Saturday, May 5, 2012

The Spiritual Seduction. Subdued By Gay Rights

1 Timothy 4:1 ~ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

In the ongoing battle for gay acceptance many good heterosexuals have been caught in the cross hairs and have lost their will to fight for truth or simply stumbled and gotten confused over the real issues. Once such stumble may have happened in Maryland over the issue of gay marriage.

Contrary to what we noted in our story “You Go Maryland...In God We Trust” there are other pastoral voices that endorse gay marriage in the state as well. Pastor Delman Coates of  Mount Ennon Baptist Church in the Prince George’s County town of Clinton, is one such pastor that supports the gay marriage bill of Maryland. He is also reported to have strongly stood with Governor Martin O’Malley lending his time talent and voice to the expansion of marital rights to same sex couples. This is some of what he has said:

“I think that using private, religious beliefs, and local church practices for legislation establishes a dangerous precedent in America,”…

Pastor Delman Coates 
He has said this as well:

“We have fought for inclusion, for freedom of religion, so that means if I want to be free to exercise my own religious beliefs, I have to extend that same courtesy and right to others, regardless of what I may think they do in private,”

And the last thing to examine is this:

“Gays and lesbians are part of our communities, they are part of our families, they are part of our church families,” …“I believe that the church ought to be a place where all people, regardless of their lifestyle, ought to be welcome.’

Now, I want to be the first to say that I don’t know Pastor Coates and in that spirit, I’m confident that he is a good man and an excellent servant of God. So I do not aim to impugn his character. However, he has made certain truth claims which seem to be a basis for his argument in support of homosexual marriage and I believe that his truth statements should be examined as I believe that they exemplify a departure from the faith as it pertains to these matters. 

In the few comments that we are examining, the pastor makes three basic assumptions with his argumentation in support of gay marriage:

  1.      Religious beliefs should not be the basis of public practices or policy.
  2.         The extension of religious freedoms mandates the extension of all personal and private freedoms.
  3.    Gay people are in every part of our society therefore the church should not be prohibitive in their acceptance and ultimately the extension of equal rights.
    Now, Let's examine these arguments in a little more detail
1
    #1 ~  Religious beliefs should not be the basis of public practices or policy.

    This is called religious pluralism. In order to understand this we must look at the chief proponent of this type of religious pluralism today. Not surprisingly, President Obama has adopted this position and spells out his version of religious pluralism very well for all interested parties to note:    

"And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal, whenever we can, to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds." ~ President Barack Obama 5/17/2009
Then, President Obama to our American troops overseas at Bagtam Airfield at Afghanistan on March 28th 2010 he stated the following:
“[American success is] what’s possible when people come together, not based on color or creed, not based on faith or station, but based on a commitment to serve together, to bleed together and to succeed together as one people, as Americans.”...“But all of you want to build—and that is something essential about America. They’ve got [The Taliban] no respect for human life. You see dignity in every human being. That’s part of what we value as Americans. They want to drive races and regions and religions apart. You want to bring people together and see the world move forward together. They offer fear, in other words, and you offer hope.”
One can hear Senator Barack Obama in his 2006 speech "A Call To Renewal"  explain a portion of the relationship between faith and secularism for himself in this video clip


Under what has been called the "recasting of American and American values" by this President, within most modern doctrines of pluralism, religious beliefs are considered to be an imposition upon those who do not share the same set of beliefs and something that prohibits growth and the welfare of the community at large. The basis of the President's views seem to be rooted in his response to the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks and subsequent wars, pointing out that societal problems are what happens when religious fundamentalism dominates a society instead of shared values. (I've already dealt with the refutation of the President's assumptions in this area on this site, I only point out what seems to be his basis for his belief on pluralism) 


Certainly the pastor is espousing the modern political view of the faith and how it should affect public life. Ultimately, the problem is that within his view there are 2 sets of morals…public morals and private morals. Private morals may be objective and static, but public morals are subject to a morally relativistic application, group think and societal whims.  The only problem is this approach turns objective moral values into relative moral values and therefore creates havoc at all levels. Anything that is taught privately is subject to modification publicly. In essence this is the epitome of hypocrisy. It is utter confusion and a complete contradiction. The just live by their faith:

Heb. 10:38 ~ Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
(Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11)

American law has a deep foundation of a Judeo-Christian value system. Right down from the right to face accusers, to reparations and penalties for certain crimes. To strip the system of just punishments simply because they are rooted in biblical values, would be to gut the whole of the law and make it powerless and ineffective. Then we ask, who’s values and what type of values should replace it? Then we end up with the utter silliness that we find today, where killers potentially go free, while those who defend themselves from abuse are imprisoned.

