Search This Blog

Friday, June 21, 2013

EW Jackson for Lieutenant Governor, the Bible, and Progressive "Thought"


A text without a context is a pretext.  And so it is with recent ad hominem attacks by progressive democrats on Virginia’s conservative Republican gubernatorial ticket, especially those directed at EW Jackson, a Christian minister and candidate for Lieutenant Governor.    

The progressive left has chosen to attack Bishop Jackson on his personal Biblical beliefs not his political policy. Instead their approach is straight out of their “bible:” Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, a book dedicated to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom--Lucifer."  

Alinksy’s Rule 13 – and by extension the approach of those who subscribe to his principles – is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” by eschewing any underlying facts, playing off public emotion at the moment, and leaving it open to the reader’s interpretation to draw a conclusion. Progressives are not interested in serious debate.  They are interested in only one thing: winning at any cost, whether the argument has any basis in truth or not. As Alinsky states in his book, “We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it.” Apparently, “good” like “truth” has no absolute basis in the progressive world.

You see, the attack on EW Jackson – and by extension the conservative Republican ticket – is not about policy, it is about protecting Republican and Democrat progressivism and its collectivist moral relativism from the existential threat posed by the resurgence of a vocal, grass roots, moral majority who subscribe to principle.   The real debate is about the progressives’ “bible” versus the “Bible.”  It is about replacing God with government as the author of our individual rights.  In short, it is about what progressive Democrats wish to do in 2013 “C.E.” but could not do in their last presidential nominating convention held in 2012 A.D. – carve the God of the Bible out of the Democratic platform, and by extension, out of both American culture and its Constitution. 

Specifically, the progressive left has chosen to label EW Jackson's views on homosexuality as being “extremely anti-gay” and trying to use those views to drive a wedge between other members of the ticket and, in the larger sense, all conservative candidates. They quote Bishop Jackson as stating "the homosexual movement is a cancer attacking vital organs of faith, family and military," and "homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of." Similarly, they quote Virginia's current attorney general and candidate for Governor, Ken Cuccinelli as saying "when you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul."

 Jackson’s quotes ignore the context in which they were made and the facts upon which they are based. Jackson’s perspective on “homosexual marriage” is best expressed in a National Press Club press conference following the 2012 Democratic national convention, at which the democrats adopted a plank in their platform supporting “homosexual marriage” and carved God out of their platform, only to reinstate Him for political reasons, upon a voice vote of the membership. In context, Jackson’s NPC press conference comments were directed to Bible believing democrats calling on them to make a decision to follow their professed Biblical beliefs, not their party’s platform.

So the question is not about Jackson’s opinion of homosexuality, but what does the Bible actually say about homosexuality.  Is Jackson’s characterization, as a minister, accurate?  For the sake of brevity, I offer two passages from the Bible, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.  I encourage the reader to do his or her own study and place these quotes in the context of the cited passage as well as the overall Biblical context of sexual sin.

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” [Leviticus 18:22,  NASB]

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened [Romans 1:21, NASB] … Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen. [Romans 1:24-25, NASB] 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. [Romans 1:26-27, NASB]”

One is entitled to their own opinion about homosexuality and how we should address it in civil society; however, from a Biblical perspective, the facts are clear.  All sexual sin (both homosexual and heterosexual sin) is an affront to God and has serious consequences – consequences that are entirely consistent with Bishop Jackson’s remarks on this matter. If one believes in a just and righteous God, then these consequences extend to society as a whole.  Simply read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18 & 19].  

My conclusion is that the stories reported in the media have little to do with Jackson’s actual statements.  The real question posed by the media has everything to do with who do you believe: God or government?  Words form ideas and ideas have consequences. Policy follows principle.  I think we know where EW Jackson stands, and it is on God’s side. 
It’s time to choose between Alinsky’s “bible” and God’s Bible, a book that was dedicated to all of us.

Remember ...

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"Against public stupidity, the gods themselves are powerless." Schiller.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

"Statistics are no substitute for judgement," Henry Clay

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money," Margaret Thatcher