Homosexuality: Truth and Consequences

Several weeks ago, the Dallas Morning News published an essay by Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT UP; the radical homosexual advocacy group. The title of Mr. Kramer's essay, which was adapted from a speech delivered on Nov. 7, 2004 in New York City, "Where's the Rage?" reveals several astonishing admissions.

Mr. Kramer begins by stating that "...as of Election Day, gay rights are officially dead. This past week almost 60 million of our 'so-called' fellow Americans voted against us." He goes on to point out that every state ballot initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly passed by the voters. He then says, "Almost 60 million people whom we live and work with every day think we are immoral. 'Moral values' was top of many lists of why people supported Mr. Bush. ... 'Moral values.' That means us. It is hard to stand up to so much hate."

I was struck by Mr. Kramer's immediate leap from the category of mere moral opposition to that of hatred. Of course, by labeling opposition to homosexual behavior as "hate" he is, in fact, making a moral distinction himself. However, the only moral condemnation he allows is applied to only that which opposes his particular view. Thus any moral conviction contrary to his is deemed immoral. The problem lies in the presumed source of the moral standards in question. In the case of Mr. Kramer and others who advocate on behalf of legitimizing homosexual behavior, their presumed source of moral standards are only those that are individually determined. This, in their minds, is the only acceptable source of morality.

There are only four sources from which society can derive its standards of morality and ethics...

Read my full article

 

Abu Ghraib: Lessons in Sexual Morality

These past months the "left-leaning" media has reported on the prisoner abuse at Abu-Ghraib. In almost every instance this story has been postured as being both an example and natural by-product of right-wing militarism; a case of fundamentalist conservatism taken to its logical conclusion.

Don't misunderstand me; what these soldiers did was reprehensible and brought international shame and humiliation on the United States not to mention the thousands of men and women serving honorably in Iraq. However, these actions were not the result of conservatism taken to its logical conclusion nor the military establishment but rather the exact opposite: liberalism taken to its natural and logical conclusion; specifically liberal sexual ethics.

Read my full article

 

Revolution or Reformation?

Several weeks ago I had the privilege of listening to and spending some time in conversation with George Barna, the notable pollster and social researcher.

I certainly agree with Mr. Barna's general assessment of the modern Church in America. There is no question that the Church, in general, is suffering from a dearth of biblical literacy, bad theology and a woefully inept view of life and the world that is biblical. This explains, in large part, why the Church seems so powerless in the face of today's overwhelming cultural challenges.

I also appreciate and share Mr. Barna's zeal for genuine renewal among the Body of Christ. There is no doubt in my mind that George Barna loves the Lord and desperately desires to see Him exalted in this generation.

However, there was one point with which I found myself troubled and that was his call for "revolution" NOT reformation. In our conversation I questioned his use of this particular term to which he replied, "if you look up the word 'revolution' in the dictionary it means to overthrow the existing establishment." Whoa! I pressed further in asking, "So you don't think that the institutional Church has ever experienced genuine reform?" His reply, "I don't want to argue with you and I frankly don't know enough about history nor do I care about the past; I care about the future!" During the course of his presentation earlier that morning Mr. Barna kept emphasizing the idea that institutions are incapable of reform. On this point, I would strongly disagree.

I think, and I may misunderstand, that Mr. Barna believes that the blame for our current spiritual condition with its accompanying reduction in adherents to Christianity is the fault of today's leaders within the institutionalized church. What he referred to as the "sticks and bricks" or the "congregational" church, which in his mind is a purely human invention apparently operating apart from God's providence.

There is no doubt that all who are called to leadership in the ministration of the Gospel bear a great responsibility but this is not the sole source of our problem. We have simply become an unfaithful people, both in our knowledge of God and of our communion with Him. Romans 1:28, "…since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not to be done." Too many who profess Christ as Lord and Savior simply no longer think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge, an intimate relationship, of and with God.

I left this whole encounter with a sense that this worthwhile intention, albeit for the Glory of God, has the very real potential of producing spiritual anarchy, a "church" in which there is no governance, no overarching authority, and no theological standards.

Revolutions by their very nature divide and deconstruct whereas reformations seek to preserve the good and integrate more good for the improvement of the institution. I love the Church. I do not think the church is perfect nor do I think the authority of the church supersedes scripture but the institutional church does have a place in God's plan. It is a dangerous thing indeed to declare war on the "institution" which in fact was established by God as testified to in the New Testament.