Written by John Biver

An interesting lawsuit is making its way through the courts about a student who was kicked out of a doctoral program at Roosevelt University in Chicago. Since the story paints a clear picture of how proponents of the LGBTQI (etc.) agenda behave, it’s doubtful you’ll learn about it through the dishonest press which is as determined to hide the truth as Pravda and Izvestia were in the old Soviet Union.

The facts of the case certainly don’t fit the narrative that’s allowed to be reported by most of the big American media outlets. Ms. Gillian John-Charles is the doctoral student; she’s 35, a single mother with two graduate degrees who teaches math in a Chicago public school. Her mistake was disagreeing with the politically left wing Roosevelt University’s party line when it comes to the nature of homosexuality.

Incidents like this one are increasingly familiar to Americans who get their news and information from sources other than places like the Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, Google News or CNN and CBS. Facts don’t matter; if a news story might have a negative impact on the public’s perception of those pushing the LGBTQI agenda it is not allowed to see the light of day.

Bill Muehlenberg, who writes the column “Culture Watch,” recently posted this:

If homosexuals were once the object of intolerance, the exact opposite is now the case. The oppressed have become the oppressor, and those who dare to stand in their way had better watch out. As Michael Brown rightly states, “Today, those who have come out of the closet are trying to put their ideological opponents into the closet; those preaching tolerance have become the most intolerant; those calling for inclusion are now the most exclusionary; those celebrating diversity demand absolute uniformity.”

The lawsuit brought by Ms. John-Charles is, in many ways, the perfect illustration of how the left seeks to silence and punish any voice that speaks in opposition to their extremist position. They wish to be thorough, which means a liberal university doesn’t want any of its doctoral recipients to vary from the one and only accepted viewpoint.

What follows is an outline of the facts taken from a letter to the university sent by Gillian John-Charles’ attorney, Doug Ibendahl. The letter can be read in full here. It states that she retained counsel “to represent her in matters related to her wrongful and retaliatory discharge from the doctoral program administered by Roosevelt University and specifically the College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership (the “EdD Program”).”

Early on in the letter is this:

Based on our ongoing investigation, it is clear that Roosevelt University (the “University”) and its agents have exhibited disturbing intolerance and discriminated against Ms. John-Charles on the basis of her race, gender, as well as her personal beliefs and political views; have unlawfully retaliated against Ms. John-Charles for attempting to protect her reputation and pursuing her legal rights; defamed her; and have terminated Ms. John-Charles from the EdD Program in violation of public policy.

The letter explains that it was sent “for the purpose of encouraging the University to remedy the severe harm it has inflicted upon Ms. John-Charles through its unlawful and disgraceful conduct.” Of course they didn’t, so a lawsuit was filed.

At a minimum the University owes Gillian John-Charles a formal, public apology, and she should be afforded the opportunity for reinstatement to the EdD Program without further delay. She is an outstanding individual and student who deserves the opportunity to complete the endeavor to which she devoted two years of her life and hard work, as well as tens-of-thousands of dollars.

Frankly given the behavior Ms. John-Charles witnessed and the treatment she endured at the University, no one would blame her for never wanting to return. However, she has so much work and money invested at this point, and is so close to completing her doctorate degree – it would be ridiculously unfair for her to be forced to throw all of that away.

The University clearly has incredibly serious problems both at the teaching and administrative levels. The presence of someone of Ms. John-Charles’ caliber on campus would provide at least some hope for the future of the University.

The section of the letter titled “Factual Background” contains the basic biographic information about Ms. John-Charles. She’s a full time mathematics teacher at Kenwood Academy High School on the South Side of Chicago where she teaches five classes of college algebra. Ms. John-Charles holds two graduate degrees:

Master of Science in Computer Science, awarded by Illinois State University in 1999; and Master of Arts in Mathematics Education, awarded by DePaul University in 2005.

Ms. John-Charles began the EdD Program in the Fall Semester of 2009. While maintaining her full time teaching responsibilities at Kenwood Academy, she completed twelve (12) classes towards her doctorate degree, together with the other members of her cohort in the EdD Program.

Incredibly, on top of all these demands on her time and energy, Ms. John-Charles is also a single mom raising a toddler son.

Only one more year is required for Ms. John-Charles to satisfy the class requirements for her doctorate degree.

When the University ousted Ms. John-Charles, after punishing her for her personal beliefs and opinions, the EdD Program cohort lost its only black female student. (The only remaining black male student left the cohort at approximately the same time, reportedly voluntarily.)

Under the subheading “Intimidation and Censorship in the Classroom” the inciting incident is outlined:

On October 5, 2010, Ms. John-Charles attended the third class meeting of her ethics course (ELOC 680) taught by Professor Gregory M. Hauser. The class was discussing the work of author and education reformer John Dewey. Dr. Hauser related Dewey’s belief that absent “scientific backing,” material should not be taught in school. Dr. Hauser cited evolution and creationism as examples.

Dr. Hauser then asked the class if anyone had other topics they believed should not be taught in school. One of Ms. John-Charles’ fellow students suggested sex education, but added that it would be appropriate if relating to sex anatomy and reproduction. Another student added it would be appropriate in a health class and as part of teaching about sexually transmitted diseases.

Dr. Hauser again queried the class as to subjects Dewey would say should not be discussed. Ms. John-Charles stated abstinence, and Dr. Hauser agreed, saying that would be more consistent with a religious viewpoint.

As class discussion continued, Dr. Hauser asked the students how they would treat topics related to being gay and/or gay relationships, or whether such topics would even be appropriate according to Dewey. The discussion progressed and at some point Ms. John-Charles mentioned that it was her own personal belief that a person is not born gay. Dr. Hauser then began to directly grill Ms. John-Charles. When asked what she would say to a gay or lesbian student, Ms. John-Charles indicated that she didn’t understand the nature of the question because a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on her conversation with anyone. Ms. John-Charles told Dr. Hauser that she treats all of her students the same and makes no distinction for race, sex, religious belief, or sexual orientation.

