Modern Culture Has New Ways to Persecute the Church

  

(This was written in 2022—update follows)

 Most people don't scroll through their Twitter feed thinking a few simple clicks will change their life. But for Birmingham Pastor Chris Hodges, a handful of "likes" were all it took to make the biggest church in Alabama disappear from there.

 

A little explanation is in order here:  You can lose your lease a lot of ways -- if you fall behind on payments, abuse the property, or follow conservative media. Like most people Chris Hodges probably didn't think a quick tap of support for posts on Donald Trump or China's role in the coronavirus would amount to much of anything.

 

Turns out, he was wrong. A local English teacher decided to catalogue Hodges's "likes" and share them with the press (how did she get access to that? Hmm.) Little did anyone know, it would be the beginning of the end of the church's services at two local high schools.

"I do not attend Church of the Highlands," teacher Jasmine Clisby said openly. And, she insisted, "I can't see into Pastor Chris Hodges's heart." But his support for what she considered "culturally insensitive" views is "troubling." "I would be upset if it comes off as me judging him," she said without a hint of irony. "I'm not saying he's a racist." But thanks to her smear campaign, the Birmingham Board of Education, effectively, is saying that.

On Tuesday night, members voted to abruptly terminate the church's lease -- ending a six-year relationship that brought the city almost a million dollars in revenue. Thanks to this ridiculous complaint, Parker and Woodlawn High Schools will no longer be home to a diverse congregation of 60,000.

 

But unfortunately for the needy people of Alabama, that's just the beginning. Because of this manufactured controversy, the church's Christ Health Clinic will also be banned from operating, according to the Birmingham Housing Authority, who also decided Monday to ban volunteer workers.

 

"Commissioners agreed," their statement said, "that Pastor Hodges's views do not reflect those of [the Housing authority] and its residents... HABD and Campus of Hope staff will continue to work with other faith-based organizations in the community to identify resources that will replace the services that were provided."

Starting immediately, the church is banned from the city's public housing communities. That means the church will not be able to give out free COVID testing, no more free mentoring, health, or social service ministry -- all because Pastor Chris dared to do what millions of Americans do every day: engage on social media.

Even more incredibly, both councils went ahead with these tactics despite the pastor's sincere apologies -- which, in most people's opinion, weren't even necessary! And yet, Pastor Hodges did the humble and gracious thing, telling his congregation -- and the community -- that he was sorry for any hurt he'd caused. He called it a mistake. He said he owned it. He pledged to never mindlessly scroll again and explained how he was trying to use his influence to heal the hurts of these difficult times.

 

None of that mattered to the opposition, who not only ignored Pastor Chris' work in their neighborhoods but the church's standing in the minority community. At least a third of the Highlands' congregations are black and Hispanic.

If anything, Hodges was respected for fighting for the disenfranchised, for preaching about healing and reconciliation. As recently as last Sunday, he called the city to mutual understanding, peace, and prayer. But in this "cancel culture," those 20 years of bridge-building don't matter to those bent on burning down any platform but their own.

And unfortunately for Birmingham, their intolerance doesn't just affect the Church of the Highlands. It affects many hurting neighborhoods, who leaned on Church of the Highlands for help it couldn't get anywhere else.

These are the same people the opposition wants us to believe they care about: the children, minorities, and poor. But in the end, we know -- they'll always care about punishing Christians more. We've seen it in the adoption debate, the foster care debate, even the virus outreach. Now, to no one's surprise, they're willing to let Birmingham families suffer over a handful of "likes."

 

Imagine if we held everyone by that standard. If we combed through these public servants' accounts, what would we find? Political objectivity, or the bias and bitterness that's led to these baseless attacks? "I would love for you," Pastor Hodges urged, "to not just look at a microscopic zoom-in but look at the totality of 37 years of ministry and 19 years as a church. If you look at that, it will be abundantly clear that we value every person."

 

Unfortunately for Birmingham and so many others, the persecutors cannot say the same.

 

Acknowledgements:  The Family Research Council, and Prophecy News Watch

 

Update: Church of the Highlands is still around, but in five other campuses in or around Birmingham, including its gigantic auditorium (which, in seating capacity, is tied with Joel Osteen’s Lakewood auditorium in Houston, TX). Chris Hodges has stepped down from lead pastor, but is still an Elder along with several others. They also have Highlands College, a ministry training school, along with local ministries, such as AA and NA, etc.

 

There is still controversy: Robert Morris, a Texas megachurch pastor who was also an overseer (and part-time speaker) at Church of the Highlands, was accused of sexual misconduct with a child for years in Texas in 2024. He resigned his position as overseer at Church of the Highlands, and they are instituting a due diligence process on him.

