CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

More Theological Revisionism

Jun 28, 2010

Homosexual activists both within and without the church are seeking to rewrite the Bible to push their agenda. They use many ploys to convince us that the Bible has no problem with homosexuality, and that traditional understandings are simply mistaken.

I have discussed some of these ploys elsewhere, but here I will address another one. This has to do with misunderstanding and misusing the purity and holiness laws found in the Old Testament. It is quite common for these revisionists to throw out the challenge that the laws forbidding homosexuality in the Old Testament also forbid things like eating animals which do not chew the cud, or fish without scales.

These critics who think they are quite clever argue, ‘if it is now OK to eat all foods, why forbid homosexuality?’ As but one example, I recently received this comment: “Bill, it’s not just the homosexual Christians we should be worried about. What about the cray-fish eating Christians, or indeed the mixed-fabric wearing Christians. Both these ‘Christian’ types distort God’s holy directions as laid out in His bible. What do you suggest we do, Bill?”

While this fellow thought he was being cute, all he did was reveal that secular homosexual activists know nothing about biblical theology or Old Testament legislation. Sadly of course, many believers do not know much more either, so it is worth looking at this whole issue in some detail.

To keep this discussion from blowing out, let me just interact with what we find in the book of Leviticus. In Lev. 11-15 we find laws concerning the clean and unclean. In Lev. 17-26 we find what is known as the “Holiness Code”. These are the main chapters dealing with holy and unholy, pure and impure, clean and unclean.

Admittedly, much has been written about these laws, and how they are to be understood today. Briefly, this legislation primarily had to do with the proviso found in Lev. 19:2: “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy”. Israel was to be a holy and clean people before the Lord.

It was also to be clearly distinguished from the surrounding cultures. That in part explains the various laws about distinction, division, and separation. Holiness always implies separation, being set apart from that which is unholy, and devoted to that which is holy.

As Bruce Waltke explains, “The Israelites were commanded not to mix seeds or crops and not to mix different types of cloth in sewing. Therefore, the theme of purity was worked into the everyday life of the Israelites and safeguarded them from mixing their human seed with pagans. These purity laws inculcated the notion of holiness so that Israel would learn that they were to be a pure people, set apart for God.”

Or as John Goldingay puts it, “Israel’s holiness lies in distinctively belonging to Yhwh. Distinguishing holy and ordinary, and also pure and taboo, then contributes to its manifesting its distinctiveness over against other people. . . . Israel’s observance of these distinctions is an expression of its accepting its position as a people that God has distinguished from the rest of the world.”

And one must bear in mind the differences between the realm of the clean/unclean, and the realm of the holy/profane. Ceremonial uncleanness was particularly associated with Israel in Old Testament times, while moral holiness is forever enjoined upon all peoples.

Thus while it is true that we are no longer under the ceremonial and civil laws of ancient Israel, the moral laws remain. As Allen Ross explains, “To be free from the regulations of the law is not a license to be free from obeying what the law revealed.”

He continues, “The New Testament makes this very clear: moral imperfections and impurities – that is, the sinful activities that rendered a person unclean in the Old Testament – are still sinful in the new covenant and still require repentance and confession and forgiveness in order to comply with God’s standard of holiness. It is folly – it is dishonest – to argue that because the purification regulations of Old Testament Israel were fulfilled by the death of Christ, the sins listed in Leviticus are no longer sins.”

Goldingay ties this all together concerning the issue of homosexuality: “Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 explicitly disallow homosexual acts. Yet it also disallows many other practices (such as sex with a woman during her period) on the basis of a concern with purity and taboo, and in general such prohibitions are withdrawn in Christ.

“It has also been argued that the Levitical ban on homosexual acts also ceases to apply once Christ has made all things clean. But the context of these regulations in Leviticus implies that they are not simply concerned with purity and taboo.”

