Rss

  • youtube

Modern Christianity’s soft-soap message to the homosexual

Continue Reading >>

The “damnable heresies” of Kristin Chenoweth

Kristen Chenoweth was born in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Adopted by Jerry and Junie Chenoweth soon after her birth, she grew up in Broken Arrow and graduated from high school. After graduation, she studied Musical Theater at Oklahoma City University. Over the next three decades, the forty-nine year old singer-actress became a well-known star of Broadway, screen, and television.[1] Ms. Chenoweth also became a spokesperson for various organizations and causes including Americans for Marriage Equality which supports laws that allow same-sex marriage and for whom she made a promotional video. In a Huffington Post interview, Ms. Chenoweth said, “Look, the bottom line is that regardless of how you were made or who you love, you should be able to get married if you want to get married. I truly believe it’s that simple.”[2]

Chenoweth professes to be a Christian but doesn’t want there to be any confusion about what she believes.

I don’t believe gay people are going to hell. I believe that judgment is left to the one upstairs and I believe Jesus is all about love. If I can live my life even just a smidgen the way God made his son for us as an example, I’m happy. I do not judge other people for what they believe, but for me, this is what works…I don’t believe if you’re gay or you have a drink or you dance, you’re going to hell. I don’t think that’s the kind of God we have. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world are scary. I want to be a Christian like Christ – loving and accepting of other people.[3]

Although Chenoweth claims she doesn’t judge other people for what they believe, that absence of judgment does not extend to Christians who disagree with her rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality as a sin.

…I just want it [gay marriage] to hurry up and not be an issue anymore! I’m very proud of the work that has been done so far, I want us to hurry it up a bit more. I think it’s important to say this because a lot of people think if you’re religious or you have any sort of faith, you’re automatically against equality in marriage.

It is the antithesis of what I believe. It is the antithesis of what you should believe if you
believe in Jesus. It’s not what he taught, it’s the opposite of what he taught. If Jesus was to walk the Earth today, or Buddha or anybody, they would be horrified. Those people saying they’re doing it in the name of God? No, no, no, no, no.[4]

Chenoweth credits her grandmother for instilling her with some of her pro-gay beliefs.

Even as a young child, I thought, “Why is being gay bad?” I didn’t understand it. So I asked my grandma, who is the best Christian I ever knew. I’d say, “What about my friend Denny, he’s gay, is he going to hell?” She told me, “I read the Bible like I eat fish. I take the meat that serves me well but I don’t choke on the bone.”[5]

Chenoweth’s outspoken opinions reveal her basic beliefs about Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, and homosexuality, all of which are heretical to biblical Christianity. From her remarks, we may glean the following beliefs.

• Homosexuality is not a sin because homosexuals were made that way and ought to be allowed to marry.
• Christians should not judge other people for what they believe or do.
• Jesus is all about love and accepting people so we should not judge anyone.
• The Bible is not the inspired word of God. Therefore, not all of what the Bible says is true because the Bible contains error and false teachings.

For the Christian, truth is found in the inerrant word of God—the Bible—which forms the basis for one’s the opinions, doctrines, and practices of Christianity. The definition of heresy is an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards. Ms. Chenoweth’s beliefs, opinions, and practices are unquestionably heretical by any standard or measure whether it is the plain language of the Scripture, reason, tradition, historical record, or scholarly study. Yet, Chenoweth’s beliefs are not uncommon but widespread in the general culture at large and within the church world as well. We shall examine her beliefs in light of what the Bible has to say.

Homosexuality is not a sin

Chenoweth believes that one who is engaged in homosexual activity will not be condemned to hell, but the Apostle Paul says that homosexuality is a sin, and the wages of sin is death.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own person the due penalty for their error.” [Romans 1: 18, 24-27. RSV] [emphasis added]

Because of Ms. Chenoweth’s defense of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, in Paul’s words she has suppressed the truth and embraced the lie. Therefore, she is preaching a false gospel.

Christians should not judge other people for what they believe

The world often chastises the Christian for judging non-Christians. They point to the phrase “judge not lest ye be judged” and thereby demand tolerance for the sinful behavior of non-Christians (see Matthew 7:1-5). But these verses generally apply to fellow believers. What Jesus is saying is that believers should not get in the habit of criticizing others while ignoring one’s own faults. For a Christian brother or sister who sins, Matthew 18:15-17 provides a specific manner for dealing with those situations.

