DriveThru – Get What You Need

My recent blog highlighting a new campaign by pro-gay revisionists to thenge the church’s view on homosexuality (Believer Beware: “Believe Out Loud” Campaign to Test Church on Homosexuality) elicited a number of interesting responses and conversation, including this one from Grumpy Morning Boy:

Thank god that Christians are such self-doubting people. Despite Focus on the Family’s efforts to brand this program as snake oil, I know there are thousands of Christians who realize that the day is coming when LGBT people can and should be warmly accepted and fully valued within their congregations, when Biblical arguments against gay couples will feel as antiquated as Biblical arguments for slavery or keeping women away from the workforce. Thank god that BelieveOutLoud.com is as well organized and clear as it is, and thank god that someone’s finally stepping up to oppose the propagandist lies that Focus on the Family continues to spread within the church about gay people.

Because this reader raises the issues of homosexuality, slavery and women, I wanted to respond more fully to his assertion that these three issues are directly comparable.

Dear Grumpy Morning Boy,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

As you’ll see not only in the original “Believe Out Loud” blog but in my replies to some who have responded to it, I agree that people who self-identify as gay, bisexual or “transgender” should be accepted and valued within Christian churches. However, I reiterate that there’s a huge difference between “accepting” someone who experiences a particular proclivity or temptation in the sexual sphere of his or her life and “affirming” them in that which God’s Word clearly says is sinful and outside His created intent for humans sexual expression.

Beyond this, your comment equating homosexuality with the issues of slavery and women is a common argument raised by those who promote the pro-gay revisionist theology. However, the issues are “apples to oranges” as opposed to “apples to apples.”

In fact, what we see in Scripture with the issues of slavery and women is an increasing freedom afforded to both groups of people when looking at the sweep of biblical texts in the context of the surrounding cultures. So, in this sense, one can say that slavery and women are “apples to apples” and more directly comparable.

In contrast, the biblical treatment of the issue of homosexuality always points back to God’s created intent for human sexuality as described in Genesis. In other words, the biblical standard consistently affirmed in the Bible – particularly in the context of the surrounding cultures – is one that consistently points not to more and more freedom but rather back to the original restrictions put in place by God to harness our powerful sexual energies and proclivities. So, it is incorrect to compare homosexuality to the issues of women or slaves.

For a fuller explanation along these lines, I’d encourage you to check out William J. Webb’s book, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Intervarsity Press, 2001). While I do not necessarily agree with everything that Webb argues in this work, he very ably demonstrates that the redemptive movement of Scripture points in opposite directions when comparing homosexuality to slavery and women in the Bible.

I hope this helps.

In case you were wondering where homosexual activism in public schools can eventually lead, Maine is giving a pretty good preview right now:

“… a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”  That’s the summary from Maine’s Bangor Daily News, reporting on school guidelines currently under development by Maine’s Human Rights Commission.

So now we are on the cusp of allowing boys into girls restrooms based on their stated identity choice of the day. It’s hard to imagine an environment more sexually confusing for kids—or fraught with risky situations— than that.

At issue is the Maine Human Rights Commission’s efforts to adopt guidelines for schools on how to deal with gender-confused students. While they are being touted as just “guidelines,” the reality is that schools found in violation of the commission’s policies are more vulnerable to losing a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, according to the Bangor Daily News report,  gay activist groups—in particular, the local Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) chapter—have helped develop these guidelines. (GLSEN is the controversial group founded by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings. It is devoted to promoting homosexuality and ”transgender” behavior to kids all the way down to the kindergarten level.)

The Maine School Management Association has raised concerns that the Human Rights Commission is overstepping its bounds by giving schools specific mandates. And then there’s concerns from both secondary schools and colleges about “fairness” issues in sports  and how teams are classified under NCAA guidelines.

This is just some of the chaos we will continue to see if identity politics and homosexual activism are given free rein in our public school systems.

For more about how transgender-activism is affecting schools’ and states’ policies, check out our “Transgender” Madness commentary.

On USA Today’s “Faith and Reason” blog, Betty Klinck reports on a campaign backed by numerous powerful and high profile homosexual and “transgender” rights groups.  The goal?  To persuade Christian church leaders and laity to take action on political issues so homosexuality will be normalized and affirmed in every area of society.

According to the “Believe Out Loud” website, this propaganda push is a

“multi-year and multi-tiered social marketing campaign to influence the attitudes, beliefs, and eventually governing policies of mainline Protestant clergy to welcome LGBT individuals into their fold.”

Don’t get me wrong, it would be one thing if this campaign were merely about the well-meaning and long-overdue “welcome” of people who experience same-sex attraction and gender incongruity. Those of us who hold a biblically orthodox view of human sexuality agree that all should be welcome in Christ’s church – regardless of our struggles or background.

