Picture with me a homicide scene. The killer has been caught, literally red handed, standing over the body of the person whose life he stole. Continue to imagine as the police take him into custody; it’s pretty cut-and-dry but there is due process to carry out. However, instead of reading him his rights, they read the following list:
“Theft, perjury, embezzlement, prostitution, public intoxication, possession of an illegal substance…”
Puzzled, as anyone would be in his situation, the suspect (who we know as the murderer) asks, “What are you talking about?”
To which the officers respond, “Well, we just wanted you to know that murder isn’t the only offense we take people into custody for.”
Four months later, the trial is concluded, and the jury is brought out to give the verdict.
“We the jury acknowledge that there are many prosecutable offenses, among them being bribery, extortion, domestic disturbance, failure to stop at a red light, unauthorized entry of a private dwelling, animal cruelty…” and so on ad nauseum. The list continues on and on, but somehow never comes to the verdict on this particular case of murder, which happens to be the only offense in a long list of possible offenses that those present are interested in at the moment. Asked about it, the jury with much trepidation responds that they did not want to seem “intolerant” or “bigoted” by offering a verdict without affirming that murder is not the only offense a jury might need to rule on.
Ludicrous. PC BS on steroids.
Maybe you already see where this is going, but allow me a quick departure to set up the point all the clearer.
[Phil Robertson] minimized the pervasiveness of sin in the way he commented on the issue. (He implied that sexual sin was an irrational choice. But isn’t every sin irrational?…)
Wax is not the only person to make statements like this in the course of the whole Robertson dust-up, but every time I hear something along these lines the picture of the scenario I opened with comes to mind. It seems that, when it comes to homosexuality, we cannot call one sin out and just deal with it – as would be the case in a court of law. We’ve got to cover our butts by mentioning every other besetting sin under the sun so people know (somehow) that we’re not haters.
Said another way, it seems as if much of the evangelical response, when the particular sin of homosexuality is on the table for discussion, is to divert the conversation to the myriad sins that are possible while neglecting to come down specifically on the one in question. Or, at best, they might offer a “yes, that’s a sin,” but then rather anxiously move the conversation onwards to “but there are lots of sins, let’s talk about some we can agree more on!”
One wonders if those evangelicals who were uncomfortable with Robertson’s direct treatment of the subject were so because the man went for the jugular of the modern clash between Christian and secular ethics and didn’t play around with those sins that are, currently, “safe” to criticize. He identified the strongest point of antithesis between the two moralities in our time and poked it. Hard. And the reaction that provoked proved that “kumbaya” is still not the national anthem, much as they wish it was.
One wonders if evangelicals like Wax would have told William Wilberforce that, as he confronted the premier moral issue of his time, he should make sure not to minimize the pervasiveness of sin with his focus on the slave trade.
After all, Will, isn’t every sin enslaving?