Maybe you saw the video of Zach Wahls giving his testimony speaking before a House Subcommittee on the marriage debate. If not here it is...
It was very well worded and presented. On Jan Mickelson's radio show today he masterfully "Reverse engineered" Zach's speech by deconstructing his arguments line by line. Here is the LINK to Jan's Blog on this. By the way, Jan Mickelson not only proves that he truly is the Jedi Master in this, he also happens to be one of the keynote speakers for our upcoming Real Men Conference on February 18, 2011 at Rising Sun Church of Christ. Register today at realmeniowa today!
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Word Choices and Heart Matters
It isn't uncommon to hear Pro-lifers referred to as "anti-abortionists" by those in the media while those who support abortion are not referred to as "anti-life," they are simply "Pro-choice." Recently, Michael Reagan, was upset by those in the media who labeled him as a "conservative" radio talk show host, but in the same segment wouldn't describe his brother as a "liberal" talk show host when they were both being interviewed.
Dave Price is a local media personality that I like and respect, to be honest. I don't agree with him all of the time, but find him to be generally fair in his treatment of subjects, that is, until a very recent segment he did where he let his own liberal leanings show through.
He was covering the current debate in the Iowa State House over the marriage amendment. In his story, Price said that "Republicans were working to provide a more "narrow definition" of marriage in Iowa." I wrote to Dave Price and told him that I felt that his use of the phrase "narrow definition" was not only unfair but it was a revelation of where he actually stands on the issue. Of course, he defended his use of the term and wrote about it here.
Here's my contention with describing the Republican position as providing a "narrow definition" of marriage. Why not describe the Democrats as attempting to provide a more "broad definition" of marriage? That is exactly what is occurring, by the way. Republicans cannot provide a more narrow definition because the historical definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman for life. So in all actuality the Democrats are the ones trying to revise the definition of marriage.
Media personalities like Dave Price remind us from time to time that our words matter. The word choices we employ reveal our hearts. Christ Himself said, "What comes out of our mouth comes from our hearts." (Matthew 15:18) I believe that the majority of media personalities, including Dave Price, have liberal leanings and their word choices reveal what is really in their hearts concerning their true feelings on the subjects they cover.
Even though Dave Price may disagree, his heart was revealed this week in his word choice. He believes that the current redefinition of marriage by the Iowa Supreme Court is the acceptable one and any attempt to reinstate the historical definition of one woman-one man marriage is "narrow" in nature.
Remember, folks, we can't give ground on this debate. Terms and word choices really do matter. We are not the ones redefining marriage. The definition of marriage is unchanged. Marriage is one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life. There is a small (albeit very loud) segment of the population of this state that is attempting to "broaden" the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. But we are no more or less narrow than we ever were by guarding the true definition of marriage yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:14)
Dave Price is a local media personality that I like and respect, to be honest. I don't agree with him all of the time, but find him to be generally fair in his treatment of subjects, that is, until a very recent segment he did where he let his own liberal leanings show through.
He was covering the current debate in the Iowa State House over the marriage amendment. In his story, Price said that "Republicans were working to provide a more "narrow definition" of marriage in Iowa." I wrote to Dave Price and told him that I felt that his use of the phrase "narrow definition" was not only unfair but it was a revelation of where he actually stands on the issue. Of course, he defended his use of the term and wrote about it here.
Here's my contention with describing the Republican position as providing a "narrow definition" of marriage. Why not describe the Democrats as attempting to provide a more "broad definition" of marriage? That is exactly what is occurring, by the way. Republicans cannot provide a more narrow definition because the historical definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman for life. So in all actuality the Democrats are the ones trying to revise the definition of marriage.
Media personalities like Dave Price remind us from time to time that our words matter. The word choices we employ reveal our hearts. Christ Himself said, "What comes out of our mouth comes from our hearts." (Matthew 15:18) I believe that the majority of media personalities, including Dave Price, have liberal leanings and their word choices reveal what is really in their hearts concerning their true feelings on the subjects they cover.
Even though Dave Price may disagree, his heart was revealed this week in his word choice. He believes that the current redefinition of marriage by the Iowa Supreme Court is the acceptable one and any attempt to reinstate the historical definition of one woman-one man marriage is "narrow" in nature.
Remember, folks, we can't give ground on this debate. Terms and word choices really do matter. We are not the ones redefining marriage. The definition of marriage is unchanged. Marriage is one man and one woman in a committed relationship for life. There is a small (albeit very loud) segment of the population of this state that is attempting to "broaden" the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. But we are no more or less narrow than we ever were by guarding the true definition of marriage yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:14)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Arguments I've Heard Recently Favoring Homosexuality
Let me start out by saying that contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is not only right about the issue of homosexuality even though it's teachings may be old...they are obviously VERY relevant to this current fallen culture. I am not a fearful homophobe clinging to God and my guns, I am a rational Christian who does not accept the terms of the current debate over homosexuality and its acceptance as normative in our day and age.
