Political Propaganda and Its Effects: Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada

The following article from the Aquila Report shows that the two kingdoms theology of Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, and other so-called "Reformed" theologians is really a subtle form of endorsing the theonomic left in the political realm:

The Impact on Human Rights The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life. A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext. When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.  Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada

In short, there is no such thing as  "neutral" or "amoral" government.  Those who would radically divorce the Christian or the Christian churches from any voice in the political process are in effect endorsing godless atheism and humanistic secularism.  Although it is true that the Christian churches' primary mission is to preach the law and the Gospel and to make disciples, it is not true that the church not called to be the moral conscience of the nation.  Horton and Clark seem to think that endorsing homosexuality in the secular government is irrelevant to the church.  The fact is, however, is that here is only one source of truth, namely God.  God's divine revelation in the Bible is the final rule for faith and practice.  That rule is revealed in God's moral law.  If the Christian is compelled to love his neighbor, that would mean protecting his neighbor from false teaching--even if that false teaching is taking place in the propaganda of the government, in the media, and in the public education system. 

Moreover, endorsing sin has social and societal consequences, which consequences have a devastating effect on church disciple and the mission of the church in regards to Christian education and evangelism.  Make no mistake about it here.  The world is influencing the church and when the church does nothing to speak out publicly against these intrusions into the sphere of religion by the state, then the result can only be the oppression and persecution of Christians and the church.  The result is also a weakening of the resolve of conservative churches so that they too will become  moral relativists and compromisers.