The Spirit of a Man
AN EXAMPLE
One Religious Leader said to another Preacher of my acquaintance, “You obey what I say because you are accountable to me; if it is wrong, then I will be responsible and not you.”
This is fallacy and totally unscriptural. There is no such circumstance in the Bible of one person doing something wrong and someone else being responsible for it. Almost the entire Catholic Church is made up of this falsehood, while many Protestants fall into the same category. However, everyone is ultimately going to answer to God for their own actions; at that time, they will not be able to point a finger at anyone else, but they will have to take responsibility themselves. The Scripture says, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:4). Likewise, they must take responsibility now!
The Scripture also says, “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our Faith …” (Heb. 12:2).
This doesn’t say to look to a Religious Denomination or to an earthly Priest or even a Preacher, but “unto Jesus.”
SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY
While it is certainly true that the Lord has set in the Church “Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers” (Eph. 4:11), these leaders have no authority over people, even their followers, only over evil spirits (Mk. 16:17–18). Actually, no Christian, of any capacity, has any authority over another; submission as taught in the Bible is on a horizontal plane, not on a vertical plane. The Scripture says, “Submitting yourselves one to another …” (Eph. 5:21).
When the Apostle Paul wrote to the various Churches (most of which he had planted), he never one time ordered anyone to do anything, but always politely made his request: “I beseech you, brethren” (Rom. 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; I Cor. 1:10; 4:16).
If anyone were to have the right to claim spiritual authority or require that people be accountable to him, Paul certainly would have been one who did. However, Paul followed the Lord, and such authority was not given to him or to any other man. The Lord reserves that exclusively unto Himself as the “Head of … the Church” (Col. 1:18).
Actually, the highest and only spiritual authority on earth is the local Church, made up of “called out Believers.”
When Jesus addressed Himself to the Work of God on earth and to its individual members, He addressed Himself to local Churches, and more specifically to the Pastors of those Churches, such as “the Angel of the Church at Ephesus,” and so forth (Rev. 2:1).
He did not address Himself to the headquarters Church in Jerusalem or to a denominational headquarters because, in Truth, such did not exist. While there was certainly a Church in Jerusalem, and even though it was a very strong Church, it did not serve as an imperial religious headquarters.
Correspondingly, the Bible teaches that the local Church carries the highest spiritual authority there is. As a result, accountability should be confined to the leadership and people of the local assembly. Nothing from the outside should take authority over that particular assembly or its people (II Cor. 2:10; Rev. Chpts. 2–3).
Accordingly, younger Ministers in the local Church should submit themselves to the leadership of that Church (Heb. 13:17). Peter said, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder …” (I Pet. 5:5).
However, both Hebrews 13:17 and I Peter 5:5 are speaking of the local Church, not some outside, unscriptural denominational religious office.
There is every evidence in Scripture that accountability should be to a local Church: both to its apostolic leadership and to its people (Acts 13:1–5).
When there was a problem in the Church in Corinth, and it seems to have been with one of its leaders, Paul dealt directly with the Church relative to what should be done, because he had been asked to do so (I Cor. 5:1; II Cor. 2:3–11).
There is no incident in the New Testament Church in which problems were handled other than through the local Church, other than the one meeting recorded in Acts 15 which had to do with Doctrine, and which involved all the Apostles.
It should be understood that when we speak of the Church, it is not an all-inclusive term covering all Churches of a particular Religious Denomination, for example, but, instead, refers to a local, indigenous assembly which might well have branches, but which answers to that one particular Church and not to a Denomination or group of Churches.
As we have previously stated, when Christ addressed the seven Churches of Asia, He addressed each Church individually and did not link them together in the slightest, except that they were all a part of His Body.
Even though particular Churches may have a common bond of Doctrine and a like sense of purpose, spiritual authority and accountability begin and end with each assembly, and even more specifically with the Pastor of that Church. He answers directly to the Word of God and to Christ through the agency of the Person of the Holy Spirit.
HOW ACCOUNTABLE SHOULD A PERSON BE TO HIS LOCAL CHURCH?
Of course, the answer to that question is simple inasmuch as all accountability begins and ends with the Word of God. While the Scripture commands that younger or Associate Ministers in the local Church submit to its leadership, such submission can only be given as long as the Word of God is fully adhered to. This would hold true for the lay membership as well as for the Ministerial Leadership.
To give an example, since the 1960’s, quite a number of people have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues in Churches which do not believe this Biblical Doctrine.
As a consequence, if the leadership of those particular Churches demands that all such actions cease and desist, then submission comes to an end simply because its leadership is unscriptural.
However, such individuals should not cause problems in that particular Church, neither should they attempt to usurp authority over its leadership. To be Scripturally accountable, they should quietly leave and associate themselves with a different Church that adheres to sound Biblical Doctrine.
Man-made accountability has no validity with God, and most of what is labeled accountability in modern circles will find no counterpart whatsoever in the New Testament Church.
True accountability is demanded by God and is far more stringent than that demanded by man, because the accountability required by the Lord covers every aspect of one’s life and service, not just a part.
~J. Swaggart Ministries
Matthew 10:36
(36) “AND A MAN’S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.”
This “household” not only speaks of the immediate family, but, as well, of one’s Church family. Millions have died eternally lost because they allowed their family to come in between them and God, and, the greatest number lost has come about because individuals allowed their “Church household” to take pre-eminence over Christ. This is probably the greatest culprit of all, and because of its heavy religious connotations. If the Church comes before Christ, then the Church has become an idol, as surely as the heathen idols of old. Tragically, this is not an isolated case, but is rather, and sadly so, the rule!
I wrote a short article some time ago for our publication, “THE EVANGELIST,” on the subject of “Accountability,” and feel that it would be worthwhile to reprint. It is as follows:
The question was, “To whom are you accountable?”
The answer is as follows:
Having heard that question asked scores of times in the last few years, virtually every time it has been asked it has been from an unscriptural perspective.
