For those theologians who believe the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a useful tool in formulating systemic theology it is easily applied to the topic of marriage.  The four categories of theological formulation according to the Quadrilateral are: Scripture, History (or Tradition), Reason, and Experience. It is a matter of debate whether or not this is a listing in order of priority or if these four approaches are to function as a rubric.  It is my belief that they are a listing of order of priority with Scripture having the most prominent role in formulating one’s theology.   Understanding this let’s look at the subject of marriage.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible will give the reader a quick knowledge of what God has ordained as constituting marriage.  Adam and Eve were created as male and female and they were the first married couple (married by God Himself) and being the first, the marriage between Adam and Eve then becomes the “law of the first mention” or “rule of the first reference” we have in Scripture of what constitutes a marriage.

After Adam and Eve, we see generation after generation practicing marriage as originally designed by God.  With the giving of the Law of Moses it was made clear by God that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.  For those of you who still believe in honest Biblical scholarship, you cannot ignore the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Unfortunately, such references have almost become “politically incorrect” and/or “spiritually incorrect” in most churches today.  Therein lies the problem.  Not so much that Pastors are afraid or intimated to tell the particular story of Sodom and Gomorrah but more significantly, that Pastors are simply afraid to raise the standard of holiness.  Pastors simply will not preach on evil, judgment, right or wrong, and “don’t even” mention the name of Satan or the Devil.  Don’t you know, such talk is “medieval and unsophisticated.”

Not only is there confusion within the church itself as to what actually constitutes a marriage, there is also another frontal assault against marriage and it is what I will refer to as “Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.” By this I mean, the world has developed an almost fantasy type concept of what true marriage is to look like by relying on Hollywood Reality Shows, overpaid immature sports stars, overpaid immature musicians and other entertainers of various sorts to tell us what “real marriage” is supposed to look like.

Years ago I heard someone make a statement that has stuck in my mind.  This person said you have to be careful when watching certain movies as they will take a story line that chronicles a person’s life over a period of decades and compress it into a 90 minute screenplay.  You can watch a period of years simply be bypassed with the momentary “flip of the screen” to the next scene.  While this may make for a good movie, it can hardly be considered an accurate portrayal of “real life” in the “real world.”  In other words, in real life, those momentary flips from one scene to the next represent years and often times, tears.  But yet, this is exactly how we think our lives should go, that is, let’s just simply bypass all the hard times, the work, the discipline, the growing and maturing and simply “have it all” on a whim – Carpe Diem.  And it gets worse, for it is implied that you are one of the “enlightened few” who actually understand that life can be this exciting and most others don’t have a clue.  So, go for it, live for yourself as you are one of the chosen and enlightened who really understand how to live at the higher levels of enjoying and experiencing life. If anyone brings such thinking into a marriage, that marriage is doomed.  This is what I am referring to as Egocentric, Carpe Diem Romanticism.

Another word to describe what I am talking about is “antinomianism.”  Antinomianism comes from the Greek word that literally means “against law.”  A better way to describe antinomianism is the idea that you can hear the gospel message and at the same time, give no thought to, and simply ignore the code of conduct, morality, social convention and conviction of sin that goes along with the gospel message. 

A very good discussion of antinomianism can be found in the book titled “Pastoral Theology” by Thomas C Oden.  On page 8, Oden writes “Keep in mind that antinomianism is our own doing.  We cannot conveniently claim to be victims of some external, evil, socially alienating force.  We have welcomed it, confusing it with genuine Christian liberty.  Its modern forms are sexual permissiveness, egocentric romanticism and a vague taste for anarchy…Feelings of guilt are considered neurotic.  God turns out to be a naïve zilch who permissively turns his eyes away when we sin. How strangely different from the Holy One of Amos, Isaiah and Jesus.”

Another book where this concept comes up is found in “The Reason For God” by Timothy Keller.  On page xxiii of the Introduction, a counselee of Keller writes “While sitting in a coffee shop reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity, I put down the book and wrote in my notebook ‘the evidence surrounding the claims of Christianity is simply overwhelming.’ I realized that my achievements were ultimately unsatisfying, the approval of man is fleeting, that a carpe diem life lived solely for adventure is just a form of narcissism and idolatry.”

How can I get to this point and not bring up a most clear and explanatory example of what we are talking about.  How many remember the old country song titled “Help Me Make It Through The Night” by Sammi Smith.  Let’s see, the lines were “I don’t care what’s right or wrong, And I won’t try to understand, Let the devil take tomorrow, Lord tonight I need a friend.”   

