GAY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

What is natural is healthy. What is unnatural can prove very costly:

·       After conducting an extensive study on homosexual behavior, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that those involved in such lifestyles experience a far greater amount of violence from one another than those in heterosexual relationships.

·       CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey is a first-of-its-kind study geared to determine the difference between the victimization of men and women by sexual orientation. The results show that men and women involved in homosexual behavior undergo much higher rates of sexual violence than men and women who are heterosexual.

·       Surprising to many, homosexual women experience more violence than men. According to the study, a whopping 44 percent of lesbians were either raped, experienced physical abuse, and/or were stalked by their intimate partners during their lifetime. Even more shockingly, 61 percent of bisexual women endured such violence from their partners.

·       It is also reported that 37 percent of bisexual women indicated they were stalked, which is more than double the rate that heterosexual women experience from their male partners. Furthermore, the CDC found that 37 percent of bisexual women were injured during the rape, physical violence, and/or stalking that they experienced at the hands of their sexual partners.

·       Tragically, 48 percent of bisexual women who reported that they were raped said that their first experience of being raped occurred when they were adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17.

·       The research also shows that 26 percent of homosexual men experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by their intimate partners. It’s even higher for bisexual men, who experience these types of assaults at a rate of 37 percent.

In light of these monumental costs and many others that had already been widely made known – suicide, depression, substance abuse, STDs, and abbreviated lives – why does the West continue to celebrate this lifestyle and diminish, and even destroy, anyone who speaks against it? Why are the enablers lauded and the non-enablers totally discredited as “homophobes?”

The Gay Agenda and the Loss of Liberty

When the gay agenda gains a foothold, there seems to always be a corresponding rejection of the freedoms of speech and religion. We might suppose that once this agenda has achieved for itself its own liberties that it might assume a live-and-let-live stance. However, this does not seem to be the case. In San Francisco, the gay lifestyle is unrivaled and fully accepted. However, this hasn’t translated into tolerance for other beliefs. Rather, the opposite! Todd Starnes writes:

• The Archdiocese of San Francisco is under fire for demanding that Catholic schools teach Catholic doctrine. It seems the Board of Supervisors is upset over a morality clause that includes language against homosexuality, same-sex marriage and contraceptives. They unanimously passed a resolution rebuking the Catholic Church and demanding the archbishop ignore Catholic doctrine and respect the rights of teachers and students. Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sponsored the anti-Catholic resolution, said the archbishop's policies conflict with the values of San Francisco.

If it is up to SF, no one can hold any other opinion than the opinion of the city Board of Supervisors! This is totalitarianism, and we have seen its fruits in the communistic mass genocides of 100 million in a very short period of time.

Where is the ACLU, the Universities, the mainstream Media? All of these groups not only value but depend on the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of speech. However, they remain silent as long as they are not being threatened.

Instead, they need to learn that the denial of freedom to one group will become denial of freedom to all.

Pastor Martin Niemoller had become one of the leaders of the “Confessing Church” during the Nazi insanity that had taken captive perhaps the most educated nation of the world at that time. He opposed Adolph Hitler and was consequently sent to jail in 1937 and then to a concentration camp for the remainder of the war. Later, Niemoller famously lamented,

• First the Nazis went after the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not object. Then they went after the trade-unionists, but I was not a trade-unionist so I did not object. Then they came after me, and there was no one left to object.

Standing against the Pro-Gay Agenda and its Taunts

Recently, a pro-gay [PG] “evangelical” took issue with my stance that homosexual behavior is a sin. I challenged him to provide just one verse justifying homosexuality. Of course, he couldn’t. Instead, he argued that Christians are hypocrites for judging homosexuality because we don’t judge other sins that the Bible also deems as sinful:

• I'm demonstrating a parallel between homosexuality and women uncovering their heads while praying or prophesying. Both these behaviors are seemingly condemned by scripture. What I can't understand is why you pick and choose only those verses from scripture that address one of these issues while you let people do whatever the heck they want on the other one. You are inconsistent. You select only those scriptures that support your pre-existing prejudice [homophobia]. Why don't you write blog posts telling slaves to obey their masters? That is also clearly advocated in scripture, after all. I don't see why you get to demand that I cite just one verse on your pet issue of homosexuality when you can't cite one verse allowing women to uncover their heads while praying or prophesying… Admittedly there are gray areas in scriptures, but you haven't provided one reason to prove that women uncovering their heads covered while praying or prophesying is a gray area.

