Written by Rod Dreher

Nick Zukin, a Portland restaurateur who believes in same-sex marriage but who publicly criticized the boycott of the Chauncy Childs store (for background, see yesterday’s post), writes to say:

A couple comments and corrections:

1) The business owners did not make their opinions known on their business Facebook page. The woman had posted on her personal page and the author of the video had been investigating her and found it out. I’m not sure why he was investigating her. I believe he said in the video that he had heard rumors. I don’t know if those rumors were about her comments on gay marriage or about her being Mormon or what. In fact, the only reference they originally made to the controversy on their Facebook page was to say that they do not and will not discriminate in any way. I think some people are still under the impression that this battle is over discrimination, but the leaders of the movement to boycott their business clearly know that this is over her beliefs about gay marriage, not about any actions on her part or the part of her business — other than her quasi-public statement on her Facebook page.

2) I was very clear throughout this mess that I was a strong proponent of marriage equality. It didn’t matter. It was enough that I thought a boycott was excessive to be deemed an enemy. Today I had someone leave a 1-star review on my restaurant’s Facebook page saying that they were regular customer who liked the food, but they don’t like the “hate” that comes with it. Here is how the Oregonian quoted me:

“The idea of blacklisting and boycotting people for their thoughts and beliefs, as opposed to their actions leads to a world that is less tolerant, less caring and more segregated,” Zukin told The Oregonian. “I don’t think the results will be the ones that people want.”

He went on to say that if a business was actively discriminating, “if it wasn’t serving gays, or people were disrespectful to gays in their store, I would be there protesting and boycotting.”

3) Since taking down his video, the author has been attacked as well on the boycott’s Facebook page and in the comments sections for local news stories. They’re now calling him a “sell out” for trying to make something positive out of this and for being willing to meet with the people he disagreed with and vilified.

4) The restaurant I used to work for and still own a part of posted on their Facebook page that they find my position “appalling”. I posted in response merely the two paragraphs from the Oregonian above and my response was deleted and I was banned from commenting.

This has gotten so out of proportion. It really is sad and counter-productive. I don’t think anyone is being helped by this. I wrote this on Facebook in response to someone attacking me today:

Certainly there have been horrible crimes against individual homosexuals and the gay community in general throughout history and even recently in the United States. People still do and probably will do terrible acts against LGBT people here in the United States and elsewhere. And if they do, they should be punished for it. Hardly seems fair to lay all of that at the feet of this woman, though, even symbolically.

Only 2 years ago, Barack Obama’s stated position was the same: against gay marriage. As was probably 95% of Congress, including Democrats. It was not the right position, but it didn’t prevent well over 60% of Portlanders voting for him in 2008. That’s actually less than the national average for the percentage of gay Americans that voted for Obama in 2008, which was 70%.

So apparently being leader of the free world is not important enough to keep the gay community from supporting him despite his failings for their community, but a woman with little or no political power who doesn’t believe in gay marriage owning an organic grocery store is a bridge too far?

And what’s the end result? Now you have people sympathetic to gay rights thinking that rights aren’t enough, but that they’ll be punished if they don’t share the same beliefs. They go from feeling sympathetic to feeling threatened. Maybe you think that you’ve galvanized the gay community and left-leaning activists? I don’t think that’s true. I received Facebook messages from a local LGBT leader saying that she supports me and not to let this get me down. I got several emails and messages from gay friends condemning what you guys are doing. My Facebook page is filled with gay friends echoing and supporting my position. People like Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are coming out against the efforts to purge businesses of those that differ in their beliefs, as well. You’re not bringing communities together, you’re tearing them apart, creating competing factions within the community and losing sight of the prize: equal rights.

I remember my mom telling me stories about this boy she liked in grade school. She didn’t know how to get his attention, so one time while he was at the drinking fountain, she came by and hit him in the head. He smacked his teeth on the faucet and started bleeding everywhere. The boy never liked her. I think she would have been better off talking to him and showing him kindness.

Brendan Eich is deemed unfit to run the company he helped found, not because he would discriminate in the workplace, but because six years ago he gave money to the Prop 8 campaign, which was supported by a majority of Californians. The Childs family will almost certainly lose their investment in what was an empty storefront they were rehabilitating to open an organic food store, not because they have mistreated gay customers, but because of Chauncy Childs’ personal disapproval of same-sex marriage. Nick Zukin strongly believes in same-sex marriage rights, but because he publicly stated his objection to punishing a business owner for her privately held opinions, his business is now the target of a boycott.

A gay reader of this blog (I leave it up to him to identify himself if he likes) who has campaigned for same-sex marriage and gay rights in general e-mailed last night to say he’s being called a “self-hating homosexual” and a “coward” for objecting to these tactics.

Nice movement for tolerance, diversity, and acceptance you have there. Is this what America has to look forward to? Will America become a place where people are denied their livelihoods because they support traditional marriage, or even, as in Zukin’s case, when they simply express disagreement with the more radical edge of the gay rights movement? Because it looks like this is where we’re headed.

This article was originally posted at TheAmericanConservative website.

Written by Rod Dreher

A reader alerts me to an ongoing saga from Portland. It seems that a woman named Chauncy Childs is planning to open a premium food store, a place where she can sell locally-raised and grown fresh meat and vegetables, including the non-GMO food she grows on her farm. But the people in the progressive neighborhood where she’s planning to open read her Facebook page, and found that she does not support same-sex marriage, and was kind of ugly about it. Ruh-roh! Excerpt from the Oregonian report:

Childs said she is religious and has a libertarian view that government should not be allowed to dictate whom a business does or doesn’t serve.

“We’re not going to refuse to serve anybody,” she said. “But we believe a private business should have the right to live their conscience.”

She said she believes that gay marriage is wrong because it is the start of a slippery slope that could eventually lead to pedophilia and bigamy. But she said those are her private religious beliefs and don’t reflect how the store will operate.

Childs, who owns a farm in Oregon City, said her idea was to open a place where she could sell her own GMO-free produce and dairy along with other GMO-free products made by local vendors.

Well, naturally there’s talk of boycotting her store when it opens, even though she’s spent a lot of money renovating the empty storefront. The Oregonian said that the locals had been excited about having a new store from which to buy the kinds of food they like. No more. From the story:

“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”

Think about the paradox of a neighborhood so open-minded that it will not tolerate the presence of a businesswoman who privately holds negative views about same-sex marriage.

But now boycott talk is swinging towards a local thought criminal restaurant owner who said on Facebook that it’s wrong to boycott a business for the private opinions of its owner.

