Based on 1 Samuel 20:30, is it possible that Saul thought Jonathan was a homosexual?

A:

The passage in question reads: “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?’” The word rendered “confusion” in the KJV is the normal Hebrew word for “shame.”¹ It has the same latitude of meaning that our English word has. It does not include any hint of homosexuality. The word is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the disgrace or shame that one experiences due to one’s own behavior, or the shame/disgrace brought upon a person by the behavior of another. See, for example, Jeremiah 2:26 where the prophet compares the shame of the caught thief to Israel’s shame due to her incessant involvement in idolatry. Or consider Bildad’s admonition to Job to admit his sin so that “Those who hate you will be clothed with shame” (Job 8:22). Regarding his enemies, David used a trilogy of synonyms in his request of God that they “be ashamed (bohsh) and brought to mutual confusion (chah-pher)” and “clothed with shame (boh-sheth) and dishonor” (Psalm 35:26). The word rendered “confusion” in the NKJV is rendered “confounded” in several other translations and means to “humiliate,” “embarrass,” “bewilder,” “baffle,” or “discomfit.” In the midst of national defeat, the psalmist moans: “My dishonor is continually before me, and the shame (boh-sheth) of my face has covered me.” Micah refers to the “naked shame” of the inhabitants of Shaphir (Micah 1:11). Hence, the word is even used of the mistreatment/shame that Jesus endured from His opponents: “You know my reproach, my shame, and my dishonor; My adversaries are all before You” (Psalm 69:19; cf. Acts 5:41). In a psalm that possesses Messianic overtones, God declares concerning the Messiah: “His enemies I will clothe with shame” (Psalm 132:18). Again, in all these instances, no reference is being made to anything sexual in nature.

The context, indeed, all of 1 Samuel and Saul’s 40-year reign, makes clear that Saul was upset about the threat that David posed to his own throne and, therefore, Jonathan’s prospects for becoming the next king. Saul considered David a serious rival to the throne (his own in particular). Spiritually-minded Jonathan demonstrated that he was perfectly submissive to God’s intention to make David the next king. Hence, “chosen” refers to Jonathan’s willingness to acquiesce to David’s right to the throne. Other translations render the word “siding with” (CSB), “allied yourself with” (CEB), “chosen to be loyal to” (CEV), “chosen to support” (ERV), “on the side of” (NCV), “you are choosing” (NASB). The NLT says it well: “Do you think I don’t know that you want him to be king in your place?” No hint of anything sexual is in the text. Further, the allusion to “your mother’s nakedness” is simply a Hebrew way to refer to a woman giving birth to a child. Hence, Saul was using a harsh insult to try to bully his son into siding with himself by suggesting that by siding with David, Jonathan was disgracing/shaming the mother who gave him birth.

Endnotes

¹ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004 reprint), p. 102.

The post “The Shame of Your Mother’s Nakedness”? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the third installment in a three-part series. Part I appeared in the December issue. Part II appeared in the January issue. Part III follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the second article ended.]

Homosexuality and Psychology

If They Can’t Help It, Then Why Can They Help It?

While a person born with certain conditions, like Down Syndrome or dwarfism, has no ability to change his condition, if a person can change his sexual orientation, it would be strong evidence against the inheritability argument. If “it’s in the genes,” then you cannot change it, and yet many can and have changed their sexual orientation, proving that a person is not genetically forced to be homosexual. That truth, besides being stated in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), has been substantiated by experimental evidence.

In 1998, for example, psychologist Warren Throckmorton, in response to the American Counseling Association’s “resolution expressing concerns about conversion therapy,” conducted a literature review of the “effectiveness and appropriateness of therapeutic efforts to change sexual orientation.” The result of his findings was that “efforts to assist homosexually oriented individuals who wish to modify their patterns of sexual arousal have been effective.”¹

Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts surveyed 882 homosexuals who were dissatisfied with their orientation and had “sought and experienced some degree of change.”² After receiving therapy or attempting to change, the number of those who were previously exclusively homosexual dropped 88.4%, and

45.4% of the exclusively homosexual participants retrospectively reported having made major shifts in their sexual orientation. The exclusively homosexual participants also reported large and statistically significant decreases in the frequency of their homosexual behavior with a partner from before to after treatment or change. There was evidence that the changes in sexual orientation reported by many of the participants were long lasting. The average length of time that had elapsed since the participants reported the changes in their sexual orientation was 6.7 yr [sic]…. Twenty-three percent of the participants said that it had been 10 or more years since they had experienced the changes in their orientation.³

The number of individuals who previously identified as “exclusively” or “almost entirely homosexual,” or “more homosexual than heterosexual” dropped 61% after they attempted to change through therapy or self-help.⁴ “As a group, the participants reported large and statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies that they attributed to conversion therapy or self-help. They also reported large improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.”⁵

Robert Spitzer was instrumental in the removal of homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of disorders. However, in 2001 he presented a historic report of a study at the meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, later published in 2003. He studied 200 predominantly homosexual individuals “who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years” after reparative therapy.⁶ Spitzer found that,

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year…. For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants’ self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.⁷

Before their therapy, the males were, on average, 91% interested in only other males (with 0% being completely heterosexual) and self-identified highly as homosexual (77%). The females were 88% interested in only other females and self-identified highly as homosexual (77%). After therapy, however, both males and females changed to being very highly heterosexual (males 23%, 8.5%; females 8%, 3%).⁸ In all 10 of the measures used to assess their homosexuality, “there was a marked reduction on all change measures.”⁹ Spitzer said, “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue—some people can and do change.”¹⁰

In their 2016 extensive survey of the biological, psychological, and social science literature, Mayer and McHugh found the following about sexual orientation change:

Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).¹¹

One would certainly expect the homosexual community to vigorously contest the findings of Mayer and McHugh, since they so clearly refute the current dogma of the media and the bulk of the scientific community. Mayer and McHugh, however, were simply reporting the summarized results of hundreds of studies. Ironically, even lesbian activist psychologist Lisa Diamond agrees that sexual orientation is not fixed. In an interview for New Scientist, titled “Sexuality Is Fluid—It’s Time to Get Past ‘Born This Way,’” she stated that she believes people are “born with a sexual orientation,” but “also with a degree of sexual flexibility…. So there are gay people who are very fixedly gay and there are gay people who are more fluid, meaning they can experience attractions that run outside of their orientation.”¹² Bottom line: the research agrees with what Scripture and common sense say, and what even hostile witnesses acknowledge—one’s sexual orientation can change.

Homosexuality: Psychologically and Physically Bad for You

In the introduction, we briefly considered reasons why God would have condemned homosexuality in Scripture. Recall that, whatever His reason, it would stem from His love for mankind: His unselfish concern for the well-being of humanity, His children. In the same way that a parent’s rules are made for the benefit of his children, who oftentimes cannot fully grasp the importance and value of those rules, God’s rules are “holy and just and good”¹³ and “for our good,”¹⁴ always.¹⁵ Keeping those laws will bring us happiness,¹⁶ wisdom, joy, and enlightenment.¹⁷ Importantly, obeying God’s laws will lengthen our lives¹⁸ and keep us alive.¹⁹

I recall a conversation I had with a college-aged atheist a few years ago, wherein he expressed his disdain for Christians for their “hateful” condemnation of homosexuals and for not “accepting them for who they are.” I clarified the biblical position on the matter: biblical Christians’ confrontation of wicked behavior is not hateful, but loving. How loving would it be not to warn a person who is unwittingly running towards a cliff that is hidden behind some shrubbery? How loving would it be not to warn a child about an oncoming car or the danger of touching fire? “Open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (Proverbs 27:5). That simple truth may be obvious to the spiritually-minded individual, but to many in the world (including the atheist to whom I was speaking), it is a new concept.

One proof of biblical inspiration is its scientific foreknowledge—its accuracy with regard to scientific and medical matters that were not discovered until centuries beyond the time they were written.²⁰ God’s prohibition of homosexual activity and subsequent statements that His laws tend to promote life are a good example. Even if homosexuality were genetically determined (which it is not), the loving individual should strongly discourage the practice due to its deleterious physical and psychological effects. Consider the following seven.

Sexual Violence

• In 2013, then Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tom Frieden announced the release of a report on interpersonal and sexual violence. He explained, “We know that violence affects everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. This report suggests that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in this country suffer a heavy toll of sexual violence and stalking committed by an intimate partner…. While intervening and providing services are important, prevention is equally critical.”²¹
• The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealed that bisexual women are 1.7 times more likely than heterosexual women to report experiencing intimate partner violence and 2.6 times more likely to report experiencing intimate partner sexual violence.²²

Disease

• According to the CDC, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex [sic] of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.”²³ “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2017, adult and adolescent gay and bisexual men made up 70% (27,000) of the 38,739 new HIV diagnoses in the United States and dependent areas.”²⁴ Such statistics are particularly noteworthy when considering the fact that those who identify as “LGBT” make up only 4.5% of the population, according to a 2018 GALLUP poll.²⁵
• In 2014, Psychologist Christopher Rosik responded to the World Medical Association’s 2013 statement that “homosexuality does not represent a disease” and which condemned conversion and reparative therapy.²⁶ He cited studies that revealed an “overall 1.4 percent per-act probability of HIV transmission for anal sex and a 40.4 percent per-partner probability,” “roughly 18-times greater than that which has been estimated for vaginal intercourse.” While gay men represent “2-4 percent of the general population,” they made up “61 percent of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses” at the time.²⁷
• According to Nicolosi, “the Los Angeles Times reported that the rate of rectal gonorrhea among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco rose 44 percent during a recent three-year period, while in Los Angeles, new syphilis cases among gay and bisexual men rose more than 1,680 percent.”²⁸ Among gay and bisexual men, syphilis “has increased more than 365% since 2001, and is still on the rise” in Los Angeles.²⁹

Substance Abuse

• According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Web site, “LGBTQ people also face disparities in the physical medical context, including increased tobacco use, HIV and AIDS, and weight-related problems.” Lesbian and bisexual women are three times as likely as heterosexuals to have a substance abuse disorder.³⁰
• After surveying hundreds of relevant articles, Mayer and McHugh found that homosexuals have “1.5 times the risk of substance abuse” as heterosexuals.³¹

Shortened Lifespan

• With the above factors in mind, it should come as no surprise that several studies over the years have verified that homosexuals tend to live shorter lives: between 8 and 30 years less than everyone else.³²
• Those who have contracted AIDS (a condition which, again, tends to be associated with homosexuality) live an even shorter life (10%).³³

Psychological Issues

• Mayer and McHugh were “alarmed to learn that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”³⁴ They explain, “Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes. Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression.”³⁵
• A literature study conducted by Neil Whitehead revealed that “a score of mental health conditions in almost every DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—JM] category are present in the general SSA [same-sex attraction—JM] population at rates three or more times greater than in the opposite-sex attraction (OSA) population. These conditions include bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, but more predominantly consist of mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality. All need particular attention from therapists. People reporting SSA have a more widespread and intense psychopathological burden than probably any other group of comparable size in society, though college-age people may have more substance abuse problems.”³⁶

Suicide

• According to the CDC, “Males in the United States are more likely to take their own life at nearly four times the rate of females and represent 79% of all U.S. suicides. Suicide is the seventh leading cause of death for males in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are at even greater risk for suicide attempts, especially before the age of 25. A study of youth in grades 7-12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers.”³⁷
• Harvard University psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler’s study of suicide attempts among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth revealed that, of the 31,852 students in the study, “Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth were significantly more likely to attempt suicide in the previous 12 months, compared with heterosexuals (21.5% vs. 4.2%).”³⁸
• According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Web site, “Alarmingly LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer/questioning] people also have a nearly three time [sic] higher risk of suicide or suicidal behavior.”³⁹
• Mayer and McHugh highlight from their extensive survey of the psychological literature that homosexuals have “nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide” as the heterosexual community.⁴⁰
  Note that the above suicide statistics were revealed among homosexuals at a time when homosexuality is, by and large, accepted in American society, and even where it is not accepted, it is tolerated, with those who would speak out against it being threatened with severe public backlash.

Although a 2002 study was conducted prior to the point at which American acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle passed the 50% mark, it further verified Hatzenbuehler’s high suicide statistics among homosexuals. According to Paul, et al., 21% of homosexual men had made a suicide plan in their lifetime and 12% had attempted it, most before the age of 25.⁴¹

Keep in mind that while substance abuse, psychological issues, and suicide would be expected to be higher among homosexuals in response to unacceptance or mistreatment by the society in which they live, Mayer and McHugh highlight that the evidence that “discrimination and stigma contribute to the elevated risk of poor mental health” for homosexuals is “limited,”⁴² though one would predict it to be prevalent if significant. Rosik highlighted that the “relationship is small” according to studies,⁴³ and “the incidence and type of psychological problems among gay and lesbian persons remains about the same whether they reside in tolerant and accepting environments or intolerant ones.”⁴⁴

Children of Homosexuals

Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin conducted a study in 2012 to assess the effect that having homosexual parents has on a child. After collecting data from roughly 3,000 people, the study found that children who were raised in homes with same-sex parents, as opposed to homes that were intact with a mother and father, were (as adults):

• Over two times as likely to be unmarried while cohabitating with someone;
• 2.3 (gay parents, G)-to-3.8 (lesbian parents, L) times as likely to be on public assistance;
• 2.5 (G)-to-3.5 (L) times as likely to be unemployed;
• 2.4 (L)-to-4.8 (G) times as likely to be suicidal;
• 2.4 times as likely to be in therapy;
• 1.9 (G)-to-3.1 (L) times as likely to have had an affair;
• 2.5 (L)-to-3.1 (G) times as likely to have had a sexually transmitted disease;
• 3 (G)-to-11.5 (L) times as likely to have been sexually molested;
• 3.1 (G)-to-3.9 (L) times as likely to have been raped;

Such children were also more likely as adults to be unmarried, unhappy, depressed, unhealthy, less educated, and have lower income, according to the study. They were more likely to smoke marijuana, be arrested, and have multiple sexual partners, as well as get drunk on purpose. They were also more likely not to identify as entirely heterosexual.⁴⁵

Summary

To summarize, in the words of Nicolosi and Nicolosi,

When the studies are taken as a whole, it is clear that a teenager who self-identifies as gay is at high risk for infection with HIV or another sexually transmitted disease; for psychiatric problems, including suicidal ideation; and for self-destructive behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse and prostitution…. The fact that these problems do not decrease in gay-friendly cities such as San Francisco and gay-tolerant countries such as the Netherlands supports the view that there must be factors at work that are intrinsic to the homosexual condition.⁴⁶

God’s laws are for our good. Love demands that the practice of homosexuality be confronted and condemned for the good of homosexuals and society at large. Over half of the people in the United States approve of homosexuality. Translation: over half of the people in the United States do not love the homosexual community. “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

If There’s No Gay Gene, Then What Causes Homosexual Attraction?

Some homosexuals are those who have so indulged the flesh that natural intercourse is no longer appealing to them. They need something else to arouse themselves. That form is likely what is described in Romans 1:24-28 and which is demonstrated in Genesis 18-19. Another category, however, involves those who have experienced or witnessed circumstances that have severely hurt them psychologically, who need compassion and assistance.

While there may be certain genetic traits that would make one more likely than another to engage in homosexual behavior if certain things happened to him, the fact that he must first have experienced certain circumstances in his life indicates that same sex attraction and homosexual behavior are ultimately results of “environmental” conditions—circumstances and experiences—many of which are out of the control of the individual, often having occurred when he or she was very young.

Gender Identity Disorder

The late psychologist Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in California, explained the condition known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality. According to Nicolosi, GID can begin to show itself as early as two years old—long before the child’s brain has developed enough to even remember the experiences that led to his GID.⁴⁷ Nicolosi explained that, in males, GID arises due to a child not being drawn into his own gender, or being rejected by his gender, or things happen that cause him essentially to reject his own gender. Many times, such a boy has a mother that constantly berates men, especially his father, making the boy not want to be a male. Such a boy might not, for instance, be physically coordinated enough to fit in with other boys (which has a genetic component), so he is viciously and incessantly made fun of by other boys—his “gender” rejects him. Ultimately, experiences occur that lead him to begin to feel on the outside of his gender—that he does not belong with other boys. Instead, he feels that he fits in better with females.