However, the world takes the “judge not” verses of Matthew 7:1-5 out of context when dealing with non-Christians in an attempt to defend sinful behavior that clearly violates the commandments found in the Bible. Christians are allowed to make judgments with regard to sin in others.[6] But making such judgments is not done for the purpose of condemnation. Christians and the church should gently reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in the hope of a sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ.

There is a third area in which Christians are to judge sinful behavior in the world. Christians would be remiss if they did not speak out about sinful behavior and beliefs which debase and corrupt government and society as a whole. This becomes even more crucial when such sin invades the church. This occurs when Christians-in-name-only are in reality false teachers in the church whose goal is to lead the flock astray. Christians are to use discernment when making judgement of those who appear to be Christians but are really false teachers and false prophets (see Matthew 7:15-20). How are these false teachers recognized? If anyone teaches other than the word of God, they are false teachers and must be vehemently and publicly confronted as Jesus did with the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Chenoweth falls within this category of judgment because she is promoting/teaching a heretical gospel that opposes the truth of the word of God and therefore is a false teacher.

Jesus is all about love and accepting people, and he will not condemn homosexuality as a sin

In an attempt to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant, many churches gradually have compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. This is also the message of Kristen Chenoweth—Christ’s love is all that matters. But martyred German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer preached that this message of nonjudgmental love produces only a cheap grace.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[7]

Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love which attempts to redefine, hide, or deny sin but does not eradicate it. Rather, it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. Cheap grace makes the shedding of His blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

The Bible is not the inspired word of God but contains error and false teachings

For Chenoweth, the Bible is comparable to a plate of fish. One may pick and choose what one wishes and discard the rest. Her belief is that Jesus would love, accept, and have relationship with the homosexual while they continue in their sin. But this belief contradicts Paul’s warning to the Romans when he called such activity dishonorable passions and shameful acts which lead to eternal separation from God. Because of Chenoweth’s twisted view, the Scripture cannot be divine revelation but is in effect the product of changing conceptions of God within an evolving culture. When partaking of Chenoweth’s biblical smorgasbord, one may consume the meat of God’s love but leave bones of contrition, repentance, and turning from sin. But Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” [John 14:15. KJV]
______

Kristen Chenoweth is but one of a massive number of high-profile people in the arts, media, entertainment, and other fields who profess to be followers of Christ but are false teachers. This is not surprising for the Bible warns that there will be false teachers within the church.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive (damnable KJV) heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep. [2 Peter 2:1-3. RSV] [emphasis added]

And what of the multitudes being deceived by these false teachers? Paul tells us the reason people follow them.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. [2 Timothy 4:34. KJV]

In his letter to Timothy, Paul described these Christians-in-name-only in the emerging apostasy of the last days in which men and women who once knew Christ reject or abandon their faith.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. [2 Timothy 3:1-7. KJV] [emphasis added]

True Christians must turn away from the Kristin Chenoweths of the world. God commands it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Kristen Chenoweth – Biography,” IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0155693/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm (accessed March 20, 1017).
[2] Curtis M. Yong, “Kristen Chenoweth Speaks Out For Gay Marriage As Part Of HRC’s ‘American’s for Marriage Equality’ Effort,” The Huffington Post, updated February 2, 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/kristin-chenoweth-gay-marriage-hrc-_n_5697743.
html (accessed March 20, 2016).
[3] “Kristen Chenoweth – Biography,” UNDb.
[4] J. R. Tungol, “Kristin Chenoweth Talks Marriage Equality, Anti-gay Christians,” The Huffington Post, updated February 2, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/kristin-chenoweth-gay-marriage-christianity_n_2828968.html (accessed March 20, 2016).
[5] Sheila Marikar, “Kristen Chenoweth Defends ‘GCB’s’ Gay Plotline,” ABC News, March 5, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kristin-chenoweth-gcb-christians-gays/story? id=15828618 (accessed March 5, 2017).
[6] Commentary on Matthew 7:1-5, The Full Life Study Bible, King James Version, ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 1691.
[7] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117- 118.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part IV

This series of articles deals with the great apostasy in the church during the end of the last days as described by Christ in Matthew 24. Perhaps there is no man alive that has accelerated the church’s descent into apostasy more than Pope Francis. He is aggressively pursuing a progressive, liberal agenda in an attempt to fundamentally change the face of the Catholic Church and its doctrines and teachings, and two recent initiatives reflect his agenda. The first was dealt with in Part III and concerned heretical views of Islam and its relationship with Christianity. This article deals with the actions of the Pope which have dramatically accelerated the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in both the culture and the church.