But that’s a far cry from what “Believe Out Loud” is pushing.  They’ve said it’s not enough to accept, or even welcome and affirm. No, they’re demanding that Christian churches honor and openly celebrate a view of human sexuality which is clearly out of line with God’s created intent.

To achieve this goal, “Believe Out Loud” offers talking points and detailed “meaningful personal actions” aimed at clergy and lay leaders so they can convince those under their spiritual care that revisionist theology is biblical.  And, so they can encourage their followers to participate in efforts to put pro-LGBT social policies into law.

Through these resources, a well-funded, well-packaged and breathtakingly deceptive revision of Scripture is being pedaled like snake oil to many who trust in the spiritual authority of their clergy and lay leaders. By casting doubt on God’s Word, these wolves in sheep’s clothing put both feet and money to what is ultimately a secular political campaign – one that would normally have liberals howling for the separation of church and state.

But the most tragic aspect of this campaign is the spiritual toll.  By invoking themes like social justice to promote gay and “transgender” equality, God’s own definition of social justice is completely ignored.

True biblical social justice results in bringing God’s righteousness and order to bear in every arena of the culture.  If we really want to see social justice implemented in our churches, we must center it around speaking God’s truth in love about His purposes for sexuality, marriage and family.

The church does no favors to those who self-identify as gay or “transgender” by capitulating to the pro-homosexual culture and altering biblical truth on a topic as fundamental as how we bear His image as male and female.

By adopting this revisionist view, the church withholds from LGBT people the opportunity to repent of this particular area of sin and place it under the lordship of Christ. In the end, this denies people we love the fullness of life that comes with walking in obedience to God.  Do we really want to deny the blessings, freedom and peace that come with His forgiveness, grace, mercy, compassion and love?

Believers beware: the message of “Believe Out Loud” is one with grave and eternal consequences. In separating the wheat from the tares, it points to the time foretold in Scripture when even the elect might be deceived – with people throwing off sound doctrine and, instead, gathering around themselves teachers who tell them what their ears want to hear.  Knowing this, let’s be those who correctly “examine the Scriptures” to make sure what we’re being taught is true.

At last! We’ve discovered the secret behind the vast conspiracy to keep facts out of schools about the Founding Fathers and their beliefs in the benefits of faith, freedom and free enterprise: We now have proof that students who lack knowledge about these basic facts are more likely to form left-wing viewpoints!    

 Just kidding. Well, sort of.

“College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics,” reports a headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article cited results of a study released this Wednesday by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Among other things, the study explains that someone who graduates from college is more likely to “favor same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand” than someone who shares similar background characteristics, but who doesn’t graduate from college.

However, gaining “civic knowledge—as opposed to merely graduating from college—increases a person’s beliefs in American ideas and free institutions.” Among other things, a person with greater civic knowledge is more likely to understand the benefits of “free enterprise” and the relevance of the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly—on the very same day of this report—data was also released from the Pew Research Center detailing information on the Millennial generation ( people born after 1980). “In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life …” summarized the Pew report.  (Young adults are defined as ages 18-29).

They are also more  accepting of “bigger” government. And “less than half of adults under age 30 say that religion is very important in their lives.”  

These revelations should give us all pause—and make us consider the long-term cost of steeping an entire generation of students in the philosophy that they are nothing more than an accident of nature, that they have no higher destiny than to give into their most basic instincts and that there is nothing special about living in America, nothing costly about the freedom we enjoy.

Too many politicians these days treat their voters like jilted lovers.

During the campaign, they’re more than happy to court them and tell them what they want to hear. But once they’re elected to office and things are cushy and there’s power to be wielded—the average voters find themselves treated like an annoyance, something only to be dealt with when absolutely necessary.

That appears to be the mindset of some liberal politicians in New Hampshire.

After hearing a loud outcry from voters who didn’t want a politicized bullying bill to be used as a tool to promote homosexuality to public school children, the legislators changed the wording in the bill. Thankfully, there is no longer a mandate in the bill forcing every single public school in New Hampshire to teach about things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

But now the liberals who changed their vote are actually complaining that they were “bullied” into it by voters.

“In a telephone interview Friday, Rep. Burke cried as she describe feeling ‘intimidated’ into believing opponents would defeat the anti-bullying bill if she didn’t vote to remove the controversial language,” reported the New Hampshire Union Leader in the Sunday, Feb. 14 edition (not available online).

“I think we’re being bullied by a small group,” said Rep. Charles Yeaton, D-Epsom, who voted against changing the wording, told the paper.

Wait a minute. Being “bullied” is now defined as having to listen to what your voters think ? Isn’t the whole idea of elections to keep representatives accountable to the people who put them in office?  I guess we can now expect to see “elected official” added to the long and growing list of specially protected classes

This pitiful response also brings to mind what we’ve heard at the national level—when certain Democratic leaders actually accused the Tea Parties of being Nazis and militias and indicated that they needed police protection against them.

