Authority and Human Flourishing

“You’re a slave to that book!” charged one individual on a Facebook page. This response isn’t unusual. It’s reflective of the general contempt for the Bible that I’m encountering all over the blogosphere. The Bible is a kill-joy, the tool of a threatening and over-bearing cosmic policeman. Nor does it seem to matter if I patiently and sensitively try to explain that God sets certain limitations upon us because He loves us and knows what’s best for us. If anything, this type of counsel just turns up the conversational heat. Perhaps, this is because they intuit that a loving God has a greater moral claim upon our conduct than does a robotic, uncaring god.

On top of this, seeking our individual satisfaction and fulfillment, without someone getting in our face about it, has become the general expectation of Western society. Radical freedom, rebellion and challenging authority are the new norms, while those who emphasize any form of obedience are regarded as repressed, mindless twits.

Victor Lee Austin’s book, Up with Authority: Why We Need Authority to Flourish as Human Beings, suggests that “authority” isn’t a dirty word. Actually, it is necessary for human flourishing. This is a strange sounding thesis, since we usually associate authority with the SS and coercion.

However, Austin invites us to understand authority in terms of a symphony orchestra, where the experience of each member is enhanced as they surrender their own individual choices to those of the conductor. Well, couldn’t reason, discussion and democratic decision-making bring about just as good results? Austin argues that there are some things that group reasoning simply can’t accomplish as well as authority. For one thing, some choices are merely a matter of taste. For another thing, performing a symphony requires too many choices. The democratic process would prove quite messy.

There are many examples where authority tends to maximize our own flourishing. I had a short and unhappy stint as a substitute teacher in the New York City school system. Even there, the teacher is supposed to be the authority, but does not have recourse to adequate sanctions to fulfill her responsibilities. Consequently, many of the schools are virtual jungles, where the number one preoccupation of both teacher and student has become survival, socially and physically.

I think that the bulk of the problem results from the fact that the supportive moral scaffolding has eroded. In our schools, it’s rare to hear about unchanging moral absolutes and standards. Instead, young minds have been indoctrinated into the world of “values clarification,” where there is no right answer and every choice is valid. They have drunk deeply from the inkwell of moral relativism, and have been encouraged to think that their parents might not know best. The new moral “authority” instead dictates slogans like “be true to yourself” and “be all you can be.” What we feel has become more important than the exiled idea of truth.

When the schools have to deal with behavior problems, they resort to the reasoning and authority of “self-benefit” – “You shouldn’t cheat, Charlie, because you’re just hurting yourself.” Betraying our own best interests has become the ultimate “sin.” Everything has to be couched in this language of self. The teacher has to be constantly mindful of the “rights” of the students. These might include the “right” to not be shamed.

When I talked to the assistant principal about the disciplinary problems at her school and what I thought might be some of the underlying problems, she exercised her authority, and I was out.

We are facing a tsunami of self-interests gone wild. When people charge that “You are just a slave to your bible,” they are merely reflecting their times. But are they reflecting wisdom? In one sense, we proudly admit that we are servants of our God. However, does this “bondage” minimize or maximum our lives?

Freedom is often maximized by its limitations. A chess match needs rules to be meaningful. If the pieces could be moved in any manner, there can’t be a meaningful game. Closer to home, a goldfish’s freedom of movement is maximized when it is “held captive” by the water. He was made for the water; we are made for the solid ground.

We are also under God’s authority to forgive others as He has forgiven us. Many can attest to how liberating it has been for them to not only forgive but also to confess their sins to those whom they had offended. Consequently, we have found that the path to a meaningful freedom is also the path that has brought us under the authority of our incredible Savior, the very thing for which we were created!

The New Perspectives on Paul

A cadre of scholars has claimed that they now have a “new perspective” on the teachings of Paul. According to this reassessment, Paul never regarded legalistic works righteousness – the earning of salvation through good works, as opposed to trusting in God’s mercy – the problem of 1st century Judaism. Instead Judaism’s problem was that they regarded other ethnic groups as inferior or unworthy of salvation. Of course, it is not a matter of either-or, but rather both!

