Why Christianity--and Christians--Should Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" (Rev. Calvin Robinson)

Last month, in a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, the Rev. Calvin Robinson gave a clear and powerful response for why Christianity, and thus any faithful Christian, should reject any redefinition of marriage, including, and especially, same-sex "marriage." Some excellent pull-quotes: 

• We are directly talking about undermining God's plan as He has revealed it to us. We are replacing His authority with our own. 
• Yes, God is love, but He sets the terms, not us. 
• The church should absolutely be inclusive. Christ spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes, but it is they who went away changed, not Christ. 
• The church is open to sinners. Of course it is! That's the purpose of the church. But it should not be to encourage people to continue to sin. 
• [Christianity] is inherently discriminatory. God is discriminatory. He sets conditions on us entering His heavenly kingdom. It is not a free-for-all. We must turn away from sin--repent--and follow Christ. 
• [To those church leaders supporting same-sex "marriage"]: Stop teaching about diversity, inclusion, and equality. Get back to teaching about redemption and salvation. [To do otherwise] is spiritual neglect. 
• [To those church leaders supporting same-sex "marriage"]: We are seeing the most rapid decline of Christianity in this country that we may have ever seen. Do not accelerate it with heresy. You do not have the authority to bless sin. 
• When I hear the Bishop of London on record saying: "These new prayers will mean Priests can bless same-sex relationships (some of which may be sexual in nature)," I hear the Devil at work! 

This video clip is a condensed version of Rev. Robinson's talk (and contains all of the quotes above): 

Here is his full talk: 

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

 

Like Roe, Obergefell Needs to Go

In overturning the appalling judicial activism of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which, in its infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion at any stage of pregnancy throughout the U.S., the current SCOTUS writes,

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature…

At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” …

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words, whatever one thinks of killing the unborn, the Roe decision of 1973 invented a Constitutional “right” and robbed Americans of the freedom to govern themselves. The result of Dobbs was to reverse this egregious legal error. As soon as it’s given the opportunity, today’s SCOTUS should do the same with the awful Obergefell ruling that forcefully legalized same-sex “marriage” throughout the U.S.

Like Roe, the majority in Obergefell largely relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to justify nullifying marriage laws in dozens of U.S. states. The majority in Obergefell concluded:

Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles.

Likewise, as in Roe, the five to four Obergefell majority discovered a “right” that heretofore had escaped U.S. citizens, legislatures, and courts for well over two centuries. And again the SCOTUS mistook itself for a legislative body. As John Roberts noted in his dissent:

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” …

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage… In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage…Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.

Additionally, in his concurring dissent, the late-great Justice Scalia rightly concluded:

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

As I noted at the time, and as did The New York Times, as recently as 2009, 31 U.S. states had put same-sex marriage before its electorate, and by an overwhelming majority (an average of 67.5%), U.S. citizens rejected same-sex “marriage” in every case. This included very liberal states such as Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. Going even further, 29 states amended their constitutions in order to ban same-sex marriage and also specifically defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Furthermore, many states also banned any sort of civil unions and refused to recognize same-sex “marriages” legalized by other states. All of this was rendered moot by a mere five to four majority in Obergefell.

Again, there’s no other institution in the history of humanity with more “precedent” than marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As they did with abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court should put this grave matter back into the hands of U.S. citizens and their legislators.

(See a version of this column at American Thinker and The Blue State Conservative.)

Copyright 2022, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Will Liberals Stand for the “Right” to Plantation Weddings?

It seems that Jordan A. Maney is not as committed to “diversity” and “love” as she would have us believe. Recently, Ms. Maney, the black owner of a San Antonio event planning business, “All The Days Event Co.,” got a bit upset when she was asked to plan the wedding for a couple whose chosen venue contained the word “plantation.”

Here’s the exchange as reported by ATTN:

As ATTN also notes, Maney also told the inquiring customer on the receiving end of her discrimination, “You’re having a wedding at a grave-site essentially. How are you going to laugh and celebrate on so many people’s blood, and sweat, and suffering?” Of course, built in 2011, strictly for the purpose of hosting weddings, Kendall Plantation has never had anything to do with slavery. Yet, like many who are so easily offended in these sensitive times, the mere mention of “plantation” was enough to rile Ms. Maney.

Furthermore, after rejecting her plantation client, Maney went to her Facebook page, and in a post that is no longer available, declared (yes, in all caps):

“DON’T CALL MY BLACK-OWNED BUSINESS ASKING ME TO PLAN YOUR PLANTATION WEDDING.”

Now imagine for a moment the tables were turned. At the bottom of the homepage of All The Days Events’ website is a cute little logo:

The logo, which is also a link, is an indication of an “LGBTQ-Friendly Wedding Vendor.” Additionally, the blog on Ms. Maney’s business website has a recent post entitled “Honey, Marry Whoever You Want.” (I guess, just not wherever you want.) What if Kendall Plantation wants nothing to do with planners like Maney and her “progressive” values? What if Kendall Plantation—like so many other small businesses across the U.S.—wants nothing to do with the LGBT agenda? What if they publicly declared, in all caps:

DON’T CALL MY CHRISTIAN-OWNED BUSINESS ASKING US TO HOST YOUR HOMOSEXUAL “WEDDING.”

How quickly do you think the lawsuit would be filed? How long before the media caught wind and sought to make an example out of another “bigoted” Christian?

As most of us well know, many Christians—especially those in the wedding industry—have effectively declared that they refuse to participate in the immoral act of same-sex “weddings.” (My wife and I have encouraged all Christians to take a stand for biblical marriage.) As a result, the list of Christians who have been targeted by the homosexual gestapo and their allies in the Democrat Party, the media, and the judiciary is long and growing longer.

As long as same-sex “marriage” has the force of law, Christians will continue to be targets of those who seek revenge upon the defenders of biblical marriage—what used to be known simply as “marriage.” What if a photographer, a florist, or a baker in the blog of his business website declared that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman? How long would it be before a couple of lesbian or homosexual activists made them a target? As we have well seen, and as we were warned, “live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. Yet, no doubt that is exactly how Ms. Maney expects to be treated.