What Pastor Coates is saying is that religious faith should be powerless and ineffective in public matters. Of course he doesn’t want Sharia for example, but core Christian values, when implemented, don’t come close to Sharia as applied within Islam. His view, just as our President’s view,  is a "red herring" and ridiculous argument.

#2 ~ The extension of religious freedoms mandates the extension of all personal and private freedoms.

The Pastor says:

“… if I want to be free to exercise my own religious beliefs, I have to extend that same courtesy and right to others, regardless of what I may think they do in private,”

The mistake of this thinking is that 1- sex is tantamount to a “religious belief”.  Now some people believe that I’m sure, as they approach sex religiously, but most rational, non sexually addicted persons distinguish the difference between sexual rights and religious rights. They are categorically different.  Unfortunately the Pastor mixes them together and creates a concoction of something (although I have no idea what)

And 2, the pastor’s sentiments unfortunately are absent of the principles of our nation’s founding fathers who declared that all men have been endowed with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS given to us by God our creator.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ The US Declaration Of Independence 7/4/1776
In other words our personal freedoms and the right to live religiously free is not a chess piece of compromise as it pertains to the rights of others.  Neither are our religious freedoms granted or conferred to us by the state or government. Thinking to the contrary is more in line with socialist and communist lines of thought on freedoms, rather than in line with true fundamental  American values. As a side note, I believe that we need to understand the difference between INALIENABLE rights and UNALIENABLE rights because they are often spoken of as one in the same.

The last thought that we will examine from the pastor’s commentary is:

#3- Gay people are in every part of our society therefore the church should not be prohibitive in their acceptance and ultimately the extension of equal rights.

This is simply a “straw-man” argument, appealing to emotions, which asserts that the church wishes to reject homosexuals. This is a LIE. The church wishes to reform homosexuals and minister to their need to be free from homosexuality. Noone lines up homosexuals at the door and says “Gay’s Can’t Enter” There is a standard of what is called HOLINESS (Heb. 12:14) and the servants of the Lord are known by that standard. Homosexuality is a sexual SIN and like heterosexual sexual sins are unacceptable and displeasing to God.

In addition, NOONE has called for a lesser existence for gay people in general. Where is the “war” on homosexuals especially the "war" inspired by Christianity and Christian values? Some say, homosexual children are bullied at school because of religious values…It is amazing that those same ADULTS take time to persecute children because of their anti-religious beliefs and then claim exemption for their actions...The fact is that heterosexual children have been bullied at school since public education began. In addition, need we talk about Jim Crow racism at the school level??? These things are par for the course of human existence and are a product of SIN. Things of the sort certainly shouldn’t happen, but they do. Only now we’re making laws to protect a person’s sexual expression which is atrocious and bias. If I were a polygamist, or another of what has been defined as a "sexual minority" I would be shouting from the housetops of disparity and inequity based on the same path that the gay agenda has promoted. 

As a pastor to any other pastor, from a biblical point of view, if it is truly believed that marriage is an institution of God (and I believe that’s the real issue, the belief is that marriage is a product of the state and government rather than something conferred to man by God) then marriage cannot be compromised as something other than what God has ordained for it to be. For any PASTOR that is faithful to the word of the Lord, that is probably the most compelling personal argument against attempts to redefine marriage. 

In short, gay people are welcome at any church I know, most certainly just like sinners of all kinds are welcome. However, a TRUE body of believers aren't enamored with or accommodating of either homosexual or heterosexual sins. They reach repentance, faith in the blood of Jesus and remission of sins!