In light of Dr. Hauser’s aggressive tone, Ms. John-Charles felt the need to make it clear to Dr. Hauser that she had absolutely nothing against gay students. Whether someone is gay or straight is a non-issue for her. While her fellow students were nodding their heads indicating approval and understanding, Dr. Hauser forcefully interjected that he disagreed and further accused Ms. John-Charles of having an opinion on gay people that was “negative and disparaging.”

Ms. John-Charles was highly offended by Dr. Hauser’s comment and left the classroom to compose herself. Two classmates followed to console her. Both students told Ms. John-Charles they felt Dr. Hauser’s behavior was inappropriate and unprofessional.

After several minutes discussing the incident with Ms. John-Charles’ classmates, all agreed it would probably be best if she skipped the remainder of the class. Ms. John-Charles returned to the classroom, gathered her belongings and walked back out to leave for the evening. Yet another classmate followed her out and expressed his concern at the treatment Ms. John-Charles had received from Dr. Hauser. After thanking that student for his concern and support, Ms. John-Charles encouraged him to return to class, which he eventually did.

In the days following the October 5^th class, the professor requested a meeting with Ms. John-Charles. Ms. John-Charles was hoping the two could put the unpleasant events behind them. According to the letter, “These hopes were immediately dashed when Ms. John-Charles arrived and experienced Dr. Hauser’s angry and aggressive demeanor.”

Dr. Hauser began the meeting by advising Ms. John-Charles, for the first time, that he was contacting the Dean (Dr. Thomas Philion) to see if he could also meet. After Dr. Philion arrived, Dr. Hauser launched into a belligerent attack on Ms. John-Charles over her previous classroom comment regarding her personal belief that persons are not born gay. Dr. Hauser then began an even more aggressive interrogation of Ms. John-Charles. She found the professor’s statements and attitude extremely offensive, and his accusations ridiculous and insulting. Among the absurd accusations, Dr. Hauser told Ms. John-Charles (in the presence of Dr. Philion), that she had an intolerant attitude toward gay people – a statement as false as it is defamatory. Dr. Hauser went on to tell Ms. John-Charles that she did not belong in the doctoral program.

The harassment didn’t stop there. Ms. John-Charles reached out for advice from a professor at another university who suggested she begin taping the classes. She did so in plain sight of the professor and her classmates and no one objected. At the next class Dr. Hauser started by saying electronic devices were no longer going to be allowed. Here’s a paragraph from Ms. John-Charles attorney’s letter:

Seven of Ms. John-Charles’ classmates have signed a statement attesting that each had previously used some form of electronic device openly in Dr. Hauser’s class without incident or sanction, or even mention by Dr. Hauser whatsoever. Ms. John-Charles provided this list of student signatures to University officials while she was defending herself against a bad faith complaint.

If you think the people at Roosevelt University can’t get any more idiotic, keep reading. The following paragraphs are from under the section of the letter titled, “The frivolous complaint against Ms. John-Charles”:

[O]n January 10, 2011, Ms. John-Charles received an email from Eric Tammes, Assistant Vice President for Student Services, which stated in pertinent part as follows:

I have received a formal complaint that alleges your involvement in the violation of the following codes of student conduct at Roosevelt University:

3.  Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities, including its public service functions, or of other authorized activities on University premises.

10. Failure to comply with directions of University officials acting in the performance of their duties.

Clearly this was Dr. Hauser’s clumsy attempt to play an immature “gotcha” game on Ms. John-Charles. Utilizing the testimony of her fellow students, Ms. John-Charles is prepared to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dr. Hauser had actual knowledge of the tape recorder in his classroom on October 19, 2010, but said nothing. He then feigns outrage and files a formal complaint against the only black woman in the class because he’s intolerant of her views and beliefs.

John-Charles’ attorney Doug Ibendahl added this: “I have searched but have yet to find another case or report anywhere in America involving a university professor who filed a complaint against one of his or her own students for tape recording a class.”

Here is the opening of the section “Complaint by Ms. John-Charles”:

On November 11, 2010, Ms. John-Charles filed a formal complaint with the University against Dr. Hauser specifically describing in considerable detail the harassment, censorship, discrimination, as well as the violations of her civil liberties including, but not limited to freedom of speech and academic freedom which she experienced and was currently experiencing on campus. Ms. John-Charles’ complaint also described the environment she experienced at the University which she found to be both hostile and threatening.

Dr. Renate I. Rohde issued the initial dismissal of Ms. Charles complaint, and Ms. John-Charles appealed that decision. Ms. John-Charles received a response to her appeal from Dr. Holly A. Stadler, Dean, College of Education, on January 10, 2011 (the exact same day Ms. John-Charles received an email from Eric Tammes serving notice of Dr. Hauser’s “complaint” against her, as discussed above). In her response, Dr. Stadler doesn’t even attempt to seriously address the allegations made by Ms. John-Charles. Instead Dr. Stadler blames the victim and provides evidence of collusion with Dr. Hauser.

Dr. Stadler’s letter states in pertinent part, “What I do see in your complaint is that you were treated differently than other students in the class based on your verbal behavior in class that demonstrated your lack of current knowledge about the topic of homosexuality.”

There’s more – the childish behavior of the professor and university administrators is worth reading about in full. Here is just how the summary of the complaint concludes:

The evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion that the University’s response to a victim of alleged harassment and discrimination is apparently in effect, “she asked for it.” By refusing to blindly accept a professor’s view on a question that continues to be the subject of reasonable disagreement and debate among both laymen and scientific experts, the University is apparently telling Ms. John-Charles she deserved the shameful and discriminatory treatment she received.

A year after the initial classroom incident Ms. John-Charles was dismissed from the EdD program.

In a letter dated October 11, 2011, Dean Holly Stadler advised that she was supporting the decision to dismiss Ms. John-Charles from the EdD Program. Dr. Stadler further stated that her determination constituted the final state of the review process of Ms. John-Charles’ appeal.

Dr. Stadler’s letter also stated in pertinent part as follows:

“Your history in this program has been one of poor grades in several courses and dispositional observations that merit concern about your performance as a doctoral student.”

At the time of her dismissal Ms. John-Charles had received an ‘A’ or ‘A-’ in eight of the twelve classes she’d completed and her grade point average was 3.51.