 

So parties on both for, and against Christianity, have proven what we all knew--we are all sinners, and need to avoid hell, the just place for our sins. Jesus talked about hell quite a bit, including the statement (Matthew 7:13ff) that the majority of people would go there. People have deceived themselves. I have many blogs on this obviously important subject.

 

Ministry Among Drug Runners in the Colombian Jungle

 

David and Gloria Martinez moved deep into the Choco area in 2005 in the dangerous country of Colombia to share the gospel, give Bibles, and plant churches.  They studied the local language and learned to live off the land, building relationships among the region’s large Afro-Colombian population, and with numerous indigenous people.  They eventually learned to live in close proximity to right-wing paramilitary groups, and  the National Liberation Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC).  They began to train church leaders and establish churches in the area.  Many came to faith in Christ.   “That’s when it got difficult,” Gloria said.  “The devil was mad; we were making an impact.  So the spiritual attacks started; the witchcraft and the different armed groups started to intervene.”  The couple had a 9-month-old daughter at the time, so they began imploring God for protection. 

 

They had met while attending a missionary school in central Colombia.  David felt called to bring the Gospel to the jungle.  And Gloria, his girlfriend at the time, had already visited Choco on a short-term mission trip.  After their marriage in 2004, they moved to Choco, a jungle area, one of the poorest regions in Colombia—and it was a hub of violence and drug trafficking.  The mission school provided 180 Bibles to get them started, but they received little money.  “God showed us the way in,” David said, smiling. 

 

The thick rainforest of Choco, the large rivers, and lack of developed roads make it inaccessible, even to Colombian security forces.  So it became an ideal spot for boats transporting cocaine, where it went to Central America and Mexico.  The few Christians in the area had experienced persecution in the past.  In 2002’s “Bojaya massacre,” the FARC bombed a church, killing more than 70 people, and they also ran off 6,000 people from their homes—they were fearful about staying there.  About a year after David and Gloria moved to Choco, a prominent guerrilla commander in Colombia declared all pastors in the country’s “red zones,”  (which Choco was) that is, “objects of war.” 

 

When locals figured that David and Gloria knew who helped transport cocaine, they threatened them.  David said “we had to decide if we were going to leave or stay.  We decided to stay and spread the Gospel.”  Then, one day a rebel leader with about 60 guerrilla soldiers came to the couple’s house and told David he had to support them.  “They knew everything about me,” he said.  “They knew all my wife’s family members, all of my family members.  They knew the offering I was receiving every three months, the exact amount.”  They told David that they would triple his salary and allow him to continue his pastoral work if he would” join” them, as other pastors already had.  David was bold.  “If those pastors are collaborating, they are no longer considered pastors.  I won’t do it; you kill people.  The only person who should have power over life is God.”  The rebel leader didn’t appreciate David’s words.  “You are lucky it’s me and not some other guerrillas, as they would have shot you in the head already,” he said.  “We are going to talk tomorrow.” 

 

Holding their daughter, Gloria began to pray for protection from God.  “A lot of the guerrillas are famous for taking kids,” she said.  “I feared for her.”  The next day, the rebel leader and 60 guerrillas returned to David and Gloria’s house, but this time the leader had a changed attitude.  He told David that his mother was a Christian.  Though surprised, David relaxed as the two began to discuss the Bible.  David said, “I became good friends with this man.  I told him to listen to God.  He said, ‘I will only come to Christ when I am injured in the war.”  David urged the man to place his faith in Jesus as Savior before he died in conflict, but he resisted.  Still, before the rebel leader left, he accepted 60 Bibles from David to share with the other fighters.  Fifteen days later, the rebel leader was killed in an attack by a paramilitary group. David hopes he read the Bible and came to faith.  “When he received his Bible, he remembered his childhood.  He thanked me.” 

 

After developing a relationship with the rebel leader’s replacement, David continued to supply them with Bibles.  He and Gloria gave them 400 Bibles over the next several months as guerrilla fighters rotated in and out of the group.  But the superior of the new leader finally burned the Bibles.  Since the commander told David that he had read a few pages, “then those Bibles burned have not been a waste.” 

 

The rebel groups watched David and Gloria’s movements.  To buy food and other goods, they had to walk through both FARC and paramilitary territories.  “Every time we passed the paramilitary, they thought we were collaborators with the guerillas,” he said.  “They threatened us.  They told the indigenous people they were going to kill us.”  Finally the couple decided to transfer to a safer part of Choco.  In five years from the time they began, they had raised up four indigenous pastors and planted churches in two communities.  And 70 people had come to faith in Christ.  So the believers would carry on well when they left. 

