New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

RSVP to aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Here are the event details:

WHO:  Dr. Michael Brown,  director of the Charlotte, NC -based Coalition of Conscience and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina. Dr. Brown, who holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, is the world’s foremost Messianic Jewish apologist. (Messianic Jews are Jews who believe in Jesus Christ (who was Jewish!) as their Messiah.) Brown is the author of 20 books and in 2010 will publish “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” which exposes the extremist teachings of “queer theology.”

WHAT:  AFTAH’s monthly dinner-lecture: Dr. Brown will be preaching on how faithful Christians are called to both RESIST the radical homosexual activist agenda and REACH OUT in grace and love with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to men and woman practicing homosexuality.

WHEN:  Thursday, Sept. 17, 6:00-9:00 PM.  Casual dinner begins at 6:00, followed by Dr. Brown’s talk from 7:00-9:00.  There will be a time for Q&A after a mid-talk break for refreshments.  A free will donation will be taken to cover the cost of the event. This event will be videotaped and a tape will be offered by AFTAH for purchase.

WHERE:  AFTAH’s office at 25W560 Geneva Rd., in Carol Stream, IL.  We are located on Geneva Rd., just west of Gary Rd.; (Carol Stream is next door to Wheaton in Chicago’s western suburbs.)  Look for the “Kingsland” sign out front and park in the rear.

WHY YOU SHOULD COME (and bring your PASTOR): If you struggle with or wonder about questions like these, this event is a great opportunity for you to strengthen your heart and mind on the issue of the Christian approach towards homosexuality and “gay” activism:

• If as a Christian, I want to lovingly minister to gays and lesbians, shouldn’t I avoid the anti-homosexual-agenda “culture war”?
• As a pastor, how best can I minister to active homosexuals?
• What responsibility do I as a pastor have in helping to resist the homosexual activist agenda and to proclaim biblical truth outside my church doors about homosexuality?
• How does the “GLBT” agenda threaten our religious and First Amendment freedoms?
• How are “queer” theologians undermining and distorting the Word of God? How does the gay theologians’ “Jesus” differ from the biblical Christ?
• Can I still love my “gay” friends or relatives while helping the pro-family movement resist the demands of the  homosexual activist agenda?
• How do I respond to gay activists who compare the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality to “wearing polyester” or eating shellfish? Why should I take what the Old Testament says about homosexuality seriously when it also advocates the stoning of rebellious children, etc.?
• How do I respond to people who tell me that I’m being judgmental if I don’t accept people being gay?
• Shouldn’t Christians stop condemning homosexuality as sin to show their love for the homosexual?
• Can a person be “gay” and a faithful Christian? Is the term “gay Christian” acceptable?
• Why are so many Christians AWOL in the Culture War?
• What have Christians done wrong in opposing the “gay” movement?
• Can homosexuals really change and leave their “gay” lifestyle and identity behind?
• What about the idea that churches should put a “moratorium” on preaching against homosexuality to help reach out to gays with the Gospel?
• My liberal friends tell me that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality: how do I answer that?
• If we’re against promiscuity, shouldn’t we let two people of the same sex who love each other and want to commit themselves to each other at least have their “civil unions” be recognized by the government? Shouldn’t we be FOR (same-sex) monogamy?
• If gays and lesbians didn’t choose their attractions, why is it a sin?
• Are transsexuality and cross-dressing sins in the Bible?
• I am not a Christian: give me some other reasons why I should oppose homosexuality in general, and “gay rights” laws in particular

Other AFTAH articles about Dr. Michael Brown:

• A Model Christian Response to ‘Gay’ Pride: ‘God Has a Better Way’ in Charlotte
• ‘Can You Be Gay and Christian?’ Dr. Michael Brown Invites Homosexual Clergy to Dialogue
• Should Christians Support Same-Sex Unions as a Matter of Justice? Dr. Michael Brown Responds to Jim Wallis
• LISTEN ONLINE: CWA Interviews LaBarbera and Dr. Michael Brown on ‘God Has Better Way’ Outreach
• Higgins Responds to Wayne Besen’s Screed against Dr. Michael Brown
• Dr. Mike Brown’s Debate with HRC’s Harry Knox to Air on Free Webcast May 5th

_____________________________
RSVP for the Dr. Michael Brown dinner-lecture to: aftahangela@gmail.com (847-722-5330) or and you can get additional information by calling 630-717-7631 or e-mailing americansfortruth@comcast.net. I hope to see some of you tomorrow evening!  — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Harry Knows Better than God?  Homosexual activist and Obama “faith council” appointee Harry Knox calls his homosexuality an “unchangeable gift from God” in an MSNBC debate. Knox has also called Pope Benedict a “discredited leader” and the (Catholic) Knights of Columbus the pope’s “foot soldiers” in a “discredited army of oppression.” TAKE ACTION: urge your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121) to ask President Obama to remove Knox — with his deep prejudices against traditional religion — from his Faith Advisory Council.