Ms. John-Charles’ attorney’s letter addressed the charge of “dispositional observations” in detail and then writes:

As far as the reference to this apparently refers to a so-called “Assessment Rubric” established for each class pursuant to the “COE Dispositions Assessment Policies and Procedures.” This is a program which was not implemented until long after Ms. John-Charles began the EdD Program at the University. In fact the subject “COE Dispositions Assessment Policies and Procedures” were not approved by the COE Academic Council until August 12, 2010.

[…]

The record is filled with the kind hearsay, frivolity and immature drama that one might expect to read in a high school student’s diary – but not in an official evaluation report written by a University professor.

It is absolutely unfathomable that the University is making final decisions that will have such an enormous bearing on a student’s future career and personal life – on the basis of this kind of subjective, superficial fluff. If one or two professors decide a student isn’t popular enough with the right clique, out they go after some unsubstantiated blackballing. It really is a lot like high school, except here the University first pockets tens-of-thousands of dollars from the student before deciding that her views and opinions make her too unpopular.

[Comments made in the record] reveal what’s really at the core of this case. Ms. John-Charles is a proud, smart, extremely accomplished black woman who refuses to play the victim. Absolutely she’ll stand up for her rights, but she completely rejects the idea that black people can’t achieve on the same level as whites. Ms. John-Charles refuses to mindlessly say and do what the masters of the liberal plantation decree. She’s a walking, everyday reminder to some at the University that their life-long ambition to “take care of” minorities is hollow to the core. Ms. John-Charles had to be silenced and exiled.

Since readers might enjoy the attorney’s summary at the end of the letter, here it is in its entirety. It truly captures the heart of the matter. This case is yet another example of how increasingly those preaching “tolerance” are anything but.

SUMMARY

An excellent article in the Summer 2011 edition of the Roosevelt Review entitled “The Drake Effect” tells the fascinating story of an icon from the early days of your institution, Professor St. Clair Drake.

The article quotes Dr. John Bracey, University alum (and now a professor himself), this way: “Drake was all about intellectual discourse. Integrity was important to him and standing on one’s beliefs was essential.”

Dr. Middleton, what do you think Professor Drake would say about the way your University, Professor Drake’s University, has treated Ms. John-Charles?

Your University loves to brag that it’s all about “social justice.” Maybe in the past that was true. However today we have cases like this one involving Ms. John-Charles which expose to the world just how tired and hackneyed the University’s whole “social justice” shtick has become.

Sir, if we are forced to move to formal litigation, both sides will obviously explore and expand on the facts relevant to this case. But here is a fact of this case and it is undisputed: Roosevelt University drummed-out of its EdD Program the only black female student in the cohort, a single mom who was and is teaching mathematics full time, and very successfully, in the Chicago Public School system.

And oh yes, a black single mom, full time Chicago Public School teacher with a cumulative 3.51 GPA on the day the University threw her out on the phony charge of unsatisfactory academic performance. (Obviously Ms. John-Charles’ GPA would be even more impressive if not for the alleged discriminatory grading by two professors as discussed herein.)

The president of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, has just announced in an extended apology to homosexuals, that he is closing Exodus International, the ministry for those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction, and from its ashes he is creating a new organization titled “Reduce Fear.” The “fear” to which the name refers emanates from theologically orthodox churches that teach the whole counsel of God, including the pesky parts about God’s condemnation of homosexual acts. Apparently, Chambers doesn’t want to scare those who affirm homosexuality with bothersome biblical truths about eternity.

This doesn’t come as a surprise to those who have been closely watching Chambers’ slow abandonment of orthodoxy and his concomitant embrace of the “gay Christian” movement, which promotes the heresy that Christians may affirm a homosexual identity and remain in homosexual relationships.

A year ago in  an interview with The Atlantic, Chambers articulated a tidbit of his exegetically questionable theology:

Atlantic: Does that mean a person living a gay lifestyle won’t go to hell, as long as he or she accepts Jesus Christ as personal savior?

Chambers: My personal belief is that everyone has the opportunity to know Christ, and that while behavior matters, those things don’t interrupt someone’s relationship with Christ. But that’s a touchy issue in the conservative group I run with. (emphasis added)

For those who remain uncertain about Chambers’ deviation from the path of theological soundness, please watch this video of his appearance at a Gay Christian Network event.

Chambers’ transition to heresy has been accompanied by dizzying changes to Exodus’ Board of Directors over the past two years. Here’s a glimpse into that protean board.

Feb. 2011 board included Dennis Jernigan, Ron Dennis, and Jeff Winter
By June 2011 board had added John Warren
By Oct. 2011 board had lost Ron Dennis and Jeff Winter and added Mike Goeke and Patrick Peyton
By Dec. 2011 board had added Kathy Koch
By June 2012 board had lost Dennis Jernigan
By August 2012 board had lost Mike Goeke and Patrick Payton
By March 2013 board had added Bob Ragan
By April 2013 board had lost Bob Ragan
By June 2013 board had added Tony Moore

The troubling constant on the board is board chairman Rev. Clark Whitten about whose theology Dr. Robert A. Gagnon has warned here  and here.

More recently Dr. Gagnon wrote this about Chambers’ transformation:

I’m not suggesting that the Exodus leadership wants believers to experience grace without discipleship, dying to one’s self, and letting Christ live in them. I am saying, though, that they assure self-professed believers (falsely) that the nature of grace is such that believers can have one without the other….

Alan Chambers now calls “evangelical” a “dirty word” that he no longer applies to Exodus or to himself (“Guests in an Ever Changing Culture—Letter from Alan Chambers March 2013”). He complains that Evangelicalism is too “black and white” and he assures us that God is not “black and white,” which presumably means that God’s aim is to shade the light into gray. The story of Christ is now the story of Gray breaking into the darkness.

Evangelicalism, Mr. Chambers complains, gives too much attention to “right and wrong” and requires one to “take a stand” on moral issues. Chambers cries: “Gone are the days of evangelizing through scare tactics, moral legislation, and church discipline.” So instead the Exodus leadership prefers to assure self-professed Christians who engage in unrepentant homosexual practice that they are going to heaven irrespective of whether they bring their life into line with a confession of Christ’s lordship. The Exodus leadership refuses to take a stand against “gay marriage” even as it takes public policy stances on issues that homosexual activists support. And the Exodus leadership categorically rejects church discipline despite the fact that it is commanded by Jesus and Paul.

