Responding to the Gay Threat

The Threat

The news today is filled with stories on gay issues.

The major one, the issue we covered on April 2, has to do with the gay assaults on the CEO of Mozilla for making a $1000 contribution to Proposition 8 in California six years ago, a proposition supporting traditional marriage. As speculated in my previous article, Brendan Eich resigned.

The implications of his resignation are far-reaching. This suggests that any CEO or other corporate leader or potential corporate leader with any history, regardless of how far back and regardless of how slight, that would suggest support for traditional marriage or express any disagreement with the LGBT agenda is in jeopardy of losing his job, and substantially diminishes his prospects of getting promoted into a position of significance. Those in other arenas are also affected. Craig James was fired by Fox Sports because of his views favoring traditional marriage expressed prior to his being hired by Fox. Those in higher education not supportive of the LGBT agenda have been in jeopardy for a long time.

We have already discussed the photographer and baker who declined to do photography and bake for gay weddings because of their Christian conviction. Today the Supreme Court declined to hear Elane Photography, LLC vs. Willock, leaving stand the New Mexico Court decision that gay rights take precedence over religious freedom, requiring that John and Elaine Huguenin pay a $7000 fine. More important, this result in essence requires Christians to either violate their consciences in providing services in support of LGBT activities or face fines and even imprisonment. Imagine being a baker or photographer asked to provide services for a pro-LGBT rally.

The proposed Arizona legislation supporting the right of Christian businesspeople to maintain their convictions relative to using their talents in support of homosexual events was not signed into law by the Governor because of massive pressure exerted on her from many sources including major corporations.

As time goes on, encouraged by these successes, it is highly likely that the LGBT watchdogs will be screening virtually every segment of American life for transgressions against their agenda for which they can attack a person’s career or take legal action.

Think of how this will impact Christians. They will be less likely to get promoted, will be in danger of violating their consciences or getting sued, and will find themselves in other types of difficulty or compromising positions. This trend in effect makes Christians second-class citizens. It will also have a major dampening effect on financial and other types of support for causes advocating a Christian position related to marriage and other biblical issues not in sync with LGBT issues, for example transsexual use of bathrooms.

The Response

Though my conclusion above is that gays will be empowered and encouraged by the resignation of Brendan Eich, other possibility is that they may have overreached. Bill Mahar concluded, “I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.” This type of reaction may indicate that Americans in general may respond by fear that they gay community has become too strident. However, even if that is the case, those concerns will blow over in a short time, having little negative impact on gay power.

Regarding evangelical response to gay issues, the World Vision developments are instructive. World Vision changed previous policy in order to allow married gays employment in their ministry. Apparently conservative Christian response to this change (especially financial response) was sufficiently strong to cause them to retract this change, asserting “we made a mistake.” Regardless of any rhetoric from this organization, it is evident that the mistake they made was not one of spiritual commitment but financial calculation. Had the financial repercussions not cut so deeply, the probability seems to be quite high that that they would have maintained their new policy. As a result of their having reverted to their initial policy, a board member, director of corporate giving for Google, resigned.

This scenario is disheartening in the lack of spiritual commitment displayed by World Vision, but it is heartening regarding the apparent fast and definitive evangelical response that led to their reverting to their previous position.

This leads to the question of the nature of the evangelical response to gay power in general. If that response is tentative, it will in no way slow down the Tiananmen Square tanks being driven by gays toward evangelicals. The only prospect of countering this assault on Christians is by intentional, united, strong, unequivocal, and well-planned counterattacks. The World Vision incident gives hope that evangelicals might have the will to mount such an offensive. Whether or not we have the organization, leadership, strategy, and initiative to do so is yet to be seen.

Have a comment?