The John Edwards Affair

“Give me an ever-loving break!” Is that too clichéd? How about, “You’ve got to be kidding?” Worse? “Can you believe these guys?” Better? Mind boggling hypocrisy? That will have to do. I’m talking about the way the press handled the  John Edwards deal.

The blockbuster news of John Edwards’ affair on August 8, 2008 created a virtual tsunami in the national press…a “feeding frenzy” they typically call it. Edwards, a former United States Senator from South Carolina and a presidential hopeful early in the ’08 race, broke the story of his extramarital dalliance to reporters after the tabloids sniffed it out and hounded him until he could no longer hide it. The media thoroughly exploited the moral failure, asking campaign workers how they felt in a thousand ways and by analyzing, speculating, examining it until nothing but the dregs were left.

Some questions were predictable: When did this happen? Who was the woman? Why did he lie about it? Did it happen more than once? Did he have a love child? Reporters wanted basic facts about the affair. Other questions, however, were more revealing: How could he continue to run for President of the United States while living a double standard? How could he so deeply disappoint his loyal staff? How could he send his staff out to confront the general public to defend him when he knew they would be speaking falsehoods? How could he make speeches about integrity and family values while he was committing adultery? And the more damaging question of all: How could he do this while his wife was battling cancer? Sounding shocked and disgusted, anchors and media personnel peppered staff members with questions as though they had never heard of such a disgusting and revolting sin before.

Pure as the proverbial wind-driven snow, these people acted as though they fell out of their ivory prayer towers on hearing this news. Did we interrupt them in the midst of their twenty-one day fast, their meditations on the ten commandments and their cloistered saintliness? Did their pious lifestyles suffer some dreadful offense when they learned of the confession? Yeah, you bet. I don’t think so. These are the compadres of the writers, producers and actors of the most debased and degrading programs in the history of the electronic media. To many of them, adultery is on par with squishing a mosquito or telling a white lie. What’s worse is that they speak for a sizable portion of the American society in the twenty first century.

One need look no further than the headline of a LifeSiteNews.com story. Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive. The article beneath the banner reported on a new story by the Parents Television Council. PTC entitled their study “Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors Adultery and Promiscuity over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television.” Their findings showed that broadcast networks portray sex in marriage as either non-existent or troublesome. At the same time they frequently depict extra-marital or adulterous sexual relationships as positive and acceptable. The report found that instances of verbal reference to non-marital sex were more frequent than sex in the context of marriage by nearly 3 to 1 ratio, and scenes of sex between non-married partners, whether real or implied, outnumbered similar scenes between married couples by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1.

“These study results suggest that many in Hollywood are actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently showing it in a negative manner. Even more troubling than the marginalization of marriage and glorification of non-marital sex on television is TV’s recent obsession with outré sexual expression. Children and teens are now exposed to a host of sexual behaviors that less than a generation ago would have been considered off-limits for broadcast television,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

According to the PTC study, some of the once-taboo-for-TV sexual behaviors that are now found on prime time television include threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex with prostitutes, in addition to depictions of strippers, references to masturbation, pornography, sex toys, and kinky or fetishistic behaviors.

“Behaviors that were once seen as fringe, immoral, or socially destructive have been given the stamp of approval by the television industry. And recent studies show that children are influenced by those messages. Throughout much of the history of broadcast television, the networks adhered to a voluntary code of conduct which stipulated that respect should be maintained for the sanctity of marriage and the value of the home. Our report finds that not only are the boundaries no longer respected - they have been obliterated,” Winter continued. (See the full study results here: http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/SexonTV/Ma…

John Edwards’ behavior was wrong, sinful and unacceptable. No one who believes in and respects marriage condones his adulterous affair. Anyone who has feelings for the suffering of others cries out in behalf of his wife. At the same time, the media people who seemed to enjoy piling on, have a lot of work to do to make their supposed grievances sound believable. They might start by avowing that they, personally, are totally innocent of similar acts. Second, they might issue an open invitation for anyone to conduct an investigation of any and all employees of news organizations who report on these kinds of things to the general public in order to verify their claims. Third, they should openly admit that their brothers and sisters in the entertainment industry hold views about marriage and faithfulness that are twisted and evil. They should absolutely and unequivocally denounce the depictions of adultery, fornication and any other kind of sexual immorality on television. They should condemn the soap operas on their networks that routinely base their plots on infidelity. They should loudly and publicly criticize their networks for dramas, sitcoms, animated stories, reality TV programs, movies and any other venue in which sex outside of marriage is glorified.

To trash John Edwards and yet excuse the debauched thinking, values and product of present day Hollywood is hypocrisy at its putrid worst.