Associate professor of New Testament at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, Timothy Gombis, agrees with the cadre that the problem hadn’t been works righteousness (self-righteousness):

• Because of this “new perspective,” scholars now recognize that Paul would not have regarded Judaism as legalistic. (Christianity Today, July 2011, 48)

In support of this new perspective, Gombis offers a single Dead Sea Scroll, which has a grace perspective, as evidence. However, this “evidence” falls miles short of proving that the Judaism of Paul’s day was grace-centered and not legalistic. Any number of Dead Sea Scrolls couldn’t prove this. After all, the Hebrew Scriptures are also grace-centered and Messiah-centered. However, this didn’t insure that the Israelites were open to the message. Thinking that he had proved his point, Gombis then concludes,

• The problem in the early church, therefore was not the temptation towards legalistic works righteousness. They faced the communal challenge of incorporating non-Jewish converts into the historically Jewish people of God. First-century Judaism didn’t have a legalism problem; it had an ethnocentrism problem. The first followers of Jesus were all Jewish, and had difficulty imagining that the God of Israel who sent Jesus Christ as their Savior could possibly save non-Jews without requiring them to convert to Judaism.

Gombis is right about several things. Judaism had an “ethnocentrism” problem. And the early church inherited their Jews-only mindset. Therefore, they believed that non-Jews would first have to convert to Judaism in order to be saved. However, his assertion that they weren’t tempted "towards legalistic works righteousness,” is far off base. We are all tempted to look towards our legalistic performance to assure ourselves of our standing before God. Even more importantly, the Jews were not only tempted, they wholeheartedly embraced this thinking.

We find evidence for this throughout the Gospels. Jesus often denounced the most righteous people of His day on account of their self-righteous legalism:

• "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” (Matthew 23:27-28)

The religious leadership appeared “as righteous” because this is the image that they presented to the world. They were men of eminence because they deserved it! They performed legalistic acts to be seen favorably by men (Matthew 6). This pattern of life is not true of people who trust in God’s mercy alone.

In fact, everyone seemed to partake in this legalistic works righteousness worldview. After talking with a man of status, Jesus informed His disciples,

• “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

The disciples were astonished by this. The riches of the rich man demonstrated that he had achieved favor before God. He was the cream of the crop. In perplexity they exclaimed, “Who then can be saved?” They had regarded the rich man as supremely worthy of salvation. If salvation was impossible for the rich man, then it was also impossible for them:

• Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" (Matthew 19:27)

Peter and the others thought that they were purchasing salvation with their legalistic sacrifice of “everything.” They still didn’t understand that salvation was a free gift. This legalism is reflected in so much of their speaking. When they saw a man born blind, they naturally concluded that his misfortune was either the result of his sin or that of his parents. When others who they deemed as unworthy – not just gentiles – wanted to approach Jesus, the disciples tried to impede them. However, when those with status – the legalistically worthy – wanted to approach Jesus, well then, that was entirely a different matter (John 12:20).

It can also be argued that almost all of Jesus’ parables were directed towards the legalistic self –righteousness, which seemed to infect everyone. The parable of the Prodigal Son exposes the legalistic righteousness of the obedient son who claimed that he had never disobeyed his father (Luke 15:29), and he therefore was the more legalistically deserving. Jesus told this parable to the scribes and Pharisees who complained that Jesus was keeping company with unworthy, undeserving sinners (Luke 15:2). Evidently, they thought themselves legalistically deserving. Clearly, they had no understanding of grace.

Jesus also told a parable about two men entering the Temple:

• To some who were confident (“trusted” NKJV) of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable. (Luke 18:9)

When we trust in our own righteous behavior, we have no idea about depravity and grace. The other man lacked the confidence to even look up. Instead, he cried out for mercy and was forgiven. He had mercifully been stripped of legalistic works righteous, but this had only been the case for a small group of people.

Jesus had been rejected by His people, not because of an innocent mistake in Biblical interpretation, but because their hearts were so hardened by self-righteousness that they didn’t even believe in Moses:

• How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:44-47)

That greatest praise from God occurs when one sinner comes to repentance, disavowing any notion of legalistic works righteousness. The religious leadership wouldn’t believe and repent because they felt that their own righteousness would suffice. They therefore gladly received the praise of men, convinced that they deserved it. Full of themselves, they didn’t even believe what Moses had written. How then could they believe in Jesus?

Everything they did suggested that they were trusting in their own legalistic righteousness. They didn’t submit to the baptism of repentance of John, because they felt they didn’t need to repent. Their own righteousness was sufficient.