 

Even after they moved, David, Gloria and their children continued to experience persecution from all sides as the government, paramilitaries, rebel groups, and organized crime syndicates vied for control of territory and the money income.  “There were weeks we had to run out of the community,” Gloria said, “because the drug situation was really bad.  There was a lot of fighting.”  But at their new location, for the first few years, most of the persecution surprisingly came from a local

religious group.  “For four years, they wouldn’t rent us a good house,” David said.  “We always had houses that were falling apart.  I would fix them, and then they would kick us out once I fixed it.”  Then, a group of indigenous village leaders prohibited David and his family from entering their community.  The village even sued them, claiming David’s family was “damaging their cultural identity by introducing and spreading Christianity.”  David said, “We have been able to demonstrate with those who are believers that we are not here to damage their culture.  We always try to teach in their language.  We talk to the kids in their language.”  To keep the peace, David and his family moved out of the indigenous community and into an Afro-Colombian community—still in Choco.  Those people were descended from those brought to the Americas from the slave trading days.  Some of them continue to practice African folk religions, which involve much superstition and questionable medical practices—besides heretical views about Jesus. 

 

Among this community, David and Gloria now lead a mixed congregation from indigenous and Afro-Colombian backgrounds.  They still minister to 20 indigenous believers in the community they left as well.  “Those people can’t kick us out again because we are already out,” David quipped.  In 2019, David and his family visited 25 of the 28 indigenous communities in the area, often receiving threats as they passed through guerrilla and paramilitary territories.  Although the Colombian government and the FARC signed a peace agreement that was ratified by the nation’s congress in November 2016, the peace deal has not brought peace, especially in Choco.  In fact, they said, the guerrillas are taking the opportunity to regroup and rearm.  “Right now we are a military target for the armed groups because we were not born in the area,” Gloria said.  “We are always praying to become invisible.  Actually, the Christian indigenous people experience a lot more persecution--from their community, and in many cases from the armed groups as well.” 

 

On a spiritual level, David and Gloria are battling the guerrilla groups for the minds of the region’s youth.  Guerilla groups lure the children into their ranks with the promise of weapons and cash.  Thousands of Colombian children have fought in the country’s war; many were raised in guerilla camps and trained as fighters from a young age.  The FARC alone has reportedly recruited 3,700 child soldiers throughout its history.  To help children follow Christ instead, David and Gloria started teaching a children’s Bible class two years ago.  At first they held the class in an indigenous village, but after receiving threats, they decided, with parents’ approval, to pick up about 200 children each weekend using a boat that Voice of the Martyrs helped provide.  David picks up 50 children at a time, takes them to their home for the Bible lessons, and then returns them.  David and Gloria also watch for vulnerable children whom the guerrilla groups might target as recruits.  They help the children’s families enroll them in school and even transport them to and from school when possible.  David thinks they have prevented about 10 children from joining the guerrillas.  “God helped us to save these kids,” he said. 

 

As for their own children, David and Gloria bring them wherever they go, relying on God to help them recognize risky situations.  “There was only one time that God showed us they shouldn’t accompany us on a trip,” David said.  Although Samantha, now 13, has, in the past, occasionally expressed fear and anxiety when traveling through guerrilla territory, even having nightmares, her parents said she has largely overcome those fears as she has gotten older.  “I am not afraid,” she said.  “Because I know that God is protecting us and there are a lot people praying for us when we do this.  I really like being in the ministry, the adventure of so many rivers, so many challenging places, and I like it with the family.”  Juliana, 10, and Daniel, 7, help their mom with Sunday school and share the gospel with children in their own ways.  “I am a little embarrassed to say a lot to them, but when I play with them, they see Jesus in me,” Daniel said quietly.  David and Gloria admit that raising three children while ministering in a dangerous area has been a challenge, but God has helped them.  David says, “Sometimes people say they don’t go to the mission field because they have kids, but we say, “You can work, you can do ministry, and your kids will be fine. God will help you… Right now in school, our kids all have very good grades.”  Samantha takes online classes, and Gloria plans to homeschool the others until they are in fourth grade.  “I will go to the city to download all the homework; I take it to the jungle, and I upload that onto the platform they gave me.” 

 

David and Gloria know their children are getting a spiritual education by being a part of their ministry work.  “We don’t limit what they see as we minister,” Gloria said.  “They also must have their own personal devotion.  They need a personal relationship with God and not just what they see their parents do.  I learned it that way when I was growing up.  If I didn’t have a personal relationship with God, I wouldn’t have felt the call.” 

 

About two years ago, Voice of the Martyrs helped the family attend a retreat with other pastors and their families.  It was their first “break” from the intensity of their jungle ministry in 14 years.  “We give the glory to God,” David said.  David asked us to pray for their protection from the armed groups and from spiritual attacks.  And for those they’re reaching with the gospel.  Gloria thanked Voice of the Martyrs.  “Through your prayers, we go together.  We don’t do this alone.  If it weren’t for you guys praying for us, I don’t think that God could make us invisible. “ 

 Acknowledgement:  Voice of the Martyrs magazine, June, 2020

 

Note: This couple’s faith in God’s protection, even with children around, is noteworthy, and seldom seen. They see God as few people see Him. They did have to abandom some areas, but that’s the direction the Holy Spirit gives us, when danger gets too close. Matthew 10:23:

 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

  I have a feeling that their kids with do amazingly for the Lord as well. Praise God for this dedication. They will have crowns in heaven.

