The Homosexual War against Christianity Chapter 4
On not learning the lessons of history. Where have we gotten in the past 15 years, since the resounding victories to prohibit same-sex bogus 'marriage' during the 2004 elections? That year, 11 states voted to affirm that marriage is, by definition, a union of a man and woman. Counting all votes in theses states, which were distributed widely, coast to coast, the tally was 2: 1 against the homosexuals. Even in Oregon, thought to be the one state that would prove to be an exception, the finally tally wasn't all that close, it voted by a 57% - 43% margin to keep marriage heterosexual. The other states were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah. Now think of where we are. The difference is staggering. The question is this: If you have some kind of plan to the effect that in 10 or 15 years you will finally do something to oppose homosexuals, where will we be then? If you are postponing action for the sake of your kids, you need time to raise them and see them off to college, what kind of country could America become in 2027 or 2032 ? If you, and countless others like you, do not do anything in the meantime, we all know the answer. America, now on the way to becoming New Sodom, would, in all likelihood, have gotten there. It would be unrecognizable. As you worked your way up the corporate totem pole, as you took out a mortgage on your dream home, as you reveled in your promotion to district manager, or supervisor of nurses in pediatrics, or senior programmer, the earth would have shifted beneath your feet. It all has to do with the choices we make in life. It isn't necessarily a matter of long range plans. This may not even be a factor for many people. It may be a simple question with no good answer: "What can I do that would make any difference?" Everyone might answer that question differently. But surely there is something you can do, isn't there? Unfortunately, many people don't even try . For them it boils down to public opinion; go with the herd. Which, when you think about it, both embodies wisdom and is incredibly stupid. Sometimes there is "wisdom in crowds." But sometimes the majority is hopelessly wrong and herd mentality is precisely what makes it impossible for anyone to be objective. However, the question can become moot if you conceive your task as being that of shaping opinion rather than following opinion. And shouldn't Christians, or any conscientious believers of any good religion want to shape public opinion? Which is it? Lead -or follow? If you want to be a leader you are compelled to ask whether any widely shared opinion is good or bad, useful or useless, smart or stupid. It may be that most people believe X but the real question is what should people believe? This isn't about counting noses, it is about what is right. As soon as you are clear about what is right you know what to do. Or at least you know what someone should do even if it isn't something you, personally, are able to accomplish. In that case the task becomes one of recruiting people who can do the necessary work -and then leading through skills at organizing or fund raising or publicity or whatever other talent you may have. But opinion, in every case, means precisely nothing unless it is right. The distinction originated with Plato. If your choice is opinion or truth which do you choose? The question is rhetorical, truth is always superior. Even if many people are -well- too stupid to make the distinction. Public opinion on the question of sodomy has become -speaking of current majorities in most places- as wrong as it is possible to get. The challenge is to change public opinion, not accommodate ourselves to something that is objectively wrong. People do gravitate to where the power is, of course, but power may rest on a foundation of lies. When it does, it relies on a foundation that is structurally unstable, that is filled with holes. Ultimately those who choose power over truth choose to forfeit their reputation, even if their reputation may not crumble until after death. In which case it is one's supporters who suffer the consequences as the cause they believed in is discredited. But when it crumbles during someone's lifetime the fall from the heights can only be excruciatingly painful. Ask Richard M. Nixon. Ask Bernie Madoff. Ask Joe Paterno. All of this advice seems to be wasted on most Christians in the here-and-now. This is not said with self-satisfaction; it is said in dismay. But it helps explain why Christianity is in trouble. To repeat the point, to discuss something as all-encompassing as Christian faith, any generalization will necessarily miss the mark some of the time. There are a good number of Christians for whom the criticisms made here do not apply. However, they do apply to large numbers of believers and for that reason it is important to make these criticisms clear. What cannot be overlooked is the fact that a good number of Christians are unable to understand basic truths in the Bible because: (1) they really don't know the Bible all that well, and (2) their knowledge of history is shallow to non-existent; they misconstrue what they do read through oversimplification, or through factual errors, through stories they invent in order to try and make sense out of Bible passages that otherwise are incomprehensible to them. A case in point concerns an article by Theodore Shoebat released on September 3, 2013, entitled "The Homosexual Empire." I have this essay filed under: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" The article consists of a series of false facts, mistakes, faulty generalizations, and