Gary North’s Critique:  “Legalize Same-Sex Marriages?”

February 27, 2002

Dear ICE Subscriber:

You have my permission to forward this report to all of your friends. This information may astound them. Tell them that Gary North has at long last seen the light. He has confessed all. Sort of.

Yesterday, a ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church sent me a link to an article written by the wife of an OPC minister in his presbytery, which her husband has posted on his Web site. His Web site is:

"http://www.upper-register.com/"

Her husband is working hard to get the word out. He has given her a public forum. According to WHOIS, "http://www.upper-register.com/" belongs to Lee Irons. I checked this on:

"http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois"

Her article is copyrighted 2000. I wonder if it has really been on-line for almost two years. If so, I wonder why no one else saw it until a few days ago.

Rev. Irons may well be the most vociferous opponent of theonomy in the OPC.

"http://members.aol.com/ironslee/private/Epitome.htm"

He is surely the most vociferous defender of Meredith G. Kline's theology of the Mosaic law as part of a semi-Scofieldian dispensational "intrusion," now annulled, in the history of the gospel. (Kline, "Intrusion and the Decalogue," WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL [1953/54], pp. 1-22.)

But, compared to his wife, Rev. Irons is soft core.  She has now thrown down the gauntlet, not just to us theonomists, but to that most arrogant of all political special-interest groups, heterosexuals. She has taken Meredith Kline's intrusionist theology and run with it.  She has boldly gone where no OPC pastor's wife has gone before. Her name is Misty Irons. Compared to her, it's her husband who is misty, even squishy. There is nothing squishy about Misty Irons.


IRONS IN THE FIRE

Mrs. Irons has come out in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriages. Her article is titled, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage." Got that? Conservative. You know. As in J. Gresham Machen. As in Cornelius Van Til. As in John Murray.

In 1962, I began researching my book on the origins of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. ICE published it in 1996. I have posted it on-line, free of charge:

"http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/gncf/table_of_contents.htm"

In 34 years of research, not once did I come across the following view of marriage in the writings of the Presbyterian seceders who founded the OPC. Somehow -- I don't know how -- I missed this:

“Wasn't sure you heard me the first time? Then let me be absolutely clear: Conservative Christians should support gay civil marriage.

“Why? Because the question of whether to allow civil same-sex marriage is a civil liberties question, and maintaining a respect for people's civil liberties in this country is always to the church's advantage. In fact, it is absolutely essential for the church's survival in a pluralistic society.”

I had always imagined that it is the grace of God to His church that allows it to survive in a hostile world. I had also imagined that the way for His people to gain His continuing support is to obey His law (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28). I had always believed this:

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God (Deut. 8:19-20).

But, you know me. I'm a theonomist. Still, I'm always ready to learn. All I need is a teacher who lays out the facts in no uncertain terms. All I need is someone who can make things so clear that even an OPC investigating committee can understand it and draw relevant conclusions.  That degree of clarity is rare. But I think Mrs. Irons may have achieved it. Maybe. Possibly.

What I have learned from Mrs. Irons is that intrusionism's hermeneutic has now delivered us from the hangover of the bad old days of the Old Testament, with all that public obedience and everything. Now we have political pluralism to protect God's church. Conclusion: we had better not make pluralism angry.

“For obvious reasons we Christians have always been adamant supporters of civil liberties when it comes to freedom of religion. We have even managed to be consistent in this principle by not opposing the rights of Buddhists, New Agers, or even Satanists to meet, because we realize that to do so would equally undercut our own right to assemble.”

Yes, sir, the god of pluralism must be placated. He doesn't look favorably on a bunch of narrow-minded exclusivists like all those heterosexuals who want to legislate their morality and force it down everyone's throat, deep or shallow. The god of pluralism has set up a big, big tent. He calls all people of good faith -- whatever faith -- to enter. But, once again, Christian heterosexuals are not getting the message, any more than they did back in 64 A.D., when another pluralist, the emperor Nero, identified Christians as an intolerant bunch and took specific steps to deal with them.