Those in support of the acceptance of homosexuality have stated that Bible is not clear in it's view of homosexuals. On the contrary, I believe it couldn't be any more clear.
The Law of Moses said, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; c.f 20:13). The Old Testament (OT) also condemns "sodomites," which were male temple prostitutes (I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7).
The New Testament is just as clear on this issue as is the Old Testament. In the first chapter of Romans Paul wrote of the many evils mankind has engaged in while suppressing the knowledge of God that He has revealed to them (Romans 1:18-21), one of which was homosexuality. Paul plainly declared: "Because of this [the suppression of truth resulting in idolatry] God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Although homosexuality is not named as such here, the act of homosexuality is clearly described. It was in judgment that God allowed men and women to have sexual relations with the same sex, and they received in themselves their due punishment for such indecent acts.
While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10, NET).
In a recent email debate, a person arguing for homosexuality said to me, "Jesus does talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps as a church leaderyou should contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested, 'making much of that which cannot matter much to God.' "
This argument fails on two grounds. First, the major premise of the argument is flawed. The argument goes like this:
P1 Any issue Jesus is silent on must be morally acceptable
P2 Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is morally acceptable
Is it true that any issue Jesus did not speak to is to be considered morally acceptable? A cursory reflection on the notion reveals that this is not a true premise. Jesus did not speak to the issue of incest, rape, drug abuse, wife beating, and gay-bashing. Are we to conclude that these acts are morally good? Clearly not. We cannot determine the moral nature of an act by the mere observation that Jesus did not address the issue. Jesus did not speak to every moral issue there is to speak to.
Secondly, from the Christian perspective what is moral or immoral is not based solely on what Jesus said or did not say. While we are very interested in what Jesus had to say, we use Scripture as a whole to determine how God feels about various moral issues. When we examine the whole of Scripture we find a very clear portrait of God's take on homosexuality.
This comprehensive approach to morality makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview for two reasons:
1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. This means that every word in the Bible is equally authoritative. The teachings of one individual in one book cannot be given more weight than another individual's teaching in another book. Jesus' words hold no more authority than Paul's or Moses'
2. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The same God who spoke in the OT is the same God who became man in the face of Jesus Christ. It would be a mistake, then, to argue that since Jesus did not speak against homosexuality that God is not concerned with the issue, for it is clear that God did speak to the issue.
I have also had individuals tell me to my face that the sin of Sodom was due to the inhospitality and NOT the sexual perversion rampant in the city. I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this notion, because I am not aware of any. While it is true that Sodom was not judged only for its immorality (Ezekiel 16:49-50), from the Biblical narrative it is clearly the main reason. Jude 7, for one, makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion. The focus of the Genesis narrative is their sexual perversion as well.
Besides, the inhospitality that the men of Sodom exhibited toward the visiting angels could not have been the cause of their destruction because God had determined to destroy Sodom prior to this incident.
Furthermore, while Biblical scholars and historians recognize that inhospitality was much more serious in the Ancient Near East than it is to Westerners today, do we really believe that God would destroy two whole cities for having bad manners? What could explain God's execution of mass capital punishment on these people? Amazingly enough we find in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality was deserving of the death penalty. There is no prohibition in the OT against inhospitality, yet alone death as a prescribed form of judgment against it. The argument of inhospitality is further weakened by the fact that the inhospitality of the Sodomites is only implied in Genesis 19. The only thing explicitly stated in the text is the Sodomites' homosexual behavior. It would only make sense that this was made explicit to highlight why it was that God had determined to destroy these wicked cities.
It has been argued with me that if Christians wish to take the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality seriously, they also need to take its prescription for punishment seriously: death. The fact that Christians do not believe homosexuals ought to be put to death indicates that we do not consider the Biblical teaching on homosexuality to be entirely authoritative, and thus have no basis on which to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is authoritative either. I believe that is the gist of your argument.
This argument fails on two grounds: logical, Biblical. From a logical perspective, at best such a point would only demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent in their application of the Biblical teaching. The real problem, however, is Biblical.
The Bible is clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. While there are some similarities between the two covenants, this is not one of them. The Law of Moses was a contract between God and Israel to govern their life in the land of Canaan, both spiritually and politically (a theocratic kingdom).