utter nonsense -all "backed up" with Bible verses. The whole production should be an embarrassment to anyone who professes faith in Christ. Shoebat, for instance, seems to think that all of Greco-Roman Pagan religion was one thing, "Paganism," a false generalization that allows him to lump everything that isn't Christian together as if there were no differences between Augustus and the Romans who followed him (the majority) and his opponents who included a large number of homosexuals. For Augustus outlawed sodomy and made it a crime punishable with death. His laws were still in effect during the time that Paul wrote his letters even if these statutes were not always enforced. They were superceded under some emperors, revived again under others, and were brought back under the Christian rulers of the Byzantine Empire to become normative for nearly all of Christendom until the modern era. Not according to Shoebat, who seems to have made up the "history" he cites as "proof" of the Biblical view of the sexuality. That is, speaking of the Bible as he understands it, which is pretty much a false understanding. Pagans, he maintained, are all evil, all alike, and all were homosexual. Which is total nonsense. He does not even see the irony in his use of the testimony of Plutarch to make the case that sodomy was rampant within the Roman Empire. Plutarch, of course, was opposed to homosexuality. In any case, homosexuality, viz., sodomy, was moreso an urban phenomenon, it was widely disdained among the rural population, the pagani, and even among the elites it had severe critics -like Plutarch. Who was Plutarch? A man of letters, a Roman thinker who sometimes deserves the epithet of "philosopher", and who was a devotee of the Goddess Isis, a religion that, in many particulars, was similar to Christian faith -including opposition to homosexuality. Shoebat can't process this information, hence he makes a fool of himself. What about Shoebat's claim that the deities of the Roman pantheon were sodomites? This is one more of Shoebat's fictions, intended to smear ancient religion as if it was all evil and worthless. Actually, to refer to Jupiter, the one deity Shoebat focuses on, while it is true enough that among effete elites Jupiter was said to have had a homosexual relationship with the youth Ganymede, the deity was hardly thought of that way among the populace at large. Not at all. Keep in mind the standard charge against Pagan faiths is that they are "fertility religions." This is what makes them bad, their emphasis on lascivious sex between men and women -an activity that, it is said, resulted in numerous out-of-wedlock births. How does this equate to homosexuality? It doesn't, it is the exact opposite kind of phenomenon. As for Ganymede, Barbara Walker's research has shown rather conclusively that this story was a much later interpolation upon a much earlier myth about the minor goddess Ganymeda, simply one more of Jupiter's string of female conquests. I mean, the deity simply could not keep his pants zipped whenever a young and attractive goddess was anywhere in the neighborhood. This was not homosexual behavior at all. But the sodomites of the later empire were not happy with a heterosexual High God and, starting in elite circles in the cities, they popularized the fiction that Jupiter (aka Zeus) had a male companion with whom sexual activities took place. In time this motif was borrowed by a number of literary figures and became known to posterity. But it had nothing at all to do with Greco-Roman religion in its pure form. Much the same kind of falsification is known these days in such contexts as the (ludicrous excuse for) theology of the Metropolitan Community Church founded by Troy Perry which insists that Jesus was queer -a view endorsed, even if he did not realize it, by Ronald Reagan when, as governor of California, he gave his imprimatur to Troy Perry's "church" in an official letter of congratulations when its first facility was dedicated in 1971. The first president in office to give official recognition to the MCC was Jimmy Carter in 1977 when he invited Troy Perry to the White House, an event followed up by another invitation to about 80 homosexuals affiliated with Perry's group to discuss homosexual issues. It is unclear exactly what Reagan did on behalf of the MCC while he was president but it is safe to assume that he continued to expedite homosexual interests associated with Troy Perry's "church." His daughter, Patti Davis, is on record as saying that her father would have supported same-sex 'marriage' if it had been an issue in his era. Her half-brother Michael disagrees but White House officials like Ed Meese agree with Mrs. Davis. George H. W. Bush did something similar. William Clinton took matters even further in 1995 and 1997, inviting Perry to the White House to talk about HIV / AIDS and "hate crimes" legislation. Then George Jr. had his turn. Although he did approve the Marriage Protection Act in 2003, that same October he sent his warm regards and congratulations to the Metropolitan Community Church on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. That is, while telling Evangelicals how much he favored traditional marriage he signaled Troy Perry and his group, by then with about 45,000 members, that he had no objection to their defamations of Jesus Christ and the fact that, although not legally binding at the time, approving the 6000 homosexual (sham) marriages the MCC performed annually by that year. Laura Bush, not incidentally, approved of her husband's overtures to homosexuals; Mrs. Bush saw nothing wrong with sodomy. In 2004 