Bigotry & Pride

I knew when I wrote yesterday about the homosexual appointments Obama has made in his administration that I might get some negative feedback. As I said, I broached the subject with open eyes.

I did receive one comment, and I debated whether or not to post it, but eventually decided against it. While I have no problem discussing differences of opinion, those opinions must be stated in a way that doesn’t descend into name-calling. I will, however, address the two major complaints in the comment.

First, I was accused of bigotry. The reason: I want to exclude homosexuals from jobs even if they are qualified for them. This accusation is based on the premise that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and is equivalent to being black or Hispanic or some other minority. Consequently, refusing to hire a homosexual is discrimination.

From that perspective, it would make sense. However, here’s the rub, and it’s not one that’s going to be resolved unless major assumptions are altered: I don’t consider homosexuality to be natural, but unnatural; I don’t consider it to be genetic, but a choice. That choice, Biblically, is immoral.

Now, if I am in the position of hiring someone for any job, anywhere, I will always take into account a candidate’s moral character as well as skills. Both are essential. I don’t view homosexuality as worse than other sins. If someone is a perpetual liar, I won’t hire him. If someone is sexually immoral in heterosexual relationships, neither will I hire that person. All sin ultimately destroys—the individual first, as well as others with whom they come into contact. It doesn’t matter if that sin is gossip, arrogance, or sexual, I won’t want that person working for me.

The main problem I have with Obama’s appointments is that he is doing this as part of an activist agenda to make homosexuality more accepted. Beyond that, most of the people he hires who are homosexual are part of the in-your-face crowd who want to force this on society. They will also use their positions to promote the agenda. In the end, this is bad for the society; it leads us in a direction that deviates even further from God’s moral standards of conduct.

The second accusation is that I am proud. Believe me, I realize the temptation for that sin, and I and all other Christians have to be continually on guard against it. But my accuser doesn’t know my background. There was a time in my life when I rebelled against God and His standards. This rebellion lasted for a number of years. I was just as much a lost sinner as anyone who is currently advocating the homosexual lifestyle. My sin was not homosexuality, but it was just as bad in God’s eyes—all sin separates from God; all sin is destructive of the good He intends for us.

I deserved to be separated from God for all eternity. I make no excuses for my actions during that time. I was wrong; God’s standards were right.

When He finally got my attention, there was no pride involved. I had to acknowledge my sin and turn from it. After I received His forgiveness, I had nothing to be proud of. The only reason I had a second chance was entirely due to His mercy. Today, I don’t talk about following the Lord as a matter of pride; rather, I live my life in gratitude for the opportunities He has given me to communicate His truth.

And the main reason for communicating His truth is to help others see that He can bring them out of the pit they have dug for themselves.

When I speak about homosexuality, it comes from a heart of wanting to help salvage lost lives. A pastor friend of mine has a saying I’ve never forgotten: a Christian is one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.

The only reason I ever mention the issue of homosexuality is because it has become such a hot-button topic in our culture, pushed by those who want to normalize it. I can never stand by and allow that without comment.

For those of you who would like to know what I believe in depth on this subject, go to the calendar on the sidebar and read my posts from June 29, 2009, to July 5 of that same year. Those provide the Biblical basis for what I believe, as well as my concerns for the individuals trapped in that particular sin.

Other posts where I have commented on the subject are dated October 13, 2009, and for 2010, the following dates: February 12, 24; June 1; July 1; August 14, 18.

I hope if you take the time to read them, you will understand not only why I believe as I do, but also get a glimpse of my heart at the same time.

Obama's Homosexual Appointees

An Associated Press article provides the impetus for today’s commentary. Once again, I enter a minefield with what I am going to say, but I do so willingly, with eyes open.

Obama Speaking to the Human Rights Campaign, a Homosexual Advocacy Organization

The title of the piece is “Obama Appoints Record Number of Gay Officials.” Even though the president is less than halfway through his first term, the article notes, he has appointed more openly homosexual government officials than the previous record-setting president, Bill Clinton.

The article then highlights how the culture has changed since the Clinton years:

In a sign of how times have changed, few of the appointees–about two dozen required Senate confirmation–have stirred much controversy. It’s a far cry from the 1993 furor surrounding Clinton’s nomination of then-San Francisco Supervisor Roberta Achtenberg as assistant secretary for Housing and Urban Development.

