If it isn’t, reality is certain to come back to bite us.
If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions.
—Francis Schaeffer—
God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.
—Francis Schaeffer—
All of the articles in this series are available on this page.
I want you to meet a friend of mine. His name is Micah Sample. I have great respect for him. Micah is an associate pastor. He is a 23-year-old who not only is brilliant, but also wise. Further, he’s a man of courage and unwavering principle. Having boldly confronted wokeism and social justice propaganda as a student at Indiana Wesleyan University, Micah is featured in the important documentary film Enemies Within the Church.
Micah is concerned about how deeply erroneous thinking, and consequently sin, has become a part of the fabric of today’s culture and society. On April 19, 2022, Micah posted this on Facebook (emphasis added):
The Christian conservatives/traditionalists of my generation have been put into a tough position. Our grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ generations should have rebelled against the government and established a better one in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was overturned and sodomy was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of disorders. That level of subversion and evil calls for immediate action, not delayed action.
Now, as time goes on, those abominable problems become further and further entrenched into the bedrock of what’s considered socially acceptable. Merely speaking about the problems, merely talking and grumbling about them, or even going outside to publicly protest them, is like taking a very small chisel to chip away at tough rock— when the very thing we’re trying to extract and get rid of is several hundred feet down. Moreover, even if we were able to get abortion banned entirely, that still wouldn’t be full justice, because you can’t un-kill a child. I fear the Lord’s vengeance will be too terrible for anyone to bear, once it comes, because our crimes deserve it.
I fear the Lord’s vengeance will be too terrible for anyone to bear, once it comes, because our crimes deserve it.
—Micah Sample—
I will, of course, continue to do all of those things — I will speak, I will grumble, I will shout and protest — but I often have to ask: what more can be done? Where haven’t I taken action that I could take action now? How can I make up for the apathy of those who could have undone the problem but chose security and comfort instead?
These are some great insights! I offered this comment in response to Micah’s post (emphases added):
Great observations, Micah. Unfortunately, even in 1973, certain myths about the federal government, and the Supreme Court in particular, already were entrenched. One myth is that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, regardless of what it says. How can we effectively insist on what the Constitution says when it and the “high and mighty court” conflict? One thing that MUST happen is that states must defy the federal court, under the Constitution. But another myth has taken over, and that one says that SCOTUS has absolute authority over the states. Plus we have weak-willed governors and state legislators. Nevertheless, the key remains with the people, and pastors, though they need to take lessons from you.
Honoring Fixed, Immovable Realities vs. Allowing Oneself to Be Carried Along by the Cultural Current: Three Observations
Keeping Micah’s insights in mind, I want to make a three observations.
Observation One:
For decades, most people have held perspectives and opinions that have not been grounded in anything fixed or absolute. That’s why they are continually aligning their lives with what the Supreme Court has said, and with the direction culture is moving.
Of course, there are exceptions to this, instances in which this observation needs to be qualified. Micah, for example, does not accept what the Supreme Court has said about abortion. Nor does he accept the American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Also, I am certain he doesn’t accept the Court’s redefinition of marriage, either.
Micah understands that certain realities and principles exist and stand contrary to arbitrary opinions, no matter how much authority has been granted the person, persons, institution, or institutions issuing those opinions or making policy. Micah’s perspectives are grounded in biblical teachings:
-
-
- Innocent human life is created by God, is sacred, and should be protected.
- Homosexuality is sinful and a departure from normal, healthy human behavior.
- Marriage is a commitment inherently defined by the dynamic arising from interactions between two opposite-sex members of the human race.
-
Observation Two:
The “tied-to-no-set-of-fixed-principles” perspective can be vividly seen in society’s changing attitude toward same-sex marriage over the last seven years, and even longer.
Research from 2021 and earlier shows that
U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70% — a new high in Gallup’s trend since 1996. This latest figure marks an increase of 10 percentage points since 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all states must recognize same-sex marriages.
For more articles echoing this trend, visit this page.
To what can we attribute the rapid and widespread change in public opinion? Again, we note that to the American population in general, very few things are fixed and immovable. In other words, hardly anything is absolute.
I believe the tenor of the national conversation about same-sex marriage has, through the years, reinforced the perception that marriage is whatever the state says it is, and even whatever people want it to be. Gallup’s survey question illustrates this well. The research organization’s own question presupposes several things about marriage that simply are not true. Note the question:
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?
Consider the following three items that address Gallup’s question and, more broadly, the discussions Americans have had over the last 20 years about marriage and redefining it.
First, marriage, by its very definition, is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, but Gallup’s survey question assumes same-sex couples can be married even without state recognition: “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid…?” This is push polling!
