174 Sermon Illustrations on Homosexuality

174 illustrations Page 2 of 4

This subject addresses the biblical and moral perspectives on homosexuality within Christian preaching, often exploring themes of sin, redemption, and church discipline. Illustrations commonly use legal, pastoral, and personal narratives to discuss scriptural teachings and the tension between cultural acceptance and biblical authority (Romans 1:26-27). The topic engages with issues of identity, transformation, and the church's response to those who identify as homosexual (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Tolerance Run Amok: Gunning For Santorum

The furor over Senator Rick Santorum’s recent comments concerning homosexuality and the law continues unabated.

During an interview with the Associated Press, Santorum mentioned the pending LAWRENCE V. TEXAS case, in which the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of Texas’s prohibition against sodomy. Santorum said, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy; you have the right to polygamy; you have the right to incest; you have the right to adultery.”

As soon as his comments became public, the press and gay rights groups vilified Santorum. His words were compared to controversial and racially insensitive remarks made by Senator Trent Lott last fall.

The NEW YORK TIMES said that the Senator’s “remarks equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest” wrote a “new chapter” in “the long and conflicted history between gays and Republicans.”

The problem is, of course, that he did no such thing. Santorum was merely stating what should be obvious to anyone who has followed the Court’s decisions in this area. Any reasoning the Court uses to overturn the Texas law can be applied to the other conduct Santorum cited. Santorum has a lot of company in his thinking. I and others have written the same thing in scholarly journals. Justice Scalia argued the same thing in his dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY.

What’s more, Santorum’s critics know this. So what’s behind the demagoguery? The same thing that is behind all demagogues: that is, intimidate those with whom you disagree. In Santorum’s case, the source of the ire isn’t his legal analysis; it is his moral analysis. As a devout Catholic, he does not believe that the state ought to sanction all kinds of sexual behavior.

Tolerance used to mean an open market for the free discussion of everyone’s truth claims — not anymore. Over the past few decades, it has been redefined to be the notion that not only should I have the right to do what I want to do, but you have to approve of it, as well.

Failure to show approval is considered to be, at best, narrow-mindedness and, at worst, bigotry and hate-mongering. This isn’t my conclusion. It’s what the Supreme Court said in ROMER V. EVANS, when it invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment barring anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. The Court said that only “animus,” or bias, could have caused the voters to vote for such a law.

And the stakes are about to get higher. Massachusetts is on the verge of creating a right to same-sex marriage. If that happens, says Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, same-sex couples from across the country will get married in Massachusetts, return home, and demand that their “marriages” be recognized in their states. Their efforts will be enhanced if moral objections to homosexuality are automatically dismissed as bigotry.

And this is what’s really at stake in the debate over Santorum’s comments: not a politician’s fortunes, but the meaning of TOLERANCE and FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE. It’s whether people of faith will be able to state publicly what they believe or whether the only right left to Americans will be one of so-called “sexual freedom.”

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Visit SEN. RICK SANTORUM’S WEBSITE to read his response to the Associated Press story: http://www.senate.gov/~santorum/

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “PERSISTENT CONFLICT FOR GAYS AND G.O.P.,” NEW YORK TIMES, April 22, 2003. Article costs $2.95 to retrieve.

L. Brent Bozell, “ASSOCIATED (WITH LIBERALS) PRESS,” Townhall.com, April 30, 2003: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030430.shtml

Stanley Kurtz, “THE LIBERTARIAN QUESTION: INCEST, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND ADULTERY,” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, April 30, 2003: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE CHRISTIAN IN TODAY’S CULTURE (Tyndale, 1999).

____________

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #15774]

The Church In Captivity

Baroness Caroline Cox, a member of the English House of Lords, is a great advocate for the persecuted Church. Not long ago she traveled into southern Sudan, bringing supplies and a Catholic priest. The Muslim government was systematically repressing the Church there, and many Christians had disappeared. Others lived in a primitive camp with barely enough food to survive.

At great personal risk, the priest had brought bread and wine. In that sweltering African savannah, even as the bodies of many were being broken and the blood of many was being shed in the neighboring province, this flock celebrated the sacrament of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Now go halfway around the globe to another congregation gathered to worship at Denver’s Plymouth Congregational Church. Before the service, the pastor made a startling announcement. He was gay, he said, and was therefore terminating his twenty-five-year marriage.

How did church members respond? They enthusiastically applauded their minister. One commentator could not help asking: Would the church members have applauded if the reverend had announced he was dumping his wife to marry a twenty-year-old woman? I doubt it. Why, then, the enthusiastic support for his homosexuality?

The answer is that to come out as gay is seen as heroic. When one takes a stand against such “repressive” customs as marital fidelity and heterosexuality, the thinking goes, he is liberated, able to fulfill his biological destiny. Infidelity is thus transformed into a form of laudable self-actualization.

Given these two scenarios, where is the Church in bondage today? In a land filled with Islamic troops who kill, torture, and sell believers into slavery? Or in beautiful American sanctuaries, where Christians have embraced the worst of secular wisdom? While the Church has refused to buckle under the heavy hand of Muslim oppression in Sudan, in the United States, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish the Church from the surrounding culture.

How did this happen? How did the WESTERN Church end up in captivity?

Some congregations like the one in Denver obey cultural imperatives instead of the commands of Christ. Others lack a biblical worldview and so focus only on personal issues. If we view Christianity as nothing more than therapy or as an individualistic spirituality, or attending church as a way to get a spiritual fix to help us through the week, then we’re going to become thoroughly irrelevant.

Some churches put more emphasis on recruitment than repentance, measuring success by the numbers. The problem is, we can become so focused on getting people into our pews that we end up doing anything to keep them there. Often, this means omitting hard teachings about sin or refusing to confront sinful behavior.

We must never forget that the early Church turned the world upside down because believers confessed that Jesus, not Caesar, was Lord. They didn’t embrace the culture; they scandalized it.

You and I must do the same. As Chuck Colson and Ellen Vaughn write, the Church will again be the Church-against-the-world-yet-for-the-world, not when it becomes politically correct, but when it’s under attack for proclaiming a truth so bold, so vibrant, that a watching world cannot ignore it.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Charles Colson and Ellen Vaughn, BEING THE BODY: A NEW CALL FOR THE CHURCH TO BE LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS (W Publishing, 2003).

Learn about the upcoming BEING THE BODY SEMINAR taking place May 18! To learn which church in your area is showing the seminar, call 1-800-321-6781.

Learn more about what you can do for the persecuted Church by visiting the websites of the ORGANIZATIONS LINKED ON THIS PAGE.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030411, “IT DOESN’T ADD UP: WHEN TWO PLUS ONE EQUALS TOO MANY.”

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020718, “JESUS SHALL REIGN: GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY.”

____________

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #16577]

For Whose Sake?: Rosie and Gay Adoption

In an ABC interview with Diane Sawyer, talk-show hostess Rosie O'Donnell -- who has three adopted children -- announced what was already an open secret: that she is a lesbian. Nevertheless, Rosie insisted, "I know I'm a really good mother, and I have every right to parent [these children.]" Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.

ABC apparently agreed: On a program that lasted two hours, no one challenged or contradicted Rosie, but the truth is -- unmentioned on ABC -- that children do not fare as well in homes headed by gays.

According to several independent studies by respected authorities, children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become promiscuous and engage in substance abuse. They are at higher risk of losing a parent to AIDS and more likely to commit suicide.

By contrast, children raised in homes with married, heterosexual parents enjoy greater health -- both physically and emotionally. They do better in school, commit fewer crimes, and are less likely to live in poverty.

As Glenn Stanton writes in CitizenLink, children raised in such homes "do far better in every measure than children who grow up in any other family situation. Rarely is the social science literature as conclusive as it is on this point."

Then there's the question of whether kids raised by gays are more likely to become gay themselves. Rosie says, no, but the research says otherwise.

One study showed that gay parents "may be four times more likely to produce homosexual children." One teenager who was interviewed said that when she had conflicts with her boyfriend, her lesbian mother "would tell me to try girls." In fact, sixty-four percent of kids reared by lesbian mothers consider same-sex relationships compared with only seventeen percent in heterosexual families.

The more we study the topic, the more empirical research supports the wisdom of traditional teaching about married, heterosexual parenting.

Rosie O'Donnell's assertion -- "I have every right to parent [these children]" -- exposes what this debate is really about. It's not about what's good for kids. It's about the demands of gays for their so-called rights.

O'Donnell is leading an effort to overturn state laws against gay adoption. Before states make any drastic decisions, they need to listen to the real experts: kids raised in gay homes. Kids like Jakii Edwards, who told CitizenLink that while the intentions of gays may be good, "it does hurt the children to come up in gay homes. When a child [sees] mom kissing mom and dad kissing daddy, it leaves the child ... with gender identity issues. We question whether we have to be gay like mommy [or daddy] is gay."

"It causes a lot of turmoil," Jakii says, and she adds nearly everyone she knows who was raised by a gay parent "has major anger issues."

Jakii is a reminder that if we really care about the needs of children, we'll do everything in our power to promote healthy, two-parent, heterosexual families. After all, what made June Cleaver, Donna Reed, and Carol Brady great moms was not the fact that they wore aprons and pearls. It was that they married their children's fathers.

Sources:

Glenn T. Stanton, "Examining the Research on Homosexual Parenting," CitizenLink.

Pete Winn, "Rosie's War," CitizenLink, 13 March 2002.

"Focus on the Family Gives the Facts on Gay Adoption," press release, 19 March 2002.

BreakPoint commentary, "Outing the Truth: Do Gays Make Good Parents?", 30 March 1994.

Cal Thomas, "ABC's Rosie Scenario," TownHall.com, 19 March 2002.

"Rosie's Story," ABCNews.com, 14 March 2002.

For further reading:

Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE CHRISTIAN IN TODAY'S CULTURE (Tyndale House Publishers, 1999).

Glenn T. Stanton, "Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent," CitizenLink.

_________________________

Loving Correction: Why We Need Church Discipline

Ezra 10:1

Some argue that it doesn’t pay to exercise church discipline these days. Why? People outside the Church get too upset.

Consider the case of Catholic Archbishop George Pell of Sydney, Australia. Pell denies Holy Communion to Catholic homosexuals who don’t accept church teachings on homosexuality. A biblical approach to sexuality is “essential for human well-being [and] for the continuity of the human race,” he notes.

Now, Pell has sponsored AIDS hospices and shown compassion to those infected with this deadly disease. Nevertheless, homosexual activists are outraged over his views and loudly protested his appointment as Archbishop in 2001.

Then there’s Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani of Lima, Peru. Eighteen months ago, Cipriani announced that politicians who oppose church teachings on abortion would be denied communion. Who became outraged over this? Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

And when the Southern Baptist Convention took steps to cut ties with churches that allow homosexuals to serve as pastors, critics couldn’t wait to wrap the “narrow-minded bigot” label around them.

But aren’t these churches simply upholding their standards? As Chuck Colson and Ellen Vaughn point out in their new book, BEING THE BODY, churches have never portrayed themselves as democracies. “The church is hierarchical and authoritarian and ultimately answerable only to God,” they write.

So why should anyone join a church and then expect to be permitted to flout its authority? After all, for failing to attend enough meetings, you can be thrown out of the Rotary Club. Violate the dress code, and you’ll be tossed out of many country clubs. And if you don’t perform community service, you can be kicked out of the Junior League. Yet the minute churches impose discipline on their members, they’re charged with everything up to and including fascism.

Shouldn’t the Church have at least the same right to set its own standards as a country club? If people don’t like them, they’re free to leave — assuming they’re members in the first place.

Whether church members like it or not, the Church MUST discipline its members. As Colson and Vaughn warn, “When we fail to discipline, the church does not become more ‘relevant’ to the world around us. It simply loses its moral authority.”

Discipline should be applied not only to enforce right doctrine, but also to uphold right behavior. Sermons on holy living are meaningless unless the Church is willing to back them up with action — even if doing so is unpleasant, which it often is. As theologian Greg Bahnsen put it: “Discipline guards the purity of the Church, preserves the Church by removing evil, and provides severe but loving correction for one who is in danger of falling into perdition.”

Without effective discipline, there can be no accountability and, thus, no spiritual growth.

We’ve heard a lot lately about politicians being told by their churches to toe the line, theologically speaking — or face the consequences. When we read stories like these, we need to remember why church discipline is vitally important. It’s a mark, not of intolerance and repression, as critics claim, but of faithful obedience to God and loving pastoral care for Christians.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Charles Colson and Ellen Vaughn, BEING THE BODY: A NEW CALL FOR THE CHURCH TO BE LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS (W Publishing, 2003).

Margaret Simons, “AUSTRALIA’S LEADING CATHOLIC CONSERVATIVE ARCHBISHOP GETS A PROMOTION,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, April 3, 2001.

“PERU CARDINAL THREATENS EXCOMMUNICATION,” CWN News, September 5, 2001.

Charles Edward White, “SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHURCH,” CHRISTIAN HISTORY 20, No. 1 (Winter 2001): 28.

Timothy Harris, “THE CHALLENGE AND BEAUTY OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE,” ANTITHESIS 1, No. 3 (May/June 1990).

James Leo Garrett, Jr., “CHURCH DISCIPLINE: LOST, BUT RECOVERABLE,” WESTERN RECORDER, July 23, 1959.

Wayne Jackson, “CHURCH DISCIPLINE — A TRAGIC NEGLECT,” CHRISTIAN COURIER, June 8, 2000.

Bob Russell, “DISCIPLINE: A NEGLECTED TEACHING,” ChurchCentral.com, April 25, 2003.

____________

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #8844]

Is Sin Just A Choice?

Job 31:9

“It’s just a choice,” the respected pastor said to me confidently when I told him that God had led me to minister to people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.

While I was surprised and saddened to hear this from an experienced pastor, it also reminded me of the great need among our churches to be informed about ways to minister effectively and redemptively to those who struggle with an attraction they neither chose nor understand.

“It’s just a choice.” Few statements are more frustrating and painful for those who live with the reality of unwanted same-sex attraction. Many of them sit in our pews every Sunday. Some long to be able to talk about their struggle, but remarks such as this make them reluctant to open up.

The comments can be damaging to their friends and family members, as well. They may hear this from a trusted leader, assume it is true, and pass it on to the struggler. They also are more inclined to keep their own pain private because they now believe their loved one has simply “chosen” to disregard their advice.

There are also few things that can more negatively affect our credibility with a watching world than these words.

Some readers may be irritated at this point. You may be thinking “Well, it is a choice. No one is forcing them to live that way.” And therein lies the confusion.

While sin is always a choice, our temptations are not.

I’ve never been seriously tempted by alcohol -- even as a student in my pre-Christian days -- and I’ve always been extremely grateful for that.

On the other hand, I can remember struggling with anger from my early years. I did not choose this particular battle. After becoming a Christian I occasionally talked to people I respected about it. The advice I got often amounted to, “The Bible says you shouldn’t get angry.”

Which made me angry.

Far too often, people who struggle with same-sex attraction have been given that kind of simplistic advice by well-meaning family and friends. As with me and my anger, they were never aware of how or why the attraction started.

Many of the same-sex strugglers I’ve met through the years were sexually abused as children. Early on, their view of sexuality as a precious gift from God was marred. Confusion, guilt or outright threats often kept them from telling anyone.

One man told of being molested as a young boy by leaders in the church where his father was pastor. He said he thought maybe there was a sign on him saying “molest me.” Threats and fear kept him from telling anyone.

I’ve talked to women who were sexually abused by trusted family members. Again, shame and guilt often kept them from going to their parents. Sadly, some did go to adults who either didn’t believe them or chose simply to ignore the situation.

Others have been victims of physical and verbal abuse. Young women who saw their mothers abused came to two conclusions: 1) It isn’t safe to be a woman, so femininity must be rejected, and, 2) men aren’t safe and can’t be trusted in an intimate relationship.

In one support group I led, there was a man who did not fit into any of these categories. He was a slender young man who was much more interested in the arts than he was in sports. Other students began to harass him and call him gay. He didn’t think of himself that way and had never had homosexual temptations. But he began to wonder if his abusers were right. Eventually he decided to seek friendship in a gay bar. At the time I met him, he was a committed follower of Christ who still struggled to overcome the doubts brought on by his childhood antagonists.

Many who go through childhood traumas will at some point be tempted to justify or explain wrong attitudes or actions because of those traumas. But over and over again, I’ve heard men and women say, “I didn’t choose this struggle, but I did choose to act on the temptation.” They are well aware that freedom requires them to honestly face their own guilt. But too often they first have to sort through the confusion brought about by well-meaning people who have told them, “It’s a choice.”

These courageous people deserve more from us than “It’s just a choice.”

They need and deserve understanding, conveyed by both words and body language. They need and deserve to experience the love of Jesus Christ through people who honestly face our own struggles in areas of temptation we did not choose. They need and deserve encouragement to look to and trust in Jesus, just like every Christ-follower.

Think about the thing that tempts you most. Did you make a conscious decision to be tempted by it? If you confided this temptation to someone, I don’t imagine you’d appreciate it if you were confidently dismissed with “It’s just a choice.”

It’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?

[Original illustration at this number was moved to HolwickID #16234]

Celibacy and Scandals: How the Media Got the Story Wrong

I've been reluctant to comment on the scandals involving allegations of sexual misconduct by Roman Catholic priests. I thought it might seem inappropriate or unseemly for me, a Southern Baptist layman, to talk about the serious internal problems of the Catholic church.

But as I read the press coverage of the story and observe the spin being put on it by today's columnists and reporters, I can't resist one observation: The press is missing the real story, and Christians need to hear it.

Both the accusations and the magnitude of the scandals are mind-boggling. More than fifty priests have been accused of having sexual relations with under-aged boys. Catholic dioceses have paid tens of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits brought by the victims of sexual misconduct.

Shortly after reports of the scandal hit the national press, a consensus formed among the prestige media as to its cause: celibacy. Maureen Dowd of the NEW YORK TIMES summed up the consensus: "The vow of celibacy serves as a magnet for men running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of." She added that "the allegedly celibate society these men enter ... retards their sexual development, funneling their impulses in inappropriate directions."

In essence, Dowd, and the people who agree with her, are saying that not acting on your sexual impulses will warp your personality. This is misleading nonsense.

Celibacy is not the problem. The problem in the Catholic Church is a homosexual problem. In a recent article in the NATIONAL REVIEW, Rod Dreher writes that the pedophilia scandal "cannot be understood and honestly dealt with" without taking the homosexuality of the accused priests into account.

As Dreher writes, "What we're seeing is gay men who cannot or will not keep their pants up around teenage boys. Not teenage girls. Teenage boys." Even the pro-homosexual book, THE GAY REPORT, noted that seventy-three percent of gay men have had sex with teenage boys.

This is why changing the rules on celibacy would have no effect. As Bill Bennett has pointed out, such a change will do nothing about a man's sexual interest in other men.

Of course, you will search in vain to read any of this in the mainstream press. One columnist, who does understand, compares the NEW YORK TIMES's coverage to the children's book series, "Where's Waldo?" In thousands of words, there was little, if any, mention of the victims' sex and age. The fear of being labeled "homophobic" and sympathy with gay rights has left this crucial element out of the story.

What's needed, as Bennett and Dreher point out, is a systematic examination of the way the Catholic Church selects and trains priests. Dreher writes about a "lavender mafia" within the church that perpetuates a gay subculture, and that's what must be rooted out.

Of course, this will prompt cries of "bigotry" from the very same people who are distorting the issues today. We need to help people understand that it isn't discrimination to hold people to their vows and to uphold the virtue of chastity. We need to remind all Christians that we're all called to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. To say Christians can't be taught to live that way is the worst bigotry of all.

For further reading:

Michael Novak, "The Culture of 'Dissent,'" NATIONAL REVIEW, 29 March 2002.

Rod Dreher, "Mitered in the Mob?," NATIONAL REVIEW, 28 March 2002.

Maureen Dowd, "Rome Fiddles, We Burn," NEW YORK TIMES, 27 March 2002.

Ken Walker, "Homosexuals more likely to molest kids, study reports," 30 May 2001.

Jeffrey Satinover, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH (Baker Book House, 1996).

_________________________

Don't Blame Us: Who Are the Real Hate-mongers?

It was one of the most convoluted sentences I’ve ever heard. NBC TODAY SHOW host Katie Couric was talking to Gov. Jim Geringer about the murder of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was beaten to death following a robbery last week.

Ms. Couric said: “Governor, some gay rights activists have said that... organizations like the Christian Coalition ... and Focus on [the] Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying, if you’re a homosexual, you can change your orientation. Do you think that campaigns like this inspire people to try to harm homosexuals?”

Whoa! Pro-family groups ARE sponsoring ads that lovingly tell people that through the power of Christ, they can break free from homosexual habits.

But Couric was trying to get Gov. Geringer to agree that these ads were literally driving people to murder gay men.

It’s a sorry example of how effectively the gay lobby exploits tragedy to demonize anyone who opposes their political agenda. And shockingly, how someone like Katie Couric can engage in what is nothing less than McCarthyism.

What happened to Matthew Shepard was, of course, a horrible crime, and I hope Wyoming prosecutors throw the book at the two perpetrators. And should it turn out that the young men accused of the Wyoming murder were members of Focus on the Family, or the Christian Coalition — well, Katie Couric can blame Jim Dobson and the Coalition for what they did. Otherwise, she ought to apologize at once to Dobson and other Christians for her outrageous slander.

