Defeating the Gay-empowering Myths

When someone proclaims, “I’m gay” he is invoking two myths– myths that are the cornerstone of gay power. The first myth is, “I always have been and always will be gay,” while the second is, “I am completely and entirely gay.” Nobody ever claimed to have a “minor case of homosexuality.”

These myths combine to form the myth of the total organic homosexual, that a person is totally and permanently gay by nature. Increased acceptance of these myths threatens to crush long-held religious beliefs against homosexuality.

Gay rights laws originally protected on the basis of “sexual preference.” At the time society did not accept these myths but, as our culture has shifted towards acceptance, the squishy “preference” has been legally replaced with the rigid “sexual orientation.”

Let’s suppose that you consider gay sex as morally wrong and/or you are opposed gay marriage while I believed the gay myths. How would I see you?

To me you have a religion that works only for straights but not for gays. You purport to follow a god that condemns a class of people just for being the way he made them. You are promoting bigotry that merely masquerades as religion. The more you try to oppose gay marriage the more bigoted you seem to me. If you persisted in speaking against homosexual acts or gay marriage I would view you as abhorrent as one who would preach that Blacks are so inherently evil that God will send them all to hell and I would do everything possible to crush you and your beliefs.

Suppose instead I was only ambivalent about whether the gay myths were true. Would I defend you from attackers and thereby protect someone who was possibly propagating evil, bigoted beliefs? Would I visit your church or, if I already attended, would I tend to leave?

I might express my ambivalence by supporting homosexuality with, “Whether homosexuality is inherent or not, let people marry whoever they want.” At the same time I could not express what my position would have been if I were convinced the myths were false.

The gay marriage debate cannot be won without recognizing that the gay myths are central to it and must be exposed as false to as broad a swath of society as possible. This would require using language that does require a shift in other core beliefs such as expecting to make them all “Christian” first. How can this be done?

If I were to question, “Do I have a broken rib, a high IQ, or Asperger’s Syndrome?” what would I do? I would get some tests run.

Not so to the question, “Am I gay?” A person proclaims himself to be “gay” much the same way a person proclaims himself to be a follower of a set of religious or political beliefs: I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a Democrat. I’m gay. If I look inside myself and, after considering all the factors, decide that I’m gay, then I’m gay. If instead I look at those same factors and do not decide that I’m gay, then I’m straight. Either decision I make, you are required to respect and defer to it. Still, some think that kids need greater exposure to homosexual material to ensure they do not make the “wrong” decision.

Gay proponents champions direct proclamation and eschew any type of scientific, medical, or psychological test or external evaluation for at least three reasons: First, a test destroys the absolute nature of homosexuality. For any test there can be myriad test scores giving myriad gradations from homo to heterosexuality. What do you call someone who scores only 80% on the gayness test—“kind of gay?”

Next, any kind of test can reveal the pliable nature of homosexuality. What if you score 80% one year but only 65% another? Have your sexual attractions changed?

A third and perhaps the biggest problem is that it reduces “I’m gay” from an identity to merely a label.

If a person has certain characteristics, attractions, fantasies, fetishes, etc. causing an evaluation to declare that he is gay, “gay” is nothing more than an observation or a label for these characteristics. If instead a person proclaims that he is gay, he then assumes a gay identity and can assert that all of those characteristics flow out of his inherent identity. This thereby relieves him of culpability for his thoughts and actions.

Even for those who are not considered gay, believing in a gay identity has a payoff. If I accept that there is a class of people who cannot be held responsible for their sexual appetites then maybe I can’t be held responsible for mine either.

Saying, “I have a same-sex attraction” raises the question: Am I going to feed or starve the attraction. When someone decides, “I’m gay” the question is answered. Homosexuality is not a choice; rather homosexuality is a decision.

Would gays accept objective criteria? Ask any gay activist, “If there were a test for sexual orientation and it showed that you were really bisexual or even straight, would you accept the test results?” The invariable answer would be, “Of course not! I’m gay!”

When you ask two gay guys, “How did you determine that you were gay?” you will probably get two very different stories such as, “Guys always intimidated me so I hung out with girls and that’s how I know I’m gay,” or “I was forced to have gay sex and found I liked it.” From diverse stories like these can we distill some type of universal criteria that we can apply to determine whom is/is not gay? —Nothing that the majority who proclaim to be gay would accept.