This comments thread started when a stay-at-home dad in that neighborhood posted a seven-minute video (now taken down) expressing angst and hostility toward the as-yet-unopened food store. One thing he said: What about the children who have to walk past that store every day, knowing that it is owned by a woman who doesn’t support gay marriage?

Yes, he said that. Portlandia!

Nick Zukin makes sense; from that comments thread:

I’m wondering, Robert, if you’ve researched any of the other businesses nearby. Who are their owners? What are their religious beliefs? Do they give money to a political party? Etc? What about your dentist, your doctor, your wine vendors? It’s a bad way to live.

Yes it is. But it looks like we’re going to be living that way, at least those of us who live among the Progressive Puritans, who keep vigil day and night to prevent witches from living among them, poisoning their wells and worse. How are we to know that Chauncy Childs won’t kidnap liberal children and bake gluten-free cakes from non-GMO flour in the back room of that foodie boutique of hers?

When we lived in Brooklyn, we routinely shopped at a local food store owned by Yemeni Muslim immigrants. If I had to bet, I would guess they held strongly anti-gay views, strongly anti-feminist views, and probably strongly anti-Christian views. But you know what? They were always polite to us — friendly, even — and their products were good. They were good neighbors. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

When we lived in Philly, we shopped all the time at a local organic food co-op that was fairly Portlandish in its progressivism. But the food was good and the people were really nice to us. If they had known that they were dealing with a right-wing Christian troglodyte every time they saw me at the register buying food, it probably would have appalled them. And I’m sure that at least some of those workers held offensive prejudices about Christians and conservatives. But you know what? They were nice and we were nice and we enjoyed sharing the same neighborhood with them. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

In the Philadelphia area, you run into Amish folks at farmer’s markets, selling their produce. I was told by a local foodie that long before farmer’s markets became popular, the Amish were holding the line on locally-grown fresh food. According to this person, the reason the farmer’s market movement started so early and became so strong in Philly was because of the presence of the Amish from Lancaster County and elsewhere. People love them. You think the Amish are for gay marriage? You think the Amish hold properly progressive views on sex, gender roles, or anything else? Who the freak cares?! At the Baton Rouge farmer’s market, the best local milk comes from Mormon dairy farmers, and the best chicken comes from Muslim chicken farmers. You think they are pure enough for Portlandia? In my town, which is fairly conservative, some of the most beloved businesses are run by liberals, and employ gay people. Nobody cares. Nobody should care. You are a bad neighbor if you care, and not just a bad neighbor, but an asshole.

From what I’ve read about Chauncy Childs, it sounds like she was, and is, obnoxious on the subject of same-sex marriage. She doesn’t sound like the kind of person I would want to socialize with. But if I lived in Portland, I would make a point to go shop at her store, just to take a stand against this rotten movement to investigate the personal lives and beliefs of people and ruin their livelihoods if they don’t measure up. Besides, I believe that we can’t have enough places to buy organic farm-raised meat, vegetable, and dairy. Chauncy Childs, whatever her sins and failings, has apparently invested a lot of money in opening that kind of place, a food store that the neighbors were looking forward to until somebody went online and discovered her thoughtcrime. Do you think Chauncy Childs’s mind is going to be opened to gay rights after this? Do you think this kind of thing builds community, or makes it more possible for we who live in a pluralistic community to get along better with each other, despite our differences?

Portlandia’s version of sharia is no way to live.

UPDATE: A reader posts this, which explains why the Portlandia guy took down his video:

“My name is Sean O’Riordan and on April 2nd I released a video on YouTube regarding the Facebook postings of an owner of a business that was moving into our neighborhood. I, and much of the greater community at large, found these postings to be objectionable. Since we were unable to get a reply from Moreland Farmer’s Pantry after several requests for clarification, the video containing the information was made and uploaded.

On the morning of April 3rd, John Childs, one of the owners of the Moreland Farmer’s Pantry came to my home, introduced himself and asked if we could have a conversation. I found Mr. Childs to be a man who is sincere in his beliefs and passionate in discussion.

Although he and I fundamentally disagree on several issues, we were not disagreeable in our discussions. Mr. Childs asserted that he understood our family’s position and assured us that neither he nor his wife nor their business would ever discriminate toward their customers.

Mr. Childs realized that words had been spoken and it was time for action. He proposed to donate to a local LGBT program in Portland as a show of good faith. This was before any press was involved. I agreed that was a great start and once that was achieved I would take the YouTube video down.

We shook hands and gave our word.

Soon after he and I found ourselves in front of the camera broadening the conversation. In Portland, the conversation exploded and I implore all of us to act with the dignity that we expect to receive. John and I can do that face to face. Don’t allow the anonymity of the keyboard reduce you to your worst self.

After the interviews, John reached out again via email. I have included his note below with his permission.

‘Sean,
Thank you for taking the time today to speak with me about the Facebook posts. As I mentioned in our conversation, neither Chauncy nor I have a discriminatory bone in our bodies. We abhor discrimination in any form. But what we abhor more than that is anyone imposing their will on someone else even when they are in the right.
I believe our post said that “of course a business can discriminate against gay people”. I apologize, we probably could have chosen a better subject to express the view that we should not restrict anyone’s right to free speech and expression, even when we disagree with them. Other businesses and people can discriminate as much as they want, but to their detriment. Our business does not and will not discriminate.

We understand how this post could have been interpreted as anti-gay but I assure you that was not our intention in the least.
Thank you again for your understanding ear.

John Childs
Moreland Farmers

At 4:56 pm 04/04/14 I received a confirmation of a sizable donation from Mr. Childs to Equity Foundation,http://www.equityfoundation.org/, a Portland based LGBTQ foundation.

The purpose and mission of the Equity Foundation is to “leverage resources to create social, economic, and political equity for the LGBTQ community”.

Mr. Childs kept his word as I have mine; The video has been removed and perhaps light has been shed on a subject that runs pretty deeply in our community. We have agreed to disagree. In a healthy, open society people are free to not want to patronize any business that does not fit their value system, and they are free to try to persuade other people to do the same. While I wish John well, I will continue to shop with businesses that align with my values.

My hope is that the day will come when equal rights for all is no longer an issue. Sadly, we are not there yet, but perhaps we are just a little closer.

Sean O’Riordan
04/04/14
Sellwood, Oregon

So Sean O’Riordan is still going to boycott this guy’s store. Sounds to me like John Childs wasted his money donating to the LGBT organization as a show of good faith. This is about purity.

This article was originally posted on TheAmericanConservative.com website.

Many Christians have been warning for years that the radical homosexual activist lobby is made up of Christian-hating fascists who are in rebellion against both God and nature, who are hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.

