Homosexuality | Anvil House Books

Archives for : Homosexuality

The difference a day makes – Another interpretation

Posted by :webmaster On : November 28, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Government, Homosexuality, Marriage

The voters of Oklahoma amended its state constitution in November 2004 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Following a suit filed in Tulsa County, U.S. District Judge Terrance Kern ruled the ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal, gay marriage became legal in spite of the wishes of approximately 75% of Oklahoma’s electorate. [1]

Toby Jenkins, head of Oklahomans for Equality, hails the decision as a sunrise on a new day that ended “marriage discrimination” in Oklahoma. He cites four examples of such alleged discrimination: failure to process loan applications by same-sex couples, prohibition of same-sex couples from sharing an apartment in an assisted living center, prohibition from having a vehicle title issued in both names of a same-sex married couple legally married in another state, and prohibition of the right to request cremation of a deceased partner by the other partner in a same-sex relationship. [2]

However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear challenges to rulings allowing same-sex marriage in some states may be more of a go-slow approach than an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ November 6th ruling favored those that define marriage as being between one man and one woman and almost guarantees the highest court will take up the issue at some point. The language within the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is significant, “…marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [3]

In upholding the traditional view of marriage, the court’s verdict ended with these words. “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.” [4]

For most people in Oklahoma and America, Mr. Jenkins’ sunrise for equality is in reality a sunset for liberty. Ultimately, same-sex marriage is not just about equality, honor, and dignity for the proponents of same-sex marriage but a means to force the majority of Americans to forfeit their religious beliefs, bow to the god of equality, and embrace the consequent moral relativism which provides no means for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that deny this reality of the LGBT agenda, just ask the president of Gordon, a Christian college that is being threatened with loss of accreditation because of the school’s longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff and its public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians. [5] Or ask the Lexington, Kentucky, tee-shirt maker who was found to have violated the city’s Human Rights Commission’s “fairness” ordinance and was ordered to attend “diversity training” for re-education. His crime? He refused to make tee-shirts for participants in a local gay-pride parade. [6] Or ask Jennifer Keeton, a former graduate student in counseling at Augusta State University, who was threatened with expulsion unless she changed her religious beliefs that failed “to conform to professional standards” with regard to LGBT issues. [7]

For millions of others in America who oppose the LGBT same-sex agenda because they adhere to the tenets of their Christian faith, the sun is setting on religious freedom as the nation descends into a dark night of coercion and oppression.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Writ of Certiorari, The Supreme Court of the United States, Sally Howe Smith v. Mary Bishop, et.al., August 6, 2014. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Oklahoma-Smith-petition-8-6-14.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[2] Toby Jenkins, “The difference a day makes,” Tulsa World, November 9, 2014, G-6.
[3] United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 14-1341, Opinion, November 6, 2014. p.7. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[4] Ibid., p. 42.
[5] Matt Rocheleau, “Accrediting agency to review Gordon College,” The Boston Globe, July 11, 2014. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting- standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
[6] Tony Perkins, “Intolerance fits liberals to a T (Shirt),” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 9, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/intolerance-fits-liberals-to-a-t-shirt (accessed October 13, 2014).
[7] Sarah Netter, “Georgia Grad Student Sues University Over Gay Sensitivity Training,” abcNews/US, July 27, 2010, http://abcnews.go. com/US/georgia-student-sues-university-lgbt-sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490 (accessed August 7, 2010).

How we choose to deal with our sin defines our destiny

Posted by :webmaster On : November 7, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Homosexuality

Bishop Edward J. Slattery, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, recently wrote of the confusion within the Catholic Church regarding its teaching on divorce, cohabitation, and people who experience same-sex attractions (“We are not defined by our sin”). He states that much of this confusion resulted from the Vatican’s October publication of a working paper (Relatio post Disceptationem) of the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family whose purpose was to raise awareness of significant pastoral issues concerning divorce, cohabitation, and homosexuality. The document was designed “…to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured.” [1] [emphasis added]

One of Bishop Slattery’s concerns is that much of the confusion results from contemporary commentators and even some in the church who use language that tends to diminish the human person through emphasis on their sinful activity. This is a legitimate concern, and as the bishop states, “…activity should never be confused with identity. The human person always remains greater than what he or she does or experiences.” [2] The Bishop is correct in that the importance of man’s identity is confirmed by the inestimable value God places on man. The tremendous value of man to God is undeniable when one considers that the cost of man’s redemption from his sinful state was the sacrifice of God’s own Son on the cross. Therefore, God does not condemn man nor can the church. But man was given freewill, and with freewill man made choices that are in conflict with God’s commandments and plan for mankind and thereby condemned himself. When this happened, it was called sin and broke the relationship between God and man. It is at this point that man often attempts to justify his activity because of his identity, and the modern church is often a co-conspirator in excusing sinful activity.

From a broader perspective, it would appear that much of the confusion in the church world stems from the church’s efforts (both Catholic and Protestant) to be inclusive of people who want to be accepted by the church but also want their sinful lifestyles to be accepted too. To do so they engage in theological contortions to answer questions and give perspective that will bring “maturity” (i.e., acceptance of the sinner and the sin within the church). It is in these efforts that the Bible is ignored even though it is the ultimate source of truth and is exceptionally clear in most cases as to God’s answers and perspective with regard to both sin and the sinner.

An example of this confusion and blurring of lines with regard to sin, the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops correctly states that, “God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God’s love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it.” [3] However, this truthful teaching is often perverted to mean that love is all that is necessary by those wanting the church to embrace both the sinner and his sin. To do so dismisses the admonitions of Paul to the Romans regarding homosexuality which are clear-cut and still applicable in the twenty-first century. [4] This is but one example of the great caustic of relativism seeping into the church and by which biblical truths are ignored and eroded.

To claim love is all that is necessary is to dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world to obtain forgiveness for man, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow His commandments. But, if love is all that is necessary, then the cross becomes irrelevant, sin is a misnomer, Satan is a myth, and God does not care about how we live our lives.