Volumes can be written on the subject. How would Gombis counteract these Biblical observations? He offers that Paul continued to follow the law, citing his taking a Nazarite vow (Acts 21:23-26), proving that “Paul wasn’t anti-Jewish.”

This is absurd. I don’t know any respectable theologian who would claim that Paul was “anti-Jewish!”. Besides, this isn’t the issue! Paul’s primary concern wasn’t about following the law, but rather following the law for the wrong purpose – to achieve one’s own legalistic works righteousness. Although he preached against circumcision, his concern wasn’t about the physical act or the requirement of the law – he even had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Instead, his concern regarding circumcision was that it was being urged as a first requirement to obtain a righteousness that supposedly would come by virtue of our works performance. Similarly, taking a Nazarite vow didn’t reflect Paul’s faith in his own righteousness obtained through observing the law.

It is amazing that anyone would suggest that Paul was not concerned about legalistic works righteousness. In many places, he emphasizes that we are saved by grace apart from any works of the law (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Romans 3:26-29). Why would he continue to make this disclaimer unless his people were being seduced by a works theology? And this was exactly his concern. He spoke very strongly against the legalistic circumcision party:

• Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. (Philip. 3:2-3)

No one could put any “confidence in the flesh,” to attain their own righteousness through obedience. Paul explained that if anyone was able to have this confidence, it was he. However, he determined that he was not going to trust in any of his accomplishments to achieve his own righteousness. Instead, he would reject any form of self-trust:

• But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philip. 3:7-9)

Paul wasn’t calling the law or even his obedience to the law as “rubbish.” Obedience is important, but trusting in our obedience to win the favor of God represents a rejection of the righteousness that is given as a free gift from our Savior. On the one hand, Paul affirms that we must uphold the essence of the law (Romans 3:31), but this is not to achieve our own righteousness. But on the other hand, if we are trying to obtain a righteous by our works performance, we are in bondage to the law and have been separated from the grace of Christ:

• It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4).

The problem wasn’t they law but our attempt “to be justified by law,” a rejection of the righteousness that can come from Christ alone. There is a wealth of evidence that the culture of Paul’s time was immersed in legalism, as is the case with any culture. Legalism is the religion of man following his rejection of God.

Gombis presents two other arguments to support his case that Paul wasn’t concerned about legalism. He states that “Paul never calls upon the Jews to reject Judaism.” While this is true, it is also irrelevant to the point Gombis is trying to make. The problem wasn’t with the Judaism of the Bible; the problem was with what men made of it – a vehicle to achieve their own righteousness. Instead, Paul argued that the law was given to show us our sins (Romans 3:19-20) and thereby to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:22-24) – a deterrent against legalism, lest any should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

Gombis presents one final argument. On at least two occasions (Acts 23:6; 26:4-6), Paul called himself a “Pharisee.” Gombis seems to reason from this that Paul was therefore affirming their entire religious stance. Consequently, they couldn’t have been legalists.

Such an interpretation is utterly unacceptable. Paul certainly affirmed the church, but not everything about it. He had many complaints against churches and individuals. He would have much more complaints in regards to the Pharisees. Instead, Paul was merely affirming that he belonged to that particular party.

To deny the clear Biblical concern about legalistic works righteousness is to detract from the Gospel. This is because legalistic self-righteousness has always been humankind’s refuge once God’s righteousness is rejected. It’s the only opposition to the Gospel. It says, “I don’t need God and His domination over my life. I can handle my own life. I’m righteous in myself.”

We find this principle manifested even at the beginning. Once Adam and Eve rejected God’s Word, they resorted to their own self-righteous means. They covered themselves with fig leaves instead of confession. They foolishly trusted in their ability to hide from God, instead of crying out for His mercy. They resorted to their own lies and half-truths, instead of seeking His forgiveness.

To suggest that the 1st century Jews were free from self-righteousness is not only a gross misunderstanding of Scripture and human rebellion, it also deprives the Gospel of the fullness of its meaning. I am dismayed that Christianity Today continues to publish such unbiblical works without any rebuttal.

What is Mental Illness and What is the Cure?