Folks, click here to see the AFTAH’s “Satan’s Talking Points” post on Harry Knox’s MSNBC TV debate with AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber, in which he claimed that: “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.” (The YouTube video is embedded in the story.) We highly recommend LifeSiteNews.com, from which this article is reprinted, and also CNSNews.com, which has done several excellent pieces on the Knox controversy:

By Peter J. Smith, reprinted from LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The White House says the President is “comfortable” with a homosexual activist on his advisory council of faith-based initiatives, a man who has come under attack for having vilified the Catholic Church, calling the current Pope a “discredited leader” and the Knights of Columbus his “foot soldiers” in a “discredited army of oppression.”

CNSNews.com reported [June 3] that the White House has essentially shrugged at calls from Catholics that Harry Knox, the former director of the “religion and faith program” at the Human Rights Counsel, a homosexual lobby group, be removed from the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships for his insulting and bigoted language toward the Catholic Church (see LSN coverage).

Prominent Catholic figures, including House Republican Leader John Boehner, Catholic League President Bill Donohue, American Life League’s Judie Brown, and members of the Family Research Council, expressed their concern to Obama in a May 13 letter, citing Knox’s remarks as proof he is “unfit to serve” on an advisory board billed as fostering interfaith cooperation.

“As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism,” stated the letter, signed by 22 Catholic leaders. “Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council – and indeed, your entire administration – as anti-Catholic.”

The letter also stated, “We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not.”

The letter continued, “But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.”
A CNSNews reporter finally obtained comment from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on the issue, who made clear Obama had no problem with Knox on his advisory counsel.

“The president is comfortable with the makeup of his faith advisory council,” Gibbs said

Knox has refused to back down from comments in which he accused Pope Benedict XVI of being “morally reprehensible” for not supporting the use of condoms in Africa.

“The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus,” Knox said in a March statement, two weeks before his appointment to the council.

In 2007, Knox called it “immoral and insulting to Jesus” when the bishop of Cheyenne, Wyoming instructed that an activist lesbian couple not receive Communion.

“If all Knox had done was to criticize the Catholic Church on public policy issues, there would be no problem,” said Catholic League President Bill Donohue. Instead, Donahue said Knox had stepped beyond merely disagreeing with the Church to demonizing it, “slamming the Catholic Church on internal matters that are none of his business.”

“In short,” continued Donahue, “the letter by Catholic leaders to President Obama requesting him to remove Harry Knox from his post is entirely warranted.”

_________________________

Related stories:

Obama ‘Comfortable’ with Adviser Who Made Repeated Anti-Catholic Statements, Says White House: this CNSNews story contains links to several other CNSNews pieces on the Knox controversy

LifeSiteNews.com: “Catholics Call for Obama to Oust Homosexualist Pope Critic from “Faith” Council”

Americans For Truth: “VIDEO: Satan’s Talking Points? HRC’s Harry Knox Claims Homosexuality Is ‘Gift from God’ in MSNBC Debate with CWA’s Matt Barber”

See our adjoining story: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Talks of ‘Moral Leadership’ while Honoring Homosexual S&M Pornographer

Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says her movement shows “moral leadership” to the nation — even as the Task Force presented its “Leather Leadership Award” to a homosexual pornographer. The Task Force’s “Creating Change” conference in Denver ran supportive workshops on: transsexuality; prostitution (“sex workers’ rights”), “polyamory/nonmonogamy”; and – most disturbing – pushing a “sexual freedom” (read: sexual license) agenda on youth.

Dear AFTAH Reader,

If you are reading this website, you are seriously concerned about the homosexual activist agenda.  So I have an assignment for you.  Please print out the enclosed “State of the Movement” speech by the Rea Carey, the new executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and read it all the way through (it’s about 8 printed pages with my introduction).  Now, why would a Christian pro-family organization send out a speech by a radical homosexual activist?  Because we need to know what our Culture War enemies are saying and this speech is very instructive for OUR cause of defending traditional morality and marriage in America.

If you can’t find time to read the whole “Creating Change” speech, at least read the parts of it that we have bolded below.  Note how Ms. Carey talks about “moral leadership” even as the Task Force gave its ‘Leather Leadership Award” to a hard-core homosexual pornographer at the same “Creating Change” conference.  (Talk about chutzpah!)  And note also how she refers to the Bush administration as the “Evil Empire” – Ronald Reagan’s famous description of expansionist Soviet Communism – just as Iraqi citizens were preparing to vote in another free election made possible by the U.S. liberation of their country from the grip of dictator Saddam Hussein.  Nobody lies like the Left, yet the liberal media rarely challenge groups like the Task Force on their many falsehoods and slanders.