“But in the case of civil same-sex marriage, instead of recognizing the civil rights issue at stake here, we oppose the idea, quoting Bible verses and appealing to morals, nature, tradition, history, and the fear that Western civilization as we know it will come crashing to the ground. All of these arguments are related, of course. They are an appeal to that part of American society in which Judeo-Christian values are still deeply rooted. For even in America at the dawning of the 21st century, many people's understanding of morality and nature still reflect the vestiges of the Western Christendom of our heritage, as do their ideas of tradition, history and an ideal society.”

Mea culpa. I confess! I have done this. I have written things just like what she says. I have even recommended that people read Pat Buchanan's latest book, THE DEATH OF THE WEST, yet Pat has said things just like this. What have I done? He's a Roman Catholic! "Forgive me, Pluralism, for I have sinned." I have sinned desperately.

“We do not, however, argue against civil same-sex marriage in the spirit of calm persuasion. There is desperation in our tone.”

She has seen into my very soul. She may even have heard an audiotape of that speech I gave back in 1988, when I said that terrible thing. Someone must have sent it to her. You may even remember it. I said that someone ought to produce a bumper sticker that says -- how could I have said this?!? -- THE LORD AIDS THOSE WHO AID THEMSELVES. I am so ashamed!

“There are probably many people who think they are justified in having such fears, but it seems to me it is more than just paranoia that feeds our frenzy. We feel deeply threatened, for we sense that we are losing the battle. Not simply the battle against homosexuals, but the battle to hang on to what we still think of as "Christian America."”

Paranoia. I've got it bad. It's eating me up. I think they may be out to get me, the same way they were out to get OPC pastor Chuck McIlhenny, when they took him to court for firing a homosexual on the church's staff, and when they firebombed his home and his church. Paranoia. It's all around us. You can sense it in the 1999 testimony of Robert Knight before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In San Francisco in 1993, Pastor Chuck McIlhenny, whose home had been firebombed in 1990, called the city hate crimes unit when homosexual activists attacked a church. He was told that the Christians had their point of view, and the homosexual activists had theirs, and that they "cancel each other out." Despite the destruction of property, physical assault of parishioners, and the disruption of a worship service, the police would not come to their aid. Apparently, some hate-crime victims are more important than others.

"http://judiciary.senate.gov/51199rhk.htm"

Christians have their point of view, and the Great God Pluralism respects it. Homosexuals have their point of view, and He respects that, too. There is mutual respect for all points of view in the morally neutral kingdom of Pluralism. Christians have failed to recognize this.

“At one time in this country we could count on quoting a verse from Genesis or Leviticus before Congress or the Supreme Court and that would be the end of the debate. No more. The consensus of common biblical values on which we had once depended is giving way to the pluralism of a postmodern society. And seeing the disastrous handwriting on the wall, we have become politically desperate, and so we lunge at the enemies of Christendom with a ferocity that rivals that of even the most radical gay activists.”

Then there was that minor disagreement at that other church, where Rev. McIlhenny had been invited to attend, which Christian extremists have called a riot. How could anyone say such a thing about a group's exercise of its civil rights? "Ferocities equal to the same ferocity are equal to each other." That's what Mrs. Irons says. First, it was removing a homosexual from the church's payroll.  That act of insensitivity was balanced by the following:

The following events took place on Sunday evening, September 19, 1993, revolving around the regularly scheduled 6:00 PM Sunday Evening Worship Service of the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, 1212 Geary St., San Francisco, California. Reverend Lou Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition, was invited by the church to be the guest speaker.

Only the church's membership and regular attenders were notified of the service, through the church's own Sunday bulletin. No public notice or invitation was made in addition to this. However, in the September 16, 1993 edition of the Bay Area Reporter, the meeting was announced in a front page article using intemperate, inflammatory language. A three-by-five ad on page five of the September 15, 1993 edition of the San Francisco Sentinel announced a protest of the Sunday night service. The church has no knowledge of how, or from whom they obtained the information.

