Looking for a Few Gay Men

Continuing my reflections on the PCA’s General Assembly, I’d now like to turn my attention to something that significantly bothered me at the time, and bothers me still. No, it’s not the Strategic Plan (though I hope to write on that as well), it’s this whole thing with the gays. You know, the ones in the military.

First let me bring you up to speed....

The motion on the floor of the Assembly was to petition the government not to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to homosexuals in the armed forces (which it is apparently considering doing). The Westminster Confession of Faith declares:

Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate (xxxi.4).

It was my intention, therefore, to vote against the motion as a matter of principle, since I don’t think the military’s policies are any of our business as officers in Christ’s church (any more than our ecclesiastical practices are any of theirs). But as unprecedented as it may be, this is actually one of those rare cases in which the Department of Defense actually asked the PCA its opinion of the matter (who, us irrelevant?).

All that to say, now I actually had to pay attention to the floor debate.

Of course, there wasn’t much by way of “debate” since no one rose to speak against the motion. What really got under my skin, though, was the attitude displayed by some of those who defended the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT). If I were a betting man, I’d wager that a good 95% of the commissioners in the room took it as a given that the military is a good and godly thing, and that it would take something as insidious and degenerate as homosexuality to tarnish its pristine reputation. One minister virtually insisted that DADT was necessary in order for the armed forces to retain their status as a holy institution akin to work and marriage before the Fall (I’m exaggerating, but only just).

This kind of rhetoric may be fine when everyone agrees on how holy the army is, but for others who are doubtful concerning the motives of those whose financial self-interests are furthered by ceaseless war, well, hearing that keeping the gays quiet will safeguard the honor of the military is a bit bemusing, if not positively ironic.

My point is not to cast aspersion on anyone (least of all soldiers), but simply to say that if homosexuality presents difficulties for the military, then it presents difficulties everywhere else, too. And conversely, to whatever degree the honor of the United States’ armed forces is compromised by gays joining up, to the same degree is Gold’s Gym desecrated when homosexuals work out there.

But why not turn the entire question on its head?

I wonder what would have happened if I had stood up on the floor of General Assembly and argued that gays enlisting in the military would dishonor gays more than it would the military?

Please don’t misunderstand me, this is not my position. I do have a reason for bringing it up, however, which is to challenge the idea—so prominent and even unquestioned in the American church—that the only thing worthy of suspicion concerning U.S. foreign policy is that the men who risk their lives to implement it might be attracted to other men.

In other words, if there were no such thing as homosexuality, would the United States of America really be any more holy than it currently is?