Category Archives: Homosexuality

On the Kentucky Canard

I have seen a lot of news regarding the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses in protest to the homosexual “marriage” debacle.  To be honest, I don’t know what to think about Kim Davis and her refusal to carry out her duties.  

As a Christian, my knee-jerk reaction was to simply obey the law of the land as dictated in Romans 13.  After all, she could resign to satisfy her conscience.  Then I read Matt Walsh’s article and determined that my initial response may have been rash.

I’m still considering Romans 13–specifically Romans 13:2, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  At the risk of sounding circular, all rulers are ultimately appointed by God.  History is rife with unjust rulers and government, but are we forbidden from ever opposing the government?  

I’m aware that many people are in agreement with same-sex “marriage”.  Even many professing Christians support this movement.  I’m left wondering if they are even familiar with the Bible or if they are rejecting parts that they feel are unreasonable.  If they reject parts of the Bible, why accept Christ’s resurrection?  Why believe at all?  These people are already demonstrating that the Bible is untrustworthy.  All that aside, this particular situation should focus on Kim Davis’s conscience.  Even if she is wrong, should she be compelled to violate her conscience?

Had Davis simply resigned, we would not be having this discussion.  This is a perfectly reasonable response and her conscience would be unblemished.  I think this is the approach I would have taken.

I also have to consider Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego and the firey furnace in Daniel 3.  They could have bowed to the idol and avoided the furnace.  They don’t have to mean it, they just have to obey the law of the land, right?  Their dilemma was whether they should obey God or man.  They chose the former so Nebuchadnezzar cast them into the fire.

Ultimately, I believe this is an individual matter for the Christian.  I think one could construct a biblical case to support Davis’s resignation or her decision to refuse to issue marriage licenses.  The Bible does not consent to the participation in the commission of sin, though.

If anything, I think Davis’s conviction (however misguided it may or may not be) is commendable.  How many of us would crumble so that we could avoid jail or even an unpleasant glare?  Do you have any convictions worth defending at any cost, or is it all relative?

Advertisements

Opposing God

I was reading a Franklin Graham post on Facebook when I was reminded of the dark times we live in.  The subject of the post was concerning the legalization of homosexual marriage in Ireland.  We all know (whether you admit it or suppress it) that God defined marriage between one man and one woman.  We can force a square peg through a round hole and “redefine” anything we wish.  But that doesn’t make it true.  

I enjoy reading peoples’ responses on Facebook.  Sometimes you read something poignant, but most of the time it’s thoughtless bumper sticker rhetoric.  “Don’t Judge” is one of the most popular remarks.  I can understand that coming from a pagan, but professing Christians say it too.  It seems to escape these people that they are guilty of judgment when they tell people not to judge.  But to have so-called Christians disregarding scripture?  Is this the New Intolerance?

We must not do what is right in our own eyes.  We can see where that path leads by reading Judges.  I think that is the disconnect.  What do the statistics say regarding Christianity in America?  Seventy percent?  Eighty percent?  These statistics are so misleading because most of these people only like a Jesus that approves of them.  Their Christ didn’t die for their sins.  

Realistically, I wouldn’t be surprised if America is only ten or fifteen percent Christian.  The other sixty five percent are wannabe poseurs who think Matthew 7 teaches that it is wrong to judge and that God won’t punish lawbreakers.  These people think that they are good because they go to church, or not.  Maybe their worship is their own private affair when they are watching American Idol or cheating on their taxes.  It’s a smokescreen.  That own “private worship” business is oftentimes justification for their lawless hearts.

It’s no wonder that pagans call us hypocrites because we act just like they do.  We stand on the Bible regarding homosexual marriage, but we forget about divorce.  We appear to be the wet blanket at the party when we oppose sin instead of upholding virtue.  It’s not a matter of preference.  It is a matter of right and wrong.

We don’t define sin.  God does.  Yet, we tell people to avoid sin because it is wrong or even gross.  Try looking at sin from God’s perspective.  All sin, divorce, rape, murder, homosexuality, blasphemy–all sins aren’t merely aberrant.  God views sin as abominable.

Why can’t we just let people persist in their sin?  It’s not hurting us Christians.  That’s not what Paul says.  He states, “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭32‬ ESV)  Our approval of sin or even our winking at sin is an abomination.  

If we encourage any sin, we are in rebellion.  If we stand for and support sin, we may as well be participants.  We are opposing God.  How can a Christian call himself a friend of God when he behaves like an enemy?  He can’t.

Can You Really Separate the Two?

It seems like everyone is crying about it these days.  Especially the atheists.  Some people bang it like a cheap drum.  It’s the tired battle cry of separation of church and state.