The church received telephone calls during the week prior to the meeting, demanding that our guest speaker should not come. Two people came to the church during that week asking to see the pastor and, speaking to the caretaker, notified him that we could not have Rev. Sheldon as a guest speaker in our church, and that they intended to stop him.

The church's pastor, Dr. David C. Innes, made at least four calls to the Northern (Police) Station prior to the meeting, on Saturday and Sunday afternoon regarding the demonstration, expressing his concern for potential problems. He called the Northern Station immediately before the service, and requested more backup police because he felt the situation was not under control. He was informed that no backup would be sent unless requested by police that were present and further, that they had not requested it. Dr. Innes was told, "You must understand. This is San Francisco."

Homosexual and lesbian demonstrators began gathering around the church property as early as 5:00 PM. The police were immediately notified by telephone of their presence. As people entered the building, demonstrators handed out flyers purporting to be published by the church. These were also placed upon automobile windshields in the immediate area. By 6:00 PM a riot was under way. The rioters assumed complete control of the exterior property and grounds of the church. In spite of several requests to have them removed the officer in charge insisted that everything was under control and that police procedures and regulations would not allow him to do so.

At about the time of the beginning of the service, an usher, stationed himself in the courtyard to assist members in gaining entry to the building. The usher witnessed the destruction of church property and notified an officer who turned away and ignored him. The rioters recognized him as a church member, surrounded him and completely denied him any freedom of movement.

Pastor Charles & Donna McIlhenny were refused entry by the rioters, and told they could not enter the building. The doors were completely blocked by the rioters. Pastor McIlhenny held on to Donna as they began to make their way through the mob who were shouting and screaming in their ears, "You will not enter this church." The rioters assaulted them, pushing and shoving them, seeking to keep them from the front door. One of them grabbed Donna's body, lifting her off the ground, and another put his arms completely around her, and attempted to pull her back away from the entry. She stretched her arms out for help from a nearby police officer who offered no assistance. Her son, seeing she was in trouble, pleaded with the officers to assist her. The officers appeared so overwhelmed by the rioters that they were unable to take control of the situation. Both of her hands were scratched (the skin was broken).

Finally, the church's caretaker grabbed her outstretched arms and pulled her through to the door, out of the hands of the rioters. As they made their way past the three police officers at the door, they were pelted by rocks, which also struck the window panes of the entry doors. Several members from Pastor McIlhenny's church also were accosted and had to flee to a side entrance. There they also found the entry blocked and had to remain outside until the riot police arrived and let them in the building.  Pastor McIlhenny's son, Ryan and his friend were not able to enter the building.

The rioters removed the Christian flag from the flagpole, and attached the gay flag under the U.S. flag. The church's caretaker removed both flags, but a rioter grabbed the gay flag and it was again run up the flag pole and the rope knotted out of reach. When the caretaker, again attempted to remove the gay flag, he was assaulted and hit with eggs. Being pushed back he was unable to reach the flag pole, and returned to the entry of the church. Much of the newly planted landscaping around the flag pole was damaged.

One cement bench was pushed over into the fountain by rioters. When police were notified of this they refused to respond. A second bench was dismantled and the seat thrown over into a light well and destroyed by rioters. The rioters guilty of this vandalism described this wanton destruction of church property as "interior decorating." Paper messages were stuck to the handrails, walls and windows of the building.

A single parent, who is a church member, and her six year old daughter were told they could not enter the building. A rioter grabbed her daughter's arm as she was clinging to her mother, and began interrogating her. The mother and daughter finally entered the building by passing through the rioters. The child was crying and terrified. The mother had also brought an elderly friend who was refused entry by the rioters. Twenty minutes passed before she was able to get her friend into the service. Along with these, many others of the elderly and children were terrorized.

