As a manipulative political stratagem, the Left propagates the notion that the normalization of homosexuality is a cultural inevitability. Belief in this inevitability dispirits conservatives and depletes whatever reservoir of motivation they may have to dissent, thus effectively surrendering the public square to sexual subversives.

It is not, however, inevitable that one day all of society will come to believe that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. God’s truth and wisdom spoken with unequivocal, unashamed forthrightness, courage, consistency, and persistence by flawed people who take seriously the duties of discipleship can make a difference.

Look no further than the decision of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to postpone the vote on its national policy on homosexuality. It’s fair to assume that vociferous public opposition to the proposal to abandon its national policy prohibiting homosexuals from membership in or leadership of the Boy Scouts was the catalyst for this postponement. We should use this victory to refill our depleting reservoirs.

President Barack Obama in yet another proclamation that defies the God he claims to serve and hurts children, pontificated on the controversial issue:

My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. The Scouts are a great institution that is promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred from that.

That’s a mouthful of obfuscation. What he fails to address is whether organizations and associations have the right to make distinctions between moral and immoral acts. Homosexuality, unlike for example race, is centrally defined by volitional sexual acts that are open to moral assessment. When President Obama refers to “gays and lesbians,” he’s not referring only to people who experience same-sex attraction. He’s referring to people who experience same-sex attraction; affirm homosexual acts as moral and normative; and affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as central to their identity. If, according to President Obama, those who affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as moral “should have access” to “every institution and walk of life,” how, pray tell, do those who believe such acts and relationships are immoral exercise their freedom of religion and association?

Does President Obama really mean that “nobody” should be barred from the Boy Scouts? What about those who affirm polyamory or adult consensual incest as central to their identity? What about those who espouse theories of racial superiority? And how does an organization promote moral straightness or fidelity to God if it can’t make distinctions between moral and immoral conduct? (Let’s not forget that God has some rather uncompromising things to say about homosexuality.)

The BSA Executive Board has said that if it changes the national policy, local organizations will still be permitted to adopt whatever policy they want regarding homosexuality. Well, homosexual acts are either moral or immoral. There is no middle ground. If the board votes to change the national policy, it will necessarily have to have concluded that homosexual acts are moral acts.  Only if  homosexual acts are moral acts could the board permit local clubs to allow those who affirm homosexuality to serve in leadership positions. It would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to permit those who affirm immoral acts to serve in leadership positions. Conversely, it would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to prohibit those who affirm moral acts from serving in leadership positions. There can be no moral mugwumpery on this issue.

Thanks to the relentless, presumptuous quest of homosexuals to shape the moral views of other people’s children, this Boy Scout kerfuffle is not over. Despite specious claims to the contrary, this battle is not about “equality” or “fairness.” It’s about the desperate desire of homosexuals to eradicate conservative moral beliefs and every last vestige of moral disapproval from the global moral landscape. The proper response to this obnoxious pressure from homosexual activists and corporations—neither of which group is noted for their commitment to God or sexual rectitude—would be for the BSA leadership to honor God and act bravely by publicly affirming that there are objective moral truths from which our sexual lives are not exempt.

When considering the potential for harm to children, set aside for a moment the issue of homosexuals who may prey on the boys under their charge. There is another harm that will be done to all boys whose leaders are homosexual. Those boys will be taught by example the deceit that homosexual acts and relationships are moral. It is unconscionable that an organization committed to God and moral integrity would countenance such destructive role modeling.

Christians must take a stand on this issue. My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts, so it pains me to say this, but if the National Executive Board decides to abandon its national policy on homosexuality, Christians should abandon the Boy Scouts.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the BSA urging its board members to retain its current policy on homosexuality. If the BSA hopes to retain the trust, loyalty, and affection of parents and supporters nationwide, it must unequivocally reaffirm its current God-honoring policy.

Sunday was a depressing news day. Here’s what purported “conservatives” George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd had to say about same-sex marriage: 

George Will: “This decision by the Supreme Court came 31 days after an Election Day in which three states for the first time endorsed same-sex marriage at the ballot box — never happened before — Maine, Maryland, and the state of Washington….they could say it’s now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people….marriage law is traditionally the prerogative of the states, but let’s put a human face on this. One of the two cases concerns a New York woman who married in Canada her female partner. They lived together 44 years. The partner dies. As because the partner wasn’t a man, the woman is hit with a $363,000 tax bill from the federal government. There are a thousand or more federal laws or programs that are at stake here. And the more the welfare state envelops us in regulations and benefits, the more the equal protection argument weighs in, and maybe decisively.” 

Matalin: “[The fact that increasing numbers of Americans are supporting same-sex marriage demonstrates that] Americans have common sense. There are important constitutional, biological, theological, ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage, but people who live in the real world say the greatest threat to civil order is heterosexuals who don’t get married and are making babies. That’s an epidemic in crisis proportions. That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married. So I find this an important dancing on the head of a pin argument.” 

Dowd: “To me, this — the consensus has already emerged on this issue. It’s just a question of who’s going to — is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack…or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it. I mean, if you take a look at this, there is still a division in this country over this issue, but there is no division in this country among people under 35 or 30 years old on this issue. There is no division. Now, I have a perfect example. My son went in the Army…..10 years before, they’d ask everybody to raise that hands, 300 guys raise their hand, who’s for gay — who’s for gays in the military? Eighty percent of the troops said we’re opposed to gays in the military. When he got in, five or six years later, 80 percent said they were for gays in the military. It had changed that much and that quick. To me, we still — you still have to know there’s a huge group of folks in this country that believe this issue is not ready to be settled nationally, and they’re over 35, they go to church regularly, they still view marriage as traditional and all that, but in the end, this issue, five years from now is even going to be more settled, 10 years from now is going to be more settled. 

To George Will: Why would our youth oppose the legalization of “same-sex marriage” when they’ve never been exposed to the substantive reasons to do so? 

To Mary Matalin: She has implicitly posited a false dichotomy between opposing out of wedlock births and opposing “same-sex marriage.” One can and should do both. Matalin reveals her own ignorance if she really believes discussions of the legalization of “same-sex marriage” constitute airy debates on inconsequential philosophical minutia. 

To Matthew Dowd: The fact that ten years ago 240 out of 3oo young soldiers opposed homosexuals serving in the military, while now only 60 out of 300 oppose homosexuals serving in the military may have something to do with the demagogic propaganda about homosexuality to which they’ve been exposed in their schools and entertainment industry virtually from birth. Dowd is right: the culture will devolve further into moral and intellectual ignorance if academia continues to expose students only to the work of Leftists; if churches refuse to find ways to help Christians recognize the fallacious arguments used to normalize homosexuality; and if Hollywood continues to manipulate the emotions of Americans, particularly our vulnerable youth.

In case no one has noticed, journalists never ask Democrats the hard questions regarding homosexuality—and I mean never.  Perhaps our news show hosts should ask their guests and panelists these questions: 

1. Many compare same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. In what specific ways is homosexuality like race?
    
2. If the institution of marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity and procreative potential, then why should it be limited to two people or to people who are not close blood relatives?
    
3. If marriage is—as the Left claims it is–solely the institutional recognition of deeply felt, intense loving feelings between people, why should the government prohibit two brothers who are in love from marrying? If people should be allowed to marry whomever they love—as the Left claims they should be–then why shouldn’t two brothers and their mutual boyfriend be permitted to marry?
    