Several observations about Carey’s speech:

• The sheer organization of the anti-Christian Left:  thousands of left-wing, grassroots activists attend these annual “Creating Change” conferences; there is no parallel on the social Right for this scale of people and groups working closely together toward common goals.  There are precious few organizing and political “how-to” conferences for pro-family conservatives.  The Left eats and breathes politics; the Right is more distrustful of government, worse at politics, but more oriented toward God, family and church (the latter is obviously a good thing).  All this helps explain why so much destructive social “change” has come to America, where political organization is rewarded in our democratic system.  (That said, we would not see such a progression of evil in our nation were our culture not so deceived, and its once-Christian character so worn down by faithless secularism.)  In the coming days, we will shed more light on the extremist Task Force agenda, which now includes sadomasochism, prostitution (“sex workers’ rights”), “polyamory/nonmonogamy,” and – most disturbing – pushing a “sexual freedom” (read: sexual license) agenda on youth;
• We must acknowledge homosexual-agenda “victories” before we can move forward:  the pro-family movement must take a sober look at where we are in the battle over homosexuality, and it’s not pretty.  While it is tempting to point to pro-marriage victories in November (California, Florida, Arizona) as evidence that our movement is healthy, underneath the surface we are losing the critical public-policy and cultural argument over the legitimacy of and government endorsement of same-sex relationships.  Homosexual activists are making steady, incremental advances, often with little pro-family opposition – e.g., passing “domestic partner” legislation like the bill currently moving through New Mexico’s legislature – as part of a longterm strategy for bigger victories ahead.  Many of the “gay” gains came in states targeted by homosexual moneymen like Tim Gill, who has successfully knocked out pro-family state legislators in Iowa, Colorado and other states.  This begs the question: why do such hardball efforts seem to succeed only on the Left and not the Right?  When will the pro-family Christian “Tim Gill” step forward to help our side?
• The dedication of evil:  if Christians were as devoted to defending God’s truth about sex and marriage as homosexual and transsexual activists are to promoting their destructive lies, we would be in a much better place.  The sad reality is that many Christians remain opposed to engagement in politics and public policy and are ambivalent about this cultural battle.  Some Christian leaders have made key concessions to pro-homosexualist ideology – or declared their neutrality on the issue – while they point judgmental fingers at the few groups that are trying to resist the “gay” juggernaut.  Meanwhile, there are no corresponding doubts on the Secular Left, which works unapologetically to radically redefine family and marriage and destroy the Judeo-Christian moral consensus that helped make this country great.  Ultimately, if the Left succeeds, Christians could see their faith-based freedoms to disagree with sexual sin disappear.
• Stealing “morality” (why not? The homosexual activists already stole the word “gay” and are trying to redefine “marriage,” “family,” “equality,” and “civil rights”):  Homosexual activists realize that to achieve total victory, they must separate Christianity from traditional (Christian) morality.  They aim to redefine right and wrong apart from God’s will for people’s lives, as clearly revealed in Scripture and nature with God’s beautiful, complementary design for man and woman united sexually in marriage to produce children.  “Queer” theologians are busy redefining the Bible and now brazenly claim that homosexuality is a “gift from God.”  The homosexual militants’ game plan is to reinvent Christianity by spouting religious-sounding yet subversive ideas for a nation that is still very religious, but largely ignorant of the Bible;
• The progression and unity of sexual sin … Face the evil:  at Americans For Truth, we’ve come face-to-face with homosexual extremism and have no problem labeling the overall GLBT movement as evil.  But many people are in denial about the nefarious homosexual agenda.  We need to admit that the media “soft sell” of homosexuality does not match what the GLBT Lobby has in store for our nation.  We ask: why does Rea Carey advocate for abortion (seemingly a non-issue for homosexuals) and against “useless” abstinence-focused education?   Why does the Task Force – which receives lots of corporate support — give an award to a purveyor of hard-core homosexual porn?  Why do they teach gender confusion (“transsexuality”) and “sexual freedom” to youth?  (The latter is a code term for no-limits sexuality including S&M.)  Why does the Task Force champion “nonmonogamy” even as it seeks to homosexualize “marriage”?  Because the Left unites around “mainstreaming” perversion and an anti-life, anti-nature, anti-God agenda.  Homosexuality.  Abortion.  Pornography.  Casual and deviant sex outside marriage.  The Task Force supports them all in its decidedly anti-moral quest.  This isn’t about “civil rights” but using the government to promote destructive, immoral and changeable behaviors.

Christians and moral traditionalists need to wake up: the other side is dead serious about “transforming society,” to quote Carey, and “imposing its morality” on us all.  It’s time for us to get serious in the Culture War, too.  God bless you.

Sincerely in Christ,

Peter LaBarbera
www.americansfortruth.com

________________________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SPEECH BY REA CAREY, HEAD OF THE HOMOSEXUAL “TASK FORCE”:

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009
Subject: State of the Movement Address by Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
From: “The Task Force”  …

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey delivers State of the Movement address at 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change

DENVER, Jan. 30 — National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey presented the annual State of the Movement address today at the 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, where 2,000 activists have gathered to strategize on how to advance LGBT equality in this new political climate. What follows below is the text of her speech:

I know many of us may be questioning the state of our movement, and I’ll get to that in a bit, but first, I can’t resist saying that we now live in a country with a community organizer in chief and since the Task Force literally has the trademark on Creating Change, we know that our moment has arrived!

