Someone needs to thump some sense into syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts for his claim that the now-vetoed Arizona religious freedom bill would have allowed “businesses to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds.” Not so, but more on that in a minute.

Nine times in Pitts’ short column he repeats the mantra “Boycott Arizona,” perhaps hoping to hypnotize an intellectually and morally slothful public. One wonders how far Pitts and his ideological ilk will take their march against diversity and tolerance. Can Arizona citizens express their conservative views on issues related to homosexuality and gender confusion in letters to the editor without Pitts ordering a boycott? Can public libraries order books from conservative scholars without Pitts caterwauling “Boycott Arizona”? How do citizens employ their speech rights—which were intended to protect even unpopular speech—if promoters of tolerance like Pitts try to make it impossible to earn a living if they do so?

What makes his command to boycott Arizona even more troubling is he doesn’t seem to  understand what the law actually entails. Eleven law professors of diverse political persuasions and perspectives on same-sex “marriage” sent a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to correct the media’s misrepresentation of the law, which they describe as “egregiously misrepresented”:

SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under [Religious Freedom Protection Act], in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.

These law professors also explain that “The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections.”

This bill would have merely clarified an Arizona law that has been on the books for fifteen years. National Review editor, Rich Lowry, explains that “A religious freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden” (emphasis added).

In his fervor to command Americans not to vacation in or do business with Arizona, Pitts forgot to mention the federal equivalent of Arizona’s proposed law, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by then U.S. Representative Chuck Shumer (D-New York) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton twenty years ago. Pitts is going to be hard-pressed to find somewhere to vacation now that the entire country is off-limits.

Pitts accuses opponents of same-sex “marriage” of going “bughouse” over comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement, but he spends no time explaining why such a comparison bothers opponents—including African American opponents of same-sex “marriage.” And he glaringly fails to provide any evidence for his implicit claim that homosexuality per se is equivalent to race or skin color, which is necessary to justify his comparison of the push to normalize homosexuality to the Civil Rights movement.

Pitts does, however, provide evidence of his theological ignorance:

Don’t be fooled by pious babblespeak that claims these laws only protect the rights of religious people who object to homosexuality. No one seeks to compel any preacher to perform a same-sex marriage if doing so violates his conscience. But if that pastor works for a bakery during the week, it is none of his business whether the wedding cake he bakes is for John and Jan or John and Joe.

Pitts’ theological ignorance is evident when he says that the content of one’s labors is religiously irrelevant to people of faith. For true followers of Christ, there should be no area of life untouched by their faith.

Pitts may not be familiar with these verses:

• “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men…”
• “Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established.”
• “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
• “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
• “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”

It is at minimum oxymoronic to argue that in the service of bringing glory to God, a Christian can take part in and profit from a ceremony that God detests.

Christians are also commanded to “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness.” This means in part that though Christians may love, spend time with, and provide goods and services to homosexuals (and all the rest of sinful humanity), they should not take part in any way with same-sex pseudo-wedding ceremonies, which are, indeed, unfruitful works of darkness.

Further, Pitts’ assertion that the sex of the partners seeking to marry is none of the baker’s business is just silly. It becomes the baker’s business when the “grooms” tell him that he will be baking a cake—in other words, using his labors and profiting from—their unbiblical pseudo-wedding.

What Pitts is really saying is that the baker shouldn’t care about whether the cake is for a same-sex pseudo-wedding or a true wedding, but what the baker cares about is not Pitts’ business.

Pitts did offer this conciliatory message: “it’s time those of us who value comity, concord and tolerance make our voices heard.”

Yes, nothing says comity, concord, and tolerance quite like these preceding words from Pitts:

[T]hese laws amount to little more than temper tantrums by last-ditch bigots who don’t realize history has passed them by as a Ferrari does a traffic cone. But perhaps there is something to be said for inflicting economic pain as a way of saying, “Cut it out.” Perhaps the right wing’s proud embrace of ignorance and intolerance has grown so toxic they demand to be confronted.   