I am assuming that the one posing this question desires a Scriptural answer, since any other answer is of no value whatsoever.
Some time back, a friend of mine was going to a place to conduct a series of meetings. She was called by a particular Preacher and asked the very question of my subject, “To whom are you accountable?”
I don’t know her answer to him, but had she asked him the same question, more than likely he would have given the name of one or more Preachers.
WHAT IS ACCOUNTABILITY?
Webster’s Dictionary says that the words, “accountable,” or “accountability” simply mean “to furnish a justifying analysis or its explanation.”
However, the word, “accountability,” is really not the correct word for this subject, even though it is used constantly. The real word is “accountant,” which means “one who gives an account or is accountable.” This definition has nothing to do with the system of recording and summarizing business and financial transactions.
To boil away all the froth from the top, and despite all the noble and lofty statements, it simply means that some man or group of men, desire to serve as a “hierarchy” above a person in order to tell him what he should and should not do. In the field of religion, probably more blood has been spilled over this than anything else, and, as well, more people, as stated, have died lost because of it.
While accountability to a hierarchy in the civil, political, and business world is acceptable and necessary, such practices have no place or part in the Work of God. Religious men, attempting to bring the ways of the world into the Ways of God have been the bane of the Church from the time of Adam and Eve.
This concept of accountability, as used by the Modern Church, is the way of the world and not of God. To bring the system of the world into the Church is sure death because it always necessitates a departure from the Word of God. God’s Ways are not man’s ways and never will be!
Therefore, if the reader desires man’s ways, then to read further will be a waste of time. However, if the reader desires God’s Ways, perhaps the balance of this statement will be of some benefit.
A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN?
Modern religious accountability (and religious it is) in the truest sense of the word, demands that there be a mediator between the individual and God, with a man or men serving in that position. However, the Scripture says, “For there is One God, and One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5).
Actually, the entire Catholic Church is built on this premise, claiming the Priest as a “mediator” between God and men. In fact, such a circumstance was correct under the old economy of God with the Law of Moses. In that time, Priests after the Aaronic Priesthood actually did serve as mediators between God and men. However, upon the First Advent of Christ and His finished work at Calvary and the Resurrection, He Alone serves as our Great High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:6; 8:1–6). Consequently, those who would desire to serve as modern “mediators,” or “Priests,” are somewhat late. They will need to go back about 3,000 years, become a Jew, belong to the Tribe of Levi, and be after the lineage of Aaron.
NOT ONLY CATHOLICS
Regrettably, Catholics are not the only ones who claim a mediatorship between God and men: the Protestant world is not far behind, although not nearly as practiced at it.
One Evangelist of my acquaintance was heralded far and wide as being the example of “accountability,” because he had submitted himself to a group of Preachers, and, consequently, was accountable to them.
In my presence, a man stood to his feet and related with glowing reports this outstanding (as he thought) position. When he had finished, I quietly asked him how this “accountability” could really be considered as such, especially considering that this Evangelist would see these particular Preachers only once or twice a year?
Especially among the Charismatics, this foolishness is rife as men love to lord it over other men, and, surprisingly enough, some men love being lorded over.
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS
Religious Denominations practice this same type of “accountability.” It is thought that if one is associated with a Religious Denomination, this spells “accountability,” while, at the same time, pointing to a lack of “accountability” in all those who do not belong to such Denominations.
However, a little common sense should inform one that the accountability that God demands could hardly be carried out under the scrutinizing eye of Denominational Heads who may see a Preacher only once a year, if that!
No! Associating oneself with a Religious Denomination affords no type of accountability of the type that the Lord will accept. The same must be said for all man-made groups.
Men love to say that they are accountable to certain groups, which in their eyes or in the eyes of others give them status and credibility. Conversely, men love to say that certain others are accountable to them, which makes them feel important.
Those who will not join or associate with this type of thinking are labeled “lone rangers,” and, therefore, as the thinking goes, they must have something to hide. If not, they would certainly desire to be “accountable” to some individual or group, wouldn’t they!
The Truth is, it is very easy to be accountable to men, that is, if one does not desire to obey God. It is easy because men can easily lie to other men, which they constantly do. However, one cannot lie to God. It’s not what men think that matters anyway; it is what God knows.
The Apostle Paul said, “But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (II Cor. 10:12).
What is Scriptural accountability?
Throughout the entire Word of God, man is importuned, even commanded, to look to God and not to other men. This entire scenario began in the Garden of Eden with Adam listening to his wife instead of the Lord. Then it followed with Cain listening to himself or others, rather than the Word of the Lord, offering up his own man-made sacrifice instead of what God commanded (Gen. 4:3–8).
Israel’s problem was listening to other nations instead of Jehovah. The Early Church was faced with this at its very beginning. The Apostles were commanded “not to speak at all nor teach in the Name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:18–19).
While all Believers should appreciate fellow Believers and, when appropriate, actively seek their counsel and advice, the only thing owed one another is love.
In Romans 13:1–7, Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid down the criteria for obedience with respect to human governments and civil rulers. He said that, “every soul” must be “subject” to these higher powers.
However, that applies only to civil government; it has nothing to do with the Work of God.
When he came to the Work of God, he said that no Christian owed any other Christian anything except to “love one another.” He went on to say, “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law.” He was speaking of the Law of Moses (Rom. 13:8–10).
In other words, no Christian owes Religious Leaders or any other Christians obedience and subjection the way he does civil authorities. The Scriptures, as we have quoted, are plain regarding that.
Some men enjoy being accountable to others, at least as the world describes accountability, because they do not want to shoulder responsibility themselves.
~J. Swaggart Ministry
Let No Man Put Asunder
By: Frances Swaggart
Matthew 19:4-6 – “And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Moments after the decision was announced, President Obama made a personal cell phone call to the lead plantiff in the case, Jim Obergefell.