You might be surprised that definitions can be very elusive. We tend to think of depression, for example, as a form of mental illness. However, it is widely recognized that the depressed see reality and also themselves more accurately that do the “normal.” Psychologist Shelley Taylor (Positive Illusions) writes,

• Normal people exaggerate how competent and well liked they are. Depressed people do not. Normal people remember their past behavior with a rosy glow. Depressed people are more even-handed…On virtually every point on which normal people show enhanced self-regard, illusions of control, and unrealistic visions of the future, depressed people fail to show the same biases. (p.214)

Perhaps pain and depression shouldn’t be regarded as illnesses if they enable us to get a better hold of reality? Interestingly, once the psychological torment passes, self delusion returns. Taylor confesses,

• When depressed people are no longer depressed, they show the same self-enhancing biases and illusions as non-depressed people. (p.223)

This truth leaves us with an uncomfortable choice – Do we define mental illness in terms of (1) freedom from painful symptomology, but also having a host of self-delusions or (2) freedom from self-delusions, but not from painful symptomology? Neither choice is very appealing. Should we instead define “mental illness” in terms of what is “normal?” Martin Gross raises significant questions about the “normal” criterion:

• The individual…has been falsely taught that he lives in a continuum between normality and insanity, the common aberration called “neurosis” in between…We imagine – and are subtly told by the Society’s professionals – that there is an ideal, virtually anxiety-free paradigm from which we somehow deviate. (The Psychological Society, 325)

This raises the question about normalcy. Is it an unattainable goal that makes us feel like failures? Gross argues that our definitions of the “normal” are arbitrary and culture-dependent. Our psychotherapeutic norms reflect our culture. Therefore, what is “normal” in one culture, might be considered pathological in another. For example, in many more traditional cultures, sexual inhibition is considered a good thing, especially for women. Modesty is a virtue. However, in Western culture, getting what you want, right now – satisfying yourself – is a virtue.

Likewise, in Eastern cultures, submission to one’s elders is the norm, along with putting the interests of the family above one’s own. Duty, therefore, is the higher virtue. In the West, inhibition of personal desires and welfare is considered neurotic. Peter Kramer, the famous promoter of Prozac, explained one of his “success stories” this way. One of his clients, a single mother, was very “repressed.” Instead of dating, she devoted herself exclusively to her children. However, once on Prozac, she experienced less anxiety about leaving her children and began to date, leaving her children with the baby sitter.

Is this a success story or merely an accommodation to the values of our Western culture? Gross is understandably disturbed by the philosophical tyranny of our psychological culture:

• In establishing such a model [of normalcy], which exists only in psychological fantasy…the society serves as its own neurotic-producing stimulus [hinting that those who don’t fit in are not normal]. It forces millions to perceive their individuality – the very essence of human normality – as a psychological disturbance. (325)

Consequently, many have been influenced to think that they are pathological and need to change. If they are overly anxious about their children, there is something the matter with them. Of course, it’s more difficult to live with anxiety, but anxiety might pay dividends in other ways, perhaps in terms of better care for the children and the household, and even personal fulfillment.

If normalcy is merely a reflection of our social prejudices, must we throw out this concept entirely? I don’t think so. I think that the Biblical definition enables us to understand ourselves and the plight of others. What is normal is sin and self-delusion:

• "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)

This levels the playing field. We’re all in the same leaky boat. If anything is normal, it is sin, and its effect upon the mind is powerful: “For sin…deceived me, and…put me to death” (Romans 7:11). Consequently, we are self-deluded, and whatever we do, we rationalize (Proverbs 21:2). Why? Because our conscience is a powerful alarm which painfully alerts us when we sin! We then have two choices. We can confess our sins to our loving and forgiving Savior, or we can deny or rationalize them away. Denial – a hardening and a refusal to see – is the beginning of self-delusion. Everything that follows – the positive affirmations and achievements – serves to cover up the foundational problem, un-confessed sin.

What then is the cure for our negative symptomology. Confession and repentance, of course! Yes, there are other ways to reduce symptomology. There are drugs, social supports, and even success, but these are no more than band aids, since they fail to address the underlying problem and leave the underlying condition festering.

We are moral and relational creatures. When our primary relationships are undermined, popping a drug isn’t the most appropriate response. We have to address the real problem, if it is at all possible. The same is true with our relationship with our Creator. We may be unwilling or unable to recognize this, but this relationship has been broken and needs repaired (Romans 1:18-32).