I am honored to serve as the executive director of the Task Force following my friend Matt Foreman. In fact, pretty much since I came out at the age of 16 here in Denver I have watched, learned from and been inspired by the Task Force, so I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate to be part of it. I have come up through this movement and many of my teachers are here with us today, including a couple of former Task Force executive directors — Urvashi Vaid and Lorri Jean.

You’ve already met Russell Roybal, and I want to call up to the stage my other new partner in running the Task Force — a woman who you will be hearing a lot from — our new deputy executive director, Darlene Nipper.

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here. These are incredibly tough economic times and the fact that you have spent your precious time and limited dollars to be here — to gather with your fellow activists and allies from across the country and others who have joined us — speaks to your commitment to social change, to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, and most importantly, to each other.

This gathering is the public square of the LGBT movement and our time together is made richer and more valuable because each of you is here.

First, let’s talk about the past year. You know, there are years when our movement for full equality jumps by leaps and bounds and other years when we toil to gain every inch of ground. This year has been a bit of both in which we made progress on the local and state level and our country elected its first person of color to the presidency! Yet our love for each other was attacked again by the majority at the ballot box; our right to marry was taken away in California; our transgender brothers and sisters were denied much needed protections; and federal policy continued to elude us under the evil empire — I mean the Bush administration.

It has been a bittersweet year, but the state of our movement is engaged!

This year, we made many gains — gains made because of your hard work, your strategic thinking, your long hours, and your dollars funding state and local efforts. With all of the attention paid to marriage, it would be easy to miss the progress made at the local and state level that improves the lives of LGBT people. And so much of this progress has happened not on the coasts, but in the middle part of the country.

This weekend we will invite you to text to screen all the accomplishments you’ve had this year but I will mention just a few of the many achievements for LGBT people in 2008:

Here in our host state of Colorado, Amendment 46, a Ward Connerly initiative that would have ended affirmative action in public employment, public education or public contracting was defeated.

In Arizona, voters rejected Proposition 202, which would have penalized businesses that hire undocumented workers. And in Oregon, voters rejected an English-only proposal.

In three states — California, Colorado and South Dakota — voters considered initiatives related to reproductive freedoms. And we won in every state.

Also, here in Colorado we expanded progress by passing a law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in housing and public accommodations.

Eight localities passed and held onto nondiscrimination laws: Gainesville and Broward County, Fla.; Columbus and Oxford, Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; Detroit, Mich; Columbia, S.C.; and Binghamton, N.Y.

We also — with incredibly hard work — successfully defended one of our victories from last year: a transgender rights ordinance that passed in Montgomery County, Md., where the combined efforts of the Task Force, Equality Maryland, Lambda Legal and a host of other organizations came together to defeat the referendum and prevent it from even reaching the ballot.

In the area of family recognition, Connecticut joined Massachusetts in becoming a freedom-to-marry state and then beat back efforts that would have threatened it. Those of you from Connecticut and our great partners Love Makes a Family and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, congratulations and thank you.

We won marriage in California and over 18,000 couples are now legally married — and we plan on keeping them married. Even though we lost that right temporarily, our community and allies rose up in the days after the election to say, “Enough!”

We have with us today one of the founders of Join the Impact, Willow Witte, who along with her fellow organizer Amy Balliett, used the power of online organizing to fill the streets! We’re proud that some of the Join the Impact crew cut their organizing teeth at Creating Change in Portland, Ore., a few years ago and are now sharing their skills with thousands across the country.

Cities and towns in many states including Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Utah, established domestic partnership or similar registries in 2008. There were domestic partnership expansions in Washington state and Washington, D.C. Maryland established limited domestic partnership recognition and New York has decided to respect out-of-state same-sex marriages. Maine had an unprecedented year of victories in 2008 culminating in an Election Day action that surpassed their wildest dreams. After waiting in line for an hour to vote, voters were waiting in line to sign pro-marriage postcards. When EqualityMaine ran out of 30,000 postcards, voters signed scraps of paper, jotting their names and addresses down on anything they could find.

Building on the momentum, EqualityMaine and its coalition partners recently introduced a marriage bill and they have a solid plan for winning marriage in the Legislature in 2009 and then protecting it in the inevitable referendum campaign.

And finally, this last year’s accomplishments include a record 450 out [homosexual] elected officials serving in local, state and federal offices including Colorado’s very own Jared Polis, who became the first openly gay man to run for and be elected to Congress, joining Reps. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin in the House.

For each and every one of you in this room who contributed to any of those victories and the many others we had, thank you!

What we continue to accomplish as a movement is electrifying. And, yet, some of this year’s results were bitter — extremely bitter — pills to swallow.

At the outset, let me say that I tend to be a glass-half-full person, so I can’t help but see this year’s anti-marriage and anti-family ballot measures as deeply painful but temporary defeats that demonstrated just how far we’ve come. But, it isn’t just my gut feeling that this is temporary, it is based on the concrete progress we have made. For example, just four years ago, we lost 13 anti-marriage ballot measures by huge margins — by an average of 67 percent, and as high as 86 percent. In California alone, the last time we faced a similar anti-marriage measure, we lost by over 20 points. This year, we lost by less than four. I know it doesn’t feel like it sometimes, but this is progress.

