BaylyBlog: Out of our minds, too...

Party A and Party B

(David) When California's changeover from "Bride" and "Groom" to "Party A" and "Party B" marriage licenses takes place June 17, should Christian pastors and couples go along? Though the Protestant Church has long resisted claiming marriage as a uniquely Christian institution (some Puritans even preferring to leave marriage to civil authorities altogether), perhaps the time has come to insist that marriage is defined by God by rejecting state licenses which permit Party A and Party B marriage. Without transforming marriage from a universal creation ordinance to a Christian sacrament, it may now be necessary for the Church to recognize marriages herself rather than implicitly endorse state authority to define marriage by submitting to state licensing procedures.

The costly biblical witness of Crystal Dixon...

(Tim) It's long been dangerous for followers of Jesus Christ to speak publicly of Scripture's teaching on fornication, child-murder, divorce, adultery, father-rule, sodomy, and a whole host of other subjects our culture opposes God in. And although we don't like bad news, here's a case we should all be following and exerting our influence in.

Editor in Chief of the Toledo Free Press, Michael Miller, wrote an editorial advocating sodomy and smearing those who oppose sodomy as resembling racists. This prompted University of Toledo Associate Vice President for Human Resources Crystal Dixon to submit an op-ed opposing Miller's editorial. Dixon wrote: "As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle...

Hoosiers: Stop this legislation in its tracks...

(Tim, w/thanks to Jim) According to the reputable and trustworthy American Family Association, our Representative Peggy Welch is at work behind the scenes greasing the path for a hate crimes bill. (Note added a day later: Rep. Welch's assistant reported to one reader that AFA is wrong in its report concerning the procedural motion. Please see the first comment by David Talcott.)

Friends, these hate crime laws are awful for all the reasons the American Family Association says below--and more. If you know our Democrat representative, Peggy Welch, call or E-mail her and tell her that no Christian should have any part in passing such legislation. If she's not your representative, find out who is and contact them. Tell them that they reprensent you and that you are opposed to the nannie state setting up safeguards for sodomites that place them in a privileged position within our state. (For a short summary of the lawlessness of such hate crime bills, read this two and a half page statement by the most excellent Alliance Defense Fund.)

Our legislators can't figure out a way to protect unborn children from being slaughtered for pay just a mile or two from the home they sleep peacefully in each night, but they can find a way to silence the Word of God? And make no mistake about it--this bill is all about gagging God by intimidating those who would dare to repeat His decree that sodomy is an "abomination" before Him. For now, the assault is cloaked by violent crimes, but the cloak will soon come off. Read on for the American Family Association alert...

A celibate priesthood...

(Tim) Every couple of months I waste some time reading the New York Times. Normally newpaperless, it's fun every now or then to catch up on the great big world.

Dateline Vatican City, October 13: An Italian monsignor was suspended from his Vatican post in which he serves "as a top official in the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, which aims to ensure proper conduct by priests."

An italian television network broadcast interviews with a number of priests about their sodomite practices. The men were interviewed with their faces and voices obscured to avoid identification. The hapless monsignor made the mistake of being interviewed in his Vatican office. So, although his face and voice were hidden, the trappings of his office were not. During his interview the Monsignor "said he 'didn't feel he was sinning' by having sex with gay men."

Vatican spokesman, The Rev. Frederico Lombardi, assured reporters: "The case is being handled with utmost reserve."

The only man I know personally who is currently preparing for the Roman Catholic priesthood has spent his life struggling against temptations to same-sex intimacy.

Northwestern University: a morality play for the church...

(by Tim) Sadly, reformed pastors identify less with those who live in rural communities and make their living as sheep farmers (what used to be called "shepherds") than with those who live in books and make their living as academics. So this story from today's New York Times is particularly instructive.

There's a big stink over a psychology prof at Northwestern University named J. Michael Bailey who's gored the ox of transexuals around the country. But before we get to Prof. Bailey and the transexuals, a few comments about the lesson Christians should learn from this battle.

For decades, freedom of religion and freedom of speech have been under a sustained attack and the content of the books we read, the sermons we listen to, and the Bibles we carry to church Sunday morning all bear witness to the attrition of these freedoms.

Speaking only of our Bibles, did you know that millions of Bibles used by evangelicals have had words deleted in order to avoid expressing incorrect opinions deemed to have the potential of being hurtful to women and Jews? Evangelical Bible scholars, linguists, translators, graphic designers, publishers, bookstore owners, and pastors all joined together to produce and sell Bibles that would not be vulnerable to charges of sexism or antisemitism. Many hundreds of times, the original Hebrew and Greek words were changed or deleted so the Bible would be less offensive to moderns...

Rowan Williams wants to split the difference over sodomy...

Oxford don Alister McGrath had many good words to say about Rowan Williams when he was elevated to head the worldwide Anglican communion as Archibishop of Canterbury. That was our first clue Williams would be one more nail in the coffin of this denomination Martyn Lloyd-Jones warned J. I. Packer and John Stott to leave forty or so years ago. They wouldn't listen. So now Packer, Stott, and McGrath are three men in a boat, and it's sinking.

Still, all is not lost. Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola is speaking with the boldness of the Apostle Paul in confronting Williams over his doublemindedness. Praise God for Peter Akinola. May the Holy Spirit protect him from the evil one.

Indianapolis' blasphemous billboards...

This is a picture of the best-known among a chain of billboards that recently popped up around Indianapolis, all blasphemously claiming Jesus' approval of sodomy. Far and away the best recent treatment of sodomy and the Bible is Robert Gagnon's, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Every Christian leader involved in the controversy over sodomy at the center of Western culture (and how could a faithful man not be involved?) should buy and read this book. Dr. Gagnon's doctrine of Scripture is defective, but don't let that stop you from buying and reading his book and other excellent resources.

But back to the billboards. In this article from his web site, Dr. Gagnon surgically dissects this particular billboard's blasphemy, leaving it a stone-cold corpse.

Sodomites and child molestation...

While going back over the record of Indiana University's censoring the free speech of Prof. Rasmusen, I came across two pages (see here and here) summarizing the evidence linking sodomites to child molestation. It is absolutely essential to the protection of the children of our own, and our nation's, families that we resist homosexualists' intense efforts to suppress this evidence. It ought also to be pointed out that publicizing sodomites' proclivity for this crime also serves a protective function for sodomites themselves, warning them away from criminal and wicked acts that might well result in years of imprisonment in this life, and eternity in hell in the life to come.

By the way, the homosexualist community (yes, including the UCDavis psychology department--note how their page begins with the uncritical reproduction of central tenets in Boswell's bad history) has attempted to discredit these articles and the studies they cite by claiming the studies contain fatal methodological flaws. I'm both aware and dismissive of their arguments.

Eric Rasmusen, Francis Beckwith, and Roman Catholic conversions...

On the day when IU bid farewell to its current president, Adam Herbert, IU's student newspaper, Indiana Daily Student, published a timeline of principal events in Herbert's presidency. The timeline took up the bottom six inches of numerous pages of the day's issue. And there on the first page, near the beginning, was the name of my local hero, Prof. Eric Rasmusen of the Kelley School of Business, with a date and explanation something like this: "Prof. Eric Rasmusen published ant-gay material on his blog."