4. Does marriage have an inherent nature that government merely recognizes, or does society create it out of whole cloth?
    
5. Are rights granted to couples or to individuals?
    
6. Are rights accorded to people based on their objective characteristics or on their subjective feelings and volitional acts? 

If any journalists have the integrity to ask these hard questions, they shouldn’t let our mollycoddled liberals off the hook when they respond with ignorant, evasive non-answers. 

It would also be refreshing if our talk shows would invite Princeton University Law Professor Robert George to discuss the issue of marriage with “conservatives” like George Will, Mary Matalin, and Matthew Dowd—or would that be considered “bullying”?

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.  Please consider standing with us.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI).  Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible!

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Andrew Marin, the controversial founder and president of the Marin Foundation, is speaking next week at Park Community Church in Chicago. This is surprising in that from its website Park Community appears to be a theologically orthodox church.

Marin promotes himself as a bridge-builder between the Christian community and the homosexual community and has written a book on the subject titled Love is an Orientation. It is not Marin’s desire to reach the unsaved that is troubling. We should all seek to bring the good news of Christ’s redemptive work to those who identify as homosexual. Rather, it is his approach and his theology that generate controversy and trouble many Christians.

One of the serious problems with Marin is that when asked directly about his biblical beliefs regarding homosexuality, he is troublingly evasive. In addition, his book has received a devastating critique from Dr. Robert A. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. 

If Park Community Church is a theologically orthodox church rather than a church that embraces “emergent” theology, they will likely be troubled by both Marin’s theology and obfuscation. Many Christians, including orthodox theologians, have serious concerns about Marin’s theology on a number of issues, most particularly homosexuality. Dr. Gagnon, arguably the preeminent biblical scholar on this topic, has written a two-part critique of Marin’s poor exegesis and his heretical theological positions, which every church that is considering working with Marin should read thoroughly:

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexmarinloveisorientation.pdf

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexmarinsreaction.pdf

Several years ago, it appeared that Marin was either trying to conceal his orthodox positions from his friends who identify as homosexual or that he was trying to conceal his unorthodox theological views from those who hold orthodox biblical views. Increasingly it appears that he is moving toward open heresy in line with “emergent” thinkers like Brian McClaren. 

My intent is not to indict Marin personally but rather to warn theologically orthodox church leaders about his deceitful, dangerous, and heretical beliefs. Marin’s purported desire to build bridges relies on rejecting inconvenient Scripture and obfuscating such rejection when talking to orthodox Christians. 

There is only one true theology regarding homosexuality. Orthodox theologians throughout the history of the church and today hold one singular view on what Scripture teaches on homosexuality. It wasn’t until the late 20th Century that any theologians could be found who reject the historical interpretation of Scripture on this issue. 

Many Christians share a concern that false prophets are coming into our churches in sheep’s clothing. Christian leaders should substitute any other serious sexual sin for homosexuality and consider whether Mr. Marin’s theology and approach are biblically justified. We all come to Christ as sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy, but the church has no business affirming or even appearing to affirm believers in their embrace of sin as central to their identies. And no Christian has the right when directly asked what the Bible teaches about homosexuality to answer ambiguously or equivocally. 

Some chastise critics of Marin’s work, like Dr. Gagnon, spuriously claiming that criticizing Marin’s work is tantamount to unbiblical judging. They and Marin himself claim that such criticism hurts Marin’s feelings. In so claiming, they seem to be doing what the secular culture does, which is conflate two distinct meanings of judgment. Dr. Gagnon has critiqued Marin’s exegesis, which is not only legitimate but essential. Mr. Marin has written a book and promotes his ideas all over the country on radio programs and in churches. The church must judge, that is to say, evaluate, the soundness and truth of his propositions. Marin’s feelings are far less important than biblical truth. 

No one likes to be confronted with his or her error, but imagine if this strange definition of judgment were to be applied consistently. How would Christians be alerted to the false prophets or heresies in the church? Should Christian scholars be prohibited from critiquing the work of, for example, John Shelby Spong because doing so would constitute unbiblical judgment and hurt his feelings? Although Marin may find criticism of the ideas he publicly promotes to be unpleasant, such criticism cannot reasonably be called unloving. Determining what constitutes a loving act depends on first knowing what is true.

Marin should publicly answer these questions:

• Is homosexual practice a sin?
• Can followers of Christ embrace and affirm a homosexual identity and be involved in homosexual relationships?
• At what point after a self-identifying homosexual becomes a Christian should his or her church practice biblical church discipline regarding his or her homosexual practice?

A writer for the Moody Church Venue blog wrote this following Marin’s 2010 visit: “[Andy] said, ‘We have to earn the right to communicate the truth first.’” 

What other sins do Christians have to “earn the right” to identify as sins? Do we have to “earn the right” to identify porn use, adultery, fornication, incest, drunkenness, or gossip as sins?  And how do we earn the right to communicate biblical truth? 

Marin is fond of citing this quote from Billy Graham: “It is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, God’s job to judge, and it’s my job to love.” It is, indeed, the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, but it is the job of Christians, particularly Christian leaders, to teach what God’s Word says in its entirety, which includes teaching about what constitutes sinful behavior. Articulating what the Bible teaches about homosexuality no more constitutes unscriptural judging than does articulating what the Bible teaches about idolatry, blasphemy, or adultery. And sharing what God’s Word says about morality is a loving act. 

When Marin spoke at the Venue, he referred to the fight for civil rights for blacks. I wonder, did Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. believe that Christians have to “earn the right” to communicate the truth about the sinfulness of racism? Did he ever say that before Christians condemn racism, racists must be converted? Why should the serious sin of homosexuality be treated so differently than other sins? 

Everyone should be welcome in our churches, but welcoming sinners—which all of us are—must never involve affirming sin. God loves us despite our sins, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, God mercifully grants believers freedom from bondage to sin. It is the task of the church to teach the entirety of Scripture, and it is the privilege and duty of Christians to come alongside one another as we daily strive to deny ourselves as we live for Christ.

“And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it’” (Mark 8: 34-35).

“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.  For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:12-14).

“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24).

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (II Cor. 5:17).

For more on Marin, watch these two short videos: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQQPC_SsEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2L-B1mHIeI

Written by:  Nancy Guthrie

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.  A poignant testimony of one woman who, in losing everything, found everything that really matters.  Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant, 2012. 154 pp. $12.00.

What is conversion? Theologian Wayne Grudem defines it as “our willing response to the gospel call, in which we sincerely repent of sins and place our trust in Christ for salvation.” True as this definition may be, somehow it seems colorless in light of conversion not so much defined but demonstrated in Rosemarie (sic) Champagne Butterfield’s coming-to-faith memoir, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikey Convert. Conversion for Butterfield is a thoroughly disrupting transformation—a whole-life, whole-person turn toward Christ. 

Though I understand why one online bookseller features books about homosexuality as related resources on the webpage for this book, this isn’t a book about homosexuality. It doesn’t address the debates regarding whether one is born this way or chooses this life or whether same-sex attraction can be “cured.” Neither does it offer strategies for arguing against or evangelizing someone in the lesbian lifestyle. While the book does illumine these issues, it just isn’t about them. It is about one woman’s becoming convinced that the claims of the gospel are true, and the thorough reordering of her life around them.