Compare the hysterical reaction to this case to the reaction to the Hugh Finn case in Virginia. Just a few days ago, doctors removed a feeding tube from Finn, a husband and father who has been in a coma for several years. Despite the testimony of nurses that he showed signs of responsiveness, and despite the fact that Gov. James Gilmore and Finn’s parents went to court to try to stop it, Finn was deprived of food and water. Where was Katie Couric’s outrage when Finn was deliberately starved to death?

In fact, you could make a case that our cultural elites’ support of abortion and euthanasia is responsible for the degradation of human life — a degradation that allows the small, the weak, and the helpless among us to be killed.

Ultimately, the only people responsible for the Wyoming murder are the people who committed it. But if we’re going to blame cultural influences for inspiring murder, I’d suggest maybe it’s the very elites who are doing that by promoting the pro-choice, pro-euthanasia views and thereby encouraging an impoverished view of the human being. And these are the views that most of our media elites hold.

Now I want to be very careful how I choose my words. Nothing excuses what happened in Wyoming. The assault on Matthew Shepard was grotesque and ghastly and the perpetrators need to be punished fully. But on the moral scale of things, from my perspective at least, the murder of Shepard was no more grotesque or ghastly than what happened in that nursing home in Virginia that caused hardly a ripple of protest among our opinion makers.

You and I have to help our neighbors understand it’s not so-called hate crimes we really have to fear, and certainly not Christians. What we have to fear is the total disregard of the intrinsic value of human life. A disregard that threatens all of us.

________

I Still Love Homosexuals

Unsure how I, a former homosexual, received an invitation to speak two consecutive weeks to a gay/lesbian organization at a major university, I readily accepted. I arrived well ahead of time to mingle with the students, shake hands and get to know them.

Though I felt like a ham at a bar mitzvah, I shared with the 25 to 30 homosexuals how, from an early age I felt “different”; how, upon reaching puberty, I was attracted to other men; and how, after 11 years of homosexual activity, I told God, “It's over! Homosexuality is an illusion, a dead end! Homosexuality promises a lot, but delivers little!” I told them homosexuality was a sin, immoral and that God punishes sin.

For ninety minutes I shared my story and answered many questions -- some of which were mildly discourteous and others overtly rude.

No sooner had the meeting ended, several homosexual men and women, most with puzzled expressions on their faces, approached me. In semi-private conversations the recurring statement was, “You didn't say what I expected to hear.” I asked, “What did you expect to hear?”

The recurring answers were predicable. “I expected you to be preachy, loud and self-righteous.” “I expected you to quote Scripture the entire meeting, to say you hate us.”

But I did none of those things. I politely expressed my appreciation for the opportunity to speak with them, befriend them and tell what Christ had done in my life.

I arrived the following week to a crowd almost twice the size of the previous week's. Why? Word had spread that “the ex-gay guy was respectful, polite and friendly.”

Had I compromised my beliefs, condoned homosexuality, diluted Scripture? No.

After being interviewed on a TV program and while leaving the studio, I met a militant gay man who hosts a TV program.

I extended my hand, told him I had seen his show and found it “interesting.” Ted asked my name and why I had been interviewed. I gave my name and said, “I used to be gay.”

Immediately Ted's speech accelerated, his face reddened as his knee-jerk reactions kicked into gear. I stood silently as his monologue continued, all the while asking God how I might diffuse the situation. When he paused, I intervened with these five unprepared words. “Ted-you-are-a” -- I was unsure what the last word would be, but it finally left my lips -- “blessing.” In the most generic sense Ted is a blessing in that, though he is not a child of God, he is a creation of God.

Like a man who had been punched in the stomach, Ted was speechless. After collecting his thoughts, his face relaxed. With a deep sigh, Ted said “I really appreciate how you have taken our conversation to a higher level.”

Immediately I moved the conversation away from homosexuality to family, work, college -- general topics.

Shortly, the TV host who had interviewed me approached the studio door where Ted and I stood talking. Automatically I prepared to introduce Ted and the host. While turning to my right, I placed my left hand on Ted's right shoulder saying, “Ted, this is the host,” and then telling the host, “Ted has his own TV show.”

Ted and I ended our conversation as we left the building. We shook hands and went our respective ways.

A week later Ted's live show aired. And guess what? This militant gay man recounted to his primarily militant gay audience our entire conversation, ending it with these words: “I don't know whether the guy used to be gay or not, but he made a distinct impression on me.”

Rick Warren says, “There are two basic reasons people don't know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. One, they have never met a Christian. Second, they have met a Christian.”

A genuine, conspicuous display of Christian love quickly and decisively eclipses the counterfeit love found in homosexuality, opening the door for the gospel.

Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not! The truth is I love homosexuals more now than when I was one!

_____________

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12700]

Rest of the Story on Teletubbies

From: Mark & Teah McWhorter

You are probably aware of the controversery stirred by Jerry

Falwell making statements about the Teletubbies. The media

is playing this for all it is worth. They are trying to make

Falwell and all christians look ridiculous. But the

homosexual community has been making statements regarding

the teletubbies for a year.

Homosexual columnist Michael Musto of the Village Voice

wrote in April of last year, "How can the Teletubbies people

not rush to confirm that the purple one, Tinky Winky, is

homosexual?"

A campaign has been underway in San Francisco to make Tinky

Winky grand marshall of the Gay Pride Parade.

That is the rest of the story as given by Human Events,

February 26,1999,p.28.

Mark McWhorter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you like orange and blue, then you will love our new web site!

\webpage{http://www.onelist.com}

Onelist: Fostering connections and information exchange

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscribe to the Electronic Gospel Herald, a free bi-weekly e-pub. For more information email the EGH at egh@beaufortco.com

United Methodist Agency Promotes "Adam & Steve"

UNITED METHODIST AGENCY PROMOTES "ADAM AND STEVE"

"United Methodist Communications, the church's $12 million public relations

agency, recently sponsored a cable television program that sympathetically

examines, 'same-sex unions.' Called 'Adam and Steve? Same-Sex Marriage and

Christian Faith,' the show was part of a 26-episode series titled

'Scriptures Alive!' that cost UMCom $74,000. The program twice aired on the

Odyssey Cable Network this spring. 'We are trying to reach a broad

audience mostly of young people so that they can relate to the Scriptures,'

explained Wilford Bane of UMCom's Division of Public Media in defense of

the program. 'It is aimed mostly at a secular audience. We can't hit them

over the head.' The Odyssey Cable Network, on which the 'Scriptures Alive!'

series appears, reaches 28 million households. But according to Bane, only

6,100 households regularly view 'Scriptures Alive!' Bane, in defending the

episode, told The Nashville Banner that some 'gay men' had expressed

gratitude that 'such insight' was portrayed in the program. He further

pointed out that the Discipline says 'God challenges us to find

responsible, committed and loving forms in expression of our sexuality.'

Although acknowledging that 'marriage' as a legal institution involves a

man and woman, the episode urges attention to 'gay and lesbian couples

wanting to make a profession of their coupleness in the eyes of God.' One

speaker, a United Methodist pastor, laments that the church has 'erected

barriers to people' over sexuality, since 'Jesus would open doors.' David

Otto of Centenary College in Louisiana suggests that 'biblical models' for

same-sex covenants would include the relationships of Ruth and Naomi and of

David and Jonathan. The program's host, Kathleen LaCamera interviews a

lesbian couple in a 'holy union.' The two complain that common law couples

eventually are treated as married couples, but 'committed' same-sex couples

are 'persecuted' for seeking the same privilege. LaCamera responds that,

'It's hard not to really feel quite supportive of what they're saying.'"

(The Christian News, October 13, 1997)

A Changed Man

1 Peter 5:6

Mike Goeke: My childhood and family do not seem to fit the typical profile of men who struggle with homosexuality.

I was born into a committed Christian home, and my parents have a strong marriage. My dad was a loving leader, spiritual and otherwise, of our family. My parents were equally active in the lives of my brother and me. I experienced no sexual, emotional or physical abuse. While I know now that my family had its own issues, there were none of the “red flags” often associated with homosexuality.

Yet, in the midst of my very typical family existence, I developed an early attraction for men. I was sensitive, insecure and artistic, and the other boys treated me differently and made fun of me. I was first called a “fag” in sixth grade at my Christian school. I did not know what it meant, but the seed of a new identity was planted.

In junior high school, my intense desire to be like other boys turned sexual. I was mortified by my homosexual desires and vowed never to act on them and or tell anyone about them. I suppressed my feelings by seeking perfection in academics and leadership areas that seemed within my control. Suppressing my desires did nothing to stop the longings that grew within me. My heart began to look less like my exterior. As I became more “religious,” my relationship with the Lord became less real, and more contrived.

Following law school, I began dating Stephanie, a fellow Baylor graduate. We had been good friends and were active leaders in Bible Study Fellowship. On the surface our relationship was founded in the Lord, but it was also rooted in deception. My secret struggles continued to grow, and I became depressed. I pursued marriage with the hope that it would squelch rumors about my sexuality and that it might help “fix” me.

Stephanie and I married in September 1994. We lived in Midland, Texas, where I was an attorney and she was a teacher. We were involved in church and lived a “perfect couple” existence, but my secret homosexual desires continued to grow. In December 1995, I discovered America Online. AOL was the beginning of the end.

In the chat rooms I found gay identified people who seemed to be like me. I “met” people who claimed to be Christian and did not have a problem with homosexuality. I slowly began to withdraw from my marriage and other relationships. I told Stephanie I wanted a divorce but never told her about my struggle. I recanted my desire for a divorce, and instead I told her I needed a career change. I quit my job as an attorney, and we moved so that I could pursue an architecture degree.

My will to avoid AOL lasted about two weeks. I soon had an online support group of gay men who encouraged me to accept my homosexuality. Research of gay Christian theology had convinced me that being gay was OK with God.

On November 1, 1996, I left Stephanie a letter on the door telling her I was gay and that I wanted a divorce. I jumped headfirst into the gay lifestyle. I was out and proud. I went to the Metropolitan Community Church and was determined to be a different kind of gay man -- moral, upright and non-promiscuous. I failed miserably and completely from day one.

STEPHANIE: I also was raised in a committed Christian home. Although our family had its flaws, I was taught the basic Christian disciplines of prayer, Bible study and trusting the Lord. During my late years of high school and college, I made some poor choices in regard to dating relationships. I realized how far from the Lord I had drifted, ended some unhealthy relationships and recommitted myself to the Lord and to the local church. When I first started dating Mike, I earnestly sought the Lord. So when Mike told me later of his desire for divorce and his pursuit of the gay lifestyle, I could fall back on the fact that I knew my heart was right with the Lord when I decided to marry Mike.

MIKE: The immediate rejection that I expected from Stephanie and my family did not happen. While no one accepted what I was doing as right, no one rejected me. Stephanie had known nothing of my struggle and had no exposure to homosexuality, but she refused to pursue a divorce. She said “God put us together. And I don’t know how, but I know He can repair this situation.”

I realize that the spiritual foundation I received in my youth held firm. As determined as I was, I had no peace. Yet, even in my state of disrupted fellowship with God, I still could not fathom how I could be any different. I continued to pursue my homosexual dream with gusto.

STEPHANIE: In retrospect, during the period of our separation, part of my motivation for not immediately divorcing Mike stemmed from pride: good Christian girls do not get divorced. When all my dreams were shattered, the Lord used the time to work His Word deep into my heart. The first few months that Mike was gone I pleaded with the Lord to change Mike and bring him home. After all of our attempts to lure him home failed, I finally surrendered to the Lord to work on me. I realized that I was either going to be divorced or married to a man I did not really know. Either way, God was going to have to change and grow me. The right words from a friend, the right book, the right counselor -- none of these brought me peace. But when I spent time studying the Bible, God spoke and gave me peace and hope beyond my understanding.

MIKE: I went to my parents’ house for Easter. It was a tense weekend, and I vowed that I would file divorce papers the next week and never return to their house again. As I was leaving, my dad gave me the book “You Don’t Have to be Gay,” which I took only to appease him. I believe the Holy Spirit physically caused my hands to open that book, and within two days I had completed it.

It was the first testimony I had ever heard of someone who had left the gay lifestyle. As the author referenced Scripture, I saw the Truth. God did love me just as I was, but He could not leave me there. I sat on the floor of my sparsely furnished apartment and knew I was to go home to Stephanie. I argued for days with God and heard only one response to my arguments: “I love you.”

Stephanie was shocked when I showed up at her door, but she accepted me home. We moved back to Midland and began the arduous process of personal and emotional healing. We attended our first Exodus Freedom Conference and were filled with hope for change. There was no “ex-gay” ministry in Midland, but a wonderful Bible study leader and Christian counselor began meeting with me regularly and simply pointing me to Christ. He helped me unpack my true identity -- as a man and a child of God. Though it was difficult, God began to work amazing healing and transformation in both of us. He changed our lives.

STEPHANIE: I was truly surprised when Mike asked to come home. God showed me that He had brought Mike home, that his return was not because of anything I had done or said. I accepted Mike and offered forgiveness purely out of obedience. Over the next couple of years, God worked true love for each other in our hearts and rebuilt the trust in our marriage. We have learned of God’s faithfulness in a real and true way, enabling us to stay committed to one another and to take the steps of faith to which God calls us. The verse that I clung to during the years following our separation is 1 Peter 5:6: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time” (NIV). The Lord is faithful.

MIKE: The church that I harbored such bitterness and anger toward became a huge part of our healing. Early on, God prompted us to quit looking for a place to have our needs met and instead find a place to serve. We became a part of a new church called Stonegate Fellowship, and it was where God called us into ministry. We started an Exodus Member Ministry and shared our testimony publicly for the first time. God showed us the beauty of being real, and our church responded with an amazing display of love, acceptance and support. Stonegate became the church Stephanie and I had dreamt of -- a church that lived out its belief that Jesus Christ can change a life. They ultimately hired me as a senior associate pastor.

I know from God’s Word that He allows struggles in our lives so that His power might be displayed in us and so that He will receive glory. I can think of no better life than to be a vessel for God’s glory and power. It is not about coming to grips with who I am. It is about coming to grips with who He is. That is a life worth living.

We would not trade the struggles we went through for anything. Our “real” marriage is so much better than the marriage we dreamed of for ourselves. God has grown in Stephanie and me a pure and beautiful love for each other and for the Lord, and He has blessed us with three beautiful children. We know we have not arrived, but we also know that the end of the journey will be beyond our imaginations.

________

Mike Goeke is the associate pastor of counseling at Stonegate Fellowship Church in Midland, Texas. He can be reached at mikegoeke@stonegatefellowship.com. Information on the SBC Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals can be found at www.sbcthewayout.com.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12007]

Ambassador to Luxembourg

It is interesting that President Clinton's nominee for Ambassador to

Luxembourg is a renowned homosexual, James Hormel (heir to the

Hormel food company). This appointment not only again points out the

Clinton Administration's intense desire to encourage homosexuality, it also

is intended to encourage a specific policy of the European Union. The

European Union is forcing countries to repeal laws restricting sexual

deviancy as a condition of membership. The EU is also pressuring

member countries to implement the homosexual agenda through laws and

court actions. These actions include expediting domestic partnerships and

homosexual adoptions, homosexual affirmative action in government and

business, and lowering the age of consent for pederastic activities.

(THE NEW AMERICAN, December 22, 1997, page 7)

(comment--This news is important for Americans. Not only because of

the American people being "represented" by a homosexual, but also

because it should point out the direction of international moral thinking.

Internationalists are some of the most immoral individuals on earth. We

should be ever cognizant of the dangers of turning over American law to

international law (since in most instances it is not biblically based

jurisprudence--mtm--Mark McWhorter in Electronic Gospel Herald, 1/15/98).

How To Sacrifice Without Offending Your Neighbor

Leviticus 18:22

This sarcastic "letter" illustrates the dilemma the Old Testament law presents to many modern people.

___________________________

Dear Reverend,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your preachings, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple,

...

Born Or Made?: the Gay Debate

Jude 1:7

It's become the mantra of the gay lobby: Sexual orientation is in our genes -- our biology is destiny.

According to gay activist Denny Lee, "When people understand that being gay or lesbian is an integral characteristic, they are more open-minded about equality for gay Americans."

Problem is, there's no evidence that homosexuality is an "integral characteristic." It's something to keep in mind on the eve of the latest "gay holiday."

Radical gays are fond of quoting studies that purport to prove that gays are born, not made. For example, ten years ago, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute announced that he had found a significant difference in the brain structure of homosexual and heterosexual men, but subsequent research by others failed to duplicate LeVay's findings.

The same goes for the research of Dean Hamer, who claimed to have found a "gay gene." Hamer -- who is gay -- was subsequently investigated by the Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Then there's a 1993 study on twins and sexual orientation by Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard. Pillard claimed he'd found evidence that homosexuality is a family trait. But Dr. Paul Ewald, an Amherst College biologist, told the Boston University DAILY FREE PRESS that Pillard's research made no such genetic connection.

Dr. Ruth Hubbard of the Council for Responsible Genetics says the gay hype over genetics "is due to the fact that there is money to be made through biotechnology." And she adds: "There's no such thing as a gay gene. It is a waste of time and money" to look for one.

So why are researchers looking for one?

If gays can prove that homosexuality is genetic, there would be, they believe, no excuse for making moral distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual behavior. But wait a minute: Suppose there was a genetic connection. Would that justify gay "marriage"? It's been established in one study a genetic connection in criminal behavior. Does that excuse crime? Of course not. Or how about a gene for heterosexual behavior? Does that mean rape would be condoned? No! Nor does it mean homosexual behavior is inevitable and acceptable. We are more than the sum of our genes.

On April 10, gay groups will celebrate the "Day of Silence Project." They're encouraging students around the country to take a nine-hour vow of silence to protest what they consider inappropriate discrimination against homosexuals. We can expect the press to trot out all the same, tired claims about gay genes, and, therefore, we should just accept as perfectly normal this behavior and give them full rights to adopt children and to marry.

On that particular day of silence, why don't we do what many other Christians are doing and use it to speak out. Tell them about couples like John and Anne Paulk, now on the staff of Focus on the Family. John and Anne both came out of the homosexual lifestyle, married, and raised a Christian family.

We can also tell people about the phony research about so-called gay genes -- and about the truth about how God heals homosexuals through groups like Exodus and Regeneration.

True hope for homosexuals lies, not in a gay gene, but in the Gospel.

For further reading:

BreakPoint commentary, "Genetic Justification: The Search for the Gay Gene," 24 February 1997.

Thomas Schmidt, STRAIGHT AND NARROW: COMPASSION AND CLARITY IN THE HOMOSEXUALITY DEBATE (Intervarsity Press, 1995).

Call BreakPoint (1-800-995-8777) for materials that will help you on this issue.

Support groups:

Exodus International

Regeneration

National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

New Direction for Life

Courage

Kerusso Ministries

_________________________

Clueless: the Media and the Archdiocese of Boston

Last month, Pope John Paul II summoned American cardinals to Rome. The purpose for the summit was, of course, the scandal involving the sexual abuse of minors by priests and the handling of these cases by American church officials.

No sooner was the summit over than many in the mainstream media proclaim that neither the Vatican nor the bishops "get it." Well, there is much to criticize in the way the church has handled this sorry affair, but what's clear is that the Catholic Church's liberal critics are just as clueless as they accuse the church of being.

This cluelessness is best illustrated by the media's handling of the story of the Reverend Paul Shanley. Revelations about the way that the Archdiocese of Boston handled, or mishandled, accusations against Shanley nearly caused Cardinal Law to resign his post.

Shanley has been arrested and charged with molesting at least fifteen boys while serving in the archdiocese. Attorneys for Shanley's victims allege that officials knew about the allegations against him and yet continued to allow him to work in proximity to minors.

Some of the most damning evidence lies in 800-plus pages of documents turned over to lawyers pursuant to a court order. These documents clearly show that the archdiocese was aware of the accusations against the priest.

Failure to respond to this information has many Catholics, like my friend, Bill Bennett, calling for Cardinal Law's resignation. As I've previously stated, as a Baptist, I leave that to my Roman Catholic friends to decide.

But there's more here. One of the victim's attorneys pointed out that the documents show that the officials knew about Shanley's "views on gay love." The documents tell us that Shanley was not only attracted to boys, he publicly advocated sex between adult men and boys. What's more, Shanley attended meetings of what became the infamous North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA.

The attorney's use of the expression "gay love" and the references to NAMBLA point to an aspect of this story that many in the media are intent on ignoring. Rod Dreher of the NATIONAL REVIEW has written, "What we're seeing is gay men who cannot or will not keep their pants up around teenage boys."

The fact is that at the root of these scandals is the homosexual subculture that has grown up among priests, but to say this is anathema to many commentators and reporters. As a result, documents are reported on as proof of misconduct by church officials, but somehow Shanley's promiscuous and predatory homosexuality is scarcely mentioned.

You also see this double-think at work in reports about another Shanley-related document: a letter he wrote to former Cardinal Humberto Medeiros. In it he complained about being forbidden to "[encourage] gay unions" and to give his opinion on the morality of homosexual acts. The letter is cited as proof of malfeasance by the church, but again the issue of Shanley's homosexuality is left out.

George Orwell, of 1984 fame, once wrote that he lived in an age when stating the obvious was the first duty of intelligent men. We live in such an age. We must be prepared to state the obvious: that homosexuality, not celibacy, is the problem in the Catholic church. And we state it even when the media insists on ignoring it, for we must not allow their cluelessness to become ours.

For further reading:

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (Tyndale House, 1999).