Earlier this month Alan Chambers even went so far as to insert secretly the e-mail address of Jeremy Hooper, an abrasive homosexual activist, into the middle of a private group email thread containing a number of pro-family leaders (including moi). This led to a number of misrepresentations online by homosexual activist sites and even Salon.com. This deceitful alignment with a person who maligns those who believe in a male-female foundation for marriage is not exactly a model for Christian conduct, certainly not for someone leading what is supposed to be a Christian ministry.

…

In an Exodus post a couple of weeks ago Leslie Chambers affirmed her husband’s severance of the transformed life from genuine saving faith, saying that while obedience to God is preferred it is not “required”. Neither Leslie nor Alan appears to realize that a necessary byproduct of true faith is a life lived for God.

As Dr. Gagnon mentioned, Chambers’ dissolution of Exodus was accompanied by his serious ethical lapse regarding an email group. A couple of months ago, a well-known and well-respected conservative author sent an email to a group of conservatives. Chambers responded to the entire group, angry that a person or persons in this large group have allegedly used terms in some context that Chambers finds offensive. He never identified the person or persons who used the term/s, nor did he identify the context.

One of the email recipients noticed that Chambers had surreptitiously added homosexual activist Jeremy Hooper, who has a blog titled Good As You (G.A.Y.). When confronted about the stealth addition of Hooper, Alan defensively admitted that he had, indeed, done so in the hope that Hooper would report on the email exchange and that the “good and decent people” on the list would be shamed into publicly exposing and rebuking others whom they may not know for offenses Chambers would not reveal.

I asked Chambers the following questions, which he refused to answer:

• Who are the people who deserve public rebuking and what specifically did they do to deserve to be rebuked?
• If he thought there was something “unrighteous” and “evil” (Chambers’ terms) going on, why didn’t he expose it himself and publicly rebuke the person or persons whom he believed deserved public rebuking?
• How did he justify betraying a trust and trying to publicly shame “good and decent” people for what he perceived as their failure to rebuke unnamed people for using words he viewed as inappropriate in unidentified contexts—actions, by the way, that he had not done?

No ministry should ever tell those who experience same-sex attraction or any other sin inclination that there’s a human way to eradicate all sinful impulses. If Exodus staff conveyed that unbiblical idea to those to whom they ministered, they erred.

Conversely no Christian should be told that God will not free them from same-sex attraction or that they will never experience heterosexual attraction, for those too are erroneous ideas.

Scripture tells us that God will free us from bondage to sin, but that full sanctification does not come in this life. We are promised that in this life, God will give us the power to resist our sinful impulses, which for most of us persist at least in attenuating strength.

God does not, however, give us permission to affirm our sinful impulses or act upon them. We are to pursue lives of holiness—which will never include homosexual relationships.

Since Exodus has abandoned orthodoxy, it is a good thing that it is shuttering its doors.  Fortunately, a far better ministry exists to fill a desperate need: Restored Hope Network

When we read about prior heresies, they seem like distant historical curiosities, but right now we are eyewitnesses to the birth and growth of a heresy in our lifetime. Let’s hope and pray that it’s soon relegated to the dustbin of heresies.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

One of the biggest problems facing our culture has nothing to do with the actual biology and sexual orientation of people. As we all know, biology is formed before we are born, and sexual orientation is intricately linked to it. Rather, a major problem is the perceived biology and sexual orientation of people. As our society continues to run headlong toward some androgynous utopia it seems the number of people perceiving their sexual orientation to be frequently changing climbs.

What I’m getting at, and what I don’t see a lot of conversation about, is the number of people that change their sexual orientation and the frequency with which they change it.

Homosexual advocates say that homosexuals are “born that way,” a cliché that has all but died thanks to science disproving the existence of a “gay gene.” These same advocates say that once a person admits they are homosexual that it is impossible to change and be anything other than a homosexual. Now, to be fair, they are okay with homosexuals becoming bi-sexual, or even transgender, but certainly not heterosexual.

I suppose homosexual advocates don’t like when a man like Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA makes statements like this one: “Contending that all same-sex attraction is an unchangeable or immutable characteristic like race is a distortion of reality.” Cummings is only admitting what honest experts already know, that homosexuality is a choice and just as it can be chosen, it can be un-chosen.

But homosexual advocates have to rabidly deny science and reality and claim that people don’t choose to be homosexual, that they are “born that way.” Otherwise their lifestyle becomes one of perception rather than biological reality and that is a crumbling foundation they know will not gain social or political sympathy. So, consequences of their delusion be damned, they have pushed forward with their dangerous agenda of perception and asked all of society to agree.

And, as we’ve seen in recent years, both society and government have indeed sympathized with their “plight” and sought to deconstruct all of the moral underpinnings of our nation in order to recreate America in the image of a flexi-sexual with little to no moral compass. This still doesn’t solve their biology dilemma, as Dr. Joseph Berger, a Toronto psychiatrist has explained, there is no such thing as a “transgender” person:

“From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means. I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical. ‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests. Sometimes, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’. The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery.”

And yet the homosexual lobby has sought to surgically cut the moral fabric from America and replace it with their own brand of humanism that starts with fluid sexuality. The point being to destroy any moral absolutes because, if moral absolutes exist then people will continue to oppose their lifestyle on the basis of morality; that is a reality they simply cannot allow. By first deconstructing the foundation of morality, starting with sexual norms and guidelines, they can then reconstruct morality according to an ideology that says sexuality is so fluid it can change daily.

The most heinous part of it all is that homosexual advocates are very willing to go after children and seek to “educate” them according to their ideology. To cause such confusion in the mind of a developing child is beyond despicable, but that won’t stop them. One particularly awful example of this comes from a cartoon set to debut on the TheHub, a children’s cartoon network. The cartoon is all about the adventures of a cross-dressing superhero. The boy gains magical powers by wearing a special ring and dressing like a girl. AS if the sexualization of our children wasn’t already a problem, now ratings execs think it’s a good idea to confuse them with cross-dressing “heroes.”