Opinions, however — and even government recognition or lack of it — do not, and in fact cannot, determine the definition of marriage. Here’s an illustration that will help convey what marriage really is. If you are fortunate enough to be served a slice of your favorite kind of cake for dessert after a meal, will you be eating cake, or its ingredients? The answer, of course, is both! You can’t consume the cake without also consuming its ingredients. Similarly, you can’t have a marriage without a man and a woman; one man and one woman provide the core “ingredients” of a marriage. Therefore, if you’re talking about a same-sex couple, you absolutely cannot be talking about a marriage or a potential marriage. Crusaders for government recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages used emotional appeals; but their persuasive talk, however compelling, never could change reality. As Chuck Colson astutely observed in a 2003 BreakPoint commentary, “The argument…is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.”
The argument…is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.
—Chuck Colson—
Second, Gallup’s question assumes that the state has the power to grant the “marriages” of same-sex couples the same “rights” afforded the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Sure, government can pretend a same-sex couple has a marriage relationship. It can adjust and manipulate its laws to recognize the relationship of two men or two women as a “marriage.” But it cannot do this without participating in and sanctioning a lie. This is the case, first and foremost, because of what a marriage intrinsically is.
Further, nature and reality bar certain rights, privileges, and abilities inherent in natural marriage from same-sex couples, regardless of what their relationships are called. I remember hearing of a state lawmaker who voted for his state to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages because his son was a homosexual and in a relationship with a man he wanted to “marry.” The lawmaker felt compelled to vote in favor of same-sex “marriage” because he felt it would be unfair to deprive his son the kind of relationship he and his wife had had through the years. My thought was, If you think your son can have with another man the kind of relationship you’ve had with your wife, you are sadly mistaken. To borrow from Chuck Colson, we can say that isn’t that same-sex couples been denied that kind of relationship, it is that for them, having that kind of relationship simply isn’t possible.
Here’s the truth. Both the obvious and subtle differences between men and women create a dynamic in marriage that makes it a marriage. Of course, the most obvious capability a heterosexual couple has that same-sex couple does not and cannot is that of having their own children. Can the state wave a wand and make it possible for two men or two women to procreate? No — not like an opposite-sex couple can.
Of course, we are aware of ways to bypass the normal process, including adoption and surrogacy. The state certainly can manipulate those and make them more accessible to same-sex couples; but I submit to you that this requires the state to manipulate the playing field unnaturally so as to create, not a reality, but only an appearance of one. And the absence of healthy elements will be detrimental to the children involved. We’re talking here about children deprived of either a mother or a father by government decree and design.
There’s more! It won’t be just the children of same-sex couples who are harmed, regardless of how loving and caring same-sex couples might be in their parenting. Parental rights across the board will inevitably be affected, as well as the rights children born to married heterosexual couples. You see, “marriage equality” means all marriages will be treated by the state as a same-sex marriage. Hear attorney Jeff Shafer on the matter, from a Cross Politic video (courtesy of David Fowler).
Not coincidently, this conversation echoes the urgent need for the state and society to acknowledge fixed realities regarding marriage, family, and parenting — otherwise, the state inevitably will become the absolute, and tyrannical, authority dictating what these are and what they can an cannot be. As a nation, we are barreling down this road right now, even as you read these words.
Third, in a practical sense, Gallup’s question presupposes that the state has absolute authority to adjust, manipulate, and redefine marriage, despite what marriage is inherently and has been since the dawn of creation. As the Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage so eloquently stated,
Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order.
Remember that we’ve been considering Gallup’s survey question because it illustrates the nature of the national conversation that has taken place about same-sex marriage. We are not far off when we suggest that the national conversation was rigged in favor of same-sex “marriage,” because so much of the rhetoric promoting it was similar to the question Gallup asked. The national conversation, or debate (if we can call it that), assumed numerous things to be true about marriage that simply were and are false. No doubt the countless references to same-sex relationships as “marriages” or potential “marriages” — in multiple surveys, news outlets, and in general conversations — have both contributed to and reinforced grave misunderstandings about what marriage is, and consequently, in people’s minds, what it can become through government action.
In fact, a multitude of myths led to the recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States. You can explore eighteen of them from this page.
Emotions and Emotional Rhetoric
Perhaps the main culprit that has been winning people’s hearts and minds over to the lie that marriage can be between two men or two women has been the emotional rhetoric and atmosphere that has prevailed, along with the corresponding emotions themselves. In the same commentary in which Chuck Colson said a homosexual couple is incapable of marriage, he also said this:
Most people oppose or support homosexual marriage for sentimental reasons. Some can’t stomach the idea at all, but they don’t know why except for a feeling that it’s wrong. Others have friends, neighbors, co-workers, or family members who are involved in long-term homosexual relationships. They enjoy the couple’s company; they know that they’re in love. Since marriage is all about love, they reason, same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. Photos of happy gay and lesbian couples getting married as a result of this ruling only reinforce this sentiment. The negative sociological consequences won’t be fully felt for years — when, by then, it will be too late.