When instead we pursue pleasure, popularity, prestige, or power to cover the brokenness, we hurt ourselves. When we harden our heart against our sin and God, we also harden it against life and other relationships. We’re all a mess, not just those deemed “neurotic” by society.

While we can define “physical health’ to our satisfaction, defining “mental health” is an entirely different matter. It is not a matter of maximizing pleasure as secular culture seems to imply. It is a metaphysical question requiring a metaphysical answer. The answer involves taking into account moral absolutes and ultimate meaning, and these can only come from God. In his lecture to the Athenian philosophers, Paul affirmed the God-centricity of our existence:

• “'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'” (Acts 17:28-31)

When we deny this fact, we deny much of our fullness as human beings.

Viewpoint Totalitarianism: A Satire

My Dear Wormbottom,

I simply cannot resist telling you about our stunning recent victories. Are you ready to read a few paragraphs that are guaranteed to put a huge smile on your face?

After the historic passage of New York State’s same-sex marriage bill, just listen to what Republican State Senator Jim Alesi declared: “I went to Mass Sunday in my church and I was so warmly received. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, but I know in my religion, when I went up to receive Communion, my priest embraced me.” Now, I don’t know about you, but I count it a stupendous success when our well-oiled propaganda machine can win over even the priests—the very ones who until quite recently we counted as some of our toughest adversaries!

But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. I’m sure you will be positively delighted to hear that our ever-more powerful forces have just succeeded in closing down all the Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois. Let me guess—right about now you are wondering how in the world we were able to pull off this veritable cultural coup. Oh, it’s so simple, my friend…those agencies are now officially closed down in the whole state because they had the nerve to refuse to allow their children to be adopted by us. What a wake-up call, eh? Undoubtedly, this will teach them that it is absolutely futile to resist us.

Ready for more good news, friend? This little tidbit is even better than the last, if that is actually possible. For, you see, Cisco Systems—that high-flying, high tech darling of Wall Street—just summarily fired their leadership and teambuilding program co-ordinator, Dr. Frank Turek And just why, you might ask, did Cisco terminate Dr. Turek’s employment? Well, for no other reason than that he had the audacity to write a book that was against gay marriage. His firing had absolutely nothing to do with his work-related performance—what he did or said on the job. And that’s the utter beauty of it, you see. With what has happened in this case and in the cases that are sure to follow, the opposition is going to be terrified about saying even the most innocuous things against us, on and off the job.

I know this is absolutely wonderful news, but please don’t overlook the irony that is also beautifully at work here...we have now arrived at the dawn of a new era when our side can say WHATEVER we want against the Bible and its god-awful church, but they can say absolutely NOTHING against us!

Are these not wonderful days to be alive? Now, please read on to find out what else makes this victory so juicy.

According to Turek, “My job performance was deemed excellent, and I was ‘inclusive and diverse’ by working in a respectful manner with people of all moral, religious and political views.” My dear Wormbottom, are you comprehending the magnitude of how good this is for us? For you see, Turek’s dismissal communicates a most potent message. It no longer matters how well-established or cooperative or even competent an employee might be. If we discover that he has views against same-sex marriage—SSM—he goes bottom-up! No pun intended.

Do you comprehend what this means? I hope, my good man, that you are following this to its logical conclusion. We have now officially arrived at the point where every Christian’s job is at jeopardy if they don’t smile and assure us to the best of their ability that they fully endorse SSM and the gay lifestyle. To weed out the riff-raff, we now have carte blanche to target them and “innocently” ask what they think about SSM. If they don’t give us the answers we are looking for, they’re history, gone, out of there--fired! Now it is they who will shake in fear as we strut down the corridors. And, if you need any icing on this “cake,” I fully believe that these decisions and the atmosphere they create will also undermine the Christian faith. Yes, sir, I believe that when Christians find out that they can’t be open and forthcoming about what they believe, they will have to change their ideas to fit our way of thinking. I predict that many of them will lose their faith rather than lose their jobs.

I could not be more excited about these changes. I just love what Cisco’s chief “inclusion and diversity” officer told Turek:

• “We’re very sensitive about protecting our culture of acceptance of everyone; we don’t want anyone to ever feel excluded and that means all opinions.”