Bishop Slattery rightly says, “Chastity, after all, pertains not just to our behavior but also to the state of our hearts.” [5] Acceptance of Christ is first a matter of the heart. We can’t clean up our lives before we approach Christ. Every human approaches Christ as a sinner whether he is guilty of adultery, homosexual behavior, fornication, murder, theft, or one of a thousand other sins. I am a sinner saved by grace, the unmerited favor of Christ. I have repented of my sin and have been forgiven. Not only have I repented of past sins, I have turned from my sinful ways. Homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, and any other label the sinner wears can repent, be saved, and fellowship with God for eternity. However, to do so, they cannot stay in their sin. When the sinner accepts Christ he must put away the sin and often this “putting away” can be a difficult and continuing struggle for the new Christian. But it is the struggle to lay down one’s sin coupled with continued repentance which makes the difference, not a continuing indifference to one’s sin.

In 1937, the Confessing Church in Germany was under severe persecution from Nazi rulers and that portion of the German church aligned with Hitler. Brilliant theologian, pastor, and opponent of the Nazi regime, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a dramatic paper in which he cautioned his fellow pastors in the Confessing Church.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…The promise of grace is not to be squandered; it needs to be protected from the godless. Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The world upon whom grace is thrust as a bargain will grow tired of it, and it will not only trample upon the Holy, but also will tear apart those who force it on them. For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance. [6]

Americans are especially averse to pain and suffering, and much of the modern church has that mindset. This is why it is difficult for some in the church to require the often painful “putting away” of sin when it welcomes the sinner into the supposed “big tent” of Christianity under the banner of love. Many in the modern church insist that the problem is not “cheap grace” but “cheap laws.” In other words, love and looking to Christ is all that matters. But grace without repentance is still cheap grace. Writing in his classic work The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer described this toxin within the church.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. [7]

When we approach the cross with a contrite heart, our destiny is defined by how we respond to Christ’s invitation to be a part of His eternal kingdom. A person who willfully continues in his sin cannot be excused for they “…are [not] open to growing in virtue” and their heart remains unconverted. If the church does not make this distinction clear, it is guilty of misleading people as to their eternal destination.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Edward J. Slattery, Bishop of Tulsa Diocese, “We are not defined by our sin,” Tulsa World, October 18, 2014, A17;
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/readersforum/bishop-edward-j-slattery-we-are-not-defined-by-our/article_bb6fed60-fa34-581b-951c-5884295d6ffa.html (accessed October 20, 2014).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gavin Newsom, et.al., Letter to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, June 10, 2014.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.sfgate.com/file/829/829-ArchbishopLetter.pdf (accessed June 23, 2014).
[4] Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV
[5] Slattery, A17.
[6] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[7] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God,” (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117-118.

The synchronization of the American church?

Posted by :webmaster On : October 24, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Homosexuality

“This court has no jurisdiction over me, I am a German,” insisted Herman Goring as he stood with other Nazi war criminals in 1946 before an international military tribunal in Nuremburg, Germany. But Robert Jackson, chief counsel for the United States, responded that “…there was a ‘law above the law’ that stood in judgment of all men in all countries and societies.”[1] These contrasting views of the source of laws by which men should be judged continue to be at the heart of the cultural conflict in America—is the ultimate source of law to be God or man? Modern America and the American church face the same dilemma as faced by Germany and the German church of the 1930s.

We have previously quoted Eric Metaxas with regard to the dramatic changes in German life following the democratic election of Adolf Hitler on January 30, 1933. In less than two months the democratically elected Reichstag (parliament) succumbed to pressure from the Nazi political machine and placed the whole power of the government under Hitler’s control. Thus began a series of radical changes to conform all of German life to Nazi rule. Metaxas’ eloquent assessment of events bears repeating.

With the tools of democracy, democracy was murdered and lawlessness made “legal.” Raw power ruled, and its only real goal was to destroy all other powers besides itself…In the First months of Nazi rule, the speed and scope of what the Nazis intended and had begun executing throughout German society were staggering. Under what was called the Gleichschaltung (synchronization), the country would be thoroughly reordered along National Socialist lines. No one dreamed how quickly and dramatically things would change.[2] (emphasis added)

Herman Goring, the second most powerful man in Germany and founder of the Gestapo, called this dramatic reordering of society merely an “administrative change.”[3] “Everything must now be synchronized under the Fuhrer’s leadership and under the idea of Gleichschaltung—and the church must lead the way.”[4] The synchronization of the church began with a series of regulations and laws that effectively wed the church to the state and compromised the very biblical principles upon which their faith rested. These laws and regulations initially dealt with the “Jewish question” and included restrictions on Jews from serving in professions such as the law, medicine, teaching, literature, the arts, theater, and film. Christians of Jewish blood were also prohibited from serving in the ministry.[5]

Casting aside two millennia of Christian orthodoxy, the majority of the German churches willingly allowed themselves to be synchronized with the prevailing German political and social goals instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They wanted a strong state-oriented church, a “positive Christianity” that was “very aggressive in attacking those who didn’t agree with them and generally caused much confusion and division in the church.”[6] Eventually, the German church of the 1930s separated into three groups: the large apostate German Christian church, the Confessing church which initially opposed Hitler but became the silent church of appeasement, and a small but faithful remnant that became the uncompromising and suffering church. We see much the same divisions between churches in twenty-first century America, only the dividing factor is now centered on humanism which Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “the most severe enemy” that Christianity ever had.[7]

Bonhoeffer was a leader in in opposition to the Nazis and the German apostate church. Bonhoeffer preached that the purpose of the state was to make possible law and order as opposed to lawlessness and disorder, and it was the church’s role to “continually ask” whether the state’s actions could be justified as legitimate. But Bonhoeffer also recognized that the state could not only fail by in the provision of law and order but could also harm society with the imposition of “excessive law and order.”[8] Metaxas quotes Bonhoeffer’s indictment of the Nazi regime.

And if on the other hand, the state is creating an atmosphere of “excessive law and order,” it’s the job of the church to draw the state’s attention to that too. If the state is creating “excessive law and order,” then “the state develops its power to such an extent that it deprives Christian preaching and Christian faith…of their rights.” Bonhoeffer called this a “grotesque situation.” “The church,” he said, “must reject this encroachment of the order of the state precisely because of its better knowledge of the state and of the limitations of its action. The state which endangers the Christian proclamation negates itself.”[9]

An excess of law and order makes it difficult if not impossible for the church to question the state regarding the legitimacy of its actions. By questioning the state’s excessive laws and order imposed on its citizens, the church may violate the very laws to which it objects. The inability of the church to question the state with regard to its actions is particularly relevant to the twenty-first century American church which finds itself at the same point of decision as faced by the German Church in 1933. Here we return to our initial observation that essence of the modern struggle in America is to determine whether man’s law supersedes God’s law. Put another way, is man’s law above God’s law as implied by Herman Goring and much of the humanistic leadership in American society? Two immediate examples expose the seriousness and immediacy of the challenge to the church.