Pitts closes with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr., so I will too: “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”

To which I say, Amen.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

No, the title of this piece is not referring to President Barack Obama’s “say what?” comparison of individual action to muskets and militia:

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. 

Yes, it should trouble Americans of every political stripe to hear that Obama apparently views individualism and bootstrap independence as outmoded, ineffectual means of “meeting the demands of today’s world,” but the analogy to which the title refers is Obama’s audacious (as in demonstating a lack of respect) and fallacious comparison of homosexuality to race and sex:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

“Seneca Falls” refers to the historic women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York. “Selma” refers to the signal event of the civil rights movement when blacks attempted to march to the capitol of Alabama to protest voter registration abuses and state-sanctioned violence against blacks.

And then there’s Stonewall…

The Stonewall Riots are considered by many to mark the beginning of the “gay liberation” movement. The Stonewall Inn was a mafia-owned bar in New York City patronized primarily by homosexuals and cross-dressers and which was regularly raided by police. Over the course of several nights in the summer of 1969, homosexuals rioted in protest of one such police raid.

It is wearying to have to address the comparison of homosexuality to sex or race yet again. But like the emperor’s non-existent clothes, Obama and his court continue to trot it out in public, knowing that the masses still deceive themselves into finding it utterly bedazzling.

Race and sex are 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable and have no relation to volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not 100 percent heritable, is not in all cases immutable, and is constituted by volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.  A more sound analogy would compare homosexuality to polyamory or pedophilia (or for those who put finer distinctions on the condition currently being renamed “minor-attracted persons,” there is pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia).

Obama goes on to say that “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” (Translated, this means that “same-sex marriage” should be legalized.) Such foolishness from our president should be embarrassing, but we seemed to be losing our capacity to recognize foolishness or be embarrassed.

First, those who choose to place their same-sex attraction at the center of their identity are “treated like anyone else under the law.” They are perfectly free to participate in the sexually complementary institution of marriage. They choose not to. They are not asking to be treated equally. They are demanding to be treated specially. They want the unilateral right to jettison the central defining feature of marriage (i.e., sexual complementarity)—something, by the way, that polygamists, polyamorists, “minor-attracted persons,” and sibling-lovers are not permitted to do.

Second, does our president actually believe the idea he clunkily articulated in his speech, that “surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love polygamists “commit” to their wives “must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love a high school teacher commits to his student “must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love five polyamorists of assorted genders “commit” to one another “must be equal” as well? Does he believe the love a brother and sister “commit” to each other “must be equal as well”?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.

Obama audaciously exploits the legacy and faith of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. by linking King’s righteous battle for the civil rights of black Americans to the unrighteous battle to normalize homosexuality and legalize homosexual faux-marriage. While arrogating for his ignoble purposes the name of Martin Luther King, Obama conveniently omits the fact that King said, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”

While Obama claims to be a follower of Christ (a fact that doesn’t seem to upset the Left nearly as much as George Bush’s Christianity did), he flouts the teachings of Christ. It’s unclear whether Obama’s heretical views of marriage reflect Jeremiah Wright’s teaching, Obama’s spiritual and intellectual laziness, or his political opportunism. What is clear is that his views are destructive.

But while both the Old and New Testaments affirm marriage as a sexually complementary institution, defending marriage as such need not derive from religious belief. Even atheists and agnostics are able to recognize and defend marriage as a sexually complementary institution, which explains why in France recently, there were atheists (as well as homosexuals) joining people of faith to defend the traditional and true understanding of marriage. 

Some will claim in high dudgeon that criticisms of Obama demonstrate a lack of respect for the Office of President. Americans, however, have no ethical obligation to refrain from criticizing ideas that are ignorant, offensive, and destructive—even if those ideas are expressed by the president. In fact, the office Obama occupies provides him with an exceptional degree of influence that requires the pernicious ideas he promotes to be challenged. And the de facto destruction of marriage—which is the idea he was promoting in his inaugural speech—is, indeed, pernicious.