After offering his congratulations and praising Obergefell’s leadership, the president told him: “Not only have you been a great example for people, but you’re also going to bring about lasting change in this country. It’s pretty rare when that happens, so I couldn’t be prouder of you and your husband, and God bless you.” 1
Ladies and gentlemen, God is not going to bless any part of this court’s decision because it was made in complete and utter disobedience to the Word of God.
NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE
In a message preached over the Fourth of July weekend at Family Worship Center, Donnie did an excellent job of dealing with this subject of same-sex marriage. He said, “It’s not a civil rights struggle. It is a moral problem. It’s not political. It’s not constitutional. It is a moral problem that defines who we are as a nation and how far we have sunk as a people.”
We don’t believe that it’s right for the U.S. Supreme Court or anybody else to try and redefine marriage as something other than what God says it is. In the book of Genesis, we see that marriage is the first institution that God ever created:
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept (records the first anesthesia): and He took one of his ribs (the word rib here actually means ‘side’), and closed up the flesh instead thereof (the woman is not merely of a rib, but actually of one side of man);
22 And the rib (side), which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman (the Hebrew says, ‘built He a woman’; Horton says, ‘When God created the man, the word form was used, which is the same word used of a potter forming a clay jar; but the word build here seems to mean God paid even more attention to the creation of the woman’), and brought her unto the man (presents a formal presentation, with God, in essence, performing the first wedding; thus He instituted the bonds of the marriage covenant, which is actually called the covenant of God [Prov. 2:17], indicating that God is the Author of this sacred institution; this is the marriage model and was instituted by God; any other model, such as homosexual marriages, so-called, can be constituted as none other than an abomination in the eyes of God [Rom. 1:24-28])” (Gen. 2:21-22, The Expositor’s ).
MAIN SOURCE OF SUPPORT
This is what the Word of God says, but it’s not what people want to believe, especially America’s young people. Just weeks before the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, we sent a TV crew from SonLife Broadcasting Network to the streets of Baton Rouge to ask random people for their definition of marriage.
Nearly all of the people we interviewed — middle-aged and up — said that they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, but take a look at the responses we received from the younger set, roughly 25 years old and younger:
Q: How do you define marriage?
A: “I think marriage is love between two people, and it doesn’t matter what two people it is.”
A: “I’m open-minded. I have a lot of gay friends, and I’ve never seen anything wrong with it. Traditionally, I guess it’s the union of a man and a woman but to me, I think it’s just the union of two people that love each other.
A: “Our generation is known for doing things completely different and I think [traditional marriage] is out of date; [same-sex marriage] is a new thing that’s happening, and we should all accept it and not judge.”
A: “Anybody who wants to have same-sex marriage or anything, I feel like that’s your choice, and I don’t think anyone should judge somebody for that. I think whatever you feel like you want to do, you should do.”
The responses of these young people are not surprising. In June of this year, a Pew Research Center’s report pointed to youth as a major source of support for same-sex marriage.
The report states: “A key component of the shifting attitudes on this issue is the strong support for gay rights among younger Americans. Younger generations have long been more accepting of homosexuality and of same-sex marriage than older generations, and as millennials (who are currently ages 18-34) have entered adulthood, those views have influenced overall public opinion.” 2
CHANGE OF HEART
At 31 years old, Heather Barwick qualifies as a millennial and, as the daughter of lesbian parents, she grew up as an advocate and supporter of gay marriage. But somewhere into her 20s, she said she could no longer be a supporter because “of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”
Barwick, now a wife and mother of four, is a children’s rights activist. In March, she wrote an open letter entitled, “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting,” to explain her change of heart. “It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me,” Barwick wrote. “And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting. Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.” 3
For other children of same-sex couples, the damage is even greater.
Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, B. N. Klein was one of four adult children of gay parents who testified against same-sex marriage at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and reportedly argued that “government-sanctioned homosexual unions could lead to disaster for thousands of kids.” 4
In her brief to the court Klein wrote, “While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake, or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning.”
Klein’s brief also stated that as a child of a lesbian mother, she was pressured to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mother’s gay identity, taught that “some Jews and most Christians are stupid and hate gays and are violent,” and told that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic because they are not repressed and are naturally more feeling.” 5
Katy Faust was another one of these four adult children who testified. She said, “The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists. For much of my adult life, I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage.” Faust said she was speaking out now because she believes that a child has the right to a mother and a father.
“When we institutionalize same-sex marriage … we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households,” Faust wrote. “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.” 6
Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by a homosexual father who later died of AIDS, testified against same-sex marriage in her native Canada, which legalized gay marriage in July 2005. According to Stefanowicz, Canada has changed a lot in those 10 years. She said that as soon as same-sex marriage passed in her country, parenting was immediately redefined. Stefanowicz writes, “Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the state when your beliefs, opinions, and or faith practices are in opposition to what is taught and promoted at school. In fact, in Ontario, Canada, the Human Rights Commission regulations permeate and surround all public education.” 7 Think of that.
I thank the Lord that these people were brave enough to come forward and speak out on this issue. Their testimonies illustrate the impact that same-sex marriage is having on our children, schools, and our nation.
REPETITION REDUCES RESISTANCE
Still, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community remains unsatisfied and continues their fight for what they call “civil rights.” We see their agenda unfolding every day in the news: the Boy Scouts welcoming openly gay men and boys; Baylor University–a prominent Christian college in this country—dropping the phrase “homosexual acts” from its sexual misconduct policy; an Oregon labor commissioner ordering Christian bakers to pay $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
On Frances & Friends, Mike Muzzerall commented on this type of progression. He said, “What happens is, if we’re in a situation where we’re tolerant–we’re not abusive toward the person, but we don’t acknowledge it–that’s no longer good enough. Now they want us to accept. Repetition reduces resistance. We’re seeing it everywhere, and it’s wearing us down as a church, and we need to stand on what the Word of God says.” Pastor Mike is absolutely right.
The Bible says, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
What authority does the U.S. Supreme Court have to change the definition of marriage? They don’t. Four of the justices disagreed with the majority on that historic ruling, including Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who offered America a warning.