Annise Parker is the left-leaning and openly gay mayor of Houston, Texas, America’s fourth largest City. In May she imposed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance which prohibits businesses from discriminating against gay and transgender residents. The ordinance became known as the “bathroom bill” because one of the provisions allows transgender individuals to use either a male or female public restroom facility. Opposition to the ordinance began growing during the summer as pastors and various religious leaders gathered signatures for a referendum to be placed on the November ballot which would repeal the ordinance if passed. To prevent the referendum, the city attorney subsequently rejected thousands of signatures he believed did not qualify.[10]

Under the guidance of the mayor and city attorney, both still smarting from the significant efforts of the religious community to repeal the human rights ordinance, five pastors were subpoenaed and ordered to turn over to their sermons, text messages, photographs, electronic files, calendars, and emails and virtually all communication with members of their congregations on topics such as homosexuality and gender identity. The pastors face fines and possible incarceration if they fail to do so. The obvious goal of the mayor and city attorney is intimidation. However, one pastor responded, “We’re not intimidated at all. We’re not going to yield our First Amendment rights—even if it ends in fines, confinement, or both.”[11] With opposition growing to the mayor’s effort to silence the church, Houston City Attorney Feldman remained unfazed and warned the pastors that, “The fact that you happen to be a pastor and you happen to be at a church doesn’t provide you with protection.”[12] But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had a different interpretation for Feldman contained in an official letter to the city, “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment. The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government. Nothing short of an immediate reversal by your office will provide that security.”[13] [emphasis added]

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, is a lot smaller (about 46,000) and a long way from America’s fourth largest city. But for the liberals and other advocates of the homosexual agenda, no place is too small to be overlooked when rooting out any perceived violation of human rights. Ministers Don and Evelyn Knapp who have been marrying couples for twenty-five years at their Hitching Post Wedding Chapel recently discovered this when the city told them that they would go straight to jail if they refused to “marry” same-sex couples (180 days in jail and fines up to $1,000 per day for every day the ministers refuse to perform the ceremony). Unlike the Colorado cake baker’s business, the Knapp’s chapel is a religious corporation. But this makes little difference to the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender mafia as they trample religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment under the guise of achieving their perverted definition of human rights.[14]

Albert Einstein was exiled from Germany because he was a Jew. Although he did not believe in a personal God, he was not an atheist. He described himself as somewhere between an agnostic and belief in a pantheistic god in which nature is the totality of everything and is identical with divinity. Yet, even though he was not a believer in Christianity, the suffering church had a profound impact on his life.

Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came I looked to the universities to defend it…the universities took refuge in silence. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers…but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors…They are, in turn, very dumb. Only the church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.[15]

As it was for the German church in 1933, it is decision time for the American church of today. We must ask ourselves: At what point do we have to become lawbreakers rather than betray our faith? The Houston pastors have given their answer.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 60-61.
[2] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 149-150.
[3] Ibid., p. 157.
[4] Ibid., p 176.
[5] Ibid., pp. 150-151, 156-157, 160.
[6] Ibid., p. 151.
[7] Ibid., p. 85.
[8] Ibid., pp. 153-154.
[9] Ibid., p. 153.
[10] Josh Sanburn, “Houston Pastors Outraged After City Subpoenas Sermons Over Transgender Bill,” Time, October 17, 2014.
http://time.com/3514166/houston-pastors-sermons-subpoenaed/ (accessed October 21, 2014).
[11] Tony Perkins, “Houstunned: Pastors Vow to Fight Mayor’s Sermon Grab,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 15, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/houstunned-pastors-vow-to-fight-mayors-sermon-grab (accessed October 21, 2014).
[12] Tony Perkins, “A Subpoena for Your Thoughts…”, Tony Perkins Washington Update, October 17, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/a-subpoena-for-your-thoughts (accessed October 21, 2014).
[13] Tony Perkins, “Pulpit Friction: Texas Leaders Rally to Pastors’ Defense,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 16, 2014. http://www.frcblog.com/2014/10/pulpit-friction-tx-leaders-rally-pastors-defense/ (accessed October 21, 2014).
[14] Tony Perkins, “Natural Marriage in Idaho: Give it Arrest,” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 20, 2014.
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/natural-marriage-in-idaho-give-it-arrest (accessed October 21, 2014).
[15] Lutzer, p. 89-90.

Connecting the dots: The homosexual agenda

Posted by :webmaster On : October 17, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, Education, Equality, Homosexuality

For many Americans who have been clueless about the homosexual agenda and its ultimate goal for American culture, the rapidity of recent events has caused their understanding to become clearer as the relevant features of the agenda reveal the big picture. Much like connecting the dots on a child’s line art puzzle, Americans are increasingly able to connect the dots of the homosexual agenda as each event/demand/right is connected with a preceding event/demand/right until what was once a jumble of seemingly unrelated and innocuous platitudes, occurrences, demands, and actions becomes a recognizable and frightening reality.

One of the major tools for winning concessions for the homosexual agenda is the plea/demand/right for tolerance and equality as defined by humanism. The humanists would force all to bend their knees at the altar of tolerance and equality, but that altar requires bowing to the god of humanism and embracing the consequent moral relativism which provides no means for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that fail to bow, they become the objects of intolerant harassment through restrictions on free speech (speech codes), coercion, intimidation, and loss of religious freedom.