We’ve fallen so far that we are pitching deviant sexual behavior to kids on cartoons. And while we would like to think that behaviors such as bestiality will never be accepted in our society, already the push to “normalize” such behavior is under way. We are moving ever faster towards a society that is LGBTPBQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Pedophilia, Bestiality) inclusive.

Inclusive isn’t the word, it’s more like demanding acceptance and affirmation under threat of penalty of the law. That is really the society we are heading towards. One in which every deviant sexual behavior is not merely tolerated but affirmed, where silence is prosecuted as opposition, and where morality changes daily based on horoscope.

If morality is based on transcendent truth then it cannot be altered, regardless of cultural or political opinion. If morality is based on culture then it will continue to change until it brings about the implosion of the society that forgot morality is based on transcendent truth.

Help Protect the Family Now!     
Please click HERE to support IFI through our secure online server

 There are scores of organizations across America that help people overcome same-sex attraction disorder and gender identity confusion.  All of them are becoming targets of the far left.  In California, the state legislature actually passed a bill nearly shutting down all such agencies even though clients voluntarily choose their help.
 
A counseling group in New Jersey, another liberal bastion of tolerance, is being sued by a far-left group called the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  The SPLC claims that JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing) is involved in consumer fraud because reparative therapy and sexual reorientation counseling is not always successful.  (No counseling of any kind, even the very best, is ever anywhere near 100 percent successful.)
 
The SPLC is arguing that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and therefore cannot be changed.  But the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is representing JONAH, has pointed out that the medical community is deeply divided on this issue. They have submitted numerous affidavits from medical professionals providing evidence that change is possible and sexual preference is fluid among those identifying as homosexuals and bisexuals.
 
One of the affidavits for JONAH should have made big news.  It comes from renowned psychologist, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, who was the past President of the American Psychological Association (APA).  In recent years the APA has become political and very left leaning on social issues and even their own research involving homosexuality. Yet, Cummins affidavit states that he personally treated over 2,000 homosexuals for various conditions, while his staff counseled thousands more.  Cummins affidavit states that he personally knows hundreds of former homosexual who successfully changed their orientation to heterosexual.

Some prefer to take the quiet approach to the marriage issue. They want to “speak with their actions” rather than engage in meaningful dialogue or use words that others would understand. Hey, I’m all for living a life that shows others what I am about. I do that by being in church every Sunday, celebrating Christmas and Easter rather than non-specific nature oriented holidays, not cursing, not getting drunk, and voting patriotically according to my conscience rather than my wallet. So don’t misunderstand me and think I don’t support people who silently live what they believe.

My problem is that too many are being too silent and the minute minority has overshadowed the vast majority by simply being louder. If you ask the average person what percentage of the population is LGBT or any other sexually oriented abbreviation they will most likely answer with numbers between 20% and 40%. You’ll enjoy watching their jaw drop when they find out it is only about 3.5%.

But that’s the power of words. Words change minds and views. Words engage opposition and create open dialogue among two sides of an issue. So when one side is decidedly more quiet than the other, the inevitable outcome is the louder side make gains while the quiet side loses ground.

If you don’t believe that then explain how the homosexual agenda has gained such ground over the last decade. When Christians and pastors and conservatives decided to avoid conflict and refused to engage in civil conversations with those they disagreed with, they began losing ground. A very good example of this comes from Matt Barber’s latest article in which he shares details of an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.”

The most chilling aspect to this report is that the DOJ is now taking the position that silence on the issue of homosexuality will be interpreted as opposition! Here are the actual words from the report and Matt Barber’s comments:

• “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

“That’s a threat. And not even a subtle one. Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and ‘stay in the closet’ – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, ‘silence will be interpreted as disapproval.’ This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject. Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.”

Do you get it? Silence is no longer an option for the Obama administration. They aren’t content with Christians and others simply living a “quiet and peaceful” life of opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. They are now in the position of demanding everyone accept it openly and vocally or risk being called an opponent.

If you think this all there is, read the rest of the document and Barber’s comments. But trust me when I say it gets worse and far more frightening. But the bottom line remains the same; silence is no longer an option. One way or another you will have to speak up and state clearly where you stand on this critical issue.

I gave up silence a long time ago. I believe it is important for people to know what the Bible says about these issues and that I structure my life around what the Bible teaches, not what the culture peddles as popular or moral. I prefer a solid, transcendent truth that comes from God over the shifting, wind-blown rhetoric of activists and politicians. For those that preferred the sidelines and the “quiet life” it would appear your silence has not only yielded ground to the opposition, it is now so undesirable that it will be forced to an end.

Just to drive the point home, here’s another segment of Barber’s letter beginning with additional points made in the DOJ document:

• DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”
• DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

“Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to compel managers to ‘attend LGBT events,’ or to ‘display pride stickers’ against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination. That’s unconstitutional.”

You see, our government’s been emboldened by the silence of people who oppose homosexuality. They believe they can force people to not just tolerate it, but to vocally accept it. This would not be the case if the “silent majority” would boldly stand and speak. As long as people are afraid to stand for the truth and speak truth to our culture we can rightly expect continued fear-mongering and intimidation tactics on the part of our government and those they lobby for.

Perhaps no other thought on silence is more appropriate than that of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor and activist killed for his outspoken opposition to the evil he saw around him during Hitler’s regime:

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor’s of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.

Written by John Piper, desiringGog.org

One of the sweet advantages of insisting that there is no such thing as same-sex “marriage” is that there is therefore also no such thing as same-sex “divorce.” In the days ahead, this will be very good news for many who repent.

In the years to come, God will be merciful on thousands of those who have been damaged by the present moral madness of our culture. He will exalt Christ in the conversion of many who have lived in same-sex relationships. More complexities than we can imagine will be presented to us in the church.

One of the more difficult scenarios will be what the church should do when, say, two women, who have lived in a so-called married state for some years, are converted to Christ, repent of their sin, and want to join the church. And what if they have children?

