This is a letter written by a local pastor regarding Same Sex Marriage & SCOTUS.

Since there are some who think “silence gives consent” I would like to voice my opposition to the ruling of SCOTUS on the issue of same sex marriage.

First of all let me say God loves homosexuals.  Always has, always will.  God not only loves the homosexual but He loves all people.  That is wonderful good news for all of us.  We cannot reach a point where God does not love us!  However, God always hates sin which is any violation of his commandments.  This is the nature of God:  He always hates sin but He always loves the sinner.

On Friday, June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States of America handed down their decision and declared that same sex marriage should be legal in all fifty states.  The homosexual activists and many others are happy with the decision.  It seems that dramatic and sweeping changes will be coming in our nation because of this ruling.

Unfortunately, those who are celebrating this landmark decision are not listening to God’s   commandments that we find in His word.  The Scriptures are clear about homosexual behavior.  I will spare you the sermon but if you are interested to read here are some of the Scriptures that speak directly to homosexual behavior: Genesis 2:18-24; Genesis 18:1-19:29; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-25; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, etc.

Even more unfortunate is that those who are celebrating same sex marriage are overlooking the reality that children need both a mom and a dad.  Let me quote just a bit from the Illinois Family Institute:  “Marriage exists for the benefit of children.  Social science research and thousands of years of history show that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.”

Even though SCOTUS is the highest judicial body in the nation they are not the highest authority in the nation.  The almighty God is, always has been and always will be the highest authority in our nation.  Since God created us and created the institution of marriage it is necessary that we who love God also follow Him in all things.  How can SCOTUS define marriage since they did not create it?

God tells me that I should love my neighbor as myself.  I am trying to do that.  I really don’t I have to hate anybody to embrace God’s wonderful design for marriage.  I will continue to love those that disagree with me.  Sadly, some who disagree with me have called me a bigot and told me that I hate homosexuals.  That is simply not true.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision this in part is the statement from my denominational leaders:   “We believe a biblical view of marriage involves a monogamous, covenantal relationship between a man and a woman….We pray that God will help us be examples of His truth in a world that needs to see God’s love demonstrated in word and deed more than ever.”

I am not interested in arguments or debates.  Those who favor same sex marriage have spoken loud and clear.  I simply write to let it be known that many do not agree with the logic and judgment of the highest court in our nation.  I have said what I have said to encourage those who, like me, are trying to test all things through the lens of Biblical truth.  Thank you.

Pastor Jim Buchanan, Havana Church of the Nazarene.

By Stoyan Zaimov

The Rev. Franklin Graham, who is also CEO of humanitarian relief group Samaritan’s Purse, has backed the position of many Kenyan churches on homosexuality being a sin, and accused American President Barack Obama of promoting the “gay and lesbian agenda” to other nations.

“I didn’t know that we were sending our president halfway around the world to promote the gay and lesbian agenda! Samaritan’s Purse has an office in Kenya and has worked there many years, and I can tell you that the churches in Kenya know what the Bible says about homosexuality — it is a sin. Sin should not be embraced, but recognized truthfully for what it is and for its serious consequences,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday.

“As a world leader, the United States of America is now exporting the acceptance of immorality via our president. What will the cost of that be?” he asked.

Graham’s comments refer to a speech Obama and Kenyatta made on Saturday during Obama’s visit to Kenya, when the American president called on Africa to embrace gay rights.

“I have been consistent all across Africa on this. I believe in the principle of treating people equally under the law and that they are deserving of equal protection under the law and that the State should not discriminate against the people based on their sexual orientation,” Obama said.

Kenyatta countered that gay issues are not of prime importance in Kenya, where homosexual acts are illegal and carry punishments of up to 14 years in prison.

“Kenya and the United States share so many values; our common love for democracy, entrepreneurship and value for families,” the Kenyan president said.