Current examples of the sacrifice of religious freedom upon the altars of humanist tolerance are legion. One of the many is the effort to crush religious freedom at Gordon College, a 125 year old nationally ranked liberal arts Christian college with 1700 students located in Wenham, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. The college’s website states that it “…combines an exceptional education with an informed Christian faith.”[1] However, the college’s effort to fulfill its promise regarding the provision of an informed Christian faith has caused it to run afoul of the New England Association of schools and Colleges‘ Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Gordon is being charged with potentially violating the standards of the accrediting agency because of Gordon’s longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff, both on and off campus and its public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians. Loss of accreditation typically results in loss of U.S. Department of Education federal financial aid for students which tends to be a death knell for colleges.[2]

Commission director Barbara Brittingham states that the commission has not dealt with a case involving potential sexual orientation-related discrimination but that, “It’s a matter of looking at the information we have and deciding if the institution is meeting our standards.”[3] [emphasis added] One wonders if the commission’s standards include consideration of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

But that is not the end of the story. It seems that the tentacles of humanistic tolerance must reach into all levels of society to choke out perceived discrimination. The City of Salem now refuses to let Gordon use its city-owned Old Town Hall because of the college’s policies violate a municipal ordinance that prohibits Salem from contracting with entities that discriminate. The mayor of Salem was exceptionally sharp in his criticism of the college. “The clear message is that homosexuals are not worthy of employment, or even recognition of their existence, in the Gordon community. It is a slap in the face of every gay and lesbian person, particularly every gay and lesbian Christian, that says you are somehow less of a human being, you do not belong in the embrace of God’s merciful arms.”[4] Apparently, the mayor has never read the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans in which God condemns homosexual behavior.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves… [Romans 1:18, 24. RSV]

A planned White House executive order will bar federal contractors from discriminating in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation and include colleges such as Gordon whose students receive federal financial aid. Numerous Christian leaders have requested the President to include a religious exemption.[5] If an exemption is not allowed, Christian colleges and universities across the nation will be forced to accept students and hire teachers whose beliefs contradict the beliefs, mission, and goals of those institutions.

One Gordon graduate and subsequent employee left Gordon because he could not come out as openly gay. He subsequently formed GordonOne, an LGBT organization. He believes that Gordon’s president “has made Gordon a fortress of faith rather than a place where the doors are open to people who want to be part of a conversation about what it means to be a Christian.”[6] [emphasis added] It is apparent from this former student-employee’s comment that we must begin any conversation about what it means to be a Christian with three assumptions: the Bible is not the final authority on what it means to be Christian, the Bible’s explicit condemnation of homosexuality cannot be accepted, and the doors of Christianity are not open to homosexuals. Only after these suppositions and assumptions are accepted can the conversation begin. In other words, Gordon’s goal of providing an “informed Christian faith” is acceptable only after being sanitized by the LGBT community to meet their litmus test of tolerance and equality. To pass that test, Gordon must surrender beliefs in unchanging biblical truth and that it must accept practicing homosexuals as Christians.

Gordon is not the only one in the crosshairs of the homosexual agenda. No organization is too large or too small to be strangled by the tentacles of its intolerant agenda. We’ve heard of the woes of various cake bakers who, based on their religious beliefs, had the effrontery to refuse to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. Now we have the case of the Kentucky tee shirt decorator who refused to make tee shirts for participants in a local gay-pride parade. After two years, Lexington’s Human Rights Commission ruled that the tee shirt maker violated the city’s “fairness” ordinance and was ordered to attend “diversity training” for re-education. The commission’s Executive Director Raymond Sexton believes that Christians in the marketplace must “…leave their religion at home.” Otherwise, he warned, “you can find yourself two years down the road and you’re still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so. We’re not telling somehow how to feel with respect to religion, but the law is pretty clear that if you operate a business to the public, you need to provide your services to people regardless…”[7] [emphasis added] But the Human Rights Commission is telling someone how to feel with respect to their religion. That is the purpose of diversity training…to tell someone how they ought to feel and think.

As the dots are connected on the picture of the homosexual agenda in America, it becomes increasingly evident that it portrays the suppression and consequent eradication of Christianity from the public square in America. The first amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Religious beliefs and feelings translate into exercise thereof, and the Constitution protects not only religious feelings and beliefs but free exercise as well. Commissioner Sexton and others promoting the homosexual agenda would prohibit both.

In light of the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, how can the President, the New England Commission on Higher Education, the City of Salem, the City of Lexington, and a legion of others sidestep the Constitution by requiring Christians to abandon the exercise of their most deeply held religious beliefs? They cannot unless we allow them to do so. If we allow the demagogues of humanistic tolerance and equality to prevail, then the free exercise of religion will mean little more than that which can be practiced behind the closed doors of a silent church or in the muzzled confines of one’s heart. This certainly cannot be the intent of the Founders.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Gordon College, http://www.gordon.edu/ (accessed October 8, 2013).
[2] Matt Rocheleau, “Accrediting agency to review Gordon College,” The Boston Globe, July 11, 2014.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting-standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Evan Allen, “Gordon College joins request for exemption to hiring rule,” The Boston Globe, July 4, 2014.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/03/gordon-college-president-signs-letter-asking-for-religious-exemption-from-order-banning-anti-gay-discrimination/79cgrbFOuUg7lxH2rKXOgO/story.html (accessed
October 13, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Tony Perkins, “Intolerance fits liberals to a T (Shirt),” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 9, 2014.
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/intolerance-fits-liberals-to-a-t-shirt (accessed October 13, 2014).

Same-sex marriage will be a bust for civilization

Posted by :webmaster On : October 10, 2014

Category: Archives, Homosexuality, Humanism, Marriage

Lisa Bracken believes that legalization of same-sex marriage would be good for Oklahoma’s economy (“Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy”[1]). She is wrong on two counts.

In the short-term, the supposed economic gains will be enormously offset by costs associated with societal dysfunction caused by same-sex marriage. Even though the legitimization of same-sex marriage is relatively new, its devastating effects are already being felt in those countries that have allowed it. Documenting 10 years of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Hoover Institution researcher Stanley Kurtz found that it has led to far fewer marriages and soaring illegitimacy in which “80 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of children born thereafter are born to unwed parents. This has a devastating impact on children since unmarried parents are much more likely to separate.” Kurtz wrote, “Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline—an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood—can be linked to gay marriage.”[2]

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermines society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

Supporters of homosexuality believe that they have the right to marry just as heterosexuals, and those rights are based on equality. However, homosexuality is a choice, and choice does not automatically equate with a “right to” nor mandate equal consideration. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time published 50 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[3] Homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are issues that must ultimately be dealt with in the arena of morality and cultural health. The economic considerations of Chamber of Commerce cheerleaders such as Ms. Bracken are both inappropriate and crass with regard to the debate about homosexuality and demands for its legitimization through same-sex marriage. But such dollars and cents concerns are to be expected from those with a humanistic view of life based on the material and denial of universal and timeless concepts of right and wrong.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Lisa Bracken, “Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2014, A-19.
[2] D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., “Five Good Reasons to Reject Same-Sex Marriage,” Coral Ridge Ministries – Crosswalk.com, July 7, 2004. http://www.crosswalk.com/1272492/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
[3] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.

