Category Archives: Gay Marriage

The Christian Citizen

One of the complaints leveled at those of us who dare to address social issues and still identify as Christians involves the distinction of the church from the state. The typical expression of this thought is twofold. The first is that the church depends too much on the state and government structure for its success. When the government fails, then the church is seen to have failed. Its members are grieved and dissatisfied The second area of complaint is that the church is not different enough from the world to stand out. The melding of the church with social-political causes is thought to dilute the power of the church as the wholly-other entity that it should be. Were this not done, so the argument goes, then the church would have more drawing power because it would be the proverbial shining city on a hill that draws all men to it. Rather than criticizing and engaging the world around it, the church should be open and loving to those who are in the world. After all, the complaint goes, the church is not called to judge the world; it is called to judge itself. The world is expected to be a place of corruption and evil. The church should be a place of purity and holiness.

Both of these criticisms are overly simplistic.

The Cultural Milieu

The so-called culture wars are the most interesting and relevant thing to write about. They are current events and hot topics. Church members buzz about them. Pastors are quizzed about them. Minds can be shaped and formed around them. They are impossible to dodge. Should we even want to dodge them? They offer natural teaching opportunities. The two biggest, abortion and homosexuality, are two issues where there is clarity provided from Scripture. A pastor would be irresponsible not to plainly state that both are against the will of God. At that point, whether the pastor wants to or not, he has been placed on a political “side” of the issue.  We do not have the option of extracting ourselves from the cultural milieu into which we were born.

When you survey this site’s content you’ll see a good deal on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Several of these articles were delivered as sermons and others as talks during Bible study sessions. These intersect both the secular and religious aspects of American society. Our members read that the Bible condemns homosexuality and the culture around them wants to condone homosexuality. This is a legitimate concern. The outcome affects both the Christian citizen in his civil life as well as in his religious life. What should the church’s response be? Some want to withdraw; to separate from the political realm.

Rome v. Washington

One of the distinctions that such critics seem to fail to make is in recognizing that we do not live in the Roman empire. They will appeal to biblical models that seem to steer clear of any interaction with Roman civil government. They will note that Jesus did not spend his time trying to change Roman law. Neither did Paul.  At the same time, they will ignore the fact that by addressing Jewish leaders and critiquing them on their religious practices that Jesus and Paul were directly assaulting the ruling Jewish government. Israel was a theocratic state as far as its local government was concerned. Striking out at the Pharisees and Sadducees was political discourse. Confronting the Sanhedrin, the supreme governing body for Jews, was a direct assault on the government. Religion and government were tightly intertwined in Israel.

Confronting Jewish authorities could get you killed. Ultimately, it was the Jewish leadership that persuaded the Romans to crucify Jesus. Before that, John the Baptist was beheaded because he confronted Herod Antipas over a legal matter of divorce. John told Herod that it was not “lawful” for him to have Herodias as a wife since she was divorced from his half-brother, Herod Philip.  (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9 cf. Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21). The danger was real. Paul himself was very nearly killed by Jewish leaders on more than one occasion.

As Jews, the average person had even less standing in the eyes of Roman officials. The Jews were a conquered people and subjects of the Roman empire. Very few were citizens and so did not receive the same treatment as Roman citizens. Jesus himself ran afoul of the Roman government in that Herod Antipas wanted to kill him. Jesus’ reply was an insult and an affront to Herod. He said, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal’” (Luke 13:32). Herod was called a fox, which was an unclean animal according to Jewish dietary laws. Herod tried to play the part of a pious Jew, but the divorce mentioned above, his ties to the Roman government, and the fact that he had John the Baptist beheaded were just some of his sins. Jesus is defying Antipas’ authority, insulting his Jewish side, and challenging him to “come and get me” which Herod does not do.

These observations are made simply to point out that there was not an absence of conflict with the Jewish and Roman civil authorities. Religion was often the subject of these interactions.

Missions from God

Direct political confrontations with Rome were not likely to end well, as the tale of John the Baptist tells us. The Roman government was not interested in “bottom up” reform. They maintained peace through force. This speaks to a second problem with models of Jesus and Paul as non-political reformers.

Jesus stated that he had a mission from God to “preach good news to the poor” and that he was sent to the “lost sheep of Israel” as his primary mission field. Jesus’ ministry was not one of governmental reform. He wasn’t participating in a democratic republic where citizens could advocate for change. In fact, it was rather important to his ministry that he not be heavily involved in Roman political matters. His famous saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” was a way of avoiding taking sides in a political trap set for him. Had Jesus been highly confrontational with Rome, he would have been arrested and probably executed in short order. This would have interfered with his personal mission of preaching, which was a necessary part of fulfilling his concept of Messiah.