Life…According to AOL

Back in the dead tree era of news perusing, I paid scant attention to the society pages, Hollywood dramas (no, not on the screen—off the screen in the private lives of the gods of America) and the inane potpourri reporting of fads, trends, polls and styles of pop culture. After checking out the headlines, I went straight to the national and international news, editorials, opinions, economics and finance…and a peek or two at the sports pages. But the omniscient decision-makers at the America Online news desk have determined that the nation of internet consumers needed much more news…at least much different news than the stodgy old stuff that makes a difference. Those towering paragons of societal wisdom felt it was splash page rockin’ news that the diva Paula Abdul canceled a live performance on “Today” for the second time, and the inside dope is that it’s because she can’t sing live. Not only that, they treated me to the gossip about Brangelina (that’s a cute name-combo of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie) and rumors of her pregnancy.

Either AOL is staffed with shallow-minded groupies posing as editorialists, or they have made a corporate decision to lead America into the heights and depths of breathtaking banalities that we never knew existed. I have a name-combo for them: gossiptorialists. Or maybe…trashatorialists. Whatever. (It’s not that easy…I’ll give them that.) Oh, and they just told me that people are more stressed out at work than they used to be…you know…yelling, screaming and getting into fisticuffs. Shocking stuff. I would have never guessed. And they excel at reporting news I can use…like we can catch a certain disease by living in a tidy house, and that an inmate on death row claims he can’t be executed because he’s too fat.

I shouldn’t be too harsh. AOL does their obligatory dabbling in politics too. They just undertook some major pieces on John McCain’s youthful looking wife, Cindy, and compared her prospects for being an awesome first lady to Michelle Obama’s. Oh yeah, we must be sure to factor in the fact that Michelle dresses much better than Cindy. Extremely important. And that’s not even getting into their hair styles. And just when I was starting to get restless for lack of substance, I discovered that Los Angeles Kings center Jarret Stoll’s romance with Rachel Hunter will not likely lead to marriage because she she has no real need to marry the athlete…because…because…I’m sorry, I just can’t do this anymore.

AOL’s apparent philosophy of life terrorizes thinking Americans. Has the public discourse degenerated to the moronic level of gossip and worthless trivia? Is AOL symptomatic of the decline or are they facilitating it? Am I a hopeless throwback to another time in history that dealt with infinitely more substantial issues? The subjects that I like, the critical thinking patterns I use and even my routine vocabulary no longer fits with this new social paradigm. I was brought up in the values of an earlier generation that encountered the Great Depression, WWII, Nazism, the holocaust, polio, diphtheria, and other monumental struggles. I cut my teeth on talk of the Communist menace, nuclear deterrence, space travel and major scientific and medical breakthroughs.

AOL’s generation despises true science and the scientific method. It yawns at higher mathematics. It abhors all talk of law enforcement and military action that preserves the peace. It has no clue about the way the economy really works. It wants pleasure, good times, money, guaranteed health and health care, a life of leisure, fewer commitments, the right to live irresponsibly with no consequences attached and a nanny government that will see that all of this happens. It wants cosmetic beauty, faddish clothing, fun and more fun and more fun and more fun and more fun. It quickly turns on anything that is not fun.

AOL’s philosophy of life cannot be sustained forever. Morality is a bank into which the previous generation has deposited courage, stability, loyalty, responsibility and serious living. Not only has this generation failed to make any substantial deposits, it has nearly depleted the account. We are in danger of overdrawing. I literally become nauseated in the pit of my stomach when I contemplate the future of this nation. Not only have we abandoned the values that brought us to where we are, we have held them up to derision and ridicule.

I see no evidence that AOL tries to lift up this generation to a higher plane of living. I discern no attempt on their part to elevate the discourse or to challenge people to be more knowledgeable, proficient or self-reliant. I detect no campaign to encourage the citizens of this nation to understand its laws and grasp the way its economy functions. In fact, anyone who does try to cut a swath of understanding through the cultural wilderness that now describes America meets a wave of resistance from people like those who run AOL. The dirty little secret is that when our main focus is fun and pleasure, we will eventually birth a society that is neither fun nor pleasurable. This is not rocket science. It is, or ought to be, extremely plain to see.

There are societies on the planet who do take life seriously. The Chinese, the Indians and many Arabic cultures are becoming more proficient in mathematics, science and disciplines that require total commitment. More and more medical doctors employed in the United States now hail from these societies. The same is true with scientists, engineers, technologists and other professions. Slowly, but methodically, financial moguls and entrepreneurs from these backgrounds are gaining control of our economy as well. Some of these societies have no roots in democracy. Their political traditions were shaped in closed societies run by totalitarian regimes. They see Americans as spoiled and stupid. They see our way of life as weak and deficient. Will their infiltration ultimately lead to our demise? What do you think?