So ask someone who professes to be gay, “Who diagnosed you as ‘gay’ and how strongly did they rate your homosexual proclivity?” When he acknowledges that he is self -diagnosed, you can then ask, “What special training have you received enabling you to diagnose a person as gay and can you can you successfully diagnose it in others?” The conversation should get interesting from there.

If a boy relates much better to men and guy things but feels awkward around women and gal things we are told that this it is a clear indication he is gay. However, if he relates much better to women and gal things but feels awkward around men and guy things we are told that this also is a clear indication he is gay. Am I missing something here?

If a guy marries a woman, has kids but then leaves her and “comes out” as gay, gay activists tell us that just because he had straight sex and maybe even enjoyed it does not mean he was straight. If we accept that, by the same reasoning, just because a straight has gay sex doesn’t make him gay. Indeed, if a male pedophile has sex with boys he is not considered a homosexual unless he considers himself to be homosexual. Therefore we can’t even tell whether a person is really straight or gay by his sexual activity or any other characteristic.

Perhaps you have seen studies on the causes of homosexuality. Most studies use a sleight of hand: They do not explore whether homosexuality is a sexual preference or an orientation but start with the gay identity as a premise. So however a person has come into homosexuality, whether by nature or by nurture, he is portrayed as now having the invincible gay identity.

Ask the authors of these studies, “Did you use some objective criteria to determine which of your subjects were gay, straight or bisexual?” Also, what portion of your subjects did you determine were gay but had not yet come out as gay, and which subjects were gay but had not even “admitted it to themselves?” Pesky questions like these combined with the significant political pressure to find the “correct” answers suggest that studies are not the best source to determine if the empowering gay myths are true.

What does “I’m gay” mean? Most would say that, at some level, it means a person is sexually attracted to those of the same sex. Consider how absurd this is. People wear clothes. We can’t see people’s private parts and only infer their gender from characteristics or dress. The most emphatic statement of “sexual orientation” we can make is that a subject is sexually attracted to characteristics that are generally thought of as being “male” or “female.” However these characteristics overlap. Not all females have bigger breasts than all males. Not all males have more facial hair than all females particularly if a female dons a lifelike but fake beard.

A person is not sexually attracted to all members of a given sex and there are other characteristics that negate sexually attractive ones such as a person being listless or having terrible hygiene. If those who have claimed, “I’m gay” are said to be self-proclaimed as sexually attracted to certain characteristics generally attributed to those of their same sex, “I’m gay” now doesn’t sound very compelling.

If you asked a promiscuous 19-year-old male what he thought about having sex with a 62-year-old woman—someone old enough to be his grandmother—you would probably get a retching noise. But what about when he is 65 himself? From this we can see that a person’s sexual tastes change over time. If we can accept this, why is it so difficult to accept that a person’s changing taste for the ideal sexual partner could even cross between opposite-sex and same-sex under certain circumstances, particularly if their former partner has become listless and has developed terrible hygiene?

Our culture also exerts control on what is or is not sexually attractive. Female armpit hair is a serious sexual turn-off for modern, western men. Were men less sexually attracted to women a few hundred years ago when shaving armpit hair was not practiced or has our culture told us that removing armpit hair is necessary for a woman to be “sexy?” Consider how sexy Playboy pinups are. Would these be as sexy in a nudist colony? Isn’t what and who is sexy also influenced by context? If our concept of what is sexy is so set, why can sexual attractiveness be trumped by halitosis?

Every discrimination law that protects homosexuality just as vigorously protects bisexuality. So what is bisexuality? It is having some level of sexual attraction to features that are generally thought of as male and also as female. Does it always occur in equal quantities of each; the 50-50 bisexual? Can’t someone else be a 60-40 bisexual or any other ratio? We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies”—an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good relationship with one gender and a bad relationship with the other, can’t this “bisexual person” easily go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already shown that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to objectively determine whom is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2 percent gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

When some states had criminal sodomy laws, some banned only homosexual sodomy while others banned both homo and hetero sodomy. For the man committing the sodomy, the physical sensation is identical whether with a woman or another man. It is interesting how gays claim to have a rigid biological basis for their attractions when they cannot even point to a distinctive sexual sensation that should be the hallmark of their uniqueness.