Meanwhile, his mother welcomes him into the female gender, where he becomes her daily “sidekick,” learning the life of a female, and she encourages feminine behavior and condemns masculine behavior. If the boy also becomes distanced from the father, or the father distances him (his father being his primary source of a masculine image), his feelings of rejection will cause him not to want to be like his father—which causes him, according to Nicolosi, to surrender his “natural masculine strivings. Then, when other boys shun the gender-confused boy (as indeed they will), they become more deeply mired in loneliness, and this loneliness and rejection only confirms their belief in their not being ‘good enough.’ This leads to the problem of idolizing other boys’ maleness.”⁴⁸ When the hormones then hit in the adolescent years, in the words of one homosexual psychologist, “individuals become erotically or romantically attracted to those who were dissimilar or unfamiliar to them in childhood.” The “exotic becomes erotic.”⁴⁹ The boy, who has not been drawn into his own gender, who fits in better with girls, begins to view boys as the mysterious, opposite gender. He idolizes them and their masculinity. When adolescent hormones arrive, the idolization of the “opposite” that they have longed to be, coupled with the added erotic feelings that accompany hormones, leads to homosexual attraction.

Nicolosi explains that lesbianism results from “the girl’s unconscious rejection of her feminine identity. Women who become lesbians have usually decided, on an unconscious level, that being female is either undesirable or unsafe.”⁵⁰ So they reject their gender in response and try to become male. One can only imagine the kinds of traumatic things such girls have experienced. To deny that they need help and even attempt (successfully in 20 states⁵¹) to make it illegal to help homosexuals with therapy, is the epitome of calloused, unloving behavior.

Other GID Contributing Factors: Poor Fathers

According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2017 there were 74 million children under the age of 18 in America, and more than one in four of them live in single parent homes. Of those children, 84% live without a father. Translation: 23% of American children live without a father.⁵² And yet, sadly, Nicolosi highlighted the evidence that fathers play a significant role in causing and preventing GID.

Nicolosi emphasized, “In fifteen years, I have spoken with hundreds of homosexual men. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I have never met a single homosexual man who said he had a close, loving, and respectful relationship with his father.”⁵³ “The majority of fathers of prehomosexual boys I have known are simply uninvolved, emotionally distant, and disconnected, especially from their sons.”⁵⁴ He cites the published works of other psychologists as further support for that observation. Psychologists Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg said, “The reports concerning the male homosexual’s view of his father are overwhelmingly supportive of Freud’s hypothesis. With only a few exceptions, the male homosexual declares that father has been a negative influence in his life.”⁵⁵ So while there is some inconsistency in studies about mothers, “one virtually unchanging variable is the poor relationship with fathers.”⁵⁶ Fathers are often instrumental in causing GID and homosexual attraction.⁵⁷

Other GID Contributing Factors: Sexual Abuse

Statistics reveal that sexual abuse is a significant contributing factor in causing GID. A 1994 report on sexual behavior in the United States revealed that sexual molestation of a child makes him/her three times more likely to identify as gay or lesbian.⁵⁸ Mayer and McHugh’s 2016 report verified that sexual molestation is a common previous experience of homosexuals, stating that, “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁵⁹ A study that was reported in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of lesbian women reported homosexual molestation, compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women reporting homosexual molestation.⁶⁰ The study conducted by Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts revealed that 60% of the 882 homosexual participants “said they experienced homosexual contact when they were a child.”⁶¹ Sexual abuse—especially homosexual sexual abuse—clearly plays a significant role in shaping one’s sexual identity. Environment, not biology, is the primary cause of GID.

With that fact in mind, parents should be on guard and attentive to their children. According to studies by the Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center,⁶² “1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse.” Also according to one of the studies, over the course of their lifetime, 28% of United States youth, ages 14-17, had been sexually victimized. “According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report, 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well.” No doubt, such statistics will continue to rise as the United States delves ever deeper into sexual anarchy—causing homosexuality to become more and more prevalent in our country.⁶³

Conclusion

In the same way that a parent gives a child rules for his own benefit—for his safety and happiness—God gave humans rules and guidelines that are for our good and happiness. No doubt, parents can be wrong in the rules that they give, since parents do not have perfect wisdom or omniscience. God the omniscient, Chief Psychologist of the Universe Who designed and created the human psyche, however, can be trusted to know the best way to live. Heterosexual behavior between one man and one woman for life is the biblically prescribed way to conduct ourselves sexually. If we wish to be safe and happy, we will abide by His instructions.

From the beginning, however, like the rebellious child who thinks he knows more than his parents, humans have rejected God’s way and put their trust in themselves instead of God and His Word. And still, our merciful God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Homosexuals can “repent.” They can cease sexual activity that is prohibited by God and begin conducting themselves in the biblically prescribed way—the way that will lead to their happiness (Proverbs 29:18). “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). To our homosexual friends: we love you and plead with you to change, for your own good. Christian community: we plead with you not to “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:26-32), but love homosexuals enough to stand against the societal promulgation of their physically, psychologically, and spiritually toxic lifestyle.

 Endnotes

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, & Psychology [Part 3] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The Bible certainly teaches very clearly that the mistreatment of one’s fellow human beings is sinful, and that God makes no distinction between humans on the basis of skin color, ethnicity, or nationality (e.g., 1 Samuel 16:7; Acts 17:26; Romans 2:11,28-29; James 2:1ff.; 1 Peter 1:17). However, behavior is a different matter. Homosexuality, by definition, entails acts that a person performs as the result of the exercise of human choice.

Notice that one’s ethnicity has nothing to do with behavior or choice. If a person’s skin is light or dark, the decisions that he or she makes is not the inevitable result of that genetic factor. Behavior is determined by non-genetic factors—including past experiences, parental and peer influence, education, and culture. A Hispanic is not more or less likely to behave in a certain way simply because of his or her genetic makeup. One whose gene pool is Hispanic is not more or less likely to prefer, say, a tamale, than one whose genetic makeup is Caucasian. Such persons will possess preferences that have arisen from sources and circumstances other than their genetic background.

In stark contrast, however, sexual appetites/preferences have nothing to do with genetic makeup. They are the result of environment, experience, culture, and other factors that can mold and shape individuals in their personal decision-making processes. The sexual inclinations and tendencies that a homosexual insists that he inherently “feels” are no different from the feelings and inclinations that a pedophile possesses in his sexual attraction to children, or that a murderer feels with regard to his violent tendencies. The “feelings” for all three are quite obviously real; but it is a mistake to assign those feelings to any underlying genetic cause. And it is biblically and morally unacceptable for the individual to act on such feelings. Here is the essential difference between ethnicity and homosexuality. African Americans and Caucasions cannot alter their skin color. But they can alter their behavior. And so can homosexuals.

The post Is It Racist to Oppose Homosexuality? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this three-part series appeared in the December issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Homosexuality and Science

Another powerful tool in the gay agenda toolbelt was invented in 1991. The search for a “gay gene” was in full force. After all, if there is a gay gene, then the homosexual cannot help being gay, any more than a person can help having blood. If they cannot help it, then they cannot change it. With such a potentially powerful argument for the acceptance of homosexuality on the horizon, obviously homosexuals and those who endorse their lifestyle would be very interested in proving the existence of a gay gene. “[T]hey did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10b-12).

In 1991, Simon LeVay’s study that sought the “gay gene” was released. The media’s interpretation and presentation of the study was that the gay gene had been found. Overnight, the public’s thinking on homosexuality was significantly altered. After all, “If homosexuals were born that way, it can’t be right to condemn them for it, right? They can’t help it!” Even Christendom was influenced to ignore Scripture on the subject. In 2004, Howard Dean (then Governor of Vermont) signed a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions in Vermont, stating, “The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to [homosexuality]. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”¹ Americans are so biblically illiterate that the nation, by-and-large, fell for such transparent error.

Simon LeVay’s Search for the “Gay Gene”

Did LeVay find the “gay gene”? Didn’t he prove that there are brain differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men? That is certainly the word on the street, but it is not the truth. LeVay’s study claimed that clusters of certain neurons (INAH) in heterosexual men were much larger than that of women and homosexual men, but several problems with the study have been documented.

1. LeVay’s results could not be reproduced.² Reproducibility is a key component of scientific research. Another scientist should be able to follow the same steps you took in your study and achieve the same results. LeVay’s work could not be so verified.
2. The 19 known homosexual men examined in the study all had AIDS. AIDS is known to decrease testosterone levels, thus yielding smaller clusters of INAH.³ The size difference, therefore, may have simply been due to AIDS, not homosexuality.
3. Many scientists now argue that brain differences can be a result of certain behaviors, rather than the cause of them. Marc Breedlove, from Michigan State University, showed that sexual behavior affects the brain, rather than vice versa. “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it.”⁴ In the journal Nature, he explained: “It is possible that differences in sexual behaviour cause, rather than are caused by, differences in brain structure.”⁵ William Byne, writing in Scientific American, explained that, “Even if genetic and neuroanatomical traits turn out to be correlated with sexual orientation, causation is far from proved.”⁶ Ironically, Simon LeVay himself admitted the same truth about his study: “[T]he results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual’s sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation co-vary under the influence of some third, unidentified variable.”⁷
4. LeVay is, himself, a homosexual, adding the real possibility of personal bias to the equation. In the study, he set out to find the gay gene, not to determine if it even exists, which would naturally lend to one finding “evidence” where there is, in actuality, none. LeVay admitted, “I felt if I didn’t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether.”⁸
5. The most important point to be made about LeVay’s famous study comes from the “horse’s mouth.” Levay admitted, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”⁹
   Notice: the primary study to which most people point to prove that homosexuality is genetic—that a homosexual is “born that way” and does not have a choice in the matter—has been misinterpreted to say it proves something it did not prove.

A Summary of the Science of Homosexuality Over the Intervening Years

Many studies were conducted in the following three decades after LeVay’s study—from Bailey and Pillard’s paradoxical “twins” study,¹⁰ to unreproducible X Chromosome studies by Dean Hamer¹¹ and J. Michael Bailey/Alan Sanders,¹² to unsubstantiated, highly criticized, speculative models (not actual evidence) that homosexuality could be epigenetically caused (i.e., caused by non-DNA genetic factors rather than DNA).¹³ Even accounting for the blatant bias of many of the researchers, none have been able to substantiate the existence of a “gay gene” or even prove there is a genetic component that causes homosexuality.

To summarize the current state of the scientific search for a “gay gene,” consider the following quotes from the last few years:

• Geneticists William Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergy Gavrilets: “Although pedigree studies indicate a familial association of homosexuality in both males and females [which could suggest environmental influences, not genetic—JM], more than a decade of molecular genetic studies have produced no consistent evidence for a major gene, or other genetic marker, contributing to male homosexuality. Moreover, the most recent genome-wide association study using exceptionally high marker density found no significant association between homosexuality in males and any SNPs.”¹⁴ In other words, none of the markers which help identify genetic differences between humans has been found to distinguish homosexuals as genetically different from heterosexuals.
• Writing in Nature, Jonathan Lambert highlights a 2019 “massive study,” “the largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality” that indicates there is “no ‘gay gene.’” The study did identify spots in the human genome which the researchers hope are correlated with sexuality, but admit that “none of the markers are reliable enough to predict someone’s sexuality.”¹⁵ In other words, no genetic factor has been found that could be said to cause or force a person to be a homosexual—it’s a choice. Jessica Hamzelou, writing in New Scientist, authored an article on the subject titled, “There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Gay Gene’ Finds Largest Study of Sexuality.” “It’s time to throw out the idea of a ‘gay gene.’” Concerning the genes that are “hoped” to be influential in sexuality, she admitted, “It isn’t clear what these genes might do to affect sexuality [maybe nothing—JM]…. But crucially,…these genes only had a small effect and were far from being predictive of a person’s sexuality.”¹⁶ In other words, the largest study to date has further confirmed (1) that there is no “gay gene” and (2) there is no conclusive evidence that there is any genetic cause of homosexuality.
• In 2016, in the interest of helping “physicians, scientists, and citizens to address health issues faced by LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender—JM] populations within our society,” University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University and Psychiatric Epidemiologist of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute Lawrence Mayer conducted an extensive survey of the research that has been conducted concerning the LGBT community over the past several years.¹⁷ Their goal was not to conduct their own experiments on the “gay gene” or the genetics of homosexuality, but merely to carry out a “literature survey” that summarizes the current knowledge of the subject as gleaned from, especially, experimental evidence. The authors studied hundreds of scientific articles on the subject, surveying research from the scientific fields of epidemiology, genetics, endocrinology, psychiatry, neuroscience, embryology, and pediatrics, as well as the social science fields of psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and gender studies.¹⁸ Upon examining the available research to date, they summarized their findings:

Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence…. The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that way”—is not supported by scientific evidence. While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.¹⁹

• As stated on the American Psychological Association Web site:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….²⁰

In spite of the frantic efforts to find a scientific basis for the claim that sexual orientation is biologically pre-set, a gay gene has not been found. Instead, people just “think” different factors are at play. If homosexual orientation is not hereditary, it must be largely environmental and a psychological, rather than a biological, issue, in spite of the fact that the American Psychological Association has removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

What was once intuitively understood to be the case has now been verified through mounds upon mounds of experimental evidence by many of the very scientists who set out to disprove the obvious: homosexuality is not a genetically forced condition but, rather, an unnatural choice that is affected, to a large degree, by terrible and unfortunate environmental influences, many of which occur so early in life that they are not remembered by the victim (more on that later).

The testimony of hostile witnesses is powerful evidence in a trial, because a hostile witness would tend to be biased against that which he speaks in favor of. Similarly, it would be difficult to disregard such testimony from highly credentialed, hostile witnesses who testify that there is no gay gene, and yet you can be certain that that scientific discovery will not be accepted. We have elsewhere highlighted blind faiths²¹ that are held by many naturalists, like belief in the multiverse²² and the Big Bang Theory²³—theories which lack legitimate evidence to substantiate key tenets that undergird them. Both theories have been admitted by leading cosmologists to be unscientific because they are unfalsifiable: there is no discovery that could be made that would cause naturalistic cosmologists to disbelieve in the theories (because they blindly believe them to be true). Any discovery—even those which seem firmly to disprove the theories—will simply be interpreted in a way that keeps the theories alive. The search for the “gay gene” has been, and surely will continue to be, no different. According to this false way of thinking, there simply must be a genetic cause for homosexual behavior that will make it, not a choice, but a necessity, allowing such sexually immoral behavior to continue without guilt and without argument.

That Said…

Even if a “gay gene” were found—or a “pedophile gene,” “rape gene,” “murder gene,” “lust gene,” “liar gene,” or “theft gene,” for that matter—what would such discoveries ultimately mean? Would one argue that individuals with those genes have no choice as to whether or not they act on their predispositions? Should we allow murderers and rapists to roam the lands pillaging and plundering unhampered since their “genes made them do it,” or do we understand that they can control themselves? Are homosexuals to be viewed as animals—automatons that act purely on instinct with an inability to choose whether or not they may act upon their inclinations? In the words of Tina Saey, writing for ScienceNews, even if sexuality is linked to genes, it “doesn’t mean that genes control sexual behavior or orientation. ‘Same-sex sexuality appears to be genetically influenced, but not genetically determined,’ [University of Utah in Salt Lake City psychologist] Diamond says.”²⁴ Since I am not homosexual, but heterosexual, by implication, if there is a “gay gene,” then I would presumably have the “heterosexual gene.” Question: do I have a choice whether or not to act upon my inclinations every time an attractive woman happens upon my path? While many naturalistic evolutionists and atheists have followed their belief systems to their logical conclusion and argued that we do not, in fact, have free will, the bulk of humanity understands their arguments to be (1) irrational, (2) contrary to the daily barrage of evidence that refutes that assertion, and (3) even self-contradictory.²⁵ Humans have free will. So whatever such a “gay gene” would be if it existed, it clearly still would not force a person to act on his deviant proclivities and disobey God. He can control himself.