“There are other things that we do not share; our cultures, our societies do not accept. It is very difficult to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept. This is why I repeatedly say that for Kenyans today, the issue of gay rights is really a non-issue.”

Obama had been warned both by Kenyan politicians and mainstream church pastors that he should not “preach” on gay marriage acceptance during his visit.

Earlier in July, lawmaker Irungu Kangata told traditional marriage demonstrators in Nairobi that Obama needs to “shut up and go home” if he is to talk about the “gay agenda.”

Additionally, close to 700 pastors in Kenya signed a joint-letter in May asking Obama not to bring the “homosexuality debate” to their country.

“We would like to send a strong message to the U.S. president that the homosexuality debate should not become part of his agenda, as it has been his tendency whenever he comes to Africa,” Bishop Mark Kariuki of the Evangelical Alliance said at the time.

“[Obama] should respect the faith, culture and people of Kenya when he comes in July,” he added. “He should not put [homosexuality] as one of his main agenda[s] in the country.”

Obama landed in Ethiopia on Sunday as he continues his African trip, becoming the first ever American president to visit the continent’s second most populous nation.

Originally posted here at www.christianpost.com

By Hilary Smith

As parents, we have a good understanding of how to protect our children from the dangers in the world around them. We taught them how to cross the street, wear seatbelts, and just say no. However, we may be overlooking the hidden threats our children are exposed to on social apps.

Reasons To Know Your Child’s Social Media Activity

This can become overwhelming when we consider that 92 percent of teens acknowledge they are logged online everyday. As parents, we have witnessed this phenomena with our teens’ love of their cell phones, handheld devices, tablets, laptops, consoles, and more. It’s easy to believe that our children are harmlessly chatting with friends or downloading innocent apps, but that can be a misstep in our parenting judgment.

In a world filled with friend requests and profile grooming our sons and daughters are encountering some surprisingly real dangers. It’s estimated that 67 percent of parents are concerned about the effect of media and technology on their children. The statistics and stories about cyberbullying, online predators, and sexting we hear on a daily basis has many parents wondering what our children are doing online with all those apps.

Many of us follow our children on Twitter and Facebook, but surprisingly teens are turning to sites unknown to parents. Our teens often keep “dummy” or fake accounts on traditional social media giants to keep us in the dark while they utilize disappearing or anonymous apps for more authentic communication with their friends.

Dangerous Apps And Sites Kids Embrace

Listed below are seven common dangerous apps or sites teens regularly use and their common uses:

• Whisper- Users anonymously post secrets sorted within a mile of a child’s location. This app has been associated with cyberbullying and pedophiles hiding behind fake profiles to lure children into meeting.

• Yik Yak– This hybridization between Twitter and Whisper posts anonymous messages viewed by the closest 500 users determined by location tracking. The anonymity of Yik Yak has earned this app the reputation of being a breeding ground for sexually charged and abusive messages.

• Kik Messenger- Teens send private messages to other users on this free platform. While this app has cool features to dress-up messages with doodles and videos, the setup also makes it hard to identify other Kik users. This can become a problem when teens share Id’s on other sites.

• Down- Simply put, this app used to be known as “Bang with Friends”. It has ties to Facebook and allows users to categorize their friends into two categories: friend or a person they are “down” to hook up with sexually.

• Hidden Apps- There are a variety of apps that are on the market where teens can hide downloaded applications with one tap of the screen and apps that create disguises like calculators. These are solely used to keep their activity secret from us!

• Omegle- This anonymous app connects “you” with a “stranger”. It aims to connect strangers with similar interests or likes. While it might be a great way for people to discuss hobbies, it is not an appropriate medium for children. This anonymous pairing often encourages sexual predators to seek victims and gain personal information.

• Quotev- This site is used to share writings, engage in roleplay scenarios, and take fun quizzes. At first glance it appears to be a creative and nurturing environment, but many users report bullying and exposure to adults in chat rooms. If you have young teens, it could be a potential problem area.