Similarly, Paul had no interest in reforming the Roman government. Some say it is because Paul thought that the end was so near at hand that such reforms would have been a waste of time. That is probably true, but the authoritarian nature of the Roman government probably had even more to do with it. Paul did use his influence within the churches to advocate for freeing slaves and improving the lot of women, but had he made a public campaign of this he would certainly have been arrested. Slavery was such a huge and vital part of the Roman system that anything remotely resembling condoning a “slave revolt” would surely have gotten Paul executed much earlier than he was. Paul had a vision for his mission work and that was to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles. A direct, frontal assault on Roman government was a sure way to end that mission quickly. So advocating for Roman political reform did not fit within the primary missions of either Jesus or Paul. In fact, it would be anachronistic to try to compare their political realities with our political realities.

The times, they are a changing

The New Testament came forth from the first-century world in which it was written. Its concerns and processes are not the same as they are in western democratic republics. In the authoritarian structure of the Roman empire, the vast majority of the population did not get to vote or influence public policy. In the democratic republic that is the United States, the citizens are all invited to vote and to critique government policies. We even encourage “grassroots” movements, which are inherently bottom-up movements. It would seem to be in the best interest of the citizenry for Christians to participate and influence policy.

Among the things that critics tend to overlook is that God is a supporter of good government. The nation of Israel was founded to be a just and fair society unlike any other in the Ancient Near East at the time. But even outside of Israel we find that God is interested in the affairs of government. He predicted to Abraham that his descendants would be in slavery for 400 years. Then he said, “But I will punish the nation that they serve as slaves” (Genesis 15:14). In fact, even in Genesis 9, after the flood, God gives Noah a civil ordinance: “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. This was a law given to protect human life. All one needs to do is look at the prophets to see many critiques of corrupt government. God clearly has a fair form of government in mind for humanity.

One of the great advantages of the United States is that it has built into it an anti-theocratic policy. Unlike the European governments from which its earliest colonists fled, there is not an established state religion. The founders looked at history and saw wars of religion between Protestant and Catholic rulers; they looked at the Roman empire and its official sanctioning of religion and thought better of it. Because of this insight, Christians in America do not want to establish a theocracy. They do see the value of shared Christian principles – do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness – as do others of non-Christian religions. These are tried-and-true principles of good civil government. Even in the latest round of battles over same-sex marriage, Christians were not trying to defend a uniquely Christian concept of marriage. It was the same concept held historically throughout human history, across denominations, and across religions.

The complaint, however, is that somehow the church has been corrupted by involvement in the political process. The argument is that the church should be so “other” in contrast to the society as to make the rest of the world want to look into this “church” thing. This seems to be a withdrawal from the world. It is a form of isolationism that is naive and idealistic at best. It abandons citizenship in the country to those who would have the least interest in upholding the principles of religious liberty and would work in the opposite interests of the citizens and the church. It also seems fairly obvious that by taking a stand against or for a public policy position that the church is declaring itself starkly different from the world. It would take a rather unthinking person to not recognize such distinctions.

Some things about human behavior are obvious. One of those is that people rally better behind leadership than they do if left to their own individual fortitude. The church is clearly the place for spiritual leadership and such leadership, at times, must conflict with the civil government or political waves seeking to influence the government. In such cases, it seems only proper for the church leadership to promote the use of citizenship as a means to guiding the country in more godly directions than it might otherwise choose. This brings up a second aspect of human nature: the lust for power. People who are driven by greed, notoriety, or other unsavory desires are always on the watch for opportunities. Evil loves a vacuum. Although we are ostensibly a Christian county demographically and our leaders are overwhelmingly Christian, we all recognize that graft and corruption exist and are an ever-present problem in politics. Should Christians withdraw from that battlefront then the evil forces win by default.

The Forces of Good

So far I’ve never found a limit on where God hates evil. He hates it government, in the church, in the business, in the household, and in the private life. We can see that the objections surrounding Jesus and Paul are not good ones to argue for withdrawal from the world. It is true that the government cannot be a replacement for the church. The church must never be identified with the government. Historically, that has been problematic and led to corruption within the church. But Christians are right to be upset when their government does the wrong thing. They are right to advocate for change or redress in such matters. It is simply who we are as Americans in the 21st century. In fact, it would be irresponsible to not use your citizenship rights as a means for good. Paul wrote in Galatians 6:9-10 “Let us not become weary in dong good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” It seems that trying to limit the damage that the behemoth of government can do is a good cause that benefits “all people.” As Americans we have even a greater responsibility. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and we exude more political and religious power than any other. To allow that blessing to be squandered away would be poor stewardship. It behooves us for our own sake and for the sake of those around the world whom we support to try to maintain a decent country.

Paul used the Roman government to his advantage every time he had a chance. It saved his life several times and his Roman citizenship provided for fair trials before Roman officials. I can’t help but think that he would use every means at his disposal to spread the word today. It also seems quite reasonable that he would be interested in a stable, peaceful and reasonably God-respecting government that was fair to its citizens. After all, he was beheaded by a crazed dictator named Nero in a political scheme to blame Christians for the burning of Rome.