Homosexuality

On July 28, 2013, Pope Francis was on a return flight on the papal plane following the XXVII World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro. Accompanying the pope were members of the press who were allowed to ask questions during a lengthy press conference during the flight. The final question asked by one of the participants concerned the worldwide news coverage of Monsignor Batista Ricci who had been recently picked to head the troubled Vatican bank. Ricci had been widely accused of homosexual activity during his management of the Pope’s diplomatic office in Uruguay during 1999-2001.[1]

Ricci purportedly had been sexually involved with a man whom Ricci demanded be given a job and room at the Uruguayan papal diplomatic mission. Ricci’s alleged homosexual activities had been widely reported in both Uruguayan and Italian newspapers. The accusations appear to have been well supported by many credible sources (Uruguayan bishops, priests, and laymen) and exhaustive documentation which was made available to Vatican authorities.[2]

The Pope stated that a preliminary investigation had found no wrongdoing by Father Ricci.[3] The Pope attempted to downplay the importance and power of the gay lobby within the Vatican when he said, “There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card!”[4] However, the Pope took the opportunity to expand his comments to include his view of homosexuality.

When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem … they’re our brothers.[5] [emphasis added]

The Pope’s now famous (for many, “infamous”) statement that he will not judge gays and lesbians including gay priests in the church appears to challenge the Catholic Church’s foundational doctrines and orthodoxy and stands in stark opposition to a document signed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.[6] Pope Francis’ position is also in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Catechism which is a document of Catholic religious instruction that explains the beliefs of the church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[7]

The Pope and the gay lobby within the Vatican conveniently fail to separate the sin of from the person. They also attempt to blur the lines between the tendency toward homosexuality and the sin of homosexual practices. Some Christians have a tendency toward homosexuality but valiantly fight that tendency and adhere to biblical standards of morality regarding sexual activity. The sin of practicing homosexuals separates them from God, and therefore they cannot be brothers or sisters in Christ except through repentance (not merely goodwill) and abstinence.

The meaning of “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

A thoughtful reading of Sermon on the Mount reveals that Jesus condemns the habit of criticizing others while ignoring one’s own faults and brings clarity to the meaning of His words, “judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. [Matthew 7:1-5. RSV]

Jesus is not saying that we are to ignore the sins of others as Pope Francis’ laconic “Who am I to judge?” suggests. In rendering judgement, we must first make a distinction between judging fellow believers and sinners.

Bringing correction to fellow Christians

A Christian is not prohibited from influencing the behavior of other Christians who are in error or sin (v.3: the speck in our brother’s eye). However, the Christian must first submit himself to God’s righteous standard (v. 3: consider the log that is in our own eye). Also, such hoped-for influence must always be done with the goal of seeing the offender return to God and His righteous pathways. However, the great majority of people (both in and out of the church) fail to see that these verses do not prohibit judgement and correction which is a matter of church discipline and necessary to protect God’s reputation, maintain moral purity, insure doctrinal integrity, and to make possible the restoration of the wayward Christian’s soul and Christlikeness.[8]

Christians and the judgment of sinners

When a Christian attempts to influence the behavior of sinners, the gospel must be lovingly and graciously presented. The Christian’s judgment of the sinner’s condition is not based on the Christian’s opinion or theories but on what the Bible says about man’s sinful condition. Christians are called upon to judge between right and wrong based on morality and truth as revealed in God’s word, but again such judgement must be done in a spirit of love, kindness, and concern for the sinner, not in a spirit of condemnation.

Much of the world and the church have adopted the humanistic definitions of love and tolerance in which God’s love is so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. God’s nonjudgmental love is presumed to be so great that sin will be tolerated. In other words, love and doing good is all that matters to a tolerant nonjudgmental God. But this is a false message that is causing millions to miss an eternity in heaven with Jesus and will result in an eternity in hell.