AOL cannot be blamed for the wholesale problems of America. It does, however, represent a frightening shift in the wrong direction. The least they can do is get a hold of the myopic cabal that decides what to emphasize as news on their home page. They can stop their participation in the dumbing down of America. They can start stimulating this generation to achievement and strengthening of character.

At the very least, they can stop leading with tinsel town drivel.

The “Manifest Destiny” of the Church

American history buffs know the phrase “manifest destiny” well. Coined by John O’Sullivan in 1845, it envisioned a whole American continent defined by the Atlantic Ocean in the east and the Pacific Ocean in the west. He believed that this radical expansion would not be determined by convenience or personal politics, but by divine right. The idea caught on and electrified a nation not yet a hundred years old, sending pioneers, soldiers and entrepreneurs from the settled lands of New England to the wild and dangerous territories of the West. “Go west, young man!” cried the billboards and ads of newspapers and magazines. “From sea to shining sea” became a familiar refrain in a patriotic song. Artists romanticized the westward movement, depicting angels guiding the population on its march to the Pacific. It was meant to be. Despite the bloodshed, hardship, warfare and brutality, the United States of America bears the deep and lasting imprint of people who sold out to manifest destiny with heart, mind, body and spirit.

Today, many critics reject the notion of manifest destiny. Indeed, the wrongs committed in its name throughout this era of our history cast untold shame and disgrace over the country. I do not excuse their dishonor; the end does not justify the means. At the same time, it must be argued that a vision, a dream, and an ideal that burned in the soul of a nation spawned one of the greatest movements ever experienced by a group of people. Misguided or not, America ’s citizens reached out to take what they believed was rightfully theirs.

In terms of the church, we are not misguided to fully embrace the idea of manifest destiny. Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The command to preach this gospel to every nation fuels the missionary zeal of the church. We have a conviction that every creature has a divine right to be saved. That motley band of disciples who started this march to the ultimate coast of the church’s destiny cowed to no man, king or high priest. Suppressed by authorities, they spoke out anyway in the name of Jesus. Imprisoned, they witnessed to their guards and saw them converted. Leaders executed, they chose new leaders and expanded their horizons. We can feel their infectious fervor in this verse: “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word…and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” Acts 4:29-31.

What is the manifest destiny of the church? Simply this: Revival! Every pastor and every church should set its sights on claiming new spiritual territory. Every Sunday School class, Bible study group or church cell ought to push out its borders. Every person stolen from the church by Satan needs to be reclaimed for Jesus. In a larger context, every country has a right to hear the gospel. Every district has a right to revival. Every county deserves a truth-proclaiming church. Every town needs a witness, a word, an outreach and an effort to spread the gospel. Paul said, “For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure …but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, ¹⁶ To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.” Acts 10:14-16. Just do it! No believer should waste time second guessing his or her expansion orders. We have a divine destiny to fulfill.

Only fear, confusion and accommodation to the status quo stand in our way. When we gear our mindset to maintenance rather than expansion, we buy trouble for ourselves and we get disconnected from Christ’s vision for the church. Remember Israel ? God painted a spectacular view of their divine destiny to inherit the Promised Land, but when they arrived at the borders, they could not break out of their wilderness mindset. “We can’t. We won’t. We don’t want to.” These negative words became the mantra of people who stood to gain infinitely more than the status quo. They had learned to live with the hard rocks and barren deserts and could not dislodge their wilderness image even for their divine promise. They preferred their known evil over their unknown good.

Satan dolefully shakes his head at us, telling us we’ve gone far enough. “You’ll never win the world. Be happy with what you have. Lock yourself up in your limited vision.” Don’t buy it. The church of Jesus Christ has an ultimate goal ascribed to it. “But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem , and in all Judaea , and in Samaria , and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Acts 1:8. God protected us in our wilderness, but he equipped us for expansion. Let us grasp revival and growth as our divine right.

The New Social Landscape and the Church

This is a rather shocking piece to read if you are a traditional church member. It is time, however, that we take a brutally honest look at the status quo. If we don’t deal with the problems in the church today, we will see much of it disintegrate before our very eyes. Change is rapidly transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary. The speed of technology advances at an exponential rate. A similar rate may now be seen in social structures as well. This includes the look of the church in our present world.