Butterfield was certainly not searching for God when he found her. She felt no great void or desire for change. Instead, she was working on a book on the rise of the Religious Right in America and the “hermeneutic of hatred that the Religious Right uses against their favorite target: queers, or at the time, people like me” (6). After her critique of Promise Keepers appeared in the local newspaper, she received a stack of hate mail and fan mail, as well as a kind and inquiring letter from a local pastor that she just couldn’t throw away. So began a conversation that continued for two years before Butterfield ever stepped foot in a church. “I couldn’t come to church—it would have been too threatening, too weird, too much. So Ken was willing to bring the church to me” (11). As we read the story, our desire grows to be as hospitable and humble as the pastor and his wife who loved and listened to her. And what was her experience when she did finally go to church? “These people with their complete marriages, their kind children, their well-spent lives, cast a reflection on the legacy of my choice making” (71). Once again, as we read it, we find ourselves wanting to make sure that the awkward outsiders who come to our churches feel welcomed and wanted instead of shunned and condemned.

Conversion Is Comprehensive

“I did not perceive conversion to be ‘a blessing,’” Butterfield admits. She writes with refreshing honesty and straightforwardness that permeates the entire book. “It was a train wreck. . . . Conversion put me in a complicated and comprehensive chaos. I sometimes wonder, when I hear other Christians pray for the salvation of the ‘lost,’ if they realize that this comprehensive chaos is the desired end of such prayers” (27).

Butterfield came to the realization that she’d spent some of her best years steeped in the wrong worldview. “God saved me, but hadn’t lobotomized me. My deep patterns of thinking and interpretation were also suspect to sin. That [became] painfully evident to me” (80). Readers are invited into the interior of the transformation of what she thinks and how she feels, which she describes as settling “into the hard work of turning the pages of my heart, holding each one open and naked for spiritual scrutiny” (74). And, of course, this is the comprehensive process of sanctification each of us is called to, the hard work of working out our salvation (Phil. 2:12-13). 

Conversion Is All-Encompassing

Butterfield sets out to find the root of her sin so that she might repent of it, a search across the terrain of Scripture. Her exposition of the root sin of Sodom, which she delineates as pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, and lack of modesty, leads her to the conclusion that “sexuality isn’t about what we do in bed. Sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires. Sexuality is more a symptom of our life’s condition than a cause, more a consequence than an origin” (31).

Her insight invites readers to share in her repentance rather than merely observe it from a distance. “My sexuality was sinful not because it was lesbian per se but because it wasn’t Christ-controlled. My heterosexual past was no more sanctified than my homosexual present” (33).

Conversion Is Costly

While voyeuristic details on life “before” are appropriately limited, Butterfield’s experience of “coming out” as a believer is vivid and compelling. Butterfield had been a lesbian postmodernist when the graduate school that employed her as a tenured English professor asked her to deliver the opening lecture to all incoming graduate students. But six months later, when she delivered the lecture, she was a fledgling follower of Jesus Christ. Butterfield not only includes the fascinating text of her lecture but also takes readers into the personal and professional crisis of giving the lecture that made her a “traitor” and “turncoat.” Butterfield writes, “I lost my community when God saved my soul (49),” and readers feel the loss with her.

Though Butterfield lost her old community when she was claimed by Christ, it is clear she has been fully embraced into a new community, particularly the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. And if there is one aspect of the book that perhaps weakens it, it is Butterfield’s investing half-a-chapter in defending the denomination’s commitment to exclusive Psalm-singing in worship, writing, “God commands us to sing Psalms in worship to the exclusion of man-made hymns” (94). To Butterfield it is simple: “If God gave us a book of praise songs, who are we to add to them?” (92) But, of course, to many other it is not quite this simple.

Laughter and Wincing

This book made me laugh. Butterfield’s agility with words and ideas evidences her history as a tenured English professor, yet is never off-putting. Speaking of her life now as a pastor’s wife and mother to several adopted children, she writes:

We have a minivan that Kent has christened the Traveling Garbage Can. I have been known to clean out this van by sending in my trusty Golden Retriever, Sally, to fetch old PB&J sandwiches, juice boxes, and pizza crusts. Sally is the same age as my youngest daughter; it was like having twins separated by species. Sally was housebroken with then-3-year-old Knox, because in my world, that is what summer and backyards are for (131).

This book also made me wince. Preparing to give her “testimony” for the first time, Butterfield wonders:

Did anyone else get lost in fear when counting the costs of discipleship? Did anyone else tire of taking up the Cross daily? Did anyone else grieve for death to one life that anticipates the experience of being “born again”? Did anyone else want to take just one day off from the command that we die to ourselves? (82)

Here the book indicted me for taking many days off from dying to self. How tragically we tame the call of the gospel, swallowing a religion of fitting God into our lives rather than making him our life. The nutshell version of Butterfield’s conversion and the heart of the book is this: “I lost everything but the dog” (63). But it is clear that in losing everything, she has found everything that really matters.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nancy Guthrie and her husband, David, and son, Matt, make their home in Nashville, Tennessee, where they are members of Christ Presbyterian Church. She and David are the co-hosts of the GriefShare video series used in more than 8,500 churches around the country and host Respite Retreats for couples who have experienced the death of a child. Nancy is the author of numerous books, including Holding on to Hope and Hearing Jesus Speak into Your Sorrow and is currently working on the five-book Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament Bible study series.

Written by:  Christy McFerren

After sharing my story of overcoming homosexuality with the Prodigal community last month, I have been approached by more people than ever whose stories and struggles are similar to mine asking for more specifics about how I went from being attracted to women to legitimately being attracted to men.

Also interesting, I have been approached by heterosexual people who have never struggled with same sex attraction wanting to know more about the mystery that is homosexuality and seeking to understand its dynamics and how a person can “get there”.

Regardless of the background of those who inquire about my struggle, the conversation that follows both angles of questioning is mostly the same, and I find it to be a place where bridges are being built. Up to now, the inability to understand our differences has given place for anger and hostility to rise between the two perspectives, but I believe a new conversation is unfolding where compassion will take root.

I have a special place of compassion for people who want to love those who share my struggle but can’t relate.

With no frame of reference within themselves, it’s sometimes difficult for those who have never experienced same sex attraction to understand, and it’s a challenge for their spiritual growth to actively love and choose not to view those who do struggle as intentionally deviant.

Those who are attracted to the same sex usually can’t fathom an existence where it’s not at least something of a perfectly natural temptation, and struggle not to view those who say they can’t relate to them as unenlightened bigots. From their perspective, it is really hard to get your head around the lack of sympathy.

I want to share more details about my process here in the name of bridge building.

The roots of attraction may be a little different for everyone,

–so this is not intended to be an oversimplified answer that is applicable to everyone, but I’ve seen evidence that the more people who have been on both sides of the issue and are willing to share their perspectives, the better off our culture will be.

Because I fought my sexuality so adamantly, I was not in many long-term relationships with women. But there were a few women I was especially attracted to – enough so that I was willing to suspend my convictions and attempt to form a relationship. These usually lasted just a few months. The relationships were characterized by a kind of manic excitement at first, with undertones of fear of abandonment and jealousy in place from the start.