The New Covenant serves an entirely different purpose. The New Covenant governs our spirituality, not our politics. While the New Testament is clear that God has ordained human government to punish evil and commend the good (Romans 13:1-7) it does not speak to how that punishment ought to be carried out for particular moral crimes, or the degree of punishment. It would seem that those decisions are given to the state. It is clear, however, that under the New Covenant sins are not punished in the same way they were under the Mosaic Covenant because the New Covenant is a spiritual, not a political-social covenant.
It would be a mistake, then, to say that as a Christian, I am not obeying my own Scripture, or being arbitrary in what parts of the Bible I keep. Each passage of Scripture must be evaluated within its historical and covenantal context, and be applied appropriately.
Not all commands in Scripture apply equally for all people and all times (but are specific to a covenant), whereas others do. For example, while I am not obligated to build an ark, I am obligated to abstain from murder. Christians do not believe in exercising capital punishment for homosexuality because we are not under the covenant that once prescribed such a punishment. Christians are not ignoring those Old Testament passages, but are properly interpreting them within their context and applying them appropriately. The same goes for the dietary laws, and the garment laws that are typically referenced in this dicussion as well(Romans 14:1-7, 20; See Galatians 3:19-26; 4:8-12; Colossians 2:14-17).
I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, if not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.
Those in support of the acceptance of homosexuality have stated that Bible is not clear in it's view of homosexuals. On the contrary, I believe it couldn't be any more clear.
The Law of Moses said, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; c.f 20:13). The Old Testament (OT) also condemns "sodomites," which were male temple prostitutes (I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7).
The New Testament is just as clear on this issue as is the Old Testament. In the first chapter of Romans Paul wrote of the many evils mankind has engaged in while suppressing the knowledge of God that He has revealed to them (Romans 1:18-21), one of which was homosexuality. Paul plainly declared: "Because of this [the suppression of truth resulting in idolatry] God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27, NIV). Although homosexuality is not named as such here, the act of homosexuality is clearly described. It was in judgment that God allowed men and women to have sexual relations with the same sex, and they received in themselves their due punishment for such indecent acts.
While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9-10, NET).
In a recent email debate, a person arguing for homosexuality said to me, "Jesus does talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps as a church leaderyou should contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested, 'making much of that which cannot matter much to God.' "
This argument fails on two grounds. First, the major premise of the argument is flawed. The argument goes like this:
P1 Any issue Jesus is silent on must be morally acceptable
P2 Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is morally acceptable
Is it true that any issue Jesus did not speak to is to be considered morally acceptable? A cursory reflection on the notion reveals that this is not a true premise. Jesus did not speak to the issue of incest, rape, drug abuse, wife beating, and gay-bashing. Are we to conclude that these acts are morally good? Clearly not. We cannot determine the moral nature of an act by the mere observation that Jesus did not address the issue. Jesus did not speak to every moral issue there is to speak to.
Secondly, from the Christian perspective what is moral or immoral is not based solely on what Jesus said or did not say. While we are very interested in what Jesus had to say, we use Scripture as a whole to determine how God feels about various moral issues. When we examine the whole of Scripture we find a very clear portrait of God's take on homosexuality.
This comprehensive approach to morality makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview for two reasons:
1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. This means that every word in the Bible is equally authoritative. The teachings of one individual in one book cannot be given more weight than another individual's teaching in another book. Jesus' words hold no more authority than Paul's or Moses'
2. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The same God who spoke in the OT is the same God who became man in the face of Jesus Christ. It would be a mistake, then, to argue that since Jesus did not speak against homosexuality that God is not concerned with the issue, for it is clear that God did speak to the issue.
I have also had individuals tell me to my face that the sin of Sodom was due to the inhospitality and NOT the sexual perversion rampant in the city. I would be interested to see the evidence supporting this notion, because I am not aware of any. While it is true that Sodom was not judged only for its immorality (Ezekiel 16:49-50), from the Biblical narrative it is clearly the main reason. Jude 7, for one, makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual perversion. The focus of the Genesis narrative is their sexual perversion as well.
Besides, the inhospitality that the men of Sodom exhibited toward the visiting angels could not have been the cause of their destruction because God had determined to destroy Sodom prior to this incident.
Furthermore, while Biblical scholars and historians recognize that inhospitality was much more serious in the Ancient Near East than it is to Westerners today, do we really believe that God would destroy two whole cities for having bad manners? What could explain God's execution of mass capital punishment on these people? Amazingly enough we find in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuality was deserving of the death penalty. There is no prohibition in the OT against inhospitality, yet alone death as a prescribed form of judgment against it. The argument of inhospitality is further weakened by the fact that the inhospitality of the Sodomites is only implied in Genesis 19. The only thing explicitly stated in the text is the Sodomites' homosexual behavior. It would only make sense that this was made explicit to highlight why it was that God had determined to destroy these wicked cities.