Of course that cry-baby Turek had the audacity to complain: “Why didn’t Cisco’s relentless emphasis and training on ‘inclusion and diversity’ serve to prevent [my firing]?” But that kind of reasoning is gone forever now—it’s nonsense, that’s what it is. The only difference is that now it will be Turek and his idiot Christians who will feel excluded! I just love it! Who cares whether this represents a double standard? The media are so completely in our pocket that they won’t raise even a whisper to protest our hypocrisy. And, just as a delicious aside, can you imagine the look on Turek’s face when he was fired?

But it doesn’t stop there, not at all. In fact, are you ready for some international good news? Try this on for size…Canada’s New Democrat Party unanimously passed a resolution to call on the government to revoke the charitable status of “ex-gay” groups—those Christian organizations that advise homosexuals that there is hope that they might change and be able to leave the gay lifestyle. If this resolution is adopted, it will mean that our brethren to the north will be able to discriminate against the opposition and hurt them, once again, where it hurts the most—in the purse! Before too long, these groups will be losing their tax-exempt status. And, what’s more, the way public opinion is shifting, it will not even seem like discrimination. After all, who in their right mind actually believes—except the most fundamentalist and ignorant people—that it is really possible for someone who is gay to return to the “straight” life? Because of our overwhelming success in getting the media to carry our propaganda far and wide, it is now the established conventional wisdom of the day that sexual orientation CANNOT BE CHANGED. We have even gone so far as to characterize the people who work in those supposed “ministries” as perpetrators of violent crimes against us. And the public is buying it, my friend— hook, line and sinker!

Before we travel to New Zealand for more good news, let me share just one more story from Canada. When it comes to commanding the ear of the press, you will be so gratified to learn that we have no trouble getting allies to come on board in support of our noble agenda. For example, our man Randall Garrison, the NDP’s “queer issues” critic, told Xtra that Christian groups like Exodus focus on the most vulnerable members of the homosexual community and “…bully them into believing that gay, lesbian and bisexual people are sick and lead sad and lonely lives, and that the only hope is to become straight.” Of course Exodus isn’t doing anything of the kind but, once again, the public is buying what our media machine is manufacturing! It doesn’t seem to matter to anyone that we haven’t been able to produce a single instance of a Christian bullying or even attacking a gay. However, in trying to understand this strange phenomenon, we must always remember that, in the day and age in which we live, perception is absolutely everything. Please forgive me if do a bit of bragging here, my good man but—we have become the ultimate masters of perception. And we are now pulling all the right strings!

I just knew the Canadians would come through and help us as we continue in our enlightened struggle to tighten the noose around the neck of all dissent!

Now, let us continue to highlight our world-wide triumphs, this time in New Zealand. Using strategies which I have already outlined, the government of New Zealand has revoked Exodus Global Alliance’s charitable status. I love it! Isn’t it delicious? We can discriminate against them, but THEY CAN’T TOUCH US! All we need to do is continue to perpetuate the perception that we are the hapless, innocent victims of a cruel and hopelessly outdated legal system. So far, my friend, this strategy is working like a charm!

Oh—talk about late-breaking news…let me share something that I just pulled from the web that spotlights the indisputable fact that these really are glorious days for us!

• A bill requiring public schools to teach the “historical contributions” of homosexual Americans was approved by the California legislature on Tuesday, July 5. This bill prohibits any school material or instruction that reflects adversely on homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism. In addition, it prohibits parents from removing children from classes over offensive material.

Now we can wrestle those little minds away from their bigoted parents. Hurrah for the State! It’s through the State that we will now be able to invade that sanctuary of all bigotry, the family. And what makes it even better? They cannot protest; they can’t speak against us. When they bring their petty complaints to school board meetings, we can shout them down with charges of “homophobia” and “hate-mongering.” I hope you appreciate how successful this strategy has become. We can scream all we want about Christians or Republicans with absolute impunity, while they can’t even breathe a whisper against us.

Now, to bring this little diatribe to an appropriate close, how about another cherry on top of the delectable “sundae” that you’ve just been served? For your sublime enjoyment, here it is…In the midst of all these monumental changes that are convulsing society as we know it, no one—at least no one of any real substance or importance, that is—has had the audacity to raise the question of why we should be the only protected class of people. For, when you think about it, isn’t that exactly what we have become? Who knows—perhaps this more than anything else we’ve accomplished is our most important victory.
Ah, all this success is going to my head. I’m almost swooning with the delight of it all. Our lifestyle is now almost untouchable. You could try, but I don’t think there’s any way you could wipe that smile off your face!