The impending failure of same-sex marriage

Failure is imminent. As the newly-created subset of the institution of marriage, same-sex marriage will not succeed. Why? Simple. It cannot duplicate heterosexual marriage.

The propaganda laid out to the world was that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals and want the same long-term, monogamous, loving relationship enshrined in marriage. However, studies have not found faithful, lasting relationships to be the norm among homosexuals as the general rule. A large part of the reason is that the focus is on sex.

Focus on Sex

The typical Gay Pride parade is a display of nudity, cross-dressing, sexual expression, and sexual deviancy. These are not the types of displays that you would find at a Straight Pride parade, if straight people had them. The typical hometown parade is G-rated. The closest thing you get to heterosexual “pride” displays is the high school homecoming king and queen riding in a car together. The cheerleaders may wear skimpy costumes but that is about as close as you get to anything remotely sexual in nature. Hometown parades are a celebration of radical normalcy. These parades are populated by such “radical” groups as the local public service clubs, local veterans, some politicians, and churches. Lewdness is not welcome.

The contrasting parade illustrations can help us recognize the stark difference between the two “communities” as we might call them. The focus on sex is a self-centered focus. It exalts self-satisfaction above all else. It puts the pleasure of the adults in the relationship at center stage. Everything else turns around it. Thus, the relationship is off on the wrong foot at the outset.

Marriage Concepts

Unlike their homosexual counterparts, sex is not the major focus of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have a very different mindset about marriage before they go into it. For them, marriage encompasses life itself. It comes with certain expectations of longevity, procreation, and fidelity. A brief outline of heterosexual marriage thought goes something like this: there is the dating, engagement, the marriage, the honeymoon, the first house, the first promotion, the first pregnancy, the first morning sickness, the birth of the first child, learning to be a parent, taking family vacations, saving for college, the first day of kindergarten, elementary school PTA meetings, middle school band concerts, high school activities, the ACT test, graduation, empty nest syndrome, the child’s fiancé, the child’s marriage, the first grandchild, and the retirement years.

Notice in that description how little time is focused upon the parents and how much time and energy is put into the children. The marriage begins with the couple alone and ends with the couple living alone after their child-rearing days are over. Only now, they have an extended family to care for and to support them as they age. This is a “whole life” experience where the role of sex was two-fold: to bond the couple and to produce children, which additionally bonds the couple as they unite around their offspring.

Mimicking Marriage

Homosexuals are now attempting to take heterosexual marriage as their standard and mimic it. Naturally, they can’t produce children on their own so either they are brought into the marriage from another heterosexual relationship, adoption, a surrogate, or IVF. But simply copying the heterosexual process by the unnatural introduction of a child does not change the initial focus on sex in the relationship nor can it lead to the same kind of parent-child bonding.

Inherent Dissatisfaction

Sexual satisfaction is not all that satisfying when you are doing it wrong. Simply on a pragmatic level, females have to use something to substitute for the male member and males have to treat other males as if they are females by using orifices that are not designed for sexual intercourse. There can never be a true bonding on the physical level. The couple does not have the necessary complementarity. It is a bit like mixing oil and oil. In the end you still have oil, just twice as much of it. Due to the high number of sex partners and the level of infidelity in the homosexual community, it is fair to say that sexual gratification is not the same as sexual satisfaction within these relationships.

It addition to the above, it must be reiterated that the sexual gratification of the adult homosexual couple can never lead to the production of children. If there are children involved, not more than one of the two adults can be biologically related to the child. There is not a bonding opportunity in looking at the child that the two of you created and debating whose eyes he has or from which side of the family he gets his height. This makes one of the “parents” a “step-parent” by default. It is very clear that step-parents are statistically much more likely to do harm to or even kill a child than the biological parent. This is especially true of men, which puts any child in a male/male household at higher risk. A study of heterosexual parenting conducted in Canada and Detroit found that the child with a step-parent was “40 to 100 times as likely to be murdered or maimed as those who live with two biological parents in the household.” Clearly there are issues of dissatisfaction when a non-biological parent is involved. The bonding that takes place between the heterosexual couple and the child cannot ever be attained by the homosexual couple.


Dissatisfaction also arises because the psychological similarities of the same-sex couple is also lacking complementarity. It is a well-established fact that homosexuals have greater instances of mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that there is no counterbalancing influence from the person who is their psychological opposite. Men are more sexually driven than women. Women are more relationally driven than men. When the two are paired together, there is a moderating influence on one another. Apart from that influence there is a lopsided dynamic in the relationship. This is expressed in different ways between the two sexes.

