have enjoyed it, but everyone in our family knows the priorities (and we grew up with them in place).

    The bottom line is that pets, no matter what even well-meaning Christians claim, are not part of the family. Your obligation to your pet is lower than your obligation to anyone in your family, and it is lower than your obligation to your neighbors too. And that is something that I think we've forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ditto. I think Peter's remarks are spot on.

    CMA

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just can't believe people still base their lives and views on the fairy tales of the past, the not so holy Bible.

    Geesh people it is time to come into the adult world.

    Morals are not an absolute establishment of your God or else your God commited worse atrocities in Old Testament times than Hitler or Stalin.

    ReplyDelete
  19. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 3:42 PM

    How's that Noogatiger? Care to explain?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I saw the Ellen clip on You Tube, and I wasn't sure whether she was crying more for the dog or for the girls whose dog was taken away from them?

    Either way, though, she struck me as emotionally unbalanced, and way too wrapped up in herself, when I saw her using her national TV platform to relay this personal incident to the whole world.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I thought Ellen may have been putting us on at first. But I guess she really was that sad.

    Sad to be so sad over such a sad thing as she was sad over.

    I liked your thoughts. I think your spot on.

    I had a brother i loved, who was a better man than me in many ways, who died from AIDS.
    The homosexual lifestyle is deadly. And if not repented of is double deadly, and the second death awaits those who don't cry out to Christ for mercy.
    And this goes for all who committ fornication, and have a sexual promiscuous and chronic lifestyle without conviction whatsoever.

    I appreciate this quote: "..they transfer their needs to unsuitable and unsatisfying surrogates—with predictable results."

    ReplyDelete
  22. ANONYMOUS SAID:

    “Steve, I love your blog and have learned much through reading it for quite a long time. BUT, this was way overboard. Certainly you are a better writer than what you convey here. You make a blanket statement in which you state, ‘There's nothing wrong with being an animal lover. But we're also seeing a moral and emotional transference in progress, especially on the Left.’ This is very much an opiniated statement.”

    The fact that it’s “opinionated” doesn’t make it wrong. Indeed, it’s a simple matter to document an increasing hostility towards children in leftwing culture, one result of which is that pets are valued more highly than kids. To take a few examples:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw05142006/2002974751_pacificpdogs14.html

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/06/BAGICDJBIU1.DTL

    http://www.childfreebychoice.com/index.htm

    http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199296421

    We’re reverting to a Dickensian era in which it’s dangerous to be a child—in which we’ve cheapened the life of young, defenseless children. Liberal judges routinely let child molesters and child-killers off the hook. These are state judges. They could either be recalled or voted out of office.

    Children are left alone at home or locked in overheated cars, to die from fire or hypethermia. The parents get off with a slap on the wrist.

    Planned Parenthood refuses to report cases of statutory rape to the authorities. Has Planned Parenthood been prosecuted?

    “I am a deeply commited Reformed Christian.”

    Fine, but I didn’t make this a Calvinistic issue.

    “I am a deeply commited Reformed Christian and have been involved in breeding Labrador Retrievers for years and know many very committed Christians who are involved in raising and showing the breed. It is a hobby just like blogging may be. You could be accused with being obsessed with writing or blogging. You could also be mistaken for being an overweight computer geek with your coke bottle glasses sitting in front of a computer 24/7. Would that be fair? I will ask you to comment on what your particular sin is in which you replace God because each of us has one. Might it be over eating? How about too much television watching?”

    Of course, I never said anything for or against pet breeding. That never came up in my post. You seem to be one of those people who hears things that were never said, then takes umbrage at the offensive, unspoken remarks which you impute to the speaker.

    Yet since you ask, no, I don’t think that pet breeding and Christian apologetics are equally important. But you brought that up, not me.

    “I am also concerned with the harsh manner (whether intentional or unintentional) in which you convey what you have conveyed here. Quite frankly, if this is the best you can do, you might as well give it up. I definitely disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. It is sinful and wrong. The greater question is, how do we communicate that to the homosexual? How many Christian's who have struggled with same sex lust or desire and who battle it on a daily basis did you offend and hurt in this piece?”

    I draw a distinction between rational umbrage and irrational umbrage. Homosexuals are generally offended by *any* criticism of their lifestyle, however warm and fuzzy.