Over a short period of time the undertones would become defining marks of the relationship, and I would hold the person tightly to myself with the sense that letting go would be losing not only them, but part of me.

The relationships would become either a highly dysfunctional tug of war of control and jealousy or a symbiotic existence of codependency and expectations that mounted too high for either person to achieve. In either scenario, disappointment and heartache were certain to follow. In reflecting on the way my relationships went when I gave in to my same sex attractions,

–over time I began to realize that the women I was drawn to were women who had either physical characteristics or personality traits that I felt were inadequate in my own expression of womanhood.

For example, I was mostly drawn to bubbly personalities because I am a quiet and serious person much of the time. Or I was drawn to petite women because with my larger frame, I never felt I fit the bill for what a woman should look like to be considered attractive in our society. When this first occurred to me, it didn’t seem that wrong because even heterosexual couples seek people who complement their weaknesses. Opposites attract.

But I began to realize that I was seeking the rest of my womanhood from the women I was with.

Then I saw that anytime I was hurt by my partner, the pain was so deep it was as if my sense of womanhood was being threatened. I was controlling, possessive and expressed a strong need for agreement and affirmation because I had somewhere in the process looped this person into my identity as an inseparable part of me.

Any action they took that indicated a distinction between us as people resulted in a fight. I felt either legitimized as a valuable person or completely worthless based on their everyday responses to me. When I first began to see and understand that this is what was at work in me, I started to rise up a little bit against it. The foundations of my faith gave me the understanding that I could and should call out to God for completion and identity in these areas instead of trying to draw it out of a relationship with a woman, or any human for that matter.

The revelation came that I was engaging in idolatry, expecting wholeness and fulfillment from something and someone that wasn’t designed to give it to me, and I was valuing that as primary to God. It was angering and humiliating when I saw that I was underestimating my own womanhood and allowing some other woman to define what was rightfully and uniquely mine to express.

This marked my freedom from the bondage of looking to women for affirmation in my womanhood,

–and I started looking for that affirmation in the mirror – the one I dressed in front of each day and the one in the Word of God. I wasn’t immediately changed entirely. The habits of my emotions and sexuality were forces to be reckoned with for sure (that’s where the “fight” came in), but I was free from the trappings that would draw me back in with any real level of expectation.

Freedom introduced a new level of logic I had not experienced in my struggle before, and as a result I never engaged the idea of a same sex relationship again with any sense of merit or as a legitimate option for my life.

With serious gaps in my identity closing quickly, I began to see the appeal of having a man in my life.

As time went on and my expression of womanhood became more clear and defined in me, I grew in confidence, and began to look at men with new eyes. Over time I began to evaluate what I would want in a man, and it became very clear to me that I was certain my attraction to women had ended I was in fact sexually and emotionally attracted to men.

Today I am married to the man God chose to give me and as you read this we’re on the road for a little anniversary getaway.

In addition to a beautiful marriage, God has added to my life the joy of godly, healthy friendships with other women. I couldn’t imagine my life another way. Here are the concerns that bring questions to my heart as I continue to live this story:

How can we be about the business of building bridges between those who experience same sex attraction and those who don’t?
How can we begin to have this conversation in healthy and productive ways in our culture?
Are we digging deep, as Christians, finding honor for all people?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christy is a blogger, designer and speaker covering the topics of faith, technology, and business ideas that create cultural revolution. She lives in Austin, TX, with her husband Dan. Together they run a brand development firm called Thoughtful Revolution. They are passionate about humbly bringing change and inviting people to ask the questions Jesus came to answer. You can read her blog and receive updates on her upcoming ebook, First Steps Out, at ChristyMcFerren.com.

Written By Denny Burk

Christy McFerren shares her gut-wrenching testimony in a recent post at the online Prodigal Magazine. The story is gut-wrenching because she has experienced powerful attractions to other women throughout her life, yet she has never given in to a homosexual identity. In fact, her whole testimony is aimed to communicate that it’s okay to fight if you’re a homosexual. It took her years to come to this conclusion, but that is where she ended up. For me the most powerful part of her testimony is in the following lines. Pay special attention to the underlined portion:

Sometimes I agreed with God about my sexuality because He is Lord, and love is a choice, and that is all. My emotions were left out of the equation so many times because I had to believe either my feelings were lying to me or God was. I purposed in my heart to honor God’s design no matter how it felt, for a very, very long time. I could feel in the waiting that Life was at work in me. Hope was at work in me.

There was never a pinnacle moment when I knew, “I’m not gay anymore. I feel different.” My liberation was unceremonious. Freedom matured in me through a process, from the seeds of truth that God planted and people watered along the way. It wasn’t one decision I made not to be gay, there were many. Like Proverbs 4:18 says, “… the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that shines brighter and brighter until the full day.”…

—but its brightening from morning to noon happens in indiscernible progression. Yet noon is undeniably brighter than the dawn. In the same way I can say with confidence today that I am free.

I am a testimony that homosexuality can be a choice. It was a fight, but it was worth every tear I cried and every drop of blood Jesus shed. We won this thing together. It was a fight for honor. For dignity. For agreement. Out of that agreement comes the power that overtakes the impossible, and if you’re struggling with this, I’m here to tell you…

It’s OK to fight.

I don’t know anything about Ms. McFerren except what I’ve read in this article and on her website. But what I see here is glorious. I hope and pray that some of you who struggle with this issue will be strengthened by McFerren’s testimony to believe God that it’s okay to fight against a homosexual orientation (Rev. 12:11). It’s not a fait accompli that you have to give in to. You don’t have to give in to voices that are telling you otherwise. Read the whole thing, and see that God can do the impossible (Matt. 19:25-26).

Written By Kevin DeYoung

Try arguing with left-leaning Christians about homosexuality and within the first five minutes someone will throw divorce and remarriage in your face.  Much to my chagrin, I’ve been embroiled in debates about homosexuality many times, and every time, someone defending homosexual behavior brings up divorce.  “If marriage is so important to you,” the retort will go, “why don’t you ever talk about the sin of divorce?”  The implication being: “You are just picking on homosexuals.  You don’t follow the literal letter of the law any more than we do.  If you did, you would be focusing on divorce, because that’s the bigger issue in our churches.”

Where There’s Smoke…
When it comes to debating homosexuality, divorce is both a smokescreen and a fire.  It is a smokescreen because the two issues–divorce and homosexuality–are far from identical.  For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce.  People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the goodness of divorce.  Conservatives, in the culture and in the mainline, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now.  We’d love to talk (and do) about how to have a healthy marriage.  We’d love to talk (and do) about the glory of the Trinity, but the battle right now (at least one of them) is over homosexuality.  So we cannot be silent on this issue.

Just as importantly, the biblical prohibition against divorce explicitly allows for exceptions; the prohibition against homosexuality does not.  The traditional Protestant position, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith for example, maintains that divorce is permissible on grounds of marital infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse.  Granted, the application of these principles is difficult and the question of remarriage after divorce gets even trickier, but almost all Protestants have always held that divorce is sometimes acceptable.  Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are different issues because according to the Bible and Christian tradition the former is always wrong, while the latter is not.