Pope Francis’ “Who am I to Judge?” effectively implies that the unrepentant, practicing homosexual can have communion and on-going fellowship as a member of the Catholic Church if they “accept the Lord and have goodwill.” But the Bible says that a person will receive forgiveness if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord. This means that goodwill is not a substitute for turning from sin because anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. Therefore, the church cannot teach that a penitent may find Jesus as their Savior but not the Lord of their lives. The presence of sin is ruinous of man’s relationship with God, and the only alternative requires repentance and turning from sin.

It is without a doubt that the Pope knew his comments on homosexuality would generate an avalanche of worldwide media attention and change the landscape with regard to the biblical understanding of homosexuality in both the church and culture at large. A recent example is Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s use of Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” to support his view that practicing homosexuals were not in sinful relationships. He went on to say that the first chapter of Genesis supported his view of homosexuality.

I think it’s [the Catholic Church] going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind and said, “It is very good.” Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.[9]

The Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” was just another humanistic, progressivist brick tossed through the windows of the church to weaken the authority of the Bible in matters of truth, doctrine, and morality in order to make the church more inclusive and accommodating to the spirit of the world.
______

In Parts II, III, and IV we have shown the specifics of Pope Francis’ apostasy: promotion of socialistic-Marxist systems of economy and governance centered on humanism and branded as “a new humanity”; advancement of universalism in which all roads lead to heaven if paved with good works; promotion of heretical concepts of salvation devoid of repentance and acceptance of Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior; calls for merging Christianity with false religions in the name of peace and unity; and the acceptance and toleration of sin within the church such as legitimization of the sin of homosexuality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/29/pope-francis-gay-priests (accessed September 10, 2016).
[2] Matthew Hoffman, “Uruguayan newspaper confirms accusations of homosexual conduct by Vatican bank appointee,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 23, 2013. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uruguayan-newspaper-confirms-accusations-of-homosexual-conduct-by-vatican-b (accessed September 15, 2016).
[3] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
[4] John L. Allen, Jr. and Hada Messia, “Pope Francis on gays: ‘Who am I to Judge?’” CNN, July 29, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/ (accessed September 20, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Steve Jalsevac, “Evidence of a trail of wreckage from Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?’” LifeSiteNews.com, June 23, 2016. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/evidence-of-a-trail-of-wreckage-from-pope-francis-who-am-i-to-judge (accessed September 10, 2016).
[7] “Chastity and Homosexuality,” The Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (accessed September 15, 2016).
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 16, 43.
[9] Michael Brown, “Why Tim Kaine Is Wrong About Genesis Endorsing Homosexual Acts,” The Christian Post, September 12, 2016. http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-tim-kaine-is-wrong-about-genesis-endorsing-homosexual-acts-169462/ (accessed September 23, 2016).

The insidious nature of humanism

The great majority of people who understand humanism and embrace its philosophies and worldview are atheists or at best non-theistic agnostics. They must be so for the Humanist Manifestos I and II state that they “…can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species…the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”[1] Yet, over the last several decades millions of people who believe in the Christian God and the biblical creation have quietly and unknowingly incorporated many of the tenets of humanism into their worldviews. This number includes a large number of evangelical leaders and church members in America who have accepted these tenants because of the insidious nature of humanism. It is a sinister, treacherous, and deceptive philosophy whose followers have risen to leadership levels in all spheres of American life. That is not to say that all leaders are humanistic in their worldviews. Also, many who have incorporated elements of the humanistic philosophy are not card-carrying advocates of the humanistic philosophy but have been deceived.

Humanism is the arch-enemy of Christianity, but few Christians understand humanism or its system of beliefs. Therefore, they blindly accept many cultural ideas, initiatives, and innovations because they have been saturated by decades of indoctrination in the humanistic philosophy. Many are ignorant of humanism’s ultimate goals and ignorant of their own Christian faith that stands in opposition to those goals.

Perhaps there is no greater issue that separates the two belief systems than their respective concepts of truth. Christians believe in objective, final, unchangeable truth as found in the Bible. The humanist conceptions of truth are as follows:

The humanistic worldview regarding truth is one of cultural relativism which requires a suspension of judgment since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all truth. For humanists, all social constructions are culturally relative as they are shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity. Thus, there can be no universal truths because all viewpoints, lifestyles, and beliefs are equally valid. As a result, no man or group can claim to be infallible with regard to truth and virtue. Rather, truth is produced by the free give and take of competing claims and opinions, that is, truth can be manufactured.[2]

But how do Christians separate truth from the lie and respond accordingly when constantly bombarded by humanistic concepts and ideas that have saturated every sphere of American life for several decades (including many churches and denominations)?

