USAID and the corruption of new liberalism

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has recently been exposed by the (second) Trump adminstration as funding sexual perversion (among other things) around the world. The spotlight on the immoral left shows that much of the new liberal talking points about "democracy" and so on are actually subversive of democracy. On the issue of sexual pervsion (i.e. LGBT+), it is easily seen that the push for so-called "inclusion" on these issues has never been organic.

Part of the rhetoric pushed by those advocating for so-called "sexual minorities" is that it is a small minority of religious people pushing their religion into the public sphere. In light of the exposure of USAID, it is clear that this is not the case. The push for LGBT+ is a well-financed operation by a small group of extremely powerful and wealthy immoral Leftists to impose their wickedness on the rest of the world. Just because religious citizens are the most vocal in pushing back against these wicked people, that does not mean that they are the small minority seeking to impose religous values. Rather, because the natural law is clear, all peoples everywhere naturally know that LGBT+ is wrong, and it takes "education" or indoctrination into Leftist ideologies to suppress the conscience and to regard evil as good.

Whatever one wants to think about the person of Donald Trump, we should all thank God at least for this one blessing: the exposure of Leftism as an imperialist agenda. The next time someone raised this idea of religious imposition, we have a very good counter to it.

The American Idolatry of "Freedom" and David French's continual defense of rank immorality

'The Conservative Case for Trans-ing The Kids' 🤡🌎 https://t.co/dbcF4qDX6M

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) October 2, 2022

David French is at it again, defending his so-called "moderate" views in his blog piece "When Culture Wars go too far." Under his so-called moderation, French defended his "classical liberal" view that everyone should have the freedom to sin, stating that he is a "strong believer in classical liberalism, pluralism, and legal equality." Unfortunately for him, French is none of these things. Does anyone seriously think that any of the American Founders would have agreed that anyone should be free to do Drag Queen Story Hour?

The problem with David French and many so-called conservatives is that they have imbibed the Spirit of the Age. French's view of freedom is that of Left Liberatarianism, not Classical Liberalism. It is an idolatry of "freedom" from all forms of law, where all men are to be free to violate laws as long as they are not illegal under the Zeitgeist. In other words, French's view of freedom is what John Calvin calls libertinism, where under the guise of freedom, men are to be free to break any law they want as long as the Zeitgeist does not agree with said law.

A simple thought experiment would be in order. Is there freedom for a person to own and flog another person as a slave today? It was considered legal in the American antebellum South, so one should be free to do so even if one disagrees with slavery, right? Of course not! French would probably claim that the law forbid it, so let me reframe the question. In the antebellum South, would French defend the right of a slaveowner to own slaves and flog his slaves, even if he thinks it is immoral? Let me repeat the question again: In the antebellum South, would French defend the right of a slaveowner to own slaves and flog his slaves, even if he thinks it is immoral? If French utilizes the same reasoning he uses to defend the freedom of Drag Queen Story Hour, he should logically say yes. But if French says no, as he probably would, then that is only proof that what should be awarded freedom depends on the Zeitgeist. What wickedness the current Zeitgeist allows and celebrates, French would defend the "freedom" to sin in that manner. What wickedness the current Zeitgeist demonizes, that he probably would deny the freedom to do so also.

There is a deep sickness in American conservatism, a pathology of immorality in thought even if not in act. The idea that Drag Queen Story Hour should be tolerated because of "classical liberalism" is total nonsense. Some sins have to be tolerated of course in society for a variety of reasons, like private immorality. But every healthy society has always criminalized gross public immorality. From a Christian perspective, this is just the application of the Natural Law, the Second Table of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing contrary to freedom to enforce the Natural Law, just as it is not contrary to the freedom of the rapist to criminalize rape, or against the freedom of the murderer to punish the murderer.

Side B theology, "nature" and "will"

Over in the degenerate country that was once a long time ago a godly nation, Christianity Astray Today back in December 3 2021 had published a opinion piece promoting the ideas of "Side B Christianity." "Side B Christianity" teaches that one can legitimately be or identify as homosexual, LGBTQ+, as an expression of one's struggle with these sexual sins, and at the same time call oneself a Christian. As opposed to "Side A" which celebrates the goodness of homosexual acts and LGBTQ+ sex acts, up to and including "marriage," "Side B" claims they agree with the Bible that these sex acts are sins. Therefore, as Christians, they would not engage in these acts, yet they continue to assert their identity as LGBTQ+ and assert they are in those "communities."

As LGBTQ+ acts are gross sexual perversions, Side B followers are most definitely to be lauded for treating these as sins and refusing to engage in these sins. At the same time, their continual identification with gross sin as an identity marker goes against everything Christ died for in purchasing us to be holy in His sight, which excludes identifying with our sins. One argument that a Side B advocate might advance though is a favorite of the LGBTQ+ lobby, that they are just "born this way." In other words, by nature, they were created with this LGBTQ+ orientation. Therefore, just as one born a man identifies as a man, one borns Hispanic identifies as Hispanic, so likewise one born LGBTQ+ should identify as LGBTQ+.

Now, there are various ways to adddess Side B theology and show how it is contrary to Scripture. I however would like to approach it alongside the issue of "will" and "nature." When we tell someone that LGBTQ+ is wrong, we are asking them to "will" to not engage in it, to "will" to not identify as that. In classical metaphysics however, "will" is a property of "nature." But if "will" truly is a property of "nature," then what does this imply for the issue of Side B theology? If by nature they are LGBTQ+, then they would be unable to will to be something else. In other words, under classical metaphysics, Side B proponents would be justified in claiming LGBTQ+ as their identity, even while they do not engage in the sex acts themselves.

Christians of course would point out that in Christ, we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Therefore, as new creation, our identity is now in Christ and not in our past sins. They are correct in their response. However, that is an insufficient response when one understandings how classical metaphysics interact with Side B theology. If in classical metaphysics, the "will" is a property of "nature," then having a new nature in Christ means having a new "will." However, as Reformed Christians, we hold that grace does not destroy nature but rather renews it. In other words, the new nature we have in Christ does not nullify the created nature. The old, sinful nature most certainly would slowly pass away. However, the old, sinful nature is not necessarily the same as the created nature. Side B proponents could claim that LGBTQ+ identity is just like being male or being Hispanic, and therefore is not part of the old, sinful nature. If that is the case, then being a new creation does not remove the LGBTQ+ aspect anymore than being a new creation makes a Hispanic man not a man and not a Hispanic. Of course, there are a couple of spectacular claims made here, all of which I do not believe are defensible. The point here is that if such a claim is made, then classical metaphysics has been used in the service of Side B theology. Since "will" is a property of "nature," then it is wrong to attempt to make a LGBTQ+ "Christian" change his "will" on this matter, as he can no more change that than a human become a cat.