There's a long story behind it, but the simple facts are that, back in 2003, Prof. Rasmusen blogged on the reasons Christian parents might legitimately object to the hiring of homosexuals to teach their children. And he put his second reason this way:

A second reason not to hire homosexuals as teachers is that it puts the fox into the chickencoop. Male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous. They should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires...

Ghoulforce...

The aggressive sodomite group, Soulforce, is trying to shame biblical Christians across the country by organizing civil rights demonstrations on the campuses of colleges and seminaries that affirm God's condemnation of sodomy:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

It seemed fairminded for us to agree with the repeal of sodomy laws, didn't it? Living in the tragic shadow of AIDS, we showed ourselves so compassionate. Sodomites claimed their civil rights were, in practice, second-class and that didn't seem right. Consequently, we sought the repeal of the laws prohibiting sodomy on the books of the vast majority of states across our nation. It was a Christian cause.

So, what did it get us? Moral capital with God? A "compassionate conservative" label in our nation's capital? A reputation for being kinder, gentler, reasonable? We're not fundies; we're "thoughtful Christians," right?

And what did it get sodomites? Did legalization of sodomy decrease their temptations? Did it make their sin safer? Did it decrease their rate of substance abuse or suicide? Would Christians thinking through the matter biblically, taking into account the immortality of the soul and our coming Judgment, claim the repeal of these laws was spiritually constructive for those suffering under this great evil?

No, our dear brothers and sisters who struggle with this particular temptation are only worse off due to our compromise with political correctness.

And what about us? Well, we see who needs help with their civil rights, now; and who will need ever more help with them in the future. As C. S. Lewis said, they'll tell you that you can have your religion in private, then they'll make sure you're never alone.

The Nature of the Beast....

It's the nature of sin to mutate. Macroevolution may only be true one place in the universe, but it's fundamentally correct as a description of sin's nature.

Alter one gene from God's pattern--say the gene that says that women are life-givers, carers, not warriors--and you end up having to accept sodomites in the military as well. A condition which is not sinful (femininity, womanhood) brought into a sinful context (combat, the armed forces) mandates the extension of such admission to that which IS inherently sinful.

General Pace's recent protest against openly homosexual soldiers comes unhinged at his lack of protest against women in combat. We may sympathize with him in his predicament and admire his forthrightness on homosexuality, but in the end he's little more courageous than those mainline "evangelicals" who permitted women into the pastoral ranks only to object to the subsequent admission of sodomites.

We've already seen the effects of this mutation in the church. Absolutely every argument made for the admission of women to pastoral ministry has been made for the extension of the pastoral call to homosexuals. The military can expect no less.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave....

Lotz of picking and choosing in the Garden of Eden...

In her article cited in an earlier post, Anne Graham Lotz is pandering to some of the more ungodly prejudices of our culture by attacking the church for not being biblical on the meaning and purpose of sexuality. What she really means, though, is not that the Church isn't biblical, but that it's not enlightened or progressive--it's not, as they say, "evolved."

Before the watching world, Ms. Lotz argues that those who maintain distinctions between the sexes (other than those irrepressible biological and physiological ones) are bound for extinction as her new age of feminist gender equity finally dawns among the slowpoke people of God.

One looks in vain for any recognition on Ms. Lotz's part that she's thrown the entire history of the Christian Church's doctrine of sexuality in the dumpster. Likely she'd deny this, pointing to her strong stand against sodomy or divorce as proof that, where the rubber meets the road, she's rock solid on sexuality.

Yet the order of God's creation prior to the Fall is as clear concerning the sinfulness of women exercising authority over men as it is concerning the sinfulness of men having sex with men, or as it is concerning divorce. The authoritative primacy of man over woman, the heterosexual limits of physical intimacy, and the evil of divorce are each equally and undeniably established by our Creator in the Garden of Eden, and the rest of Scripture only reinforces God's Edenic order.

Asked whether divorce is right or wrong, Jesus responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was heterosexual, monogamous, and lifelong:

(Jesus) answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Asked whether it was proper for women to exercise authority over men, the Apostle Paul responded by going back to Eden, prior to the Fall, making it clear that God's order from the beginning was neither matriarchal nor egalitarian, but patriarchal:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:12, 13)

Do Ms. Lotz and other evangelical feminists really think they can pick and choose between the details of the sexual order God established in Eden which is reinforced repeatedly in the sacred words of Scripture?

"Let's see, I'll have some heterosexuality and monogamy, please. But no patriarchy today, thank you."

Well, any simpleton can see what's happened, and therefore what's coming.

What's happened? Well, for many years, now, evangelicals have lived in an increasingly egalitarian and feminist culture, and that culture has won us over--all that's left is the mop-up operation. Few of us would be willing to preach or listen to the sermons of past centuries our fathers in the faith preached concerning male authority or female deference and submission. And structurally, our practice bears no resemblance to the church's historical practice.

Denominationally, some of us are still forced to toe the line: we don't yet ordain women to the pastorate or eldership, but we've taken every other step we can. We have women leading our corporate worship, administering the Lord's Supper, preaching in our pulpits, teaching mixed-sex adult Sunday school classes, leading mixed-sex small groups, serving as commissioned deacons, serving on our national theological study committees, preaching at our conferences, serving as regional directors in our parachurch and mission organizations... Need I go on?

Yes, we have our Pharisaical righteousness in each place we're fiddling around the edge. Women preaching in our pulpits are the exception--not the rule--and they do so under the authority and review of the elders board. Our women deacons are not ordained--they're only commissioned. We've limited the Sunday school classes led by women to one quarter of our offerings each term. Women lead our call to worship and prayer of confession, but never our pastoral prayer. Women administer the Lord's Supper, but our senior pastor is a man and he's the one who hands the trays to the women before they go out into the congregation. The woman on the study committee has special expertise in the subject under review, and she's not a full voting member. Our conference isn't a church meeting, our speakers aren't really preaching, and we don't have any authority over those who attend. Our organization is parachurch--not church--so we have no need to submit to Scripture's prohibition of women exercising authority over men.

At this point, some readers are likely hung up on one or more of the particulars I've cited and are asking themselves, "Is it really wrong to have women deacons?" "Why shouldn't women lead in prayer during corporate worship?" "If women shouldn't be regional directors of mission agencies, should they be running for president?" Or, "If it's wrong for women to preach in morning worship, is it also wrong for them to serve as professors in Christian colleges and seminaries?"

Although these are important questions, such examples are only meant to be representative of the sea-change the evangelical church has embraced. We will differ over which of the above practices are within the proper boundaries of Scripture, but we must not differ in acknowledging that, taken as a whole, these practices are not a reformation returning us to the doctrine of Scripture, but rather a revolution leading us away from Scripture...

Raising covenant children in Sodom...

Bloomington's city council recently passed a gender identity ordinance opposed by the testimony and public opposition of a number of the members and officers of Church of the Good Shepherd. The ordinance was modeled after similar ordinances passed around the country in the past few years, all aimed at protecting an individual's right to identify his gender any way he chooses regardless of his biological sexuality. Among other things, such laws guarantee the individual's right to use whatever dressing room, locker room, or bathroom he'd like. So in public schools in Los Angeles, for instance, the law forbids teachers from stopping men from using the women's locker room. But it gets worse.

The New York Times reports that New York City's Board of Health now plans to allow individuals to go back and alter the sex marked down on their birth certificate. Yes, you read that right...

Ted Haggard: Truth is in order to goodness...

