James White in Response to Hollywood Bigotry
March 2nd, 2009In case you didn’t see the 81st Annual Academy Awards show that aired a week ago, Sunday night, you may have missed the blatantly anti-Christian remarks uttered by Sean Penn in his acceptance speech for best actor in “Milk”, a film promoting the homosexual agenda. I of course was watching Matt Kenseth take the checkered flag in the Auto Club 500 at Fantana, California and consequently passed on watching the gala event. On the other hand, I would sooner have my eyeballs gouged out with red hot pokers then sit through that three-hour-plus Hollywood extravaganza, but I digress.
Penn’s remarks began with “You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns,” a phrase he later repeated (in case we missed it the first time). He went on to reference seeing “signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight.” He was of course referring to that fun loving bunch over at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas who showed up waving anti-gay signs along Hollywood Blvd. and outside the Kodak Theatre. Penn used that as a springboard for chastising supporters of Proposition 8, the California gay marriage ban that passed last fall.
“I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”
Not willing to take these inflammatory remarks lying down, Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries has posted a Youtube video in response:
Here are the main points of Dr White’s rebuttal:
1) “I would simply point out that Hollywood has no basis for making moral and ethical pronouncements. One need only look at the situation in Hollywood these days in regards to illegitimate children, marriages, drug usage, suicide and things like that to recognize that Hollywood is the last place that we should be looking for any type of moral guidance.”
2) “It is quite obvious that Mr. Penn is making reference to Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church cult out of Kansas…a very small group of hate filled people who are false teachers and need to be identified as such. They do of course provide a useful foil for people like Mr. Penn to take their activities, their perspectives and just simply expand them out as if they are representative of sound biblical theology and those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.”
3) “You heard Mr. Penn completely change the reality of history in regards to the situation in California with Proposition 8. This is not a ban on same sex marriage. It as a reaffirmation of the view of marriage that had existed in California from the beginning. And so what you have is the revolutionary attempt to change the definition of marriage.”
4) “He tried to hide the revolutionary rejection of the moral and ethical standards of the nation under the banner of equal rights. This has nothing to do with equal rights. Everyone has the right to marry. This is an issue of what marriage is.”
5) “Finally, I would simply say to Mr. Penn himself, ‘Upon what basis do you assert that I should reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and why do you think that you have the right to offend Christians while accepting an academy award?’ Mr. Penn stood in front of an audience of people that wildly applauded his words and in essence said that I should be ashamed to be a Christian. I should be ashamed to hold the same view that Christians have held down through the ages. If that’s not anti-Christian bigotry what is it? Can someone identify it for me please? Could Mr. Penn say these words to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists? Or is it just because it’s Christians that it’s okay? That seems to be the case in our society today.”
Now if you’re like me, you find this kind of blatantly bigoted double standard absolutely maddening. Seriously, do people like Sean Penn really not see the outrageous hypocrisy in their intolerance toward Christianity? But then I’m reminded in 2 Corinthian 10 of the kind of warfare we’re up against. The Apostle Paul warned us of the mighty fortresses of Satan, “strongholds” of arguments and thoughts and lofty opinions “raised against the knowledge of God.”
Paul explains that “though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power” – 2 Corinthians 10:3-4. You see our tendency is to get all militant, demanding our rights and launching into all out assaults against the opposition. But victory cannot be won in this way using conventional human methodology. Protests, petitions, political activisms are useless in spiritual warfare.
As Dr White reminds us, “We are not given by God the authority to somehow do something about this in this life by force or anger, hatred or anything like that. God is the one who is the author of justice.” On the other hand White urges, “The Christian can respond with rationality, doesn’t have to respond with anger, nastiness, but just simply pointing out the many logical contradictions and the misuse of reasoning.” There’s only one way to take wrong thoughts and make them right and that is to replace error with what?
The TRUTH
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m afraid that, in your search for the holy, you have allowed yourself to cite someone who is bearing false witness.
This is not a ban on same sex marriage.
Yes, it is. Proposition 8’s intent was to prevent same-sex civil marriage from being allowed; its effect was to end same-sex civil marriage in the state.
Upon what basis do you assert that I should reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ
Mr. Penn did no such thing, made no mention of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
why do you think that you have the right to offend Christians while accepting an academy award?
This I will not claim is a false witness statement, but I will note that Mr. Penn has the same right that Dr. White is exercising: the right of any man to speak his mind, a right which is well-protected in this nation as a reflection of man’s free will.
Could Mr. Penn say these words to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists? Or is it just because it’s Christians that it’s okay?
Mr. Penn did in fact say the same words to Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. He said them to Christians whether they voted for or against Proposition 8, and the same is true of those other religions. Mr. Penn made no specific mention of Christians in his acceptance speech, in no way differentiated them from anyone else who supported 8 (and to be clear, there were many Christians who opposed it, and many non-Christians who were in support of it.) The Oscar audience is not somehow exclusively Christian.