And Ross reminds us of the differences between the ceremonial and moral when we consider the means of absolution: “Homosexuality was never merely part of the purity problem that sanctuary ritual covered; it was a major offense for which there was no ritual law – it required forgiveness because it violated the moral code.”

Leviticus and the Holiness Code

It is worth looking further at the Holiness Code of Leviticus. The revisionists claim that the same general passages which forbid homosexuality also forbid men from cutting the corner of their beards, (19:27) or warn of menstrual uncleanness (20:18), and so on. They say that we obviously no longer obey passages on beard trimming and the like, so why not ignore the ones on homosexuality as well.

Most evangelical scholars recognise that the passages in question (18:22; 20:13) are both prohibitive of homosexuality and normative for today. The Holiness Code, of which these passages are a part, was a clear reminder to Israel to maintain distinct ethical practices from the surrounding Canaanite nations.

As Gordon Wenham comments, “Seven times [in chapter 18] it is repeated that the Israelites are not to behave like the nations who inhabited Canaan before them (vv. 3 [2x], 24, 26, 27, 29, 30).” As such it contains numerous prohibitions, some of which are still normative for today, and some of which are not. The whole of Scripture offers the context in which we make such distinctions.

How do we decide which are still normative? James De Young is worth quoting at length here: “Although some instructions and prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are limited to Israel (distinguishing clean and unclean animals and having sexual relations with one’s wife during her menstrual period), most are not. The context itself distinguishes limited, cultic prohibitions from universal prohibitions. The reader is able to discern which laws are universal. In addition, the similarity of these chapters to the Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s applications of this section warrant consideration of most of these rules as valid. Prohibitions of homosexuality elsewhere in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and in the New Testament also justify the interpretation that the prohibition is universal.”

Moreover, there are other interpretive clues. For God to assign the death penalty to homosexuality obviously means that he takes it very seriously indeed. However, there is no death penalty for a women’s monthly period. Instead, the woman was considered ceremonially unclean for a seven-day period (Lev. 15:19). Most of the other ceremonial purity laws also have much lighter penalties. As Stanley Grenz remarks, “under the Old Covenant the severity of the penalty was an indication of the importance of the precept.” Thus the penalties imposed tell us something of the nature of the various laws in the Holiness Code.

Of interest, it should be noted that bestiality is also condemned here (Lev. 20:15-16), and it also carries the death penalty. The same reasoning applies to bestiality as to homosexuality: In both cases God’s original intention for human sexuality is being violated. Says William Webb, “With bestiality, as with homosexuality, one is breaking the ‘boundaries’ of biological design and sexual order. Reproduction of species does not take place between an animal and a human; nor does it take place between humans of the same sex.”

Also, we must understand how the New Testament appropriates these portions of the Old Testament. Most Christians understand that the Old Testament laws can be divided into civil law (pertaining to the civic culture of ancient Israel), ceremonial law (ritual cleanness and dietary laws, for example), and moral law (timeless and universal moral truths). Civil laws, relating to Israel as a nation, are not applicable today, as the nation of Israel no longer exists as God’s sole covenant people. The ceremonial laws too have been rescinded in the New Testament. But transcultural moral laws remain in force.

Admittedly, confusion can arise at times when all three types of laws are found in the same passage. But again, the context often determines how to proceed. Scripture usually tells us what are timeless moral truths and what are cultural and temporal regulations. As Webb remarks, the “homosexual prohibition is not tied to mere ceremonial impurity. . . . The homosexuality laws are not part of ceremonial law, as can be seen from its severe penalty and the New Testament handling of homosexuality, in contrast to its treatment of ceremonial law.”

As to the specific passages, the revisionists want to argue that only certain types of homosexuality are being proscribed, such as cultic prostitution or idolatrous practices. But as Donald Wold summarises, after a detailed examination of the terms and the texts, “all same-gender sexual relations are categorically forbidden by the Hebrew terms. The biblical writer leaves no room for compromise. The language is emphatic. . . . The inference is clear: only heterosexual intercourse is normal and normative.”

