Remember what the world has taught

Remember the days when homosexual activists told the soothing lie that all they sought was tolerance—the freedom to be left alone to engage in homoerotic acts in private?

Remember when they mocked conservatives into humiliated silence for their warnings about the unctuous slope from tolerance to approval to same-sex mock-marriage?

Remember when they said that legally recognizing same-sex unions as marriages would not lead to anything other than an America with uber-strong marriages?

Remember when they said homoerotic attraction and activity per se are analogous to skin-color?

Remember when they said that sexual complementarity is extrinsic to marriage, but the number of partners is intrinsic and, therefore, will remain in the legal definition of marriage?

Remember the indignation they would express when conservatives compared the moral status of homoerotic activity to that of consensual adult incestuous activity?

Remember these deceits as you see what’s next on our darkening horizon: throuples and twincest.

Three young women, Doll, Kitten, and Brynn, had a commitment ceremony last August in Massachusetts to solemnize the addition of Doll to the union of the legally “married” Brynn and Kitten. The “brides,” apparently enamored of tradition, wore white dresses and veils and were escorted down the aisle by their foolish fathers. This is 34-year-old Brynn’s third faux-marriage to women, which points to the instability of same-sex relationships. Even more tragic, the youngest member of the “throuple” is reportedly pregnant via a sperm donor.

In the January issue of Italian Vogue, twin brothers Juan and Cesar Hortoneda appeared in a series of homoerotic nude photos shot by infamous 67-year-old bi-sexual Abercrombie and Fitch photographer, Bruce Weber.  

The Hortoneda twins, however, are not the first twins to appear in homoerotica. Weber also photographed identical twin brothers Kyle and Lane Carlson in a series of nude photos. And then there are Elijah and Milo Peters, Czech twins who appear in homoerotic porn together and who in 2010 announced they were in a romantic relationship. Twincest is a tragically appropriate image to represent a culture that worships the autonomous self.

If you’re feeling shocked, just know that your shock is nothing more than a culturally constructed provincial prejudice. Elijah and Milo love each other. Isn’t that all that matters? Surely siblings in love should be able to “marry.” While we’re in the business of jettisoning archaic marital detritus, shouldn’t we jettison the criterion regarding blood kinship? Shouldn’t we further “expand” the elasticized definition of marriage? Should sibling couples (or “throuples”) be denied their equal “rights”? Shouldn’t courageous sibling couples have access to all the benefits historically accorded to sexually complementary unrelated couples?

Now remember some of the reasons we’re in this cultural miasma.

We’re here because we ignored the logical consequences of ideas

We accepted the moral legitimacy of separating sex from marriage.

We accepted the moral legitimacy of separating sex from procreation.

We accepted the moral legitimacy of separating procreation from marriage.

We appear to have accepted the notion that the only factors that determine the moral status of sexual activity are the presence of consent and absence of harm (but who knows what constitutes “harm”). Accepting this proposition leaves us with no justification for condemning polyamory or consensual adult incest or paraphilic activities.

We ignored the consequences of the elevation of radical, subjective autonomy that privileges “feelings” and rejects (or relegates to oblivion) any objective, transcendent source of truth.  

In a recent Huffington Post article, Lisa Haisha asks whether society should reconsider its taboo regarding marital non-monogamy in light of our increasing longevity. The author asks if it’s realistic to expect monogamy when marriages last sixty years or more. (By the way, this is precisely what some homosexual leaders have long promoted. For example, both Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage have argued that heterosexuals should consider emulating homosexual relationships in which monogamy is not expected.)

Haisha’s references to “morality” and “integrity” are illuminating. Ironically, “judgmental” pagans (aka “progressives”) often harshly judge Christians for judging homoerotic activity to be morally illicit. Their moral outrage and calls for living with “integrity” raise a thorny question for pagans: What is the arbiter of morality for them? Pagans who reject biblical authority as the ultimate source of moral truth have offered nothing to replace it. If there is no transcendent, objective, eternal source of morality, then there’s nothing left but the self to determine morality.

There is nothing to appeal to when justifying moral outrage other than personal self-constructed beliefs, beliefs often derived from nothing more substantive than feelings. Hence the phrase that Peter Kreeft calls both oxymoronic and moronic: “Your truth.” Moral outrage and subjective notions about “integrity” are untethered from any objective moral anchor. In a moral universe where God is dead and radical subjective autonomy reigns, there is no objective thing we can point to as constituting “integrity.” In the pagan economy, integrity simply means doing what pleases oneself or living in accord with principles that one “feels” are good, but, of course, which others may legitimately “feel” are bad.

These ideas are not wrong because they have dire cultural consequences. They have dire cultural consequences because they’re wrong.

We’re here because we ignored seemingly small incidents on the fringes of society

Pagans understand this better than Christians, so they ridicule Christians who criticize the fringy, freakish things happening in the outer wastelands of society. Pagans ridicule Christians to silence them. America’s reigning king of mockery, Stephen Colbert, recently directed his rapier wit, dripping with condescension, not primarily at plural unions, but at those who condemn plural unions.

In the face of ironic and withering ridicule from the cool kids, Christians say nothing. Then the fringy freakish things begin traveling from the hinterlands to Hollywood and our Ivory Towers. Our storytellers create compelling stories replete with images that titillate, mesmerize, shame, beguile, desensitize, and pull on heartstrings. And our academicians create sophistical defenses of the fringy and freakish.

We’re here because we’re ashamed of the gospel

Like Peter, we deny Christ but not merely three times. In a culture that burns with hatred for holiness and exults in its worship of—not God–but his creation, we deny Christ whenever we fail to speak truth and whenever we speak capitulatory words that conceal our status as his servants.

Remember too what the world rarely teaches

Remember, fellow pilgrims, that “niceness” devoid of truth is a brutal counterfeit of love. We cannot demonstrate true love unless and until we have a secure footing in truth. Servants of Christ must love better, and right now in this cultural moment, loving “refugees from the world” better will be costly. Our truthful words, even when spoken with civility and grace, will often be met with rage. Remember though, these temporal costs are insignificant when compared with the salvation of eternal souls. The mistake many Christians make is to believe that a hostile response means their plain truth-speaking is wrong.

Remember that “For now we see through a glass, darkly.”  We have no idea how God will use the truth we speak. We have no idea how or when he will water the seeds we plant. Our task is to be faithful in teaching the whole counsel of God, forgoing nothing, not even the parts the world hates.

Remember that God commands us to “judge with right judgment.”

Remember that Jesus came not to bring cheap peace devoid of truth but a sword that will divide even families.

Remember that “The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.” We are commanded to hate “Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech.”

Remember to “answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.”

Remember that Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes, but he did not merely eat. He called each refugee from the world to repentance. We should go and do likewise.

Remember: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” What does every human most desire? They desire an eternity of beauty, peace, and perfection.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute.   Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible. If you would rather send a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188.

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.