Sadly, many people, even many Christians, think that I and others are using hyperbole when we refer to this sexual anarchist “LGBT” movement as “homofascist” or the “Gaystapo.” I hope you’ll think again. It’s time to wake up and smell the impending anti-Christian persecution. It’s fully at hand.

BarbWire contributor Laurie Higgins, commenting on the Washington Examiner story below, summed it up well in an email tonight:

CEO and co-founder of Mozilla (and inventor of JavaScript) Brendan Eich is forced to resign because of his $1,000 donation to Prop 8 six years ago. So, I guess it’s semi-official: American citizens who believe marriage is inherently sexually complementary cannot work in America–not even in their own companies. First Amendment: R.I.P.

Reports the Washington Examiner:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure after gay rights activists demanded that he step down or recant his support of traditional marriage laws.

Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I don’t want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we’ve been going,” Eich told The Guardian. “I don’t believe they’re relevant.”

That wasn’t an option. “CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality,” a Credoaction petition signed by almost 75,000 people said, per The Inquirer. “If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately.”

When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal.

“I don’t believe that’s true, on the basis of what’s permissible to support or vote on in 2008,” he told CNET. “It’s still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one.”

Oh, oh, Mr. Eich, how wrong you are. That’s the America we used to live in. That’s the America of our founding. Welcome to “Amerika.” Homofascism is the order of the day and Christian “intolerance” simply will not be tolerated. That was before we became the godless, wicked nation we are today. A once-great nation that now takes “pride” in calling “evil good and good evil.”

And here’s the kicker: Mr. Eich’s position on so-called “gay marriage” in 2008 is identical to none other than one Barack Hussein Obama’s. While running for president that year he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

Off with his head! Where are the calls for Obama’s resignation? Well, there are none because he got with the homofascist program. In a clear effort to raise funds for re-election, he pulled a 180.

Is anyone surprised?

Continues the Examiner:

On Thursday, Mozilla announced that he had resigned. “Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote. “We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

Do you see what’s happening? Did you read that? That’s fear — deathly fear. Fear of a radical, hateful, intolerant, obnoxious, fascist, evil and power-crazed group of sex-obsessed anarchists who demand that we all affirmatively celebrate their deviant and self-destructive sexual sins.

Christians, buckle up. Your whole world is about to change. The Rainbowshirts are emboldened and they’ve broken out the long knives.  “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence” – Psalm 73:6.

They smell blood in the water. I’ve often said that these folks want those who speak Biblical truth about human sexuality and legitimate marriage either 1) dead, 2) imprisoned or, if they can have neither of these, 3) marginalized to the point where they can’t even support their families.

Check No. 3 off the list. I guess they’re working backwards.

Freedom is hanging on by a thread, America, and it is those who worship the sin of Sodom that are determined to finish it off once and for all.

Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.

Although the tempest surrounding World Vision’s policy change and abrupt reversal of policy change on hiring men and women in homosexual unions recognized legally as “marriages” has died down, the trickier issue of trust restoration remains.

For many theologically orthodox Catholics and Protestants, trust cannot be restored unless there are leadership changes at World Vision U.S. Those board members who voted to allow the U.S. branch of World Vision to hire men and women in legal homosexual “marriages,” need to resign in order for many Christians to believe that the policy reversal reflects biblical orthodoxy rather than financial considerations.

In addition to the many troubling comments from World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns in the Christianity Today article that revealed the policy change, subsequent information suggests the need for clearer evidence of path-straightening that will likely come only from board changes.

The Washington Post reports that in 2013 World Vision received $145 million from the federal government, which many fear contributed to the decision to hire “married” homosexuals. Many Christians justifiably fear the corrupting influence of government money on World Vision’s decisions. (Don’t be surprised if homosexual activists now set their sights on World Vision’s government funding, because for them, everything—including the welfare of impoverished children—takes a backseat to normalizing sexual perversion.)

We should be concerned with the effect of de facto government subsidies on not just World Vision but on all churches and parachurch organizations, which in the future will likely be compelled either to lose their tax-exempt status or lose the freedom to teach the whole counsel of God on matters related to homosexuality and gender confusion.

Supporters (and former supporters) of World Vision are also concerned about the theological commitments of board members. Following the reversal of policy, board president Richard Stearns was asked in an interview what “kind of church” he attends and whether his church has shaped his views on same-sex “marriage.” Stearns provided the kind of evasive response one would expect from a politician and the kind of dismissive response one would expect from a theological liberal: “It’s a Presbyterian Church (USA) in the Seattle area, but I don’t want to drag them into this. I’m not telling people where I stand on same-sex marriage because I don’t think it’s relevant.”

The issue of whether same-sex “marriage” can in reality exist is, indeed, relevant to any purportedly Christian organization and it’s at least as relevant to the Christian life as premarital abstinence, which the board saw fit to retain in employment policy even while they jettisoned the requirement regarding homoerotic activity. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a member of the notoriously liberal PCUSA church would find the biblical understanding of marriage irrelevant to a Christian organization or Christian mission.

Stearns is not the only PCUSA member on the World Vision board. Dr. Stephen Hayner president of Columbia Theological Seminary, which is a PCUSA seminary, also serves on the board.

In August 2012, the liberal Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgia announced that it would “allow same-sex student couples to live in campus housing designated for married students following a year-long effort by gay-rights advocates.”

The new policy states that “’Students, their qualified domestic partners (e.g., those in civil marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships as established by the laws of any state, the United States or a foreign jurisdiction), and their children are eligible to live in campus housing.’”

Hayner said this about the housing policy change: “[O]ur community is committed to being a place of open theological and Biblical inquiry and hospitality for all who attend.” I wonder if Hayner believes that “being a place of open theological and biblical inquiry and hospitality” requires the school to allow polyamorists to live in campus housing. Wouldn’t intellectual consistency demand that they be shown the same kind of “hospitality” that homosexuals in legal but ontologically non-existent “marriages” are shown?  

Yet another World Vision board member, Reverend John Crosby, is also member of the liberal PCUSA denomination. His vote in favor of the disastrous and now defunct policy change is curious in that he strongly opposed his denomination’s decision to ordain openly affirming homosexuals three years ago, arguing  that “’We [the Presbyterians] have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center.’”

Although Crosby opposed his denomination’s decision to ordain homosexual clergy, he voted for World Vision’s anti-biblical policy change, arguing implausibly in Christianity Today that “the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church.” Is he actually arguing that theology and how to interpret Scripture on all issues should be left to the local church? If that were the case, then why did World Vision maintain policy regarding abstinence outside of marriage? Shouldn’t theological issues regarding fornication be left to local churches as well?