However, this was a particularly painful year because we lost the fundamental right that we had worked so hard to secure — the right to marry in California.

In the days and weeks after the election, so many in our community were searching for a quick answer as to why we lost in four states. My fellow activists, there is no easy answer.

The days and weeks after the election were some of the most painful I’ve experienced in my 24 years in this movement. I know they were painful for many of you and for our colleagues around the country, particularly in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas.  It was hard and painful enough to have lost four statewide ballot measures. But pain turned the corner into agony when we all started lashing out at each other, our allies and our would-be allies and didn’t let up.

Did the other side run excellent, although lie-filled campaigns? Yes it did. Could we all have done more or done things differently that might have moved us closer to defeating the four measures? Certainly. We at the Task Force are a particularly analytical and reflective group and we’ve been taking a hard look at what we could have done better to fight against these measures.

But our winning on any of the four statewide measures was always far from being a slam dunk. We need to learn what we can from this last year and we must move forward, as we have before in times far worse than this.

I want to specifically address the blaming of African-American voters for the passage of Prop. 8.

Sadly, shamefully, an incorrect statistic was put forth in the media and many people both in and outside of our community ran with it. I want to be clear — the blaming of African-American voters was wrong, despicable and inexcusable.

The Task Force released a study with authors Ken Sherrill and Pat Egan that included actual voting data that showed that party affiliation, conservative ideology, frequent church-going and the voter’s age trumped all other factors in the Proposition 8 vote — including race. The Task Force was criticized by some for being “politically correct.”

It is not politically correct to conduct sound research. It is not politically correct to challenge racism.

Have we done enough as a community to deal with our own racism and to make sure that our movement is one that reflects the true diversity of LGBT people? We sure haven’t. But the finger pointing and scapegoating was an affront to the many people of color and others who worked on and with the campaign and to our allied organizations. Furthermore, it avoids the complexity of the work we still have to do to win equality.

I have had enough. WE have had enough. Let us dig deep in ourselves and show others that we will not stoop to scapegoating, we will not turn our backs on our allies, and we will not give up.  There is a big difference between blaming and learning. Let us be learners so that we may be leaders.

As we look back on this year, our confidence has been shaken and our anger has been roused — but now is the time to turn our anger into action and our action into long-lasting change. We must now refocus on regaining marriage equality in California and winning across the country. But we need to remember that these anti-marriage ballot measures are fundamentally about the larger right-wing assault on the ever-expanding diversity in the United States, our freedom to live openly and to create and define our sexuality, our selves and our families.

I urge us not look at our movement as if it is only about this last election or only about marriage equality. Let us recall that our movement for liberation and equality has created much change since the police brutality in New York and other cities gave rise to the Stonewall riots, the activism of black and Latino gay men, and the birth of the modern LGBT movement.

If we do not come together again to fight another day, we can’t win our full equality. As the magnet on my grandmother’s fridge says, “Fall down seven times, get up eight!”

The state of our movement is resilient and we will win!

So, where are we headed as a movement? In order to take a look at where we are headed as a movement, we must first take a look at the broader social and political context in which we work for full equality. This context has now shifted radically.

The most obvious change is that for the first time in our nation’s history, we have as president, a black man, Barack Obama.  Candidate Obama recognized and affirmed a grassroots hunger for change. This year saw record numbers of young people, people of color and progressive people coming out to vote and we are now a better country for it.

This does indeed feel like a new political era for our country and our movement.  I believe the power of this historic moment is the seismic shift in this country from a culture of “I” to a culture of “We.” Obama ran with a mantra of “Yes we can!” Obama didn’t say, “Yes I can” or “Yes YOU can.” He said, yes WE can.

This mantra, of course, carries on the organizing legacy of the United Farm Workers and Dolores Huerta. This unifying WE invites each of us into the work ahead; into the reclaiming of a government that has turned its back on so many; into challenging the long held beliefs and practices of who holds power; how power is used; and who benefits from the use of power.

Obama’s “WE” challenges the culture of “I” that has been so core to this country’s identity — the image of rugged individualism, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. This imagery has been bolstered and perpetuated by scenes like Ronald Reagan riding his horse and by George Bush clearing brush on his ranch. This iconic imagery is finally being challenged. We are now off the ranch and have moved back into the WE of urban energy and creativity, the WE of close family ties and community in rural areas, the WE that has been at the center of the farm workers, civil rights, feminist and labor movements.

We are only just beginning to see the manifestations, the benefits of this cultural shift. And, our community — the LGBT community — is expert at showing the nation just what is possible when WE come together. This historic moment plays to our strengths.

After all, our community built an entire infrastructure of service and support for people with HIV when our own president did not have the decency to speak the syndrome’s name.  Our community overturned sodomy laws in a nation that possesses an intense fear of sexuality.  And our community put gender identity legislation and family protections on the political map.  WE have much to offer this country.

So, now it is our time to contribute again — to express moral leadership and creative fortitude. It is our time to hold steady as we are attacked at the ballot box and on the streets. To hold steady as we share our talents and ideas and are pushed back. To hold steady as we assert how we create family.