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

WARNING: Not for younger readers

Let’s hope that audience members at the Dan Savage speaking engagement this coming Sunday, April 29, 2012 at Elmhurst College demonstrate the good sense and courage that several high school students recently demonstrated.

Dan Savage, the vulgar, vitriol-spewing, homosexual sex columnist was for some bizarre reason invited to be the Friday keynote speaker at a national convention for high school journalism students held in Seattle, Washington last week.

Savage, being Savage, employed his usual anti-religious, obscene rhetoric, and when some offended high school students walked out, the middle-aged Savage called them “pansies.”

In the convention’s program, Savage is described as a “popular, sex advice columnist” who offers “frank, funny advice on sex and relationships” and “creates a safe space for all audiences to discuss ‘taboo’ topics.” Two things to note: 1. The event planners knew exactly what they were getting in hiring Savage for an event for high school students. 2. In academia, a “safe space” means a place where volitional homosexuality must be affirmed as moral. The presence of any dissenting ideas renders a space “unsafe.”

After Savage’s presentation, faculty adviser for students from Overland Park, Kansas, Jim Mccrossen, told his students that “‘it is important to be challenged in what you believe because you never become stronger in anything if you are not challenged.'” When I worked at Deerfield High School, English teacher Jeff Berger-White made this same claim in our local press when defending his decision to teach the obscene, homosexuality-affirming play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by homosexual playwright Tony Kushner:

‘There are going to be times during their years in high school, if we (teachers) are doing are (sic) jobs well, when most students should feel intellectually, emotionally, and even morally challenged.’ 

Some questions emerge from these teachers’ claims: First, is it really the job of public high school teachers to challenge students emotionally and morally? Second, if it is, how often do teachers in public schools provide resources or activities that challenge “progressive” views of homosexuality? How often do they have students read essays by scholars who dissent from the views of Dan Savage or Tony Kushner? How many students have read an essay by Princeton law professor Robert George or Providence College English professor Anthony Esolen or Amherst professor Hadley Arkes? How many students have read any essays at all by a conservative scholar on topics related to homosexuality?

Dan Savage’s signature project, the effort for which he is most well-known, is the “It Gets Better” Campaign in which actors, politicians, and ordinary people affirm homosexuality while telling hurting kids who experience same-sex attraction that life will get better. This has the superficial gloss of a positive message but is based on foundational assumptions that are ultimately socially irresponsible, intellectually bankrupt, and an affront to human dignity — the very opposite of the values Elmhurst College claims to hold.

Here are some of the values and visions that Elmhurst College affirms:

Mission

Elmhurst College inspires its students…to prepare for …ethical work in a multicultural, global society. … [W]e foster learning, broaden knowledge, and enrich culture through…scholarship.

Vision for the Future

Elmhurst College …asks our students to become… academically grounded, intellectually engaged, and socially responsible citizens, who understand and respect the diversity of the world’s cultures and peoples.

Core Values

Intellectual Excellence
We value intellectual freedom, curiosity, and engagement; [and] rigorous debate.

Community
We are committed to… mutual respect among all persons…and fairness and integrity in all that we do.

Stewardship
We are committed stewards of the human, fiscal, and physical resources entrusted to us.

Faith, Meaning, and Values
We value the development of the human spirit in its many forms and the exploration of life’s ultimate questions through dialogue and service. We value religious freedom and its expressions on campus. Grounded in our own commitments and traditions as well as those of the United Church of Christ, we cherish values that create lives of intellectual excellence, strong community, social responsibility, and committed stewardship.

Let’s see if Dan Savage reflects the mission of Elmhurst College to prepare students for “ethical work”; or its vision to have students become “academically grounded” and socially responsible citizens who “respect the diversity of the world’s peoples”; or the college’s core values regarding “mutual respect,” “integrity,” “intellectual excellence,” and “social responsibility.”