To our knowledge, riot police were never called in by the officers present. They came only because the guest speaker left the worship service and called 911. The rioters were then removed from the courtyard area of the church property by the riot police. They then proceeded to the emergency exit doors on the west side of the auditorium where they pounded and kicked the doors seeking to break them down. This so disturbed the service in process that the service had to be temporarily discontinued. The officers present were immediately notified. The pounding was so loud, that an elderly blind woman was terrified, thinking that the sound was gunshots. She began crying, feeling helpless and threatened, and was comforted by nearby members. Due to the forceful nature of the rioter's attempt to break down the doors, one of the exit doors was damaged in a major way, the door jam being broken.

Rioters continued their demonstration, standing on church property with their megaphone. The rioters then laid down in the intersection of Geary and Franklin, blocking all traffic. The rioters passed out the fraudulent flyers to waiting vehicles and pounded on the vehicles of those attempting to cross the intersection. The police took no action to remove them for approximately ten minutes. A woman demonstrator exposed her breasts to church members present in the area.

One woman, a regular attender at our services, and her husband were hindered from entering the building by the rioters who had been moved to the sidewalk. When she entered the building she was so terrified that one of our other ladies had to help her calm down. Another member stood across the street and did not enter because of fear of physical violence.

As the service was concluded, the people were split into three groups. All of the children were clinging to the parents, frightened to leave the building. Two groups exited out emergency exits. One group waited, and then exited the main entrance. The people were shouted at and threatened by the rioters as they made their way to their cars, being called Christian bigots, hypocrites, fascists, homophobes, and other expletives, some obscene. An eight year old retarded girl, upon exiting through the front entrance was so traumatized upon being verbally accosted, that she fell down the steps.

The guest speaker was escorted by police to the church van, as debris pelted him from the rioters. Following his departure the rioters began to depart and the riot police were dismissed. The rioters shouted at the police, "You won't be here all night, but the church (building) will be." Only two or three police officers remained to secure the building. Dr. Innes, Rev Eugene Lumpkin, and the church's associate Pastor with his wife and children remained inside. When this became known to the rioters, they returned in force to the church and began pounding on the front doors. The situation was once again out of control and Dr. Innes called 911 for reinforcements. When the rioters saw children standing in the lobby, they shouted, "We want your children. Give us your children." The police asked us to move away from the entry. Dr. Innes, his associate and family left through another exit. A nine year old boy, was crying in hysterics, "They are after me. It's me they want." He did not calm down until the family was several miles from the building.

A rioter broke one of the large address numbers off the face of the building and attempted to remove others unsuccessfully. A citizen's arrest was made on this individual. The person making the citizen's arrest was verbally threatened by other rioters.

Officers told us they were informed by the rioters that our meeting was an open, public meeting, and they did not intend to prohibit the entry of the rioters onto our property. The pastor, Dr. Innes, informed the officers that this was a regularly scheduled church worship service and was not, as such, an open, public meeting, in the secular sense. He further informed the officers that no public notice had been made by the church inviting the public. The police later insisted that they were bound by the rioters' claim that this was an open, public meeting and not a worship service. We were informed by the police, that due to the city's police regulations and policies, the police were not allowed to enforce the law regarding the disturbance of church worship services and the presence of rioters on church property. Police estimates of the number of rioters were approximately 75, although actual counts indicated a number closer to 100.

In spite of all this malicious disruption, not a single arrest was made by the police outside of one citizen's arrest. The church's property was not secured, and the fundamental rights of the worshippers were not protected because, we were told, "The Board of Supervisors would never support the measures necessary to do so."

Upon leaving for the final time, several of the rioters said, "We will be back." Numerous obscene and threatening telephone calls have been received at the church following the riot.

"http://www.hsbchurch.org/riot1.htm"

Riot? How can Christian people use such inflammatory rhetoric?