Finally, the “what about divorce?” argument is not a good as it sounds because many of our churches do take divorce seriously.  I realize that many churches don’t (more on that in a minute).  But a lot of the same churches that speak out against homosexuality also speak out against illegitimate divorce.  I’ve said more about homosexuality in the blogosphere because there’s a controversy around the issue in the wider church.  But I’ve said more about divorce in my church because this is the more dangerous issue for us (and most congregations I imagine).  Virtually every single discipline case we’ve encountered as a board of elders has been about divorce.  The majority of pastoral care crises I have been involved in have dealt with failed or failing marriages.  My church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce.  We don’t always know how to handle every situation, but I can say with a completely clear conscience that we never turn a blind eye to divorce.

…There’s Probably Some Fire
And yet…and yet, many conservative evangelicals have been negligent in dealing with illegitimate divorce and remarriage.  Pastors have not preached on the issue for fear of offending scores of their members.  Elder Boards have not practiced church discipline on those who sin in this area because, well, they don’t practice discipline for much of anything.  Counselors, friends, and small groups have not gotten involved early enough to make a difference in pre-divorce situations.  Christian attorneys have not thought enough about their responsibility in encouraging marital reconciliation. Church leaders have not helped the uneducated to understand God’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage, and we have not helped those already wrongly remarried to experience forgiveness for their past mistakes.

So yes, there is plenty of duplicity to go around.  The evangelical church, in many places, gave up and caved in on divorce and remarriage.  But the remedy to this negligence is not more negligence.  The slow, painful cure is more biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more faithful use of discipline, more word-saturated counseling, and more prayer–for illegitimate divorce, for homosexuality, and for all the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted.

Kevin DeYoung is the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, across the street from Michigan State University.

We conservatives have criticized the practice of homosexuality for a variety of reasons, a primary one being its abusive nature.  In recent years, defenders of the practice have attempted to rebut our attacks saying that what they do to each other is not abuse, and even if it were, they are consenting adults.  I am not sure that they really wish to get into a discussion regarding the abusive nature of their conduct, but are you familiar with S&M or “bondage?” 

If you doubt the tawdry nature of their conduct, just go to one of their parades.  On second thought, don’t.  Just take my word for it that the conduct of parade participants turns the stomach of any normal person.  And if what they do in public is offensive, one can only imagine the abuse that goes on in secret.  Of course you don’t have to just imagine, you can go to their web sites or read their own literature to discover for yourselves its sordid reality.

What we as conservatives find ourselves asking is why anyone would want to live in such abusive relationships?  Interestingly, many practicing homosexuals have defended their lifestyles with that precise question saying that if it were a choice, they would NEVER choose it!  They are bound by their “nature” they say,  and cannot escape!  Yet, activists for the lifestyle adamantly and repeatedly claim their conduct is not destructive.  However, the vast majority, by their own admission, endure treatment at the hands of other men that to us is abusive.   What they are saying is that there is no objective definition for abuse. 

I wish to make it perfectly clear that we do not nor will we ever condone sexual or physical abuse of one person by another.  Therefore, you will never find us approving of the conduct common among homosexuals.  If their behavior was all loving and beneficent, it would not be kept under wraps.  It could be discussed openly.

Accepting homosexual behavior categorically as normal forces us to accept abuse as normal.  At the same time we are, as a society, making an important effort to inform the public that abuse of women is NOT acceptable!  Is not the homosexual lobby undermining this important effort?  If we accept this new status quo, that men abusing men is acceptable so long as it is consensual, we are in the difficult spot of accepting a significantly different treatment of men and women.  It is acceptable for men to abuse men if they both so choose, but it is not acceptable for men to abuse women, even if they both so choose.

If you are at all familiar with abused women’s issues, you know the $64,000 question.  Why do women remain in abusive relationships?  If anyone could actually answer that and provide an antidote, many women would be saved.  No one really understands why people stay where life is often miserable or even dangerous.  But they do.  They clearly get something that they deem worth the price they pay.   The homosexuals’ spokesmen just sidestep the question and reply that they’re adults and they  want to remain in their relationships, whether we view them as abusive or not.   

So, we find ourselves with a real dilemma.  We accept men abusing one another because they choose to remain in those relationships and they can define for themselves what abuse is, but we do not accept men abusing women, even though many women choose to remain in those relationships, and often say that their abusers “love them.” 

Therefore, by declaring homosexuality to be normal, we must accept that men are “mature” enough to choose for themselves to remain where, by society’s standards, they are abused, at the same time saying  women are not “mature” enough and must be protected.  Or else we will accept women’s abuse at the hands of men is not abuse after all. 

On which side of that one do you wish to land?

I, for one, will accept neither.

Another large company has recently come out of the corporate closet in support of same-sex marriage. Food giant General Mills has joined a growing list of corporate gay marriage supporters like Target and Starbucks.

Speaking at a Gay Pride event recently, CEO Ken Powell said General Mills opposes an effort to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Minnesota, where the corporation is headquartered.

Tom Forsythe, vice president of corporate communications, echoed Powell’s thoughts claiming the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would hurt Minnesota’s economy.  “For decades, General Mills has worked to create an inclusive culture for our employees. We believe it is important for Minnesota to be viewed as inclusive and welcoming as well. We oppose the proposed constitutional amendment because we do not believe it is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy,” he said.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) blasted the General Mills Corporation for the show of support.  “Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”

A national survey conducted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) last year showed that 63 percent of people with children living in their home, “believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” Just thirty-five percent of people with children at home disagreed with the statement. Overall, the ADF survey found that 62 percent of adults believe marriage is only the union of a man and a woman.

“This will go down as one of the dumbest corporate PR stunts of all time,” said Brian Brown. “It’s ludicrous for a big corporation to intentionally inject themselves into a divisive social issue like gay marriage. It’s particularly dumb for a corporation that makes billions selling cereal to the very people they just opposed.”

The maker of cereals such as Cheerios, Chex and Cinnamon Toast Crunch joins St. Jude Medical as one of two companies based in Minnesota who have taken an anti-amendment position. Most companies have pledged neutrality on the issue.

“It is very disappointing that General Mills has decided to play PC politics by pandering to a small but powerful interest group that is bent on redefining marriage, the core institution of society,” said John Helmberger, Chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. “Marriage is more than a commitment between two people who love each other. It was created by God for the care and well-being of the next generation. The amendment is about preserving marriage and making sure that voters always remain in control over the definition of marriage in our state and not activist judges or politicians.”

Lambda Legal in cahoots with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois are suing the Cook County Clerk for purportedly violating the Constitution of Illinois when Cook County refused to issue marriage licenses to men who sought to marry men and women who sought to marry women. To make matters worse, these ethically challenged Illinois leaders have all expressed support for the lawsuit: Governor Patrick Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and Cook County Clerk David Orr.

Lambda Legal is a homosexual legal organization hell-bent on using the judicial system to bypass the will of the people in order to impose its subversive sexuality theories on the entire country. This is the organization that shoved same-sex marriage down the throats of Iowans, which, not incidentally, brought the electoral defeat of those judges who threw their lots in with Lambda Legal.

Like the Iowa judges, Lisa Madigan and Anita Alvarez have crossed over to the dark side by abandoning all ethical and professional commitments to uphold and defend Illinois laws. Illinois’ Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act defines marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. It was amended in 1996 to prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex. Even Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor expressed shock over Anita Alvarez’ refusal to defend a duly enacted law, saying, “’I’ve never encountered this before.’”