We can hope and pray for a return to theological orthodoxy and subsequent restoration of public trust in World Vision, but we should also prepare ourselves to witness more apostasy within not only our parachurch organizations but within our churches too. And as individuals we should prepare for the persecution that we are promised will come to those who claim to be cross-bearers.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “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 will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done (Matt. 16: 24-27).

Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.

World Vision, in one of the most abrupt turnarounds in modern history, has done a complete about-face on its embrace of sodomy-based marriage.

Less than 48 hours after saying the organization was just fine hiring couples who were in same-sex “marriages,” the organization has repudiated that stance, acknowledging that the board “made a mistake,” and admitting they had failed “to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage.”

Says its president and board chairman, “We…humbly ask your forgiveness.”

Forgiveness is hereby granted, as Jesus instructed us to do.

One very encouraging part of this debacle is that the evangelical church and other pro-family organizations stood firmly, directly, and unanimously against this apostasy. World Vision’s decision was opposed by thousands upon thousands of donors who called World Vision to complain. Perhaps the sleeping giant that is the evangelical church has finally been awakened.

WV’s heretical decision was also publicly opposed by Franklin Graham, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Assemblies of God, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This united stand for truth and against sexual debauchery got World Vision’s attention and got their minds right.

However, there is a pronounced difference between forgiveness and trust. Trust, once shattered, cannot be rebuilt with just a letter of apology. Rebuilding trust and confidence requires change and action.

One key question that must be answered is whether this repentance represents what Paul, in 2 Corinthians 7, calls “godly grief” or “worldly grief.” The sorrow that is according to the world is a sorrow that I got caught, a sorrow that my twisted plans blew up in my face. The sorrow that is according to God, on the other hand, is deep-seated and produces “what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment!” (2 Cor. 7:11).

Luke 3:1-14 contains a thorough account of the ministry of John the Baptist. When individuals, tax collectors and soldiers came to John to receive baptism at his hands, a baptism of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” there was one question on everyone’s lips. This question is the hallmark of genuine, biblical repentance.

The people all said, “What then shall we do?” The tax collectors all said, “Teacher, what shall we do?” The soldiers, to the last man, said, “And we, what shall we do?”

John’s answer was simple and direct: “Bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.”

What does this mean for World Vision, if its leaders also ask the question, “What then shall we do?”

The minimum change that is in keeping with professed repentance is a sweeping change in leadership.

The larger issue here is that an environment has been fostered in the upper echelons of World Vision that made it possible for its leaders even to entertain an option that should have been absolutely unthinkable for anyone committed to God’s design for marriage. There is something diseased in the the boardroom of World Vision, and that diseased tissue must be cut out if this organization is once again to fulfill an evangelical mission.

President Richard Stearns must step down immediately. He is the leader of this organization, and he led it straight into a ditch. He must be replaced.

But that’s not enough. Every board member who voted for the original apostasy from the Word of God must likewise resign. Stearns made it clear in his original communication, announcing the embrace of homosexual marriage, that the World Vision board’s decision was not a unanimous one. Although the vote for embracing sin was overwhelming, there were board members who objected and voted to uphold biblical standards. They get to stay, the rest need to go. ASAP.

I anticipate that World Vision’s mettle will soon be tested. I predict that the Obama administration will now pull some or all of the $330 million it sends to World Vision, in order to punish them for being hatemongering homophobes.

Also, the state of Washington will likely sue them for violating its anti-Christian employment discrimination laws. If the attorney general will sue a florist in the Evergreen State for not embracing same-sex “marriage,” you can bet it won’t be long before he sets his sights on one of the largest Christian organizations in the world.

In other words, this is not the end of testing for World Vision but the beginning. They had better make sure they have leaders who are up to the task. Right now, they don’t.

This article was originally published at the RenewAmerica.com webiste.

IllinoisReview.com

For decades, liberals have been arguing that the government should never come between a woman and her doctor. But a bill before the Illinois House sponsored by Democrat State Representatives Kelly Cassidy, Naomi Jakobsson, Greg Harris, Ann Williams and Sara Feigenholtz would put the state right in middle of the relationship between a patient and his or her counselor.

HB 5569 , which provides that no mental health provider be legally allowed to engage in certain types of counseling with minors dealing with sexual identification issues, passed the Human Services Committee Wednesday morning by a vote of 9 to 6, and was placed on second order for discussion on the Illinois House floor.

“This bill is a government intrusion into the counseling room by those who have no business there. Where, with whom, and why a person seeks counseling is a private and personal matter,” wrote Illinois Family Institute executive director David E. Smith on his Facebook page after the bill passed committee.

“The manner of counseling is a decision between the client and provider. No government official has any business whatsoever telling someone what type of counseling to seek,” he said.

Take ACTION:  Contact your state representative to ask him/her to reject HB 5569 or any other legislative attempt to ban support and help to those young people dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.  The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

To read more about this troubling legislation, please click HERE.

“Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

Just days after announcing that World Vision U.S. would hire men and women in unions recognized by the government as homosexual “marriages,” it has reverted to its original policy that prohibits the hiring of those who engage in homosexual activity and affirm homosexual relationships.

Christians around the country, including IFI, are thankful first to God and then to those World Vision leaders who have demonstrated humility, wisdom, and courage in reversing the policy change and publicly asking for forgiveness.

The letter that announced the reversal includes these words: “While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.”

While IFI regrets their decision to include the term “sexual orientation,” which connotes false notions about human nature, we share the sentiment that all humans deserve to be loved and treated with respect. Manifesting love entails first an understanding of truth that can come only from God.

Further, the word “while” implies a contrast between standing “firmly on the biblical view of marriage” and “strongly affirming that all people are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.” There is no contrast or contradiction. Biblical principles teach Christians what to treasure and how to love.

There are some who question the authenticity of World Vision’s reversal, seeing it as a crass response to loss of financial support, rather than a sincere act of repentance. It would be naïve not to entertain such speculative thoughts but cynical to presume that such speculation is true. It could be that God used the pain of loss of funding to bring to repentance leaders who were deceived and confused by the father of lies.

As Christians, we accept apologies and forgive. The authenticity of World Vision’s reversal and their commitment to God and his “inspired, infallible, authoritative Word” will be revealed in future decisions.

“Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is marriage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Implications of World Vision’s Worldly Change

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

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

DeYoung asks if the following assertions are true:

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

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

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

What to do about current sponsorship

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

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

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

 Become a monthly supporter of IFI.

Click HERE for more information. 

