If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
The Answer Is No: …if “gay” means positively and proudly homosexual. Dr. Michael Brown ably answers the lies of “gay Christianity” in his book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love & Truth to Questions About Homosexuality.” He similarly responds with “love & truth” to homosexual activist Matthew Vines’ self-serving “40 Questions” below. Buy the book: Readers can purchase Brown’s book–while supporting AFTAH’s ministry–by purchasing ” for $17 postpaid. Two-Book Discount: You can also add Michael Brown’s in-depth book, “Something Queer Happened to America”–and receive both books postpaid for $29. Pay securely online or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.
“I cannot see our [Heavenly] Father responding positively to the threat of, ‘Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.’ [Answer # 9]
“What is explicitly affirmed over and again in the Bible is that God requires holiness of all His people and that the only outlet for sexual intimacy is in the confines of marriage, which…can only be the union of a man and woman. This is as explicit as anything in the Word. [#25]
“…the Word never says that an inherently sinful act somehow becomes sanctified by repeating it with the same person. [#27)]
“…your [Matthew Vines’] emphasis is all wrong. In fact, it’s the common theme through your questions, namely, ‘Surely God wouldn’t want me to live without sex and intimacy, therefore I must reinterpret the Bible in that light.'” [#39] — Dr. Michael Brown, author of Can You Be Gay and Christian?
My prolific author friend Dr. Michael Brown–whose book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” is available for purchase from AFTAH at right–does a terrific job below answering homosexual “Christian” activist Matthew Vines’ 40 tendentious questions. As Brown notes, Vines’ line of questioning is built on false premises and spurious analogies. For example, Vines repeats the tired homosexual talking point comparing infertile straight couples to same-sex partners (see Brown’s response to Questions 30 and 31).
I would like Michael to try a “do-over” on #12: it is bizarre and, indeed, blasphemous for young Vines (misapplying Galatians 5–which mentions “sexual immorality”) to associate unnatural, sexual-sin-based “relationships” with Holy Spirit-led “goodness” and “self-control,” etc. I understand what Michael is saying, but I would not compare these disordered relationships with normal unions between husband and wife–including marriages that are not Christian.
Vines’ questions themselves are a study in the error of homosexuality-positive “Christianity”: can you see the intense self-focus in them, as Vines does his biblical “exegesis” backwards:–starting with his politically correct premise (committed homosexual relationship are fine) and trying to rationalize it as somehow being compatible with Scripture? He utterly fails. It is no wonder that Vines will not publicly appear in the same debate forum with Dr. Brown or Prof. Rob Gagnon. By the way, Dr. Brown received AFTAH’s “American Truth-Teller Award” in 2014; we commend him for his diligence and faithfulness in defending Truth. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; Like the AFTAH Facebook Page
________________________________
Dr. Michael Brown Has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for ‘Gay’ Christian Matthew Vines
I am answering the 40 questions put forward by “gay Christian” advocate Matthew Vines, after which I will put two simple questions to Matthew (and his allies). What is absolutely stunning, though, is that in these 40 questions, he failed to ask the only one that really matters, namely, “What does the Bible say about homosexual practice?” The reason for that is self-evident, namely, it is impossible to make a case for homosexual relationships using the Word of God alone.
That’s why, for the last decade (and until this moment), I have offered to debate the issue of the Bible and homosexual practice with any qualified representative of the “gay Christian” position, yet I have had no takers. (Matthew and I did engage in a brief debate hosted by Moody radio, but as is well known, Matthew agreed to do the broadcast before realizing he would be debating me, after which he felt it would be worse publicity to drop out rather than do the show. Those interested can watch the debate here. (For a relevant follow-up article, go here.) I also address many of the questions Matthew raises in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, but for the benefit of those who don’t have the book, and so as to answer all the questions conveniently in one place, I’ve responded to each of them here.
Before addressing the questions, it’s important to address Matthew’s premise, namely, those of us who uphold Scripture “oppose marriage equality.” Actually, we oppose redefining marriage; as for so-called “marriage equality,” as I have pointed out, advocates of “same-sex marriage” represent just one group clamoring for changes in marriage laws, including polygamists, polyamorists, and adult incestuous couples. That’s why the Marriage Equality Blogspot calls for “Full Marriage Equality,” specifically, “for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” So, from that point of view, Matthew also opposes “marriage equality.”