The statement, “I’m gay” has as much solidity as, “I’ve fallen in love; I’ve found my soul-mate.” Either phrase can arise from a multiplicity of factors, can feel just as certain and settled at the time and may last a lifetime. However just as many factors may lead you and your “soul-mate” to divorce court other factors may lead a person to question his or her “sexual orientation.” Or was that only a “sexual preference?”

Gay power and influence depend on convincing the public that gays “always have been and always will be gay,” and also that gays “are completely and entirely gay.” Can you see the response to someone demanding rights when he admits he is “more gay than he was last year and is now almost entirely gay”? While we need to focus on defeating the gay-empowering myths to defeat gay marriage and gay power, don’t expect that the material in this paper will sway a true believer of it. However, if this material is broadly disseminated it can help those who are struggling with the question, “Am I gay.” While this may weaken the grip of gay power, even if it does not, is not helping only a few individuals worth the effort?

For more proof that people are not “born gay” go to


Banishment of the Prophet (written 11/11)

There are rumblings that the state legislature will pass a gay marriage bill this session. As gay marriage is becoming firmly entrenched in our nation many Christians think our culture has hit rock bottom. They could not be further from the truth.

Defeated forces can fall back and fight another day. However the slaughter really begins when your forces abandon the battlefield: The opposing forces can rape and pillage in earnest with nothing to stop them. Over the last few decades those who support our values in the public square have grown weaker while our opponents stronger. Now with a defeat on gay marriage appearing imminent it looks like our side will collapse entirely.

As just a small example of what comes next, California passed SB 48, which requires public schools to include the study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and prohibits any materials that reflect adversely upon them. As California is an enormous textbook market there is a strong incentive for publishers to make all textbooks California-compliant. These books will undoubtedly share how gay leaders have courageously fought for civil rights and “marriage equality.” I wonder how they will treat those who opposed these righteous souls by proclaiming that their sexual acts were a “sin?”   It would not be too far-fetched to see pictures similar to those of the police clubbing Martin Luther King’s Freedom Riders only with people of our persuasion cast as the bad guys. Won’t the increasing demonization of Biblical Christianity adversely affect our evangelistic effectiveness? After being exposed to this type of material would not our own children tend to ask, “How can I follow a religion that is so demeaning to the normal actions of oppressed sexual minorities?”

You undoubtedly have not heard of SB 48 because it is just an incredibly small blip in the avalanche of values hostile to Christianity coming our way. Few would dispute that our culture has grown significantly more toxic in our lifetime—on our watch. Was this change somehow preordained or predestined so we could have done nothing to prevent it or have we been responding wrongly to it?

There are myriad religious beliefs such as Christians, Hindus, or Druids with many sub-flavors to major groupings. Most pray to some type of god, gods or deity. Most believe that the object of their prayers answers back and some even profess to experience miraculous intervention. While these beliefs cannot all be right virtually nobody, including us, senses that the God they pray to is telling them that their beliefs are in error. In light of the significant cultural shift we are witnessing and our failure to stop it, it is worthwhile to compare our beliefs to our source document to ensure we are following directions.

Christians should all agree that they believe the Bible. Rather than picking out a few verses to base a whole theology on–as we love to do–let us instead look at three broad themes of Scripture.

The first is: The role of the prophet. Two major sections of the Bible are the “Major Prophets” and the “Minor Prophets.” While these contain much other material, the general theme is that of prophets of God rebuking the sin of the people or their leaders while warning of God’s judgment. As this is a major Biblical theme it would seem that it should remain conspicuously present in our Christian service. Has it?

Rather than confronting the leaders of our culture and rebuking pandemic sin in general we, for the most part, are unwilling to even preach against sin within the confines of our own churches purportedly for fear of offending or alienating sinners. There has also been a tendency to replace “sins” with the morally neutral “mistakes.” Is that scriptural?

A prophet will stand against sin because if this poison cannot be contained it will incur God’s wrath as well as cause the downfall of the individual and society. A common way we discredit a prophet is to claim that he is not rebuking sin but is instead rebuking the poor, unfortunate people who have been poisoned by sin and we rush to comfort and console these “victims.” If we are not willing to follow the example set by the Major and Minor Prophets perhaps we should remove these sections from our Bible.