The good thing about rejecting classical metaphysics is that we do not have to worry about what one's nature is. The fact is that God commands us to be such, therefore everything else is wrong. Side B theology is wrong because it matters not what their natures may or may not be; whether they are "born this way" or not is irrelevant. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and all are to repent of what God calls sin regardless of their "nature" or feelings about the matter. It matters not whether your nature allows you to reject LGBTQ+, because God has commanded therefore it must be done.

The catastrophe of repealing S377A in Singapore

In his National Day rally speech, Singapore Prime Minister LEE Hsien Long took the step of announcing the decision to repeal S377A of the Singapore penal code. This part of the law has been assaulted by the LGBTQ+++ lobby in Singapore (that take its social cues from the West) for many years, and it seems that the pressure of the pink dollar is getting too hard to bear.

Section 377A of the Penal Code state thus:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Many people have seen S337A as expressing social disapproval of homosexuality, as well as being the defence against a militant LGBT+ activism. However, many Christians have not thought through the issue clearly, and it shows. S377A did indeed perform those functions for some time, but the reasaon why any society should be against LGBT+ was not well thought through. While certainly, Christianity abominates homosexuality, there is a more systematic reason why homosexuality should not be entertained by any human society secular or religious, and the reason has nothing to do with institutional religion at all.

From a Christian perspective, God is the same God who has created the world. He has set forth His order in creation, and this order is seen in what is known as Natural Law. Natural Law is that part of General Revelation that concerns the creation and moral order of the world that is partly stamped into the Imago Dei. Man always have a sense of Natural Law with him. While ethicists can debate issues of ethics, no professional philosopher has to tell any human that killing and stealing is wrong, even though killing and stealing are found in all societies on earth. Even where killing and stealing are somehow excused, it is excused only in relation to "outsiders," never to those in one's tribe. This proves the reality stated in Scripture, that

For when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic -DHC] law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. (Rom. 2:14-15)

That LGBT is wrong is found in the Natural Law, encoded into creation that marriage is between a man and a woman. Polygamy, while a violation of the moral law, is not a violation of the creation norm that man and woman together makes a marriage. In the entirety of human history, normal marriage is seen as normative. LGBT+ activists love to point out instances of homosexuality in history, but that's not the issue. The issue is what has always been considered normative versus what was seen as non-normative. Normal marriages are the norm, and homosexuality always as not the norm, even if that particular society did not consider it a sin.

LGBT+ activists love to assert that allowing for LGBTQ+ does not affect the rest of us. That however is a false statement. It affects us by normalizing LGBTQ+ as an alternative. If these are normal, then for those of us who continue to believe in the truth, would we now be considered "hateful" and "intolerant" for speaking what most people in the past had always believed to be true? That is the issue, not whether LGBT+ identified people are present, but whether LGBTQ+ is to be considered normal.

For those of us in Singapore, the sad thing is that many Christians evidently think nothing of the repeal of S377A. Many have bought into the lie that those who are not LGBTQ+ would not be affected in any way by the repeal. But perhaps worse of all is that we have actual theological resources that speak to this situation: the situation of how ethics and morality interact with the State.

When Reformed Christian talk about the moral law of God, which is binding on all humans, most of us focus on the first and third uses of the Law. The first use of the law (the Gospel Use) is that the Law shows us our failure to obey it and thus drives us to Christ. The third use of the Law states that the Law shows us God's standards and therefore show us the way we should live (the Regulative Use). What has been misssing in much of our conversations all this time is the second use of the Law: the Civil use. As its name suggests, it is the use of the Law for civil society, precisely because this use of the Law reflects Natural Law back on to society and call society both to the order of creation and to the moral law they have already in their consciences. The Civil use of the Law is meant to restrain sin, and thus it has a communal aspect. It applies to the entire domain of creation, and therefore has no regard for one's religious affiliation or lack thereof. As the atheists kindly tell us, one does not need Christianity to know murder is wrong, and penalizing murder is not an imposition of religion even though all religions are against murder. Thus, likewise, one does not need Christianity to know LGBTQ+ is wrong, and penalizing LGBTQ+ is likewise not an imposition of religion even though many religions consider it wrong.

Singapore Christians, and even entire churches, who have no regards for S377A show that they have neither thought through what Scripture clearly teaches, nor have they contemplated the Natural Law given to all people everywhere. Now that the decision to repeal has been announced, these Christians and churches are culpable for how they have contributed to the normalization of what Scripture calls an abomination. They will answer to God for their crimes, and it is indeed a crime to call what God calls evil good.

Denny Burk and the interaction with Kristen Kobes Du Mez

Thank you for the fulsome explanation. I do think that this confirms the profound nature of our disagreements.

For its entire 2,000-year history, the church has regarded homosexuality as sinful. This is not an “agree to disagree” issue among Christians. It is a watershed.

/1 https://t.co/VZLdXI4kWB

— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) November 27, 2021

In a Twitter conversation with supposed historian Kriten Kobes Du Mez, Denny Burk probed and exposed Du Mez's view on homosexuality, and he has written an article on the issue here. The exchange is illuminating to see how a falling away from Christian orthodoxy is happening in progresive "woke" circles even within formerly Reformed circles.

Interestingly enough, if Du Mez uses abuse and other bad examples to discredit complementarianism, the same critical theory tool can be turned on the egalitarians. After all, Harvey Wenstein was no complementarian. Does Du Mez want to argue that there are no abuses and no sin in egalitarian utopia? Since when was abuse and misogyny an indictment against complementarianism when the latter disavow it?

Du Mez is not a serious historian. Her history is thoroghly Americo-centric as well. It is strange, but feminists from Rachel Green Miller to Aimee Byrd seem to not see patriarchy in any place outside modern Anglo-American Evangelical Christianity. If anyone were too "white," all of these feminists surely fit the bill.

The main question to professing Christians who claim to be for the repeal of S377A

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

As the churches in Singapore continue to have to deal with the issue of S377A, a considerable number of liberal-minded professing Christians and at least one "Gospel-centered" church have decided to either side with the repeal camp, or to not take a stand on the issue. Given that, as I have shown, upholding S377A is a biblical justice issue, such response are extremely disappointing to say the least. But to cut through the pro-repeal rhetoric from these professing Christians, here is one question that would immediately clarify the issues involved:

Question: Does society owe God and His law anything? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, then it means that society owes God righteousness, which is biblically defined as obedience to God's moral law as expressed in natural law. But if this is disputed, then please show from Scripture how "righteousness" can be defined without reference to God's moral law.