With all of these faulty concepts stacked against what true marriage is supposed to be like, it is little wonder why so many fail.  But there is yet a more significant problem.  It is the absence of God in a marriage.  By this I mean, God has to be a part of a marriage, just like He was in the beginning, in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In the beginning, God was very much involved with the first marriage.  God was Teacher, Counselor, Father, Creator and Lord.  This was how marriage was created and instituted to be, that is, God was to be involved and God was to be the covering for marriage between a man and a woman.  Seeing that this was the original model for marriage and the way God designed marriage, then how does anyone expect a marriage to succeed if God is out of the picture. Let me say it another way.  Seeing that God created man and woman and subsequently established the marriage covenant between a man and woman by His authority, then how can a marriage be successful today if the married couple leave God out?

The model for marriage is found in the first few pages of the Book of Genesis.  Adam and Eve are our example.  It is when they chose to push God aside and do things their own way that things went terribly wrong. When God is absent from a marriage, you will see self-centeredness quickly move into such a marriage.  And, with self-centeredness comes strife, resentment, anger and division. If Adam and Eve, being the first and perfectly created married couple were not spared the consequences of rejecting God as being a part of their marriage, then who is anyone today to believe that they would not suffer the same?

From the beginning of the history of man we have a clear and indisputable model of what a true marriage is supposed to look like.  It is a marriage in which God is the center and in which God is allowed to be a guiding influence. Apart from this, it is little doubt that any marriage will be successful.

read comments (0)

The Law of the Angels

This is a book which exhibits an incongruence between the title and what the book actually talks about.  The title “The Law of The Angels” sounds rather mystical and interesting but, once you get into the book, there is very little written about angels.  The one reference I find to the title is on page 41 where, as the author is speaking about the different expressions of love, she injects the statement “This is angel law. This is the way the angels live.”  After this brief reference to angels, there is not much more on the subject of angels.  I have seen in certain blogs that some are saying that this book was re-titled upon reprinting and given the title “Love: The Law of The Angels.”  However, the 1979 edition I was able to obtain is simply titled “The Law of The Angels.”

It appears that the thesis of this book is to give the reader a broad overview of the subject of love and how love is to operate in the lives of Christians.  Then, upon giving a protracted and tedious definition of what love is supposed to be in the life of the Christian, the more subtle and actual core emphasis of the book comes out. 

Gwen Shaw in her book The Law of The Angels portrays love as a more feminine attribute than masculine and thus Shaw puts forth the thesis that the Christian women of the world are spiritually superior to the Christian men of the world. And, because women are more spiritually sensitive than men, then by function women can be used by God to express His love to the world more than can be accomplished through “insensitive men.”

I realized that I needed to activate my theological radar defense shield (discernment of spirits) when on page VII of the Introduction we see Shaw say “I wish I could say that my own love is perfect, or that I myself had attained unto the high degree of perfection which you will find in the pages of this book.  These are truths that God has made known to me.” This type of posturing is something that I have become quite wary of lately.  As you will see shortly, Shaw’s statements were born out of false humility.

Before we get into the “love” part of the book, I do want to point out what I believe is another area of problematic theology in Shaw’s book.  It has to do with why Jesus was crucified and what was accomplished in the crucifixion.  On page 14 we see Shaw state “You see, the Law of Moses will never point anyone to the cross.  You know what the Law of Moses did?  It crucified Jesus.  Do you know that it was on the authority of the Law of Moses that the Jews crucified Jesus?”  One might ask why I see this as problematic.  It is troublesome because traditional and orthodox theology teaches us that the Law of Moses had the function of making mankind aware of his sin.  Then, we see that Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses by offering Himself upon the Cross as a sacrifice for our sin.  And, it was Roman Soldiers who actually crucified Jesus by the insistence of the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees. I see this theological awkwardness as a product of Shaw’s hurried attempt to get straight to her main thesis of her book which appears to be the desire of God to express His love toward mankind, rather than judgment.