Protecting Our Children Online

Ultimately, it is our job as parents to raise healthy and productive adults. If a child is exposed to harmful situations online, it can hinder their ability to flourish and thrive. Thankfully, there are many websites and mobile applications that are full or resources and strategies for parents to protect and monitor their children online.

It’s easy to hide our heads in the sand and feel that our children know better or practice safe social media etiquette. Staying on top of all of the messages, images, and contacts that reach our children can be difficult, but that doesn’t mean we cannot still offer guidance and support. Taking the time to be involved in a child’s online activity is the loving thing to do- even if it might be unpopular with your child.

Written by Rachel Sheffield

The federal government is now calling abstinence and monogamy “the most reliable way to avoid transmission of STDs,” rather than just “a reliable way.”

This change was made in the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest version of its Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, released earlier this month.

Beyond avoiding STDs, there are multiple other benefits from abstinence and monogamy.

For example, researchers at the Austin Institute report, “High numbers of sexual partners, as well as concurrent sexual partners, are not only a public health concern because of the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections, but have also been linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.”

While the researchers aren’t clear about why this correlation exists they note that the findings remain even when controlling for “education, gender, household income, and whether the person had ever experienced a divorce, sexually transmitted infection, or abortion.”

Researchers find that youth who are abstinent are also less likely to be depressed and perform better in school. Furthermore, abstinence protects against teen pregnancy.

Abstinence isn’t connected to just personal well-being. Abstinence before marriage is also connected to better marital quality. Individuals with more sexual partners report lower marital quality. Those who wait to be sexually active until after getting married also report higher marital quality—including a better sexual relationship—down the road.

Why is this? Dr. Jason Carroll of Brigham Young University explains:

For many young adults, the single life has become synonymous with hook-ups and sexual experimentation … Rapid sexual initiation often creates poor partner selection because intense feelings of pleasure and attachment can be confused for true intimacy and lasting love.

About 30-40 percent of married couples report having had sex within a month of beginning to date, however. Furthermore, according to research from the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the average American reports five sexual partners prior to marriage, with less than a quarter (23 percent) reporting that they have had sex only with the person they married. And roughly 70 percent of Americans say that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable, up from 53 percent in 2001, according to last month’s Gallup Values and Beliefs Survey.

Another reason these trends are problematic is that it can lead to more children born outside of marriage. Today, over 40 percent of children are born to unwed mothers annually, whereas 50 years ago it was less than 10 percent. Children raised by their married, biological mother and father are far less likely to be poor and are at lower risk for multiple negative outcomes.

There is a bit of good news, however. Abstinence among high school seniorshas increased somewhat over the past two decades.

A strong culture of marriage—where sex is linked to marriage and marriage is linked to childbearing—provides benefits for both adults and children, including better health, more stable and happier marriages, and protection from poverty and negative life outcomes for children. Leaders at every level should look for ways to help build and maintain a healthy culture of marriage.

This article was originally posted at The Daily Signal website.

Written by Matthew H. Young

A horrible tragedy occurred earlier this week, when a young white male walked into Emanuel A.M.E. church in historic Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine congregation members. Unfortunately, many common responses to the massacre threaten to undermine efforts to seek real, substantive justice.

First, many people have condemned the act as “senseless violence.” Calling the violence “senseless” implies that the shooter did not have moral agency. What occurred on Wednesday night was not “senseless violence”: it was a cold, calculated, act of racial hatred.

Others have suggested that the shooter’s actions were due to “mental illness.” But mental illness does not make us kill each other—and mental illness is something to be treated with compassion. When we use the phrase “senseless violence,” or equate racism with mental imbalance, it becomes difficult to distinguish between evil and illness. If we refuse to use moral language in our discussion, we lose our ability to hold the perpetrators of such acts responsible for their actions. If we are to have any hope of seeking justice for the victims of attacks like these, we must call things what they are.