In his dissent Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” 8
JUDGMENT AND THE CROSS
On the same night of this ruling, President Obama decided to illuminate the White House in rainbow colors, symbolizing gay pride. Outraged by this demonstration, Rev. Franklin Graham wrote, “God is the one who gave the rainbow, and it was associated with His judgment. God sent a flood to wipe out the entire world because mankind had become so wicked and violent.” 9
Ladies and gentlemen, as my husband has said so many times, “The only thing holding back that judgment and wrath of Almighty God is the Cross of Christ.” If the church is not preaching the Cross, then judgment comes.
Sources:
1. Arlette Saenz, “Same-Sex Ruling: President Obama’s Historic Phone Call With Plaintiff Jim Obergefell,” ABC News, June 26, 2015.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sex-ruling-president-obamas-historic-phone-call-plaintiff/story?id=32051689
2. Pew Research Center, “Support for Same-Sex Marriage at Record High, but Key Segments Remain Opposed: 72 Percent Say Legal Recognition is ‘Inevitable,’” June 8, 2015.
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/06/6-8-15-Same-sex-marriage-release1.pdf
3. Heather Barwick, “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting,” The Federalist, March 17, 2015.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/.
4. Kirsten Andersen, “‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult Children Of Gay Parents Testify Against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ at 5th Circuit,” Life Site, January 13, 2015.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar.
7. Dawn Stefanowicz, “My Father Was Gay. Why I Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage,” Daily Signal, April 13, 2015.
http://dailysignal.com/print/?post_id=182334.
Let No Man Put AsunderSept 2015 |
| By: Frances Swaggart Matthew 19:4-6 – “And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Moments after the decision was announced, President Obama made a personal cell phone call to the lead plantiff in the case, Jim Obergefell. After offering his congratulations and praising Obergefell’s leadership, the president told him: “Not only have you been a great example for people, but you’re also going to bring about lasting change in this country. It’s pretty rare when that happens, so I couldn’t be prouder of you and your husband, and God bless you.” 1 Ladies and gentlemen, God is not going to bless any part of this court’s decision because it was made in complete and utter disobedience to the Word of God. NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE In a message preached over the Fourth of July weekend at Family Worship Center, Donnie did an excellent job of dealing with this subject of same-sex marriage. He said, “It’s not a civil rights struggle. It is a moral problem. It’s not political. It’s not constitutional. It is a moral problem that defines who we are as a nation and how far we have sunk as a people.” We don’t believe that it’s right for the U.S. Supreme Court or anybody else to try and redefine marriage as something other than what God says it is. In the book of Genesis, we see that marriage is the first institution that God ever created: 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept (records the first anesthesia): and He took one of his ribs (the word rib here actually means ‘side’), and closed up the flesh instead thereof (the woman is not merely of a rib, but actually of one side of man); 22 And the rib (side), which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman (the Hebrew says, ‘built He a woman’; Horton says, ‘When God created the man, the word form was used, which is the same word used of a potter forming a clay jar; but the word build here seems to mean God paid even more attention to the creation of the woman’), and brought her unto the man (presents a formal presentation, with God, in essence, performing the first wedding; thus He instituted the bonds of the marriage covenant, which is actually called the covenant of God [Prov. 2:17], indicating that God is the Author of this sacred institution; this is the marriage model and was instituted by God; any other model, such as homosexual marriages, so-called, can be constituted as none other than an abomination in the eyes of God [Rom. 1:24-28])” (Gen. 2:21-22, The Expositor’s Study Bible). MAIN SOURCE OF SUPPORT This is what the Word of God says, but it’s not what people want to believe, especially America’s young people. Just weeks before the Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, we sent a TV crew from SonLife Broadcasting Network to the streets of Baton Rouge to ask random people for their definition of marriage. Nearly all of the people we interviewed — middle-aged and up — said that they believed marriage was between a man and a woman, but take a look at the responses we received from the younger set, roughly 25 years old and younger: Q: How do you define marriage? A: “I think marriage is love between two people, and it doesn’t matter what two people it is.” A: “I’m open-minded. I have a lot of gay friends, and I’ve never seen anything wrong with it. Traditionally, I guess it’s the union of a man and a woman but to me, I think it’s just the union of two people that love each other. A: “Our generation is known for doing things completely different and I think [traditional marriage] is out of date; [same-sex marriage] is a new thing that’s happening, and we should all accept it and not judge.” A: “Anybody who wants to have same-sex marriage or anything, I feel like that’s your choice, and I don’t think anyone should judge somebody for that. I think whatever you feel like you want to do, you should do.” The responses of these young people are not surprising. In June of this year, a Pew Research Center’s report pointed to youth as a major source of support for same-sex marriage. The report states: “A key component of the shifting attitudes on this issue is the strong support for gay rights among younger Americans. Younger generations have long been more accepting of homosexuality and of same-sex marriage than older generations, and as millennials (who are currently ages 18-34) have entered adulthood, those views have influenced overall public opinion.” 2 CHANGE OF HEART At 31 years old, Heather Barwick qualifies as a millennial and, as the daughter of lesbian parents, she grew up as an advocate and supporter of gay marriage. But somewhere into her 20s, she said she could no longer be a supporter because “of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.” Barwick, now a wife and mother of four, is a children’s rights activist. In March, she wrote an open letter entitled, “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting,” to explain her change of heart. “It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me,” Barwick wrote. “And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting. Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.” 3 For other children of same-sex couples, the damage is even greater. Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, B. N. Klein was one of four adult children of gay parents who testified against same-sex marriage at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and reportedly argued that “government-sanctioned homosexual unions could lead to disaster for thousands of kids.” 4 In her brief to the court Klein wrote, “While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake, or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning.” Klein’s brief also stated that as a child of a lesbian mother, she was pressured to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mother’s gay identity, taught that “some Jews and most Christians are stupid and hate gays and are violent,” and told that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic because they are not repressed and are naturally more feeling.” 