"Two consenting adults in a bedroom is not really the role of the state." -Ted Haggard in a 2005 interview from ChristianityToday.com

Asked about the Supreme Court decision striking down bans on gay sex, Haggard responded: "I'm pretty liberal on that actually. I don't think the state should have any business with what goes on between two consenting adults in their bedroom." -BBC News Online, 16 October 2004

Almost one year ago, on November 15, 2005, I posted the following article on this blog. Now I'm putting it back up on the first page because there's a lesson here for those of us who belong to Jesus Christ--particularly those who serve as officers of Christ's Church.

Back in 1788, two geographical centers of American presbyterianism, the Synods of Philadelphia and New York, composed and adopted as the introduction to their Form of Government what were then, and still are, known as our "Preliminary Principles." Between one and two pages long, these eight principles continue to be foundational to presbyterian polity today to such an extent that the Orthodox Presbtyterian Church, the mainline and liberal Presbyterian Church (USA), and my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, all continue to adhere to them.

Since hearing about Haggard's resignation, the fourth of these principles has been at the front of my mind constantly, and I reproduce it here believing it's worth careful consideration in this present context. (I'd also recommend that pastors and elders memorize it.)

Here then is Preliminary Principle Number IV, followed by the blog post from one year ago:

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness; according to our Saviour's rule, "by their fruits ye shall know them:" And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or absurd, than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man's opinions are. On the contrary, they are persuaded, that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth, or to embrace it.

In the nick of time, Ted Haggard says 'no' to sodomy laws... (November 15, 2005)

Ted Haggard is Senior Pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and President of the National Association of Evangelicals. During an interview a few weeks ago, he said (thanks, David Talcott):

I think some issues should have rules within the church. For instance, we believe within the church that sexuality should be only between a married man and a woman. But in civil law, I would never want that inculcated.... There are many things that I teach in the church that I would never want integrated into civil law.... Two consenting adults in a bedroom is not really the role of the state.

Pastor Haggard goes further...

After initial denial, Haggard admits gay massage and meth purchase...

We started getting tons of hits from Google this afternoon for this post made on November 15, 2005, and this post from April 1, 2006. Then, tonight I noticed we're getting traffic from a link on Daily Kos under a post detailing Ted Haggard's resignation as President of the National Association of Evangelicals and his taking a leave of absence as Senior Pastor of New Life in Colorado Springs.

After denying the charges, initially, Haggard is now admitting that he paid a sodomite prostitute to give him a massage and purchased meth from him. But he denies having "sex" with the man and said he didn't actually use the meth, but threw it out.

Haggard is on administrative leave from New Life while an investigatory committee of local pastors weighs the charges.

Lord, have mercy.

Archbishop of Canterbury: "The divinity of Christ seems so constituent of what the church is..."

Make no mistake about it, if any Nigerian priests are in ECUSA and do not remove themselves, they will face ecclesiastical charges, because we are no longer in communion with ECUSA.

-Peter Akinola, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Nigeria

By no means everything is negotiable for me. I would not be happy if someone said: Let us discuss the divinity of Christ. That to me seems so constituent of what the Church is.

-Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury in his August 19, 2006 interview with Wim Houtman, Religion Editor of the Nederlands Dagblad

Above we see two who aren't agreed, and therefore cannot walk together. Both are confronting heresy and apostasy, but one aims to win while the other aims only to avoid losing.

A few months back, there were rumblings of the real possibility of the ECUSA being cut off from the worldwide Anglican communion, with UK Anglicans coming down on the other side. It was notable that this warning originated in Canterbury--the home of worldwide Anglicanism, historically. The warning came just prior to the 2006 75th General Convention of the ECUSA, held this past June.

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, sent a representative to meet with ECUSA leaders and to warn them that, unless they turned back from their present course, they would be responsible for schism in the worldwide Anglican communion, and that this would be a situation up with which the Archbishop of Canterbury would not put. Williams' message boiled down to this: Unless the ECUSA switched directions, Canterbury would be forced to choose sides, and their choice would be the Southern hemisphere--not the ECUSA, her sister communion across the pond.

This is the context within which to understand the present brouhaha over the Archbishop of Canterbury's purported change of mind concerning sodomy. Up until now, he's been known to be soft on sodomy...

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

The past few years there has been a growing division, bordering on fragmentation, of what used to be called the worldwide Anglican communion. The focal point of this division became the consecration in November 2003 of the Right Rev. Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson as the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire within the Anglican communion's American branch, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA).

Back in 1986 Robinson had divorced his wife and since 1989 has been living in a sodomitic relationship with New Hampshire state employee, Mark Andrews. His sexuality is not private, but very much a point of pride, and he seeks to lead others into the same shame he and Mr. Andrews bear--all this in the name of Jesus Christ and His Church.

A firestorm ensued and has continued to this day. For the most part, the breakdown has fallen along the lines of the northern and southern hemispheres, with the southern hemisphere--primarily Africa and the Diocese of Sydney in Australia--calling her northern sisters to repentance. Predictably, the vast majority of Anglicans today are members of southern hemisphere Anglican churches, so the Brits and Americans can't brush off the prophetic calls of Africa as they might otherwise be inclined.

As the ECUSA has hardened its position the past couple of years, steps have been taken by some churches and larger Anglican communions in the U.S. to sever fellowship with the ECUSA, transferring to various African communions where they would be in submission to church fathers of the African Anglican church.

This past week, a document surfaced that had been kept under wraps for the past couple of years...

Is it right or wrong for "God-fearing men" to call themselves "gay"...

July 25, I posted my initial piece explaining why I believe Christians ought not to allow the words 'sodomy' and 'sodomite' to be silenced by the homosexualist lobby. And principal among those reasons was my concern that referring to those who give themselves to same-sex carnal relations as "gay" is to abandon the association of perversion and shame that sodomy has carried to this point.

Today, I received the following E-mail from the same friend who started this discussion, and I post it here for discussion among our readers. To my way of thinking, his arguments prove my central thesis--that those who give up on 'sodomite' and use 'gay' instead are not willing to think and speak biblically concerning this particular sin.

Is a man who identifies himself as "gay" and continues to practice sodomy "godly?" And while he identifies himself as "gay" and engages in sodomy, should he be a member in good standing of a church?

Here's my friend's argument. Is it biblical?

Remember, I'm only an audience of one, but I have some good friends who consider themselves "gay" and are decent, upstanding men, even God-fearing (or church-attending). I consider them as "brothers" even though they are caught in a terrible sin cycle...

Canada sets the pace...

There is a shocking and supremely culpable naivete among those Christians of our day who are enamored with the libertarian solution and oppose laws against gambling, fornication, sodomy, adultery, and so forth. Have they ever read or considered Hosea 8:7?

For they have sown the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind.

Do we have to get back to the point where the men of our cities are demanding we turn over our houseguests for sodomitic rape before we look to the law to "restrain evildoers?"

Touchstone is a journal I recommend and subscribe to myself. Here's a piece that might disengage some of us from our stupor.

(Thanks, David.)

Libertarian rhapsodies...

Too late, my time has come,
Sends shivers down my spine, body's aching all the time.
Goodbye everybody-I've got to go. Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth.
Mama, ooh, I don't want to die, I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all... -Freddie Mercury, who died of AIDS twenty-six years later.

Recently, I exchanged E-mails with a friend who has written a book for Christians interested in the interface of public policy and faith. After reading the first quarter of it or so, I put it down and sadly wrote my friend telling him that I couldn't recommend his work due to any number of errors in the way he dealt with God's revelation in Scripture. There were many problems, but two stuck out.