The scriptures speak clearly about family relationships among church members. Monogamous, heterosexual family units with their biologically conceived children all living in an orderly, safe domestic environment seems to be the norm for New Testament Christians. Today’s society, however, doesn’t look much like that model. The old “Ozzie and Harriet” or “Father Knows Best” ideal was abandoned by our grandparents. Their children, our parents, grew up in a world that not only rejected the traditional home, but held it up to ridicule. Now, this generation almost literally believes that anything goes. Whatever people choose to do is deemed proper, as long as it is consensual and nobody gets physically, emotionally or psychologically hurt. Now, even the concept of abuse is undergoing change. Pedophilia, statutory rape, and other acts that used to be defined as abusive now find growing tolerance or even support in the culture.

As one might anticipate, the church world has begun to reflect these societal trends to an unprecedented degree. Activities that are strongly prohibited in the Bible occur on a regular basis and much of the activity is defended as fine. The spit wad and rubber band era has given way to pornography and condoms. The following list may serve as a starter for the new look:

• Men who abuse their wives and children.
• Prominent church members going through divorce.
• Mothers leaving their families for a life of irresponsibility.
• Gay people who come out of the closet and still want to be in church.
• Transgendered people in the church.
• Separated persons wanting to include boyfriends and girlfriends in activities.
• Exposure of children to illicit arrangements between parents and others.
• Transvestites who want to use opposite sex facilities.
• Divorced persons who continue to belong to the same church.
• Couples who have swapped partners in the church.
• Affairs between church members.
• Growing unease with scriptural teaching about sexual matters.
• Discomfort with reading scriptural text that forbids sexual sins.
• Pressure to accept sexual orientation as defined by secular society.
• Child custody battles between divorced people in the church.
• Grandparents battling over custody or visitation rights with children in the church.
• Gross sexual sins between people in the church.
• Illegitimate children in the church.
• Child abusers in the church.
• Sex offenders in the church.
• Young people heavy into fornication.
• Engaged persons becoming sexually active and/or living together.

What spiritual wisdom do we need in order to deal with these developments? Have we crossed the line to the point that the righteous lifestyle may be gone forever? Where do we draw the line between loving the sinner but hating the sin, especially when the sinner has no desire nor intention of giving up his or her sin?

My fear is that we will fail to hold the scriptural line against sinful behavior and will subsequently lose our moral ground. What behavior do we forbid and what do we excuse? Should we tolerate more and more in the name of love and affirmation? Will we suffer so much intimidation from the world around us that we will shut up? When faced with sin, will we just look the other way in hopes that we don’t get hauled off to jail?

The church stands at a crisis point. While we were sleeping, the enemy has come in to sow tares. I freely admit that I do not have any answers other than to say we need a revival—desperately, thoroughly and worldwide. The revival we need today must do more than bring new people into the church. It must also bring a wave of sanctification and personal holiness into the church as well. If not, we will be the Christian version of the political reality now faced by the Republican Party. They speak of RINOs. It’s an acronym for “Republicans in Name Only.” We will be Christians in name only. Nothing by the way we act, look or believe will define us as Christians. Our labels may be the only vestiges we have left to remind us who we are—or used to be. I find it hard to believe that this is the kind of church Christ intended to create, or that he will return for in the near future.

This short piece is embarrassingly scant. It is little more than a heads-up. So much more needs to be written about these developments. As I gradually get over my shock and see my way clear, I will continue to add my voice and pen to the mix. Unfortunately, I find myself too often as a reporter on the sidelines rather than an influencer in the middle of the crazy current. Either we fight the trends and hold the banner high or we will sink beneath the waves of history.

The “Hate” Charge Is Starting to Wear Thin

Recently, McDonalds’s Corporation publicly announced their support for the gay agenda, causing no small stir among millions of people who oppose their action. One of the groups joining the fight against McDonald’s is the American Family Association, headed up by Donald Wildmon. He has called for a national boycott of the fast food chain because he believes that their decision is anti-family. Here is an excerpt of his report on the matter:

“Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald’s has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.

[American Family Association] AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald’s restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.

In response to the boycott, McDonald’s spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying “…hatred has no place in our culture.” McDonald’s has decided to adopt the “hate” theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Whitman went on to say, “We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment.” Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald’s choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda.”

Crying “hate speech” has become the standard, knee-jerk reaction against those who cannot conscientiously support the gay agenda or the gay lifestyle.  It illustrates how those who hold traditional beliefs have increasingly become objects of ridicule. Reason, logic, common sense or even decent respect no longer has a place in this dialogue.  Either believe them or die.  No middle ground exists.