To answer the 40 questions:
1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice? Sexual orientation is a relatively modern construct, but if you mean is it true that, generally speaking, homosexual men and women did not choose to be attracted to the same sex, the answer would be yes, it is not a conscious choice they made, any more than someone who struggles with angry desires, violent desires, or adulterous desires consciously chose to have those desires.
2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it? Again, using your definition, in the majority of cases, certainly. However, we must not downplay the many successful stories of change through counseling and, more importantly, the possibility of change through the gospel. Cannot Almighty God change a homosexual into a heterosexual if it so pleases Him? Has the church really devoted itself to seeking God to help men and women who struggle with same-sex attractions?
3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have? My first organ teacher, when I was barely 7-years old, was openly gay, and he and his partner would come to our home and have dinner with our family. Over the years, I’ve had good friends who came out of homosexuality (including someone very close to my family), and I interact as often I can in as much depth as I can with those who identify as LGBT.
4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends? None that I know of, but that is not because of my rejection of them. I have never turned away from a person because of their sexual brokenness or sexual desires. If, however, they openly scorned God’s Word and God’s ways, I’m afraid it would be hard for us to be close friends. That being said, I have close friends who are very religious Jews, yet they still believe my faith in Jesus is wrong and I still believe they are lost without Him. In other words, friendship with people (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with determining the truth of God’s Word.
Dodging Debates: Self-described “gay Christian” Matthew Vines refuses to debate Bible scholars and apologists with expert knowledge on Scripture and homosexuality, like Dr. Michael Brown and Prof. Robert Gagnon.
5. How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality? Many hours, and many more hours reading their stories prayerfully, sometimes having to put down the book I’m reading and get on my knees in prayer, even with tears and a heavy burden. I hurt deeply over the pain they have experienced and I long to see them find wholeness in the Lord.
6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people? Probably so—again, with God, all things are possible—but this too has nothing to do with what God has to say about homosexual practice. It calls for great compassion from the church, but not for rewriting the Bible. Also, unless we get caught up with the spirit of the age, it’s important to realize that “heterosexual marriage” is the only marriage God acknowledges.
7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful? I accept that our Father knows best, that His ways are ways of life, and that if He does not enable someone to enter into a heterosexual relationship then He will give grace to that person to be celibate, just as He gives grace to a believer suffering decades of imprisonment and torture, just as He gives grace to a drug addict to get free from addictions, and just as He gives grace to many heterosexuals to live in lifelong, non-chosen celibacy.
8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long? Less than 10, and not more than 10 years so far, but the term “mandatory celibacy” is misleading, since I’ve walked with heterosexual believers for decades who did not choose celibacy but never met their mate, and they found Jesus to be more than enough to carry them through. Plus, Jesus requires all of us to deny ourselves and take up the cross and follow Him, and He does not promise any of us a spouse. I also have close friends whose spouses divorced them and who believe they cannot remarry as long as their spouse is alive, and they too have survived and even thrived by God’s grace despite years of singleness imposed on them by their convictions.
9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process? This is a heartrending issue that I do not take lightly, but my answer is that anyone who says, “I will kill myself unless I can have sex and be intimate with another human being” is not taking hold of what God has for them. Generally speaking, it’s also true that people who commit suicide are struggling with other emotional issues; otherwise, no matter how acute their problems, they would not take their own lives. Ultimately, though, I cannot see our Father responding positively to the threat of, “Unless you let me have a relationship that satisfies me, I will kill myself.”
10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know? Again, I object to the term “mandatory celibacy,” and I believe the term “gay Christian” is misleading and unhelpful, but yes, the single Christians I know who are still same-sex attracted are enjoying the Lord, enjoying healthy friendships, and are really quite vibrant. Others have seen a shift (or complete change) in their attractions, and they are happily married to their heterosexual partner. I’ve been quite close with some of them over the years.