First, in a chapter opposing the legislation of morality one section titled "Worshiping a God of Freedom" begins with this statement: "We worship a God who is concerned with freedom over virtually anything else." My response?

Really, dear brother, that is no god, but only an idol.

Not surprisingly, my friend goes on to argue against sodomy laws. By now, you know the arguments: sodomy was "not even a primary reason for the Sodomites' destruction"; sodomy is not the sin of evangelical churches (one wonders what church he attends, and how he could be so blind to those sitting in the pew next to him?); those who oppose sodomy are doing so out of self-righteousness; sodomites are engaging in "consensual acts" that hurt no one but themselves; and so on.

He states categorically that laws against sodomy are "not consistent with God's will." Ah, the glorious certitude...

In the old days, sympathy for cannibals didn't cut it...

Speaking of sympathy functioning as a trump card, here's an excerpt from the 1885 English court decision, Regina (The Queen) v. Dudley and Stephens. Better known as the Case of the Mignonette, Dudley and Stephens were put on trial and found guilty of murder after engaging in cannabalism. Shipwrecked and adrift in a dinghy on the high seas, Dudley and Stephens agreed to stab and eat the fourth survivor, a cabin boy named Richard Parker. Although he shared in the spoils, a third survivor, Edmund Brooks, didn't consent to the killing and thus was not tried for the crime.

It must not be supposed that in refusing to admit temptation to be an excuse for crime it is forgotten how terrible the temptation was; how awful the suffering; how hard in such trials to keep the judgment straight and the conduct pure. We are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy. But a man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse, though he might himself have yielded to it, nor allow compassion for the criminal to change or weaken in any manner the legal definition of the crime.

Truth and compassion existed in a largely harmonious relationship in the past, but in our time compassion has become malignant.

(Thanks, Dan.)

'Sodomy': responding to a critic...

It's taken a while to get around to it, but here are a few responses to one reader, James', comments on the two earlier posts, "Why 'sodomite' instead of 'gay' or 'homosexual'?" and "What exactly is "unnecessary offense to the Gospel?" I realize this discussion has been drawn out over quite a bit of time, but that's the nature of this wonderful time of year called "summer." Things take longer because other things interrupt. And I've been loving the interruptions.

So now, on with the responses.

James writes: In the comments section of the first post Mr. Bayly attempts to address comments made on another blog that he "did not take Sodom's explicitly stated sins very seriously." After reading the entirety of his post and what followed, it seemed very obvious that the person who made that comment was referring to Mr. Bayly's nearly complete ignoring of the Ezekiel text and almost total exaltation of the Jude text.

James, my purpose in what I've written has never been to give an historical analysis of all the sins of Sodom for which she was judged. Rather it has been to defend the church's historic use of the word 'sodomy' to designate same-sex carnal relations, and to establish that this was one of Sodom's central sins according to the text of Holy Scripture.

Homosexualists have spent decades promoting a revisionist interpretation of the Genesis account, seeking to remove sodomy from the list of sins God judged when He destroyed Sodom. And to that end, they emphasize all the sins of Sodom that have nothing to do with sexual immorality.

But again, my purpose is not to analyze Sodom and her sins. Rather, it's to defend the church's historic usage of the terms 'sodomy,' 'sodomitic,' and 'sodomite' as being faithful to the text of Scripture. That's what's under attack.

No one has ever denied the other sins of Sodom...

What exactly is "unnecessary offense to the Gospel"?

Or, what does Jay Leno know about Sodom that we've forgotten?

In response to the post, "Why 'sodomite' instead of 'gay' or 'homosexual'?" one reader objects, writing:

The use of 'sodomy' "provide(s) an unnecessary offense to the gospel.

I'm grateful we agree 'sodomy' is an offensive word. But why is it offensive, and is the offense bad or good?

For two thousands years Christians have used words with 'Sodom' as their root to refer to men copulating with men. And this use has always been offensive because it's explicitly reminded those reading or listening of what happened at Sodom--namely, God's destruction of Sodom by a fire from Heaven.

Make no mistake about it. That's the center of the issue. That's why I asked in my original post whether we are ashamed of God's judgment of the Sodomites? Or whether we are willing for that judgment to live on in our language as an example, warning those souls tempted by this sin?

If this association is not "Gospel," what is it? What exactly do I need to hear when my heart is unbelieving and I am having sex with other men?

Clearly, I need to hear the Gospel of God's judgment on the Sodomites, and God's forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ sent to cover that sin of mine.

Let me say this gently. I fear it's not our love for the Gospel and sinners that's caused us to drop this word that's been in use for 2,000 years. Rather, it's our indifference to the Gospel and our love for appearing sensitive, reasonable, and kind to the watching world.

Allen Bloom was right to point out that the only moral absolute left in America is the duty to get along with each other. This sickness has become a principle to Christians who think niceness is at the very top of the traits pious Christians will have.

But then how do we preach the Gospel while avoiding "offense?" Which offenses are "needless?" And what preacher of the Gospel in Scripture shows us this principle in action--John the Baptist? The first martyr, Stephen? The apostle Peter? Paul?

Why 'sodomite' instead of 'gay' or 'homosexual'?

One of my seminary professors who remains a dear friend just wrote taking issue with my use on this blog of the word 'sodomy' to refer to same-sex carnal knowledge:

I find your use of the word 'sodomites' a bit inaccurate, because the sin of Sodom was not solely homosexuality, but also (maybe primarily) lack of concern for the poor.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 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.

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.

I hear this objection frequently. One of my dearest friends told me several months ago that he thought my constant use of 'sodomy' and 'sodomites' made me look to our readers like I was a member of the lunatic fringe.

Well, I've thought carefully about it and I can't find another construction that is as helpful, spiritually, in referring to the practice of same-sex sexual intimacy. So if you're one of our readers who's inclined to give us a chance, maybe I'll be able to convince you that this is a usage we can't give up. Anyhow, what follows is my defense.

Growing up in an editor/writer's home, I'm very sensitive to language and I want to say at the outset that my use of 'sodomy' is intentional. Until recently I never used the word. Instead, I spoke of the unrepentant sodomite as "gay" and the repentant sodomite who had put his faith in Jesus Christ as someone "tempted by same-sex intimacy." A very long construction, that last one, but it has the merit of not identifying a man as if he were constantly doing something that is a sin. Also, it avoids labeling the man in such a way as to communicate that this form of sexual temptation is central to his personal identity.

I still refer to those "tempted by same-sex intimacy," but instead of 'gay' or 'homosexual' I now speak of 'sodomy' and 'sodomites'. Why?

Mainline sodomites and evangelical feminists: Who really loves Jesus?

The 2006 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) met a few weeks ago and approved a measure that clears the way for practicing homosexuals to be ordained and installed as pastors and elders of the church. Many news organizations covered this event, but no one commented on the most newsworthy aspect of this radical step--namely, that the measure was itself the product of a Task Force that included a number of evangelicals, and that the evangelicals were instrumental in selling this proposal to the church. How does it happen that evangelicals promote the normalization of sodomy and advocate a plan that clears the way for sodomites to shepherd God's flock? There's a lesson here--a very important lesson--particularly for evangelicals who think all that's important is that people "love Jesus" and have prayed the sinner's prayer. Please read on...

Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (2 John 1:5-11)

The late Elizabeth Achtemeier was adjunct professor of Bible and homiletics at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia and served on the board of Presbyterians Pro-Life, a reform organization within the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA). Particularly because of her courageous opposition to some of the most poisonous aspects of feminism within mainline Presbyterianism, it came as no surprise that Elizabeth was appointed to the PC(USA) General Assembly's blue ribbon Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity as a representative of those on the evangelical end of the denominational spectrum.

This so-called "PUP Task Force" was formed several years ago to try to mediate the chronic tensions over sodomy that have split the PC(USA) since the mid-seventies. The denomination made a conscious effort to balance the membership of the PUP Task Force between those who still hold to Scripture's condemnations of sodomy and those who have rejected Scripture's condemnations and demand the Church endorse sodomy by accepting practicing sodomites as members and placing them in the office of pastor and elder.

When Elizabeth died in the middle of the Task Force's work, her son Mark Achtemeier, a PC(USA) seminary professor teaching systematic theology at Dubuque Theological Seminary, was appointed to take her place and he served on the Task Force through the completion of its work this past year. The Task Force brought a number of recommendations to the (national) General Assembly this year, all of which were carefully crafted to end the divisive battle over the normalization of sodomy.

Up until this time, those seeking to normalize sodomy and to ordain sodomites to the offices of pastor and elder had to contend with PC(USA) denominational standards that forbade such ordinations. If churches defied these standards, they could be brought up on charges, although through the years a variety of technicalities were used to escape accountability. True, the denomination's definitive guidance was a roadblock to those seeking to normalize sodomy, but the practice across the country was a far cry from that definitive guidance. Lesbians and gays were active at all levels of the church as members, leaders, and officers, and there was little accountability for those who flaunted their rebellion against God's Word.

Yet even as they rebelled against Scripture's doctrine of sexuality and got away with only a few slaps on the wrist, the sodomy lobby worked feverishly to change church law so that sexual perversion would no longer be formally condemned and informally overlooked, but positively celebrated. Nothing less would do. Thus for years every level of church government found its time consumed by the battle, and people grew so weary of the controversy that the PUP Task Force was appointed and given a mandate to find a way out of the quagmire.

This year's national General Assembly was D-day, and the Task Force released its recommendations a few months before the Assembly so there would be plenty of time for commissioners to weigh its recommendations before the assembly convened. When those with biblical commitments saw the report and read through its recommendations, they were sickened to see that the Task Force had thrown in the towel and called it quits. Assuming the General Assembly adopted the Task Force recommendations (which it now has), they knew the definitive guidance would become obsolete. Rather, local rule would prevail. True, in theory this meant conservative churches and presbyteries could enforce the definitive guidance if they so chose, but only within their own jurisdiction. Meanwhile, liberal churches and presbyteries would be cut loose to do as they thought best--including ordaining and installing self-affirming active sodomites as pastors and elders. Really, the recommendations amounted to a ceding of the historic Presbyterian principle of connectionalism to the all-American ecclesiastical default of congregationalism.

But as shocking as the parameters of the surrender were, the shock turned into disbelief when the names of those who had signed on to the surrender included a number of evangelicals, including Elizabeth Achtemeier's son, Mark. People were flabbergasted. How could Elizabeth's son betray Scripture and the souls under his protection in this way? Did he care nothing for those tempted by same-sex intimacy? Was he really prepared to join the long line of self-proclaimed prophets who cry "Peace, peace" where there is no peace? As the smoke cleared, there was no denying that Mark Achtemeier had been co-opted by the sodomites...

Spiritual qualifications for worship leaders: the shape of things to come...

The federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a ruling confirming the punishment of Protestant chaplain, William Akridge, for not allowing an open sodomite to lead the praise band in the Protestant worship services at Ohio's Madison Correctional Institution.

Akridge, a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, explained his actions: "The leaders that the chaplain selects implicitly implies an endorsement and approval of the lifestyle of the selected leaders. (Having a sodomite as our praise band leader) would violate my conscience and make me guilty in the sight of God."

Pro-sodomy Episcopal bishop says "Schism is a greater sin than heresy"...

Like all the mainline denominations, Episcopalians are fighting over whether or not sodomy is sin, as well as whether sodomites should be elevated to rule as bishops. Interestingly, some of the most aggressive advocates of sodomy are not yet ready to see sodomites become bishops, not because they are unrepentant in their sin, but because of a broadly shared concern that electing another sodomite to the bishopric will split their Anglican communion worldwide. The Africans have made it clear they won't stand for it and many biblical Episcopalians here in these United States are threatening to leave the denomination.

This is the context for an article that ran in the May 5, 2006 New York Times titled "Episcopalians Divide Again Over Electing Gay Bishop" in which Bishop Kirk S. Smith of the diocese of Arizona is quoted saying, "My No. 1 directive as a bishop is the unity of church, because schism is a greater sin than heresy."

The bad bishop is, of course, an advocate of sodomy, as well as of sodomites being promoted to the office of bishop. But recognizing the divisiveness of his position, he thinks it's better to delay electing a sodomite to the bishopric for a few years. "I think everyone will breathe a sigh of relief if it's not a gay candidate, and that's sad." Thus, Bishop Smith says it's a "heresy" to call sodomites to repent and to oppose their elevation to the office of bishop.

But the true believer knows there can never be peace or unity where the doctrine of Christ or the holiness without which no man will see God is despised. If a man in the church in Galatia continued in his error, demanding Gentiles be circumcised and men earn their salvation, Paul called down God's curse upon him because he was opposing the glory of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. "Let him be anathema!" Paul says.

And clearly Paul would remind those who advocate sodomy today of the great separation of fire and brimstone God rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sexual perversion...

AIDS as Divine Judgment: A personal note....

Those who deny the connection between human catastrophe and divine judgment often throw out the presence of "innocents" among the victims of catastrophe as proof the catastrophe could not be related to judgment.

As a hemophiliac who saw half the hemophiliacs of his generation die from AIDS (contracted from exposure to contaminated blood), I have little trouble making that connection.

By God's grace I was spared that illness, though I did receive another blood-born disease (HCV) often linked to illicit behaviour. Nor do I hesitate to view HCV as God's judgment on sexual profligacy and drug addiction.

But had I come down with AIDS, that would not have lessened the obvious link between AIDS and God's judgment on sodomy. Jonah's shipmates weren't running from God yet they suffered God's judgment on his sin. Nor were Lot's sons-in-law Sodomites in the transitive sense of the verb. But they died with those who were.

Few of the hemophiliacs I knew who died of AIDS would have hesitated to link AIDS to sodomy. In fact, I suspect some of their families resented sodomites for spreading the disease and selling blood which infected others with their disease. Nor would those who were Christians have blinked at understanding AIDS as divine judgment on sodomy.

Finally, had I come down with AIDS, it would have been quite possible to understand it as God's work in my life calling me away from sin. Indirectly, it could have been judgment. Indirectly, my HCV is judgment. It is the product of sin in general, and of my own sin in particular. God is chastising me as a son in accord with His promise in Hebrews 12. But it is not direct judgment of a sinful act.

When God allows the act of sin itself to carry with it the penalty of death, the man who denies any link to divine judgment is simply a fool.

Preaching against effeminancy will become a hate crime...

