Last week a friend sent me a link to Denny Burk’s blogsite where Dr. Burk noted that an Evangelical church in Colorado has decided to endorse homosexual monogamy as a valid Christian lifestyle.  In the discussion that follows one finds the usual disclaimers of any real connection between Evangelical egalitarianism of the kind that endorses women’s ordination and the endorsement of homosexuality: no “slippery slope” between the two positions and states of mind.  

Generally missing from discussions like this is a sense of the history of what might be called the Evangelical mind, a frank recognition that the Protestant mainline churches, all now only nominally Christian, were all what one would identify as Evangelical a hundred and fifty years ago.  The authority of the Bible was effectively undermined among their leaders by the adoption of European higher criticism beginning soon after the Civil War, and the coup de grâce, which is ridding them of any vestigial orthodoxy, has been administered by the totalitarianism of the sexual revisionists of our time, who are effectively making acceptance of women's ordination and homosexuality requirements for membership in their ministeria.   

The causes are related in their common attack on Christian teaching through sexual perversion, based on the refusal to recognize the nature of sexual being as created and ordained by God.  That one perversion "leads to" another is difficult to prove, and may be fortuitous, but that they are connected to each other by the same dissolution of mind and the same removal of ancient boundary-stones seems hard to deny.  The "otherwise conservative" Evangelical who is in favor of women's ordination but not homosexuality does not see the larger category relation between one kind of sexual rebellion and another, so would be unable to see a slippery slope even if one existed.  That acceptance of homosexuality as a more radical form of the same thing generally follows egalitarianism makes it reasonable to infer a “slope” for the same reason one would acknowledge that an artillery bombardment to weaken defenses before the full attack is customary and reasonable. 

On one hand we have the assertion of no necessary relationship between egalitarianism and endorsement of homosexuality because they are "two different things," and on the other the observation that they are related in character and one generally follows the other chronologically: i.e., the high likelihood of a "slippery slope."  I'll wager you can guess which theory seems more probable to me, and something about what I think will happen to the egalitarian Evangelicalism that just can’t see the connection.