It has been argued with me that if Christians wish to take the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality seriously, they also need to take its prescription for punishment seriously: death. The fact that Christians do not believe homosexuals ought to be put to death indicates that we do not consider the Biblical teaching on homosexuality to be entirely authoritative, and thus have no basis on which to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is authoritative either. I believe that is the gist of your argument.
This argument fails on two grounds: logical, Biblical. From a logical perspective, at best such a point would only demonstrate that Christians are inconsistent in their application of the Biblical teaching. The real problem, however, is Biblical.
The Bible is clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. While there are some similarities between the two covenants, this is not one of them. The Law of Moses was a contract between God and Israel to govern their life in the land of Canaan, both spiritually and politically (a theocratic kingdom).
The New Covenant serves an entirely different purpose. The New Covenant governs our spirituality, not our politics. While the New Testament is clear that God has ordained human government to punish evil and commend the good (Romans 13:1-7) it does not speak to how that punishment ought to be carried out for particular moral crimes, or the degree of punishment. It would seem that those decisions are given to the state. It is clear, however, that under the New Covenant sins are not punished in the same way they were under the Mosaic Covenant because the New Covenant is a spiritual, not a political-social covenant.
It would be a mistake, then, to say that as a Christian, I am not obeying my own Scripture, or being arbitrary in what parts of the Bible I keep. Each passage of Scripture must be evaluated within its historical and covenantal context, and be applied appropriately.
Not all commands in Scripture apply equally for all people and all times (but are specific to a covenant), whereas others do. For example, while I am not obligated to build an ark, I am obligated to abstain from murder. Christians do not believe in exercising capital punishment for homosexuality because we are not under the covenant that once prescribed such a punishment. Christians are not ignoring those Old Testament passages, but are properly interpreting them within their context and applying them appropriately. The same goes for the dietary laws, and the garment laws that are typically referenced in this dicussion as well(Romans 14:1-7, 20; See Galatians 3:19-26; 4:8-12; Colossians 2:14-17).
I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, if not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Winning the debate on the "terms"
The debate for same-sex marriage is not going to go away anytime soon. In Iowa, if everything works according to plan, the issue won't be up for vote with the people before 2012. And once the people of Iowa get the opportunity to vote, same-sex marriage will be handily defeated in our state. Same-sex marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote.
Recently I attended an event sponsored by the Iowa Family Policy Center called, "Handling the second-hand effects of same-sex marriage." It was very informative. The keynote address was from Jan Mickelson, radio talk show host for WHO Radio. He spoke directly to a room filled with ministers and told them that we have to deal with this debate using the right terms.
He said, "The reason the abortion debate has been controlled by those in support of abortion is because they controlled the language of the debate." Don't use terms like "unborn baby." Instead use the term "fetus." Don't speak about life or death, speak about liberty and choice.
The moment a person in support of abortion has to get technical in describing what it is that they actually do, they lose the debate every single time. A prime example of this playing out in real life is the very recent story of Abby Johnson, a director at a local Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas who quit after viewing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. Here's the point...when those on the other side, have to face the ugly facts of the debate...they lose.
The debate for same-sex marriage is no different. If we truly press those who are homosexual to describe what it is that they do that makes them homosexual, they lose every time. The "Ick" factor is too high.
The realities are that if we "drink the kool-aid" and adopt the thinking of this age then we will assume all the lines we hear all too often. Lines such as this: It is very discriminatory to not allow two people in love to have the same benefits of marriage that you enjoy. When the fact is, it is very proper for society to discriminate against this for its very propogation. Civilization cannot be advanced by homosexual couples.
Another line is to compare very real civil rights struggles of blacks in American society with that of the same-sex marriage movement today. Here's the deal, I have met many people who used to be "gay" but I have never met anyone who used to be black (except possibly Michael Jackson). Those that faced having to stand at Colored Water Fountains are deeply offended by this notion that the push of the homosexual movement is the same as their own very real struggles with equality.
Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable. And the only way we are going to make head-way in this debate is to not budge one inch on the terms of this debate. We must not let the homosexual movement set the terms.
We can win this battle, but it is a marathon, not a sprint. We must be diligent and unwavering in our beliefs. One day, the people of this state will be given the opportunity to vote on this issue, and once that happens, those who stand for marriage will see their 32nd victory in popular vote.
