Trouble is, the book will be dated as soon as it appears. Guess I will just have to write yet another one after that. The cases are as relentless as they are shocking. Here I will briefly discuss two more such cases, and then offer some commentary from legal experts on this matter.

A few days ago we learned that “Boston cops must defer to transgender crooks”. Yep, you read that right. As the article says, “Criminals just got more rights in the city of Boston – at least, those who identify as transgender. According to new regulations, officers of the Boston Police Department must use a transgender suspect’s preferred first name, find out whether the person likes to be called ‘he’ or ‘she,’ allow him to choose whether male or female officers perform his frisking, and give any transgender inmate a private ride to and from court.

“New BPD rules say police must use the name anyone who is arrested prefers, ‘even if the individual has not received legal recognition of the adopted name.’ Policemen must also ‘respectfully ask the individual’ when they are ‘uncertain about which pronouns are appropriate.’ All friskings will be performed by two members of the sex the transsexual chooses, if at all possible.”

And then we have this appalling headline: “Professor Orders Students to Support Gay Rights”. The story opens: “A Tennessee community college professor ordered her students to wear ribbons supporting gay rights and said those who believed in the traditional definition of marriage are just ‘uneducated bigots’ who ‘attack homosexuals with hate,’ according to a legal firm representing several of the students in the class. Students in a general psychology class at Columbia State Community College were directed by their professor to wear ‘Rainbow Coalition’ ribbons for an entire day and express their support for the homosexual community, said Travis Barham, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Barham is calling for the college to punish Dr. Linda Brunton and order her to apologize to the students whose constitutional rights he believes were violated, according to a letter he sent to the community college president. ‘Dr. Brunton essentially turned her General Psychology class into a semester-long clinic on the demands of the homosexual movement,’ Barham said.”

Clearly a full-blown war has been declared against faith, freedom and family. At very real risk are such tremendous social goods as marriage and family; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience; and liberty and democracy.

Those who think that special rights for homosexuals – including the right to marriage – can be granted with everything remaining the same are just kidding themselves. Everything changes, as I have just documented. A recent article by Princeton University’s Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George highlights the dangers here:

“The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: ‘We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.’ There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted.

“Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, ‘full equality’ requires that no quarter be given to the ‘bigots’ who want to engage in ‘discrimination’ (people with a ‘separate but equal’ mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs. ‘Dignitarian’ harm must be opposed as resolutely as more palpable forms of harm….

“The lesson, it seems to me, for those of us who believe that the conjugal conception of marriage is true and good, and who wish to protect the rights of our faithful and of our institutions to honor that belief in carrying out their vocations and missions, is that there is no alternative to winning the battle in the public square over the legal definition of marriage. The ‘grand bargain’ is an illusion we should dismiss from our minds.”

And Matthew J. Franck also weighs into what is at stake here. In a lengthy article he clearly demonstrates that when homosexual marriage rights are granted, that of necessity will dampen religious rights and diminish freedom. He is worth quoting at length:

“Churches and other religious organizations are major employers. They operate schools, universities, hospitals, hospices, and clinics; social service agencies, retirement homes, eldercare and childcare facilities, food pantries, and soup kitchens; and other charitable ministries of every kind. They employ teachers, doctors, nurses, psychologists, counselors and clinicians, caregivers, food-service workers, housekeeping and grounds staff, even pool lifeguards. These religious ministries typically present themselves as equal opportunity employers, and they mean it.

“Can they continue to do so in the redefined-marriage legal regime? If a church ministry hires someone in a same-sex marriage, or employs someone who enters such a marriage; or if it declines to hire such a person, or treats him or her adversely if already employed—in any of these scenarios there is trouble ahead, if federal, state, or local employment law considers it wrongful discrimination to treat persons in same-sex marriages differently from men and women in marriages.

Education too will be in jeopardy: “And on the subject of universities and schools, consider the matter of the accreditation of higher-ed programs and whole institutions, and the control of curriculum in primary and secondary education. Already we can see individual degree programs compelled by accrediting bodies, in fields such as counseling, to conform themselves to the transformed understanding of marriage and sexuality, as some religiously dissenting students have discovered to their cost.

“Whole colleges and universities are themselves accredited by regional private accrediting associations—and the accreditors are in turn accredited by the US Department of Education, and recognized by the DOE as authoritative regarding which institutions grant valid degrees and enroll students eligible for federal aid of various kinds. If and when the regional accreditors and the DOE decide that the norm of “respect” for same-sex marriage must pervade higher education, which religious colleges and universities will keep standing firm in the winds that will blow?”

“The ‘ministerial exception’ to employment discrimination law, affirmed 9-0 by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna-Tabor case in January 2012, will be no protection at all, since there is no way to shoehorn all these roles and functions into that exceptions category, no matter how broadly “minister” is defined. But to date, there is no state that has seen fit to accommodate the religious conscience even of avowedly religious ministries in this respect, let alone the consciences of religious persons doing business in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

“Or consider public accommodations law, which can cover equal access to healthcare services, marriage and family counseling, daycare, adoption services, as well as religious schools and universities that are open to taking students of every faith or none at all. Churches and other religious bodies are among the largest providers of health, social service, and educational opportunities, but they understandably consider themselves obliged to provide them in keeping with the moral dictates of their faith.”

He concludes, “The transformation of the law to redefine the meaning of marriage will be bad for marriage, bad for children, and very bad indeed for those people of faith who want to maintain their faith’s teaching on marriage, in their religious institutions and in their work. The preservation of meaningful religious liberty, it turns out, is inseparable from the preservation, in our legal order, of the truth about marriage. They stand or fall together.”

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.”

www.lifesitenews.com/news/boston-cops-must-defer-to-transgender-crooks

radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/professor-orders-students-to-support-gay-rights.html

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10393/?utm_source=RTA+Franck+SSM+and+RF&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

[1439 words]

Your faith is meant to impact all areas of life. And yet most Christians are not even aware of this basic biblical truth. They seem to think that the command of Jesus to be salt and light is just some optional extra, or applies only to others. So I spend plenty of my time just getting believers to open their eyes to their responsibilities in the social, cultural and political arenas.