BreakPoint commentary no. 020403, "Celibacy and Scandals."

Rod Dreher, "Law Stays Put," NATIONAL REVIEW online, 15 April 2002.

Sacha Pfeiffer and Kevin Cullen, "Ex-priest Paquin held in rape case: $750,000 bail is set for Shanley," BOSTON GLOBE, 8 May 2002.

Garry Wills, "Lies of the Cardinals," NEW YORK TIMES, 28 April 2002.

"Cardinal Law Arrives for Testimony in Abuse Case," NEW YORK TIMES, 8 May 2002.

_________________________

The Marital Matrix: Why "gay Marriage" Is Impossible

The moment she was engaged, Michelle Meako told her intended, "I want a big wedding," and that's what they had. The couple wrote their own vows, picked out a cake, and planned a Canadian honeymoon after a lavish reception. The couple only omitted one detail: a marriage license. They couldn't get one because Michelle and her "spouse" are both women.

Is it unjust for government to refuse to authorize same-sex "marriages"? A growing number of secular commentators think so. How do we respond? First, we have to explain the meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, Princeton philosopher Robert George writes that the matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent -- a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings that marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually -- that is, by acts that are reproductive, whether or not they result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit -- an organic unity achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts have no relationship to procreation and can't unite persons organically. As a result, these acts can't be marital -- which means relationships integrated around them can't be marriages. Same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage. It takes a man and a woman to become "one flesh."

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors are making. "Okay," they say. "That's your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everyone else?"

That's why we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex unions, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people, or weddings between siblings?

Another argument made by my friend Bill Bennett is the impact it would have on the shaping of human sexuality, especially among the young. "Societal indifference," he writes, "about heterosexuality and homosexuality would cause a lot of [sexual] confusion."

When we defend traditional marriage, we're upholding far more than just the Christian definition of matrimony. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. It's the institution that nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. Marriage forms the framework of society's most basic institution: the family.

If supporters of same-sex marriage succeed, marriage would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between any two people based solely on feelings. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be irreparable.

That's why it's so important for Christians to understand the prudential arguments in support of a traditional view of marriage and why it deserves special protection under the law. George's book, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES, will help you do this. You'll learn why even the most elaborate wedding cannot a marriage make -- unless it's between one man and one woman.

For further reading:

Robert George, CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES: LAW, RELIGION AND MORALITY IN CRISIS (ISI Books, 2001).

William Bennett, THE BROKEN HEARTH: REVERSING THE MORAL COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY (Waterbrook Press, 2001).

_________________________

Vindicating the Scouts: Leadership and the Lives of Boys

Jude 1:7

Last month in Dallas, Catholic bishops adopted a set of policies to address the scandal of sexual abuse by priests. The policy "permanently [removes] from ministry" any priest or deacon who has ever sexually abused a minor.

While it remains to be seen whether this policy or any other measure will restore confidence in the church, there's one unjustly maligned group whose policies have been vindicated by these scandals: the Boy Scouts.

In addition to what is being called a "zero tolerance" policy toward wayward priests, the bishops took steps to prevent future abuse. These include the adoption of strict standards of conduct for anyone, lay or clergy, working with children.

If the Bishops are looking for an example of such standards, they need look no further than in the basements of many of their churches. That's because the organization meeting there, the Boy Scouts, has a policy that now looks very good in the wake of the travails of the Catholic church.

To understand why, it's important to acknowledge the nature of the problems confronting the Catholic church. The scandal cannot be understood or worked out without taking the homosexuality of the accused priests into account. Note that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic church involve men and boys. The best way to avoid these problems in the future is to keep sexually active homosexual men away from vulnerable boys.

And that's exactly what the Scouts have been doing. They prohibit homosexual men from acting as scoutmasters. While this policy isn't a complete guarantee against sexual abuse, it greatly reduces the risk and has so far spared Scouting from what has happened in the Catholic church.

And for acting on what most people would regard as common sense, particularly in light of the Catholic church experience, the Scouts have been vilified and even sued. Their right, as a private organization, to determine the qualifications for leadership was barely upheld by the Supreme Court three years ago.

Having won in court, the Scouts are still the object of harassment and boycotts. City governments have banned them from public facilities, and major corporations have withdrawn funding. For many of our elites, the Scouts' policy on gay scoutmasters is the embodiment of bigotry.

This is why you won't see many people in the mainstream media drawing the connection between what's going on in the Catholic church and the Scouts. Their worldview, which tells them that any disapproval of homosexual behavior is mere prejudice, won't allow them to see the connection.

As Leslie Carbone recently pointed out in NATIONAL REVIEW, elites who condemn the Catholic church for putting young boys in danger of sexual abuse are the same ones who condemned the Scouts for refusing to do so. And so they are in the hypocritical position of opposing homosexual priests while demanding homosexual scout leaders.

If our neighbors are going to appreciate how events of the past few months have vindicated the Scouts, they'll have to hear it from us. And let's be fair here: What the media thinks is now good for the Catholic church -- "zero tolerance," no abuse tolerated -- is surely good for the Scouts. Come on, folks -- let's stop harassing the Scouts. They've been right all along.

For more information:

Learn more about the Boy Scouts of America at its website: .

Susan Hogan, "Bishops say new policy does send message of zero tolerance," THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 16 June 2002.

Leslie Carbone, "Hypocrites on Homosexuality," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 19 June 2002.

Robert George, THE CLASH OF ORTHODOXIES: LAW, RELIGION, AND MORALITY IN CRISIS (ISI Books, 2001).

Mary Eberstadt, "The Elephant in the Sacristy," THE WEEKLY STANDARD, 17 June 2002.

Armand Nicholi, THE QUESTION OF GOD (Free Press, 2002).

_________________________

The Louder He Talked of Compassion...

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

Compassion towards those suffering from AIDS has served the homosexualist lobby well. Even those most committed to Scripture's teaching concerning sodomy cringe at the suggestion that AIDS is God's judgement against our culture's sexual immorality--why kick a man when he's down? Sensing the political advantage possessed by victims in our feminized culture, the sodomy lobby's rhetoric has taken America. Christians, desiring to be seen as compassionate, are silent and the battle against sodomy is largely over.

Similarly, the compassion felt towards victims of abuse has been a potent weapon in the hands of those who oppose God's universal law of patriarchy. Having been taught the lie that only men abuse, and that it is patriarchy which causes that abuse, Christians, desiring to be seen as compassionate, are silent and the battle against egalitarian utopianism is largely over.

Now of course, this is not to speak against compassion; rather it is to speak against misguided compassion built upon hidden and false assumptions. Mr. Mouser is absolutely correct, then, when he writes that the accusation that patriarchy is positively linked to abuse is an egalitarian "slander." Yet the slander is not against man, but God, because it is God Who decreed patriarchy.

Emerson said, "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Today it might be, "The louder he talked of compassion..."

So what are the facts concerning abuse?

Abuse is wickedness and the church's leaders must discipline it vigorously because God's reputation is at stake in the marriage relationships of those who claim the name of Christ. To that end many of Prudi's comments are welcome. Still, implicit in some of what Prudi wrote is that abuse is male and this is not true.

Some husbands abuse their wives; some wives abuse their husbands. Some fathers abuse their children; some mothers abuse their children. In fact, a child is most likely to suffer physical abuse first in his life, and to be killed, by a woman. Further, the relationships which have the highest rate of serious physical abuse are those of lesbians.

Here are some of the more interesting conclusions of studies published in scholarly journals on this matter of male/female abuse:

1.Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence. 2.Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence. 3.Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse. 4.Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children. 5.Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children. 6.When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men. 7.Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders. 8.Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women.

Then consider this:

Recent Trends in Spousal Violence - Dept of Justice The U.S. Department of Justice released a study on domestic violence and spousal homicides on July 11, 1994. In this study it is reported that women kill men at approximately the same rate as men kill women in "spousal" homicides. (A "spousal" homicide is a husband or wife killing the other or a homicide perpetrated by a common-law marriage partner on the other partner.) In addition this study also reported that children were killed by mothers in 55% of all parental homicides. The 13th World Congress of Sociology, on July 19, 1994 revealed the average of spousal violence reports by males and females: Husband on wife severe assault occurred at a rate of 2.0%, whereas wife on husband severe assault occurred at a rate of 4.6%, and Husband on wife minor assault occurred at a rate of 9.9%, whereas wife on husband assault occurred at a rate of 9.5%. A rate of 2.0% means that during 1992 there were 20 instances of severe husband on wife assault for every 1000 couples.

Also reported at the conference was the fact that although male on female violence has been slowly decreasing over the last decade, female on male violence is now increasing sharply.

Various Spousal Violence Stats In 1975 and again in 1985, Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles and others conducted one of the largest and most respected studies in family violence ever done. What they found confounded conventional wisdom on the subject: Not only are men just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women, the study showed that between 1975 and 1985, the overall rate of domestic violence by men against women decreased, while women's violence against men increased. Responding to accusations of gender bias, Straus re-computed the assault rates based solely on the responses of the women in the 1985 study and confirmed that even according to women, men are the ones more likely to be assaulted by their partner. There is no question that while men on average are bigger and stronger than women, they can do more damage in a fistfight. However according to Professors R.L. McNeely and Cormae Richey Mann, "the average man's size and strength are neutralized by guns and knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats."

A 1984 study of 6,200 cases found that 86% of female-on-male violence involved weapons, contrasted with 25% in cases of male-on-female violence. McLeod, Justice Quarterly (2) 1984 pp. 171-193. Of every 100 families, 3.8% experience severe husband-to-wife violence, but 4.5% experience severe wife-to-husband violence. (Straus,Gelles, Steinmetz , Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families (1980).

Also this:

1. Lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering. In a survey of 70 homosexual male and female college students, lesbian relationships were significantly more violent than gay relationships, 56% to 25%. In a study of 1099 lesbians, 52% report that they had been the victim of violence by their female partner, 52% said they had used violence against their female partner, and 30% said they had used violence against a nonviolent female partner. In a survey of 350 lesbians, the reported rates of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were all significantly higher in their prior lesbian relationships than in their prior heterosexual relationships

This is why I would caution Prudi against the assumption, implicit in her post, that domestic violence is male. If we are serious about addressing domestic violence, we must think first about how to teach mothers and wives that killing their children and husbands is no way to solve their emotional problems and that it dishonors God.

But to return to my original point, think about the implications of the above statement for this debate over patriarchy in which we are engaged. What would happen if every time the stalking horse of abuse were raised in this debate complementarians responded condemning it, but pointing out that mothers kill more children than fathers, that wives are as violent as husbands, that there is no causative link between patriarchy and abuse, and that while the abuse of husbands against their wives is decreasing in our culture, that of wives against their husbands is rapidly increasing.

(A second post will contain a few citations for those wanting to pursue this matter further. If you're interested in more information, please send me a private email.)

Having said this, though, let me also add that I hope the discussion concerning how to shepherd those suffering from, or committing, domestic violence will continue. The church needs it.

It is my own practice to handle abuse in the board of elders, and when it's physical abuse I believe that the elders ought to require the victim to file charges and have the civil authority act since God gave the king the sword precisely for this purpose. Where the abuse is emotional or psychological, deep involvement in the marriage and home on the part of pastors, elders, deacons, and older church women is necessary, but church discipline ought not to be overlooked if significant progress is not made.

Care needs to be taken not to look to the victim for permission to proceed with the discipline, whether it's ecclesiastical or judicial. This burden ought, I believe, to be carried by the elders.

For instance, in one case in which I was pastorally involved, the elders required the victim (a women in this particular case) to file charges against her husband. Then when the case went to court the elders and pastor stood there in court with the victim, demonstrating their support for both the woman, her husband, and their children. What a relief to all concerned this was, to see men standing with the wife against the husband, and asking the court to discipline the husband.

The entire court was shocked and, I might add, delighted. But more importantly, the husband was brought to repentance.

Faced with this monolithic and deeply compassionate authority opposing his wickedness, without mincing his words the husband confessed his sin to the judge. Further, standing there at the bench the husband acknowledged that he would submit to whatever sentence the judge gave, and that he deserved whatever sentence the judge chose.

It's worth adding that both the husband and wife were active in the church and they both are, I believe, disciples of Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Tim Bayly

| Church of the Good Shepherd

| Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood

------------------------------------------------------------------------________________

Monsignor Explains Remarks on Gay Priests

Roman Catholic Monsignor Eugene V. Clark made some statements in a sermon on Sunday 4/21/02 regarding the controversy of sexual abuse perpetrated by RC priests. Here are some excerpts from the NY Times article:

"According to a written copy of his 15-minute homily that his office gave to The Associated Press yesterday, Monsignor Clark said: 'In some seminaries in the United States, known homosexual young men have been accepted as candidates against every rule of church wisdom and church requirements. One need say no more of this as a breeding ground for later homosexual practice after ordination, and the manifest danger of man-boy relationships.'

"Speaking from the pulpit of the cathedral, where he was filling in for Cardinal Egan, Monsignor Clark called homosexuality a 'disorder' and said that it was a 'grave mistake' to allow gay men to be ordained, according to The Daily News."

However, the flames of criticism soon enveloped the Monsignor and his remarks. Gay Catholics objected, the news media harrumphed, so the Msgr backpedaled today:

"In a three-paragraph statement released by the Archdiocese of New York, Monsignor Clark said he did not mean to imply there was a connection. 'In my homily, I did not associate homosexuals with the illness of pedophilia, although some priests had fallen, sadly, into man-boy sexual relationships,' he said. 'Nothing in the homily implied that homosexuals were, categorically or individually, guilty of any crime.'

"The monsignor said his comments were 'misconstrued and misinterpreted' and noted the causes of sexual abuse by priests are 'complex.'

"'To suggest that I said that there is one cause and one solution to the problem is to grossly oversimplify the situation,' the monsignor said.

"Monsignor Clark added that his homily did not reflect the views of Cardinal Egan and said that he did not consult with the cardinal as he prepared the homily, or yesterday's statement in which he sought to clarify it."

Same-sex Class Sweethearts and Media's Power of Suggestion

According to an Associated Press report Dec. 4, two girls will be listed in their high school yearbook as "class sweethearts" after the superintendent overruled the school principal and said same-sex couples were eligible for the title.

Seniors at Dover High School (Dover, N.H.) overwhelmingly voted to bestow the honor of "class sweethearts" on an openly lesbian teen couple when the yearbook staff conducted its annual survey to name students to categories such as "most athletic" or "most artistic."

Principal Robert Pedersen declared the results invalid because the students were asked to name one male and one female for the honor. "I considered it unfair to change the rules and intent of the balloting after the event," Pederson said.

The yearbook staff decided to eliminate the category of "class sweethearts" rather than award the title to the second-place male/female couple. Students began collecting signatures for a petition before the school superintendent, Armand LaSelva, stepped in, declaring the original results would stand. "Even if there was confusion about the ballot, the senior class members spoke [via their petition]," he said.

The positive attitude possessed by the Dover High senior class toward homosexuality is shared with students throughout the United States. In August 2000, a Zogby International poll found that 85 percent of seniors thought gay men and lesbians should be accepted by society and that two-thirds of those surveyed said gay marriages should be legal. The survey discovered that students are consistently more liberal on gay issues than "older" Americans.

Interestingly, more than half of the seniors surveyed (53 percent) said that gay issues had not been discussed in any of their classes. The Zogby poll raises a question: If students are not obtaining their "liberal" views on homosexuality from "older" family and friends or from school, how or what is shaping their attitudes?

Could popular media, that is overwhelmingly sympathetic to homosexuals and their place in society, be a significant factor in shaping the attitudes of students toward sexuality?

Print and electronic media constantly convey the message that gay is natural, normal and healthy. The power of a repeated message is very real and very persuasive. Just ask the advertising executive of any Fortune 500 company.

A prime example of the media's portrayal of homosexuality can be found in a most unlikely place - a popular sports film.

"Remember the Titans," a movie released in September 2000, is about how a high school football team helps its community overcome racism. The film is based on the true story of the integration of the high schools in Alexandria, Va., in 1971.

The players and coaches of the T.C. Williams Titan's overcome racial prejudice to become a championship team. Their example helps ease the community into a new era of race relations.

Near the beginning of the movie, the Titans are at preseason camp. After a practice a new team member, known as "Sunshine," approaches one of the star players in the locker room and kisses him. All the players are stunned and the "star" reacts violently.

In a following scene, another player, "Petey," attempts to ask Sunshine if he is gay. The exchange goes as follows: "Hey Sunshine, you were just messing with Bertier's mind. I mean it really don't matter, but you aren't really, you know," Petey says. Sunshine replies, "If it don't matter, then what's the big deal?" Petey asserts, "I got to know!" Sunshine calmly retorts, "Gotta know what?"

The key problem that I have with the scene is that it never happened. The real Titans of the 1971 season maintain a website at www.71originaltitans.com. There they answer frequently asked question about the movie. One of the oft-posed queries is whether the locker room kiss occurred. The answer to the question is an emphatic "no."

If the scene is not a part of the "true story" of the Titans, then why was it added? Simply put, the powers-that-be behind the movie were equating homosexuality with race, thus sending the message that being gay is as natural as being black, white or any other race -- and it just doesn't matter.

Expect popular media to continue to convey messages like the one in Remember the Titans as homosexual activists and those sympathetic to their cause seek to shape the attitudes of young people in America. The power of a repeated message is significant. Who knows, perhaps a high school near you will be the next to feature a gay couple as class sweethearts.

_____________

Boggs, whose column appears in Baptist Press each week, is pastor of Valley Baptist Church, McMinnville, Ore.

Homosexual-oriented education spouts error, `confuses children'

A third-grade girl stands before a room full of classmates. The room is silent, and their attention is hers.

For the past few minutes, the teacher has guided the students in a discussion about families. Families, they are told, are made up of all types of people. Gay and lesbian couples are one example of a family.

The girl, named Emily, is there to read an award-winning essay about her two moms.

She begins, “My mothers mean so, so, so, so much to me. I have two mothers. Two moms is pretty nice. Well, it's more than pretty nice. It's really nice. You can't imagine. Although having two mothers is a problem to others, I respect that that's the way they think and I can't do anything about it. I still think that those people think stupidly.

“This once happened with a boy in my class who could not come to my house because my parents were lesbians. One night I called their house and the mother told me their version of the Bible. I stood up for my mothers and knew that many kids of my class were supporting me and calling me to see how I was. I am proud of my moms and enjoy marching in the gay pride march every single year with my moms.”

The teacher compliments Emily on her essay, then leads the class in a round of applause.

Although the above scene may be troubling to Southern Baptists, it's one that is becoming more and more common in America's schools, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary students learned March 5 during a day-long presentation from Focus on the Family. A team from the Colorado-based ministry founded by psychologist James Dobson briefed the seminary community on current issues related to homosexuality, with an aim toward formulating a biblical response.

Troubling video clips, including the one with Emily, which came from the gay education documentary “It's Elementary,” were aired during a session led by Mike Haley, Focus on the Family's director of youth and gender studies, on gay activism within public schools.

“You can see the exploitation of a young life and how the children are being re-educated on the issue of family,” Haley said about the documentary. “... They are teaching as simple fact that homosexuality is just as genetic as race.”

Haley noted that the girl was not corrected for using “stupidly” to describe other children.

“I would hate to see what would happen if any of our children in public schools wrote that people who believe against Christianity think stupidly,” he said.

Haley, warning that homosexual activists aren't simply operating in states such as California and New York, said Christians must first be educated before they become involved.

“We talk over and over about the gay agenda, but I don't believe that many of us in the Christian realm can truly articulate what the gay agenda really is,” he said.

Haley said that activists are trying to incorporate homosexual education in public schools. They accomplish this by equating homosexuality with genetic traits, making the argument that being gay is equivalent to, for instance, being black or white. Once this is accomplished, they spread faulty statistics. Haley said two of the most popular faulty statistics are that 10 percent of the population is gay and that homosexual youth account for 30 percent of all teen suicides. Both stats, he said, have been disproved.

Once school boards believe the false arguments, homosexual activists have won much of the battle, Haley said.

He said the activists have three goals:

- Normalizing homosexuality by desensitizing students.

This can be done, he said, through the use of activist children's books such as “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “Daddy's Roommate.” The latter book is the story of a boy whose parents are divorced. His father lives with a homosexual partner. The boy asks his mother what gay is, and she responds by saying, “Being gay is just another kind of love.”

But de-sensitization can be more discrete, Haley said. In one school, a teacher came into a class and played the song “Circle of Life” from the popular children's movie “The Lion King.”

“Then they go in to educate the children about how Elton John is gay, and about [how] he sings that song,” Haley said. “Their parents have probably taken them to this movie and condoned this movie, and they're sitting in a kindergarten class and they learn that the song is from a movie that they sat and watched with their parents.”

- Equating homosexuality to heterosexuality.

Haley played another clip from “It's Elementary” in which a homosexual teacher told a gathering of young children - some appearing to be as young as 5 or 6 - how great he felt when he told people he was homosexual.

Alluding to one blond-haired boy in the clip, Haley said, “You can imagine what goes on when he goes home and says to his mom and dad, `We studied homosexuality today and I learned what gay was. Mom, what is gay?’ Parents' typical response to a child that age is, `Well, honey, that's when boys like boys and they don't like girls, and when girls like girls and they don't like boys.'“

However, that is the wrong response, Haley said.

“Think about the developmental age of that child that's there. It's the `cootie' stage. That little boy likes boys and doesn't like girls and wants nothing to do with little girls. You can already imagine the amount of confusion that's starting.