Finally, God’s unchanging purposes for human sexuality have to be taken into account here. As Goldingay notes, “If we again consider how things were ‘at the beginning of creation,’ then Genesis 1-2 note that ‘God made them male and female’ (Mk 10:6) and envisage sexual relationships only between a man and a woman. It seems likely that the Torah’s ban on homosexual acts is based not just in rules about cleanness and taboo, but on the purpose of creation.”

Thus the objections raised by the revisionists have been tried and found wanting. In their attempt to overturn biblical morality, they will have to come up with something far better than that I am afraid.

[1722 words]

33 Responses to More Theological Revisionism

  • Even if every reference in the Bible, to homosexuality, were removed (well, Sir Ian McKellen does this on a regular basis, apparently) its makes crystal clear in passage after passage, words after word, injunction after injunction, that marriage, and sexuality, are between a man and a woman for the procreation of the race; and even a feted, knighted actor could never remove all of that from the Bible (there’d be nothing left). Then there’s the whole of Christian tradition (hundreds of documents, two thousand years). Same-sex “marriage” in Christianity? I say to them: Forget it, and get real!.
    John Thomas, UK

  • Revisionists also like to say that the sin of Sodom was in-hospitality. Well it certainly was that but much more:

    Jude 7: In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

    Ezekiel 16:49-51: Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done.

    The detestable practices can be read in the rest of Ezekiel 16.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks David

    Yes I deal with that briefly here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2004/11/01/responding-to-the-theological-revisionists/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill, I notice on that post this comment: “I am gay, and I love my partner with all my heart. We’ve been through a lot together, but we help each other out. I love him for all that he is: his personality, his kindness, his sensitivity. That is not lust, it is love. We are just like any happily married couple.”

    But one could also point out adulterous, platonic relationships as well as those that are incestuous and bestial that could also describe themselves as loving.

    Bill, would it be too simplistic to regard the ceremonial or purity laws as being similar to a sports team wearing a uniform that distinguishes them from all other teams? At this time in Jewish history it was essential that Israel was seen to be separated out from the surrounding nations. The dietary and fashion laws were there to make them clearly identifiable. After the Resurrection when the Holy Spirit was poured on all peoples, racial and national distinction no longer applied.
    David Skinner, UK

  • Bill is the NSW Premier Kristina Keneally really a devout Catholic?
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/keneally-says-religion-wont-impact-bill-20100628-ze83.html

    Keneally says religion won’t impact bill
    June 28, 2010 – 6:59PM
    AAP
    NSW Premier Kristina Keneally says her personal religious views won’t sway her support for an upcoming bill in state parliament on same-sex adoption.
    Ms Keneally on Monday reaffirmed her “in principle” support for the bill introduced to parliament last week by independent MP and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore.
    Labor MPs will be allowed a conscience vote on the legislation which will be debated after parliament resumes on August 31, after the winter break.
    Ms Keneally said she recognised some people would oppose the legislation but the debate must be conducted with a spirit of respect and explore common ground.
    Ms Keneally, a devout Catholic, said it was fair to ask how she reconciled her faith with such issues.
    “My religious views do not play a part in the legislation that I as a leader of the Labor Party bring before the government,” she said.
    “If I look at the gospel message it is one of acceptance, it is one of love … Jesus sat with the sinners and the saints and he was not a man of judgment but rather a man of love”.
    Ms Keneally said she had heard of a number of same-sex couples who had successfully fostered a child.
    Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell has also stated previously that he will allow a conscience vote for coalition.

    Keith Lewis

  • See also Hoax ‘testimony’ and Hoax endorsement: Is eating shellfish still an abomination? by New Testament scholar Lita Cosner, refuting that sort of “Dr Laura letter.”
    Jonathan Sarfati, USA

  • Oh deary, deary me, Kristina Keneally sounds like another politician who is able to sacrfice everything on the altar of political ambition. Jesus might not judge her but He certainly knows someone who does: “But I warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!”