The Real Victims: Ex-Gays

“Many ex-gays are afraid to come out of the closet because of the harassment they will receive. The tactics of gay activists are to go after anyone who comes out publicly as ex-gay, force them back into the closet, and then claim that ex-gays don't exist because there aren't any out in public. For example, see:
• http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4797243
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3jkeTdgLrg
• http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index.html
• http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0410/731411.html”


Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) also document instances of harassment:

• Unlike gay groups, ex-gay groups like PFOX are routinely denied equal access to participate in public school events, donate books to public school libraries, and present speakers on diversity day.
• Transgenders and cross-dressers are affirmed for changing their gender but former homosexuals are ridiculed for making the decision to change their sexual orientation.
• Ex-gay conferences and seminars across the country are frequently picketed by anti-ex-gay protestors like PFLAG, a parents organization run by a gay activist, and Soulforce, a homosexual religious organization.
• Presidential candidate Barack Obama was criticized by gay activists for allowing ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to sing at a fundraiser. They insisted that Obama drop the African-American singer from the program. Gay singers did not receive this treatment.
• Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty was forced to apologize for issuing a certificate of appreciation to an ex-gay civil rights leader after receiving complaints from the gay lobby. In signing gay marriage legislation for the nation’s capital, Fenty had promised equality for all DC residents.http://pfox.org/Mayor_Fenty_wrongful_apology.html
• Equality Virginia demanded that Washington DC Metro remove PFOX’s subway billboards advocating tolerance for ex-gays.
• An ex-gay volunteer staffing PFOX’s exhibit booth at the Arlington County, Virginia Fair was physically assaulted because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony. Wayne Besen, a former spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, falsely reported that the assault had never occurred.
• After speaking at an ex-gay conference, Michelle McKinney-Hammond lost her programming on a broadcast station because Besen made good on his threat to complain to the station about speakers making appearances at ex-gay events.
• Bash Back!, a gay group that retaliates against heterosexuals who vote against genderless marriage, can be seen in this video screaming and chanting against an ex-gay meeting held at a Boston church -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIOdgOZLF4&feature=related This incident is cited in a federal complaint filed against Bash Back for intimidation – see paragraph 68 of the legal filing at http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/MtHopeComplaint.pdf
• After writing a letter her local newspaper as a concerned citizen, Crystal Dixon was terminated from her job as an Associate Vice President of Human Resources for Toledo University. An African-American, Dixon challenged the civil rights comparison of race with homosexual behavior. Dixon’s letter also revealed that some gay people have overcome unwanted homosexual feelings, as evidenced by the growing popularity of PFOX and other ex-gay organizations.

Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX and ex-gay, adds,

• While the media look the other way, the ex-gay community is being harassed and publicly denounced by unforgiving gay activists because of our unpopular sexual orientation. Wayne Besen of the hate group Truth Wins Out…stalk and ‘out’ ex-gays in a negative light to ensure that they retreat back into the closet. Lambda Legal supports the establishment of GLBT Centers at public universities but blocks any attempt at ex-gay equal access. Corporate shareholder resolutions to include ex-gays in anti-discrimination policies are repeatedly defeated by the gay community. The Human Rights Campaign demands same-sex “marriage” for gays while fighting ex-gay equality. One of their latest victories is to successfully bully the World Bank into denying funds to ex-gay charities while allowing gay organizations to participate.

All of this represents a horrible injustice and victimization perpetrated by the very institutions that are supposed to stand against this!

Self-Transformation? – Bah!

Christianity is exploding in India. By some estimates, the Indian sub-continent now hosts 58 million Christians; by other estimates, 70 million. This growth is taking place mainly among the Dalits and other “untouchables.” Tim Stafford, senior writer for Christianity Today, explains:

• To be Dalit is much worse than being poor, for no matter how much education or wealth a Dalit accumulates, he or she remains polluted, a shame on the face of the earth. Dalits are like biblical lepers, except that in mainstream Indian culture, they cannot be healed. (CT, July 2011, 29)

In practical terms, it’s no surprise that Dalits would be attracted to the freedom, forgiveness, and cleansing of the Gospel. One former Hindu and now church-planter puts it this way:

• “The Gospel is a message of deliverance, not just for heaven. It is a message of freedom. The truth is that God made man in his image.” (32)

However, the Dalit embrace of Christianity cannot be explained by just the appeal of the message. Underneath the message is a self-sacrificing God who came to die for us. While the proud and arrogant refuse to look outside the box, Christ came for the poor, rejected and marginalized (1 Cor. 1:26-29).