In fact, she probably imagines her position to be the morally superior one. Someone should ask her, upon what moral code she bases her unwavering business stance. However lacking I find Ms. Maney’s moral position to be, I also think she has a clear right to make such a business decision. What is most interesting in this scenario is how liberals—ignoring the necessary hypocrisy and duplicity, which is often very easy for most of them—will defend her, if it even comes to that.

This episode has received little media attention, and I’ll be surprised if it goes much beyond that. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC)—the largest newspaper in Georgia—on Thursday, April 6, did have a sympathetic article on Ms. Maney and her decision prominently placed on the homepage of their website. The piece began, “A black San Antonio-based event planner is speaking out against the racial undertones connected with plantation weddings.” Almost certainly the aim of the piece was to cast “plantation weddings” in a bad light and Ms. Maney as the gallant crusader standing against such wickedness.

The similarities between Ms. Maney’s decision and those of Christians who’ve declined wedding services to same-sex couples seemed lost on the AJC author. Unless they are forced to see the similarities, virtually every liberal in the media, the courts, and the Democrat Party will be just as blind. The hypotheticals that wise defenders of Christian small-business owners have presented—a black baker refusing to cater for the KKK or a Jewish florist refusing to decorate for Nazis—are no longer mere hypotheticals. What say you, liberals?

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Dear GOP: Gird Your Loins and be ready for Battle over the Supreme Court

If you think the riots and marches are bad now, wait until President Trump gets a chance at filling a second or even third vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. The “nastiness,” vulgarities, property damage, and violence we see now are nothing compared to what we will witness if the American left sees the legality of their perverse sexual agenda threatened.

With the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated as the result of the death of Antonin Scalia, liberals at every level of political involvement are already throwing a hissy-fit. After Trump chose Gorsuch, radical left-winger Michael Moore threatened Senate Democrats via his Twitter account, declaring “This Supreme Court pick was Obama’s to make and it was stolen by Republicans. Democrats had better block this and demand a nom we approve.” Moore continued, “Senate Dems, let’s be very clear: You will filibuster & block this SC nom or we will find a true progressive and primary u in next election.”

When Democrat Senator Chris Coons (Del.) hinted that he might not support a filibuster of Gorsuch, the response from liberal activists was swift and stern. Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor warned Coons (and anyone like-minded),

There is zero appetite among the public for weakness from Democratic politicians. Especially after Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat, Coons and all Senate Democrats should join Sen. Jeff Merkley's filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. That's the kind of backbone the public needs to see right now.

Upon Antonin Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told all of America that the election would decide Scalia’s replacement. In other words, Democrats and their like-minded lackeys had a chance to show their strength in this matter in the November elections, and they failed (in historical fashion).

The idea that President Trump will get to fill multiple vacancies on the nation’s highest court is becoming widely held. National Review’s John Fund writes that the Trump administration is already preparing for a second vacancy. Fund reports on multiple sources that says there’s at least an even chance Justice Anthony Kennedy retires this year. There is real fear among liberals that this is indeed the case.

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus implores Justice Kennedy: “Please don’t retire.” Of course, Marcus’ piece is replete with references to the homosexual agenda and how important Kennedy was in weaving such perversion “into the social fabric” of our nation. Likewise, The Post’s Monica Hesse recently reported that “Hordes of liberals want reassurance RBG’s (Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s) health is good.” Hesse’s piece quotes multiple liberals worrying over Ginsburg’s health:

“I’m very interested in this.” says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. “I'm interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?”… “I kept thinking, you know, I could organize a bunch of gays,” says John Hagner, a consultant for Democratic campaigns who lives in Washington. “I could organize the gays, and we would just make a protective circle around her at all times. We could help her get up and down the stairs. We got this.”

While liberals worry over Kennedy and Ginsburg, the movement against Gorsuch is not limited to kooks like Michael Moore. Bloomberg reports that there are over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. who are organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch. Per Bloomberg:

“We’ll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

Ahh, again with “the narrative.” As I noted a couple of years ago, for liberals, it seems it’s ALWAYS about the narrative. As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

Remember, two of the pillars (as both Post pieces above well demonstrate) in the church of modern liberalism—abortion and same-sex marriage—were achieved through rogue judicial fiat via the Supreme Court of the United States. In these grave matters, liberals cannot rely on science and sound morality. They need the powerful arms of Big Government and compliant courts to give them what they cannot otherwise achieve. Even in a culture with as much rot as has ours, liberals rarely see their ideas adopted through elections or legislation. (Thankfully, it is harder to get ignorant, lazy, and selfishly motivated “sheeple” to the polls than those who are motivated by eternal truths and real patriotism.)

Thus, a liberal-dominated judiciary is paramount to the leftist agenda. Isn’t it telling how comfortable leftists are with unelected officials dictating “from on high?” (As Andy McCarthy has long noted, the U.S. Supreme Court “operates more like an unelected super-legislature than a judicial tribunal.”) One might think that they prefer things this way.

This battle over the U.S. Supreme Court is not merely political. As is almost always the case in these matters (whether one wants to admit such or not), this is a spiritual battle, and as I’ve noted multiple times, one well worth having. Our elected (and non-elected) conservative leaders better be ready for this fight. Millions of American Christian conservatives—many of whom had great pause voting for Mr. Trump—chose to (in my case) touch their screen in his favor because of what we hoped he would do when it came to the courts.

In other words, the chief reason many of us voted for Mr. Trump and republicans for the U.S. Senate is because of their role in the federal judiciary. I previously supported other GOP nominees who also gave me pause (McCain and Romney) for this reason as well. Other than the collapse of the Democrat Party, as The New York Times noted in late 2014, the chief legacy of Barack Obama is the reshaping of the federal judiciary (which, of course resulted in the infamous Obergefell ruling). Among reversing many other things Obama “accomplished,” this is another mess many Americans expect Donald Trump and the GOP to clean up.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

As the Modern Left Demonstrates, Evil Craves the Darkness

One of my favorite scenes in Tolkien’s The Hobbit is the riddle-battle between Bilbo and the creature Gollum that took place in the dark, deep caverns beneath the Misty Mountains. (I can remember when I first read Tolkien’s classic and came upon the riddles. I tried not to read ahead to see if I could solve them myself.) Bilbo, having accidentally fallen into the mysterious place, wanted the way out (which Gollum knew), and Gollum wanted to make a meal of the plump Hobbit. Thus a riddle challenge was issued and accepted.