Of course I have carefully laid out that case elsewhere, so I urge you to look at these two articles for example if you want more on this:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/1997/10/10/the-case-for-christian-social-involvement/

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/08/why-christians-should-be-interestedinvolved-in-politics/

But I am still in the ongoing process of answering believer’s objections about this. Criticisms of what I do and what my ministry involves come in on a regular basis. Too many Christians still seem to think that engaging in some of the critical political or cultural battles of the day are just a waste of time, and should not be bothered with.

I could provide many examples of this. Let me just mention one: a little while back a comment came in to my website, chewing me out for what I do. Then a day or two later another comment from this person – a Christian leader of some sort I believe – arrived, asking me not to print his first comment.

So I never did post it, but I of course ran through a mental rebuttal to his points. Let me here just offer his opening lines. This is what he wrote: “Bill, can you point me to the place where you deal with why Christians should spend so much time debating and talking about issues of state? It seems to me that you spend so much time nit-picking that there’s no space left for relational, incarnational, close-proximity love of enemy and neighbour which is surely central to the Gospel??”

His first query is easily enough dealt with. The Bible is where we are told to have an interest in every area of life. God created the state, culture, politics and society. Since these are his creations, we should be greatly concerned about them. But the two articles I link to above make this case more fully.

And what about his criticism that I am merely involved in “nit-picking”. Well, if he thinks standing up for the sanctity of human life is just nit-picking, then we must be on rather different pages here. If he thinks the slaughter of 45-50 million babies a year is not important to God, and just a bunch of nit-picking, then he must have a very different idea of WWJD?

If he really thinks that standing up for God’s institutions of marriage and family, defending them against a ferocious and unprecedented attack, is just a waste of time and mere nit-picking, then again, I am having a hard time finding much biblical common ground with this guy.

And why do I have a feeling that if he were alive during the time of Wilberforce he would likely have sent him the same sorts of criticisms? “Wilby old boy, don’t you know that relationships are where it is at? Why are you wasting your time on all this political stuff? You should simply love your slave-owning enemy, and not work against his livelihood. What does all this negativity and belligerency about slavery have to do with the centrality of the Gospel?”

Notice also the false dilemma he is offering us here: we are either into love and doing gospel stuff, or we are involved in social and political stuff. But why does he assume that to do one must exclude the other? How in the world can he make such a phony disjunction?

The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself. That is a social command, and only can work in social relations. If your brother is in chains as a slave, what good does it do to tell him you love him and want to have a ‘relational proximity’ with him?

If you really love him you will want to see him set free from the horrible injustice and oppression of slavery. Otherwise all your talk of Christian love and relationship is mere baloney. As James so clearly states, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:14-17).

As Norman Geisler says, “What sometimes escapes Christians is the fact that the responsibility to love other persons extends to the whole person. That is, man is more than a soul destined for another world; he is also a body living in this world. And as a resident of this time-space continuum man has physical and social needs which cannot be isolated from spiritual needs. Hence, in order to love man as he is – the whole man – one must exercise a concern about his social needs as well as his spiritual needs.”

Just this past Sunday I was in a church speaking about these very matters. Fortunately the pastor allowed for a Q&A time at the end where these issues could be thrashed out more fully. One gal asked a very good question about priorities, and how much time we should spend on these various Christian duties. She asked what percentage of time should be spent on things like evangelism and missions, and what percentage of time should be spent on things like social and political action.

I answered by saying that the example of William Wilberforce is quite helpful here. He did not see this as an either/or, but a both/and. He was up to his ears in both: sharing the gospel, and social action – especially in his work as an abolitionist.

I reminded my questioner that when he first became a believer (some four years after he was already in the English Parliament) he had the usual questions: Should I become a pastor? A missionary? He got some terrific advice from former slave ship captain John Newton who was now a vibrant Christian (and author of the hymn Amazing Grace).

Newton told Wilberforce this (or words to this effect): “Don’t you dare leave Parliament. You can do so much good for Christ and the Kingdom right where you are. Be salt and light there.” And Wilberforce heeded this wise counsel. And it is a good thing too. Millions of blacks today are forever grateful that they are now free men, and not still fighting the slavery issue.

This was all because Wilberforce saw no discrepancy between being a full-time Christian worker, and being a full time politician and social reformer. The two are really one and the same. So in answer to her specific question about percentages, I answered this way: “I think we should devote 100 per cent of our time to evangelism and sharing our faith. And I believe we should also spend 100 per cent of our time involved in social, political and cultural reform.”

Both are vitally needed, and both are fully Christian duties. We do not need to be forced to choose between one or the other. We should be doing both full time for the glory of God. If not, we are disobeying our Lord and failing in our biblical responsibilities.

And my critic is not alone or unique in his criticisms. Such critics have always been around. Back in Wilberforce’s day, there were plenty of such critics. Let me close with the words of just one: “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life” (Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848, a Prime Minister of the UK, and adviser to the Queen).

Fortunately Wilberforce completely ignored his complaint, just as I will be ignoring the complaint of my critic.

[1410 words]

For example far too many folks – Christians included – allowed the evil of human slavery to occur. Few took a stand against it, and those who did were greatly vilified and attacked by those supporting the status quo – and that included way too many Christians.

Indeed, plenty of slave owners were Christians, and they railed against Christian abolitionists like William Wilberforce. He was hated and despised not just by non-believers but by believers as well. He was even known as “the most hated man in all of England”.

But he was also known as “the conscience of a nation”. We need many more such champions. They are in the clear minority. The majority prefer to just sit back, comfortable and relaxed, unwilling to rock the boat. Whatever evil may be happening all around them, they will not speak up. They will not resist. They will not do that which is right.

History is full of such apathetic and callous hordes. At the very time when men and women should have stood up and raised their voices, they stayed silent. As a result they permitted horrific evil to occur. They in their silence are just as guilty as those who did the actual evil.

Consider Germany in the 30s and 40s. Most Germans said nothing and did nothing about the developing cloud of Nazism. Indeed, most supported it. And most Christians also kept silent. Those believers who stood against the evil of Hitler were in the clear minority.

A new article gives us a little glimpse into the lives of ordinary Germans during the rise and reign of Nazism. It tells of one young German woman who simply seemed to be oblivious to what was going on around her. As evidenced by her diary entries, she either did not know or did not care. And her story could be multiplied millions of times over. Here is the opening part of the report:

“Her neighbourhood was bombed by the allies, the Jews around the corner were being sent to Auschwitz and the Red Army had launched its final assault on Berlin. But Brigitte Eicke, a teenaged German, was unconcerned. She was far more interested in going to the cinema, dancing to gramophone records and trying to cope with a ‘disastrous’ perm.