One other area to make note of before we get to the main thesis is that of the belief of the eternal existence of man’s spirit or what is known as the “pre-existence and transmigration of souls.” We see this on page 68 where Shaw states “Way back there in antiquity, in the origin of time, far beyond your known history or ability to recall, you were in the plan of God.  You are an eternal living spirit.  Your body is loaned to you for only a season of sojourn on Earth.  As an eternal being, you are without beginning or ending.  And back there, hidden in the midst of a million forgotten eons of time we stood in His glory, being part of His spirit, fashioned even then in His likeness, as He planned for us.  There He created us male and female.”

The above theology is extremely troublesome.  So, according to Shaw, “we always existed”, “we are part of God”, but yet God created us.  So, is God creating “part of Himself” or, what is going on here?

As troublesome as the already mentioned items are, the real “bombshell” of The Law of The Angels happens on page 111.  After having “put men in their place” on pages 72 and 73, we read on page 111 what Shaw is really trying to get the reader to believe.  On page 111, Shaw has been describing a vision she had of Eve praying and asking God to forgive her for her sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden.  Eve is described as being very distraught and in much aguish before God.  Then, we see Shaw state “I saw how through the centuries, even after her transition (whatever that means), she had wept and cried to God the Father to be merciful to her sons and daughters.  She had interceded for our release and had been permitted to see that her prayers had not been in vain, her intercession had accomplished its goal and she had prayed through.  God is going to begin to show His glory to Eve’s children.  We have finished drinking the cup of our iniquity, our day of redemption is here now.  That is the reason God is using us handmaidens.  Somehow God is going to allow us to make up for our mother’s failure.  We not only want to bless and help our brothers return to the lost paradise, we want to return ourselves.  Oh, God help us!  Brothers, help us!  We need you and you need us!  We went out together and we must return together!…As women travail and intercede, they will be used by the Lord to restore all that has been lost through the fall.” 

So, there you have it.  God is going to use women to restore mankind to Himself.  But, what about the accomplished work of Jesus on the Cross?  Is it not complete?  Didn’t Jesus, through His sufferings and crucifixion restore all?  What was left undone?  What can woman do that has not been accomplished through and by the crucifixion?  If you think these questions are unfounded then, go on to page 115 and see Shaw state “I believe the Blood of Jesus is going to become more powerful in the end time.  More powerful than in the day it poured from His veins…”

If all of this is not a problem for you then, I must direct your attention to the most theologically explosive part of the entire book.  On pages 165 and 166 we see Shaw state “This feminine aspect of the eternal God is the El-Shaddai, the mother-nature of God.  It is in the realm that the Shekinah is revealed and does its high office work.  You will remember us mentioning in chapter 13 that God had created Adam male and female.  If God created man male and female, it was because bisexuality somehow belongs to His own nature.  The fact has been recognized by early rabbinic commentators that this is true.  One even concluded that God had made Adam androgynous, and later separated him into Adam and Eve.  Lantero states that it is recognized that while individuals belong to one sex or the other, we are all androgynous in the sense of having both male and female hormones, as well as potential character traits traditionally associated with both sexes.  This beautiful aspect of the mother nature of God is one which we need to meditate upon more. Why is it that the Glory of God,  His Shekinah, seems to be resting in greater magnitude on the daughters of Eve in this generation? This is very evident, not only in one country but in all the nations where I have worked for God, and especially where women have been permitted by their male elders to let God’s glory be borne witness of through their freedom to speak.  The women are the great intercessors, the fasters, the praisers, prophetesses, missionaries, healers, and they are fast becoming the deepest of teachers.” 

Finally, in reference to the above excerpt, on page 67, we see Shaw describe that when God first created Adam, that he was created with a womb, which God subsequently took out of Adam and used it to create Eve. 

The theology presented in Shaw’s book is simply shocking.  Gwen Shaw, in no uncertain terms, portrays Adam as having been created as an androgynous hermaphrodite.  She even says so in her book.  This depiction simply leaves one speechless.

Such theology by Gwen Shaw opens the door wide open for Satan to flood in with a horde of demonic spirits.  Shaw has theologically emasculated Christian men.  Shaw sets Christian women on a higher plane of greater power and importance than Christian men.  This is a Satanic doctrine.

This book is available through Amazon.com.

read comments (0)

It is no longer a matter of if, but rather when we will begin to see organized governmental opposition and persecution of the church in the United States. The new Hate Crime Bill in congress will give those who oppose the church a template or mechanism by which serious legal challenges can be brought against Christians, Pastors and ministries that make public declarations against homosexuality.