Male homosexual conduct differs significantly from that of females in terms of fidelity within the marriage and the number of sexual partners over the course of a lifetime. Most male same-sex marriages are open marriages. This means the level of fidelity is very low. This is the pinnacle of the self-centered focus of homosexual behavior. The sexual gratification of the adults is primary. A preoccupation with sex leads to greater sexual deviancy as more and more is demanded in order to satisfy the appetite. There is no moderating female influence.

Female homosexual conduct is more faithful during the relationship than the males but less faithful than those in heterosexual marriages. The emphasis on relationship and self-worth causes the female relationships to break up rather quickly. The average relationship lasts about four years. Male relationships last longer on average but suffer from the high infidelity mentioned above.


Clearly neither of these arrangements is suitable for raising children, who take eighteen years to reach the bare minimum of legal adulthood. Heterosexual marriages are clearly superior in terms of their longevity, their fidelity, and their child-producing and rearing capabilities, the lifespan of the couple, the happiness of the couple, and the happiness and well-being of the children.

Those advocating for same-sex marriage would have us believe that there is no difference between the sexes. They want to pick and choose the elements of marriage that they can potentially accomplish (love, monogamy, longevity) while trivializing or ignoring those that they cannot. Simply attempting to mimic heterosexual marriage standards is doomed to failure since homosexuals cannot compete on the same playing field. They are not suitably equipped to do so either physically or psychologically. The history of same-sex relationships and marriages is against the longevity and fidelity they seem to seek. It is doomed to failure as an institution.

Moral of the Story

The moral of the story is simple: fighting the natural order of things only brings disaster and frustration. God created humans as male and female with the intention that they pair up in that manner. That can never be changed. Homosexuals who attempt to have what they cannot have will wind up with ongoing mental issues, suffer the ravages of the abuse of their bodies, and be no happier in the end than they were at the beginning. Ministers, counselors, friends, and family will be left to pick up the pieces. If you did not know before, NOW you know why.

The troubling trail to Gay Affirmation

Plenty of rational people remain befuddled at how we got to the point of having same-sex marriage imposed upon the country. It still “doesn’t make sense”. Past articles here have been written about some of the delusions in the pop culture of our time that have led us into this “Twilight Zone” type of existence. The process of mental erosion and manipulation has really been a long one and is too involved to chronicle in depth or in one post, but here are some of the major tools that were used to put us where we are today. Hopefully it will be instructive as these tactics will continue to be used on this and other subjects.

Trick 1: Emotionalism

The average person is not taught formal logic, argumentation, or philosophy to a meaningful degree. That leaves the door wide open for Trick 1. Emotionalism defies logic and other rational processes which is why rational people are so perplexed when they find someone immersed in it.

A typical scenario is this: a parent has a child who suddenly announces that he/she is “gay” and the emotional heartstrings begin to be played. The parent doesn’t want to think of their precious child as a sinner under God’s condemnation for engaging in homosexual acts so the line is drawn: choose the child or choose the Church. It has caused division in homes and churches because the parent’s or parents’ emotional attachment to the child is greater than their commitment to Scripture.

Similarly, a homosexual person who goes to a church and has a bad experience sets the stage for another emotional tug. This experience is used to indict the whole of the church as being mean to homosexuals in general. This move can then be used to justify shifting the focus to “bad church people” while ignoring church doctrine on the matter and their own bad behavior. Furthermore, we are not allowed to be reminded that other churches and church people are “good” to homosexuals. That card never gets played. Instead, people insulate and comfort themselves with a self-justifying cocoon padded with sympathizers.

The emotional attachment we have to people, be they friends or family, or our instinctive affection for simple common courtesy or an extension of love and care to a person cannot be allowed to outweigh what Scripture actually says and what historical Church doctrine has been. The call to Christ is a call to the crucifixion of one’s self to the lusts of the flesh and to a conformity to Christ. The things that mean the most to us, friends and family, and the things that tempt us have to be killed and killed again in this conformation process. Jesus knew the cost of following him was high in this regard. He knew that opposition and persecution would be found in governmental authorities and in our closest associations.

For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” – Matthew 10:35-38

The real test of fidelity to Jesus is when you have to confront your family members. That is a test that all too many people have not wanted to endure. Scripture takes a back seat to worldly, emotional attachment. The modern atheist movement has benefited greatly by playing upon the “emotional problem of suffering” and the homosexual movement has also had great success by appealing to frail, human emotions.

Trick 2: Narrowly Focus

By narrowly focusing on one thing, people on the margins can be swayed to an otherwise illogical position. How often have you heard someone say, “It’s about equality” when they were advocating for same-sex marriage? It was a common refrain. Equality is a buzzword with an emotional ring to it. It appeals to our sense of fair play. Never mind the fact that a male/female pairing is not the same as a male/male or female/female pairing in gender or procreative activity or any number of other factors. That observation is never allowed. If it is raised then it is mocked and dismissed before the focus is shifted to inheritance or benefits or the objector is bullied with accusations of being a bigoted, unfair homophobe or some other baseless charge.

