Gay Marriage is a Symptom of a Deeper Issue

This week, the United States Supreme Court will be considering arguments on the constitutionality of two key laws dealing with so-called gay marriage rights: California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Those who support granting the legal right for homosexuals to marry frame the issue as a civil rights issue. As one of my Facebook friends put it, “What possible good does it do us as a people to arbitrarily deny others the opportunity to achieve their dreams? Equal rights: I’m for them.”

Those opposing the legalization of gay marriage usually frame the discussion in terms of an attack on the family. As one prominent evangelical put it, “Now, this institution that has preserved the context for intimacy, procreation, and the raising of children is threatened with a redefinition that would render the state’s conception of marriage at odds with millennia of human wisdom, putting human flourishing at risk.”

I contend that the debate over so-called gay marriage rights is really just a symptom of a much deeper issue. Who determines what is right and wrong? Who determines what is moral and immoral? Is truth determined by public consensus, or by Almighty God?

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things (Romans 1:18-23).

The gay marriage issue is a symptom of society’s rejection of the truth of God. It’s not that people don’t know the truth; God’s truth is seen in everything He created. Everything around us points to the truth of God’s Word, the Bible. The problem is that our culture suppresses the truth – we make up excuses, we devise clever arguments, and we make up our own “truth.” Human nature is to rebel against God. We think we’re smarter than God. We set ourselves up as the rulers of our own lives, rather than submitting to the true Ruler of all – God. This is complete and utter foolishness.

²⁴ Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷ Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (Romans 1:24-27).

Most homosexuals claim that the reason they are gay is because they were born that way. They claim that there is a biological basis for their homosexuality.

First, there is no scientific basis for such a claim. Despite objections to the contrary, a so-called “gay gene” has never been discovered. There isn’t a shred of observable scientific evidence supporting the notion that some people are born gay.

Second, suppose, for the sake of argument, that a “gay gene” is eventually identified and scientifically verified as existing. What then? Would this support the argument that God made some people homosexual, and that this therefore makes gay marriage morally acceptable?

Genetic mutation is a result of the Fall of mankind in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve were genetically perfect when God created them. Six thousand years of mutations have accumulated in the human genome since that time. Genetic abnormalities are responsible for numerous conditions, from Sickle-Cell Anemia to Down’s Syndrome. God didn’t create these conditions; they are the result of the sin of Adam, and subsequently, the sins of all humankind. So it would be if a “gay gene” were to be discovered. Such a gene would not exist because God created it; rather, it would exist because of the corruption of the genes God originally created.

Even if a so-called “gay gene” were to be identified – which it has not – this would not logically support the concept that homosexual actions are acceptable to God.

According to Romans 1:24-27, homosexual behavior is the consequence of rejecting God. Because people have suppressed the truth and exchanged the truth of God for lies, God has rejected them, and given them over to the consequences of their choices.

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ²⁹ being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, ³⁰ backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, ³¹ undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; ³² who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:28-31).

Here’s the part that many Evangelical Christians miss: homosexuality is just one of a plethora of sins, and we’re all guilty, not just homosexuals.

In this passage, God puts sins such as envy, whispering about others, unforgiveness, and lack of mercy on the same level as homosexuality, murder, and sexual immorality.

All sin, from “little” sins like boasting and gossip, to “big” sins like homosexuality and murder, are the result of rejecting God’s authority over us. All sins, whether we consider them big or small, are offensive to God, and worthy of His wrath. The gay marriage issue is a symptom of the deeper issue of rejecting God. Not only do those who practice sin deserve death, but also those approve of those who practice them. Acceptance of sin is the same as actually practicing sin in God’s eyes.

Should so-called gay marriage be accepted as normal, and made legal? Absolutely not! But, neither should other kinds of sin. When sin is recognized as normal and acceptable by a society, that society opens itself to God’s judgment and wrath. When people turn to God, repent of their sin, and receive forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ, they receive God’s grace, rather than His wrath.

We are reaping what we have sown. The evil we have increasingly seen in our world is the direct result of God’s judgment of our culture’s increasing acceptance of sin.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

~ Isaiah 5:20

Great Big Stupid World – A Reading Test

Are you smarter than a fifth grader? The following reading comprehension test is written at approximately a fifth-grade level.

Directions: Read each of the following passages. Answer the questions that follow.

---

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

1. In this passage, the word establishment means:
   1. a commercial organization
   2. official recognition as a national institution
   3. allowing public expression
   4. permitting
2. In this passage, the phrase free exercise means:
   1. unrestricted practice
   2. fitness without cost
   3. limited if it offends someone
   4. practiced only in private
3. The First Amendment states that which of the following is prohibited?
   1. free exercise of religion
   2. respecting religion
   3. praying at public events
   4. Congress imposing an official national religion
4. What is the main idea of the passage?
   1. Citizens may not express their religious beliefs publicly.
   2. The government may neither force a specific religion on citizens, nor limit how citizens practice religion.
   3. The government must reject all forms of belief in God.
   4. Religious expression is prohibited on government property, at government funded events, and by government employees.