Toward the end, a frustrated Gollum presented Bilbo with,

It cannot be seen, cannot be felt,

Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt.

It lies behind stars and under hills,

And empty holes it fills.

It comes first and follows after,

Ends life, kills laughter.

Carrying on the theme of the last sentence, from a more spiritual perspective, an additional clue might read:

It keeps secrets, and hides sin,

Guarding the evil that lurks within.

The answer: darkness.

The Gospel of John informs us that, “The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.” In other words, we’ve all done shameful (sinful) things we want to hide from others—maybe everyone, and maybe for all time—and we seek comfort in the darkness. And as Scripture implies, mankind’s desire for darkness is as old as sin itself. The modern political and moral climate in the U.S. provides a great lesson here.

As the left seeks to stifle debate (“the debate is over!”), distort facts and information, suppress facts and information that contradict liberal dogma, seek “safe spaces” from events or speech with which they disagree, and so on, America is seemingly headed for a new “Dark Age.” Whether colleges and universities, the media, the Democrat Party, the homosexual agenda, the abortion industry, the global warming industry—virtually every bastion of liberal thought is steeped in darkness. A couple of recent events shed some light into the dark efforts of the left.

As I alluded to a couple of weeks ago, Elton John and his homosexual partner—what some now refer to as John’s “husband”—David Furnish have gone to great lengths to guard the image of their perverse relationship—what some call a “marriage.” As was noted in my previous piece (and by many others over the last several months), in an effort to hide their non-monogamous sexual activity, John and Furnish have made extensive use of the British legal system. In a sad attempt to keep as many in the dark as possible concerning their stereotypical homosexual lifestyle, Sir Elton and Furnish have also resorted to using Web Sheriff ® to threaten individuals worldwide (and of course, not subject to the British courts) who have shed light on their sham of a “marriage.”

About a week after my November 27 piece that made mention of John and Furnish’s “open marriage,” yours truly received such a threat via an email from Web Sheriff. Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company that is most noted for its monitoring of websites that allow for the illegal download of copyrighted material (especially music and film). However, for the right amount of money, it seems one can hire Web Sheriff to try to intimidate online sources from presenting (truthful) information that Web Sheriff clients might find uncomfortable.

The email I received is exactly like the one mentioned here from May of this year. Other websites and news organizations have received similar (empty) legal threats from Web Sheriff. As one of the other websites here artfully put it, Web Sheriff is “full of sh*t.” There is nothing here for me to be concerned with legally because no copyright has been infringed upon (as the email threat implies), and most importantly: I do not live in England, nor do I operate anywhere that is subject to British law. Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to keep in the dark the truth about marriage and homosexuality.

As eager as many are to hide the truth on homosexuality, there is an equal effort to obscure and distort the facts when it comes to life in the womb. The French provide the latest sensational example here. George Will recently gave the sad account of the widespread efforts in France to suppress the facts when it comes to human beings born with Down syndrome. (There were other earlier reports on this as well.) .

In early November France’s Conseil d’État (State Council—France’s Supreme Court) upheld the ban on an award-winning video entitled “Dear Future Mom” that features happy children and young adults with Down syndrome. The French Broadcasting Council first banned the video when it was offered as a commercial. As Will notes, the French court called the video “inappropriate” for French television, and said that the video’s depiction of happy Down syndrome children is “likely to disturb the conscience of women who had lawfully made different personal life choices.” In other words, the French courts think it best that the conscience of French women who’ve killed their unborn Down syndrome children (which, according to some reports, happens in about 96% of cases)—not to mention those whose minds might be changed on the matter—remain in the dark.

Even the Huffington Post ran a piece that was critical of the French ban. Curious about the response to a pro-life piece on the Huffington Post, I scanned the comments at the end. One in particular is revealing of the liberal mindset when it comes to abortion. A female pro-abortionist declared,

This article isn't balanced…Articles written this way can be dangerous as they trigger strong negative emotions and hate for people with differing views…From what I can see, reading french articles, the Counsel has said that in terms of public interest it’s more important to “protect the right to have an abortion” over “knowing children with Down's can be happy.”

This attitude and the behavior of the French are very typical when it comes to killing children in the womb, because, of course, for the mind corrupted by liberalism, the “right” to kill children in the womb must be protected at almost any cost (because of the “right” to have sex without any consequences). Abortion apologists generally despise any effort to shine light on life in the womb, and they will go to great lengths to allow the grisly practice of abortion to continue. However, as I noted last year, as science and technology advance, the deception about this “choice” is getting much more difficult for liberals. Isn’t it interesting how real science always tends to verify what sound morality always revealed?

As Catholic scholar George Weigel implies, what we are dealing with here is a godless philosophy, devoted to a coercive state (which is why we see liberals go berserk when they lose elections), that ignores the very fabric of reality. And when you are trying to ignore or distort reality, darkness is a comfortable place.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Fighting the Battle that BuzzFeed Insists We Fight

We were warned. Because the left is not going to remain silent on the moral issues—and because most liberals are devoted to a “theology of self” (or a “philosophical dumpster fire” as described by David French)—Christians, especially Christian celebrities, are going to remain targets of the homosexual agenda. It doesn’t matter whether you are tied to the wedding industry. It doesn’t matter if you’re famous. It doesn’t matter whether you are a small business owner, a large corporation, or a state government. In spite of the meme they like to perpetuate, the left simply will not tolerate dissent when it comes to liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality (and yes, the transgender agenda is wed to—bad pun!—the homosexual agenda).