The freedom of the church in the United States is now on the edge of a knife. The freedom, for the Christian to read and interpret the Bible and to develop a systematic theology about what the Bible is saying, now faces the most severe threat in the history of our nation.

Remember a few articles back I was saying that it has gotten to the point in our society that the rights and freedoms of the various groups and interests within our society would begin clashing with each other. And, that we would eventually see one group denied certain rights and freedoms in order for another group to be able to express theirs. Well, I announce to you as of this posting, that day has arrived and it has come in the form of the Hate Crime Bill.

There is much debate about this bill, its meaning, its intent, its purpose. But, I can tell you, after doing research on this matter, it appears that in some regard, the very formulation of this bill was to set up a device or mechanism within government that would give the homosexual community the tool they needed to go after conservative, evangelical Christians. And, I can tell you plainly, once the Hate Crime Bill becomes law, they will have everything they need. The homosexual community knows this very well. Let’s take a look at some recent events and statements.

In an MSNBC article titled “D.C. gay rights march misses mark” dated October 10, 2009 we read that “March organizers have said they’re no longer willing to quietly wait for Democratic office holders to make good on decades-old promises”. This comment is the “canary in the coal mine” concerning all things about gay rights. We are hearing that some of the leaders of the homosexual community are no longer willing to wait. And, it is what they are waiting for that presents a gravely serious challenge for true Christians.

Upon reading the many news reports covering President Obama’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign one cannot help but be alarmed by the many statements made not just about discrimination against homosexuality but rather, an outright acceptance of such lifestyle. In other words, to hear the thoughts of many of the leaders of the gay community, you get the feeling that even if you think that being gay is wrong, then you are committing a crime. The intensity and ferocity in the tone exhibited toward those who disagree with the gay lifestyle is unfortunately an indicator of things to come. We are headed for a rocky road.

What the Hate Crime Bill will do is give the gay community a template within the government to bring serious legal charges against Christians, the churches they attend and ministries. It will no longer be a question of “can they do it?”. With the Hate Crime Bill, it can and will be done. You will see individual suits and class-action suits brought against Christian ministries.

The sobering reality is that once law, the Hate Crime Bill will allow such lawsuits and then the Christian or Ministry being sued will be at the mercy of the legal interpretation of such law and the charges brought forward. It will no longer be the question of “if” such a thing can happen. It will happen and by and large, most courts are going to rule against Christians and Christian ministries. Christians are getting ready to see how important the U.S. Supreme Court nominations really are.

Some will interject at this point, “but what about the Muslims and their rejection of homosexuality. I doubt we would see such a law because of the conflict and tension this would create with them”. True, Islam does not accept homosexuality and in some Muslim countries, homosexuals are dealt with severely. But, the real truth of the matter is, the Muslims in America aren’t really too worried about all of this. Because, when “push comes to shove” the Muslims are going to do what they want to do, anyway. In a sense, the Muslims have a degree of autonomy from our legal system already and this autonomy will only increase.

Furthermore, most Western governments are fearful of the Muslim culture. The point is, I doubt very seriously if you are going to see a Muslim Imam thrown in jail for speaking out against homosexuality. Never, in the United States will you witness such a thing. On the contrary, you are getting ready to see Christian Ministers thrown in jail for speaking out against homosexuality. This objective, for the larger part, has become a primary motivation for getting the Hate Crime Bill passed. This bill would allow formal charges to be brought against said Christian Minister that he would then be forced to defend against in court, and then after giving his defense, be subject to the interpretation and judgment of such court. This, my friend, is a game changer. Christians in America have never faced such a thing. The gay community and their advocates are simply “looking the other way” when it comes to Islam and the issue of homosexuality. They are thinking that somehow, Muslims in America will assimilate into our culture of freedom and social diversity, which includes gay rights. However, when you consider the overall socio-religious climate of the world, this strategy appears short-sighted.

The Hate Crime Bill could in a sense be described as a device designed to give one group within our society certain “rights” while at the same time, taking away such “rights” from another group. To put it in street, “For me to have the right to openly and publicly do what I want to do, I have to take away the right of another to openly and publicly criticize my behavior”. Never has such a precedent been set in our legal system.

It won’t simply stop with homosexuality. If this can be done once, it can be done twice. I envision that the legal environment could become so hostile against Christianity that if a Pastor were to read John 14:6 and by his interpretation of such scripture make the statement that “Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven”, even this could be construed as “hate speech” in the sense that such a statement creates tension in society and fosters hostility between different groups within our society.