In this uncharted territory, here is a map with some of the biblical guideposts I foresee. It is not exhaustive. I invite every pastor to pray that God would grant him the great privilege of leading new believers through this process.

1. Rejoice. We should join all heaven in the joy that our Father and the angels feel over this repentance.

“There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7)

2. Pray. This is going to be complex and difficult. We need humble wisdom beyond the merely human.

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

3. Listen. We must not assume we know all we need to know about the situation. Disentangling the relational threads (both sinful and natural) will require significant knowledge of the situation present and past.

If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Proverbs 18:13)

“Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51)

4. Instruct. Based on what we have learned from listening, we will share what the Bible says first about the gospel, and second about the sin of sexual relations outside biblical marriage.

Christ died for our sins. (1 Corinthians 15:3)

All sins will be forgiven the children of man. (Mark 3:28)

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. (1 John 1:9)

If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Put off your old self [and] be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and . . . put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:22–24)

Flee from sexual immorality. (1 Corinthians 6:18)

5. Clarify that same-sex attraction is a brokenness that is part of humanity’s fallen condition, along with other emotional/psychological/physical desires, dispositions, and infirmities. Explain that willful expressions of this brokenness through prohibited behaviors is what the Bible has in mind when it says,

Neither those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy . . . will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

6. Help them see, therefore, that what the state has called a “marriage” between them is not marriage. There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” in God’s eyes. Therefore, they are not married in the sight of God, regardless of how the state defines their relationship. Do not embrace the state’s prostitution of language by calling the former state “marriage” or the ending of it “divorce.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

“From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.” (Mark 10:6–7)

7. Make plain that, therefore, since there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage,” there is no such thing as “same-sex divorce” in the sight of God. The biblical condemnations of divorce do not apply to non-existent “marriages.” What God has not joined together, man cannot separate.

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

“What God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:9)

8. Patiently help them think and pray through the many painful and complex issues involved in ending this romantic, sexual relationship.

Encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1 Thessalonians 5:14)

Love is patient and kind. (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom. (Colossians 3:16)

9. Be ready to surround them with loving and generous brothers and sisters who can help provide for all the practical necessities that will be involved: from housing to childcare to counseling to legal assistance to transportation to financial counsel. Fold them into a nurturing web of new caring relationships.

Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Romans 12:13)

If one of you says to a brother or a sister, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (James 2:16)

Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 John 3:18)

There is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands (Mark 10:29–30)

10. Assist them in the legal processes and expenses of undoing what the state called “marriage.” That the state will call this process “divorce” is not decisive in what it really is: the removal of a sinful fiction.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

Let us decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. (Romans 14:13)

11. Help them see that in all likelihood an ongoing cohabitation without romantic or sexual involvement will be unrealistic relationally, and misleading as a witness to the world. A new way of living in community will be needed. And perhaps, painful as it may be, some distance between them may be necessary for a significant season.

Abstain from every form (or appearance) of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

“Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16)

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. (Psalm 32:8)

12. Help them pray and think through what may be the most painful issue of all, the custody of the children. If the children are old enough to have some sense of what is happening, provide the most sensitive counsel and instruction so that they can understand that God is doing something really good, even if at the time it may feel painfully disruptive. Pray that God would create in all the adults involved a heart of sacrifice and love that puts the good of the children above immediate desires. And hold out the possibility with pressure that God is able to work the wonder of providing a father for these children.

Children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. (2 Corinthians 12:14)

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction. (James 1:27)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother. . . . Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1–4)

“With God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

13. Don’t leave these women and children on their own once a new life has been established. There will be many ongoing temptations and challenges for years to come. Seek to fold them into gospel-rich churches with seriously supportive relationships.

If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:26–27)

We, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. . . . Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. (Romans 12:4–10)

This post was inspired by Sunday night’s panel discussion at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis on the implications of Minnesota’s recent legalizing of so-called same-sex marriage. Available now are both audio and video.

More from John Piper on homosexuality:

• “Let Marriage Be Held in Honor”: Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage(sermon)

• Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage (sermon)

• “My Eyes Shed Streams of Tears”: Thoughts on the New Calamity (article)

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of DesiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books.

The bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” has failed to advance in the Illinois House before lawmakers adjourned for the summer. In a bit of political theater, the bill’s sponsor, homosexual activist Greg Harris (D-Chicago) wept as he stood on the House floor to announce that he didn’t have the votes to pass the bill. In a liberal state like Illinois, this is a truly remarkable victory.

As Christians we know that all good things are gifts from God, and the retention of sexual complementarity in the government’s definition of marriage is a very good thing. The failure of this bill is a good thing for children, for parental rights, for religious liberty, for the common good, and for truth.

Despite what the bill’s supporters claim in a dishonest attempt to stigmatize supporters of natural marriage, the retention of sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage bears no kinship to bans on interracial marriage. Nor does it signify injustice to those who seek to marry someone of the same sex. The failure of this bill signifies that marriage has a nature which the government merely recognizes and regulates, central to which is sexual complementarity.

We owe a debt of gratitude to all Illinoisans who have worked so tirelessly and sacrificially to preserve true marriage through prayer, financial support, letters to and meetings with their representatives, and participation at rallies. Words don’t suffice to thank you all for everything you’ve done. Your work and today’s victory will inspire others around the country who face similar battles and often feel dispirited.

We want to note especially the work of African American, Hispanic, Asian church leaders and members whose courage and perseverance were enormously helpful in stopping this bill. We hope that their example will inspire the many faith leaders who have been standing on the sidelines to become as involved in the battle to protect the essential and embattled institution of marriage.

We should praise and thank God for this victory in an ever-expanding war on truth, and then redouble our efforts to preserve true marriage. Those who have worked so hard deserve a moment to celebrate and rest—but not for long. Representative Harris has promised to bring this bill back in the Fall Veto Session.

We need to make clear to our lawmakers that support for the elimination of sexual complementarity will be costly.

And critically important, as we approach the upcoming gubernatorial election, we must actively and publicly support only those candidates who support natural marriage.