In addition to lust, in the battle over all things homosexual, the left is driven by vengeance. BuzzFeed’s recent malicious hit-piece aimed at HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines is merely the latest effort in this despicable practice. As Gabriel Malor points out,

This post had one purpose and one purpose alone: to harm the couple. The post served no news purpose—even Aurthur concedes she never learned the Gaines’ view of same-sex marriage. The post cannot be termed “activism” since it fails at every level to persuade readers of the rightness of the same-sex marriage cause. Even the most generous alternate topic of Aurthur’s post, “Texas pastor opposes same-sex marriage,” is as dog-bites-chew-toy as a news item can be. The only conceivable purpose of targeting the popular television couple in this manner was to cost them viewers and, perhaps, their jobs.

Of course, this is an all too familiar (and, as Ace of Spades notes, an all too effective) tactic of the modern left. Whether a television personality, baker, florist, photographer, fast-food chain, or the state of North Carolina, we have frequently witnessed the hateful agents of the homosexual gestapo wage their wicked war against millennia of Christian (and Jewish and Islamic) teaching on sex and sexuality. And make no mistake about it, we are in a war.

However, this is not a war that can be won with mere boycotts, elections, and sympathetic judges (though battles in these arenas should not be ignored by Christians and our like-minded allies). This is a spiritual war that can be won only through prayer, sound spiritual teaching and preaching, and repentance. For decades now, American Christians have poorly taught/preached, poorly modeled, or outright ignored what God has revealed on matters of sex, sexuality, and marriage. Homosexuality has a long way to go before it can inflict the damage done by promiscuity, pornography, adultery, abortion, fornication, and divorce. Many who decry the tactics and efforts of the left when it comes to the homosexual agenda are knee-deep in the sexual sins that are most prevalent in our culture.

As we fight perhaps the defining spiritual battle of our time, Christians must remember that it is not enough simply to point out the sexual immorality of others. We must also be quick to discuss our own struggles with sin, especially those in the sexual realm, as situations call for it. Additionally, being filled with peace, love, joy, and the like, we must live out what is right and true.

As Rick Warren put it a couple of years ago, churches and like-minded others should celebrate healthy marriages. Don’t simply be an opponent of what’s wrong, be a proponent of what’s right. Our lives, whether single or married, should be an example of what a walk with Christ looks like so others are drawn to Him whether they hear us say anything about Him or not.

Specifically, on marriage and sexuality, if you are married, commit as husband and wife to remain faithful in all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, commit to remain faithful to one another and keep the marriage bed pure. Commit to remain married until your earthly union is dissolved by death. Furthermore, as a union of one man and one woman, commit to allow God to use your union as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

Also, commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality—specifically that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.

Likewise, if you are single, commit to remain faithful to all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, while unmarried, commit to keep yourself sexually pure and model and teach this behavior to those in your circle of influence. Furthermore, commit to allow God to use you as a single person as He sees fit to build His Kingdom, and commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. (All of this is in the “Marriage Commitment Challenge.”)

Second, those with a higher profile in the culture, those in leadership or who have a wide circle of influence have a greater responsibility in this and all such matters. To whom much is given, much is required. Of course this means pastors, but also politicians, pundits, business leaders, famous athletes, musicians, producers, actors, authors, bloggers, educators, and so on. In other words, not only do we need Christians like Chip and Joanna Gaines to remain strong and unwavering in their faith, we need Christians in the culture at large to tell and model amazing stories on marriage and sexuality. As Rick Warren said, “Whichever side tells the best stories wins.”

There can be little doubt that to a great extent, the deception on homosexuality, marriage, and gender has occurred because of the efforts of liberals in politics, the media, and so on. Not only that, but as most of us well know, the traditional family has been mercilessly attacked in the media. As American Thinker noted last year, this is especially the case with fathers. As Rick Moran put it, “Hollywood has made a deliberate effort to undermine the patriarchy by savaging fatherhood.” This has been the case for decades now.

Christian conservatives and our like-minded friends have not done enough to counter this. For example, recently my wife and I, along with our four kids, attended a Christian concert. Several popular contemporary Christian artists performed. There was a lot of great (but too loud!) music that focused our hearts and minds on God. However, there was nothing said or sung that focused on marriage and the family.

Similarly, there is more than one Christian radio station in our area (northeast Georgia) to which we frequently listen. I hear almost nothing from the hosts, guests, artists, and so on, when it comes to marriage and the family. Surely they are not shying away from the truth out of fear of “offending” their sponsors or audience. Similarly, famous athletes and other entertainers who believe what the Bible teaches on marriage and sexuality need to exercise their First Amendment rights (while they remain!) on these matters. (Like the NFL’s Ben Watson has done.)

Third, if you are a Christian parent, you have no greater responsibility on this earth than sharing the truth with your children. In other words, every parent is in youth ministry. There’s a reason millennials are the group most likely to support a perverse redefinition of marriage. Decades of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have led to tens of millions of U.S. children growing up in homes without both parents. Thus we now have millions of young Americans whose notion of marriage and family has been tragically distorted. This trend must be reversed.

Fourth, we need to be ready to minister to those who suffer from the sin of homosexuality. As the decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court foolishly attempted to redefine life in Roe v. Wade, science, technology, and human experience have revealed what sound morality has always taught: life in the womb is just that. Just a few weeks after conception, we can now literally witness, through sight and sound, the miracle of life in the womb.

The horrible images (warning: graphic) of post-abortive children have been seared into the consciences of tens of millions of us. The testimony of regret of millions of women who were deceived by the abortion industry has helped shine light into a deep and ugly darkness. Yes, abortion remains legal and as brutal as ever, but restrictions abound and are growing. Crisis pregnancy centers have ministered to countless women and saved millions of lives.

There is no getting around it: the wages of sin is death. If we linger in sin, we are going to reap suffering. This is certainly true with sexual immorality. Disease and death literally await those enslaved in the homosexual lifestyle. And how can we measure the broken hearts of those who have departed from their Creator’s plan on marriage and sexuality? As has happened in the pro-life movement, the Christian community must equip ourselves like never before to minister to those who are broken by the sin of homosexuality.

