By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, Dr. Michael Brown gave an excellent presentation at AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture last week. We hope to post a YouTube on Dr. Brown’s succinct and compelling response to my question on the “Big Three” hostile questions thrown at Christians who defend the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual conduct:

1. “But Jesus Christ never said anything about homosexuality”;
2. “Why should we believe the Old Testament says about homosexuality when it also bans wearing polyester and eating shellfish?”; and
3. “You Christians are so judgmental.”

Dr. Brown, a world renowned biblical scholar, hit it out of the park. He also challenged what he calls the “celebration of ambiguity”in describing neo-evangelicals’ and the “Emergent Church’s” evasive and equivocating — and unbiblical — positioning on the issue of homosexuality.

Brown specifically challenged Chicago evangelical Andrew Marin (right), founder of the Marin Foundation and author of “Love Is Not an Orientation.” Brown praised Marin for wanting to reach out to homosexuals and the portions of the book in which Marin relays personal stories of homosexuals he has encountered who have been hurt by the Church. But he was highly critical of Marin’s misuse of Scripture in interpreting verses dealing with homosexuality.

Brown said of the Emergent Church — which is much more accepting of homosexual identity, uses the controversial term ”gay Christian,” and generally scolds Christians for actively condemning homosexuality and the “gay” political/cultural agenda: “Their cure is worse than the sickness …. [they] have shown more solidarity with [homosexual] people than with God.”

“How are we helping anyone when we make the clear unclear … the unambiguous ambiguous? … How is that love?” Brown asked, calling on Christians to share the full truth of the Gospel in love. After first noting that Christians need to repent for neglecting to lovingly share God’s salvation plan with people caught up in homosexuality, Brown warned against believers falling into a “soulish sympathy” for homosexuals that overrides Biblical truth and their Christian conscience. [AFTAH will be offering a DVD of Brown's talk; write americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.]

“There is a fundamental denial of the power of the Gospel,” Brown said, noting that a key requirement of being a disciple of Christ is to “deny yourself.”

Brown — who strongly urged Christians to humble themselves and repent for not offering the grace and love of Christ to homosexual friends and acquaintances — will be writing a review of Marin’s book for AFTAH. We will also transcribe Brown’s important critique of Emergent philosophy in a future post.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read Marin’s book yet, but have been deeply troubled by his chameleon-like approach to ministry and his watered-down Gospel as it relates to the issue of homosexuality. Marin — a self-described former “bible-bangin’ homophobe” who moved to Chicago’s homosexual “Boystown” community to reach homosexuals after three of his friends “came out” to him as “gay” – turned on me last year after we both appeared on a Moody Radio broadcast in Chicago.

After our mutual appearance on Moody’s WMBI Radio, I posted a sympathetic Moody commentary about it by WMBI’s Julie Roys. After we republished Roys’ piece, Andrew and his wife pleaded with me to take it off AFTAH’s website to accommodate their covert-like approach to ministry (an approach that has earned him criticism and distrust from both homosexual activists like Michaelangelo Signorile and biblically faithful Christians). After I rejected his appeal, Marin did an online interview on ExGayWatch, a homosexual activist website, to supposedly “clear the record” and distance himself and his work from Americans For Truth.

Marin’s turnaround came just days after he praised me enthusiastically on Moody Radio for “[taking] the bullet for all of us” in opposing the homosexual activist movement. Predictably, ExGayWatch used Marin’s interview as an opportunity to bash my alleged “shameless self-promotion.” I was appalled that Marin would use a blatantly anti-biblical website — one bitterly hostile to the truth that Jesus Christ can help homosexuals leave the lifestyle – to undermine a fellow Christian believer.

(I have worked with Andrew before: in 2006 he once almost appeared at a press conference that I organized as executive director of Illinois Family Institute — comprised of local pro-family leaders confronting the “Gay Games,” which were being held in Chicago. Marin supported IFI’s efforts — which included a Gospel outreach to Gay Games participants – but he pulled out as a speaker at the press conference, fearing that his public stance would hurt his ministry.)

Below is Marin’s startling post on the ”gay”-affirming site, ExGayWatch. I say “startling” because Marin — who regularly works with Moody Bible Institute and is promoted through sympathetic Moody Radio interviews – now seems intent on muddying up the Bible’s clear truth: that homosexual practice is sinful yet changeable through Christ. Dr. Brown noted the exact same tendency in Marin’s book, which he critiqued at AFTAH’s talk.

Needless to say, Christians like Marin who equivocate on biblical truth will be championed by the same homosexual activists who viciously (and erroneously) denounce AFTAH and groups like us as “hateful.”

The highly “ambiguous” Marin “Is Homosexuality a Sin?” piece below is actually a long comment posted on the same ExGayWatch thread that contains his self-serving online interview with homosexual activist David Roberts. To be honest, I was so disturbed by Marin’s actions that I could not bring myself to listen to his XGW interview, but now that he’s “out of the closet,” as it were, with his “Love is an orientation” approach toward homosexuality, it’s time to review his comments and correct the record ourselves. We will respond point-by-point to Marins’ take on what transpired with WMBI and his dubious exegesis of Scripture.

I do not believe — or at least I hope — that the equivocating Andrew Marin, who seems ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (at least as applied to homosexuality),  represents Moody Bible Institute’s approach towards the homosexual issue. Moody has faithfully served the Lord for decades. And I regret that despite Julie Roys’ hopeful commentary, we must now openly oppose Marin’s habit of downplaying the sin of homosexuality — forgiveness for which is part of the great transforming work of Christ!

Dr. Brown is absolutely right: there is a great need for ministry-minded Christians to lovingly share the Gospel with practicing homosexuals, but they should never resort to publicly obfuscating or denying biblical Truth to carry out that mission. Please pray for Andrew Marin – that he will return to the truth on this issue, including the parts that are politically incorrect. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

_____________________________

DL Moody once preached:

That’s the trouble with the sinners in Chicago.  They’ve turned against God, broken His commandments, trampled His law under their feet, and their sins hang upon them; until they show signs of repentance their sin will remain.  But the moment they see their iniquity and come to God, forgiveness will be given them and their iniquity will be taken out of their way.  Said a person to me the other day, “It is my sin that stands between me and Christ.” “It isn’t,” I replied, “it’s your own will.” That’s what stands between the sinner and forgiveness.  Christ will take all your iniquities away if you will. Men are so proud that they won’t acknowledge and confess before God.  Don’t you see on the face of it, if your boy won’t repent you cannot forgive him, and how is God going to forgive a sinner if he don’t repent? If He was allowing an unrepentant sinner into His Kingdom, there would be war in Heaven in twenty-four hours.  You cannot live in a house with a boy who steals everything he can lay his hands on.  You would have to banish him from your house.

__________________________________

Andrew Marin’s Post on ExGayWatch

Andrew Marin’s comment posted on the homosexual activist website “ExGayWatch,” on April 24th, 2008:

Hello Everyone,

I am part of the subject of this post [referring to his online interview] and I wanted to say a few things. First, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given by David to explain what happened. I also appreciate everyone’s comments, and I want to let all of you know that I want to be as open and transparent as I can possibly be.

With that in mind I would like to address Bob’s concerns one by one because I am not trying to hide anything from anyone. I want to be honest about my life, my experiences and my organization – and so here are detailed answers for each of the concerns that were raised.

1. To explain my verbiage of “love” and “not judging” and how that influences our “educational work”:

As I said on the interview, my view of love is lived out through the following definition – love is a tangible and measurable expression of unconditional behaviors that no matter who you are, what you say or what you do I have your back 110% and will never leave or give up on your salvation/belief in God. I believe that the word love has become a trivial word coming from the Christian community to gays and lesbains because too often Christian expressions of love has become conditional. My goal is to unconditionally be apart of, and involved in people’s lives to overcome that negative perception and truth of what “love” has become. The Father is unconditional; Jesus is unconditional; and so to do I want to follow that example whether or not there is any “change” because at the end of the day only God can allow someone into heaven. So why not seek validation from the One who can bring eternal validation. Humanly opinions have no bearing on heavenly judgment, and therefore my wish is to take those humanly judgments away and focus on our Lord and let Him do as He sees fit for each of our lives. Therefore our entire educational work is based off of this premise.

2. Is homosexuality a sin?

Does anyone else ever wonder why when it comes to the most divisive topic in the church today that most questions revolve around one word, yes or no answers? I started to think about that, and I’ve come to the conclusion that both sides ask those same yes or no questions at the beginning so they can then label you and place you on their side, or the opponent’s side. This is nothing more than an expression of an “us vs. them” mindset. Building bridges cannot happen through an us vs. them mindset. Therefore, is homosexuality a sin?

