Slippery Slopes and Sloppy Promises

A Personal Note: Traveling home from Sweden, I picked up Covid and then isolated for two weeks. The lingering brain fog and fatigue are waning, but their effect has hindered writing and research. Hence, posts have been few. But here’s one that I’ve been mulling over for a few months.

In a culture flooded by the Sexual Tsunami, it is important to know who our enemies truly are, and what value compromise might have. This has application to both pastoral ministry and counseling.

Tip O’Neill, the legendary Speaker of the House during the Reagan years, served in an era when true compromise greased the machinery of Washington. A common desire for the good of the country permitted compromise with the Republicans of the House.

Once when sharing a meal with a young colleague, he kept referring to “the enemy”. Finally the other congressman questioned, “By ‘enemy’, you mean the Republicans?”

“Absolutely not!” O’Neill shot back. “They are the opposition. The enemy is the Senate!”[1]

What is true compromise? The prefix com, of course, means “with”. And so two parties who strike a compromise are making a promise with each other. This assumes both parties can be trusted to keep their promises.

In Washington, there is all out war. Foes stare at each other across the aisle. There is little if any trust. While certainly there are bi-partisan efforts (most recently with gun control measures), compromise is generally viewed as the slippery slope to defeat.

For most of my life and ministry, I decried same-sex marriage. And there certainly is no change in how I view the practice. It is absolutely not God’s will.

About twelve years ago, however, I became more concerned about dying churches and lost souls. Our culture was rejecting Jesus because they saw conservative Christians as the angry Republicans who hate gays and lesbians. The “moral majority” which was rallied in the 80’s has dissipated. As a nation, we are bankrupt spiritually and morally.

So when Obergefell v. Hodges became the law of the land, I sighed with disappointment, shrugged, and reasoned that gay and lesbian citizens ought to have the benefits of marriage as long as they honored my religious freedom in refusing to consecrate the bond. But I certainly shared the fear of others who wondered how slippery this slope would be.

Six years ago, the once slow creep of gender ideology became a waxed toboggan on an icy hill—lots of speed, but little control. It has subversively seeped into the halls of legislation, the military, and even the classrooms of little kids.

Will there be more chaos sledding our way down that slope? Without question.

Our cultural attitudes have undergone a swift sea change regarding sexual practices. Ten years ago, the words “polyamory” or “pansexual” were rarely heard. In some states, laws against polygamy are being relaxed or unenforced. Harmful and degrading practices portrayed in porn are being promoted among teens. And just this past week, someone sent me a link to lecture advocating for churches to welcome the practice of polyamory.

A century ago, the practice of BDSM was considered distorted, destructive, and abusive. Chains and leather folks operated in secret, placing coded ads in magazines to find partners. Beginning in the 70’s, they adopted strategies from the LGBT movement, claiming the practice of bondage and sadomasochism was their sexual identity. A network developed where leaders carefully crafted their message that role playing with sadomasochism was “safe, sane, consensual,” and even therapeutic. Their efforts have been greatly emboldened with the publishing of Fifty Shades of Grey”.

So how does peaceful compromise end in a slippery slope? When one of the parties is absolutely determined to break the promise. Historically, this is Neville Chamberlain trying appease Hitler. The latter never had any intention of being content with the compromise.

So also with church leaders. Denominations who have decided to remain together and simply agree to disagree may have begun with the best of intentions. But there are always those in the lower ranks who will gladly give an inch with their fingers crossed. Once the deal is done, they have vowed to keep grasping until they have the entire mile. For them, it’s the ongoing struggle for justice.

My own denomination is on the verge of fracture. Progressives have already broken some hard fought compromises. Centrists now promise a “live and let live” polity. But please note: the gay activist network has made it clear they will infiltrate even the new denomination to stir up dissent.[2]

Sexual wholeness and holiness are clearly linked. When counselees compromise on sexual practices, they can open a door to the powers of darkness who are out to get every inch they can.

Conflicts over sexuality and gender abound. Sabers are being rattled in the halls of congress, the foyers of churches, the kitchen tables of homes. The opposition may well be family, parishioners, longtime clients, and friends. But the true enemy is not flesh and blood. There can be no compromising with darkness.

Compromise with darkness never ends well.

---

[1] Michael Barone once attributed this to O’Neill. The actual origin is questionable. Some point to a representative named Al Smith.

[2] Reconciling Ministries Network vows to continue their “work of transformation and support for LGBTQI+ families” in the newly formed Global Methodist Church. This will doubtless include their ongoing efforts at “social justice”. (Note: the original article for this link has been removed from their site.)