Again, after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is the relationship between a husband and his wife. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Same-Sex “Marriage” Was Doomed Long Before President-Elect Donald Trump

I believe that the two most difficult jobs in the world are being a good spouse and a good parent. The reason: after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is that of a husband and his wife. As I’ve often pointed out, the biblical family model is at the foundation of every institution in the history of humanity.

This is what makes the infamous Obergefell ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June of 2015 so egregious. It strikes at the heart of America. As my new book, The Miracle and Magnificence of America details, try as they might, the British were unable to establish successful settlements in America until faith-filled families decided to venture across the Atlantic and lay down permanent roots in the “New World.”

Those who want to destroy the greatest nation in the history of humanity know well that for America to be undone, the family model that has prevailed worldwide for millennia must be eradicated. In short, if the family dies, then America as we have long known her, dies. After the God-haters are done, there may still be a nation called “The United States of America,” but it will look nothing like America as she was founded. And such an outcome is just fine for those who despise the Christian foundations upon which America rests.

You see, though the family was the means by which America was made, the pillars of this great nation are the pillars of Christianity. As Jedidiah Morse, noted American geographer, pastor, theologian, and the father of Samuel Morse, the inventor of Morse Code, warned in an election-day sermon on April 25, 1799,

The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own…To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. I hold this to be a truth confirmed by experience. If so, it follows, that all efforts made to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

To a great extent, whether he realizes it or not, Donald Trump was elected to slow or stop the efforts of those who’ve set their sights on “the pillars of Christianity” that are the foundation of America. Certainly the federal courts—especially the U.S. Supreme Court—is an area where many Trump voters expect strong conservative action. More than one-fifth of U.S. voters said that the Supreme Court was “the most important factor” in their decision about which presidential candidate to vote for. Of these voters, 57 percent preferred Donald Trump, while only 40 percent chose Hillary Clinton.

With the impending dismantling of Obamacare, other than the collapse of the modern Democrat Party, the chief legacy of Barack Obama will be the legal redefinition of marriage forced upon the American people by five liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices. As I noted at the time, it’s safe to say that without the election of Barack Obama, we would not have had to endure liberal Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sitting in judgement of marriage (both appointed by Obama in his first term and both voting legally to redefine marriage).

Of course, the election of a republican president gives no guarantee of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. However, justices Roberts and Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, both voted against this sweeping and perverse ruling on marriage. All of those who voted for Obama have their fingerprints on the tyrannical judicial travesty that resulted in the legal redefinition of marriage.

Many who voted for Mr. Trump want our fingerprints on the reversal of Obergefell. Unlike some, I’m not terribly discouraged by Trump’s post-election interview with 60 Minutes where he declared that the issue of “marriage equality” was “settled in the Supreme Court.” I believe Mr. Trump’s answer proves him much more politically savvy than he is often given credit for. In other words, the court’s views on marriage are “settled” until right-minded justices can fix the injustice of Obergefell.

But whether or not President Trump gets to, or chooses to, appoint multiple Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia, same-sex “marriage” is already doomed. A little-known—or, at least not as known as it should be—sexual anecdote of a well-known homosexual couple provides great insight here.

In late 2005, Elton John entered into a “civil partnership” with David Furnish. In 2014, John “married” Furnish. John, age 69, and Furnish are raising two sons (born via a surrogate mother), ages five and three. In the spring of this year the lurid details of a sexual tryst involving Furnish and multiple American men were reported by the American media. Though such behavior would come as little surprise to anyone who knows even the slightest details of the homosexual lifestyle, John and Furnish have, through legal means, successfully kept the story out of the British print media.

In an effort to paint homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” as healthy and normal, John has taken great pains to have his “marriage” painted by the (usually complicit) media as “blissfully happy” and “wonderfully loving” (actual words recently used by London’s Daily Mail to describe John and Furnish’s “marriage”). Yet, in the injunction granted to John and Furnish to prevent the British press from reporting on their extra-“marital” affairs, it is revealed that though they “have portrayed an image to the world of a committed relationship,” their “marriage” does not “entail monogamy.”

In other words, over the years, with the knowledge and consent of the other, both John and Furnish have had multiple “sexual encounters with others.” However, in the name of privacy, John and Furnish want to guard their children from this knowledge (at least until they deem it appropriate to reveal such). Paddy Manning, an “Irish gay libertarian conservative,” rightly concludes that the British courts have made themselves “a partner in a vicious hypocrisy. It is defending the illusion of Elton John's ideal family life against a sordid reality in which his children are mere bagatelles.” Manning adds, “Little argument can be made for saving the two little boys from the putative damage of public exposure when they are living with two selfish hedonists who obtained them by purchase.”

Whether they realize it or not, John and Furnish are attempting to further mangle the definition of marriage. Though their efforts and behaviors sicken and sadden me (and, as many studies over the years have detailed, are very common), I understand well their position: If we are not to hold to what the Bible reveals about marriage in one sense (the union of one man and one woman), why should we in any sense (such as not committing adultery)?

As was noted years ago, for the homosexual agenda, this debate has never been really about marriage. This is a war against the truth—especially when it comes to matters in the sexual realm. And as Euclid reveals, if we change the axioms upon which our world was made, a new and different world results. With the aid of the federal courts—as was the case with life in the womb—liberals are again attempting to create a world where man’s law supersedes God’s law. In other words, as they have been for decades now, liberals are attempting to write their own moral code, and they’re using the power of the state to force the rest of us to submit to it.

Such efforts will ultimately, and always, fail, and as in the case of Elton John and David Furnish, will be revealed as folly. As Gamaliel warned the Sanhedrin concerning the Apostles of Jesus, “[I]f their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. (Acts 5:38b-39)” As liberals work to hold onto their perverse legal redefinition of marriage, they are not merely battling conservatism, but God Himself, and that is always a losing proposition.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The “Bigger Problems” of Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal

The Governor of my home state of Georgia, Nathan Deal, has been soundly, and frequently, taken to task for his recent “Craven Capitulation” on religious liberty. I don’t wish to rehash the merits of the very weak bill Deal rejected (it only protected churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries”), nor do I wish to highlight again the rampant ignorance and hypocrisy of those who lobbied Deal to veto religious liberty in Georgia. What I would like to do here is give some explanation as to why I believe Deal caved on the defining moral issue of his governorship.