Another example deconstructs marriage to focus on one element. “It’s about love.” Really? It is as if “love” were the only prerequisite for a marriage. What about the fact that all cultures throughout history have recognized that marriage was fundamentally a male/female bonding with the general intent to produce children? The male/female component absolutely must be dismissed by homosexual advocates because it would automatically rule them out by definition. So it is ignored. The same is done for procreation because that would also immediately rule out homosexuals. After all, how can you deny two people who love each other and want to commit to a lifelong, monogamous relationship the “right” to do that? You can’t unless you want to be labeled as a bigoted, unfair homophobe again.

“Monogamy” is another canard trotted out, as in the paragraph above. Again, marriage is skinned down to nothing but love and monogamy. Why? Because these are ideal goals of marriage which appeal to heterosexuals in our culture. It puts them on empathetic grounds with the poor, struggling homosexual couple who just want to be like the heterosexuals but, by some stroke of bad luck, they can’t be. On the surface, it seems that homosexuals can love and be monogamous, too, just like heterosexual couples. The truth of the matter, though, is that most of the men aren’t and the women are not as faithful as their heterosexual counterparts. Again, the attempt is to match a simplistic aspect of marriage to something that homosexuals could possibly achieve.

“Lifelong” is another adjective often used to achieve the same goal. To hear them tell it, homosexual advocates want that lifelong, committed relationship that heterosexuals have. The reality is that very, very few of them aspire to or achieve this. I discuss that in more detail in another article, but the upshot is that the vast majority of same-sex relationships do not last very long at all. An average of five years would probably be a rather charitable number overstating the reality.

Trick 3: Screw-up Scripture

Since most people do not spend a lot of time studying Scripture and the higher scholarship related to it, they are, again, easy targets for this Trick. Activists like to pretend that there is some legitimate debate going on in the biblical academic world regarding what the Bible teaches or the Church has historically taught. The reality is something rather different. There are a handful of people with some level of academic credentials that try to make waves, mostly for public consumption in attempts to muddy the waters for the uninformed. The mainstream of biblical academics realizes that the Bible is firmly against homosexuality and tomes like Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice really have settled the issue for all but the most die-hard supporters. While there are some unorthodox supporters in the higher halls of academia, most of the weakness is found among the laity and the pastoral class where scholarship is not always as highly valued as personal relationships (see Trick 1: Emotionalism above).

By confusing people they attempt to de-legitimatize Scriptural authority. A very fine example of this deceptive approach is this article with the subtitle, “Christians need to accept that Jesus was sometimes wrong—in fact, he might even want us to.” Oddly enough, the author acknowledges that Jesus would disapprove of homosexuality, but he then goes on to build a faulty argument as to why Jesus was wrong for us today! The mental gymnastics people will go through to condone what the Bible clearly condemns is stunning. But the uninformed youngster today might well read this and think that it is a wonderful, open-minded, contemporary, relevant, and scholarly approach to Scripture. In reality, it is simply leading people astray and causing division in the Church – which is the main objective.

Trick 4: Go Fix Your Own Sins First

The first time I was told that the church needed to go solve all its other sin problems before it got around to homosexuality I was dumbfounded. The absolute illogic of it was beyond comprehension. However, it was not a plot aimed at the logical person. It was aimed at the guilt-ridden person. People who feel inherently guilty because they recognize their own sinfulness can be convinced that they should not condemn anyone else’s sin until they fix their own personal “sin problem”.

Nowhere in Scripture do you find such a concept or statement. Everyone is sinful and everyone must repent and then control themselves so that they don’t fall back into their old ways of sin. And, like it or not, we are required to hold each other accountable for our sin. That is a brief description of what Scripture actually teaches.

The goal of this approach is to disarm people and remove them from the battlefront. A person who is sidelined by guilt will be at least tolerant of and perhaps become accepting of homosexuality.

Trick 5: False Portraits

Presenting a false portrait of homosexual life is crucial to gaining acceptance, especially among the young. The brief outline of homosexual life that I gave in my previous article tells us that it is an unstable, dysfunctional, and unhappy life. But you would never know that through TV and movie portrayals. They don’t talk about the drug abuse, the physical abuse, the cheap and tawdry sex, or the mental anguish. Sure, the heterosexual community has such problems as well but within the homosexual community they are multiplied many times over – especially for the men! The typical movie or TV portrayal will be a positive, funny, likable, and intelligent image which has the intention or result of leaving the viewer with only good feelings regarding the homosexual character. It does not show the man drinking because he is distressed or going home to a boyfriend or picking up a stranger at a gay bar for quick sexual satisfaction. The seedy side may make a few appearances on obscure cable channels but it does not make mainstream broadcasts or movies as a rule.