Assault on Biblical Truth: Due to the success of the “gay” activist revolution, Christianity is under an unprecedented pressure to make an accommodation with homosexualism. Above, young “evangelical” Matthew Vines uses recycled “gay theology” arguments to push for the acceptance of homosexual unions and even same-sex “marriage” in Christian churches. Vines now refuses to debate orthodox Christian scholars like Dr. Michael Brown and Prof. Rob Gagnon. See Brown’s answers to Vines’ “4o Questions’ HERE.
The following official statement was approved in June by Restored Hope Network, the leading U.S. network for ex-homosexual ministries. RHN is a Christian ministry that was formed during the implosion of Exodus International, which collapsed under the failed and unbiblical leadership of Alan Chambers [see this video]. Here is a link to a PDF of the RHN document.
I know some of the leaders of RHN—godly men like Stephen Black and women like Anne Paulk—and have attended two of their annual conferences, most recently in Lancaster, Pennsylvania–which began on June 26, the day that five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court imposed homosexual “marriage” on the land. I urge AFTAH followers to pray for and donate to Restored Hope. May the Lord bless and protect this Christ-centered ministry!– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera; AFTAH Facebook Page
_________________________
‘Gay Christian’ and ‘Spiritual Friendship?’ RHN Official Position
Restored Hope Network (RHN) respectfully disagrees with anyone who continues to identify as both ‘homosexual’ and Christian. Identification with Christ can and must displace an identity based on disordered desires. The New Testament repeatedly calls believers to repent of old identifications and to cleave to the new, true source of one’s identity—Christ Jesus Himself (Rom. 6: 11, 12; 8:6-14; Gal. 2:20). Paul in particular reminds ‘homosexuals’ to forego their ‘gay’ selves when he declares to believers: ‘such were some of you’ in light of having been ‘washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God’ (1Cor 6:9-11).
Yet many Christians today claim to be faithful to both God and their ‘homosexual natures.’ ‘Gay’ Christians tend to fall into two categories: first are persons who are open to homosexual erotic unions, behaviors clearly prohibited by scripture (see RHN doctrinal statement). The second group is comprised of ‘gay’ persons who claim to be celibate. These celibates appear to be faithful to scripture and church tradition but actually foster the ‘gay’ self by encouraging same-sex attracted persons to ‘come out’ to their faith communities and to form ‘spiritual friendships’ with others, even covenanting in exclusive homo-emotional unions.
RHN advocates for healthy same-sex friendship as a key to transformation. However, RHN believes that claiming to repent of sinful behavior while cultivating homosexual selves and desires in exclusive homo-emotional ‘spiritual friendships’ is unscriptural and unwise. Such an approach reinforces a ‘gay’ identity and orientation, which undercut God’s purposes for our sexuality. Identification with Christ cannot be separated from these purposes. Jesus’ command to love our neighbors applies to our self-definitions and relational choices. That requires a realignment of our fallen natures to Christlikeness.
The Bible defines humanity as created in God’s image as male and female (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:18-25). Faithfulness to God involves faithfulness to one’s gendered self and the command to live interdependently with the opposite gender (Matt. 19: 1- 6; 1Cor. 11: 11, 12). Any Christian who advocates for ‘gay’ selves and friendships frustrates the prospect of growing in that gender duality; in truth, ‘gay Christians’ encourage gender dis-complementarity, which endangers God’s will for our humanity (Rom. 1: 18-25).
RHN believes that God calls all persons to gender complementarity: married, single and celibate, whatever their sexual inclinations may be. RHN upholds God’s call upon certain persons to live celibate lives, and understands celibacy as God’s call on persons He asks to serve His Kingdom without domestic burdens (1Cor 7: 7, 35-37). We disagree with the implication of ‘gay’ Christian celibates that persons with same-sex attraction automatically receive God’s call to celibacy, much less a ‘gay’ celibate call. God calls all to gender complementarity.
Many Christians base their ‘gay’ identification upon the depth of their same-sex inclinations. Yet such identification prevents the renewing of the mind that can open one to new ways of thinking, feeling, and relating. While RHN realizes that one may experience same-sex desires to varying degrees over a lifetime, we contend that one can also discover new desires by reordering one’s thinking and acting (2Cor. 10:3-5).
