This post consists of a compilation of 16 quotes from Word Foundations articles written in 2015 and the first half of 2016.
If we lose [the definition of] marriage, we lose an image that helps people understand why Christ died. While we cannot expect non-Christians to act as Christians, neither can we ignore the fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and for many years upheld those ideals. Yet in recent decades in this country, we have, as a nation, kicked God out of public life. Given all the opportunities we as Americans have had to hear and respond to God’s truth, we must understand that God will hold us accountable.
What, then, does it mean in our day to stand so people can see Jesus clearly? We can cite at a growing number of examples of believers who are so standing, including Barronelle Stutzman of Richland, Washington, who is putting her livelihood and all her possessions on the line to uphold genuine marriage. Oregonians Aaron and Melissa Klein also are taking a public stand to present Jesus with clarity, even at great risk to themselves and their livelihood.
“But how,” someone might ask, “do such actions reflect Christ’s love?” We need to understand that it never can be loving to participate in a lie, which is exactly what Stutzman, the Kleins, and many others are now being told they must do. Pray for an increasing number of pastors to have courage to publicly stand with these believers and to explain to their people the importance of biblical marriage. — “Clarity Needed,” April 10, 2015
Certainly there are many inappropriate and unloving ways to uphold the truth, but there never can be a loving way to distort it. — “Clarity Needed,” April 10, 2015
Imagine you are a grain of sand in the top portion of an hourglass. In this imaginary scenario you are not accompanied by other grains of sand but are by yourself. You enjoy plenty of space and lots of latitude; you call the shots. Traveling downward through the narrow neck of the hourglass is, for the purposes of our illustration, representative of repentance. All you can see as you look down that path is restriction of your freedom, loss of independence, and an end to any and all enjoyment in life. Will you go that way? “Never!” You tell yourself.
Yet in reality, what lies beyond the narrow neck? A new, wide world of opportunity! A world of freedom, though here we clearly are talking about a different kind of freedom than the one you now know. Yes, the new world involves guidelines for holy living, but it also involves a new outlook that changes your desires.
A person certainly can repent and enter the new arena without prior knowledge of the new kind of freedom that will be his on the other side. Indeed, he can’t know a great deal about it (see 1 Cor. 2:14). He must first understand how hopeless his situation is without Christ because of the requirements of God’s law (see Gal. 3:24). Still, in addition to this, if more sinners caught glimpses of the other side, they might more readily turn to God. — “Reflections on Repentance,” June 19, 2015
The Supreme Court cannot change what marriage is any more than it can change what gravity is—but the effect of the ruling [mandating that a same-sex relationship can be a marriage] will be devastating for our country, especially for the children who will be deprived of mothers and fathers by intention and design. — “Redefining Marriage: A Journey Littered with Lawlessness and Radical Activism,” June 26, 2015
Not all that long ago, everyone knew what sex he or she was, based solely on having a male or female body. Not today. If a person “feels” like a member of the opposite sex, that individual can identify as a member of the opposite sex and, in an increasing number of cities and states, can legally use the restroom assigned to the opposite sex. Thus, not only are homosexual crusaders and “transgendered” individuals denying the obvious; society is as well. We must respect them as people, of course. Respecting them, we are compelled to expose the lies they believe (see 2 Cor. 10:4-5). — “The High Cost of Denying the Obvious, Part 1: A Dead End,” July 31, 2015
Men and women are different in ways beyond their obvious biological differences. Creation and practical experiences testify to this, despite cultural efforts to wipe out references to these contrasts. Today we even know that male and female brains are different, but historically we also have recognized a variety of distinctive traits in each sex. A man is uniquely equipped to meet the needs of his wife, and a woman is uniquely gifted to meet the needs of her husband. Moreover, each one has specific attributes that serve to meet the needs of the children that come into the family as a result of the couple’s sexual union. Every child needs both a mother and a father. Certainly single parent homes exist, and we credit single moms and single dads with all they do to effectively rear their children. Even so, a woman cannot be a dad, nor can a man be a mother. — “The High Cost of Denying the Obvious, Part 3: God’s Definition of Marriage Is Self-Evident,” August 14, 2015
In recent years we have seen an increasing intensity in the promotion of abortion, homosexual rights and same-sex marriage, and evolutionary philosophy cloaked in the jargon of science. All too often, we as Christians have treated these and other so-called “progressive” causes as separate issues. While we may have understood that all these movements are opposed to biblical values, many of us have largely addressed them individually, just as a teen playing Whac-A-Mole would go after the pop-up creatures in that game. The cultural and moral conflicts that confront us, however, are much more like chess than Whac-A-Mole.