5 Katy Faust was another one of these four adult children who testified. She said, “The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists. For much of my adult life, I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage.” Faust said she was speaking out now because she believes that a child has the right to a mother and a father. “When we institutionalize same-sex marriage … we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households,” Faust wrote. “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.” 6 Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by a homosexual father who later died of AIDS, testified against same-sex marriage in her native Canada, which legalized gay marriage in July 2005. According to Stefanowicz, Canada has changed a lot in those 10 years. She said that as soon as same-sex marriage passed in her country, parenting was immediately redefined. Stefanowicz writes, “Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the state when your beliefs, opinions, and or faith practices are in opposition to what is taught and promoted at school. In fact, in Ontario, Canada, the Human Rights Commission regulations permeate and surround all public education.” 7 Think of that. I thank the Lord that these people were brave enough to come forward and speak out on this issue. Their testimonies illustrate the impact that same-sex marriage is having on our children, schools, and our nation. REPETITION REDUCES RESISTANCE Still, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community remains unsatisfied and continues their fight for what they call “civil rights.” We see their agenda unfolding every day in the news: the Boy Scouts welcoming openly gay men and boys; Baylor University–a prominent Christian college in this country—dropping the phrase “homosexual acts” from its sexual misconduct policy; an Oregon labor commissioner ordering Christian bakers to pay $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. On Frances & Friends, Mike Muzzerall commented on this type of progression. He said, “What happens is, if we’re in a situation where we’re tolerant–we’re not abusive toward the person, but we don’t acknowledge it–that’s no longer good enough. Now they want us to accept. Repetition reduces resistance. We’re seeing it everywhere, and it’s wearing us down as a church, and we need to stand on what the Word of God says.” Pastor Mike is absolutely right. The Bible says, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” What authority does the U.S. Supreme Court have to change the definition of marriage? They don’t. Four of the justices disagreed with the majority on that historic ruling, including Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who offered America a warning. In his dissent Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” 8 JUDGMENT AND THE CROSS On the same night of this ruling, President Obama decided to illuminate the White House in rainbow colors, symbolizing gay pride. Outraged by this demonstration, Rev. Franklin Graham wrote, “God is the one who gave the rainbow, and it was associated with His judgment. God sent a flood to wipe out the entire world because mankind had become so wicked and violent.” 9 Ladies and gentlemen, as my husband has said so many times, “The only thing holding back that judgment and wrath of Almighty God is the Cross of Christ.” If the church is not preaching the Cross, then judgment comes.
|
September
16
brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s Righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the Righteousness of God (Rom. 10:1–3).
The main purpose of the Holy Spirit giving us, through Paul, Chapters 9 through 11 of Romans was not, as stated, for Prophetical analysis, even though that, in measure, was given, but rather to warn the Church. If the Church follows in Israel’s footsteps by being ignorant of God’s Righteousness or by refusing God’s Righteousness, attempting, as Israel, to establish its own righteousness, the Church will be cut off just as Israel was cut off.
Concerning this, Paul said, “For if God spared not the natural branches (Israel), take heed lest He also spare not you (refers to the Church, as is obvious). Behold, therefore the goodness and severity of God (don’t mistake the Goodness of God for license): on them which fell, severity (speaks of Judgment which came on Israel, God’s chosen People); but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His Goodness (proclaims the conditions; the continuing of that “Goodness” pertains to continued Faith in Christ and the Cross): otherwise you also shall be cut off” (Rom. 11:21–22).
“God’s Righteousness” is that which is afforded by Jesus Christ, gained by and through the Cross. The only way that God’s Righteousness can be given to anyone is by virtue of the Cross, which demands Faith on the part of the recipient. If one attempts to gain righteousness by any other manner, the Lord refers to it as “self-righteousness,” and it is unacceptable—totally unacceptable!
I ask the following question:
How much is the modern Church preaching the Cross?
The answer screams back at us, “Precious little!”
The Church has already apostatized. The Church Age opened with Christ standing in the midst of the candlesticks, in which the candlesticks represent the Church (Rev. 1:12–13). At the close of the Church Age, which pertains to the present time, we no longer find Christ in the midst of the Church, but rather outside, knocking on the door, trying to get it (Rev. 3:17–20). The Lord is, in fact, no longer dealing with the institutionalized Church as a whole, but rather with individuals only.
To be sure, the Lord has always dealt with individuals, but now it is only individuals.
“If any man hear My Voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20).
So, who presently is saved?
It is the same now as it was with Israel of old.
Paul said, “Even so then at this present time (Paul’s day) also there is a Remnant according to the election of Grace (definitely speaks of Predestination, but not as many think; it is the “Remnant” that is elected or predestined, not who will be in the Remnant).
“And if by Grace (the Goodness of God, all made possible by the Cross), then is it no more of works (no one can point to their works as grounds for Salvation): otherwise Grace is no more Grace (if works are mixed with Grace, they nullify Grace). But if it be of works, then is it no more Grace (works can never produce Grace): otherwise work is no more work” (for example, Water Baptism, if acted upon wrongly, nullifies its true meaning; this also holds true for all other great Ordinances of the Lord) (Rom. 11:5–6).
As there was a “Remnant” in Israel who were saved, meaning that most were lost, likewise, there also is a “Remnant” in the modern Church who are saved, but only a Remnant. Israel had rejected much of that which was of the Lord, but when they rejected the Cross, there was nothing left. They were cut off. The modern Church has done the same thing. It has rejected much which is of the Lord, but now it is rejecting the Cross. As with Israel, if the Cross is rejected, that means the Righteousness of God is rejected, and that means the Church is also cut off—except for the “Remnant.”
Are you in the Remnant?
The only way that anyone can be in the Remnant is by accepting Christ and what Christ did at the Cross. There is no other way!
~J. Swaggart
By J. Swaggart
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS NO!