 

Note 2: Massacres of Christians are also going on currently in Syria. There are dedicated missionaries like David and Gloria there too. Syria has a significant history; Christians were first called that in Antioch, Syria. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was in Syria. Christian missions dominated the whole area from Israel to Turkey, bringing many to the Lord, but that was slowed down to a trickle since Islamists conquered the whole area in the 7^th century, radically changing the culture to a foreign god, Allah. You don’t read about this persecution in the alphabet media, of course, since only 8% of them are reportedly Christians themselves. Besides the probability that with national newscasters, personal views are coloring what they present.

 

A Scriptural and Logical Approach to Homosexuality

 

 

One of the greatest of today’s apologists is Dr. Voddie Baucham.  I’ve always believed in using logical response to questions by unbelievers in evangelism; and nobody does it better than he. 

 He begins his message at Dr. John MacArthur’s Grace church with the following wake-up quote: “I’m going to address what I believe is the most pressing cultural issue that we face today: same-sex marriage.”  It is an issue that has its roots in our understanding of origins.  He will give us how this issue has been framed by its promoters to put Christians on the defensive.  How it has been co-opted by our educational system.  And he wants to give us some logical apologetic response to verbal attacks by non-believers. The rest of my paper is a summary of his statements.

 The data suggest that acceptance of homosexual lifestyle is winning American culture:  In 2007, 49% of Americans say this lifestyle should be accepted vs. 72% agree in 2019.  Even among those who say “religion is very important” in their lives, still 57% are accepting of homosexuality.  But this varies widely, from 12% acceptance among Jehovah’s Witnesses to 96% Unitarians.  If Christians knew their Bibles, far less than a majority would feel that tolerant.  What does Genesis teach us about marriage?  Genesis 2:24-25:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

It is clear here that marriage is a relationship between two corresponding halves of humanity—men and women. The phrase “one flesh” suggests a corresponding complementary makeup of the two who are to unite—which only men and women physically are truly able. And how that bears favorable fruit.  All you have to do is look at their bodies that He created, and you get a pretty good clue.  Then, several months later, you get a bonus clue that says, “Yep.  That was how it was supposed to happen.” 

A note: This argument against homosexuals from Genesis is also an argument against those (pastors) who say that Genesis, being in the Old Testament, is not that important (so say more of them, unfortunately).  They think that origins—arguments over whether there were six literal days of creation, or whether there was a literal Adam and Eve, etc—are not worth getting heated up over; they say that What Matters is Just the Cross!”

Dr. Baucham counters “OK, well, Who died on the Cross?”  Let’s hear what Jesus says about homosexuality.  (Yes, He does speak on this issue, despite arguments we hear otherwise.  But you need a deeper knowledge of Scripture to see that.)  Matthew 19:3-6: 

 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” ⁴ And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵ 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’? ⁶ So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

A side note: Jesus’ teaching on divorce is also rooted on His analysis of Genesis.  He is asserting these were real events—thus He believes in a literal reading of these texts. (“Literal” reading is when the Bible reads like history—i.e., Adam was real, not a moral tale or allegory).   Jesus derives a second argument against a too-popular sin from Genesis, divorce.  Let nobody tell you to ignore the Old Testament.

Further, from Genesis we learn the three-fold purpose of marriage:  procreation, illustration, and sanctification.  On procreation; they are told to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.”  Adam can’t do that alone. Regarding illustration:  The family--father, mother, and child--are a picture of the Triune God. (We are not suggesting the gender of the Holy Spirit has to be feminine—the correlation is not intended to go that far.  Nor are we suggesting that if a man and woman cannot bear a child, that they’re not a family).  There is also Christ and His bride, the church, a Groom and a Virgin Bride.  Regarding sanctification:  there is a holiness in their marriage. For example, here, they were naked but unashamed. (Paul has a few additional things to say about marriage on the subject of avoiding temptation for sanctification, but Dr. Baucham doesn’t cover that).

Homosexuality is a violation of the created order. Male and male (or female and female) were not made for each other, physically.  That arrangement denounces procreation categorically.  God designed male and female to give birth, raise, rear, and protect children. It also blasphemes the illustration. Christ and His male bride? No way.  Finally, on sanctification:  it takes what God calls sinful and an “abomination” (a term used for the most sinful of sins--elsewhere in Scripture you’ll find that term) and some want to call it righteous. Homosexuality is so evil that it is the only sin that God destroys cities with fire and brimstone in historical Scripture. An unbiased reading of Genesis 18 and 19 cannot deny that. 