   ---

   The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

   
   
   

5. In this passage, the word arms means:
   1. weapons and ammunition
   2. hunting rifles
   3. body parts
   4. “gun-free” zones
6. According to this passage, what is to be well-regulated?
   1. guns
   2. people
   3. militias
   4. ammunition
7. According to the Second Amendment, people have the right to bear arms in order to _____ .
   1. hunt deer
   2. form militias
   3. protect themselves from burglars
   4. shoot at clay pigeons
8. A militia is:
   1. an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
   2. a hunting organization
   3. a law that restricts gun ownership
   4. the police department
9. In this passage, the best meaning for the word infringed is:
   1. permitted
   2. the hem of a garment
   3. expensive
   4. controlled
10. What is the main idea of the Second Amendment?
    1. Guns must be controlled to keep whackos from killing children
    2. Only government military and police should have assault rifles.
    3. All citizens have the right to unrestricted weapon ownership so they can form militias.
    4. People can own guns so they can hunt, shoot targets, and threaten bad guys.

---

Answers:

1. B
2. A
3. D
4. B
5. A
6. C
7. B
8. A
9. D
10. C

Scoring:

9 – 10 correct: You can read and understand what you read. You do not allow bias to cloud your judgment.

8 correct: You may need to brush up on your reading skills, or else use them more objectively.

6 – 7 correct: You either lack basic critical reading skills, or fail to use them when you don’t like what you are reading.

0 – 5 correct: You are either illiterate, or you are blinded by political ideology.

Great Big Stupid World – Reaping What We Have Sown

On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, and then massacred 20 students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, before taking his own life.

The staggering loss of innocent lives has left many asking, “Why?”

People blame everything from lack of gun control, to CIA conspiracies, to lack of treatment for the mentally ill, to video games and rap music, to media coverage and copycat murderers.

I believe our culture is simply reaping what it has sown.

⁷ Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. ⁸ For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. ⁹ And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

American society has learned to mock God. We have largely thrown God out of our schools, our media, our government, and our lives. God has been relegated to a few church pews, a couple of days a week, for a few hours, for a handful of people who are considered by most as relics of the past.

Most children are taught in school that they are accidents of nature and nothing more than animals, albeit somewhat more evolved than most, rather than being created in the image of God, Who loves them. Then we wonder why they act like animals.

Much of our modern music and many video games glorify killing, drugs, sex, and death. Then we wonder why teen pregnancy and abortion rates are so high, and why someone would walk into a school or mall and start shooting people.

Television portrays God as a myth, Christians as intolerant bigots, fathers as idiots, and the traditional family as irrelevant. Then, we wonder why Godly values are ignored, and why our kids are out of control.

As our culture has sown, so has it reaped.

The problem is not gun violence, drug abuse, rap music, abortion, greed, suicide, the education system, the Democrats, or the Republicans. These are just symptoms of a deeper problem. The real problem is that our culture mocks God. We have lost our foundation; we have rejected our Creator.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

The United States was once blessed, because we were built on a Biblical foundation. That foundation is gone, and has been replaced by a humanistic foundation that says mankind can choose whatever he wants about right or wrong. When human beings decide what is right and wrong, we invariably choose wrong, and call it right. And in the process, we mock God.

Why do people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Seung-Hui Cho kill people? Psychologists will debate the causes, but from a Biblical perspective, I believe they simply act in a manner consistent with what society teaches them. Our culture taught them that human life is basically meaningless, that we are animals, and death and killing are glorious – a lesson they learned well.

Our culture is reaping what it has sown; the culture mocks God, then wonders why God doesn’t intervene.

How do we fix the problem? Not through politics, or social programs, or public education:

⁸ For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. ⁹ And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

God help us.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 8

A while back, I read an article on Alternet.org, the anti-religion, left-wing, “news”-and-commentary website, entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

Valerie Tarico

While I personally find most of the articles on this site to be little more than irrational liberal blathering, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, those who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can often learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #8: Intrusion

Australian comedian and atheist John Safran flew to Salt Lake City for a round of door-to-door devangelism after Mormons rang his doorbell one too many times on Saturday morning. More serious intrusions, in deeply personal beginning- and end-of-life decisions, for example, generate reactive anti-theism in people who mostly just want to live and let live.

Catholic and evangelical conservatives have made a high-stakes gamble that they can regain authoritarian control over their flocks and hold onto the next generation of believers (and tithers) by asserting orthodox dogmas, making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition. Their goal is a level of theological purity that will produce another Great Awakening based largely on the same dogmas as the last one. They hope to cleanse their membership of theological diversity, and assert top-down control of conscience questions, replenishing their membership with anti-feminist, pro-natalist policies and proselytizing in the Southern hemisphere. But the more they resort to strict authoritarianism, insularity and strict interpretation of Iron Age texts, the more people are wounded in the name of God and the more people are outraged. By making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition, they force at least some would-be believers to choose “nothing.” Anti-theists are all too glad to help.

Tarico starts off by making a good point: Barging in on people turns them off. Nobody likes having the Gospel – or anything else, for that matter – shoved down their throat. Nobody likes being intruded upon. This is a point that almost everyone would agree with.

She then does a bait-and-switch by equating “intrusion” with conservative Christianity. She asserts that Christian leaders who teach a literal Bible do in order to “assert top-down control” and “regain authoritarian control over their flocks.”

While it is true that some conservative churches are highly authoritarian and almost cultish in their control over their membership, this is neither Biblical nor typical. To imply that because some conservative churches are controlling, all conservative churches are controlling, is to commit the logical fallacy of the hasty generalization.

