When the culture wars first erupted across America in the 1960s, we were informed that it was judgmental to call premarital sex, pornography, homosexuality or divorce “immoral.” We had arrived at a more “enlightened” day in America and judgments were not to be made on such issues. Today, it is undoubtedly true that there is no greater offense than to pass moral judgment against the behavior of another.

However, setting aside moral valuations for a moment, it would be wise of America to consider the consequences of overturning America’s long held mores. Nearly every day in my work as a pastor I deal with or hear of people whose lives are in collapse or catastrophe. One cannot hear the pathetic cries of little children as they are traumatized by their parent’s divorce without believing that a marriage license should be made very difficult to obtain and a divorce even more so. As I have witnessed single moms struggling to get by, I am angered by a society that allows children to have children and keep them regardless of the fact that those children will live not only in poverty, but often midst violence and crime.

It is utterly amazing to me that we have decided it is a greater evil to call promiscuous behavior “sinful” than it is to bring a child into the world without a family, without means of support, and to subject that child to almost certain poverty.

There is no question that every moral standard breached over the last fifty years has lead to lives lived in pain, poverty, crime and even death. Study after study reveal that every child thrives best in an intact, loving heterosexual family. It is ironic that we are willing to bankrupt the nation in order to address so-called “Global warming” at the same time that we turn blinded eyes to the millions of people, especially children who are suffering the far more catastrophic and immediate consequences of our moral collapse. If we really cared about children we would demand real change. If we are willing to call polluting of the physical environment “wrong” than we had better be willing to call the destruction our children’s moral environment “very wrong!” If polluters of the environment can be penalized for their actions, how much more should those whose actions destroy the lives of little children be prosecuted?

It is a vain conceit to believe that we have arrived at a point of enlightenment. It is in fact more accurate to say that we have become an incredibly foolish culture. God have mercy on us and on our children!

The sad spectacle of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford continues to dominate the headlines as further revelations add one bizarre twist after another to the governor’s tale of adultery, deceit, and the consequences of sin. With every passing day, pressure mounts for the governor to resign. As the revelations unfold, his leadership credibility is further destroyed. The people of South Carolina now look to their governor’s mansion with a sense of dread and embarrassment.

Governor Sanford’s admission of adultery came only after he was ambushed by the media after returning from a liaison in Argentina. In a rambling confession, the governor admitted to an ongoing relationship and an extramarital affair. While the media quickly turned to ask questions about money and the affairs of state, many others immediately thought of the governor’s wife and four sons and the horrible pain and embarrassment they were now forced to bear.

In his original statement, Governor Sanford seemed to acknowledge the evil of his actions and, using biblical language, he appeared to understand the sinfulness of his adultery and betrayal. Yet, his statement was rambling and disconnected and, upon reflection, his words raised more questions than they answered. How did this affair happen? Was the relationship really over?

When Governor Sanford addressed his cabinet just a few days after his confession, he offered an apology to his colleagues and promised to “carry on” as governor. “I wanted generally to apologize to every one of you all, for letting you down,” he said. Of course, “letting you down” hardly covers the behavior that brought the governor to this admission. The governor violated his marital vows, engaged in an elaborate and sickening correspondence with his mistress, abandoned his responsibility as husband and father, and forfeited his right to lead the state which twice had elected him governor.

When speaking to the Cabinet, Governor Sanford referred to the biblical story of King David. The governor spoke of “the way in which he fell mightily — he fell in very, very significant ways — but then picked up the pieces and built from there.” The governor also suggested that remaining in office would set a good example for his four boys, teaching them to persevere after a fall. The great shame is that the governor did not have his four boys in mind as he committed adultery.

Naturally, questions emerged related to the extent and duration of the extramarital affair. The governor’s initial statement was unclear about several key issues. The days following would render the situation even more unclear.

Most recently, in a lengthy interview granted to the Associated Press, Governor Sanford added what the wire service called “explosive details” that made the picture all the more troubling. In the first place, the governor admitted to having “crossed the lines” with other women. “There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines that I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line,” said the governor.