Who are you going to believe: Nancy Pelosi or the Apostle Paul?

Posted by :webmaster On : June 27, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Homosexuality, Marriage

There is an old adage which says that a person is known by the friends he or she keeps, but a better gauge of how one is known may be to identify his or her foes. Assuming the truth of these axioms, Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Archdiocese of San Francisco can easily identify his foes. The identities were revealed as signors of an open letter to the Archbishop in the June 10th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and included California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and over eighty other state and local officials and community and religious leaders. The letter scolded the Archbishop for associating himself with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and urged him to change his plans to participate in NOM’s June 19th Washington D.C. march in support of traditional marriage.[1] In a separate letter to the Chronicle, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also urged the Archbishop to skip the March for Marriage.[2]

The standard operating procedure of supporters of same-sex marriage is to attack the character of those it opposes with distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods which are applied liberally to people, organizations, and the veracity of the Bible. The open letter is a typical example of the liberal smear of all things not consistent with or supportive of their humanistic worldview regarding same-sex marriage. The Archbishop’s response[3] was well stated, but he has left room for additional answers to the charges and accusations raised by Pelosi and the advocates of same-sex marriage.

Do NOM’s rhetoric and actions contradict Christian beliefs?

While claiming to respect freedom of religion, the letter charged that “…the actions and rhetoric NOM, and those of the event’s speakers and sponsors, fundamentally contradict Christian belief in the fundamental dignity of all people.”[4] One must ask how the essence of the words and actions of NOM and other supporters of traditional marriage differ from the biblical admonitions of the Apostle Paul.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error. (emphasis added) [Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV]

The Apostle Paul’s words skip the smaller issue of the legitimacy of civil marriage for same-sex couples and cut to the heart of the matter by unequivocally denying the legitimacy of homosexuality altogether. If Paul was alive today and made those same statements, one wonders if Pelosi and the signers of the letter would brand the words and actions of the writer of almost half of the New Testament as fundamentally contradicting “… Christian belief in the fundamental dignity of all people”?

Is the Family Research Council a hate group?

The letter labels one of NOM’s sponsors (Family Research Council) as a hate group because of its designation as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[5] A review of just a few of the other organizations that the SPLC considers to be hate groups include several Catholic, Baptist, and Pentecostal organizations, the American Family Association, and the Jewish Defense League among others. The SPLC attempts to advance its credibility by also listing legitimate hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations.[6] The toxicity of SPLC’s vitriol is such that one its ardent followers was prompted to invade the Family Research Council’s headquarters and wound an unarmed security guard. For Pelosi and her group to cite the SPLC as a credible source to gauge the hatefulness of the Family research Council or similar organizations is absurd. The facts suggest that many (but not all) of the persons and organizations that have received the SPLC’s seal of disapproval should wear it as a badge of honor.

Does NOM attempt to punish anyone who disagrees with their position?

The letter to the Chronicle claimed that NOM’s promotional material “…uses incendiary language about those who support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.” The letter quotes an excerpt from a NOM promotional piece.

[Their] goal is silence and punishing anyone who disagrees…This is not tolerance, it’s tyranny. You have a choice. You can remain silent in the face of oppression or you can stand up and fight for the truth…These same-sex advocates wish to silence anyone who disagrees with them.[7]

One wonders how Pelosi and the other letter signers classify the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brenden Eich under pressure from gay rights activists for merely contributing $1000 to Proposition 8, the California initiative that amended the state’s constitution to limit the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.[8] Another example is the strident opposition of the mayors of Boston and Chicago to the proposed expansion of Chic-Fil-A to their cities due to the Christian owner’s support of traditional marriage.[9] These are just two high-profile cases which suggest that there are perhaps thousands of other ordinary people who support traditional marriage across the nation who are less able to combat efforts of same-sex activists to silence and/or punish them. Contrary to the assertions of Pelosi and the signers of the letter to Archbishop Cordileone, NOM has accurately assessed the truth about the intolerance and tyranny of the supporters of same-sex marriage and their wish to silence and punish anyone who disagrees with them.

Does God’s love excuse the practicing homosexual?

Incredibly, Pelosi and the letter’s signers appear to question the Archbishop’s understanding of the Bible and pastoral teachings of the Catholic Church. They contend there is a conflict between the Archbishop’s apparent endorsement of those organizations and individuals associated with NOM and the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which states, “God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God’s love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it.”[10] Thus, for Pelosi and the signers, God’s love is all that is necessary, and the admonitions of Paul to the Romans regarding homosexuality are no longer applicable in the twenty-first century.

However, to follow the prescription that love is all that is necessary is to dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow his commandments. If love is all that is necessary, then the cross becomes irrelevant, sin is a misnomer, Satan is a myth, and God does care about how we live our lives.

The Catholic bishops are correct in their pastoral teaching. God’s love never waivers for the homosexual. But homosexuals cannot stay in their sin. God is willing to accept and save people as they are, but God was not willing to leave them that way. God does not approve of homosexuality, and He will not contradict or overlook His own commandments regarding the sin of homosexuality. For a person to continue homosexual practices is to separate himself or herself from a relationship with God on this earth and for eternity.