The original intent was to keep the state out of the church.  The individual should be able to believe and worship as he sees fit without government intrusion.  Unless, of course, you want to slaughter babies.  Baby slaughter is unacceptable in all circumstances unless the baby is preborn.  I only wish that was a bad joke, but abortion is big business.

The First Amendment is also supposed to be a safeguard against state-sponsored religion.  The mere thought of that makes me shudder.  As a Christian, I believe that Christian values are beneficial to society, but we have seen time and again that the government can wreck even the best of intentions.  The government has a knack of turning A T-bone steak into a crap sandwich.  This protection should include worldviews.  This atheistic “freedom from religion” movement has reached a fervor that rivals the intensity seen in many religious circles.  This is where I take issue because I believe this rabid secularization violates the original intent of the First Amendment.  I would be less inclined to take exception if this anti-religion witch hunt didn’t appear to single out Christianity.  

For example, Christians are being targeted for their views on abortion and homosexuality.  Muslims certainly hold unpopular views regarding homosexuality as the Koran calls for their execution, but Christians are challenged if we make a stand that opposes sin.  It’s not that we arbitrarily decide what is sinful and what is not, God has determined that.  We are exercising our faith when we are being obedient to what God tells us in the Bible.  We are considered intolerant if we uphold God’s word.  The godless insist that we essentially renounce our faith if someone gets their feelings hurt.  The Christian mustn’t be compelled to violate his conscience which is a sin for both parties involved.  

These protests are more insidious than merely overlooking sin.  The hidden reason is to seek approval.  Affirmation of sinful behavior is what is desirous as if this was a matter to be resolved in the court of opinion, not in God’s holy court.  Christians must remember Romans 1:32 lest we be inticed to ignore our conscience.  Paul states, “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”  Christian, do you think it is harmless to leave others to their own devices as long as they are pursuing “happiness?”  Think again.

This atheist goal is less about keeping Christianity out of government than it is about separating the Christian from God.  If it was merely to have freedom from religion, then one could come to the conclusion that these opponents to religion would be equal opportunity offenders.  Instead, the main thrust seems to be against Christianity.  If the atheist truly believes that God is some contrivance, why does he expend so much energy to dismiss him?  We can agree that Santa Claus is a fictitious guy, but where are the Santa protesters the day after Thanksgiving at the mall?  Perhaps they are standing in line to tell Santa if they’ve been naughty.  

Mall Santa lives on because he really is a fake, but the atheist doesn’t simply oppose a make-believe Jesus.  The atheist attacks him with such veracity that Psalm 14:1 gains credibility.  The Psalmist writes, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”  After all, only a fool is foolish enough to entertain such a thought.

Quagmire of Hypocrisy

It’s a good thing that I don’t have any original ideas and I crank out mindless drek, because I never considered how much working again was going to interfere with my free time.  I was going to say productive free time, but time spent watching cartoons isn’t all that productive.

I was listening to Wretched today when it occurred to me that this trend of requiring affirmation for certain proclivities is an effort to dull the conscience.  (More like Todd Friel, the host, said it and I ripped him off.)  If we are really honest with ourselves, we know right from wrong, we know sin from virtue.  But in our fallen condition, we want to eat our proverbial cake and we want society to cheer us on as we sin with impunity.

We must consider this:  does society determine right from wrong or is there a higher authority?  If there is a higher authority, are his laws nullified if society rejects them?  

If society is in charge of determining morality, then there is no absolute standard.  We can find societies through history that have sanctioned all kinds of evil, but if society determines right from wrong, racism isn’t inherently evil.  It is reduced to a preference.  Segregation was legal at one time, so who are we to say that segregation is bad?  Our conscience.  

If we rely on subjectivity, what is good today is evil tomorrow.  Further, how do we know we weren’t wrong in integrating blacks and whites here in America?  If anything, if we deny an ultimate authority, it was wrong to upset the status quo.  The wrongness stems from the imposition of values.  After all, if you think abortion is wrong, don’t get one, right?  But if you tell me that, you are wrong for telling me what (or what not) to do.  

The problem is that we are sinners.  Our conscience clearly tells us right from wrong which comes from God, the one who made these laws.  We don’t want to feel guilt, so we try to rope others into our delusion because some of us think that our guilt will be assuaged if everyone affirms it.  Murder is always wrong no matter how many people affirm it.  Some want to blur the lines to equate killing to murder, but they are not necessarily the same.  All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

We can shut down all bakeries that don’t toe the party line.  Some call us Christians intolerant.  That’s fine, but should you fight intolerance with intolerance?  If you do, you step into a quagmire of hypocrisy.  Besides, the real problem isn’t with Christians.  For the unrepentant, the problem is with God.