The state of our movement is expansive.  In fact, the success of our aspirations will only be limited by the expansiveness of our vision and the assertion of what is in our hearts. There are a few things we must do to make the most of this moment in history and to navigate the waters of this new era.

First, this moment calls for a new kind of leadership in the LGBT movement — not the leadership of one, but the collaborative leadership of many. Don’t get me wrong, the Task Force and I will assert leadership — but at the Task Force, we believe that strength comes not from hoarding power but by building power and sharing power and using power for good. It is why so much of our work is done through coalitions or convenings like Creating Change.

We are leaders in what is good and right and just in this country.  When we insist that LGBT people be involved in the policy conversations about the economy, about health benefits, about tax policy, about immigration — as we have been doing with the Obama transition team and administration — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we win marriage equality in Maine, Iowa, New Jersey and other states — and we will — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we pass a gender identity-inclusive ENDA — and we will — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we continue to work to get rid of useless abstinence only education, we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in labor and women’s groups as the Task Force did yesterday morning at the White House for the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

When we promote, sustain and maintain people of color leaders — we assert our community’s moral leadership.

The second thing we must do is to think differently about who our playmates are. I was a Girl Scout when I was growing up and there was this song “make new friends but keep the old, one is silver and the other’s gold.”

We will certainly keep our LGBT organizational friends. But, it is time for us to make new, substantive and strategic friendships with non-LGBT organizations with which we share common concerns. The time for isolating ourselves as a movement is over. We will never win on our own.

So, in the coming years, you will see the Task Force partnering with some perhaps surprising organizations. We will ask them to show up for us and we will show up for them, as we have in our work with AARP on national policy and with Planned Parenthood and NAACP on ballot measures.

Third, so many of our straight friends and family are with us and we must find ways for them to make a difference in our pursuit of equality. They are near and dear to us. They’re willing to work with us; they’re wanting to work with us; they’re waiting to work with us. Among the most striking experiences for me in the last year have been my conversations with straight people across the country, not the least of which was with my own 92-year-old grandmother who has been my cheerleader and was crushed when she was not able to make it to our wedding.

Next week the Task Force will be a partner in launching a new campaign called, “Tell 3″ headed up by the ACLU and Join the Impact, along with other organizations. This campaign is simply about talking to the people in our lives about issues that matter to us as LGBT people.

We ask each and every one of you to go to our Web site next week and take part in what could be — with your help — the most massive friends and family education effort ever launched. If every one at Creating Change has meaningful, real conversations with three people about our lives, about the things we care about, we will have made progress in changing the hearts and minds of thousands of people — people who will be voting on our rights next year and the years after that.

Finally, organize, organize, organize — however you do it, walking door to door, talking to friends, going to meetings, sending tweets — I just did — connecting on Facebook or MySpace, or getting people elected.

Just organize!

For 35 years, the Task Force has been the home for people like you, like me, like hundreds of thousands of people across this country who know that we are part of a larger community of people reaching for full equality.

As you experience the Creating Change conference, you can’t help but see and hear and feel and know in your heart that the state of our movement is engaged, it is resilient, it is expansive and expanding, and it is stronger and more inspirational than ever before!  With all of us together –

We will win complete equality!
We will protect and defend our families!
We will change our communities and
We will transform society!

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________

Help Support Americans For Truth!

Will you help Americans For Truth stand as boldly for the Truth as homosexual activists do for their lies?  We appreciate your support:

TO GIVE TO AFTAH: Go to our user-friendly giving page — www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ — to make your tax-free donation using PayPal or your MasterCard or Visa.  Regular mail: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567.

TRUTH TEAM MEMBERSHIP:  To sign up as a Truth Team member by pledging $25, $50, $100, $250 or more per month to sustain AFTAH’s critical work, go HERE or copy http://www.americansfortruth.org/membership.php on your web browser.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Gosh, I think Jesus Christ might be reconsidering his endorsement of the divine institution of marriage now that actor Jack Black (playing Jesus in the blasphemous video below) thinks it’s wrong to prevent two guys from getting hitched. I mean, after all, Black is the star of “School of Rock”; what greater cultural authority do we need than that? (Oh, I forgot: Ellen DeGeneres is also mad at Prop 8 — well that settles it: God is wrong!)

Here we have anti-religious bigotry and Hollywood snobbery at its worst. There are a lot of things funnier than this video, but one of them is the idea that a bunch of spoiled Hollywood actors have any moral authority on right vs. wrong, Christian truth, marriage, etc.  Note how money (alleged “gay” tourist $$$ for homosexual “weddings”) tops transcendent morality in the video. We’ll deal with the silly shellfish canard later. — Peter LaBarbera

The following talk, “God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda,” was given by John MacArthur on his Christian radio program Grace to You (copyright 2004; all rights reserved). We will post more of MacArthur’s teachings and those of other Christian leaders in the future. This 2004 sermon — even more applicable today than it was fours years ago — was posted on the Bible Bulletin Board by Tony Capoccia. Emphasis is added below:

God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda

By John MacArthur

If you’ve been watching the headlines over the past six months, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls, perhaps even their own.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals and decry the sin? The Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.