*** UPDATE: The hearing has concluded in Regina, Saskatchewan, and Peter LaBarbera will be permitted to remain in Canada to speak at a pro-life/pro-family values conference. Praise God, and thank you to everyone who prayed about Pete’s situation and who contacted Canadian authorities. ***

As of the writing of this plea, my good friend Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, awaits his appeal of the Canadian Border Services’ decision to prevent his entry into Canada for his alleged “hate crimes” against homosexuals.

Late last night Peter was briefly detained by the Canadian thought police who searched his luggage, computer, and phone and then released him until his appeal today at noon (Canadian time). I am pleading with Christians to contact and politely but firmly express their outrage at the detention of Peter at the Regina International Airport, Saskatchewan Airport last night and their effort to bar him from Canada.

Peter was invited to Canada by the Saskatchewan Pro-life Association to speak on the unholy alliance between the political movement to defend the “right” to destroy human life in utero and the movement to normalize sodomy and sodomitic relationships.

When Canadian homosexual despots heard that Peter was invited to their country, their panties got so wadded up around their heads they couldn’t think straight. That’s when they began their campaign to prevent Peter from entering the country. Yes, you heard that right. Anyone who holds and espouses unvarnished, uneuphemized biblical truth about homosexuality—not hate speech, but biblical truth—the Canadian government wants to stop at the border. Just try to say what St. Paul says in Romans, and it’s in the brig you go.

Nine years ago, I had never heard Peter’s name. Nine years ago, I had never heard of the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, or GLAAD. I had never heard of the dishonest homosexual activists and bloggers Wayne Besen, Jeremy Hooper, Joe Jervis, Timothy Kincaid, or Michael Signorile. I was a suburban mom raising four children and knew precisely nothing about the movement to normalize sodomy and oppress, repress, and suppress orthodox Christians by any unethical means available.

I knew virtually nothing about this noxious cultural effort until I started working at Deerfield High School. It was that experience, witnessing up close the nature and extent of censorship, intolerance, arrogance, and, indeed, hatred from the Left that transformed me into an accidental activist.

Then I met Pete and learned that what I had experienced at Deerfield High School was small potatoes compared to what Pete experiences from the most virulent and tyrannical political group operating in America today.

With regularity Pete, a married Christian father of five, is called “Porno Pete” and accused of being a closeted homosexual by silly men-boys whose life goal is to compel the world to believe that sodomy—an act which the creator of the universe abhors—is a legitimate activity upon which to center one’s identity and change the definition of marriage.

The reason for the epithet “Porno Pete” from the potty-mouths of the “no-name-calling” crowd is that Pete goes where most decent people fear to tread: the events of the sodomy-celebrating, anti-cultural movement. There he collects evidence to prove that this movement is wicked (yes, I’m deliberately using biblical language which sounds archaic to our cool, hipster, post-modern, post-Christian, non-rational anti-culture).

This is how those whose minds have been darkened by worshiping the bodies of those of the same sex work. They create, disseminate, and revel in pornography, promiscuity, and public displays of perversion, and then mock and revile Pete for collecting their filth as evidence of their perversity. They hurl this  epithet at Pete—not because they themselves find anything offensive about sodomitic porn—but in the hope of humiliating Pete into silence, marginalizing him from the Christian community, and hurting his family.

Pete is a hero to me. He is truly one of the most courageous men I personally know, enduring the vitriol, lies, threats, and bracing ugliness of the pro-homoerotic movement in order to awaken Christians to its threat to children, to families, and to First Amendment speech and religious rights.

Pete is a joyful, funny, compassionate, humble, whip-smart, serious Christian who desires that all come to know Jesus Christ—including those who vilify him. He deserves much more recognition, support, and appreciation from Christians than he receives. The machinations and lies of the Left have been effective in some Christian circles in marginalizing Pete. Those Christians should be ashamed.

I feel honored to have Pete as my friend.

As an aside, I wonder if Dan Savage, the homosexual man-boy who speaks so fecklessly about “integrity” and bullying while regularly spewing obscene hateful venom at orthodox Christians, would be allowed into Canada.

Please contact Chris Alexander, Minister of Education to express your outrage at Canada’s oppressive violation of speech and religious liberty through the banning of Peter LaBarbera: chris.alexander@parl.gc.ca. 

It shouldn’t have taken the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for the Left to admit that homosexual activists and their water-carrying ideological servants have no interest in dialogue, diversity, or tolerance. Jack-booted homosexualists demanded that Eich, co-founder of Mozilla and inventor of JavaScript, be fired for his $1,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign in California six years ago.

I guess it’s semi-official: American citizens who believe marriage is inherently sexually complementary cannot work in America—not even in their own companies. Remember this the next time someone condescendingly asserts that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” couldn’t possibly affect society at large in any negative way.

I wonder how many of those who drove Brendan Eich out of his job voted for Barack Obama when he publicly opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage”—you know, before his “evolution.”

For those with short memories, Prop 8 was the ballot initiative that was passed in California that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and then was overturned by a homosexual activist judge whose “reasoning” has been widely criticized.

Now the story Eich story is shifting a bit. Unpleasant homosexual activist and radio personality Michael Signorile asserts that it wasn’t merely that Eich donated to Prop 8 that led to his compulsory resignation. His additional crimes are that 22 years ago Eich supported Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign and then more recently Eich supported (horror of horrors) Ron Paul.

So now corporations large and small will have ideological litmus tests for upper management? “Affirm sodomy and cross-dressing or look for employment elsewhere–preferably on another planet. Oh, and we will need to see your voting record for your entire life as well.”

Some liberals are trying to argue that Eich’s compulsory resignation is merely a business decision resulting from liberal efforts no different from conservative boycotts of Home Depot or Starbucks for their homosexuality-affirming commitments. But there’s a huge difference between boycotting a business for their corporate policies and practices and boycotting a business because of the personal beliefs of an employee. Can liberals not see the difference?

Even homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan condemns the “hounding” of Eich:

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists….Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me—as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. 

The Left tries to ennoble their ignoble pursuit of ideological purity on matters related to volitional sexual acts by recasting it as the “new civil rights movement.” Of course, along the way, they never actually make a case for the soundness of the comparison of sexual feelings and acts to skin color. No matter, just keep shouting “equality” and screaming “bigot” at all dissenters, and they win the day. And why do they win? Lots of reasons, none of which involve the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice.

The reasons include the de facto control of the mainstream press, academia, and the arts (including the publishing industry). The other reasons are that many Americans are non-thinkers (read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death), and many conservatives are cowards.

We should be afraid of a holy God, not the names hurled by those lost in spiritual darkness. And we should be deeply concerned about the loss of freedom that Eich’s “resignation” portends for our children and grandchildren. The fact that so many conservatives continue to assert that all that matters is the economy and radical Islam is testament to conservative ignorance. 

Eich is the pale featherless canary gasping for breath in the coal mine. Unless conservatives stiffen up those Gumby spines and grow some thick man-skin (as I have been doing in my basement laboratory), they’ll find they won’t be able to make a living unless they genuflect to all things homosexual. One small consolation: bootlicking is easier for those without spines.