Tarico also begs the question when she argues that evangelical conservative Christians are wrong because we make Christianity an “all-or-nothing proposition.” She assumes absolute truth does not exist; therefore, Biblical Christianity is wrong, because it teaches absolute truth. This is nothing more than a circular argument. Her argument merely assumes what it is trying to prove.

Here’s the point: The Bible itself teaches that Jesus Christ is an “all-or-nothing proposition.” “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” John 14:6. It’s not a matter of churches exerting “authoritarian control” or “top-down control.” It’s a matter of teaching the Truth. As the Apostle Peter, referring to Jesus, said, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Sounds like an “all-or-nothing proposition” to me.

What Tarico is advocating is compromise. And while she is probably correct that compromise will gain and retain more converts, the question becomes, converts to what? If we teach and preach a compromised Gospel, it’s not Gospel at all. As Paul wrote:

⁶ I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, ⁷ which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

When Tarico denounces “theological purity” and “strict interpretation,” she is denouncing the truth. She is absolutely correct when she states, “By making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition, they force at least some would-be believers to choose ‘nothing’.” What she doesn’t realize is, believing in “nothing” is no different than believing in a false gospel. Both lead to Hell; neither leads to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Too many churches preach a compromised, false gospel, and are filled with compromised, false Christians, who think they are headed for Heaven, but are bound for Hell. As Jesus said:

²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Matthew 7:21-23.

Tarico makes 3 valid points:

1. Nobody likes pushy people – especially pushy Christians.
2. Authoritarian control has no place in the church, and
3. Teaching the truth will turn people away.

The church should have nothing to do with the first two points, but must be uncompromising in its insistence on the truth. God’s truth leads to eternal life; falsehood leads to eternal death.

Tarico and other non-believers cannot understand the things of God, because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Yet, they often provide insight that Christians can use to further the Kingdom of God and lead people to Jesus Christ. As we listen to what non-Christians say, we need to filter their words through the Word of God, and glean those things that can help us to reach them with the uncompromised Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 7

Some time ago, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

Valerie Tarico

While I personally find most of the articles on this site to be little more than irrational liberal ranting, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, people who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can often learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #7: Political Meddling

If you look at religion-bashing quote-quip-photo-clip-links that circulate Facebook and Twitter, most of them are prompted by church incursions into the political sphere. A spat between two atheists erupted on my home page yesterday. “Why can’t ex-Christians just shut up about religion and get on with building a better world?” asked one. “Why can’t we shut up?!” screeched the other. “Because of shit like this!” He posted a link about Kansas giving doctors permission to deny contraception and accurate medical information to patients.

I myself give George W. Bush credit for transforming me from a politically indifferent, digging-in-the-garden agnostic into a culture warrior. He casually implied that, when going to war, he didn’t need to consult with his own father because he had consulted the big guy in the sky, and my evangelical relatives backed him up on that, and I thought, oh my God, the beliefs I was raised on are killing people. The Religious Right, and now the Catholic bishops, have brought religion into politics in the ugliest possible way short of holy war, and people who care about the greater good have taken notice. Lists of ugly Bible verses, articles about the psychology of religion, investigative exposes about Christian machinations in D.C. or rampant proselytizing in the military and public schools –all of these are popular among political progressives because it is impossible to drive progressive change without confronting religious fundamentalism.

Before I move on to the valid points Tarico makes, let me point out some of the logical problems with her arguments.

First, she presumes that the religious beliefs of Christians should have no bearing whatsoever in American politics. She implies that George W. Bush’s beliefs should have been left outside the White House gates, and that the Religious Right and Catholics have no business bringing their beliefs into the realm of politics. Yet, at the same time, she argues that her religious view – that God does not exist – should be the foundation of the American political mindset. What Tarico and others like her are arguing for is not the removal of religion, but the establishment of Secular Humanism as the state religion.

Besides the liberal use of question-begging epithets (ugly Bible verses, fundamentalism) and fear mongering (holy war), the other glaringly illogical line of reasoning is in the statement, “…and I thought, oh my God, the beliefs I was raised on are killing people.” First, it’s ironic that she thought, “…oh my God…,” since she says she doesn’t believe in God. Perhaps she was just trying to be funny. Or perhaps it is an indication that, subconsciously, she knows that God does exist, although she fights to suppress that truth. More important that the slip in theology is the irrationality of claiming that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because Bush thought God told him to. First, the fact that Bush prayed about it before making a decision does not mean evangelical Christianity was the cause of the war. And second, if one compares the number of deaths caused in the name of “christianity” versus those committed by atheistic or secular humanistic regimes, there is no comparison – hands down, atheism and secularism have taken far more lives in war than “christianity.” The evangelical Christian beliefs Tarico was raised on are not what caused the wars in Iraq and Iran; sin is what causes wars. If people all became Christians, and actually followed Biblical teaching, there would be no wars.

What can I as a follower of Jesus Christ learn from what Tarico says here?

First, we need to be careful how we mix our relationship with Jesus Christ with our political views. During the recent election season, this became quite evident. I must confess, at times I let my political disgust with President Obama tarnish my Christian witness. As one meme put it, “God does not want us to bring DEMOCRACY to people. He wants us to bring CHRIST to people.” Unfortunately, I now realize that some of my political postings on Facebook offended many of the people God has called me to reach with the Gospel. Regardless of whether we have a syncretistic humanist like Obama as President, or a Mormon like Romney, or even an evangelical like Bush, government is inherently secular and temporary. The Gospel has eternal implications. Political regimes will come and go, but human souls are eternal. The choices we make about which person becomes the President are only relevant for a brief time, but the choice we make about Jesus Christ affects us for eternity.

