- 2015May 10
Despite the serious and well-known flaws of Alfred C. Kinsey’s iconic research on sexuality, many of his conclusions have become so embedded in our cultural DNA that they persist even though proven false.
Take his claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual.
In 2013 the CDC found that less than 2 percent of people are gay, about half the percentage found in previous studies. Yet judging from the numbers of gay folk on prime-time television and in movies, one would conclude that the percentage is 10 times higher or more. Think “Modern Family,” “The New Normal,” and Ellen DeGeneres’ “One Big Happy,” where the best friend of a heterosexual married man is a lesbian. Really?
In fact, it is rare to find any show on the small or big screen that fails to include the gratuitous gay character(s) and/or gay sex. Just the other night I had occasion to watch “Dig,” pitched as a mystery-thriller involving biblical archaeology and prophesy. I had high expectations. But there was enough dirt shoveled in one episode to bury “Dig” and keep it off the DVRs of what might have been its most invested audience: Bible-believing Christians. In addition to casting evangelical Christians (who else?) as evil operatives of an apocalyptic conspiracy, the show included three sex scenes: one (explicit) between heterosexuals and two between homosexuals.
Then there’s the Kinseyian claim that homosexuality is a normal variation of sexual expression. It’s a notion also reflected in modern cinema, where the compulsory gay character can be counted on to be the wittiest, cutest, and cuddliest on the set, betraying none of the existential angst, psychological distress, or physical pathologies so often experienced by real homosexuals.
Over the last fifty years, homosexual advocates, with the help of a fawning media and compliant therapy class, have promoted a wave of other notions about sexual orientation—it is inborn; it is immutable; attempts to change it are harmful; and behaviors springing from it are morally neutral, if not morally wholesome—all to great effect.
These memes are largely responsible, among other things, for the normalization of homosexuality in sex education curricula, the declassification of same-sex attraction (SSA) as a mental health concern, and the censure of conversion therapy (and its practitioners) aimed at helping gays better align their software (sexual affections) to their hardware (biological sex).
Even the president has come out, pledging to put the weight of his office behind ending therapeutic efforts to change a person’s sacred sexual proclivities.
So, how valid are these notions and the consequences they are spawning? Find out here.
- 2015Apr 13
To say that my life has been richly blessed would be an understatement. I have had a fulfilling career, wonderful family, and enriching opportunities with gifts and abilities that have given me a rewarding sense of purpose and accomplishment—all which led to a lofty measure of self-sufficiency, until the winter of 2001.
Angiosarcoma . . . Clinical trials . . . Quality of life . . . Quantity of life . . . were the sound bites steaming through my consciousness as I strained to focus on the oncologist’s words. After 10 days of diagnostic procedures, the biopsy results indicated that I had rare cancer. In the collective experience of the oncology group, there had been only three prior cases, with the longest survivor lasting less than one month. As I lay listless in the hospital bed, I silently gasped, “Why me, why now? Why?”
So began my test of faith.
Two months prior to my diagnosis, I had been praying the prayer of Jabez for God to “enlarge my territory.” My intention was to have a greater impact for the kingdom in my teaching ministry.
At the time I was leading a church class in a four-week study on facing spiritual conflict. Halfway through the series, the initial symptoms of my illness surfaced. Mere coincidence? Although we are tempted to chafe at the suggestion of divinely orchestrated affliction, Scripture is full of such examples. For instance, the Apostle John tells us,
"As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind. 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (John 9:1-3)
Did I think God caused my illness? I didn’t know. Although John’s account indicates that the blind man’s affliction was not a judgment, Paul tells us, “When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:32).
What I knew, intellectually, was that we inhabit a world in decay. From the beginning, our willful action against the Creator has caused us to be hurled ever deeper down the descending spiral of suffering, disease, death, and sorrow, where we and all creation groan for relief.
What I was about to learn, experientially, is that our weakest and most vulnerable condition is where we encounter God in fullest measure. Read on here.
- 2015Apr 11
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) bills itself as “a fellowship of Christians in science.” According to a 2010 survey, less than 12 percent of the fellowship believes “Adam and Eve had no contemporaries, and were the biological ancestors of all humans.” Many survey respondents referred to Adam and Eve as “metaphors,” “symbols,” “representations,” or “fictional characters.”
If you think these beliefs are limited to liberal-leaning laymen, you would be badly mistaken: They are shared by A-list Christian scholars and theologians, like popular author and Bible commentator N. T. Wright.
In his book “Surprised by Scripture,” Rev. Wright suggests that the biblical significance of Adam and Eve is not their order in the creation, but their calling. As he explains, “God chose one pair from the rest of early hominoids for a special, demanding vocation.” [Emphasis in original.]
In case “early hominoids” doesn’t make his point sufficiently clear, Wright adds, “This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race.” [Emphasis added.] All this in a chapter tellingly titled, “Do We Need a Historical Adam?”
For the reader not sufficiently surprised by that rendering of Scripture, the former Bishop of Durham frames “young-earthism” as not only a “regrettable alternative” (to the creation narrative), but a “false teaching.”*
The “Wright alternative,” the “true” teaching, given the Bishop’s prominent association withBioLogos—a faith and science forum that promotes theistic evolution—is a glacial, mud-to-man process inwrought in nature by God.
More recently, Old Testament scholar John Walton weighed in on the Adam question. Continue reading here.