Come on, people, walk upright.

Speak the truth in love; Expose the fruitless deeds of darkness; Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds; Be anxious for nothing; Remember that the wisdom of this world is folly with God; And share boldly with others the good news that through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life can set them free from the law of sin and death.

World Vision, a well-known, well-regarded, and well-funded Christian charity has decided to abandon its policy that prohibits the hiring of those who engage in homosexual activity. World Vision U.S. will now hire homosexuals as long as they are in a legal (but false) “marriage.” While allowing employees who affirm homosexuality to work for World Vision, they will continue to prohibit the hiring of those who engage in fornication or adultery despite the fact that adultery is no more serious a sin than is homosexuality.

World Vision president, Richard Stearns, describes this stunning abandonment of biblical truth as “a very narrow policy change…symbolic of… [Christian] unity” and analogous to doctrinal differences over modes of baptism and beliefs on evolution.

The liberal shibboleth of “unity” rears its ugly head again. Unity, however, never trumps truth, and on the issue of homosexual relations, the Bible is unequivocal in its condemnation.

Are different views of homosexual “marriage” analogous to other doctrinal differences?

Both Theologian Russell Moore and Pastor Kevin DeYoung argue against the view that Steans appears to defend. Both argue that homosexual “marriage” is a concept which no church can biblically defend.

Moore illuminates  the gravity of the theological issue that Steans attempts to trivialize by comparing it to other denominational and doctrinal differences:

At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.

DeYoung elaborates on this point arguing that there exists no justification for viewing differences on homosexual “marriage” as analogous to denominational disagreements on a host of other issues. In other words, all theological differences are not created equal:

To be sure, like many evangelical parachurch organizations, World Vision allows for diversity in millennial views, sacramental views, soteriological views, and any numbers of doctrinal issues which distinguish denomination from denomination. Stearns would have us believe that homosexuality is just another one of these issues, no different from determining whether the water in baptism can be measured by liters or milliliters. But the analogy does not work. Unlike the differences concerning the mode of baptism, there is no long historical record of the church debating whether men can marry men. In fact, there is no record of the church debating anything of the sort until the last forty or fifty years. And more to the point, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that getting the mode of baptism wrong puts your eternal soul in jeopardy, when there are plenty of verses to suggest that living in unrepentant sexual sin will do just that (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Jude 5-7).

What is marriage?

In rationalizing this policy change, Steans digs an even deeper, darker, more tortuous theological hole:

Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues….It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage…. This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more. (emphasis added)

Nothing more? What else is left once you’ve gutted biblical truth about marriage?  Marriage is not a creation of man to “solemnize” consensual romantic/erotic unions. Marriage is picture of the union between Christ and his bride, the church. Marriage is not a union of two identical partners. It is the union of God and man and reflects the ontological difference between the marriage partners. One would expect World Vision’s leaders to understand better the relationship between earthly marriage–central to which is sexual complementarity–and the gospel story of creation and redemption.

When Steans says this policy allows World Vision to treat legally “married” homosexual couples the same as married heterosexual couples, he is acceding to the proposition that two men or two women can in reality be married.  But our secular government’s legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriages” does not marriages make.

Steans should know what John Piper makes clear in a sermon on marriage:

The point is not only that so-called same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist, but that it doesn’t and it can’t. Those who believe that God has spoken to us truthfully in the Bible should not concede that the committed, life-long partnership and sexual relations of two men or two women is marriage. It isn’t.

The Implications of World Vision’s Worldly Change

Kevin DeYoung warns what this “about face” by World Vision portends:

The about face in World Vision’s hiring policy deserves comment both because their reasons for the switch will become terribly common and because the reasons themselves are so terrifically thin. Serving in a mainline denomination, I’ve heard all the assurances and euphemisms before: “We still affirm traditional marriage. We aren’t taking sides. This is only a narrow change. We are trying to find common ground. This is about unity. It’s all about staying on mission.” But of course, there is nothing neutral about the policy at all. The new policy makes no sense if World Vision thinks homosexual behavior is a sin, which is, after all, how it views fornication and adultery. There are no allowances for their employees to solemnize other transgressions of the law of God.

DeYoung asks if the following assertions are true:

Jesus Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead (Acts 17:31; Rev. 19:11-21). Those who repent of their sins and believe in Christ (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 17:30) and those who overcome (Rev. 21:7) will live forever in eternal bliss with God in his holy heaven (Rev. 21:1-27) through the atoning work of Christ on the cross (Mark 10:45; Rom. 5:1-21; Cor. 5:21). Those who are not born again (John 3:5), do not believe in Christ (John 3:18), and continue to make practice of sinning (1 John 3:4-10) will face eternal punishment and the just wrath of God in hell (John 3:36; 5:29). Among those who will face the second death in the lake that burns with fire are the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, the murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars (Rev. 21:8), and among the sins included in the category of sexual immorality is unrepentant sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Jude 5-7).

He then asserts that “If the Bible does not teach these things, or if we no longer have the courage to believe them, let us say so openly and make the case why the whole history of the Christian church has been so wrong for so long. But if the Bible does teach the paragraph above, how can we be casual about such a serious matter or think that Jesus would be so indifferent to the celebration of the same?”

Steans claims that World Vision leaders are “not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us….This is not us compromising.” The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

What to do about current sponsorship

World Vision will lose donors, as it should. For many who are currently sponsoring a needy child, this decision is difficult. The ultimate cause for the suffering of children who lose sponsors rests not, however, with donors who cannot in good conscience support the efforts of an organization that abandons foundational biblical principles, the adherence to which was what led them to support the organization in the first place. The ultimate cause is the foolish decision of World Vision’s leaders.

For those sponsors who decide to cease donating immediately, there are other options, one of which is Compassion International. Compassion International works with impoverished children all around the world and currently, has over 4,500 children in need of support.

Other World Vision sponsors, however, may believe they should complete their sponsorship of a particular child, which ends when the child reaches age 21 or earlier for a variety of reasons. In such cases, IFI recommends informing World Vision that after sponsorship of their current child ends, they will no longer be supporting World Vision.

 Become a monthly supporter of IFI.

Click HERE for more information. 

One of the stars of the popular A & E show Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, has been indefinitely suspended from the program. His crime was making some politically incorrect statements about homosexuality in a condescension-dripping interview with GQ magazine that rendered the homosexual community apoplectic. Hell hath no fury like homosexual activists who encounter dissent.

Here are some of the offending comments, which he offered in response to GQ’s question, “What, in your mind, is sinful?”:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” [The writer explained that that Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians]: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

…

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later.” 

Robertson may have answered in his own imitable voice, but much of what he said reflects the mind and will of God as revealed in the word of God.

And here’s how the contemporary founts of biblical exegesis, wisdom, truth, non-judgmentalism, non-condemnation, and tolerance, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), responded:

GLAAD: some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication,…his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation….Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe….He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. 

HRC: Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations….We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule—treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young America—not shame and ridicule them because of who they are.