Bush, Jr. established a liaison with the Metropolitan Community Church to discuss policies to help homosexuals adopt children. And, of course, there was Obama who did everything possible not only to help the efforts of the MCC but homosexuals generally, eventually attaining legalization of marriage for sexual degenerates. For his second inaugural prayer service in January of 2013, a White House tradition, for the first time a 'pastor' of the Metropolitan Community Church participated, offering 'prayers' on behalf of whatever deity that it is that homosexuals genuflect to, perhaps their version of Jupiter. This pattern would in all likelihood have remained unbroken with Donald Trump who, after all, is openly pro-homosexual, but his policies with respect to immigration and other social issues have alienated nearly this entire homosexual population just about all of whom oppose everything he tries to do. With that exception, plus some uncertainty concerning Reagan while in the White House, a sitting president took an active interest in the Metropolitan Community Church every administration since the late 1970s, and, in the process, lent credence to its false claims about Jesus -usually taking the view that the "beloved disciple" of the Gospel of John was Christ's homosexual partner. The point of this history lesson is that, if we were to fast forward 30 or 40 years we might find ourselves in an America where elites often conceive of Jesus as homosexual. As it is elites in the United Church of Christ, the Left wing of the Episcopalian Church, the Unitarian-Universalist denomination, and factions among Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans, each have sympathies for the MCC and are accepting of its views of Jesus, or are in no way opposed to the Metropolitan Community Church's theology. Indeed, the MCC is so close to the views of the United Church of Christ that at least two homosexual congregations quit the Metropolitan group and affiliated with the UCC, namely New Spirit Community Church of Berkeley and the Cathedral of Hope, in Dallas. That is, if America of 2050 AD was a country where Jesus was commonly characterized as a sexual deviant this would hardly say that this is somehow the last word on the subject. Yet that is exactly what Shoebat does with (dis-)respect toward the religion of Rome. After all, if it isn't Christian it is false and who cares about legitimate differences among Pagans? Mischaracterize them at will. Be as untruthful as you'd like. This in no way is to take exception to Shoebat's criticisms of homosexuality. He began by quoting St. Augustine: "By the same token, vices contrary to nature are everywhere and always to be detested and punished. Such were the sins of the Sodomites." Shoebat's disdain for homosexuals throughout his essay is similar to my own views of these sick excuses for human beings. But unlike Shoebat I have sincere respect for many non-Christian religions, in some cases a great deal of respect. Regretfully many, many 'Christians' have the same attitude toward non-Christian faiths as Shoebat, an attitude that can be regarded as un-Christian and, in any case, is unacceptable to probably a majority of contemporary Americans. This set of attitudes discredits Christians in the minds of millions of people and neither Shoebat nor those who think like him have any comprehension of just how ridiculous and uninformed they appear to everyone else. This even spoils Shoebat's various references to the "Gay Manifesto" -presumably the 1970 opus written by Carl Wittman, as associate of Tom Hayden of the SDS. That manifesto is odious in the extreme, with its calls to "sodomize your sons," destroy the nuclear family, and wreck the churches, viz: "All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men." That material would be utterly damning to the homosexual cause if it became widely known. But who can believe anything Shoebat says when he either blatantly lies about ancient religion or is so poorly educated that he has no idea how to evaluate historical materials and habitually misunderstands just about every historical text he makes use of. Shoebat repeated the lie told by Suetonius that Caesar was homosexual and went on to claim that the majority of Roman citizens were homosexual, too, an assertion that is completely ridiculous. Then for good measure Shoebat threw in the Assyrians -a population known for the Middle Assyrian Laws which mandated death for homosexuals, a fact that he obviously has no knowledge of whatsoever. It is an outlook that is only possible when someone actually believes the indefensible view that the only way to understand the Bible is in terms of itself and that it is wrong to consult history or historical texts that the first Christians would have known as citizens of the Roman Empire or as literate and educated Greek speakers whether or not they were citizens The kind of Christian faith I believe in requires thorough knowledge not only of the Bible but of the world in which the Bible was written, both testaments, for without such knowledge you are guaranteed to make serious mistakes, including serious mistakes of judgement, all of your life. This does not necessarily mean that you won't do what is good in life, even incredible good. But there is a sense, and it matters greatly, in which that kind of faith is irresponsible no matter how well intentioned. Shoebat shows us the ill effects of this kind of uncritical faith in high relief; he is a worst case example. However, even an example that is far less egregious would be bad enough. And who needs that? Here is where else we have gotten: The homosexual