Trick 6: The Tolerance Shell Game

This was a good one. Cry out for tolerance then engage in intolerant behavior. Much like the guilt in Trick 4, this had the effect of causing churches to be more accommodating to homosexuals. It led to the ordination of people with same-sex attraction who were not acting upon that attraction. It seemed so reasonable, compassionate, and tolerant. After all, don’t we all struggle with sin that we don’t act upon? Sure! Churches began to liberalize even more in order to “welcome” homosexuals into their midst. Then somewhere along the way we began to see calls for ordaining practicing homosexual ministers, affirming homosexual couples, and then talking about conducting homosexual marriages. Any appeal to Scriptural authority was painted as bigotry, homophobia, “on the wrong side of history”, and so forth per Trick 3. Emotional appeals were ladled out as in Trick 1. Talk of equality, love and other narrowly focused parallels were tossed into the mix as per Trick 2 in order to “flood the zone” and here we are. We have same-sex marriage, practicing homosexuals ordained into the clergy, general confusion about Scripture among the uneducated and uncaring, and division within the church and the country. I’m reminded of Aesop’s fable of the Farmer and the Snake.

ONE WINTER a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.

Aesop’s Fables. Translated by George Fyler Townsend. Chicago; Belford. Clarke & Co. 1887.

And so it has been with the “tolerance” of homosexuals in the church. There was not an attitude of gratitude. They seized upon the opportunity afforded to them and continued their push for normalization. If one could not see beforehand that the goal was to change the church not to fit in and learn to abide by its doctrines, certainly it is clear now that this was and still is the ultimate goal for the activists. The “scoundrel” came in among us feigning calls for mercy and pity in order to waylay the merciful, kind, and unsuspecting. They played our Christian charity against us. It was a crafty move worthy of the serpent of Genesis 3.

Personal Reflection

Homosexual advocacy has arguably had its greatest success by circumventing the critical thinkers and appealing to forms of emotion and deception. Young people, who are often either not interested in such topics or haven’t had the education or maturity to think them through, are soft targets for these forms of manipulation for gay affirmation.

When I was in my young twenties and the topic of homosexual marriage was raised I was opposed to it on religious grounds and on the grounds of gender non-complementarity. Beyond that I was pretty much indifferent. It seemed like a silly idea. Nobody would ever really want to do such a thing and certainly the country would not tolerate it. It was ridiculous and laughable. At that time I really did not recognize the harm involved in homosexuality to the homosexual person nor did I think in terms of children, adoption, benefits, or other public policy matters. Even the idea that it would be an assault on religious freedoms never crossed my mind. I would probably have been very “live and let live” on the subject then. But as it has developed over my lifetime, my personal experiences with being married and raising four children, my religious education, my experiences with homosexual friends and family, my awareness of public policy implications, my observations on history, and so forth my positions have matured which has hardened my opposition to anything affirming homosexuality. Maturity has its benefits. How young people today will shape up remains to be seen. We can certainly learn some lessons from history in order to be more aware of the Tricks and better set to counteract them.

The coming Day of Sobriety for gay activists

Drunk with power after the Supreme Court misruling on same-sex marriage, the gay activists have not reacted all that well. As one writer noted, they were mean. In addition, we watched in April as German homosexuals used pages of the Bible as toilet paper and were tossing their own excrement at Christians protesting a new sexual diversity curriculum . Social media filled up with those type of images and reminders of the hostile and deviant side of this movement. Usually support for the winning side increases after a Supreme Court ruling, but support for same-sex marriage has declined. The public has awakened to the nature of the activists and have recognized the coming assault on religion and free speech.

The Coming Sobriety

For a time there will be residual euphoria. Same-sex weddings will take place in droves. There are lots of decisions to make, guests to invite, gifts to wrap, and honeymoons to plan. Then the time after the “I dos” sets in and that is when the sobriety will begin to appear. Fantasy meets reality. They will wake up one day and look at their “spouse” and realize, “We’re still only around 2% of the overall population. We’re still viewed as sinners by most religions. We still can’t have children with each other. We’re still not really ‘accepted’. We’re still not normal. We’re still gay.” Then the angst returns.

A Fool’s Paradise

Some people have naively thought that “marriage” would somehow end the angst. Once the nation was forced to allow same-sex marriage, that would be the end of the internal unrest. It was a fool’s paradise. In the end, the angst is because they are homosexuals and out of step with mainstream society. The fundamental problem has not been acknowledged much less addressed. They are still a tiny minority of the population. They are still viewed as odd by the majority of people. All the social dynamics that were in place before are still in place and they are still the same people they were before. The paperwork and legal fiction of “marriage” did not solve anything.

One of my friends in the legal profession wrote a little note on Facebook that warned her homosexual friends that things had changed. Marriage was a different legal beast. There was no more “moving in and moving out” as they were accustomed to doing when they have spats. We will learn in the future how many homosexuals actually choose to marry. It may not be all that many since unstable relationship status is a hallmark of the homosexual community.