Let’s talk about Education’s role in this growing disease.  Arne Duncan was Pres. Biden’s Secretary of Education.  His resume is ‘sterling,’ as you shall see:  Right after his term as Secretary of Education in Illinois, 83% of 8^th graders couldn’t read at grade level; 87% couldn’t do Math at grade level; 77% couldn’t write at grade level; and 84% couldn’t do Science at grade level! He did this by spending a ‘modest’ $10,555 per student.  The residents of Illinois paid that, including home schooling parents.  The media, and the teacher’s unions, complain that they could do better with more money, that they’re underpaid.  He says, “No, that’s not the reason. Home schooled students outperform both public and private students, and their parents spend an average of $600 per year per student.”

Since Duncan clearly lacks skills for the job, why was he Biden’s pick?  Because he was also “innovative”—in a wrong way.  He started Chicago’s Annenberg Challenge, a Marxist program.  Bill Ayers (background:  A co-founder of Weather Underground, a militant activist group in the 1960s, for those who can remember those bad old days; described as a terrorist group by the FBI; a self-described communist revolutionary group that bombed public buildings, including police stations, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.  He kept out of prison on a technicality)  and Barack Obama (former president, but who aroused controversy in 2008 over his connections with Ayers in those days) served together on the board of the Annenberg Challenge in Illinois.  And here’s where it touches our subject: Duncan also endorsed establishing the Chicago social justice high schools’ Pride campus, a gay campus that promoted and reinforced the sodomite lifestyle. 

Education was also blessed with Kevin Jennings—a founder of the Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education Network.  His goal was to have Gay-Straight Alliance in every school in America.  As of right now, virtually every school district has Gay-Straight Alliances in them.  He also introduced a program called Safe Schools (SS), which supposedly has an anti-bullying curriculum.  But in reality, it is a pro-homosexual curriculum designed to indoctrinate school children toward the homosexual lifestyle. 

It so happens that Education Secretary Duncan brought Jennings to Washington to be the Safe Schools czar—to federalize (i.e., requirement for all schools) his SS, pro-homosexual curriculum. 

Dr. Baucham then considers the gay argument that “this is the way I was made; morals have nothing to do with that.”  He argues that, even if that were the case. morals would still have to be considered.  If I had a genetic predisposition for drunkenness, does that make it OK to drive drunk?  No!  You may kill someone—a moral issue. A police officer won’t let you off by playing the “genetic predisposition” card. 

The gay sympathizers claim 1 in 10, or 10%, of people are born gay.  This number only has Kinsey research to back it, but Kinsey’s research has been debunked and is known to be unreliable.  The most widely respected survey is from the National Health and Social Life.  Their numbers:  2.8% of males, and 1.4% of females, are reported as having same-sex preference.

Pro-gay activists include gay activists, black civil rights leaders, some business and political leaders, and unfortunately religious leaders.  Their leaders never fail to obey the saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  In 1989 in a book, After The Ball, in outlining their strategies, they coldly sized up the AIDS epidemic and said, “As cynical though it seems, the victim strategy for AIDS worked; so it can pave our way  to establish ourselves as another victimized minority, legitimately deserving America’s special protection and care.” 

Then they asked, “How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear?”  They called for “unabashed propaganda firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.” Shamelessly, they recognize that that propaganda relies on three things:  emotional manipulation; lies--and those are subjective and one-sided.  This is what they wanted to use on the public—and they certainly have done it, as we shall soon see.  For their media campaign, they outlined three strategies:  desensitizing, jamming, and conversion. (By the way, these are the exact steps to brainwashing.) 

For desensitizing, they would inundate us in a flood of gay-related advertising, presenting gays in the least offensive way possible.  They also want us to hear from outed movie and TV stars, and especially athletes.  In the movies, the homosexual character is always the best-dressed, or most intelligent, or wittiest, etc. 

In jamming, they are taking two contradictory images and jamming them together.  (I.e., what we think a gay person is like, vs. Michael Sam, who once was a defensive lineman in football), for instance, who appears as a  healthy, rich athlete, and happy). In doing this, they want to portray anti-gay institutions as backwards and out-of-step with the culture and with the “findings” of modern psychology.  One way gays make Christians look like bigots is portraying, with national news, when Michael Sam, “came out.” President Obama even congratulated him.  (Ed. Note: Let’s think again about how vile and blasphemous sodomy is—so we ask, where is our country’s morals that our president feels he won’t endanger his credibility by congratulating a sodomite?)  Another idea is, everyone hates the Nazis, skinheads, and KKK. They are racist, every one.  So what you do is, you portray people who are opposed to same-sex marriage as being akin to Nazis, skinheads, and KKK. Their leaders repeat this every occasion they can. After a while, Christians look bigoted and racist.  This jamming works on most of us, and we back off our opposition. Now we are more “moderate.”  We mutter or don’t speak about it.  If we get emotional, we “need” to apologize.  This is why when a pastor deals with this issue, he spends a good deal of time apologizing and choosing his words rather than stating the offense against God. 