SEXUAL UNCLEANNESS
Paul said, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves”(Rom. 1:24). The phrase, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,” presents mankind not merely drifting toward,but actually, in a sense, being shoved by God in that direction. Since men chose to give up God and worship the creature, God could do nothing but givemen into the control of the sinful things they preferred. In other words, God would not violate man’s will and force him to do something he did not want to do. When men persisted infollowing their totally depraved natures, God allowed them free rein. The natural result was immorality of the vilest kind. Biblical scholar Henry Alford says of God’sact of delivering mankind over into the control of utter human depravity, “Not merely permissive, but judicially, God delivered them over.
As sin begets sin, and darkness of mind, deeper darkness, grace gives place to judgment, and the divine wrath hardens men, and hurries them on to more fearful degrees of depravity.” God, in other words, delivered man to uncleanness. The word lusts is epithumia in the Greek text, and means, “a passionate craving, longing, desire,” and in this sense, an inordinately sinful one. Alford again says, “Not by or through the lusts; the lusts of their heart were the field of action, the department of their being in which the dishonor took place.” In other words, this was what their hearts wanted. The phrase, “To dishonor their own bodies between themselves,” carries with it more thanmere profligacy in the satisfaction of natural lusts, but rather bestiality, which refers to impurity in the physical, and not only in the social and religious sense. In other words, man is grossly immoral. It speaks of adultery, fornication, pedophilia (sex with children), bestiality (sex with animals), lesbianism, and homosexuality. In other words, this “dishonor” includes all of these things mentioned.
CHANGING THE TRUTH OF GOD INTO A LIE
However, this condition of men’s hearts in purposely refusing the truth of God, led to the Lord using no restraining force over man whatsoever, allowing him without restraint to push headlong into this lie of darkness, which, in effect, is the same as God giving man a push. Considering man’s already depraved condition, the slide even further downward was terrible, to say the least!As we see here, the words, “God also gave them up,” as given in Verse 24, is a restraining force exercised by God even on unregenerate mankind, unless refused, which it was and continues to be.As well, there is far greater restraining force on believers as should be obvious (Job 1:10; Ps. 91; Rom. 8:28). However, this restraining force even on believers can be removed, as well, through disobedience and rebellion. The phrase, “And worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,” (Rom. 1:25) presents that of which Paul spoke in his message to the Athenians (Acts 17:29-30). For man to worship and serve the creature, means he is doing such to something he has made with his hands and is, therefore, less than him.Regarding the “creature,” even if man worships himself or other men and women, which most of the world does, still, what good does that do him? The phrase, “Who is blessed forever,”should have been translated, “bless-ed,” because it refers to God. The word blessed refers to one receiving a blessing, in which, as should be obvious, God needs nothing. The two syllable wordbless-ed, in effect, refers to the One doing the blessing, in this case, the Lord. The idea is all true blessings come exclusively from the Lord, with idols or anything else for that matter, able to produce none at all. The word “Amen” means that this is anchored in the Word of God, and, as such, will not change.
WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUALITY
DISHONOR
The word vile in the Greek text is atimia, and means “dishonor, ignominy, and disgrace.”The first word in this meaning is dishonor, and looking at the meaning of its opposite “honor,” means to evaluate the worth of a person and to treat him with the consideration, respect, and love due his character and position. Conversely, to dishonor a person is to either put an incorrect appraisal upon his worth and treat him accordingly, or, having properly evaluated his character, to refuse to treat him with the respect and deference that are his due.
Paul is using this in the sense of the world putting an incorrect estimate upon the sacredness, dignity, and purity of the physical body which was made by God and, in effect, in God’simage, and thus, using it in a way which dishonors it. In that this is what the world wanted, they were given over to a “condition,” and not merely to an evil desire. It is one thing for an individual to do something which is very evil, but something else altogether for that person to “become” what they do, which is always where sin leads one
LESBIANISM
The phrase, “For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature,” in short, speaks of lesbianism unnatural sexual relations between women (homosexuality).
Several things are said here: »The word women as used here is not the word used as in John 4:9, which simply speaks of designation, but rather the Greek word thelus which means “a female.” In other words, the Holy Spirit through Paul is pointing to the gender, meaning that it is to stay that way. That women tried to “change” the purpose of their gender, is the reason that Paul used the Greek word for female. They were not trying so much to change the gender, but rather its purpose respecting the sexual sense. Consequently, they were changing what God had designed, and doing so in a rebellious, base, and ignominious way. They went from a far higher use down to a far lower use. Even though this is one of the worst, or possibly the very worst example, still, this is the great sin of man, changing God’s ways for man’s ways, and in every capacity. The “natural use” presents that intended by God, in this sense, the way sexually that women were
originally created. The word natural in the Greek is phusis, and means “the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature, as opposed to that which is monstrous, abnormal, perverse.”
That which is “against nature” respects that which is against nature’s laws, or God’s laws, which are one and the same.
MEN AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Wage War to Help the Enemy
The routine murder of innocents may be protected in the clinic—but in the Upside-Down World, it is to be avoided at all costs on the battlefield. Even if it costs victory.
In the Afghanistan war—where the government and people are demonstrating sympathy for the Taliban—the top nato commander, Stanley McChrystal (before he resigned in June), was looking for ways to protect Afghan civilians. He considered a new military honor that recognizes soldiers who refrain from fighting: an award for “courageous restraint.”
Radical Muslim groups love it. They are far less concerned about civilian deaths; in fact, they invite them. They use a hodgepodge of vile, despicable tactics—purposefully embedding themselves among locals, even using schools and hospitals as staging grounds for rocket attacks—aimed specifically at provoking retribution that kills civilians (who, in many cases, actually sympathize with their cause), which they then broadly publicize for propaganda purposes. And the media and political classes eagerly trumpet that propaganda—even in cases where it is demonstrably false.
Clearly, Muslims aren’t the only ones who sympathize with terrorists; liberal intellectuals do as well.