Secondly, Tarico’s thoughts point out how our underlying presuppositions define our worldview and actions. Because she rejects God, she must logically reject anything associated with God. She must believe that human beings are the ultimate authority in politics, morality, and every other aspect of life. In order to bring people to Jesus Christ, Christians cannot simply attack the symptoms of unbelief – abortion, socialism, evolution, homosexuality, and so on – but need to attack the underlying presuppositions that the unbeliever’s worldview is founded upon. We must help unbeliever understand why their foundational beliefs don’t make sense, and why Biblical Christianity is the only rational worldview based on reality. Focusing on the external symptoms doesn’t change hearts and minds. Only by building on the foundational truths of God’s Word can hearts and minds be turned to Jesus Christ.

Christian, be careful how you mix the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the gospel of your political views.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 3

The anti-religion, left-wing, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org published an article by skeptic Valerie Tarico entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism.” While I find most of the articles on this site either offensive or just plain ignorant, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

Ultimately, people who reject Jesus Christ do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). However, there are also things that many in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

As a Christian, I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about why people leave the church. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Tarico’s third reason:

3. Misogyny. For psychological and social reasons females are more inclined toward religious belief than males. They are more likely to attend church services and to insist on raising their children in a faith community. They also appear more indifferent than males to rational critique of religion, like debates about theology or evolutionary biology. I was interested to notice recently that my YouTube channel, Life After Christianity, which focuses on the psychology of religion gets about 80 percent male viewers. Women are the church’s base constituency, but fortunately for atheists, this fact hasn’t caused conservative Christians to back off of sexism that is justified by – you got it – prooftexting from the Old and New Testaments.

Evangelical minister Jim Henderson recently published a book, The Resignation of Eve, in which he urges his fellow Christians to take a hard look at the consequences of sexism in the church. According to Henderson, old-school sexism has driven some women out of Christianity permanently, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. For those who stay, it means that many are less enthusiastic and engaged than they would be. Churches rely on women to volunteer in roles that range from secretary to director of children’s programs to missionaries. That takes a high level of confidence in church doctrines and also a strong sense of belonging. Biblical sexism cultivates neither. Between 1991 and 2011 the percent of women attending church in a typical week dropped by 11 points, from 55 to 44 percent.

Definitions

First, let’s define some terms:

Misogyny
is the hatred of women.

Sexism is:

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially
: discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Prooftexting means to pull a Bible passage out of context and to use it to justify a doctrinal position.

Misogyny and sexism in the Bible

Does the Bible promote misogyny, the hatred of women?

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, ²⁶ that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. ³⁰ For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ³¹ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:25-33

There is no verse in the Bible that teaches the hatred of women. God does not hate any person. It is not in His nature to hate people. God hates sin, but loves everyone in the world (John 3:16). Because He loves all people, including women, He has commanded His people to love women, not to hate them.

Does the Bible teach sexism? The answer depends a lot on semantics. The Bible does not teach prejudice or discrimination; nor does it teach stereotyping. It does, however, teach that men and women have different roles and functions within the Church.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Genesis 2:18

To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

From the beginning, God created women and men to work together, but with differing roles. Those roles were in perfect harmony until sin entered the world. After the Fall, the roles of men and women changed for the worse, not because of God, but because of human sin.

Many atheists like to point to verses such as Leviticus 21:9, Leviticus 12:2, or Leviticus 15:19-23 to claim that God hates women. First, the atheist does exactly what they accuse Christians of doing when they prooftext – pull passages out of context to support their view. The Old Testament Law was never about making a person acceptable to God, but all about pointing to the need for a Savior. Men and women were uniquely created to be different from, but complementary to, each other. The Fall effected men and women differently – compare Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:17-19. As a result, the Law, which is all about demonstrating God’s holiness and our need for Jesus Christ, has variations for men and women.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

God created both men and women in His image. Men and women are of equal value to God. In Jesus Christ, men and women are equally loved, equally valued, equally accepted by God.

And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12

¹ But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: ² that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; ³ the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— ⁴ that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, ⁵ to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. Titus 2:1-5

Again, atheists and skeptics point to these verses, and others like them, to claim the Bible teaches misogyny. The problem is that such an assertion presupposes that differing roles implies superiority, that God values men more than women. This presupposition does not come from the Bible; rather, it is a sinful, man-made idea. One must cherry-pick verses out of context, and ignore other passages completely, to claim the Bible teaches that women’s roles are inferior to men’s roles. Granted, some in the church have done exactly this for centuries; but this doesn’t mean the Bible teaches it.

The Church and Sexism

What should the church’s position be on the roles of women in the church, the family, and society? Tarico is correct when she says that Christians need to take a hard look at the consequences of sexism in the church. Women should never be put down because of their God-given roles; rather, men need to value women above themselves, as Christ valued us above Himself. God created men and women to fill different roles, but human sin has corrupted the harmony and complementary nature of those roles. The church must make sure they are not prooftexting passages about the roles of men and women, but looking at all of Scripture to balance understanding. The Bible clearly teaches that women and men have different roles, and that men are to be the leaders; but, it also says that men are to love women as Christ loves the church. Tarico is correct when she states that misogyny and putting down women is wrong, and drives women from the church. But, she’s wrong in assuming that different God-given roles means that the Bible teaches that men are more important than women.