My purpose for writing this post is to exhort Christians to first of all be aware this is going on. Secondly, Christians better start preparing for the challenges we will be facing in the days ahead. Every Christian needs to dig deep into the things of the Holy Spirit. Every Christian needs to have a well developed theology from the Word of God. Every Christian must know what they believe and why they believe it. The hour is late for a Christian to not know where he or she stands on this issue.

Take for example the introduction speech given by Joe Solomonese at the recent Human Rights Campaign dinner at which the President spoke. You can go to You Tube at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWraxDFU8Aw or, type in “HRC President Joe Solomonese Speaks Before President Obama” and watch this now on You Tube. In his remarks, Solomonese talks about “hate violence”, “a time of great impatience”, “enemies of change” and at the 3:54 mark of this video he makes a most telling remark as he refers to “hate rhetoric”. OK, let’s try and define “hate rhetoric”. Is it when someone says hateful things in the course of acting out violence against another person? Or, could you interpret “hate rhetoric” as someone saying something against homosexuality that could be considered inflammatory or perhaps as possibly inciting violence if someone hears it.

OK, let’s cut to the chase. Let’s say a Preacher is in his pulpit on a given Sunday morning and decides to preach from Romans 1:27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. After reading these two portions of scripture, the Preacher states that according to his interpretation of these scriptures and according to his moral conviction he believes homosexuality is a sin. Sounds simple and clear cut, right? Not so. Under the Hate Crime Bill, this Preacher could be sued and brought to court for hate speech which incites violence against homosexuals. This is exactly, by and large, the intent of the Hate Crime Bill. And, I guarantee you; in fact, I prophesy to you that it will be used for this purpose.

It doesn’t stop here. Go back to You Tube at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_uLSHniik or, type in “Andrew Sullivan Blasts HRC’s Joe Solomonese”. Some of you may be familiar with Sullivan. He is often found on news talk shows. He is intelligent, super-articulate, speaks with a very nice British accent, very insightful on the issues, he is a Roman Catholic, a political conservative, and……he is gay. That got your attention. In the video you can see Sullivan saying that the Joe Solomonese and the rest of the gay leadership have failed in their efforts on gay rights. At one point, Sullivan says “We gay people are being betrayed by our leadership”.

So, what are we hearing by this and other comments such as Solomonese’s “this is a time of great impatience”. We are hearing that the hour is upon us when the gay rights agenda is going to move forward in a very big way. It is no longer “if”. It is only weeks away that this bill is going to be introduced in the U.S. Congress.

For the serious Christian, this gets even more complicated. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why certain camps within conservative, evangelical Christianity are so silent on this impending development. For example, I just read in the October 2009 edition of Charisma Magazine, on page 23, where C Peter Wagner has an article entitled “The Case For Dominion”. This article is a response to the question on the Rapture of the Church (which it seems Wagner does not hold the view of orthodox Christianity) and in this article we see Wagner make a striking statement when he says in the last paragraph “We are aggressively retaking dominion and the rate at which this is happening will soon become exponential. The day will come when The Kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ and He shall reign forever and ever”.

First of all let me say that I believe Jesus has all power and authority in Heaven and on the Earth and that He reigns from Heaven above. Having said that, I must also direct the reader’s attention to what Wagner is referring to when he says the kingdoms of this world and dominion eschatology. To capsulate, what Wagner is talking about is Kingdom Now or Kingdom Dominion theology. It is also known as 7-Mountain Doctrine. Basically, this doctrine teaches that there are 7 pillars of control/influence in a given society. These pillars are also referred to as “mountains” thus “7-Mountain”. And, the 7 Mountains are: Government, Media, Arts and Entertainment, Education, Family, Religion and Business.

There is supposed to be a leader or head authority over each of these seven areas of influence. And, the objective is that Christianity will not only gain influence in all of these areas but, eventually out-right control. And, once Christians are in charge of all these areas of influence and control, then, Jesus can return. Note I said “can”. This is the very serious problem with this doctrine. But, that discussion is for another day and I want to keep my focus on this article. Oh, by the way, what was it Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world”.