I don;t know this to be the pastor's case, but unfortunately, certain leaders, compromise right, sound and biblical standards for the accolades and acceptance that is placed before them. Political and social acceptance may make too many of us comfortable and cower down to sin.  What we fail to realize that in seeking the acceptance of the world and political officials, we deny Christ and all that he stands for. We become like salt with NO savor.

I wonder is the song really true for many modern leaders? Would we really rather have Jesus, than silver and gold? If so, SOMETHING has got to be left at the door. I wonder what will it be?

Blessed! 

9 comments:

  1. Since our president has endorsed gay marriage, this article is as pertinent as ever.

    President Obama says that his decision was made based on various conversations with his daughters and wife and those close to him, questioning issues of "equality" and "discrimination".

    The problem is those are a totally wrong basis for this argument. Sexual issues have NEVER dealt with "equality" or "discrimination". Sexual issues always deal with moral issues.

    The seduction is the diversion of the issue away from a moral issue to an "equality" or "equal rights" issue boarderlining on civil rights.

    However, look at this...civil rights were never associated with morals in the sense that to have a right because of skin color etc, was a lifestyle. Black was not a sin and could not ever be a sin.

    On the other hand, sexual arrangements and preferences have ALWAYS been associated with morality, right and wrong. This is inescapable.

    What the President has done is gone that extra step of exalting gay marriage to a rights issue while playing down the moral issue cloaked in words that we all agree that are good..."equality, love, acceptance" etc...This is deceptive and inspired by the psychology of the homosexual right.

    They are smuggling in SIN underneath good and virtuous values claiming that their sin is identified by those virtues. Nothing is further from the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sad thing is most of the Black Church will follow Pres. Obama right into Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Angela Chang rendered the following commentary on our Facebook Thread:

    "For those of you still in the dark....Here are some recent incidents that have taken place to accommodate our Gay & Lesbian friends: (California)....Foster Parents must take a "Reeducation Class" embracing the gay agenda, to be allowed to house foster kids........(California) - Public Schools have a mandated pro-homosexual policy that sends objecting students to "appropriate counseling" without notifying their parents......(California) - A business was put out of business (with a $150,000 fine) for firing a male employee who wore a dress to work..........(Colorado )- A dad was told by a judge that he can't teach his daughter anything "homophobic"...........And folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg! .......This is just part of an inevitable process which can be summarized like this..... Progression of Gay Activism: First, gay activists came out of the closet. Second, they demanded their "rights" Third, they demanded that everyone recognize those rights. Fourth, they want to strip away the rights of those who oppose them. Fifth, they want to put those who oppose their "rights" into the closet............Now look at that list, where do you think, the church is going to end up.....IN THE CLOSET!!......As stated in a teacher's lesson aid, published by the Gay & Lesbian Educators (GALE)..... "We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation, even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc" .....Surprised? Remember that those words are not predictions....they are statements of fact, a recap of what has already taken place in America. Even our vocabulary is being affected, as they produce new definitions and concepts...For example.."tolerance" ....it has a new meaning according to their specs......it now means....complete acceptance of GLBT lifestyles and ideology - in the family, in the work place, in education, in the media, in religion......while at the same time, refusing to tolerate any view that is contrary to theirs!!!"

    This is very insightful. Gay marriage changes and effects EVERYTHING and there is no way that a person can just confine this to an issue of choice. This is a moral issue through and through.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally, I don't believe government should be involved in any form of marriage, gay or straight. I believe marriage is between the parties involved and their particular religious institution, if they have one. I do not believe anyone needs to sign a government contract to be married.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With regard to homosexuality and the church, we must remember that people are going to do what they want to do. I don't believe the church should be trying to police what people do in the privacy of their homes (or hotel rooms) because it is an exercise in futility. The church should state it's position and leave it at that. The church should fight to keep homosexuality out of it's doors. The government also, should not be endorsing or promoting any form of sexuality. That isn't it's job.

    The irony of the whole black church vs gays thing, is that many of the very folks who stand in the pulpit and rail the most against it are the one's who practice it. There was a man who was apart of the COGIC jurisdiction here in Michigan, that my parents were part of. He was very effeminate, but according to him, he wasn't homosexual anymore and was really trying to change, that's why he got involved with the church. However, because of his less than masculine ways, he say he has been propositioned by many married preachers within the denomination. The same preachers who get in the pulpit and rail against "sissies and fags".