After all, we are turning toward the Author and Redeemer of our lives; His transforming love is deeper than our desires. He asks us to forego any identification or behavior that stands in the way of the transformation He desires for us. ‘Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will’ (Romans 12: 2).
Catholic In Name Only? The American Catholic Lawyers Association accuses Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on the nation, of failing to “uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Kennedy is a Roman Catholic.
July 27, 2015, Fairfield, NJ – The American Catholic Lawyers Association (ACLA) announces its objection to the majority ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sexThe marriage. Sodomy, as the Supreme Court itself observed in Bowers v. Hardwicke, before overruling itself a mere seventeen years later in Lawrence v. Texas, is immoral and perverse conduct that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to protect; and the Constitution is forbidden to transgress those aspects of the divine and natural law binding on all men and all nations. Nor was the Constitution ever intended to take away from the States the right to punish sodomy or to codify the truth of both divine and natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Moreover the Obergefell decision is invalid in that two of the Justices were required by the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, § 455, to recuse themselves because of “impartiality that might reasonably be questioned.” Both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg failed to recuse themselves despite having a public record of advocacy of “same-sex marriage,” with both having conducted “same-sex wedding” ceremonies.
Finally, the American Catholic Lawyers Association protests in the strongest terms the actions of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Because he was the deciding vote, God gave him, as a professing Catholic, the opportunity to uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead, he did the unthinkable and attempted to overturn that truth with false human reasoning.
As a Catholic jurist, especially one protected by the life tenure that ensures judicial independence from popular sentiment, Justice Kennedy was bound to obey a law higher than his false notion of “liberty,” the law that God has inscribed in human nature. Justice Kennedy failed in this sacred duty, violated the oath to God he took upon ascension to his high office, and thereby inflicted incalculable harm on society.
In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003]
Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.
____________________________
AMERICAN CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. is a federally tax-exempt organization dedicated, since 1991, to defending the rights of Catholics in civil and criminal courts throughout the nation, both state and federal, and in public discourse and debate. Donations to the work of the Association are tax-deductible in accordance with IRS Code § 501(c)(3).
Houston’s lesbian mayor put her pro-homosexuality politics above the rule of law.
“The homosexual political movement is a hate movement that discriminates against Christians….It is absurd to base minority status upon a person’s chosen behavior.”–Dr. Steven Hotze, Campaign For Houston
The following was released Friday by Conservative Republicans of Texas and the Campaign For Houston:. To read the Texas Supreme Court ruling, go HERE.
_____________________
July 24, 2015
For immediate release:
Contact Jeff Yates, Campaign for Houston: (832) 545-7644
Texas Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Houston Voters Mayor Parker’s (Un)Equal Rights Ordinance To Be Voted On In November
The Texas Supreme Court ruled today that “the legislative power reserved to the people of Houston is not being honored. The City Council is directed to comply with its duties, as specified in the City Charter, that arise when the City Secretary certifies that a referendum petition has a sufficient number of valid signatures. Any enforcement of the [Equal Rights] ordinance will be suspended…If the City Council does not repeal the ordinance by August 24, 2014, then by that date the City Council must order that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election.” In Re Jared Woodfill, Texas Supreme Court, No. 14-0667, p. 11-12 (July 24, 2016)
This means that unless the Houston City Council repeals the ordinance, the citizens of Houston will have the right to vote on Mayor Parker’s personal, liberal, pro-homosexual agenda this November.
“He who says to the wicked, “You are righteous, “peoples will curse him, nations will abhor him, but to those who rebuke the wicked will be delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.” (Proverbs 24:24–25)
Last year, Houston’s lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, and the Houston City Council passed an ordinance that violates religious freedom of businesses and individuals, grants minority status to those who choose to participate in homosexual activities and allows men, if they claim to be transgender or feel like they are a woman that day, to use women’s public restrooms and locker rooms. This is the reason that the ordinance was known as the ‘Sexual Predator Protection Act’ by the opponents of the ordinance.