Lesbian state representative and activist for all things homosexual, Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) has introduced yet another terrible piece of legislation that ultimately redounds to the detriment of children.

Rep. Cassidy has proposed “The Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act” (HB 5569), which would prohibit all licensed mental health providers in Illinois from helping minors change their unwanted same-sex attraction. For those who have been paying attention, this is the same kind of pernicious legislation that passed in California and New Jersey but was stopped in Virginia, Maryland, and Minnesota.

Take ACTION:  HB 5569 is scheduled for a hearing in the Illinois House Human Services Committee on Monday afternoon.  Contact your state representative to ask him/her to reject HB 5569 or any other legislative attempt to ban support and help to those young people dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.   The Capitol switchboard number is (217) 782-2000.

Here are just a few of the serious problems with this legislation:

• It would prevent those children and teens who experience unwanted same-sex attraction as a result of sexual abuse from getting counseling to overcome these unwanted feelings. Some “progressives” argue that homosexuality is not a choice and, therefore, attempts to change one’s “orientation” are exercises in futility and damaging. But arguing that same-sex attraction is not chosen does not mean its cause is benign or the feelings desirable. Some adults experience same-sex attraction because of childhood molestation. For them, same-sex attraction is neither chosen nor wanted.Several years ago, Oprah Winfrey had a compelling two-part program in which her audience was composed of 200 men who had been sexually molested as children. One of her guests was Dr. Howard Fradkin, a homosexual licensed psychologist who treats clients for sexual orientation confusion resulting from childhood molestation. He stated on the program that children who are sexually molested can, indeed, experience “sexual orientation confusion” as a result. If this legislation passes, children traumatized by abuse will no longer be allowed to receive counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction.

• This proposed law is utterly inconsistent with the “progressive” view that children and teens should be allowed to pursue medical means to change their sex if they don’t like it. How do those who claim children and teens should be able to change their unwanted biological sex (i.e., bodies) then argue that children and teens should not be allowed to change their unwanted “sexual orientation”? What, other than hypocrisy and crass political ends, can account for the Left’s sudden lack of  respect for teen autonomy? Any minor who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction should be free with their parents’ consent to undergo counseling to change these feelings.

• This legislation presumes that same-sex attraction is fixed, a presumption for which the proponents of this kind of legislation provide no evidence and which is disputed by both “Queer Theory” and research. There is research that provides evidence that “sexual orientation” is fluid, particularly among adolescents. If sexual orientation is not fixed and if minors want to receive counseling to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction, they should be free with their parents’ consent to receive such counseling.

• This legislation presumes without evidence that sexual orientation change efforts for unwanted same-sex attraction in adolescence are damaging. There are no outcome-based studies on adolescents undergoing sexual orientation change effort therapy. It is indefensible to ban forms of therapy for which there is no evidence of harm.

• This legislation presumes without evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined. The entire “born gay” foundation, dismissed by many homosexual scholars, is crumbling. In a must-read article, David Benkof explains that never in the history of mankind prior to about 150 years ago, was there such a thing as a homosexual person, a claim that even homosexual scholars acknowledge:

Using documents and field studies, these intrepid [homosexual] social scientists have examined the evidence of homosexuality in other times and cultures to see how the gay minority fared. But they’ve come up empty. Sure, there’s substantial evidence of both discreet and open same-sex love and sex in pre-modern times. But no society before the 19th century had a gay minority or even discernibly gay-oriented individuals.
…

According to the experts on homosexuality across centuries and continents, being gay is a relatively recent social construction. Few scholars with advanced degrees in anthropology or history who concentrate on homosexuality believe gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These professors work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts “born that way” ideology.
…

Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate. The scholars I interviewed for this essay were variously dismayed or appalled by this trend.

…

[T]hose who demand social or political change because gays are born that way just don’t know much about history.

In First Things, Michael W. Hannon quotes radical Leftist “gay” history scholar Jonathan Ned Katz from his book The Invention of Heterosexuality:

Contrary to today’s bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.

Cassidy’s proposed legislation is destructive, unethical, and dishonest. It depends on unproven, non-factual, non-evidence-based assumptions that even homosexual scholars reject but the public continues to buy hook, line, and sinker. The ultimate motivation behind this legislation is to promote the Leftist assumptions of adult homosexuals who seek to wipe disapproval of homosexual acts from the face of the planet even if doing requires deception, harms children, undermines parental rights, and corrodes fundamental First Amendment speech and religious liberty.

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

If you want a clearer sense of whom we are paying to teach our children, read this.

Friday, I wrote this  on IFI:

In order to know whether an idea embodies love, one must first know if it’s true. The idea that volitional homosexual acts are morally neutral or morally good is not true and, therefore, promoting it is not loving. Promoting such an idea to young children—as is happening in our publicly subsidized schools—is downright evil. 

In response to this passage, homosexual high school English teacher Rich Robinson from Maine (about whom I wrote last August and who sends me between 2-5 harassing emails every week) sent this:

Oh Laurie, your angst and your shrill accusations belie your hate. Can you imagine if someone referred to your volitional sexual acts in any capacity? The ick factor in this is nauseating. You are sex obsessed and to imagine that your sex obsession is being parlayed to public school children is simply certifiable. Good Lord woman, every blog you post is a journey into a diseased and sinister mind. Where can you possibly go from here?

So now public expressions of the belief that homosexual acts are not moral is evidence of a “diseased and sinister mind.”

“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!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Correction: An astute reader alerted me to my incorrect reading of this structurally fuzzy sentence in Robinson’s email: “You are sex obsessed and to imagine that your sex obsession is being parlayed to public school children is simply certifiable.”

Here is a new and improved—I hope—response:

Robinson casts my concern with the use of public funds to promote “progressive” views of homosexuality to children in public schools as a “sex obsession.” He further implies that I am concerned solely with what he describes as the “ick factor” regarding homoerotic acts. After asserting that claim, he then casts my belief that teachers spend instructional time discussing homosexuality as lunacy (i.e. “certifiable”).

Well, hard to know where to start. First, I rarely discuss the “ick factor.”  The colloquial phrase the “ick factor” refers to biology, anatomy, and disease, all of which constitute an important topic but not one that I discuss. Rather, I discuss the moral status of homoerotic acts and relationships and the problem of how it is addressed in public schools.