My point is, it looks like someone has been “asleep at the wheel of the Government mountain” or someone has been “asleep in the guard shack at the base of the Government mountain”. What I am saying is, how in the world can Wagner claim that Christians are “aggressively retaking dominion” and this retaking rate will soon become “exponential”? How is this so when you look at what is getting ready to happen in the U.S. Congress with the Hate Crime Bill? How can these guys claim all this power, influence and authority in our society when the most serious threat to our religious freedom since the existence of our nation is just about to come into law? It is double-talk. This group is saying one thing but, the world and its governments are going exactly the opposite.

I can assure you, by taking the above stated position that I will be put into category of the “anti-Christ”. That’s OK. It won’t be the first time. You know what, the truth can withstand examination. So, I challenge the reader who opposes my assessment of this doctrine to systematically and theologically defeat my position. I can tell you now; I won’t be losing any sleep. I am warning my Christian brethren, there is a severe price to be paid if you buy into this particular theology.

So, getting back to my question and bewilderment at the absence of voice of some of these so-called leaders concerning the Hate Crime Bill. I am going to ask a very bold, but not so far-fetched question. Could it be that one of the reasons we are not seeing a ground-swell of specific resistance to the Hate Crime Bill is because there still remains within the leadership of the various prophetic groups some who are sympathetic toward the gay rights movement? Sympathetic either because of their personal desire to gain power and influence by not offending such a large and politically active (and wealthy) segment of our society and/or perhaps there are some within the leadership of these groups who are gay.

Before you get out of shape by this suggestion, you only need to look at the recent history of Christian leadership within the ranks of these particular Dominionist groups to understand the qualification of my question. It is a question, and, I will leave it at that.

Because the Hate Crime Bill so intertwines politics and religion, I could write for a week and still not cover all the issues involved. This is an enormous development in our society and nation. It will affect us all. I am afraid though, that I have only touched on the easy part of the debate in this article. I am fearful for our country in that I believe the Hate Crime Bill, once passed, will turn out to be a “nation-breaker”.

read comments (0)

Recently, on MSNBC/Reuters news service there was an article titled “Pastor Defends Exorcism of Gay Man” dated June 26, 2009.  In this story we read about an African-American ministry that conducted an exorcism on a young man and posted it on You Tube.  The young man happened to be gay.  Needless-to-say, such a thing has generated a firestorm of controversy.  I see one white woman giving her opinion as she states “this young man’s soul was murdered”.  Without question, this has brought the gay vs straight debate once again to the “edge of the knife”.  In particular, this news story has brought focus on the issue of how much say or authority the state should have in the affairs of the church.

Next, we are witnessing the ongoing saga of Perez Hilton who many remember from the most recent Miss USA contest.  We saw how Mr Hilton took it upon himself to deny Miss California success in her career because she expressed her Christian views.  Now, more recently, we have witnessed a new episode involving Mr Hilton and the pop band called “Black Eyed Peas”.  Seems that Mr Hilton is exhibiting particular aggressiveness toward young, professional “women”.

The issue of gay rights vs the conservative, evangelical church community is fast becoming the watershed or “societal tipping point” in the debate concerning all things church and state.  There is not a greater or more significant issue in this debate than that of gay rights.  The reason being is that there is no middle ground between these two groups on this issue.  There is no middle ground between the homosexual and the conservative, evangelical Christian.  Therein lies the gravely serious concern about this issue.  Gone are the days when our society could watch movies such as “Conair” and see a gay individual standing up in front of an airplane and dancing to the song “Sweet Home Alabama” in front of a plane load of convicts and, then after having watched the movie, just simply “forget about it all”.

Anytime you talk about “rights” you are talking in legal terminology.  And, anytime you are talking in legal terminology you are talking courts, judges and legal interpretation.  The problem for our society now is that when it comes to the issue of gay rights and the position of the conservative, evangelical Christian, there is absolutely no middle ground.  What I am saying is that you could never ask a serious Christian to accept the idea of “well we will agree that you have the freedom to preach and teach anything you choose and the freedom to classify anything you choose as a sin according to your interpretation of the Bible – except homosexuality.”  The serious Christian cannot accept such a position because according to conservative evangelical theology, to deliberately compromise on your personal, moral conviction would, in turn, place that particular Christian’s soul in jeopardy.

On the other hand, the militant homosexuals will never accept the idea of “well, what if we write a law that classifies any negative talk against homosexuality as a hate crime, however; evangelical churches and Christians will be exempt from this law because it would infringe upon their freedom of religious beliefs.”