Homosexuality is a choice. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered. Neither Nancy Pelosi nor any other assemblage of government, civic, and religious leaders can change those choices into a “civil right” and call it acceptable to God.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Gavin Newsom, et.al., Letter to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, June 10, 2014.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.sfgate.com/file/829/829-ArchbishopLetter.pdf (accessed June 23, 2014).
[2] Mark A. Kellner, “Pelosi to San Francisco archbishop: Don’t march for marriage,” Deseret News National, June 18, 2014. http://national.deseretnews.com/article/1714/Pelosi-to-San-Francisco-archbishop-Dont-march-for-marriage.html (accessed, June 23, 2014).
[3] Salvatore Cordileone, “Archbishop Cordileone March for Marriage Letter,” Archdiocese of San Francisco, June 6, 2014. http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/archbishop-cordileone/homilies-writings-and-statements/2014/Archbishop-Cordileone-March-for-Marriage-Letter-4035/ (accessed June 25, 2014).
[4] Gavin Newsom.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Southern Poverty Law Center,” Conservapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center (accessed June 23, 2014).
[7] Gavin Newsom.
[8] Joel Gehrke, “Mozilla CEO Brenden Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2014. http://washingtonexaminer.com/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-forced-to-resign-for-supporting-traditional-marriage-laws/article/2546770 (accessed June 23, 2014).
[9] Michael Scherer, “Chic-Fil-A meets a First Amendment buzz saw in Chicago,” Time, July 26, 2012. http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/26/chick-fil-a-meets-a-first-amendment-buzzsaw-in-chicago/ (accessed May 21, 2014).
[10] Gavin Newsom.

Does God lie?

Posted by :webmaster On : May 16, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality, Marriage

[Portions of this article were printed in the Tulsa World on May 11, 2014: Marriage equality is not a matter of faith.]

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage. However, in a guest editorial in the Tulsa World, the Reverends Justin Alan Lindstrom and Robin R. Meyers said that regardless of the outcome of the deliberations of the 10th Circuit, the case has already been settled by a different judge—meaning the God of the Bible.[1] The Reverends said that, “…marriage equality is a fundamental right for all Oklahomans…The freedom to marry for all couples fits squarely into the tenets of our faith, the teachings of our church and reflects values of love and compassion that sustains our communities and congregations.” In other words, same-sex couples have the right to marry and that right does not conflict with the tenets of the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible. However, the Apostle Paul’s words are indisputable with regard to God’s condemnation of homosexuality.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error.” [Romans 1:18, 24-27. RSV]

Therefore, we see that the Reverends’ view of same-sex marriage does not fit squarely into the tenets of Christian faith. It is one thing to disagree with the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality or to reject biblical authority altogether in defending homosexual practices. However, it is blatantly disingenuous to ignore, revise, or twist biblical teachings in order to excuse homosexual practices when the biblical record is unequivocally clear in its universal condemnation of homosexuality. However, the Reverends assume their beliefs supersede biblical commandments regarding homosexuality (and by inference same-sex marriage) on the grounds that those beliefs are “…grounded in love and acceptance of everyone.”

Love

The Reverends beliefs ultimately must place love above basic and clear biblical doctrines which are brushed aside in favor of non-judgmental love and acceptance of people as they are. God is willing to accept and save people as they are, but God was not willing to leave them that way. That is the reason He sent His son Jesus and allowed man to nail Him to a cross. God could not have fellowship with sinful man, and the crucifixion of sinless Christ for man’s sin made a way for man to be restored to a right relationship with Him.

I am a sinner and my sin is no less sinful than that of a homosexual. We stand as equals before God and are given a choice. I am a sinner saved by Christ. I have repented of my sin and have been forgiven. Not only have I repented of past sins, I have turned from my sins. Homosexuals can repent, be saved, and fellowship with God for eternity. However, to do so, they cannot stay in their sin. God does not approve of homosexuality, and He will not contradict or overlook His own commandments regarding homosexuality by coating them with a liberal layer of “love and compassion.” Man has a choice to accept or reject God’s love. The creation of man with a free will meant the possibility of rejection of God and His love. In other words, free will and the potential for rejection of God was the penalty for the possibility of love.

Acceptance

Must Christians also unreservedly accept the homosexual as implied by the ministers? Christians must love the sinner, but it is not a blind love that overlooks sin. Although Christians should reach out in love to the homosexual, we cannot accept homosexuals into fellowship as fellow believers if they continue in their sin nor can we condone the sin of homosexuality by passing laws that allow same-sex marriage. We find our example in the Apostle Paul’s chastisement of the Corinthians for allowing immorality to reside in the midst of their fellowship.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [1 Corinthians 5:1-2. RSV]

Homosexuals must be welcomed into our churches if they are seeking truth and escape from their bondage to sin. But in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul again warned against communion with unbelievers.

Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? [2 Corinthians 6:14. RSV]

Does God lie?

If the Reverends believe that God accepts everyone including partners in a same-sex marriage and persons engaged in homosexual conduct because of His boundless love, the ministers have effectively labeled God as a liar. But God cannot condemn homosexuality as He has throughout His word and at the same time embrace the homosexual that persists in rebelling against His commandments. If He does so as the Reverends imply, then God would be guilty of a lie. But Paul said that God never lies. [Titus 1:2. RSV]

God created heterosexual marriage as a cultural universal, and the strength and unity provided by it is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rev. Justin Alan Lindstrom and Rev. Robin R. Meyers, “Marriage equality is a matter of faith,” Tulsa World, May 4, 2014, G-2.

Is God Out of Touch with Mainstream Views?

Posted by :webmaster On : April 25, 2014

Category: Archives, Christianity, God's Law v. Man's Law, Homosexuality, Truth

For many in the media establishment, Easter is a great time to talk about religion, but for ABC News Easter was an opportunity to showcase the perceived decline of evangelical influence in America. One of the reasons given was Christianity’s supposed intolerance with regard to homosexuality and same-sex marriage in America. Reverend Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and son of its founder, and Cokie Roberts of ABC News were among guests on ABC’s “This Week” panel whose topic was “Are Evangelicals Out of Touch with Mainstream Views?”[1]

In response to a question from panel moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News, Graham reiterated his strong opposition to same-sex marriage. Graham assured the audience that any gay person can go to heaven if they will repent. However, he stated that gays, like others in adultery or some other type of sin, cannot stay in their sin and be accepted by God. He said, “Franklin Graham is a sinner, and I’m no better than a gay person. I’m a sinner, but I’ve been forgiven, and I’ve turned from my sins. For any person that’s willing to repent in turn, God will forgive.”

Ms. Raddatz responded that Graham’s view appeared to be at odds with dramatic changes in the attitudes of many Americans as reflected by various polls. She pointed to a recent ABC poll that indicated 59 percent of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage and 61 percent approve of gay adoption. For those under age 30, 75 percent approve of same-sex marriage including 43 percent of evangelicals under 30.