“The 15-year-old Berlin schoolgirl, nicknamed ‘Gitti’, started keeping a diary in December 1942, when the German capital was being bombed nightly and the Nazi Holocaust was killing thousands. As a trainee secretary, she recorded her daily experiences to improve her stenography skills.

“Now, some 70 years on, her diary has been published for the first time in Germany and is being hailed as remarkable documentary evidence of how millions of Germans relied on collective indifference to endure the horrors of war and ignore the brutality of the Nazi rule.

“Entitled Backfisch im Bombenkrieg (teenaged girl in bombing war), Eicke’s diary is an often banal account of everyday life. She started writing it just months before Anne Frank began her diary, but the contents could hardly be more different. ‘Gitti is merely a cog in the wheels that kept Nazi Germany turning,’ is how Der Spiegel magazine described the author last week. ‘She is a young woman skilled in the art of blotting out ugliness, willing to believe what she’s told and, ultimately, one of the lucky ones,’ it added.

“Here is Gitti’s entry for 1 February 1944: ‘The school had been bombed when we arrived this morning. Waltraud, Melitta and I went back to Gisela’s and danced to gramophone records.’ In another raid on her Berlin neighbourhood in March 1943, two people are killed, 34 are injured and more than 1,000 are made homeless. Gitti writes: ‘It took place in the middle of the night, horrible, I was half asleep’.

“In November 1944, Hitler is trying to cripple the advances made after the D-Day landings by planning an offensive in the Ardennes, but Gitti – by now a member of the Nazi Party – is more concerned about her hairdo. She writes that she has just been given a ‘disastrous’ perm by her hairdresser and is worried about going to work ‘looking a fright’.

“Then on 2 March 1945, while Hitler’s troops are trying to halt the Red Army’s advance just 60 miles east of Berlin, Gitti, now 18, goes to the cinema. She writes: ‘Margot and I went to the Admiralspalast cinema to see Meine Herren Söhne. It was such a lovely film, but there was a power cut in the middle. How annoying!’”

OK, that was then, this is now. So how does that relate to today? The parallels are easily found. There is plenty of seismic evil occurring all around us in the West, yet we are sleepwalking through it all. Simply take the abortion holocaust as an example.

With 45-50 million unborn babies killed every year, this makes the Nazi killing machine look rather insipid. We are no different to the Germans of 75 years ago. We worry about our hair. We don’t like to be disturbed. We are annoyed by any interruptions to our life of pleasure and leisure.

“Margot and I went to the mall cinema to see a film. It was such a lovely film, but there was a pro-life demo just outside. How annoying!’” And it is not just the masses of unconcerned and morally numb unbelievers. Most Christians are no different. We have abortuaries close by to our megachurches, yet we are far too interested in being entertained, amused, and theologically coddled than to give a rip about the killing machines next door.

Most pastors will never mention this issue – after all, they have the crowds to please, the buildings to pay off, and the weekly offerings to be concerned about. Rocking the boat and causing offence is the last thing most pastors want to do.

So they will remain silent – deadly silent, about the most important human rights issue of our time. Sure, they may run with a PC sermon on asylum seekers or the “evils of capitalism” once in a while, but they will refuse to speak up for the unborn.

They are safe, secure, and totally in tune with what their listeners want to hear. They will not tell their congregations what they need to hear. Those in the pulpits and pews are well-fed, comfortable, entertained, complacent, lethargic – and dead.

They are those who have blood on their hands. They may know of the 100,000 killed each year in Australia, but they refuse to rouse themselves out of their slumber and damnable indifference. But it is the useless shepherds who are most to be condemned here.

Ezekiel laid it out so very clearly so long ago: “When a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before them, they will die. Since you did not warn them, they will die for their sin. The righteous things that person did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself” (Ez. 3:20-21).

We, the people of God, and our leaders, have blood on our hands. We know great darkness is surrounding us, great evil is enveloping us, yet we say nothing – and we do nothing. But we will not be held guiltless. We will all one day give an account for why we did not obey our Lord.

We will be asked why we ignored verses such as Proverbs 24:11 (Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter) and Proverbs 31:8 (Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What will we say on that day?

“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.”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/diary-of-second-world-war-german-teenager-reveals-young-lives-untroubled-by-nazi-holocaust-in-wartime-berlin-8660484.html

[1385 words]

As to the “why” question, the answer is simple. It is politically incorrect to report these matters. But how come? Because they are mainly taking place at the hands of Muslims. Today in the West Muslims have become a politically protected species. It is just out of bounds to dare to criticise Islam, or dare to let it be known that so many of these outrages are being carried out in the name of Islam.

It does not matter how many churches or other places of worship are levelled, how many non-Muslims or infidels are attacked and murdered, and how much violence and blood-shed occurs: if it is done by Muslims, much of the Western media is terrified to report it.

And if they do, they will often leave out the inconvenient truth that these are yet more attacks carried out by the religion of “peace”. You can even have videos of guys with blood-soaked hands screaming “Allahu Akbar” into the camera, as he stands over a dead body, yet the MSM will still be loathe to make the Muslim connection.

Much of Western leadership and the media have ignored those who say they want to destroy the West, and are instead resorting to political correctness and appeasement. But as Churchill pointed out, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

The West is signing its own death warrant here. And in the meantime, the atrocities, the slaughter, and the bloodshed continue. Let me point out just a few recent episodes of Islamic terror which is going underreported, if reported at all. And when these matters do make it into the media, the Muslim perpetrators are not always pointed out.

Consider the issue of Islamic gang rape. This has been occurring far too often of late in Europe and the UK. It is on the rise, and much of the MSM does not want to know about it – or does not want us to know about it. One reporter is however brave enough to lift the lid on this:

“High profile-gang rapes in India have been in the headlines since December. The phenomenon is growing across Europe too, but tends to be under reported due to the high incidence of Muslim perpetrators which makes it politically incorrect to mention.

“In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by 12 Afghan immigrants in a refugee camp in Mariannelund. Reports stated ‘The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspect may have been involved taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim “whore” and “slut”.’