Achtenberg was the first openly gay official to serve at such a senior level, and she won confirmation despite contentious hearings and Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who denounced her as a “militant extremist.”

Homosexual activists are still awaiting the first homosexual to be appointed to a cabinet post, yet …

Obama did appoint the highest-ranking gay official ever when he named John Berry as director of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the nation’s 1.9 million federal workers. Other prominent names include Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and Fred Hochberg, chairman of the Export-Import Bank. Obama also named Amanda Simpson, the first openly transgender appointee, as a senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department.

Obama Appointee Jennings

Further, a White House spokesman says Obama “is proud that his appointments reflect the diversity of the American public.” The only controversy over a homosexual appointment has been Kevin Jennings, who was a founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Network. He now oversees the Education Department’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

More than 50 House Republicans asked Obama to remove Jennings from the post after reports surfaced about advice he gave more than 20 years earlier after learning a gay student had sex with an older man.Jennings conceded that he should have consulted medical or legal authorities instead of telling the 15-year-old boy that he hoped he had used a condom. The Obama administration defended Jennings and declined to remove him.

What this all amounts to is a sea change in the public’s perception of the acceptance of homosexuality. It’s not hard to understand how this has occurred. All one has to do is watch television. Homosexual characters, portrayed sympathetically, are everywhere. There is no real discussion anymore on the nature of homosexuality; it is politically incorrect even to offer an opinion that one’s sexuality is a matter of choice, not genetics—despite the fact that no genetic evidence for homosexuality exists.

It used to be an axiom that homosexuality was a sin. American society, built on a Biblical worldview, acknowledged that Scriptural doctrine, but the relentless attack on Biblical principles has undermined that view, to the extent that many who call themselves Christians no longer believe it. As for political conservatives, they shy away from any controversy about it so that they won’t lose votes or appear to be “backward.”

A recent poll showed that 44% of Americans continue to believe homosexuality is sinful. I’m sure that’s a much lower percentage than in the past, and that the number will decrease even more. However, I can’t base my beliefs on American public opinion; neither can I base them on any trend in the churches away from the Biblical view. I must stand on what the Scriptures teach. Only by recognizing homosexuality for what it is—a sin—can a person ever be freed from its grasp. Recognition of sin precedes repentance for that sin; after repentance comes faith in the crucified Christ for forgiveness of sin. Only then will a person have a clean conscience before God and man—and that is the goal.

Therefore, I will remain politically incorrect, which is to say, acceptable in the eyes of God. As the apostles told the authorities when they were told not to speak anymore in the name of Jesus, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Obama's Religious Beliefs

A poll stunned the news media last week, and its reverberations haven’t ceased. Fully one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Reaction from the White House and the news media has been identical: no, that’s mistaken—Obama is a Christian. Even conservative commentators and news media have taken up the same chant.

What’s the truth?

First, I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim. To be a real Muslim, he would have to be adhering to all the tenets of Muslim belief. Is he praying five times a day toward Mecca? I doubt it—unless he does it on the golf course. He’s obviously not an observant Muslim. Yes, he was raised as one as a child, but I don’t honestly think he is committed to that today. You can understand the confusion of the populace, however, since he definitely comes across as sympathetic to Muslim causes. He’s always praising Muslim influence in the world and, supposedly, in the United States.

But that doesn’t make him a Muslim.

So then he must be a Christian, right? After all, he went to a church for over twenty years. Is that what it takes to be a Christian? The problem with the political and media response—yes, he’s a Christian—is that it is based on externals only. And even those are abysmally weak.

What about that church he attended? Surely you remember the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of that church. He is an adherent of black liberation theology, which turns Jesus into merely a great man who came to set free those who are oppressed politically. He attempted to “save” them from the oppressor but was cruelly crucified for trying to do so. It’s a Marxist theology.

This is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is not the message of salvation.

Jeremiah Wright is a radical of radicals, devoted to the Palestinian cause, saying America, by supporting Israel, is sponsoring state terrorism. The terrorist group Hamas, on the other hand, has been given a voice in Wright’s church bulletins.