I have three clear answers:

1. Romans 3:23 – we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

2. James 2:10 – in God’s eyes, if you have committed one sin you have committed them all

3. Matthew 7:1-2 – the measure you use to judge others will also be used to judge you

Theologically I believe that sin has been propitiated to us all through the Original Sin, and we are all born sinful into a sinful world. My position is that it is time to elevate the conversation past what is always fought about and shift our mind-frames to belief and communication with the Creator. If we can focus on a tangible expression of love, belief and a humbled understanding of ourselves, and each other’s point of view as valid to their experience – in our lives and our sexuality (from both sides) –then we can advance the worship and dialogue past negative debates and onto more important eternal issues. I strongly believe that we are all on the same plain constantly learning and growing in our lives and faith trying to figure this life out. The unique juxtaposition is that we will never figure it out and have to live by that same faith to continue on another day, in what many times is a non-felt security by God. We know He’s there and yet there are times, especially during the extremes of when things are great and when things are horrible, that we don’t feel Him. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. I feel as though it is my job to tangibly reach out to the GLBT community and apologize for what has happened in the past – and then help both sides to move forward to bring faith and spiritual reconciliation to a community evangelical Christians have traditionally only fought against.

3. Where do I stand of civil rights issues such as marriage equality?

I let the politicians handle the politics. I head a religious organization that is solely focused on religion and spirituality and to a bridge being built between time-tested opposing communities. I believe that politics does not have to enter into every conversation. I understand that many of the “religious right” have placed themselves in the middle of political debates and agendas, as well as many on the “left” have done the same. I will do neither. I have been put here for spiritual things, and that is my only focus. When our government decides either way, I will so live by those laws and not argue, disagree or fight in either direction. My world is not of this world because of what is to come.

4. “If I love gays, why do I oppose gay rights?”

I have never commented on gay rights so I am not sure where that statement is coming from – this is the first time. Just because I was connected by a third party to LaBarbera does not mean I agree or disagree. Others can continue to fight over politics, I just wish to focus on being as best of a representation I can to the one true God.

5. “In a Reader interview I flunked both tests”

The link to the Reader article is
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/andrewmarin/

and if so inclined, please read it in its entirety. I believe that all quotes need further context, but becuase this issue was brought up here is a direct quote from that article:

The Marin Foundation takes no official position on gay marriage or gay adoption, although Marin praised one of his gay students who took in foster children from a third world country with his partner. And he says there’s no reason gays shouldn’t serve in the military. But these familiar debates are, for Marin, “nitpicking,” so mired in the realm of politics and worldly power that they detract from his broader spiritual mission. “I’m not political,” he insists. “I’m religious.”

6. There are other denominations that affirms the GLBT community so why do you need a “ministry”?

First, The Marin Foundation is not a ministry. We are an organization that is not connected to a church or denomination. We work with 9 different denominations in fact, including Episcopal and UCC churches. We are here because there are many people in the GLBT community who are frightened of church – the building, the dogma, the stigma that comes with the name. As a non-profit organization we are not a church, and therefore a safe place for people to come to talk, be validated as a child of God, listened to and not have to feel like they are being preached to or tied down to one thing or the other. Many people in the GLBT community who participate in our organization say that is the reason they go to us and not a church. Also, the Episcopal and UCC are traditionally liturgical in their approach. We have found that there are many GLBT people who were raised in evangelical homes and wish for that same environment. The Marin Foundation is one of the ways to return into spiritual things that are more comfortable for them then attending a church of any particular denomination. My denomination is the belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit who love me as their child.

7. Bob [Schwartz, of the hard-left Gay Liberation Network] called me an “unabashed homophobe” and that I am a “velvet-gloved hammer of antigay bigotry and discrimination.”

I in deed was, for the first 19 years of my life a homophobe. There was no two-ways about it. But to call me that now, with so many people in the GLBT community who love and respect me and the work that I do through The Marin Foundation who has helped so many GLBT people who have been really hurt by religion, is off base. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and after I read Bob’s post I had an epiphany this morning.

“I need to release the burden of having to feel like I have to convince people who don’t like me, of the things that I know are true in my life whether they agree or not.”

This might seem like old hat to all of you reading that, but my problem is that I take way too much too personally. So when I am insulted it really hurts my soul. I’m not a hardened season veteran of this issue that insults don’t hurt. I don’t have people call me names everyday of my life, so it stings when it does happen. Maybe it’s because I’m younger than most who are already involved, maybe I am naive? I don’t know. But regardless of where it comes from the reason I felt that I needed to write all of these issues down was to clear my conscious of being saddened by what Bob said.

I believe now, that I have covered all of his major points. I am very open to peaceful discussion and I look forward to continuing this very important dialogue.

Thank you very much.

[Marin posts again in the discussion on ExGayWatch; you can also listen to his interview in which he opposes AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera; go to: http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/04/labarberas-shameless-self-promotion-may-damage-a-real-ministry/]

Following are the remarks by Preston Noell, President of Tradition, Family, and Property, at yesterday’s coalition press conference in Chicago against Obama’s homosexual agenda:

“President Obama’s much vaunted ’search for a common ground’ no longer passes even a perfunctory smell test. His bromides are designed to soothe and assuage. But his hypnotic rhetoric belies his actions.

“By appointing Harry Knox to his Faith Advisory Council, Obama panders to the homosexual movement, and manifests cynicism at its worst.

“Knox is the very incarnation of hate-filled, anti-Catholic bigotry and must go. His militant, hate-mongering anti-Catholicism is amply on display. Knox’s malicious attack on Pope Benedict as a “discredited leader of an army of oppression” is the rallying cry portending the persecution of the Church.

“Knox is the ugly new face of anti-Catholic oppression and persecution.  President Obama has a choice: either give Knox a pink slip or be known not only as the abortion president but the anti-Catholic president as well.

“Mr. President, fire Knox, NOW!!”

__________________________________

Related AFTAH stories on Harry Knox:

• VIDEO: Satan’s Talking Points? HRC’s Harry Knox Claims Homosexuality Is ‘Gift from God’ in MSNBC Debate with CWA’s Matt Barber
• White House ‘Comfortable’ With Anti-Catholic Homosexual Activist Harry Knox on Faith Council

___________________

LaBarbera response to “Kyle”:

Kyle …

…I don’t know where my feelings of lust, etc., came from.  So should I join the Lust Pride Movement and rationalize the embrace of that sin. (I’ll call myself a “Luster,” which is analogous to you calling yourself “gay.”) Grow up, Kyle. This is the cop out of the century –– and then you go on to support “gay marriage” –– an incredible blasphemy against God, who created man and woman for each other.  You are responsible for your behavior –– period. Sodomy and all homosexual acts are deeply sinful, the Bible teaches (see Romans 1), so what does it mean to say your “orientation” is “gay”?  Repent and believe Jesus Christ as so many FORMER “gays” – now born again of God — have done. (See Steve Bennett’s wonderful story at www.sbministries.org.)  Are you born again? Do you deny Jesus Christ has the power to help you heal or at least help you remain out of homosexual sin?  There is NO way a faithful Christian can embrace homosexuality.  You are deeply deluded, but there is hope in the Lord, and He WILL forgive you if you humble yourself and seek him like a child, and repent and accept Jesus’ death on the cross as the penalty for your sin. I suggest you start by reading the Gospel of John.

God bless you –– and try reading the Bible to apprehend who God is, so you can conform yourself to His holiness (a never-ending process) –– rather than seeking to conform God to YOUR image of what YOU think He should be, and what YOU think He should accept. All the best on your journey: www.biblegateway.com.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth
www.aftah.org

——————————————————————————–

Letter from “Kyle” to Americans For Truth:

From: Kyle
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:22 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Gay Rights and Religion

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

——————————————————————————–

I\’m a gay Catholic (yes, it is possible). The Church teaches that for something to be a sin, the person doing the action must fully know what they are doing is wrong and then freely choose to do the action anyway, yet the Catechism teaches that being gay is not a choice. Therefore according to the church being gay is not a sin. If that\’s true, then why do they campaign against it so much? Do they not realize that God made me just as He made you and your family and everyone else you know? And one more thing. I firmly believe that the gay marriage ban in several states is unconstitutional and should be repealed, as there are nearly 1,200 rights that are only guaranteed through marriage. Since gay marriage is illegal in almost every state, the laws banning it are unconstitutional! I can\’t wait for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of our community. And quite honestly, if you have a problem with my arguments, please either respond to me or post it on your webpage.

WorldNetDaily.com; posted January 21, 2009

By Judge Roy Moore

Barack Obama, who campaigned on “Change We Can Believe In,” was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States yesterday, Jan. 20, in the most expensive inauguration in the history of our country. Despite a bleak economy and a rising unemployment rate, Obama and we the taxpayers are estimated to have spent over $150 million. That is a lot of “change,” to be sure.