Is the Bible misogynist? Absolutely not.

Does the Bible teach sexism? In the sense of teaching that men are better than women, absolutely not. But, the Bible absolutely does teach that men and women have different, yet equally valued, God-given roles. Some will ignorantly call this sexism and misogyny. I call it God’s design for balance and diversity. As Christians, we need to make sure we have God’s Biblical perspective on this issue, not mankind’s perspective. If the Church has a correct Biblical view of women, then women will be drawn to the church, not pushed out, because the Church will show God’s love, respect, and honor toward them and their Biblical roles.

The Irrationality of the Modern Concept of Intolerance

One of the most overused buzzwords today is the word intolerant. Anyone who opposes abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, embryonic stem cell research, or government controlled health care as intolerant and a bigot. During an interview with Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy was asked about the Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family. He responded,

“Well, guilty as charged…We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”

Cathy’s comments sparked intense media frenzy. Cathy was labeled an intolerant, anti-gay, homophobic bigot. Chick-fil-A restaurants were picketed by opponents, and proponents flocked to show their support.

Christians who take a stand against any belief or practice that is opposed to Biblical teaching are labeled intolerant. It is intolerant to say homosexuality is a sin; it is intolerant to call abortion murder; it is intolerant to suggest that men and women should have different roles; it is intolerant to claim that non-Christians will go to Hell.

Is Christianity intolerant? Does the Bible teach intolerance? What does it mean to be intolerant?

What intolerance means

According Dictionary.com, the word intolerance means:

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
   

The word tolerate means:

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with.

In other words, the traditional meaning of intolerance is an unwillingness to allow or put up with things with which one disagrees. It involves prohibiting or hindering practices that one finds offensive or disagreeable. Under this traditional understanding of tolerance, a person cannot tolerate something with which they agree; to tolerate means to disagree, but to permit in spite of disagreement.

In modern American politically correct thinking, however, there has been a subtle shift in this meaning. Intolerance now means to oppose any belief or practice. If a person thinks any practice or belief is wrong or immoral, they are now labeled intolerant. Note the subtle difference. Intolerance used to mean prohibiting or hindering beliefs and practices one disagrees with. Now, it means to simply disagree. If a Christian merely believes abortion is a sin, they are now labeled intolerant. If one merely suggests that same-gender marriage is wrong, they are now intolerant bigots. The meaning has shifted from prohibiting that with which one disagrees to merely disagreeing.

Where does this new concept of intolerance come from?

This new concept of intolerance as merely believing an idea or practice is wrong is firmly rooted in the philosophy of relativism. According to Dictionary.com, relativism is “any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.” In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me; there is no absolute truth. Relativism is a core belief in humanism, liberalism, and postmodernism. It’s the foundation of American political correctness, and, unfortunately, many Christians have been seduced by this philosophy as well.

In any worldview based in relativism, it is meaningless to say something is absolutely wrong. Right and wrong are entirely determined by circumstances, culture, and personal beliefs. For a relativist, the statement, “You should not do X because it is wrong,” is nonsense. A practice may be wrong for some people in certain circumstances, but since truth is relative, and absolutes do not exist, one cannot claim a practice is always wrong, or wrong for anyone but themselves.

When the Bible states that adultery is wrong, this teaching is inconceivable to a relativist. There are no absolutes, so claiming adultery is wrong is nonsense. It’s like saying blue is wrong, or vanilla ice cream is wrong. Right and wrong are totally determined by the preferences of the individual, depending on the circumstances.

There are several problems with relativism. First, the concept is self-contradictory. According to relativism, absolute truth does not exist. However, this belief is held as absolute truth! If absolute right and wrong do not exist, then anyone who believes is absolute right and wrong is wrong. But, since wrong does not exist, they cannot be wrong. The relativist absolutely believes that absolutes do not exist! On this basis alone, relativism should be rejected – it’s a logical impossibility.

Living with an irrational worldview

When one actually tries to put a relativistic worldview into practice, the irrationality becomes even more pronounced. Since relativism posits that absolute right and wrong do not exist, it would be illogical to say murder, rape, child abuse, or assault are absolutely wrong. Yet, in practice, almost all relativists would say they are absolutely wrong. How do they get around this paradox? Most would state that a practice is immoral only if it harms someone else. So, in practice, there are absolutes; it is absolutely immoral to harm others. The philosophy of relativism completely unravels when put into practice. Yet, most people who hold to this view don’t understand the irrationality of their beliefs.

Let’s take it a step further. Since absolute right and wrong do not exist (except, of course, that we cannot harm others), the concept of sin is inconceivable. When a Christian says that abortion is sin, the relativist is forced to conclude that the Christian is wrong in his belief. But, this is a contradiction – right and wrong don’t exist for the relativist!

This brings us back to the concept of intolerance. For the relativist, any claim that an idea or practice is wrong is intolerant. Right and wrong don’t exist, so when the Bible calls certain practices sin, it completely contradicts the very foundation of the relativist’s worldview.