“According to Vimmerby Tidning ‘The woman went into shock while the rapes were still underway, and has since been in a heavily traumatised state. She is now subject to nightmares and panic attacks, and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is bound to a wheelchair due to damages to her abdomen, and suffers from faecal incontinence.’ The main perpetrator Rafi Bahaduri, 25, had already committed four other rapes in Sweden. The case is not unique. There is a growing trend of gang-rapes perpetrated against white women by Muslim rapists.

“In the U.K. there has been a steady stream of cases where primarily under- privileged young English girls have been targeted, groomed and raped by gangs of what the British press euphemistically refers to as Asian men. However, the published names of the perpetrators are primarily of Pakistan and Afghanistan origin when the gang rapists appear in court. The Asian gangs do not contain rapists from China, Japan, and the Philippines.

“Cases have been reported in Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, Bradford, Blackpool – the list goes on. An article regarding the phenomenon in Standpoint notes: ‘According to some of the mothers, a fear of being branded racist makes many of the police and social services reluctant to investigate the crimes as organised and connected. One mother from Rotherham, whose 14-year-old daughter was groomed into prostitution and multiply raped during a 12-month period, told me that almost every man convicted of these crimes in the north of England is from Pakistan but that the authorities insist that it is not relevant.’

“More and more cases are reported across Europe. The following is just a very small sample (some figures indicate 5,000 gang-rapes occur in France alone each year.). . . . The silence across MSM in Europe regarding the growing number of gang-rapes against white women by Muslim men and grooming gangs is indeed deafening.”

And it does not help matters much when those who should be fighting this are wimping out big time. Consider this shocking headline: “Scottish Police Worry Breakup of 2 Muslim Paedophile Rings Will ‘Increase Community Tensions’.”

But it is not just the issue of rape of course that is of concern here. The religion of peace seems to always be on the prowl, attacking anyone and anything for any reason. Consider just one example of this – what has been occurring in Bangladesh. Muslims there have been on the rampage, yet most of us in the West would never have heard about it.

Says one report, “Islamic activists have attacked dozens of Hindu temples and hundreds of homes across Bangladesh since an Islamist leader was sentenced to death for war crimes last month, a Hindu group said on Wednesday. Bangladesh Puja Udjapon Parishad, a group which looks after Hindu temples, said 47 temples and at least 700 Hindu houses had either been torched or vandalised since the verdict against Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

“Sayedee, vice-president of the country’s largest Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami, was sentenced to hang on February 28 for crimes including rape and murder committed during the 1971 independence conflict. The sentencing of Sayedee and other Jamaat-e-Islami leaders has triggered the worst violence in Bangladesh since independence, with 85 people so far killed in the unrest.”

The alternative media exists because so much of the MSM has failed to do its job and has failed in its duties. It is so enmeshed in political correctness that it is failing to actually cover the news – at least news which might put Muslims in a bad light. The MSM, like so many Western leaders, are now part of the growing death-trap of dhimmitude.

So the rape, pillaging and death will only continue, aided and abetted by a spineless and PC lamestream media. But until this website gets shut down, I at least will continue to report on these things. They are certainly far too important to ignore.

www.digitaljournal.com/article/346059

frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/scottish-police-worry-breakup-of-2-muslim-paedophile-rings-will-increase-community-tensions/

www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=12&contentid=2013031320130313222320843748b0fde

[1165 words]

But this is a recipe for disaster, and we had better get such matters sorted out before we cause even more damage. Let me tie this in to a common question. I am often asked what I would do if one of my children were caught out in some obvious sinful behaviour or lifestyle. The homosexual activists especially like to throw this one out: ‘What would you do if your child came out as a homosexual?’

They seem to think that this is a conversation stopper, and that they have nicely cornered me. Well no, it is not the end of the conversation, and no they have not cornered me. The answer is actually rather simple: I would of course continue to love my child, even though I would not approve of the course of action they have embarked upon.

Any parent will love their children through thick and sin. It does not matter if they go off into a life of crime or perverse heterosexual promiscuity. A parent will still love his or her own, but need not and should not condone any dangerous, risky or morally wrong behaviours and lifestyles.

So I of course would continue to love my child, all the while pointing out that the path they are now on is certainly not advised, and certainly not condoned. Indeed, because I love my children so much, I only want what is for their very best. Who would be happy with their children embracing a dangerous and unsafe lifestyle which can take years off their lives?

How is that being loving? If you really love someone you seek the very best for them. You certainly do not just accept whatever path they choose. Especially if you are a Christian, you always want what is best for them, and that means you want God’s best for them.

You do not want them living in open rebellion and defiance of God’s clear word and standard on human sexuality. You will want them to repent and renounce any such sinful lifestyles, and come back to conformity with God’s word and God’s will.

You see, we cannot confuse love with acceptance. Biblical love is willing the highest good for the other; it is not allowing them to wallow in sin and a dead-end lifestyle. I will always love my kids no matter what, but I do not have to accept everything they may choose to do or engage in.

There is nothing loving about allowing any person you love and care for to head off on a destructive and hurtful direction. We dare not accept anything and everything they get themselves into. Yet far too many Christian parents are doing just that.

They think they must accept, embrace and condone anything their children do. That is not at all being a loving parent. That is being an irresponsible and unbiblical parent. That is simply sending their kids to an early grave and a lost eternity.

And our Western governments are no better on this issue. They have in fact gone full circle here. They once prohibited such dangerous lifestyles, but then went to permission, and have now gone all the way to active and zealous promotion.

Yet on other high-risk behaviours it has reversed course. I refer to how governments deal with tobacco use. Once it was open slather, but now the state is cracking down big time. The state is doing everything it can to deter smokers and deter others from taking up smoking.

Thus we now pay outrageous prices for a pack of cigs – this is called a “sin tax”. Astronomically high taxes on tobacco products are there for one reason – besides being a revenue raiser: to discourage folks from smoking or taking it up. And it works.

Smoking rates are now well down from what they were 50 years ago. So why the bizarre double standards here? Why does the West actively endorse and promote one dangerous lifestyle, while actively deterring and discouraging the other?

In fact, we are witnessing a major role-reversal when it comes to this topic. While Russia once was the “evil empire” doing great evil at home and abroad, and America was once the light on a hill and a force for good, remarkably the tables are now turning.