    “What about your own battle with sexual lust? Does it cause you to be addicted to computer view so much that you venture into pornographic sites because you are addicted to it? Fair?”

    Now you’re indulging in scurrilous speculation. You’re not a very good example of the charity you urge on others.

    “What about men like John Piper who speak of his love of his now dead favorite black dog and his belief that he may see the dog again in Heaven? Is Piper to be accused of being a leftist or out of wack because of his love of his dog and some how justifying that with a belief that a dog will go to heaven?”

    What about it? You’re not responding to what I actually wrote.

    “I am sorry if you detect my frustration. I usually do not get this way, especially with someone who I have respected and enjoyed. But, to overtly equate love of animals with Ellen, the left, and homosexuality is way off base and concerning.”

    Since I made no such equation, what I said wasn’t “way off base.”

    Lesbians are lonely. They are emotionally starved. That’s a direct result of their life-style choices. The liberals won’t tell them that. Only the Christians will.

    “If I have misunderstood you, I apologize but I really am offended by what you have written here.”

    Perhaps you’d be less offended if you went back and compared what you imagine you heard with the actual words on the page.

    “You may have a few faithful that will agree with you but I am sure that far more would say you are just simply wrong.”

    More idle speculation on your part.

    “I will so say that talented men like John Piper will reach more (and offend less) with his outreach toward homosexual and his gentle approach toward animal lovers than you will ever hope to in your lifetime. It is so obvious that you have lost the ability to be charitable or kind with much humility.”

    There’s no doubt that John Piper is several notches above the likes of me. No comparison.

    That doesn’t mean that your own priorities aren’t seriously screwed up. On the one hand, there are millions of homeless street-kids in Russia, India, Nepal, and Brazil. There’s a massive child prostitution industry in South Asia. We have honor killings, child marriage, female circumcision, and wife-beating throughout the Muslim world, as well as parts of the Western world that are coming under Sharia.

    Where is the outrage? What is being done to alleviate the situation?

    On the other hand, we have people who think it’s the job of the fire department to rescue cats from trees. We have animal cop shows. We have pet-friendly restaurants. We even have an act of Congress called the “Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act.” And that’s in addition to some of the other examples I cited at the top of my response. Not to mention the redefinition of the family to include “two mommies” and no daddies—a la the pansexual, lesbigay culture.

    This is symptomatic of a culture that has gone soft. That suffers from moral dry rot.

    ReplyDelete
  23. hostus twinkius10/18/2007 5:19 PM

    Recently a guy in my area kicked a puppy for peeing on his carpet, and unfortunately the puppy died because of it. The guy was sentenced to a year in jail, one year.

    Also recently a federal judge in VT sentenced a child molester to something like 3 months in jail for crimes that stretched over 18 months.

    Something seem wrong here?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here's a great idea for you Steve on this one. Start to make up some signs which say:

    "God Hates Fags!
    God Hates Ellen!
    God Hates Animals!
    God Hates Everyone but Me!"

    Hand 'em out to all your supporters and parade in front of every branch of the Humane Society nationwide.

    I cannot figure out if you are sounding more like a true Pharisee or Fred Phelps.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here's a great idea for you Steve on this one. Start to make up some signs which say:

    "God Hates Fags!
    God Hates Ellen!
    God Hates Animals!
    God Hates Everyone but Me!"

    Hand 'em out to all your supporters and parade in front of every branch of the Humane Society nationwide.

    I cannot figure out if you are sounding more like a true Pharisee or Fred Phelps.

    *****************************

    Thanks for illustrating the irrationality of anti-Christian critics. Nothing you say follows from anything I said. You simply emote, hyperventilate, and resort to hysterical rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  26. JODY SAID:

    COuld we perhaps not mix up issues here? __Plenty of people cry over dogs. The few times I observed my dad cry it was when our two family dogs died and when his parents died, that's it. __Just look at the plethora of books written about dogs and boys and the emotional turmoil they are in when they die. Old Yeller? Sounder? Where the Red Fern Grows? And forget about dogs....The Yearling? __Even Dobson has said that the boyhood incident that was the most traumatic was finding out his dog had died. __Are we to accuse these gentlemen of innappropriate behavior?

    *************************************

    I’m not the one who’s mixing up issues. What you’re doing here is to swap in a very different set of examples, then acting as if what I said was directed at your examples. This isn’t logical or very scrupulous.