Some of our readers have been confused by my criticism of Christian leaders who call for the repeal of state and federal anti-sodomy laws. They've wondered why such laws are necessary and whether my support for them isn't, deep down, an indication of some basic imbalance in my psyche--maybe even homophobia?

Well, down through the centuries there have been many reasons western societies have banned sodomy. For instance, similar to fornication, adultery, and prostitution, sodomy is a seedbed for disease. And when the diseased continue in their promiscuity, they cause public health disasters.

Nature's God created sexual intimacy in such a way that it rewards lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual unions--and punishes promiscuity of all sorts. No matter how much money is thrown at the problem, there still is no synthetic prophylactic, exercise regimen, vaccination, or pill that will protect the sexually promiscuous from the destruction of their health that nature's God has ordained as the consequence of their sin. Heterosexual monogamy produces life; promiscuity and sodomy produce death.

Until recently, the laws of the western world penalized sexual promiscuity to the end that sexually transmitted diseases would not increase and the deaths such diseases caused would decline. Yet today, when the fatal consequences of sexual promiscuity are more clear than at any time in prior history, the very form of promiscuity with the most direct causal relationship to death has been normalized.

While those infected with AIDS died by the millions around the world, the direct cause of those deaths--sexual, and particularly sodomitic, promiscuity--grew by leaps and bounds. But rather than enforcing the laws already on the books written expressly for the purpose of protecting society against such outbreaks of contagious disease, the western world's civil authorities fell all over one another to repeal those laws.

Sodomy causes AIDS? Well, if we remove the stigma associated with sodomy, maybe it will cause sodomites to take pride in who they are and to act in a more self-interested, enlightened way?

"Gay adoption" and the "transgendered" in the quiet backwaters of Indiana...

In the past couple of weeks, our congregation has been involved in bearing witness to our public servants in two areas: one, a local city ordinance that was passed this last week by our Bloomington City Council raising "gender identity" into a protected status equal to race, age, religion, and so forth. They'd already raised "sexual orientation" into protected status, but deemed that insufficient protection for various souls, particularly the "transgendered." Despite our witness at all three meetings where the ordinance was read and debated, it passed unanimously. Pastor Dave Curell engaged the city fathers in an E-mail correspondence that I'm hopeful can be put up here on the blog soon, but will first need some formatting.

Then the other shoe dropped. This same week the Indianapolis Star had a very large headline across the front page announcing that the Indiana Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of what the Indy Star called "gay adoption." The ruling was two to one, with an excellent dissent written by Judge Ted Najam. I've read the majority opinion and it's pure legal casuistry--all kinds of closely reasoned arguments making it appear that their ruling is only an absolutely necessary deduction from the plain meaning of adoption legislation passed by the Indiana legislature. But anyone who knows the Indiana legislative climate will recognize that as a joke.

Before reading anything about the decision and knowing who the judges were, I submitted the following letter to the editor of the Indy Star. Here's the letter, which today was responded to by three letters to the editor you can find here, here, and here.

Are you serving faithfully as salt and light in your community, steadfastly proclaiming both God's 'yes' and His 'no'? Or have you lost your savor, having convinced yourself that doctrine and truth don't really matter--only friendship evangelism and random acts of human kindness.

To the Editor:

The big news today? The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of "gay adoption," two judges in the majority and one dissenting. And although I don't yet know the names of any of the three judges, one thing is clear: two judges have defied nature and nature's God, while the third fears God and loves the citizens of the state of Indiana--particularly her children...

Sodomy and pastoral care...

(Note: This article was written about fourteen years ago, back when I was a pastor in the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA). Thirteen years ago, the session (elders) of the two churches I served as pastor decided to leave the PC(USA) and enter the PCA, a conservative and biblical denomination. Two of the most significant reasons for the sessions' decision were the PC(USA)'s approval of abortion and it's refusal to say God's no to sexual sin in general, but particularly sodomy.

So given its age, parts of this article are dated. But its overall thrust remains, I think, an accurate statement of many of the issues surrounding the debate over sodomy both in the evangelical world, the mainline world, and Western culture. What's changed is that, now, evangelical leaders are calling for the legalization of sodomy--something that wasn't happening back when I originally wrote this.)

The Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns Lobby, AIDS, and a Strategy for Pastoral Care

Give me chastity and continency--but not yet! -St. Augustine

Nothing polarizes the members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) more thoroughly than a discussion of sodomy, yet each General Assembly returns to this subject year after year, forced by lower judicatories to reconsider its previous decisions against the ordination of practicing sodomites. Monday Morning, a biweekly magazine for Presbyterian pastors [now defunct], publishes more articles on this subject than any other, save only abortion. Laypeople, a bit removed from the fracas, commonly express their "wait and see" attitude toward their future commitment to the PC(USA) with comments such as, "If they start ordaining homosexuals, that's it; I'm out of here."

The Non-Negotiable Issue

It's clear that many people within the PC(USA) look at this issue of sodomy as a non-negotiable; those on one side join with the Chapter 9 group, Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (PLGC), in seeking an ecclesiastical endorsement of sodomite practice by the denomination, while those on the other side make it quite clear that, as far as they're concerned, this matter is not even open to discussion; sodomy is sin. Period...

Christian leaders seek repeal of anti-sodomy laws...

(Note from Tim Bayly: As I've noted in recent posts concerning Ted Haggard's advocacy of the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that are already on the books of our nation and states, other prominent Christians have blazed the trail he is on. One I'm especially aware of is Dr. David C. Jones who is a member of my own Ohio Valley Presbytery and served for many years as a professor at our denomination's seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary. Some years back I sent the following letter protesting Dr. Jones' position. In response to the letter I received a quite-graceful response from Dr. Jones and another letter from Covenant's president, Bryan Chapell. But neither of them responded to the substance of my letter. And so, the argument I make below remains my conviction about all those Christians leaders who seek the repeal of anti-sodomy laws in the name of Christian compassion.)

March 9, 2001

Rev. Dr. David C. Jones
Covenant Theological Seminary
12330 Conway Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63141-8697

Dear Dr. Jones,

At some point this past year, I came across your comments published in Christianity Today (October 4, 1999) arguing that "(the practice of sodomy) is not the state's business," that sodomy ought to be made legal, and that sodomites deserve to have their civil rights protected because no one made in God's image ought to be "put down" by "jokes or sneers or whatever..."

What do Ted Haggard and N. T. Wright have in common...

(Note from Tim Bayly: In all the discussion concerning Bishop N. T. Wright's way of speaking, it's been implied and directly stated that his way of speaking is the Anglican or the scholarly or the English way, and that those who lack appreciation for it are at least provincial, and at worst, ignorant fools. Well, some months back I posted the following article pointing out how the way this evangelical megachurch pastor from Colorado Springs speaks is relativistic equivocation--again, on the sin of sodomy.

The disease of cavilling at sodomy is quite contagious, infecting not only the Western world's intellectuals, but also Christian pastors. It's spread far beyond the sphere of the Bishop of Durham. If you've followed the discussion of Bishop Wright's equivocations on Australian National Radio, check out the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard.)

Ted Haggard is Senior Pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and President of the National Association of Evangelicals. During an interview a few weeks ago, he said (thanks, David Talcott):

I think some issues should have rules within the church. For instance, we believe within the church that sexuality should be only between a married man and a woman. But in civil law, I would never want that inculcated.... There are many things that I teach in the church that I would never want integrated into civil law.... Two consenting adults in a bedroom is not really the role of the state.