In that same year, the McIlhennys wrote their book, WHEN THE WICKED SEIZE A CITY (Huntington House, 1993).  Pushy. Those people are pushy. The McIlhennys, I mean.  But I've been pushy, too. I need to re-think everything.

“The apostle Paul writes, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1). God is the one who invented civil government and it is through this institution that he rules the affairs of the world. And he doesn't seem to be terribly concerned if non-Christian or even un-Christian people are in power, as if their presence is going to foul up his program. He can handle it just fine because he is, after all, Lord of the nations.”

What the Christian world needed in Germany in 1939 was outspoken Christians just like this. None of those Niemoeller types, and that other guy -- what was his name? -- oh, yes: Bonhoeffer. Troublemakers. Big mouths. Big mouths just don't fit inside pluralism's big tent.

“Thus, it should be no surprise that when we look to the New Testament for instruction on incorporating Christian beliefs into the laws of the land, we are met with a deafening silence.”

Silence. That's what we need more of. Lots and lots of silence. The silent scream comes to mind. So does the silence of the lambs.

“Since Jesus and the apostles have little to say about politics, except that we should submit and not worry about who is in charge, why are we devoting so much of our energies trying to legislate the Bible?”

That's right. To legislate the Bible is to unlegislate Pluralism. And Pluralism won't take kindly to that!

“Therefore, since the church's primary concern with relation to the state ought to be the protection of our right to freely practice our religious beliefs, our political strategy ought to be twofold: 1) making sure we don't turn public opinion against us by being pushy, overbearing, and malicious; and 2) supporting the rights of other people also to exist peacefully in this land, because in doing so we secure the same for ourselves.”

I have been pushy in the past. No more Mr. Pushy for me. I've seen the light! I've turned over a new leaf.

Not only have I turned over a new leaf. I've even turned over a new rock. And under it, you know what I found? Bestiality. Several times this month, I've received e-mail spam messages on "Beastie Buddies" and "Animal Husbandry for Those Who Really Love Animals."  Maybe you've seen these or similar e-mails. Well, that's going a bit too far. Mrs. Irons knows this, too.

“People think that by allowing civil same-sex marriage, it won't be long before we'll allow people to marry their sister, or their pet iguana. But isn't there a big difference between a person who chooses incest or bestiality against the normal marriage options available to him, and a person who is only capable of being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender, so that without the right to enter into same-sex marriage he or she is left with no marriage option at all? People who like having sex with family members or
dumb animals are making perverse sexual choices.”

None of that sort of thing inside pluralism's big tent! It's perverse. It's perverse because . . . because  . . well, just because.

Oh, I know what I used to say. You know, back when I wrote 75 BIBLE QUESTIONS YOUR INSTRUCTORS PRAY YOU WON'T ASK (1986).

"http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2132_47e.htm"

Question 26, which began the section on "Law: God's or Man's," asked: "Isn't Immoral for People to Have Sex With Animals?" The answer should have been self-evident.  Of course bestiality is morally wrong. It's as plain as the nose on your face, or your dog's face. We don't need the Bible to tell us this. We surely don't need the Old Testament, even though bestiality is not mentioned in the New Testament. But, idiotic me, I quoted from Leviticus. And we all know what Pluralism thinks of Leviticus! Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion (Lev. 18:23).Worse; I even quoted Exodus. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death (Ex. 22:19).I just couldn't leave bad enough alone. I went on, in a futile and unnecessary attempt to deal with the political problem that there are people in this world who don't acknowledge that bestiality is perverse, so Christian heterosexuals need something more than rhetoric-based definitions of "perversity," devoid of any authoritative support, to instruct voters and legislators and judges about what is and is not perverse. I wrote this about Exodus 22:19: Are we bound to obey this law because it [bestiality] is a universally recognized evil practice? It certainly was not recognized as evil by the Canaanites. And if Christians should gain political influence, shouldn't they make such practices illegal, so as not to have the land vomit out an entire population?