Here is my dilemma: Think of two American citizens walking down the street. They may or may not be members of a minority. They may or may not belong to a protected class. In the eyes of the law, they are political equals. Both of them have opinions. One is allowed to express his or her opinion. The other is not. Both of them have religious beliefs. One is permitted to articulate and practice his or her beliefs. The other is not. Both of them have convictions about the way life should be lived. One is permitted to exercise his or her convictions. The other is not. The first is considered loving. The second is considered hateful. So much for political equality.

But is this right? Of course not. But it doesn’t matter anymore. Emotion now rules the day. If a certain segment of society may successfully be characterized as hateful, then no amount of reason or logic can change the prevailing opinion. When a vocal, powerful, wealthy and well-connected minority flexes its muscles, the reasoning process flies out the window.

The term, “gay agenda” is itself rejected by much of the gay community. So, by using the terminology, the speaker or writer has already identified himself or herself as being “homophobic.” But the question is still legitimate. Is there a so-called “gay agenda?” Call it what you will, the gay activist movement does indeed have certain political goals that it has long championed. In 1972, they called it the “Gay Rights Platform.” Here are two of the demands made in their document:

• “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
• “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit

During the 1987 March on Washington by gay activists, additional demands were made:

• The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.
• Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools [should be eliminated].
• The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.
• Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.

J. Matt Barber, writing for Concerned Women for America exposes the objectives of gay activist even further. He writes:

“Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:

• On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”
• On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”
• On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”
• On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”
• On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

The final objective, “make victimizers look bad” may be translated in this way. Anyone who opposes the gay lifestyle in any way, shape or form must be labeled as a hater, abuser and a victimizer. Little by little, the code language of those who intend to dismantle the traditional and conventional ideals of culture is starting to show through. By “pluralism” they do not mean that different viewpoints should be tolerated. They meant that no one should be against any viewpoint held by any other person in the world. By “diversity” they do not mean that all persuasions should be respected and honored. They mean that no one has the right to speak against any other persuasion in existence (whether it be religion, political preference or sexual orientation). By “tolerance” they do not mean that there is room in the world for everybody. They mean that there is no room whatsoever for intolerance.

Let me be clear. I do not hate homosexuals. I have profound disagreements with their lifestyle, their convictions, their morality and their activist agenda. To call this hatred is not an honest, reasonable assessment. The “hate” charge is a cold, calculated, politically designed vilification that has no sensitivity to my rights to hold such views. I believe that hatred is in the heart. How dare anyone judge my heart? How dare anyone make a broad, sweeping generalization about my deepest feelings? How can anyone know my motives and intents? How can anyone but God know what I’m all about?

No. The hate charge doesn’t work any more. It is tired. It is worn out. It is a lazy, jaded, clichéd phrase that rolls too conveniently off the tongues of the activists. Their propensity to burst forth in angry vituperations against supposed “homophobes” makes me wonder if they are the ones who deserve the hate charge instead of their opponents. Maybe they just don’t like to be contradicted. Or…maybe they are the ones who literally seethe with hatred against anyone who condemns their behavior. One only needs to peruse their blogs to confirm this view. Namecalling like “Nazis” and the “American Taliban”, and words and phrases like “dehumanizing”, “absolutely unhinged element” and a ton of other pejorative recriminations against “homophobes” may be found all over their writings.

A growing body of evidence, however, seems to side against the claims of gay activists. One such relatively new example is mentioned in the following press release from Love In Action, International Inc.

Memphis,TN: Love In Action International Inc., the world’s oldest and most respected ministry to men and women struggling with unwanted sexual identities and behaviors, gives high praise for the recently published three-year study by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (ISBN-10: 083082846X).

The scientific findings revealed in this study report that change from homosexual orientation is possible for some individuals. This study confirms what Love In Action has long held to be true.

Love in Action President/ CEO Reverend John J. Smid states, “God always provides a way of escape from the sin that entangles us. I am thrilled there is finally scientific research which compliments the tremendous freedom that I have experienced personally and that I have witnessed in others during my 20 years with Love in Action International. I hope this study will open the door for more unbiased research of this caliber.”

Reject the study if you so choose, but at least acknowledge that a legitimate opposing viewpoint exists and that it has enough documentation and corroborating evidence to make it plausible. That’s not based on a hate motive. That’s not a harebrained, trigger-fingered, redneck inanity. That position and belief derives from credible thinking and reasoning. For this particular piece, I do not argue from the standpoint of the Bible. I only wonder where my bill of rights went. Do I only have the freedom to believe what a certain group in society says I must believe? So it would seem.

A fair warning is in order to anyone who does not agree with the gay agenda. Soon, you will not have freedom of speech, freedom of press or freedom of religion. Their ultimate goal is to totally squelch the anti-gay sentiment. Every day, they get closer to their target.