But the most troubling words from the governor concerned the nature of his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman with whom he had the affair. “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” he said. He added: “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”

Speaking, not of his wife, but of his mistress, Governor Sanford declared that he would go to his grave “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”

Immediately following the governor’s first admission, it seemed that he might survive politically and remain in office. The nation found itself once again in a debate about the relationship between personal virtue and public responsibility. This is a question that is particularly vexing to Christian conservatives, who must simultaneously understand that all are sinners in need of redemption and, at the same time, affirm that some sins disqualify individuals from public service and influence.

America’s recent political history indicates that some politicians can survive revelations of adultery. While Christians should be less concerned about the political consequences and more concerned about the spiritual consequences, it is fair to observe that those politicians who survive more often than not do so when the adulterous relationship is clearly over and in the more distant past and when the politician has given himself in a demonstrable way to the priority of rebuilding his marriage and reestablishing credibility with his family.

Put simply, Governor Sanford’s most recent comments point to a worst-case scenario. His words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife. With tragic candor, the governor has spoken of trying to fall back in love with his wife. He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as “a love story at the end of the day.”

Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel’s King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David’s adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.

Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina — as well as the watching world — now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the “detestation of sin.” This is a far cry from what we’ve heard from Governor Sanford.

If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons — and all who have eyes to see — how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.

By Marsha West –RenewAmerica.us

Emergent Church guru Tony Jones, the former national coordinator of Emergent Village, has been holding the issue of homosexuality “in abeyance” because “homosexuality is one issue that I don’t want to get wrong.” On November 23 he came out with his personal view on this hotly debated topic.

Drum roll please…… He’s for it.

After years of pondering and praying, praying and pondering, he managed to come up with the wrong answer. How do I know this? Because his “revelation” doesn’t line up with Scripture.

Evidently what the Bible teaches on sodomy made Tony feel uncomfortable, so he decided to hold back his opinion until he could come to terms with what he was “feeling.” I say “feeling” because his conclusion doesn’t comport with the written Word of God, which he professes a belief in, but decides things from his gut, I guess. Heaven forbid he should offend the “gay” community!

On Tony’s “blogalogue” he wrote a carefully crafted statement to start the “conversation” rolling – with no mention of Scripture to back up his “enlightened” view. Before Tony gets to the point, he shares his personal story and tells how he viewed homosexuality in his early years. He wasn’t a conservative, nor was he a liberal; he says he “pretty much walked the middle of the road.”

I have to commend Tony for admitting he was wishy-washy on the issue of sodomy. Problem is, our pastors and leaders aren’t supposed to be spiritual wimps. All Christians are to boldly “contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).

Jones also admits that he understood the biblical prohibitions to sodomy:

“I’ve always thought that all persons should be afforded the same rights and no one should be discriminated against. But I also knew that the biblical prohibitions to homosexual sex should be taken seriously. And I remember quite a few debates in which I argued against homosexuality using the argument from natural law, the book of Genesis, and my own pithy deal-closer, “Look, the parts don’t fit. The plumbing’s not right. That’s how we know how God feels about it.” (Emphasis his.) [1]

Then he drops this bombshell:

“And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. (“Aha!” my critics will laugh derisively, “I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!”)”

I’m one critic who’s not laughing derisively. In fact, I’m not laughing at all. I find it unfunny, and profoundly troubling, that a former pastor who holds a doctorate from prestigious Princeton Theological Seminary does not have a simple grasp of the Bible’s clear teaching on same-sex sex. I also find it troubling that a leader in the ECM, who has a ton of influence with young people, would lend his support to same-sex “marriage” knowing full well that many undiscerning Christians will adopt his “progressive” view on the subject, simply because they hold him in high regard. “The problem is,” said Ravi Zacharias, “non critical people listening to this stuff absorb it.”