group, GLADD, published a story on April 23, 2013 under the title, "Pop and Christian Singer Amy Grant Does First Gay Press Interview." The story relates how Amy Grant became progressively more accepting of sodomites as she warmed to her "gay fan base." Incidentally, The word "gay" is not a term I ever use when discussing homosexuals, it makes a mockery of historic documents that talk about happy people, 'gay people,' in the context of figures of the past whom we all should respect, and the word distorts popular culture usage in which the word had no homosexual meaning as recently as the late 1960s, and why award a perfectly good English language word to sexual deviants? It is only necessary when citing titles or quoting people who have used the word in their blissful ignorance. At any rate, Amy Grant has fans who are homosexual. There even is a Facebook group, Gay Friends of Amy Grant, and the singer has developed friendships with some of these individuals over the years. She is also quoted as saying that Christian faith is all about inclusion, never exclusion of anybody, and that "the journey of faith is just being willing and open to have a relationship with God. And everybody is welcome. Everybody." This kind of outlook, not unusual among Evangelicals, is total garbage. It is not pleasant to critical of a performed who has meant a great deal to me since her first big hit, El Shaddai. It was at that time that I learned the source of Grant's use of the name, El Shaddai, the then-recent translation known as the Jerusalem Bible, which, it is indisputable, is one of the best versions ever published. My impression was that Amy was critical minded, even somewhat scholarly, and "obviously" was someone to trust in interpreting Christian faith conscientiously. Wrong. She is one more pop music sensation who doesn't really know what she is talking about, whose understanding of Christianity is superficial, and is someone who is anything but a scholar of the Bible. And she is completely oblivious to the Bible's repeated condemnations of sodomy. No, Christian faith is NOT welcoming to everybody. It is uncompromisingly anti-homosexual. Not that Amy Grant is alone in her compromises with sodomites. The article notes that Carrie Underwood, another 'Christian' singer, shares her sentiments, and Jennifer Knapp, "a popular Christian singer," disclosed that she is sexually perverted, this kind of self-incrimination, called "coming out," something that, as the Apostle Paul said about sodomites, they "know well enough the just decree of God, that those who behave like this deserve to die, and yet they do it; not only so, they actually applaud such practices." It apparently is too much to ask, that "Christian" entertainers read the Book of Romans, for that matter, that they read the Gospel of Matthew. News flash: Christian faith, if it means something, is not a "feel good" faith that is all-inclusive. On the contrary, it is a commitment to Christ, it is founded on the principles of the Bible, and it isn't about conformity to the world but about right vs. wrong whatever is popular in modern culture at any given moment. And sometimes it is absolutely essential to fight against what is popular in the world. This is precisely such a time. There now exists an entire subculture of supposed "Christians" who are homosexual. The phrase "homosexual Christian" is an oxymoron -like round square or non-violent prize fighter. Yet, these ersatz Christians exist in significant numbers. Many are organized. Some have champions within mainline denominations; they even have a few supporters among Evangelicals. There are several websites to turn to for information about this development. Most of the following information has been derived from a site with the title: Gay Christian Watch, aka, Gay Christian Watch Top 10. Homosexuals who profess Christian faith: Jay Bakker, "affirming" pastor Brian McLaren, leader in what is called the "Emergent Church" Doug Pagitt, Universalist pastor Tony Jones, theologian Rob Bell, Evangelical pastor Jim Wallis, Evangelical pastor Richard Foster, Quaker leader Dallas Willard, active in the Emergent Church Yvette Flunder, female homosexual, Pentecostal background, African American Mel White, one time assistant to Jerry Falwell Carl Bean, homosexual African American with various Pentecostal views Rick Brentlinger, educator Anita Cadonau, female homosexual leader Marc Adams, former "ex-gay" who now seeks to re-homosexualize other "ex-gays" Oliver Clay Allen, former Seventh Day Adventist Matthew Vines, Evangelical author Bill Johnson, United Church of Christ pastor Anne Holmes, UCC pastor Mary Douglas Glasspool, Episcopalian bishop Jonathan Meritt, 'Evangelical' leader Justin Lee, organizer Tonex, black gospel singer Kirk Talley, white country singer Jeff Chu, elder, Reformed Church Danny Cortez, bisexual 'Baptist' pastor Peterson Toscano, stage actor and writer This is an incomplete list, there surely are others. Some of this information is several years old; there probably are other sources that I was unable to locate. Supposedly Christian organizations that advance the homosexual cause: Revolution NYC, a group that claims to be a "church" Big Tent Christianity, a "movement" that is pro-homosexual in character Progressive Christianity, a form of the Emergent Church Contemplative Spirituality, aka Spiritual Formation, a Quaker group Gay Christian Movement, aka Gay Christian Network, Evangelical in outlook Beyondexgay, "former" homosexuals who have reverted to homosexuality The Fellowship, African American female homosexuals Soulforce, anti-Evangelical group founded on re-interpretation of