On another related Biblical theme, when a man of God interacts with people, do the keepers of the culture more often love or more often hate the intrusion of God’s law? Most would agree that when a person came proclaiming God’s law the more common reaction was hatred. Jesus came to the Jews and the established religious leaders had Him put to death. The disciples and early apostles did not fare much better.

With this background why does the church seem to convey the message that we can faithfully serve God and still have everyone like us? The only way we can have everyone like us is to abandon doing things that God calls us to do that people hate. We have silenced the prophets in our midst because we love the praises of men. The second theme is: If we are faithful ambassadors representing God’s law to a people who hate God’s law it is reasonable to expect them to hate us as well. Are we being trained to embrace and endure this?

Romans 12:18 
directs that, if possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. By the time the Apostle Paul wrote Second Corinthians, he had been whipped with 39 lashes five times, beaten with rods three times and stoned once. He then went on to have other abuse including a premature appointment with an undertaker. Yes, if possible, be at peace but much of the time this peace is not possible because we are solders in a world at war—unless we go AWOL.

The last theme is from the Historical books. We read how God established the Jews as His chosen people but then punished and humbled them when they were stiff-necked and rebellious. We can repeatedly reread these books but it never occurs to us that God could be talking about us! The warning from these books is that if God will send His own chosen people into bondage for their sins, He will do the same to us if we disobey. We have inherited a nation with a rich Christian heritage but, instead of defending our heritage to the last man we have sat by idly as it has been stolen in front of our noses. Because we have banished the prophet from our midst that would tell us otherwise, we have somehow concluded that God must still be ecstatic about our level of faith and obedience. Remember, even the scribes and Pharisees professed to believe that God was pleased with them because they tithed mint, dill and cumin until Jesus came along and said, “No way!”

Our nation and the church are at a precipice but we have killed the prophetic ministry and so don’t know it. Perhaps the most pathetic interaction in the Bible is when little boy Samuel delivers a word from the Lord to Levi the Priest. Trembling, Samuel tells Eli of God’s impending judgment on his house. Rather than falling on his face in grief or repentance Eli blandly replies, “Let the Lord do what is good to Him.” (I Samuel 3:18) I’m hoping this message provokes more of a response.


Christ and the Romans

While the Romans severely oppressed the Jews, it has often been noted that there was never any mention in the Bible of Christ expending any effort to change the Roman government. Rather, Christ saved his scathing remarks for the religious leaders of the day. The conclusion often reached is that if the Church is to follow the example of Christ, it should not waste resources on trying to change our culture or civil government but instead should only be keenly involved in ecclesiastical matters. Let’s discuss this for a minute.

 In Christ’s day there were two overlapping political and social structures, that of the Roman authorities and that of the Jewish religious leaders. Individual Jews related to these two very differently. Since the Jews hated the Romans, the Romans had no power over the Jews. Certainly they could command outward obedience, but the Romans were powerless to change their hearts. Any evil practiced by the Romans could not spread to the Jews. On the other hand, the scribes and Pharisees were the Jew’s spiritual leaders who were perceived as friends; working for the Jews. Any sin engaged in by these spiritual leaders would be copied by the Jews and spread like a plague. There is a major difference between people who sin and those who teach others to sin. While the Romans had the ability to command their soldiers and cast the Jews into prison, the Scribes and Pharisees had the ability to pervert the Jews’ religion and, in so doing, cast them into Hell. It is fairly obvious which should be a greater concern.

I believe that if Christ were physically alive today he would be doing much the same as he did back in Galilee. He would be healing the sick, preaching good news, and fighting tooth and nail with the religious leaders of our day.

But who are our present day religious leaders?   We have the mistaken impression that a religious leader is someone who has been to seminary and preaches from a pulpit; anyone who doesn’t fit this description is assumed not to be a religious leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A religious leader is someone who teaches people about whether their is a god, and if so, what his nature is. If there is a god, is he satisfied with our behavior, and if not, what should we do about it? What is the nature of man? What is morally right and wrong?

If you ask the average man in the street to name his spiritual leaders, he will probably tell you that he doesn’t have any and he doesn’t believe in that sort of stuff. But that’s not true, somewhere a spiritual leader has taught him that God does not exist, is irrelevant, or is reasonably satisfied with his behavior. Yes, there are strong spiritual leaders in our community but they are rarely identified as such. Who has a stronger influence on the spiritual values than the our public educational system, the Media and our political system? Who else is the strongest teacher that life is to be lived apart from God than our public educational system? Who teaches us that sexual promiscuity and perversion is a normal and acceptable facet of life than the media? And who codifies society’s hostility to God and Biblical values other than our political system?