“We're getting calls at Focus on the Family from parents saying, `My daughter came home today at the age of 8 proclaiming that she realized today that she was a lesbian because she realized that she likes girls and she doesn't like boys.'

“It's truly devastating what's happening across our country” regarding children's' education,” Haley said.

- Undermining parental moral authority.

“This is where the school district is going to tell you as a Christian parent that they believe that they know what's best to teach your child,” Haley said.

He played a video clip of a group of teachers discussing an upcoming “Gay and Lesbian Pride Day” at school.

One of the teachers, obviously nervous about what she was being asked to teach, asked the group, “As a school, are we saying that kids have to support this? That's what it sounds like to me - that we're saying if a child comes from a background that says that homosexuality is not correct, are we telling that child that they're supposed to [support it]?”

The question was batted around before another teacher chimed in: “I don't know if this works for you, but I think that we are asking kids to believe that this is right ... we're educating them, and this is part of what we consider to be a healthy education.”

Haley said Christians must be armed to fight gay activism. That includes de-mythologizing popular statistics, including the error that 10 percent of the population is homosexual. Haley said it comes from a flawed 1948 study done by Alfred Kinsey. Focus on the Family contends that the number should be closer to 3 percent.

The other statistic - that gay youth account for 30 percent of all teen suicides - is just as flawed, Haley said. The statistic came from researcher Paul Gibson and was given further credibility when it was quoted by the Department of Health and Human Services.

But Haley said the total number of all teen suicides in America is less than the number of gay teen suicides cited in Gibson's study.

Haley cautioned Christians from thinking gay activism exists only in California and New York.

“Let me assure you: We're seeing this in more and more school districts across the country,” he said. “They truly are desiring to undermine the fact that God says that homosexuality is not what he intended for mankind. It's a very scary thing, and you and I as Christians have got to take a stand on this issue and begin to realize that there are very young individuals that are being led to a life that is empty, hollow and sad.”

Christians must react to the gay activist with both anger and love, Haley said.

“While watching this can incite a lot of anger in us, I'd like to caution you to remember that while you may become angry - and I hope that you will do something productive with that anger - we [must] never forget that there are lost souls on the other side of that issue that need the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ that you and I have to give to them.”

Christians `shrugging shoulders' at homosexual characters on TV

Christians voiced their outrage when ABC's "Ellen" featured a lead lesbian character in 1997.

That outrage, five years later, has dissipated - even though there are now more than 20 homosexual characters on television, lamented Focus on the Family's Mike Haley, who spoke at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary March 5 during a day-long presentation for students.

"The moral standard is being lowered in regards to issues of sexuality," said Haley, Focus on the Family's director of youth and gender studies. ".We're shrugging our shoulders at the issue of homosexuality."

Haley was part of a team from the Colorado-based ministry founded by psychologist James Dobson who briefed the seminary community on current issues related to homosexuality, with an aim toward formulating a biblical response.

As an example of Christians being desensitized to the issue of homosexuality, Haley compared the fanfare surrounding ABC's "Ellen" and NBC's "Will & Grace." Much controversy surrounded the "coming out" episode of Ellen in 1997. However, there was much less controversy when NBC's Will & Grace premiered in 1998 with a lead male gay character.

"While we had Ellen coming out, saying, `I'm gay, deal with it,' now we have Will and Grace coming out saying, `I'm gay, so what?'" he said.

Quoting statistics from the activist organization Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that tracks the number of homosexual characters on television, Haley said there are 25 such characters on TV.

The shows featuring homosexual characters are NBC's "ER," "Providence," "Will & Grace" and "Friends"; ABC's "Spin City" and "NYPD Blue"; CBS' "Education of Max Bickford" and "The Ellen Show"; FOX's "Dark Angel" and "The Simpsons"; and WB's "Dawson's Creek," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Felicity."

"You can see how many of these shows are geared toward our youth," Haley said.

While the number of homosexual characters this year decreased from the previous year (28), the references to homosexuality increased, Haley said.

"What we realized is now it's becoming so mainstream that the heterosexual couples and the heterosexual individuals on the shows are joking about it and are trying to mainstream the issue of homosexuality," he said.

For instance, Haley said, the female lead character on FOX's "Ally McBeal" had an on-screen kiss with another woman in 1999. However, that same character is not counted in GLAAD's statistics because the organization does not consider her character to be gay.

"While the number [of homosexual characters] is not increasing, the way that the issue is being dealt with is definitely increasing on television," Haley said.

By putting such characters on television, the networks are trying to make homosexuality an accepted lifestyle in American society, he argued, quoting Eric McCormack - who is a heterosexual in real life but plays the gay character on Will & Grace - as saying, "When old ladies out there say, `Oh, I hope he meets a nice man,' that's when we'll know the show has succeeded."

Likewise, the national media has sided with gay activists by making Christian conservatives appear extreme, Haley said. The media does this, he said, by taking extremists such as Fred Phelps and tying them to men such as James Dobson. Phelps regularly leads members of his church around the country to picket gay rallies and funerals. There, they hold up signs that read "God Hates Fags."

"They take individuals like Fred Phelps, marry them together with individuals like Dr. Dobson, (Southern Seminary President) Al Mohler - those that are speaking out on the issue of homosexuality - and make [them] look bad," Haley said. "The media is doing a tremendous job of making those of us that believe that homosexuality is against God's original intent look as if we're hateful, homophobic and bigoted."

The networks want Americans "to shrug our shoulders," Haley said, "and basically be desensitized to the fact that God has said that this is against what he originally designed."

Christians can do much to change the culture - including writing the networks and sponsors - but they must keep the issue in perspective, Haley said.

"While watching this can incite a lot of anger in us, I'd like to caution you to remember that while you may become angry - and I hope that you will do something productive with that anger - we [must] never forget that there are lost souls on the other side of that issue that need the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ that you and I have to give to them," Haley said.

-30-

Author: Church must repent of sin, recommit to evangelizing homosexuals

The Christian church must repent of its past attitude toward homosexuals while at the same time taking the gospel to them, said author and speaker Joe Dallas.

Dallas appeared at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a team from Focus on the Family as part of a daylong March 5 presentation by the Colorado-based ministry. The team briefed the Louisville, Kentucky, seminary community on current issues related to homosexuality, with an aim toward formulating a biblical response.

A former homosexual and gay activist, Dallas now works with men and women struggling to leave the homosexual lifestyle. He is the author of two books and served as president of Exodus International - a Christian organization that ministers to homosexuals - from 1990-93.

"It's an issue that I'm glad to see that we are addressing in the churches," he said of homosexuality. "It was not always so. In the not so distant past the subject was virtually unmentionable in Christian company. Very few subjects provoke the level of offense, emotion, controversy that this subject entails.

"[But] sometimes the body of Christ has a mandate to be controversial for the sake of the truth."

Dallas said the Christian church must:

- Repent of its own immorality.

Before the church calls others to holiness, it must first repent of the immorality within its own body, Dallas said.

"I believe God would call his people to repent of whatever immorality exists within our own walls and recommit ourselves to biblical standards of holiness," he said.

Dallas quoted research by George Barna, which found the rate of divorce among Christians equal to the rate among non-Christians. Dallas also quoted a statistic from Christianity Today that three of 10 pastors interviewed had viewed pornography.

"You see that it becomes ironic when we ask ourselves, `What can we do about the moral condition of the culture?'" he said. "Perhaps more relevant: What can we do about the moral condition of the church? Until we address the moral condition of the church, how we can we hope to address the moral condition of the culture?"

Dallas said there is a lack of authenticity within the church.

"We seem unable or unwilling to admit that we too are sexual creatures who struggle with temptations toward sexual sin - the inevitable result of living in a sexually idolatrous culture," he said.

He made a distinction between sexual transgression and sexual struggle.

"A sexual transgression - a willful act of disobedience - must be addressed sternly within the church, and church discipline is in order," he said. "Sexual struggle is another matter. To some extent, most of us experience it. Too often ... we see tragic results because what is unconfessed and undealt with eventually becomes a bondage that overtakes a man."

Church members should hold one another accountable while also confessing their sin, Dallas said.

"There, I think, we can fulfill James' admonition - `Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another that you might be healed.'

"With that model of vulnerability and accountability, I believe we would have something credible to present to the culture in which we could say, `Yes, we know. It is difficult to struggle with your sexuality, but by the grace of God and by biblical principles of accountability, vulnerability and discipline, we are able to do it. We invite you to do the same.'"

- Repent of hostility toward homosexuals.

Too many Christians have what Dallas called the "Jonah Syndrome." He drew a parallel between some Christians and the biblical character of Jonah who called for the citizens of Nineveh to repent of their sin. When they did repent, Jonah was angry that God did not destroy the city.

"The Jonah Syndrome shows itself when homosexuals are no longer people to us but instead a problem to be solved, an agenda to be resisted, the enemy," he said.

The Jonah Syndrome, he said, was prevalent in the 1980s when AIDS was spreading through the homosexual community.

"There, more than ever, was a great opportunity for the body of Christ to move in and say, `My gosh, what can we do for you? This is tragic. You need food, you need clothing? You need medical care? You need an answer to your fear of death? Provision has been made on the cross. Let us explain that to you,'" Dallas said.

The Jonah Syndrome also emerged in the 1990s, when more effort was spent on defeating homosexual political causes than winning souls in the gay community, Dallas said.

"We were willing to spend millions of dollars to defeat gay political causes, and I am glad," he said. "Frankly, I think we need more. But simultaneously, we could barely squeeze out pennies to support organizations that sought to evangelize and provide healing for homosexual people. The imbalance spoke for itself. ...

"There are more important things than defeating the gay agenda. There are the souls of the people we oppose. Jesus said, `My kingdom is not of this world.' When our political ideology - as important as it is - overrides eternal principles, then our priorities are skewed and we must repent."

- Repent of being intimidated by the homosexual rights movement.

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Dallas said the church is the "conscience of the state."

"Should the body of Christ allow herself to be silenced on this or any social issue, then the state has no hope but to become a sociopathic state, and the conscience of the state will have failed," Dallas said.

The church must continue speaking out because the homosexual rights movement wants all opposition silenced, he said.

"It is not a stretch to say that the most frightening element of the gay rights movement is not its celebration of sexual perversion, but rather it its commitment to silencing all opposing voices - particularly the voices that come from within the body of Christ," he said.

"The movement that has adopted the slogan, `celebrate diversity,' has simultaneously adopted the tactic that says, `Crush the opposition.'"

Dallas mentioned several prominent examples, including homosexual activists' opposition to Laura Schlessenger's television talk show and the Boy Scouts' policy of not allowing homosexual leaders.

"Check any area where the gay rights area has gained a significant foothold and influences the cultural structures of government and education and entertainment," he said. "... Simultaneously with gay ascension you will find severe restrictions on three primary freedoms we celebrate: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience [and] freedom of religion"

That attempt to silence the opposition, Dallas said, could work in conservatives' favor.

"Perhaps our public has largely gone pro-homosexual in its ideology, but Americans still hate hypocrisy and they still hate oppression," he said.

Christians could become involved by writing letters to the editor and calling radio talk shows when homosexuality is the topic. Christians, however, should practice what Dallas called "bold love."

"Bold love is not wimpy," he said. "Bold love is not compromised. In fact, bold love seeks to serve without compromising. Bold love is angry. There is a time for anger, and if we're not angry now we are blind."

Bold love, he said, is angry at the "sinful state and not the sinner."

"Half the message is that homosexuality is part of the human problem," Dallas said. "The whole message is that there is a remedy in the cross."

-30-

Homosexual advocates countered in Salvation Army donation protest

The American Family Association (AFA) of Michigan said it will redeem, in cash, phony $5 bills a pro-homosexuality group plans to distribute to the Salvation Army over the holiday season, CNSNews.com reported Nov. 27.

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG) of Genesee County has vowed to distribute "phony $5 bills" in a campaign against the Salvation Army. The fake bills will be dropped in charity kettles across the state of Michigan, said Mary Scholl, the organization's president.

"It is to let the Salvation Army know that their policies [against homosexuality] are unacceptable, and that we will donate to other organizations instead," Scholl said. "We want to let them know that their policies are hurtful to our loved ones."

The Salvation Army recently rescinded a decision that would have allowed domestic partner benefits for its Western Territory employees. As a result, Army employees are prohibited from including domestic partners, some of whom are homosexual, on their healthcare insurance plans.

Scholl and her husband, Bob, are the parents of a homosexual man and have decided to fight against organizations that believe homosexuality is wrong.

"I do not believe that the love and sexual expression my son and his partner have for each other or any of my friends is any less natural and beautiful than my relationship with my husband," Scholl said.

The AFA-Michigan plans to take steps to counter the fake bills. Gary Glenn, president of the organization, said he would donate a real $5 bill for every phony bill that PFLAG places in the Salvation Army kettles, up to $1,000.

"We hope homosexual activists and their allies will go to the expense and effort of printing and dropping at least 200 phony fives in the kettle this Christmas, as AFA-Michigan is anxious to show at least $1,000 of support for the Salvation Army's work at this special time of year," Glenn said.

AFA-Michigan is also recruiting other groups in Flint and around Michigan to redeem fake bills.

Glenn said that "since it's unlikely those who drop fake donations into Salvation Army kettles were ever actual donors in the past, the local chapter of the over century-old Christian charity will enjoy a net increase in the state.

"What homosexuality advocates intend for harm, with God's grace at this Christmas season, we will turn to good," Glenn said.

Scholl said her organization is not worried about any legal problems that might ensue as a result of distributing the fake money. She said the bills they plan to drop in the kettles do not resemble United States currency.

Their bills more closely resemble a slip of paper with the message: "I would have donated five dollars but the Salvation Army decision to discriminate against gays & lesbian employees prevents my donation now and in the future."

However, one pro-homosexuality group based in Cleveland, Ohio, has printed fake bills that resemble a United States $1 bill. "It is called 'queer as a three dollar bill.' They have taken the dollar bill and changed it to a three," Scholl said. A picture of the bill is currently on her website, but she said she is considering removing it because of its resemblance to real currency.

Glenn said of PFLAG's campaign, "Nothing could be more cold-hearted and callous, especially at Christmas, than trying to advance a political cause by attacking charitable efforts to help the poorest and neediest citizens of Flint."

He said it is understandable for parents to be emotionally compelled to "rationalize and defend" their children's "self-destructive behavior," but PFLAG's efforts to legitimize homosexual behavior are harmful.

"Fully informed parents who truly care about their children's well- being do not enable and validate morally suspect behavior that dramatically increases their children's risk of domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening diseases and premature death," Glenn said.

--30--

Pyeatt is a staff writer with www.CNSNews.com. Used by permission.

Analysis: the Homosexual Agenda - Intolerance On the March

In his classic 1946 book, "Animal Farm," George Orwell coined the phrase: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." That statement, which is now more than 50 years old, sums up the legal objectives of the homosexual activist movement regarding the religious civil liberties of all Americans.

Their prevailing attitude toward religious freedom is succinctly summed up in the following statement by radical homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their manifesto for the "gay" rights movement, "After the Ball": "[In regards to those] who feel compelled to adhere rigidly to an authoritarian belief structure that condemns homosexuality ... our primary objective regarding die-hard homo-haters of this sort is to cow and silence them."

The homosexual activist movement is driving an agenda that will severely limit the ability to live and preach the uncensored gospel, whether it is in the boardroom, classroom, halls of government, private organizations and even in places of worship. In their relentless attempts to obtain special rights -- rights that no other special interest group has -- they are in the process of redefining the family, demanding not only "tolerance" (which really means the intolerance of any viewpoint that does not accept or promote homosexual behavior) but "acceptance," and ultimately seeking to marginalize, censor and punish those individuals who stand in the way of their multiple goals.

To achieve this goal, radical homosexual activists have targeted the church, the family, the schools and corporate America.

OUR SCHOOLS AND HOMES

One of the essential elements of religious liberty is the freedom to pass along one's faith and values to one's children. Unfortunately, millions of Christians are totally unaware of the indoctrination their children are receiving from radical homosexual activists, urging them to reject their parents' beliefs regarding homosexual behavior.

At a 1999 conference held by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN), their director of communications said: "If we do our jobs right, we will raise a whole generation of children who will reject the claims of the religious right." A representative from the National Education Association added: "The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right."

GLSEN, working with lesbian activists and filmmakers Helen Cohen and Diana Chasnoff, has created a video titled "It's Elementary" for schoolteachers and administrators. The video openly promotes homosexual behavior and not only ridicules Christianity, but also accuses Christians of persecuting homosexuals. Featured in the video are many real scenes from elementary school classrooms. In one such scene, a fifth-grader who has been thoroughly indoctrinated states: "Some Christians believe that if you're gay you go to hell, so they want to torture them and stuff."

In another scene, a fourth-grade girl is asked to read to her classmates an essay about her lesbian parents. When she gets to the section about people who have biblical objections to homosexual behavior, she says: "Some people believe in a version of the Bible that says what my mommies do is wrong. I think that is just stupid." The teacher goes on to explain that the essay won an award. Could you imagine calling an individual or a group of people "stupid" when you were in school and what the consequences would have been? Yet, day after day, radical homosexual activists are instilling this religious bigotry into impressionable children.

At a "hate crimes" conference at George Washington University in 1997, former President Bill Clinton told the audience that basically parents were at fault for their children's "bigotry" and that children had to be re-educated. He stated: "Children have to be taught hate" -- the buzzword used by radical homosexual activists and the media for anyone with legitimate opposition to the promotion of homosexual behavior. "We want to teach them a different way. Don't you think you almost have to have an organized effort to do it? There would almost have to be some kind of club or organization at school ... because if you think about it, your parents are pretty well separated."

Their strategy is working. A recent Zogby poll of U.S. high school seniors found that nearly two-thirds surveyed said homosexual marriages should be legal and 68 percent said homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children.

On university campuses, ministries such as Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship are having to fight for their very right to exist. In early 2000, the InterVarsity chapter at Tufts University in Massachusetts was banished from campus for refusing to allow a practicing lesbian to hold a leadership position with the group. To do so would have violated the group's biblically held beliefs on homosexual behavior. They were finally allowed to include adherence to biblical teachings as a qualification for leadership and allowed back on campus, but only after a public backlash.

Nevertheless, the leaders of the chapters were subjected to campus "tolerance" education, leading to this observation by Gregory Fung, the president of the InterVarsity chapter: "We did what they asked us to do. We went to their tolerance classes. You would think the institutions that teach tolerance won't turn around and bite you. But they do. We thought the people who taught all the classes would be tolerant. No way. They were determined to cure us of our intolerance."

InterVarsity's former president, Steven Hayner, noted the increasing hostility to religious freedom on university campuses when he said: "We have had more challenges to our basic right to exist on campus settings during the past two years than in the previous 55 combined. It's not just us -- this is hitting Catholics and Muslims and others. What we are seeing is a growing challenge to religious freedom, period."

OUR LAWS

In addition to the constant attacks on religious freedom, radical homosexual activists are relentless in their drive to redefine the family. This past January, activists in California attempted to launch their most aggressive effort yet when they introduced AB1338, which would have created "civil unions" that were the legal equivalent of marriage. The bill specifically stated that "a spouse in a civil union will have all the same rights, protections, benefits, and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative, or court rule, policy, common law, or any other provision or source of law, that are granted a spouse in a civil marriage."

There was no religious exemption in the bill. Therefore, a Christian employer or ministry could find themselves sued for "discrimination" if they did not recognize an employee's civil union in the same manner they would recognize a traditional marriage.

This bill proved that the pretense of tolerance was over. Radical homosexual activists were now seeking total acceptance, with Christians expected to bow at their feet.

AB1338 died in the State Assembly but only after a public outcry from pro-family citizens. California Gov. Gray Davis has created a task force to "study" the issue of civil unions, despite the fact that California voters passed a constitutional amendment affirming traditional marriage by a 62-38 percent margin in 2000.

OUR BUSINESSES

Homosexual activists have also targeted corporate America as a key player in implementing their agenda. Companies such as Xerox, Proctor and Gamble, Ford Motor Company, Kodak and IBM, among others, were identified as sponsors of the 2001 "Out and Equal Conference," which is a springboard for homosexual corporate activism. At one workshop at the conference, "religious values" were identified as an obstacle to overcome by barring religion from the workplace, erecting another substantial barrier to evangelism.

Xerox and Lucent Technologies, for example, have instituted the "Safe Spaces"TM program. Employees are encouraged to place pink triangles, the sign for homosexual activism, on their cubicles to show their support for the homosexual agenda and to identify those who don't agree by their failure to post the triangle.

Another way that radical homosexual activists have used corporate America is to create domestic partner policies. They readily admit that by convincing corporations to provide benefits for the sex "partners" of homosexual employees, it will increase the pressure on federal, state and local governments to do so as well.

In some cases, the reverse is happening. In San Francisco, the County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, currently being challenged in federal court, that required all corporations doing business with the city to provide domestic partner benefits. The result? According to the homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, of the 4,000-plus employers who presently allow such benefits, only about 1,200 did so voluntarily. The remainder did so because they wanted to continue doing business with the city.

OUR CHURCHES?

So how far can this go? Let us finish with a few examples of what is happening elsewhere and is rapidly being imported into the United States:

-- In Canada, serious limits have been placed on Christian broadcasters who take a biblical stand against homosexual behavior.