What we are faced with, as a society, on this issue is quite simply that it is fast becoming “all or none” for both sides.  There is no middle ground.  In the mind of the Christian, there can be no acceptance of a law that would require that Christian to compromise his or her moral conviction.  But, on the other hand, in the mind of the homosexual, there can be no acceptance of a law that would class anti-gay talk and commentary as a hate crime for only some people, but at the same time, allow an entire class of people to be exempt from prosecution for the same.  If a hate-crime law of this type is passed (and we are close), and then a Christian Pastor is arrested for preaching against homosexuality, everyone might as well buy tickets to Washington D.C. because such a case is clearly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enforcement of such a “hate crime” law would be no simple matter.  If this scenario develops in our society, we will see a “Pandora’s Box” opened up and our society will be changed forever.  It will never be put back again. The reason this is so is because it’s not just a simple matter of interpreting homosexuals as a “class” of people.  It goes way beyond that.  Let’s make some logical observations.

Our country has a recent history of the civil rights movement.  There is the history of blacks being discriminated against by whites.  In the course of seeing the history of racist manifestations on the part of whites toward blacks, it was never said or thought that “being black” was morally wrong.  Instead, whites were simply saying, in no uncertain terms, “you are black, therefore, you are of a different class”.  And, the whites chose to discriminate against this class.  The difference between this and the issue of gay rights is galactic.  For you see, for two millennium it has been the position of the Christian church that homosexuality is a sin.  Never did the Christian community simply say that homosexuals were of a “lower class”.  This difference is enormous and this difference means everything in this debate.  For you see, to define homosexuals as a “class” and then, to say that society cannot speak ill of this “class” means that the Christian would be asked to give up or change his or her moral conviction on the issue.

Let’s look at it another way.  Being a black person is not a choice of behavior.  Only black people can be black.  However, being a homosexual is a choice of behavior as we clearly see that there are both black and white homosexuals.  This reality leads to the next point.

The court that would bring to trial such a case of discrimination and supposed hate crime involving a Christian would have the burden of proving or disproving that there is a legitimate and sustainable process of reasoning as to why evangelical Christians believe and teach that homosexuality is wrong.  In other words, out of all the things that a Christian would consider wrong or evil, the court would be challenged with the burden of determining whether the Christian did or did not “pick homosexuality out of a hat” and then, in turn, classify it as sinful.  I can see where a courtroom trial would very quickly become focused on the “basis” for the belief that homosexuality is “wrong or bad”.  It would be inevitable that the court would be faced with simply saying that the Christian can call anything he or she wants to call sin – except homosexuality.  The only alternative would be for the court to put the entire “belief system” of the Christian on trial. Either way, such a court would then, in essence, be dictating morality and deciding what the Christian has the right to believe is sin or not.   This is extremely treacherous ground for our legal system.

We hear a lot of talk about diversity in our society.  But, what I am seeing is that the “developing definition” of “diversity” is that diversity means “anything but Christian”.  Or, another way to put it would be that diversity means acquiescence for all serious Christians. We give up our religious rights and freedoms to a pseudo-class of citizens who are willfully choosing to participate in behavior that the Christian considers sinful behavior.

America is slipping off her moral foundations.  Speaking of diversity, it seems ironic that the Christian position on homosexuality is discussed in the media but, never the position of other religions such as Islam.  What do Muslims believe about homosexuality?  Or, does the burden of “diversity” only apply to the Christians?

I can envision an “irony of ironies” where, let’s say, an African-American Pastor living in Selma, Alabama would be invited to preach at an African-American church in Montgomery, Alabama.  And, during the course of delivering his message on that particular Sunday morning, this African-American Preacher would speak of homosexuality and describe it as being a sin that damns the soul.  Shortly thereafter, upon driving back to Selma, he is pulled over by the highway patrol and arrested for having “violated the civil rights” of the homosexual community.  If we are not careful, this is exactly where all of this is headed.  It would turn our country into a “legal no man’s land”.  Our body of law would become un-interpretable and thus, there would be no law.

read comments (0)

“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand” Ezekiel 33:6

By definition, a watchman’s responsibility is to warn of danger or harm to the people he has been entrusted to protect and care for. It is a very serious responsibility. And, by function, a watchman is to warn the people “before” the danger arrives in order that the people can take the necessary action or preparation to protect themselves and get out of harms way. A true watchman will warn the people that something is getting ready to happen, before it happens. Otherwise, why even have a watchman if there is not going to be any warning?

