Let me state this right at the outset: I have never trusted Kevin Rudd, and I have always thought Christians who blindly support him have been easily misled. The simple truth is this: if you claim to be a Christian that means you obey Christ and the Bible. If you refuse to do so, then stop pretending to be a follower of Christ.
The former Prime Minister has just come out of the closet, telling us he as a Christian thinks homosexuality and homosexual marriage are just peachy keen. He thus has shown us his true colours. They may be the colours of the homosexual rainbow, but they are not the colours of biblical Christianity.
His 2000-word defence of his change of heart is painful to read. His mental gymnastics, moral obfuscations, and theological sleight-of-hand tricks are appalling – certainly for anyone who claims to be some sort of Christian. We expect all this idiocy from pagans and homosexual militants, but not from those who try to pass themselves off as believers.
Indeed, reading through this, one finds the exact same arguments used for decades now by the homosexual activists and their secular buddies. All the old red herrings, straw men and tired chestnuts are repeated here. All the usual clichés, bloated rhetoric, and sham jargon are found here as well: “marriage equality,” “discrimination” and so forth.
It is all straight out of the homosexuals’ playbook. And Rudd still claims to be a Christian in all this! Sorry, but you are nothing of the sort – you are just a stooge for the militants. You are doing their bidding perfectly. Everything they want you are fully and foolishly advocating for.
With so much inanity contained in such a short piece, it is hard to know where to begin. And of course I have already spent 20 years rebutting all these lame arguments – so the case why Rudd is so dead wrong can be found in my book Strained Relations. But I don’t wish to repeat myself here.
Let’s examine a few of his whoppers. Consider this lulu: “I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay.” Not abnormal? Not wrong? And you still claim to be a Christian? Sorry Kev, but you must choose here: we either agree with the Word of God, or we reject it.
And it looks like that is exactly what he has done: he has completely trampled on the biblical witness, and sided with the activists. And no choice in the matter? So you mean all those homosexuals who say there most certainly is choice in the matter are just liars? I quote many of these folks in my book of course.
He also deliberately deceives when he says “30 years of research has seen … that same sex families do not compromise children’s development.” Hogwash. There are 50 years of research showing how children are gravely disadvantaged when they are not raised by their own biological parents, cemented in marriage. My book also deals extensively with this issue.
And he seeks to make his case by saying he grew up without a dad, and suffered no ill-effects. That is about as helpful as saying he grew up without one leg but got by OK. Of course you can, but it is never ideal. Fatherlessness poses very real negative outcomes for children, as thousands of studies have documented. I just recently offered a very brief survey of this mountain of data:
Of course a large part of his piece is a very confused understanding of church-state relations. He wants the church basically to butt out here, and leave a redefined marriage as a secular state affair. And this from the same guy who claims to idolise Bonhoeffer. You remember him, the guy who felt that his faith and beliefs must directly impact on the State – and who paid for this with his life under Hitler’s regime.
But now Kev wants an altogether different approach, and he raises all the same baloney that atheists like Dawkins raise: the Bible also supports slavery, witch-hunts, etc, etc. Oh puh-leeese Kevin, your biblical knowledge and understanding is just as skewed and twisted as that of Dawkins. But at least he does not pretend to be a Christian.
The state has a very vital interest in the social institution of marriage. Strong healthy heterosexual marriages are good for children, good for societies, and good for nations. That is why the state has always had a keen interest in promoting heterosexual marriage, but not other forms of relationships. I discuss that more fully here:
He also foolishly, naively, or disingenuously informs us that churches should not be forced to restructure their beliefs when homosexual marriage comes in. Hate to break it to you Kev, but they are already being forced by the heavy hand of the law to abandon their beliefs and compromise their convictions.
I have offered heaps of examples of this on my site, and my new book will feature hundreds more. Whenever special rights for homosexuals are granted, including marriage rights, then of necessity the church suffers, freedoms are taken away, and Christian conscience is trampled upon. See here for just a sampling of this evidence:
Rudd also informs us that part of his change of heart was due to a homosexual Pentecostal staffer! Oh great, so if you have an adulterous Baptist staffer, or fornicating Catholic staffer, will you ditch the biblical position on those sins as well?
And he has the gall to tell us his change of heart and why he wrote his piece is because “it is the right thing to do”. No it is not at all the right thing to do: it is the politically correct thing to do, the men-pleasing thing to do, and the anti-biblical thing to do.
All of which is expected of atheists and homosexual militants. But when people try to cloak this deception and immorality under the guise of Christianity, then you know we simply have yet another wolf in sheep’s clothing. But given that this is always how I felt about the guy, I for one am not the least bit surprised.