    One minute she says that her religious views don’t play any part in her political decisions and the next she is quoting Jesus to endorse her wickedness. Which is Kristina?

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks Keith and David

    Yes one gets so sick of this errant nonsense from those claiming to be Christians. The most seductive and nefarious lies are those which contain a bit of truth in them. These guys simply ignore and leave out inconvenient biblical truths such as Proverbs 8:13: “To fear the LORD is to hate evil” and Hebrews 1:9 (speaking of Jesus): “You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity”.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Jonathan

    Good stuff indeed.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • People ignore the fact that those outside the Jewish tradition, such as Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom also condemned homosexuality for precisely the same reason – it was unnatural.

    David Skinner, UK

  • If only people would realise that it has never been about one sin. It has always been about our ‘sinful nature.’

    When we come to Christ, we are not identifying with him as provision for our ‘sins.’ We are identifying with him as provision for our ‘sinful nature’ as being from the same lineage as Adam. Even when we come to Christ, we have not been set free from sinning. We have been set free from the “Wages of Sin” DEATH. We will never be totally set free from our carnal desires while we live in our carnal bodies. This is precisely why the carnal body must perish or ‘be changed’ into a glorified body before it can inherit the Kingdom of God “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” Though we desire to walk as Christ, upright and blameless, we will always struggle in this world where darkness and light co-exist.
    It is Christ himself who will present us to God, clean and without blemish. Only through Christ are we presentable to God. He washes us and cleanses us and prepares us for the presence of God. He alone is the author and perfecter of our faith.

    The bible tells us that “even the liar has his place in the lake of fire’
    Show me a homosexual who hasn’t lied!
    Show me an adulterer who hasn’t lied!
    Show me one person who has never lied!

    Labeling sin gives one a platform from which to launch an argument for or against sin.
    All mouths are stopped when one realises that sin is NOT a label. It is our ‘nature,’ inherited from Adam. That is why those ‘In Christ’ are called to die daily, to be made new. Though this has already been given as a promise to those who believe, there is an outworking of that refinement daily as we surrender ourselves to the will of God.
    God’s word is clear:

    “Any man who says he is withOUT sin, that man is a Liar and the truth has no place in his heart. If a man would confess his sin, God is faithful and Just, to forgive a man and cleanse him from all unrighteousness.”

    The man who is eager to defend sin, will seek to twist and distort the words of Christ to suit his own agenda or deny the scriptures altogether, to their own detriment.

    Bennett Donelly

  • Thank you, Bill! Your post explains things I never quite understood in a fashion that makes good sense.

    Blessings!

    M.E. Huffmaster, U.S.A.

  • Throughout the Bible God institutes a pattern, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. It is obvious from an honest reading of the Bible that God expects these patterns to be obeyed and followed exactly. The very definition of sin itself is to deviate from the pattern God has revealed or to miss the mark, inferring exactitude is required by a Holy God.

    The pattern in Genesis regarding sexual relations is clear with God creating and joining one adult woman to one adult man. His purposes are clear, to produce God fearing offspring and to model in the institution of marriage, the relationship between mankind and his God.

    Homosexuality refutes and challenges these purposes and denies the pattern given. God often responded angrily in the Bible to those who failed to follow his patterns exactly and attempted to thwart his purposes.

    Verse pulling, ‘yes but …’ arguments , and logic based on sentimentality (by this I mean human feeling and emotion) cannot redefine clear and explicitly declared institutions created by God. Scripture is clear, if you wish to follow Christ, you must abandon your own ideas of rightness and solely adopt God’s. God does not change what He considers holy.