Wright’s other highlights: Jesus was black and was oppressed by white Europeans; the American government created HIV to commit genocide against minorities; America is worse than the Islamic extremists because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; 9/11 was simply the “chickens coming home to roost” because America’s policies deserved that response.

This was Obama’s pastor for more than twenty years. There’s nothing orthodox Christian about him.

Obama himself, in a 2004 newspaper interview said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.” In other words, there is nothing unique about Christianity or the person of Jesus. All paths lead to the same place. That’s a direct contradiction of the Biblical dictum that Jesus is the only way and the only truth.

In that same interview, he stated,

The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.

Notice he calls this a “difficult thing,” something he clearly doesn’t accept. Consequently, he doesn’t really believe the Christian message because he doesn’t believe someone will be separated from God if they don’t have faith in Christ, nor does he believe in spreading the message.

Obama is not a Christian.

We’re also told by Jesus that you will know true Christians by the fruit of their lives. This doesn’t mean that Christians will always be consistent with their confession of faith; they will do things at times for which they need to repent. However, if one promotes continually positions that are at odds with Biblical morality, how can one really be a Christian? Let’s look at the record:

Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, vocally and forcefully fought against allowing doctors to come to the aid of children born alive in an attempted abortion. This is infanticide, pure and simple.

Here are more:

  1. He is one of the foremost politicians in favor of paying for abortions with taxpayer money.
  2. He advocates embryonic stem cell research.
  3. He advocates repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
  4. He advocates repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military.
  5. While saying he opposes same-sex marriage, his actions indicate just the opposite.

These are the most obvious issues. There are others I could point to, but they are derivatives of these.

Based on everything I know about Barack Obama, there is no way I can consider him a Christian. Yet like everyone else, he is a potential Christian. The path is the same for everyone: recognition of sin, genuine repentance over one’s sins, faith in the atonement of the Son of God [not just a great man sent by God], and a life that shows the fruit of that faith. Nothing short of that qualifies as Christian.

Hate Speech or Truthspeaking?

In the past few days, I’ve commented on the controversial topics of Islam and homosexuality. I’m certain that some readers, at least in their minds, will accuse me of hate speech. Now there’s a term that is long overdue for retirement. If you deign to say anything negative about specific individuals or groups, you can almost be assured of fostering “hate speech.”

I’m not about hate. Unlike some political commentators, though, I have a deep conviction of truth based upon Biblical principles. I see the Bible as the fount of all other truths that emanate from its basic foundations. As a result, I believe firmly that there is only one way to a relationship with God—through faith in the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. That means all other “ways” are false. Therefore, I believe that Islam is a false religion.

Does that make me a hater?

No, it simply spurs me on to teach what I believe to be true so that those who are caught up in a falsehood can be set free from it. Islam as a worldview and a religious system I reject; Muslims as individuals are potential children of God—He loves them and continues to reach out to them. But the path to Him comes only through Christ. Speaking the truth is not hate speech, and there are many former Muslims who would agree with me because they have now received a new life through Christ.

I’m also a historian. I know about American history and how this nation began. I understand the roots of our values and political system, and there is not much doubt that Islam had nothing to do with either. That’s not what some people would have us believe.

Islam’s mark on American history has been almost entirely negative. There are some Muslim leaders who would rejoice at a total overhaul of our government and culture by the installation of sharia law.

They will use the freedom of religion that we all respect to create a new America in their own image. If they are ever successful, America will be no more. If I don’t speak out about that danger, I believe I’m being unfaithful to God’s truth.

With regard to the homosexual issue and same-sex marriage, I also plead guilty of wanting to disseminate truth. As I’ve said time and again, I don’t hate those who are caught in the sin of homosexuality; rather, I want to see them set free. What I do stand against is the political agenda that seeks to normalize what the Scripture clearly calls sinful behavior.

Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent decision that opened the door for same-sex marriage would, in my view, destroy what is left of the moral fabric of our society. Many conservatives/libertarians disagree with this, but they are blinded to the reality of it. Walker’s decision has the beginnings of the criminalization of Christian beliefs. Here’s what part of his decision declared:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

That is one step away from the prosecution of anyone who publicly says homosexuality is sinful. What a chilling effect that would have on the pulpits in America. How many Christians would be willing to be prosecuted for speaking the truth?