Third, a number of people have used the occasion to bring up the issue of police brutality and systematic racism. Police brutality warrants the attention of anyone who purports to be concerned with justice. However, it is not a bad thing that the shooter was apprehended peacefully, or that he will go to trial. It is a bad thing that some law enforcement officers do not treat everyone justly. Protesting an occasion when the criminal justice system worked (a suspect was quickly identified and apprehended, and will go to trial) seems misguided, if we seek justice for those who have been failed by the criminal justice system. Don’t protest a job well done: protest all the jobs poorly done.

Responding correctly to situations such as these is critically important. Characterizing a killer’s actions as senseless, racism as mental illness, or an efficient and safe arrest as wrong severely curtails our ability to reveal racism, murder, and injustice for what they are: evil.

This article was originally posted at the First Things blog.  The author, Matthew H. Young, is a summer intern at First Things. His writing has been published in Civitas Review, the Carolina Journal, and other publications.

Have you heard about Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington state who politely, but firmly, declined to provide flowers for a wedding between two homosexual men?

Her refusal to betray her Lord and her biblical beliefs didn’t come without consequences.

The Washington state attorney general filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Mrs. Stutzman. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking financial remedies for the “injured” parties. And Judge Alex Ekstrom ordered Barronelle to violate her personal religious beliefs and provide flowers for a ceremony that violates her faith. The judge also told the state AG and the homosexuals who filed the lawsuits that they could collect damages and attorney’s fees not only from Stutzman’s business – Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts – but from Stutzman personally!

That means they can take everything she owns – her business, home, savings … everything. But here’s the redeeming part of the whole story. When the state AG approached the 70-year-old grandmother with a plea deal – pay a $2,000 penalty, a $1 payment for court costs and fees, and agree not to discriminate in the future – Mrs. Stutzman said: “NO!”

We must storm heaven with our prayers, asking for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to descend upon the nine men and women who will decide this vital issue. Like Mrs. Stutzman, we must pray for humble courage to stand firm. We must pray, “Thy will be done,” here in America in 2015.

I am not shy to say that one of the best ways you can put feet to your prayers is to continue to support AFA as we sound the alarm and rally our brothers and sisters in Christ to fight back and defend our God-given right to express and practice our religious beliefs without fear of government reprisals.

As a standing member of the AFA family through Action Alerts, you know we’ve been preparing for this day for many years now. And we will continue to aid churches and individual Christians as we struggle to navigate through the muck and mire that will follow a ruling in favor of same sex marriage.

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon,

President, American Family Association

Originally published at AFA.net.

Written by Napp Nazworth

While conservative Christians have long fought for the religious freedom of religious minorities, they have become increasingly concerned about their own religious freedom in recent years. Here are 8 reasons that is happening.

1. Same-Sex Marriage

Some conservative Christians have long been warning that same-sex marriage presents a danger to the religious freedom of those Christians who believe true marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Those who sounded those warnings were accused of sensationalism; they were only making those claims to fan the flames of opposition to SSM, it was said at the time. We now know that they were right all along. SSM supporters who only a few years ago claimed that SSM would not infringe upon anyone’s religious beliefs are now openly defending government coercion of SSM opponents.

Wedding vendors, like photographers, florists and bakers, have been on the front lines of these religious freedom battles. Even though there are plenty of wedding vendors not opposed to serving a same-sex wedding, and the brides or the grooms have usually stated that they preferred vendors who support SSM, there have been several instances where conservative Christian wedding vendors have been punished for declining to serve a same-sex wedding. In some cases, the punishments are so severe that these vendors will not only be put out of business but their life savings will be wiped out.

If those in powerful political positions believe that those opposed to SSM should be forced to choose between violating their religious conscience or personal financial ruin, they cannot be counted on to defend the religious freedom of conservative Christians.