America under Obama is getting more and more evil by the day, especially with his active and incessant promotion of the radical homosexual agenda. Meanwhile, Russia under Putin is taking the opposite approach. He has championed a number of courses which will not give the homosexual militants free reign.

Most recently Russia has passed a new law that prohibits the promotion of homosexuality and other risky sexual behaviours among minors. It is concerned enough about its children to actually withstand the militant homosexual agenda here.

And Obama is doing the exact opposite. Consider this news item: “At an event at the White House on Thursday commemorating Pride Month, two third-grade children introduced President Barack Obama. Zea and Luna, nine-year-old twins, read appeals from a letter that they apparently sent to the nation’s leader last December. Among the other subjects they discussed in it was gun violence, increased funding for schools and — same-sex marriage.”

Using and exploiting young children for crass political purposes is always wrong, and when these children are used to promote dangerous and unhealthy agendas, it is even more to be condemned. But this is par for the course for Obama.

But back to the original question: What do you do if your child comes out as a homosexual? You love them and always be there for them. But you do not condone or mollycoddle their dangerous and risky behaviour. Governments too should do the same – and most are when it comes to something like tobacco use. Yet they have caved in when it comes to an equally high-risk lifestyle: homosexuality.

We certainly live in confusing times. And the confusion over love and acceptance is a big part of this.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-howl-as-russia-protects-its-children-from-gay-propaganda

www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/14/we-have-two-moms-third-grade-kids-introduce-obama-at-white-houses-gay-pride-event/

[1044 words]

Here I wish to raise two more common myths about the pro-life position. Both have to do with values, beliefs and faith. Both involve the assumption that in the abortion debate, anyone who is opposed to it is merely seeking to ram his values or religion down the throat of others, and must therefore be discounted. Let me examine each claim in more detail.

Pro-lifers have no right to impose their values on others

Abortion supporters are quite keen to tell those who are pro-life that they have no right to impose their moral views on other people. They seem to suggest that because some people are concerned about abortion, they are somehow taking away the freedoms of others, and are just acting as moral Taliban.

But in a democracy, all points of view are entitled to a hearing. That is exactly what makes for a democracy: allowing the free flow of ideas, and enabling countering views on contentious issues to be freely presented and discussed. And after all, does not the other side claim the banner of ‘choice’? Why then do they seek to deny the other side the right to be heard?

This myth is based on the false idea of tolerance, which has become the greatest virtue in contemporary culture. Tolerance used to mean respecting the other person while disagreeing with his or her ideas. Today it means you must accept the other person’s views, or be seen as intolerant, judgmental and narrow-minded. But as Francis Beckwith argues, “to be tolerant of differing viewpoints involves just that – differing viewpoints, all of which cannot be equally correct at the same time”.

Moreover, on important moral issues we need to speak out. Should we tolerate polluters, racists and rapists? This is like saying ‘I am personally against ethnic-cleansing and lynching, but I do not want to impose my values on others’. When the protection of innocent life is at stake, we not only have the right but a duty to speak out. And such moral concerns need to be reflected in the law. Issues as important as killing human beings need to fall under the domain of law, and all civil rights should be protected by law.

And values are being pushed all the time. The real question, as Carl Horn writes, “is not whether values are going to be imposed or legislated, but whose values”. It just so happens that at the moment, the values of the pro-death camp are predominating, legally, socially and culturally. That is why they do not want the other side to be heard. They enjoy the ideological hegemony they currently possess.

Abortion opponents are religious people

It is often argued that those who are against abortion are religious folks, and therefore their views are to be discounted for that reason. This myth is easily dealt with because it is simply not true. While there are of course many people who are religious who are opposed to abortion, there are many non-religious people as well who are very much pro-life.

Simply consider one long-standing opponent of abortion who is not in the least religious: Nat Hentoff. While he refers to himself as a “Jewish atheist,” he is well-known as a secular civil libertarian who shocked many of his colleagues on the left when he became a pro-lifer. He says it was the evidence which moved him, not any religious arguments. This is how one write-up about his change of mind describes things:

“A famous liberal who was a staple at the Village Voice and who had a column in the Washington Post, in the 1980’s Hentoff actually let himself be swayed by evidence about abortion. It happened when Hentoff was reporting on the case of Baby Jane Doe, a Long Island infant born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which is excess fluid in the cranium. With surgery, spina bifida babies can grow up to be productive adults.

“Yet Baby Jane’s parents, on their doctor’s advice, had refused both surgery to close her spine and a shunt to drain the fluid from her brain. In resisting the federal government’s attempt to enforce treatment, the parents pleaded privacy. As Hentoff told the Washington Times in a 1989 profile, his ‘curiosity was not so much the case itself but the press coverage.’ Everyone on the media was echoing the same talking points about ‘women’s rights’ and ‘privacy.’ ‘Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times.”

Other noted atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, have also made a pro-life case, even if a somewhat qualified pro-life case. There are even websites such as the “Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League” in existence. And there have even been pro-life tables at atheist conventions. So the pro-life cause is hardly made up entirely of religious folks.

The truth is, abortion is an ethical issue and a human rights issue, not simply a religious issue. The right of every human being to live has to do with fundamental principles of morality and basic justice. It is simply ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. And justice must begin in the womb – to talk about justice while denying the unborn the right to live is a very distorted view of justice.

Moreover, even if it were true, even if all resistance to abortion was based on religious concerns, this objection is silly in the extreme. Consider what is being said here: “Your objection to abortion is invalid because you are religious”. One might as well argue, “Your objection to rape is invalid because you are religious”. Or, “Your objection to murder is invalid because you are religious”.

If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether or not those opposed to it are religious. As I said, this is an issue of basic morality, and one’s religious views do not alter the morality of the issue. If it is wrong to kill innocent human beings in the womb, then it is wrong always, not just if the person opposed to it is non-religious.

Also, one could argue that everyone at heart is ultimately religious. Even the secularist acts on a set of worldview beliefs and values that can be said to be religious. Indeed, the US Supreme Court actually ruled that secular humanism is a religion. As it stated in a famous case: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Thus these two objections, like the others, really have very little merit and can be easily dispensed with. I am afraid the pro-death will have to try to come up with better reasons to justify the killing of innocent unborn babies.

www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-atheists-invade-the-american-atheist-convention/

[1179 words]

In addition it seems he actually tried to exorcise some persons of another faith tradition, but we await further word on that. However it does seem clear at this point that his reckless actions have resulted in the loss of numerous important religious works worth some fifty thousand pieces of silver.