Unstable Relationships

That’s right. I said it. Homosexual relationships are unstable. By comparison to heterosexuals, they are a very promiscuous lot. They go through many more sexual partners on average than their heterosexual counterparts. Their marriages and relationships don’t last as long as those of heterosexuals. In fact, stable homosexual families are rare (see this for a brief recounting of some facts). Lesbian relationships only last on average about five years. This seems counter-intuitive as females are perceived to be family and relationship oriented but the reality is somewhat different. With two women comprising the household there is a higher dissatisfaction rate within the relationship than with a male/female relationship. Consequently, such arrangements do not last as long. Male homosexual relationships last longer but are rarely monogamous. They are almost always “open” marriages. That means that the two men have other sexual partners during the marriage in order to satisfy their sexual desires. Naturally, this leads to dozens or hundreds of partners over a lifetime for most males, lots of cheap sexual encounters, exposure to diseases, and a shortened lifespan.

Much of the above is a brief summary of data from The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon from the subsection The Dearth of Lifelong,Monogamous Homosexual Relationships (2001, pp. 452-460). While the data in that section is being replaced and updated with more recent and long-term studies, the general pattern is still clear: heterosexuals have fewer sex partners over a lifetime; have longer, more stable relationships, and have much, much higher levels of fidelity within the marriage.

One of the ways that homosexual marriages do damage to the institution of marriage is that they severely degrade it by their brevity and instability. Think about all the flack that marriage has taken with the erroneous myth that fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. That number is false to begin with, but by comparison to homosexual marriages it looks stellar!

Sexual Fluidity

Sexual fluidity is not something that homosexual advocates like to talk about or even acknowledge. I’ll quote from Dr. Gagnon’s book what is still the observed truth: homosexuality is not an immutable condition. People can and do change. Dr. Gagnon writes, “The evidence to date, however, points to considerable fluidity in a spectrum from heterosexual to homosexual. People who at one time or another experience homosexual impulses do so at different times of life, and for periods of different duration. Many exclusive homosexuals come to the ‘realization’ about their ‘true’ sexual identity relatively late in life. Many who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual early in life subsequently become predominantly or exclusively heterosexual later in life. None of this corresponds to a doctrine of biological determinism” (p. 418). In fact, over 90% of people who have had homosexual encounters have also had heterosexual encounters. For women the number approaches 95%. In fact, studies have shown that people can and do shift across the Kinsey spectrum of sexuality one, two, or even three times in some cases (Gagnon, pp. 419-20).

Fluidity indicates that sexuality is not a fixed, and immutable trait and it contributes to the relational instability. Additional factors argue that it is not a trait that is good, healthy, or worthy of societal support.

Mental Disorders

Homosexuals will still continue to have higher percentages of mental illness than heterosexuals. The open marriage lifestyle that gay men live is not mentally healthy. It is inherently unstable, dangerous, and cheap. The need for exogamous sexual partners is not the sign of a healthy, bonded relationship equivalent to heterosexual bonding.

The conscious fact that they are abnormal in society weighs on the mind. Even in the case of a same-sex marriage where children are involved, the simple fact of the matter is that the same-sex “parents” will be the minority at the average school “Family Night”. They are still square pegs trying to fit into a round hole.

There is also the rarely-discussed psychological reality that two same-sex people are not opposites psychologically and emotionally. There is no real complementarity to counterbalance the other person. At the most, you get either a highly feminized male or a highly masculinized female in terms of body style, clothing, mannerisms, and make-up. These are attempts at supplying what is lacking in the complementarity but they are not and cannot truly reach that goal.

Dare I say that the type of sexual activity necessary for a same-sex partner cannot be equated to true gender complementarity? The peculiarities involved in the types of so-called “intercourse” that homosexuals must engage in are not complementary. It is perhaps in this most intimate relationship that homosexuals inwardly realize their dissimilarity to the heterosexual world. Women must use artificial male substitute devices; men must penetrate parts of the body not designed for reproduction and not designed to take the abuse of rigorous sexual activity. There are no procreative options so the primary goal has to be turned to the gratification of the participants. Let it suffice to say that the cumulative weight of all this does damage to the mental health of the average homosexual.

A Hollow Victory

The victory is hollow. It was won with intellectually vacant ideology; it was won only by circumventing the democratic process (which was 32-2 against it); it was won only by illegal judicial activism in violation of the Constitution. So, it is a very shallow victory indeed. The day of “sobriety” is coming. The pain and suffering will continue and it will spread to others through family courts and religious persecution because at the heart of the matter is “sin”. Homosexual activists don’t like to be called “sinners” and that is what the Bible calls them. Legally married or not, they are still sinners.