While many in the country were welcoming the Obamas, the incoming president was busy putting out the welcome mat for the homosexual agenda. At the “We are One” gathering at the Lincoln Memorial on the Sunday before the Inauguration, Obama invited Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly “gay” bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church, to give the opening prayer. It seems rather strange that an event to celebrate “unity” would begin with prayer by an individual whose homosexual conduct is responsible for one of the deepest divisions in the Episcopal Church in its history, as various dioceses have severed ties with the Episcopal Church to join the more conservative international Anglican community.

But even more shocking is the fact that Bishop Robinson was asked to pray at all. When questioned about the upcoming event by the Associated Press, Robinson assured them that he would “be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer,” and – not surprisingly – that he would not use a Bible. If that is the accepted view of our new president and those attending the event, then we are indeed in for a “change,” but one actually contrary to our beliefs and very destructive of our national morality. Historically, there has never been a time when Christianity has been so openly shunned and homosexuality so expressly promoted.

Our first president would have been appalled at such “change.” George Washington began a long tradition of adding “so help me God” to the constitutionally required presidential oath while resting his hand on the Holy Bible. The records of the National Archives show that, after repeating the oath, Washington leaned over and reverently kissed the Bible. Unlike Robinson, Washington was careful to publicly emphasize his faith in God and His Word, not run from it. …

Obama has not only chosen an open homosexual to open an historic event with prayer, he plans to promote homosexuality in other ways. Obama has proposed expanding federal “hate crimes” statutes to include “sexual orientation,” supported adoption rights for homosexuals, and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.” Obama seems determined to force change that only radical homosexuals can believe in, even in our military.

Every president is not only the chief executive of the federal government, but he is also commander in chief of the Armed Forces. When George Washington led the Army, he recognized the destructive influence of homosexuality in the military. Washington’s public dismissal of Lt. Enslin from the Army for attempted sodomy comported with a “longstanding element of military law” that is still reflected in the current military code, 10 U.S.C. § 654:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morals, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

But Obama is planning to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the Clinton administration, which although a concession to homosexuals, still recognized the prohibition against homosexuals in the military. Instead, Obama intends to enforce a policy of “non-discrimination” in favor of those who practice homosexuality.

Unfortunately for Obama, the majority of those who now serve in the military disagree with his pro-homosexual policy. According to a 2007 Military Times poll, 59 percent of active-duty military personnel said that they did not think that those who openly professed homosexuality should be allowed to serve in the military. The Center for Military Readiness in 2008 claimed that Obama’s change in policy would force heterosexual and homosexual soldiers to cohabitate around the clock in conditions of little or no privacy, causing “unprecedented harm to discipline, morale, recruiting and readiness.”

Click HERE for the full article by Judge Moore in WorldNetDaily.com

Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicki) Gene Robinson addressing the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a radical pro-homosexual, -transsexual, -bisexual, -sadomasochism organization. To watch the five-part YouTube video of Robinson’s speech at the Task Force, click HERE. Click on photo to enlarge.

The following is a statement by Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel. Note: Barber is a Board Member of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

Contact Barber at jmattbarber@comcast.net.

DATE: January 14, 2009; FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LYNCHBURG, Virginia – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, released the following statement today in response to news that Barack Obama has invited openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson to deliver the invocation at an inaugural event on Sunday:

“It’s a shame that President-elect Obama apparently has so little regard for his Christian constituents that he would give such a high place of honor to a self-styled man of God whose only claim to fame is that he abandoned his wife and children to enter, ‘loudly and proudly,’ a sexually deviant lifestyle expressly condemned by the very Bible he’s ironically called ‘holy and sacred.’

“None of us are without sin; and certainly none are less valuable in God’s eyes than any other.  But Christ did command us to repent of our sins and to ‘go and sin no more.’  Not only has Robinson refused to repent of his homosexual behavior, which is unequivocally condemned throughout both the Old and New Testaments as sexual sin, he has further rebelled against God by leading astray countless of his flock who suffer from similar temptation.

“A fancy white robe and tall priestly hat does not a man of God make,” continued Barber.  “Robinson may or may not be a believer as he claims; only he and God know that for sure.  But what we do know is this: based upon his frequent association with homosexual anti-Christian hate groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and in light of his ongoing counter-Christian sexual crusade, Gene Robinson is little more than a radical homosexual activist in a clergyman’s clothing.  In fact, his heretical rebellion against God’s express natural order, coupled with his selfish refusal to surrender his pulpit, has almost single handedly devastated the U.S. Episcopal Church,” said Barber.

Robinson has indicated he will not use the Bible at the event, saying, “While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans.  I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer.”  Barber responded, “Unfortunately, Robinson is not especially Christian in much of what he does. After that comment, I wonder if he heard a rooster crow.”

While addressing his aberrant sexual appetite for men, Robinson said, “I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality.”  Answered Barber, “That’s why Christ admonishes us to place His word above that which we feel in our hearts.  As Scripture warns: ‘The heart is deceitful above all things.’”

“As Gene Robinson prays for Barack Obama on Sunday, I would encourage all Bible believing Christians to pray for Gene Robinson.  Pray for the wife and children he left for a lie.  Pray that he will repent, ‘go and sin no more,’ bringing others with him to the salvation only Christ can offer.  A salvation we all – our nation and our world – so desperately need.”

###

At right is a Newsweek graphic for its new, scandalous hit piece in support of homosexual “marriage.” It appears the magazine’s Religion Editor, Lisa Miller, is now a theological expert — declaring that — contrary to 2,000 years of Church history — the Word of God actually supports homosexual “love” and thus same-sex “marriages.” Albert Mohler takes Miller’s piece apart HERE. Readers might also check out Professor Rob Gagnon’s website to learn what the Bible really says about homosexual practice.

American liberal media bias is out of control. Somebody get Newsweek’s religion editor, Lisa Miller, a job with the “gay christian” (small “c”) activist group Soulforce, where she belongs. Kudos to Albert Mohler for refuting her nonsense. And once again, American Family Association (AFA) provides a valuable service by helping Americans confront liberal media bias — in this case, Miller’s embarrassing attempt t0 make a Biblical case for sodomy-based “marriage.” — Peter LaBarbera

______________________________________

AFA sent out this E-Alert:

Take Action! 
Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.
Forward this e-mail to your friends and family. They need to see how the media distorts scripture to support same-sex marriage. Ask them to send the e-mail to Newsweek.  Call CEO Thomas E. Ascheim at 212-445-5245. Please be polite.
If you subscribe to Newsweek, cancel your subscription and tell them why.

______________________________________

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
Newsweek trashes the Bible in support of homosexual “marriage”

Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.

December 8, 2008

Dear Gary,

Newsweek magazine has published a lengthy article stating that the Bible supports homosexual marriage. The article was written Lisa Miller, Newsweek religion editor.

Miller’s article is one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization. The article is much too long for this e-mail.

Dr. Albert Mohler has offered a response to the Newsweek article. I suggest you read Mohler’s article and then read Miller’s Newsweek article.

Mohler made a significant point in his response: “The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.”

This is a wonderful essay by my friend Laurie Higgins, who recently joined the staff of Illinois Family Institute. Laurie is right: in today’s evangelical church we are witnessing “obfuscation” in the name of Gospel outreach, timidity and compromise in the name of “bridge-building,” and outright treachery (e.g., Peggy Campolo’s embrace of sodomy-based “marriage”) in the name of being “Christ-like.” Young Christians, especially, do not treat homosexuality like God does in the Bible; they are far too cavalier toward this sin because they grew up in a pro-”gay” popular and media culture.

Laurie’s piece below is an antidote to those Christians who may feel tempted to water down God’s Word — or to stop proclaiming it — in the name of extending love to those caught up in homosexual practice. True love — or what the world often calls “tough love” — does not run from God’s Truth but rather embraces it. Read this article, then read it again, and then pass it on to your network of family and friends. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

Do Christian Spin Doctors Heal the “LGBTQ” Community?

9/19/2008 8:17:00 AM
By Laurie Higgins, Division of School Advocacy Director -Illinois Family Institute

Despite the fact that I am neither a theologian nor a pastor, I’m going to make what I hope are not presumptuous observations about the way some individuals, church leaders, and non-profit organizations attempt to build bridges with the homosexual community. Many Christian “bridge-builders” are pursuing this noble effort by either concealing from their GLBTQ friends the true nature of their orthodox theological positions, or conversely by concealing from their orthodox Christian friends their non-traditional theological positions.

The goals of building bridges, cultivating community, and fostering relationships between the orthodox Christian community and the GLBTQ community, and spreading the Good News of Christ’s work of redemption within that community are not only noble but critical goals. And certainly different people are called to approach these goals in different ways. But the methods or strategies employed must never sacrifice, obscure, or compromise truth.