If, therefore, a genetic component to homosexuality were ever found, its effect would have to be something other than what many assume the effect of a “gay gene” to be (i.e., that a homosexual cannot help but commit sexual immorality). No doubt, there has been corruption and decay in our once pristine creation (Hebrews 1:10-12), certainly including corruption and degradation in our genetic makeup since Creation and the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19), and that could play a role in influencing human behavior.²⁶ We know that genetics can play a role in whether or not a person is more susceptible to alcoholism or losing his temper (both controllable behaviors) than others. Some behaviors and addictions tend to be family-connected. As far back as 1993, psychiatrists were acknowledging the possibility that homosexuality belongs in that vein. Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons of Columbia University surveyed the literature regarding the potential for biological factors being the “primary basis for sexual orientation,” and found “the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges,” highlighting the influence of hormones and environment in sexual development.²⁷ Saey, once again quoting Diamond, explained that sexuality “‘is not the only complex human phenomenon for which we see a genetic influence without a great understanding of how that influence works.’ Other complex human behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol use, personality and even job satisfaction all have some genetic component.”²⁸ In their enlightening book, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, psychologist and co-founder of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Joseph Nicolosi and his wife Linda highlight the futility of searching for a “gay gene” since none exists. They quote psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover:

“The real genetic question is—what is it in the background of people who become homosexual that opens that door for them, whereas the door is essentially closed for other people? In a nutshell, every behavioral trait in human nature has a genetic component. For example, basketball playing is clearly genetic…. But if you ask yourself what that’s about it’s clear that it’s NOT that there is a gene for basketball playing…. The reason there’s a genetic association is that there’s an intermediate trait which allows people who carry these traits to become basketball players in greater numbers than those who do not have those traits—namely, height, athleticism, and so on. So it’s not surprising that there is a growing number of studies that show a genetic association to homosexuality. But that is a far cry from saying that homosexuality is genetic in the way that eye color is genetic.” So, is it true that homosexuality really is an inborn and normal variant of human nature? For some people, there are no doubt genetic or prenatal hormonal influences that “open the door” to homosexuality, and those influences are likely those that induce a child to see himself or herself as gender-atypical. The answer to the question of inevitability, according to psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, is no—no one is “born gay.” There is no evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is genetically or prenatal-hormonally set in stone simply because that child has gender-atypical interests. In fact, none of the research claims that homosexuality is mandated by biology. Only the press and certain researchers do….²⁹

While a person might be more prone to certain behaviors or temptations due to genetic factors, do such factors control his behavior? No. One could envision a scenario in which a man was genetically predisposed to have, for instance, unusual testosterone levels or endocrine issues that,³⁰ given the “right” experiences in his life and environmental influences at the right time, could affect who attracts him (discussed later). In such a scenario, however, once again, the individual has the ability to decide whether or not to act upon his desires. Homosexual behavior is a choice and, as an “orientation,” changeable (see next part).

The bottom line is that in the three decades since the LeVay “gay gene” study, even the most biased scientists have not been able to find what they thought was inevitable: a gene that would explain the abnormal behavior of homosexuals, make it seem more “natural,” and subsequently justify their continuance in behaviors that God calls “abominable.” The pro-homosexual community predicted that, if homosexuals were “born that way” without a choice, a “gay gene” should exist that would prove it. The fact that they have not been able to find such a gene effectively falsifies their theory and speaks loudly to the fact that homosexuality is a learned behavior, caused primarily by environmental factors outside of the womb. If it is learned, it can be unlearned. If it is a physically and psychologically dangerous, as well as spiritually wicked, lifestyle, it should be unlearned, and those environmental circumstances that were factors that led to the unhealthy behavior should be addressed.

(to be continued)

 Endnotes

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, & Psychology (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Among the many sins listed in Scripture, a handful are mentioned in conjunction with the downfall of a nation. If certain sins are accepted, approved of, and prevalent in a society, its demise is on the horizon. Among those sins is homosexuality: sexual intercourse between individuals of the same gender. In Leviticus 18, God, through the hand of Moses, delineates several sins that the Israelites were not to commit, including, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (vs. 22). God continued:

Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells with you…, lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people (vss. 24-29).

Why is homosexuality spotlighted by God as a particularly heinous sin—an “abomination”? Scripture does not explicitly say. Is it because the sin of homosexuality is so obviously unnatural (Romans 1:26-27) that when a society en masse has irrationally accepted it as natural, the society has passed beyond the point where it can be reasoned with? Is it because homosexual activity is often more violent, and the lifestyle lends itself to violence¹ towards others (e.g., Genesis 18-19) and disease²? Regardless of the motivation, God would not outlaw a behavior without good reasons. He, being the essence of love (1 John 4:7-8), would have loving motivations behind His rules. God loves the homosexual, in the same way that He loves all sinners (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), and He expects His followers to love them as well (Luke 6:31-36)—which is why we are writing this article. God’s commandments are “for our good always” (Deuteronomy 6:24³) and promote life (Deuteronomy 6:24⁴). Sadly, our society and the homosexual community are choosing death.

Homosexuality and American Society

The “Homosexual Manifesto”

In 1987, homosexual activist Michael Swift wrote an article in Gay Community News stating the goals of the homosexual movement⁵—what might be called the “Homosexual Manifesto.” Portions of the article were read during a congressional debate by former Congressman William Dannemeyer, and were entered into the Congressional Record. As you read the following excerpts, be amazed by how much of the gay agenda has been realized over the past 33 years.

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us….

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men….

[W]e shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men….

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles….

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you….

The family unit—spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence—will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic…. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man….

We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Notice how effective the gay agenda has been implemented since Swift’s article was written. One of the most alarming aspects of the homosexual agenda, as stated at the beginning of the article, is the overt targeting of children. Following in the footsteps of Hitler⁶ and other totalitarian regimes throughout history, their agenda was clearly to capture the minds of youth, so that the next generation would accept the sinful behavior, regardless of the beliefs of the adult population at the time. Subsequently, dozens of children’s books, from Jack & Jim, to King & King, to One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads, to My Two Uncles, to Heather Has Two Mommies were written to target children.⁷ As Eric Lyons documented in 2011,⁸ public education has been targeted as a tool for promoting the gay agenda to great effect. The Girl Scouts were targeted, changing their guidelines in 1980 to allow lesbian scouts and troop leaders. As of 1997, the staff was said to be 33% lesbian.⁹ Their goal is not merely to gain sexual access to girls—but to indoctrinate them.¹⁰ In 2015, the Boy Scouts followed suit and, in a 45-12 vote, ended the ban on homosexual leaders.¹¹ [Fast-forward to February of this year: the Boy Scouts declared bankruptcy after multiple sexual abuse lawsuits were filed against them. The number of sex-abuse claims has now surpassed 82,000.Z¹²]

If such information were not enough to cause concern, the activities of NAMBLA—the North American Man/Boy Love Association—should cause outright alarm. Beyond merely trying to indoctrinate children to be accepting of the gay agenda, many gay activists are seeking to gain legal, sexual access to little boys. Well-known child psychologist and author James Dobson, in his book Bringing up Boys, highlights the movement being spearheaded by the increasingly influential NAMBLA. It promotes, as its name implies, sex between adult men and little boys. Dobson notes that their motto is, “Sex before eight or else it’s too late.”¹³ According to the organization’s Web site, man/boy love is “the love of a man for a boy, and a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.”¹⁴ Under the heading, “The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name,” the organization (erroneously) likens its advocation of pedophilia to the love between David and Jonathan. “It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it.”¹⁵ Under the heading “Why NAMBLA Matters,” the organization states that it “has been, and continues to be, a beacon of moral support for all individuals who feel a natural love for boys,” including “incarcerated individuals who identify as boy lovers.”¹⁶

Dobson highlights the worldwide effort in which pedophiles are engaged to lower the age at which a child can legally consent to intercourse with an adult. The result has been to lower the age from 18 to 16 in England, to 15 in Sweden and France, to 14 in Canada, Germany, Iceland, Italy, San Marino, and Slovenia, and even 12 in Spain, Holland, Malta and Portugal. At many of these ages, of course, the child has not yet reached puberty, and yet as Dobson notes, he can give his “consent” to older men who want to use him sexually. Since the activity is legal, as long as it is “consensual,” the parents of those children cannot legally prevent it. Why, might you ask, would homosexuals be feverishly trying to lower the age at which kids can consent to sexual activity? Such a move is certainly in step with the Homosexual Manifesto: “We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms…, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms…. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding.”

The Progression of the Homosexual Movement in America

From the inception of the nation, sodomy was illegal in every state and subject to punishment; all 13 colonies originally advocated the death penalty for homosexuality (several states followed in that tradition, including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia). Thomas Jefferson even advocated castration for homosexuality. The country, by in large, remained staunchly anti-homosexuality for nearly 200 years until the 1960s—the “sexual revolution” in America—when sexual exploration was encouraged and engaged in by young people across America, laying the groundwork for the commencement of gay acceptance in the 1970s. The 1964 Civil Rights Movement helped the gay agenda gain traction, as the homosexual community was able to “ride on the coattails” of the legitimate fight against racism. Many mistakenly equated the fight against racism to be the same fight as the one against homosexuality. Consider a timeline of subsequent major events in the homosexual movement in America over the last five decades:

• June 28, 1969: Police raid a gay bar (Stonewall) in New York, sparking violent riots in response. The event is considered to be the spark of the gay liberation movement.¹⁷
• June 28, 1970: First Gay Pride marches take place, in commemoration of the Stonewall event.¹⁸
• 1971: “All in the Family” becomes the first TV sitcom to depict a gay character.¹⁹
• 1972: “The Corner Bar” becomes the first prime time TV sitcom to have a regular, recurring gay character; “That Certain Summer” becomes the 1^st major TV movie to deal sympathetically with homosexuality.²⁰
• 1973: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.²¹ [The current CEO of the APA is now homosexual Saul Leven.²²]
• 1975: The American Psychological Association removes homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.²³ According to its Web site, “Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.”²⁴
• 1981: First cases of AIDS discovered in America, found at the time to be linked primarily to homosexual activity (159 cases are recorded the first year). [Today, homosexuals make up 70% of all new HIV infections.²⁵]
• 1982: President Ronald Reagan implements a defense directive stating that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” and that homosexuals/bisexuals are discharged from the military.²⁶
• 1983: Gerry Studds becomes first openly gay person elected to Congress. [He “came out” as a result of an investigation into his relationship with a 17-year-old page.²⁷]
• April, 1986: Becky Smith and Annie Afleck of California become the first openly lesbian couple to be granted legal, joint adoption of a child.²⁸
• June, 1986: Bowers v. Hardwick—Supreme Court upholds (5-4) a Georgia sodomy law, prohibiting homosexual activity.²⁹
• February, 1987: Michael Swift publishes the “Homosexual Manifesto.”
• September, 1987: “America Responds to AIDS” campaign launched by the Department of Health and Human Service’s Center for Disease Control, attempting to raise awareness about AIDS.³⁰
• 1991: Simon LeVay’s “gay gene” study completed; Media incorrectly reports that a gay gene has been discovered.³¹
• October 1, 1993: President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy implemented in military, effectively allowing gays to serve in the military, but prohibiting them from disclosing their sexual orientation or being asked about it.³²
• January 14, 1994: Movie “Philadelphia” released to U.S. theaters, about a homosexual who contracts AIDS (Tom Hanks; Denzel Washington); grosses over $206 million worldwide. Nominated for four academy awards, wins two.³³ Movie significantly raises endorsement of homosexuality in America.
• 1996: President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage, defining marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”³⁴
• 1997: New Jersey becomes the 1^st state to expressly authorize joint adoption by gay couples.³⁵
• 1997: Ellen DeGeneres, comedian, popular talk show host, and the most well-known gay or lesbian public figure, publicly announces that she is a lesbian.³⁶
• January, 2003: AIDS becomes an epidemic in the U.S. In the State of the Union address, George W. Bush announces his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.³⁷
• June, 2003: Lawrence v. Texas—U.S. Supreme Court (6-3) strikes down all state sodomy laws that had been in force since the inception of the country.³⁸
• 2004: Massachusetts becomes first state to legalize same-sex marriage; first homosexual couple in America married.³⁹
• 2006: “Brokeback Mountain” movie about the love between two homosexual cowboys released in theaters; nominated for six Academy Awards, wins four others;⁴⁰ 15^th highest-grossing romance drama film of all time.⁴¹
• 2010: The number of Americans who consider homosexuality morally acceptable climbs above 50%.⁴²
• February, 2011: The Obama Administration instructs the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA in court.⁴³
• September 20, 2011: Repeal of DADT policy in military, allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military.⁴⁴
• September 30, 2011: The U.S. Department of Defense issues new guidelines allowing military chaplains to perform same-sex ceremonies.⁴⁵
• May 9, 2012: President Barack Obama endorses same-sex marriage—the first such statement by a sitting president—arguing that the legal decision should be left to the states to determine. President Obama: “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”⁴⁶
• May 31, 2012: The 1^st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rules that DOMA discriminates against gay couples.⁴⁷
• July, 2012: Macklemore and Lewis’ “Same Love” song is released (first top 40 song to promote and celebrate same-sex marriage).⁴⁸
• August, 2012: California becomes first state to sign a ban on homosexual to heterosexual conversion therapy.⁴⁹
• October, 2012: The 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.⁵⁰
• June, 2013: The Supreme Court rejects parts of DOMA (5-4); same-sex spouses legally married may receive federal benefits; overturns California’s voter-approved ballot measure to bar homosexual couples from marrying.⁵¹
• August, 2013: The U.S. Treasury Department rules that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for tax purposes, even if they live in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage.⁵²
• June, 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges—The Supreme Court (5-4) legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, overturning constitutional amendments or state laws banning same-sex marriage in 36 states.⁵³
• June, 2020: Bostock v. Clayton County—The Supreme Court (6-3) adds protection for gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.⁵⁴

Motivation

Why have Americans so quickly flipflopped in their thinking on a behavior that was (and is) so clearly sinful, physically and psychologically dangerous,⁵⁵ and scientifically irrational⁵⁶? Why have so many Americans (in and out of Christendom) jumped on the bandwagon to, not only approve of and legalize all forms of homosexuality (in direct defiance of Romans 1:32), but even encourage the lifestyle? No doubt, there are many different reasons to consider, but the fact that even many so-called Christians who would be predicted to oppose the behavior (due to the clear teaching of Scripture⁵⁷) are jumping on the bandwagon should be noteworthy.

One unarguably influential factor has been the gradual desensitizing of the American mind to the abnormal/unnatural (Romans 1:24-28) and “abominable” nature of the sin of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). The homosexual movement has been effective in increasingly barraging the public with homosexuality since the 1960s, manipulating the population into feeling tolerant, then comfortable, then sympathetic, and then celebratory of the lifestyle. If you hear something a thousand times, it must be true, right? Television has clearly been a, if not the, most effective hammer in the gay agenda’s toolbelt to that end. At least four shows featured homosexual characters (or cast a positive light on the lifestyle) in the 1970sii⁵⁸; seven in the 1980s⁵⁹; and 23 in the 1990s (especially after the “gay gene” study was released and the “Homosexual Manifesto” was written).⁶⁰ By the 2000s, virtually every show would be included in the list, and the shows became more brazen in featuring homosexuality (e.g., “Queer as Folk,” “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” “Modern Family,” “Shameless,” and “The New Normal”⁶¹). Hollywood has shoved homosexuality down the public’s throat for decades through entertainment venues, and our love of entertainment has caused Christendom to turn a blind eye to the dangers of gay influence, rather than taking a stand. Should it surprise us that the bulk of our siblings, children, and grandchildren (Baby Boomers, Generations X, Y, and Z) do not see the problem with homosexuality, any more than they see the problem with fornication, adultery, or divorce? We have been brainwashed.

One tactic used to manipulate the American mind by the homosexual movement has been to play on our sympathy and compassion for those who are suffering (with, for example, AIDS—“Philadelphia” movie) or who are just “a little different,” but not so different from even the toughest among us (“Brokeback Mountain” movie). Christians are to have sympathy for all who are shackled by sin, but that compassion should lead us to teach them about the destructive nature of sin—to warn (“admonish”) them to cease sinning (“repent”) and, in some cases, even “rebuke” them for brazenly defying God (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:2; Ezekiel 33:8-9; Acts 17:30). That, however, is not the sympathy being promoted by the homosexual movement. The gay agenda wishes to make the world have a tolerant, “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuals—to accept homosexuality as normal and natural, rather than warn them and encourage them to change. “Don’t be judgmental! They can’t help it,” we are told. Gaining sympathy is one of the most effective ways of pushing an agenda.

(to be continued)

 Endnotes

¹ Cf. Luca Rolle, et al. (2018), “When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence,” Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1506, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113571/; “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation” (2010), Center for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf.

² Cf. “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” (2016), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 9, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm, accessed July 8, 2020; “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men” (2019), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 12, https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html, accessed July 8, 2020.

³ Cf. Deuteronomy 10:12-13; Proverbs 29:18; Psalm 19:7-8.

⁴ Cf. Deuteronomy 11:18-21.

⁵ Michael Swift (1987), “For the Homoerotic Order,” Gay Community News, February 15-21, emp. added; Note: While some have alleged that Swift’s article was intended to be satirical, the introductory sentence of his article seems to preclude that claim. Regardless, it is clear from the following timeline that the features of Swift’s “fantasy” have played out in reality over the past three decades—which is not funny, satire or not.

⁶ Cf. November 6, 1933 and May 1, 1937 speeches in William L. Shirer (1990), Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster).

⁷ See also, Daddy’s Roommate, King & King & Family, Daddy, Papa and Me, It’s Perfectly Normal, Who’s in a Family?, Molly’s Family, Uncle Max, The Sissy Ducklings, and Tango Makes Three, Oliver Button is a Sissy, Best Best Colors, etc.; Note: see Apologetics Press’ children’s book written in response to the gay agenda: Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies?

⁸ Eric Lyons (2011), “Homosexuality and Public Education—Recent Happenings,” Reason & Revelation, 31[11]:110-119.