What people are absorbing from emergents isn’t authentic Christianity, it’s neo-evangelicalism. In other words, liberalism. I’ve covered the ECM in past columns. To find out more, read “Emergent Church Spreading Spiritual Cancer” [2] or watch Roger Oakland’s video on YouTube. [3]

T.M. Moore tackles evangelical liberalism in “Near Christianity.” He believes:

“Liberalism…is not Christianity at all, or, at best, a corrupt version. As J. Gresham Machen argued so eloquently in the last century, liberal Christianity has many appealing features, and much to commend it. In many ways it is a quite fascinating and alluring religion. It even uses all the language of Christianity and holds Jesus in high esteem. But for all that, liberal Christianity just isn’t Christianity. Indeed, Machen argued, it’s not even close.” [4]

Tony Jones’ version of Christianity is corrupt. What he professes is not the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, the ECM has all the earmarks of a cult – what Dr. Walter Martin called the “cult of liberal theology.” (Look for more on cults in a future article.)

I’m sure many people found it puzzling that Tony referred to homosexuals as “fully human persons.” (Actually, all sinners are fully human persons.) Why did he borrow a term that’s used by the pro-life movement to describe pre-born babies? “Gays” are obviously fully human (as are pre-born babies) so is he saying that those who don’t support same-sex “marriage” are denying their humanity? Or was he simply pointing out that some Christians think homosexuals are subhuman? A small minority of Christians who oppose homosexuality may feel that way, however, it’s not only wrong headed to believe homosexuals are subhuman, it’s that kind of thinking that does great damage to the cause of Christ!

Equally disgraceful is the fact that many professing Christians believe that a baby in the womb is not a fully human person until it’s able to breathe on its own! These same “Christians” believe they alone have the right to choose whether or not a pre-born baby is allowed to live or die. They will vehemently defend the right of “gay” couples to marry, yet when it comes to defenseless babies, they’re voices are silent. But I digress.

Historic orthodox Christianity holds that God’s people must “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Translated, this means we are to love all human persons. It’s a commandment, not a suggestion. So out of love for homosexuals, followers of Jesus Christ must gently tell them of the transforming power of Jesus. (1 Pet. 3:15) Believers are also commanded to pray for those who are in bondage to sin….because prayer changes things. Militant “gay” activists don’t want the public to know that it’s possible for a homosexual, who is in bondage to sin, to “change,” his/her orientation. It’s a fact that many men and women have left the homosexual lifestyle and are now straight. (For proof of this, visit the ex-gay website, PFOX)

Evidently Tony Jones doesn’t believe in God’s transforming power as he has now concluded that Christians must embrace homosexuality:

“I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.”

For those who have never heard of GLBTQ, it’s an acronym for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning.

Without getting too far afield, it’s impossible for a practicing homosexual, a bisexual or a transgender person to live in accord with biblical Christianity. (See Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:9-10.) The fact is, Scripture teaches that it’s a sin to have sex outside the bonds of marriage. GLBTQ behavior is “against nature” and “unseemly.” (Rom. 1:26-28) My point is that for the serious Christian, manmade (unbiblical) laws should have no bearing on how we think about someone’s “sexual orientation.” A Christian’s marching orders come from God!

Unfortunately, in our postmodern culture all too many so-called Christians accept what the culture deems the “norm” instead of looking to the Bible to see what God says is legitimate and acceptable! If the Bible expressly forbids something, then it’s wrong to engage in it. Not only that, it’s a slap in the face to Christ to condone what He condemns!

How could a Bible-believing Christian not know that the scriptures make a strong statement on homosexuality – God forbids it! With that in mind, the “conversation” believers in Christ should be having is how we can best articulate a Christian worldview on the hotly debated issues, instead of tossing God’s Word into the junk heap and embracing the cult of political correctness.

Getting back to Tony Jones’ “blogalogue,” I’m sorry to say that in winding it up he felt it necessary to make this rather flippant remark:

“Well, I suppose this blogalogue will be a test of whether I have good theological and philosophical reasons for supporting the rights of GLBTQ persons to marry, or whether I’ve simply caved to the mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness. In either case…I’m looking forward to this conversation, and I’m praying that it is ultimately glorifying of God.”

Jesus made this hard statement regarding prayer:

“Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth” (John 9:31).

Regarding God’s will, here are a couple of questions people of faith need to ask themselves: Is it God’s will for human beings to change His rules (as stated in the Bible) because some rules seem outdated, intolerant, hateful, unfeasible, hard to follow, silly, etc.? Is it God’s will for people to decide what is morally right and wrong based on, not what the Bible teaches, but on how they “feel” about certain issues?