For those who question why we should be concerned about the same-sex marriage issue, and whether government should even have a say in what constitutes marriage, I recommend reading this article by Mike Farris, a constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court. I know Mike, and I trust his analysis. He clearly lays out the problems that will arise if we, as a society, simply let any definition of marriage become the norm.

These are weighty issues. Christians have a responsibility to tackle them, speaking the truth in love. I will not shirk that responsibility.

The Message That Must Be Spoken

The homosexual advancement in our society is distressing to me. Now I know not everyone who reads this will agree, but I believe it foreshadows a shift in culture from which we may never recover. The problem goes beyond the same-sex marriage issue—that’s simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The only reason we are now debating same-sex marriage is because we have come to a place where traditional morality based on the Judeo-Christian belief system has nearly been destroyed.

That may sound like an extreme statement, and I hope I’m wrong about this. However, once we changed the concept of rule of law and the original intent of the Constitution, we opened the door for all kinds of aberrations.

Thus far, the only thing standing in the way of full acceptance of this “lifestyle” is the possibility of the Supreme Court remaining faithful to the Constitution. There are some giants of legal understanding who are still on the Court. They have been joined by others, though, who are not of the same stature:

Frankly, it never should have come to this—having to hope for temporal salvation from a court. As I’ve said numerous times, I expect the mainstream of worldly thinking to cave on the issue, but the key is whether Christians remain firm in the truths of Scripture. The reason we are where we are, I believe, is due to Christians wavering on this basic truth: homosexuality is a sin.

Few are willing to say that anymore; it leads to rancor and discord. Too few are willing to stand alone for truth when the rest of society is telling them to change their views. No one relishes being called a bigot [that word, and its sister, “racist,” dominate our discourse]. But it’s not bigoted to speak truth. Neither is it bigoted to point people to the way out of their sin. To do so is to lead them into freedom. The apostle Paul made it clear:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

That’s the message that needs to resound. It calls a sin a sin, yet also shows that every sin can be forgiven and new life can result. Who will speak this message? Who will be faithful to the calling?


Let’s let the cartoons do the talking today—on a variety of issues. First, on the California judge’s amazing ability to see homosexual marriage as something enshrined in the Constitution:

While we’re on the subject, why stop there?

Then there are the continuing bailout policies of the Obama administration. Are we finally beginning to understand how this works?

Obama’s policies are actually endangering jobs. Sometimes, though, that’s progress:

Switching to foreign policy, it’s nice to know our president is on the right side of things:

We used to be engaged in a War on Terror. I’m not sure anymore what we’re engaged in. I can say without condition, however, that no one right after 9/11 ever said this:

Brave New World?

So a homosexual judge has decided that seven million Californians are heterosexual bigots. That’s the essence of the decision handed down the other day in the Prop 8 case. One judge with a desire to normalize homosexuality and destroy the concept of marriage has precedence over the actual vote of the citizenry of the state. Vaughn Walker, the judge [the term is a loose one], in his decision devoted a lot of space to undermining traditional marriage and only a nod toward constitutionalism. That nod was not even constitutional. National Review has the details here if you can stand to read them.

His decision is already being appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but everyone knows how that’s going to turn out. That court is a mirror image of Judge Walker. Then it’s going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it will be decided by a 5-4 vote, but no one really knows which side the vote will favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a supposed believer in judicial restraint, doesn’t always rule that way.

The Court that will hear this case will now include Elena Kagan, confirmed by the Senate yesterday by a vote of 63-37. Five Republicans voted in favor of confirmation; one Democrat voted no. So the woman who was rubber-stamped through the Senate will now become a faithful rubber stamp for the “living Constitution.” The only saving grace is that she’s replacing an ideological twin, so the Court’s balance remains the same.

The bright side is that these developments will energize conservative opposition even more—and that energy is already apparent. The primaries on Tuesday revealed a Republican base that is eager to see change and a Democratic base that is dampened in enthusiasm. One of the most startling votes took place in Missouri where 71% of the voters marked ballots in favor of repealing the provision in Obamacare that requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. This also will go to the courts; even if it loses, it will push more voters into the polls in November.

Republicans in the Congress have come up with a chart that shows what the bureaucracy of Obamacare entails:

Good luck figuring out that one. Maybe this one will be easier to understand:

Brave new world or the nation’s worst nightmare?