If the answer is no, then the person has denied the universality of God's law, which means we can question whether the person has a biblical understanding of the doctrine of Creation and the Lordship of God over ALL of creation. Such a person seem to have a view of Christianity as a faith dealing with the spiritual only, or even worse, such a person does not think creation owes the Creator God anything!

Or, such a person merely asserts the view that there is a separation between one's personal faith and how one lives in society. In other words, an anti-religious view of secularity trumps the public outworking of the Christian faith, man-centeredness trumps God-centeredness in thought. And probably the worst of the whole lot, is that one does not want to "offend" unbelievers. But the Gospel message begins with a realization of sin, and how does one bring them to faith if they are still unrepentant of their sins? Such a sentiment is what led to the "Revoice" conference in the US, where a PCA church out of misplaced "compassion" lied to those struggling with SSA that their sin is trivial and do not need to be repented of in order to enter the Kingdom of God. That is not the true Gospel, and such "Gospel-centeredness" is contrary to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ! And this is so obviously false as well, and one can easily see that if one substitutes any other sin. Does a desire to want to win child traffickers for Christ means that one should strike down laws against child trafficking? Does a desire to want to win murderers for Christ means that one should strike down laws against murder?

Unfortunately, from my experience, these professing believers who are promoting these false teachings are not willing to consider that they might be wrong. Thus, they dishonor Christ with their unbiblical stance on S377A, and promote injustice while trying to appear "compassionate" and "loving."

Response to an article by a professing Christian on S377A

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

On the LGBT-friendly Rice media, a person called "Joshua Tan" claims to be a Christian yet argues for the repeal of S377A. We of course are not told which church he is a member of, and it is not uncommon for people to call themselves "Christians" only because their parents are Christians. Be that as it may, without pre-judging the man, I would like to respond to this article and show how it falls short of an actual biblical response to the issue of S377A.

The first thing to take note from the beginning is how Tan has imbibed into the liberal rhetoric and somehow has gained the ability to discern the inner hearts of other Christians. According to Tan, Christians who support S377A are doing it "out of fear," and are "reactionary, fearful" and use "militant language." That they might be some who support S377A out of fear is a possibility. Just as possible are some who support the repeal of S377A out of fear of being seen as "unloving" to LGBT people. So what does this supposed observation do besides poisoning the well? This kind of rhetoric is baseless and does not serve to advance any conversation. Its only goal is to paint one's ideological opponent as an irrational person, prior to any actual discussion, so that one's opponent is "guilty until proven innocent."

Tan's first error is in misinterpreting S377A as stating that "I would like my fellow Singapore citizens to be subject to caning and jail for engaging in private sexual acts." First of all, S377A even if enforced only imposes a jail term without caning. Second, would Tan agree that some measure of legal punishment should be meted out for the extremely private sexual acts of consensual incest or beastiality? If not, why not? According to his supposed principle that ANY consensual and private sexual act should not be criminalized, then one should get the State out of the business of punishing consensual incest, consensual pedophilia, and consensual beastiality! If Tan however disagrees with any of these, then he actually thinks the State should be involved in some kinds of "private sexual acts." Will the LGBTQ+ media and supporters make up their minds? Should the State be involved in private sexual acts at all? If not, then please state clearly that the State should have no business criminalizing any form of private sexual acts as long as it is "consensual," however one gets to define the term! Please state openly and clearly that you want incest, pedophilia and beastiality decriminalized as long as they are "consensual."

But back to Tan's points. Tan's first point is that pluralism in a modern society means that we must empathize with people different from us and be generous to those "whose practices are different from ours." We note here that Tan has confused practical pluralism with philosophical pluralism on the one hand, and confused empathy with affirmation. On the one hand, pluralism is a practical reality in many societies like Singapore. But just because there is pluralism does not imply that all values and all practices are equally valid and equally to be affirmed, in some version of philosophical multiculturalism. Philosophical multiculturalism here is basically relativism of cultures and relativism of ethics. Tan confuses the presence of differences with relativity of differences, as if a culture that harms women should be celebrated as much as a culture that protects women! Or a culture that practices female genital mutilation is to be treated as no worse than a culture that does not have that barbaric practice! Once one see what the issue is here, then one realizes that Tan is here not in line with Scripture, and even more he is not in line with basic common sense either. For if Tan were true to his relativism, then surely he should practice what he preaches and he should empathize with the Christians he is castigating, and celebrate the fact that we are standing in support of S377A despite him not agreeing with it!

Tan also confuses empathy with affirmation. One can empathize with another person without affirming that other person, and even more so when it comes to sins. If to empathize with LGBT is to affirm their lifestyles and support repeal of S377A, does this mean that in order to empathize with murderers one must affirm the rightness of murder and advocate for repealing laws against murder? Thus we see the utter confusion in Tan's mind as he imbibes the liberal propaganda that claims that true love and empathy must begin with affirmation, a practice that would make nonsense when applied to any other sin and/or crime other people commit.

Tan's second point is in confusion over the issue of the slippery slope. The issue is not whether Christians should suddenly think the sky is falling, but rather we know what is going to come next. It is not wrong in a democracy to advocate for positions that will not result in anti-Christian discrimination and Christians being jailed for not baking a pro-LGBT cake! Being a Christian does not mean that we roll over and play dead, even though we know that God remains on the throne regardless. The exhortation to look to the eternal and not the temporal is precisely what standing for S377A is. For it is very possible, due to the lies of the LGBTQ+ lobby, that S377A will eventually be taken down in my lifetime. But we stand not just for some idyllic moral utopia but rather we stand regardless of whether S377A is held or repealed, because we stand by God's moral law in his natural law. It does not ultimately matter whether S377A is repealed or not, but Christians ought to be a witness for natural law nonetheless. If countries like Singapore want to follow the West and commit civilizational suicide, by all means do so, but we will not be silent.

Tan's third point is at best a red herring. He basically claims that Singaporean Christians' focus on "family values" is too narrow and should focus on other (leftist) causes. While there might be something to add to social advocacy on these other causes, those causes are independent of the LGBT issue. It is theoretically possible for someone to advocate for these other social causes and also for keeping S377A. I find it ironic here that someone essentially decrying Christians for focusing on the temporal is now asking Christians to focus on the temporal. Which is it, actually? But this is a typical sleight-of-hand of the Left, whereby they claim that those advocating for family values are too worldly for focusing on the LGBT threat, yet not worldly enough as they do not embrace Leftist causes. What exactly is the charge then: too worldly, or not worldly enough?