    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton QLD

  • Thanks again Bill for a clear ‘sounding of the trumpet’. The revisionists within the ‘church’ forget of course that the New Testament reiterates the prohibitions and punishments on all forms of sexual rebellion, including homosexuality, in the clearest and most fearful terms. Thank God for the provision of forgiveness to all of us who call upon the Name of the LORD.
    Thanks for not wavering in your “thus saith the LORDs”.
    Glenn Christopherson

  • Hi Bill,

    I’ve always find this argument put forward to be kind of weird and dishonest. You touched on it in what you write, but i’ve found the simplest approach when you encounter such arguments is to take the argument seriously and ask the person if they agree we should remove condemnation against all of the sexual acts condemned in those passages. Then of course a quick quote is in order. If I may be indulged, taken from the NIV

    ” ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

    ” ‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

    ” ‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

    ” ‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

    ” ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

    ” ‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

    ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    ” ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

    The passage seems pretty all or nothing. Either it is wrong to do all of these things or all of these things are no longer a problem.

    I guess the real problem I have with this argument is that many of the more radical homosexual activists are such complete sexual anarchists that they would embrace the pro-incest, pro-bestiality, pro-paedophillia, pro-adultery provisions as much as the pro-homosexuality provisions that their reasoning implies.

    I’m not sure anything can reasonably be done with minds that are this darkened and given over to sin.

    Jason Rennie

  • The gay tactic of attacking the Bible in the way described is the “poisoned well” tactic, I think. The response is not to let them get away with it. If homosexuality is wrong then its defence will inevitably involve, sooner or later (probably sooner) errors of some sort. Personally I have never seen an argument for homosexuality that is completely intellectually honest.
    John Snowden

  • It is so plain to man what is right and what is wrong. Yet man chooses to do wrong. This must be evidence of man’s sin nature. Sin distorts the truth and makes it likable and therein is the cause for so much distortion of the truth and the proliferation of lies. We live in a fallen world where truth is distorted to make it acceptable. Only God’s word never changes and this is why we must go back to it as our reference all the time.
    John Mathai

  • Well written Bill, keep it up.
    Dorian Ballard

  • To Keith Lewis I would say Please don’t refer to Premier Keneally as a “devout” Catholic. She is not and those who continue to ply this line are talking nonsense. She is a “cafeteria” Catholic. You cannot be classed as a devout Catholic, if you are in favour of abortion or so-called same sex “marriage”. In fact any Catholic politician who promotes or legislates along these lines runs the risk of being excommunicated from the Church – some have been so punished. I know what I’m talking about on this subject.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • Don’t you love Bishop Gene Robinson’s high wire, double backward flip flops? Can’t you just hear God saying, “this is my bishop in whom I am well pleased”?

    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/02/16/bishop-gene-robinson-on-romans-1/

    David Skinner, UK

  • Hi Bill

    Thank you for this.

    Sometimes I find it is quickest to tackle the whole shellfish issue head on, by looking at Mark 7:1-23, in which Jesus explicitly declares all food clean, but simultaneously summarizes and reinstates the expectations of the ‘holiness code’, and other OT standards, including the summative word ‘sexual immorality’ (porneiai). If there is inconsistency in our position, then at the very least our critics must allow that we are following Jesus in that inconsistency. Of course, I would argue more broadly that neither he nor we are being inconsistent, but starting with the concrete teaching of the gospel rather than the more conceptual discussion about types of OT law can be clarifying.

    Chris Green

  • I totally support what Frank Bellet has stated. One cannot be a Catholic at the weekend and something else during the week. My understanding is that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex marriage or euthanasia actually excommunicate themselves.
    They may certainly attend Mass but should not receive Holy Communion.
    Madge Fahy

  • Thanks Frank. “Devout” was used in the news item that I pasted above but it was obvious it was misused in Kristina’s case. Isn’t it strange how they still want to look morally good whist doing evil. Hence the question mark above. It seems Christians have taken a back seat as far as civic responsibilities in this world is concerned perhaps because the next (eternity) is more important. This was a big mistake and our children may now have to suffer in this life. Still the gospel went out into a hostile world through the person of Jesus Christ and His disciples turned the world upsidedown with His teaching. Well there are more Christians in the world today then at any time in history so surely we can make an even bigger impact. No weopon formed against us shall prosper and the gates of hell shall not prevail. We just need to wake up and Bill, along with other trumpeters is doing a great job to that end.
    Keith Lewis