Additionally, since SSM supporters lied about their support for religious freedom when they were pushing for passage of gay marriage, what are they lying about now? Churches will not be required to perform gay weddings, they say; pastors who denounce homosexuality will not lose their tax-exempt status, they say, or be imprisoned for hate speech, they say; but why should they be trusted? How far do liberals want to go in their use of government force to infringe upon the religious freedom of conservative Christians?

2. Anti-Christian Hostility

In their 2015 book, So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? sociologists David Williamson and George Yancey document anti-Christian hostility among certain liberal activists. While these activists are small in number, they tend to be powerful elites, which provides them with much cultural and political influence.

Through interviews with some of these anti-Christian liberals, Williamson and Yancey reveal what conservative Christians have long felt to be true: there are influential people, in politics, the media and entertainment, who despise them and wish to marginalize them as much as possible.

3. Gordon College and Brendan Eich

For a preview of what could be next, look to Gordon College and Brendan Eich.

Gordon’s president, D. Michael Lindsay, signed a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to include a religious exemption in his employment non-discrimination executive order. The exemption would not have benefited Gordon College directly and it was the same exemption that was already passed by a Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate. Additionally, the letter was also signed by Obama supporters and was organized by Michael Wear, who had worked for the Obama’s White House and his 2012 election campaign.

Despite all that, Gordon has been targeted because the Christian college has a conduct policy that bans sexual relations between same-sex partners. A Massachusetts city terminated a contract with the college, and it is being investigated by its accreditor.

Brendan Eich was forced out of his job as the CEO of Mozilla because he had donated $1,000 to a campaign in support of an amendment to California’s state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Both of these cases could be a preview of things to come. Will Christian colleges guided by Christian principles lose their accreditation? Their tax exempt status? Will their students be denied government aid? Will Christians opposed to SSM be allowed to hold any high profile jobs?

4. Reactions to RFRA

The notion that those with religious objections to SSM should not be given religious freedom can also be seen in last week’s reactions to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

RFRA was strongly supported by both liberals and conservatives in the 1990’s when it was first passed at the federal level in reaction to members of the Native American Church who were punished after they used peyote, an hallucinogenic drug, as part of a religious worship service. After realizing that RFRA also protects conservative Christians, not just religious minorities, liberals have begun opposing it.

Most of the media coverage last week about RFRA has failed to inform the public of why the law is important. Worse still, the media has misinformed about what the law actually does.

One of the arguments liberal news sites used in announcing its opposition was that certain conservative Christians supported the law. If conservative Christians are for it, it must be a bad law, appears to be the reasoning.

On Thursday, liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called for the repeal of all RFRA laws. Similarly, in a Wed. op-ed for The Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky denounced RFRA and argued that those whose religious beliefs are opposed to SSM should not be provided any legal accommodation.

5. What Liberals Say

Conservative Christians also worry about their religious freedom because liberals themselves have stated they should not have religious freedom.

New York Times reporter Josh Barro once said that SSM opponents are “unworthy of respect” and should be “ruthlessly” stamped out. While these statements might be dismissed as the ravings of a wacky liberal, and unrepresentative of most liberals, the reactions to his statements are telling. If Barro had made those statements about any other group of people or point of view (blacks, gays, service members, Muslims, etc.), there would have been a national uproar, he would have been expected to offer an apology, and he may have even lost his job. Instead, The New York Times did nothing.

Other liberals have explicitly argued that gay rights and the religious freedom of conservative Christians cannot coexist in the United States.

Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor who was appointed to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by President Barack Obama, argued in a 2006 interview that liberals should demonstrate a “respectful awareness” of the views of conservative Christians, then added that this view does not represent the majority in her community of fellow liberals. Additionally, she said that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

In a January op-ed condemning RFRA, liberal New York Times columnist Frank Bruni argued that he favored a “live and let live” position while simultaneously arguing for government coercion of conservative Christians. And in a Friday op-ed, Bruni wrote approvingly of a gay philanthropist who told him that conservative Christian leaders “must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”

Bruni appears to have no problem with government coercion of conservative Christians, because, in his view, conservative Christians can just become liberal Christians, so everything will be fine.

