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.

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!