Jar of Hearts

There seems to be a trend out there, a Christian person on an organisation voices what is a rather ordinary opinion and receives a backlash for it from other Christians.

I wrote a letter to/for World Vision pointing out how their Christian Charity put the children at risk. That “good” Christians who wished to defend the sanctity of marriage were incapable of defending the sanctity of a child’s future. That thousands of children’s sponsorships were cancelled because World Vision was going to stop discriminatory hiring practices. Children in developing nations were held hostage to a Christian Temper Tantrum. And Christians walked away feeling all smug. They had done a good deed. They were so principled that they were willing to deny children charity just to stop gays being hired by World Vision USA.

And now Jars of Clay singer is in trouble for not giving a toss about Gay Marriage. I seriously don’t care about Gay Marriage. I think Gay people should be allowed to get married, and after that I don’t care what they do. Do they stay together and get a fairy tale romance? Do they have fights, cheat on each other and get divorced? I don’t care because it’s not my business. You be gay, you be the best damn homosexual that you can be my good friends. I support your right to get married and have the same rights as straight couples do. What you do is none of my business unless you are harming people (which you aren’t.

But the Christian dialogue? That’s different.

Dan Haseltine couldn’t think of any reasons to fear gay marriage, but Charisma News soon set him straight (sorry! No more puns)

In a series of tweets posted over a three-day period, and prompted by a movie he watched while in flight, he wrote: “The treatment of people as less than human based on the color of skin is crazy… Or gender, or sexual orientation for that matter.” Of course, to compare skin color with “sexual orientation” is to compare apples with oranges, as has been demonstrated many times before.

No that isn’t a demonstration so much as a declaration of a lack of bias. Historically gay people were persecuted too. It your defence of your bigotry boils down to “It’s not as bad as how we treated black people” then your defence fucking sucks. Hey! We invaded Iraq! You should be thankful! We could have nuked you like Japan!

It’s stupid to say this but it really is this argument at it’s core. We treated someone worse than this, stop claiming injustice. Gay people were not chained up and persecuted for just being gay.

Well there goes that argument

But that was only the beginning. He added, “Not meaning to stir things up BUT… Is there a non-speculative or non ‘slippery slope’ reason why gays shouldn’t marry? I don’t hear one.” This really boggles the mind.

There isn’t one but boy do anti-Gay people try to construct one.

When you’re sliding down a dangerous slippery slope, you don’t say, “Give me one good reason we’re in danger, other than the fact that we’re careening down this deadly slope.” No. You grab hold of something to stop your fall and then figure out how to climb back to solid ground. Does this gifted artist not realize that the only reason we’re talking about redefining marriage today is because we are well down that slope already?

We are in a desperate freefall, civilisation will not last, the youngest generation are terrible.

This is the battlecry of old guys forever. There were writers in the Classical Era of Ancient Greece, Rome and Babylon who wrote about kids these days and how civilisation would fall.

We still moan about  my generation of 99s and 00s who amount to nothing! This generation is the most politically savvy, intelligent, well educated and aware generation we have ever had. Binge drinking is at an all time low, drug usage is at an all time low, productivity is at an all time high.

What doomed our generation was not our lack of work but the greed of the prior generations who traded in our turn to earn for more money. It’s why I do not have a stable future to look to when I get back to the UK. It was not by our lack of work, our laziness. But the very people who bemoan the slippery slope.

This is the day of full-blown incestuous relationships on popular TV shows like Game of Thrones; of other shows glorifying polyamory (married and dating!), polygamy (from Big Love to Sister Wives to My Five Wives), and teen pregnancy; of news reports about the “wedding” of three lesbians. It is the day of almost half of all first-time American mothers having their babies out of wedlock, with cohabitation rates up more than 700% since 1960, and it is against this backdrop that talk of same-sex “marriage” has become prominent.

1. Jamie and Cersei Lannister are not good people. They are constantly portrayed as shit heads. Jamie less so but Cersei is a epic dick. To hold them as poster children for incest also holds them as poster children for throwing children off towers.

2. Why is it that no one ever sees Game of Thrones and worries about it causing more Crossbow and Sword crime?

3. I haven’t really thought about it, but now watching two clearly disliked individuals have incestuous sex has made me want to shag my brother! Jokes aside? It’s not game of thrones causing things like this. It is hypocrisy.