-- In Great Britain, radical homosexual activists tried to challenge the charitable status of a Christian organization that spoke out against lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16 (which the homosexual activists won). While the charitable status of the Christian organization was upheld, the ministry agreed to no longer "influence public policy."

-- In Holland, Dutch authorities pondered whether to prosecute Pope John Paul II on discrimination charges after he said that a homosexual advocacy march in Rome was "an offense to Christian values." They eventually stated that the pope had "global immunity" because of his position as the head of the Vatican state, but the very thought of possible prosecution of a worldwide religious leader for his stance on homosexual behavior by another country demonstrates how far homosexual activists are willing to go to suppress religious speech and freedom.

Christians are called, above all else, to "love God and love their neighbor." For the Christian, loving thy neighbor includes introducing them to the life-giving, saving grace of Jesus Christ. The radical homosexual agenda threatens the freedom to carry out evangelistic, charitable and social activities in order to fulfill the biblical mandate to love your neighbor and share the Good News with all.

For years, activists said all they wanted was "tolerance" but now the pretense of tolerance is over. Radical homosexual activists will use their financial and political clout to silence people of faith and the gospel. If God's people and God's church do not take a clear, uncompromised stand, the result will be that with each passing generation the freedom to live and practice Christian faith and the traditional family will become more restricted and become a remnant of history.

_________________

Alan Sears is president of the Alliance Defense Fund; Craig Osten is national director of Team Communications. They are presently writing a book on the homosexual agenda and religious freedom which should be available early next year. Reprinted from SBC Life, monthly journal of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee.

Analysis: A Challenge of Courage & Compassion - the Church's Response To Homosexuality

1 Corinthians 5:11

The church's engagement with the culture involves a host of issues, controversies and decisions -- but no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle. Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns.

Within a few short years a major dividing line has become evident -- with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other.

The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure.

The Southern Baptist Convention is one of the crucial holdouts resisting the homosexual revolution. Resolutions adopted by the SBC send a very clear message of biblical conviction. Our Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is a stalwart voice for biblical morality. The denomination's six seminaries, mission boards and other entities uphold a biblical standard in teaching, publications and appointments. Furthermore, the convention has acted to refuse seating to messengers from any church approving of homosexuality. So, the SBC can rest assured that our part of the battle is won -- right?

Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.

Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality -- and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.

The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender -- what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in his sight.

Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of denominations, seminaries and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined.

And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well -- compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.

Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love -- and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

In far too many cases, the options seem reduced to these -- liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love. Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The gospel is for sinners -- and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As the apostle Paul explained to the Corinthian church, Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 5:11).

I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin -- even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.

If we are really a gospel people, if we really love homosexuals as other sinners, then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, "We want you to know the fullness of God's plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together."

This concern led Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to do something out of the ordinary. Recently, we canceled classes for a day and required all on-campus students to attend a one-day intensive seminar on homosexuality. It was a no-holds-barred confrontation with the issue, an eye-opening expose to students who thought they had the issue figured out already. It was a life-changing experience we will not forget.

Our partners in this effort were specialists from Focus on the Family. Dr. James Dobson, the organization's president, has demonstrated rare courage in not only teaching the truth about homosexuality, but by developing effective ministries that show what Christian compassion is all about. This team included experts who provided the quality of information that demands attention. The content was shocking. Our students saw what is really going on in the public schools and the media. They saw the homosexual agenda at work.

Alan Sears, president of the Alliance Defense Fund, an attorney and leading religious liberty expert, warned of the legal advances made by the homosexual activists in the courts, the legislatures and the workplace. The Orwellian concept of "hate speech" was shown to be one of the effective levers of homosexual power.

These presentations were effective and compelling, but the most emotionally charged dimension of the whole event came when the students heard from three men involved in ministry to homosexuals -- and all three had come out of the homosexual lifestyle. They spoke honestly of the deep and enduring struggles they experienced as they fought -- and fight -- this pattern of sin. Their candor was another demonstration of courage.

Such were some of you ... The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.

We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a gospel crisis. The genuine body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony -- and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

_________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Reprinted from SBC Life, monthly journal of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee.

Homosexual Group's Biblical Gymnastics

Jude 1:7

The United Federation of Metropolitan Community Churches -- an organization comprised primarily of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender ministers and congregants, was founded in Los Angeles in 1968 by defrocked Pentecostal minister Troy Perry. The federation has at its core the belief that homosexuality is a God-given, God-accepted lifestyle. The federation claims 300 churches and 40,000 members in the United States and 17 other countries.

You may be wondering -- I, too, have scratched my head more than once over this -- how this "denomination" can claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that sex is only sinful "when we exploit or use another person, abandoning the ways of love."

If you are daring enough to point to a passage of Scripture that you believe speaks against homosexuality, members of the federation will huff, "Ah, poor, unenlightened soul. That's just what you've always been taught. Let me tell you what the Bible really says."

The pro-gay and lesbian federation's website contains their statement of faith, their denomination's history and a section called "The Bible," a flurry of arguments that attempt to leap over the wall of moral decency built into orthodox Christianity. Before addressing statements about homosexuality in the Bible, the federation proposes two presuppositions.

The Bible must first, they say, be read in context. Second, those who read it must realize that "translating requires interpretation and personal judgment" because the Bible began as oral tradition and was copied and re-copied in the original languages. They then conclude, "Even with the best intentions, translators and copyists are quite capable of error."

What are some of the errors? You don't have to look far to find them, according to the federation.

For example, Genesis 19:1-28, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, should not be misinterpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. The federation claims the Sodomites were guilty of the grave sin of idolatry, according to a supporting text, Ezekiel 16:19-50. They also claim that the Hebrew verb "yadah," which means to know or understand in an intimate sense, does not indicate that the men of Sodom desired a homosexual encounter.

They argue that the word yadah is used 943 times in the Old Testament, and only on 10 occasions does the word denote sexual intercourse but never a homosexual encounter. That is lie number one.

Judges 19:22-30 closely resembles the story of Sodom. Drunken townsmen want to attack a male guest in the town and "know him" sexually. What determines the meaning, as they say, is the context.

Here the context is a lawless, lascivious society. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, the prophet refers to the "abominable things" or "repugnant things" done by the Sodomites. The Hebrew word "towebah" used is the same word used to describe filthy, loathsome, polluted and unclean conduct, human sacrifice, the sacrifice of unclean animals, engaging in occultism and, yes, homosexuality. In the holiness code of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13), homosexuality is said to be towebah -- an abomination.

Just in case the federation claims that the abomination had nothing to do with improper sexual relationships, take a look at Jude 7. It also refers to the men of Sodom as utterly promiscuous with a strange craving for flesh, and 2 Peter 2:6-10 claims that even Lot was oppressed by "sensual conduct."

Thus, it is clear that the Bible actually says and means that the men of Sodom wanted to have a homosexual encounter with Lot's guests. The Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, indicates the same.

Lie number two is that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality. The federation would have us believe that Paul's words in Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 can be explained away with "fuzzy Greek" or simply reinterpreted in light of modern culture.

For example, neither 1 Corinthians 6:9 nor 1 Timothy 1:10 actually uses the word "homosexual," they say. Well, yes, they do. Both Greek words used in the passages, "malakos" and "arsenokoitai," mean an effeminate, homosexual, male sexual pervert and Sodomite. Both are used in the context of Paul's description of "immorality" among the Corinthians beginning in chapter 5.

It is no coincidence that the federation expends most of its energy defending its own doctrine against the obvious condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1.

They argue that the passage condemns homosexuality for those who are created heterosexual but not for those created homosexual. It would be as great a sin, they say, for a created homosexual to practice heterosexual behavior. Paul did write that part of the punishment for such behavior was the delusion of thinking that it was an acceptable lifestyle.

The homosexual is only one type of sinner, Paul said in 1 Corinthians, that would be excluded from life in heaven. He or she stands condemned as does the drunkard, the adulterer and the slanderer. The gospel's good news, however, is that Christ redeems and changes human beings -- even homosexuals. After all, Paul wrote, "some of these things you once were."

But that's just Paul, according to the federation. Jesus, they say, never spoke of homosexuality.

I know it's simple. He never spoke of it because it had long since been declared sinful by the inspired Word of God. His audience also was comprised of men and women who knew that the door to such abhorrent behavior as homosexuality should remained tightly latched and opened under no circumstance. To open it would invite the destruction of Sodom.

_________________

Gregory Tomlin is news director at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

Hormones First: How To Win the Culture War

For many newlyweds, seeing their wedding announcement in the pages of the NEW YORK TIMES is the ultimate seal of approval. It's synonymous with "accomplished" and "newsworthy."

That's why a recent change in the NEW YORK TIMES's policy about what kind of "wedding announcements" will be featured in the Grey Lady's pages is itself newsworthy.

The paper announced that, beginning in September, the heading "Weddings" in the Sunday Style section will be changed to "Weddings/Celebrations." The change will allow the newspaper to put same-sex unions on the same social footing as heterosexual marriages.

According to Howell Raines, the newspaper's executive editor, the change is meant to "acknowledge the newsworthiness" of what the paper calls "a growing and visible trend in society." That trend is "public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples."

To qualify for listing the same-sex couple must either enter into a legally recognized civil union or "celebrate their commitment in a public ceremony."

This decision by the TIMES is only the latest example of a larger pattern of trying to convince people that same-sex unions are essentially interchangeable with heterosexual marriage. According to this argument, insisting that there are important differences is little more than prejudice and even bigotry.

But as Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, tells us, not only are the differences real, but it's gay rights advocates who have placed them at the heart of their identity.

In his new book HOW TO WIN THE CULTURE WAR, Kreeft talks about the "sex war." He recalls a conversation he had with a gay activist. When Kreeft noted the biblical distinction between loving the sinner and hating the sin, the activist rejected the idea. He said that attacking homosexuality is the same as attacking homosexuals.

Kreeft then points out that this identification between homosexuals and their sin is almost unique. Neither cowards nor adulterers would maintain that cowardice and adultery is all there is to them. It is only in the case of homosexuality and homosexuals that making a distinction between person and activity is regarded as a rejection of who they are.

Kreeft then notes that the sad irony is that this bid for equality ends up diminishing gay men and women. Instead of recognizing their inherent dignity and their capacity to rise above their urges and desires, they insist on being defined by whom they sleep with, and often nothing more. As Kreeft puts it, Christianity thinks more highly of them than they do of themselves.

This is a message our culture needs to hear. Kreeft says we can't win the culture war unless we win the "sex war." That's because erroneous thinking about sex lies at the heart of culture wars. It's reflected in the battlefields of abortion, homosexuality, and family.

Winning this sex war means changing the way we and our neighbors think about sex. That requires patience, a willingness to sacrifice and do more than say "no" to sin. We must demonstrate how God's "yes" to sex in its proper context is superior to the "growing and visible trend" the TIMES wrote about -- even if it is not what the "paper of record" would call "newsworthy."

If Your Friend Tells You He Is Gay

Luke 9:52

If a friend confides, "I'm gay," it can precipitate an avalanche of emotions. Your initial and subsequent responses will accomplish one of two things -- distance the friend from you or draw the friend toward you.

Here are five suggestions:

-- EXPRESS GRIEF WITH, NOT ANGER TOWARD, YOUR FRIEND.

"Be angry, and do not sin," Ephesians 4:26 says. Grief and anger are natural; where we often need help is knowing when to express each. Grief is typically expressed alone, while anger is often expressed directly at the gay friend. I suggest you switch these.

Grieve with your friend. "Mourn with those who mourn," Romans 12:15 counsels. Let your friend know you hurt with him, not because of him. Express anger toward the deception in homosexuality. Remember, in most cases your friend has been battling this alone longer than you have known about it.

-- DISPLAY ENCOURAGEMENT, NOT EMBARRASSMENT.

Embarrassment frustrates the healing process. A preoccupation with "What will people say?" should be immaterial. If it is difficult to discuss the issue, remember Richard Lovelace's advice in his book, "Homosexuality and the Church": "Persons who are compulsively uneasy, fearful, or filled with hatred when relating to persons involved in sexual sin ... need a releasing work of the Holy Spirit, freeing their own sexual natures, building in them a sense of security which will permit them to express Christian love while standing firm against impurity" (p. 129).

Jesus was not embarrassed with the woman "at the well"; the one who was "taken in adultery"; and the one who anointed him (John 4 & 8, Luke 7). Jesus, for example, talked with the first woman versus writing her a long letter as some do to their homosexual friends. Neither did Jesus send her a message through another person.

-- COMMUNICATE LOVE PHYSICALLY, NOT JUST VERBALLY.

Recoiling from your friend exacerbates the problem. Why? A component of homosexuality is an inability to develop appropriate same-sex friendships. Place a firm hand on your friend's shoulder; give him or her a bear hug.

As I have said repeatedly, when I see Christ face to face I am not going to extend my hand in business fashion and say, "Pleased to meet you."

-- CULTIVATE AN "OPEN-DOOR POLICY" VERSUS A "CASE-CLOSED MENTALITY."

If you communicate, "I refuse any more discussion on the matter," you are essentially saying, "I don't want to hear about your pain and confusion."

Buy good books on the subject and read. Though tempted to give them to your friend, don't, unless you get his or her permission. Homosexuals understandably resent having books dumped on them. If the friend asks you to read something supporting homosexuality, do it; it won't hurt you. What better way to learn of the arguments that condone homosexuality and to be able to respond biblically and compassionately. Reading your friend's literature communicates earnestness and will make him or her more receptive to reading literature you recommend.

Talk with, not to, your friend; resist lecturing. Your friendship is a two-way street; create an atmosphere where your friend could tell you anything and you never blink an eye -- unless it is a time when you and your friend are weeping together.

-- EMPHASIZE BECOMING CHRIST'S DISCIPLE VERSUS "HOW NOT TO BE GAY."

Refuse the temptation to try and convert your homosexual friend to heterosexuality. "All you need to do is marry, settle down and everything will work out" is disastrous advice. Heterosexuality is NOT the goal -- becoming more like Jesus is! As discipleship occurs, the same-sex attractions diminish and in many cases, but not all, opposite-sex attractions emerge.

_________________

Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual, is the director of Cross Ministry, a speaking ministry in Wake Forest, N.C. More information can be found at www.crossministry.org.

Homosexuals, Despite the Assertions, More Likely To Commit Sexual Abuse

Jude 1:7

The assertions sound rational. But they do not prove true.

The assertion, as phrased by a Wichita, Kan., resident's letter to the editor: "Statistically, there are more pedophiles who are married with families."

A stance by Terry Fox, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, against homosexual Big Brothers and Big Sisters working with children and youth, stirred another area resident to write: "The typical pedophile is a white, middle-aged male who did poorly in high school, probably did not go to college and likely lives with a blood relative. They are not homosexual in orientation. They do not prefer same-sex relationships; they prefer sex with children.

"Being gay does not make you a pedophile -- the statistics just don't show that to be true," the writer asserted.

"I have been in the homes of, invited into my home, and talked with many gay men and women, and I can say no homosexual desires or tendencies have been magically transferred to me -- I am still straight," the writer continued. "I have not known any of them to display any pedophilic behavior or desire. I would encourage people to get facts rather than rely on their prejudices before condemning others."

Research, however, confounds the easy-to-make claims.

While a homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, nevertheless there is cause for concern, Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky., and a social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 25 years, stated in a May 2001 article in Baptist Press.

Reisman noted, first, that 17-24 percent of boys are abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls. Then, she noted, since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals.

"You're looking at a much higher rate of abuse," said Reisman, a former university research professor who had completed a study titled, "Crafting Gay Children." Department of Justice data at the time showed the rate of abuse by homosexuals as "off the charts," she said.

An extensive analysis titled "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse" by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, is available on the Internet at www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm.

Dailey, in his study spanning 13 pages and 76 footnotes, wrote, "Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offense. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population."

Referencing "the 10 percent fallacy," Dailey noted, "Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population." Among such studies, Dailey wrote, are those in the journal Demography in May 2000, in the journal Family Planning Perspectives in March/April 1993 and the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1993.

Thus, Dailey wrote, "The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls."

Dailey concluded his article by noting: "For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions -- including those wrapped in scholastic garb -- of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us."

Yet the erroneous assertions abound. In a story that aired on CBS' "60 Minutes" in April 2001, for example, correspondent Lesley Stahl asserted that the FBI and several clinical studies published in reputable journals report that homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse boys.

"In fact," Stahl asserted, "the largest database of child molesters in the country shows that those who molest boys are over three times more likely to be heterosexual in their adult relationships than homosexual."

But Reisman, in the Baptist Press article, pointed to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The study showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men -- while 6 million to 8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1 million to 2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3 to 5 victims for every gay adult.

Questioned about Reisman's claims, however, CBS stuck by its story.

Spokesman Kevin Tedesco said "60 Minutes" staffers spoke with leading sources of information on child molestation, including the FBI, American Psychological Association and several clinical researchers.

The database was assembled by psychologist Gene Able, director of the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Atlanta, Tedesco added.

However, Reisman also cited a past study by Able that found that 150 boys are abused on average by a male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls per heterosexual offender.

In a study published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Able said homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation of girls.

Dailey, in an interview in the Baptist Press story, questioned 60 Minutes' claim that adults who molest boys can even be called heterosexual. "If a man is married and has sexual relations with boys, he's obviously a combination. To say he's heterosexual is an outrage. Overall he's a pedophile. Whether you call it omni-sexual or pan-sexual, he's indiscriminate ... in relationships."

Among the reasons Dailey cited for being concerned about the potential for homosexual molestation of boys:

-- Even homosexual activists don't try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In "The Gay Report" -- a book published back in 1979 -- authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.

-- A 1999 article in the Journal of Homosexuality by Helmut Graupner argued that same-sex relations with minors should be considered a gay rights issue. The article argued that children wouldn't necessarily be harmed by sexual contact with adults.

"We looked at the leading gay travel guide," Reisman also said of her research. "Forty-seven percent of the 139 nations they talked about identified places to find boys. The average heterosexual travel guide is not concerned with finding children."

Bill Maier, a child and family psychologist who serves as psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., recounted in an article in July:

"Children who are involved in [Big Brothers Big Sisters] programs are primarily from single-parent homes. Many of these kids are emotionally fragile and desperate for attention and affirmation from an adult of their own gender. Yet the national board of directors of BBBSA (at the urging of local agencies in New York and New Jersey) has determined that these same boys and girls should be paired with homosexual mentors.

"In light of the ongoing sex scandal involving Catholic priests, the new policy of 'inclusion' by Big Brothers Big Sisters appears reckless and irresponsible," Maier wrote. "Many of the priests charged with sexually abusing children and adolescents have admitted they are homosexuals. They used their position of authority to sexually violate those who trusted them the most. BBBSA's decision to match fatherless boys, starving for male attention, with gay men is a recipe for disaster."

Maier continued, "While gay activists insist there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, the evidence indicates that a substantial number of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners," in findings from the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

"It is also important to note that many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual," Maier wrote. "A study of 229 convicted child molesters found that 86 percent of offenders who molested boys described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

"Themes of adult-child sex are common in gay publications," Maier also noted. "The nation's largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes 'Daddy' s Roommate' and other books that promote homosexuality to children, also publishes books advocating man-boy sex, or pedophilia, including:

-- "'The Radical Case,' which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys, and

-- "The Age Taboo,' which claims 'Boy-lovers ... are not child molesters. The child abusers are ... parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.'"

Dailey, of the Family Research Council, wrote in his analysis that researchers "have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior -- often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys." Dailey cited a study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, for example, which noted that "the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype."

Does God Create Mistakes?

Jude 1:7

Presently in America, it seems that when it comes to sexual orientation, nature -- or God -- does not make mistakes. We are told that men and women are genetically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex, the same sex or even both. It is strongly asserted by those who champion homosexual rights that a person's sexual orientation is in same category as skin and/or eye color. The argument is thus: “God made me gay.”

However, the same people who assert the aforementioned instruct us that when it comes to the issue of a person's actual sex, i.e., the organs an individual is born with, nature -- or God -- does indeed make mistakes. We are told that there are men who are born into women's bodies and vice versa. These individuals are supported in their efforts to surgically change their “outsides,” i.e., plumbing, to match their “insides,” i.e., sexual identity. The argument is thus: “God made me wrong.”

Now I don't think I have to point out the logical disconnect between the two arguments. They simply cannot both be correct.

If God makes no mistakes in the realm of human sexuality, then we must conclude that those who believe they have been born into the wrong body are either incredibly confused and/or terribly disturbed. After all, if sexual orientation is genetically determined and cannot be altered, then surely a person's actual sexual reality is also fixed. At the very least, those who believe they were born with the wrong sexual organs need psychological help in the worst way.

On the other hand, if nature -- or God -- does indeed make mistakes and people are born into the wrong bodies, then we must also conclude that mistakes can occur when it comes to the “hard wiring” of a creature's sexual orientation. Thus, it is valid to assert that simply because homosexual tendencies are alleged to be natural does not make them normal. After all, nature makes mistakes. Hence, we should do all we can to find therapies to assist in correcting the reality of unnatural sexual orientation.

Many people believe that alcoholism and obesity are genetic. Researchers are actively seeking to isolate the genes they believe trigger a person's propensity to overindulge in alcohol and or food. These particular scientists pursue their research not to justify drunkenness or overeating, but to help curtail the unhealthy behavior.

The case that is made for isolating a “gay gene” is not for health reasons. It is certainly not in order to correct aberrant sexual behavior. No, homosexual activists hope to discover a “gay gene” in order to justify homosexual behavior. The assumption those who champion homosexuality as natural and normal make is that if something is genetic it has to be good. However, when the same people come to the defense of a so-called transgendered individual, they argue that nature has made a tragic mistake. So, which is it?