The Houston City Charter requires only 17,169 signatures [to repeal an ordinance or put it up to a popular vote]. Almost 55,000 signatures were collected on petitions to allow the people an opportunity to vote on this very important issue. Anna Russell, the City Secretary, certified that there were adequate signatures but Parker refused to accept them.
“Mayor Parker arrogantly ignored the will of the people and the city charter, and unlawfully rejected the petitions,” said Dr. Steven Hotze, President of Campaign for Houston.
Jared Woodfill, Steven Hotze, M.D., Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr. and Rev. Max Williams then filed suit against Parker,Woodfill v Parker. During the course of the litigation, Mayor Parker issued subpoenas to several pastors who were not parties to the litigation, ordering them to turn over all communications regarding the ordinance, the mayor, homosexuality, and other related topics, including sermons regarding these topics.
After a month of trial, Democrat Judge Robert Schaffer ruled in favor of the city and against the people, denying Houstonians an opportunity to vote on this issue. Fortunately, the Texas Supreme Court quickly reviewed Judge Schaffer’s decision and concluded he was wrong and that Mayor Parker had broken the law. Despite Mayor Parker’s efforts to keep her personal, pro-homosexual agenda from the people, Houstonians will now have an opportunity to vote on this ordinance in November.
Baylor University removes ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code
Sodomy-Friendly Baylor–More ‘Caring’ than God? The “Christian” university dropped its ban on “homosexual acts” from its sexual conduct code.–because Baylor officials didn’t believe the Bible-based sodomy proscription “reflected Baylor’s caring community.”
It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.
The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian universities immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.
In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”
Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.
In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).
The Deviant Roots of a Sin Movement: Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s Table 34 showing timed “orgasms” for babies and young children–apparently supplied to him by a child molester. This table appears in Kinsey’s celebrated 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior and the Human Male,” which also greatly exaggerated the number of people practicing homosexual behavior in American society. Homosexual activists seized on Kinsey’s book to argue that homosexuality was widespread and normal. See AFTAH Point 12 below. Click on graphic to enlarge.
There will be revisions and additions to this list, but here is AFTAH’s first draft of core principles and beliefs.–Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
______________________________
1) Homosexual behavior and trans-gender rebellion are morally wrong as they defy Nature and Nature’s God.
2) Homosexuality is not the basis for a healthy self-identity; embracing homosexual or transgender lifestyles/behaviors is a very bad and destructive choice.
3) Homosexuality is about What You Do, not Who You Are. Everyone is responsible before God for his or her sexual conduct. “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity”–the notion of an innate or inherent nature centered around proclivity toward sex- and gender-confusion–are the misguided foundations of self-serving “gay” ideology. These concepts seek to justify immorality by essentially removing one’s moral responsibility for his or her actions.
4) Homosexualism and gender confusion are not the basis for civil rights. Equating the campaign for homosexual “rights”and same-sex “marriage” to the Black civil rights movement insults Black Americans and their noble struggle against slavery and institutional racism (e.g., Jim Crow). Christians in past days were wrong to misuse the Bible to ban interracial unions. Interracial marriages produce beautiful children and families; homosexuality cannot produce life. Creating “rights” based on moral wrongs and sexual/gender perversions naturally undermines other people’s rights, especially the freedoms of religion and conscience enshrined in the United States Constitution. As John Adams, the second president of the United States and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: “[W]e have not government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and spiritual people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
5) All people as human beings created in the image of God deserve respect; all behaviors and ideologies do not.
6) Unlike race and ethnicity, homosexuality is not immutable: people can pursue virtuous change and leave aberrant sex- and transgender lifestyles behind. Oddly, the same LGBTQ activists who champion men and women who abandon their marital spouse and children to live a homosexual life–or the DNA-defying notion that people can change sexes–often excoriate and dehumanize EX-“gays.” Nevertheless, thousands of people have successfully left homosexuality behind, and their wholesome transformation should be celebrated. Legal and legislative efforts to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors are cruel, antithetical to liberty and parental rights, and demonstrate the totalitarian mindset of homosexual advocates and their allies. [AFTAH highly recommends Restored Hope Network, an umbrella group of Christian ex-“gay” ministries.]