Here are some quotes from Savage (with links to videos, lest anyone think I’m cherry-picking quotes or pulling them out of context):

He describes conservative Christians like “Tony Perkins” as “right-wing, fundamentalist, bat sh*t, a**h*le, dou**ebag Christians,” and as the “Evangelical Taliban Christian Family Association.” He also tells “progressive” Christians to start “screaming in Tony Perkins’ face.”  I wonder if such rhetoric creates a “safe space” for people who hold orthodox, historical theological beliefs?

Even with asterisks, I can’t repeat what Savage says at his speaking engagements. If you choose to watch the ones we’ve provided links to, bear in mind that Savage has an adopted son who was between 10-12 years old when Savage was saying things publicly that no father should say even privately (WARNING—GRAPHIC,  OBSCENE LANGUAGE):  HERE, HERE,  HERE, HERE and HERE.  (UPDATE:  We discovered last night that a number of Savage’s YouTube videos were removed after this article was published.)

What is ironic is that after Rush Limbaugh used offensive language to describe a feminist activist, the Obama Administration took him to task, but even Dan Savage’s well-documented history of referring to conservative Christians as “bat sh*t, a**h*le, d**chebags” and advocating the most perverse sexual practices in the most foul language doesn’t stop President Obama from inviting him to the White House.

Elmhurst College claims to value “rigorous debate,” the “exploration of life’s ultimate questions through dialogue,” intellectual engagement, and diversity. If so, will the college be inviting speakers who espouse different views of the nature and morality of homosexuality than Savage and who do so in a different manner, that is to say, without obscene language that degrades rather than develops the human spirit.

Savage’s invitation seems to be part of a larger effort on the part of Elmhurst College to promote arguable assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Some months ago, Elmhurst College made the national news for being the first college in the nation to ask on its college application whether applicants identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. The administration defended this question by asserting an offensive and absurd comparison of race to conditions constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts.

In so doing, Elmhurst College administrators reveal their own ignorance. And by promoting contemporary ideas about “LGBT identity,” they reveal their theological heresy — not that theological orthodoxy is important to Elmhurst College, which bears virtually no imprint of its theological heritage. But boy oh boy does it proudly show the mark of sexual unorthodoxy to which even pedagogical soundness must bow in obeisance.

Elmhurst College’s Hammerschmidt Memorial Chapel, which once echoed with the thoughtful, civil voices of Elie Weisel and Martin Luther King Jr., will now be polluted by the odious rhetoric of Dan Savage. 

Despite the fact that I am neither a theologian nor a pastor, I’m going to make what I hope are not presumptuous observations about the way some individuals, church leaders, and non-profit organizations attempt to build bridges with the homosexual community. Many Christian “bridge-builders” are pursuing this noble effort by either concealing from their GLBTQ friends the true nature of their orthodox theological positions, or conversely by concealing from their orthodox Christian friends their non-traditional theological positions.

The goals of building bridges, cultivating community, and fostering relationships between the orthodox Christian community and the LGBTQ community, and spreading the Good News of Christ’s work of redemption within that community are not only noble but critical goals. And certainly different people are called to approach these goals in different ways. But the methods or strategies employed must never sacrifice, obscure, or compromise truth.

Some of these bridge builders justify their obfuscation by claiming that it is not the role of the Christian community to “convict or judge.” They argue, rightly in my view, that it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart of man, and God who judges. But the way they are using this correct theology muddies the waters by implying that if we state clearly that God defines homosexual behavior as sin, we are guilty of convicting and judging others. That is false. To answer direct questions with direct, clear answers on God’s view of homosexuality does not constitute either convicting or judging. And it can lead to the very redemption bridge-builders profess to desire for the LGBTQ community.

There are several important clarifications that need to be made. First, conviction is a work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. Second, our plain, unequivocal, unambiguous statements about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality are not the convicting work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. And third, speaking plain truths often plays a part in the Holy Spirit’s work of convicting us of sin. We can and should respond to direct questions with direct responses with no fear that we have engaged in a presumptuous acts of convicting.