Why should homosexuals be permitted to redefine marriage while other groups may not?

Lambda Legal and the ACLU hold the bizarre belief that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to demand that the most fundamental constitutive element of marriage — sexual complementarity — be jettisoned.  It is, however, no more unethically discriminatory for the government to retain sexual complementarity in its legal definition of marriage than it is to limit marriage to two people, which effectively prohibits polyamorists from accessing marriage. I wonder if Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois believe that laws limiting marriage to two people are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent three loving people in a polyamorous union from marrying.  And do they believe that laws prohibiting close blood relatives from marrying are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent a brother from marrying a male sibling with whom he is in love and hopes to raise children?  

Do governments construct marriage?

The government does not construct marriage out of whole cloth. Marriage has an inherent nature and purpose that societies and their governments merely recognize. Our government recognizes, regulates, and promotes a type of relationship that exists and best serves the needs of children.

Marriage is a particular type of relationship that has existed for the entire history of mankind and across all cultures. Men and women come together to form a union that is not merely emotional, but sexual and biological, which means it has a natural biological end (i.e., it is a procreative type of union, whether or not children result). Recognizing, regulating, and promoting this particular type of union is a legitimate interest of government. The government has no vested interest in “affirming love” through law. If marriage were centrally or solely about love and sexual desire and had no connection to either gender or procreation, there would be no reason for the government to be involved and no reason to prohibit incestuous or plural marriages.

Are laws banning same-sex “marriage” analogous to laws banning interracial marriage?

According to the Chicago Tribune, David Orr said that “he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is akin to laws that once banned mixed-race couples from marrying.” But that assertion requires evidence that homosexuality is by nature akin to race, something that David Orr was apparently not asked to provide.

Here are some critical differences between race and homosexuality: Race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, and is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

There are other reasons that laws banning same-sex marriage are utterly different from laws banning interracial marriage, including the following:

• Race is irrelevant to the inherent nature and purpose of marriage and to the government’s sole interest in marriage: procreative potential.
• Anti-miscegenation laws were based on a flawed understanding of human nature. As Dennis Prager explains, anti-miscegenation laws were based on the false notion that people of different races had different natures: “There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational.”  Marriage laws that recognize that marriage is a sexually complementary union are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different.
• Finally, anti-miscegenation laws were based on who the person is, whereas laws prohibiting marriages between people of the same sex are based on actions.  Thomas Sowell, who happens to be black, explains, “The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior.” A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do. Any man may engage in the act of marrying a woman (if she is of age and not closely related by blood).

Conclusion

Homosexual men claim they are attracted only to men. Homosexual women claim they are attracted only to women. Both sets of claims point to the truth that men and women are by nature different. If men and women are by nature substantively different, then unions composed of two people of the same sex must necessarily be substantively different from sexually complementary unions. It is perfectly legitimate for the government to treat different things differently.

Men and women who choose to make their unchosen same-sex attraction central to their identity are not prohibited from participating in the institution of marriage. They choose not to participate in it.  The starting point for homosexual activists in their analysis of the issue of redefining marriage is not the Constitution, the law, or deep thinking about the sources of morality. No, their analysis starts with their own sexual feelings. From there, like the Sophists of old, they concoct specious “reasons’ to persuade the public that gender and procreative potential are irrelevant to marriage.

The ignorance of homosexuality-affirming activists like Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor is exceeded only by their hubris. We hope and pray that the efforts of the Thomas More Society and the Illinois Family Institute, which have stepped in to do what Madigan and Alvarez should be doing, will prevail over ignorance and self-righteous hubris.

Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?

There are prominent black leaders who say yes, including Congressman John Lewis, who was active in the early Civil Rights movement. There are other prominent black leaders who say no, like Timothy F. Johnson, founder and president of the Frederick Douglass Foundation.

For a number of reasons, I concur with Johnson and others who say that gay is not the new black.

1. There is no true comparison between skin color and behavior. Although gays and lesbians emphasize identity rather than behavior, homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior. How can this be equated with the color of someone’s skin?

Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white (or yellow or red). In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires.

Also, skin color cannot be hidden, whereas a person’s sexual orientation is, generally speaking, not outwardly recognizable (unless it is willfully displayed). Put another way, blacks do not have to “come out,” since their identity is self-evident, whereas gays and lesbians have to come out (or act out) for their identity to be clearly known.

2. The very real hardships endured by many gays and lesbians cannot fairly be compared with the monstrous suffering endured by African Americans. Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”

Today, we have openly gay members of Congress, openly gay celebrities, openly gay CEO’s, openly gay financial gurus, openly gay sports stars, openly gay Hollywood moguls, and openly gay college professors, bestselling authors, scientists, and on and on. In the days of segregation in America, there were few, if any, blacks in such prominent positions, not to mention the fact that in many cities in America, even the lynching of blacks was accepted. Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?

3. Skin color is innate and immutable; sexual orientation is not. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no reputable scientific evidence that people are born gay or lesbian. Even the unabashedly pro-gay American Psychiatric Association stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.” As expressed bluntly by lesbian author Camille Paglia, “No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.”

John D’Emilio, a gay activist and a professor of history and of gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois, wrote, “What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

Also contrary to popular opinion, there are former homosexuals; there are no former blacks (despite the best efforts of the late Michael Jackson). This also underscores the fact that skin color cannot be compared to behavior, since even someone who remains same-sex attracted can modify his or her sexual behavior. A black person cannot modify his or her blackness.

Stated another way, genetics determine skin color, not behavior. Otherwise, if genetics unalterably predetermined behavior, then someone with a so-called violent gene could tell the judge, “My genes made me do it!” (For more on this important subject, see the chapter “Is Gay the New Black” in my bookA Queer Thing Happened to America.)

4. Removing the unjust laws against miscegenation (interracial marriage) did not require a fundamental redefinition of marriage and family; legalizing same-sex “marriage” does.Marriage between a black person and a white person always included the two essential elements of marriage, namely a man and a woman (as opposed to just two people), and as a general rule, interracial marriage could naturally produce children and then provide those children with a mother and father. In contrast, same-sex “marriage” cannot produce children naturally and can never provide children with both a mother and father. (Another newsflash: Two dads or two moms do not equal a mom and a dad.)

Removing the laws of miscegenation simply required the removal of anti-black bigotry (since a white man could marry a Native American woman but not a black woman), whereas legalizing same-sex “marriage” requires the redefinition of marriage (opening the door to polyamorists, polygamists, and advocates of incestuous “marriages,” who are already mounting their legal and social arguments) and the normalizing of homosexuality (beginning with elementary school education), among other things.

That’s why many black Americans are rightly upset with the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by gay activists.

With all due respect to Cardinal Francis George, I think his apology is misguided and his reasoning troubling:

During a recent TV interview, speaking about this year’s Gay Pride Parade, I used an analogy that is inflammatory.

I am personally distressed that what I said has been taken to mean that I believe all gays and lesbians*are like members of the Klan. I do not believe that; it is obviously not true. Many people have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, as have I. We love them; they are part of our lives, part of who we are. I am deeply sorry for the hurt that my remarks have brought to the hearts of gays and lesbians and their families.