  • I am nervous about a selective approach to the Law although I recognize to some extent it is helpful. The reason I am nervous is that Paul says clearly that we died to the Law through the body of Christ. Some argue that this means the ceremonial laws rather than the moral code but a look at Romans 7 shows that this cannot be the case. Paul uses a moral code law, one of the 10 commandments, namely against coveting, to make his point. The Law remains in force in full but our relationship with the law is radically affected through faith in Jesus and his death. We have died to it so that we can belong to Jesus who has been raised from the dead and who now becomes our holiness, righteousness and redemption. We are now controlled by the Holy Spirit who really is holy and live a Christ-like life of sacrificial love through that Spirit. As Paul says-love is the fulfillment of the law. As I read Romans1 I notice that Paul appeals to the nature of God and creation rather than the moral code. I don’t want to make too much of that but the awesome reality is that we are born again of a Holy pure Spirit of love and as a result we live sexually pure lives according to our creator’s intention by His Spirit rather than because we have a moral code to look to. I want to clearly say that the law is good and holy but we are not under it any more but under grace. By grace I mean the holy goodness, love and power of God not our human effort to keep a moral law. One of the tests of whether we are God’s children is simply whether we reflect the righteousness of God in our lives-the fruit of the Spirit. As Paul says we present our bodies and their parts to God to be instruments of righteousness. (Romans 6:13). The Law can usefully and rightly inform us and here we need to understand where there are ceremonial and moral code differences. But let’s be careful we are not placing ourselves under an entire system or part of a system from which the Lord has freed us by his death so that we can share in his divine nature as a gift. With love.
    Jonathan Brooks

  • Great article Bill. I am once again in your debt. I am also in debt to fellow bloggers for their ‘great’ responses.
    Stan Fishley

  • I am from NSW and at the moment there are some ads around the area promoting the Labour candidate. Judging by the picture, he looks like a pretty decent guy, lives in the area and the picture shows him with his children, both of whom look very well cared for so this obviously says a lot to me about the type of person he is and the quality of the parenting the children receive. He is obviously a good family man but what I wonder is this: How can anyone who is pro family belong to a party which is happy to put marriage and the family unit on par with destructive alternatives to it such as same sex marriage, same sex adoption and homosexual activists trying to present homosexuality/lesbianism as something quite normal? Am I missing something here? I understand that no political party is perfect but I am of the strong opinion that Labour will be probably influenced by the ranks of the moral relativists in the Greens.
    Steve Davis

  • Steve, we have had exactly the same problem in the UK election, with the Conservatives (Aussie Liberal party), appearing to be even more radical in tearing up traditional Christian values, even to the point of deselecting, during the General election, a Christian candidate, Philip Lardner, because of his stance on homosexuality. I asked myself, at the time, how could I vote for a party like that?

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/dumped-by-cameron-now-tory-hopefuls-job-in-peril/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1270880/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-Orwellian-logic-thats-turning-faith-Britain-built-crime.html

    In the end some people never voted at all ( which is legal in Britain), or, like me, voted for UKIP and other fringe parties, who, although espousing Christian values, were not blessed during the election. In fact they did disastrously.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/ukip-sod-the-lot-united-kingdom-independence-party

    In hindsight I ought to have voted for my local Conservative MP, who was seeking re -election. His views are out of step with the modern “progressive Conservative party of David Cameron; and he would undoubtedly have been deselected by the party, like the poor Scottish candidate mentioned above, had he been not been in a safe seat. Cameron could not afford to lose him but Lardner was expendable.