Stunningly, Tony Jones’ new found beliefs on same-sex sex are not based on what God’s Word says. What he has come to believe is born out of his compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attractions. Like many neo-evangelicals, he has bought into the liberal theology that trusts in a person’s “feelings” rather than trusting in God. By disregarding the plain teaching of Scripture, and continuing his leftward slide, Tony Jones has shown himself untrustworthy and a false teacher.

A word of warning: Engaging in a theological “conversation” with a wiley false teacher can lead you into dangerous waters. The sad fact is that many who follow the teaching of charismatic religious leaders, speakers and writers, are drowning in a sea of apostasy! Take for example emergent pastor and author Brian McLaren. Much of his teaching is highly unorthodox. For one thing, he has called the doctrine of hell and the cross “false advertising for God.” Not only that, in an interview with “Time Magazine” a few years ago, he spouted his unbiblical view on homosexuality:

“Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say ‘it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.’ That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.” [5]

Because he doesn’t know what to think about the practice of sodomy, he suggested a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime:

“[W]e’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.” [6]

McLaren, who prides himself on representing “a more intellectual approach to Christianity” ridicules Christian fundamentalists:

“I don’t dislike fundamentalists, taken individually – they tend to be pretty nice folks. Get them together in a group though, and I get nervous. I start to twitch and break out in a rash.” [7]

Since McLaren obviously believes the Bible is foolish and inconsequential perhaps it’s the Lord who is causing him to twitch and break out in a rash!

Thanks to Tony Jones the dialogue on what to think about homosexuality has ceased. Will Brian and other emergent gurus join forces with Tony, or with orthodox Bible scholars? Time will tell.

In the meantime, some emergents will continue the “conversation” on homosexuality, knowing full well that people are dying – and some of them are headed straight to hell! Somehow they miss the urgency. Christians who believe the Bible’s teaching on hell must get out of their comfort zones and lovingly confront anyone who is in rebellion against God. Sure, Jesus palled around with sinners, but He never condoned their sin, nor did He tell the apostles to listen to the so-called experts, then after five or ten years decide what is, and is not, sin! The One who spoke the universe into existence and remains sovereign over His creation is the real expert on determining what sin is. Thankfully, He did not leave it up to sinful humans, who carry around more baggage than the airlines, to decide!

So, then, should conservative Christians worry about the ECM’s unorthodox teaching and their continual attacks against the historic fundamentals of the faith? Would it be better to just ignore these people and pray that the movement will soon fade away? Or should we fight it tooth and nail?

“Let’s not be confused here nor be too hasty to dismiss Tony Jones’ influence not only within the emergent church, but within the broader professing church itself. It’s easy to think; “Well, he’s only one guy and there is a lot of bad teaching out there”, but if you’re a discerning Christian you will have noticed by now that the post-modern vain philosophies of the emergent/emerging church are deeply infecting the Biblically illiterate youth of our day who are being fed a steady diet of spiritual poison while sitting under the teaching of hirelings. Men like Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren are influencing an entire generation to embrace vain traditions and a re-imagined theology that runs contrary to the historic, orthodox tenets which are fundamental to the Christian faith itself! This is nothing less than a Counter-Reformation!” [8]

I’ll close with a quote from renowned theologian, Dr. R.C. Sproul:

In every age the church is threatened by heresy, and heresy is bound up in false doctrine. It is the desire of all heretics to minimize the importance of doctrine. When doctrine is minimized, heresy can exercise itself without restraint.

NOTES:

[1] How I Went from There to Here: Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue, posted Nov. 19, 2008, By Tony Jones
http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-blogalogue-h.html

[2] Emergent Church Spreading Spiritual Cancer, By Marsha West
http://newswithviews.com/West/marsha66.htm

[3] Roger Oakland speaking on the Emergent Church Movement, part 1 – youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idZCcg3MvEI

[4] Near Christianity, By T.M. Moore
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=9347&zbrandid=420&zidType=CH&zid=2695436&zsubscriberId=93250485

[5] Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a “Pastoral Response” Out of Ur website, posted Jan. 23, 2006
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Brian McLaren’s book, “A New Kind of Christian” – page 9

[8] You’ve Been Warned – November 22, 2008 by Coram Deo
http://defendingcontending.com/2008/11/22/youve-been-warned/#more-5472

Additional reading:

Dan Kimball and the Emergent Church Seeking Hard to Make Homosexual Sin Not Sin

TODD FRIEL: A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE ROB BELL SAYS PUBLICLY PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALITY IS OK FOR CHRISTIANS

I’m covering two controversies in today’s column.