An investigative team from the First Church of Tolerance is right now looking into this sordid event, and will soon issue a statement about it. In the meantime we are calling for the immediate suspension of this rabble-rouser. We demand that he be prohibited from doing any more teaching or speaking until further notice. This sort of activity is totally unjustified, and we expect that he will be properly disciplined for his offensive and uncalled for actions.

Comments

Sirs, thank you so much FCT for alerting me to this. I also have had many concerns and misgivings about this Paul character. He has always struck me as a trouble-maker, and quite over the top. He seems to delight in going out of his way to offend people. He has no consideration for the feelings of others, and he is doing great harm to the cause of Christ. His complete lack of restraint and tact makes him quite unsuited to being a representative of our newfound religion. I too call for his immediate sacking.

In Christian grace, Alice from Berea

Sirs. This was one of the most unloving and intolerant things I have read about in quite some time. This was nothing less than a case of hate speech. How dare this man come into a peaceful community and cause such an uproar? Indeed, it seems he and his band of deluded followers are trying to turn the world upside down. This is shameful. As a long-time follower of Jesus, I know he would never approve of such shameful conduct. I thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I hope for the sake of the gospel that this man is never allowed to preach again. He is a disgrace.

Anon

Sirs, as the head of the Ephesus Interfaith Council, I can assure you that we are completely staggered at this intolerant act. We regard this activity as being utterly reprehensible and unacceptable. Even though I am of course a Christian as well, the actions of Paul have damaged greatly our attempts at interfaith dialogue with those of other faith traditions.

His hurtful actions have set back our cause by decades. I certainly hope this trouble-maker is stripped of any authority he might have, and kept away from all Christian and religious activity. We had been making such progress with those in Ephesus, and I can vouch for the fact that these folks, regardless of their belief systems, are very fine people indeed. There is a wideness to God’s love and mercy, and he embraces everyone. We all may have different approaches to spirituality, but we have no right to condemn anyone else, or tell them that their beliefs and practices are wrong. That sort of bigotry is no longer acceptable in our day and age.

Ralph, director of the EIC

Sirs, as a new believer, I really don’t like this Paul fellow. The God I serve is all about love and acceptance. Jesus was into tolerance and inclusion. He ate with sinners. He did not burn their books. I am sad that in these enlightened days a fraud like Paul can get away with his judgmental and unloving activities.

Rosemary

Sirs. I am not a Christian, and would never become one, based on the crazy beliefs and actions of Paul. He is so intolerant and judgmental. If there is a God, he accepts us all and loves us all equally.

Sam from Corinth

Sirs, thank you for alerting us to this. I will make sure to give this fanatic a wide berth if he should ever come my way. We have long ago moved away from such narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance. We know that the only way we can get along as a society is to put aside all these petty bigotries and out-dated fundamentalisms, and learn how to just love one another. Thank you again for taking a stand on this matter.

Anon from Galatia

Sirs, this is nothing but hate speech, and the sooner we get some new laws in on this the better. We clearly need some religious vilification legislation put in place to prevent this despicable sort of behaviour from occurring again. We must champion toleration, and not allow these hot-heads to destroy our community.

Jack from Antioch

Sirs, let me also add my voice to this. I am a follower of Jesus and I am ashamed of this man Paul. He has nothing to do with Jesus, and is a lousy representative of him. The Jesus I know accepts everyone and is about love and peace. This Paul is just a narrow-minded oaf who should be put out of his misery.

Gloria

Sirs, when I first heard about this I was shocked, and hoped it was not true. But sadly it looks like it is. When will these bigots be locked up so that we can live in peace? It amazes me how arrogant and self-righteous this Paul is. He actually thinks that unless everyone believes like he does that we are all doomed and condemned. Well I got news for this loser: this is the first century, and we have moved beyond such hate and intolerance.

Justin from Rome

Sirs, thanks for the update. This is not surprising in the least. Our churches have long ago banned this fanatic. He is not someone who deserves entry into our church services. All he does is alienate people and cause offence. His message is one of hate and division. That is not the gospel I know of, and that is not the Jesus I follow. I hope all churches follow our example and keep this nutter out. He is doing nothing but great damage to our cause.

Mike from Thessalonica

Postscript

Acts 19:11-20

And apologies to this article: sacredsandwich.com/archives/2781

[1060 words]

No one would even know most people who call themselves Christians are in fact followers of Jesus. Not only do they live lives which are identical to any worldling, but you never hear a peep out of them – they never talk about Jesus in public – and hardly ever in private as well.

It is time for these closet Christians to out themselves. They need to get out of that closet and start acting and talking as if they really were disciples of Jesus. Those who refuse to speak up on behalf of their Lord and who operate in the fear of man can be rightly questioned as to whether they really are Christians.

Those who refuse to say anything about their faith for fear of offending someone are likely not Christians at all. Jesus made all this perfectly clear. He pointedly told us that if we will not stand for him, he will not stand for us. It is that simple. Consider just a few passages on this:

-Matthew 10:32-33 Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
-Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.
-Luke 9:26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
-Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.

These are some pretty sober warnings coming from the lips of Jesus. If you think you can be an “undercover” follower of Jesus and never open your mouth and testify about him, then you are only kidding yourself. We either stand boldly for Christ, or we deny him.

And while we’re at it, it is time to start coming out on the crucial issues of the day as well. Remaining silent about the things God cares greatly about is a betrayal of our faith. Indeed, as the new Pope Francis said recently, to refuse to get involved in the political arena as a Christian means you are really just a Pontius Pilate:

“The one adult – a Spanish and religion teacher – who asked the pope a question, wondered what kind of role, if any, Catholics should play in politics. The pope said Catholics have ‘an obligation to get involved in politics. We can’t play the role of Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of it. Politics is one of the highest forms of charity because it seeks the common good.’

“He said those who complain that politics is ‘too dirty’ should ask themselves why. Perhaps it’s ‘because Christians haven’t gotten involved with an evangelical spirit.’ It’s easy to blame others, he said, but people need to ask themselves: ‘Me? What am I doing’ about it?”