Pastor Haggard goes further, claiming that it is his close study of the book of Galatians that has brought him to these conclusions:

Have they no shame?

After last week's attack on several men in a homosexual bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts US Representative Barny Frank and Senator Ted Kennedy immediately sought federal hate crime legislation covering attacks on homosexuals.

Where, one might ask, were Messrs. Kennedy and Frank in 1999 when Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth had seven members killed and many more wounded? Where were they in 2003 when St. Paul's in Rochester Hills, MI, had one killed and seven wounded? Or in 1999 when the Korean United Methodist Church in Bloomington, IN, was attacked by a white supremacist with one killed?

Make no mistake about it, hate crime legislation truly deals with hate, but not the hate of attackers. Instead, such legislation flows from the hatred of the wicked for the innocent. It reveals the repugnance of ordinary human life--those non-privileged classes of people whose murders are ordinary murders, exempt from federal protection--to the framers of such legislation. We leave the hatred of Frank and Kennedy for innocent babies in their mother's wombs to God to avenge. Meanwhile, all murder flows from hatred and no murderer deserves greater opprobrium than another.

The halls of human justice are established to deal with hate crimes. No other form of crime exists.

Sodomite non-marriage: Scottish presbyterians will have none of it...

Yesterday, across the United Kingdom the decadent celebrated the new civil approval for sodomite non-marriage known as the Civil Partnerships Act. Already, around seven-hundred non-marriage ceremonies for sodomite couples have been held with pride of position belonging to Sir Elton John and his longtime companion, David Furnish.

Not forty years ago, sodomy was a crime across the UK. Now it's a party and Sir Elton's was the largest with Liz Hurley, Hugh Grant, Donatella Versace, Claudia Schiffer, Victoria Beckham (David's wife), Sixties icon Lulu, Ringo Starr, Elvis Costello, Tim Burton and his wife Helena Bonham-Carter, Gordon Ramsey, Michael Caine, Sharon Stone, Michael Parkinson, Matt Lucas, Boris Becker, Nick Faldo, Greg Rusedski and English cricket captain Michael Vaughan among the throng in attendance.

But Scotland's Western Isles are not joining in the festivities. The Isles' councillors are supporting their registrars who have refused to have any part in the non-marriage ceremonies. So far none of the Isles' twenty-four thousand or so inhabitants have officially requested the ceremony but the test case seems inevitable. Meanwhile, stout Presbyterians in the north and orthodox Roman Catholics in the south are agreed in their opposition, so the matter may come to a head with the European Union having the final say. (Ever notice how the EU functions across Europte in much the same decadent homogenizing way our own Supreme Court does across these United States?)

Rev Tim McGlynn, a pastor in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in Scalpay, put it this way: "To try and force (the registrars) to do something they think is immoral would be unjust. But that is what is being advanced by people who are what I call bigoted secularists. The position on the isles is that the people in positions in power are far more likely to personally have a faith which is guiding the things that they do."

For the other side, an anonymous sodomite is quoted saying, "I can't give my name because the islands are the kind of place where you just can't and it would cause a huge fuss. You would be regarded as bringing shame on your village and your island. I am very unhappy about what they have decided, but in a way I'm not surprised, we are years behind the rest of the country. This is discrimination. How come these ceremonies will be OK in Glasgow and not in Barra? It is absolutely wrong. I can imagine someone just having a ceremony on one of the beaches and defying anyone to stop us."

Sodomy advocate Calum Irving, director of sodomite charity Stonewall Scotland, threatened the Western Isles council with an appeal under European human rights law.

As such progress continues to unfold across the Western world, let's all remember that the origin of sodomy laws in the Western world has always been Christian love both for those tempted by immorality and their victims. How sad, then, that today we have women and children abandoned by no-fault divorce, STDs by the boatload, unborn children murdered by the tens of millions per year, millions dying by AIDS; and now, just in the nick of time to save us all, sodomite non-marriage.

How pathetic that evangelical Christian pastors and seminary professors (see here and here) have lent their support to this state of affairs, calling for the repeal of sodomy laws across these United States. Who needs the Supreme Court's judicial rulings when such ecclesiastical leaders are at work boring through the sill of the foundation?

(Thanks, Bill.)

Three cheers for the Appellate Division of NY Supreme Court...

(Note from Tim Bayly: I made several errors in this post, both of which are pointed out in a comment made by Rev. Dan Reuter below. Please read his comment.)

Last week, New York's Supreme Court upheld state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Below is an excerpt of their decision. Note, again, that in our feminist (and increasingly queer) culture, biology obstinately continues to be destiny, and arguments about leadership, marriage, procreation, women combatants in the military, etc. are often best won simply by appeal to the biological realities of the male and female sex.

Note the court actually speaks of "sexual intercourse," "pregnancy," "childbirth," "biology," and "procreation" saying it's appropriate for civil law to be grounded in these realities.

Christians would do well to follow the court's lead as we serve as Christ's salt and light in an increasingly blinded and unutterably dark culture. And one of the first places such biblical doctrines need to be restored is the Church where, for too long, the unitive and procreative functions of marriage have been separated--as if your wife can be your best friend while making a lifestyle choice not to be the mother of your children--or vice versa, with the husband.

The [section of the New York Law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman] provisions regarding marriage do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution (NY Const art I, sec. 6, sec. 11). Marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is based upon important public policy considerations and has been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right (Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 383 [1978]; Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 US 535, 541 [1942]; see also Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 720 [1997]; Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 [1965]). These considerations are based on innate, complementary, procreative [*7]roles, a function of biology, not mere legal rights. "[T]he reasons justifying the civil marriage laws are inextricably linked to the fact that human sexual intercourse between a man and a woman frequently results in pregnancy and childbirth" (Goodridge, 440 Mass at 357 n 1, 798 NE2d at 979 n 1 [Sosman, J., dissenting]).

(Thanks, David Talcott.)

Sodomy and religious freedom...

Several years ago I was speaking to Ken Sande and he told me of the growing movement in Canada to prosecute Christian pastors, churches, bookstores, etc. who proclaimed Scripture's doctrine of sexuality, particularly its condemnation of sodomy. Sande's organization, Peacemakers was at that time involved in providing legal counsel for Canadian Christians under such attack.

Since then, my own congregation has had occasion to use the services of another Christian legal organization, the Alliance Defense Fund, and I commend them to our readers for their godly work defending the free exercise of religion.

A good example of that work is their involvement in the notorious case of the Swedish pastor, Ake Green, whose prosecution for preaching Scripture's truths concerning sexuality is before Sweden's supreme court. (Here's the text of Pastor Green's sermon.)

Here are the details concerning Pastor Green's case as well as a call to prayer published by the Alliance Defense Fund. And here is where you may be kept abreast of other religious freedom cases the ADF considers noteworthy. I warmly commend the ADF to our good readers, both for their financial and prayer support, and also their training--those who are in the legal profession, that is.

Why Christians should not seek the repeal of sodomy laws...

The following was written over a year ago as my own personal mental discipline in response to a certain teaching elder within my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, coming out in a prominent national forum in favor of the repeal of all sodomy laws across our country. I have not published these thoughts on the blog or in any other forum. Now, though, I am putting them on this blog to assist others in fighting against this betrayal of God's Truth and the souls and lives of those vulnerable to sodomy. I would welcome E-mails from any who have additional sources or arguments to add strengthening this case.