Then, significantly, Colson said this.
Christians must not fall into that sentiment trap….
Observation Three:
I’m afraid that Chuck Colson’s warning that “Christians must not fall into that sentimental trap” has not been heeded. Here is the third observation: The “tied-to-no-set-of-fixed-principles” perspective is somewhat understandable in a secular culture, but it is not understandable in the church, which also has been swept along by emotional rhetoric and the cultural consensus.
Paul wrote this to the Christians in Ephesus, and consequently to us (emphasis added):
4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
Sadly, sentiments in favor of same-sex marriage and accepting of homosexuality have increased steadily, not just in the culture, but in the church. According to an article released by NBC News in 2020,
Most major religious denominations back marriage equality…, including white mainline Protestants (79 percent), Hispanic Roman Catholics (78 percent), religious non-Christians (72 percent) Hispanic Protestants (68 percent), white Catholics (67 percent), Black Protestants (57 percent) and other Christian denominations (56 percent).
Religiously unaffiliated Americans were the most supportive, with 90 percent endorsing same-sex marriage.
White evangelicals stood out as the only denomination where a majority opposed same-sex marriage, 63 percent to 34 percent. Support decreased among this group, according to PRRI [Public Religion Research Institute], which found 41 percent of white evangelicals supported gay marriage in a 2019 survey.
“The perceived acceptability of ‘homosexual behaviors’ has changed radically,” according to new research from Paul A. Djupe, a political scientist based at Denison University in Granville, Ohio.
In 2007, 63% of evangelical Christians assumed that their house of worship forbid homosexual behaviors. Today, just 34% of evangelicals believe that’s the case.
Djupe observed similar shifts among Catholics, Black Protestants and other people of faith. That’s surprising since there have been few notable church policy changes related to LGBTQ rights in recent years, he told the Deseret News in an interview this week.
“There’s been tinkering around the edges” of denominational rules, but no major shifts in teachings on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, he said.
The biggest developments involved condemnations of homosexual behavior, Djupe said. For example, the United Methodist Church voted last year to reaffirm its ban on same-sex marriage and LGBTQ ordination.
Rather than stemming from formal policy shifts, people’s assumption that their church has become more accepting of homosexual activity is likely related to faith leaders’ growing hesitancy to discuss the topic, Djupe said.
“Because (gay marriage) has become such a hot-button topic and public opinion about it as changed so much, conflict-averse clergy are probably leaving some of their opinions about it unspoken,” he said.
Rather than stemming from formal policy shifts, people’s assumption that their church has become more accepting of homosexual activity is likely related to faith leaders’ growing hesitancy to discuss the topic, [political scientist Paul A.] Djupe said. “Because (gay marriage) has become such a hot-button topic and public opinion about it as changed so much, conflict-averse clergy are probably leaving some of their opinions about it unspoken,” he said.
—Reporter Kelsey Dallas—
Several articles highlighting the increase of acceptance of same-sex marriage and homosexuality in both society and the church are available here.
Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Same-Sex Marriage, Disney, and Dave Rubin
While homosexuality does not necessarily give way to transgenderism, it is undeniable that both are linked because both stand contrary to nature (what naturally exists) and cultural mores in the histories of Western societies. Certainly since homosexual activists include both homosexuals and transgendered individuals in the alphabet name they themselves give their own community (LGBTQ represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer and/or questioning, with additional letters added to these), we cannot be blamed for connecting these in our minds. This “connecting of the dots” needs to happen in many more people’s minds, and it especially ought to take place in the minds of self-proclaimed Christians.
Let’s put it another way. Believers cannot continue to be accepting of homosexuality while objecting to sexual predators at Disney; this is inconsistent. Further, though it may not initially appear to be so, it is inconsistent to condemn Disney’s intentions for your children and then to congratulate Dave Rubin and his male “marriage” partner on their welcoming children into their “family” — children they’re obtaining through surrogacy. (Here is Micah Sample’s take on this move.) PragerU, for whom Rubin has done numerous videos, even used Rubin to uphold “family” in a recent 5-minute video presentation.
With all due respect to PragerU and Dave Rubin (and I agree with them on a wide variety of issues), I am compelled to say, with great sorrow, that Rubin doesn’t even know what a family is. I now am left to wonder if Dennis Prager knows. Certainly he should, given his love for the Torah and the Ten Commandments, but now one cannot help but wonder.
Let me be clear: I am not saying that Dave Rubin and his partner would sexually abuse their children. Nor, for that matter, is Micah Sample. We are gravely concerned that their very partnership, which they see as a marriage, is way off base, because it represents a clear departure from God’s design, nature’s design, and therefore reality itself.