    My point is that homosexuality is running deep in the black church, so instead of worrying about two men on the other side of the country getting "married", the church should purge itself first or it'll just be made a laughing stock out of. Case in point is Bishop Eddie Long (I am aware that he is not COGIC).

    ReplyDelete
  6. FM,

    The state has a vested interest in marriage and extending benefits to them that will be married. It begins with the family. The state would rather have a strong household raise kids than them do it themselves.

    Economics are a big part of it. Families and especially married families are a bigger economic boom to the state than non married and non committed family relationships especially over time.

    These things and others is what we KNOW about families that enjoy marriage commitments.

    So that is in part why the state wants to and should condone the institution of marriage.

    On the other hand, the benefits of a gay marriage is off the charts. Not to say that there will be any damage, but studies are indeterminate as to the psychological affects or benefits or even negatives of gay marriage. What effect does observing 2 fathers have on a child and the development of both their psychology and sexual selves? Do these relationships work in reverse of heterosexual marriages, creating children who are repressed sexually because they don't want to disappoint their parents? If so, can we expect to see more child suicide or psychological depression based on these sort of issues?

    That's just one aspect of the issue. The other aspect is what affect does this have on long term economics, education etc? We already know that the education will be affected.

    If a person doesn't have a child in the school system, then they do not know the importance of the current and modern issue. Once the law, homosexual sex education can't simply be opted out of...it is the law and the state holds that it's in the best interest for your child to be exposed to lawful arrangements EVEN if you as a parent are opposed.

    This can't be overstated.

    ReplyDelete
  7. FM,

    All the hays in the world doesn't change the truth that God condemns homosexuality and those that love their sin are lost.

    So far as legislation...if the church doesn't advocate for a biblically moral position, when who will? The world won't advocate for biblical morality. The government is oblivious and is only self-interested.

    One thing is for sure, SOMEONE's version of morality will be instituted.

    The country is NOT built the concept of freedom FROM religion. It is built on the concept of freedom OF religion. These are two different things.

    Christian morality, does not violate law, kill, rob, cheat or steal. What is the problem with Christian morality? The acknowledgement that it is founded and rooted in GOd, the only law giver?

    I have addressed that in Pt. 1 of my series on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see your point. As a side note, and this refers to heterosexual marriage, there is very little incentive for a man to get married today. The way family courts favor women over men, and with divorce rates being what they are, a man can be wiped out financially in the event of a divorce. Look at Kobe Bryants divorce and how much he had to pay her. Many men are stuck with unreasonable alimony and child support payments. As a result of this, many men are opting out of marriage today.

    I heard this one woman on the radio talking about how she cheated on her husband with his friend, and during the divorce, she still got $300,000 and the house they shared. The radio host asked her if she even felt a little bad, her answer was an unapologetic, hardy NO!!! She was glad to have stabbed her husband in the back, then have the court system force him to pay her for cheating on him.

    Because of government involvement in marriage, you get the scenario like the one I described above. That's why I say government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Today, you have to sit down with a team of lawyers to ask them can you even propose to a woman and await their legal advice.

    As for schools, reading, writing, and arithmatic should be taught only!!! The gov't should in no way be teaching homosexuality to children. That is unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FM,

    Yes, the government is intrusive and that is the danger of doing what they are trying to do with this issue. They are saying that extending rights never hurts society...Well in extending rights, IF government is involved, rights are taken from someone. It's always a one way street on that issue.

    Look at the Patriot Act. Good idea to some extent to address potential terrorism and various crime. However, the problems is that the Patriot Act will never be repealed. It's a one way trip and it eroded many person rights and freedoms.

    Same with court intervention into families. They only take, take and take some more. then they charge both fees and taxes (double tax) to justify themselves. Some families are split now, because of government intervention.

    So I see what you are saying. It is really a mess and it seems that under this President and even under a new one, things will only get worse. Until there is a regeneration of hearts and minds at a grassroots level, I don't think we can expect some great radical change to take place.

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.