 Anything—to avoid the voters.

The battle’s not over yet, but there are signs that New Hampshire legislators are finally starting to hear the voices of concerned citizens—who are fed up with having their parental rights robbed in the public schools.

This week members of the New Hampshire House Education Committee appeared poised to vote for a bill that would have resulted in the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism in the classroom.

This was being done under the cover of a so-called “anti-bullying” measure that, if passed, would force all local school districts to add special protections for things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression”—and also would go so far as to stipulate that all schools promote these themes in their curriculum.

But New Hampshire citizens sent a loud, resounding message, which boiled down to: NO YOU DON’T. NOT IN MY KID’S CLASS.

Responding to a call to action from the pro-family group Cornerstone Policy Research, they flooded committee members with emails. As a result, during a subcommittee vote, legislators unexpectedly changed course—voting instead for blanket language providing protection to all students against bullying for any reason.

This is a more fair and reasonable approach to the problem of bullying because it provides equal protection to all kids–without allowing the issue to be hijacked by gay activist groups who use it as a tool to sexualize and politicize classrooms.  

But this is only one step in the battle. The new language must still be approved by the full Education Committee (as early as next week). And a liberal legislator is already threatening to insert the objectionable language back into the bill when it comes before the New Hampshire House.

We’ll keep you updated–and you can keep making your voice heard! Because it does make a difference.

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” have gone to great lengths to try and convince Americans that gay relationships are fundamentally no different than heterosexual relationships – and therefore gay “marriages” are no different than straight marriages.

However, a recent story in The New York Times highlighting the prevalence of “open” relationships among homosexual couples – “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret” – pulls back the curtain and exposes the gay “marriage” wizard for who and what he is – a fraud.

Here, we learn that a new study from San Francisco State University (SFSU) due out next month will reveal that “open relationships” are common among gay men and lesbians in the Bay area – to the tune of 50% of the gay male couples surveyed. And while gay activists have long claimed that societal “homophobia” is what drives them to be promiscuous, this argument is entirely undermined by the fact that this survey takes place in one of the most liberal and gay-affirming places in America – San Francisco.

Couple this with Joy Behar’s recent comments on “The View” about monogamy being “too much trouble” for gays, and it would seem that even pro-gay liberals can see that there’s a fundamental difference in sexual mores between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Of course, this dirty little secret is not news to anybody who knows this community well. Before I walked away from homosexuality myself, I lived as an out and proud gay man for well over a decade. While I had hundreds of gay friends around the world, I never knew of a single gay male couple in a long-term relationship that was monogamous. Eventually each relationship became “open” to one degree or another – which seemed to be the only way the relationships could endure. I even remember seeing threesomes and other “open” couples go forward to receive communion together on a weekly basis at the gay-affirming church I attended.

While we await details from this new SFSU survey, it’s not unreasonable to surmise that the study will echo previous research on gay relationships indicating high levels of sexual infidelity. For example, in 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay couples and found a 100% infidelity rate after 5 years. They concluded that non-monogamy was the norm in the gay community.

More recently, in 2003, a Canadian study titled “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples,” revealed that three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous. Here, the openly gay professor conducting the study concluded that “gay culture allows men to explore different, more successful, forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”

People who self-identify as gay are perfectly free to forge relationships on their own terms. They may even choose to justify this openness as somehow aiding in the establishment of stronger, longer-lasting, and more “highly evolved” partnerships.

But to say that these relationships are the same – and then to use this claim as a basis to redefine marriage away from the natural definition of.one man-one woman is deceptive.

Fidelity and monogamy may be “too much trouble” for a significant percentage of people in the gay community, but they’re central features of heterosexual marriage.

This week, kids in public schools across the land are participating in yet another event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). But this time the event in question—No Name-Calling Week—is aimed primarily at elementary and middle school kids.

While No Name-Calling Week does have some laudable goals, such as “eliminating harmful name-calling,” unfortunately, the event also emphasizes the usual homosexuality indoctrination that has made GLSEN infamous. 

The truth is, you don’t have to sexualize the school environment to teach kids to respect one another. One program that does an excellent job of doing that without capitulating to a political agenda is Rachel’s Challenge.

Rachel’s Challenge is a character-based program for K-12 students that teaches students to relate to one another with kindness and compassion. It is based on the life of Rachel Scott, the first victim in the Columbine school shootings. So if your public school is struggling with how to address this issue, this might be a good option.

Meanwhile, if you’ve discovered that your child’s school is celebrating GLSEN’s No Name-Calling Week, you can learn facts about the actual reading materials and lesson plans in our “Indoctrination by Any Other Name” commentary.