It is true that not everyone at PragerU agrees with what Rubin is doing, and I’m grateful for that. However, it should be crystal clear to everyone that marriage, family, and parenting are so intertwined that if marriage is redefined, so also will family and parenting be redefined. These ominous ramifications are inevitable.
What Ought to Be at the Forefront of Christians’ Minds
What ought to be at the forefront of Christians’ minds isn’t the difference between the employees at Disney wanting to groom America’s children and the careful parenting two “married” and “conservative” men want to perform for their adopted children, but the common denominator between homosexuality, same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and Disney’s intentions for America’s young. All of these, regardless of intentions, defy the natural order, or, as America’s Founding Fathers would put it, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
What ought to be at the forefront of Christians’ minds is the common denominator between homosexuality, same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and Disney’s intentions for America’s young. All of these, regardless of intentions, defy the natural order, or, as America’s Founding Fathers would put it, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
At this point I need to be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that all homosexuals are sexual predators or that homosexuals necessarily would physically assault or recruit children. Many do not. Many are parents who love their adopted children and meet their children’s obvious physical needs. However, children have certain non-physical needs that neither member of a same-sex couple can meet when parenting, no matter how loving the two fathers or two mothers may be.
Another clarification: I readily affirm that sexual predators can be heterosexual as well as homosexual. Both are dangerous to kids.
Here are the principles we are emphasizing: All forms of sexual relations outside of natural marriage are sinful. Sexual sins are unique among sins, and homosexuality (and sins related to it) are unique among sexual sins.
Against this backdrop, the church still is going along with the culture with regard to homosexuality, in part because of the silence of some pastors (as has been noted), but also because other pastors are openly embracing the culture. Hear Pastor Cary Gordon assess the state of the nation and the state of the church in this in this 45-second clip from Enemies Within the Church.
We’ve got lots of people now that don’t think they were born with any gender. We’ve got clergy holding public prayer blessings at abortion clinics. We have homosexual men and women with clergy collars, and preaching in the pulpits and calling themselves pastors and bishops. We have men pretending that they’re women and insisting upon invading women’s restrooms. Women pretend that they’re men and insist upon invading men’s restrooms. The local church can’t string a sentence together without mentioning love all the time. This is the result of telling people ‘God loves you’ instead of telling people they need to repent.
Note Pastor Gordon’s last sentence in this clip: “This is the result of telling people ‘God loves you’ instead of telling people they need to repent.” I encourage you to watch Enemies Within the Church so you can appreciate the full validity of what Pastor Gordon is saying here. Further, I want to add my own observation to what Pastor Gordon has said. Mark it down:
This is also the result of the church’s abandoning absolute truth and allowing itself to be carried along by the culture.
Sadly, church leaders, Christians, and many churches today are indeed being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.” Meanwhile, “Only 4 Percent of Gen Z Have a Biblical Worldview,” according to a Barna Study. Gen Zers were born within a 17-year window, between 1999 and 2015.
On April 26, 2022, Pastor Matt Trewhella, a friend of mine on Facebook, posted these three pictures of churches in Stillwater, Minnesota. He wrote, “Small town of Stillwater, MN and so many churches flying the sodomite flag. Apostate. Ichabod [the glory of the Lord has departed]. Makes one want to pull up stakes and come to the town so there is one pulpit faithful to Christ in Stillwater.…I can only imagine how the people languish here due to the whores [unfaithful spokesmen misrepresenting God] filling the pulpits. We must call this nation to repentance – and point men to Christ; His salvation and rule.”
We must call this nation to repentance – and point men to Christ; His salvation and rule.
—Pastor Matt Trewhella—
While Matt’s language is strong, when you read what he wrote, you cannot help but understand that he, like Micah Sample, has a perspective that sees certain principles and standards as fixed and unyielding (just as the Bible and the God of the Bible do). In light of the danger posed by churches approving of homosexuality, the strong language, I believe, ought to be understandable, whether or not you yourself would use it. All believers should be heartbroken and appalled that churches would be calling “evil good and good evil.”
Stay Tuned
Next time, we’re going to examine an incident from Jesus’ ministry that vividly demonstrates the fixed nature of marriage —
-
-
- that it is what it has been since God established it,
- that it isn’t malleable, and
- that if the state seeks to manipulate it, reality will come back to bite.
-
We may also emphasize one or two other characteristics of marriage that make it fixed and unchangeable.
We’ll likely also talk about the duty of Christians, Christian leaders, and the church to uphold the truth about marriage, especially in a culture that doesn’t understand at all what it is and what it’s for.
I’ll see you next time.
Copyright © 2022 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Be First to Comment