With joy, we humbly thank Illinoisans for their inspiring work to preserve marriage.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.  
With your support we can continue our vital work!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors 

Assembly of God’s Royal Rangers 

Calvinist Cadet Corps 

CSB Ministries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not merely unfair, it is immoral!

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

“What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” (Mark 8:36)

It’s a sad day for both Scouting and for freedom. Indeed, it’s a sad day for America. The century-old Boy Scouts of America (BSA) – created in 1910 to “prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes” – has betrayed its own constituency, mission, oath and law.

On Thursday, approximately 1,400 adult BSA delegates from around the country gathered in Texas and decided, in a disgracefully lopsided vote, to welcome into its ranks, “open and avowed” homosexuality (boy-on-boy sexual attraction and behavior), thereby disavowing the “morally straight” Scout Oath its members are sworn to uphold.

They voted unwisely.

History will reflect that on this day the BSA turned from morally straight to immorally bent – that this once great organization – founded on “honor,” “reverence” and biblical morality – was crushed beneath the worldly weight of pagan idolatry.

Whereas, for over a century, millions of boys have raised their right hands, swearing “on my honor” to “do my duty to God and my country” – on this day, hundreds of adult delegates likewise raised their right hands, shook their fists at God and flipped their middle fingers at both the boys they serve and the parents who trusted them.

While endeavoring to “gain the world,” this once honorable institution has forfeited its soul.

Scripture admonishes: “The wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6:23). This was a catastrophic miscalculation. It was sin, and, tragically, through this sin, the BSA has now effectively sealed its own fate. It has set into motion its own demise.

Even by its own estimates, BSA leadership admits that the decision will likely result in a mass exodus from Scouting. They anticipate that as many as 400,000 Scouts and Scouters will leave the organization (acceptable casualties in the war on morality, I guess). Still, as devastating as this number is, it too represents a gross miscalculation.

Consider, for instance, that when Canada’s version of the Boy Scouts voted in 1998 to welcome open homosexuality, its membership rolls plummeted by over half in just five years, forcing camp closures, staff layoffs and huge budget cuts. Looking north of the border for clues, then, we can expect that, with current membership at around 2.6 million, it’s more likely that roughly 1.5 million Boy Scouts and troop masters will walk.

Then again, we’re talking about “progressive” Canada. This is the good ol’ USA. With over 61 percent of Scouts, Scouters and parents opposing the homosexualization of Boy Scouts, and over 70 percent of U.S. Scout groups sponsored by churches and religious organizations, it’s not unreasonable to expect that defections will even exceed this estimate.

In short, BSA’s betrayal may well result in near-total ruin. The wages of sin is death.

Here’s the reality: Reality has not changed. Objective truth did not suddenly and miraculously reverse itself on May 23, 2013. As BSA has always acknowledged (until Thursday), homosexual behavior remains empirically disordered and immoral. The only thing that has changed is politics.

Ultimately, this decision had nothing to do with “tolerance” or “inclusivity.” Neither did it concern the best interests of the boys who make up Boy Scouting. Instead, this decision was rooted in pure evil. It had everything to do with money. “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10).

And wandered from the faith they have.

Now come the many griefs.

Really, three things drove this decision: Fear, greed and politics. A number of high-dollar corporate donors threatened to pull funding from BSA if they maintained the existing policy on sexual morality. Additionally, a number of extremist pressure groups, aided by a sympathetic left-wing media, brought tremendous pressure to bear.

But the pressure’s not going away. The BSA made a critical error in judgment. It showed weakness. This has only whipped these radicals into a heightened frenzy. Within moments of the “gay” announcement, Nancy Pelosi called the move “an important first step.” The Human Rights Campaign demanded “the new policy doesn’t go far enough,” and Mother Jones, a liberal online publication, posted an article titled, “Boy Scouts: You Can Be Gay Until You’re 18.”

Sin is never satisfied. The homofascist thirst for absolute affirmation is unquenchable.

What’s the next step? Activists now demand that adult men who desire sex with other males (“gay” scout masters) be allowed to take your sons camping overnight. Soon they’ll be insisting that “transgender boys” (girls who wish they were boys) be allowed to join as well.

What a camping trip! Imagine the pup tent. Your son and Jimmy – who’s got a crush on him – along with Billy and Billy’s boyfriend Bobby, all snuggly warm in the middle of nowhere. But make room for Sammy (formerly Suzie) and Sammy’s boyfriend Gary (formerly Gertrude).

Don’t forget to hang the disco ball.

And “always be prepared!”

You think there won’t be new membership stagnation? Who wants to sign their boy up for the “Gay Scouts”? What’s a kid gotta to do to earn his “tolerance badge”? Parents, you might want to get out while the gettin’s good. As one Eagle Scout told me, “I’m not leaving the Boy Scouts, the Boy Scouts left me.”

It’s only a matter of time until BSA caves on these demands as well. They’ll admit “gay” men and girls soon. They have no choice. Now that they’ve opened the door, they’ve waived the only legal defense they once had: religious and moral conviction.

But here’s the good news. I and dozens more will be convening for a coalition meeting of pro-family leaders next month in Louisville, Ky., to discuss the creation of a moral alternative to the Boy Scouts. Nature abhors a vacuum. We intend to fill it.

Still, until then, please join me as we mourn the loss of this once honorable organization. The Boy Scouts of America: Born Feb. 8, 1910 – Died May 23, 2013.

May it rest in peace.

A Connecticut man has been sentenced to five years probation by a federal judge for mailing death threats to the leader of a pro-family group in that state.

Homosexual activist Daniel Sarno plead guilty last August to two counts of mailing threatening communications to Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, pictured above.

Sarno admitted sending Wolfgang a continuing series of hate mail involving over 300 letters.  One said:  “I sure hope somebody blows you away.  Yer dead.”

Another read:  “No mercy for homophobes.  I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon.  Are ‘family values’ worth dying for?”

Sarno made clear in his letters he was sending the death threats because of the group’s support for the preservation of the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Prosecutor John Durham asked the judge to impose a tougher sentence, pointing out that Wolfang and his wife and six children had to “change their whole lifestyle” over a period of six months due to the threats of lethal harm.