When, for example, the Seattle City Council passes a gay rights law, are they not providing moral instruction to the city and teaching the city a perverted view of what is right and wrong? Satan’s objective in such laws is to convince people to believe that legal protection makes sinful behavior morally acceptable. By doing this He is better able to entice people into sin which will harden them to the Gospel and ultimately drag them off to Hell. We teach our kids the Bible with the hope that it will keep them from sin. As our culture teaches people to sin, this tends to keep them from the Bible and our God.

 Although Christ would be denounced from the pulpit by many ordained false preachers of our day, their wrath would be minor since they have comparatively small sway in our community. It is the true ministers of our culture that Christ would have the greatest conflict with.

Christ’s different interaction with the Roman and Jewish leaders of his day gives a clue to how effective a culture or political system opposed to the Gospel will be at blocking its spread. When there is opposition or slander about Christianity, how does the group targeted for evangelism perceive those opposing Christianity? Do they perceive Christianity’s opponents as their enemy seeking to keep them from something good as the oppressive Roman government did? Or are those opposing us perceived as the potential converts’ friend seeking to protect them from a danger, as the Jewish religious leaders were generally perceived as working for the good of the Jews? If opposition to Christianity comes from a culture that a potential convert sees as a friend, that opposition will be very effective indeed.

Looking at our own culture, as people observe opposition to Christianity form the media, our educational system, etc., do they perceive those institutions as friends seeking to entertain, educate, or in some other way benefit them? Or does the public view these institutions as a vicious enemy which is intent on dragging them off to Hell? Draw your own conclusions about how effective opposition to Christianity is that is generated by our hostile culture.



Love is Defending

What’s another hundred million of us?

We pass without notice,

Except for those grateful

The inconvenience is gone.


Our blood poured out freely

On the altar of Molech.

A living, human sacrifice

To the god of our age.


Look into my still-closed eyes

And tell of your love for me.

Are they words of a timid soldier

Withdrawing when the price is known?


My dear Christian friend,

“Want to redeem my soul?

First you must rescue

My body from the knife.”


Your actions choose my fate;

The dumpster or the cradle.

It doesn’t have to be this way,

But it will cost dearly to change.


And if you will not spend yourself

Showing your love for me,

Shielding and defending,

What will you spend it on?


On your boat, a better game of golf,

Or paying down the mortgage?

Living a rich, fulfilling life;

All the good things I’ll never know.


With a tithe of your affections,

And just a handful of people

This monster can be killed

And my newborn cries announce life!


Please look upon the carnage.

Don’t turn your head away.

Let its weight grieve your heart

Until you cry, “This must stop!”


Will you be roused from your slumber

And link arms with your neighbor,

To pay the price,

To fight the war,

To storm the gates of Hell?


To stay the hand of judgment

Of God’s wrath upon this nation,

For this heinous crime,

That grieves the Lord

And puts Hitler to shame?


Do you love the Lord your maker

Enough to make a difference?

Do you love His child as well?

Am I precious in your sight?


Do you love me?



The Better Samaritan

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest and then a Levite happened to be going down the same road, and when they saw the man, they each passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him, bandaged his wounds and put him on his own donkey. He took him to an inn, paid his expenses and told the innkeeper that he would reimburse him for any extra expense he may have.

The Samaritan continued on his way to Jerusalem and when he completed his business, being a merchant, he made his weekly trip to Jericho. On this trip he again found a man who had fallen into the hands of robbers–possibly the same thieves–who had likewise stripped him of clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. The Samaritan bandaged his wounds and took him on his donkey to the inn and paid his expenses. The Samaritan continued on to Jericho.

On his return trip from Jericho the Samaritan encountered yet another man robbed and beaten by thieves whom he likewise helped.

As the Samaritan made his weekly journeys he continuously encountered men who had been robbed and beaten by thieves. While some he was able to help he was too late for others. Kneeling over the remains of a victim one day the Samaritan was grieved in his spirit and vowed on all that he held dear that what he saw would stop.

He abandoned his business to stay in Jerusalem persuading the elders of the city to help. He made speeches and organized rallies and agitated until he had raised a posse to pursue the thieves. Due to his courage and perseverance the thieves were brought to justice and the road was made secure.