ABC News’ Cokie Roberts suggested reasons for this change in the attitudes of Americans regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The reason the numbers have changed so fast and so dramatically on this question of gay marriage is because everybody in America now has experience with someone who is gay. People have come out of the closet and said, ‘I am your brother. I am your sister. I am your cousin. I am your friend.’ And then they have seen these families raising children and see these loving families.[2]

Ms. Roberts’ comments and Ms. Raddatz’s recitation of the results of recent polls imply that evangelicals are wasting political capital through their opposition to gay marriage because they are out of touch with mainstream views. Ms. Raddatz’s poll numbers reflect the results of just one of the battles in the continuing secularization of America over the last 75 years. However, I strongly disagree with Ms. Roberts’ assertion that Americans’ change in attitude regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage is because Americans have come to understand and respect homosexuals and the rightness of allowing same-sex marriage. To the contrary, the change of attitudes are the result of a three-generation slide into post-Christian and post-modern worldviews in which a large number of Americans have abandoned Christianity as the standard of truth and morality and have embraced a relativistic view of truth in which the barometer of right and wrong always points in the direction of popular opinion.

The assumptive language posed in “Are Evangelicals Out of Touch with the Mainstream Views” implies the highest importance to which ABC News attaches to being in touch with mainstream views and therefore being politically relevant. Of course ABC News is an entity that feeds on ratings and therefore must seek the mainstream and determine how to be in the middle of it.

It would be interesting to hear Raddatz’ and Roberts’ response to the following question. If evangelicals are deemed to be out of touch with mainstream views, by inference could they not also say that God is out of touch with mainstream views? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, and the answer must be found in either the opinions of man or God’s word. To illustrate, we look to the biblical truth with regard to God’s condemnation of homosexuality.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error. (emphasis added) [Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV]

Based on God’s view of homosexuality, it would seem that Roberts and Raddatz must also label God as being out of touch with mainstream views. But God doesn’t have a view. He is God, the great I AM, and Creator of the universe including the laws of nature and laws of human nature. God is truth, and how feeble are man’s attempts to distort that truth revealed in His creation, the biblical revelation, and His image stamped on His special creation called man.

ABC News and much of secular media continue chipping away at the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded. Thirty-five years ago Malcolm Muggeridge identified the source of the attack on Western civilization (Christendom).

Previous civilizations have been overthrown from without by the barbarian hordes. Christendom has dreamed up its own dissolution in the minds of its own intellectual elite. Our barbarians are home products, indoctrinated at the public expense, urged on by the media systematically stage by stage, diminishing Christendom, depreciating and deprecating all its values.[3] (emphasis added)

Rather than reinforcing Christian principles, morals, and manners upon which the nation was founded, the humanistic worldview of modern mass media molds public opinion by setting the agenda and influencing what people think about. From such manipulation has come a cultural shift as mass media’s humanistic worldview has ascended while the Christian worldview is marginalized and demeaned through substantial and constant attack.[4]

So what should the evangelical do in the face of a rising tide of secular humanism in America? We take our instruction from the Apostle Paul’s exhortations to Timothy.

…preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (emphasis added) [2 Timothy 4: 2-5. RSV]

In other words, evangelicals must evangelize whether they are in the mainstream or in the marginalized minority.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mary Alice Parks, “This Week Panel: Are Evangelicals Out of Touch With Mainstream Views?” ABC News, April 20, 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/this-week-panel-are-evangelicals-out-of-touch-with-mainstream-views/ (accessed April 20, 2014).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 17.

[4] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods-Humanism and Christianity-The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 374.

Mr. Jones’s Childish Things – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : April 22, 2013

Category: Archives, Homosexuality

Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” In Part I we discussed Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding against those opposed to gay marriage and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #3 – Jones raises three biblical/religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

• Jones cites the Apostle Paul who “believed that there is no need to get married because Jesus would return soon and the world would end… and that those on earth would better serve themselves if they remained celibate and directed their efforts to pleasing Jesus.” However, Jones’s statement contains both factual and contextual errors. These errors become evident without further comment when one looks at Paul’s actual words and the context in which they were written.

…It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and widows, it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. [1 Corinthians 7: 1-2, 6-9 RSV]

Now lest one takes Paul’s statement as a license for homosexuals to marry, let’s look at his words with regard to homosexuality.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” [Romans 1:24-27 RSV.]

• Jones’s describes his second religious argument as simplistic but one which he cannot shake. Jones believes his simplistic arguments undermine biblical reasons for opposition to homosexuality. However, his arguments contain huge assumptions which are false.

First, Jones asks if God made man in His own image where does that leave homosexuals. In other words, did He make a few mistakes when He made homosexuals? The assumptive language is that God made homosexuals the way they are. Therefore, God made a mistake or He created homosexuals that way as a reflection of His image. Neither is true.

Let’s quickly dispose of the first question. God does not make mistakes. If He did, he wouldn’t be all-knowing and all-powerful. In essence, He wouldn’t be God. Second, to say that God made a mistake means that we recognized something He missed, and that is absurd. Third, we can’t know the mind of God apart from His revelations to us about Himself. That revelation tells us that He does not make mistakes, “He is the rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” [Deuteronomy 32:4 KJV]

If God didn’t make a mistake, then that leaves us with Jones’s assumption that God made homosexuals the way they are, i.e., they were born that way. Therefore, we must accept them and their inborn inclinations as equals in society.

Proponents of homosexuality often cite various scientific studies that indicate sexual orientation is a matter of genetics, i.e., sexual orientation is involuntary, immutable, and rooted in nature. Thus, moral distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual behavior would be invalid.
The first response is to state that science has not proven that homosexuality is inborn. Many of the studies that purport to do so have proven to be flawed and brought into question by other studies showing the opposite is true. Time and space does not permit an extensive examination of this area, but what we can say at this point in time is that science has not proven that sexual orientation is a matter of genetics.

But for sake of argument let’s assume that homosexuality in some cases was found to have a genetic basis (either causal or predisposition), then proponents of the homosexual agenda would argue that moral distinctions are invalid as it relates to differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But that is not a valid argument for neither causation nor predisposition justifies cultural acceptance. For example, some people are genetically prone to alcoholism. Another study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such genetic links do not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices. People are not slaves to their passions, desires, and predispositions as humanists would have us believe. Some people will struggle with those forces more than others, but people have the ability to choose their behavior.