Common sense says that someone trying to kill you and your family, someone trying to destroy your country, is an enemy. But such reasoning is far too barbaric for Western thinkers. Black-and-white morality has been replaced by a world of grays, of relativism, where even the most depraved behavior can be explained and excused. The Western mind has become deeply ambivalent about evil. Even words like evil and enemy are considered simplistic and backward.
A pillar liberal doctrine is that the perpetrators of evil acts are not responsible because they are actually victims of a far greater evil: Western ideals. Thus, “victim” groups are considered incapable of wrongdoing, while “privileged” classes are incapable of good. Muslims cannot be held responsible for terrorism—their Western targets must be the real cause.
As a result of such ridiculous moral reasoning, the very nature and purpose of warfare has been flipped topsy-turvy. War is now something a nation must do for its enemy. Humanitarian goals trump self-defense. All efforts to seek the nation’s own interests are branded immoral and shameful. An oxymoronic “humanitarian war” approach has embroiled America and its allies in absolutely impossible efforts to rebuild and rehabilitate those nations it defeats.
Success in warfare used to benefit the victorious nation; in the Upside-Down World, “victory” comes with inexhaustible, unachievable moral obligations. War can never be won.
Heroes and Villains
Hamas runs Gaza as a theocratic police state; it silences dissent; it allows no religious expression outside radical Islam; it uses terrorism to advance its foreign policy, which is to annihilate Jews. Israel, by contrast, is a liberal democracy; it has an independent judiciary and an independent press; it protects religious freedom, even for the 16 percent of its citizens who are Muslim.
Which of these two do you suppose Western elites increasingly view as a political partner—and which as a villain?
It is positively bizarre. What possesses apparently intelligent, reasonable people who value political freedoms and respect for human life to defend the terrorist cause? Why are they so willing to overlook the barbaric acts of misogyny and murder—so seemingly contrary to liberal ideals—that plague radical Islamist culture? And why, then, are they so unforgiving as Jews try to defend themselves against it?
There is no reasoned public debate over these questions. Throughout academia, the media and political circles, the supposed rightness of the Palestinian cause over that of Israel is considered irrefutable.
In Upside-Down downtown Manhattan, a retail store damaged by shrapnel from the 9/11 terrorist attacks was razed—in order to make room for a new 13-story mosque. “In the ruins of a building reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, a temple to Islam will arise,” commented author Mark Steyn.
The increasingly universal immunity to reason vividly showed this past May when authorities foiled a bombing attempt in New York City’s Times Square. As always happens when a Muslim commits or tries to commit a terrorist act, politicians and press in America and Britain disregarded facts, threw out the religion connection and searched for a cause within trivialities like the would-be bomber’s struggle to pay his mortgage. New York’s mayor speculated that he was probably a right-winger, “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill.” Wrong. Turns out the perp was on orders from the Pakistani Taliban. The mayor responded to the news by praising his city’s Pakistanis and gravely stating, “We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers.”
The rush to exhibit such multicultural sanctimony has become so predictable after such incidents. The more that Muslims attack, the louder we praise them. The same Upside-Down reaction was on parade five years ago, after Islamic suicide bombers killed 52 Londoners on their morning commute. British officials didn’t blame Islam—but Islamophobia. London’s mayor asserted that the true fault lay in “80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil.”
Reality is screaming in their faces, and they are closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and saying “La la la la la.”
Why are efforts to merely enforce existing immigration law in order to curb rising kidnapping and murder branded as racist? Why are illegal immigrants in Britain guaranteed welfare benefits by law? Why is it against the law to deport dodgy foreign terrorist suspects back to their home countries out of concern that their human rights might be violated there?
These are senseless, dangerous policies—yet intellectuals will rise up in full-throated indignation against any who dare question them.
Political correctness—a bramble bush of self-contradicting doctrines—has so ensnared the self-declared scholarly that even when facts are presented that expose the error in their thinking they will not budge.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah lamented. “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).
He couldn’t possibly have described the Upside-Down World with more penetrating precision.
The Upside-Down World
From the August 2010 Trumpet Print Edition »
Excerpt from The Trumpet by Joel Hilliker
A New Orthodoxy
The first words uttered when a baby is born are either “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” That is because sex is biological reality—and none too difficult to detect.
None too difficult, that is, except for intellectuals. In their Upside-Down thinking, nothing is either/or, black-or-white—not even male or female! Gender is a choice, a state of mind, a construct, and always open for reinterpretation. Using this warped logic, they exalt homosexuality, bisexuality and varying degrees of transsexuality including surgical “sex change.”
How brazen are intellectuals at rewriting reality? British law now mandates that transsexuals be allowed to receive a new birth certificate saying they were born the opposite sex. If this person believes he was born female, then he was born female! And anyone who says differently is a bigot! is the message.
Proponents of such policies think they are creating a world free from oppression and hate, a world of tolerance and understanding, where everyone is accepted, where no one is condemned and no one’s feelings are ever hurt. In truth they are intolerantly imposing their Upside-Down reality, creating a nightmare world where discomfort with moral deviancy is punishable by law.
In this world, morality has been flipped on its head. Freedom of religion is being beaten to death by the “freedom” to practice aggressive homosexual activism. State and local laws criminalizing behavior deemed discriminatory against cross-dressers, bisexuals and homosexuals are forcing businesses, schools and publicly funded organizations to embrace perversion. Last December, a British registrar was forced to resign for refusing to conduct same-sex “weddings.” A pediatrician had to leave an adoption panel because he wouldn’t approve homosexual couples for adoption. In February 2009, a Scottish couple were denied their request to adopt their two grandchildren—so that the children, ages 4 and 5, could be adopted by a gay male couple; when the grandparents objected, the judge told them to hush up if they ever wanted to see the children again.
Such bullying is perpetrated in the name of “tolerance”—when in actuality it bears the hallmarks of history’s despotic regimes. Phillips argues that the religious tyrannies of the Middle Ages and the political tyrannies of the 20th century have been replaced by something just as pernicious: cultural totalitarianism. “Medieval Christianity—like contemporary Islamism—stamped out dissent by killing or conversion; Western liberals do it by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination,” she writes.