    I hope you can distinguish between the death of a parent and the death of a pet dog. Normally we’re more attached to our parents than we are to our dogs. And if we’re not, that’s a problem.

    In addition, Ellen’s dog didn’t die, and it’s not as if she owned it long enough to form a deep emotional bond.

    That’s quite different from, let us say, giving a five-year-old a dog which dies fifteen years later. Giving away an adopted dog because it didn’t get along with your cats, and having a pet dog die that lived with you throughout your formative years, is comparing the incomparable.

    ANONYMOUS SAID:

    “What about men like John Piper who speak of his love of his now dead favorite black dog and his belief that he may see the dog again in Heaven? Is Piper to be accused of being a leftist or out of wack because of his love of his dog and some how justifying that with a belief that a dog will go to heaven?”

    Same fallacy as the above. You’re swapping in a very different example, then acting as if I was commenting on your example. This isn’t logical or very scrupulous.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What did you expect, Steve? You mentioned puppies and homosexuality in the same post.
    There are just some subjects that push people's buttons.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am here at the tail end of the comments in a dying post, but one personal anecdote.

    I have a friend who is a vet in Studio City in LA. One evening Ellen and her then fake lesbian friend, Anne, came in with their toy poodle that had been hit by a car. They were blubbering and carrying on and when my friend told them the dog would not survive, they both fell to the floor rolling in a ten minute display of hysterics. My friend was beside himself as to what to do. It was a surreal experience: Two actresses having a fit on the floor of your vet waiting room.

    Not sure how that story plays in to Steve's observation, but I thought it was somewhat relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To Mr. Butler and to Mr. Hays specifically, but really to us all. I am saddened by the arrogance in this post and comments. Do not get me wrong, homosexuality is sin. Gluttony is a sin. Slander is a sin. Tongue wagging or gossiping is a sin. Looking upon a man or woman and lusting is a sin. Committing adultry in your heart is a sin as being angry with someone else and murdering them in your heart. Which one of us is not guilty of sin? Come on, someone speak up! Who is ready to cast the first stone? Shame on us all. Does our ridicule, belittling, slander, and gossiping about others win anyone to Christ?

    May I suggest we all get a copy of a new book by Jerry Bridges called "Respectable Sins"?

    Mr. Butler, you should be ashamed of yourself! A man who is affliated with both TMS and John MacArthur's church engaged in sharing gossip that a "friend" shared with you. How does that benefit the listener? You are a gossip, sir! You have proven it in your post. Your story almost sounds fabricated. With all due respect, the attitude of arrogance you display in your post sickens and saddens me. Sir, if I thought it possible, myself and my elders would bring your comments to the attention of Pastor MacArthur and the Grace Church Elders. You obviously have much to learn of the humility and meekness of Christ.

    God help us to love others for the cause of Christ and not engage in belittling and ridiculing behavior which is so apparent here.

    I am probably old enough to be grandfather to you all. I have pastored probably longer than some of have been alive. I have counseled homosexuals, liars, thieves, and yes, even murderers. Not once did I ever find that belittling anyone (public figure or non public figure) ever win anyone to Christ.

    The arrogance and hatefulness in the church today is a shame. God give us humility and learn to love and esteem others more than ourselves instead of the boastful and proud slander which is slung in many places across the internet. May God grant the grace to bring Ellen, her friends, and others in this despicable lifestyle under His glorious grace. May He help us all to guard our hearts, minds, and tongues in Christ Jesus.

    Respectfully,

    Pastor Harold Wallin

    ReplyDelete
  30. “To Mr. Butler and to Mr. Hays specifically, but really to us all. I am saddened by the arrogance in this post and comments. Do not get me wrong, homosexuality is sin. Gluttony is a sin. Slander is a sin. Tongue wagging or gossiping is a sin. Looking upon a man or woman and lusting is a sin. Committing adultry in your heart is a sin as being angry with someone else and murdering them in your heart. Which one of us is not guilty of sin? Come on, someone speak up! Who is ready to cast the first stone? Shame on us all. Does our ridicule, belittling, slander, and gossiping about others win anyone to Christ?”

    Several issues:

    1.I’m struck by the number of professing Christians who reposition themselves as holier than Holy Writ, more spiritual than Scripture. They presume to condemn things that Scripture itself does not condemn. What is worse, they even condemn things which Scripture itself is “guilty” of doing.