“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident,” Wolfgang comments.  “It is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among opponents of traditional marriage.  It is clear that their pretense of ‘tolerance’ is over.”

The Family Institute of Connectict is a similar organization to the Illinois Family Institute.  

So I guess you’ve heard. Fading, 34 year-old NBA free agent Jason Collins has been declared a hero for publicly announcing that he digs dudes. Well, it’s about time! Used to be all a guy had to do was die at Omaha Beach or some other such nonsense. The Imperialist USA is finally seeing some major progress.

What callous soul wouldn’t be moved by this youngish man’s gallantry? Who wouldn’t shudder at his sacrifice?

Merriam-Webster’s defines courage as “mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty.” Think of it. Just as his middling basketball career was coming to a close and he was preparing to fade into relative obscurity – joining millions of others in the Obama unemployment lines – Jason Collins stood tall and said, “No! I will not take the easy road!”

This selfless giant of a man put everything on the line and valiantly announced to the world (Optional: may or may not insert theme to “Battle Hymn of the Republic” here) – announced to the world: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.”

With everything to lose and nothing to gain, Jason Collins, in one single, selfless act, has rushed forward to jump on that “homophobic” grenade of persecution each of his LGBT brethren, sistren and whatever-else-tren face daily. For every oppressed dude-digging-dude, chick-digging-chick or cross-dressing whatchahoozie, Jason Collins has “taken one for the home team.”

Danger? Fear? Difficulty? One can only imagine.

Have you ever tried to fend-off a herd of undulating, adulating media-types and Hollywood celebs? Me neither. Guy could get slobbered on – might even skin an elbow.

And just as he was ready to move to the next level of his basketball career (couch, Cheetos and NBA 2K13 on his PlayStation), Jason may now have to contend with millions in product endorsements, speaking fees and, potentially, even a renewed NBA contract. Have you ever dealt with lawyers? I have. I am a lawyer. We’re a pain in the butt.

But then it occurred to me. Collins had a girlfriend of eight years. In fact, they were engaged to be married before he dumped her. This would make him “bisexual,” then, wouldn’t it? So – and bear with me here – if being “gay” makes him a hero, does being “bi” make him a superhero? That. Is. Awesome! I don’t know: “Captain Switch-Hitter”? (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

Then again, if he’s “bisexual,” might that actually diminish his heroism? Would it make him only half a hero, or would it just cancel out altogether, making him ordinary again?

It’s all so confusing.

How do you get a call from the White House? Sandra Fluke? Jason Collins? I see a theme developing here. Declare sexual liberation from all that archaic “morality” stuff and – ring, ring – “Barack on line one.”

Oh, sure, a bunch of those “Christians” and conservatives are up-in-arms over the president’s “bizarre priorities” – that he would personally call Jason Collins to congratulate him over “the love that dare not speak its name,” while completely ignoring a guy like Cameron Lyle.

Who is Cameron Lyle, you ask? Well, little chance you’d know. And why should you? He’s just some attention-grabbing track and field star from the University of New Hampshire who sacrificed his athletic career to undergo the excruciating process of donating bone marrow to a total stranger dying of leukemia.

Yeah, I know. What a prima donna. They call that “heroic”? Puhleeze. Sure, like in a 1950s kinda way. We’ve evolved. We’re talking “gay pride” here. So, naturally, Collins gets the call – a little “one-on-one” if you will – while Lyle gets the shaft.

And all is well in the “progressive” time-space continuum.

But, lest you worry about Jason Collins’ incredible act of courage going otherwise unlauded by this president and his mainstream media, I shall hasten to comfort you. For Mr. Obama also heaped spoonfuls of sparkly-sweet sugar upon Jason’s hate-tattered brow at a frenzied news conference. CBS News describes it thusly: “President Obama told reporters he ‘couldn’t be prouder’ of NBA player Jason Collins, who one day earlier announced he was gay. Mr. Obama said Collins is ‘a role model’ to be able to say, ‘I’m still 7-foot-tall and can bang with Shaq, and deliver a hard foul.’”

Um, right, exactly. If we can’t be proud of sodomy, what can we be proud of?

Seriously, I’d encourage the next pro athlete engaged in some other hitherto-considered-deviant-sexual-lifestyle to ride the wave.

Who knows, in today’s ever-”progressive” culture, I could see President Obama awarding the Medal of Honor to the first polo player courageous enough to admit having a thing for his horse.

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

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

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

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

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

So much for tolerance and diversity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has written a resolution for consideration that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation. This resolution would allow the scouts to maintain the current prohibition on openly gay scoutmasters. Another proposal would leave the decision on homosexual scoutmasters to individual troops.  According to an action alert from our friends at American Family Association, the resolution reads in part:

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth…No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

Read the full resolution here.

This proposal may seem less portentous than a decision to permit scoutmasters to be openly homosexual, but the resolution creates two standards by allowing the scouts themselves to identify openly as homosexual, but maintains the ban on leaders who identify as homosexual.  This works against the original aim of the BSA to encourage young men to develop in morally, mentally, and physically healthy ways, free to be boys and teens without the invasion of cultural and political controversies.  Allowing scouts to identify openly as homosexual will inevitably lead to the politicization and sexualization of their friendships and the scouting community. This is unnecessary and harmful.

The Supreme Court of the United States has backed the BSA up on their authority to set membership rules. There is no reason for them to change now except illegitimate political pressure from extreme homosexual lobbying groups. Please sign the Family Research Council’s scouts’ pledge, encouraging the national BSA board to demonstrate integrity in this matter, and visit OnMyHonor.net for further resources and action points. Moms of Boy Scouts also provides regular updates on the situation, and FRC will host a simulcast on May 5, which they have designated “Stand With Scouts Sunday,” at 7:00 p.m.

LEARN FROM CANADA 

In 1998, Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and staff was laid off.  Click HERE for a specific list of the impact open homosexuality would have on scouting.
 
Former U.S. Representative Richard T. Schulze of Pennsylvania, a recipient of the rare Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, recently commented:

“What kind of a message are we sending to our young people if the very leaders who are teaching Boy Scouts to be brave cannot even find the courage to stand firm and avoid caving in to peer pressure from Hollywood and political activists?”