I’ll begin with the major controversy – scandal is probably a better term – involving the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to deliver the commencement address on May 17 (click here for the story).

Catholic Web sites and blogs have been buzzing about this development in recent days, with many orthodox Catholics, including ND alumni, expressing their outrage.

Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League and an alumnus of ND, said in a press release:

‘Over the first two months of his administration, Barack Obama has established himself as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. My alma mater should not be providing a platform for this president.

‘Starting from his first week in office, President Obama has enacted a string of executive orders, appointments and policy decisions that contradict Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life – a teaching that Notre Dame is supposed to uphold.

‘[ND president Father John Jenkins] cannot expect pro-life Catholics to stand back and allow the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history to make a mockery of Notre Dame’s Catholic identity.’

Jim Finnegan, another veteran pro-life activist and alumnus of ND, had this to say:

‘The news was as depressing to me as possible. With all the lack of understanding and concern for the feelings of so many graduates and friends of ND by its leadership over the past few years, this seems to top the list. A kind of ‘stick it in your eye’ decision – about as callous and cold as it gets.

‘The school had to know how this would be taken by not only those who love Our Lady’s school, but also those who are haters of our Catholic faith.

‘Truthfully, this one is hard to believe. With six members of the C.S.C. family and six lay members making up the trustees of the university, one would think they would have stopped this from happening. Father John Jenkins is one of the 12 trustees, so you know it had to go through him. Ironically, one of the stated responsibilities of the trustees is ‘to protect and nurture the true teachings of the Catholic faith against any attacks against these principals.’

‘Obviously those who love ND will respond. I have heard from many requesting, what do we do? Many good people will, in Joe Scheidler’s often-stated remark, ‘respond in a loving manner.”

Click here to find out how you can express your concerns to the university.

There is also controversy – on a much smaller scale, one could say – in the Diocese of Joliet, Ill. A reader alerted me to a diocesan-sponsoredconference for divorced and widowed Catholics, featuring Father Richard Gilbert, to be held March 28.

The thing is, Father Gilbert is an Anglican priest who belongs to the Evangelical Anglican Church in America, a church “that includes and affirms the identities and experiences of all God’s people. We are people of diverse backgrounds, identities and orientations. We are catholic [sic] and protestant [sic], female and male. We are a welcome home for those who have been marginalized by the church [sic].”

And, according to this essay, the EACA “provides a means by which and an ecclesial body in which sincere gay men, lesbians and bisexual persons, amonst others historically excluded, may answer Christ’s call to the Church either as lay faithful or within the ministerial priesthood, in adherance [sic] to Christ’s intention that his Church make its foundation upon the twin principles of mutuality and inclusivity.”

Now I ask: Even though Father Gilbert may be considered an “expert” in his field, is it really appropriate to have a non-Catholic clergyman who belongs to a liberal Protestant sect conducting a conference for divorced and widowed Catholics? Couldn’t the diocese find a (non-modernist) Catholic priest to conduct the conference?

What do you think about it, dear readers?

by Dr. Donald E. Wildmon – AFA President –American Family Association

In 1973 The Supreme Court said it was ok to kill unborn babies. Since then, we have killed more than the entire population of Canada. And it continues. A woman’s choice? Half of those who have died in their mothers’ wombs have been women. They didn’t have a choice. It is called abortion.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

First it was in dingy, dirty theaters. Then, convenience stores. Then, grocery stores. Then on television. Now it is in the homes of millions via the Internet. It is called pornography.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

They called it no-fault. Why should we blame anyone when something so tragic happens. Haven’t they already suffered enough? Half of the marriages in America end this way. The children suffered. The family broke down. It is called divorce.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