Yes, what am I doing to be salt and light? It is easy to just complain about things, but how many believers are actually doing anything about all the evil and injustice in the world? And getting involved in politics is part of this. We must let our faith impact the social and political arenas.

We must no more remain silent about things like the destruction of marriage and family, or the slaughter of the unborn. We must come out of the closet and start speaking up for that which is important. Failure to do so is also a sign that we are not really His.

One woman has recently written about this very thing. When it comes to standing up for the unborn, she has decided to come out of the closet – and stay out. Here is part of her story: “The day I ‘outed’ myself to my ultra-liberal family I was terrified.

“These are the people that basically tried to bully me into aborting my son (aka, their grandson) back in 2011. Lord knows I love them, but I was seriously considering taking this to the grave. You’ve got to understand that I’ve always been the person in my family to keep my opinions to myself. Thank goodness I didn’t do that when I found out I was pregnant at 17 years old….

“Now, at 19, I am taking these things more seriously and trying to live like a Christian in every aspect of my life. I’ve noticed the gifts God has given me that I’ve stuffed down for so long. I have a voice. I’ve always used this voice in music, and my parents were always blown away by my sometimes very dark, deep lyrics. At some point your ears are burning too much that you just POP! Well now I use my voice. They like to think this is an ‘early 20’s phase’ and that I only believe abortion is wrong because I’m a Christian. Oh, also something about me living in Texas.

“Sorry to break the news, folks. I’m pro-life because of many, many reasons. Yes, I do believe the Bible is clear about this issue. But for me, I just have a hard time ignoring the scientific facts. I have a hard time believing that the testimonies of people who have worked in the abortion industry are ‘fake.’ I know those pictures of aborted children aren’t photo-shopped. I know countless women who regret their abortions. My mother-in-law hung out with Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. Norma, who helped make abortion legal, is now pro-life!

“I mean, come on guys. I have yet to meet someone who has made the switch from pro-life to pro-choice and has medical evidence to back up their claim. I know you think that it’s rude to be in people’s business because everyone had their private reasons for aborting their child. I get it. But with that same logic, if I see a little girl being punched by a guy on the street I shouldn’t call 911 or somehow intervene. I mean, he MUST have his own private reason for abusing her right?”

Yes she is quite right. We are all appalled when we hear of a news item telling us about some poor women who was being attacked in broad daylight yet people just passed by saying nothing and doing nothing. We rightly say, “How can they be so callous and apathetic?”

Yet are we not like this every single day? We know babies are being butchered in nearby abortion mills yet we say nothing and do nothing. Our silence condemns us, and one day we will have to give an account to our Lord for our deadly silence and inaction.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer knows all about the importance of speaking out – even when it is very costly to do so. He paid for his courage with his life. As he once said, “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.”

Silence of the Lambs
Wandering the hillsides of complacency
Grazing in apathetic fields
Drinking from still waters of indifference
So far from the shepherd’s will
He cries as He hears
The silence of the lambs
Heaven’s eyes look on in tears
At the lack of concern for man
The created fail to fulfill
The Creator’s perfect plan
And He cries as He hears
The silence of the lambs
(Harry and Joyce McCollough, 1994)

www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1302499.htm

liveactionnews.org/my-coming-out-story/?fb_action_ids=10200914816247847&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200914816247847%22%3A200991650056786%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200914816247847%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

[1332 words]

The only problem is, they are the least tolerant, the least accepting, and the least into diversity group around. Every day they engage in new storm trooper tactics to silence all opposition, rebuke all critics, and punish all “recalcitrants”.

Yes, it is the gay mafia doing their thing again. Consider these five recent cases of tolerance in action. They come from the US, the UK, and Europe. Beginning in Colorado, we have yet another case of a Christian cake-maker being dragged to the courts for standing up for conscience:

“A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples. As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom….

“Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the couple said Phillips told them he wouldn’t make one for them when he found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got married in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to the complaint.”

The second case involves an army soldier who was actually disciplined for serving Chick-Fil-A at his promotion party: “A U.S. Army serviceman has been reprimanded for serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party celebrating his promotion to master sergeant. The unidentified soldier was investigated, reprimanded, threatened with judicial action, and given a bad efficiency report after sending invitations that read, ‘In honor of my promotion and in honor of the Defense of Marriage Act, I’m serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at my promotion party,’ according to the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty….

“His promotion coincided with last year’s controversy over Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s comments supporting traditional marriage. Homosexual activists called for boycotts of the franchise, and several liberal public officials threatened to take municipal action against the chain. Crews said that nearly one year later, the soldier is still fighting the reprimand in court.”

It is not just adults caught in the crosshairs of the homosexual juggernaut: Children are also being targeted. Consider this appalling case from Belfast: “A three-year-old boy has been taught by his nursery carer that when he grows up he will be able to marry a boy or a girl. The boy’s identity is being protected, but his parent wrote a letter to a local newspaper about the incident. The letter said: ‘Many of your commentators have speculated as to what the wider implications of allowing same-sex marriages will be on society’.

“Legal experts have warned that, if same-sex marriage is introduced, there would be a legal duty to teach its importance in sex and relationships education. The experts also say parents would have no legal right to withdraw their children from curriculum lessons that promote same-sex marriage. And teachers who disagree with endorsing same-sex marriage could face legal action. A Bill to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales is currently being considered by Parliament.”

And in France where homosexual marriage was recently legalised, things are quickly degenerating into a police state: “The mayor of a small town in France’s Basque region has announced his refusal to carry out a ‘marriage’ between two men who reside in his jurisdiction, becoming the first mayor to defy the country’s new law that applies the name and rights of ‘matrimony’ to couples of the same sex.

“Jean-Michel Colo, a conservative who heads the town of Arcangues in the southern Basque region of Pyrenees-Atlantiques, faces the possibility of a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of 75,000 euros (100,000 USD), according to French media sources. However, he appears to be unafraid of the consequences of his stand, telling the media that he will ‘go all the way to the gallows’ to oppose the law.

“‘I don’t give lessons, I’m not inciting other mayors to follow my example, but I won’t enforce an illegitimate law,’ says Colo. ‘My seven councilmen and I are completely in agreement in saying that we will not participate in this charade.’ The mayor’s stand is expected to be only the first of many that are likely to occur under the new law, which went into effect on May 28. In addition to the town council’s support, Colo says he has received 1,500 messages of support to date.”