Recently I attended an event sponsored by the Iowa Family Policy Center called, "Handling the second-hand effects of same-sex marriage." It was very informative. The keynote address was from Jan Mickelson, radio talk show host for WHO Radio. He spoke directly to a room filled with ministers and told them that we have to deal with this debate using the right terms.
He said, "The reason the abortion debate has been controlled by those in support of abortion is because they controlled the language of the debate." Don't use terms like "unborn baby." Instead use the term "fetus." Don't speak about life or death, speak about liberty and choice.
The moment a person in support of abortion has to get technical in describing what it is that they actually do, they lose the debate every single time. A prime example of this playing out in real life is the very recent story of Abby Johnson, a director at a local Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas who quit after viewing an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. Here's the point...when those on the other side, have to face the ugly facts of the debate...they lose.
The debate for same-sex marriage is no different. If we truly press those who are homosexual to describe what it is that they do that makes them homosexual, they lose every time. The "Ick" factor is too high.
The realities are that if we "drink the kool-aid" and adopt the thinking of this age then we will assume all the lines we hear all too often. Lines such as this: It is very discriminatory to not allow two people in love to have the same benefits of marriage that you enjoy. When the fact is, it is very proper for society to discriminate against this for its very propogation. Civilization cannot be advanced by homosexual couples.
Another line is to compare very real civil rights struggles of blacks in American society with that of the same-sex marriage movement today. Here's the deal, I have met many people who used to be "gay" but I have never met anyone who used to be black (except possibly Michael Jackson). Those that faced having to stand at Colored Water Fountains are deeply offended by this notion that the push of the homosexual movement is the same as their own very real struggles with equality.
Having someone try to have their identity and class status be defined by what they do with certain body parts is absolutely laughable. And the only way we are going to make head-way in this debate is to not budge one inch on the terms of this debate. We must not let the homosexual movement set the terms.
We can win this battle, but it is a marathon, not a sprint. We must be diligent and unwavering in our beliefs. One day, the people of this state will be given the opportunity to vote on this issue, and once that happens, those who stand for marriage will see their 32nd victory in popular vote.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Meeting with former Governor Terry Branstad
This morning I had the opportunity to sit in a room with former Governor Terry Branstad along with about a half dozen others and learn his positions on issues. In the room with me were a couple of other pastors as well as Chuck Hurley with the Iowa Family Policy Center, Kim Lehman with the Iowa Right to Life, Jonathan Narcisse, Steve Scheffler with the Iowa Christian Alliance,and my buddy Shane Vanderhart who maintains the blog Caffeinated Thoughts.What occurred at this meeting is exactly what I thought would occur. Terry Branstad said things we wanted to hear. He made some things clear to us. He is NOT running a campaign on social moral issues. His campaign is going to have one primary focus. Here's the focus: Culver is doing a lousy job, I can do better.
What Branstad hopes to accomplish in these back-room meetings with pastors and other socially conservative Iowans is to appease us in some way by saying something like this: "We're on the same team. I think the same way you do about these issues. Even if you don't hear me talk about them, they are important to me privately."
But that is NOT leadership. Definitely not the leadership we need. Here's Branstad's track record in Iowa with conservatives:
Under his leadership gambling became legal in this state. There really isn't a need to hold him accountable for the havoc this has reaked on the people of Iowa because as he said to us in that room, "What was I supposed to do? Over 70% of the people wanted it even though I was personally opposed to it."
Under his leadership the DHS allowed homosexual couples to adopt and provide foster care for children. He said he simply wasn't aware of that. Kind of like the Griswold's driving to Wally World in the movie Vacation when they fell asleep at the wheel.
Under his leadership he appointed two of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who voted to redefine marriage in this state...an act of judicial tyranny.
I asked him if he would openly campaign against retaining those justices and speak out against their decision. He bristled at the thought. He said that privately he feels that way but he can not publicly do something like that. WEAK!
I told him that I was concerned about Doug Gross' influence in the campaign and his potential future administration. Doug Gross, in case you aren't aware, spent lots of money polling people in the state to try to prove that social issues need to be put on the back burner if Republicans are going to win elections. You can see an article about that Here.
Branstad just ignored my concerns and didn't even respond to them. All in all, if Branstad wins reelection, he will simply be a Republican version of Culver. He is a politician through and through.
The people in this state need to take a stand and not keep getting force-fed candidates who don't have a backbone. We need leadership. We need someone who will be a true champion of conservative values.
We need a strong stand on moral issues (not back-room meetings)! We need someone to fight those who have brought same-sex marriage to this state. Someone who will not be afraid to speak out against rogue justices who have ignored our state's constitution!