Now, should Christians deal with those issues? I believe that Christians should think about them inasmuch as they have the time to do so. However, thinking about them from a biblical perspective might not provide the type of answer Tan is looking for. But more importantly, what has that to do with whether Christians should support S377A? Tan's third point essentially boils down to "Don't fight for this cause, fight for my cause," and it is just as specious and without any real argumentation as it sounds.

We note in conclusion that Tan has yet to provide any real interaction with the argument, either from health statistics, or from natural law, for the keeping of S377A. Tan did not even deal with the issue of what secularity means in the Singapore context, and assumes that means religious relativism. Since that is the case, it must be said that Tan's article in Rice Media contributes nothing to the discussion on S377A besides poisoning the well, and should be ignored by all believing Christians.

[See also: Miscellaneous Questions concerning S377A and Christian witness]

Miscellaneous questions concerning S377A and Christian witness

In light of the furor over S377A, here are some miscellaneous questions that I would like to address about the issue, from a factual and then a Christian perspective.

Factual Overview

Q1: What is S377A?

A: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men in Singapore.

Q2: What does it say?

A: "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

Q3: Does it criminalizes homosexuality, or LGBT persons?

A: No, it extends only to homosexual sex acts, not to homosexuals. And it also pertains only to men, not women.

Q4: Does it give license for the government to discriminate against homosexuals?

A: No, it does not, because it pertains only to the sex acts, and in order for anyone to be prosecuted under it, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the "commission" of "any act of gross indecency" has happened (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). And since the Singapore government has said it would not enforce it, the charge of discrimination is baseless. No police is going to break down someone's door in the middle of the night, check to see if two LGBT people are in bed with each other, then arrest them under S377A. Do the proponents of repeal actually think the police have nothing better to do with their time?

Q5: Whence did the law originate?

A: The law originated from British common law. As Singapore was a former British colony, we inherited her legal system when Singapore became independent in 1965.

Q6: Isn't the law a relic from the Victorian era?

A: The law did not originate from the Victorian era. But even if it were, to criticize the law based upon its time of origin is chronological snobbery and a commitment of the genetic fallacy.

Q7: Isn't the law archaic and regressive?

A: Just because any law had an ancient pedigree does not make it "archaic." Laws against murder go back all the way to the Code of Hammurabi and probably even earlier, so does this make laws against murder "archaic"? Most certainly not.

The charge of "archaic" and "regressive" are biased terms reflecting the conclusions of progressivism, without even the semblance of any argument that seeks to prove why any one law is either "archaic," "regressive," or "progressive." They are vacuous clichés that aim for maximum emotional impact without the necessary hard work of arguing that their position is right.

Q8: OK, but given what we know about human rights, isn't it a violation of human rights to deny sexual expression of LGBT individuals?

A: No, there is no human right to sexual expression or even sexual orientation, as law professor Thio Li-An has shown.

Q9: But despite what the global bodies might or might not say, objectively isn't it a human rights violation to deny LGBT people sexual expression?

A: It depends on how one defines "human rights." We can all definitely agree that human rights are not unlimited. For example, there is no human right to murder. Since human rights are not unlimited, therefore we must discuss the topic of human rights in conjunction with other topics like ethics and societal values. After all, how are "human rights" to be defined? Countries like the Netherlands think that there is a human right to suicide, as seen in their endorsement of euthanasia, but is suicide really a "human right"?

The issue of "human rights" boils down to the worldview of a society. It is not some "objective" thing out there, springing forth from the tabula rasa of pure human reason, for that is a mirage. The historic UN definition of "human rights" stems from old liberal secular humanism. If we use that as a basis for discussing "human rights," then we are back at question 8. Otherwise, then we need to discuss questions of ethics. To ignore the UN historic definition of "human rights," while sidestepping the issue of ethics altogether, then throwing accusations of "human right" violations at S377A, is logically fallacious and an act of pure ad-hominem argumentation.

Q10: Isn't S377A, and especially the supporters of S377A, "homophobic" and "bigoted"?

Such is mere character assassination, and cheap rhetoric from people who likely have little of substance in argumentation. The dictionary definition of "bigotry," according to Merriam-Webster, is "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices." So, if those who support S377A are willing to consider other opinions, while proponents of repealing S377A are unwilling to consider other opinions but rely on shouting down their opponents with slurs like "homophobia" and "bigotry," guess who are the real bigots? Yes, it is those arguing for repeal that are the real intolerant bigots.

Q11: Doesn't the removal of homosexuality from the APA diagnostic manual give us an objective measure of progress, and the fact that LGBTQ+ are normal and shouldn't be criminalized?

A: The reasons for removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was not done objectively but due to intimidation by homosexuals. Any action done under duress is questionable, just as any "confession" achieved under torture is questionable as to its veracity. Therefore, the removal of homosexuality from the APA diagnostic manual holds absolutely no weight at all as to whether homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder or not.

Q12: If S377A is not going to be enforced, then shouldn't it be removed?

A: First of all, S377A is in the Constitution, which is slightly different from just any law. While I am unsure about the Singapore legal system, generally speaking, the constitution dictates the framework of a country. Thus, anything in the constitution does not necessarily have to be specific laws but about general principles of what is right or wrong.

One such utility of law is in its value of signposting, to indicate what should be the norm in society.

Q13: In discussions concerning S377A, many supporters of S377A argue that repealing it would lead to gay marriage and boys being allowed to go into girls' bathroom if they identify as a girl. Aren't such arguments slippery slope arguments and should be rejected?

A: They would be slippery slope arguments, EXCEPT such has already happened all around the Western world. Since we can actually see such a progression of events all around the world happening now, it is no more a slippery slope.

Q14: Isn't the campaign to support S377A driven by Christians and Muslims, and hence religious? But Singapore is a secular state, and thus we must respect the separation between religion and state.

A: First of all, even if only religious people (Christians and Muslims) support S377A, that does not necessarily mean that support for S377A is merely a religious issue. One actually has to look at and evaluate the arguments in support of S377A. If arguments based upon natural law and other issues of fact are presented, then to attack S377A merely because its supporters are (mostly perhaps) people of particular religions is to commit the genetic fallacy, not to mention to betray an anti-religious bigotry.

Secondly, it is false that the secular nature of Singapore implies a total separation of religion and state. A total separation of religion and state is found in the French republic, which in its doctrine of laïcité removes all religions from the public square. However, Singapore in article 15(1) of the Constitution grants freedom of religion and religious expressions, only qualified by one thing: public order (Article 15(4) of the Singapore Constitution). Therefore, the nature of Singapore's secularity is the separation of religious institutions from the state, but one's personal religion and religiously-informed opinions are free to participate in the public square.