To win at chess, a player mustn’t just be aware of how his opponent might use one piece here or another piece there; he instead must understand the ability of his opponent to strategically use all his pieces as an army, as a unified force, against him. — “The Importance of Seeing the Big Picture, Part 1,” October 2, 2015
Gay activists plead for tolerance but are among the most intolerant people in the world. For brevity’s sake, let’s cite just one example. Perhaps nothing brings out greater vitriol from LGBT activists than an individual’s claim that he or she is ex-gay. Now, certainly homosexuals can have their own opinions about the validity of such a claim, but true tolerance respects those with whom one disagrees. Were gay activists really tolerant, they would respect the rights of others, even those who say they are ex-gays, to live as they see fit and to make their case in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, militant homosexual activists vilify ex-gays, discriminating against them with reckless abandon. — “Five Ways Promoters of the Militant Homosexual Agenda Are Bullying the Public,” November 13, 2015
Reality is our friend if and only if we cooperate with it and conform our perspectives and actions to it. We have many problems in our world today, but one of the most serious and consequential is that many and perhaps most people are building their lives on foundations that do not align with reality or with the truth. Yet there is hope. If an individual has started building in a bad place, he or she does not have to continue. Relocation is possible! Furthermore, anyone intending to build his or her life on bedrock truth can reassess current progress and make appropriate adjustments. — “Reality: A Friend or an Adversary? The Decision Is Yours,” January 1, 2016
Secularism turns a deaf ear, not necessarily to a newborn’s helplessness, but to the implications of the baby’s helplessness. We must not forget that the baby would not have arrived were it not for a heterosexual union. Here we are not saying that homosexual parents of adopted infants neglect needs like feeding and changing them. We are saying that when both parents are of the same sex, this thwarts nature’s intention that the baby would have two opposite-sex parents once it is born. Put another way, same-sex marriage neglects the newborn’s innate needs for interacting with both a woman and a man—both a mother and a father. This is true not randomly, but in every case because same-sex marriage inherently denies children either a mother or a father. — “Ten Ways Same-Sex Marriage Denies Reality,” January 15, 2016
Despite Secularism’s claim that discrimination is to be abhorred, it actively discriminates against both men and women through same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage assumes that neither a man nor a woman has any unique contribution to bring to the important task of parenting. In other words, it assumes that both men and women are disposable. — “Ten Ways Same-Sex Marriage Denies Reality,” January 15, 2016
Modern Americans need to rediscover the Founders’ perspective on rights. We see their perspective on rights in the Bill of Rights—all through the first Ten Amendments to the US Constitution. The Founders’ view contrasts sharply to the modern view. Simply put, to the Founders, rights were God-given and were maintained when government was restrained. Unfortunately, most people today believe rights are theirs when the government intervenes in their lives in preferred ways; they thus believe that government is the source of rights. — “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America into Tyranny, Part 1,” May 13, 2016
Again, [authentic] rights and liberties are preserved when government is restricted from forcing individuals to act in certain specific ways. This does not negate the validity of general laws that require or prohibit specific actions for societal cohesion and stability. Constitutional rights can coexist with these statutes. What they cannot coexist with are laws that, in the name of extending rights to all, violate the Constitutional rights of others. — “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America into Tyranny, Part 2,” May 20, 2016
When the people of a nation believe they have a right to government “benefits,” they become intoxicated with everything the government is willing to offer. In turn, those in authority become intoxicated with the power they gain as an increasing number of people become dependent upon them. The more government “gives,” the more beholden recipients become. This is how a nation that began with liberty can be led into tyranny.
Again, to secure citizens’ rights of free speech and worship, the government primarily must stay out of people’s way. This is not so with the “rights” to be free of want and fear, nor is it true with a countless number of additional government “benefits” people have become conditioned to expect.1 — “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America Into Tyranny, Part 3,” May 27, 2016
Let’s consider two kinds of rights. Last time, we described differences between the first two of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms—freedom of speech and freedom of worship—and the last two—freedom from want and freedom from fear. The first two represent one category of rights and the last two a second category. To maintain the first two as rights, government needs primarily to stay out of the way and allow people to speak and worship freely. Maintaining the “rights” of a national populace to be free from want and fear, however, compel government to act in ways that invade people’s lives. In fact, such government activity can and often does infringe on rights in the first category—the kind of rights people cannot enjoy unless government stays out of the way.
Social and political scientists call rights that fall in the first category negative rights and those that fall in the second category positive rights. — “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America Into Tyranny, Part 4,” June 3, 2016
[Consider the law of gravity.] No one can step out of a 10th story window and expect to go anywhere but down, and fast! Gravity prevents us from safely doing a great number of things. Yet when we cooperate with it, we benefit immensely. Why? In a great many ways, gravity, which is part of “the natural order of things,” makes ordered life on earth possible.
Marriage, as humanity has understood it for centuries, is very much like gravity in this regard. When a society respects marriage as an institution uniting one man and one woman in a committed, lifelong relationship, it’s clear that it limits that society in certain ways. Perhaps it’s not as clear that it liberates it in many more! Clear or not, this is the truth! When a nation rejects man-woman marriage, devastating consequences follow. — “Misinformed and Misled: How a Distorted Perspective of Rights Is Leading America into Tyranny, Part 5,” June 10, 2016
This compilation copyright © 2019 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
top image credit: Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash
1This quote comes from an article that explores the qualitative difference between the first two freedoms Franklin Delano Roosevelt named in his “Four Freedoms” speech (given on January 6, 1941), and the last two. The first two freedoms were 1) freedom of speech and expression and 2) freedom to worship God in his own way. The last two were 3) freedom from want and 4) freedom from fear.
Be First to Comment