Buoyed up by his success in Jerusalem he traveled to Jericho, Capernaum and other cities showing them what could be accomplished. He organized a regional police force to make highways secure even for non-Romans. With safer roads the economy prospered and there was an outpouring of gratitude for the civic efforts of the Samaritan.

But not everyone praised the Samaritan. He still had his critics. Among the murmuring three accusations stood out. They were (1) He had abandoned his ministry. While he had had a successful and critical ministry of helping robbery victims he had walked away. In his absence the victims he would have helped experienced great suffering. Indeed, some had died without his help and their blood was on his hands. (2) He lacked a redemptive heart in his dealings with the thieves. In organizing a posse he did not even consider their spiritual needs but rather sought only to capture and punish them-hardly a Christian attitude. And (3) he abandoned his humility. In his previous ministry the Samaritan quietly served the needy. Now he apparently didn’t have time for the needy but primarily sought out the company of elders and kings-those with the resources to help his grand plans. The Samaritan was speechless.


How would you rate the Better Samaritan?


The Two Ministries of Christ

Christ’s ministries on earth could be placed into two categories. The first could be described as His “pastoral ministry.” This ministry would be characterized by His feeding the five thousand, healing the sick, and reconciling men to God. Clearly this essential Christian ministry is what we usually think of when we picture Christ’s work on earth.

But there is another side of His ministry that is substantially less popular. That is Christ’s ministry of confronting evil. This is characterized by His rebuke of Peter, “Get thee behind me Satan!”, His scathing denouncement of the religious leaders of the day, and His assault on the money changers in the Temple. It is often hard for us to reconcile our perception of a loving Jesus with His statements like, “You brood of vipers!” or “You are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”

The earthly rewards of Christ’s pastoral ministry were manifested on Palm Sunday when a grateful throng shouted, “Hosanna to the King!” Christ’s ministry of confronting evil bore different fruit and that fruit matured the following Friday as a bloodthirsty crowd demanded something other than His coronation.

As I observe Christians today, I note that they engage almost exclusively in pastoral ministry and neglect the ministry of confronting evil. As I consider the earthly rewards of these two ministries, I cannot help wondering why one ministry is stressed and the other shunned. Is the motivation a wish for peace and popularity rather than an earnest desire to follow Him wherever He leads? I don’t believe His invitation to take up our cross and follow Him was only to a ministry leading to riding a donkey on palm branches through a cheering crowd. Christians desperately need to take up the offense of the Gospel and accept the opposition it brings.

All Christians will be offensive. Either they will stand for righteousness and offend men or they will remain silent and offend God. Which will you choose?



To Be Loving . . .

Christians have been seduced by a deadly heresy: “If you are loving, people will love you. If people don’t love you, you must change your behavior because their love for you demonstrates your love for them.”

The truth is far less self-serving. “If you are loving the way Christ was loving you will be treated the way Christ was treated. If you are not being treated the way Christ was treated, particularly if you are totally unwilling to endure the hatred and opposition he endured, you lack the loving heart of Christ.”


A Scathing, but Christlike, Rebuke

A bumper sticker asked the provocative question, “Who would Jesus bomb?” From his other ones this rhetorical question was supposed to evoke the thought, “If Jesus wouldn’t bomb anyone, why do we engage in war?”

But was this really a rhetorical question? What is the correct Christian response to a rooftop sniper? Certainly we should help the injured and comfort the grieving but, as the body count grows, it becomes clear that the Mother Teresa approach is not appropriate in all circumstances.

Rather than ask, “Who would Jesus bomb?” ask, “Who did Jesus bomb—who did he most tenaciously fight and most scathingly rake over the coals?” Matthew 23 contains a heavy concentration of the rebukes Jesus gave to the religious leaders. In summary He said, “However you want to appear before God and man, you are the exact opposite.” Making godly disciples? You make proselytes twice the son of perdition you are! Generous? You devour widows’ houses! Wise leaders? You are blind fools! Meticulously following the law? You neglect the weightier matters! Ceremonially clean? You are whitewashed tombs with dead bones; a source of uncleanness!

The rebukes build to a crescendo: A friend of God? You kill His prophets! You have a special place reserved in heaven? Christ not only condemns them to Hell, He gives them an express ticket to the hottest part! It is hard to imagine how Christ could have used more offensive language.