Christopher Doyle, founder and president of Voice of the Voiceless, came out of the homosexual lifestyle and is now happily married with children. Doyle is a professional counselor who helps others find freedom from homosexuality. Read his testimony, and a Mercator interview with Doyle. To support the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is defending JONAH against the well-funded SPLC, go HERE.
This article first appeared in the Christian Post, June 17, 2015
This Monday marked the second full week of testimony in the “Trial of the Century”, pitting Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), a small, New Jersey-based Jewish non-profit organization, against the $340 million dollar Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
At issue are SPLC’s claims that JONAH committed consumer fraud by supposedly guaranteeing four former clients that they could go from “gay” to “straight” in 2-4 years. SPLC recruited these clients to sue JONAH in what has become another installment in the nationwide effort to prevent individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions from accessing counseling.
But SPLC’s case is unraveling at the seams, and the lies that mark this trial should be a lesson for the nation.
First, last Wednesday, under cross-examination by attorney for the defense Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, Dr. Carol Bernstein, an expert witness for the plaintiffs and a well-known psychiatrist and Vice Chair of the New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, conceded that sexual orientation is fluid and can change. She went on to state that she has not conducted any research on the effectiveness of sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy or familiarized herself with any studies looking at harm from such efforts.
Additionally, when asked about the particular type of counseling, psychodrama, that JONAH uses in its practice, Dr. Bernstein replied that it was not a well-respected counseling modality, despite that fact that Columbia University, where she attended, offers a course for undergraduate students on the method, a fact of which she was unaware.
Sin Advocate: Young and winsome Matthew Vines is working hard to win Christians to the idea that committed homosexual relationships should be blessed before a holy God. Despite his apostasy, Vines was recently welcomed as a “brother in Christ” by Rev. Caleb Kaltenbach, lead pastor of Discovery Church in Simi Valley, CA. See Vines’ curiously named “Reformation Project.“
“We are to have no fellowship with darkness. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with any professing Christian who’s in open rebellion against the Word of God. We can’t ‘dialogue’ with anybody who is deceiving and misleading the Body of Christ on any sin while claiming to be a Christian!”–Janet Mefferd
______________________
I welcome my friend Janet Mefferd to the pages of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Janet is a former longtime radio talk show host with the Salem Radio Network–and, I must say, as someone who cumulatively chatted a few hours in on-air interviews with Mefferd over the years–she was one of the best in the business (Christian and secular). We look forward to seeing what’s next in Janet’s career, but until then we are delighted to publish her work.
Regarding this issue of “dialogue” or “bridging” with homosexuality advocates, I recall an article by the late Alan Medinger–a man who walked away from homosexuality with the help of the Savior he loved, Jesus Christ. Medinger, who founded Regeneration Ministries in Baltimore, wisely cautioned against an internal Church debate over homosexuality because there is nothing compelling it except outside, anti-biblical agitation. The sinfulness of same-sex behavior is a settled matter in both the Bible and thousands of years of Church/Old Testament tradition, argued Medinger, and we need not debate it now within Christendom any more than we should debate, say, adultery.
Read this beautiful tribute to Medinger by Regeneration’s Josh Glaser–then decide if the same Spirit of Christ that impelled Alan lies with Matthew Vines, who–by trying to redefine Christianity to accommodate homosexual relationships and “gay marriage”–propels the very same debate that Medinger rejected on principle. Below Mefferd ably applies what I call the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test.”— Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
“Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rights.” Just the kind of headline I never enjoy, but it ran June 8 in The New York Times over a story about “influential evangelicals” meeting with homosexual activist Matthew Vines at Biola University last month, complete with a Times reporter and photographer on hand.
Vines, you may recall, is author of 2014’s controversial “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” which manipulates biblical terminology in an unconvincing attempt to argue against the sinfulness of homosexuality.
Worse, the book was published by Crown Publishing Group’s Convergent imprint, which shared staff and operations with and was a sister imprint of evangelical Christian publisher WaterBrook Multnomah. Among other repercussions for printing such unbiblical garbage, WaterBrook Multnomah resigned its membership from the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB). (Crown later separated the two imprints.)
Vines also runs an apostate group called The Reformation Project, which claims to exist “to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.”