Second, it is a laughable prevarication for Robinson to suggest that public school teachers do not address homosexuality. They do so through picture books, bullying prevention activities, sex education, novels, films, essays, plays, speakers, magazine articles, and assorted GLSEN-generated activities. All of these various and sundry “learning” opportunities espouse one set of moral assumptions: “progressive.” And when public school teachers promote either implicitly or explicitly the truthy assumption that homosexuality is moral, they are necessarily promoting the assumption that homosexual acts are moral. While assigning texts that promote “progressive” moral, ontological, and political views of homosexuality, these same teachers routinely censor materials that espouse conservative beliefs. If anyone is homosex-obsessed, it’s “progressive” teachers to whose pro-activities I’m merely responding.

My belief is not that schools should promote conservative moral convictions to public school children. That ship has sailed. My belief is that issues related to homosexuality and gender confusion should be removed from the classroom entirely, since moral beliefs are not facts and are informed by areas of life that  teachers have not been hired to teach, including theology, ethics, psychology, and philosophy.

I have also argued, however, that if teachers insist on introducing curricular texts and supplementary resources that espouse “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion to students, they have an ethical and pedagogical obligation to present resources that espouse dissenting views.  Calling efforts to stop the promulgation of “progressive” views of homosexuality in public schools a “certifiable, sinister, diseased sex-obsession” is yet another attempt to silence dissent.

Though public education can no longer even pretend to be dedicated to the pursuit of truth or the cultivation of character, it should at least retain a commitment to intellectual exploration and diversity of ideas without which education becomes indoctrination.

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

The ignorance, deceit, and hubris of homosexual activists and their ideological allies are on display today. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman decided that Cook County clerks may grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples even before the Illinois same-sex “marriage” law takes effect June 1, writing that “There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.”

This utterly feckless statement reflects a host of false claims and perhaps an overabundance of misplaced sympathy on the part of Coleman. One wonders where Coleman’s sympathy would lead her if longsuffering polyamorists came clamoring for their “fundamental right to marry.” Perhaps she would unearth yet another heretofore unknown constitutional right.

Here are some truths that seem not to animate Coleman:

• There is nowhere in the text of the Constitution a “fundamental right to marry.”
• Sexual orientation is not an objective condition analogous to skin color.
• Recognizing in law that marriage has a nature fundamental to which is sexual complementarity does not rob any individual of the right to participate in the institution of marriage, thus there is no issue with equality.
• Equality demands that government treat like things alike. Homosexual unions are not equivalent or identical to heterosexual unions. When homosexuals claim they are attracted only to people of their same sex, they implicitly acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different and that those differences are more than anatomical. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex is profoundly different from a union composed of two people of different sexes. Only a heterosexual union is in reality a marital union.
• Recognizing that marriage is sexually complementary is no more unjustly discriminatory than is recognizing that marriage is binary.

I am not suggesting that Coleman overstepped her authority regarding the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” since she had nothing to do with that even more feckless decision. Rather, I am arguing that in referencing the “fundamental right to marry” and the suffering of homosexual couples in her decision, Coleman seems to be animated by Leftist assumptions, which almost certainly contributed to her decision to move up the effective date for obtaining marriage licenses. 

No, Coleman’s hubristic decision was to unilaterally modify a duly enacted law (an all too common occurrence in the United States over the past five years). Coleman’s decision,  as well as other judicial decisions based neither on constitutional principles nor logic, should alert conservatives to the critical importance of the role of judges in shaping culture, which we too often ignore when voting, including when voting for presidents who get to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Primary Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote family values?  Donate today.

A decisive moment in the triumph of technology over humanity.

Written by Michael Hanby

Advocates of same-sex marriage feel themselves to be riding the cresting wave of history, and justly so. The force with which an idea has taken hold that is unprecedented in human history and unthinkable until yesterday, the speed at which it is sweeping aside customary norms, legal precedent, and the remnants of traditional morality is nothing short of breathtaking. That it should have achieved this feat thanks largely to sentiment, fashion, and the brute power of a ubiquitous global media, with so little real thought about its profound effect upon human self-understanding or its far-reaching practical implications, is more astonishing still. Though its power seems inexorable, we would do well nevertheless to exercise perhaps the last reserve of real freedom still available to us—the freedom to think about the true meaning of things—lest we be deceived about what this moment portends or caught unawares as it washes over us. For beneath the surface of this rising tide of ‘freedom and equality’ lies something very close to the brave new world of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian imagination.

On Saturday evening (Feb. 8, 2014), U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) was presented with the “Freedom” award by Equality Illinois, the state’s leading homosexual pressure group, at a swank fundraising banquet in Chicago. You can watch a video of the presentation below [or on YouTube HERE].

Senator Kirk has become one of the most liberal Republicans in Washington D.C. on homosexual-related issues with ever greater acts of pandering to the LGBTQ Lobby. (He came out for homosexual “marriage” and is pushing for passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [see homosexual activists release on Kirk and ENDA HERE], 

Read more about ENDA in the Heritage Foundation’s report on the ENDA bill HERE.

You might recall how Senator Kirk – in a capitulation whose cowardice was eclipsed only by its pettiness – recently blocked the respected pro-family organization  World Congress of Families (WCF) from securing a meeting room on Capitol Hill. This towering act in defense of “freedom” (sarcasm) came after the Senator heard complaints against WCF from some homosexual activists. World Congress, affiliated with The Howard Center, is based in Rockford, Illinois.

Thus it appears that Senator Kirk’s conception of “freedom” matches that of his intolerant homosexual activist allies. In 2012, Equality Illinois launched a vicious and slanderous campaign to deny Chick-fil-A restaurants the “freedom” to operate in Illinois. As you can see below, EQ falsely accused C-f-A of “discriminatory policies” because the latter’s Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, had spoken out publicly against homosexual “marriage” as tempting the judgment of God. The Chicago “gay” group launched this “Flick the Hate” petition campaign designed to boot the Christian-owned chicken fast food franchise out of several college towns:

As you can see, Equality Illinois’ malicious campaign smeared Chick-fil-A and its COO, Dan Cathy, as representing “hate”–merely because Cathy disagreed publicly with “gay marriage.” EQ sought to petition stakeholders into cancelling their rental leases to the 19 Chick-fil-A restaurants then operating in Illinois. (Thankfully, they failed; there are now 32 C-f-A franchises in Illinois, according to the company’s website.) The EQ page reads, in part (emphasis theirs):

Chick-fil-A has 19 restaurants across Illinois, mostly on university campuses and in shopping malls.This petition will be give to key stakeholders in Illinois who lease, rent or allow Chick-fil-A to continue to sell their hate-filled homophobic “Chiken,” asking them to cut ties….

That kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate.

[Petition:]

…We urge you, as business and institutional leaders in Illinois, to challenge the discriminatory policies of this fast food chain and end all relationships that enable the Chick-fil-A brand to operation on your premises.