Today, we have those who claim to be watchmen but they are not. Today, we have those who claim to be leaders in the Body of Christ, but they are not. We have those who claim to have the prophetic anointing on their lives and even on the words they speak, but they do not speak the word of the Lord. They only speak that which is of their own mind and their own heart and not the word of the Lord. We see and hear those who claim to hear the voice of God, but they only hear and speak the vain imaginations of their heart.

God does not contradict Himself. The word of God is clear and stands on its own. God has never, and would never ask a husband and wife to abandon their marriage for the sake of “pursuing their ministry”. This would be a contradiction. Those who are saying that God is allowing them to break the marriage covenant in order to pursue ministry are speaking out of their own mind and not by the unction of the Lord.

Any man or woman who says that God is asking them to abandon their marriage in order to pursue ministry, that man or woman has been deceived. It is so contradictory. You in essence are saying “God is telling me to disobey His word, in order to preach His word! A man or woman who would say such a thing is being influenced by a demonic spirit. And, we know demons are real.

The church in America has become drunk on a man-inspired gospel of self-centeredness and self-indulgence. Or, to put it another way, it is a “what’s in it for me” gospel. John the Baptist said “He must increase and I must decrease”. But, in America we hear “Jesus exists in order that I might increase”. We are seeing this mind-set and gospel of man being played out before our very eyes in the Christian media and on the Christian TV shows.

When King David sinned with Bathsheba, what was it that Nathan the prophet came and spoke to the King? It was certainly more than “You must be having a bad day” or “I need to show you a little love and forgiveness”. To be sure, God did forgive King David. But, did you read the rest of the story? David paid a severe price for his sin. For you see, David was the King, the leader of the people, wasn’t he.

So, today, we have the prophets and the watchmen on the walls, and the apostles and the bishops (or the “one million bishops” as was recently quoted to me in frustration by a Christian in the Congo), all of whom are claiming to be God’s men and women of the hour. Yet, your silence is deafening. You are even promoting the enemy and the error from within the camp. There is no repentance of the sin, not even a consciousness of it!

You are making a mockery of the institution of marriage. You are dishonoring God’s word. You are of the spirit of Balaam, promoting an error in the hearts and minds of the people. If you choose not to speak the word of the Lord anymore, then He will replace you with someone who will. 
 

Publish Date: September 15, 2007

read comments (0)

We are seeing the institution of marriage coming under attack as never before. In fact, we are seeing the very definition of marriage being brought into question. The family and the home are the bedrock of a society. If you take away the family and if you do away with the institution of marriage then, you essentially no longer have a society, at least, a society as we knew it.

Logically, if you are going to decide that something as established as the institution of marriage can all of a sudden be redefined, then, anything and everything can be redefined. If you think you can extract the institution of marriage “out of the equation” and redefine marriage, and then simply “put it back into” the equation and everything else will remain the same, then you are just simply naïve. The attempt to redefine marriage could be analogized to having a Constitutional Convention. In other words, to say that if the 50 States of the United States were to agree to have a Constitutional Convention in order to change “just one thing” in the Constitution, that it could be done and that it would all somehow be that simple and, that everything else would “remain the same”. Dream on.

To the point. There are ministers and ministries of late that are playing around with the institution of marriage. The Bible is very clear on marriage. The Bible tells us that marriage is a sacred institution, ordained by God and that only under the most serious circumstance of infidelity can the option of divorce be considered. Then, the overall word of God indicates that a husband and wife can forgive and remain together so long as they choose to be faithful to one another.

Being a minister can bring additional strain on a marriage and home life. I know, I am one. However, there is always some stress in life no matter what your calling or vocation. Just being human involves dealing with stress. Being under stress and having a lot of responsibility does not qualify a person to dismiss the authority of the Word of God. In fact, noting in this life qualifies any person to dismiss the authority of the Word of God. Not in this life or the next. “The grass withers and the flower fades but the Word of God stands forever” Isaiah 40:8.

Any minister that casually dismisses the authority of the Word of God, disqualifies himself or herself from ministry. How can you preach the Word of God if you don’t honor the authority of it?

The institution of marriage has been established since the beginning of the age of man. It has been the framework of our existence since the beginning. And now, you have those who are saying it doesn’t matter. It does matter and those who treat the Word of God casually, then God will treat that person casually. If a minister chooses to dishonor the Word of God, then God will dishonor that person.

 Publish Date: September 05, 2007

read comments (0)