I can only say that my remarks were motivated by fear for the Church’s liberty. This is a larger topic that cannot be explored in this expression of personal sorrow and sympathy for those who were wounded by what I said.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

His primary justification or at least his public justification was that his analogy was hurtful. I wonder if he would publicly state that homosexual acts are “abominable.” Surely, that would be “hurtful” to those who identify as homosexual, and yet that’s how Scripture characterizes them.

The notion that the presence of hurt feelings means that Cardinal George has done something wrong suggests that the ethical legitimacy of public speech is determined by the subjective response of hearers. But consistently applied, that principle would prohibit all expressions of moral propositions.

Although it’s unpleasant to say something that results in hurt feelings and at times hurt feelings result from our sinful words, sometimes “hurt” or bad feelings result from an encounter with truth.

Anyone who bothered to read his original comments knows that he did not suggest that all homosexuals are “like members of the Klan.” His comments were about “some” homosexual activists. Moreover he expressed his “hope” that the “gay pride” parade would not “morph” into something like the marches the KKK led against the Catholic Church.

I understand why non-Christians have lost sight of how profoundly wrong homosexual acts are, but when followers of Christ have so little spiritual discernment and so much theological ignorance, society is in deep trouble.

Homosexual activists as an organized public movement do not preach violence or engage in violence, but many express hatred. I have been on the receiving end of multiple hair-curling epithets and death wishes.

In addition, the effort to teach little children in our government schools, subsidized with public dollars, that this sin is good is an unconscionably evil act. Homosexuality is so serious a sin that it puts people at risk of eternal separation from a Holy God, and we’re teaching children in school that it’s morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Most of us are so desensitized or inured to the wickedness (if I may use this somewhat archaic term) of homosexual acts and so spiritually obtuse that the evil of teaching children that wrong is right doesn’t even register on our moral barometer.

Moreover, homosexual activists seek to prohibit parents from opting their children out of such teaching. I can’t think of a group that seeks such an egregious and arrogant usurpation of parental rights.

I agree that the analogy was inflammatory and that the point that homosexual activism is becoming increasingly hateful, aggressive, and tyrannical could have been made without it. Cardinal George could have said that some homosexual activists discriminate based on religion; that some activists hate people who hold orthodox theological beliefs on homosexuality; that some employ hateful and obscene rhetoric; that some march in the streets violating public decency laws and promoting evil ideas; that some seek to diminish other people’s fundamental constitutionally protected liberties; and that some seek to use public schools to promulgate their philosophical, moral, and political beliefs about homosexuality. All of this may be hurtful to hear, but it is not unethical to say.

What I wish Cardinal George had said was that homosexual acts are soul-destroying acts that are “detestable” in God’s eyes and that the parade is a tragic, offensive event that shouldn’t take place on any day in any neighborhood. It is not an act of love to affirm or appear to affirm that which God condemns.

*Cardinal George should not use the terms “gay” and “lesbian.” Those terms do not merely denote same-sex attraction and volitional acts. They connote biological determinism, immutability, and an inherent morality. What other groups would Cardinal George choose to identify by their disordered inclinations and freely chosen sinful acts? Rhetoric matters.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

I’m reluctant to beat a dead horse, but in light of a comment made by the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and an editorial in the liberal National Catholic Reporter (NCR), a bit more needs to be said about the “gay pride” parade brouhaha.

1.   In addition to the cowardice of conservatives, it is the failures of religious leaders that have helped create the cultural mess we’re in right now. NCR recently wrote favorably about this portion of a statement issued by Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s pastor, Fr. Thomas Srenn:

The annual Pride Parade is one of the hallmarks that make Lakeview unique and we in no way wish to diminish its place in the community.

This should be a deeply troubling comment coming from any Christian leader, whether Catholic or Protestant. The word “hallmark” means either “a mark indicating quality or excellence” or “a conspicuous feature.” Perhaps Fr. Srenn is a skillful rhetorician and was deliberately playing on that ambiguity. Perhaps he thinks the parade is a conspicuous and obnoxious Lakeview feature but hopes that others will assume he finds it an excellent Lakeview feature.

But, viewed in light of the second half of his statement, that is to say, his wish that the parade’s “place in the community” not be diminished, it seems more likely that he looks on the parade positively.

Such a view would be at minimum an odd notion coming from a Catholic priest, presumably well-schooled in theology. How can a Catholic priest view positively a parade that celebrates that which the Catholic Church views as profoundly sinful? I wonder too if he would be willing to invite children to attend this hallmark of the unique Lakeview community.

2.   NCR opines that Cardinal George’s analogy is a “nonsensical historical comparison.” I’ve already argued ad nauseum that there are valid and obvious points of correspondence between the KKK and the “gay liberation” movement (i.e., hatred of the Catholic Church, vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Catholic Church, and offensive parades). But now NCR raises another issue. If NCR editorial board is so incensed by nonsensical historical analogies, perhaps they could write an indignant editorial about the nonsensical comparison of race to homosexuality, or the nonsensical comparison of the civil rights movement to the “gay liberation” movement, or the nonsensical comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, why hasn’t there been an editorial in the Chicago Tribune arguing that the comparison of race to homosexuality is bizarre?

3.   I can’t conceive of a group in America today that holds the Catholic Church in as much contempt as the movement to normalize homosexuality (i.e., the “gay liberation” movement). Fifty years ago, who could have imagined that homosexual activists would become the oppressors of religious freedom? Not some, but many homosexuals detest the Catholic Church because of its theological position on volitional homosexual acts — a theological position that survived the Reformation and is, therefore, the same theological position of many Protestant churches. In fact, there was no theologian prior to the late 20th Century who affirmed volitional homosexual acts as moral acts.

4.   NCR also drew attention to one of the central stratagems of homosexual activists: ad hominem attacks. NCR described Cardinal Francis George’s analogy as “embarrassingly imprudent.”

Conservatives, like all other humans, are ridicule-averse. Ridicule conservatives. Call them homophobes, bullies, haters, and bigots. Call them old-fashioned and out-of-step with the times. Suggest that Lady Gaga would find them totally uncool, and you win the debate through the cowardly forfeit of conservatives.

5.   I would not have used the analogy Cardinal George used, but not because it lacks soundness. I wouldn’t have used it because the emotion it generates within the perpetually petulant world of homosexual activists creates such a gaseous environment, it clouds even what passes for discourse today.

The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists.

Organizers of Chicago’s annual celebration of sexual deviancy, oxymoronically named the Chicago “Gay Pride” Parade, decided to change the parade route and time for the 2012 parade. This change would have resulted in the disruption or cancellation of the 10:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

On FOX Chicago Sunday, Mike Flannery and Dane Plancko asked Cardinal Francis George how he felt about this. Cardinal George expressed his hope that the “gay liberation movement” would not “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” Dane Plancko followed up by suggesting that such an analogy might be “a little strong,” to which Cardinal George agreed, adding that we should “look at the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people.” Cardinal George explained that in the rhetoric of both groups, the enemy is the Catholic Church.

In the face of silly demands by homosexual activists that he resign or apologize, Cardinal George instead offered the following clarification:

“Organizers [of the parade] invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church…One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.”

As is their wont to do, homosexual activists — ever the embodiment of tolerance and freedom — became livid over Cardinal George’s analogy. As too is customary for homosexual activists, they seem to believe their indignation and “hurt feelings” serve just as well as an actual argument.