Toilet Paper, Mustard and Eggs

After pulling wet toilet paper off of the trees and bushes in my front yard and after scrubbing the foul language written in mustard off my vehicles and garage doors (that now have to be repainted) and after taking the garden hose to the eggs splattered against my house, I got to thinking. Whoever did this was…you might say…upset? I don’t know what I did to cause it. Whatever it was, they had to do something to get back at me. How easy it must be to go to the supermarket, buy a six-pack of toilet tissue and a giant-size bottle of mustard, and vent one’s frustrations.

Admittedly, I did have some extraneous thoughts run through my mind as my wife, my son and I cleaned up the mess at six o’clock in the morning. I wish I knew who did this. Were they kids from the neighborhood or kids I knew? Who was the ringleader? I wish I had caught them red-handed. I wish I could have a heart-to-heart conversation with their parents, or grandparents…or BABYSITTERS! I wish I could make them get out here and clean this stuff off my house and cars.

But, I know better than to waste energy getting mad. These were mere juveniles who are not educated nor empowered to take care of their problems the right way. They could not stand up to me in the light of day. They could not risk revealing their identity. Either they did not have the courage or the honesty to call me up and ask for an appointment. The only option they felt they had was to make life a little more miserable for me. They didn’t mean for it to be vicious vandalism. They simply wanted to send me some sort of message. It’s up to me to figure out what it is.

Sometimes, I wish I could just bring an end to all my frustrations by doing something crazy like this. I would have little problem thinking of people who deserve to be tweaked a little bit for being jerks, for being irresponsible, for being selfish or for just being disagreeable. I mean, wouldn’t it be great to resolve all my grievances with presidents, senators, congresspersons, mayors and other officials by tee-peeing their houses? How about messing up the lawns of judges who ruled against me or who angered me with their decisions? Wouldn’t it be a hoot to squirt mustard all over the cars of the General Superintendent, the Assistant General Superintendents and the General Secretary of the United Pentecostal Church, International? Hey, we could load up ships with toilet tissue, mustard and eggs and go to our national enemies like North Korea and Iran and really teach them a lesson!

Just think of how much money and time this would save us. No more long, boring meetings. No more laboring and sweating over decisions; no more listening to the other side of an issue; no more letting people whom we don’t like have a chance to speak. Who wants to hear what they have to say anyway? In addition, we wouldn’t have to gather evidence, run down rumors, research documentation and end up voiding pet ideas that we have come to warmly embrace. We could actually cling to our prejudices and opinions if we could just use toilet paper and mustard!

But, life just isn’t that easy. People have to sit down like responsible adults and work out their problems. The give and take of life actually boils down to some giving and some taking. We cannot hope for lives free of troubles and trials. We can only call up our courage, our honor, our honesty and our forgiveness to get through it all. After the toilet paper, after the mustard, after the eggs, the problems don’t go away. If anything, they only get worse.

Let us resolve not to handle our problems with venting, spoiling, vandalizing, cursing and lashing out at people. Tactics like these only become distractions to the real work at hand. Love, honor, respect and reason can be tough virtues to maintain in the face of adversity, but anything less will only incite more difficulties. Paul’s words remain the best advice for conflict resolution. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:19-21.

Are You Green Enough?

Recently, my breath has been taken away at the speed of green. From a few pesky, fringe groups constantly harping on environmental issues, it has mushroomed into a big time political force whose influence can no longer be swept aside. The wide acclaim of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie serves as a pretty good indicator of green’s clout, but even more revealing is the number of corporate sponsors who have climbed on board. Many major corporations now trumpet their green initiatives. It will probably not be long before the recalcitrant few will feel the wrath of environmental aficionados.

Should we not fully embrace measure to protect the earth? Is it not the Christian thing to do? Should we allow industrial concerns, corporate giants and rank-and-file consumerism to rape, pillage and plunder our natural resources? One would think it is a no-brainer. A few strategic questions, however, seem to me to be in order before jumping on the bandwagon.

• Who are the major players guiding the movement?
• Are there any ulterior motives that we should know about?
• Is the major impetus behind environmental causes a simple conservationist conscience, or are there religious beliefs that fuel the activities and philosophies of the adherents?
• What are the ultimate goals of the green movement?
• What will be the consequences on the economy, the freedom of the people and the standing of this nation in the world?
• Will the goals of green make us vulnerable to our enemies?
• Are the objectives of the green agenda to be followed and enforced internationally across the board, or is this nation expected to comply unilaterally?