One Dalit woman had been barren. A Christian mysterious showed up at her door and prayed for her. She subsequently conceived a son and daughter, and when her daughter was “severely jaundiced, passing blood,” the Christian once again appeared, prayed and the daughter was healed. She confessed to Stafford that,

• “I realized that Jesus is the living God…We used to drink and every day we would fight, fight, fight. Jesus Christ brought peace to our family. I have no fear, because I have come to know the living God. I trust in him.” (29-30)

It is through the lens of weakness and desperation that our priorities can fall into place. Weakness is a canary in a coal mine. It detects the presence of gas sooner than we humans. Likewise the despised Dalit knows that their hope isn’t in meditation, psychotherapy or in any other form of self-help. It is only the “living God” who can help!

It took me years to learn this lesson. Two decades of severe depression drove me to Israel as a Zionist. I had seen five highly recommended psychologists, and each had left me worse off than the previous one. I had convinced myself that once I had immersed in Zionism, I would find meaning and purpose, and this would pull me out of my depression. Well, it didn’t, nor did my pursuit of the ideal community or lifestyle.

It seemed that only God was left. Consequently, I plagued every religious person that I met with a series of question. Finally, one friend suggested that I spend some time with an evangelistic, orthodox community, which was completely devoted to God and to bringing confused Americans to Him.

Even there, no one could answer my questions to my satisfaction. Finally, a convinced follower assured me that there was a Tzadick (a highly esteemed rabbi) in Tel Aviv who could answer all of my questions and also prove to me that the Torah was the Word of God.

This sounded like just what I was looking for. The next evening found us awaiting the Tzadick to enjoy a private consultation – a great privilege! My heart was beating uncontrollably. We sat in silence for the first minute while he studied me. Finally, the verdict came:

• “You’re not ready to study the Torah yet. There is too much confusion and restlessness in your life. Find yourself a good orthodox Jewish community, study, live the life and relax, and then we’ll talk again.”

I hadn’t even opened my mouth, and the consultation had come to an abrupt end. Even though I thought he was right about my “confusion and restlessness,” I also knew that such a prescription couldn’t address my problems. They were just too deep. Evidently, I was a loser, and I knew that I couldn’t change myself. But it seemed that neither could God. The Tzadick was of the opinion that I had to first get my life together before God could help me. If that was the case, then there was no hope for me. I left totally dejected.

Thankfully, being a “Dalit” isn’t the worst thing that can befall us. In fact, I’m now proud of it! Years later, I learned that,

• If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32)

My psychotherapists and the Tzadick had all been wrong. Life didn’t depend upon my transforming myself but upon an incredible Savior, who can reach down and rescue us from whatever “pollution” we might find ourselves. He is the “Living God.”

Atheism Gives Liberation

One atheist triumphantly described his atheism in this manner:

• To become “converted” … to atheism is, indeed, inspiring. It’s extremely liberating to realize that there is no Big Guy in the sky watching over your every move (particularly, for reasons that are not at all clear, the moves you make in the privacy of your own bedroom).


I told him that I appreciated his openness in this matter. It was illuminating. Often, after I would share my testimony of liberation, atheists would counter that they too had been liberated after rejecting the notion of a God! I found this troubling and didn’t know how to respond. However, I’ve subsequently learned that liberation means entirely different things for different people. For the Christian, liberation is from sin and all its many effects; for the atheist, liberation is from the hated, watching God, as Jesus stated:

• “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.” (John 7:7)

God is hated and then rejected because He reveals the truth about us. This is something that we ordinarily find intolerable:

• This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God. (John 3:19-21)

We either hate the light and want freedom from the light, or we love the light, because we have found consolation and forgiveness in the light. Those who hate the light will also hate those who stand in the light:

• If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20).

Perhaps this will help me to accept the fact that Christ will be hated, along with those who love Him, and that only a small number will come to Him, truly? Slowly?