Imagine this from a pastor on a Sunday morning: “Now, church, we are going to address the issue of adultery, but I don’t want you to be alarmed.  I’m not here to bash adulterers; I love adulterers, Jesus loves adulterers, I have friends who are adulterers, and I believe that our church needs to be open and accepting towards adulterers”…You see what I’m saying? Hopefully that basis of discussion wouldn’t fly. But every time a pastor goes to speak on homosexuality, we expect that “introduction” to be upfront. Why?  Because we’ve been jammed.  That’s why the most onerous sin we can imagine has us apologizing for repeating what God said. 

Homosexuals assert “That’s how people are born, right?”  Truth is, none of the studies has proven a genetic connection to homosexuality. The body is no different. So how do you know a person is homosexual—only if they tell you. There is no way to prove it otherwise. We just assume that it is.  We don’t even question someone who says, “I just knew, even as a little boy (or girl) that I was homosexual.”  Folks, that’s not true.  When they were that young, they
weren’t even sexualized; they didn’t know any of that.  Boys playing with dolls doesn’t mean they’re homosexual.  He can’t assert that.

On the third strategy to make us tolerate gays, namely conversion, gays want us to change our minds:  they want us to like them.  They even hate the idea Christians express:  “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”  That’s not good enough, because you’re still calling it sin—and they can’t abide that.  They hope the media and the schools will bring us around.  But in doing so, we would be abandoning what God has explicitly told us.  One of their experts says, “Since it’s genetic, it’s not like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m going to stop being gay,” because that’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m going to stop being black.” So they say.

Listen to what Brian McLaren says about homosexuality (I covered his beliefs in my “Emerging Church” blog): “Perhaps we need a 5-year moratorium on making decrees of judgement.  In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably…we’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars...etc ad nauseum…so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course; because you know, it’s just not clear in the Bible.”  Not clear? 

Here is another element of their strategy; it’s called an ad hominem argument, that is, against the man. It’s what they do when they’re losing the debate. They can’t make a logical argument, so they make an argument against you. This is like how kids argue.  They start losing the argument, so they go “well...well…so you ugly.”  That means he’s got no logical argument left, and knows it. Listen this from Rep. Barney Frank:  “I wouldn’t want the homosexual marriage issue to go to the U.S. Supreme Court now, because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current Court.”  He’s saying this about a sitting Justice! Do you notice that it’s not your opinion that’s wrong, it’s you; you are intolerant, you are a homophobe—it’s your character.  You as a person have been judged, not your opinion. They always use ad hominem attacks. “You as a person don’t deserve to be in this discussion.” 

They say homosexuality is as immutable as ethnicity.  That’s not true.  Look at I Corinthians 6:9-11:

 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

That’s 2000-year old evidence that people stopped being homosexual!

Gays argue that they are discriminated against in marriage, in having children, etc.  But the word “discriminated” has a broader meaning, some of it good.  We want our daughters to be discriminatory when she seeks a man to date, and ultimately to marry, right?  Actually, all laws are discriminatory; i.e., it treats everyone the same in a category that it favors, and equally to those categories it does not favor. Remember, that’s what we want our daughters to do, right? Take this statement from the marriage covenant, “When two people.”  Start with “when.”  That means we discriminate against all 13-year olds equally.  “When two.”  We discriminate against polygamy and polyamory, “When two people.”  We discriminate against bestiality and zooerasty (I’ll let you look that up).  And so on.  So even the premise of their argument is out the window, since we make and have laws that discriminate--as you can see above, for good reason.

All that works, at least, until the public, having been sufficiently desensitized, jammed, and been—well, partially—converted, change how we feel about homosexuals.  (Ed. note:  Now I worry about polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality being their next goal.  God help us.)

Now to the suggestions for you to help beat back this growing immorality. Try Apologetics.  First, we need to stop being back on our heels—we have God’s Truth on our side.  We don’t need to mutter our objections, nor stick to “moderation.”  Remember, that’s lukewarmness—which God doesn’t speak kindly of in Revelation 3.  Oh, yes, prepare for the ad hominem arguments.  You’ll be slandered.  Expect persecution, but endure, the only sure way to heaven.  Make your life pleasing to God, not your fellow fallen man.  Truly hate the things of the world—including those things in you.  Fear, embarrassment.  And we also have logic on our side.  We need to understand that the other side doesn’t care about truth—but that does not stop us from making our Scriptural arguments. 