⁹ Kathryn Jean Lopez (2000), “The Cookie Crumbles,” National Review, October 23, https://www.lifeissues.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/3_girl_scouts_cookie_crumbles.pdf.

¹⁰ James Dobson (2001), Bringing up Boys (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House), pp. 124-125.

¹¹ Michelle Boorstein (2015), “Boy Scouts of America Votes to End Controversial Ban on Openly-Gay Scout Leaders,” Washington Post on-line, July 27, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/26/the-boy-scouts-are-slated-to-lift-ban-on-openly-gay-adult-leaders/.

¹² Mike Baker (2020), “Sex Abuse Claims Against Boy Scouts Now Surpasses 82,000,” New York Times Online, November 15, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/us/boy-scouts-abuse-claims-bankruptcy.html.

¹³ Dobson, p. 124.

¹⁴ “What Is Man/Boy Love?” (2015), Nambla.org: The On-line Voice of the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ “Why NAMBLA Matters” (2015), Nambla.org: The On-line Voice of the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

¹⁷ “The Stonewall Riots Begin in NYC’s Greenwich Village” (2010), History Channel On-line, October 18, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-stonewall-riot.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ See p. 140 for subsequent homosexual inclusions in television shows.

²⁰ Christine Sparta (2002), “Emergence from the Closet,” USA Today, March 11, https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-03-11-coming-out-timeline.htm.

²¹ “Working with LGBTQ Patients” (2020), American Psychiatric Association, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/best-practice-highlights/working-with-lgbtq-patients.

²² Previously, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders stated that “Sexual Deviation” included “pathologic behavior, such as homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism (including rape, sexual assault, mutilation)” [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders (1952), The Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Mental Hospital Service), pp. 38-39, emp. added].

²³ Gregory Herek (2002), “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health,” http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

²⁴ “Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality” (2008), American Psychological Association, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation, accessed July 8, 2020.

²⁵ “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men.”

²⁶ “Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality” (1992), United States General Accounting Office: Report to Congressional Requesters, June, https://www.gao.gov/assets/160/151963.pdf.

²⁷ Damien Cave (2006), “Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman,” The New York Times, October 15, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/us/15studds.html.

²⁸ “LGBTQA Programs & Services: History Timeline” (2020), University of Nebraska-Lincoln Student Involvement, https://involved.unl.edu/lgbtqa/history.php.

²⁹ Melvin I. Urofsky (2020), “Bowers v. Hardwick,” Encyclopaedia Britannica On-line, https://www.britannica.com/event/Bowers-v-Hardwick.

³⁰ “A Timeline of HIV and AIDS” (n.d.), HIV.gov, Accessed 9/24/20, https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline.

³¹ Natalie Angier (1991), “Zone of Brain Linked to Men’s Sexual Orientation,” The New York Times, August 30, https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/30/us/zone-of-brain-linked-to-men-s-sexual-orientation.html.

³² The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2020), “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell.

³³ “Philadelphia” (n.d.), IMDb.com, Accessed 9/24/20, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107818/.

³⁴ NPR (2013), “Court Overturns DOMA, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling,” CPR News, June 27, https://www.cpr.org/2013/06/27/court-overturns-doma-sidesteps-broad-gay-marriage-ruling/.

³⁵ Judith Havemann (1997), “N.J. Allows Gays to Adopt Jointly,” The Washington Post, December 18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/12/18/nj-allows-gays-to-adopt-jointly/7b031fcd-1338-4dff-b548-1e54eb196f12/.

³⁶ “Ellen DeGeneres Stands in Her Truth” (2011), Oprah.com, October 13, http://www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/ellen-degeneres-stands-in-her-truth-video_1.

³⁷ “HIV/AIDS: Snapshots of an Epidemic” (2020), amfAR: The Foundation for AIDS Research, https://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/.

³⁸ “Lawrence et al. v. Texas” (2003), FindLaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/539/558.html.

³⁹ “Is Homosexual Marriage a Constitutional Right?” (2003), The Bill of Rights Institute, http://www.billobillofrightsinstitute.org/print.phpfrightsinstitute.org/print.php?sid=430.

⁴⁰ “Brokeback Mountain: Awards” (n.d.), IMDb.com, Accessed 9/25/20, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/awards.

⁴¹ “Top 25 Highest Grossing Romantic Dramas” (2018), IMDb.com, February 14, https://m.imdb.com/imdbpicks/top-25-highest-grossing-romantic-dramas/ls021965190/?ref_=m_ls_mv_close.

⁴² Lydia Saad (2010), “Americans’ Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold,” GALLUP News, May 25, http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx.

⁴³ Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (2011), “In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights,” The New York Times, February 23, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html.

⁴⁴ “Memorandum for See Distribution, Subject: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” (2011), Under Secretary of Defense Memo, September 20, https://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR-DADT_Repeal_Day_Memo_20Sep.pdf.

⁴⁵ Charley Keyes (2011), “Military Chaplains Allowed to Perform Same-sex Weddings,” CNN.com, September 30, https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/us/same-sex-marriage-military/index.html.

⁴⁶ Rick Klein (2012), “Obama: ‘I Think Same-sex Couples Should Be Able to Get Married,’” ABC News On-line, May 9, https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married.

⁴⁷ Katharine Q. Seelye and Ethan Bronner (2012), “Appeals Court: DOMA Marriage Law Discriminates,” The Seattle Times, May 31, https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/appeals-court-doma-marriage-law-discriminates/.

⁴⁸ James C. McKinley (2013), “Stars Align for a Gay Marriage Anthem,” The New York Times, June 30, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/arts/music/stars-align-for-a-gay-marriage-anthem.html.

⁴⁹ Geoffrey A. Fowler (2012), “California Bill Bans Gay-Conversion Therapy,” The Wall Street Journal, August 30, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444914904577622153696305504.

⁵⁰ David Ariosto (2012), “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act,” CNN.com, October 18, https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-york-appeals-court-doma/index.html.

⁵¹ Bill Mears (2013), “Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Provision on Same-sex Marriage Benefits,” CNN.com, June 27, https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-doma/index.html.

⁵² “All Legal Same-sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes” (2013), U.S. Department of the Treasury, August 29, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2153.aspx.

⁵³ Lauren Lantry (2020), “Commemorating the SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision 5 Years Later,” ABC News On-line, June 26, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/commemorating-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-years/story?id=71473138.

⁵⁴ Edward G. Sponzilli (2020), “United States Supreme Court Prohibits Terminating Employees Because of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” The National Law Review, June 22, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/united-states-supreme-court-prohibits-terminating-employees-because-sexual.

⁵⁵ E.g., “Sexually Transmitted Disease,” 2016; “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men,” 2019; Robert Paul Cabaj (2020), “Working with LGBTQ Patients: Fast Facts,” American Psychiatric Association, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/best-practice-highlights/working-with-lgbtq-patients.

⁵⁶ The biological study of species with sexual organs in nature reveals that sexual organs are, first and foremost, intended to be used for sexual reproduction. Even evolutionists acknowledge that basic truth. Homosexuality is, therefore, unnatural from a scientific perspective.

⁵⁷ Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=689.

⁵⁸ E.g., “All in the Family” (1971); “The Corner Bar” (1972); “Soap” (1977); “Three’s Company” (1977).

⁵⁹ E.g., “Dynasty” (1981); “Love, Sidney” (1981); “All My Children” (1983); “As the World Turns” (1983); “One Life to Live” (1983); “Brothers” (1984); “Thirtysomething” (1989).

⁶⁰ E.g., “L.A. Law” (1991); “Northern Exposure” (1992); “One Life to Live” (1992); “Melrose Place” (1992); “Roseanne” (1992); “Seinfeld” (1993); “Frasier” (1994); “The Real World” (1994); “Tales of the City” (1994); “My So-Called Life” (1994); “Ellen” (1995); “Relativity” (1996); “Profiler” (1996); “Chicago Hope” (1996); “Spin City” (1996); “General Hospital” (1996); “Friends” (1996); “Mad About You” (1996); “Dawson’s Creek” (1998); “Will & Grace” (1998); “Party of Five” (1999); “NYPD Blue” (1999); “Ally McBeal” (1999).

⁶¹ See also “Six Feet Under” (2001); “The Amazing Race” (2001); “The Wire” (2002); “Reno 911!” (2003); “Glee” (2009).

The post Homosexuality: Society, Science, and Psychology [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

Justice Kennedy (who authored the 5-4 Obergefell opinion recognizing constitutional protections for gay marriage) strikes again authoring the majority opinion on the long-awaited Colorado baker and gay wedding cake case.¹ While many were looking forward to the Supreme Court addressing the issue of conflicting interests (gay rights versus free exercise of religion), the Supreme Court side-stepped this issue and resolved this particular case in such a way that it will have little impact on other cases in the future. Justice Kennedy was joined by six other justices with two justices dissenting, making the opinion a 7-2 split.

This case involved a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple filed a charge against the baker alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission found that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy recognized that this case raised a difficult issue regarding the balance of the protection of “the rights and dignity of gay persons” versus “the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.” Unfortunately, the Court did not resolve this dilemma. Yes, the ruling was a big win for a Colorado baker, but not a big win for the conservative right or liberal left as some had hoped.

The Court held that the Commission’s treatment of the baker violated the State’s duty to refrain from enforcing laws with hostility toward religion. The Court focused on hostile statements made toward the baker during the State Commission’s formal hearing to determine if the baker had discriminated against the gay couple in violation of Colorado law. The commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere. Another commissioner suggested that the baker can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business in this state.” This hostility was contrasted with the Commission’s inconsistent treatment allowing other bakers in Colorado to refuse service to patrons who wanted wedding cakes with an anti-gay message. As such, the Court held “the Commission’s treatment of [the baker’s] case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”

The unfortunate result of this ruling is that the Court found unconstitutional conduct in the manner in which the Commission implemented the law as opposed to the law itself. Rather than decide whether First Amendment rights must give way to the right to not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, the Supreme Court focused on the manner in which the Commission implemented this law. While this focus is disappointing, it is not surprising from a legal standpoint. Courts of appeal throughout this nation will frequently resolve an issue using the path of least resistance principle. For example if there is a threshold procedural issue (Did the party timely file their appeal?) and a substantive issue (Was their evidence to support the verdict of murder?), most courts will resolve the entire appeal on the threshold procedural issue without addressing the substantive issue. It is the simplest and cleanest way to resolve this appeal, and it would not be out of the ordinary for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this gay wedding cake appeal the way it did. Disappointing—yes; unusual—no.

This unresolved legal issue means it may be constitutional for a state to find that a baker discriminated by refusing on moral grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding so long as the state commission does not use “hostile” language in reaching its conclusion. Simply put, this opinion from the Supreme Court has very limited future application, especially when the state commission is smart enough to reach the religiously hostile outcome it desires without using religiously hostile language. The Court recognized the limited precedential impact of this opinion when it stated, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” This is just another way of saying, “Sorry, folks. The decision you were waiting for was not reached. Feel free to try again and bring us another case in a few years.” However, the outcome of the next similar case that makes its way back to the Supreme Court may very likely be decided based on the justice who replaces Justice Kennedy.² And, the next time a similar case makes it back to the Supreme Court on a similar issue where the Court ultimately reaches the critical substantive issue, you can expect a 5-4 split.

Justice Kennedy definitely left the impression that this type of case would have a different outcome so long as the state does not use language that is hostile toward religion, while concluding that a business owner’s religious practices must give way to gay rights. For example, the Court stated that “any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no good or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

There was one final concerning statement from the opinion in the gay wedding case opinion. Justice Kennedy commented that “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” Notice that religious “views” or beliefs are always protected (for now), but the “expression” of these views is protected in “some instances.” This is reminiscent of the language in Obergefell where Justice Kennedy similarly wrote that it “must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”³

This statement from the Supreme Court in Obergefell was pure dicta. “Dicta” is a statement made in a judicial opinion that is completely unnecessary to the resolution of the case. Therefore, it should be asked why this statement was made in light of the fact that it has no precedential value and was completely unnecessary to the resolution of the legal issues on appeal. It appears that Justice Kennedy was not trying to reassure the “religious right” that their First Amendment rights remain fully intact. Rather, this statement appears to be a veiled warning that simply holding religious views may be the only right remaining for those who oppose gay marriage, but don’t push it. In other words, the court is subtly telling those “religious” types out there to keep your opinions out of the public arena and don’t act on this belief that gay marriage is sinful. That is not just this author’s interpretation of Justice Kennedy’s dicta, but also that of Justice Alito.

Justice Alito, in his dissent in Obergefell, interpreted this dicta from Justice Kennedy with the following statement:  “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”⁴ This is consistent with Justice Kennedy’s comment in the Colorado baker case implying that religious beliefs may not be protected by the First Amendment when they transition from sincere convictions to external teaching and doctrine. This latest opinion from Justice Kennedy may mark the beginning of this shift in First Amendment thinking from the Supreme Court eroding the protections of the Free Exercise clause. This thinking highlights, yet again, the importance of the nomination of the justice who eventually replaces Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court justice who is often the swing vote in many controversial cases that impact our culture.

Here is a simple response that every follower of Christ can put into action today. As Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

ENDNOTES

The post Let Them Eat Wedding Cake: The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker (But Only Him) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

This idea of choosing sin but calling it God’s way is not new, but it is being seen in our culture in more obvious and perverse ways than ever before. Take the case of Trey Pearson, the lead singer of the contemporary Christian rock band Everyday Sunday. He recently explained to his fans that he has been gay for 20 years. He married and had children, but will no longer live a heterosexual lifestyle. He hopes that his fans will continue to follow him and buy his music. He claims that his homosexuality is perfectly in-line with Jesus and His teachings. He stated, “There is absolutely no conflict with accepting who I am and following Jesus. God wants me to be healthy, authentic, whole, integrated, and my truest self” (Weber, 2016).¹

Trey Pearson is correct about one thing. God does want him to be healthy, authentic, whole, and his truest self. He is sadly mistaken in making the sinful, perverse claim that leaving his wife to fulfill his homosexual lusts is somehow the fulfillment of God’s plan for his life. Jesus and the New Testament writers absolutely did, in no uncertain terms, confine God-approved sex to a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.² By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to, one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and another man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Now to the main point. Homosexuality is a sin that people can choose if they so desire. They can even claim that their behavior is completely in-line with Jesus and His teachings. But the fact that they claim this to be the case, does not make it so. In truth, Trey Pearson and all others who claim to be following Jesus, but continue to practice their sinful, unnatural, perverse sexuality outside of a God-approved marriage are just like those to whom Jesus’ said, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people drew near to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:8). Again, Jesus cut to the heart of such illogical thinking when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The only possible way for any of us to be true to ourselves and spiritually healthy is to repent of our sins, fall at the feet of our Lord, and obey His commands from the heart. Would to God that our culture would wake up to the reality and truth of the inspired apostle Paul’s statement, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). No adulterer, homosexual, liar, or the like is beyond the power of Jesus’ blood to forgive if that person will repent and turn from his or her sin. If our culture continues to cling to such sinful lifestyles as homosexuality, claiming that Jesus approves, then Jesus’ bold words will echo from the pages of the New Testament as a haunting reminder of God’s love and justice, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). People can choose to practice homosexuality, but they cannot be following Jesus if they do.

Endnotes

The post Can a Gay “Christian” Rock Star Follow Jesus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: Having received his J.D. from the South Texas College of Law, Kevin has extensive experience in medical and legal malpractice litigation and also maintains an appellate practice. A product of the distinguished Advocacy Program at South Texas College of Law, he won multiple national and state championships and many speaking and brief-writing awards. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, he holds professional membership in the State Bar of Texas and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.]

God is laughing at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this is not a good laugh; and He is not laughing with the Supreme Court. This is divine laughing originating from the throne of God, and it is not a good sign.

So, what exactly is God laughing at? The recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage is no laughing matter, but it is the object of this laughter. However, it is worthwhile to take the time to pinpoint exactly what God is not laughing about with regard to the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

God is not laughing at the argument that minor changes in the views of marriage justify recognizing gay marriage. The court argued that gay marriage today is protected by the Constitution because marriage has been changing for years; from arranged marriages, and the doctrine of coverture (wife is under the protection and authority of husband). However, none of these changes in marriage altered the fundamental nature of marriage as one man married to one woman—a consistent element throughout history. As Justice Roberts noted in his dissent, this so-called “transformation…did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.”

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s heavy reliance on cases recognizing interracial marriage, and then using interracial marriage as an excuse to justify same-sex marriage. As Justice Roberts so eloquently stated, “Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was.”