“It is a kind of secular Inquisition. And the grand inquisitors are to be found within the intelligentsia—in the universities, the media, the law, the political and professional classes—who not only have systematically undermined the foundations of Western society but are heavily engaged in attempting to suppress any challenge or protest.”
In this world, “reason” supposedly reigns. The reality, however, is that false and empty values have become the new dogma—at the expense of reason. The most intellectual—those who purportedly believe in the unassailable omnipotence of rationality—have become shockingly irrational. Facts that don’t fit the party line, they discard or ridicule. Biblical orthodoxy has simply been replaced by a rabidly secularist orthodoxy.
Power to the Little People
Mountains of evidence show the benefits of traditional marriage to both husband and wife, as well as society at large—and the high costs associated with its dissolution. It proves the enormous advantages to children—in personal safety, academic performance, financial well-being, emotional stability, self-respect, and assimilation into law-abiding adult life, among other things—of growing up under the same roof with both biological parents, a living arrangement built upon a strong, stable relationship between a sperm-producing adult male and an egg-producing adult female.
But because this evidence contradicts the secularist agenda, it is routinely overlooked, ignored, dismissed and scorned. The Upside-Down World keeps cranking up the pressure to popularize deviant sexuality—while removing pressure on singles to marry, pressure on married people to remain together, pressure on parents to make sacrifices for their children, and pressure on children to view their parents as authorities. All history proves that strong societies begin with strong marriages and families, yet intellectuals continue heedlessly striking blows at the pillars of family life.
In the Upside-Down World, families are bottom-up: Children rule, and parents take orders. Legitimate efforts to safeguard children from abuses have been overwhelmed by hostile efforts to undermine parental authority and dismantle the family structure. All physical discipline—an indispensable tool that the Bible commands parents to use to correct bad behavior—is considered cruel and abusive.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child requires signatory countries to enact legislation to stamp out “all forms of physical or mental violence”—including spanking. But even beyond that, the convention emasculates parents by guaranteeing children the right of privacy, even within their own home, as well as “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Yes, Upside-Down leaders in the world’s foremost international body are convinced that children thrive best when parents abdicate their duty to educate their children spiritually.
Like-minded authorities have stripped authority from professional educators as well. With teachers unable to discipline students, classrooms increasingly become hatcheries of churlishness and rebellion. Apparently the students’ right to misbehave in school is more important than their right to actually learn.
The ominous vision of the Prophet Isaiah is now reality: “I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. … [T]he child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable” (Isaiah 3:4-5).
Yet, consider the irony. While Upside-Down legal minds work to empower children at their parents’ expense in many areas, there is one issue on which they stand firmly, even belligerently, with parents over their children: They passionately defend parents’ right to kill their own children before they are born.
Back in April, a street-corner preacher in Britain mentioned to a passing shopper that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.
The comment got him thrown in jail.
An atheist homosexual policeman contended that since Dale McAlpine’s remark was loud enough to be overheard, he had broken the Public Order Act—a law passed in 1986 to control violent rioters and football hoodlums. Police carted McAlpine off, and he spent seven hours in a cell for causing “harassment, alarm or distress.”
It was quite the crackdown, considering what happened elsewhere on Britain’s streets at about the same time. After an Israeli official gave a lecture at the University of Manchester, she was attacked by pro-Palestinian protesters. Police responded to this provocation by escorting the official from the premises in a police car. The protesters climbed onto the hood of the vehicle and tried to break the windshield. They were not prosecuted. Apparently in Britain, this is “protected speech.”
Welcome to the Upside-Down World.
It’s a world where truth is trashed and lies are lauded. Where the honorable are despised and the depraved are empowered. Where sound morals and strong character are relentlessly mocked—while immorality is praised, paraded and protected.
“Self-evident common sense appears to have been turned on its head,” writes Melanie Phillips in her book The World Turned Upside Down. “[S]elf-designated ‘victim groups’ have turned right and wrong, victim and aggressor inside out. Their ‘right’ not to be insulted or discriminated against in any way has become the basis for discrimination and injustice against the representatives of majority values. …
“Nothing is really as it is said to be,” she writes. “Society seems to be in the grip of a mass derangement.”
Has the world gone mad?
There is a hidden cause for this bewildering trend that very few are willing to acknowledge. It is a remarkable reality that explains a whole array of seemingly paradoxical problems that bedevil our world.
Protect Muhammad, Mock Jesus
In this world, everything is twisted in knots. The solution to debt problems is increased spending. The antidote to government waste is more government. “Freedom of speech” is used as a shield for vulgarity and filth—and a bludgeon against godliness and virtue.
Comedy Central cartoons mock everything. They delight in committing sacrilege. Back in April, one poked fun at the furor over depictions of Muhammad, founder of Islam, by showing him dressed in a bear suit. A radical New York-based Islamic group didn’t like that one bit. On its website, RevolutionMuslim.com, it posted a warning along with a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker brutally murdered in 2004 by a Muslim; it warned that the show’s creators might suffer the same fate.
Comedy Central’s executives got the message. They censored the cartoon and removed all record of it online.
Then they turned around and proceeded with plans to create JC, a cartoon aimed squarely at garnering laughs at Christians’ expense. The show will depict God and Jesus Christ as regular guys who move to modern-day New York City, where Jesus adjusts to big city life while a deadbeat God sits home and plays video games.
These two seemingly incongruous decisions are hardly unusual. In fact, both follow a pattern increasingly playing out in America and Britain. In societies that value free speech, many decision-makers are shutting down even mild criticism of Islam. And though these same societies also value freedom of religion, public and even private expression of Bible-based Christianity is coming under fierce attack.
Leaders and officials kowtow to bullies and thugs on one hand, then become bullies and thugs on the other. They accommodate evil and vilify good.
~Excerpt from The Trumpet Magazine by Joel Hilliker