Some of these bridge builders justify their obfuscation by claiming that it is not the role of the Christian community to “convict or judge.” They argue, rightly in my view, that it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart of man, and God who judges. But the way they are using this correct theology muddies the waters by implying that if we state clearly that God defines homosexual behavior as sin, we are guilty of convicting and judging others. That is false. To answer direct questions with direct, clear answers on God’s view of homosexuality does not constitute either convicting or judging. And it can lead to the very redemption bridge-builders profess to desire for the GLBTQ community.

There are several important clarifications that need to be made. First, conviction is a work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. Second, our plain, unequivocal, unambiguous statements about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality are not the convicting work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. And third, speaking plain truths often plays a part in the Holy Spirit’s work of convicting us of sin. We can and should respond to direct questions with direct responses with no fear that we have engaged in a presumptuous acts of convicting.

The idea of “judgment” is similarly misused. We as fallen humans cannot presume to judge who is saved and who is not, but we are obligated to teach and preach about what God’s Word teaches about sin. Articulating clearly what the Bible teaches on homosexuality does not constitute unbiblical, illegitimate judging. God manifestly does not prohibit believers from sharing what He reveals in his Word as right or wrong conduct. What kind of a world would we live in if every Christian ceased articulating moral principles derived from Scripture?

If asked directly, orthodox believers should answer winsomely and lovingly, but plainly and truthfully. If we strain to find ways to avoid speaking the truth that God proscribes homosexual practices, we do a disservice both to those experiencing same-sex attractions and to our relationship with Christ. Our equivocations, evasions, or ambiguity will either appear as untruthful and manipulative, or they will deceive people into thinking we believe something we do not. We should instead do as we are commanded and speak the truth in love.

Of course, sharing biblical truths about sin may make people uncomfortable and even angry, but sharing what the Word of God teaches about homosexuality, if done in a spirit of humility and in a gracious manner, does not and indeed cannot, inhibit the work of the Holy Spirit. To imply that because speaking biblical truth hurts or angers those who self-identify as homosexual, it undermines the capacity of the Holy Spirit to bring them to salvation is unbiblical.

Those who self-identify as homosexual are no different from those who are selfish, greedy, envious, prideful, fornicators, gossips, or gluttons. All of us come to the cross as sinners, and none will be fully sanctified until Christ’s return, but retreat from or obfuscation of what the Bible teaches about selfishness, greed, envy, pride, fornication, gossip, gluttony, homosexuality, or any other of the myriad manifestations of sin is simply not scriptural–and therefore not good.

If a fornicator comes to us and asks if God approves of fornication, we must with love, humility, and empathy, tell him no, God does not approve of fornication. Similarly, if someone asks us directly how God views homosexuality, we must answer that God disapproves of it. We do not reject him or her because of their questions, their feelings, or their actions. And we ought to take this opportunity to share the Gospel message of hope and redemption. But we must answer truthfully. His or her anger does not mean we have done something wrong, and it tells us precisely nothing about the ultimate effect of our words. If we speak God’s truth in a gracious, humble manner, we glorify God. The ultimate consequence is in God’s hands. All our strategizing about what will work best to draw people into the Kingdom reveals our lack of understanding of God’s sovereignty.

Martin Luther wrote:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Similarly Martin Luther’s namesake, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote this about the church’s resistance to confronting boldly, directly, and unambiguously the sin of racism:

I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. . . . too many . . . have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. . . . I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? . . .

I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, non-biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

In deep disappointment, I have wept over the laxity of the church. . . . I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide, and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

The building of bridges, cultivating of community, and fostering of relationships must always be subordinate to teaching the entirety of Scripture. That is not to say that Scripture passages on homosexuality are the totality of the message. They’re not. But it does mean that Scripture has something explicit to say about homosexuality, and if we are asked what the Bible says, we are obligated, if we love Christ and love our neighbors as ourselves, to share that hard truth. That we must address this issue so often arises not from any obsession on the part of Christians but rather from the relentless, pervasive cultural assault on biblical truth.

John Wesley articulates eloquently the reasons and necessity for a clear exposition of God’s universal, eternal, and immutable ordinances for human conduct:

 . . . [T]he First use of [the law] without question is, to convince the world of sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it with out any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him. . . . But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is . . . quick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper than any two edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and “divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;” yea, as it were, the very “joints and marrow.” By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God.”

To slay the sinner is, then, the First use of the law; to destroy the life and strength wherein he trusts, and convince him that he is dead while he liveth; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead unto God, void of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The Second use of it is, to bring him unto life, unto Christ, that he may live. It is true, in performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe school-master. It drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed whereon to trust, and so constrains the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depth of his heart,

“I give up every plea beside, — Lord, I am damn’d; but Thou hast died.”

“In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their world view on others.”–David Burdett, UK

Dear AFTAH supporters,

David Burdett’s excellent letter responding to a fellow Brit, Peter Bradley, who says Americans For Truth would be “imprisoned” in the UK, reminds us that the battle for Truth on this issue is worldwide in its scope. We who reject the immoral, anti-Christian homosexualist agenda and the homo-fascism that it naturally spawns must work together to preserve freedom and the time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. — Peter LaBarbera

Read Bradley’s censorious message HERE, and write us with your response defending American freedom and Judeo-Christian norms at americansfortruth@comcast.net. Mr. Burdett writes June 25 through AFTAH’s website:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

My wife and I are Christians and from England, we believe that the homosexual lifestyle in sinful and we have should have the right to be able to express our religious beliefs without fear of being branded as hate-inciting criminals. In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their worldview on others. We all have free will to live as we choose and I accept that. However, we object in the strongest possible terms to the ‘gay’ agenda being forced onto us via the schools (teaching four-year-olds about same sex relationships); via the TV (the Heinz advert [in the UK showing a homosexual male couple kissing; Heinz pulled the ad after British protests]; two priests getting “married” in a church last week; and the pro-gay government and their biased laws.

You seem to think the UK is some kind of great place to live. I guess you haven’t seen the statistics about England’s huge drug problem amongst the young, the rise in teenage pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. All of this is due to being a Godless society — thank God we have people like Peter LaBarbera who are not afraid to speak the truth!

Thanks,

David Burdett
London, England

UPDATE: We learned June 26 from a Catholic, pro-family advocate who contacted the Chicago Archdiocese that AGLO has now been denied permission to march officially in this year’s homosexual “pride parade.” Stay tuned for more on this story.

[Click on photo to enlarge.] Topless transsexual bares his (presumably hormone-induced) breasts at last year’s (2007) Chicago “gay pride” parade. The “man” rode exposed like this for blocks along the parade route, as the crowd lining the streets cheered him on. Faithful Catholics in Chicagoland are outraged that a church-affiliated group called AGLO (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) may march in this year’s homosexuality-celebrating parade. (AGLO is listed as #114 in the parade line-up.) Photo: AFTAH. Click HERE to contact the Archdiocese of Chicago regarding AGLO.

Folks, I cannot help but commend this brilliant response from my friend Gary Morella to the news that Chicago Cardinal George is allowing (at least for now) a so-called “gay Catholic”-oriented group called AGLO (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) to march in this Sunday’s “Chicago Gay Pride” parade. (AGLO is listed as #114 in the parade line-up.) Morella is a Catholic pro-family, pro-life activist and research mathematician at Penn State, who catches enormous flack for his stubborn insistence on proclaiming truth at that academic den of iniquity.

Gary as a Catholic and I as an evangelical disagree on some points of theology, but we are completely in accord on the need to combat all worldly attempts to transform the sinful yet changeable behavior of homosexuality into some kind of inherent and innocuous “identity.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. I learned from my friend Susan Jordan, a Chicagoland Catholic, that AGLO has marched in other Chicago “gay pride” parades.

___________________________

Gary Morella (left) writes:

In regard to the report of a Chicago “AGLO” group marching in a “Gay Pride” parade, some seminal Catholic truths apply in regard to the “bottom line,” not the least of which is the following. The Chicago Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach is misnamed. There is nothing “gay” about being inclined to unnatural acts that are so revolting as to cause extreme revulsion when accurately described! We are talking about sexual perversion that has not evolved to sexual deviance to sexual preference to sexual orientation, which is the politically correct lie of those practicing same in order to anesthetize society that they must accept the vices of a radical fringe under force of law – to heck with the common good! Rather, we’re talking about aberrant behavior that remains sexual perversion, regardless of the devil’s packaging! Accordingly, there is nothing Catholic about celebrating such perverse behavior that is condemned by traditional Catholic teaching rooted in Sacred Scripture, PERIOD! This truth should be obvious to anyone who is Catholic in more than name only in the recognition that the common good leads ultimately to a supernatural good in accord with God’s Divine Plan for His Creation. To thwart the common good is to do the work of the devil!

This begs the obvious question, why are Catholic frauds repeatedly allowed to cause public scandal to the faith with impunity? AGLO does not deserve to exist because, as an organization, it shamelessly promotes the commission of Mortal Sin which is anathema to Catholicism. Why can’t Cardinal George see that seminal truth? Just how much more scandal must be tolerated, putting souls at extreme risk of eternal perdition, before the plug is pulled on the AGLO liars? The Catholic goal should be the encouragement to leave, not live, homosexual lifestyles!