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that “personal choice” regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of “individual autonomy” as a means of self-definition where through the “nature of marriage…two persons can find other freedoms such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” Question: What in the world does that mean? This so-called “analysis” sounds more like a philosophy class than constitutional analysis. Justice Roberts recognized as much when he said the majority opinion “sounds more in philosophy than law.” Justice Scalia observed in his dissent, “Whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality…were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.” Justice Scalia’s attempt at humor notwithstanding, this is not what God is laughing at.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individual.” The majority opinion goes on to support this position by stating, “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.” So, let me see if I have this right, James Madison and Ben Franklin. You drafted the Constitution to ensure that people would not have lonely feelings? Really? I am sure Freud would agree with you, but not Franklin. But let’s follow that argument for a moment. If any marriage is justified and legitimate because it prevents people from being lonely, then why not adopt the “more the merrier” approach. If just two people marry, they will eventually be lonely when just one dies. But if three or four marry (a.k.a. polygamy), then the unconstitutionality of loneliness will be even further defeated. It only makes sense.

If we can change the fundamental nature of marriage by removing the restriction of one man married to one woman, why are we only allowed to change the gender makeup of that institution? Why can’t we change the numerical, bilateral nature of marriage? Justice Roberts recognized this logical conclusion in his dissent when he wrote, “from the standpoint of history, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some churches around the world…. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” Just wait. It will not be long at all before special interest groups and certain religious organizations will be petitioning for states to remove statutes criminalizing polygamy, and eventually, requiring states to recognize multi-party marriages (the same route gay marriage advocates took). It is just a matter of time under this laughable analysis. But that is not why God is laughing.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s argument that gay marriage is now a constitutionally protected fundamental right because the right to marry “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education.” That’s right; the Supreme Court is arguing that “childbearing and procreation” are a basis for extending constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Are not arguments based on childbearing and procreation typically found in the traditional positions against homosexuality? I never thought I would see the day when the argument that childbearing and procreation would be the argument used to justify gay marriage. Can homosexuals bear children or procreate with each other? By its very nature, homosexuality is impotent in such matters. Apparently, common sense has left the building.

God is not laughing at the argument that the law allows gay couples to adopt, which “provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving supportive families.” The basis of this argument has been used by denominations for years—if you have love in your heart, it doesn’t matter what you do. Therefore, if homosexuals appear loving and express care for adopted children, it must be okay to marry, right? Apparently, the ability to care for children is now the basis for constitutional recognition of marriage. However, we have all seen courageous dogs that protect and care for their young, but that does not give rise to the right to an interspecies marriage. But it would under this result-oriented analysis from the Supreme Court.

God is not laughing at the argument advanced by the Supreme Court that gay marriage is a fundamental right because otherwise, “their children [would] suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser…and harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.” This widely-used political argument is called, “What about the children?” When someone is trying to scare others to adopt their point of view, but has no legitimate argument or ammunition, they throw out an emotion-based hypothetical and proclaim, “What about the children?” At this point, women are supposed to swoon and delicate men faint at the thought that this may somehow harm our children. Again, the tyrannical evil that is being constitutionally thwarted here is the evil of hurt feelings. Which begs the question, “When did we become a nation of pansies?” Give me liberty or give me death, unless it might hurt some child’s feelings. That is apparently where we are as a nation.

God is not laughing at the Supreme Court’s ridiculous efforts to justify their position by arguing that “marriage is a keystone of our social order.” To that proposition we would all heartily agree (without adopting the conclusion that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected freedom). And history has borne this principle out over and over again. As the institution of marriage crumbles; as people become preoccupied with their own pleasure; as people become more decadent and obsessed with self-pleasure, sexuality, and gayety; as long-held notions of love and healthy sexuality are set aside; and as loose relationships, open love, and same-sex companionship flourish; history teaches us that the fall is never far behind. Not to be overly crass, but just look at any gay pride parade, and you can see where the “keystone of our social order” is headed; and that is no joke.

God is not laughing at the blatant hubris and condescension of the majority opinion in the Obergefell case. The majority opinion proudly proclaims that they have finally figured out what other legal morons in the past could not: “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.” Justice Kennedy describes the majority’s position as based on a purported “better informed understanding.” Rather than learn from history, the majority looks down on the thinkers of the past and proclaim themselves as the geniuses who overcame the stupidity of our ancestors.

This arrogance did not escape Justice Scalia who wrote, “The [majority] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” He recognized the fact that the majority has “discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what “lesser” legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. God is not laughing at this prideful display that proclaims to be the first sober-minded legal minds to finally get it right.

So what exactly is God laughing at? The Bible holds the answer (a book that escaped the mention of any judge in the Obergefell opinion, neither in the majority opinion nor in any of the dissents).

Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision (Psalm 2:1-4).

But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that His day is coming (Psalm 37:13).

Rouse yourself to punish all the nations; spare none of those who treacherously plot evil. …But you, O Lord, laugh at them; You hold all the nations in derision (Psalm 59:5,8).

This is not God making light of this dilemma or teasing those who are lost in sin. God is trying to emphasize the folly and pointlessness of sin and the arrogance that ignores God’s simple instruction. God laughs to illustrate the vanity and futility of trying to resist His counsel and commands while thinking we know what is best for ourselves. If we continue to reject God, He will reject us when we need Him the most.

Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all My counsel and would have none of My reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call upon Me, but I will not answer; they will seek Me diligently but will not find Me. Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, would have none of my counsel and despised all My reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices (Proverbs 1:24-31).

Does this instruction and warning from the wise pen of Solomon have greater meaning and significance in light of the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage opinion? God is laughing, and it should cause us to weep for our nation that is filled with so many lost souls that God sincerely loves. God’s laughter should stand out like a tornado siren warning us of the impending storm and whirlwind that Solomon described by inspiration, and reminding us to be ever vigilant and watchful to remain faithful as the world continues to drift further and further away from the truth. Now, more than ever, faithful Christians can be a light that stands out in a world utterly lost in darkness blinded by its own legal wisdom. That is no laughing matter.

References

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015).

The post The Supreme Court Decision On Gay Marriage: It’s Not A Laughing Matter, Or Is It? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[NOTE: The following uplifting words are based on a sermon by A.P. board member Frank Chesser preached on Sunday, June 28, 2015 in Montgomery, Alabama in response to the Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriages.]

There are twin sins that could serve as bookends for all other sins—abortion and homosexuality. From a biblical perspective, these sins are so monumentally evil, that a nation’s embracement of them is a solicitation for divine judgment. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized the slaughter of babies in the womb. Forty-two years has witnessed human intrusion into the mother’s womb, the workshop of God, extracting from the hands of God a work in progress, and crushing it into pieces with brutal tools of death. This sin has resulted in figurative oceans of abortive blood, waves of scarlet, washing against the seashore of the mind of God with unceasing cries for divine vengeance. When God’s judgment befell Judah, one of the reasons cited was the rivers of innocent blood with which Manasseh flooded Jerusalem that the “Lord would not pardon” (2 Kings 24:4). Homosexual conduct is an abomination for which God demanded the death penalty under the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13). It is vile and unnatural (Romans 1:26). Homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah were “exceedingly wicked and sinful before the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). They were pursuers of “strange flesh” and are “set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Legalizing such unspeakable sins is a call for the judgment of God. Hopefully, reflection upon the following points will prove helpful in this dark national hour brought about by the recent endorsement by the Supreme Court of homosexual marriages.

1. The Supreme Court’s decision was an expression of freewill. Freewill is a gift of God. It prevents man from being a robot clothed in flesh. It enables love to be a reality, the greatest of the triune traits of 1 Corinthians 13:13. But it is fraught with fearful consequences. A tragic choice of freewill made Genesis 3:6 an actuality and Calvary a necessity. Five Justices exhibited their freewill in the legalization of homosexual marriages. Some may question the value of our prayers for God to cast the deciding vote in this decision. It was God’s desire to cast His vote through one more Justice who would stand for righteousness, but it was not to be. We are haunted by God’s affirmation to Ezekiel, “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none” (Ezekiel 22:30). God cannot overrule man’s freewill.

2. Sin has an aggressive nature. Sin is the most aggressive thing known to man. It is not stagnant. It never stands still. It is constantly moving forward in search of its next victim. Its appetite is insatiable. Sin was not satisfied with Genesis 3:6. It devised the false worship of Genesis 4:5, the murder of Genesis 4:8 and the world-wide wickedness of Genesis 6:5. Sin was not content with the success of its bloody assault upon the womb. It moved on to tamper with the pattern of marriage, divinely instituted by God. The vote of five Justices on the Supreme Court has opened the door to a dark and foreboding world that will prove to be a national disaster of epic proportions.

3. We should not be surprised. The nation has been moving in this direction for several decades. This decision is simply the end result of years of decadent behavior that has unraveled the moral fiber of the nation. The pace was fairly slow leading up to homosexual marriages until recently when the executive branch of our federal government, with tacit legislative approval, placed its unequivocal sanction upon homosexual unions. The homosexual community, many in the entertainment industry, the music industry, and all supporters of this aberrant lifestyle, released a collective sigh of victory. The Supreme Court took the final step in endorsing this profligate lifestyle. Sin is an alien concept to the minds of many Americans. It is no longer a part of the vocabulary of the general public. The average person could not define sin if his very life depended upon it. A new glossary of terms has been invented to extract the sinfulness out of sin and whitewash sinful acts into respectability. Hence, homosexuality is now just an “alternate lifestyle.” Should we expect a world that hates Christ (John 15:18) and the truth that comes from Christ (which demands purity and holiness of life) to possess and exhibit repugnance for moral degeneracy?

4. We need to face reality. We are likely not going to be able to change the direction of this country. It will probably never again be what it once was. This has been proven by history when tracing the rise and fall of nations and empires. It is not possible to restore the moral and spiritual foundation upon which America was constructed. We have very likely gone too far in the wrong direction to reverse our national course. We may not like the thrust of these words, but it would be foolish to argue against them. The Bible and the whole history of man testify to the truthfulness of these sentiments. There will be no Jonah-like sign (Luke 11:30) to provoke America to repentance. Refusing to accept the reality of our national state of decline will only negate our resolve to make what difference we can by shining the Gospel where we are and taking essential steps to victoriously confront whatever difficulties face us in the future.

5. Our situation today is not new. Several thousand years of human experience and national history bear witness to this truth. Many nations have preceded ours and are now buried beneath the aging dust of the Earth, and they all followed the same course. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17). God destroyed the nation of Israel in Assyrian captivity because of its sin (2 Kings 17). A spiritual remnant in Judah returned from Babylonian captivity, but their national glory was gone forever. Divine judgment could purge America in some sense, but it would be most unwise to base one’s hope on a restoration of its former moral national climate and greatness.

6. Trials are inevitable. Loving God and truth beckons the world’s hatred (John 15:18-19). Persecution is like a shadow to godly living (2 Timothy 3:12). Inspiration warns against viewing trials as something “strange” (1 Peter 4:12). No nation can declare war upon the most innocent of the Earth and put a legal stamp of approval upon what God calls vile, wicked, unnatural, and an abomination and escape the judgment of God. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:18). There will be trials to bear under the hand of God’s wrath.

7. Trials are bearable. First Corinthians 10:13 should mightily comfort the spiritual mind with God’s promise that He will not allow His people to be tried above their ability to endure. He will aid us every step of the way. He is our “refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 41:1). There was one occasion in Paul’s life when all human assistance failed him (2 Timothy 4:16), but he hastened to affirm, “Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me” (2 Timothy 4:17).

8. God is sovereign. The term “sovereignty” denotes supreme power and authority. God alone is sovereign. He is transcendent to all that is. He controls the universe. He is the “Almighty God” (Genesis 17:1) and the “possessor of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19). He is “exalted as head above all” (1 Chronicles 29:11). Jehoshaphat averred, “rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?” (2 Chronicles 20:6). Nebuchadnezzar learned this truth by bitter experience (Daniel 4:35). When Habakkuk expressed concern over what he viewed as a delay in God’s judgment upon Judah (Habakkuk 1:2-4), he was informed that Babylon was on its way with the sword of violence in its hand (Habakkuk 1:5-11). God is going to attend to the moral chaos in America in His own time and way, and in harmony with His own nature and will. Let us resolve to be among the righteous remnant and beseech Him for wisdom, courage and preservation in this dark and dreary hour.

9. The Supreme Court is not THE Supreme Court. Five Justices have declared war on God and His will for the sanctity of the marital state. They have declared “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). They are void of moral perception. Judah was unable to apprehend the folly of idolatry (Isaiah 44:9-20), and these Justices are incapable of discerning basic moral evil. “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:18). When time is no more, they will stand before the Supreme Judge of all the Earth and give an account for joining the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) in mightily enlarging the chasm between America and God, and perhaps driving the dagger of death into its national heart.

10. This world is not our home. Abraham recognized that even the land of promise was a “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9). Many others joined him in confessing “that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13). It does not take long to get old and arrive at the point in life when the time of our “departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6). There is an incorruptible, undefiled eternal inheritance “reserved in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4) for the righteous servant of every age.

11. What should be our response? Refuse to allow the spiritually deranged decision of three women and two men to unduly affect your life. Greet the dawn and dusk of each day with a growing love for God, truth and righteousness. Do not crack the door of your life and allow Satan to “get an advantage” (2 Corinthians 2:11) of you. Love the saved and the lost; all of them. Do not permit dark days to rob you of your joy. “Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say, Rejoice” (Philippians 4:4). Never quit. Never give up. Do not allow the Devil to defeat you with the rod of discouragement. Let every heartbeat sing with ceaseless gratitude for dew drops of mercy from heaven, the cross of Calvary, and exult in every good blessing that flows from the loving and generous hand of God. Lean on God, your family, and your brethren. Fill your mind with the mind of God as revealed in the Bible. Pray fervently. “Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21). May God bless us to this end.

The post The Supreme Court is Not THE Supreme Court appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[NOTE: Auxiliary staff writer Melvin Otey served in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. as a Trial Attorney in the Review and Policy Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, responsible for reviewing all RICO and VICAR prosecutions nationwide. He also taught at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. In addition to writing for Apologetics Press, Otey now serves as an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University Jones School of Law in Montgomery and as an adjunct professor at Amridge University.]

There are watershed moments in the history of any nation, and America is no different in this regard. Critical turning points have included armed conflicts like the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. They have included speeches like Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” address to Virginia’s delegates in 1775 and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963. The course of affairs in America has also been decisively impacted by court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that will surely qualify as yet another watershed moment in American history.

WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE

With the Supreme Court’s mandate that all 50 states recognize homosexual “marriages,” American authorities have once again declined to restrain evil and decided instead to sanction what Jehovah clearly condemns (but see Romans 13:3-5). Make no mistake: whatever popular opinions may be in society today, whatever novel theories are bandied about in the halls of academia to explain homosexual conduct, and whatever laws are passed by men, this is sinful behavior. It is one of several behaviors for which unrepentant sinners will be eternally lost (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Jehovah, the Creator of mankind and marriage, is as clear on this matter as He is on any subject. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, ESV). “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). While many today seemingly accept the notion that people are “born homosexual” (without any scientific support), homoerotic behavior is really a consequence of people turning away from Jehovah to worship themselves and lower aspects of His creation. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul explained:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committingshameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty fortheir error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (emp. added).

Of course, in the first century when Paul wrote, homosexuality was common and accepted in the Roman Empire, just as it is becoming more common and more accepted in America and Western Civilization at-large. Remember, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34; cf. Ezekiel 16:49-50).

The Court’s decision is merely the latest in a line of critical markers for the accelerated and abysmal moral decline of the United States. It follows on the heels of the introduction of the theory of evolution into school curricula, the legalization of abortion on demand, and the proliferation of no-fault divorce. Our society is at war with our God, and the Court’s decision once again crystallizes the stark contrast between God’s law and man’s law. This decline in our national morality does not bode well for our national future: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

WHAT CHRISTIANS MUST DO

More than ever before, it is absolutely vital that Christians in America grasp the reality of our circumstances. Whatever ideals one may hold about what America used to be, and whatever dreams one may have about what it will become, we must walk circumspectly in these evil and decadent days (Ephesians 5:15-16). We live in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is Babylon and Rome, and we must develop realistic expectations in order to prepare for what is forthcoming. All those who resist this latest ordinance of the State and speak against homosexuality as the Bible does should anticipate mounting aggression and increasingly overt hostility from his neighbors and the authorities. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

Of course, aggression and hostility and persecution have been evident for some time now (albeit at a relatively lower level). Those who have dared to voice concern with their employers’ “diversity” campaigns, designed largely to compel acceptance of homoerotic behavior, have been sent to “sensitivity training” or fired. Business owners who have declined to sell flowers or cakes for homosexual wedding ceremonies specifically because of their religious convictions have been sued, fined and driven out of business. People from all walks of life are publicly excoriated and harassed if they even suggest that this particular sin is unnatural and unhealthy for individuals, families, and society-at-large. Increasingly, everyone is thought to have freedom of speech in America except those who disagree with homosexuality, and the tide is unlikely to change in the near future.