Separating the Christian and Humanistic worldviews?

First, the Christian must understand that Christ does not call His followers to win the war against Satan and his forces but to be faithful in fighting the battles he or she encounters in the everyday business of living life. To be an effective soldier in this battle, the average Christian does not have to have a degree in theology, be an articulate orator, or occupy an exalted position in society to defend one’s faith, family, and culture.

A Christian must listen and understand the beliefs, proposals, and concepts put forth by the various spheres of life in America. Although it is helpful to have knowledge of the general concepts and goals of humanism, it is more important that the Christian know what he or she believes, that is, one must know what the Bible says and why he or she believes it. It is only then that the Christian can know truth and respond appropriately. In summary, (1) listen to the beliefs, concepts, arguments, arguments, and proposals put forth, (2) restate them so you understand what is really being said, (3) rely on the Bible for guidance and direction in finding the truth, and (4) seek the Holy Spirit’s help in responding with authority and in a loving manner. As an example, let’s use this procedure in responding to a recent editorial in the Tulsa World.

In the Tulsa World Sunday edition (July 17, 2016), Associate Editor Mike Jones wrote an editorial on homosexuality titled “Love and hate.”[3] Jones states that the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is of recent origin and now used almost exclusively by those who disapprove of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. In this editorial Jones attempts to defend homosexuality by challenging the Christian’s interpretation of the meaning of the Bible as well as challenging the truth of the Bible itself with regard to homosexuality.

The complete truthfulness of the Bible is challenged

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” never appears in the New Testament. There are verses that can be applied or construed to prove that God or Jesus disapproved of homosexuality. Ignoring Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27 can be read to address men cavorting with men and women with women. But also, that chapter along with at least seven others, and arguably more, in the New Testament were written by Paul, and we can argue all day about whether Jesus told him what to write.[4] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that: (1) All scripture is not the inspired word of God. (2) Those portions of the scripture condemning homosexuality aren’t applicable because Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality.

There is no question that the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality in a very forthright and plain manner (Romans 1: 18, 24-27), and Jones does not dispute that Paul held this view of homosexuality. What Jones is challenging is the truthfulness or validity of portions of the Bible when he says that we can argue all day about whether Jesus told Paul what to write. By using Jones’ line of reasoning, we must ignore the divine inspiration of much if not all of scripture. Consequently, the Bible is not objective truth, contains errors, and is effectively reduced to a book of suggestions of mortal men except perhaps for the red letters depicting Christ’s words in the New Testament. However, Jones ignores the fact that the Bible itself speaks of its supreme authority in all matters of truth. Also, most Christians believe that Paul’s admonishment that homosexuality is a sin is part of the inspired word of God and is no less inspired than the writings of those who recorded the words of Christ in the gospels.

Homosexuality is not a sin

… many more passages can be found in the New Testament where Jesus was reported to have urged his followers to love everyone. Opting for the “sin” phrase is basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner. Of course, that also implies that their sexual preference is a chosen lifestyle. So, simply put, you are condemning to hell that person you say you really want to love.[5] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? (1) He makes no distinction between the person and their sin. (2) We must love the homosexual and ignore their lifestyle.

Jones argues that there are many more passages in the New Testament where Jesus urges his followers to love everyone. He says that opting for the sin portion of “love the sinner, hate the sin” phrase is “basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner.” But that is exactly what Paul is saying. Homosexuality is a sin along with other sins such as evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Homosexuality is not destructive to marriages, families, and to society in general

I will never understand why people are so afraid. I’ve heard their reasons: “Homosexuality destroys families!” “Homosexuality destroys marriage!” “We have to save these sinners from AIDS!” “It’s an abomination unto God!”

No one has ever explained to me how families or marriages are destroyed. There are far too many happy, solid families comprised of gay couples. And I think the straight community is doing a good enough job on its own in the destroying marriage and families department.

The claim of saving them from AIDS is another smokescreen. Gay men know how to save themselves from AIDS. We’ve learned a lot about that disease — one being it’s not a curse from God.[6]

What is Jones really saying: There is no evidence of the damage done by homosexuality to families, marriages, and the larger society.