Evangelical views Unity Fellowship of Christ, African American United Progressive Pentecostal Church There are other facts deserving note... Mel White, for instance, not only hoodwinked Jerry Falwell, he deceived a number of well placed Evangelicals and is a prime example of the value of comparing homosexuals with "con men," aka, con artists. The defense, "well I know a homosexual and he seems so nice" is unjustifiable. It is no different than saying that the con man who swindled you out of your life savings seemed so nice. So what if he seemed nice? The important fact is that you allowed your good nature to over-ride your good sense and you were deceived because of your naivete. It could be anyone, like the sister of a brother who lied to her to protect his criminal behavior. She let her self-interest allow her to believe him despite evidence to the contrary, because she thought he could offer her a service or because she had an agenda to civilize him for the sake of the family. In the end he compromised her integrity to serve his selfish interests. Or we could be discussing a mother, or a cousin. People are deceived all the time and often it is the result of inability to make reliable judgements about someone's character. Mel White also deceived his wife of many years. Finally Mel White made a decision; he abandoned Mrs. White to hook up with Mr. Queer, declaring that his homosexuality was a “gift from God.” It actually was a curse from Satan, but we can let such details slide. There is a group called "Christian Lesbians." The word "lesbian" to denote female homosexuals is a term I never use -except for quotations when it is unavoidable. This word usage derived from an ancient smear of the poetess Sappho of Lesbos, spelled "Lesvos" on many maps, who ran what amounted to a finishing school for brides-to-be. Sappho was married and had at least one daughter. Although two poems attributed to her are clearly homosexual in nature it has been known for more than 50 years that these verse are forgeries. The island of Lesbos is a very real place, located in the Aegean Sea. It is home to about 125,000 people nearly all of whom are Greek Orthodox believing Christians. They detest use of the name of their homeland to denote female homosexuals and have repeatedly petitioned the Greek high court to issue a cease-and-desist order to all concerned who are within the purview of the court but have been turned down. What we should do is show our solidarity with the Christians of Lesbos and stop using the word "lesbian" to mean anything but a resident of the island. There are about 5000 individual churches in the United States that approve of homosexual conduct. At one time, as recently as ca. 1980, not counting Troy Perry's MCC, there were none. These pro-homosexual congregations are sometimes called "Third Way" churches. they should not be confused with Third Way politics which as a rule consists of people who have no affinity with homosexuals or, at most, are neutral on the subject. Such (ersatz) churches are also sometimes called "welcoming congregations" or "welcoming churches." Special mention should be made of Philip Yancey, formerly the editor of Christianity Today, the publication founded by Billy Graham. Yancey is well known for his refusal to make any kind of judgement about sodomy. which was his policy as editor and still is his policy as a writer who contributes to the magazine and website. Yancey is an admitted friend of Mel White. As far as Yancey in concerned the Bible is non-committal about sodomy, which is to say that as a Christian writer he is unique in that one or the other -or both- things are true, namely, that he does not own a copy of the Bible or he does not know how to read. He is so sure, for example, that there are just six passages that as much as mention sodomy, none voiced by Jesus. Actually there are 30 passages, and in Matthew 11 (with a parallel in Luke 17) Christ unequivocally condemns homosexuality. Regardless, millions of Evangelicals buy his books. Such 'Evangelicals' also frequent pro-homosexual websites and sometimes listen to so-called Christians talk about sodomy via internet radio. Maybe we should not be surprised as Yancey's "no comment" approach to homosexuality. O.R. "Ray" Adams, when he was doing research for his book, As We Sodomize America, talked about Billy Graham. Adams was a Graham enthusiast at the time and was curious to find out what he had said about homosexuality during his long career as a public preacher. Adams examined everything he could find, in books by or about Graham, in newspaper interviews, in articles, everything conceivable. It was in Adams' perceived interests to showcase what Graham had said in opposition to sodomy. Which was? Nothing. Or to be more precise, almost nothing. The best he could find was one (1) comment the preacher made during an interview in which Graham expressed muted disapproval, adding that sin is sin, and we all have sins to live down and there is no reason to make a major issue out of homosexuality. That was it. Not even the Kinsey reports awoke Graham to contemporary realities, viz., lies that were being told by homosexuals or lies being told on behalf of homosexuals. None of the work carried out by people like Dr, Charles Socarides made any difference. And Graham seemed to have been ignorant of the testimony in the Bible on the issue. That is, surely he had perused Romans 1 and various other verses but nothing registered, he could not bring himself to deal with the problem. In other words, Philip Yancey is following in Graham's footsteps. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