There is room to lament and decry what is occurring, but Christians cannot expend inordinate energy in this regard because we cannot afford to be inert any longer. We must move forward. In light of what is occurring in American society, in general, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-sex unions, in particular, Christians must consider how the church should proceed in the days to come.

Preach the Truth

We must preach and teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It will make us unpopular, but we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) and bear the consequences for preaching and teaching Christ (Acts 5:40-42). Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior is a “hate crime” in February 2013. It is seemingly only a matter of time before American courts do the same, and well-funded advocates of the homosexual agenda are aggressively marshaling their resources to ensure that they do.

Following their latest victory in the Supreme Court, these advocates will ramp up their focus on policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America. Consequently, the costs for teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) on matters of marriage and sexuality will increase dramatically. People are going to be sued and convicted as criminals for merely saying what the Bible says; they will be fined and ultimately jailed. Still, we must not waver or compromise; rather, we must “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Protect the Church

Of course, being committed to speaking and living the truth does not mean Christians should be ignorant of or unprepared for the consequences. We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Those promoting acceptance of homoeroticism are doing it largely through the courts, and this means they will continue suing people. Consequently, church sermons and websites will be scoured for statements disapproving of homosexuality. Also, preachers and churches will increasingly receive inquiries from litigious individuals concerning their willingness to perform same-sex weddings, and they must take proper precautions.

In anticipation of inquiries like this, preachers should strongly consider adopting an announced policy of refusing to officiate wedding ceremonies where he has not personally provided pre-marital, Bible-based, spiritual counseling to those wanting to exchange vows. This is advisable for several reasons, but a consistent practice in this regard will require those seeking the preacher’s assistance for a homosexual union to submit to several sessions of counseling on what the Bible teaches about marriage. Those who are not interested in entering a union guided by the Scriptures are unlikely to participate in such a series. However, even if two men or two women participated in the series (which would be great), a preacher could still decline to officiate the ceremony if the parties are unwilling to repent of their sin, just as he would decline to officiate if he discovered that the union would be adulterous (e.g., Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9). The basis for refusal, then, would be the parties’ express intention of entering into a union that does not conform to the teachings of Scripture, which he is duty-bound to uphold.

Congregations should also be proactive and adopt insulating language and policies before trouble of this kind darkens its doors. For instance, every church’s bylaws should include a statement of faith regarding marriage, gender, and sexuality and clearly identify the Bible as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. A church might also adopt a policy limiting the use of its facilities and grounds to the religious purposes expressed in its bylaws. If its buildings and grounds are to be used for weddings, the church should amend its bylaws to expressly state that weddings conducted by church staff or on church grounds are “religious ceremonies” (because they involve acts of prayer, singing hymns, reading Scripture, and an exchange of vows in which a man and woman enter into a covenant with God and one another; see Matthew 19:6 and Malachi 2:14-15) and limit the use of church facilities to ceremonies involving “members in good standing” (and perhaps “their children” or “immediate family members”). As long as the limitation is not based on sexual orientation and is consistently applied, the congregation is likely to either avoid a lawsuit or successfully withstand a legal challenge if it comes.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will certainly lead to increased pressure on the church. Those who support the homosexual agenda will target conservative preachers and churches (they have already been targeted in other countries), and the ones saying “no gay marriages” are surely going to end up in litigation, whether civil or criminal. Of course, this does not change our responsibilities one iota; we must stand with the Lord in speaking and teaching the truth. Along the way, we must be prudent and wise in protecting the church because, even if churches successfully defend against lawsuits of this kind, the drain on resources that comes with being swept up in litigation would distract its members and significantly undermine its work.

The post Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The only legitimate way to evaluate and regulate human behavior is to look to the Creator. He is the One Who, in the words of the Founders of the American Republic, “created” all men, “endowed” them with life, provides them with “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and who functions as “the Supreme Judge of the world” (Declaration of…, 1776). If human opinion becomes the standard for judging ethical behavior, nothing but confusion, contradiction, and inconsistency can result.

The latest glaring evidence of this sad circumstance comes from the highest court in the land (Chappell, 2015). In a 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has brazenly flaunted the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout western civilization, and most certainly in America from the beginning. This definition did not originate with men or nations. It came directly from the Creator of humanity and the Universe. When God spoke the Creation into existence, he declared forthrightly: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ reaffirmed the same thing (Matthew 19:4-6). One man for one woman has been the bedrock of civilization for 6,000 years, with exceptions confined to an immoral and depraved minority. Yet, now, a nation noted throughout the world for over two centuries as a bastion of Christianity has stunned humanity with an unprecedented leap into the quagmire of moral corruption and unrestrained devotion to sexual insanity (cf. Miller, 2006).

This unhappy state of affairs most certainly saddens those who yet retain a sense of Christian morality. Yet those who still believe in the God of the Bible are undaunted and unmoved by the high court’s shameful stance. For you see, only the Creator has the right to define lawful marriage—and all other human behavior. Those who reject His will inevitably will suffer the consequences of their spurning of the Creator’s prescription for happiness and contentment in this life, and eternal security in the life to come.

Consider the similarity between our day and the social setting depicted for the Thessalonians, which speaks of the

unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

It gives Christians no comfort to be reminded of Jesus’ warning on those who are dancing in the streets with jubilation over the Court’s decision: “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). The warning issued to Jeremiah’s contemporaries trumpets an eerie warning:

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,” says the LORD (Jeremiah 6:15).

Whatever people believe, say, or do, the fact remains: The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah discovered—there will be a day of reckoning. “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). God still declares: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:35, NIV).

REFERENCES

Chappell, Bill (2015), “Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal in All 50 States,” NPR, June 26, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Only the Creator has the Right to Define Marriage appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Tim’s misunderstanding of God and His Word cannot be further from the truth. We have discussed in numerous other places the fact that homosexuality is a sin, just like other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, and pedophilia. And we have shown that there is no genetic link to homosexuality (Miller and Harrub, 2004). It is a choice—a sinful way of life. It is not something that a person is; it is something that a person chooses to do.

As an analogy, suppose that a person who practices bestiality were to contend that his sexual choice is a gift from God. His bestiality has put him in the minority and allowed him to see things from a minority perspective. His bestiality helped him to develop thick skin and made him a stronger person. In addition, he looks forward to the day when our country recognizes the rights of people to legally marry animals.

While those who practice homosexuality do not appreciate such comparisons, the same arguments can be made in favor of bestiality as are made in favor of homosexuality. A person could claim that there is nothing he can do about his sexual preference for animals. He was made that way. He loves animals, and that is his way to show it. He can’t believe people are so judgmental and unloving as to claim that his choice is sinful or wrong. He is being persecuted by “bigots” who hate minorities such as those who practice bestiality.

One could make the same case for pedophilia. The person who engages in this sexual practice could claim she can’t help it. God created her as a pedophile. She is glad that God made her this way, because it helps her understand other minorities such as those who practice bestiality or homosexuality. It has given her thick skin and helped her learn to be herself. She looks forward to the day when our country understands that 12 year olds know what they want and should be allowed to give their consent.

I hope that you can see the problem with Tim Cook’s statement. It is one thing to blatantly live a sinful life of rebellion against God. It is another thing to claim that God is “blessing you” by endowing you with a sinful behavior. That is the equivalent of a thief claiming that “being” a thief is the greatest thing God ever did for him; or a habitual liar claiming that He is thankful God made him a liar; or an adulterer claiming that God blessed him with three girlfriends in addition to his wife; or a teenage boy thanking God for making him promiscuous and giving him the chance to have sex with scores of girls.

Has our “Christian” nation wandered so far from what God actually says in the Bible that it can swallow the proclamation that a person’s homosexual lifestyle is a gift from God? Have even New Testament Christians lived so long outside the Word of God that they can’t recognize such a blasphemous statement for the twisting of the truth that it is? Homosexuality is a sin, like any number of other sins such as lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, fraud, malicious gossip, etc. God loves all sinners and wants them to be saved. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 2:15). Jesus Christ died on the cross to save Tim Cook from his choice to be a homosexual, just as Jesus died to save each and every one of us from our sins. But Jesus commands, yes demands, that we recognize that we are sinning and stop—repent of—our sins. Jesus clearly said “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

It may be true that our culture no longer recognizes that sex before marriage is sin, or that adultery is sinful, or that homosexuality is a violation of God’s Law. But to claim that not only are these actions not sinful, but they are gifts from God, shows an ignorance of the nature of God and of His Will that is startling. As the apostle John wrote: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). The haunting words of the prophet Isaiah, written over 2,700 years ago remind us that Cook’s tactic is nothing new: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).

REFERENCES

Cook, Tim (2014), “Tim Cook Speaks Up,” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay.

Goldman, David (2018), “Tim Cook: Being Gay is God’s Greatest Gift to Me,” CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/tech/tim-cook-gay-apple/index.html.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1401&topic=36.

The post Apple® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: We receive many questions at A.P. from inquirers all over the world. We are devoting this issue of R&R to a few of these questions that we think may be of interest to a wider audience.]

Q:

“I agree that the historical proof is there that Christianity was the religion of the vast majority of the Founders and Americans ever since. But in the last half-century, America has changed drastically with the influx of many other worldviews and religious sentiments, and we seem to be doing just fine. So why would you say Christianity is still needed in America?”

A:

For the same reason it was needed at the beginning: it is the only way to sustain the kind of Republic we enjoy. The practice of Christian principles by the majority of the citizens is not necessary in a dictatorship, monarchy, communist or socialist state, atheistic country, Islamic country, etc. In all such ideological settings, the government is coercive and regulates everybody and everything. But to have the kind of freedom we have enjoyed in this country, where everyone is free to pursue moral happiness and exercise freedom of choice with regard to profession, travel, etc., the people must embrace Christian morality. The less of Christianity in the hearts and behavior of the population, the more need for government regulation. The more the people are self-controlled by Christian principles, the fewer laws are needed. Consider these quotes by Founders who articulated this principle plainly:

Patrick Henry:

I am not so much alarmed as at the apprehension of [France] destroying the great pillars of all government and of social life; I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed (as quoted in Henry, 1891, 2:591-592, emp. added).

James McHenry (signer of the Constitution andSecretary of War):

The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

John Adams (signer of Declaration of Independence, Vice-President under George Washington, and second President of the United States):

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (1854, 9:229).

Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand…. The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies (1976-2000, emp. added).

Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration of Independence):

I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power…will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him (as quoted in Ramsay, 1813, p. 103).

John Witherspoon (signer of the Declaration of Independence):

It is the prerogative of God to do what he will with his own; but he often displays his justice itself, by throwing into the furnace those, who, though they may not be visibly worse than others, may yet have more to answer for, as having been favoured with more distinguished privileges, both civil and sacred…. Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners makes a people ripe for destruction…. [W]hen the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigour, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed…. [H]e is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion [Christianity—James 1:27], and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind (1777, pp. 16,33, emp. added).

Noah Webster (Father of American Scholarship and Education):

[T]hose who destroy the influence and authority of the Christian religion, sap the foundations of public order, of liberty, and of republican government (1832, pp. 310-311).

Jedidiah Morse (Father of American Geography):

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. All efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them (1799, p. 11, emp. added).

Elias Boudinot (President of the Continental Congress):

[O]ur country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies to the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be introductive of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society (1801, p. xxii, emp. added).

George Washington (Father of our Country, first President of the United States):

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (1796, pp. 22-23, emp. added).

Washington also said only God can protect our nation:

I am sure there never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that Agency which was so often manifested during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them (1792, “Letter to…”).

Observe that these Founders (and many more—see Miller, 2009) insisted that Christianity is necessary to provide the people with proper moral behavior so that the Republic they established might be perpetuated. No other religion—Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or even Atheism—can provide the proper moral framework necessary to perpetuate the civil institutions and way of life created by the Founders and Framers.

The Bible teaches the same thing:

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan. The king establishes the land by justice, but he who receives bribes overthrows it (Proverbs 29:2-4). No king is saved by the multitude of an army; a mighty man is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a vain hope for safety; neither shall it deliver any by its great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy (Psalm 33:16-18).

Further, consider this: If there is a God, and if He is the God of the Bible, and if His Word is expressed in the Bible alone, then according to that Word, (1) He is active in the affairs of nations (Daniel 4:17); (2) He blesses those who look to Him (Psalm 33:12); and (3) He will abandon and even punish the nation that spurns His will and chooses to live sinfully—which is precisely the direction our nation/citizens are swiftly headed. Hence, we should well expect national calamity to come in some form (economic collapse, infiltration by enemies, increase in diseases, natural calamity, etc. [Deuteronomy 28:15ff., et al.]).

To repeat: Systematically banning Christianity from our schools, our government, and the public square will have two results: (1) a massive increase in immorality, crime, and social anarchy, and (2) God’s disfavor and wrath will eventually be unleashed against the nation.

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).

Adams, John (1976-2000), Letters of delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, ed. Paul Smith (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress), Volume 4, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg004210)).

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.

Henry, William (1891), Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and Speeches (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), http://www.archive.org/details/pathenrylife01henrrich. See also George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4. General Correspondence. 1697-1799, Image 1071, “Patrick Henry to Archibald Blair,” January 8, 1799, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage113.db&recNum=1070.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ & the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Morse, Jedidiah (1799), A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Charlestown, MS: Samuel Etheridge), http://www.archive.org/details/sermonexhibiting00morsrich.

Ramsay, David (1813), An Eulogium Upon Benjamin Rush, M.D. (Philadelphia, PA: Bradford & Inskeep).

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: The Maryland Bible Society).

Washington, George (1792), “Letter to John Armstrong, March 11, 1792,” Letterbook 18
Image 110 of 359, George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage018.db&recNum=109.

Washington, George (1796), Address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore, MD: George & Henry Keating).

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Witherspoon, John (1777), The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men (Philadelphia, PA: Town & Country), http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Dominion_of_Providence_Over_the_Pass.html?id=HpRIAAAAYAAJ.

The post Is Christianity Still Needed In America? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Apart from the issues of “free speech,” the self-contradiction and utter inconsistency of the left, and the determination of anti-Christian forces to bully, intimidate, and silence those who oppose their agenda, the entire matter actually distils into a single, all-encompassing issue: Does the God of the Bible exist and is the Bible His inspired, decipherable Word to which all human beings are amenable and for which they will be held accountable? For those who still believe the Bible, the issue is clear and decisive.

Homosexual intercourse is condemned as immoral sexual behavior in every period of Bible history. It was condemned implicitly at the beginning of human history in the creation of a man and a woman to form the marriage and the home (Genesis 2:24). It was condemned as “wicked and sinful” and “very grievous” in Sodom and Gomorrah during the pre-Mosaic age (Genesis 13:13; 18:20; 19:1-11; cf. 2 Peter 2:7-8; Jude 7). It was condemned under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13), even to the point of being described as “wickedness,” “outrage,” “vileness,” “lewdness,” and “evil” (Judges 19:23-24; 20:3,6,10,12,13). With the arrival of Christ and Christianity on the planet, the New Testament is equally definitive in its uncompromising and unquestioned condemnation of same-sex activity (Matthew 19:9). Paul summarized the “unrighteous” and “ungodly” behavior of the Gentile nations, and declared:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:26-32, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

So the Bible is clear.

What’s more, science is equally definitive. For all the touting a genetic link to homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that no scientific evidence has been discovered that establishes the existence of the alleged “gay gene.” The Human Genome project found no proof for a genetic connection, and the studies conducted many years ago, that are largely responsible for perpetrating the myth of a genetic origin for homosexuality in the minds of most Americans (LeVay, 1991; Bailey and Pillard, 1991, Hamer, et al., 1993) have been discredited (see Miller, et al., 2004).

Conclusion

It is more than hard to believe that a sizable segment of the population of the United States of America has come to believe that homosexuality—recognized by the bulk of Western civilization as sexually aberrant behavior—should be tolerated and even encouraged. The Father of our country expressed the sentiment of the vast majority of Americans which prevailed for most of American history when he expressed his “abhorrence and detestation” for homosexuality (“George…,” 1778). The Creator of the Universe, Who also created human sexuality, was equally vehement in his condemnation of same-sex behavior. America would do well to consider soberly the divine declaration regarding the eventual outcome for the nation that sanctions it: “For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

REFERENCES

Bailey, Michael J., and Richard C. Pillard (1991), “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1089-1096, December.

“‘Duck Dynasty’ Family, Conservatives Defend Phil Robertson” (2013), Chicago Tribune, December 20, http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-20131220,0,1685719.story.

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).

Hamer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L. Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela M.L. Pattatucci (1993), “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,”Science, 261:321-327, July 16.

“Human Genome Report Press Release” (2003), International Consortium Completes Human Genome Project, http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/project/50yr.html.