Basically what we need in gubernatorial leadership in Iowa is something that Terry Branstad is not able to deliver.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Shire Syndrome
In J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings he describes a beautiful homey place that is green and safe for small people known as hobbits. The shire is simple. The shire is far away from the cares of a bigger, busier world.I think one of the problems in the church today is that many have what I call "Shire Syndrome." Shire Syndrome comes from a particular scene in Peter Jackson's movie of Tolkien's classic where there are hobbits gathered at the local pub in the shire discussing world events over some ale. And one of the older wiser hobbits speaks up about all the "strange goings on" and says that it isn't any concern of a hobbits about what goes on in middle earth. Hobbits need to simply care about what happens in the shire.
That is Shire Syndrome. People in the church quit really caring about the subtle inroads that the homosexual community had been making in the political sphere and in the cultural sphere. They hadn't made any inroads in the church, that's all that matters.
Well, now they are in the shire. We cannot stay silent and dumb any longer. The homosexual agenda is not satisfied with mere acceptance and tolerance any longer, the end goal is silence and a complete dismantling of the Christian religion. And if the church doesn't wake up, get up and speak up we are going to be replaced by God with those who will.
Who would have ever thought that marriage could have a new definition in the culture? No one really. But it does now. The culture views marriage as a simple civil act affording anyone who wants it legal rights and privileges. But marriage is not a simple civil act. Marriage is a SACRED act.
Marriage is one man and one woman making a covenantal commitment that lasts a lifetime before a Holy God ( Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6 ). There is NO OTHER definition. Not one. And culture, courts and popular opinion do not get the privilege to rewrite, redefine or revise it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Common Objections and Answers to Same Sex Marriage
The following list comes from an internet resource:
1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”
A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”
2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”
3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”
A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”
4. What’s the harm from Same Sex Marriage? “How can Bobby and Billy hurt your marriage?”
A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”
A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”
“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”
5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”
6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”
A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”
A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “
7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?
A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”
9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?
A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”
1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”
A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”
2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”
3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”
A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”
4. What’s the harm from Same Sex Marriage? “How can Bobby and Billy hurt your marriage?”
A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”
A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”
“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”
5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”
6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”
A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”
A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “
7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?
A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”
8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?
A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”
9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?
A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Are the issues that homosexuals face on par with civil rights issues?
This is a question that has been getting asked a lot lately. I have had this particular side of the argument used many times by advocates of same sex marriage (even in the comment threads on this blog).
So to phrase the question properly: Are homosexuals an oppressed minority that should have the same civil rights extended to them regarding the homosexuality as other minorities?
Homosexuals are seeking not only to affect public policy, but also to determine the terms of the debate. The more the homosexual community is able to construe the issue of homosexuality and public policy along the lines of "civil rights," the more success it seems to have in achieving its agenda.
There are several things wrong with regarding homosexuality as a civil right. First, the law already protects the civil rights of citizens. Homosexuals now enjoy these civil rights as everyone else does. It is true that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived at times (just as anybody could), and it may be because of their homosexuality, but this is nothing that the law does not already address.
For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten up by someone who hates homosexuals, the offending party is already culpable by law. To extend protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is unnecessary and unfair.
One's behavior should not be the subject of civil rights laws. With the new onslaught of potential hate crimes legislation being proposed before Congress, we are potentially going to be saying that it is more brutal to beat up a 22 year old homosexual than a 92 year old lady. I say, both crimes are equally evil and wrong. But with the hate crimes legislation, it would add more weight for the one perpetrating a crime against a homosexual. That puts a class distinction on victims. That is wrong.
Homosexuality is not a benign factor like race. It is a behavior and a choice...no matter how hard those who are homosexuals stomp their feet and say it wasn't a choice. That's precisely what it is.
Also the criteria to judge whether or not a group is an oppressed minority do not apply to the homosexual community. Tony Marco, in his book Special Class Protection for Gays: A Question of Behavior and Consequences, notes the three criteria that the Supreme Court established in awarding special protected status:
1. There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity. This certainly does not apply to homosexuals. Homosexuals have an average annual income that is $20,000 more than the general population. More than three times as many homosexuals are college graduates than average Americans. Three times as many homosexuals as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions...some 65% of homosexuals are overseas travelers - four times the national average.
2. Protected classes should exhibit obvious immutable, or distinguishable characteristics like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete group. It should be clear that this does not apply to the homosexual community.
3. Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. Again, it should be clear from the impact that the lobbying arm of the homosexual community is having across the nation currently. Our recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court makes this a mute point. The homosexual community is far from being politically powerless.