What is frustrating is that this decline in the Church could be thwarted by some very simple courageous actions on the part of bishops, in particular, Cardinal Archbishops as metropolitans for their Episcopal brethren, by taking the bull by the horns and saying, e.g., to the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO) in Chicago, “You can no longer exist because your premise is counter to Church teaching in that you believe that one can live homosexual lifestyles and still be Catholic, which is a lie.” Are you listening, Cardinal George?

The traditional Church teaching on sins against nature is very clear using Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the form of statements from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Apologists combined with the tradition of civil legislation to show the moral chasm that has resulted when the language of “pseudo charity” replaces the language of “tough love” for salvation’s sake. The result being that the necessary feelings of revulsion toward those proudly trumpeting their sodomite tendencies are no longer there opening the door for a misplaced compassion that such individuals do not deserve. They are differences between an ontological dignity to which all are entitled by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God, and a moral dignity as a function of being endowed with an intellect and will whereby good can be accepted and evil rejected. Moral dignity does not exist for sodomites, a distinction that AGLO never makes using language that would have us erroneously believe that there exists something called the homosexual person, a concept which turns Catholic anthropology on its head making God, Who is Perfect Good, out to be a liar in creating man with a built-in one way ticket to hell in complete ignorance of the effect of the concupiscence due to Original Sin.

The clear consistent condemnation of homosexuality in Catholic teaching does not have to be needlessly qualified, which is something that Saints Peter, Jude, Pius V, Basil of Cesarea, Augustine, Aquinas, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Peter Damian, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, Bernardine of Sienna, Peter Canisius, and the councils of Ancyra, Toledo, Nablus, and Third Lateran did not suffer.

Is it possible to be Catholic and be inclined to homosexual acts? The answer is yes as there is no guarantee that Catholics are not tempted to sin. It is better to ask, “Is it possible to remain a Catholic and live a lifestyle that equates sexual perversion with normality?” The answer is an unequivocal no. For to do so makes a mockery of Sacred Scripture which states emphatically that Jesus condemns the sin out of concern for the sinner’s eternal end. The same “good and gentle” Jesus who is readily quoted out of context by the contemporary disciples of “dignity” and “self esteem” also is the “just” Jesus who talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New Testament figure. He was especially discriminatory in this regard as while some ceremonial aspects of the old law were rescinded, the moral requirements were not.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen, I say unto you, till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but, nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand of thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew 18:6-9)

It is an oxymoronic contention that you can be a practicing homosexual and be Catholic. This is a violation of a fundamental philosophical principle in that “Something cannot ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time in the same respect.” The Church’s clear teaching is that there is nothing “gay” about being inclined to proven self-destructive physically, psychologically, and especially spiritually, unnatural behavior that has also been proven to be changeable, i.e., there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation in an innate final sense. Such inclinations are to acts which the Church considers intrinsic moral evils, the inclination itself being objectively disordered because of the unnatural tendencies involved. To say otherwise is absurd!

This is not a question of exclusion but rather one of unconditional love for man’s salvific eternal end that demands telling the Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something, per the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Catholics, above all clerics, ought to realize that by lying to people who need the full truth does nothing to help them. And it is a lie to have someone believe that they can be Catholic and have no problems with being inclined to acts, which if performed, lead to final spiritual ruin. That is playing with fire. The Church calls those inclined to homosexuality to leave, not live, their lifestyles. In order to do that the Church cannot lie about such inclinations being benign naturally, and especially spiritually, given the eternal truth of the Natural Law of God which is a participation in His Eternal Law.

Would so-called “Catholic” apologists for the homosexual lifestyle have us believe that Matthew 5:21-31 excuses any responsibility for living it because homosexuality is not explicitly referred to?

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire….You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart…It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

It most certainly is. In particular, see Genesis 18:20-21, Romans 1:24-28, and the Epistle of Jude. Moreover, Jesus took the old law one step further and made the actions leading to the act as severe as the act itself. Are we to believe as Catholics that somehow homosexuality fell through the cracks in Sacred Scripture? Thus, from the Catholic standpoint, to imply that Jesus never said anything about being inclined to unnatural acts is Bible eisegesis with the consequences of Matthew 18:6.

To give a message to those inclined to homosexual acts that “they are OK as they are” is un-Catholic in the extreme given the above observations. It makes no more sense than to tell an alcoholic that you may continue drinking to get over alcoholism. Moreover, it is akin to giving a serial killer more bullets.

The Magdalenes of the Gospel were most certainly forgiven, but the words of Jesus following His forgiveness are conveniently forgotten. “Go and sin no more.” That is what it means to be Catholic. To make the attempt to live a Faith which will be mocked by the world. To imply that the homosexual lifestyle somehow has a Catholic blessing is tragic. It is tragic because souls are at stake — those living the lie and, especially, those telling it. For Catholics, that’s NOT love but REAL hate for their fellow man.

Lest we forget, Jesus Christ exists eternally as Second Person of the Blessed Trinity of the One True Triune God, i.e., as God Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the first thing that should be remembered when the heinous lie that “Jesus never had anything to say about homosexuality” rears its ugly heads via the disciples of the devil! We are talking about a proven changeable lifestyle with the Grace of God that is physically, psychologically, socially, economically, and most especially spiritually ruinous!
As Ralph McInerny in Catholic Dossier has pointed out, obfuscation has reached the college campuses and campaigns are waged against something called “homophobia,” the net effect of which is to suggest that it is the judgment that homosexual acts are sinful that is sinful, not the acts themselves. In this effort, Scripture and magisterial documents are invoked as if they favored homosexuality as erroneously implied in many college editorials. One has a Catholic duty, it seems, not to state the Catholic message on the matter. During campus campaigns to give recognition to homosexual organizations, no mention is ever made of the serious health dangers that follow homosexual activity. And this on “smoke-free” campuses. Now it is the consequences of the vice that dare not speak their name.

Lenience toward homosexuality is only an aspect of the Dionysian frenzy that characterizes talk of human sexuality. Human persons need the sane and saving doctrine of the Catholic witness on homosexuality today more than ever. To give a stone where bread is asked for is unkind. The Church’s mission is not to conform to the world, but to stand in contradiction to it in order to save it. Given this seminal Catholic truth, AGLO is not saving anyone, and as such, deserves to be summarily condemned by Holy Mother Church. — Gary L. Morella, Catholic Activist

This is a Point/Counterpoint debate on the question of whether Willow Creek Community Church (in South Barrington, Illinois) and other mega-churches should have met with the pro-homosexual activist group Soulforce, which aims to “cut off homophobia at its source – religious bigotry.” Our friend Dr. Michael Brown argues that such meetings can be used — with proper discernment — for Christian outreach and to dispel false notions that the Church harbors a “phobia” toward homosexuals. Click here for Sonja Dalton’s commentary expressing the opposite point of view: “Willow Creek Church Should Not Have Met with Soulforce.”

We will allow each writer to respond to the other’s arguments, and we welcome input from our readers, too; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. (Sorry, but we’re not interested in publishing pro-homosexuality pieces — there are plenty of “gay” websites for that.) You may write Brown or Dalton through the AFTAH website or by e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net:

_____________________________

By Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.

Point/Counterpoint [click HERE for an opposing viewpoint by Sonja Dalton]

There are a number of good reasons why Christian leaders have refused to meet with Soulforce delegations, including:

1. Soulforce leaders use these meetings for their own purposes, putting their particular spin on the meeting for the media;
2. Soulforce sets its own agenda, and Christian leaders are under no obligation to go along with that agenda;
3. Since the Soulforce leaders claim to be Christians, welcoming them could be in violation of injunctions such as 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 2 John 10-11;
4. Despite the ongoing requests for dialogue, it can be doubted whether Soulforce is truly interested in hearing what our side has to say;
5. We are damned if we do meet and damned if we don’t, since if we do meet, we are accused of softening our stance against homosexual practice; if we don’t meet, we are painted as bigots. Why then even entertain Soulforce’s request to meet?

In light of such concerns, many Christian leaders have declined to meet with Soulforce delegations, and I certainly respect their decisions. Indeed, this is often the path of wisdom. It can be argued, however, that under certain circumstances, meetings with Soulforce leaders can be biblically based as well as used for positive gospel purposes.

A text that is often cited as discouraging Christian dialogue with Soulforce is 1 Cor 5:9-13, where Paul calls on the Corinthians not even to eat with a willful unrepentant sinner who claims to be a brother or sister. “When I wrote to you before,” Paul explains, “I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.” Thus, “you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people” (1 Cor 5:9, 11, NLT).