Chelsen Vicari at The Institute of Religion and Democracy hinted at the problem when she wrote of Governor Deal’s veto, “When corporate bullies dangling dollar bills is enough to cause a Baptist governor to veto a bill protecting freedom of conscience and speech, a bigger problem exits.”

Vicari goes on to conclude, “Gov. Nathan Deal’s veto of Georgia’s religious freedom bill represents a wider movement among America’s Christians to compromise Scripture and morality for the sake of votes and popularity. Unfortunately, many Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics are bowing down at altars of sexual liberation and political correctness, erected by cultural Leftists.”

The “wider movement” Vacari references is especially prevalent in the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestantism. This eagerness to compromise Scripture and morality is due to the widespread embrace of what Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, calls “near Christianity.” It seems that Mr. Deal has been steeped in such wishy-washy theology for decades.

A day after Deal’s veto, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler described in a podcast Deal’s rationale for vetoing the religious liberty bill as a “moral and political evasion.” Dr. Mohler also pointed out that Deal is acting as an agent in the liberal “theological agenda” that is helping to progress the homosexual agenda.

Given the theology of Governor Deal’s church, this should come as little surprise. As Dr. Mohler also noted, Governor Deal is a member of The First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Georgia. Since the early 1990s, First Baptist of Gainesville has been affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), a more liberal association of Baptist churches than is the Southern Baptist Convention.

On homosexuality, CBF declares, “CBF does not issue ‘official’ positions on homosexuality or other social issues because it violates the Fellowship’s mission as a network of individuals and churches. CBF values and respects the autonomy of each individual and local church to evaluate and make their own decision regarding social issues like homosexuality.” In other words, CBF chooses to ignore Scripture and remain silent on one of the most pressing moral (not merely “social”) issues of our time.

After the infamous Obergefell ruling last year in which the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the eternal truth on marriage, the pastor of First Baptist of Gainesville, Bill Coates wrote,

“People of deep faith and convictions exist on both sides of the LGBT and gay marriage question. Ultimately, it comes down to how an individual interprets Scripture and how churches interpret Scripture. If read with strict literalism, one can always point to passages that appear to condemn many kinds of behavior…Reading the Bible literally can lead us to the embracing of attitudes that in fact move us from Christlikeness.”

Of course, when the Bible speaks literally, as it does on homosexuality, we are to take it literally. Dr. Coates, who has pastored First Baptist for the last 18 years, went on to write,

“Each church will have to decide how to walk through this marriage equality debate. I think we should respect those who choose to allow their ministers not to perform same-sex weddings out of their own deep convictions, and I think we should respect churches that choose to allow their ministers that right, for they make their choice out of deep convictions, too…I say this: I do not always know what the truth is, but I can always tell what love is. I believe love is the greatest of all, and to do the loving thing will always be the right thing. Most congregations will eventually find their way there.”

Dr. Mohler concluded that Coates could only have meant “that most congregations will eventually get to an affirmation of same-sex marriage in one way or another.”

Jim Galloway, a long-time political reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), recently reported on the “Baptist-on-Baptist fight” that resulted from Georgia’s religious liberty debate. Galloway asked Dr. Coates “whether the governor’s veto reflected the values of the First Baptist Church of Gainesville.”

Coates replied, “My perception is that the great majority of our congregants are very supportive of Governor Deal’s veto of this bill — primarily for two reasons. First, we hold to the strong historical Baptist principle of separation of church and state.”

I suppose the only thing surprising here is that it took Dr. Coates this long to play the “separation of church and state” card. How tragically ironic that the pastor of a Baptist church in Georgia would resort to using eight words of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801 in order to justify denying his fellow pastors protection of their religious liberties.

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was a reply to a letter the Baptists wrote on October 7, 1801 congratulating him on his election as U.S. President. Along with their congratulations, the Danbury Baptists expressed grave concern over the First Amendment’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion.” These Baptists felt that inclusion of such in the U.S. Constitution implied that the right of religious freedom was government-given and not God-given.

Hence, they wrote, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific… [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (Emphasis mine.)

Oh the irony of ironies! The Danbury Baptists, it turns out, wrote Jefferson in the name of “religious liberty!” Does it sound as if these Baptists would support the government forcing individual Christians, or Christian-owned businesses, or Christian-led institutions to accommodate the homosexual agenda?

And neither would Thomas Jefferson. Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. Why have modern courts ignored this?

Further demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the truth, three years ago, the Bill Coates-led First Baptist of Gainesville, along with three other liberal-leaning denominations in Gainesville, GA sponsored the appearance of the (late) infamous heretic Marcus Borg at a two-day lecture series on the campus of a Gainesville university. Borg was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar and a major figure in the heretical “historical Jesus” movement.

According to apologist Greg Koukl, the so-called “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar “have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus—all dismissed as legendary accretions with no historical foundation. For example, only two words of the Lord’s Prayer survive as authentic: ‘Our Father.’” In other words, they are “Christians” who reject virtually every tenet of Christianity, and Nathan Deal’s pastor saw fit to promote such false teaching.

At the time, in the local paper, Dr. Coates flatteringly described Borg as someone who “speaks of an emerging paradigm to see faith and practice faith in an age of science and technology.” Coates added that, “So many people don’t believe today because they don’t believe the basic doctrines or have trouble understanding the stories of the Bible. For people like that, Borg has a new approach, a new lens through which they can see those stories.” Borg’s “new lens” gives new meaning to the Apostle Paul’s “dim mirror.”

Perhaps the most troubling news concerning Governor Deal’s church—where he has served as both a deacon and a Sunday school teacher—was revealed recently in a 2,800-word exposé by the AJC. The First Baptist Church of Gainesville, GA, along with a former pastor (who served just prior to Dr. Coates), are being sued for their supposed role in hiding the sexual abuse committed by a former deacon, Fleming Weaver. While a Scout Leader for a Boy Scout troop sponsored by First Baptist of Gainesville, Weaver sexually abused multiple young boys.