Are we bound by this law? If so, why? Because it is "logical"? Logical for whom? By what standard? Or because "all righteous men know not to practice such acts"? But how can we measure righteousness apart from the prohibition? If we are bound by this law, then why are we supposedly not bound by all Old Testament laws? What about marrying your sister or brother, or an aunt or uncle? The Old Testament prohibits such marriages (Leviticus 18:6-18); the New Testament doesn't. If God's word isn't authoritative, both Old and New Testaments, then what is? The temporary morality of some  temporary nation or church? The temporary morality of mankind? How can we understand right and wrong if we exclude the Old Testament's legal precepts?

How can we avoid humanism's "situation ethics"? How can our nation avoid God's judgment? How could I have written anything like this? I mean, this is so . . . . so . . . intrusive! Well, Mrs. Irons has put me in my place: outside the big tent. Way, way outside, it appears.

“Our relentless pursuit of a moral agenda is not only futile in our pluralistic society, it is not only involving us in an ugly power struggle that is hurting our testimony to the world, but it poses a direct threat to civil liberty itself.”

Christians had better not try to legislate morality, she is telling us. So, since we can't legislate morality, it's about time that we started legislating immorality. Otherwise, nobody will listen to us.

“It is no wonder that nobody listens to us anymore. For too long we have been trying to persuade people with the gospel while wielding the club of political authoritarianism. What a contradictory message this presents to the world. Does not our gospel say that God is love, and that he has come down to earth, stretched out his hands, and allowed himself to be nailed to across for our sins, so that the gates of paradise might be freely opened to anyone who believes? When will we lay aside our club so that this message may be heard more clearly, and felt more poignantly?”

I get it. "No creed but the Bible, no law but love." Above all, no more intrusions. I had thought that the problem of homosexuality had to do with sin, i.e., with moral choices between good and evil. I did not understand the following:

“By contrast the vast majority of homosexuals did not choose to be homosexual. They are people who find themselves attracted to other people of the same sex for reasons even they cannot explain.”

So, from now on, we must abandon Old Testament proof-texting. No more frontal assaults against the Great God Political Pluralism. No more embarrassment about all those terrible laws in the Old Testament, back when God the Father was in charge. We have now entered into the kingdom of His Son. Soon, soon, we will enter the kingdom of His Spirit. Won't that will be liberating?

CONCLUSION

It takes self-discipline and Christian maturity to keep from saying, "I told you so." So, I would never say this about Meredith Kline's theology and its inescapable judicial implications. I am a man of considerable self-discipline and legendary maturity. From my lips or my keyboard, you will never be told, "I told you so." Greg Bahnsen told you so. So did Chuck McIlhenny's wife, Donna, in the OPC's long-defunct denominational magazine, THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN. It was published on the final page of the final issue (Oct. 1979). In an article titled "A Mother's View of Sodom," she described what went on at a homosexual gay pride parade in San Francisco. I have never forgotten that article. I suggest that every OPC elder get a copy of it. Somebody ought to download a free trial copy of DjVu's software ("http://www.djvu.com/) and use it to post that article on-line somewhere. And so, in 2002 A.D. (a not-yet-abolished Christian designation -- anno domini, or Lord's year), it has comedown to this: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's public positions as to what ought to constitute lawful marriage in society have been set forth by the wives of two of its pastors. The trouble is, one position is on-line, under her husband's imprimatur. The other document is long gone. If the OPC sits there and does nothing, leaving both positions unchallenged judicially, it will necessarily identify itself as a big-tent denomination that has room for both definitions of civil marriage and everything in between. That would have to be a very big tent indeed.

Sincerely, Gary North

_____________


February 27, 2002

Dear ICE Subscriber: Today, I sent out a letter titled, "Legalize Same Sex Marriages?" I listed lots of Web addresses, but I neglected to list the most important one: Misty Irons, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage." Here is the address.

“www.upper-register.com/theonomy/civil_same_sex_marriage.html”