This kind of hate has no place in a business, especially in Illinois. It is a shame to be associated with such extreme intolerance and hate. 

I urge you to sever your ties immediately and “Flick-the-Hate!”

Background on Chick-fil-A

It is important to remind the reader that Chick-fil-A as a corporation never “discriminated” against homosexual customers or employees. In fact, one homosexual C-f-A franchise owner defended the restaurant chain and a New Hampshire Chick-fil-A restaurant owner supported a  “gay pride” event. What ignited the LGBT-obsessed Left was that Dan Cathy actually spoke out publicly against counterfeit “gay marriage.” The pro-homosexual/liberal campaign against Chick-fil-A also involved political opposition to proposed restaurant openings in Chicago and Boston–with liberal politicians seeking to banish C-f-A in the name of “tolerance.”

The Left’s opposition to Chick-fil-A led to a massive Christian pro-family backlash in the form of “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” organized by Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Americans by the hundreds of thousands nationwide went to their local Chick-fil-A to support the restaurant chain.

Thankfully, the homo-fascists at Equality Illinois–and their Democratic political allies who used their offices to attempt to deny Chick-fil-A the right and opportunity to expand and do business (e.g, in the economically-struggling State of Illinois) did not prevail. In fact, they succeeded only in generating more support for Chick-fil-A among many, many consumers.

As you can see below, Sen. Kirk is still recovering from the stroke he suffered in 2012. We wish him a continued and speedy recovery. Politically speaking, however, we at AFTAH are appalled at Kirk’s pandering to Hard Left activists of the sort usually associated with Democratic politics, and we plead with him to return to supporting the pro-family principles of the Republican Party Platform.

Take ACTION:  Call or write Senator Mark Kirk R-IL)  at his Washington D.C. office (202) 224-2854; or at his Chicago office (312) 886-3506; or through his online Comment Form HERE] and urge him to stop rewarding anti-Christian bigotry. Ask him to return this “Freedom Award” from the hateful anti-Christian homosexual group, Equality Illinois–which in 2012 launched a failed pressure campaign to kick Chick-fil-A restaurants out of Illinois.

More ACTION:  Call or write the Republican National Committee [Contact Form HERE] and its Chairman, Reince Priebus [202-863-8500; choose ext. “1”], and urge them to stand firm against the aggressive Homosexual Lobby, which is targeting Christian leaders and businesses like Chick-fil-A for demonization. Tell Priebus that when Republicans like Senator Mark Kirk embrace Democratic-type social liberalism, it only deflates the pro-family GOP grassroots. Lastly, urge Priebus to PUBLICLY oppose ENDA, the radical Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Thank Chairman Priebus for being publicly pro-life–but urge him also to make the case against “Big Gay Government” (e.g., ENDA)–and Obama’s push to nationalize “same-sex marriage”–as part of the RNC’s regular public Talking Points. 

You can watch the YouTube video of the Equality Illinois presentation of the “Freedom Award” to Sen. Kirk HERE

This article was originally published at the AFTAH.com blog.

Written by Jason Helopoulos

Even before the Grammy Awards showcased Macklemore singing “Same Love” and Queen Latifah presiding over a “same sex couple’s wedding” ceremony, I had most of this blog written as the topic has been on my mind for quite some time.

I am not a Kuyperian or a Neo-Kuyperian, but there are certain watershed cultural issues for every generation of Christians; issues in which they cannot be silent. For our generation, abortion and homosexuality are key watershed issues. They are watershed issues, because abortion snatches away life and homosexuality reaches out and grabs hold of death.

The average Evangelical Christian continues to believe we should speak out against the acceptance of abortion in our culture. And the pro-abortion forces have been losing ground over the past five years. No doubt, much of that is due to the church’s resolve to stand against this agenda. However, it seems to me that in the past few years, Evangelical Christians in the United States have increasingly and passively grown in their acceptance of homosexuality. This should concern all of us.

I understand the discouragement. Our culture has done a quick “about face” on this issue. It was just yesterday that the Ellen DeGeneres sitcom announced its main character was homosexual (1997) and a firestorm erupted.  Now, it seems almost “normal” to have Queen Latifah presiding over a “wedding” ceremony of a homosexual couple. We cannot let it feel “normal.” Make no mistake, homosexuality may be the issue of the day. It brings secularism to the forefront like few other agendas and it undermines the foundation of family, church, and the Scriptures.

Therefore, it should concern us when Christians throw their hands up and declare with finality that the homosexuality debate in this country is over–the battle has been waged and lost. This agenda has fooled us into thinking it is here to stay and must be adopted and adapted to. It has bullied us into believing we cannot continue to speak out against the acceptance of practicing this sin in our culture. Too many denominations, Christian schools, churches, and individual Christians are raising the white flag. This is something we cannot and must not do.

Homosexuality is a matter of  extreme importance to us. Make no mistake, this is a gospel issue. When our culture embraces something that sends people to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:10) then it must matter to us. We cannot roll over and play dead. We cannot give up and just let the issue go. We are compelled to continue to engage our culture on this issue and challenge its wayward course. We are not doing this because we are feverish to return to the 1940′s or 1950′s or because we are a “backwards people.” Rather, we are a people looking forward to eternity and that is our motivation. Neither are we seeking to engage in this cultural battle because we are haters. We do so because we are lovers of men and God. We do not endeavor to be sticks in the mud, who refuse to change. We, of all people, know the value of change as we have been brought from death to life. However, we are only willing to change where we are freed by the Scriptures to do so. We are a people bound by the Word of God; our conscience is constrained by it, and from this position we cannot move.

We must be bold and courageous in our day. Not rabble rousers, but valiant and resolute according to our convictions. Our starting place, should be to disapprove of homosexual practice, knowing that we do so in the context of our own sexual fallen state. We are not haughty. We are not decrying the sins of others and ignoring our own, but neither are we willing to sit silently when our culture calls that which is evil “good.”

Let us resolve, that as we continue to speak against homosexuality and its acceptance in our culture, we will do so winsomely and lovingly; yet, we are also committed to doing so clearly. In our pulpits, in our conversations around the water cooler, with our children, or in simple talks over the fence with our neighbors, we will be clear that homosexual practice is a sin. We will not attempt to separate love and truth. A careful guard against the subtle language of “gay” and “gay marriage” should be in place.  Neither one of those terms should be used in our discourse about the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual union. There is nothing “gay” or God-honoring about the homosexual lifestyle, and it is not a God-ordained marriage when two homosexuals join together in a “state approved marriage,” even if it is a monogamous and committed relationship. We, as a people of the Word, know the importance of language and words, and it is crucial we give clear articulation of God’s purpose and plan for sex and marriage.