Heresy, apostasy, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage

There is a purge going on in the Church and it is one that we should acknowledge, embrace, and encourage. No issue has divided the church as clearly as the issue of homosexual acceptance and its manifestation in same-sex marriage. This purge has been mostly a one-way affair in that theologically liberal denominations such as the PCUSA (my former denomination) have been stacking the political structure so as to favor liberalization trends.

Bad Moves

The PCUSA is not the only offender as it has been a popular trend among mainline denominations. This trend has caused people to leave for more traditional churches or for existing congregations to simply acknowledge the political realities of their denomination and affiliate with another denomination or start their own conservative branch. The PCUSA has lost 47% of its membership since 1967 and this article lists the decline and increase of other denominations. Being a minister in the Restoration Movement I’m always interested in the Christian Church, Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ churches. The Disciples have been trending liberal for years and have suffered a 67% decline since 1965 (these figures are as of 2012).

As theological liberals have seized power their churches have been purged of conservatives as they flee the sinking ship of Politically Correct Theology. The liberal churches fail to recognize that their theology is built upon the shifting sands of public opinion and peer pressure. It is not founded upon historical, solid biblical truth. Thus, it has no staying power and no attractiveness to a world that seeks stability amidst the storms of life. PCT only offers acceptance to those who conform to the thought de jour. If the winds of PCT ever shift so that it becomes popular to to dis-affirm homosexuality then those churches are going to find themselves in turmoil again.

Bad Words

Apostasy. Heresy. Disfellowship. Excommunication. These are all dirty words for many in the church today. They inherently bear a concept of harsh judgment in them and our pop-culture tells us to “judge not” (which seems to be the only portion of the Bible that many of them both know and affirm). But since the beginning of the Church there have been lines of discipline that could not be crossed without repercussions. Sexual sins have been matters of discipline and even excommunication from the outset.

The Apostle Paul affirms that sexual sins will exclude a person from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 6:9) and homosexual behavior is among those sins. He affirms that homosexual behavior is a fundamental rebellion against God; that it is a “sinful desire”; that it is a “degrading” of the human body; that it is a “shameful lust” and that the acts are “shameful acts” (Romans 1:18-32). In short, human beings who are in rebellion against God on the matter of homosexuality are under God’s wrath and condemnation (Romans 1:18). This is exactly where the liberal churches find themselves. They affirm what God condemns.

In the Corinthian church Paul had to confront “sexual immorality . . . of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate” (1 Cor. 5:1). This was a heterosexual sin. The perversity of it was that a man was sleeping with his father’s wife (that is, his step-mother). Was the church in Corinth outraged at this? No. They were proud. Paul tells them that they should have “gone into mourning” and put the man into a state of disfellowship. The hope would be that he would repent so “that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord”.

Paul’s teaching on how to handle sexual immorality may not have been clearly understood by the Corinthian church as 1 Cor. 5:9-10 may indicate. So Paul clearly states what he expects when it comes to sexual immorality within the church: “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Cor. 5:11, emphasis mine). In fact, Paul relies upon Scripture when he commands the church to “Expel the wicked person from among you” 1 Cor. 5:13 (cf. Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7).

Genesis sets forth God’s intentional creation of mankind as male and female with gender complementarity as the essential component. The union of husband and wife is for the purpose of reuniting the male with what was created from him so that the two can carry out the divine will of procreating, ruling, and subduing the earth. Jesus affirms this natural and customary form of marriage as well as limits it to only two participants in a lifelong and monogamous marriage.

Humanity crossed a line which had never been crossed before when it began wiping out male/female distinctions and deeming homosexuals as capable of being married. Not even the pagans had ever done such a thing in all of human history. But like the Corinthians, the liberal churches have crossed several lines that had never been crossed before in the church. They affirmed homosexuality; they approved of homosexual marriage; they ordained practicing homosexuals into their leadership.

Biblical Response

The liberal churches have been cutting off the conservatives for a long time. It is now time for the conservatives to turn the tables and do the same and even more, in accordance with Scripture. The lines of demarcation within the church are clear but they need to be made more distinct. It is time for all the independent churches and denominations that support biblical marriage to do what the Apostle Paul would have us do: disfellowship anyone who claims to be a believer but affirms homosexual practice and/or same-sex marriage. Those of us on the right side of the issue need to call this what it is: heresy. Those who support it have become rebels against God and arguably apostates since “. . . they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32). They have created a cult of sexual perversion and masquerade it as an acceptable form of Christianity.

It is only through boldness and a firm stance on Scripture that the Church can distinguish itself from the culture around it. Those people who refuse proper instruction and sound doctrine on this issue need to be cut off from their respective congregations until such a time as they repent. Churches and denominations that affirm homosexual practice need to be told “No. You are not Christian anymore.” Associations with such groups need to be severed.It is time to shun those who have created this cult of sexual perversion. Paul’s advice is harsh and it is intended to be harsh in order that it might shock the sinner into repentance. “Expel the wicked from among you.” Let the Church be purged of its heretics.