In the nonsensical and unrelenting international push by gay and “transgender” activists to convince the world that somehow biological sex can be “changed” but sexual orientation can’t, we learn that the national Congress of Argentina has named a male-to-female “transsexual” as their Woman of the Year.

And to think that out of the approximately 15.6 million Argentine women over the age of fifteen, not a single female could be found spanning 23 provinces and a distance of 2,400 miles from north to south who deserves national recognition as “Woman of the Year.”  Instead, a biological male is chosen.

What a slap in the face this must be for the real women of that great South American country.

While it’s increasingly easy to fool individuals, GLBT activists, mental health professionals, and now, national legislatures that biological sex can be changed, it’s never nice to fool Mother Nature. 

The fact of the matter is that no matter how many ongoing hormone treatments and mutilating surgeries one undergoes, biological sex simply can not be changed, reassigned or “transitioned.” And barring the extremely remote possibility that “Marcela” suffers from a Disorder of Sexual Development – intersexuality – this gentleman was, is, and always will be male.

While one can readily sympathize with the decades of pain, confusion and social isolation that “Marcela” has no doubt experienced in his gender identity struggle, as Christians we are called to speak the truth in love and compassion.

In this case, the truth is that gay and “transgender” activists are asking society to jettison the objective reality of biological sex in favor of the subjective feelings and self-identification of individuals who are in the throes of what is arguably a recognizable and treatable mental condition – Gender Identity Disorder.

Indeed, one of the leading experts in sex reassignment surgery from Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Paul McHugh, notes that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

In short, we do gender-confused individuals no favors when we indulge their confusion and make ways through hormone treatments and unnecessary surgeries to irreversibly cement them in their condition, which, according to McHugh leaves them no happier than they were before.

The movement promoting the normalization of “transgenderism” radically redefines the clearly articulated vision for the sexes found in the Bible. Significantly, the image we humans bear of God on this planet as male and female mysteriously and gloriously reflects who God is.

Just as Jesus went out of His way to minister to the outcasts of society, we are called to speak God’s truth on sex and sexuality in grace and compassion – sharing the love of God embodied in the Gospel message of Christ in humility and service. And we are called to lift up those who struggle with their gender identity in prayer – beseeching the Holy Spirit to bring about conviction, healing and transformation.

We’re crying for you, Argentina.

Yet more evidence revealing the dark side of GLSEN–the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network—has surfaced. (GLSEN is the group founded by President Obama’s “safe school’s czar,” Kevin Jennings.)

At issue this time is a GLSEN fundraiser featuring a theatrical play called Santa Claus is Coming Out!

GLSEN’s fundraiser invitation says the play depicts “Santa in his heartfelt struggle to reconcile his romantic relationship with Italian toy maker Giovanni Geppetto.” Pictures on a Web site promoting the production depict Santa in not-so-subtle sexually suggestive situations. The play also mocks those who support traditional values.

It’s sad that GLSEN, which claims that it wants to protect kids, has chosen to use a fundraising tool that perverts the innocence of Christmas and sexualizes the longtime, child-revered icon of Santa Claus.

Public comments made by the play’s writer and performer, Jeffrey Solomon,  provide more enlightening insight into the true agenda of homosexual activists and groups like GLSEN.

In recent interviews, Solomon explained that he “was inspired to write Santa Claus is Coming Out by his research into the parents’ rights movement to keep gay issues out of the classroom.”  He said the central message of his play is “a challenge to speak truthfully to children.” What is his version of “speaking truthfully?” Consider this anecdote Solomon shared:

I was dressed as Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and I had a sign saying ‘Rudolph Supports Sexual Diversity.’ And the owner of the pharmacy on Commercial Street came out [shouting]. ‘I’ve got kids inside. Get out of here. They’re asking questions. I don’t want to see that. I don’t want to see that sign.’ … We love this lie of Santa Claus and when we mess with that ‘they’ [the anti-gay activists] get very upset. The same summer I was promoting the play, and I had the poster ‘Santa Claus is Coming Out.’ A straight couple with a very young boy about 7 asked me directions, and the kid was kind of looking at the poster. Suddenly, the mother clenched her hands over his eyes as I was giving them directions, and she held them there the whole conversation. And it’s very funny. In both these instances, the play is playing out in front of me.”  (“Santa Claus is Coming Out: An Interview with Actor-Writer Jeffrey Solomon,” by Deirdre Donovan, Nov. 29, 2009, TheaterScene.net)

Clearly homosexual activists like Solomon have no qualms about using shock tactics to expose children to homosexuality.  And it’s sad that GLSEN promotes these tactics.  Apparently, GLSEN wants to have it both ways: On one hand, it wants to be perceived as a mainstream group for public schools that’s worthy of parents’ trust. On the other, it wants the freedom to desensitize kids and attack parents’ God-given rights to protect their innocence.