Banner
Political Kabuki PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:21 pm

On the tube this evening, I saw a couple of neocons surrendering on the question of homosexuals in the military. The top brass are starting to capitulate on it, Obama is going a whole lot slower than the homosexual activists want him to, but he is moving on it, and what passes for a right wing in Washington is signaling its willingness to play ball. The gears for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" have started to move, and everybody is starting to play the inevitability game.

One of the more exasperating aspects of this kind of political kabuki theater is the unwillingness of the agitators to admit what they are doing (until it is too late), an unwillingness matched only by the unwillingness of believers to see what is being done to them (until it is too late).

The issue before the house is not whether or not to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." This whole thing is one of those pesky inescapable concepts, and this means that the debate before us is this -- to which group will we apply "don't ask, don't tell"? It is not whether, but which. The homosexuals or the evangelicals? Right now, a homosexual in the military has to keep his orientation to himself. If this policy is repealed, then the evangelicals and the homosexuals will switch places. Somebody will be disciplined inevitably, and we are talking about which group it will be.

What will be the effect on soldier-to-soldier relations? What will be the effect on two sailors submerged in the same submarine for a couple of months? Now, when this question is usually asked, it is asked with the assumption that I am raising the quesiton of one soldier or sailor hitting on the other one. Right now, he is not supposed to do that, or be open about his orientation. But that is not where my question lies. I am asking if the serviceman who is evangelical will be permitted to witness to his fellow serviceman, who is now out of the closet. Will he be allowed to believe that homosexuality is a sin that God will judge at the last day? Sure. Don't ask. Will he be allowed to call his fellow serviceman to repentance? Surely not. Don't tell.

 

I have been talking about the troops generally, but the question will also arise with regard to chaplains. Will they be permitted to preach through Romans? Don't tell me that this is about whether homosexuals should be able to come out of the closet. It is whether evangelicals will be permitted to extend the love of Christ to them when they do. Everybody is acting as though the question concerns whether open homosexuals can serve in the military. The real question is whether open evangelicals will be allowed to do so.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Griff  Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:32 pm
I served as a boiler technician on the JFK CV-67 from 1989-1993. Even then there were only men on-board, and no one "out of the closet." Heck, we didn't even have closets in the berthing compartments back then! The Navy Seals were by far the most evangelical, even more so than the chaplains, whose primary "duty" seemed to be to operate the copy machine in the ship's library.
David Gray  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:07 am
This is absolutely correct. There has already been a lot of command pressure for chaplains to pray heterodox prayers. Soon DoD will be requiring mandatory training to enforce this abomination. Christian parents are increasingly going to have to give serious consideration to keeping their sons from joining the service.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:46 pm
Why "evangelicals" not "Christians". Evangelicals aren't the only orthodox Christians--and indeed many of them aren't orthodox.
Charles Baker  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:38 pm
The Enemy's distraction in this discussion is to tempt us to focus upon the homosexual activity, policies, etc. Certainly the complementary problem within the military and the world at large includes heterosexual promiscuity.
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:54 pm
Matt, my point wasn't about orthodoxy, but rather openness. Evangelicals are all about "witnessing" and doing is verbally. It is the most obvious place for the DoD to crack down on "harassment." But the same point applies to orthodox chaplains who would not call themselves evangelical.
Jabe  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:03 pm
From an evangelism standpoint, I'm not sure why it's a bigger problem for Christians to serve next to gays than it is for them to serve next to Jews, Buddhists, atheists or Muslims, any of whom could theoretically complain about harassment when "called to repentence" as well. When I was in the Navy 30 years ago, it was understood even then that the military is a diverse group of people and any unwelcome proseletyzing was seen as bad for unit cohesion. So how are gays a special case?
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:27 pm
Hmm...But so are, say JW's or Mormons. So I figured you included just Christians because Christians are the ones we should want proselytizing. We are the ones with the authority to do so, and the United States is in rebellion against her King when we tell Christians not to evangelize. It may be best for the US to let Mormons or JW's evangelize, but surely we wouldn't be so directly opposing David's Heir if we didn't. It's illegal in his kingdom for them to evangelize too.

But then, it isn't evangelicals we should be concerned with, but Christians. Or perhaps orthodox Christians. Any other line divides the Church.
Jabe  Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:01 am
Matthew, I didn't mention Mormons or JWs because they weren't the subject of this thread; Christians and the ability of Christians to evangelize if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military is the subject of this thread.

Granting everything you say to be true, though, my question still stands: Why are gays a special case? Why is allowing them to serve openly more of a problem from an evangelism standpoint than allowing, say, Mormons or JWs to serve openly (not that JWs would, since they're conscientious objectors.)

If you want to launch a full-scale attack on diversity and say only Christians (or at least those who aren't bothered by Christian cultural dominance) should be permitted to serve, then make that argument. But short of making that argument, I don't see that gays are any more of a problem than any other non-orthodox service personnel.
Matthew N. Petersen  Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:16 am
Jabe,

I was actually addressing Pr. Wilson. I think you had a good point. Sorry for the confusion.

Matt
Jabe  Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:56 pm
My apologies, Matthew, I thought you were talking to me. Had I read your original message more carefully I probably would have figured that out on my own.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, February 05, 2010 9:33 am
I don't know if Pr. Wilson's going to come back and answer, but my guess is that homosexuals represent that particular problem because that's just where the push-point is right now. There isn't a widespread public movement right now to establish the idea that Christian evangelism constitutes hate toward unbelievers generally (though that concept is not absent) -- there is definitely an ongoing agenda of that type with respect to homosexuals.

So whether it has to be that way or not, it seems that it is. At least, that's what I think Wilson has in mind.