However, there is abundant evidence throughout history that homosexuality does destroy marriages, families, and nations. Many current studies and statistics support this contention. Even without scientific studies and a truthful examination of history, we can know that homosexuality is undeniably damaging to individuals, families, and society in general. How do we know this? God deems homosexuality as a sin, and “The wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Biblical truth is non-negotiable, and no amount of conversation, argument, debate, and reasoning among men, however sincere and well-meaning, will change this.

Homosexuals were born that way and therefore cannot be morally condemned

Telling a gay couple that they are committing a sin is like telling a blue-eyed kid that he needs to change the color of his eyes because God hates blue-eyed people and having blue eyes is a sin. Of course you wouldn’t say such an outrageous and hurtful thing to a child or anyone. After all, they were born with blue eyes. Either genetics put them there or God did. That can’t be changed.[7]

What is Jones really saying? Homosexuality cannot be morally condemned because homosexuals were born that way.

Defenders of homosexuality argue that moral distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality are invalid because homosexuals were born that way. Christians can point out that sound scientific studies have not proven that homosexuality has a genetic basis (either causal or predispositional). Recent support for the Christian position came from one of the most unlikely sources. The New Atlantis is a journal of technology and society dedicated to the LGBT community. It published a newly released report co-authored by two psychiatric experts affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The report is titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences,” and states that “Born that way” is a myth.

The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biological fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that “—is not supported by scientific evidence… Genes constitute only one of the many key influences on behavior in addition to environmental influences, personal choices, and interpersonal experiences.[8] [emphasis added]

However, the Christian must never accept or surrender his biblical beliefs about homosexuality based on the findings of scientists. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexuality was not a choice but a genetic predisposition or even genetically caused. The Christian can show that humans are born with many scientifically determined predispositions or genetic factors that result in culturally unacceptable behavior such as alcoholism. One study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such scientific evidence of genetic links does not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices.

Condemning homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual

Finding someone you love and wanting to spend the rest of your life (or at least a good portion of it) with them is certainly not sinful. They aren’t wrecking families, killing the institution of marriage and they are not ruining kids’ lives.

Adopting and defending the word “hate” certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

You want to put someone’s life on your version of the straight and narrow, go find someone in your congregation and tell them to quit drinking so much or that dancing might place them on the road to degradation.

I think I know what the answer will be: Mind you own business.

Good advice.[9] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that hating the sin of homosexuality does not follow the teachings of Jesus. However, humanists who claim love is all that is necessary to merit the grace of God either ignore or dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world to make possible God’s forgiveness of sinful man, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow the Bible’s commandments. But, if love is all that is necessary, then Christ’s death on the cross becomes irrelevant because God’s holiness must then coexist with sin. Therefore, how men live their lives has no bearing on their eternal destination.

Jones is also saying that Christians should continue to do good works, that condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual as a person, that the Bible is wrong where is says that homosexuality is a sin, and that Christians should ignore homosexuality and focus on “real” sins. In essence, Jones is saying to the Christian, “Shut up and mind your own business!” Thus, Christianity and Christian beliefs are banned from influence in the public square. That is the recurrent message of humanism.

How is the Christian to respond? This writer has often quoted the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words to his fellow pastors who were being arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps in the late 1930s. As they faced persecution, imprisonment, and even death, he cautioned them to retain the biblical understanding of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.”[10]

______

There are millions of people in America like Mike Jones who champion the humanist worldview, twist the words and meaning of the Bible, and in the end challenge the truth of the Bible in order to advance the humanist agenda. Many of them are unaware of what they are doing or the consequences thereof. Yet, Christians must be alert, faithful, and persistent in presenting the truth of God’s word and defending their Christian faith. Because America is no longer a Christian-friendly nation, Christians must expect that their opposition to the humanist philosophy and agenda will subject them and their families to marginalization, ridicule, harassment, loss of educational and job opportunities, financial loss, imprisonment, and possibly even more severe forms of persecution. However, the Christian’s consolation is found in the New Testament book of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 16-17.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 392-393.
[3] Mike Jones, “Love and hate,” Tulsa World, July 17, 2016, G1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Mary Rice Hasson and Theresa Farnon, “Report Debunks ‘Born That Way’ Narrative And ‘Transgender’ Label For Kids,” The Federalist, August 23, 2016.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/23/report-debunks-born-that-way-narrative-and-transgender-label-for-kids/ (accessed September 1, 2016).
[9] Jones, “Love and hate,” G-1.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.