A red-faced, stomping Rumplestiltskin’s got nothing on homosexual activists who unexpectedly hear truth when they expect obsequious silence.

Just a couple of brief responses to GLAAD’s and HRC’s statements:

1. What specifically were Robertson’s lies?
2. “True Christians” believe what Scripture—both Old and New Testaments—as well as most theologians in the history of the church teach.
3. Experiencing same-sex attraction is, like virtually all other sin inclinations, not chosen. How one responds to such inclinations, however, is a choice.
4. If homosexual acts are not moral, adults are not setting “a positive example” by affirming homosexuality as good.
5. We ought not “shame or ridicule” particular individuals, but all satire and joking involves making light of some aspect of the human condition, including our sins. Did the narrow-minded dogmatists at GLAAD and the HRC scold the television program Will and Grace, which made its bread and butter out of ridiculing and stereotyping homosexuals? Do they take umbrage at the satirical paper The Onion or at Saturday Night Live? What about the writing of Aristophanes, Juvenal, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, H. L. Mencken, Dorothy Parker, Jack Paar, David Steinberg, Tom and Dick Smothers, P.J. O’Rourke, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Sedaris, Sarah Silverman, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park creators) who ridicule people mercilessly?

There are increasing numbers of Christians who believe our sole task as Christians is to love homosexuals—and by “love,” they mean, just be nice—and that we should never say anything to anger or offend them. These Christians fail to understand that this would certainly require that Christians refrain from ever saying publicly that homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes. But it’s not just Old Testament language that is too indelicate for the delicate sensibilities of “progressives” that must be silenced.

It’s any idea about homosexuality with which “progressives” disagree that must be silenced. We can’t say that same-sex attraction is disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or that God did not create men and women to experience same-sex attraction, or that Jesus affirms marriage only as a union of one man and one woman, or that Paul teaches that homosexuals (among others) will not see the kingdom of Heaven. And we certainly can’t point out the indelicate truth that the primary sex act of homosexual men is a pathogenic nightmare that results in countless sexually transmitted infections (including shigellosis) and untold suffering.  

The Left is caterwauling about Phil Robertson’s “judging” and “condemning,” all the while, of course, judging and condemning Phil Robertson. Either out of their own ignorance or Macchiavellian political expedience, the Left fails to make the distinction—publicly, at least—between judging the eternal destination of individuals and “judging” which behaviors are right and which are wrong. Everyone judges in that sense. Everyone does it every day. Every time the Left becomes indignant about the beliefs or political actions of conservatives, they have judged. A society that refuses to make judgments about what constitutes moral conduct could not make laws and would not long exist. A society that refuses to “condemn” wrong actions as wrong will collapse in moral anarchy.

What “progressives” condemn is any condemnation directed at any behavior of which they approve. And this is what leads to the hypocrisy virtually everyone can see in their laughable claims to value “diversity,” “tolerance,” free speech, and the First Amendment (which protects the free exercise of religion and says nothing about the free exercise of homo sex).

Ah, but “progressives” cleverly contrive an out for themselves by saying there is no moral imperative to tolerate intolerance or any statements that “harm” others. But notice two things: First, that this statement itself reflects a moral “judgment.” And second, it presumes agreement with the Left’s definition of harm.

I thought the destruction of marriage would be the cultural event that awakened the slumbering Christian masses. Perhaps it will instead be a hoary, hairy, much beloved Louisianan duck call-maker who loves Jesus Christ and fears God more than man.

The halcyon days for Christians in America are over, my friends. Religious liberty is fast-diminishing—well, for orthodox Christians it is, not for fundamentalist Mormons who want multiple wives.

Prepare for persecution, and consider it joy to encounter trials for Christ who suffered the ultimate trial—the one that heaped scorn on him, cost him his life, and saved ours. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to the executives at A&E Network, to let them know what you think of their intolerance, religious bigotry, and viewpoint discrimination.

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today! 

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about theway Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and wherehe made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

In 2 Corinthians 5:17, the Apostle Paul teaches us that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” 

Such are those who have been changed by the power of God to put away one’s sinful desires. One example is the life of Raleigh Mayberry Jr., a young man from Chicago who grew up in a fatherless home.   Involved with homosexuality from a young age, he was able to change through the power of Jesus Christ.  He now identifies as an ex-homosexual and is boldly proclaiming that homosexuality is not genetic and that it is possible to come out of the lifestyle. 

Please view this short video of Raleigh’s testimony by clicking HERE and share it with your friends and family. 

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

If you would rather write a check, please make it payable to Illinois Family Action or Illinois Family Institute, and mail it to us at: P.O. Box 88848 Carol Stream, Illinois  60188. 

We also accept credit card donations by phone at (708) 781-9328.

In a stunning public admission during a debate on the future of marriage in Illinois, the chief sponsor of SB 10, the proposed bill to legalize same-sex “marriage,” homosexual State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) acknowledged that the bill does not provide religious liberty or conscience protections for individual Christian business owners. Further, it was clear that both he and homosexual Chicago Alderman Deb Mell (a former state representative and co-sponsor of of SB 10) oppose any such protections.

In the unfortunately titled “Marriage Equality” debate, sponsored by the Chicago Tribune, moderator Bruce Dold asked Harris about the absence of conscience protections in the bill:

Dold: The bill specifically protects churches, but it does not have any language about individual conscience…. Would the bill not have a better chance if it had an individual conscience protection in it?

Harris: [D]ecades ago when the Human Rights Act was passed, it said, we the people of Illinois have decided not to allow discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, veteran’s status in housing, employment, or public accommodations. The question of should we treat all of our citizens equally in all of those three areas has been answered. But also there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Human Rights Act. There’s also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and specific language in this bill…that explicitly protects freedom of religion for those churches and denominations which do not want to consecrate same-sex marriages.”

Harris publicly admitted that this bill protects the religious liberty of only religious institutions, churches, and denominations—not individuals. It was clear that Harris has no desire or intent to include such protections.

That said, the inclusion of such protections would not make this a good bill. It would simply make it a less terrible bill.

Harris tried to claim that SB 10 poses no threat to religious liberty, but was challenged by both Robert Gilligan, Executive Director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, and Peter Breen, Vice President and Senior Counsel with the Thomas More Society, who talked about the Illinois bed and breakfast owner who is being sued for his refusal to rent out his facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony  (read more HERE).

Mell, who earlier had claimed that warnings about future religious persecution were dishonest “scare tactics,” responded “But [the bed and breakfast] is a business that does business in the state of Illinois, and in Illinois, we don’t allow discrimination.” While claiming that warnings about loss of religious liberty were deceptive and false “scare tactics,” she vigorously defended this religious discrimination. She apparently didn’t notice her own contradiction.

Neither she nor Harris seemed to notice that while they obsess about Illinois’ prohibition of discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” they pay no attention to its prohibition of religious discrimination. They don’t care if the bed and breakfast owner is discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.