LeVay, Simon (1991), “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science, 253:1034-1037, August 30.

Magary, Drew (2013, “What the Duck?” GQ, January, http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=3.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[9], September, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1388&topic=36.

Sacks, Ethan and Don Kaplan (2013), “‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Suspended From Show After Equating Homosexuality With Bestiality,” New York Daily News, December 19, http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-equates-homosexuality-bestiality-article-1.1551556.

The post A&E, “Duck Dynasty,” GQ, & Homosexuality appeared first on Apologetics Press.

At Apologetics Press, we rarely write about one song. Truth be told, there are thousands of songs out there extolling sinful lifestyles such as drunkenness, drug abuse, fornication, and physical abuse, to mention just a few. But this particular song provides an excellent outline of the standard arguments in favor of homosexuality. By analyzing the lyrics of this song, we can see what society is being told about homosexuality, and contrast that with the truth.

We Are Told Homosexuality Is A Natural Trait People Cannot Change

The primary point of the song is that homosexuality is something with which a person comes into the world. The “Hook” of the song that is repeated by singer Mary Lambert, states: “And I can’t change, even if I tried, even if I wanted to.” Haggerty (or Macklemore) says in the song that “the right-wing conservatives think it’s a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion. Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition, playing God.” This idea, that homosexuality is something that a person cannot change, is probably the most often used argument to support the lifestyle. The problem with the argument is that it is completely false. There is nothing either scientifically or psychologically that proves homosexuality to be a “natural” characteristic that a person cannot change. People can choose to become homosexuals just as sure as they can choose to stop being homosexuals. Several obvious lines of reasoning show this to be the case.

It is Not Genetic

Homosexuality is not genetic. Scientific research has shown this to be the case. There is no “gay” gene. In fact, genetically identical twins often choose different sexual lifestyles. If homosexuality were genetic, identical twins would always have been either both homosexuals or both heterosexuals (see Miller, 2004). Furthermore, if homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would have eliminated it from the human genome, since it is a lifestyle that cannot naturally lead to procreation. [NOTE: We are not endorsing evolution. Rather, natural selection as understood as a mechanism that eliminates harmful genetic traits fits the creation model perfectly.]

Homosexuals Can Change

The song repeats over and over “I can’t change,” but that simply is not what we see in the real world. In order to disprove this statement, all we would need to do is find a person who was a homosexual and changed to a heterosexual lifestyle. In truth, thousands of people have “changed” their sexual lifestyle and left homosexuality, while thousands more have changed theirs and become homosexuals. Many in the homosexual community would say that those who have changed and are no longer homosexuals were never really homosexuals. Instead, they just thought they were, or they just pretended to be. Yet, when you ask former homosexuals about their past lifestyle, they describe their feelings and behaviors in the exact same way as practicing homosexuals. Their genetic make-up did not change. So, what did change? Their mindset and their behaviors. Similarly, if you were to analyze people who were practicing heterosexuals who changed to become homosexuals, you would not find that they somehow acquired a new biological trait. They simply chose to become homosexuals.

Another obvious way to see that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle is to notice that the more a society approves of and condones homosexuality, the more people in that society choose to be homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a new idea. The ancient Greeks, and a host of other societies, regularly practiced it. When it becomes popular, more people join in. That certainly cannot be because the “gene” is spreading because homosexual “couples” cannot procreate.

What Happens When The Argument is Used To Support Other Lifestyles?

Those of us who oppose homosexuality are told that homosexuals cannot change. When we ask for solid evidence to prove this, we are not given any. Instead, we are told that, “We don’t know how it feels,” or “Many homosexuals wish they could change, and have tried, but they can’t.” We are told that if we could just experience the feelings that homosexuals have, we would then know they are authentic and unchangeable. In essence, we are told to take their word for it. The problem arises when we apply that approach to other sexual lifestyles. For instance, is it not the case that a man who is attracted to several women at once could contend that he would like to change, but he cannot, so he should be permitted to marry all of them at once? What about the man who says that he is attracted to ten year old boys? He claims that he has tried to get rid of his attraction, he has fought it, but there is no way to stop. If he finds a consenting child, should his “natural” practice be condoned by our society? Or what about the woman who is sexually attracted to horses and claims that if others “truly understood” her love for them, they would approve of her sexual encounters?

Of course, when comparisons between homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality are made the homosexual community objects and demands that homosexuality is different from those other lifestyles. But the question remains, how is it different? There is the same genetic evidence for homosexuality as there is for pedophilia: none. The pedophile claims to have been born with his feelings. Many pedophiles claim to express a desire to change, but insist they cannot. In truth, homosexuality is no more or less “natural” or “unchangeable” than bestiality or pedophilia. If the homosexual insists that sexual “love” between consenting adults is different than sexual “love” between a woman and child, or a man and a dog, the pedophile or person who practices bestiality could simply respond that we are “all God’s children,” and to condemn their sexual orientation is bigotry and hate.

A 3,500 Year Old Book

In Haggerty’s song, he says the fact that “God loves all his children is somehow forgotten, but we paraphrase a book written thirty-five hundred years ago.” The implication is that somehow we have misunderstood the Bible. Supposedly, the parts about God loving his children show that any condemnation of homosexuality either must be a misunderstanding on someone’s part, or just part of an old book that should not be governing the lives and consciences of modern men and women. Haggerty’s problem here, as with other pro-homosexual resources, is that “acceptance” and “love” are not the same thing. Does God love all people? Certainly. Does he love people who steal? Yes. Does He love murderers? Yes. Does he love pedophiles? Yes. Does He love those who practice bestiality or necrophilia? Yes. Does He love homosexuals? Absolutely (read John 3:16). But does He accept those sinful lifestyles? No, He does not. In fact, He commands all those who are practicing such sins to repent or they will perish eternally (Luke 13:3; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). God loves His children, but He does not accept sinful lifestyles that humans claim they cannot change, when God knows that they can.

Furthermore, just because the Bible is a 3,500 year old book, that fact does not make it less of a legitimate moral standard than if it were written last year. God’s will for human kind was divinely instituted at the dawn of human history when He created humans and formed one man and one woman to be together in a sexual, marriage union for life. That divine plan was stated at the beginning of time, written down by Moses in about 1,500 B.C. and reiterated by Jesus Christ about 2,000 years ago (see Genesis 1:27, 2:21; Matthew 19:1-9). If there really is a God who Created the world and inspired a book, wouldn’t we expect His will to have been stated clearly for thousands of years? Macklemore’s suggestion that the antiquity of the Bible makes its message outdated cannot be defended. Would he argue that if his song somehow lasts 3,500 years, its message will be outdated due to the time that has elapsed?

Conclusion

Haggerty concludes his song by saying, “Whatever god you believe in, we come from the same one. Strip away the fear, underneath, it’s all the same love.” The fact is, however, it is not “all the same love.” God created humans, and only He knows what sexual lifestyle fits with His design. In the beginning, He created one man to be with one woman for life. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, stressed that one man with one woman is the only acceptable relationship in which sexual activity is God-ordained and acceptable. That means that pedophilia is not the “same love” as that between one man and one woman. Bestiality is not the “same love” as between one man and one woman. Polygamy is not the “same love” as the love between one man and one woman. And homosexuality is not, and never will be, the same love as the love God designed and approved between one man and one woman.

REFERENCE

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1388.

The post Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ “Same Love” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff writer Matt Vega, who received his doctorate from Yale University Law School.]

A new California law bars licensed counselors and therapists from helping anyone under 18 to change their sexual orientation. The law states: “Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age, regardless of the willingness of a patient, patient’s parent, guardian, conservator, or other person to authorize such efforts“ (S.B. 1172, 2012).

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2013, targets so-called “reparative,” “conversion,” or “reorientation” therapy. Conversion therapy can involve a variety of techniques ranging from aversive treatment to psychoanalytic therapy to social skills training and participation in prayer and other support groups (Hicks, 1999). However, regardless of the particular methods employed, all of these treatments remain controversial because they are based on the a priori assumption that a homosexual patient can and should change his or her sexual orientation, or should at least try to change his or her sexual behavior (Lieu, 2012).

Proponents of the new California law insist that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and should not be regarded as a pathological condition (Lieu). Because they believe homosexuality is biologically determined, they argue that efforts to help a child avoid homosexual behavior are misguided and will only produce guilt, depression, and decreased self-esteem. As a result, Democratic State Senator Ted Lieu, the bill’s sponsor, claims reparative therapy amounts to “psychological child abuse” and “quackery” (Lieu). Despite the critics, however, there are success stories of individuals who claim that conversion therapy has helped them deal with sexual confusion and the problem of unwanted same-sex attraction (cf. Leland and Miller, 1998).

FAMILY AUTONOMY

There are at least two significant legal grounds for challenging the new law. First, this law violates the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. This crucial civil liberty includes the parental right to direct a child’s education, health care, lifestyle, regimen, religious observance, and discipline. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the “fundamental” nature of the right of parents to raise their children, but the contours of that right are not always clear. This can make it sometimes difficult to determine exactly when the state oversteps its bounds.

For example, the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) showed great deference to Amish parents, based on their right to control the upbringing and direct the education of their children, and based on the free exercise of religion, to exempt 14 and 15 year olds from compulsory school attendance. On the other hand, the Court held in Price v. Mass (1944) that parental rights can be interfered with by the state if “necessary to protect the child.”  In that case, the Court allowed the state to apply child labor laws to prohibit a parent from directing a nine-year-old child to solicit for Jehovah Witnesses.

Today, few would deny the right of a parent to seek professional counseling for a child with impulse control disorders like kleptomania or compulsive gambling, or for a child abusing drugs or alcohol. We even respect the right of parents to get help for their children who are caught up in pornography or other sexual addictions. The California law, however, prohibits parents from obtaining professional help for a son or daughter dealing with same-sex attraction issues.

To date, two lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to have a federal judge strike down S.B. 1172 as unconstitutional (Wetzstein, 2012). Whenever a statute infringes upon fundamental parental rights, the Supreme Court held in Troxel v. Granville (2000) that the law should be subject to the strictest scrutiny. In the instant case, this means that the California state government will have to show a compelling state interest in preventing parents from seeking any form of conversion therapy for their child. Even if the state could show that some parents might abuse their power and force their children to undergo more aggressive, questionable therapy techniques that might harm the mental health of the child, the Supreme Court in a similar case involving the power of a parent to institutionalize a child, Parham v. J.R. Parham, rejected the “notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect [their] children.”

Under the strict scrutiny test, California will also have to meet two additional requirements in order to survive a constitutional challenge. Even if the state government could show a compelling state interest in preventing all forms of conversion therapy (which it cannot), this particular law must be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of discharging the government’s so-called compelling interest.  S.B. 1172 fails on both counts because, at a minimum, it fails to exempt ministerial or spiritual efforts to change unwanted sexual behavior. There is no evidence that teaching a child how not to act on same-sex attractions poses any more harm to his or her physical or mental health than does teaching a child how to wait until marriage before having heterosexual relations.

This is not the first law to threaten parental rights. In recent years, several states have passed privacy laws that deny parents access to important information about their children.  For example, North Dakota allows 14-year-olds to be treated for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent, and allows the health care provider discretion about whether to disclose medical records concerning the treatment to the parents (N. Dakota Stat. 15.1-24-04). Similarly, in Minnesota a child can request that information be withheld from his or her parents or guardian if it is deemed in the child’s “best interest” (Minn. Stat. 13.02 et seq.).  In Connecticut, Wisconsin, and other states, communication relating to alcohol or drugs between a student and certain school personnel, such as a school nurse or school counselor, need not be disclosed to the parents (Conn. Stat. 10-154a; Wis. Stat. 118.125, 126).

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

This law also likely violates the First Amendment free exercise and free speech clauses. By prohibiting licensed professional counselors from treating same-sex attraction as anything but normal and desirable, the law unconstitutionally infringes on Christian counselors’ freedom of religion. The California law does not contain any exception for ministerial or spiritual counseling. For example, if a young Christian is experiencing conflict between his or her sincerely held religious beliefs and same-sex attractions, this law would prevent a minister, who is also a trained and licensed counselor or therapist, from helping that child to overcome “sexual immorality” or “unnatural desire” (Jude 1:7, ESV) and to keep his or her body under control (1 Thessalonians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 10:27).

In such cases, the California law would intrude on the freedom of religion of both the counselor and the counselee, by forcing the counselor to violate his or her own ethics and refuse service to underage counselees seeking help for their sexual issues.  In addition, S.B. 1172 infringes on free speech rights by forcing counselors and therapists to parrot only one viewpoint on homosexuality.

Unfortunately, modern First Amendment jurisprudence has made it much easier for the government to enact facially neutral laws and regulations that burden religion, and to a lesser extent, free speech. The Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) held that, so long as a law is “generally applicable” and does not target a particular religion, it does not violate the free exercise clause. Although Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 to restore the “compelling interest” standard in religious freedom cases, the Court later struck down portions of that federal law that would have forced state and local governments to abide by it. In the instant case, since the California law is a state law and purports to regulate all mental health providers—an already heavily licensed profession—to protect the physical and mental health of children, a court could feasibly uphold the statute under a lower level of constitutional scrutiny.

However, the California law infringes upon both the free exercise of religion and fundamental parental rights. Therefore, it should be treated as a so-called “hybrid” case. Hybrid cases are generally subject to strict scrutiny. Regardless, even under this more rigorous standard, any constitutional challenge of the California law will be a long, protracted, uphill battle.

ANY PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS?

Are there any practical solutions in the interim?  One practical solution may be for Christian counselors to make the difficult decision to forego state licensing and only offer “Christian or pastoral counseling” services. Throughout the country, many counseling accrediting bodies already dictate that a “licensed professional counselor” refrain from imposing his or her moral or religious values on a client. State regulations often require that a “licensed professional counselor” adhere to strict so-called “ethical” standards that forbid the professional counselor from praying, from referring to the Bible, and from counseling against things such as homosexuality or abortion. However, the California law goes a step further by preventing a client under the age of 18, or his or her parents, from consenting to a Christian-based approach to counseling regarding sexual orientation. In contrast, most state ethics rules still permit a state licensed counselor to involve Christian principles, practices, or instruction if the counselee initiates or requests counsel in this area.

Of course, if all Christians capitulate and remove themselves from the pool of licensed professional counselors, then it will be increasingly difficult for Christian students to secure the necessary education and training in the field. Many public universities already routinely discriminate against students in counseling, social work, or psychology programs if the student refuses to endorse homosexuality as normal and healthy. This problem is likely to only get worse as fewer and fewer Christians lead or participate in the profession.

At least one state—Michigan—has recently passed legislation to try to accommodate the religious beliefs of future counselors. On June 12, 2012, the Michigan House passed H.R. 5040, the “Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act,” which prohibits a public university from disciplining or discriminating against a student that “refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling services” (H.R. 5040, 2012). This bill would go a long way towards creating a safe harbor in higher education for future Christian counselors. While the bill faces a great deal of political opposition and may never be signed into law, it does illustrate how the law can be used to advance rather than attack religious freedom in this country.

Regardless of the outcome of either S.B. 1172 or H.R. 5040, Christian counselors and parents must continue to try to find lawful ways to help young people struggling with same sex attraction issues. All of us have a moral and civic obligation to encourage our legislators and judges to support, rather than to try to undermine, those good faith efforts. In the final analysis, if and when a municipal or state government, or even the federal government, reaches the point where it requires Christians to act inconsistent with the commandments of God, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

REFERENCES

S.B. 1172 (2012), Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, California, signed into law September 30.

H.R. 5040 (2012),Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act, passed by the Michigan House on June 12, and currently pending in the Senate.

Hicks, Karolyn Ann (1999), Reparative Therapy: Whether Parental Attempts to Change a Child’s Sexual Orientation Can Legally Constitute Child Abuse, 49 Amer. U. L. Rev. 505.

Leland, John and Mark Miller (1998), Can Gays “Convert”?, Newsweek, August 17.

Lieu, Ted W. (2012), Press Release on S.B. 1172, Senator Lieu website, September 30, http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-09-30-california-become-first-state-crack-down-bogus-‘gay-cures-minors.

Wetzstein, Cheryl (2012), “Second Suit Filed Against California’s Gay-Change Therapy Ban,”The Washington Times, October 4.

The post California Law Bans Professional Counselors from Helping Young Patients Deal with Same Sex Attraction Issues appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Same-Sex Marriage

Without question, shock waves of seismic proportion were sent across the entire world when the highest executive official in our land announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage (Stein, 2012). All the angels in heaven must have wept. Such an unconscionable action that reflects our downward spiral into moral depravity stands in stark contrast to the political leaders at the beginning of the nation who openly avowed attachment to God and Christian virtue. Indeed, the Founders—to a man—would be horrified. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, the second president of these United States, John Adams, delivered a speech to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229, emp. added). In his State of the Union address, the father of our country explained that the Republic may be sustained only if citizens “discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness—cherishing the first, avoiding the last—and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws” (1790). The homosexual movement flaunts laws instituted at the beginning of the country designed to hold in check sexual immorality, opting instead for licentiousness. As Samuel West explained in a sermon preached in 1776 before the Massachusetts House of Representatives: “When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself” (1776).