In 1981, when some of his victims brought information to First Baptist, Weaver admitted to church leadership that he had indeed sexually abused several young boys. Reportedly, the church chose not to reveal Weaver's abuse to the Boy Scouts or to law enforcement and allowed Weaver to remain in church leadership. The alleged victim bringing the lawsuit accuses Weaver of raping him in 1985, when the boy was 15. According to the AJC, Dr. Coates “acknowledged he had heard the rumors about Weaver, ‘but there was never any kind of proof.’” Weaver, now 82-years-old, remained a deacon at First Baptist until just a few weeks ago when this story hit the news.

It should come as little surprise that a church that would allow an abuser of children to avoid the law and remain in leadership, that would sponsor the speeches of a heretic, that shrugged its shoulders at the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity, and that cites Jefferson’s wall in order to justify not protecting the religious liberties of pastors, would also give us a Governor who would “compromise Scripture and morality for the sake of votes and popularity.”

Sadly, as is so often the case with those who are steeped in “near Christianity,” as another Baptist pastor in Gainesville, Dr. Tom Smiley, put it, with his veto of religious liberty, Governor Deal “missed his moment.” (In other words, he missed his “Esther moment.”) However, if the Georgia legislature has its way—like Peter, Jonah, Samson, King David, and other trophies of God’s grace and mercy—Governor Deal may get another shot at doing what is right.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

It’s Time for Christians to Go to Jail over Marriage

Over two months prior to the Supreme Court of the United States forcing the legalization of a perverse redefinition of marriage on the whole of the country, I declared that when it comes to the foundation of every lasting culture the world over, the oldest institution in the history of humanity, and one of the earliest truths revealed by God, we can NEVER surrender.

As Churchill inspires us, we must fight the tyrannical menace that is the modern homosexual agenda, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. We must fight strong to the end, we must fight for the churches, we must fight for the chapels, and we must fight for the children. We shall fight in the media, we shall fight in the legislatures, and we shall fight in the courts. And if necessary, as Dr. Martin Luther King inspires us, we must go to jail.

The courts have ruled, thus some may ask, “Why break the law?” As King revealed in his letter from the Birmingham jail, “[T]here are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws.” And we agree with Dr. King, who agreed with Saint Augustine that, “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Dr. King also reminds us of the difference:

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

If a law forcing a nation to accept as normal men having sex with men and women having sex with women is not a violation of natural law, then nothing is. If a law forcing a nation to accept a perverse redefinition of marriage is not a violation of natural law, then nothing is.

We should go forth with the same boldness and surety as did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who, though faced with the fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, refused to bow down to his golden idol. The biblical account of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego recorded in the book of Daniel are great examples of a faith that run counter to the culture—even the legal code of the culture, and even when it means facing the harshest of consequences. Though such faith is required in many parts of the world today, few Americans have ever had to make life or death decisions because of whom or how they worship.

However, as most sentient Americans now well know, as they refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda, some Americans are facing massive fines, the threat of lawsuits, the threat of having their businesses shut down, the loss of their jobs, death threats, and so on. Fines and other financial penalties seem to be the current favorite weapon of those targeting the individuals or businesses who are determined to hold to the biblical view of marriage. In every case of which I’m aware, when facing fines, generous Americans, through various “crowd-funding” efforts, have literally bailed out their like-minded brothers and sisters. It is time for this to stop.

I’m not saying that there’s anything immoral about helping someone pay an unjust fine. However, paying these fines, through whatever means, sends the wrong message. What’s more, in many cases it lines the pockets of those who stand behind these immoral laws.

I’m a public school teacher in a conservative state (Georgia), in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country (GA-9). As I’ve said before, I will NEVER affirm homosexual relationships as normal and healthy, and I will continue to take all opportunities to live and tell the truth on marriage and sexuality. Currently, I cannot imagine a scenario where my positions on marriage and sexuality would result in criminal consequences, including a fine. However, how many of us just a few years ago thought the idea of legalized same-sex “marriage” absurd?

How many of us were told that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enough to protect states from a forced (and perverse) redefinition of marriage? In fact, barely a decade ago, some conservatives, including the author of DOMA himself—then Georgia Representative Bob Barr—told us that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one women was unnecessary. It’s likely that many of us who now think ourselves safe from the menacing reach of the homosexual agenda will soon find ourselves in the position of the bakers, photographers, florists, and the like, who have been targeted by those seeking revenge upon Americans seen as standing in the way of sexual “progress.”

I now go on the record: If fined I will not pay it, and I will allow no one else to pay it for me. In other words, I will go to jail. In the spirit of John Bunyan: I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of the truth.

What’s more, I call upon all defenders of the truth on marriage and sexuality to take the same positions. As Dr. King taught us, we must obey God rather than man. And as Dr. King reminds us, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.”

In today’s America, there are few things more “antireligious” than same-sex “marriage.”

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Marriage: Where Do We Go From Here?

With a liberal court, we get the rulings we deserve. Or, in other words, elections have consequences. It's safe to say that without the election of Barack Obama, we would not have had to endure liberal Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sitting in judgement of marriage. (Both appointed by Obama in his first term, and both voting to legally redefine marriage.) Of course, the election of a republican, especially the likes of John McCain, gives no guarantee of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. However, justices Roberts and Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, both voted against this sweeping perverse ruling on marriage. All of those who voted for Obama have their fingerprints on the tyrannical judicial travesty that resulted in the legal redefinition of marriage.

As many, including the President of the United States, taunt the truth and celebrate sin, there is still much to be done for those who are determined to stand for marriage as our Creator gave it to us. After the ruling, as Rush Limbaugh discussed on his program on the day of the ruling, many conservative minded Americans were discouraged and upset. Many Americans are now wondering what to do.