4. Polyamory? Why is it bad? Is it because people are having sex and you don’t like it? Oh no! People want to have a relationship with more than one person and don’t think love is limited to one person. That’s so bad. In other news? There is a worm that causes anaemia in millions of people across the planet.

5. Teen Pregnancy was the norm for most of human history. I am surprised no one really holds Game of Thrones as something encouraging teen pregnancy.

6. American mothers are having bastards… We must send them all to the Wall. The bastards shall hold no land or titles and know no women and sire no children.

Do we really want to accelerate the destruction of marriage?

If Britney Spears and those Pastors who were shagging Rent Boys and Molesting Children couldn’t break marriage, Elton John won’t. What’s he going to do? Make us all wear stupid glasses till our sex lives stop?

I know  what this is!

If we let women vote then where does this all end? Black people? Cows? Sheep! Good god man! Can you imagine voting for a sheep! The grass industry would be ruined, we will all be forced to be vegans and we will go to war with China (Sheep are notorious Hawks, everyone knows that!)

Dan also tweeted, “I’m trying to make sense of the conservative argument. But it doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny. Feels akin to women’s suffrage. Is the argument born of isolated application of scripture or is it combined with the knowledge born of friendship with someone who is gay? I just don’t see a negative effect to allowing gay marriage.  No societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage. ?? Anyone?” Assuming Dan’s sincerity, let me reply to his questions.

See I like Dan, it’s his fans I don’t like. Dan should consider a secular career. Relax  mate, Jesus can survive just fine without you writing creepy love songs and replacing the lady/dude with Jesus.

First, for years now, Christian leaders have been articulating many good reasons why it is not good for society to redefine marriage, quite apart from the (very valid) slippery slope argument, and some of them have not even used the Bible to prove their points. Important books on the subject include those of Frank Turek,Matthew D. StaverErwin Lutzer, and, most recently, Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Andersen, among others.

This would be fine if we lived in a Christian society and marriage were the sole purview of Christians but no. All this does is provide me with an excellent reason to destroy marriage. If Marriage is a Christian Institute in the USA then my the separation of Church and State, the US government cannot give monetary subsidies in support of a single religious group. For this reason Marriage Cannot Be Supported.

Just like in Sweden where the marriage rates are low because there are no specific benefits to getting married since everyone cohabiting can get the same “benefits”.

Boom! You guys just killed marriage! Or do you think marriage is going  to die without our crass humanist interference of subsidy when divinely ordained by your gods?

In a secular view of marriage? There is no reason why gay people cannot sign a register and gain a subsidy that helps them live as a couple.

Second, while there is strong biblical support for gender distinction, there is no support for the oppression of women, which is why the spread of Christianity around the world has had a liberating effect on women over the centuries. In stark contrast, the Bible condemns all forms of homoeroticism (as is recognized by many gay scholars as well), while every single example of God-blessed marriage or romance takes place between a man and a woman. I have an online lecture that addresses this issue, and I tackle the subject at length in my new book as well. There is simply no comparison between women’s rights and sanctioning homosexual practice.


Yeah and Jesus hung out with 13 dudes and was betrayed by a kiss. And I have seen your Jesus statues, very buff, very S&M. I am no expert on homosexual things but gay guys like buff dudes in loin cloths right? The Bible may not be “gay” but Christianity is very homoerotic

Festooning our mainly male dominated society with naked men, that’s straight right?

But all this pales in comparison to the frankly idiotic claim that Christianity has had a liberating effect on women when one of the biggest forces against Universal Suffrage was the Church and even to this very day, the Christian Churches of various denominations oppose women’s rights in the workplace, in society and in healthcare.

If there was a god, then a lie of this magnitude should turn you into a stoat. However if your god existed? He would turn your wife into one to punish you. This is as idiotic as the Muslim apologists who claim Islam is liberating to women.

Third, the argument against same-sex “marriage” is based on the consistent testimony of Scripture, affirmed by Moses, Jesus, and Paul, and it is never contradicted a single time from Genesis to Revelation. Again, I demonstrate this in my new book, and other scholars, most notably Robert A. Gagnon, have argued this persuasively in depth. (Despite many attacks on his work, his arguments stand strong.)

One would not there is no testimony or argument against slavery.

And a rather simple solution? If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married. I don’t like brussel sprouts but you don’t see me heaping it onto my plate and whinging about the satanic sprouts conspiracies.

Fourth, many of us have gay friends or relatives, and our positions are motivated by love. But what does having a gay friend or relative have to do with understanding God and his Word? I have dear friends who are very religious Jews, and they are some of the finest people I know, yet I still believe they are lost without Jesus. (And they, of course, see me as gravely deceived.)