Former Georgetown University law professor and current EEOC Commissioner, lesbian activist Chai Feldblum has written that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She argues that it’s a zero-sum game in which a gain in sexual rights for homosexuals will mean a loss of religious rights for conservative people of faith, which she finds justifiable. She, Mell, and Harris share the view that the sexual “rights” of homosexuals trump religious rights.

Harris cited the Illinois Human Rights Act as his justification for not protecting the rights of people of faith to refuse to use their labor and goods in the service of an event that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Well, the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on religion; hence the conflict of which Chai Feldblum spoke. Harris finds discriminating based on religion tolerable and justifiable but not discrimination based on sexual predilection.

By the way, choosing not to participate in a same-sex “wedding” does not reflect discrimination against persons. It reflects discriminating among types of events. The elderly florist who is being sued by the state of Washington for her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” did not discriminate against a person. She made a judgment about an event. She had previously sold flowers to one of the homosexual partners. She served all people regardless of their sexual predilections, beliefs, sexual activities, or relationships. She just wouldn’t participate in an event that she (rightly) believes the God she serves abhors. She takes seriously Jesus’ command to “Render unto Caeser what is Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Prior to the debate, I had a conversation with one of the event planners in which I predicted Harris would refuse to answer the critical question regarding why marriage should remain a union of just two people. Dold twice asked, if marriage is a right, why should it be limited to two people? Twice Harris obstinately refused to answer.

It was an embarrassingly obvious and intellectually dishonest dodge. Harris tried to use the language of the current bill to deflect the question saying in essence that the bill’s language says nothing about plural unions. This is the same embarrassing dodge ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka used in a program on which both he and I were guests. Three times I asked him why marriage should be limited to two people, as he claimed it should be. Three times he awkwardly refused to answer.

It doesn’t take much intellectual wattage to understand that once the ideas that marriage is just about love and has nothing to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential are embedded in law, there remains no reason to restrict marriage to two people. The legalization of plural unions becomes not merely possible but inevitable.

Harris also said, “All families should be created equal,” to which I would have asked, “Even polyamorous families?”

And he said marriage law should “expand to reflect the reality of society,” to which I would have said, “But there exist polyamorous families in society.”

A few additional thoughts on the debate:

1. “Progressive” language police: At one point Mell attempted to compel Breen to use the term she wanted him to use for her partner (whom she “married” in Iowa). She attempted to compel him to use the term “wife.” She correctly insisted that “terminology is important.” But the law is not the ultimate arbiter of truth and reality. Compelling Breen to use the term “wife” would rob him of the right to use the term he wanted to use and believes reflects truth and reality. Conservatives have the ethical right and obligation to use the language they believe reflects truth and reality. Conceding terminology to the Left, as conservatives too often do, is not smart, not truthful, not helpful, and not compassionate.
   
   In reality, a wife is the spouse of a man (and each partner must actually be the sex they claim to be). No one is ethically obligated to participate rhetorically in any fiction the government has foolishly decided to join.

2. Media bias and the “equality” chimera: The importance of terminology is the reason I described the title of the debate, “Marriage Equality” as unfortunate. “Marriage Equality” embodies and reflects assent to “progressive” assumptions. Conservatives recognize that the notion of “equality” in this context is strategically effective non-sense.  Treating different things differently does not reflect unjust, unequal treatment. Equality demands we treat like things alike. When homosexual men and women say they are attracted only to persons of their same sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different. As such, a union composed of two people of the same sex is fundamentally and significantly different from a union of two people of opposite sexes. Society has no reason to treat them as if they are the same.
   
   
3. The connection between marriage and children: Both Mell and Harris talked about children deserving, in Mell’s words, “the label” of marriage. Inconsistencies abound. While homosexuals claim that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential, they use arguments about children as justifications for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This points to the fact that homosexuals are pursuing the acquisition of children, which necessarily means that in their view, children have no inherent, unalienable right to be raised by their biological parents. Homosexual couples are creating children who will be wholly unconnected to either their biological mother or father or both. In addition, they are creating intentionally motherless or fatherless children, which means homosexuals believe children have neither a right to be raised by both their mother and father, nor a right to be raised by a mother and father.
   
   The issue of children naturally and inevitably arises because marriage is centrally about the next generation. If marriage weren’t centrally about the procreation of children, if children weren’t procreated via sexual unions, there would be no such thing as marriage. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing inherentlysterile homosexual relationships as marriages than it does in recognizing platonic friendships as marriages. The government simply has no vested public interest in recognizing or affirming loving, inherently non-reproductive relationships. If it does, Harris and Mell need to explain what it is. And remember, they cannot include children in their answer, because the Left says marriage has no inherent connection to children (and by extension, their rights).
   
   If the government is compelled to recognize as marriage any loving relationship that involves the raising of children, then, for example, a grandmother and aunt who are raising the children of their deceased daughter/sister, should be permitted to marry.

4. Appeals to emotion and redefining marriage: Mell’s “arguments” amounted to little more than appeals to emotion: She really loves her partner. She and her partner have been together for nine years. Her partner has stuck with her through difficult times. Therefore, the government should legally recognize their relationship as a marriage.
   
   Say what? If marriage has an inherent nature, it doesn’t change simply because she and her partner wish it were different. Harris and Mell have concluded that because they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential.
   
   What’s interesting is that they don’t deny marriage has a nature that is inherent and immutable. They believe marriage is inherently and immutably constituted solely by the presence of love between two people. But then they can’t provide a single reason for their stubborn insistence that marriage is an inherently binary institution. Harris and Mell need to provide reasons for jettisoning sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage while retaining the less essential requirement regarding number of partners in a marriage. Simply asserting that marriage is a union of two people is not an argument.

5. Catholic Charities and religious discrimination: During the debate, a brief discussion arose about Catholic Charities being forced to drop out of the adoption business following the passage of Illinois’ civil union law—a change that Harris views as serving the “best interests” of children. Neither Harris nor Mell expressed concern about the clear presence of religious discrimination—something which deeply concerned Princeton University law professor Robert George. In a 2011 CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, George asked the following question and in so doing, told congressmen and women what they should do:
   
   

   In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

   Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

There is no more critical legislation pending than SB 10. Despite what some lawmakers and pundits fecklessly claim, this issue is more important than even pension reform. The rights of children, parents, and people of faith are at risk.

Demonstrate that you care more about preserving marriage than the Left does in destroying it. Demonstrate your willingness to endure hardship and even persecution in the service of truth.

Please call your lawmaker, and please try to attend the Defend Marriage Rally in Springfield on Oct. 23. The Left will be marching on Oct. 22. 

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Robert Lopez is married, a father, and an English professor who was raised by two lesbians.  His is a critically important new voice in the battle raging around issues related to homosexuality, including the redefinition of marriage and the needs and rights of children.