First of all, it should be clear that Christians do/should not judge people with SSA (same-sex attraction). We all have sinful impulses! Instead, we must judge behaviors and words as the Bible judges and as Jesus has judged.

Secondly, the issue of women covering their heads is a difficult one. For one thing, it is only found in one set of verses. For another, it’s hard to know what Paul meant by a woman covering her “head” (1 Cor. 11:2- ). Is it with a veil or her own hair? Then Paul further stirs the kettle. First, he claims that the wife is under her husband as Christ is under the Father and the husband is under Christ, but then he adds another element. Although the woman was created for the man, now, the man comes forth from the woman. Frankly, I am perplexed.

Meanwhile, there is no ambiguity regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. It is never given a green-light! Although the PG is correct that we mustn’t discriminate according to our own preferences regarding the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, his charge that the church is guilty of exercising a “pre-existing prejudice” is unsustainable.

However, even if we are using Scripture in a prejudicial/homophobic way, this might discredit us, but it doesn’t discredit Scripture, which is clear regarding its condemnation of homosexuality!

If we are picking-and-choosing among the teachings of Scripture, we have to correct ourselves. We have to also speak against adultery, pornography, prostitution, and even trial marriages.

The PG indicts me for focusing on my “pet issue of homosexuality.” Admittedly, I do speak more against homosexuality than against trial marriages, but there are reasons for this:

1. This is an area where churches are compromising.
2. This issue is incessantly being pushed by the courts, university, and media. Response is therefore imperative!
3. It is a deadly sin. According to the stats, homosexual men’s lifespans are on the average of 20 years less.
4. Christian youth are not receiving necessary teaching to combat the many voices that are claiming that the church is homophobic.
5. The PG agenda has been threatening our freedoms of speech and religion.
6. As a result, many have lost their jobs and businesses for expressing themselves in favor of traditional marriage. Others have experienced vandalism and threats. These need advocates!

Even in this discussion, an “evangelical” PG has used personal attacks to shame and silence. In defense, we must recall that we are required to be a light to the world.

How should a Christian Love a Gay Friend?

Love doesn’t require indulgence or agreement. Likewise, loving a gay friend shouldn’t require us to agree with them. In fact, love often requires disagreement, especially when we see that our friend is embarking on a self-destructive course of action.

A student just sent me this from a pro-gay (PG) source:

• Gay marriages in the Bible include the marriage partnership of Jonathan and David, which was recognized as a sexual partnership by King Saul himself, 1 Samuel 18:21, 20:30, and the marriage partnership of the centurion and his beloved servant, Matthew 8:5-10 and Luke 7:1-10.

• Nongay Christians dispute that any of these Bible celebrities were gay. However, it seems unlikely that in a book like the Bible, which covers four thousand years of human history, that there would be absolutely no gay people. Even the most vocal anti-gay Christians cannot prove that assertion.

Would love require us to agree with these assertions or to determine first whether they are true? Let’s first look at the PG evidence for David’s “gay marriage” to Jonathan:

• Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased.  “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.” (1 Samuel 18:20-21)

How is this evidence that David and Jonathan were married? I guess that this PG source is claiming that the offer of Michal in marriage had followed David’s “marriage” to Jonathan and therefore Michal would represent the “second” time that David would become Saul’s son-in-law.

However, this “second opportunity” represented a second offer of a daughter (Merab) of Saul’s to David, as indicated in the two prior verses!

The next verse the PG offered has nothing to do with a gay marriage:

• Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? (1 Samuel 20:30)

If anything, this verse argues against SSM! If David had married Jonathan, Saul could not blame Jonathan for his loyalty to his “spouse.” Besides, if David became king in place of Saul, Jonathan would then be his co-regent. No problem there for Jonathan!

The case in favor of a SSM is entirely unwarranted, and therefore doesn’t deserve any refutation. However, a student just informed me that he had heard an interesting “interpretation” of the Bible:

• Since we Christians are supposed to love one another, how then can we criticize love between two gays?