Scripture:

Genesis 2:20-25 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

God ordained the nature and meaning of sexuality prior to the Fall, and no human authority may separate what God has joined together: sex is to be within species and heterosexual (between man and woman). This is a universal truth rooted in the Creation Order and therefore binding on all men across all time. This is the teaching of Genesis 2 and other texts having to do with sexuality, and marriage only builds upon what Genesis 2 declares.

Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.

As the Westminster Standards teach, sodomy is prohibited by the Seventh Commandment. If, despite the teaching of this Commandment, the man of God is justified in opposing and seeking the repeal of the civil authority's laws proscribing sodomy, are there any sins against this Commandment the civil authority may proscribe?

Sodomy, abortion, Rwanda, and general revelation...

While we've not failed to argue the reformed distinction between general and special revelation--that general revelation is sufficient to condemn while special revelation alone leads to saving faith in Jesus Christ--there is a current within reformed churches today that uses this distinction to provide comfort for what appears to us to be heartlessness toward our neighbors. The illogic goes something like this:

If pagans choose to kill their unborn (or newly born) children, they do so because God has given them over. Who are we to intervene?

If pagans choose to copulate like alley cats, they do so because God has given them over. Why should we oppose what God has decreed?

If pagans choose to sterilize their marital love, more power to God's covenant people who will have lots of children, teach them how to think and lead, and take over our nation.

If pagans choose to sodomize one another, what business is that of ours? We can't expect them to acknowledge, let alone follow, God's Law. Let the civil authority handle such matters in the way best calculated to preserve peace among us; if sodomites come to Christ, they will see the error of their ways and repent.

It is such reasoning that allows reformed and evangelical leaders to argue in favor of the repeal of all laws opposing sodomy across our nation. What are we to say to them...

Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws...

Four Massachusetts state legislators have introduced a bill labelled An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes which would soften state penalties against the "archaic crime" of bestiality.

Speaking quite seriously, I wonder whether Ted Haggard and David Jones would support each of these initiatives? By their own logic, my honest guess is that their only objection would be that these repeals don't go far enough. In addition to softening the penalties for bestiality, Senate Bill 938 would repeal the following "archaic laws":

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Section 14 Adultery
A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Section 18 Fornication
Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

Section 36 Blasphemy
Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Thanks, Scott.

In the nick of time, Ted Haggard says 'no' to sodomy laws...

Ted Haggard is Senior Pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and President of the National Association of Evangelicals. During an interview a few weeks ago, he said (thanks, David Talcott):

I think some issues should have rules within the church. For instance, we believe within the church that sexuality should be only between a married man and a woman. But in civil law, I would never want that inculcated.... There are many things that I teach in the church that I would never want integrated into civil law.... Two consenting adults in a bedroom is not really the role of the state.

Pastor Haggard goes further, claiming that it is his close study of the book of Galatians that has brought him to these conclusions:

This book reflects the crisis that America is in right now. Right now it's trying to decide what to do about the law, and how to use the law to encourage people to be more moral or whether the law should ever be used to encourage people to be more moral--or example, the Lawrence decision that outlawed anti-sodomy laws across the country.

That was the discussion of Galatians, whether or not the law can be used to help people be better people. I don't want to take a purely spiritual argument and try to impose it on civil law, but I do think Christians have to wrestle with it, because the easiest way for us to appease our own conscience is to pass a civil law. That is the argument of the Judaizers when they came from Jerusalem and said to the church at Galatia that they needed to have higher standards. The apostle Paul shot back, and he said, "No, these are Gentiles that have been saved; they don't live according to the same standards as the Jews that have been saved."

So Ted Haggard joins PCA seminary professor, David Jones (see here and here), saying that laws that have been on the books of western nations for millenia have been all wrong. According to Haggard, sodomy is not something the state should outlaw because what "two consenting adults" do in the privacy of "a bedroom is not really the role of the state."

Akinola my hero...

Nigerian Anglican primate, Archishop Peter Akinola, has called for the suspension of the Church of England from the worldwide Anglican communion due to her anticipated endorsement of same-sex covenant unions for her priests. Akinola has often shown himself a man of the Word in the past few years, and again proves as much. He leads between sixteen and eighteen million Nigerian Anglicans.

Santorum on Boston....

Senator Rick Santorum is taking lumps even from conservatives for suggesting that Boston's "academic, political and cultural liberalism" may have created an atmosphere of moral relativism which permitted the priest/pederasty scandal to burgeon there.

Santorum wrote in his 2002 column:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Santorum's column recently entered public consciousness when Senator Edward Kennedy attacked it Wednesday in a speech on the Senate floor.

In the hours since, several conservative blogs have shied away from Santorum, with at least one calling on Santorum to retract the accusation.

Arguments against the Santorum speech have focused on statistical comparisons of Boston's pederasty rate vis a vis other Roman Catholic dioceses. While Boston apparently ranked among the top ten American Roman Catholic dioceses in rate of offenses in the recent pederasty scandals, other less conservative (and much smaller) dioceses ranked higher while several dioceses in equally liberal cities ranked much lower. See statistical analyses here and here.

Why conservatives are running and hiding from the Santorum claim is a mystery to me. Do they fear a few selective statistics so much that they'll throw in the towel on common sense rather than engage in defense of Santorum? Is taking on Boston or Ted Kennedy too frightening a proposition?

Is there a link between acceptance of pederasty and education? Between winking at sodomy and moral relativism? Apparently those who make their living betting on such linkages think so. Here is Loyola Marymount Law School professor Stan Goldman quoted in a February Reuters article on what jury experts would look for in choosing jurors for Michael Jackson's trial on child molestation charges:

Jackson's attorneys may look for jurors who have advanced degrees, critical thinkers who question authority. The perfect Defence juror may be "a left-winger who just moved from San Francisco with a lot of education and who is willing to forgive Michael Jackson his idiosyncrasies," Goldman said.

Santorum may be the village fool in the eyes of the Washington Post and the Boston Globe for making such a connection, but I wouldn't be surprised if both papers printed this February Reuters report on the Jackson jury selection process which makes essentially the same connection Santorum made in his article.

Apparently, we're simply to trust the editorial boards of the Globe and the Post who assure us it couldn't be so. But let me ask you a question, if you're on trial for pederasty, do you want the Globe's editorial staff choosing a jury for you filled with midwestern farmers, or do you want a bunch of big-city academics who question authority and are willing to forgive pederast "idiosyncrasies"?

A Heavenly Sense of Irony?

Dad used to think it marvelously ironic that creationist Wheaton College was the recipient of a magnificently-preserved ice age mastodon dug from the clay pits of Glen Ellyn, Illinois. He took glee in pointing out the mastodon in its full, standing-in-a-diorama-in-Wheaton's-science-building splendor to visitors from out of town.

In the same way, this sad tale rises above the level of mundane lesbian jealousy with the recent inclusion of a chapter by the attempted murderess in an anthology on Discovering Biblical Equality published by InterVarsity Press.

Ironically, Judy Brown's Alford plea conviction for the attempted murder of Rev. Ted Smart came nearly a year prior to IVP's late 2004/early 2005 publication of Discovering Biblical Equality containing her contribution titled, "God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor."

The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities provides this description of Discovering Biblical Equality,

The full-scale complementarian critique of evangelical feminism, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has gone unanswered for well over a decade. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius, with the able assistance of Gordon D. Fee, have worked to redress this lacuna by assembling a team of twenty-s