In our fellowship group I asked the question, “Were this not Christ speaking, what more would this speaker have had to say before you concluded that he was ‘consumed with hatred?’” There was no reply. A righteous rebuke can look a lot like hatred.

Before someone says it’s only Christ’s prerogative to rebuke, Christ’s actions were bracketed by those of John the Baptist before His death and Stephen after. They likewise condemned the religious leaders. But many Christians may have problems with both of these examples.

While John the Baptist condemned the Scribes and Pharisees, he also violated what many Christians almost consider to be the “Biblical mandated” separation of church and state by rebuking King Herod, a civil ruler, for having his brother’s wife and this rebuke led to his execution. And, while there was a vibrant Christian church when Stephen was tried, Stephen did not rebuke Christian leaders but only the non-Christian Sanhedrin. We now have to come up with a reason for Christians somehow losing both the right and the responsibility to rebuke non-Christian leaders.

But even more troubling, instead of sticking to just “proclaiming the gospel,” both John and Stephen were willing to pay with their lives for their rebukes thereby ending their earthly ministries. They apparently viewed publicly rebuking evil to cripple its power over people as an essential component of their calling and more important than the years of service they could have provided had they held their fire.

If we are to emulate these examples of Jesus and these early followers in their rebukes we need to resolve both the correct method as well as the targets. I believe that the method He would have us use would be the same way you would handle a person standing on your foot in a crowded bus. First a gentle request assuming it was done in error but, if this did not produce results, the request would become more strident as the offender was told his actions would not be tolerated if turned out to be a case of aggravated, first-degree foot-crushing.

But who would He rebuke? The way Christ dealt with people depended on how close they were to two opposite poles on the spectrum; whether they were just sinners or whether they were leading others to sin. To the former He gave compassion, to the latter He gave both barrels; particularly to those in a powerful position to spread their cancer.

But these two approaches are really the same: You cannot love sinners without opposing those who would lead them into sin. I believe He would rebuke those who by teaching, example or action were leading others to sin. Further He would not pummel some (such as errant Christian leaders) but give others a pass since doing so would only shift the evildoing to others. He would instead treat all the same whether they derived their leadership positions from politics, sports or media or from religion of any flavor. When He even told one of his beloved disciples, “Get thee behind me Satan!” it’s pretty clear He didn’t play favorites.

However, before anyone tries following this example they need to carefully consider the latter part of Matthew 5:22, “Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” The word “fool” that Christ uses here is the same Greek word that He uses when He condemns with “blind fools.” John the Baptist, Jesus and Stephen were not in danger of the fire of hell because they were exclusively exercising righteous judgment. Make absolutely certain it is God rather than you who is offended. James 1: 20 notes, “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”

Matthew 18:6 states “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” If a rebuke curbs a person’s power to cause one of these little ones to stumble, even if the person hates your interference, you are helping remove a millstone from his neck. Christians need to accept the responsibility to administer appropriate rebukes regardless of the cost.


Why Gays are Winning

In 1969 police raided the Stonewall Inn, a known gathering place for homosexuals in Greenwich Village. Rather than submitting to police the gays rioted. This resistance marked the beginning of the gay rights movement that has turned our world upside down.

How was this originally tiny handful of gays able to garner so much influence in just a few short decades while myriad millions of Christians have not? The difference, they—unlike us—assumed personal responsibility for the world around them.

If Christians assume personal responsibility for the direction of our nation we will transform the culture. If we instead abdicate this responsibility we will be relegated to the dustbin of irrelevance.


Where is Our Culture Headed?

We can perhaps recognize the forces that brought our culture to where it is but we often have more difficulty perceiving where our cultural trajectory is taking us. Where are we headed?

1. While I have had low expectations for where we are going, even I have been stunned by recent developments. Although gay marriage has not been definitively established nationally, we are now talking about a “bathroom bill” that would allow those who “identify” as a member of the opposite sex use their bathrooms and locker rooms. We are talking about a bill that would make it an ethics violation to counsel a minor away from a same-sex attraction even if he requested such counseling. Something that has blown me over is the ban on “proselytizing” in the military. A recent cover of Time announced that America’s next civil rights frontier would be over the transgender issue.