We love you, so we will fuck with your happiness. After all Gay is such an ironic term for Homosexuals who are beset by bullying, hate crimes and a systemic religious drive to oppose any rights.

See, I just think you a re a disingenuous arsehole who thinks that his magic fairy in the sky is the realsiest.

Arguing whether Iron Man or Batman is better is more productive IMHO than religion because even the most rabid comic book fan at Comic Con dressed as their favourite hero knows that their hero is an idea that never really existed in the first place.

Do we rewrite the Bible to accommodate our sentiments towards others, just because they are nice people?

Yes, yes we do. We handily ignore all those cruel genocides exhorted by your kind and loving god to rewrite him into benevolence.

Fifth, as articulated in the books cited in the first point, above, there are many negative consequences to redefining marriage, including: The assault on the freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion of those who do not accept this redefinition; the establishing of households that guarantee that a child will have either no father or no mother; the transformation of children’s education to include the validation of all forms of “marriage”; the continued deconstruction of gender distinctions, leading to all kinds of societal confusion; and much, much more.

In all consciousness there are people who cannot accept their children dating people of another race.

It is not an assault on the freedom of speech to deny homophobia.

If your religion is harmful and bigoted then it must be opposed.

It is that simple. You hold gay people hostage through hate and abuse the ideals of free speech, conscience and religion.

There are plenty of children who have no father or no mother. They grow up to be just fine. Some of them grow up to be Presidents of the USA.

There are plenty of children with no fathers or mothers. Even if you claim that single parenthood and two fathers/mothers is inferior to the alleged gold standard of heterosexual parentage then even you can accept that something is better than nothing.

Okay that’s a bad argument. The truth is? What makes a good parent is not your XY/XX or your genitals. Mere biological inheritence doesn’t make you a good parent. Just look at mine? Mine are cruel and capricious and bigoted.

Look at Ashley Miller’s parents? Racist. Simply  being straight doesn’t make you a good parent. Neither doe being gay.

What makes you a good parent is how you treat your children, how you help shape them for a future life. And you would think this way if you think gender distinctions ever existed in rural life. Your vagina doesn’t exclude you from wrestling sheep and your penis doesn’t exclude you from carrying sacks of grain. In fact the roles of men and women were polarised more in the idealised city life where women could afford to keep house.

It’s like that laughable MRA argument about Dalit Women being less oppressed than Dalit men because they don’t work. Not the reality that many poor women have to work because you can’t sit around expecting your poor bloke to bring in a living wage without you helping out. Economic Pressure makes fools of social norm and has done so historically. What really changed is the value we gave women in work and what jobs we encouraged them to take. Gone were the sweatshop jobs and in came the heavy machinery and factory lanes. Gone were the sales jobs and in came the service industry. What job equality about was never about women working, but them working in lucrative working, middle and upper class jobs. What it was about was doing a “man’s” job.

Gender roles are social constructs, if we want our kids to grow up healthy we should stop forcing them to confirm to gender roles that harm them and encourage them to be the best they can be.

It is for good reason that gay activists have long declared that if they can redefine marriage, the rest of their goals will inevitably be realized. In short, yes, redefining marriage declares a massive war on “traditional marriage” (better framed as “true marriage” or “natural marriage”) and yes, it leads to all kinds of societal breakdown.

Marriage is a social contract and as constructed by human beings as fire or the wheel.

Put another way (and this is a question for you, Dan), Do you think that God’s order for marriage and family, established plainly in the Word and recognized by virtually all societies in history, can be thrown aside without consequences?

Yes, it can.

We threw aside slavery and lightning has not descended from the sky to smite abolitionists.

Dan, you wrote, “Never liked the phrase: ‘Scripture clearly says…(blank) about… Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong.” Perhaps this is the root of your problem? Is the Bible not clear about anything? Sin? Salvation? Forgiveness? Jesus being the only Savior and Lord? Adultery being bad? Fidelity being good? Shall I list 100 more items that are abundantly clear in Scripture?

Whipping slaves being okay. Rape being property crime. Genocide being okay if the voices in your head say so and you win… (That’s the crucial bit)

Do you not realize that couples involved in consensual adult incest (and other relationships) are asking this exact same question? What do you say to them?