Even as we exercise our voice, we need a generation of Christians who are willing to do even more; willing to be courageous enough to minister with compassion and truth to the homosexual community. We need brothers and sisters in Christ, who know the depths of grace and are deliberate in ministering to others by that grace. We must raise an army of men and women, who are compelled, in all humility, to seek to understand the homosexual struggle and enter into relationships that will challenge, encourage, and hold friends and loved ones accountable. We need elders and pastors with a vision to establish churches where a person struggling with same-sex attraction or even homosexual practices are lovingly warned, discipled, and given care. We need to continue to declare that homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, but that repentance is called for. We must be clear in our application of theology that identifying the sinful desire and abstaining from such practices does not negate personhood or necessitate the deprivation of joy.

Above all, we need to pray. We need to pray for those in our churches who struggle with same-sex attraction, for those who have given into this temptation and sin, and for the salvation of those who are trapped in a lifestyle that leads to death. We need to pray that our society would alter its present course on this issue and never look back.

It may be an uphill battle, but our God moves mountains. We serve a God who can change things in an instant. Does it seem impossible? Our God majors in the impossible. May it take a miracle? There is good news, we serve a God who performs miracles. We cannot roll over and play dead on this issue. It is too important. It is an issue with eternal implications for the souls of men and women. We believe in the power of the gospel, so let us believe it is good news even in the midst of this debate, and declare it without shrinking. May God turn the tide and do a mighty work of change in our generation, for His praise and His glory. He can do it. Never lose hope.

This article was originally posted at TheGospelCoalition.org blog.

Dear _____,

Thanks very much for your call yesterday and conciliatory email today.

I agree that discourse between un-likeminded people is important. In fact, one of the problems I see in the Left’s relentless labeling of all who hold beliefs like mine as hateful, ignorant bigots is that it undermines or destroys any possibility of discourse or relationships between those who hold opposing views on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

In a diverse world, most people I know are perfectly capable of enjoying the company of, appreciating the admirable qualities of, and even deeply loving those who hold beliefs and make life choices that they believe are wholly misguided. Most of us do it all the time. Most of us have figurative and literal brothers and sisters whom we sit down with, eat with, and love, but whose beliefs, behavioral choices, and relationships we believe are flawed and will undermine human flourishing (which is not necessarily the same as human pleasure).

But I disagree with your implication regarding the appropriateness of publicly stating which behaviors constitute moral acts. And I would be surprised if you apply it consistently. I doubt you would argue that all public statements regarding which acts are sinful/immoral are off-limits. You likely believe that there are a whole host of public statements that can and, indeed, should be made about what constitutes sinful/immoral acts. You likely say that homosexuality is the one topic about which negative moral propositions should not be publicly expressed because you believe homosexuality is at the core of an immutable identity and because you believe homoerotic acts are ontologically and morally equivalent to hetero-erotic acts. But that’s the unsettled debate. I reject all those ideas as objectively false. This leads to a larger discussion of “identity,” a subject on which we would surely disagree also.

The public square is not merely about friendships between individuals (e.g., you and me). It’s also about the full, free, and messy exchange of ideas that have real life implications for individuals and society. Feelings get hurt. People get angry. Despite what the culture says, our feelings are not superordinate to all other aspects of human experience. In fact, feelings are woefully unreliable arbiters of truth and morality.

I believe that your same-sex attraction is unchosen, powerful, persistent, and disordered. It is a tragic sin predisposition. Welcome to the world that every single human—save one—has inhabited. The reason I and others must talk about this topic more than other sin predispositions is that homosexual activists and their ideological allies are talking about it vociferously and volubly. And they’re coming in to our public schools and teaching their subjective beliefs to children while censoring competing views.

Moreover, they want the public square to themselves. They arrogate the right to make public statements about the nature and morality of homosexuality to themselves alone. In our phone conversation, you asserted that my statement that unchosen same-sex attraction is a “sin predisposition” was a vile, hateful conversation-stopper. Well, describing homosexuality as a sin predisposition is just about the mildest way to describe conservative beliefs on homosexuality. There is no less offensive way to say it while still representing conservative beliefs. If I were to concede to your request (or demand) not to use “inflammatory conversation-stoppers,” I would have to refrain from expressing conservative moral propositions at all, while you and others who share your views would be free to express yours in any way you see fit in public schools, the mainstream press, the arts, and political halls of power. If the term “sin predisposition” is a “conversation-stopper,” it’s because some on your side get huffy and pouty and stop conversing. They won’t converse with anyone who expresses any propositions with which they disagree.

You want to have conversations as long as you can establish the ground rules, first and foremost of which is that I must concede to your definitions of terms, your ideas, and your assumptions and that I not use any terms or arguments that hurt your feelings, or—in your view—“harm” people. And I have to use your definition/understanding of “harm.” In my experience, the Left believes that harm is significantly or centrally constituted by the presence of uncomfortable feelings (e.g., guilt, shame, sadness). I, on the other hand, believe that sometimes, perhaps often, the presence of guilt, shame, and sadness are indicators that people (including me) are doing something wrong. But in any case, to be honest and comprehensive, discourse on controversial topics will be uncomfortable. 

What’s most fascinating in the public debate is that the Left has so intimidated conservatives and so abused the notion that uncomfortable, unpleasant “feelings” = harm that conservatives rarely demand that “progressives” actually defend with reasons their own presuppositions.

 

• For example, how exactly is homosexuality per se analogous to race?

   

• Or, if marriage is solely constituted by romantic feelings, why should it be limited to two people?

   

• Or, since the Left claims that the expression of moral propositions about volitional behavior is equivalent to hatred, are they guilty of hatred when they claim polyamory or consensual adult incest, or income inequality is wrong?

   

• Or, what is the evidence that homosexuals are “born that way”? If the evidence is simply that they have experienced unchosen powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings from a young age, do they then argue that acting on all unchosen, powerful, persistent, intractable feelings is inherently and automatically moral (and central to identity)? My orthodox Christian faith is central to my identity, and as a Calvinist, I don’t believe I chose my Christian identity. I believe God called me inexorably to him. And yet I don’t believe that everyone must affirm or approve of my beliefs. Nor do I call people hateful and vile for thinking my beliefs are wrong and destructive. I actually know there are people who love me despite our passionate disagreements on sexual morality and theology.

As for “yelling,” at me, water under the bridge. All of us lose our cool on occasion, especially when we care deeply about something.

I do wish you all that’s good and true and beautiful. And God tells us what that is.

Sincerely,

Laurie

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

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