Again, I understand how this can be applied to Soulforce delegates, since they claim to be believers and yet are practicing homosexuals. To be sure, if such people were part of one of our local assemblies, then the Scriptures would call on us to disfellowship them if they refused to repent. The problem, however, is that many people in our culture today claim to be believers –– from Mormons to nominal churchgoers to New Age practitioners –– and yet they are lost sinners. If we refuse to associate with them, then we are missing Paul’s whole point and failing in our mission to be ambassadors of Christ. As Paul explained, “I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that” (1 Cor 5:10).

Are Soulforce leaders former Christians who are unrepentant, and therefore to be shunned, or are they “unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin”? If the latter, then there is no biblical prohibition from meeting with them. Moreover, even if they should be considered former Christians who are unrepentant, we are free to meet with them and share the gospel with them, calling them to repent. Paul’s prohibition is against fellowshipping with false brothers and sisters.

What about 2 John 10-11? There John writes, “If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement. Anyone who encourages such people becomes a partner in their evil work” (NLT). In historical context, John was speaking about itinerant false teachers who were not to be welcomed or helped on their way, as opposed to true, traveling teachers whose ministry was to be warmly received and who were to be sent on their way with blessing (see 3 John 3-8). Of course, the “wolves” came in sheep’s clothing (see Matthew 7:15-20), and therefore discernment was needed. But which evangelical Christian leaders are welcoming the Soulforce leaders as Christian teachers with a message for their congregation? Who is taking up an offering for them to help them on their way? Rather, we view them as deceived people –– loved by God, but nonetheless deceived –– who need to hear the truth, and we certainly do not view them as Christian teachers.

Should Christian leaders, then, prayerfully consider meeting with Soulforce delegations? Here are several considerations:

1. Jesus gladly associated with “sinners,” to the consternation of the religious establishment, and he did so for evangelistic purposes, a method that I have called “transformational inclusion.” (That is, Jesus was “inclusive” in his outreach to all kinds of sinners, but that outreach was not affirming but rather transformational.) Shouldn’t we take every opportunity to share the gospel with people who need Jesus, which often means extended face to face dialogue?
2. There is a tremendous amount of stereotyping on both sides of the “gay Christian” debate, and sitting down face to face with practicing homosexuals who claim to be Christians can actually be a learning experience for all (yes, all!) involved. (Now, before you call me a heretic, couldn’t most Christians learn something useful through face to face conversation with, say, religious Muslims, something that could help them be more effective in their witness to the Muslim community? Why can’t it be the same with Soulforce?) Perhaps we could become more sensitive to the struggles of gays and lesbians –– especially those who failed in their efforts to become heterosexual –– as well as learn how some of our preaching sounds to them. How can this be harmful?
3. If handled wisely, a meeting with Soulforce can be used for positive media purposes. That means that we must use the meeting to get our side of the story out, namely, that we have a wonderful message of transforming love, that we are very happy to sit and talk civilly with those who differ with us, that our views are in complete harmony with those of Jesus and Paul, and that we have solid moral and societal reasons for opposing homosexual practice. I would also insist on complete disclosure of the contents of the meeting, asking that media be allowed to be present, that the “conversation” be recorded and transcribed, and that it be released to the general public – even put on YouTube! What do we have to fear?

Jesus taught that those who have the truth come into the light (see John 3:19-21), and I have used that principle in inviting local gay and gay-affirming clergy to have public dialogue with me in Charlotte, North Carolina. If they accept the invitation (as happened February 14, 2008), then I use that opportunity to demonstrate a genuine Christian spirit and to function as “light,” reaching out, exposing darkness, and reproving error (see Ephesians 5:8-14); if they decline (as happened September 20, 2007), then even the local media can see that our side is eager to put the issues on the table while the other is not.

Without question, wisdom is needed, and each church and leader will have a different strategy and approach, but I have never regretted having the opportunity to sit face to face with those who differ with me, convinced that truth will always triumph (Proverbs 21:30; 2 Corinthians 13:8) –– and ultimately set sincere people free (John 8:32-36) –– and that light will always dispel darkness. In the case of Soulforce, an in-person meeting also allows us to dispel charges of homophobia while at the same calling to account these precious souls for whom Jesus died. Is this wrong?

____________________________

Michael L. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He is the director of the Charlotte-based Coalition of Conscience and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina. He can be reached by phone at: 704-782-3760; and by email at: ministry@icnministries.org

Brown is involved in reaching out to the gay and lesbian community of Charlotte while at the same time working to resist the gay activist agenda, and he is a speaker for the Focus on the Family “Love Won Out” conferences, focusing on mobilizing communities for godly activism. He has produced two extensive DVD series, “Homosexuality, the Church, and Society,” and “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” and he recently debated Harry Knox, director of Religion and Faith for the (homosexual activist group) Human Rights Campaign. His book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, is scheduled for release in 2009.

Brown has preached around the world and appeared on numerous TV and radio programs, and is a published Old Testament scholar, a leading Jewish Christian apologist, and the author of twenty books. His website is: www.revolutionnow.org.

This is a Point/Counterpoint on the question of whether Willow Creek Community Church (in South Barrington, Illinois) and other mega-churches should have met with the pro-homosexual activist group Soulforce, which aims to “cut off homophobia at its source – religious bigotry.” Below is a commentary by my good friend Sonja Dalton, who argues AGAINST such meetings. Click HERE to read an opposing column by Dr. Michael Brown, who says they can be used — with proper discernment — for Christian outreach.

We will allow each writer to respond to the other’s arguments, and welcome input from our readers, too; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. (Sorry, but we’re not interested in publishing pro-homosexuality pieces — there are plenty of “gay” websites for that.) Footnotes are at bottom:

_______________________________

Willow Creek Church Should Not Have Met with Soulforce

Point/Counterpoint [to read Michael Brown's opposing column, click HERE]

By Sonja Dalton

A fundamental question has been lost amid the sensation over the recent meeting between Willow Creek leadership and pro-homosexuality activists affiliated with the group Soulforce:

Did Pastor Bill Hybels have Biblical authority to welcome, meet with, and dine with Jay Bakker and Soulforce?

First, let’s examine who these Willow Creek “guests” [1] were…

Jay Bakker (right) is the cigarette-puffing, tattooed, punk-rocker son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker; he’s the star of the Sundance Channel series “One Punk Under God” and “pastor” of the “gay”-affirming Revolution NYC [2]. He is quoted as having said:

“…I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’” [3]

(You might want to pencil that into your Bible, somewhere near Leviticus 18:22 or I Corinthians 6:9-11. Or not.)

On Sunday, June 8th, Bakker served as the “clergy leader” for “The American Family Outing” — a group of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender “families” who imposed themselves upon Bill Hybels and Willow Creek Community Church. These counterfeit “families” are, in fact, “queer” and allied activists associated with Soulforce [4], whose website states:

“The mission of Soulforce is to cut off homophobia at its source – religious bigotry…” [5]

The founder of Soulforce is Mel White, who left family and church to engage in homosexuality and who unabashedly preaches:

“I am gay. I am proud. And God loves me without reservation.” [6]

(The question is, Mel, do you love God? For Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments.” John the Baptist taught: “Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”)

Jeff Lutes, Executive Director of Soulforce, plainly articulated the objective of their intrusion in a June 2nd press release (no longer posted online):

Soulforce wants pastors like Hybels to “exercise a new kind of leadership by speaking out for the safety and inclusion of our families.”

So, to review, we’re not talking about hurting, questioning, seeking, sinful unbelievers, but rather about:

• Jay Bakker, who claims to have a new revelation from God that homosexuality really isn’t sin after all,
• And Soulforce activists, who explicitly (and blasphemously) claim to be both “Christian” and proudly, defiantly, unrepentantly “gay” (and bi, and trans, and more?).

These folks weren’t coming to Willow Creek sorrowfully asking, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (as in Acts 2). Their stated mission was to coerce the church to embrace sexual sin.

What does the Bible have to say about such people?

The Apostle Paul instructed the church at Corinth:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. — I Corinthians 5:9-11 (NIV)

And John the Elder instructed the churches:

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God… If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. — II John 1:9-11 NIV

It doesn’t get much plainer. There is no Biblical authority for greeting or conversing with these people.

When Christian leaders justify welcoming, meeting with, or eating with Soulforce, they arrogantly substitute their own wisdom for that of inspired apostolic teaching. (“I will show compassion rather than judgment; I will convince them with my gentle speech.”) Let us humble ourselves: If the Holy Spirit hasn’t convicted a man’s heart, can Bill Hybels persuade him? No; the principle in II Thessalonians 3:14-15 teaches us to have nothing to do with rebellious brothers in order that, through exclusion from fellowship, they might feel shame and repent.