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. … So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” he wrote.

To state the obvious (which appears to be necessary for Bruni), if you tell someone you support their religious freedom as long as they change their position to your preferred position, you do not really support their religious freedom. The religious freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights and RFRA are intended to help a heterogeneous nation manage its differences. If you say, “I support religious freedom as long as everyone believes the same thing,” you do not really support religious freedom.

Conservative Christians would prefer the liberals like Bruni honestly state their position up front rather than wrap their intolerance in the language of tolerance.

6. Memories Pizza

After Indiana passed a state RFRA, the liberal press needed a bogeyman, so they went looking for one.

A local South Bend, Ind., reporter went to local businesses with a mic and camera asking the owners how they would feel if asked to cater a same-sex wedding. She found Memories Pizza, whose owners said they would not cater a same-sex wedding due to their religious convictions.

The story quickly went viral across liberal news sites and was cited as evidence that RFRA encourages discrimination against gays. RFRA, though, had nothing to do with it. Memories Pizza does not cater weddings. It does not deny service to gays. A reporter simply showed up and asked them how they would feel if asked to cater a same-sex wedding. As a result, the owners had to close the business and go into hiding due to death threats.

Scouring liberal news sites, one can find little sympathy for the owners of Memories Pizza, however. (See here for one notable exception.) Conservative Christians look at that and wonder how saying you’re opposed to SSM became worse than threatening someone’s life.

7. Obama’s Indifference

President Barack Obama’s indifference to the beliefs of conservative Christians has also been a cause of concern.

Through its birth control mandate, the Obama administration tried (and continues to try in some cases) to force those with religious objections to pay for certain types of birth control, some of which could even cause an abortion.

Besides the fact that Obama did not seem to care how some religions felt about birth control, the move illustrated that he has a narrow view of what religion is. The religious exemption attached to the mandate only applied to a narrow set of groups. Houses of worship were protected, soup kitchens were not. Religious freedom is only for what happens behind the four walls of a church, synagogue or mosque, Obama was saying.

Conservative Christians believe their faith should apply to what they do seven days a week. If you’re only willing to give them religious freedom on Sunday morning, you’re severely limiting their religious freedom.

8. Republican Leaders are Wimpy

Republican leaders cannot be relied upon to defend the religious freedom of conservative Christians because, as last week’s events show, they become wimps whenever the issue of homosexuality enters the mix.

One might think that religious freedom would be easy to defend, given that it is contained in the first words of the Bill of Rights and America has a long history of promoting religious freedom. But when Republican leaders catch even the slightest whiff that they might be accused of being anti-gay for supporting a policy, they quickly fold.

This cowardice was on display, for example, with Republican Gov.’s Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas; Mike Pence, Indiana; and Rick Snyder, Michigan.

Hutchinson decided not to sign RFRA, he says, on the advice of his son, a 31-year-old government employees union organizer. Pence signed an amendment to his state’s RFRA that would make it more difficult to bring religious freedom claims to court. And, not to waste time, Snyder announced he would veto RFRA even though his legislature hasn’t even passed it.

These governors were cowering, in part, to certain large companies, like Angie’s List, Apple and Walmart. It is OK, apparently, for large companies to act upon their convictions in opposing a religious freedom law, but a small family-owned shop opposed to SSM must be put out of business.

(Caveats: None of the previous implies that conservative Christians have never failed to defend the religious freedom of non-Christians. They have. Or that conservative Christians have never bullied or mistreated others. They have. Or that there are not Christians in other nations who do not have it far worse. There are. Or that conservative Christians do not have political resources with which to defend their freedom. They do.)

If you still do not understand why conservative Christians are concerned about their own religious freedom in the Obama era, I encourage you to check out the reactions to this article.

Originally published at ChristianPost.com.