The idea of “judgment” is similarly misused. We as fallen humans cannot presume to judge who is saved and who is not, but we are obligated to teach and preach about what God’s Word teaches about sin. Articulating clearly what the Bible teaches on homosexuality does not constitute unbiblical, illegitimate judging. God manifestly does not prohibit believers from sharing what he reveals in his Word as right or wrong conduct. What kind of a world would we live in if every Christian ceased articulating moral principles derived from Scripture?

If asked directly, orthodox believers should answer winsomely and lovingly but plainly and truthfully. If we strain to find ways to avoid speaking the truth that God proscribes homosexual practices, we do a disservice both to those experiencing same-sex attractions and to our relationship with Christ. Our equivocations, evasions, or ambiguity will either appear as untruthful and manipulative, or they will deceive people into thinking we believe something we do not. We should instead do as we are commanded and speak the truth in love.

Of course, sharing biblical truths about sin may make people uncomfortable and even angry, but sharing what the Word of God teaches about homosexuality, if done in a spirit of humility and in a gracious manner, does not and indeed cannot, inhibit the work of the Holy Spirit. To imply that because speaking biblical truth hurts or angers those who self-identify as homosexual, it undermines the capacity of the Holy Spirit to bring them to salvation is unbiblical.

Those who self-identify as homosexual are no different from those who are selfish, greedy, envious, prideful, fornicators, gossips, or gluttons. All of us come to the cross as sinners, and none will be fully sanctified until Christ’s return, but retreat from or obfuscation of what the Bible teaches about selfishness, greed, envy, pride, fornication, gossip, gluttony, homosexuality, or any other of the myriad manifestations of sin is simply not scriptural–and therefore not good.

If a fornicator comes to us and asks if God approves of fornication, we must with love, humility, and empathy, tell him no, God does not approve of fornication. Similarly, if someone asks us directly how God views homosexuality, we must answer that God disapproves of it. We do not reject him or her because of their questions, their feelings, or their actions. And we ought to take this opportunity to share the Gospel message of hope and redemption. But we must answer truthfully. His or her anger does not mean we have done something wrong, and it tells us precisely nothing about the ultimate effect of our words. If we speak God’s truth in a gracious, humble manner, we glorify God. The ultimate consequence is in God’s hands. All our strategizing about what will work best to draw people into the Kingdom reveals our lack of understanding of God’s sovereignty.

Long-(mis) attributed to Martin Luther are these words:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Similarly Martin Luther’s namesake, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote this about the church’s resistance to confronting boldly, directly, and unambiguously the sin of racism:

I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. … too many … have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. … I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? …

I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, non-biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

In deep disappointment, I have wept over the laxity of the church. … I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide, and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

“Building bridges,” cultivating community, and fostering relationships must always be subordinate to teaching the entirety of Scripture. That is not to say that Scripture passages on homosexuality are the totality of the message. They’re not. But it does mean that Scripture has something explicit to say about homosexuality, and if we are asked what the Bible says, we are obligated, if we love Christ and love our neighbors as ourselves, to share that hard truth. That we must address this issue so often arises not from any obsession on the part of Christians but rather from the relentless, pervasive cultural assault on biblical truth.

John Wesley articulates eloquently the reasons and necessity for a clear exposition of God’s universal, eternal, and immutable precepts for human conduct:

 . . . [T]he First use of [the law] without question is, to convince the world of sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it with out any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him. . . . But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is . . . quick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper than any two edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and “divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;” yea, as it were, the very “joints and marrow.” By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God.”

To slay the sinner is, then, the First use of the law; to destroy the life and strength wherein he trusts, and convince him that he is dead while he liveth; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead unto God, void of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The Second use of it is, to bring him unto life, unto Christ, that he may live. It is true, in performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe school-master. It drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed whereon to trust, and so constrains the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depth of his heart,

“I give up every plea beside, — Lord, I am damn’d; but Thou hast died.”