In his most recent article, he offers several critical insights on children being raised by homosexuals. He states the unvarnished truth that raising children in deliberately motherless or fatherless homosexual families constitutes a form of child abuse. Exacerbating that abuse is the societal climate in which influential social structures have conspired to render it socially and emotionally impossible for children to express truthfully how they feel about their homosexual family structures unless what they have to say is unequivocally positive:

Even the most heroic mother in the world can’t father. So to intentionally deprive any child of her mother or father, except in cases like divorce for grave reasons or the death of a parent, is itself a form of abuse… Every child has a mother and father, and when that figure is missing, there is a narrative that is experienced as pain, loss, and at times shame…Whereas single parenting and divorce have always been understood as a breakdown of the married mom and dad ideal, same-sex parenting is now being elevated as normal.

…

“Normalization” demands a kind of silence from multiple parties in a child’s life. The child’s lost biological parent(s) must keep a distance or disappear to allow two gay adults to play the role of parent. Extended family must avoid asking intrusive questions and shouldn’t show any disapproval through facial expressions or gestures, schools and community associations have to downplay their celebrations of fatherhood or motherhood (even canceling Father’s Day and Mother’s Day in favor of “Parenting Day”). The media have to engage in a massive propaganda campaign, complete with Disney productions featuring lesbian mothers to stifle any objections or worries. Nobody must challenge the gay parents’ claim that all is being done for love.

Does the silence of so many surrounding parties reverse the sense of loss? No. The child still feels the loss, but learns to remain silent about it because her loss has become a taboo, a site of repression, rather than a site for healing and reconstruction. The abuse comes full circle.

…

In a recent heart-to-heart talk with Dawn Stefanowicz, a Canadian woman who was raised by her gay father, she and I lamented that many children of same-sex couples will never speak openly about how unfair it was to be denied a mother or father.

Dawn’s experience resembles mine: most kids of gay parents we know are struggling with sexual identity issues, recovering from emotional abuse, fighting drug addictions, or are so wounded by their childhood that they lack the stability to go public and face the onslaught from an increasingly totalitarian gay lobby, which refuses to admit that there’s anything wrong.

Lopez describes what all conservative activists already know: The homosexual community and its ideological allies have become a tyrannical, oppressive, poisonous cultural force that compels conformity and compounds the suffering of children intentionally denied mothers or fathers:

Pro-[same sex marriage] people say gays have been unfairly stereotyped as child abusers, so any discussion of gay child abusers is adding to their oppression. Anti-[same sex marriage] commentators generally don’t want the added fuss of showing up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of homophobes.

…

For many kids of same-sex couples…we only count when we make gay people look good.

Otherwise, we must shut up….Same-sex parenting has been efficient at traumatizing the inhabitants of its dark side, rendering them frightened and mute, so nobody will ever know about it.

The existence of a venomous LGBT lobby capable of all-out emotional warfare against anybody who doubts same-sex parenting is of course a great help to the cause.

Lopez urges right-minded thinkers to stop tying ourselves in knots about strategy:

After a year of being in this game, I have grown wary of strategy. I don’t have a silver bullet tactic for suddenly making low-information Americans aware that all the same-sex parenting propaganda—and more broadly our growing acceptance of non-traditional parenting—is really a cover for systematic abuse. My hunch, however, is that it might be time simply to drop all the masks, put away our strategies, and just state the uncensored truth.

If you think child abuse is wrong, then say so.

And still most Christians—and shockingly their leaders—say relatively little. Ever anxious that the non-believing world in its relentless misuse of Scripture will excoriate them for judging (rightly), speck-looking, or stone-casting, Christians opt instead to become complicit in child abuse.

I recently met with an Illinois congressman who surprised me with his humility and honesty. He admitted that the one issue that he is unable to discuss with facility is homosexuality, which actually encompasses multiple policy issues including same-sex “marriage,” homosexual adoption, comprehensive sex ed, “hate” crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA).

Many Christians want to know what they can do to try to stop the homosexuality-normalizing freight train.

First, we need the humility and honesty to acknowledge we don’t know how to discuss issues related to homosexuality with facility.

Second, we need to get educated. Our young Christians are becoming more affirming of homosexuality, not because the arc of the moral universe is bending toward justice, but because they are unwitting victims of cultural indoctrination, intimidation, and demagoguery. Go to your pastors and priests imploring them to teach the adults, high school students, and middle school students in your church about issues related to homosexuality. The church needs to step in and help its members understand and refute the utterly specious arguments used to normalize homosexuality, which if accepted will erode religious liberty, speech rights, parental rights, and children’s rights and will expand the role of government in the lives of families. If you cannot discuss with facility the following issues, you will by default become complicit in our cultural degradation:

1. What is marriage? Does it have any inherent features or do we create it out of whole cloth?
2. Why is the government involved in marriage?
3. Is the government involved in marriage to affirm love or to provide benefits to unions because of their love?
4. Why is marriage limited to two people?
5. Why shouldn’t platonic friends, two brothers, or five people of assorted genders be permitted to marry?
6. Do children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father?
7. How would the legalization of same-sex “marriage” affect society?
8. Is the legal prohibition of same-sex “marriage” analogous or equivalent to bans on interracial marriage?
9. Does the prohibition of same-sex “marriage” violate the separation of church and state?
10. Does the Constitution prohibit citizens from having their religious beliefs shape their political decisions?

Third, we need to be prepared to suffer for Christ and his kingdom.

Fourth and finally, we need to participate in the public dialogue on issues related to homosexuality even when it’s profoundly uncomfortable and may lead to personal or professional repercussions. We need to speak the truth without compromise, awkwardness, or self-consciousness.

Help Protect the Family Now!
Click HERE to support IFI via our secure online server. 

Most people don’t know that men who sexually desire only male children are not homosexual. How can that be, a rational person may ask. The reason is that the “mental health” community, or the segment of it that controls the ever-shifting and highly politicized ground of mental health, has declared that if an adult sexually desires only children they don’t have a “sexual orientation” at all. That is to say, one has a sexual orientation if and only if one enjoys sex with adults. If a man desires sex with only female children, he is not a heterosexual pedophile. He is just a pedophile. If a man desires sex with either female or male children, he is not a “bisexual” pedophile. He is just a pedophile. And if a man desires sex with only male children, he is not homosexual at all. He’s just a pedophile (or pederast depending on how young he likes his prey).

This is why you continue to hear that the priest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the more recently revealed sex abuse scandal in the Boy Scouts had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality even when the sexual acts were between males and younger males. According to the evil powers that be, these scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality because homosexuality is one of the three “sexual orientations” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) which one does not have unless one enjoys sex with adults.

While this is a useful stratagem for the Left, those with common sense see it for what it is: a way to distance homosexuality from pedophilia and pederasty (sex between adult males and adolescent boys, which is the most common form of homosexual practice throughout history). It’s a way to retain the belief that pedophilia and pederasty are disorders—both psychological and moral disorders—while jettisoning the notion that homosexuality is either a psychological or moral disorder (Just wait a few years, the normalization of pederasty is just around the ever darkening corner).