When applied to the gay marriage issue, when a Christian says gay marriage is wrong, the relativist is forced into the illogical conclusion that the Christian is wrong. The Christian is claiming that absolutes exist, that gay marriage is absolutely wrong. The relativist finds this position is intolerable – in the traditional sense of refusing to put up with or respect. The Christian belief cannot be permitted, because, if true, it means the relativist’s entire worldview is wrong. What’s ironic is that in calling the Christian belief intolerant, it’s actually the relativist that is intolerant.

The modern definition of intolerance is intolerant of other views, and is inescapably hypocritical. Those who hold to this view of intolerance are unavoidably hypocrites. It is hypocritical to be intolerant of others for their perceived intolerance, yet the modern definition of tolerance forces it.

What the Bible says

Romans chapter 1 gives a very clear description of the consequences of this sort of thinking:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

The Bible makes it clear that all people know that absolute truth does exist; but those who reject God suppress the truth. God reveals Himself to everyone, but most people refuse to accept Him, and come up with other philosophies and beliefs to replace the truth.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rejection of God produces futility in thinking. It leads to irrational philosophies like relativism. Any worldview or philosophy apart from the Word of God is foolishness. It leads to belief systems that are completely irrational, yet are clung to by people because they reject the only Truth.

²⁴ Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ who exchanged the truth of God for the lie…

This is why, I believe, so many people get upset with Christians like Dan Cathy for saying he supports the “biblical definition of the family unit.” Non-Christians are trying to suppress the truth; Christians who speak out bring the truth back out in the open.

Is God intolerant? Guilty as charged.

The Bible makes it clear that God does not tolerate sin: “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23a). The Bible also makes it clear that the ONLY solution for sin is Jesus Christ: “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23b). God does not tolerate sin, because sin separates us from Him. God’s love demands that while He cannot tolerate sin, He has provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him: ^“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Because of His holiness, God cannot tolerate sin; but, because of His love, He cannot leave us without a Savior from that sin.

The Politics of Economics

Let me start with a premise: Neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party exists for the purpose of bettering the lives of the average American. The primary purpose of both parties is to gain and maintain power. Every policy, every bill, every major candidate, is chosen and designed for the single purpose of keeping the party in power.

This does not mean that individual politicians – of both parties – aren’t trying to make things better for the average American. But, such people rarely last long in national politics. Those that last are those who follow the party line, those who contribute to the power of the party.

In the American political system, votes equal power. The more voters a party can convince to vote for the candidates it puts forth, the more power the party will have. Therefore, everything the Republican Party and the Democratic Party do is designed to produce more voters who will vote for candidates from their party. It’s not about what’s best for you and me, or what’s best for the country; it’s all about getting votes. Period.

Of course, both parties portray themselves as the “party of the people.” Both parties constantly undertake massive propaganda efforts to convince the public that they are the “good’ party that can best create a strong economy, is the most moral, and cares about America, while portraying the other party as the “bad” party. Americans have been intensely indoctrinated for so long that most believe that one party is “good,’ and the other is “evil.” We’re largely blinded to the true motivation of both parties – power.

If this premise is true, the implications are profound.

There is a very strong correlation between personal wealth and which party Americans support. The wealthy overwhelmingly support the Republicans; the poor overwhelmingly support the Democrats. The Democrats are perceived as supporting the poor, while the Republicans are perceived as supporting the rich. However, if my premise is correct, then these perceptions are wrong. Neither party supports the rich, the poor, or the middle class – they only support themselves. Neither party actually cares about whether you and I have jobs, or whether the economy is doing well – they only care about getting votes. If a strong economy will give a party more power, the party will work to strengthen the economy. If a weak economy will give the party more power, they party will systematically work to weaken the economy.

Assuming my premise is true, does a strong economy help the Democrats, or the Republicans? Which party benefits from low unemployment and high paying jobs? Which party benefits if the economy stays in the toilet?

It all comes down to votes.

Voters from low-income households overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Voters from upper-middle class to wealthy households overwhelmingly vote Republican.

It is to the Democratic Party’s advantage to increase the number of poor people. Poor people vote Democrat. The longer the economy remains weak, with high unemployment and low-paying jobs, the more people will vote for Democrats.

On the other hand, it is to the Republican Party’s advantage to increase the number of wealthy people. Wealthy people vote Republican. The sooner the economy can turn around, with low unemployment and well-paying jobs, the more people will vote for Republicans.

If my premise is correct, and the primary motivation for everything the Republicans and Democrats do is gaining and maintaining power, then which party is going to work to improve the economy and help people get good jobs?

It seems ironic to me that the party that is stereotyped as supporting the poor is actually the party that benefits the most by keeping them poor. It is equally ironic that the party that is stereotyped as being against the poor is the party that benefits the most from ending poverty.

If my initial premise is correct, then the Democratic Party is systematically working to manipulate the economy to keep people unemployed and underemployed. It is to their advantage to do so. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is systematically working to manipulate the economy to produce high paying jobs for as many people as possible. It is to their advantage to do so.

I don’t particularly like either the Republicans or the Democrats. Both parties are self-serving and power-hungry, and neither actually cares about what’s best for America. But, since it actually helps the Republican agenda for the economy to grow, for people to have jobs, and salaries to increase, I’ll hold my nose and vote Republican. It may not be their intent, but the side-effects of their self-serving agenda benefit the average American far more than the agenda of the Democrats.

Mexico Mission Trip – Report

Today’s blog is by a guest blogger, my daughter Stacey.