They will use the genetic fallacy argument—i.e., rejecting logic because of where it came from—that is, from Christians. They say, “You can’t bring the Bible to bear on this argument, because you can’t force your religious beliefs on other people.” Thus they believe that religion has no listenable place in our society. I reject that premise.  Secondly, while you don’t want to accept religion, you are trying to force your non-Bible religious beliefs on me, and feel that you should be listened to, while I don’t have that privilege. I reject that premise. Thirdly, you’re arguing that I should be loving and kind toward you, which you get from my Bible, which you don’t acknowledge. As you can see, that dog don’t hunt.

Last item.  They complain about how we “pick and choose” from Leviticus, especially.  We often quote Lev. 18:22 to them:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

But then there are strange things in Leviticus which we ignore, like how it’s also an abomination to eat shellfish (Ch. 11), or how it’s unlawful to clip off the edges of your beard (Ch. 19), and not to sow different seeds in a field (also Ch 19).  Well, let me help you.  First, Christians could argue that “also in Leviticus 18 is the proper way to treat your neighbor, which is what you want me to do, right?  So who’s “picking and choosing,” huh?  You like part of Leviticus 18, but not another part.  Actually, this is just like I am.  But the difference is, I know why I’m picking and choosing.  A little education: there are 3 types of laws in the Bible. There is moral law, which is forever binding on all people in all time.  We have this summarized in the Ten Commandments.  Secondly, there is civil law—they were for the nation of Israel, in the ancient Near East.  These laws expired with the nation then, but they are still of general equity because they were based on the moral law.  Thirdly  were the ceremonial laws, which were defined to do two things:  to identify Israel as God’s unique and different people, worshipping Him uniquely in their context—and also to point forward to the Person and work of Christ.  So when you talk about cutting the edge of the beard, that’s ceremonial law, and intended to show that Israel was different, and not like the nations around them. Yes, dietary and civil laws also were not like other nations.  (Actually, their civil laws were far better than most). Many of our own laws, like negligent homicide, (the ox that gores in Leviticus) were based on Jewish laws.  (We call them Judeo-Christian laws, citing their source).

So the reason I “pick and choose” from the Old Testament, is because New Testament writers did that, and because while Christ has come, and we are under the New Covenant, He has fulfilled the whole law, and He enables me to keep the moral law.  The moral law is still operable.  So if I understand how the Bible was written, and I use the Old Testament carefully, I’m not picking and choosing what I like—which is the opposite of you, friend.  Tell me why you get to pick and choose from the Bible, since you don’t know why, or how, you just pick what you like.  What’s better for our society—people who just pick what law they want, and violate laws they don’t like; or people that understand and are subject to a law that’s higher than themselves; people that are willing to obey and submit to it.   You answer that and then we can go back to our discussion on same-sex marriage.

We haven’t covered all the Biblical points on homosexuality, but I have given you tools to fight with.  God be with you.

 

 

 

 

  

 

Differences in Our Doctrines vs. the Early Christians (Part 2 of 2)

  

In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s (AD 35-200) life for Christ—and the resulting power God gave them that enabled many souls to be saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher success and evangelism:

First apostolic doctrine we differ on: They believed in a Relationship with Christ is essential to be called “saved” when they die. Read John 15:1ff

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser…⁴ Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me… He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 

 

Abiding with Christ partly means obeying Jesus’ commands. Thus the early church was serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments.  Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:

Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.

“Living as He has taught” suggests re-orienting your lifestyle to make Christ the center and Lord of your life. Many today would say Justin is underestimating God’s grace, which can cover long “vacations” from Jesus’ Lordship of their lives. But does His grace extend to someone who, despite their initial faith in the Lord, persistently is in rebellion to God—whose life has not really changed?  What if a guy goes to church and attends a Men’s Bible Study, does that “do it?”  We’re not talking about negotiating with Christ to give Him a few hours a week. We’re talking about a total reorganization of our lives to finally see our sinful lack of obedience, and endeavor to repair them as long as we live, asking for the Holy Spirit’s help.

All the early church fathers were just as strict as Justin Martyr. So who is right about God’s grace? The early church or modern pastors’ “just love Him” approach? Look at I John 2:4:

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

“I know Him” signifies abiding in Him—and learning to know Him. What would He like me to do in this situation? Being humble enough to admit sin, both omission and commission. If you are honest with God, and have a sincere desire to please Him, He will not reject your confession. John reasonably concludes that a liar about that does not have the truth. Living in untruth is darkness rather than the light of God’s truth. Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live after the teachings of Christ. Thus they were fixed on a relationship with Christ, and strove to give Him love and obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:

Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and IF we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, IF we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity

How are we to be found is His number (i.e., for heaven)?  By faith, first of all.  But Clement has another requirement: also by earnestly seeking things pleasing to Him or are in harmony with His will, and by casting away worldliness—note the IF saying salvation is a process. So, you ask "are we required to strive with intentionality to do this on a regular basis as Christians? Is obedience really necessary? I thought this was covered by grace." Maybe that’s why thousands of people attend “Emerging” or “Progressive” churches that won’t talk about sin. It’s not important; it’s negative. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:23-24?