And it’s a way of attempting to conceal the fact that these sex scandals were disproportionately homosexual—I mean, they were disproportionately abuses perpetrated by men on boys, which clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This brings me to the Boy Scouts’ new plan for cultivating moral straightness and honor for God: allowing boys who publicly affirm homosexuality as central to their identity to join the Scouts. No, this new policy does not allow openly homosexual adult leaders—yet. But just wait another couple of years for that too.* The prohibition of openly homosexual scout leaders doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of remaining in place. What possible justification can there be for retaining a prohibition of homosexual leaders when the Scouts have necessarily declared homosexuality normative and good?

And that’s precisely what’s happened. This is not a neutral policy. Adopting a policy that permits boys who openly affirm a homosexual identity to become members means that the Boy Scouts Council had to have come to a prior conclusion that homosexual acts are inherently moral. They couldn’t rationally conclude that homosexual acts are immoral and then allow boys who publicly affirm a homosexual identity to become members.

Further, this non-neutral position contradicts the will of God. The Boy Scouts of America now violate their own oath to honor God and cultivate “moral straightness,” all in the service of currying favor with homosexual activists and corporate donors who follow the edicts of homosexual activists like loyal lapdogs.

For those of you who are absolutely certain that sexual encounters between boys will not increase once the Boy Scouts allow openly homosexual boys to share tents with boys to whom they may be sexually attracted, and for those of you who are absolutely certain that early homosexual experiences do not contribute to later same-sex attraction, remember this: The Boy Scouts are implicitly now (and soon likely explicitly) teaching your sons that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. And remember, this teaching is not an isolated cultural experience. It compounds and confirms what boys are hearing in the films and television shows they watch, in the “anti-bullying” and sex ed disinformation they receive at school, in the biased mainstream press reporting, and in the public statements of foolish politicians who never read or think deeply on subjects related to homosexuality.

Parents, speak with your words and your deeds. Remove your sons from the Boy Scouts. Send letters to your local chapter leaders and the Boy Scouts Board explaining the reasons for your decision. Actively support and participate in one of the various alternatives that currently exist (see below) or are in the planning stages. Former Scouts, stop contributing. Send your donations instead to one of the following organizations:

Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors 

Assembly of God’s Royal Rangers 

Calvinist Cadet Corps 

CSB Ministries

My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts. My grandsons will not be. These are small sacrifices to make in order to truly honor God.

*Here’s what infamous homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founding Executive Director of the ironically named Truth Wins Out (TWO), thinks about the new policy:

TWO Condemns Boy Scouts Decision As Cowardly, Incoherent, And Mean-Spirited

Today’s Boy Scout’s decision was insulting and pandered to ignorance and bigotry at the expense of gay people and their families. Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders was a compromise – only in the sense that BSA compromised its integrity and decency. Let’s be clear – this was not a step forward, but a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists.

 Today’s decision was degrading, dehumanizing, and disgraceful. It stigmatized LGBT people and their families and sends the dangerous message that they are inferior and a threat to society.

The new policy continues to tarnish the organization’s image and TWO urges increased pressure on the BSA.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue, but a natural expression of who some people are. However, bigotry is a moral issue – one which places the BSA on the wrong side of history.

TWO does applaud those who fought and victoriously ended the cruel ban on gay scouts. Now is the time to begin the next phase of this fight and bring down the final wall of BSA discrimination.

I agree with Besen on two points: The new policy is cowardly and incoherent.

The quickness with which the same-sex marriage proponents appear to have “turned the tide” legislatively in the U.S. forces one to examine their tactics as well as their goals.  An honest observer will note that they have done a good job of propagandizing young Americans, the majority of whom no longer have any significant moral compass by which to determine such things.  Multitudes of those who were born after the 60’s sexual revolution are not concerned with whether God has anything to say about morality!  Young Americans’ concept of “god” apparently is that he is a tender-hearted but dim-witted old soul who knows little of what is going on, and certainly has no inclination to rain on anyone’s parade.

Since Liberalism’s “revolution” liberated sex from the constraints of marriage, it is not much of a stretch to liberate sex from heterosexual restrictions as well.  A principal plank in liberalism’s “platform” is the removal of all restraints from sexual “expression.”  One cannot miss their core belief that sex is like breathing: it can and should be allowed anytime and anywhere by anyone while someone else picks up the tab.  While all constitutional rights have common sense limits, the Left has made it clear that the individual, “right” to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, literally has NO limits.  To them, there is no evil greater than to suggest that sexual pleasure ought to have restraints.

But, one cannot miss the irony that while America’s popular culture is fleeing the constraints of marriage in general, the homosexual movement is suddenly demanding it for themselves.  What’s with that?  The primary purpose for marriage has always been to restrain the “wild horses” of mankind’s sexuality.  It is intended to place severe limits on one’s sexual activity.  It is entering a solemn contract with God and one’s spouse before public witnesses promising to deny self for one’s lifetime for the sake of others, especially any future children.  In simple terms, it is about voluntary sacrifice. It is due to the restraints of marriage that the radical Left has sought to undermine and destroy it for over fifty years.  However, reading the arguments of the homosexual lobby in their demand for the right to marry, they claim only to want “fairness” for themselves! They declare their intentions are simply to get the same benefits that traditional families have received.  Methinks rather the destruction of marriage and family from the outside has been moving too slowly, so they are shifting tactics and moving the battle inside.

However, our government has offered benefits to married couples for the express purpose of compensating them for the sacrifices good parents make for their children who just happen to be the future of the state.  The burdens of parenting are at times so significant that many parents struggle under the load.  It is because of wise leadership in the past that our government saw the advantages of encouraging and strengthening the home.  The state gains no benefit in giving aid to people who merely wish to live together, and actually undermines its future by doing so!  To require the state to give the same benefits to non-traditional couples as it does to traditional families would be like requiring the government to give the same benefits to non veterans as it does to vets.  To do THAT would be inherently unfair!

The realities are clear: traditional families are the backbone of the nation, culture, stability and peace.  They contribute overwhelmingly to the well-being of the nation.  On the other hand, the costs to the state in terms of welfare, crime, troubled neighborhoods, etc. due to unfettered sexuality is staggering.  Why would we intentionally add to this crisis by further eroding the traditional family?

Whatever the intentions of the homosexual lobby are, it is clear that the well-being of future generations of children is not one of them.  That is no surprise as our culture and our political leadership of late in general show little interest in the long-term well-being of children.  If they did, they would not tolerate the pollution that television and popular music pour into their minds, and would take the necessary actions to better protect them on the streets.  They would make getting married hard, and getting divorced much harder.  If America loved children we would not chain them in failing schools to satisfy the unions, and we would certainly not abort nearly 1/3 of them before they were born!  If we really cared for children, we would disregard political correctness, reintroduce God to the schools and culture, and do everything in our power to reestablish the traditional heterosexual family as normative.  That is what is best for children, and that is what is best for America.

Whatever the intentions of the homosexual lobby are, this is clear: it is not about them sacrificing anything!  And, one need not be a genius to understand that when adults won’t sacrifice, the children do.