There is no one who can rightfully argue that homosexuals should be a protected class using the very criteria that our Supreme Court used. But I believe that it isn't merely acceptance and tolerance that is the true spirit of the homosexual agenda. I believe that they are fully intent on silencing anyone who would question their lifestyle. That, I think, is the end goal.
So to phrase the question properly: Are homosexuals an oppressed minority that should have the same civil rights extended to them regarding the homosexuality as other minorities?
Homosexuals are seeking not only to affect public policy, but also to determine the terms of the debate. The more the homosexual community is able to construe the issue of homosexuality and public policy along the lines of "civil rights," the more success it seems to have in achieving its agenda.
There are several things wrong with regarding homosexuality as a civil right. First, the law already protects the civil rights of citizens. Homosexuals now enjoy these civil rights as everyone else does. It is true that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived at times (just as anybody could), and it may be because of their homosexuality, but this is nothing that the law does not already address.
For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten up by someone who hates homosexuals, the offending party is already culpable by law. To extend protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is unnecessary and unfair.
One's behavior should not be the subject of civil rights laws. With the new onslaught of potential hate crimes legislation being proposed before Congress, we are potentially going to be saying that it is more brutal to beat up a 22 year old homosexual than a 92 year old lady. I say, both crimes are equally evil and wrong. But with the hate crimes legislation, it would add more weight for the one perpetrating a crime against a homosexual. That puts a class distinction on victims. That is wrong.
Homosexuality is not a benign factor like race. It is a behavior and a choice...no matter how hard those who are homosexuals stomp their feet and say it wasn't a choice. That's precisely what it is.
Also the criteria to judge whether or not a group is an oppressed minority do not apply to the homosexual community. Tony Marco, in his book Special Class Protection for Gays: A Question of Behavior and Consequences, notes the three criteria that the Supreme Court established in awarding special protected status:
1. There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity. This certainly does not apply to homosexuals. Homosexuals have an average annual income that is $20,000 more than the general population. More than three times as many homosexuals are college graduates than average Americans. Three times as many homosexuals as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions...some 65% of homosexuals are overseas travelers - four times the national average.
2. Protected classes should exhibit obvious immutable, or distinguishable characteristics like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete group. It should be clear that this does not apply to the homosexual community.
3. Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. Again, it should be clear from the impact that the lobbying arm of the homosexual community is having across the nation currently. Our recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court makes this a mute point. The homosexual community is far from being politically powerless.
There is no one who can rightfully argue that homosexuals should be a protected class using the very criteria that our Supreme Court used. But I believe that it isn't merely acceptance and tolerance that is the true spirit of the homosexual agenda. I believe that they are fully intent on silencing anyone who would question their lifestyle. That, I think, is the end goal.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Nation For Marriage Ads
Nation For Marriage has launched a series of ads that are very well done educating people on the issue of same sex marriage. Here are a couple of them:
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa
Let me begin by saying this, I believe wholeheartedly that under no circumstance should any Christian attack the character of a person who claims to be homosexual. People who make trite, offensive comments like, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" only work to close down the dialogue that needs to take place on this issue.
What we see from Scripture is that Jesus showed grace and truth in all He did ( John 1:14 ). We need to follow Jesus' example. We are to demonstrate grace to a person who claims to be homosexual, but we should also have the courage to speak the truth in love about homosexuality.
Solomon said that a "friend loves at all times" ( Proverbs 17:17 ). He also said that "wounds from a friend can be trusted" ( Proverbs 27:6 ). This is the kind of friend that a Christian needs to be to the person who says he or she is a homosexual.
Currently there are four states that have sought to legalize same-sex marriage. Iowa was the third state in that list. No matter what rogue Justices decide on a bench as they revise and reinterpret state constitutions, Marriage has always had one uniform definition. It is a religiously and civil sanctioned union between a man and a woman.
Biblically, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for the purpose not only of bringing blessing to each other but also of procreating or propagating the human race ( Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5 ). Obviously the Biblical definition is not only impossible, but ultimately wrong in a same-sex marriage.
Jesus Himself only understood marriage in a heterosexual way ( Matthew 19:4-5 ).
Traditional marriage has a stabilizing effect on society and provides an optimal and healthy environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages, by contrast, have a destabilizing effect on society and do not provide an optimal and healthy environment for raising children. Research has proven that in countries that grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, traditional marriages decline, out-of-wedlock births increase, and the family unit suffers injury.
What happened on Friday, April 4th here in Iowa with the ruling by our State Supreme Court has sent our state into an out-of-control tailspin. The majority of citizens of this state have been left without a voice and without representation in their legislature.