²³ Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

“Strive” suggests staying in salvation is a process. Assuming that the "narrow gate" is the gate to heaven, do we hear this necessity of striving in today's sermons? Do they talk about a particular sin in detail, how to avoid Satan's wiles and deception?  Not in most churches. This means, the gospel that will truly save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division with the early power church. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience. We're not motivated to strictly follow His commandments.

Second apostolic doctrine of difference from us: They believed in A stress on real kindness to the poor; and a realization that riches are a trap.

Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate and gave them away when he got saved:

The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing (for heaven) when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says....”Sell all you have and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me.” If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.

It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be financially secure thinking like that." Well, the point is, his goal is not accumulating wealth to be financially secure. It gives away amounts over necessities, and his reliance is on the Lord for the rest.   Do you see where he says, "perish by their riches?"  Riches got in the way of his obedience for Christ, so he should avoid that by dispensing with them.  Another phrase: who do you think is our “domestic enemy?” Our riches. Thinking of acquiring or maintaining riches is a genuine obstruction to heaven.  What does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The earliest church took radical Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures...and obeyed what was said. Do we look at riches as a blessing? You should see it as a gigantic temptation that only the mature in the Lord can control it and stay on the path for heaven. If you are given this responsibility of wealth, and truly give it to the Lord’s control,  He will most likely move you to give most of it away to the vast number of terribly poor people’s benefit. The temptation of it really makes it a curse. Is it not an eternal danger to our following the Lord? If it is a danger, as these verses and statements suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” It was Jesus who implied, in the parable of the Sower, that riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. (So that seed was unfruitful, therefore bound for hell.)  It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: You poor guys; most of you are going to hell. It was Jesus who called His disciples to forsake everything they had, to follow Him.

If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, many lives in America could be saved instead of dying and waking up on the wrong side of eternity.

Many churches today even have as a doctrine that is the opposite: Riches means you're on line with God. They think:  If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s because of your lack of faith—or your brand of faith left you with a crippled ideology of failure in this life. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith (James 2:5)? Things can even get flipped totally upside down in false doctrine. But we "like" false doctrine about getting rich; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.

Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at (there are others, but these seemed the most relevant to today): They believed that Women were admired for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD, who looked at women and compared them with the “dress modestly” that God would like:

How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers...to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed., in a man—by increasing his lust to a desire of completion). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude (ie, equal to the act itself)—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.

In their desire for obedience to Christ’s commandments, the Christian women felt sinful if they inflamed men's passions.  A passion for lust, Scripture says, is just as bad as the adultery itself—see Matthew 5:27-30:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Just in case you were thinking that "for a man to think about adultery is not an issue; he just should constrain himself from the act," that is NOT what Jesus said.  Jesus goes so far as criticizing the thought, (using Tertullian’s words), as "lust plenitude.”  I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to avoid hell because of the wrong thoughts! He doesn't want you to go to this extreme; but you get the point: He is obviously serious about this matter.

The Tertullian quote looks at the opposite side of the matter from the guilty man's thoughts—namely, the woman who shows off her body, inviting him to think of adultery. Her clothing invites sin.  She has a responsibility too. (Warning: Prepare for fireworks in discussing this in today’s society. Too many love porn. Women refuse to take any blame for his thoughts.) Look at I  Timothy 2:9, 10:

^… in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Our goal is to love Him enough to do what He enjoys. He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wants modesty, let’s do modesty. The early church had faith: they knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were hopefully purer as a result. If you live by Scripture instead of the world, wouldn’t it be the supreme act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? You should not want to appear “sexy.” Let's dress up for work or school according to Scripture, not per the worldly custom. Yes, we'll be laughed at; Christians are different, and they should expect to suffer persecution this way.

We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if such a weapon were offered to them. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public, yet they did not lash out or scream "unfair." And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” In the earliest churches, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…

Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones here, and particularly David Bercot, believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations vs. the early church, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed (up to 250 AD) for an answer. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our reading.  The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:

1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.

2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism (see other blogs upcoming) was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:

How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.

Thus, when two doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that today’s doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim he is correct when he creates a doctrine 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully covered by the early church fathers—doing that is especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or even the huge changes 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about deciding to follow the early church fathers, and change your beliefs (something almost unheard of these days) if the change would place you on a different path than most of today’s society, or your family? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”

3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? They probably knew. What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and could figure more answers to questions. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.

Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you perhaps have seen my blogs, that I don’t fit the Baptist theology that I was raised. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain—following the voice of their Shepherd.
May God we with you in this quest.

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998