Maybe the most important question to ask is whether or not the greenies consider any of these questions to be unseemly and rooted in selfishness. In other words, are we simply to accept the green agenda without a thorough analysis and vetting all of its precepts? Judging from the past responses that the green movement has often given to its detractors, we should expect a firestorm of guilt, blaming, irresponsibility and charges of evil for asking even the simplest of questions. And when we reject their superficial, inane answers, we should anticipate the rancor to rise volcanically.

I have deep reservations about the true intentions of the green movement. I believe that it is anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom and anti-American. I believe that adopting its tenets will ruin our economy, deny our basic freedoms and endanger our national security. Furthermore, I believe that these outcomes are intentional, not coincidental. Far more than an environmental awareness program, it is designed to knock America off of its hegemonic perch and make us equal to all other nations of the world. The ultimate goal of the greenies is to impose a system quite different from the constitutional, representative republic that we now enjoy. They want us to acquiesce to a one world rulership on the order of the United Nations.

But the political, military and economic aspects of the dangerous green movement do not bother me nearly as much as its religious overtones. The green agenda is driven by a religion that rivals all other religions of the world. It is pagan, idolatrous and heretical It stands for ideals diametrically opposed to Christianity. Many sources may cited to prove this contention. Perhaps the most courageous of all is www.green-agenda.com  (The greens may have redirected this domain name.  Try Googling it if necessary.)  In it you will find full documentation of the paganistic roots of the greenies. When one begins to research their agenda, it becomes obvious that they make no bones about who they are and what they believe.

Here is a sample of the website’s offerings: (I quote large portions of the text because there is no apparent prohibition from doing so. I take none of the credit for the following quoted material.) “Anyone who has studied the global green movement has no doubt heard of “Gaia”. Believers in Gaia, or ‘Gaians’ as they often refer to themselves, claim that the earth is a sentient super-being, an ancient goddess spirit, deserving of worship and reverence. Sir James Lovelock, in his book Gaia: ‘A new look at Life’, states that “all of the lifeforms on this planet are a part of Gaia - part of one spirit goddess that sustains life on earth. Since this transformation into a living system the interventions of Gaia have brought about the evolving diversity of living creatures on planet Earth.” Gaians teach that the “Earth Goddess”, or Mother Earth, must be protected from destructive human activity. It is this belief that fuels the environmental movement, sustainable development, and a global push for the return of industrialized nations to a more primitive way of life.

“Gaians claim that “we are part of Nature and Nature is part of us, therefore God is part of us, and God is everywhere, and everything is God”. In reality Gaia is actually a revival of the “Earth-goddess” found in many ancient pagan religions. The current Gaia Cult is a cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, wicca and feminism. While researching this subject I have been astounded by how many prominent environmental leaders, politicians, scientists, and religious leaders profess a literal belief in Gaia. Gaians appear to have infiltrated every level of power at the United Nations and risen to prominent positions in many Governments. I strongly believe that they are the most dangerous and devious cult on the face of the planet.

“Gaians teach that the Divine Earth must be protected from all threats no matter what the cost. The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, explicitly refers to Christianity as a faith that has set humans apart from nature and stripped nature of its sacred qualities. “Conversion to Christianity has therefore meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers, peasants, fishers all over the world …The northeastern hilly states of India bordering China and Myanmar supported small scale, largely autonomous shifting cultivator societies until the 1950’s. These people followed their own religious traditions that included setting apart between 10% and 30% of the landscape as sacred groves and ponds.” While condemning Christianity and Islam as the root of all environmental evil, the document goes on to praise Buddhism and Hinduism as they “did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”

“Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, echoes this view “Prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation…swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.”

“Gore then quotes deChardin, “‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth…” Gore is also fond of quoting an old Native Indian saying “Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our Mother. What befalls the earth, befalls all the sons of the earth. This we know - the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth.”

“Gaia worship is at the very heart of the Global Green Agenda. Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, and the Global Warming theory are all part of the Gaians mission to save “Mother Earth” from her human infestation. Gaians have succeeded in uniting the environmental movement, the new age movement, Eastern religions, the United Nations and even the leaders of many Christian denominations behind this vile new form of paganism.

“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth”
- “Prayer to the Earth”, Student Textbook

    We cannot take this movement lightly. They now have unlimited financial backing, the favor of most multi-national corporations, acceptance by most major political parties, endorsement from mainstream denominations and the enthusiastic support of the academic community. It is time to make your calling and election sure.

Sex and the (Doomed) City

We never thought we would see the day come. Deep and dirty sexual acts, once too disgusting to talk about, are closer to becoming mainstreamed than ever before. Children as young as ten years old would shock you with their sexual knowledge. Not only do they know about it, they are experimenting with it in bathroom stalls, locker rooms, behind community buildings and in their friend’s bedrooms. They find willing tutors online, on cell phones and in some classroom textbooks. They know street names for body parts, depraved acts, and the celebrities who model them. Hollywood loves it. Humanists love it. Pornographers love it. This nation has become a sexual hell hole that grows more corrupt by the day.