If a Caucasian person asserted that he or she was born the wrong race, would such a person be accommodated? If they said, “Forget my physical makeup; inside I am really black, or Hispanic, or etc....” Would society extend to such a person the status of being a minority? Some would suggest, and I would be among them, that such a person would be in serious need of counseling.

However, given the current climate some would argue that such a person should have the right to live life in accordance to his or her racial perception. How dare society impose racial identity on anyone? Others would even champion the person's right to a procedure to “correct” their skin color. That way, their outer reality could match their inner perception. Some would even assert the government should pay for it.

If the above scenario sounds ludicrous, just apply it to the current debate on sexual orientation and identity. People are no more born homosexual or into the wrong body than they are born the wrong race. Some common sense needs to be applied in American society before we tolerate ourselves into oblivion.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6084]

Are We Free To Believe?: Playing the Sex Card

When Alicia Pedreira's co-workers first told her they'd seen her picture at the Kentucky State Fair, she didn't know what they were talking about. Then she figured it out, and set in motion events that could determine the shape of religious liberty in the twenty-first century.

In the photograph her co-workers saw, Pedreira, wearing a tank top that identified her as a lesbian, was being embraced by another woman. This was a problem because Pedreira's employer was the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. Shortly afterwards, Pedreira was fired because, her employer said, a "homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children core values."

At the urging of friends, and with the support of the ACLU, Pedreira filed suit against the Baptist Homes for Children, alleging that her firing was an act of illegal discrimination. She maintains that if the government can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then Baptist Homes, which receives 75 percent of its funding from government sources, shouldn't be able to do so, either. But the case -- which is expected to come to trial later this year -- will affect more than religious nonprofits in Kentucky.

Pedreira's lawyers say that if they win, they will then go after the parts of the 1996 "Charitable Choice" law, passed by Congress, which allows groups to make "[adherence] to the religious practice of the organization" a condition of employment.

The ACLU isn't the only group taking aim at the religious freedom of religious nonprofits. Liberal groups have urged the President to eliminate what they call "government-funded discrimination" in his Faith Based Initiative.

Of course, there's no serious question that Christian nonprofits would discriminate on the basis of race or nationality. What's being called "discrimination" is objections to homosexual or extra-marital heterosexual sex. The ACLU and others believe that's contrary to the principles of the sexual revolution.

If Pedreira and her allies prevail, an unmistakable message will have been sent: Sexual freedom will always trump religious freedom. And the only way that believers will be allowed a place in American public life is if they're willing to disregard the moral teachings of their faith.

It's hard to overstate how perverse this situation really is. It stands the whole idea of religious freedom on its head. If believers are disqualified from public life because we make moral judgments based on what we believe, then what's the point of the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Equally perverse is what will happen to those being served by Christian nonprofits. The President's Faith-Based Initiatives is already under fire from Christian groups who fear that public funding may compromise their beliefs. Cases like this one only reinforce those misgivings and encourage churches to withdraw into a safe little circle. So then who will do the work these Christian groups are doing? The ACLU? The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force? Don't count on it.

That's why we need to let our neighbors know what is at stake. It's freedom, and it's helping those in need; it's not discrimination that's at issue here. Judges, remember, read the newspaper and often react to public pressure. So we need to rally support with our neighbors for our position -- before the courts set in motion something that will leave all of us a little less free and a lot worse off.

_____________________

For further reference:

Hopgood, Mei-Ling. "Bush Faith-Based Initiative Troubling: Gays Fear It May Promote Discrimination." Dayton Daily News, 8 April 2001; p. 1A.

_____________________

Prom Night 200?: the Ultimate Teen Rebellion

Prom night is here again. A time for music, refreshments, decorations, and corsages. It means floor-length gowns for girls, tuxedos and ruffled shirts for guys. The school prom is a much- anticipated event, where couples can dance, and everyone wants to be with that "special someone" when the soft music begins.

It's a time of transition -- a time of growing up, remembering the past, and looking forward to the future. But prom nights have changed since you and I were kids -- especially with the advent of the "gay prom" on high school campuses this year.

Yes, that's right. Gay proms -- girls with girls, and guys with guys, snuggling and moving their bodies to the music. And events like these are being promoted all across the nation. One gay prom on Long Island this spring promises to draw as many as 150 gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students. Similar events are being planned for Seattle, Cleveland, and New Orleans.

"These proms are establishing that there is a gay community in high school," says Kathleen C. Miller, a member of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The group helped sponsor the first gay prom in St. Petersburg, Florida, last spring.

Some parents object to their sons and daughters attending gay proms, but many have expressed understanding and support. They "view the special proms as an opportunity for their gay children to embrace identities in a way that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago," says Miller.

Gary A. Vegliante, mayor of West Hampton Dunes, New York, says he's "uncomfortable with the idea of gay sex." He believes "gay proms should not take place." "But," he says in almost the same breath, "he could understand why these two [proms] were needed."

Those who attend the Sayville, New York, prom on June 8th will pay $30 a ticket, and join about 150 gay and lesbian students dancing to the theme, "Free to Be." They'll see guys in dresses and girls in tuxedos. Bisexual student Michael Valverde, eighteen, says he's looking forward to it. "To me," he says, "this prom means everyone is accepted. No matter who you are, it is the kind of person you are inside who you can be at this prom."

According to the New York Times, "The proms are a reflection both of the growth in gay identity and the response to it, at a time when gay issues are pervading the culture in a way that they did not in the past."

The leader of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network claims gay proms are an indictment of society, pointing out how we have failed in the past to recognize gays. But Father John Harvey, who heads a spiritual support group for homosexuals in Manhattan (called Courage) says, "It is the sign of the decadence of our culture." And he's right.

Without moral guidance, and without bold resistance from Christian parents and other defenders of biblical morality within the culture, gay proms won't be just a curiosity in the headlines; they'll be a regular occurrence, and one more indication of what happens to a nation that gives up on virtue and moral responsibility.

If we love our kids, we won't let that happen.

For further reference:

Baker, Al. "With Pride and Corsages, Gay Proms Reach Suburbs." New York Times, 23 April 2001.

_____________________

Prom King Thinks She's A He: the Homosexual Agenda

On first reading, the headline about the high school prom in Ferndale, Washington, makes no sense. The words boggle the mind. A second run-through doesn't clear up the confusion. The headline reads: "Lesbian prom king wears crown with pride after ... election." Lesbian prom KING?

A senior girl who claims to be the only open lesbian at the school nominated herself for king "to defy the gender basis" of the traditional contest. The principal declined to oppose the nomination, saying, "We don't want her to be discriminated against."

Which, of course, misses the point entirely.

In a sanely ordered society, males compete with males for special honors reserved for their sex. Females enjoy the same, equal privilege among themselves. Disrupting this order robs everybody of their dignity, privacy, and unique roles.

For example, the intrusion of a boy on the girl's softball team, or a girl on the boy's wrestling team, creates needless social turmoil and sexual confusion. The result is an eerie twilight zone where one must pretend that gender no longer exists, where sexual identity is arbitrary or disposable.

In Massachusetts, school officials tried to preserve order by banning a fifteen-year-old boy from coming to school decked out in high heels, a woman's wig, makeup, and a bulging padded bra. Three times they suspended him for using the girl's restroom.

Incredibly, a judge ruled that the school's policy was "stifling of the plaintiff's selfhood merely because it causes some members of the community discomfort." One transvestite's exalted "selfhood" trumped the collective will of the administration, the student body, and the community. Now that's massive "discrimination."

The gay-lesbian-transvestite crowd wants to smash gender categories and obliterate the social norms within those categories. They say gender is artificial, a mere invention of society. So, they want your school to teach that kids are free to adopt any sexual identity.

It's a militant political agenda aimed at steamrolling all moral opposition to perversion. It's also a sexual agenda. And the more gender confusion teens experience, the more vulnerable they are to the seduction of the movement.

However, no matter how loud the propaganda, the universal truth of creation remains unshaken: In the beginning God created human beings; he made them male and female, by design. God stamped our gender in our chromosomes and coded our unique sex characteristics into our DNA. No surgery, no costume, no amount of paraphernalia can alter our inherent, God-given nature.

Parents and students need to guard creation's order in public schools by strongly protesting the gender-smashing policies and events that would try to overthrow God's natural order. That's what's happening at Ferndale High School, and I salute the valiant citizens who are standing up and saying no. Unless responsible people have the courage to stand their ground, there's little hope of a return to sanity.

And where administrators and school boards won't listen, I recommend that parents think seriously about removing their children from such a degraded environment. In the classroom -- and in the bathroom -- young people need to know they're safe ... protected within the boundaries of the natural created order.

For further reference:

"Lesbian prom king wears crown with pride after ... election." Bellingham Herald, 5 May 2001.

_________________________

Polygamy In the Age of Same-Sex Marriage

This week, for the first time in nearly fifty years, the state of Utah is beginning the trial of a man for polygamy. If convicted, Tom Green faces twenty years in prison. What's interesting isn't Green's guilt or innocence: It's why this particular departure from the traditional family should upset us so much.

Green is a descendant of the original Mormon pioneers who settled Utah 150 years ago. Their practice of polygamy almost prevented Utah from becoming a state. That is, until 1890 when Mormon leaders banned the practice.

But banning polygamy isn't the same as eradicating it. Even after Mormon elders repudiated polygamy, some Mormon men in rural areas continued to have multiple wives. For the most part, state officials turned a blind eye to these violations of state law.

But in the lead-up to the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City next February, Utah officials have begun to crack down on polygamy. In the attempt to "spruce up its image," Utah named a "polygamy czar," and law enforcement is going after polygamists like Tom Green.

Now, Green is an easy target because, unlike other polygamists, he's quite open about his family arrangements. He's been on daytime talk shows and NBC's Dateline with his five wives and twenty-nine children. What's more, several of his wives were under age -- as young as thirteen -- when he married them.

While I have no sympathy for Green or his beliefs, I find Utah's efforts to improve its image ironic. In its efforts to impress Olympic visitors, the state is working to eliminate an "embarrassing vestige(s) of [its] pioneer past" -- a past that once embraced unorthodox views about marriage and family.

But consider the folks Utah is trying to impress. The Netherlands -- home of gold-medal speed-skaters -- recently became the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage. While other European nations haven't gone that far, they have enacted domestic partnerships laws. These laws reject the traditional understanding of marriage and family every bit as much as Utah's polygamists do.

And it isn't only Europe. The winter sports center of the east, Vermont, came close to legalizing same-sex marriages. Instead, it adopted a domestic partnership law similar to those in Europe. Rights and privileges that were only available to traditional married couples are now available to any combination of two people who register with the town clerk.

But why stop at two? Why not three or six? If you explicitly reject the idea that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, why balk at polygamy? If you believe that the family can take on any form that meets the participants' needs, why exclude a family arrangement form that is as old as recorded history? And if the courts say marriage is any combination of people, say a man and a man, by what logic can they say it can't be a man and two women?

They can't! Objections are foreclosed when we abandon traditional understandings of marriage. While Utah has many reasons to crack down on polygamy, it has little reason to feel embarrassed. Given their current attitudes towards marriage, Western societies -- and many in the United States -- are in no position to pass judgment on Utah's pioneer past.

In the end, you see, it's our present -- and not Utah's past -- that really threatens marriage.

Sexual Experience May Change Brain Structure

A U.S. scientist said Thursday that his research showed that sexual experience can change the structure of the brain.

Marc Breedlove, professor of psychology at the University of California (UC) at Berkeley, said he found structural changes at the base of the spinal cord in neurons that control erection and ejaculation in male rats.

"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case -- that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it," Breedlove said in a statement released by UC Berkeley.

Breedlove's findings appeared in Thursday's issue of the British scientific journal Nature.

The findings may challenge beliefs that sexual orientation, particularly homosexuality, is inherited or under the exclusive control of genes.

"It doesn't nullify the notion of a hereditary component in homosexuality," Breedlove said. "To my mind, the scientific literature is clear: there is a genetic factor."

But he said his work suggested that sexual orientation may also be affected by experience.

"You can't assume that because you find a structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You don't know how the difference got there," Breedlove said.

Previous research has shown that part of the hypothalamus, a brain structure associated with sexual appetite and gratification, is smaller in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men, UC Berkeley said.

Scientists had previously inferred that the difference might be inborn, but it could also be the result of experience, Breedlove said.

Breedlove's experiment with male rats compared animals that were sexually active with ones that were not. Castrated and then injected with androgens, all of the rats were equally prepared for copulation, but only half the group had sexual activity.

Those animals were placed in cases with females given hormones to keep them continuously receptive. The others were in cages with unreceptive females and had no sexual activity.

Four weeks into the experiment, examination of a part of the spinal cord that controls muscular activity of the penis showed clear differences between the two groups of male rats.

The motorneurons of the sexually active rats were considerably smaller than in the other group.

"Somehow the extensive sexual experience affected the morphology (structure) of these neurons," Breedlove said.

One explanation is that because smaller motorneurons are more active and fire more frequently, they were being primed for further action, Breedlove said. But it was possible, he added, that the neurons shrank because they were overworked.

^REUTERS@

(untitled)

LESBIAN PASTOR ASSOCIATED WITH UCC

"Loey Powell, the lesbian pastor of a small church in Tallahassee, FL, has been appointed as Executive of the Coordinating Center for Women, which oversees the United Church of Christ's ministry to women and provides resources for women's fellowships in local churches. Christian News" (The Evangelical Methodist, Sept. 1997)

CLINTON TABS LESBIAN NUN FOR WHITE HOUSE POST

"President Bill Clinton, who recently assured homosexual supporters that he would fill at least five White House posts with homosexuals, followed through with his promise by naming former Catholic nun Virginia Apuzzo to run the White House management shop. The 56-year-old Apuzzo, a renowned homosexual-rights activist, becomes one of just 18 'assistants to the president,' taking over the management and administration operation once headed by Clinton pal David Watkins. (Watkins is best remembered for his firing after flying a Marine helicopter to a Maryland golf course." (National Liberty Journal, November 97)

TESTING the FAITH - Student sues college for psychiatric abuse

Student sues college for psychiatric abuse. Sent to mental ward after he objected to play depicting Jesus as homosexual

A junior at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pa., is suing university officials for allegedly having him involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward following a dispute over a play depicting Jesus Christ as a homosexual. According to Brian Fahling, an attorney with the AFA Law Center in Tupelo, Miss., which is handling the case.

Michael A. Marcavage was detained after he "initiated a Christian response" to the university theater department's decision to stage "Corpus Christi," a play that made its debut on Broadway in 1998 and depicts Jesus as a homosexual who has sex with his disciples. In the play, Jesus was eventually crucified for being "king of the queers." When it broke on Broadway, the play received national criticism. Marcavage, a former White House West Wing intern, immediately complained about the play to the dean of the School of Communications and Theater, as well as the president of the university -- whom Fahling said has since left Temple -- when theater officials announced it in the fall of 1999 .

Besides informing those officials of the play's content, Fahling said Marcavage -- in a prepared statement -- admitted posting fliers all over the university "so that all Christians on campus would be aware of this horrible play," and made plans to stage a protest outside the theater when the play opened. In the days that followed, Marcavage said he had a number of meetings with William Bergman, vice president of campus safety, and Carl Bittenbender, director of campus safety.

Though he had initially planned to protest, Bergman and Bittenbender eventually convinced Marcavage that protests might lead to confrontations between rival student factions. Marcavage then agreed to cancel his protest. Instead, he asked officials for permission to stage a Christian outreach to students; Fahling said the university security officials gave him permission for that. Marcavage, in his statement to Fahling, said Bergman promised him a stage would be provided to help him with his outreach program, but later the same day, Bittenbender allegedly called Marcavage to tell him that the stage "might be out of the question."

The campus safety director then asked the student to meet with him and Bergman the next morning at the vice president's office. At that meeting, Marcavage said Bergman told him a stage would be too expensive to provide and therefore, one would not be set up for the outreach program. Marcavage said he then offered to pay for the stage himself, but was again told no -- without further explanation. Exasperated, Marcavage said he then "excused himself, went to the bathroom, locked the door and prayed about what he should do next," AFA officials said. According to the student, Bergman followed him to the bathroom and began pounding on the door, demanding that he open it and resume the discussion about the stage.

Marcavage said he opened the door and "told him that I believed our conversation was over." Next, according to Marcavage, Bergman "physically" forced him back into the vice president's office and "pushed me into a chair and held me with his arm." Fahling said Marcavage asked to leave but Bergman "allegedly refused to allow it." "Attempting to rise, [Marcavage] said the vice president tripped him to the floor," then was "manhandled" to a nearby couch by both men "where they held him down."

Within moments, Marcavage said, a Temple University police officer arrived and handcuffed him. Then, "Marcavage was taken by police ... to the Emergency Crisis Center at Temple University Hospital," AFA officials told WorldNetDaily. According to Fahling, under Pennsylvania law, a person that is involuntarily committed for a psychological evaluation "has to be a clear threat to himself or a clear threat to others," though he and Marcavage deny that the student "in any way" fits the criteria. Fahling said on-site interviews at the university with fellow students who personally know Marcavage -- including one who is a registered nurse and saw him that morning before his meeting with officials -- "indicated that he is not the kind of person" who would engage in behavior requiring a mandatory mental examination.

Yet, at the crisis center, Bittenbender allegedly signed a statement describing Marcavage as "severely mentally disabled"; that he represented a "clear and present danger to others"; that he had "inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on another" within the past month; and that he "has attempted suicide" -- all of which constituted a "reasonable probability of suicide unless treatment was afforded" him. Fahling said Bittenbender concluded his statement by asserting that Marcavage was "in need of involuntary examination and treatment."

"When I was first told about this case, I found it hard to believe," Fahling told WorldNetDaily. "I thought it was something out of the 'Twilight Zone.'" He said that Marcavage was not found to be mentally distressed or exhibiting any behavior that matched the admission statement given by Bittenbender. "He was released three hours later -- and that was largely because it took [hospital staff] a while to get to him." Fahling said Dr. Jose Villaluz of the clinic staff did examine Marcavage "because, per state law, they are required to. But he didn't find anything wrong with him." The AFA attorney said documents provided by Marcavage show that Villaluz noted in his evaluation report that the student was "not in need of involuntary treatment."

Fahling added that when Marcavage was being led out of Bergman's office by police, a university staff psychologist -- Dr. Denise Walton -- was on hand and commented that she couldn't understand why the student was being involuntarily detained. In a separate statement, Fahling said Walton wrote that she had seen "no overt sign that [Marcavage] was about to harm himself or others."

"This is a young man of some substance," Fahling said. "I believe his story is genuine. This kid is solid as a rock." After being released, Marcavage said he tried to file a complaint with the university police department, but was rebuffed and told officers could not take a complaint against Bergman because he "is our boss." While still at the police station, Bergman arrived and allegedly told Marcavage that no report would be filed "because no crime had been committed," the AFA Law Center said.

"His only recourse was to file a report with the Philadelphia Police Department," said the center, but it was unclear if Marcavage made that attempt. However, the student did try to complain through other university channels, but after those also failed, he made the decision to contact the law center and file suit.

"Besides being a college student on the Dean's List, Michael was a White House intern with security clearance, is founder and president of a ministry called Protect the Children, president of his own business, and a volunteer who has worked with Campus Crusade for Christ and gone overseas with Feed the Children," Fahling said. "This is a good Christian kid who wanted to stand up for Jesus, and instead was handcuffed and dragged to a mental hospital as if he'd been seeing pink elephants," he added. Efforts to contact the university were unsuccessful. Fahling did not disclose the amount of settlement Marcavage is seeking. He said Bergman and Bittenbender are named as co- defendants in the suit.

New study sees AIDS rates jump

InfoBeat - June 01, 2001

New study sees AIDS rates jump

By ERIN McCLAM Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA (AP) - Social worker Anthony McWilliams says he sees it every day - a new generation of gays and bisexuals numb from years of endless AIDS statistics and warnings about the epidemic.

"It becomes blah, blah, blah - noise to them," said McWilliams, a counselor for AID Atlanta. "It's just not getting through to them. They need to hear it a new way."

Two decades after the discovery of AIDS, a new government survey suggests gay men and bisexuals too young to remember the disease's explosive first years are contracting it at alarming rates.

The survey shows 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23 to 29 are newly infected each year with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. For blacks in that group, the figures are staggering: One in seven becomes HIV-positive each year - roughly the same infection rate currently found among adults in South Africa.

"The numbers we're publishing right now are more like the findings you see in the `80s than the findings you see in the `90s," said Linda Valleroy, who led the survey for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Left unchecked, the infection rates could lead to a resurgence of AIDS after years of progress to control it.

"We have to stop and take a look at the devastation that potentially could occur among these young men," said Dr. Helene Gayle, the CDC's AIDS chief. "These are precious and important lives."

AIDS prevention groups called the figures extremely disturbing, saying the country needs to devise new ways to reach young adults at risk.

"These are young people who didn't see their friends dying, didn't lose lovers and friends and people who were important to them," said Marty Algaze, a spokesman for Gay Men's Health Crisis. "It's very scary. This is a new generation of people who should know better, but don't."

Health officials were particularly concerned about the infection rates among young black gays and bisexuals, saying the stigma in the black community of having HIV or AIDS may be keeping testing rates low.