Jones also asks if homosexuality makes a person less human. Absolutely not—homosexuality does not make them less human. God created every human being, and He loved each one so much that He gave His Son to be crucified on the cross for every person’s sin (including the homosexual) to make it possible for them to be in right relationship with Him. But man has a free will, and many freely choose to reject that invitation and live a life of disobedience to his commands whether that disobedience is adultery, murder, theft, or being actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

• Jones’s third religious argument is based on 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” Jones says, “That could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” In other words, charity (love) trumps all. If we but love, all will be well.

It is one thing to disagree with the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality or to reject biblical authority altogether in defending homosexual practices. However, it is blatantly disingenuous to revise or twist biblical teachings in order to excuse homosexual practices when the biblical record is unequivocally clear in its universal condemnation of homosexuality. Effectively, Jones is arguing that the basic thrust of Christ’s teachings is that in the end we must place love above all other considerations. Implicit in this humanistic belief is that basic doctrines are inherently divisive and must be pushed aside in favor of the non-judgmental love and acceptance of people as they are. In other words such narrow and rigid doctrines as to how one must live are divisive and contrary to the inclusiveness which is demonstrated by the lives and teachings of Jesus and His disciples. However, this argument is clearly false and strikes at the foundation of the Christian worldview regarding mankind’s Fall and man’s need for redemption as chronicled from Genesis through Revelation.

Before we leave this argument, let’s examine the sincerity of Jones’s call for love that “…could go a long way in solving this difference of opinion.” Apparently, Jones does believe that the same tolerance and love is needed when it comes to accepting the motives of Christians with regard to loving the sinner and hating the sin. “I don’t believe the sincerity of that for a second. It’s more often hate the sin, punish the sinner.”

In summary, heterosexual marriage is a universal, and the strength and unity provided by it is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Mike Jones, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage,” Tulsa World, (April 14, 2001), G1.

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), Chapter 23, pp. 353-366.

Mr. Jones’s Childish Things – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : April 17, 2013

Category: Archives, Homosexuality

Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:11 which says, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Jones poses three general arguments in support of gay marriage. First, Jones attempts to label opposition to marriage between a same-sex couple a childish thing which results from prejudice and misunderstanding. Second, Jones believes that permitting gay marriage would be another step toward civil rights for all in the country. Third, Jones makes several biblical and religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

This article will demonstrate that Jones’s statements and claims are untrue, misinterpretations, misleading, and are couched in assumptive language in which seemingly simple statements contain huge assumptions that are not true. In Part I we will discuss Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #1 – Jones claims that opposition to gay marriage (and by inference, opposition to homosexuality in general) is a result of prejudice and misunderstanding.

There are two general conceptions of marriage in society. The first is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman which forms the basis for the ordered family structure. The strength and depth of spousal commitment and unity that derives from a marriage consummated by the reproductive act, whether intended for purposes of procreation or not, cannot be matched by any other relationship. The nature of the reproductive act in marriage is distinctly and intrinsically unitive. This ordered family structure is part of the human constitution, a universal truth, one of the permanent things, and is central in every known society. The family attains status within society—legitimacy, social identity, legal recognition, cultural tradition, and an estate. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring. It is the fundamental unit upon which societies are built.

By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. However, proponents wish to lift the status of homosexuality in society through its attainment of legitimacy, legal identity, and respect as a cultural tradition, a place at the table so to speak. These efforts involve court challenges to long-standing and culturally established norms, enactment of laws which favor the homosexual agenda and that diminish marriage, and promotion of homosexuality in the popular culture. The basis for this opposing view is that marriage is essentially a private relationship, and because marriage is the central organizing concept in society, it is critical for proponents of homosexuality to redefine what it means to be a family. Success in the legislative and legal efforts to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples of either gender, whether under law or in culture, will cause a culture to decline and disintegrate as the ideal of a mother and father for every child is weakened. (See article: Thank you, Grace. You are worthy of your name.)

Therefore, the Christian’s opposition to homosexuality is not about prejudice and misunderstanding as Mr. Jones would have us believe, but opposition is based on eternal truths and the commandments from the Bible. Mr. Jones and I will not agree as to who has the better argument because we have fundamentally different worldviews. The question is: which worldview is true? Undoubtedly, the weight of history supports the biblical worldview which is a reflection of truth received not only through biblical revelation to the ancient Hebrews and 1st century Christians but is also a reflection of those unchanging cultural universals built into God’s creation and observed down through the ages.

Argument #2 – Jones believes that permitting gay marriage would be another step toward civil rights for all in the country where “all men are created equal.”

Jones argues that laws allowing civil union are not good enough, i.e., you are less than a citizen if you can’t have a marriage ceremony and which means same-sex couples are “not worthy of rights held by the rest of us.” It appears that Jones does not understand that people opposed to gay marriage are generally opposed to civil unions for the same reasons. Those reasons are based on a biblical worldview upon which the nation was founded (but that is another argument for another day which I am very willing to address).

Jones appeal is on the basis of equality, i.e., homosexuals have a civil right to marry as do heterosexuals. The usual defense of the pursuit of the humanist ideal of equality is that social harmony will be achieved because the nation is moving closer to the ideals upon which it was founded. However, such pursuit has the opposite effect. In America the pursuit of equality has resulted in the identification of an ever expanding array of social problems demanding governmental attention. Such attention is demanded because of the creation of “illusory rights” supposedly on par with the original Bill of Rights (in this case the right of homosexuals to marry).

But a culture that elevates these demands to the status of rights is doomed. In his book Visions of Order, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”

The victim of this tampering is justice. The concept of justice is a universal truth, a thing of permanence that transcends the whole of man’s time on this planet and pertains to all cultures. Ignoring corruptible man, the levelers of society admonish Justice to peek beneath her blindfold and act arbitrarily and capriciously to impose the latest standards dictated by the passions of the moment. Prescriptions of fairness, impartiality, and right action derived from an authority above the state and built up over the centuries are now considered quaint, failing to keep up with modern times, or just plain wrong-headed. In other words, the definition of justice has been changed by the humanists to fit their worldview. But no amount of humanist tinkering will change the heart of man with regard to a right understanding of right action in a civil society.

We will examine Mr. Jones’s supposed biblical and religious support for gay marriage in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Mike Jones, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage,” Tulsa World, (April 14, 2001), G1.

Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), pp. 22-23.