Q15: So we should take note of non-religious arguments while rejecting religious arguments?

A: Not exactly. The non-religious arguments are the ones that could be discussed and debated in the public square with everyone. But religious arguments are there for followers of those religions to have their own internal discussions. And religious arguments have a utility in that religious people ARE part of society, and as part of society, they should not be ignored. If for example 80% of citizens are not for repeal of S377A, regardless of the merits of their arguments religious or otherwise, then one should not just deride and insult their religiosity and over-ride their objections just because one thinks one is on the "right side of history" (a Hegelian/ Marxist phrase at that). It must be reminded that one lives IN a society, and part of life in society is that one has to pay heed to other fellow citizens even if you believe they are absolute morons.

Q16: Are all arguments for or against S377A equally helpful for discussion?

A: No, not all arguments either for or against S377A are equally helpful. Some are dumb arguments. But everyone has a freedom to speak no matter how smart or stupid their arguments are. Do not assume anyone necessarily agrees with certain bad arguments you might have previously encountered.

Q17: You have mentioned many times about the "public square." What is it?

A: The "public square" is the space, online or offline, where people are supposed to be free to float ideas and arguments for the general public to read, dissect and discuss. It functions much like how the ancient public square, the Greek agora, was supposed to function.

---

Christian perspective

Q18: What is the Christian perspective on homosexuality and LGBT issues?

A: All of those are sin (c.f. Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:24-27).

Q19: Is sexual orientation not sin if there is no sexual act?

A: The language of "sexual orientation" is that of the world, not of Scripture. Furthermore, in Scripture sin is not limited to actions but also to thoughts and inclinations (Gen. 6:5, Ps. 51:5). So "sexual orientation" is still sin to be confessed and repented of, even though it is not on the same level as actually acting out in homosexual sex acts, in the same way as anger is a sin even though it is not on the same level as murder (c.f. Mt. 5:21-26).

Q20: What is the nature of the sin of homosexuality?

A: The sin of homosexuality and all other LGBT issues, is a sin in violation of the seventh commandment (c.f. Westminster Larger Catechism Q.139), a violation of God's moral law.

Q21: What is natural law?

A: Natural law (lex naturalis), or the law of nature, is the moral law of God inscribed onto the consciences of all humanity (Rom. 2:14-15). It is part of General Revelation, and upon it God will hold sinners who do not believe in God accountable for all their sins.

Q22: Is Natural law just the Old Testament Law, and thus just a short form for religious law?

A: No. Natural law is the general equity of revealed law, of which the Mosaic Law was an inspired application peculiar to the geopolitical entity known as Israel. As we can see in societies around the world, there is a general sense of law, for example against murder, that all societies hold to. That is because, as Scripture has stated, the natural law is written on the hearts of all Man, and impossible to erase, though it can be temporarily suppressed.

Therefore, to call for adherence to natural law is not the same as Theonomy, and definitely is not particular to any religion(s).

Q23: So what is the Christian's responsibility to natural law?

A: The Christian's responsibility is to obey the law of God, and thus to call people to obedience to God's laws. Since the moral law is given for the good of Man and thus of society, the Christian's responsibility in the civil sphere is to put forward the natural law as the basis for the laws of a nation.

Q24: Upon what biblical basis is a Christian to "impose" the natural law upon society?

A: Micah 6:8 states: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." The call for believers to do biblical justice, as a good work unto the Lord, is not optional. God's justice is not divorced from God Himself, and thus the justice of God stems from His Law. Therefore, as natural law is essentially God's moral law inscribed onto the consciences of Man, one aspect of doing justice is to call society to build her laws upon natural law.

Q25: Are you claiming that S377A is a justice issue?

A: Yes, I am claiming that supporting S377A is a justice issue, biblical justice in the social sphere.

Q26: Is there no room for legitimate Christian disagreement over S377A?

A: There might be, since obviously supporting S377A is an application of Scripture, not Scripture itself. But the onus is on those who reject my application of Scripture to refute it, not to ignore it or to engage in straw-men rebuttals.

Q27: Could any Christian possibly reject any of the answers to the Factual Overview (Questions 1-17), and therefore this whole exercise is highly partisan and not actually factual from the start?

A: It is of course possible. But is it probable? I doubt it. Anyone is welcome to attempt to dispute the facts in questions 1-17.

Q28: What about the topic of "human rights" for a Christian?

A: As mentioned in Question 9, if we want to discuss "human rights" in an objective manner, then we must discuss the topic of ethics. For a Christian, the primary source of ethics should be the Bible. More specifically for society, it is God's moral law as seen in natural law. For a Christian, "human rights" are dependent on God who gives these rights. God-given human rights are rights of human dignity based upon the Image of God in Man (Imago Dei) and what that entails, and it is a right to do good, not a right to do evil. One can look in vain, but there are no God-given rights to sin. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, there are no human rights for LGBTQ+, in the same way as there are no human rights for murder.

Q29: What is the role of the Church on issues of public morality?

The main role of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel, which means good news. Therefore, the Church as an institution should be totally apolitical. However, since S377A is a moral issue as well, the Church ought to speak to this issue in obedience to Scripture (c.f. Micah. 6:8). Given the potential for misunderstanding, the Church ought to be circumspect over how she speaks to the issue to make clear she is speaking to the morality of the issue, and attempt inasmuch as it is possible to steer clear of the political. Also, as part of the Church's corporate witness to the world, this issue should not enter into the preaching of the Gospel on any Lord's Day, but it can be in the teaching and CG sessions. The Church, in striving to honor her spirituality, is to be diligent in not letting even issues of moral concern to crowd into the Lord's Day preaching, but likewise, she should be diligent in maintaining a witness to society on issues of great moral concern.

Q30: What should be the Church's witness to the LGBT+ "community"?

A: The Church's witness to the LGBT+ "community" should be the same as to all other sinners: Repent and believe the Gospel. We are not to sugar-coat their sins or allow them to smother their consciences. We are not to soften the Law so that they *might* believe the Gospel, for that is the way to false conversions. It is not loving to say "peace, peace" when there is no peace (Jer. 8:11).

On the one hand, we are not to blunt the Law just so that we can appear more attractive, for that is not the way to true biblical conviction of sin. On the other hand, we are not to withhold the Gospel out of perhaps self-righteousness. The offer of the Gospel must be made known clearly, and who knows if God will one day convict them and grant them repentance unto faith. The problem with much of our Christian witness is that we swing to the extremes: some dull the Law out of a misplaced idea of "love," while others withhold the Gospel and make the Christian religion into a joyless soul-destroying legalism. Both extremes are wrong, and it no good for one side to point out how much better they are than the other side.