The study included nearly 3,000 gay and bisexual men who were tested anonymously for HIV from 1998 to 2000 in Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Seattle.

Government analysts acknowledged the data could be flawed: The men were recruited only at dance clubs, bars, shopping centers and gay-and-lesbian community centers, so the true rates for all young gay and bisexual men could be different.

There are no comparable historical data on infection rates for young black gays and bisexuals.

A CDC study earlier this year found HIV infections disturbingly common in large U.S. cities among gay men of all races in their 20s. That study found that 3 percent of Asians, 7 percent of whites, 15 percent of Hispanics and 30 percent of blacks are infected with the virus.

And a San Francisco study found the rate of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men in that city nearly tripled from 1997 to 1999.

The government's effort to contain HIV/AIDS may be cursed by its own success, CDC analysts said.

New HIV infections have leveled off in America at about 40,000 a year and improved medicine allows AIDS patients to live longer, healthier lives.

"People don't perceive that you get infected and you die in two months anymore," said Phill Wilson, executive director of the African-American AIDS Policy and Training Institute at the University of Southern California.

"There's all these posters around that say you can climb mountains and do whatever with HIV and AIDS. There's not enough messages about the price you have to pay," he said.

Since the discovery of AIDS - first reported in a June 5, 1981, government health bulletin as a strange form of pneumonia - there have been about 750,000 reported cases in America. Nearly 450,000 of those patients have died.

In Washington, Surgeon General David Satcher hailed the nation's HIV and AIDS prevention efforts Thursday, but he called the anniversary a solemn milestone.

"Twenty years into the AIDS epidemic, as a nation and as individuals, we may need a stark reminder that the best way to stop AIDS is to prevent HIV infection in the first place," he said.

On the Net:

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov

Coalition AIDS anniversary site: http://www.20yearsofaids.org

Gay Men's Health Crisis: http://www.gmhc.org

AID Atlanta: http://www.aidatlanta.org

Namibian President Orders Gay Purge

John 8:3

Homosexuals in Namibia were in fear for their safety yesterday after President Sam Nujoma ordered police to “arrest, deport and imprison” them. In an outburst seemingly prompted by figures showing a sharp increase in Namibia's AIDS infection rate, the ageing president said homosexuals and lesbians should be purged from society. Members of the gay community predicted that they would be forced to flee the country, probably to neighbouring South Africa where freedom of sexual expression is protected by the constitution.

Mr. Nujoma told students at the University of Namibia: “We do not allow homosexuality or lesbianism here. Police are ordered to arrest you and deport you and imprison you too.” He blamed “foreign influences” for homosexuality in Namibia, which he said threatened to destroy the nation. Independent legal experts in Windhoek said they were unsure what action the police could take to carry out the presidential order.

Jerry Ekandjo, Namibia's home affairs minister, caused similar confusion last year when he urged newly graduated police officers to “eliminate gays and lesbians from the face of Namibia.”

Ian Swartz, co-ordinator of the gay lobbying group the Rainbow Project, said his office had been swamped with inquiries about emigration. His movement had about 1,000 members but there were “many more Namibians who are afraid to reveal their sexual orientation.”

British Ex-gay Leader Claims Conversion Therapy Futile

John 3:3

The leader of a reparative therapy ministry in the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion that the process doesn't work.

Jeremy Marks, director of Courage, United Kingdom, reached an agreement with parent organization Exodus International giving Courage "sabbatical leave" for at least two years, according to the Exodus site. The break from Exodus -- an ex-gay Christian organization -- will give Courage the chance "to explore its new direction and practice."

That direction, according to Marks, is away from the fundamental goal upon which Exodus is based: freedom from homosexuality. "We are definitely wanting to be separated from the 'ex-gay' label and be more focused on supporting Christians who are gay," Marks said.

Marks' personal experiences as a gay man, as well as a minister who has participated in conversion therapy for more than 14 years, led him gradually to the realization that the process simply does not work. "None of the people we've counseled have converted no matter how much effort and prayer they've put into it. There is much more benefit to the more honest view," he said.

The underlying assumption that being gay is an anathema to being Christian is damaging to most people, he said. "They end up fighting themselves in an internal war."

Marks said his wife of nine years is cautiously accepting of the change in his ministry. In spite of his change of heart about homosexuality, he said he has no intentions of pursuing a gay relationship. "This is because I believe in keeping the vows I made before God, and my wife deserves to be loved, not deserted," said Marks. "Having said that, in truth my orientation has not changed." He said close, affectionate, but not sexual relationships with male friends help him withstand temptation to be unfaithful to his wife. Restraint is not the same thing as denial, he said.

Miracle At Rikers Island: Operation Starting Line

As Christians, we know that no one is beyond the reach of Christ. But if we're honest, most of us have to admit that every now and then we come across someone that we just know will never become a Christian.

And that's exactly what a Prison Fellowship volunteer named Sherry thought when she saw Shelby -- a bizarre-looking prisoner at New York's Rikers Island Prison. Sherry was working with Operation Starting Line, a multi-ministry effort to bring the gospel to every prisoner in America. Musicians, athletes, comedians, and volunteers go behind bars to perform and witness God's love to the most hardened hearts imaginable. Prison Fellowship has been joined in this by Navigators, Walk Thru the Bible, Campus Crusade, Billy Graham, and others.

Well last month, Sherry was part of the team that went to Rikers Island. The atmosphere was tough. The day was suffocatingly hot and the men showed little interest in the program. Many were playing basketball, lifting weights, or talking. But "as usual," Sherry recalls, "When the Lord does something great, it's always in an unlikely place."

As the men filed into the yard, Shelby caught Sherry's eye. He flaunted his homosexuality as he walked past her. He was wearing makeup and a jumpsuit open to the waist. He had done everything possible to make himself look like a woman. Sherry recalls that as he sashayed past her it was "as though he were saying, 'I'm happy the way I am, and nothing you can say will change that.'"

The team sang their hearts out and slowly the crowd began to thicken. Sherry spotted Shelby swaying to the music and thought to herself, "He'll be the last one to listen to the message today."

After the music, team members gave their testimony and explained the plan of salvation. Shelby listened intently -- even moved closer to the speakers. When the inmates were invited to pray the sinner's prayer, Sherry was shocked that among the repentant sinners accepting Christ, there stood Shelby. Afterward, she had a chance to speak with him. He told Sherry that for many years he had lived as a woman, but standing there in the yard praying, he felt a physical change come over him.

"Sherry, please pray for me," he begged as she turned to leave.

You can bet she will. And Shelby won't be left on his own. Through Operation Starting Line, he'll receive spiritual mentoring and career counseling. OSL also works with local churches to match inmates with volunteers once they leave prison. These volunteers help inmates find jobs and continue in their spiritual growth.

It's a lot to ask for volunteers to come into the prisons to do these things; but we know it's worth it. One study showed that inmates who took part in ten or more Prison Fellowship Bible studies were sixty-six percent less likely to return to prison.

Pray for the volunteers of Operation Starting Line as they spread this ministry across the country. And pray for the prisoners as well. Some of these inmates are so cold and tough on the outside, but just like Shelby -- desperately yearning and tender on the inside.

We know that God can convert anyone. And we know that he does his best work in these kinds of places. Conversions like Shelby's are a witness to the power of the cross to soften even the hardest and most defiant sinner.

_________________________

Is the Bible Unclear On Homosexuality?

Jude 1:7

Scripture's teachings on homosexuality are unclear and must be viewed solely through the words of Jesus, thus allowing the ordination of homosexuals, pastor Mark Caldwell and associate pastor April Baker, a lesbian, of Nashville's Glendale Baptist Church told a group of college students April 3, 2003.

Caldwell and Baker spoke to some 90 students at Middle Tennessee State University, giving their views on the Bible's teachings on homosexuality. It was part of weeklong “SpringOut!” events for the university's “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community.”

The controversial church faces expulsion from the Nashville Baptist Association for its employment of Baker, a lesbian. The association's messengers are scheduled to vote on the matter this September.

Glendale claims affiliation with three national bodies -- the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists. The later two are comprised of churches and people that separated from the Southern Baptist Convention during or after the conservative resurgence. The Alliance of Baptists supports the ordination of homosexuals.

During the two-hour lecture -- capped by questions and answers -- Caldwell and Baker gave their views on the Bible. It is authoritative, they said, but it must be viewed as a whole.

“It is wrong to lift ... allusions to same-sex practices ... from their respective context and then lump them all together and proclaim them to be the biblical teachings about homosexuality,” Caldwell said.

All of Scripture, he said, must be viewed through the “justice” and “love” ethical teachings of Jesus.

“The Bible contradicts itself often,” Caldwell asserted. “...The best thing you can do is to try and shine the example of Jesus' life on those passages.”

A Southern Baptist seminary professor contacted by Baptist Press said such interpretations simply underscore the need for recent years' changes within the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Dr. Caldwell's dismissal of biblical authority is one more example of the need for the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” said Russell D. Moore, assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

“Dr. Caldwell's claim that the Bible contradicts itself often is widespread among Baptist moderates, as is his contention that one must 'shine' the life of Jesus on erring passages. This is precisely the kind of twisting of the criterion language of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message that has caused concern among Southern Baptists.”

All of the Bible is “breathed out by the Spirit of Christ” and all of it “comes with the authority of Christ Himself,” Moore said. “Pro- homosexual Baptists are interpreting Scripture through the criterion of another 'Christ' -- the messiah of contemporary liberal politics.”

During his lecture Caldwell gave his interpretation of the verses most often used to oppose homosexuality:

-- Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah). The passage, Caldwell claimed, must be viewed through another verse, Ezekiel 16:49. The sin of the cities was not homosexual behavior, but rather “social injustice and inhospitality,” he said. Furthermore, he said the passages deal with rape and not “consensual relationships between adults.”

-- Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.”). These verses are talking solely about “temple prostitution” and not about “sexual orientation,” Caldwell said.

-- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (“... neither fornicators, nor idolaters ... nor homosexuals ... will inherit the kingdom of God.”). First Timothy 1:8-11 (“... the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious ... for ... immoral men and homosexuals...”).

Pairing these two passages together, Caldwell said they have nothing to do with “sexual orientation,” but instead deal with a man's role within the act of sex. Paul is saying “it is improper for a man to take a passive sexual role,” Caldwell said.

-- Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. ... If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman ... they shall surely be put to death.”).

The verses are simply requiring purity before entering the temple, Caldwell said, adding that inerrantists -- if consistent -- should demand the death penalty for homosexuals.

He also commented on the world “abomination,” saying the Bible uses the word to describe many items and actions. “No biblical inerrantist that I know of is out there picketing Red Lobster for serving shrimp,” he said to laughter.

-- Romans 1:21-27 (“women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural ... the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper...”).

This passage “has to be the centerpiece” of any discussion about homosexuality and the Bible, Caldwell acknowledged.

The writer, the apostle Paul, had a view of sexuality that was “archaic at best. ... Our understanding of sexual orientation is vastly different from that of the biblical writers,” Caldwell claimed. Paul “was addressing homosexual behavior. He knew nothing of sexual orientation” and he was assuming that everyone was heterosexual, Caldwell said. Caldwell's view of Scripture is wrong, Southern Seminary's Moore said, adding that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“There is no 'canon within the canon' with the 'really inspired' words in red letters,” Moore said in a subsequent e-mail to Baptist Press. “All Scripture is breathed out through Christ who is Himself the Word of God. The Old Testament prophets were inspired by the Spirit of Christ (1 Peter 1:11). Jesus promised His apostles that His Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:12-15). This same Spirit, the apostles claim, carried along men of God in the writing of Holy Scripture (2 Peter 1:16). Thus, every word of Scripture is the word of Jesus. It comes with the very authority of God.”

In his remarks, Caldwell said the Bible “does not endorse homosexuality as a lifestyle” and “has nothing good to say about such behavior” but also does not address “sexual orientation,” he said. “The church must take care not to force the ancient writings to answer questions they never address.”

Caldwell asserted that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality or sexual ethics.

“Jesus taught only a justice love ethic,” he said. “... Christ is the central norm through which and by which everything else -- including Scripture -- must be judged,” he said.

But this “does not mean that anything goes,” Caldwell said.

“I have serious doubt that the Bible provides a sufficient sexual ethic ... to deny gays and lesbians full participation in the church,” he said. Inerrantists and those he called “fundamentalists” are “good- hearted” people trying to “protect” God's sovereignty and holiness, as well as the Bible. While their motive is “commendable,” he said there are ways to “protect” God's sovereignty “short of” taking an inerrantist position.

Moore dismissed Caldwell's interpretations, particularly his views on Old Testament law and Romans 1. Moore added that 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 -- “ ... the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment” -- establishes that Paul was speaking the very words of God.

“There is a reason why evangelicals do not picket Red Lobster for selling shrimp,” Moore said. “Acts 10 reveals that the food laws were not part of God's abiding moral law, but were designed to set the people of Israel apart from the other nations during the Old Covenant. These ceremonial distinctives were fulfilled, Scripture tells us, in Jesus Christ.

“The New Testament takes a much different view, however, of God's eternal moral law, a law that recognizes, as Jesus says, that 'from the beginning' God created sexual union to be expressed in a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman,” Moore added, pointing to Matthew 19:4-6 (“... they are no longer two, but one flesh.”).

“Anything other than this is a cruel and damning parody of God's good creation design,” Moore said. “This is precisely why, as Dr. Caldwell notes, the Bible 'assumes we're all heterosexual.’ We were created male and female by God -- a creation God declared 'good.'“

Caldwell's belief that Jesus said nothing about sexual ethics and taught only a love ethic also is wrong, Moore said. Moore pointed to Mark 7:20-23, where Jesus addresses “fornications, thefts, murders, adulterers....”

“It is not true that Jesus never addressed sexuality, nor is it true that He only advocated Caldwell's version of a justice-love ethic,” Moore said. “In full continuity with the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament witness, Jesus rejects sexual immorality as evil.”

Romans 1 is a condemning passage that clearly addresses homosexuality, Moore said.

“It is disingenuous to claim that Paul is oblivious to the concept of 'sexual orientation,'“ he said. “Indeed, Paul does not only condemn the shameless acts of gay sex, but the passions that fuel such things. Paul argues that homosexuality is part of a downward spiral of idolatry, folly and denial of the truth. It is a tragic revolt against the Creator.

“Even so, Paul does not see homosexuality as the end of the road to hell. He proclaims the glorious Gospel that all sinners -- even homosexuals -- can be justified and transformed by the redemption of Christ Jesus,” Moore added, pointing to the “such were some of you” passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Baker began the event by giving her testimony of her life as a “Christian, lesbian and Baptist.” She chose only two of those labels, she said.

Growing up she always felt “different” but did not have “the vocabulary to talk about it.” After college she met a man and they got engaged, only to break it off when it became obvious she did not love him enough to commit to a covenantal relationship, she said.

Eventually, after reading the Bible with an “open mind,” Baker came to the conclusion that she was a “lesbian,” she said.

She said she gets “angry with people who accuse me of not taking the Bible seriously” and then explained her view of Scripture: “I look for deeper meanings and go beyond the words on the page” as led by the Holy Spirit. “To say that I don't believe the Bible is just plain wrong. It's the book that's had the most influence, and continues to have the most influence, on my life.”

She added that the “church has been one of the strongest perpetrators of prejudice against people in the sexual minority.”

At the beginning of the lecture she read several sentences, asking the audience to consider their beliefs. Among them: “There are occasions when a couple could benefit from living together prior to marriage” and “The Bible is clear in setting forth a Christian sexual ethic.”

She then said that, “[T]here really aren't any right or wrong responses to these statements” and that there was room “for a variety of opinion. ... No one has the truth. We're all seeking truth.”

The arguments made by Caldwell and Baker are logical conclusions made by those who have already discounted other teachings of Paul, Southern Seminary's Moore said.

“We should not be surprised to see such arguments used to defend homosexuality,” Moore said. “Key leaders among moderate Baptists have been using identical arguments against the apostle Paul's writings on, for example, male-female roles in the church and the home. This is why there is an increasingly noisy pro-homosexuality faction within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. If Paul is 'archaic' about marriage and the church, then why is he not 'archaic' about gay sex?”

Glendale Baptist, and other like-minded churches, offer a message that amounts to “anti-evangelism,” Moore added.

“Baptist liberalism doesn't just kill churches,” he said. “Sometimes it kills people too. After all, homosexuality is a way that leads only to death. I tremble to think of a young struggling homosexual who may have listened to such preaching. He is given a message of peace when there is no peace.

“He is not offered the transforming word of the Gospel of Christ -- a Gospel that can free him from the slavery to his disordered passions. There are millions in such slavery to sin. Do we love homosexuals? If so, we owe them the truth -- the truth that sets sinners free.”

=====================

Student's testimony provides contrast at 'Bible and homosexuality' forum

By Michael Foust

The testimony of a Christian student who said he is a former homosexual highlighted a two-hour dialogue on the “Bible and homosexuality” at Middle Tennessee State University April 3.

Pastor Mark Caldwell and associate pastor April Baker, a lesbian, of Nashville's Glendale Baptist Church spoke to a group of some 90 students, explaining their belief that the Bible's teachings on homosexuality are unclear. The church may be expelled from the Nashville Baptist Association for its hiring of Baker.

Caldwell spent 30 minutes giving his interpretations of passages that mention homosexuality, concluding that the Bible knows nothing of “sexual orientation” and that all of Scripture should be viewed through the teachings of Jesus. He claimed that Christ had nothing to say about sexual ethics.

During the question-and-answer period, a university student spoke up, asserting that homosexuality is not an orientation but instead a lifestyle. The student, Brandon Farrar, said Christ delivered him from homosexuality.

“I agree with you when you say that Christianity and Christians should not exile people of the homosexual orientation,” he calmly said, addressing Baker and Caldwell. “As a former homosexual, I am glad that my church was so supportive of me when I needed it.”

He said it was not his decision to come out of homosexuality but instead “a conviction from God.” Farrar also disagreed with Caldwell's overall interpretation of the Bible. Referring to ancient Israelite law, Caldwell had said that if inerrantists were consistent they would support the death penalty for homosexuals.

“You are comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant,” Farrar told him. “The New Covenant ... says that we don't kill people. ... We are under a New Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant. ... Jesus came to fulfill the law.” Farrar later told Baptist Press that he is a member of Grace Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, Tenn., and that he was a homosexual until about two and a half years ago.

Responding to Farrar, Caldwell said, “I am pleased that you have a community that is welcoming.” But Caldwell said he hoped churches also would welcome, embrace and not criticize those who believe they are born homosexuals.

One female student, saying she is a “bisexual” Christian, told of having struggled with the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1.

“Paul does degrade it,” she said, crying. “... [But] I believe you're born that way.”

But after hearing Caldwell's presentation, she said, “I feel a lot better about it know.”

A Southern Baptist professor contacted by Baptist Press said churches such as Glendale offer false hope to homosexuals.

“I tremble to think of a young struggling homosexual who may have listened to such preaching,” said Russell D. Moore, assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. “He is given a message of peace when there is no peace.

Glendale Baptist claims affiliation with three national bodies -- the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists. The later two are comprised of churches and people that separated from the Southern Baptist Convention during or after the conservative resurgence. The Alliance of Baptists supports the ordination of homosexuals.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #11375]

God Changed Her Name

My whole family and relatives live in Taiwan. They are either Buddhists or Daoists, so I was very curious about all the spiritual things when I was young. I was involved in lots of things including meditations, doing deep-breathing exercises (chi-kong), worshipping idols, etc. However, it doesn't matter how often or how hard I tried to worship Buddha or practice do chi-kong, I was still very lonely and hopeless.

After I graduated from college, I came to work in Silicon Valley by myself. At the first job, becuase of the politics within the company, I was misled and my managers broke promises with me. Therefore I was so hopeless and filled with hatred toward people.

At the end of December 1998, I cried out with deepest pain in my room. I cried, "Who can help me? Is there any God who can really help me? Is there a God?" All of a sudden, I felt great power surrounding and circling me. Compared to my past experiences in doing chi-kong, this power was awesome and beyond anything I have ever experienced before. I was not afraid of this power at all, but I was stunned at this supernatural power. I wanted to know its origin.

The following Sunday (12/20/98), I went to church by myself. I was late on purpose because I didn't want to introduce myself to anybody at the church. When I walked into the church, I took a seat that was closest to the door. So that I could leave anytime if I felt uncomfortable. However, Pastor James still "caught" me and welcomed me. As I introduced myself, I said that I came to church just because I was confused about the source of this new power I felt.

When we sang the last worship song, I was very touched and moved by the lyrics. We sang, "I will change your name, you shall no longer be called wounded, outcast, lonely or afraid. I will change your name, your new name shall be confidence, joyfulness, overcoming one, faithfulness, friend of God, one who seeks my Face." As I sang, all the lyrics seemed to jump vividly out from the screen up to my eyes. It’s just like someone was standing in front of me and singing this song to my heart. I had never received such encouragement and comfort in my life before, and I could not stop myself from crying. And then Pastor James had an altar call. He invited those who had any needs to come to the altar for prayer. I was hesitant and afraid at the moment. But suddenly, I heard a very gentle, kind and small voice in my heart, "Go ahead." As I heard this, I thought that I must be having some kinds of hearing problems. But the voice came up again, "Go ahead." After I heard it for the third time, I knew it was from God and I could not refuse His calling. Therefore, I went up to the altar and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord on that day.