Jesus warned The Twelve to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” –– a warning that Willow Creek leadership would have been prudent to heed. As my cherished friend Abigail Ruth put it [7], in sitting down for a meal and dialogue with Soulforce, Hybels not only violated Scripture, but “[gave] the impression that the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the church is something worth discussing. Not to waste a good PR opportunity, Soulforce is predictably spinning the event for all it’s worth.”

I’d say. Read John (“Julie Marie”) Nemecek’s account HERE [8]. (Recognize that name? John was a married father of three sons, an ordained Baptist minister, an associate dean at Spring Arbor University… but now John takes hormones and dresses as a woman [9, 10, 11].) He reports that Willow Creek shared this understanding (punctuation errors as they appeared on his blog):

“(1) Sexual orientation is unchangeable. and (2) Sexual orientation should not keep someone from being received into their church. They acknowledged that 6 of the 7 verses used to condemn homosexuality are irrelevant; really referring to other things. Unfortunately, they still felt that one Genesis text supported their position that gay and lesbian members must commit to celibacy to become members.” [8]

(Mr. Nemecek, if Hybels loved your soul, he would have implored you to repent, for the Word teaches: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” – Deuteronomy 22:5.)

Paige Schilt, Soulfource’s media director, is quoted as saying:

“[Lutes asked Hybels if he] would take up the challenge of speaking more clearly on behalf of our community when he can — certainly as someone who believes that reparative ["ex-gay"] therapy doesn’t work and that sexual orientation of itself is not sinful. Even though there’s still distance between that position and our totally gay-affirming position, there’s still a lot he could do in terms of leadership on things that would create a lot more safety and protection for our community. And he responded really positively to Jeff’s offering that challenge to him.” [12]

From the same article:

According to Lutes, Hybels “has no trouble with people being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and he does not believe it’s a choice.” [12]

Another Soulforce participant (mis-) characterized the weekend as “a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit to move people of good will in a common direction. We found important common ground with the church leadership and look forward to continuing our dialogue in the future.” [13]

Does Bill Hybels believe homosexuals are “born that way”? Does he ascribe to the concept of “sexual orientation”? Has he dispensed with six Bible passages? Since Willow Creek has yet to issue any statement on the meeting, I have no idea whether Hybels actually conveyed those beliefs or not. (I certainly hope not!) But at minimum, these reports testify to terribly poor discernment.

It is my prayer that other men in leadership would contemplate this instruction:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith,
act like men, be strong.
– I Corinthians 16:13

And yes, as verse 14 continues: “Let all that you do be done in love.” Love that protects families and little children. Love that instructs confounded young people who have imbibed too many deceitful, erroneous messages from this wicked culture. Love that pleads with unbelievers whose hearts are yet tender toward God and, when confronted with Truth, might be snatched from the fire. And even love that grieves for these defiant souls, who must remain in Satan’s realm until the flesh submits to its Creator (I Corinthians 5:3-5).

Sonja Dalton writes, teaches Bible classes and workshops for women and children, and volunteers for Americans For Truth, Culture Campaign and several pro-life/pro-family organizations.

Source Materials:
1. www.soulforce.org/article/1340
2. www.revolutionnyc.com
3. www.radaronline.com/features/2006/12/empire_of_the_son_part_iii.php
4. www.soulforce.org
5. www.soulforce.org/article/7
6. www.soulforce.org/article/11
7. http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2008/06/homosexual-activists-heading-for-willow.html
8. http://julienemecek.blogspot.com/2008/06/soulforce-willow-creek-and-me_17.html
9. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Transgender-Professor.php
10. http://americansfortruth.com/news/john-becomes-julie-complains-over-firing-by-christian-school.html
11. http://julienemecek.com/
12. http://www.edgechicago.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=features&sc3=glbt&id=75795
13. http://www.queermessages.com/2008/06/08/soulforce-goes-to-willow-creek

NOTE: we’ll have more on the Willow Creek-Soulforce story in upcoming posts. The following was posted on the Chicago Tribune religion reporter Manya Brachear’s blog, “The Seeker,” which contains a report on Willow Creek’s meeting last weekend with Soulforce homosexual activists.

By Peter LaBarbera

I wonder: is transcendent truth conditional on the age of the person receiving it? Either homosexual behavior is a changeable sin or it is not — 1,000 years ago, today, and 1,000 years in the future. The Word of God is clear that it is. I have met far too many EX-gays to believe that homosexuality is some fixed identity (”orientation”) into which people are born — and most of these FORMER gay men and ex-lesbians testify to the power of Jesus Christ in setting them free from homosexuality.

That last part is the Good News of the Gospel that Soulforce and its traveling band of revisionist “pro-gay christians” does not want to hear, as they falsely claim that Christianity is compatible with homosexuality. That is why I and another Christian were outside Willow Creek Community Church last Sunday with a message that the case is closed on whether homosexuality is a (changeable) sin.

There was a time not too long ago when being “pro-choice” was very trendy, and opinion leaders thought the abortion debate was pretty much over (and pro-lifers had lost). Then came ultrasound and other developments and now it is the pro-abortion side that is on the defensive, and which loathes talking about the humanity of the unborn. (Try finding the word “abortion” on NARAL’s [formerly National Abortion Rights Action League] website.)

To the young people reading this I ask: what gives you the right to redefine age-old Biblical morality on sex? Did you learn something new that God didn’t know when He inspired the Bible? Have you ever met someone who overcame homosexuality through Christ? Could it be that due to your unprecedented exposure to pro-”gay” messages in the culture that your thinking is off-kilter on this issue? What gives you the authority to proclaim homosexuality and “gay” relationships OK? And wouldn’t each of us sinners like to take our own favorite sin, decide it’s not a sin and instead call it part of our basic identity — and even part of our “civil rights”?

The irony of “softer” evangelicals who complain about the “Religious Right” focusing too much attention on homosexuality as some special sin is that they are guilty of the very same thing: by being far too cavalier about homosexuality and accepting of same-sex relationships when God Himself is neither. (That is, if you believe the Bible: see Prof. Rob Gagnon’s website for clear Scriptural evidence on the Bible and homosexual practice: www.robgagnon.net.)

God in His grace changes drunks, drug addicts, gossipers, philanderers, liars, cheats, thieves, white-collar criminals, pornographers, and … people caught up in homosexuality. Deny that, and you deny Jesus Himself.

Would Willow Creek have agreed to a (forced) meeting with activists claiming that using pornography is not a sin, or that the “swinging” lifestyle is OK with God? No way. I think they bowed to Soulforce’’s pressure to “dialogue” because this particular sin, as Greg aptly calls it, enjoys a certain worldly favor that most others do not. Christ said His followers would get persecuted for following Him, and these days that includes being smeared as a “bigot” or a “homophobe” — and being accused of “spiritual violence” by the savvy activists at Soulforce — merely for agreeing with God that homosexual behavior is a sin that can be overcome through Jesus Christ.

This lesbian couple traveling with Soulforce — the “Rasmus-Ford family” — says, “God created us [as lesbians] exactly as we are with purpose and intention.” They are taking that false message to mega-churches across the country.

Press Release, Americans For Truth about Homosexuality

June 8, 2008; Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

NAPERVILLE, Illinois — Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera today accused the homosexual activist group Soulforce of intimidating mega-churches like Willow Creek Community Church into a bogus “dialogue’ to further its goal of persuading faithful Christians to reject age-old Biblical teachings that homosexual behavior is a changeable sin.

Soulforce activists are leading a pro-“gay” campaign called the “American Family Outing” in which they seek “peaceful dialogue” (on their terms) with five mega-churches across the country each Sunday between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. This weekend they are targeting Willow Creek in South Barrington, Illinois.

LaBarbera said he was confident that Willow Creek and its pastor Bill Hybels would present Biblical truth in love to the visiting Soulforce contingent, but questioned the manipulative nature of Soulforce’s tactics and their continued use of incendiary rhetoric – e.g., accusing Christians who defend ancient Biblical teachings against homosexual practice of “spiritual violence” against “gays.”

He said Jay Bakker (left) –– son of Jim and the late Tammy Faye Bakker –– who is traveling with Soulforce, needs to repent for promoting revisionist “queer” theology that runs directly counter to Holy Scripture. Bakker claimed in 2006, “I felt like God spoke to my heart and said [homosexuality] is not a sin.”

“The truth is, Soulforce and Bakker are the ones guilty of doing violence — to the Word of God by using loaded words and false ‘revelation’ to argue that God does not oppose homosexual behavior,” LaBarbera said. “Soulforce is wrong: you cannot be a faithful Christian and proudly ‘gay.’ However, many ‘ex-gay’ men and woman have left the homosexual lifestyle through the grace and power of Jesus Christ.”