Upon reflection, recent developments should not have been surprising. When one side scores a series of victories and the other defeats, the victorious side is encouraged and presses for more while the defeated side slinks away from the fight. Many Christians are becoming terrified at trying to resist our cultural forces and are fabricating “spiritual” reasons for not being involved. A string of defeats increases the size and frequency of subsequent defeats and unless we rise above them to turn things around things are going to get a lot worse very quickly.

2. The following national consensus is building about homosexuality:

  • Gays are born that way
  • It is impossible to leave homosexuality and it is very harmful to try
  • Allowing gay marriage alleviates any remaining moral objections to homosexual sex

As this solidifies into the orthodox view, those who don’t accept it will be called “haters.” Get used to this term. You will be called a “hater” to your face. Don’t waste your breath on your inane drivel about, “love the sinner and hate the sin” because people see the person and gay behavior as so entwined that you can’t hate one without the other. You are a hater. “And who are you to declare an activity as “sin” when our culture has declared it is not? The only way you can reach this hypocritical conclusion is by cherry-picking Bible verses and deliberately misinterpreting the clear message of the gospel—the worst kind of bigotry masquerading as religion. You are a hater.”

As a “hater” everything you say and do is discredited. It will be easier to get a prospect to attend a church that practices ritual animal sacrifices than a church that preaches “hate”. You will shortly find out how society deals with haters. As a sneak preview, read this article you filthy Juden.

The only way to stop being considered a hater is to abandon your “silly superstitious” beliefs about sex and sin and to stop associating with haters.

3. You will hear more phrases like, “Sure I believe in religious freedom but that doesn’t give you the right to violate the law.” Such statements will be made sincerely and emphatically and as if they were coherent.

But wait. What does freedom of religion mean? It means you have a constitutionally protected freedom. Any law or interpretation of a law that violates a constitutionally protected freedom is unconstitutional. So yes, freedom of religion specifically means that you have a constitutional right to violate any unconstitutional law or ruling.

Freedom of religion is intended to ensure that a person does not have to choose between obeying the government and obeying the laws of their god or gods. Hobby Lobby and others stand before the US Supreme Court arguing that it violates the company owners’ religious convictions to provide the “Plan B” abortifacient coverage for employees. The administration argues that company owners forfeited their religious freedom when they formed a company.

The most common defense at the Nuremberg trials was that an accused was, “just following orders.” This defense was rejected on the basis that the accused was accountable to a “higher law.” The current administration feels that government law trumps higher law and, it would seem, feels that the justifications given by the Nuremberg defendants was adequate.

Freedom of religion is almost gone and will disappear completely. Get used to it. Expect to hear more about, “freedom of worship” which only allows a person to do what they want in the private confines of a church but does not allow them to work out their religious beliefs in everyday life. As this freedom evaporates expect all other freedoms to fade as well.

4. Freedom of religion will be replaced by a far more important value: Freedom of sex. This freedom ensures that a person can enter into any kind of sexual activity with any one or any thing without sanctions or even disapproval. Celebrate our tolerance and open-mindedness!

Because of the great damage done by indoctrinating gays into the straight lifestyle it will be necessary for public schools to help prepubescent children explore their “sexual identity,” possibly with the help of “sexual guides.” Perhaps by this method the last sexual taboo, pedophilia, will fall. As a parent you do not have the right to restrict your child’s sexual options. And why should you have the right to speak against your minor child receiving a “medically necessary” sex-change operation?

5. What should your reaction be to this dystopian prediction of the future? Absolute outrage—we must join with others, stand, and fight! If you stand, you don’t know who will stand with you. You do not know the outcome of any battle before it is joined. Many battles have been determined by something as mundane as the weather.

When you go to war you do not allocate resources based on how much you feel like contributing. Rather you allocate resources based on what is needed to win particularly in light of the consequences of defeat.

If we lose we will not have to directly “deny Christ” but something far worse. We will have to deny that there is such a thing as sin as well as a savior that needs to be and is “the spotless Son of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

6. But then the sun is still shining and the birds are still singing. These things have not yet come to pass and such a change in direction would require a large adjustment and a large amount of resources. Surely God would not allow such things to come upon us. Perhaps if we do a happy dance we can put these thoughts behind us. Maybe whatever Christians are left twenty years from now will be charitable and will not curse us for wasting the remaining time and opportunities we had to turn things around.