Here are some of the responses of prominent homosexual activists to Cardinal George’s comments:

He has crossed so far over the line of basic decency that he couldn’t see it with a pair of binoculars…This outrageous comparison of the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan was so degrading… that apologizing will not be sufficient….If he has a shred of dignity and a shard of class he will immediately step down. (Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out)

As a lay Catholic, I am profoundly saddened that Cardinal Francis George defiles his office by comparing our LGBT family, friends and fellow Catholics to the Ku Klux Klan. (Catholics for Marriage Equality)

This is a sacred time of year for many people of faith, a time when we should be creating and cherishing unity in our communities-not casting about dangerous and divisive rhetoric. (Human Rights Campaign)

How ironic that those who defend a parade that celebrates sexual perversion and violates public indecency laws would describe Cardinal George’s rhetoric as indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. It is homosexual acts that are indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. We would do well to remember the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” In reality, homosexuality is a sin so serious that Scripture warns that those who engage in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As such, affirmation of homosexuality would be a desacralizing act. Unity and peace are goods to be sought but never at the expense of truth and never with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” If we truly love those who experience same-sex attraction, we will speak the truth about homosexuality, offer them the hope that is found in Christ alone, and come alongside them as they seek to pursue holiness.

Cardinal George’s analogy is fair and apt. Many homosexual activists harbor unconcealed hatred for not only the Catholic Church but also for all Protestant denominations that hold orthodox views of homosexuality. And these homosexual activists openly express their hatred in vile and vitriolic rhetoric. If Fox Sunday Chicago reporter Dane Plancko is unaware of this, he needs to do more research.

Was Cardinal George comparing the celebration of sexual deviance to the racism and violence of the KKK? Of course not. He was comparing the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of the KKK to the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of homosexual activists. But once again, petulant homosexual activists, desperate for the ideological high ground, are demonstrating either their obtuseness in dealing with analogies or their deceitfulness.

Homosexual activists become enraged — or feign indignation — at any analogy that compares any aspect of homosexuality or the homosexuality-affirmation movement to anything immoral, unethical, or sinful because they don’t believe homosexual attraction and acts are immoral, unethical, or sinful. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept the ontological or moral assumptions of homosexual activists.

The salient question for conservatives is, “Does the analogy work?” In other words, are there points of correspondence between the two ideas or phenomena being compared, and are the points of correspondence relevant to the issue or issues being debated? Whether it offends the sensibilities of those who choose to make their unchosen homosexual attractions central to their identity is irrelevant.

If every Catholic parish and every Protestant church had a leader who would speak the truth about homosexuality with the clarity, conviction, and courage that Cardinal George did, perhaps we could end the sorry spectacle of the Chicago “gay pride” parade for good.

To read more on the attitudes and actions of homosexual activists to Christian orthodoxy, please click on the following links:

Homosexual Rainbow Sash Movement Threatens to Disrupt Pentecost Mass, Confront Cardinal George (Catholic Online)

‘Jesus is a homo’ Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service (Catholic Online)

Anti-Christian Activists Seek to Intimidate and Censor Church Doctrine (Illinois Family Institute)

‘Safe schools’ chief was member of radical Act Up (WorldNetDaily.com)

‘Hunky Jesus’ Contest in San Francisco Mocks Christianity on Easter Sunday, but Don’t Look for ‘Hunky Muhammad’ Contest Anytime Soon (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)

Meet the academics who try to redefine pedophilia as “intergenerational intimacy.”

The anger and disgust that most of us experienced when we learned of the allegations of sexual abuse of boys in the sports programs at Penn State and Syracuse University suggest that our cultural norms about the sexual abuse of minors are intact. Yet it was only a decade ago that a parallel movement had begun on some college campuses to redefine pedophilia as the more innocuous “intergenerational sexual intimacy.”

The publication of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

This redefinition of childhood innocence as “fantasy” is key to the defining down of the deviance of pedophilia that permeated college campuses and beyond. Drawing upon the language of postmodern theory, those working to redefine pedophilia are first redefining childhood by claiming that “childhood” is not a biological given. Rather, it is socially constructed — an historically produced social object. Such deconstruction has resulted from the efforts of a powerful advocacy community supported by university — affiliated scholars and a large number of writers, researchers, and publishers who were willing to question what most of us view as taboo behavior.

Postmodern theorists are primarily interested in writing that evokes the fragmentary nature of experience and the complexity of language. One of the most cited sources for this is the book Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological and Legal Perspectives. This collection of writings by scholars, mostly European but some with U.S. university affiliations, provides a powerful argument for what they now call “intergenerational intimacy.” Ken Plummer, one of the contributors, writes that “we can no longer assume that childhood is a time of innocence simply because of the chronological age of the child.” In fact, “a child of seven may have built an elaborate set of sexual understandings and codes which would baffle many adults.”

Claiming to draw upon the theoretical work of the social historians, the socialist-feminists, the Foucauldians, and the constructionist sociologists, Plummer promised to build a “new and fruitful approach to sexuality and children.” Within this perspective there is no assumption of linear sexual development and no real childhood, only an externally imposed definition.

Decrying “essentialist views of sexuality,” these writers attempt to remove the essentialist barriers of childhood. This opens the door for the postmodern pedophile to see such behavior as part of the politics of transgression. No longer deviants, they are simply postmodern “border crossers.”

In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality published a double issue devoted to adult-child sex titled “Inter-generational Intimacy.” David Thorstad, former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance and a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), writes that “boy love occurs in every neighborhood today.” The movement continues but has gone underground since NAMBLA found itself embroiled in a $200 million wrongful death and civil rights lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. The suit claims that the writings on NAMBLA’s website caused NAMBLA member Charles Jaynes to torture, rape, and murder a 10-year-old Boston boy.

Not so long ago, the postmodern pedophiles had help in defining down their deviance from the American Psychological Association. In 1998, the association published an article in its Psychological Bulletin that concluded that child sexual abuse does not cause harm. The authors recommended that pedophilia should instead be given a value-neutral term like “adult child sex.” NAMBLA quickly posted the “good news” on its website, stating that “the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science.”

It appears that a number of postmodern pedophiles have taken the advice to heart. For a while, we lived in a culture in which man-boy sex was not only tolerated, it was celebrated. And while the furor over the allegations at Penn State and Syracuse reveals that male pedophilia remains contested terrain for most, women-girl sex, because of the power of the women’s movement, scarcely registers on the cultural radar screen.

“The Vagina Monologues,” for example, is still part of the standard dramatic repertory in student productions on college campuses –including Penn State and Syracuse. The original play explores a young girl’s “coming of age,” beginning with a 13-year-old girl enjoying a sexual liaison with a 24-year-old woman. Later published versions of the play changed the age of the young girl from 13 to 16 years old, and the play continues to be performed. Last year’s February production at Syracuse was enhanced by inviting an “all-faculty” cast to perform the play on campus.

While the anger over the recent sex abuse allegations would suggest that the deviant label will remain for pedophilia, the reality remains that powerful advocates with access to university presses will continue their semantic and ideological campaign to define down this form of deviance.

Anne Hendershott is Distinguished Visiting Professor at The King’s College, New York, NY. She is the author of The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books).

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

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5