That is not merely unfair, it is immoral!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage!  Even if you have previously contacted your representative, please do so again. Tell your representative in no uncertain terms that you want him or her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage and family in Illinois. 

ESPN sports analyst and columnist Chris Broussard was asked for his “take” on the announcement by NBA player Jason Collins that he is homosexual. Broussard responded and has been pilloried for not having the culturally approved “take.”

Broussard, who is a Christian, shared his view that homosexual acts are sinful and that one cannot engage in homosexual acts—or any other biblically proscribed sexual acts—and still remain in a right relationship with God. Here is that short ESPN video: 

Two days later he appeared on a radio program and offered a remarkable defense of the Christian position on homosexuality. He answered the kinds of challenging questions only conservative Christians are asked by the mainstream press who lob softball questions at “progressive” Christians and secularists.

Please listen to the entirety of this outstanding radio interview and circulate it to friends by clicking HERE. One word of caution: due to an inappropriate question by one of the radio hosts, this may be unsuitable for younger listeners.

While Broussard is being attacked for answering honestly when asked for his opinion on the Collins story, FOX News Chicago anchors Bob Sirott and Robin Robinson catch no flak for offering their unsolicited views that conservative beliefs are tantamount to racism and ignorance.

So much for tolerance and diversity.

Chris Broussard is inarguably the courageous man in this larger cultural story.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

As most of the nation now knows, NBA player Jason Collins recently announced in a splashy Sports Illustrated article that he is homosexual, an announcement characterized by White House Spokesman Jay Carney as courageous.

After President Barack Obama had concluded a press conference and left the lectern, a reporter asked a question about Jason Collins. Obama uncharacteristically returned to the lectern to say that he “ couldn’t be prouder” of Jason Collins for announcing he is homosexual. What a dispiriting time and place this is that the president of this great but declining nation can’t think of any action that a professional athlete could do to make him “prouder” than having him announce he’s sexually attracted to men. And what a terrible message both men have sent to our nation’s children.

The First Lady of our declining nation then announced that she’s “got Collins’ back,” which raises the question, from what might she need to protect Collins? From the gushing mainstream press? From the rhapsodic Hollywood elite who suffer from an astonishing dearth of philosophical diversity (and depth) on homosexuality?

Oh, wait, it must be those intimidating pastors, priests, theologians, philosophers, and other conservative scholars writing erudite papers on the nature and morality of homosexuality and marriage that no one reads who pose a threat to Collins. Collins can breathe easier knowing that fit-as-a-fiddle Michelle Obama will defend him against those brainiac bullies with her uber-buff arms.

Like so many other words manipulated by the Left, “courage” has taken on a whole new meaning. In fact, it now means the opposite of what it used to mean. Courage is now demonstrated by publicly affirming the fallacious values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors that our Leftist-dominated culture celebrates. Courage is demonstrated by publicly affirming those values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors when doing so not only costs nothing but elicits encomia galore. 

In my state of utter unhipness, I think Barronelle Stutzman, the 70 year-old florist in Washington State, is heroic. Because of her faith in Christ, Ms. Stutzman steadfastly refuses to use her gifts, time, and labor to profit from a same-sex “wedding” and consequently is being sued by the State of Washington. I wonder what the Obamas, who claim to be followers of Christ, think of Ms. Stutzman. I wonder if President Obama is proud of her. I wonder if Mrs. Obama has got her back. I wonder if the mainstream press will ask the Obamas if they think Stutzman is courageous.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Rev. Wallis, you told us in 2008 that “the sacrament of marriage” should not be changed and that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.” Now, in 2013, you want to redefine marriage and make it gender-neutral. In doing so, you have betrayed the Word of God and the people of God.

To be candid, sir, I’m not surprised by your theological flip-flop—just pained and distressed by it, since your name is still associated with evangelical Christianity in America and you are a prominent church leader.

In the past, you raised some valid criticisms about the “religious right” and its deep solidarity with the Republican Party, but then you joined yourself to the religious left and the Democratic Party, even campaigning for Democratic candidates. So much for taking a kingdom-of-God position that transcends partisan politics and challenges the political establishment.

To be sure, you have rightly challenged us to consider the poor and the oppressed, pointing to the hundreds of Scriptures that call us to “social justice.” But then you have turned around and applauded Communist dictatorships that championed oppression and tyranny.

When it comes to Christian integrity, you disappointed us when you received funding from pro-abortion, pro-atheism billionaire George Soros and when you allowed the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest gay activist organization, to take out paid advertising in your Sojourners magazine, even though the HRC would love to silence all religious opposition to homosexual practice.

It is true that in 2008, you expressed having “mixed feelings” about the HRC ads, stating that you “probably wouldn’t do it again.” But today, the HRC celebrates your defection from biblical values, announcing in headline news, “Leading Evangelical Christian Voice Announces Support For Marriage Equality.”

Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.

You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?

I’m sure you have met devoted gay couples that love each other and love the kids they are raising. I’m sure you have also met devoted “gay Christians” who have told you about the rejection and pain they have experienced at the hands of the church. And I’m sure you are concerned about the institution of marriage.

But you don’t strengthen marriage by making it genderless, by replacing bride and groom with “Partner A and Partner B” (or, worse still, by adding formulas like, “I now pronounce you husband and husband or bride and bride”).

However sincere you might be, you are calling for changes that will ultimately result in removing the categories of mother and father from birth certificates, to be replaced instead with “Progenitor A and Progenitor B” (as is the case in Spain, where same-sex “marriage” is accepted under the law of the land).

Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?

You even state that you want to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” which by extension means the support of polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more, as the MarriageEquality blog states, “Advocating 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.” Have you really considered the implications of your words?

Worst of all, you have reversed your earlier position on what the Bible clearly says about marriage based largely on where “the country is going.”

What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?

You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.

Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.

Originally posted at:  http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39106-jim-wallis-you-have-betrayed-the-word-of-god-and-the-people-of-god 

Last week the Centers for Disease Control released some frightening new numbers revealing that America is reaping what we have sown with our licentious culture and our war on values.  One in three Americans now have a sexually transmitted disease.  (The ratio is much closer to one out of two if you include only sexually active age groups.) 
 
We now have 20 million new sexually transmitted infections a year. Half of all new infections occur among those aged 15 to 24.  Today, 110 million Americans have a venereal disease, which costs the nation about $16 billion a year.  (Social problems carry huge financial price tags.)   
 
For a historic perspective of what we have unleashed upon our society consider this:  since the dawn of time until 1960, there were but two major Sexually Transmitted Diseases – syphilis and gonorrhea.   Today there are nearly 50 different kinds of STD’s and many of them are incurable or resistant to antibiotics.
 
Abstinence, fidelity and reclaiming a national moral ethic has never looked better or been more necessary.  Sex outside of marriage is a lot like medical Russian Roulette, but with only a three round revolver.  Sadly, the response to these new numbers has been more of the same from the likes of Planned Parenthood whose only answer is to offer more contraceptives. 

As Dr. Phil would sarcastically say, “How’s that been working for ya?”