The Christian witness to the LGBT+ "community" should be loving yet firm. She is to witness to God's righteousness and the righteousness of God in Christ, missing neither.

Q31: Ought the church to teach her congregants of the rationale behind support for S377A?

A: Yes. Along with the corporate witness, the church ought to teach her congregants concerning why it is Christian to support S377A. If the church does not teach her members how to think biblically, the thought patterns of the world will rush in and undermine their faith. After all, we are told to renew our minds (Rom. 12:2), and God has given teachers to his church (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11).

Q32: Why fixate on homosexuality and S377A?

A: We don't fixate on the issue except only in response to current events. The Church ought to teach her congregants how to think biblically on all matters, not just on homosexuality.

Q33: How is the Christian to view activism for and against S377A?

A: The Christian as an individual is free to partake (or not partake) in activism for S377A, and is not free to partake in activism against S377A (as homosexuality is against natural law). However, if a Christian can come up with some remotely plausible reason(s) for rejecting S377A, he is welcome to put forward his view without censure from the Church, as long as he can justify it while stating his clear and unambiguous adherence to the sinfulness of homosexuality. This is the Christian doctrine of the freedom of the Christian conscience (c.f. Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2-3), where believers are free where Scripture is silent and bound where Scripture is explicit.

From a corporate standpoint, since the Church ought to witness on the basis of morality, the Church must stand firm on the keeping of S377A as an expression of natural law. While individual members can disagree due to competing social values, the Church ought to prioritize the Law of God and therefore that should be her focus.

Natural Law, S377A, and the Christian witness

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

What is the rationale for Singapore Christians to support S377A? Most assuredly, countries like Singapore are not Christian nations. While arguments from sociology and healthcare can be marshaled in support of S377A, is there any other reason for laws like S377A to not only exist but to be defended as a just law?

From a Christian perspective, we believe that God is the sovereign Lord of Creation. God is the Creator first, then the Redeemer. As Creator, his moral laws are binding upon creation. But this moral law is not just something out there, but it is within our own hearts. For as it is written,

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Rom. 2:14-15)

God has inscribed the moral law upon the consciences of every man, woman and child. Due to the Fall, our consciences are marred, yet our consciences still reflect however imperfectly God's moral law. This moral law is also known as "natural law" as it seems natural to us, based upon our innate consciences, for these laws to be laws. For example, all societies hold that murder is wrong and that stealing is wrong. There is also an innate desire for justice to be done in this world, based upon our admittedly flawed understanding of natural law. Therefore despite our sin, the consciences of men are still present, and they show us the natural law which God had inscribed upon the hearts of all humans in all places and all times, including 21st century Singapore.

Thus, with God as Creator and the moral law inscribed unto the hearts of Man, a just society is one whereby the righteousness of God is manifested externally in the obedience of men to Natural Law, which is merely to say that society institutionalizes the moral compasses of their consciences. Since the moral law is innate in the conscience, therefore it is not strictly speaking "religious" for the moral law to be commended to any and all societies. A good civil society honors Natural Law even if it denies the God of that law, as the ancient Romans did before the downfall of the Republic. Conversely, an evil society is a society whereby the consciences are actively and systematically suppressed by that society, as the Assyrians, Babylonians and much of the ancient Roman Empire had done.

So natural law is the basis for a just society. What then the Christian witness? As certain Left-leaning pastors love to remind us, the Bible calls us to promote justice in society (c.f. Micah 6:8). Biblical justice in society IS to establish the moral law in society. In this penultimate state prior to Christ's return, justice in society is to be sought by calling society to be conformed more and more to Natural Law, thus creating a just society. Thus, the Christian witness in society (outside the church) is to pursue justice in conformity to Natural Law. This is the correct view of biblical justice in society, not the leftist version of "social justice" that has taken entire segments of reformed and evangelical churches captive.

Part of the Christian witness to society therefore is to defend S377A, for that law is a preservation, albeit imperfect, of the Natural law against sexual immorality. That is the reason why it was part of British Common Law, which was then passed to Singapore due to Singapore being a former British colony. To "do justice" before God on the issue of homosexuality is to defend S377A, and it is extremely sad when pastors and churches refuse to promote justice and defend this law outside their service times. For if the church does not teach the congregants on the matter of Natural Law, who else is going to teach them the demands of God's justice? If we just call believers to "do justice" but refuse to tell them what that means, the world's idea of "social justice" will fill the void created by the negligence of the churches.

It is certainly true that the focus of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel. That is the primary role of the church in her preaching. Yet, the church also teaches her people how to think biblically about things, and that belongs to all teachers in the church. I therefore fully agree that church should not be about politics, but teaching believers how to think biblically is not politics. The church should not call for support of S377A in her preaching, but is to teach that supporting it is in conformity to natural law in her catechetical classes. So that in all things, believers will be able to honor God in their minds and hands as well as their hearts and mouths.

A multi-religious society is not an atheistic society

[Note: S377A, or Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code, criminalizes homosexual sex acts between men. The exact wording is as follows:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

The law is a legacy of British Common Law, and passed to Singapore as Singapore was a former British colony.]

---

In a really disturbing statement, former Singapore ambassador Tommy Koh told Christians and Muslims that they have no place in the public square because of the "separation between religion and the state." According to Koh, this separation between religion and the state means that the viewpoints of Christians and Muslims are to be discounted since "sins are not crimes." In this battle for and against repeal of S377A of the Penal code, the LGBT lobby has been hard at work trying to paint their opponents as religious bigots, and Koh is just taking a leaf out of the LGBT activists' "book of illegitimate arguments" here.

The major problem of Koh's statement is that he fails to understand what the traditional understanding of "separation of church and state" or "mosque/ temple and state" mean. This is what the Singapore Constitution says about religious freedom in Singapore:

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it (Singapore Constitution 15 (1))

Traditionally, the separation of church and state is meant to ensure that the Church as an institution does not interfere with the matters of the State, and vice versa. It does not state that religion is to be excluded from the public square, for there is then no explanation as to why America historically has much display of public Christian piety. Separation of church and state therefore has to do with religious institutions not religion itself. Likewise, in the case of Singapore, ours is a separation of religious institutions and the state, NOT religion and state. As stated in the Constitution, peoples of all religions can practice their religions freely, and part of religious practice is the voicing of religious-informed opinions.

