- 2015Jun 27
Having crossed the gay “marriage” Rubicon, the question now becomes, what should Christians do? The answer is, doing what we should have been doing all along: making “disciples of all nations.”
The word, “nations,” signifies that our duty is more than proclaiming the good news of the kingdom to individuals; it includes applying kingdom principles in every dimension of human interest – arts, literature, government, science, marketplace, education – to redeem nations through the institutions and artifacts that make them and shape them.
And that starts with Christians modeling the sacramental essence of marriage and living lives of sexual purity. The failure of Christians to do so, while holding others to standards they don’t keep, is largely responsible for the loss of the Church’s moral authority and the growing acceptance of homosexualism.
Nothing in the past 2000 years, including the legalization of homosexual pseudotrimony, changes our call to be light in darkness and salt in a decaying culture. Whatever cultural conditions exist, whatever hostility we experience, we are to be martyrs (from the Greek word for “witnesses”) by profession and practice, even in the face of martyrdom -- not by lions in a state coliseum or by fire in a village square (though their modern versions can’t be ruled out), but by increased discrimination, marginalization, and persecution.
Are we prepared for that? Are we prepared to bear the cost of social shunning, unemployment, law suits, criminalization, or worse? Are churches prepared to forsake property, buildings, and professional staffs to remain faithful to its mission if tax exemptions are threatened, adversely impacting already low giving levels?
If the answer is no, depends, or we’re not sure, one thing we can be sure of, is the continued shrinking domain of religious liberty: from the public square, to the house of worship, to the family circle, to the temporal lobe, to the incredibly vanishing “God spot.”
- 2015Jun 09
In 1996, when the first Gallup poll on so-called same-sex marriage was taken, those opposed to legally redefining marriage held a comfortable lead (68 percent to 27 percent) over those who favored redefinition to include same-sex relationships. But after steadily eroding for over a decade, the pro-marriage margin evaporated by 2010. At the end of 2012, 53 percent of the public polled "favorable" to same-sex marriage, compared to 46 percent polling "unfavorable." (For 18-to-29-year-olds, the favorable/unfavorable polling in 2012 was 73 and 26 percent, respectively.)1 No wonder that, after 32 straight defeats at the ballot box, gay marriage referenda won the day in four states in the 2012 general election.
Within the span of a few years, public consensus about the most primal, essential, and natural of all human institutions was turned on its head. But how? How did a social contrivance that would have been unmentionable, if not unthinkable, a generation ago become the "civil rights issue of our time" in the popular imagination?
Part of the answer lies in the success of homosexual activists in recruiting the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to push its message. But the bigger answer is not in what they've done, but in what the vast majority of the rest of us haven't: tell the emperor that he is naked.
When confronted with this spectacle, many of us have remained silent: some because of apathy or indifference; others because of a laissez-faire attitude about personal morality; still others out of fear of being viewed as a bigot, homophobe, or moralizer; many, because our thinking has been muddled by the moral rhetoric of civil rights, equality, and freedom. As a result, we have largely failed in what George Orwell called "the first duty of intelligent men"—that is, to re-state the obvious.
To help dispel the moral fog cloaking the king, so that the intelligent and willing among us can fulfill our duty, I here present rebuttals to the ten "best" arguments for same-sex marriage. Read here.
- 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.