Humanism’s equality handcuffs freedom and violates the Constitution

Until recently most Americans had never heard of the highly respected Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. That changed dramatically when Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired Cochran because of his religious beliefs. The facts behind the firing are straightforward. Cochran self-published a book in 2013 titled Who Told You That You Were Naked? One paragraph in the book labeled homosexuality as “a perversion.” After the mayor learned of the book, he initially placed Cochran on a thirty-day suspension beginning November 24, 2014.[1] The mayor denied knowing that Cochran had written a book prior to his suspension. However, Cochran stated that he had given the mayor a copy of the book in January 2014, and that the mayor promised to read it on an upcoming trip. Cochran also said the director of Atlanta’s ethics office had given him permission to write the book and to mention in his biography that he was the city’s fire chief.[2]

Following the one-month suspension, the mayor fired Cochran just as he was preparing to return as head of the fire department. Defending his decision to fire Cochran the mayor stated, “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.” Prior to Cochran’s firing, the mayor publicly condemned the fire chief on his official Facebook page. “I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham stated that Cochran’s “anti-gay” views could result in a hostile work environment.[3]

Cochran said that the comments regarding homosexuality were contained in less than one-half page of a 160 page book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group at his Baptist church. He stated that the reference to homosexuality was made in the larger context that sexual activity was designed to be between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Outside of that, any other sexual activity including homosexuality is sin.[4] Further, Cochran defended his beliefs and his right to express himself.

The LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.[5]

In an Opinion Page piece by The New York Times, it was not a surprise to find that the newspaper supported Cochran’s firing. The Times Editorial Board stated that Cochran’s claim of religious discrimination had it backwards.

It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about ‘making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against…It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. The First Amendment already protects religious freedom…Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.[6] [emphasis added]

It appears that the Times Editorial Board subordinates religious freedom and the practice thereof to the whims of a hypersensitive workplace environment and totally extinguishes freedom of religion and speech for high-level public servants and governmental officials.

Should the Times Editorial Board have been present with the patriots at Valley Forge on March 10, 1778, their radical egalitarian sensibilities would have experienced great shock perhaps resulting in terminal apoplexy because of a high governmental official’s supposed flagrant discrimination against one Lieutenant Enslin as a result of his attempt at homosexual actions.

Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.[7]

Should the Editorial Board still be in doubt as to Washington’s Christian beliefs, less than two months after Lieutenant Enslin’s disgrace Washington issued these orders to his troops at Valley Forge.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.[8]

How did America arrive at such a state of affairs that the extreme egalitarian views of humanistic governmental officials equate one’s Christian beliefs and the sharing of those beliefs with the creation of a hostile work environment? Even though the fire chief was not found guilty of mistreatment of homosexuals in or out of government, Cochran was deemed guilty because of his status as a public official who expressed religious beliefs that were contrary to the beliefs of the homosexual community. It is ludicrous for The New York Times to label Cochran’s firing as anything other than a blatant violation of Cochran’s First Amendment rights which apply to every American including public servants and officials of whatever rank or station.

Equality, rightly applied, is equality before God and the law. However, the humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with a rapacious egalitarianism that imposes regimentation and leveling. This twisted understanding of human equality places special emphasis on social, political, and economic rights and privileges and focuses on the removal of any imagined or invented inequalities among humankind. This focus results in a forced leveling of society which leads to socialism and ultimately loss of freedom.

Driving religious beliefs from the public square does not enhance but destroys religious freedom in order to attain the egalitarian ideal. Because of a growing humanistic worldview among the leadership of the institutions of American life, the nation’s central cultural vision is under assault from humanists’ surgically precise efforts to separate church and state and to sweep away all evidence of our Christian cultural heritage. Even our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of religion and speech are no longer sacrosanct from such assaults. For humanists, religious freedom means only freedom to spread the humanist orthodoxy and worship their god of equality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Atlanta Fire Chief fired over controversial statements,” myfoxatlanta.com, January 6, 2015. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/27772986/mayor-holds-news-conference-on-fire-chiefs-future (accessed January 21, 2015).
[2] Todd Starnes, “Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith,” Fox News, January 7, 2015.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-was-fired-because-my-christian-faith/ (accessed
January 21, 2015).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Editorial Board, “God, Gays, and the Atlanta Fire Department,” The New York Times, January 13, 2015.
[7] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 642.
[8] Ibid., pp. 642-643.