At one time it was a perversion. We kept it secret. We secured help and hope for those who practiced it. Now it is praised. We have parades celebrating it, and elected officials give it their blessing. Now it is endowed with special privileges and protected by special laws. Even some Christian leaders and denominations praise it. It is called homosexuality.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

It used to be an embarrassment. A shame. Now a third of all births are to mothers who aren’t married. Two-thirds of all African-American children are born into a home without a father. The state usually pays the tab. That is why we pay our taxes, so that government can take the place of parents. After all, government bureaucrats know much better how to raise children than parents do. It is called illegitimacy.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

At one time it was wrong. But then the state decided to legalize it, promote it and tax it. It has ripped apart families and destroyed lives. But just look at all the money the state has raised. No longer do we have to each our children to study and work hard. Now we teach them they can get something for nothing. We spend millions encouraging people to join the fun and excitement. Just look at the big sums that people are inning. They will never have to work again! It is called gambling.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

Not long ago, Christians were the good guys. But now any positive image of Christians in movies or on TV is gone. We are now depicted as the bad guys – greedy, narrow-minded hypocrites. The teacher can’t have a Bible on her desk, but can have Playboy. We don’t have Christmas and Easter holidays – just winter and spring break. We can’t pray in school, but can use foul language. It’s called being tolerant.

Me? I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

Yes, all these things came to pass within 30 years. Where were the Christians? Why, they were in church. All these things are for someone else to deal with. Times have changed. Involvement has been replaced with apathy.

But don’t blame me. I didn’t do anything. I go to church, the minister preaches, I go home. That’s what Christians do now.

President-elect Barack Obama claims to desire to unify the country. In one of his notable speeches, he said, “So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible … .”

And how does he seek to do this? He invites V. Gene Robinson, pivotal figure in the ongoing dramatic disunification of the Episcopal Church in America, “to deliver the invocation at a concert held at the Lincoln Memorial. The concert, which will be held on Sunday, January 18th, is the first inaugural event the president-elect will attend.” (Source: http://www.hrc.org/11873.htm.)

For those who may not be familiar with Vicki Gene Robinson, he is the divorced, “first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop” in the Episcopal Church. His ordination was the precipitating event in the decision of dozens of conservative Episcopal dioceses to split from the national denomination.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Robinson has said that “he would not use the Bible in his address because “‘While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans. . . . I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation.'” Someone may want to inform the bishop that, though there are many gods, there is only one God, and He is the God of the Old and New Testaments.

If ever there were a divisive character in American church life, V. Gene Robinson is one. His open and unrepentant engagement in homosexual conduct and his public defense of homosexuality in defiance of Scripture render Robinson not merely divisive, but dangerous. Our next president, the unifier, has invited a heretic to deliver the invocation at the Lincoln Memorial.

Here is an excerpt from a Tampa Bay Online article that articulates a truth far too many Christians don’t want to acknowledge:

“Twenty years ago no one was even saying the words ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian,’ and now here we are talking about gay marriage.”

Kay, echoing the hopes of GaYbor District founder West, paints a bright picture.”The younger generations, those in middle school and high schools, are far more open than their parents,” said Kay, a mother of two.

“These older fanatic, right-wing generations need to pass on, and with the younger people will come greater acceptance and civil rights, even for us gay folks.”

And with the acceptance of homosexuality mentioned in this excerpt necessarily comes a diminished respect for the authority of Scripture and a willingness to trade our religious and speech rights for perverted faux-marriages.

IFI challenges pastors, including youth pastors, to ask the members of their congregations and youth groups to share with them their honest feelings and thoughts about homosexuality. Church leaders should ask the following questions of those whom they are charged with leading:

• What do you think about the nature and morality of homosexuality?
   
• What do you think causes homosexuality?
   
• Do you think homosexuals are “born that way”?
   
• Do you think that if there are biological factors influencing same-sex desires, then homosexuality is moral?
   
• Should the United States legalize civil unions/domestic partnerships?
   
• Should the United States legalize “same-sex marriage”?
   
• Do you think legalized “same-sex marriage” would affect traditional marriage?
   
• Do you think legalized “same-sex marriage” would affect public education?
   
• What do you think the Bible teaches about homosexuality?
   