First of all, in a time where, as even Rush noted, “there is a spiritual war going on where truth is no longer truth,” we are to be bold and faithful witnesses to the truth on marriage and sexuality. For Christians, as we live our lives as followers of Jesus, and as we examine the world around us and the areas where we have influence, we should always be on the lookout for our opportunities to shine light into darkness. Thus, as a witness for the truth, one thing we should always be asking ourselves is, “What are the sins with which we are most struggling?”

Likewise, pastors, as they prepare their sermons, should always be asking, “Where is the enemy at work in attempting to deceive my congregation?” Or, as another pastor has put it, “What are your people’s idols?” Of course, this should lead us to ask where the enemy is at work in the culture at large. As has been clear for decades now, within the moral realm in our culture, the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.

As I noted on the day of the infamous ruling, we cannot blame this entirely on liberals and liberalism. Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court giving legal status to same sex “marriage” also reflects a tragic failing of the church. We have ignored the fundamental truths on marriage, sexuality, and the family for too long. Homosexuality has a long way to go before it can inflict the damage done by promiscuity, pornography, adultery, abortion, fornication, and divorce.

And we can’t simply point out the sexual immorality of others. We must also be quick to discuss our own struggles with sin, especially those in the sexual realm, as situations call for it. Additionally, filled with peace, love, joy, and the like, we must live out what is right and true.

As Rick Warren put it late last year, celebrate healthy marriages (especially in churches). Don’t simply be an opponent of what’s wrong, be a proponent of what’s right. Our lives, whether single or married, should be an example of what a walk with Christ looks like so others are drawn to Him whether they hear us say anything about Him or not.

Specifically, on marriage and sexuality, if you are married, commit as husband and wife to remain faithful in all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, commit to remain faithful to one another and keep the marriage bed pure. Commit to remain married until your earthly union is dissolved by death. Furthermore, as a union of one man and one woman, commit to allow God to use your union as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

Also, commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.

Likewise, if you are single, commit to remain faithful to all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage. Namely, while unmarried, commit to keep yourself sexually pure and model and teach this behavior to those in your circle of influence. Furthermore, commit to allow God to use you as a single person as He sees fit to build His Kingdom, and commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. (All of this is in the “Marriage Commitment Challenge.”)

Second, those with a higher profile in the culture, those in leadership or who have a wide circle of influence, have a greater responsibility in this matter and all such matters. To whom much is given, much is required. Of course this means pastors, but also politicians, pundits, business leaders, famous athletes, musicians, producers, actors, authors, bloggers, educators, and so on. In other words, we need Christians in the culture at large to tell and model amazing stories on marriage and sexuality. As Rick Warren said, “Whichever side tells the best stories wins.”

There can be little doubt that to a great extent, the deception on homosexuality, marriage, and gender has occurred because of the efforts of liberals in politics, the media, and so on. Not only that, but as most of us well know, the traditional family has been mercilessly attacked in the media. As American Thinker noted recently, this is especially the case with fathers. As Rick Moran put it, “Hollywood has made a deliberate effort to undermine the patriarchy by savaging fatherhood.” This has been the case for decades now.

Christian conservatives, and our like-minded friends, have not done enough to counter this. For example, recently my wife and I, along with our four kids, attended a Christian concert. Several popular contemporary Christian artists performed. There was a lot of great (but too loud!) music that focused our hearts and minds on God. However, there was nothing said or sung that focused on marriage and family.

Similarly, there is more than one Christian radio station in our area (northeast Georgia) to which we frequently listen. I hear almost nothing from the hosts, guests, artists, and so on, when it comes to marriage and the family. Surely they are not shying away from the truth out of fear of “offending” their sponsors or audience. Similarly, famous athletes and other entertainers who believe what the Bible teaches on marriage and sexuality need to exercise their First Amendment rights (while they remain!) on these matters. (Like the NFL’s Ben Watson.)

Third, if you are a Christian parent, when it comes to your witness to the truth, you have no greater responsibility on this earth than your children. In other words, every parent is in youth ministry. There’s a reason millennials are the group most likely to support a perverse redefinition of marriage. Decades of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have led to tens-of-millions of U.S. children growing up in homes without both parents. Thus we now have millions of young Americans whose notion of marriage and family has been tragically distorted. This trend must be reversed.

Fourth, we need to be ready to minister to those who suffer from the sin of homosexuality. As the decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court foolishly attempted to redefine life in Roe v. Wade, science, technology, and human experience have revealed what sound morality has always taught: life in the womb is just that. Just a few weeks after conception, we can now literally witness, through sight and sound, the miracle of life in the womb.

The horrible images (warning: graphic) of post-abortive children have been seared into the consciences of tens-of millions. The testimony of regret of millions of women who were deceived by the abortion industry has helped shine light into a deep and ugly darkness. Yes, abortion remains legal and as brutal as ever, but restrictions abound and are growing. Crisis pregnancy centers have ministered to tens-of-millions and saved the lives of millions.

There is no getting around it: the wages of sin is death. If we linger in sin, we are going to reap suffering. This is certainly true with sexual immorality. Disease and death literally await those enslaved in the homosexual lifestyle. And how can we measure the broken hearts of those who have departed from their Creator’s plan on marriage and sexuality? As has happened in the pro-life movement, the Christian community must equip ourselves like never before to minister to those who are broken by the sin of homosexuality.

Last, conservative politicians need to act. We need a constitutional amendment that properly defines, or allows states to properly define, marriage. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has been at, or very near, the top of my list of 2016 presidential candidates. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to redefine marriage, again justifying my high opinion of him, Walker issued a statement declaring, “Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’”

He added that, “the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.” As Rush noted, whether it’s Obamacare, marriage, spending, and so on, far too often conservative politicians make no efforts “whatsoever to deal with the assaults and the attacks that are relentless and daily from the left.”

If your congressional representatives at the state and federal level can’t stand up for marriage, they do not deserve your vote. However, a constitutional amendment isn’t the “only alternative left” when it comes to marriage. As implied at the beginning of this piece, Americans need to elect a conservative to the office of U.S. President. If liberal justices can be replaced by conservative ones, the Supreme Court can reverse itself.

Again, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity--older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com