God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age:

• In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
• In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
• In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
• In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda? Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God’s plan for many homosexuals is salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. Do they still struggle with homosexual temptation? Sure they do. What Christian doesn’t struggle with the sins of their former life? Even the great apostle Paul acknowledges that fight (Romans 7:14-25). But former homosexuals sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

Added to Bible Bulletin Board’s “John MacArthur Collection” by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Our websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com

Below is an excellent column by Joel Belz, founder of WORLD magazine, answering some of the current Christian gibberish critical of believers who fight for Truth in the public square. (Click HERE for the full column in WORLD.) While we’re at it, here are 20 more good reasons why Christians (or anyone) should never feel guilty about a single-minded focus in countering the homosexual/transsexual activist and pro-abortion lobbies:

1. Human Rights Campaign (largest pro-homosexual PAC);
2. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force;
3. Lambda Legal;
4. NARAL Pro-Choice American (formerly National Abortion Rights Action League, which cruelly defends even later-term abortions).
5. GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation;
6. GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network);
7. NOW (they manage to promote both lesbianism and abortion-on-demand);
8. MTV (obnoxious in its one-sided promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.);
9. Soulforce and other Bible-twisting, “queer theology”-promoting groups;
10. Radical, reason-challenged, pro-homosexual websites like young Jeremy Hooper’s Good As You blog, Wayne (”Anything But Straight”) Besen’s ‘ex-gay’-hating Truth Wins Out, and lesbian Pam (”Jeebus”) Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend;
11. National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association;
12. EMILY’s List (a pro-abortion PAC)
13. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (working to open up the military to homosexuals);
14. ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project;
15. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
16. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
17. Tim Gill (homosexual money-man)
18. Pro-homosexual activist groups like Equality Illinois fighting in all 50 states for radical legislation that undermines marriage;
19. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
20. PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays), a radical pro-homosexual group.

_______________________________

Belz writes for WORLD:

Stop Apologizing!
It’s not always wrong to be a “single-issue” advocate

It’s become an increasingly frequent reminder to us evangelical Christians not to let our cultural identity be framed by “single issues.”

It was a reminder implicitly included in the “Evangelical Manifesto,” a document whose basic content we at WORLD have applauded but whose political direction I questioned in our last issue. Why are the Manifesto’s backers so ready to join the cultural left in suggesting a guilt trip for those evangelicals who have been preoccupied with the evils of abortion and same-sex marriage?

And if some argue that the rising generation of younger evangelicals is a bit embarrassed by what they think is an out-of-balance focus by their elders, and thinks it’s time to get equally exercised over issues like racism, economic justice, and the environment—well, if that’s the case with our twentysomethings and our teenagers, then maybe we need to go to work and do a better job of explaining to them why we’ve put the emphasis where we have for the last generation and why we believe that it’s time not to lower our voices.

Evangelicals shouldn’t be embarrassed to say boldly and clearly: Abortion and same-sex marriage are uniquely heinous sins. They rattle the foundations of a civilized society. They take a culture in a dreadful direction. We haven’t been wrong to say so. We aren’t fanatics.

Click HERE to read Belz’ entire column in WORLD

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

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.”

Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson’s parents wanted a girl, so they named him “Vicky.”

By Peter LaBarbera

I find much to object to in blogger Peter Kirk’s homosexuality-related posts, but he offers some good thoughts regarding Episcopal Bishop (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s gender confusion, which, understandably, began at a young age. Kirk wonders why Robinson wants to be a “June bride” (rather than a groom) next month as he infamously and shamelessly plans to “wed” another man.

That Robinson, as the poster boy for decadent, Western “queer christianity” (small c), is doing great damage to the faith as a “change agent” against God’s revealed program for sexuality, is obvious. But surely “Vicky Imogene Robinson’s” parents, who wanted a girl, hence the female name, share in the blame, as they did quite a number on him. Kirk writes:

But hold on, isn’t there something wrong here? A man who has always wanted to a bride? Was he not thinking when he used the word “bride”, or perhaps joking? Does “always” go back to the time when he was a bridegroom? Perhaps he has always suffered from gender confusion. After all, if this rather sensationalist article can be trusted (see also the full text of the interview this article was based on):

Born in 1947 in the Bible Belt in Lexington, Kentucky, he was not expected to survive the delivery, so his sharecropper parents were asked to give names for both the birth and death certificates. Expecting a girl, they opted for Vicky Imogene. He has never changed it.

Given this confusion about his birth and his upbringing with a girl’s name, no wonder that

By the age of 11, he was sensing that his sexual urges were different from those of his schoolmates.

Now I know this is not a popular thing to say, but it seems rather likely that this man at least grew up to be gay because of serious psychological damage in childhood. To be fair to him, he did try therapy, and marriage, but his gay tendencies eventually got the upper hand.