    The Bible is full of ridicule. As I’ve pointed out on more than one occasion now, there is even a specific literary genre in Scripture known as the taunt-song. To take a few examples, David ridicules Goliath (1 Sam 17); Isaiah ridicules the king of Babylon (Isa 14), Ezekiel ridicules the king of Tyre (Ezk 28), Jesus ridicules the Pharisees (Mt 23), John ridicules the pagans of Rome (Rev 17-18).

    Like a lot of professing believers who pay lip-service to the authority of Scripture, Pastor Wallin has a canon within a canon—as a result of which he simply disposes of whatever portions of Scripture conflict with his preconceived theology.

    2.He also plays both sides of the fence. He attacks Fred Butler and me for being judgmental, but, of course, he is being a judgmental Christian in his attack on judgmental Christians. So there is no attempt at moral consistency.

    3.Since “casting the first stone” alludes to a scribal interpolation, that is not binding on me.

    “Mr. Butler, you should be ashamed of yourself! A man who is affliated with both TMS and John MacArthur's church engaged in sharing gossip that a ‘friend’ shared with you. How does that benefit the listener? You are a gossip, sir! You have proven it in your post. Your story almost sounds fabricated. With all due respect, the attitude of arrogance you display in your post sickens and saddens me. Sir, if I thought it possible, myself and my elders would bring your comments to the attention of Pastor MacArthur and the Grace Church Elders. You obviously have much to learn of the humility and meekness of Christ.”

    Two problems:

    i) Pastor Wallin uses terms without defining them. “Gossip” is, indeed, a sin. But how do we define gossip? I would define gossip as a form of slander. Gossip is an unfounded rumor intended to destroy someone’s reputation.

    Pastor Wallin has done nothing to show that Fred Butler slandered Ellen and her lesbian partner. He’s done nothing to show that Fred’s source was unreliable. He has done nothing to show that Butler is ruining her reputation. This assumes she has a sterling reputation to tarnish in the first place.

    Ironically, Pastor Wallin is in danger of slandering Fred Butler by accusing Butler of slander when Wallin has offered no hard evidence to substantiate his accusation. This is another example of Wallin’s double-standard. He decries defamation of character in the same breath as he indulges in defamation of character.

    ii) And Wallin is hypocritical in yet another respect. Notice that he engages in a very public condemnation of Butler. If Wallin really disapproved of “slander,” “gossip” and “tongue-wagging,” then he would not make a public example of Butler. Rather, he would try to contact Butler in private and counsel him in private. There’s such a thing as email. That would be the “pastoral” approach to take.

    iii) What Wallin does, instead, is to engage in a very public and prideful comparison between his superior Christian piety and Butler’s allegedly sub-Christian piety. He’s making himself look good at Butler’s expense, and he wants everyone to see the invidious contrast.

    “I am probably old enough to be grandfather to you all. I have pastored probably longer than some of have been alive. I have counseled homosexuals, liars, thieves, and yes, even murderers. Not once did I ever find that belittling anyone (public figure or non public figure) ever win anyone to Christ.”

    Actually, there is a morally significant distinction between public and private figures. For example, the taunt-songs of Scripture generally target public figures, public enemies of the faith.

    Ellen is a public figure. She chose to be a public figure. She courts publicity. She has her own TV show.

    Ellen has chosen to showcase her lesbianism. This isn’t an incidental aspect of her public identity. She has chosen to make this a personal cause. To put that front-and-center. I didn’t single that out. She did.

    Ellen is using her public soapbox to promote her special branch of sexual immorality. To impose a pansexual social agenda by force of law.

    This is quite different than if, say, I discovered a closeted homosexual classmate in junior high or high school. It would be inappropriate for me to blow his cover. What he needs is a friend.

    Different circumstances can make a difference in the way we should treat people. Everyone is not in the same situation. Everyone is not equally culpable. Everyone is not equally threatening to public morality or the freedom of Christian expression.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'd add that Pastor Wallin fails to draw an elementary distinction between penitent sinners and impenitent sinners. This failure speaks ill of his theology.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I was sort of waiting until this post went off the radar. I appreciate your words Steve. I wasn't intending on slandering anyone; but it is like you say, if Ellen is a public figure and she does things in public (in front of a waiting room full of people at a vet clinic, as well as the staff), then it is not gossiping or "tongue" wagging to talk about what 20 plus people witnessed.

    Fred

    ReplyDelete