Since I received Jesus and invited Him to dwell in my heart, I really love to pray. Everytime I pray, I know that He is with me. I can feel His sweet presence, comfort, and strength in me. Most important of all, I am at peace. I know that He has changed my heart and changed my name. I am no longer called wounded, outcast, lonely or afraid. I am called confidence, joyfulness, overcoming one.

America Speaks Out: "Morally Straight" Still Matters

There’s good news to report from the front lines of the culture war, where the Boy Scouts have been fighting for traditional values for many years.

First, Attorney General Janet Reno ruled last Friday that the Scouts can hold jamborees on federal land, even though the Scouts bar homosexuals from leadership positions.

Just five days before the Supreme Court, in a major decision this summer, affirmed the right of Boy Scouts not to hire homosexual scoutmasters, President Clinton issued an executive order barring discrimination against gays. Curious timing. Then he launched an investigation to see if the Boy Scouts should be barred from using federal property.

Shocking! But the witch hunt was short-lived. The news of the investigation leaked out last week and the resulting controversy forced the Administration to beat a hasty retreat. That’s good news.

The other good news — which may help account for the quick retreat — is that Boy Scouts enjoy the overwhelming support of the American people. One poll showed that 56 percent agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Scouts.

In fact, the Boy Scouts are in more demand today than ever. According to a Washington Times report, membership is nearing record levels, with more than 6.2 million participants. That’s a 7 percent increase in just three years. The last time the Scouts had this much activity was back in the early seventies.

But it gets even better. Believe it or not, the fastest growing metropolitan Boy Scout Council in America is in San Francisco — the very heart of homosexual activism. The politically correct power structure there refuses to let Scouts use public property because of their commitment to remain “morally straight.”

But despite the persecution — or maybe because of it — the San Francisco Bay Area Council has 46,300 Boy Scouts, an astounding 28 percent growth rate in just two years.

Commenting on the situation, Scout spokesman Gregg Shields told The Washington Times, “Our mission is to help people’s character grow and to make ethical decisions. We feel strongly that parents want” their children exposed to the “kinds of things Boy Scouts are teaching.”

The experience of the Boy Scouts is a powerful reminder of the disconnect between grassroots America and the so-called elites. Radical homosexual groups have pressured corporations, cities, and charities to drop their support of scouting. The major media have ridiculed the Scouts, and an honor guard of Eagle Scouts was actually booed at the Democratic National Convention. Imagine how those kids must have felt.

Yet the American people have spoken, and the Scouts are blossoming because parents want to teach their sons how to be men, and that means, in part, standing up for bedrock principles regardless of the consequences.

Stories like this are one reason why I remain optimistic in these difficult times. There’s a quiet backlash underway all across America against the moral relativism that has destroyed so many lives. Americans, instinctively, are searching for the things of God.

And just think of the quality of leadership we’ll have when these Scouts, who’ve been trained under adverse conditions, grow up to be men. I say, God bless them all, and God bless Americans for standing with them.

Excommunicated

Leviticus 18:21

Rabbi Joseph Friedman said: “[Sen. Joe] Lieberman violated our sacred Torah by his Senate votes upholding partial birth infanticide and legitimizing homosexuality, which abnormal and unhealthy behavior the Torah strongly condemns as sinful and immoral.”

“A rabbinical court in Brooklyn, New York has taken the unusual step of excommunicating Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential hopeful on Al Gore’s ticket. The New York Torah Court stated that Lieberman caused “grave scandal” for the Jewish religion “by the fact that, while claiming to be an observant Jew, Lieberman has been misrepresenting and falsifying to the American people the teachings of the Torah against partial birth infanticide, against special privileges and preferential treatment for flaunting homosexuals, and against religious intermarriage of Jews.”

“Others thought the New York beth din [“House of Judgement”] decision was appropriate. ‘Joe Lieberman has brought this excommunication upon himself by flatly trying to say that orthodoxy is one way when orthodoxy is the opposite direction of what he said it was,’ said Reverend Lou Sheldon with the Christian lobbying group Traditional Values Coalition.’The partial-birth abortion issue is a bread-and-butter, life or death issue to Orthodox Jews,’ said Sheldon. Creation and pro-creation are vital to the Orthodox Jewish belief system.’” [CNSNews.com, Scott Hogenson CNS Executive Editor, October 23, 2000.]

God says: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed … for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. … Everyone who does any of these detestable things — such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”

“Although they know God’s righteous decree; that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do theses very things but also approve of those who practice them.” [Leviticus 18:21-22, 29-30; Romans 1:32; NIV.] Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore are Southern Baptists, where is the Baptist voice against these two for the same reasons? Face it, Christians have been out-Christianed by Jews.

Sodomy Ruling: Moral Turning Point For U. S. History

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn a Texas sodomy law will eventually be seen as one of the most profound moral turning points in American history, on par with the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion on demand, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told a radio audience.

Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the court's June 26 ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case is a frightening landmark because it establishes homosexual practice as a constitutional right.

Worse, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, it establishes a fundamental right for each person to define his own existence, Mohler said. The result of a legally protected right to self-definition will be that no behavior will ultimately be deemed immoral, he said.

Mohler discussed the ruling on the July 23, 2003, broadcast of his weekly radio show “Truth On the Line.”

“I think we are going to look back to June of 2003 and say that that was when America began to lose all moral sanity on the issue of sexuality,” Mohler said. “And if you have no moral clarity on sexuality, then eventually, you have not moral clarity on anything. Because, if sexuality isn't moral, nothing is.

“I am claiming that this decision will be remembered as being of the same significance as Roe v. Wade in 1973. I realize that is quite a claim, but I'm not alone in making it and I believe I am on pretty solid ground in making that claim because, in terms of America's moral character, nothing is more fundamental than sexuality.”

Mohler said the decision underpins a doctrine that is at the heart of the homosexual rights agenda: the right of persons to constitutionally define their own existence.

Though the U.S. Constitution nowhere sets forth such a right, Mohler pointed to the language in Kennedy's majority decision as establishing by fiat this new “constitutional law.” In penning the majority decision, Kennedy argued that human liberty presumes “transcendent dimensions” that allow absolute self-definition, Mohler said.

Mohler applauded Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a scathing dissent. In it, Scalia warned that the logical conclusion of the court's sweeping action will in time “take root in America's constitutional traditions [so] that eventually nothing is immoral.”

“Justice Kennedy says that [self-definition] is a fundamental right,” Mohler said. “If you have the fundamental right to determine your own existence, then you can certainly have a fundamental right to sodomy, because you can define yourself as a homosexual, of which sodomy is the logical expression.

“Does that seem like nonsense to you? It did to Justice Scalia as well. But this is now the law of the land.”

The decision overturned a 1986 precedent in which the Supreme Court ruled that homosexual conduct is not a constitutionally endowed right. In that case, Bowers v. Hardwick, the court upheld the right of the state of Georgia to forbid sodomy.

Mohler said the fact that the court abruptly overrode this precedent only 17 years after it was set is a clear signal that the court sees morality as having evolved.

“That ['evolved'] isn't a word they used, but that's exactly what they argued,” Mohler said. “The majority of justices said, 'Listen, there once was a time when basically everyone thought that homosexuality was wrong, but we've outgrown that, we've moved beyond that.'

“This court, in its majority, even went on to quote the European court of human rights to make that case. That raises the interesting constitutional issue ... whether the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted in light of European courts. God help us from that. Look at the chaos of Europe.”

Family Values on HBO? - Truth From Unexpected Sources

I don't watch the HBO series SEX AND THE CITY — that graphic television show depicting the supposedly glamorous sexual escapades of four single women in New York. But enough people have told me about it that I'm glad I don't watch it.

Recently, in the excellent English magazine THE SPECTATOR, writer Mary Kenny made an unusual observation: “SEX AND THE CITY means family values” read the title of her article. You've got to be kidding, right? Explicit sex, graphic language, glamorized promiscuity — where do “family values” fit in there?

Well, the truth we can't not know, to use the title of J. Budziszewski's recent book, can pop up in unexpected places — particularly the truth about human nature. We're made for one another, and men and women were created with certain roles. And when we flout them, the way we're made will always come back to haunt us.

For example, the fact that homosexuals desire marriage actually betrays the “lifestyle” they extol. Of course they want to marry and have children — they're human, and that's the way God made us. But two homosexuals “married” can't do that, which is why marriage and homosexuality can never go together. Gay “marriage” has always got to be a counterfeit, and gays know it.

“The 'forces of conservatism' always win in the end,” writes Mary Kenny, “because it is the natural order.” Though moral Darwinists would say otherwise, humans weren't meant to jump from mate to mate, or juggle multiple partners at once, because sex is not a recreational act. It is not, says Kenny, that “brash, competitive, and indeed consumerist” activity depicted on SEX AND THE CITY. Rather, she goes on to say, it's one that “evokes in human beings something both animal and transcendental.”

Exactly. Sex is a procreational act, carrying the weight of life-bearing potential. And it works to promote spousal unity — it's not meant to fulfill selfish desires, and if used for that end, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

And so when we see Samantha on the screen, the most uninhibited character in the show, hopping from one sexual partner's bed to the next, writes Kenny, we cringe. Nobody applauds such self-deprecation. Then there's Miranda, the lawyer and now a single mother, finding fulfillment in motherhood and wanting to cut back on her work to be with her child. She yearns for her child's father and for the stability and commitment of marriage.

Charlotte, the erstwhile WASP who always wanted marriage, converts to Judaism for her husband. And finally, Carrie, the center of the show, sums up the futility of the sexually “liberated” single life when she remarked to a friend, “I'm lonely. I'm really lonely.” Later, at Charlotte's wedding, Carrie tells her, “I wish I had a man strong enough to catch me when I stumble.”

Two ARE better than one, as Ecclesiastes says. We weren't meant to be alone, nor to give ourselves away to anyone and everyone. The way SEX AND THE CITY is ending up illustrates this truth. It tried to portray the glamour of the sexual libertine lifestyle, but it doesn't work — even on TV.

Sooner or later human nature — as created by God — kicks in. And apparently the writers of SEX AND THE CITY found that out.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Mary Kenny, “SEX AND THE CITY MEANS FAMILY VALUES,” THE SPECTATOR (London), 16 August 2003. Note: some profanity.

Gina Dalfonzo, “COMPLICATING THE ISSUE,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 30 June 2003. (Also see “THE ICK FACTOR.”)

Marcia Segelstein, “UNFORBIDDEN FRUIT,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 10 June 2003.

Lee Siegel, “RELATIONSHIPISM,” THE NEW REPUBLIC, 11 November 2002. (You must be a subscriber to access this article, or sign up for a free four-week trial.) Note: some profanity.

J. Budziszewski, WHAT WE CAN'T NOT KNOW (Spence, 2003).

Thomas Hibbs, SHOWS ABOUT NOTHING (Spence, 1999).

____________

Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won

The spectacular success of the homosexual movement stands as one of the most fascinating phenomena of our time. In less than two decades, homosexuality has moved from “the love that dares not speak its name,” to the center of America's public life. The homosexual agenda has advanced even more quickly than its most ardent proponents had expected, and social change of this magnitude demands some explanation.

A partial explanation of the homosexual movement's success can be traced to the 1989 publication of “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.” Published with little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was.

Authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen combined psychiatric and public relations expertise in devising their strategy. Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, argued that homosexuals must change their presentation to the heterosexual community if real success was to be made.

Conceiving their book as a “gay manifesto for the 1990s,” the authors called for homosexuals to repackage themselves as mainstream citizens demanding equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking greater opportunity and influence.

Writing just as the AIDS crisis hit its greatest momentum, the authors saw the disease as an opportunity to change the public mind. “As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care,” they wrote.

Give them credit: they really did understand the operation of the public mind. Kirk and Madsen called for homosexuals to talk incessantly about homosexuality in public. “Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more above board,” they asserted. “Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable bloc -- the most modern, up-to-date citizens -- accept or even practice homosexuality.”

Nevertheless, not all talk about homosexuality is helpful. “And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”

Portraying homosexuals as victims was essential to their strategy. Offering several principles for tactical advance in their cause, the authors called upon homosexuals to “portray gays as victims of circumstance and depression, not as aggressive challengers.” This would be necessary, they argued, because “gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.”

Such a strategy could, they asserted, lead to something like a “conversion” of the public mind on the question of homosexuality. “The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.”

Obviously, this would mean marginalizing some members of the homosexual community. Kirk and Madsen were bold to advise a mainstreaming of the homosexual image.

“In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leather-men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations,” they wrote. “Conventional young people, middle-age women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays.”

Furthermore, “It cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA [North American Man-Boy Love Association], must play no part at all in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims.”

What about the origin of sexual orientation? The success of the homosexual movement can be largely traced to the very idea of “orientation” itself. More precisely, homosexuals advanced their cause by arguing that they were born that way. Madsen and Kirk offer this as candid public relations advice.

“We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay -- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.” Alas, “To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.”

There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to “use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.”

How can this be done?

“This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings,” they wrote. “It also means exposing the inconsistency and hatred underlying antigay doctrines.”

Conservative churches, defined by the authors as “homohating” are portrayed as “antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.”

A quick review of the last 15 years demonstrates the incredible effectiveness of this public relations advice. The agenda set out by Kirk and Madsen led to nothing less than social transformation. By portraying themselves as mainstream Americans seeking nothing but liberty and self-fulfillment, homosexuals redefined the moral equation. Issues of right and wrong were isolated as outdated, repressive, and culturally embarrassing. Instead, the assertion of “rights” became the hallmark of the public relations strategy.

Other principles offered by the authors included making homosexuals look good by identifying strategic historical figures as being hidden homosexuals, and, on the other hand, making “victimizers” look bad in the public eye. Kirk and Madsen suggested isolating conservative Christians by presenting them as “hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged.”

They offered a concrete example of how this strategy could be used on television and in print. “For example, for several seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is shown pounding the pulpit in rage against 'those perverted, abominable creatures.'“ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to heart-rending photos of badly beaten persons, or of gays who look decent, harmless, and likeable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.”

Public relations is now a major part of the American economy, with hundreds of millions of dollars poured into advertising strategies and image enhancement programs. Observers of the public relations world must look back with slack- jawed amazement at the phenomenal success of the approach undertaken by homosexuals over the last two decades. The advice offered by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen is nothing less than a manifesto for moral revolution. A look back at this strategy indicates just how self-consciously the homosexual movement advanced its cause by following this plan.

Those who oppose the normalization of homosexuality have indeed been presented as backwoods, antiquated and dangerous people, while those advancing the cause are presented as forces for light, progress, and acceptance. Conservative Christians have indeed been presented as proponents of hatred rather than as individuals driven by biblical conviction. The unprecedented success of this public relations strategy helps to explain why America has accepted everything from homosexual characters and plotlines in prime-time entertainment to the lack of outrage in response to same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts.

At least we know what we are up against. Biblical Christians must continue to talk about right and wrong even when the larger world dismisses morality as an outdated concept. We must maintain marriage as a non-negotiable norm -- a union of a man and a woman -- even when the courts redefine marriage by fiat. At the same time, we must take into account the transformation of the American mind that is now so devastatingly evident to all who have eyes to see.

The real tragedy of “After the Ball” is that the great result of this is not a party, but the complete rejection of the very moral foundations which made this society possible. In order to address the most fundamental problems, we must understand the shape of the American mind. Looking back at “After the Ball” after 15 years, it all comes into frightening focus.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of KeruxID #26017]

Homosexuality and the Bible -- the Rejectionist Approach

Jude 1:7

Luke Timothy Johnson thinks that the Christian crisis over homosexuality is not really about sex at all. Instead, it “has less to do with sex than with perceived threats to the authority of Scripture and the teaching authority of the church.” In reality the crisis is about both sex and biblical authority, as Johnson himself makes clear.

Johnson serves as Robert R. Woodruff Professor of New Testament at the Candler School Of Theology at Emory University. He is one of the most influential Roman Catholic scholars in the field of biblical studies. In “Scripture & Experience,” published in COMMONWEAL magazine, Professor Johnson presents what can only be described as a rejectionist approach to the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

This rejectionist approach means that Professor Johnson directly rejects what the Bible teaches on this issue, and does so with a boldness shared by few others in this debate. He accepts that “the Bible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrally about same-sex love.” Even as he argues that the church has “never lived in precise accord with the Scriptures,” he suggests that Christians pick and choose which biblical commands they will take seriously. Nevertheless, he straightforwardly acknowledges that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual acts.

He claims that the authority of Scripture and the tradition of the church are “scarcely trivial,” but criticizes those “who use the Bible as a buttress for rejecting forms of sexual love they fear or cannot understand.” In other words, he argues that those who believe that the Bible’s clear condemnations of homosexual behaviors are still authoritative for Christians do so only out of fear or a lack of understanding of homosexuality itself. As he explains later in his essay, he has grown by experience to overcome this fear and ignorance. He now believes that the Bible is simply wrong.

He demands intellectual honesty and says that he “has little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says.” Thus, he dismisses “appeals to linguisitic or cultural subtleties” as intellectually dishonest.

This is refreshing in itself, as we grow tired of seeing revisionist scholars and homosexual advocates try to explain, for example, that Romans 1 does not condemn homosexual acts committed by homosexual persons as “against nature,” but rather condemns homosexual acts undertaken by heterosexual persons. We should appreciate the fact that Professor Johnson, unlike so many others pushing for the normalization of homosexuality, does not suggest that the church has misread Scripture for two thousand years.

No, he directly rejects the Bible’s commands:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject

the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to

another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be

holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal

explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience

thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to

claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in

which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as

well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning

homosexuality -- namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a

symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created

order.

Well, that is about as straightforward a rejection of biblical authority as can be found. Professor Johnson argues that experience -- his own experience and the experiences of others -- represents an authority greater than that of the Scriptures.

He defends his position by arguing that opponents of slavery and the ordination of women found themselves in the same position. “We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts.”

This is where Professor Johnson turns to evasive argument. He offers no sustained intellectual argument on the issues he mentions for moral support (the abolition of slavery and the acceptance of “women’s full and equal roles in church and society”) and he never even asks the most obvious question to be addressed to his argument: If we are to trust human experience as an authority superior to that of the Bible, whose experience are we to trust? He can only mean his own experience and that of others whose experience he chooses to privilege.

In his own words:

By “experience” we do not mean every idiosyncratic or impulsive

expression of human desire. We refer rather to those profound

stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by

thousands of persons over many centuries and across many

cultures, that help define them as human.

What are we to make of this? Professor Johnson will trust his ability to judge the Bible against “profound stories of bondage and freedom, longing and love, shared by thousands of persons over many centuries and across many cultures?” Which stories? Which cultures? Who defines bondage and who defines freedom?

He explains:

For me this is no theoretical or academic position, but rather a

passionate conviction. It is one many of us have come to through

personal struggle, and for some, real suffering. In my case, I

trusted that God was at work in the life of one of my four

daughters, who struggled against bigotry to claim her sexual

identity as a lesbian. I trusted God was at work in the life she

shares with her partner -- a long-lasting and fruitful marriage

dedicated to the care of others, and one that has borne fruit in

a wonderful little girl who is among my and my wife’s dear

grandchildren. I also trusted the many stories of students and

friends whose life witnessed to a deep faith in God but whose

bodies moved sexually in ways different from the way my own did.

And finally I began to appreciate the ways in which my own former

attitudes and language had helped to create a world where family,

friends, and students were treated cruelly.

We should not doubt for a moment that Professor Johnson holds his position out of passionate conviction. That passion comes through every paragraph of his essay. There is no doubt that he is passionately and personally involved in this issue. There can also be no doubt where his argument leads.

His position is by no means unclear. He argues “if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture.”

Thus, the Bible cannot be the Word of God if God must oppose His own Word. We are no longer to submit our experience to the authority of the Bible but instead are to submit the Bible to the authority of experience. The “living God” is juxtaposed to the (presumably dead) “words of Scripture.”

Professor Johnson’s argument leads to disaster. Indeed, it is a disaster in itself, justifying what the Bible condemns as sinful. Nevertheless, his rejectionist approach to the authority of the Bible’s commands is remarkably -- even breathtakingly -- honest. We could only wish that others would be equally honest.

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6750]

Sanctifying the Sin of Sodomy

by Keith Malcomson

Keith Malcomson's sermon addresses the biblical stance on homosexuality, emphasizing the need for repentance and the transformative power of Christ's salvation.

Confronting the Homosexual Agenda 1:10:02

by Michael L. Brown

We must be changed before we can change the world, and we must be holy and pure to be a prophetic voice to our society.

Homosexuality and Scripture 1:08:13

by Peet Botha

The Bible teaches that homosexual conduct is sin, based on passages such as Romans 1:18-32, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Fully Alive & Same-Sex Attraction: The Call to the First Identity 48:56

by Stewart Ruch

The sermon emphasizes the importance of living under the authority of God's Word and rejecting the lie that we are alone, in order to find true identity and freedom in Christ.

Pilgrims Problems No. 1 Homosexuality 45:10

by Willie Mullan

Willie Mullan addresses the biblical perspective on homosexuality, emphasizing the consequences of rejecting God's truth.

Pilgrims Problems No. 2 Homosexuality 45:11

by Willie Mullan

The sermon addresses the biblical perspective on homosexuality and God's judgment, emphasizing the need for repentance and adherence to scripture.

These illustrations have been gathered from many sources over many years and are offered to preachers as a study aid. Each is credited wherever the source is known, and we have made every effort to respect the rights of authors and publishers.

If you hold the rights to anything here and would like it credited differently or removed, please write to us and we will act promptly.