The question here, as I see it, is whether the church should be promoting psychologically damaged people like this into high positions. Of course I have to accept that no one is perfect, and that sometimes people who have been through traumatic times are equipped to minister to others suffering similarly, in ways in which those whose life has always been easy are not so suitable. But I would expect those promoted to being bishops, like Gene Robinson, at least to demonstrate that their psychological hurts have been fully healed….

Click HERE to read Kirk’s entire post, “Gene Robinson to Be a ‘June Bride,’ and responding comments

Youth walk in Boston’s annual “Gay/Straight Youth Pride March” holding a banner for BAGLY, the Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Youth. The group is run by a cross-dressing, male-to-female transsexual activist adult. Kudos to MassResistance for exposing the corrupting influences on Massachusetts youth.

Brian Camenker of MassResistance.org writes:

We’ve just found out that the [Massachusetts] Senate Ways and Means Committee will be meeting tomorrow – Wednesday, May 14 – to decide on the 2009 budget appropriations. This includes the $750,000 now earmarked for homosexual activism targeting children in schools. Click HERE to contact the Ways and Means Committee to oppose the use of Massachusetts taxpayer dollars for this agenda.

Massachusetts citizens: want to know where your tax money is going? Read on:

1. Homosexual “Youth Pride Day” includes hardcore “gay” anti-religious propaganda. Speaker incites crowd to attack photographers.

This past Saturday was homosexual “Youth Pride Day” in Boston, run by the tax-funded Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth. It included a “celebration” on the Boston Common followed by a parade past the State House and a “transgender prom” that evening at Boston City Hall.

Kids were bussed in from all over the state. Homosexual activists were everywhere.

The “celebration” drew a huge crowd of hundreds of kids around a stage and several invited speakers. There was a main theme, which was constantly repeated: The kids need to understand that they are being oppressed by our homophobic society, which doesn’t allow them to enjoy their true (gay) sexuality.

The kids were given these hardcore sexual propaganda handouts:

• “History of Saints Servius and Bacchus”, handed out by a man dressed as a Catholic priest, claiming that these two Catholic saints were actually homosexual lovers.
• “Catholic Theological Defense of Same-sex Marriage” pamphlet which states that there is “no moral right to declare marriage off limits to persons whom God has made gay” and that the Pope “is definitely wrong and he will be corrected some day by one of his successors.” (Also handed out by the aforementioned “priest”.)
• “Reading the Bible with New Eyes” – a pamphlet that portrays Jesus as having had a homosexual affair with Lazarus and Mary as a lesbian. It also describes the Book of Acts as “defining a lesbian and gay ‘nation.’” It also states that Jesus “was a functional, if not physical, eunuch.”
• “Queer Spirituality” A booklet from a “church” describing how homosexuality is a spiritual experience that “opens us up to God.”
• “Out and Proud – Coming out to your Parents” A how-to guide for kids to explain to their parents that they are now homosexuals.
• “Boston Gay & Lesbian Film / Video Festival” A pamphlet inviting the kids to a homosexual film festival, showing photos of (among other things) men in bed with each other and women kissing.
• “Tips for organizing on high school / college campuses on transgender issues” How to push cross-dressing and transgenderism at schools. Includes a section on “Transgender Students Use of Bathrooms and Locker Rooms.”

Special (depraved) award given out. As part of the speeches to the kids, an award for outstanding service was given to hardcore homosexual and transgender activist Mark Snyder. In accepting the award, Snyder bragged about his “service” to the homosexual community: how he had disrupted a Catholic Mass with a homosexual “kiss-in” to protest the Church’s objection to same-sex marriage, and how he had organized a demonstration that terrorized a downtown Boston church to the point where they had to order lunch to be delivered rather than go outside for lunch. Finally, he bragged how he had personally persuaded the vulnerable special-needs daughter of MassResistance staffer Amy Contrada to “come out as a lesbian.” (Actually, the girl never was a lesbian; this was simply meant to cause her and her family confusion and distress.) And here’s a sample of Mark Snyder’s political “activity” – a vulgar drag-queen parody former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey.

Inciting the crowd to assault photographers. And it got violent. During this event, homosexual publications had photographers there taking pictures of all the kids. (Over 350 pictures were on the gay websites the next day.) But when one of the speakers spotted the independent ComFLM people pointed them out to the crowd as being from MassResistance, and exhorted the audience to “send [MassResistance] a message.” Things got very ugly. The crowd of kids started screaming, then surrounded them, blocked their cameras, and assaulted them. Not surprisingly, the uniformed Boston policemen standing right there would not arrest anybody, though eventually the cops asked the activists to stop their harassment. (A police report has been filed.) It was a hideous scene.

We will be posting the audio and video of all of this, as well as photos of our own, with our next email. It’s really unbelievable. (We’ll also be posting the pamphlets mentioned above.) We will be presenting a full report on this entire day.

THIS is how your [Massachusetts] Legislature is continuing to spend your money – to placate a very destructive special interest group whose target is schoolchildren.

[An interesting footnote: None of the Boston media reported on this, even through we alerted them to and described what had happened in the past.]