If Singapore is to claim to be a "multi-religious society," then it must act like a multi-religious society. That means that Koh's statement here is very disturbing because it seems to say that Christians and Muslims should just shut up and religious views are to be excluded from the public square. Koh's statement here does not seem to be in conformity to the Singapore Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, only subject to the maintenance of public order (Singapore Constitution 15(4)). Koh's statement in fact has its genesis not in Singapore but in 18th century Revolutionary France, which during the Reign of Terror made atheism of some sort the state religion. Only in an atheistic state will religious statements of any kind be thrown out of the public square.

It is truly sad to see a respected diplomat fall so far. Unfortunately, he has lent his reputation to the destruction of family and society, which is all the more reason for those of us with any common sense left to resist him and the LGBT+ lobby.

North Florida Presbytery (PCA) objects to using sin as identifier marker

The PCA North Florida Presbytery has produced an interesting study committee report on the recent issue, as seen in the Revoice conference, where sin was used as an identifier marker amidst a demand for inclusion. You can read the committee report here.

[HT: Heidelblog]

James White on the Nashville Statement, and Racialism in Reformed circles

Dr James White has done a helpful Dividing Line podcast on two interesting topics: The Nashville Statement, and Racialism in Reformed circles.

The Nashville Statement

The Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) has just published a statement on the issue of sexuality in light of the latest devolutions of liberal debauchery, the Nashville Statement. You can access it here.

The usage of words and power plays

Over in an article at the Desiring God website, the word "homophobia" is used once again. While the article does expresses certain truths (i.e. one's opposition to homosexuality should be based on Scripture and love not on emotions), the use of the word "homophobia" is extremely disturbing.

Words have meanings, and while it is a stretch to say that words are instruments of power, it is nonetheless true that terms and phrases direct the flow of thought and conversation. Even if a concept is rejected, the mere naming of the concept (particularly as a neologism) creates a conceptual space for it to be conceived in, with all its connotations. If mentioned and brought up frequently enough, the terms and what it conveys will become part of normalized discourse, even IF the concepts continue to be rejected. On a subconscious level, such normalization in discourse will create an impetus towards seeing such things as part of normal everyday life.

The usage of the neologism "homophobia" therefore functions in such a manner, as a trojan horse towards the normalization of deviant sexualities. Instead of telling people they ought to be compassionate towards those who struggle with deviant sexual temptations, those people are tarred with the neologism "homophobia." Thus, those who buy into the deceptive words of the LGBTQIAXXX agenda have lost half the battle when they adopt the terms and phrases of wicked men, even when they do correctly reject the actual wicked practices themselves. But when you allow wicked activists to direct the flow of thought and conversation, then those who reject the sexual deviancies will be increasingly perceived to be backward intolerant bigots and be on the defensive, no matter how much Desiring God and others will claim otherwise.

If one wants to actually promote the truth of Scripture on the issue, then one should stop adopting the terms of the wicked. Call a thing as what it is, and not what the world thinks it is, and refuse to compromise even on the terms one uses. Terms such as "homophobia" should never be used towards Christians, and should be qualified even in apologetics towards unbelievers.

James White responding to Matthew Vines' "questions"

Dr. James White responds to Matthew Vines's "40 questions" concerning homosexuality, here.

On sins against Nature

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (Rom 1:26)

Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, (Rom 1:26)

All sins partake of the commonality of "sin." In that manner, all sins are equally damnable before God, there is no distinction in culpability between one sinner and a "greater" sinner. All sins are therefore equally forgivable under the blood atonement of Christ upon the condition of faith and repentance.

However, just because all sins are equitable in terms of damnation and forgiveness does not imply that all sins are to be seen as equal. This does not mean that we should revive the artificial Medieval (and Roman Catholic) categories of Moral and Venial sins, but just an acknowledgment that, though all sins are damnable, some sins are worse than others. After all, committing murder is worse than hating a brother, and Jesus was not equating the two in Matthew 5:21-26, but rather to show that the sixth commandment applies to the heart attitude, not just the mere physical action of murder. It is after all ridiculous to claim that hating a person is the same as murdering him. For otherwise, if one seeks the death penalty for murder, ought one to kill anyone who hates another person also? This is the type of nonsense those who see no differences at all among sins will get themselves into.

There are sins, and there are worse sins. Among the worse are what can be categorized as sins against Nature. Now, the Scriptures do not explicitly say what define sins against Nature except to give us examples like homosexuality (e.g. Rom. 1:26). Nevertheless, since "nature" (φύσις) is related to the "being" of a thing, and furthermore the context of Romans 1:18-32 has reference to Creation, it is evident that "Nature" is related to Creation. "Nature" is therefore to be defined as God's order of how things operate in their very being (ontology).

"Nature" as such has to do with God's ordained order, which is not necessarily the same as Science. Science is the study of the empirical orderliness of Nature, but it is not Nature. Furthermore, the natural world is fallen, therefore there should be some things that are in nature ("natural"), which are in fact contrary to Nature (as intended by God; Natural Law). There is also a further distinction between sins that do not violate Nature (being ethical as opposed to ontological), and sins that violate Nature (going against the established "being" of things). To the former belong sins like murder, racism, theft and so on. To the latter are sins like homosexuality, which in Romans 1:26 was stated to be "contrary to nature" (εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν).

Sins against Nature are thus sins that distort the very being of things. Homosexuality, transgenderism, genderbending etc attack the created nature (ontology) of humans as male and female. Beastiality, transpecieism etc attack the created nature (ontology) of humans as humankind. The idea of creating human-animal or other types of hybrids that transcend their created kind boundaries (as opposed to species which remain their own kinds, but with one or two genes from other species) likewise attack the created nature of humanity. In fact, one interpretation of Genesis 6:1 is that of fallen angels taking human females as wives, an interpretation which I currently have no particular opinion for or against, but if that is true, it gives even greater credence to the idea that crimes against Nature are particularly heinous crimes.

Scripture does in fact speak to crimes against Nature. They are particularly heinous because they attack the very order of Creation, being ontologically rather than ethical. That is why Sodom and Gomorrah were singled out for judgment by God, not because they were the most wicked cities quantitatively, neither because they were the only ones committing homosexuality, but because they as a society celebrated homosexuality, every single one of them. Abraham had interceded to spare these cities for the sake of 10 righteous people (Gen. 18:32), but even 10 righteous people could not be found in them.

There is therefore a qualitative difference between ethical sins, and sins against Nature. While all are damnable, and all can be forgiven upon repentance and faith, sins of the latter are considered worse sins than the former. And when such wickedness is celebrated in a culture as per Romans 1:32, we know that the wrath of God is upon a society, giving them over to the wickedness of their hearts to their own destruction.