• Do you believe that the traditional or orthodox understandings of passages in Leviticus and Romans about homosexuality are correct?
   
• Do you think homosexual couples should be permitted to adopt children?
   
• Are public schools neutral on the issue of homosexuality? In other words, when it comes to the two main cultural positions (i.e., that homosexuality is biologically determined and morally equivalent to heterosexuality vs. homosexuality is not biologically determined and is not moral conduct), are public schools neutral?
   
• What do you think about how schools address bullying of homosexuals?
   
• Is it hate speech to say that homosexuality is immoral?
   
• Can schools address the problem of bullying without presenting homosexuality as normal and acceptable?
   
• When schools present the accomplishments of famous homosexuals, should they specifically mention their homosexuality?
   
• What do you think about the relationship between race and homosexuality?
   
• What do you think about the comparison between traditional marriage laws and anti-miscegenation laws (i.e., laws that banned interracial marriages)?
   
• What do you think “tolerance” looks like?
   
• What do you as a student, parent, and/or citizen do in your home, church, school, and community do to oppose the propagation of unproven or fallacious ideas on this issue?
   
• How are you who are parents preparing your children to understand all the myriad dimensions to this issue?
   
• How are you preparing your children to understand the specious secular arguments that are used to normalize homosexuality and to which they are relentlessly exposed?
   
• Do you think we, your leaders, are teaching by example the importance of courageous non-conformity? Are we as leaders exposing the “unfruitful works of darkness”? Do we show by example that we “consider it pure joy” to “face trials of many kinds”?
   
• Do you parents teach your children by example the importance of courageously resisting peer pressure? Are you willing to stand on principle even if doing so may result in rejection, ridicule or hostility?
   
• What do you think church leaders can or should do regarding teaching on this subject? Would you like the church to provide more instruction on this issue?
   
• Should church leaders be more involved in the culture at large on this issue?

Church leaders and their flocks need to consider the big picture. They need to understand that cultural change rarely occurs through dramatic single events but, rather, through the slow accretion of little occurrences that are ignored or dismissed. We say, well, that profane or obscene word is insignificant, so no need to be reactionary; and that offensive passage in the book is just part of a whole that isn’t in its entirety so bad; and despite the few brief scenes of graphic sex, the rest of the film delivers a positive message; and, although Will and Grace and Seinfeld and Friends do promote a very sympathetic view of homosexuality and promiscuity, they’re really funny; and on and on ad infinitum and nauseum.

We all need to ask what we are doing in our homes, churches, schools, and communities to oppose this grand social experiment that if left unopposed will result in a dystopian world suffused with sexual anarchy.

Churches need to offer workshops and classes to church leaders, college groups, senior high and middle school youth groups, parent groups, small groups, and adult Sunday school groups to inform, equip, embolden Christians on issues related to homosexuality and gender confusion that threaten children’s rights, parents’ rights, speech rights, religious liberty and church unity.  These workshops and classes need to address both theological perspectives on sexuality, marriage, and family as well as the specious secular arguments and manipulation of rhetoric that are persuading the public that homosexual activity and relationships are moral.

America trusts in the abiding power of prayer and asks for the wisdom to discern God’s will in times of joy and of trial. As we observe this National Day of Prayer, we recognize our dependence on the Almighty, we thank Him for the many blessings He has bestowed upon us, and we put our country’s future in His hands.

From our Nation’s humble beginnings, prayer has guided our leaders and played a vital role in the life and history of the United States. Americans of many different faiths share the profound conviction that God listens to the voice of His children and pours His grace upon those who seek Him in prayer. By surrendering our lives to our loving Father, we learn to serve His eternal purposes, and we are strengthened, refreshed, and ready for all that may come.

On this National Day of Prayer, we ask God’s continued blessings on our country. This year’s theme, “Prayer! America’s Strength and Shield,” is taken from Psalm 28:7, “The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped.” On this day, we pray for the safety of our brave men and women in uniform, for their families, and for the comfort and recovery of those who have been wounded.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on our Nation to reaffirm the role of prayer in our society by recognizing each year a “National Day of Prayer.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God’s continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

GEORGE W. BUSH