This is NOT a political issue. This is an issue of right and wrong. Either marriage is what the Bible says it is or our Courts are right. I choose to believe the Bible over the pirates who have taken hostage our State's constitution to rewrite and revise it in order to fit in with our current slouching toward Gomorrah.
What this decision means, if left unchallenged, is that someone like me (a Pastor) may in the future face criminal prosecution for not being willing to perform a same-sex marriage. This issue is very important.
Again, every homosexual person deserves our respect and no one should ever be demeaned or devalued. We should always treat others with the love and respect that Jesus showed us. But we can very strongly disagree. (It is okay to disagree...you just don't have to be disagreeable!)
Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. And it is wrong. Not because I say so or because I hate any people group but simply because the Bible is true.
In this time of increasing darkness we need to know what God's Word says and be willing to stand up for what is right. The issue of marriage is an issue that I personally would be willing to be jailed over in order to fight for the truth. I will never let a judge or a legislator dictate to me what God's Word has clearly spoken on.
Pray for our State and our battle for marriage! One positive result from the Supreme Court ruling is that they have awakened a sleeping giant! There are many who are standing now to defend marriage. The Bible says that marriage should be honored by all ( Hebrews 13:4 ).
What we see from Scripture is that Jesus showed grace and truth in all He did ( John 1:14 ). We need to follow Jesus' example. We are to demonstrate grace to a person who claims to be homosexual, but we should also have the courage to speak the truth in love about homosexuality.
Solomon said that a "friend loves at all times" ( Proverbs 17:17 ). He also said that "wounds from a friend can be trusted" ( Proverbs 27:6 ). This is the kind of friend that a Christian needs to be to the person who says he or she is a homosexual.
Currently there are four states that have sought to legalize same-sex marriage. Iowa was the third state in that list. No matter what rogue Justices decide on a bench as they revise and reinterpret state constitutions, Marriage has always had one uniform definition. It is a religiously and civil sanctioned union between a man and a woman.
Biblically, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for the purpose not only of bringing blessing to each other but also of procreating or propagating the human race ( Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5 ). Obviously the Biblical definition is not only impossible, but ultimately wrong in a same-sex marriage.
Jesus Himself only understood marriage in a heterosexual way ( Matthew 19:4-5 ).
Traditional marriage has a stabilizing effect on society and provides an optimal and healthy environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages, by contrast, have a destabilizing effect on society and do not provide an optimal and healthy environment for raising children. Research has proven that in countries that grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, traditional marriages decline, out-of-wedlock births increase, and the family unit suffers injury.
What happened on Friday, April 4th here in Iowa with the ruling by our State Supreme Court has sent our state into an out-of-control tailspin. The majority of citizens of this state have been left without a voice and without representation in their legislature.
This is NOT a political issue. This is an issue of right and wrong. Either marriage is what the Bible says it is or our Courts are right. I choose to believe the Bible over the pirates who have taken hostage our State's constitution to rewrite and revise it in order to fit in with our current slouching toward Gomorrah.
What this decision means, if left unchallenged, is that someone like me (a Pastor) may in the future face criminal prosecution for not being willing to perform a same-sex marriage. This issue is very important.
Again, every homosexual person deserves our respect and no one should ever be demeaned or devalued. We should always treat others with the love and respect that Jesus showed us. But we can very strongly disagree. (It is okay to disagree...you just don't have to be disagreeable!)
Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. And it is wrong. Not because I say so or because I hate any people group but simply because the Bible is true.
In this time of increasing darkness we need to know what God's Word says and be willing to stand up for what is right. The issue of marriage is an issue that I personally would be willing to be jailed over in order to fight for the truth. I will never let a judge or a legislator dictate to me what God's Word has clearly spoken on.
Pray for our State and our battle for marriage! One positive result from the Supreme Court ruling is that they have awakened a sleeping giant! There are many who are standing now to defend marriage. The Bible says that marriage should be honored by all ( Hebrews 13:4 ).
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Rick Warren Waffling on Same-Sex Marriage
I have to be honest, I have very high regard for Rick Warren. I respect him and admire his love for the church. But he has been called in to serious question lately concerning his position on same-sex marriage. And his appearance on Larry King Live the other night did NOT help his case. Watch the video...
It is sad when pastors begin to sound like politicians. What people need from our pulpits is a CLEAR statment of truth. Hear me, small church guy, say it as loudly and clearly as I can: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS WRONG! That is something I will never change my position on. In fact, I'd be willing to be thrown into jail on this one.
It is sad when pastors begin to sound like politicians. What people need from our pulpits is a CLEAR statment of truth. Hear me, small church guy, say it as loudly and clearly as I can: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS WRONG! That is something I will never change my position on. In fact, I'd be willing to be thrown into jail on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)