Isn’t the gay claim that their SS love is biblical just a matter of interpretation? Is any conclusion about the teachings of the Bible simply a matter of honest interpretative differences? Could an interpretation which concludes that Jesus was the devil be honest or faithful to the Scriptures? Of course not! Such a conclusion could only be regarded as an abuse of Scripture and not its use!

Of course, “love” is used to refer to very different behaviors. We call both sexual intercourse and God’s love for the world, “love.” However, these are very different things. The Bible teaches us to love others. However, it does not teach us to have sex with all others. This would be an abuse of Scripture.

The PG also claims that the Roman Centurion was married to his male servant. What evidence does he offer? Matthew 8:5-10! However, there is not the slightest suggestion of a SSM here! Is this an honest interpretative difference or a dishonest attempt to manipulate the gullible? It should be obvious!

What does love require? Should we enable delusional thinking? Is this love or is it people-pleasing, a desire to be liked even if, in the long-run, it damages?

Faced with Gay Coercion: Fight or Flight

What should we Christians do when a homosexual demands services? This has become a career-threatening choice, as the National Review writes:

• Christian-adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Other cases include a photographer, a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a t-shirt company, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more. In each of these instances, there were plenty of other businesses available that were willing to provide similar services.

Newsperson, Kirsten Powers, a new convert to the Christian faith, does not see a problem here for Christians:

• It’s not clear why some Christian vendors are so confused about their role here. … Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. … Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?

This is a much debated issue today among Christians as we seek to faithfully navigate the new paths etched out by our culture. It raises the question, “WWJD” – “What would please our Savior?”

For one thing, we are not free to violate our conscience even if we are mistaken about the normative will of God:

• So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 4:22-23).

Scripture argues that we have to be true to our conscience. Anything less is sin! Even if we violate what we mistakenly think is wrong, we have violated our relationship with God.

This is all fine, but what if we see a gay person bleeding to death. Are we not supposed to do anything about it if we think that aiding him is wrong? Admittedly, there are principles of truth and objective morality that must take precedence. Jesus’ Good Samaritan aided his enemy, the Jew.

However, this type of case is not at issue here. Instead, it’s usually a matter of baking a cake or photographing a gay wedding. Should the State compel the Christian to comply, or should our Constitutional right to freedom-of-religion preside?

Powers draws a false analogy between Christians ministering to murderers in prison and baking a cake to celebrate a gay marriage. These two are not equivalent. Ministering to a murderer is not the same thing as partaking in the murder or even celebrating it. It’s a matter of ministering to the person and not his actions. However, baking the cake for the gay wedding is supporting something Scripture finds unsupportable.

Similarly, many Christians readily bring meals to gay HIV patients. However, there is a difference here. Bringing meals does not contribute to an act that Christians regard as wrong. In contrast, helping a gay connect with other gays for sexual reasons would. In such a case, this activity would cause the Christian to share in the sin, something we cannot do, and it is something we cannot allow the government to force us to do. Many will choose prison over compliance.

Powers should not be surprised by this reasoning. Would she sell gasoline to Hitler to fuel his tanks? Would she sell guns to a drug dealer knowing that they will be used to kill the innocent? To do such would be to share in their sins.

Would she rent out a room at her B&B to a pedophile and his prey? Wouldn’t this represent complicity in his sin? Of course!

Where do we draw the line? Some cases are difficult; some aren’t. Should the Christian T-shirt maker be required to print a T-shirt reading, “Christ Kills” or even “Go Gay Pride?”  I think not! Such coercion would undermine the integrity of our nation and reject the very principles that had once made it great. It would also violate our sacred relationship with our Savior.

Meanwhile, in other Western nations, churches are being compelled to open their doors to gay marriage. This cannot be allowed! Not only would this represent of violation of the One we adore and His love for His church, it would also divide the church! I pray that we might see what is at stake!

Chambers’ Big Mistake: Only the Repentant can Come to God

Alan Manning Chambers, President of the now defunct Exodus International, made a much-publicized apology to the gay community. Some of his apology was well-directed. He apologized for his vulgar language and deception. He had denied the fact that he continued to struggle against same-sex attraction.