Finally, this headline out of Scotland: “Scottish Catholic adoption agency threatened with closure over gay adoption.” The story proceeds: “Another British Catholic adoption agency is being threatened with closure by the government for refusing to toe the government’s line of support for the homosexualist political agenda. St. Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society, associated with the Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow, has lost a ruling in its argument with the Scottish government’s charity regulator, which is demanding the charity drop its policy of adopting only to mothers and fathers who have been married for at least two years.

“The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has found St. Margaret’s in violation of the Equality Act 2010, saying that its policy ‘discriminated unlawfully’ against same-sex couples. St. Margaret’s is remaining defiant, however, saying that they will fight the decision. The Christian Institute campaign group quoted a St. Margaret’s board member saying, ‘The ultimate irony is that apparently in the name of tolerance, societies such as Saint Margaret’s are no longer to be tolerated’.”

Yep that is the essence of it all: a group which demands that everyone in the world show them tolerance refuses to extend tolerance to anyone else. This is just how they operate. They have declared an all out war on anyone and anything which stands in their way.

So until next week….

news.yahoo.com/colo-gay-discrimination-alleged-over-wedding-cake-195825831.html

www.lifesitenews.com/news/army-soldier-disciplined-for-serving-chick-fil-a-at-promotion-party

www.christian.org.uk/news/boy-3-taught-about-gay-marriage-in-nursery/

www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-refuses-to-marry-homosexual-couple-risks-years-in-jail

www.lifesitenews.com/news/scottish-catholic-adoption-agency-threatened-with-closure-over-gay-adoption?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bed395c5e9-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_06_10_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-bed395c5e9-326193646

[1042 words]

Well, just for the record, I am not aware of ever having said this to anyone in public – and I don’t think I ever said it to anyone in private either. But my hypothetical is actually not all that hypothetical, and it does serve a valid theological and biblical point.

The fact that most believers today would recoil in horror if any Christian leader dared to say such things tells us that they are the ones who in fact need to think again. The truth is, past Christian leaders have said it. Indeed, no less a Christian leader than the Apostle Paul basically said it, and he did so under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

He was inspired by God to do so in other words. “Where did he ever say that?” you ask. Hey, open your New Testament. He in fact said it more than once. Consider his less than flattering words in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-10):

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

Now them’s fightin’ words! No beating around the bush there. He has come out with all guns blazing. Indeed, so incensed is he with how the Galatians have lost the plot concerning the gospel that he foregoes his usual MO when it comes to writing epistles: he refuses to offer them a nice intro to his epistle.

As Philip Graham Ryken comments, “He was amazed and astounded. He was shocked and outraged. Thus the body of his letter seethes with righteous indignation. The apostle did not even pause to say a few kind words to the Galatians. This is in sharp contrast to the other letters. . . . After the doxology in verse 5, we might have expected a blessing. What Paul gives instead is a curse.”

And a curse it was. The “anathema” that Paul twice pronounced here is straight out of the Old Testament, and has to do with the curse of God. Says Ryken: “This is the Old Testament idea of ‘a person or thing set apart and devoted to destruction, because hateful to God.’ To be anathema is to be under the divine curse, like the Canaanite cities that God utterly destroyed. Paul is saying that he would be damned if he ever preached another gospel. Anyone who teaches another gospel is subject to the wrath and curse of God.”

Or as James Montgomery Boice states, “The word translated ‘eternally condemned’ (anathema) is related to the Hebrew word, herem and is used of that which is devoted to God, usually for destruction. In spiritual terms it means damnation. We must not think however, in speaking in this way Paul is merely giving vent to an intemperate outburst or even merely to partially justified anger. For one thing, he is impartial in expressing his judgment. He has not named names. He has even included himself in the ban, should he do otherwise in his preaching than he has done thus far. Moreover he is universal in his judgment. His words include ‘anybody’ who should so teach (vs. 9). How can it be otherwise?”

This false gospel is “another gospel” – indeed it is no gospel at all. To reject the real gospel is to in fact reject God. It is that serious. As John Stott says, “It is impossible to forsake it (the gospel) without forsaking him (God).” And those who reject the true gospel must themselves be rejected. It is that important.

Stott again: “Anybody who rejects the apostolic gospel no matter who he may be, is himself to be rejected. He may appear as ‘an angel from heaven.’ In this case we are to prefer apostles to angels. We are not to be dazzled, as many people are, by the person, gifts or office of teachers in the church. They may come to us with great dignity, authority and scholarship. They may be bishops or archbishops, university professors or even the pope himself. But if they bring a gospel other than the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament, they are to be rejected. We judge them by the gospel; we do not judge the gospel by them.”

And notice how he contrasts the preaching of the real gospel with the fear of man, and men-pleasing. Paul insists that we must choose: it is either one or the other. If you are going to choose to please men and give no offence, then you cannot be a true minister of the gospel.

And the very way in which he tears into the Galatians shows how little he cares about the praises of men. His lack of a warm and soothing introduction and his harsh words on damnation show that he is not a men-pleaser. As Luther said, “This is not preaching that gains favour from men and from the world.”

The need of the hour is to have ministers of the gospel who will stand for truth always, and not give a rip about what men think. We must stop the preaching of other gospels in the church. And there are plenty of these false gospels. Simply think about the syrupy-sweet, therapeutic, me-centred gospel which is endemic in the church today.

What would Paul say about those who proclaim a gospel to make you feel good about yourself, flatter yourself, get financial gain, and think more of yourself? He would hurl curses at them just as much as he did at the Judaisers and others back then. Yet we have far too many spineless church leaders who would never dare to say anything so strong and so convicting.

Now don’t get me wrong here – I am certainly not suggesting that we necessarily go around telling people to go to hell. That misses my point. My point is simply this: Paul used the strongest imaginable language – and actions – to rebuke those who had perverted the gospel. He took the truth of the gospel so seriously that he was quite happy to see such false teachers sent off to eternal destruction.

That is how much he cared about the gospel, because that is how much he cared about God. Yet we have far too many churches which care neither for the gospel nor for God, but care about what the crowds think, care about attendance records, and care about the weekly offering.

To all such churches and preachers Paul would say, ‘Go to hell’ – or words to that effect.

[1258 words]