Clearly Mr. Horton should have realized that the use of the term "affirm" implies a positive acceptance to the point of agreeing with the whole concept of homosexual domestic partnerships. But everyone knows (or should know) that positive acceptance of domestic partnerships was the first step towards the current insistence that Americans accept with open arms the idea that a homosexual marriage is nothing different from a heterosexual marriage and that the rights that they now want is to force churches to accept homosexual employees and pastors and to force churches and individuals to give their children up to homosexual couples for adoption as if there is no distinction between a family with a father and mother and a family with either two mothers or two fathers.
We didn't misinterpret what he said. If he actually meant to say that he believes that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children with whom they are not directly blood related or that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and a grievous sin such that it should be discouraged at all levels including the church and society at large, then he should say so. He should AFFIRM the traditional view of homosexuality that it is a sexual perversion and is not to be viewed in any context as NORMAL behavior.
He was obviously referring to me when he said it was ridiculous that we should read between the lines to suggest that he might be willing to officiate at a domestic partnership ceremony, but these days, with all the formerly Reformed Churches slipping into apostasy over the abortion and homosexual issues, we cannot assume that Michael Horton is not capable of following that road into error. We are all sinners saved by grace and there but for the grace of God we would all fall into error.
Let us know if Mr. Horton answers your points. I'd like to see him own up to the error in his use of the term "affirm". I'd like to think that he would be humble enough to admit that the use of that word in that context was regrettable. It seems, however that up to this point he does not regret using that language. That is regrettable.
I believe P-Marlowe hit the nail on the head with his comments that while Dr. Mike Horton “is a giant in theological circles, he is clearly a neophyte in the culture wars.”
I think some Freepers may now be seeing why for several years I've been getting requests from frustrated elders in the Reformed world to pick up my pen and challenge the Two Kingdoms theology, especially its more radical forms. There are very few people with significant experience in the media or in politics who have enough theological training to challenge men like Dr. Horton, Dr. Daryl Hart, Dr. David Van Drunen, Dr. R. Scott Clark, and others.
I don't think I'm adequate to the task. Dr. Horton would blow me away in virtually any debate on theology. My academic and writing abilities aren't anywhere close to those of Dr. Horton and I know that. I regret the need to write what I wrote; somebody else should be doing this work, not me.
However, some things simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and enough Reformed people have been bugging me into publicly challenging the “Two Kingdoms” theologians that I finally decided I need to do so since very few other conservative Reformed people are doing it.
We all specialize. Nobody can be equally good in everything, and Horton has been pretty clear over the years in his opposition to Christians being, in his view, sidetracked into a focus on politics rather than preaching the Gospel. He's got a valid point — too many churches have placed their energies into something that is primarily the task of Christian laymen, not the institutional church — but we saw with this essay the sad result of a Christian citizen wading into the political arena when he wasn't prepared to do so. At the very least, his words could be seriously misinterpreted.
I have great respect for Dr. Horton in his ecclesiastical battles against broad evangelicalism which often claims to be anti-intellectual, anti-creedal, anti-historical, and anti-authoritarian, but out of ignorance has adopted positions which are outright Pelagianism. Years ago, Dr. Horton read a Roman Catholic statement of faith at a certain evangelical school without explaining where the statement came from, asked if they could affirm the statement, and was told that the Roman Catholic statement was “too Calvinist.”
Dr. Horton probably wouldn't like my use of his story, but I've used his narrative as an example of why evangelical Protestants who know their Bibles should cooperate with traditional Roman Catholics. At least committed Catholics know their history and their creeds; too many evangelicals barely know anything about the Bibles whose inerrancy they claim to affirm, focusing on feelings rather than sound teaching. We have a major problem with teaching and discipleship in the evangelical church world, and to his credit, Dr. Horton's focus has been on changing that.
Much of his ministry over the years has avoided politics or deliberately sought to downplay a distinctively Christian view of politics, arguing instead for a “natural law” approach to citizenship in the secular sphere. I have major problems with that.
Now that he's veered into politics... well... his essay didn't make much more sense than something from my pen would make on the subject of a Christian view of sports. I haven't studied the issues in adequate detail, I don't have actual experience in the field, and anything written by me on sports would quickly show I don't know what I'm talking about.
For conservative Reformed people reading this — remember that reformation and revival both require active involvement of laymen. Preachers have their jobs and we have ours.
Dr. Horton's job as a seminary professor is fighting aberrant theology, not political engagement. Let's do something to deal with this “Two Kingdoms” theology, compliment Dr. Horton on the good work he's done in the church, and politely but firmly explain to him and his colleagues that if they really believe what they say about keeping the institutional church out of politics, they need to stay quiet and let us laymen do our job of being Christian citizens fighting evil in the secular world.
I'm not necessarily a firm supporter of the concept that the institutional church has no role in politics — “cases extraordinary” do exist, according to the Westminster Confession, and I believe abortion and homosexual marriage are examples. By his own stated principles, however, Dr. Horton ought to focus on getting rid of advocates of homosexual marriage inside the church like Misty Irons (PCA member and wife of a PCA elder and former OPC minister) while letting us laymen fight political battles in the civil realm.
It gives me no pleasure to criticize Dr. Horton. First and most importantly, I'm not the right person to do so. For a hundred different reasons, I'm simply not qualified. Second, it's always hard to throw stones at someone who's done lots of wonderful work.
It has to be done, however, and I hope enough Reformed people contact Westminster-West to make it clear to Dr. Horton and the seminary administration that this is not a minor issue. Dr. Horton is a reasonable man and I believe he can be persuaded to at least back off from his position even if he doesn't change it. That was a poorly worded essay and as an academic I believe he can affirm the need to use words better than he did.