Pastors, youth leaders, Sunday School teachers and parents need to rise up against the tide. Our kids are not informed about the drastic consequences of sexual wildness. Like innocent lambs to the slaughter, Hollywood and her ilk now lead this generation to shrines of sexual freedom. Unbridled lust, along with their own generation’s rebellion fuels their fire, not to mention the millions of dollars they rake in. They literally do not care about the aftermath. In fact, blinded by their distorted moral values, many of them believe that the aftermath will be good for America and good for the kids.

Unfortunately, too many Christian churches have reconfigured their ideas about sex. Youth groups are now told to practice safe sex, abortion is seen as an individual choice and alternative lifestyles find endorsement rather than condemnation. It is both amazing and sickening that so many true Biblical teachings have been tossed out in favor of liberal ideas in the popular culture. Let us begin a course correction.

Sexual sins are expressly forbidden by the Bible as destructive to the body.

1 Corinthians 6:15-17 says, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”   One of the sins of fornication is that the relationship between a man and a woman is extremely important and meaningful in the sight of God. Two people joined together sexually make themselves into one body. One set of values; one character; each share the same sin.

Our society believes that anything you do that doesn’t hurt anyone is totally private and nobody else’s business. But that’s not what God says. Paul continues in 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”   Too many people consider fornication as a momentary sin, a little lapse in character, a stumble in the pathway, but otherwise harmless. Well, you really shouldn’t do it, but if you do, just ask God to forgive you and it’s all over. This attitude totally trivializes principles that have a monumental standing in life itself. Look at these scriptures. Proverbs 6:23-28. “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?” See also Proverbs 7.

Let’s see what really happens when people commit fornication:

First, let’s look at the medical and physical risks.

• Sexually active people make themselves vulnerable to STD’s like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
• They risk becoming the mother or father of another person. (If you believe it is wrong to take a father or mother away from an infant, by the same token you should believe that it is wrong to take away or deny a mother or father from an unborn child.)
• Those who take protection against pregnancy plan on committing the sin of fornication before the act takes place.
• If a child results from the union, they face a whole host of problems, like abortion, marrying the father or mother, entering into lifelong relationships with a family of in-laws, and radically changing their own life plans.

Even without pregnancy, people who commit fornication are not out of danger.

• The relationship between a man and woman deals with highly charged, emotional forces.
• Fornication is becoming intimate with somebody they really do not know.
• Questions will arise, like was the intimacy based upon lying statements about love?
• Was it based upon false promises about commitment to each other?
• When it happened, were they pressured, pushed, manipulated, forced?
• Are they ready to grow up as adults and see each other in a non-sexual way?
• Will they tell anyone else what happened?
• Will the other person tell? If other people find out, will it be used against them?
• Will they have to face it at the worst moment possible moment in their lives?

My counseling experience with young people who got into bed with each other without mutual commitment, without realistic thoughts of marriage and without a clear picture of their futures has not been positive. After their affair cooled, they had to deal with disappointment, embarrassment, hurt, disgust, anger and fear about the relationship, all of which long outlived any momentary pleasure they derived from it. The ones in recovery now have a heavy piece of baggage that they must carry for the rest of their lives. Those that have not yet recovered are obsessed with bitterness, rebellion and negative feelings about life.

Does God forgive fornication? Yes, just like he forgives bank robbery. God’s forgiveness, however, does not mean a human cost won’t be paid. Proverbs 6:30-35 says, “Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away. For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.”

But there is an even greater reason to keep one’s body pure from sexual sin “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” Fornication is the commission of sacrilege against God because we defile his temple. We are where God dwells. However, for the sake of illustration, how many would of us would go into your home church and vandalize it? How many would throw paint, rip pews and kick holes in walls? Of course not! Isn’t this exactly what fornication does to the real temple of God, the human body? “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Fornication is wrong. Pre-marital sex and extramarital sex is wrong. Fornication is grand larceny against God. You are the redeemed possession of God. You have no right to do what you want to do with your body. If you resent this or rebel against it, you can steal your rights back. God will keep your individual free moral agency inviolate. But you also take the responsibility for aftermath. And, do not be deceived. The responsibility will be real. It will also be far greater any you ever imagined. You are not playing with matches. You are playing with nuclear warheads.

“Anyone who doesn’t respect the marriage vows before they are married will not respect them after they are married.” -Robert Trapani