The majority of incest is abusive and a product of abusive relationships. Raising a “Jamie and Cersei” event (it’s called a Pharonic Relationship FYI) as a common fear is as idiotic as suggesting we legislate against swimming to cut down on shark attacks.

And there are scientific reasons for being against incest.

Perhaps it is a Jesus-based, Spirit-led, scripturally-grounded morality that is behind our convictions? And if we condone something God opposes – which means that it is not good for the people involved – how are we showing them love? To the contrary, we are actually hurting them.

So love is harassing them, denying them equal rights and encouraging the bullying of children

And Hate is not harassing them, giving them equal rights and stopping bullying.

There is a book called 1984.

I urge you to read it.

My brother, as an influential Christian leader, you have a tremendous responsibility before the Lord to those who follow you, especially to impressionable, young believers, and you have not acted wisely by opening up a volatile discussion like this on Twitter.

Marcus Ranum is being paraphrased here with “Twitter is for 140 word pithy one liners and signal boosting, not debate”.

And oh look! It’s another “Won’t Someone Think of the Children”.

Yes, how will Children be Christian. You may have turned them into decent human beings! Thank goodness we stopped you!

Were there no godly leaders you could counsel with privately? Was it good stewardship of your popularity and influence to announce your views on Twitter and then expect a substantive dialogue delimited by 140 character tweets? Are subjects like the meaning of marriage and the authority of God’s Word in the life of a Christian now decided by who can come up with the catchier sound bite?

140 Characters?

Jehovah spends time hating gays but supporting slavery? Is he a moral being to listen to about the sanctity of human marriage?

Marriage means a promise to try to live the rest of your life with someone you love and respect and cherish.

Sometimes you  don’t need 3500 words to defend these things.

You probably don’t know me from Adam, but I’ll be glad to spend time with you to help you address these issues from the position of grace and truth. My door is open to you, and as one who greatly appreciates the culture-impacting power of music and song, it would be my privilege to meet with you.

There are plenty of statements in the Bible with regards to pride and humility. Grace and Truth looks an awful like bigotry.

That being said, if these tweets expose the soft, scripturally weak underbelly of the contemporary Christian music scene, then let’s put on our seatbelts and expect the worst. The good news is that this will separate the wheat from the chaff, and in the end, the light will outshine the darkness. Editor’s note: On the afternoon of April 25th, Dan Haseltine posted a statement on his website seeking to further clarify his remarks and offering apologies for some poorly worded statements.

If Contemporary Christian Music is what you worry the most about then your problems are awesome and I wish to have them.

What it shows is Dan having to fold on being a decent human being in order to keep his lifestyle as a celebrity


  1. AsqJames says

    You’re wrong Avi, the satanic sprouts conspiracy is a real thing. My family are all in it up to their necks and I suffer the consequences every Christmas…and they are not pleasant consequences let me tell you!

    Apart from that though? You’re 100% right.

  2. says

    They always do go on about “Christian marriage”, “Biblical marriage”, “marriage throughout history”. Or, as this man puts it, “God’s order for marriage and family, established plainly in the Word and recognized by virtually all societies in history, …” or, ““traditional marriage” (better framed as “true marriage” or “natural marriage”)”

    As if any of these concepts fitted their modern idea of one man, one woman, for life. They don’t.

    Biblical marriage: Old Testament. The man was entitled to as many women/girlchildren as he could buy, steal, capture, or rape. He could divorce any one at any time. He was permitted to own sex slaves, aka concubines.

    The woman was entitled only to marry her rapist, bear his children and endure. She wasn’t permitted to leave or divorce him.

    New Testament: the many was ideally to marry one woman. He was encouraged to love her, whatever that meant. He was entitled to a divorce if she didn’t work out. (As in, wasn’t a good enough cook, or other grave shortcomings.)

    She was entitled to obey, submit, “honour” him, raise his children, stay at home. (Paul; “keepers at home”. KJV)

    She was never allowed to divorce him.

    Historical marriage: an arrangement for those who had properties to keep and pass down. Not for the lower classes; they came together and had children without benefit of paperwork until the Church decided they needed a record. Upper class marriages were often of an older man with a young girl, sometimes not even into puberty, arranged with her parents, not her. Divorce could be arranged, with money.

    Women often escaped the marriage via death in childbirth, sometimes still in their teens.

    Different societies throughout time worked it out in various ways, never, as far as I know, with the idea of marriage for love by the choice of both partners, as equals but of opposite sexes, and indissoluble.

    I wonder which of all of these historical models the RR would consider “true marriage”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>