This Question Needs Revisiting

I'm not a fan of Duck Dynasty, but I am a regular reader of Desiring God. So you can imagine how disappointed I was to read this piece calling on Christians to "Pass on this decoy". David Mathis writes, "Let’s lay down the weapons on this one." Why? "This is not something worth getting exercised about."

Now, I agree with Mathis when he says, "This is not our time to cry fowl about Christian civil liberties." As I said earlier, Phil got his chance to speak. His freedom to say what he thought was not infringed. I'm not concerned about civil liberties here. It's not about legislation or the courts. The question at hand is the Gospel -- nothing less. It starts with the "bad news" of Romans 1.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Rom 1:25-27).

It swirls around Paul's dire warning in 1 Corinthians.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

This is not a good thing. This is not a "Let's pass" moment. It is the crux of the problem. Sin is the problem. "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Rom 1:32).

Here's where we're headed. We are agreeing with God on this. We are standing with God's Word here. We are saying that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God (among other things), and we are offering a solution -- "You need Jesus." When this becomes "hate speech", "anti-gay", "gay-bashing", when speaking God's Word is classified as "lies" and the Gospel is demeaning, insulting, and discriminatory, then we're not looking at a problem of civil liberties anymore, are we?

I would also like to point out that, although I dearly appreciate the ministry of Desiring God, if you recall, last year John Piper refused to oppose the gay marriage amendment in Minnesota. I won't say that his silence caused it, but the measure passed. I can say that his silence did not help the problem. Remaining silent when the Gospel is under attack cannot be the right response. It's not Phil Robertson at issue here. It is sin, Scripture, and the Gospel on the chopping block. And for that I will not take a pass.