However, some aspects of his apology were troubling and scripturally off-center. Citing Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son, Chambers insinuated that the church is supposed to receive everyone into fellowship, even the unrepentant. Chambers calls this “love unhindered” by any judgment or consideration:

• “From a Judeo-Christian perspective, gay, straight or otherwise, we’re all prodigal sons and daughters. Exodus International is the prodigal’s older brother, trying to impose its will on God’s promises, and make judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom. God is calling us to be the Father – to welcome everyone, to love unhindered.”  

In this parable, the prodigal son had proved himself entirely unworthy of his father. He demanded his inheritance from his father, went away, and spent his entire inheritance on all the wrong things. Subsequently, he suffered greatly, was humbled by his foolishness, and returned repentantly to his father:

• "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.'” (Luke 15:17-19) 

Clearly, the prodigal son was repentant. His father was so overjoyed that he decided to throw him a lavish party. However, his older brother was enraged by the father’s mercy. He thought the prodigal entirely unworthy of all that his father was lavishing upon him.

While, it is true that the prodigal was unworthy, he had returned repentantly to the father – the very thing that Israel’s Prophets demanded of Israel. However, the older brother understood nothing of mercy, convinced that he never needed an ounce of it:

• He answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. (Luke 15:29) 

We all sin and have fallen short of God’s standards (Rom. 3:23). However, self-righteousness often blinds us to our sins. If we are self-righteous, like the older son, it is inevitable that we will judge and disdain others, thinking ourselves better and more deserving than they.

Chambers is correct that we are “all the prodigal sons.” He also claims that Exodus International had played the older brother, making “judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom,” as if some of us are worthy.

Chambers knows Exodus better than I, and so I will not contest his evaluation of his organization. However, he also insinuates that the church, in requiring gays to come repentantly to Christ, is also the older brother.

However, it seems that Jesus Himself requires repentance of any who come to Him. Let’s look at this parable. It is already clear that the prodigal had returned repentantly. This is what it means to return to God. Returning is always a matter of repenting, as the Prophet Samuel required of Israel:

• And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the Lord with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 7:3)

Returning to God without a repentant heart is scripturally unthinkable. It was also unthinkable for Jesus. In this context, Jesus was criticized by the religious leadership for receiving sinners. He responded with three parables, the last of which was the parable of the Prodigal Son. The first also involved something lost:

• "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:4-7)

The “rejoicing” requires “one sinner who repents!” There is absolutely no indication of any rejoicing over a sinner who doesn’t repent. Jesus is responding to the religious leadership to justify the fact that He is associating with sinners who are repentant – something they should all endorse according to Scripture. Had they not been repentant, the leadership could have easily appealed to Psalm 1:

• Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. (Psalm 1:1)

However, since these sinners were repentant, they dared not raise an objection. The next parable relies on a lost coin:

• "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:8-10) 

Once again, the angelic rejoicing depends upon “one sinner who repents.” Consequently, we can’t celebrate when a gay person enters the church professing a faith but refusing to repent. Instead, the church has every reason to call the sinner to repentance before baptism or fellowship can be offered. To do otherwise is absurd. It would mean receiving the unrepentant as a brother but then bringing church disciplinary charges against him.

The final parable Jesus uses to justify his association with repentant sinners is the parable of the Prodigal Son. Instead of using the analogy of a lost sheep or a lost coin, Jesus brings His argumentation closer to home with a lost son. Instead of rejoicing with the father over the repentant son who has returned home, the leadership are scoffing along with the older brother.

We fail to love the gay person as we ought, if we receive them into fellowship, through baptism, without requiring repentance – the willingness and determination to turn from sin. Instead, we are giving them a false hope. We are enabling them to live the life of destruction. We are telling them the very thing that the false prophets had told Israel, the very thing that destroyed them.

The Prophet Jeremiah proclaimed that the true prophet exposed sin and its dangers in hope of healing:

• The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading. (Lament. 2:14)

Instead, the false prophets proclaimed, “Peace, peace!” We cannot remain indulgent about sin. If we fail to expose it, we bear part of the guilt. God had warned His prophet about this:

• "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. (Ezekiel 33:7-8)

We are all “watchmen.” We are all our brothers’ keepers, and we all have His Word. Therefore, we are all accountable.

Contrary to Chambers’ claim of “unhindered love,” sin and rebellion does hinder God’s love and those we love need to be aware of this.