LaBarbera pointed to the words of one lesbian couple – the “Rasmus-Ford family,” who apparently adopted two African-American children — traveling with Soulforce (emphasis added):

Fortunately, we didn’t buy into the idea that being gay was wrong or would somehow make us displeasing in the eyes of God. We found each other knowing that God created us exactly as we are with purpose and intention. We now belong to Metropolitan Community Church of Austin and are showing our children that nothing they do could separate them from the love of God or from our love. … As mothers and as Christians, it is of paramount importance the Soulforce message is spread around the globe. The violence must stop. There are gay and lesbian people who believe they must choose between following Christ and living authentically in the truth of their being. We want to make sure our brothers and sisters in Christ know they were created in the image of the Creator. We are loved and cherished children of God. Nothing can change that fact.

“This statement is filled with so many falsehoods and anti-Biblical claims that it’s difficult to know where to start,” LaBarbera said. “First, God did not create women to be lesbians – or why would His Holy Word speak so clearly (in Genesis) about united man and woman in marriage and (in Romans) against lesbian behavior? Homosexuality is not the “truth” of anyone’s being. Practicing sins like homosexuality DOES separate a person from God. And yes, people practicing homosexuality must choose between whether to go deeper and deeper into that sin or believe in the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ and leave it behind.”

Pro-Gay, Anti-Christianity

by David R. Carlin

May 21, 2008, InsideCatholic.com

The trouble with “liberal Christianity” is that it isn’t Christianity. It is something else — a new and ever-changing religion that attempts to hijack the old and revered name of Christianity.– David Carlin

A learned friend of mine recently wrote an op-ed piece for a newspaper in which she argued that the drive for same-sex “marriage” is not simply about same-sex “marriage”; it is also about winning moral approval for homosexuality. If society, acting through the state, tells us that homosexuals can marry one another, then it is by the same token telling us that there is nothing morally objectionable about homosexual conduct.

My friend is, of course, correct. But I’ll add to this that the drive for same-sex “marriage” is not simply about same-sex “marriage” or the moral legitimization of homosexual behavior; it is also about the de-legitimizing of Christian morality. More, it is about the de-legitimizing of Christianity itself.

The taboo on homosexual conduct is as old as Christianity itself (pace the late gay historian John Boswell, who argued — absurdly — that the taboo didn’t appear until many centuries after the foundation of Christianity and is therefore not an essential part of Christian morality). And it is older even than that. It clearly goes back to Old Testament times. And if there is such a thing as natural law, the taboo is rooted in natural law; for nature (or God as author of nature) seems to have designed the anatomy and physiology of human beings in such a way that sex between men and women is sex “according to nature.” Sex between men and men or between women and women, though it can be accomplished in an unnatural manner, doesn’t seem to be what nature/God had in mind.

What’s more, the taboo on homosexual conduct is not only as old as Christianity and Christian morality; it is an essential element in Christian morality, not a merely incidental element. St. Paul made this clear by going out of his way on a number of occasions to condemn it in no uncertain terms. And even though pro-homosexuality speakers and writers, with the intention of surrounding their sexual opinions with a spiritual aura, often contend that Jesus did not utter a word of condemnation of homosexual behavior, this is not exactly so; for He condemned it by implication when He spoke in an unflattering way of the city of Sodom. (See Matthew 11:23-24 and Luke 10:12.)

The Catholic Church has classified it as a mortal sin — a moral offense that merits eternal damnation. This is why Dante (Inferno, canto 15) assigned his teacher, Brunetto Latini, to hell. (I wouldn’t be surprised if some resourceful academic apologist for same-sex marriage contends that Dante sent Ser Brunetto to hell not for his sodomy, but because he gave Dante a bad grade on a term paper. I myself have often had students who would gladly have sent me to hell because of an “unfair” grade.)

The taboo on homosexual conduct is as much an essential element of Christian morality as is the taboo on abortion. And both taboos are strongly connected with the extraordinarily high valuation that Christianity has always given to the virtue of chastity.

So if you wish to overthrow the Christian rules against sodomy and abortion, which is precisely what the prevailing secularist morality of the day wishes to do (and indeed is doing very successfully), then you wish to overthrow the Christian moral system. You don’t necessarily have to be conscious of that wish: Some of those who are out to destroy Christian morality are fully conscious of their intention, others are not. Whether conscious or not, however, the course you will be pursuing is a course tending to the overthrow of Christian morality.

But the Christian moral system is no minor part of Christianity, any more than the heart or lungs are minor parts of the human body. Overthrow the Christian moral system and you will have overthrown Christianity itself. Therefore, those who are pushing for the institution of same-sex “marriage” are ipso facto pushing for the elimination of the Christian religion. Q.E.D.

Of course, there are objections to the train of reasoning I have outlined above, and the most common is this: While some Christian churches (e.g., the Catholic Church and Evangelical Protestant churches) consider the bans on homosexuality and abortion to be essential to their religions, there are other Christian churches (the more liberal or “mainstream” Protestant denominations) that take a much more tolerant and open-minded attitude toward these former “sins.” Unlike Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism, both of which hold a “fundamentalist” or “originalist” view of Christianity, these liberal denominations contend that Christianity is a “living” religion, much like our “living” United States Constitution. That is, you mustn’t, these up-to-date religions tell us, adhere literally to the classic doctrines of Christianity, for “the letter killeth.”

On the other hand, the spirit giveth life, and the life of the Christian religion is evolution. When we focus on the essential feature of Christianity — namely, love of neighbor — and disregard the incidentals — e.g., condemnations of sodomy and abortion — we realize that Jesus and Paul, if only they had been so lucky as to live in the wonderful and enlightened 21st century, would have endorsed homosexual sodomy and strongly approved of same-sex “marriage.” Jesus would have been in the forefront of those endorsing same-sex “marriage”: He would have been on cable TV talk shows applauding the California Supreme Court.

The trouble with “liberal Christianity” is that it isn’t Christianity. It is something else — a new and ever-changing religion that attempts to hijack the old and revered name of Christianity. Liberal Christianity is, and ever has been since its commencement about 200 years ago, an incoherent attempt to synthesize Christianity and whatever is the fashionable anti-Christianity of the day. It began in America with early 19th-century Unitarianism, a synthesis of Christianity and Deism. The fashionable anti-Christianity of today stresses abortion and same-sex “marriage.” And so today’s liberal Christianity (a religious deviation that used to be found only among Protestants, but is now often found among Catholics as well) says, “Fine, we can do that. We can bless abortion and same-sex marriage.”

In other words, they can — and do — bless the forces that are out to destroy Christianity.

David R. Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, is the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America (Sophia Institute Press, 2003).

“Love, the Bible, and Homosexual Practice”: A 4-Hour 3-DVD Presentation by Robert Gagnon (2008)

… with excellent high-definition picture and sound, along with slides; taped professionally at Grace Chapel in Franklin, Tenn. on Apr. 12, 2008 for Mastering Life Ministries (see online sites at www.MasteringLife.org and www.purepassion.us/Home.asp), along with an hour-long CD. $35 plus $7 shipping and handling. To order click HERE or go to http://www.purepassion.us/OnlineStore.asp.

DVD 1: What’s at Stake & What Are the Closest Analogies (83 min.)

Treats why we disagree in the church about homosexual practice; what’s at stake in this debate; why the oft-cited, alleged analogies to Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, and divorce and remarriage are not in fact good analogies to the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice; what the main problem with homosexual practice is; why adult-committed incest and polyamory are the closest analogies; and responses to audience questions.

DVD 2: The Witness of Paul on Homosexual Practice (72 min.)

Treats the witness of Paul, showing how Paul opposed homosexual practice absolutely by looking at: echoes to the creation texts in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9; the meaning of Paul’s argument from nature in its historical context; the case for identifying Rom 1:26 with an indictment of lesbianism; the conception of caring homosexual unions in the ancient world; the condemnation of even such caring unions by some Greek and Roman moralists; and the case for identifying the terms for homosexual practice in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1;10 with homosexual practice per se.

DVD 3: The Witness of Jesus & the Old Testament on Homosexual Practice (76 min.)

The first 11 minutes completes the discussion of Paul by showing why the “orientation argument” (i.e. had NT authors known about sexual orientation it would have changed their view on homosexual practice) doesn’t work. The next 19 minutes are devoted to discussing the witness of Jesus; 8 min. to the witness of Genesis; 7 min. to Sodom and related texts (Ham & Noah, the sacred cult prostitute texts, Levite at Gibeah, commentary on Sodom in Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Pet); 5 min. to the Levitical prohibitions and the problems with alleged analogies to menstrual law and cloth mixtures; 2 min. to David and Jonathan; and 23 min. to responding to questions from the audience.

CD: The Importance of Sexual Ethics in the New Testament (72 min.)

Also available: The three DVD presentations above on CD, along with the extra CD above, for $20 plus $5 shipping and handling. To order click HERE or go to http://www.purepassion.us/OnlineStore.asp.

If you live outside the U.S. you must order by phone. Call 1-615-507-4166. For more of Prof. Rob Gagnon’s excellent teaching resources, go to www.robgagnon.net.