---

This summer, my brother Joey and I went to Mexico for the first time. I had never been out of the country before, so I was very excited. I was also afraid, because I speak very little Spanish.

The first day was mostly traveling and unpacking at the compound we stayed at. We called it “the compound”, but it was more like a campus. There were several buildings which housed some of the staff, and a main building where interns and groups like ours stayed. We could see huge mountains in every direction. They were really pretty in the morning, when the sunrise was behind them and clouds seemed to rest on top of the peaks. The mountains were one of my favorite parts.

The second day was more eventful. After eating breakfast, we visited a children’s home called Casa Hogar Douglas. Since it was Sunday, we got to see the church there. It was cool to listen to so many people worshipping in Spanish. When the service started, we left and cooked chicken burgers for the children at the home. They ate with us, and we played with them for a while. Some of us went down to the library and cleaned it. There are very few libraries in Mexico. Many of the children can’t read when they arrive at children’s homes, so the staff built this library so they could learn and enjoy books the same way we do in America.

I became friends with a little boy named Roberto. He liked to watch the girls paint each other’s nails, and decided he wanted to try. One of the staff let him paint hers. After the first one, he left. We were kind of confused. He came back with water and a napkin. Apparently, he didn’t like how it had turned out and wanted to start over! This time, he painted all of the girl’s nails. We were all amazed at how good at it he was. If he had the opportunity, he could do it for a living.

On the third day, we came back to Casa Hogar Douglas. This time, another girl and I played jump rope with some of the kids. They were really good at it, especially the boys. I learned how to count a little in Spanish. One of the little girls was trying to be like us and kept asking my brother, “Do you want a piece of me?” He said “yes”, so she beat him up. He was fine, she was only five.

It was hard for us to leave, because we weren’t coming back the next day. Some of the kids started crying, and some wouldn’t stop hugging us. It was good to know that we had made a difference to them, even though it was sad when we left.

My favorite day was the fourth. We went to Rio 3, which was what the staff called the area. Basically, it was a community by a river. The people living there literally had nothing. They had built their houses out of whatever they could find, like fences or pieces of old buildings. We served a lunch at the church there, and passed out the leftovers to people in the community. Then we gathered all of the kids we could, and played games. One of the staff read them a story called Tu es Especial (you are special). I didn’t understand the words, but I realized later that I had read the book in English a long time ago, when I was little.

During the story, a girl about eleven or twelve sat down next to me. When the story was over, the kids colored a picture of a ribbon that said (in Spanish, of course) “thank you for making me special”. I watched the girl color and we talked, I with my limited Spanish, and she with her limited English. She told me that her name was Vero, and that there was a fruit tree near her house. When she was done coloring, she showed me her picture and held it out to me, saying “tu”. You. She wanted me to take her picture. The point of coloring it was for her to understand how special she is, so I didn’t let her give it to me. She looked disappointed, and walked away. When it was time to go, I headed towards the bus. Suddenly Vero was there, with a big smile on her face. She handed me a piece of paper and hugged me. I looked at the paper, and it said, “thank you for making me special”. I was confused. Why was it so important to her that I have that paper? She looked up at me and grinned, and then I understood. Vero knew how special she was. Now she wanted to make sure I knew how special I was. This little girl, who had almost nothing, was more concerned with making sure that the people around her knew that they were loved, that they were not worthless.

I understand now the needs of these people. Yes, they need food and shelter. But more than that, they need love. They need someone to care about them. They need someone to share the love of Jesus Christ with them. I think people don’t understand this. They send money, clothes, and food, and there’s plenty of it. But how many are willing to send themselves? How many of us are willing to go and be with the orphans, the poor, the homeless?

The organization we went through, Back2Back, works to meet all of the needs of people like the ones we met, in Mexico, Nigeria, India, and Haiti. They have come up with five categories of needs: physical, social, educational, emotional, and spiritual. Why is it that we are so eager to meet only the physical needs? These people are just like us, they need friends, family, education, love, and especially God. I encourage you to pray about this. Why not go to a homeless shelter or food bank near you? I know that it’s awkward to socialize with people you’ve never met, but it’s worth it.

The fifth day went quickly. We worked at a children’s home that’s still being build. In one of the rooms we were painted, I discovered enormous moths, easily as big as my hand. Since I was apparently the only one there not afraid of insects, I had to chase them out. It wasn’t fun. Imagine standing on a ladder while bugs the size of bats fly at your face. That’s what it was like. When we got back to the compound, I had to chase a two inch long flying cockroach out of the girls’ room. That was also interesting.

On day six, we took a field trip with another children’s home to a park. It was incredibly hot. We played a version of tag, and spent most of the time running around. When it was time for lunch, we sat under the three tiny trees in the park. Unfortunately, several hundred fire ants had beaten us to the shade and they bit everyone. Despite the ants, it was fun.

After the field trip, we went back to the children’s home and hung out with the kids. A few of us walked around and prayed over different parts of the home. We met some of the older girls and talked with them. We found out that one of the oldest ones had been accepted into the Hope program.

In Mexico, education only goes up to 9^th grade, and when you turn sixteen, you have to leave the children’s home you live at. Most of these kids don’t have enough education to get a job, so they turn to drugs or prostitution to support themselves. Back2Back created the Hope program to give the kids a chance at a better life. Kids who are accepted move to the compound I stayed at and live with some of the staff. There are about forty kids living there, ranging from 10^th graders to college students. They all have jobs to help pay for their education, but a lot of their tuition is paid for with donations. Some of the kids are also sponsored by Americans. The sponsors pay $100 a month per child, and write to them four times a year. Some of the people on our team decided to sponsor a child.