On Marriage

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

Marriage nowadays is seen as a romantic pairing of two persons who love each other. It is seen as a step of self-actualization, where the feelings of loving and being loved are enjoyed within the relationship. Of course, this notion of marriage is quite modern. Marriages in history tend to be less about romance and more about expediency, although certainly romance is not always absent.

In the history of the Christian Church, marriage has not always been highly extolled. The onset of asceticism in the middle part of the early church era, due to Neo-Platonic influences, led to a denigration of marriage and an elevation of the contemplative life. No less than the Church Father Augustine of Hippo left his mistresses after his conversion and lived the rest of his life in celibacy. As theology developed in the Middle Ages, matrimony was seen as a sacrament, which was however mutually exclusive to the sacrament of holy orders. Matrimony was "good," but Grace was seen as superior to Nature, perfecting it. Those who are called to service in the Church should not be "contaminated" with natural things like marriage, and therefore priests and bishops cannot marry, at least officially.

It was the Reformation that restored the goodness of marriage. Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers all were married, and it was not because they couldn't keep their pants up! The marriage of the Reformers was just as much a theological statement as it was about love. As opposed to the Medieval Church's (and that of its daughter Roman Catholicism) doctrine of Grace perfecting Nature, the Reformation altered the relationship to one of Grace renewing Nature. Grace allows Nature to be what it was meant to be. Also, over and against Anabaptism, which held to Grace against Nature, God's grace does not change what is natural in this world. Applied to the marriage relationship, marriage as a creation ordinance is good. The whole idea therefore that devotion to God entails forgoing marriage is unbiblical. It stands to reason therefore that, unless one has the gift of celibacy like the Apostle Paul, one should not willingly deny marriage, for to do so is to go against Nature.

Marriage is a natural pairing of one man and one woman. It is part of Nature, which is not Special Revelation and thus not exclusively Christian. Being part of Nature, it is not done for one's self-fulfillment or self-actualization. It is therefore contrary to the idea of marriage being an optional extra, or the greatest good, for it is neither. It is not to be treated as something one can "try" if the opportunity presents itself, neither is it to be seen as the goal to be gained such that one can experience the pleasure of sex. It is what everyone without the gift of celibacy should desire, but desire not as the ultimate epiphany of goodness, but as an earthly and natural good.

In practical terms, this means that everyone who does not have the gift of celibacy should desire marriage. Unless one has that gift, to intentionally denigrate marriage and thus to put it off for no good reason is sin, for that is to deny God's good creation. That is the problem in the Medieval Church and in Roman Catholicism, which, because of its Grace perfecting Nature paradigm, denies the goodness of what God has ordained for mankind. It is also the problem for the Anabaptist Grace against Nature paradigm, for it destroys the validity of marriage since it is a creational institution. This is not to say that singleness is wrong, for it is God who provides in time, but intentional singleness without the gift of celibacy is wrong.

Christians above all should stop letting the culture dictate our values. We should avoid the twin errors of seeing marriage either as an optional extra (neglecting it), or as the greatest good on earth (idolizing it). Marriage is natural, and since Nature, though fallen, is still God's creation, we should esteem it in its proper place.

Love vs Lust

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Cor. 13:4-7)

What is love? What is love as opposed to lust? The SCOTUS judgment that irrationally claims a "right" to same-sex marriage claims it is about "love." #LoveWins, or does it?

Love is an emotion. But is it just an emotion? The world defines "love" as a purely emotional thing, such that people "fall in love." Denying one's emotions is seen as cruel and wrong, except of course when it comes to denying the emotions of incestous couples (so far). Even those who are not hopping onto the LGBTQIAXXXXXXX bandwagon have a view of love that treats it an emotion that one mysteriously come to have, and must not be denied if the emotion is mutual.

Love however cannot be purely an emotion. For if that is the case, then the marriage vows do not make any sense, for what happens if a spouse does not "feel" loving towards the other at any time? Would that be immediate grounds for divorce? But if marriages are to make any sense, "love" has to be more than an emotion, but rather it is to be grounded in the will or volition. From a Christian perspective, God commands us to love. Emotions cannot be commanded, for one either feels or don't feel. But the will can choose to love. Therefore, love must be grounded in the will.

For love to be love, it must seek the good of the other, not fulfill what one desires from the other party. Love as such is antithetical to selfishness; it is other-centered. In seeking the good of the other, it wants what is best for the other, and what is good is a moral question, to be decided according to considerations of ethics not feelings. After all, everything is for hurting the feelings of terrorists and stopping them from committing terrorism. Scarcely anyone will say that we should not hurt the feelings of terrorists since their deep desires would get hurt if we stop them. The reason is because we hold that terrorism is morally wrong, and therefore the feelings of those involved are absolutely irrelevant.

Love is grounded, or should be grounded, in the will, and it seeks the good of others. Lust on the other hand is purely emotional, and has no regard for others, except as a means to satisfaction of desire. Here we see the problem with the predominant view of "love," for what they see as "love" is actually "lust." So love does not win; lust did. The SCOTUS decision is a celebration of lust, not of love. A pure love would require a channeling of emotions towards what is true and good. If two men really loved one another, they would not enter into a same-sex "marriage," because that is supremely unloving. The partners of a same-sex relationship do not love each other, because they are willingly entering into a relationship that destroys the other party. It is hateful lust, destroying each other in perverse sex. But what about those struggling with same-sex attraction? If they truly love others, they would be willing to fight their attraction. Giving in to the unnatural desire is an act of hatred against their neighbors — a lustful action not a loving one.

The sadder thing is not that marriage has been perverted (it has), but that most people operate on a wrong view of love. Love is not self-seeking, which means that true love sometimes might entail letting the other go, and not pursuing a wrong relationship. It is not doing whatever you please based upon your feelings, no matter how strong they might be, but with discipline and self-control discerning one's own feelings according to what is good and true, and acting accordingly.

Totalitarianism under the guise of freedom

"As Anderson explains, the movement intends to cast supporters of traditional marriage once and for all as bigots who won’t be allowed to make their case in the public square. They want to salt the earth post-Obergefell and make certain it’s impossible for any traditional marriage movement to flower." ... more

The LGBTQIA agenda was never about "civil rights" and equality, but about oppression in forcing people to celebrate sexual deviancy, or face the consequences

The LGBT movement and free speech

Dr. R Scott Clark recently did an interesting two part interview with Stella Morabito on the issue of the LGBT movement and free speech. You can listen to the podcasts here and here.