    At the end of day it comes down to power. Your local MP is the only channel you have, bar revolution, of making the government listen. If people followed my example it might explain why the Conservatives were forced to get into bed with the most godless of parties, the Liberal Democrats ( homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, abortionists and murderers) to form our present coalition government.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/forgiven-the-belated-rehabilitation-of-jeremy-thorpe-1651179.html

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks Dave, Britain is in a right mess isn’t it? The socialists have really ruined your lovely country, it is a crying shame, whenever someone mentions the word “history” I always automatically think of England with all its beautiful heritage castles and buildings etc. I think you are right about the power part of it. I cannot help wondering where England is going to end up – I think you are headed for some very nasty happenings in the future where civil war might just break out because I think the English people (what’s left of them!) will revolt because they have had enough! One thing you could do is to seek out Christians like yourself and form prayer groups with them and get praying every day because people like you are the last real hope the country has! We here in Australia are thinking of you and will/should pray as well. If you want my email address I am happy to give it to you so you can send me specific prayer requests and I will be most happy to put my hands together for you.
    Steve Davis

  • Thanks Jonathan Brooks

    But the topic here is how homosexual activists are pushing their agenda through twisting Scripture. It was not meant to be a careful look at the role, function and place of the law. That topic, and all the related issues, such as the relationship between the Testaments, is far too large to tackle in a short article, let alone a very short comment.

    And as I have argued elsewhere, it is impossible to separate law and love in Scripture. They belong together. But that is another debate for another time.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • There’s a homosexual (or “gay” as they would have you say) teacher at my son’s school. It’s only music he teaches, but I can’t help but worry about the influence he must have on the children under his care. Teaching is a privileged position, and this man can only be in it to further his agenda.

    I am concerned what to do if I find out he is to teach my son. If I make a fuss I’ll be denounced as a “bigot”, but schools are no place for homosexuals.

    What can we, as Christians, do, to make our voices heard above all this, and fight the homosexual agenda being forced on our children in schools?

    Thank you,

    Barbara Murray-Leach

  • Thanks Barbara

    There are many things one can do generally. We need to be informed about the issues and let others know about them. Thus this website for example. On a personal level, as mentioned, sometimes the only option is to pull a student out of a school if so much of its teachings and values are inimical to what yours are.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thank you Bill,

    Your website does indeed give hope and guidance to those without. I first heard of you when you were on the radio in a discussion with a homosexual activist, and you were very patiently and methodically setting out biblical truth – or just “the truth” as far as I’m concerned and many others here – but he just didn’t want to hear it. I don’t know how you stand it. They are so determined not to see the error of their ways.

    I fear I may have made a major personal mistake, which was to partially give in to my son, and tell him that he still had to go to church with me every Sunday, but that he could make his own mind up when he’s 14. He keeps reminding me of this every Sunday and moans about going so much I sometimes want to just take the easy way and let him stay home.

    Sorry to air so many personal problems, I just feel I am amongst friends here and sometimes feel very lonely!

    Thank you for all your kind words,

    Barbara Murray-Leach

  • Barbara,
    When I read your last post I prayed for you. Keep strong, be faithful and do not give up on either God or your son because God will not give up on you or your situation. Your son is at a turbulent age where a lot of teenagers are exposed to the big wide world and all its trappings. There are a lot of distractions out there and as a Christian parent you have to be prepared to face this fact and then carefully manage your unique situation. Strengthen your resolve to keep your eyes on God and be consistent in your daily life, actions and beliefs. You son will see this and while he might not appear to be responding,make no mistake about it, he is taking notice of you. I know this for a fact because I went through exactly the same thing you are going through now, except I had it with 3 boys – they are currently exploring the big wide world but they know what me and my wife stand for and while I accept the fact that they have put God, church and fellowship on hold at this time in their lives I just commit them to God every day in prayer and concentrate on continually developing my relationship with them with Jesus as the foundation. One other thing, do not ever be afraid to tell them straight if they need it, they might moan and whinge but underneath they will respect you for it. I will keep you in my prayers.
    Steve Davis

Leave a Reply