The last day, day seven, was mostly travel. While it’s good to be home, I miss those kids I met. I want to go on another mission trip, either to Mexico or another country. This trip has changed me for the better. I’ve made a commitment to be more involved with the ministries in my community, to meet the physical, social, educational, emotional, and spiritual needs of the people in Fairfield.

If you have never been on a mission trip, I encourage you to go. We in America have been given so much. The average person here lives on more than $100 per day. Over 40% of the world’s population lives on $2 a day. We have the resources to make a difference in so many people’s lives. I ask you to pray about it. I also encourage you to read a book, Helping Without Hurting. It’s a good guide for those who aren’t sure how to meet the social, emotional, and spiritual needs of people in need.

I have had an amazing experience, but it wouldn’t have been possible without help. Thank you to those of you who helped Joey and me raise enough money to go to Mexico and help so many people. The money you’ve given helped improve the living condition of a child. They appreciate everything you’ve made possible.

I can honestly say that this has been the most incredible experience in my life. After praying about it for a long time, I know that I am meant to be involved in ministry. I don’t know yet if it will be a career, or if it’s just something to do when I can, but I will do whatever the Lord tells me. It’s not hard. You just have to be willing to do it. Paul instructs us to minister “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” (Romans 10: 12-15) Paul is sending us. It’s up to us to preach so people can hear and believe.

I know, you feel like you can’t make a difference. Here’s a story I heard in Mexico: a man walks along the shore of an ocean. He sees a boy picking up something and throwing it back into the ocean. He walks up to the boy and asks, “What are you doing?” The boy replies, “Throwing starfish back into the water. The tide washes them up, and if I don’t throw them back they’ll die.” The man says, “Look, there are miles of beach and thousands of starfish. You can’t possibly make a difference.” The boy listens politely, then picks up another starfish and throws it into the water. “Well,” he says, “it makes a difference to that one.” Yes, you can’t help everyone. So just concentrate on helping one person at a time. That one person will thank you. And so will God.

Stacey Wendling

Why do Evangelicals Focus so Much on Homosexuality?

Dr. Mohler

A recent commentary on CNN.com by Dr. Albert Mohler got me to thinking: Why do Evangelical Christians seem to focus so much on the issue of homosexuality?

Many skeptics like to point out that the Bible condemns everything from eating pork to wearing mixed fabrics to dishonesty. Aren’t Christians cherry-picking God’s commandments when they choose to focus on homosexuality?

As Dr. Mohler points out in his commentary, many of the Old Testament laws were given to the nation of Israel for the purpose of setting Israel apart from all the other nations. The New Testament makes it clear that these types of laws are no longer binding. As Dr. Mohler writes,

As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter’s vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience.

What about sexual sins? Unlike the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, the moral laws are continued and extended in the New Testament. For example, Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus said, “”Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Many of the epistles address sexual sin; all affirm the Old Testament teaching that all sexual activity outside of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage is sin. As Mohler writes,

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.

The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.

The moral law of the Old Testament, including laws dealing with sex, are all consistently upheld in the New Testament. Ceremonial laws such as the dietary laws, washing laws, and animal sacrifice, are no longer binding.

Another reason Christians tend to focus on homosexuality is because the culture in general focuses so much on the issue. As Dr. Mohler writes,

Why are Christians so concerned with homosexuality? In the first place, that question is answered by the simple fact that it is the most pressing moral question of our times. Christians must be concerned about adultery, pornography, injustice, dishonesty and everything the Bible names as sin. But when my phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. It is about homosexuality.

Christian pastors, writers, speakers, and bloggers are currently focusing on the issue of homosexuality because that’s what they’re being asked about. Gay marriage is a topic almost every night on the evening news; in an election year, almost all politicians are talking about it.  The President of the United States has been discussing it.  Christians are addressing the issue of homosexuality, because everyone else is talking about it, too. It’s a topic that is extremely emotional on both sides of the issue. Gay marriage is being pushed on the culture by the other side, so evangelical Christians are pushing back.

A third reason some evangelical Christians focus on homosexuality is pride and arrogance. Many don’t want to focus on the sins they commit; they would rather focus on the sins that other people commit. The church doesn’t talk about divorce and adultery like it used to, because too many Christians are caught up in these sins. Non-Christians are correct when they point out the hypocrisy of this. Again, I agree with Dr. Mohler when he writes,

Christian love requires that we believe and teach what the Bible teaches and that we do so with both strong conviction and humble hearts. The Church must repent of our failures in both of these tasks, but we must not be silent where the Bible speaks.

Are Christians hypocrites in insisting that homosexual behavior is sin? We, too, are sinners, and hypocrisy and inconsistency are perpetual dangers.

The church failed miserably in the face of the challenge of divorce. This requires an honest admission and strong corrective.

At the same time, this painful failure must remind us that we must not fail to answer rightly when asked what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Love requires us to tell the truth.

Christians must speak the truth in love and humility. The truth is that homosexuality is sin, and sin separates us from God. But, as Romans 5:8 tells us, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Homosexuality is a symptom of the true problem: sin. And, Jesus Christ is the only solution for sin.