There are many honest stances Dr. White could have taken against Mr. Penn’s acceptance speech (or the half-minute thereof which focused on the same-sex marriage issue). It is a shame that he chose instead to go after straw men
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
White is right. I think I’ve said that a few hundred times. The man can argue a point, and he makes his apologetic arguments available for Christians to learn and use. I have great respect for this man.
Jude 3 “earnestly contend”
March 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Nat G.
Let’s talk about straw men, shall we? Sean Penn’s reference to “signs of hatred” was unmistakable and the implication was pretty clear. It is a straw man to imply that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 is just like Fred Phelps and his band of lunatic fringe church people. It is also a straw man to assert that disallowing same sex marriage is a denial of equal rights. No one’s right to marry has been denied. What the people of California have done (not once but twice now) is to reaffirm the historical traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and woman. If anything’s been denied here it’s the ability of a small minority of people to revolutionarily change the definition of everyone else’s marriage.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“It is also a straw man to assert that disallowing same sex marriage is a denial of equal rights.”
That may be a point of view; I don’t think it’s a straw man. Would we all be said to have equal religious rights if we were all merely free to worship Allah with as much love as we have in our hearts? Of course not. Do we have equal rights to speech if I’m free to say what I want to say and you’re free to say only what I want to say? No. The limitation of only being allowed to member someone of the opposite sex is no limitation for those who are only interested in the opposite sex; it is a limitation solely on those who are interested. Those are not equal.
You may argue there is a reason for unequal rights; there are certainly plenty of occassions where we legitimately give people different levels of rights. But I cannot agree that the question of equal rights is a mere straw man in this case.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Nat G., it seems that you don’t understand the concept of an oxymoron.
Marriage is an inherently hetersexual union and has always been a union between men and women. Marriage has been expressed through the form of monogamy, though:
Polygamy — the union of one man and several women — has been the historical norm; and
Polyandry — the union of one woman and multiple men — though much rarer, is not unheard of.
Jack Kerwick makes these very points in his article, “The Oxymoron of “Gay Marriage”.” It’s online and easy to find.
“Same-Sex Civil Marriage” — your term — is an oxymoron.
Nat G., if you want to change the definition of marriage, I’m a voter who will certainly oppose you. That might matter little to you, but of much worse consequence, the God of the Bible condemns you.
Yet, I’m guessing you don’t believe in the God of the Bible, or that the Bible is inerrant, correct?
March 4th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Nat G.
Here’s the problem with your analogy. Allowing everyone the opportunity to worship whatever god they choose in no way redefines my worship. And allowing everyone the opportunity to say whatever they want to say in no way redefines what I say. But allowing people to marry whomever or whatever they please does in fact radically redefine marriage for everyone. Like it or not, that is the real issue at stake.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am
That may be a good argument for being against the equalization of rights; it does not mean that it is not a question of equalization of rights.
But I find it unconvincing. My marriage to my wife is not redefined when to other people marry, even if it’s two other people I don’t think should get married. It’s still my commitment to her, and hers to me.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Well then, Nat G., I would challenge you to consider the issue a little more thoroughly, because it does profoundly affect both your marriage and everyone else’s. Here’s the thing. If the argument is that two people who love each other should have the right to marry, then where does that end? I love my mom, I love my sister, I love my daughter and my grandmother. I even love my dog. But should I be allowed to marry any of them? And why stop there? Why not legalize polygamy while we’re at it? Or what moral argument could you make against group marriage, say four men and a dozen women?
But then we would have to come back to the question of “what is marriage?” What is its definition? What are we saying when we say we’re married? If anyone can marry anybody with no parameters then what have you really got? I’ll tell you what you’ve got. You’ve got nothing. If marriage can be anything to anyone then it means nothing.
When my wife and I got married we made a commitment to each other based on the historical traditional definition of marriage. Now you’re saying equality dictates that marriage be radically redefined to include something that I didn’t sign up for. Now maybe that doesn’t mean anything to you, Nat G., but it certainly does to me.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
…..okay Don I’ll just keep my mouth shut
March 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Don:
I was married in this state before the legalization of gay marriage. Then legalization took place, and far from my marriage being profoundly effected, my marriage remained the same stable bedrock of love and commitment that it was before legalization. All your theories to the contrary, the strength and value of my marriage did not rely on other people not getting married. It is still very much what I signed up for (after all, my wife didn’t suddenly become a man; same-sex marriage was not made mandatory.)
March 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Nat G.
I’m happy for you in the strength of your marriage relationship, and may it continue to grow with each passing year, but my concerns are more toward the institution of marriage itself. Your relationship may not have been affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage, but marriage as an institution has been profoundly affected.