Irish statesman, political theorist, member of the House of Commons, and one who supported America during the Founding era, Edmund Burke, understood this critical tenet of freedom:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites….  Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters (1791, 68-69).

Another outside observer of American freedom was Alexis de Tocqueville who, in extolling the glories of American morals and marriage based on Christianity, made this insightful observation about what happens to a country when those sexual standards are relaxed: “In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires” (1845, 1:304, emp. added). Indeed, when the Christian religion and Christian morality no longer characterize the people, and this spiritual framework is therefore excluded from the political process, we can fully expect the nation, in time, to collapse. God Himself obliterated cities from the surface of the Earth for homosexuality (Genesis 19), and caused the land to “vomit out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:22-25).

Abortion & Innocent Blood

A second critical moral issue that has been politicized in America is abortion. God’s view on killing children is clear and decisive:

And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin (Jeremiah 32:35).

It never entered God’s mind to have people kill their children. Yet, in the United States of America alone, since the ungodly judicial decision to legalize abortion in 1973, over 53 million unborn babies have been butchered. The human mind is incapable of grasping the import of this statistic.

Isaiah 59:6-7 well describes the abortion industry that has developed in America: “Their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood.” One of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). If ever there was “innocent blood” on this Earth, it is the blood of the unborn. In the wake of the heinous act of murder, God declared to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). If the blood of righteous Abel cried out to God, imagine the sound of 50+ million shrieking babies crying out to God. While you and I cannot hear such pitiable, heart-wrenching sounds, the God of eternity can. He announced to the Israelites: “So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (Numbers 35:33, emp. added). Looking down from heaven, God must surely see the streets of America running with blood—atonement for which can only be made by punishing the civilization that has implemented and tolerated such horror.

One reason given for why God subjected Judah to the destruction of enemy marauders was because of the innocent blood that King Manasseh had shed—“for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the LORD would not pardon” (2 Kings 24:4, emp. added). “But I thought God would pardon anything!” National sins are punished by God in time by physical destruction. Hence, we as a nation are overdue for receiving the punishment that comes from shedding innocent blood for nearly 40 years! Those precious innocents must surely be asking God the very same question He was asked by the slain martyrs of the Domitianic persecution of the first century: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:10, emp. added). Make no mistake about it—God will avenge the blood of the innocents. It’s only a matter of when.

When one contemplates the magnitude of this moral atrocity that is rampant in the land—and one which wicked politicians have brazenly taken it upon themselves to champion—one can only wonder why anyone would think the economy is the “big issue” in the election, or whether a segment of the population is getting sufficient entitlements from the government, or even whether the politicians are going to create jobs. When God finally wreaks vengeance on our deserving nation, the condition of one’s personal finances will be of little concern.

What May Be Done?

While the ultimate solution to our nation’s woes is recommitment to God and the moral precepts of the Bible, one immediate strategy ought to be that Christians do more to control the political forces that are running amok. In the words of President James A. Garfield:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces (as quoted in Taylor, 1970, p. 180, emp. added).

On Friday, June 20, 1788, in the Virginia convention assembled to debate ratification of the federal Constitution, James Madison reminded his colleagues of the only ultimate safeguard for national preservation:

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them (Elliot, 1836, 3:536-537, emp. added).

Without a doubt, the current elections will provide direct insight into the virtue, intelligence, and wisdom of a sizable number of Americans. We pray God that a majority will have the good sense to be “spiritually minded” (Romans 8:6) and cast their vote first and foremost on the basis of these critical, life-threatening moral issues.

[AUTHOR UPDATE: With the encroachments of homosexuality and abortion have now come transgenderism and polygamy. Christians ought to resist candidates who favor acceptance of these sexually aberrant behaviors. They should also keep in mind that U.S. Presidents have the power to appoint nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the Court is presently dominated by those who are hostile to Christian morality and the original intention of the Founders.]

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).

Burke, Edmund (1791), A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member of The National Assembly (Paris: J. Dodsley), http://books.google.com/books?id=CEgJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69&dq= Edmund+burke+passions+forge+their+fetters&hl=en&sa=X&ei= HeOOUMXvNoOK8QTVwIHIBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v= onepage&q=Edmund%20burke%20passions% 20forge%20their%20fetters&f=false.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/ lled003.db&recNum=547&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field% 28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

Miller, Dave (2006), “Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3105.

Stein, Sam (2012), “Obama Backs Gay Marriage,” The Huffington Post, May 9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html?ref=mostpopular.

Taylor, John (1970), Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton).

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1945 reprint), Democracy in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Washington, George (1790), “First State of the Union Address,” U.S. Government Info., http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm.

West, Samuel (1776), A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay (Boston, MA: John Gill).

The post Vote Morality! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Earlier this year (2012), California State Senator Ted Lieu authored a bill (SB 1172) that would ban “gay cure” therapy. According to Examiner.com, “The California State Legislature appears to be on the brink of sending Governor Jerry Brown a bill which would impose sanctions for providing professional help intent upon redirecting children’s behavior with regards to sexuality” (Wimer, 2012). This would be “a first-of-its-kind state law that would restrict parents from trying to ‘cure’ their minor children’s same-sex attractions” by taking them to Christian therapists (Crogan, 2012). According to Senator Lieu, “We (the government) intervene all the time to restrict the rights of individuals and parents regarding health issues” (e.g., laws prohibiting minors from purchasing tobacco products and alcohol), so why not step in to stop something that he and others deem unnecessary and damaging (Crogan)?

The bill to ban homosexual therapy in California is simply the latest example of how far the homosexual community (and those who represent them) will go to silence the opposition. One cannot help but wonder what the next step will be? If a Christian therapist in California can no longer counsel a teenager about the sinfulness of homosexual actions and ways to overcome homosexual feelings (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), how much longer will preachers be able to preach on the sinfulness of it without being prosecuted? How long will it be before DHS knocks on the door of a Christian family and threatens to take away the children if the parents do not discontinue spreading so-called “hate speech” in their home? Where will the intrusion on Christian families who believe in the all-authoritative Word of God end (cf. Romans 1:26-27)?

If SB 1172 is signed into law in California, one also wonders if parents will legally be able to get professional help from Christian counselors regarding the sinfulness of pornography, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, or some other sexual sin. Again, where will the slippery slope end?

Senator Lieu stated that at least part of his motivation for sponsoring the bill was because he “wanted parents to understand that this therapy is,” according to him, “crazy” (Wimer, 2012). In actuality, what is “crazy” (spiritually speaking) is rejecting God’s will about the sinfulness of all sexual relationships outside of a scriptural marriage between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:1-10). What is foolish is calling “vile,” “shameful…lust” (Romans 1:26-27; cf. Miller and Harrub, 2004) normal and incapable of being controlled.

Two thousand years ago, Peter and John were commanded by Jewish officials “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). Their response needs to be echoed from roof tops across America as various governing bodies continue to encroach on our religious freedoms. “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20, emp. added).

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

REFERENCES

“California Governor Signs Bill Requiring Schools to Teach Gay History” (2011), CNN, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-14/us/california.LGBT.education_1_california-governor-signs-bill-gay-history-state-textbooks?_s=PM:US.

Crogan, Jim (2012), “California Law Barring Parents from ‘Curing’ Gay Children Moves Through Legislature,” Fox News, August 18, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/18/california-law-barring-parents-from-curing-gay-children-moves-through/.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=557.

Tran, Mark (2009), “Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Law Establishing Harvey Milk Day,” October 13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/schwarzenneger-law-harvey-milk-day.

Wimer, Keith (2012), “California Senate Bill 1172 Outlaws Counseling for Homosexual Minors,” August 19, http://www.examiner.com/article/california-senate-bill-1172-outlaws-counseling-for-homosexual-minors.

The post California’s Continual War Against Biblical Values appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One of the most common arguments made in support of homosexuality is that Jesus Christ did not explicitly condemn the practice. Supposedly, since Jesus never stated specifically: “Homosexuality is a sin,” then His failure to denounce the lifestyle can be interpreted to mean that He approved of it. This reasoning is riddled with error.

First, Jesus explained to His followers that He did not have time to teach them everything they needed to know. He told them that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that He had taught, and would include additional teaching that He had not had time to cover. He told His disciples: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13). When we look to the inspired writings of the New Testament, we see the authors boldly and specifically condemning the practice based on the revelation they received from the Holy Spirit (Miller and Harrub, 2004). Thus, it is wrong to suggest that only the “words in red” are Jesus’ teachings. On the contrary, He foretold that more teaching would be done after His return to heaven due to the fact that the apostles “could not bear” all of it at the time.

Second, even if Jesus did not explicitly condemn the practice (though He actually did, as will be noted later), that certainly could not be used as evidence that He condoned the practice. For instance, where does Jesus explicitly state that bestiality is wrong? Where in the New Testament does Jesus state that polygamy is wrong? Where are the “words in red” that specifically condemn pedophilia? Are we to suppose that the Son of God condoned using crystal meth because there is not an explicit statement from Jesus’ mouth that says “do not smoke crystal meth?” The idea that silence from Jesus on a subject means He approved of or condoned the practice cannot be substantiated.

Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Several years ago a man named Cory Moore “legally married his 2004 Cherry ES-335” Gibson guitar (“Man Marries Guitar,” 2007). He said: “The day I got her, I just knew she was the one…. I know it seems weird, but I really love her—like, really love her, with all my heart. I just wanted to make it official” (2007). Are we to conclude that because Jesus never specifically condemned a man marrying his guitar then the Son of God approved of such? To ask is to answer. In 2006, 41-year-old Sharon Tendler married a dolphin (“Woman Marries Dolphin,” 2006). Jesus never said one word explicitly about refraining from marrying a dolphin. Does that mean His “silence” should be viewed as approval? Not in any way.

Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been, and it always will be. The inspired New Testament writers repeatedly teach that to be the case. Jesus explained that the Holy Spirit would bring to the inspired writers information that they could not handle at the time of His departing. In addition, Jesus did explicitly define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The ruse to suggest that Jesus approves of homosexuality because He never expressly condemned it cannot be sustained logically, nor can it be defended on any type of moral grounds. The person who presumes to claim to be a Christian, and yet supports homosexuality, misunderstands the teachings of Christ and needs to repent and stop approving of a perverted, destructive practice that Jesus condemns (Matthew 19:1-9).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Homosexuality—Sin, or Cultural Bad Habit?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1239.

“Man Marries Guitar” (2007), http://www.messandnoise.com/discussions/865688.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=557.

Nilles, Billy (2012), “Carrie Underwood Reveals She Supports Gay Marriage,” http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2012/06/11/carrie-underwood-supports-gay-marriage-christian/.

“Woman Marries Dolphin” (2006), http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html.

The post “Jesus Didn’t Condemn Homosexuality” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

After a Christian posted a comment on his Facebook page recently about President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, saying, “As Christians, this is another sad moment in our nation’s moral downfall,” a young lady responded by writing:

For once, I beg of you, as Christians, to look at someone who is gay or different from you and love them. Just love them. Don’t tell them their [sic] immoral or disgusting or brainwashed or bad. LOVE them. As God loves them. As Jesus loves them. Stop spreading HATE and FEAR. You are hurting yourselves. Your children. You are making the world a bad place, the exact opposite of what I know you want. Why is it that the Christians are the ones who seem to be the most judgmental of them all? (2012, emp. added, capitalization in orig.).

Notice that there was no hate in the gentleman’s statement—only perceived hate by someone who would much rather Christians remain completely silent about what the Bible teaches regarding God’s pattern for the home.

In the Fall of 2011, a ninth-grade honors student in Fort Worth, Texas was given a disciplinary referral form, one day of in-school suspension, and two days of out-of-school suspension because he said to a friend in class that “he was a Christian and ‘being a homosexual is wrong’” (Stames, 2011; Khalil, 2011). This one statement, which was overheard by the teacher (who previously had posted a picture in the classroom of two men kissing), allegedly warranted a reprimand and three days of suspension from class. [Thankfully, administrators dropped the suspension completely, but only after Dakota’s mother solicited the help of a constitutional attorney (Khalil).]

A Catholic church in Acushnet, Massachusetts recently changed their marquee to read, “Two men are friends not spouses.” Their words were described by those who opposed the sign as “subtle bigotry,” “hateful,” and “disrespectful.” One woman called the church saying that the church “should be burned” for spreading such hate. One man said that he was “outraged” that a church would choose to speak out on the issue of gay marriage (see “Controversial Sign…,” 2012).

In April 2012, “outspoken gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocate” Dan Savage spoke at an anti-bullying conference in Seattle, Washington before thousands of students and teachers from along the west coast (“Dan Savage…,” 2012). In his speech he stated: “We can learn to ignore the bull**** in the Bible about gay people” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…,” 2012). After several students walked out, the anti-bullying speaker stated: “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny, as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy***** people react when you push back” (“Anti-bullying Speaker…”).

No doubt, some people who claim to be Christians have spoken about the sin of homosexuality with unChristlike attitudes and in ungodly ways. Such hypocrisy certainly should be condemned, as should all ungodliness (Romans 12:9; 1 John 5:17; Galatians 5:19-12; Revelation 21:8), including homosexuality. However, what we increasingly witness today is, even when Christians teach what Almighty God has revealed about homosexuality in the most loving, kind, meek manner, they are still blasted by homosexual activists and many in the media as being guilty of “hate speech.” For teaching what the Creator has revealed (and expects Christians to teach without compromise; cf. Acts 4:17-20; 5:29), Bible believers have been expelled at school, ridiculed at work, and threatened in their churches. Even homosexual “anti-bullying experts” apparently enjoy “beating up the Bible” (and all the alleged “bull****” in it) and bullying the “pansy*****” Christians that they are supposedly teaching not to bully.

We should not be surprised at the reactions (even highly hypocritical reactions) of the world to the preaching of God’s Word. John the Baptizer, of whom Jesus said “among those born of women there has not risen one greater” (Matthew 11:11), was beheaded for courageously telling a King that it was wrong for him to be married to someone who was not his lawful wife (Mark 6:14-29). Jesus was crucified following three years of preaching a message of repentance (Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3,5). Paul, who knew very well what true, biblical love was (1 Corinthians 13), likewise preached a message of repentance (Acts 17:30-31; 26:20), including the encouragement of mankind to repent of the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:22-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Will the Christ’s church continue to teach what God says on every subject and on every evil, including the sin of homosexuality? Or, will the Lord’s church cower at the threats made against her and remain quiet as homosexual activists, Hollywood actors, and influential media members attempt to silence the alleged unloving “hate speech” of Christians? “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

“Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20, emp. added).

“[W]e should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15, emp. added).

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15, emp. added).

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Anti-bullying Speaker a Bully?” (2012), Fox News, April 30, http://video.foxnews.com/v/1612875073001/anti-bullying-speaker-a-bully.

Badash, David (2012), “Kirk Cameron: I Should Be Able to Slander Gays Without Being ‘Slandered’ for Slandering Gays,” March 6, The New Civil Rights Movement, http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/kirk-cameron-i-should-be-able-to-slander-gays-without-being-slandered-for-slandering-gays/politics/2012/03/06/35819.

Burt, Jacqueline (2012), “Kirk Cameron is Even More Self-Righteous and Bigoted than We Thought,” Cafémom, http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/133963/kirk_cameron_is_even_more.

“Controversial Sign at St. Francis Xavier Church, Acushnet, MA” (2012), May 16, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMFvrdb0vQ0.

“Dan Savage Addresses Journalist Conference Speech Controversy, Denies Attacking Christianity”  (2012), Huffington Post, May 1, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/dan-savage-journalist-conference-controversy_n_1464486.html.

Dray, Kayleigh (2012), “Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is ‘Unnatural’,” Entertainment, March 4, http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/70939/Kirk-Cameron-Homosexuality-Is-Unnatural.

Khalil, Cathryn (2011), “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads to Suspension,” September 22, http://www.cbs19.tv/story/15526115/students-homosexuality-comment-leads-to-suspension.

“Kirk Cameron Says ‘Homosexuality is Unnatural’” (2012), CNN, March 2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhGQUKoH_TE.

Silverthorne, Sarah (2012), “Kirk Cameron is a Homophobic Bigot,” March 3, http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2012/kirk-cameron-is-a-homophobic-bigot-video-0303/.

Stames, Todd (2011), “Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality,” Fox News, September 22, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/.

The post Will You Be Silenced? appeared first on Apologetics Press.