“They Must be Vilified”
By the logic of Kirk and Madsen, bigotry, hate, and phobia are the only possible motives for opposing LGBTQ beliefs and demands. Such vilification is not only a bullying tactic to stigmatize and silence detractors; it also happens to be false. We cannot erase male and female differences without losing something exceedingly beautiful. Marriage cannot become a wife- or husband-optional covenant without losing something precious. Sexual distinctions are a gift from God to be celebrated, not obliterated. Saying so is an act of love. Telling the truth and teaching children the truth about human sexuality, like Mr. Rogers did, is an act of love, and courageous love, in a culture so quick to cancel.
Why have award shows, professional sports, politics, commercials, education, children’s entertainment, and even churches witnessed such a steep rise in messaging that promotes LGBTQ lifestyles in recent years? Even the National Hockey League recently declared on its Twitter feed that “Trans women are women. Trans men are men.” Contrast this with Mr. Rogers singing, “Boys are boys from the beginning. If you were born a boy you stay a boy. Girls are girls right from the start. Only girls can grow up to be mommies. Only boys can grow up to be the daddies.” By the new sexual orthodoxy of our day, Mr. Roger’s basic biology lesson for children would be summarily cancelled as bigotry, phobia, and hate by the very cultural elites who now defend drag queen story hours in children’s education. This radical shift is hardly accidental.
Last month—November 2022—marked the 35th anniversary of one of the most culture-reshaping articles in modern history. In 1987 a neuropsychiatrist named Marshall Kirk and a public relations consultant named Hunter Madsen (under the nom de plume “Erastes Pill”) teamed up to write “The Overhauling of Straight America.” This article would later balloon into the 400-page tome After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Kirk and Madsen laid out a six-phase strategy that goes a long way toward understanding the mainstream messaging about sexuality of our own day.
First, “talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.” Why?
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Is There a Regulative Principle for How We Should Dress?
The Regulative Principle of Worship has been a part of the worshiping community of the Lord from the beginning. It defines our worship and regulates it to the glory and pleasure of God. Traditionally, the principle identifies elements of worship that should be included in the Church’s offerings whether of the Old Covenant or the New. It guides us so that we might offer the Lord His due…It covers the elements of the ministry of the Word of the Lord, prayer, offerings, music, etc. but might it also address our dress?
It was a few minutes before the start of our worship service and I was trying to personally greet as many people as I could. A young man came in and took a seat. He was a first-time visitor and I especially wanted to speak to him. I found that he had recently moved to our city to take a position as a musician with our local symphony orchestra. What I remember most about him was the way he was dressed. I don’t usually notice such things but his clothing was striking. He was wearing pretty ratty denim shorts, a wrinkled t-shirt and flip flops. I’m sure he was comfortable but I found myself being otherwise. As the morning went along, I realized I was thinking about his clothing a lot and I was becoming more and more…perturbed. I knew he didn’t, he couldn’t, dress that way for an orchestral performance that likely required him to wear a black-tie tuxedo. Why, I thought, would he, then, dress so casually for church? It was as though he intentionally, with forethought, dressed as slovenly as he could for worship. He couldn’t have appeared more discourteous for coming into the presence of the Lord. Why? And why did it bother me so?
The Regulative Principle of Worship has been a part of the worshiping community of the Lord from the beginning. It defines our worship and regulates it to the glory and pleasure of God. Traditionally, the principle identifies elements of worship that should be included in the Church’s offerings whether of the Old Covenant or the New. It guides us so that we might offer the Lord His due. How else could we know how to worship except for God’s own direction and instruction. But how far does such direction go? It covers the elements of the ministry of the Word of the Lord, prayer, offerings, music, etc. but might it also address our dress?
God in His Scriptures tells us what the teaching and preaching of His Word should look like (Matt. 4:17; Acts 15:35; 2 Tim. 2:1-2; 4:1-4). He teaches us how to pray to Him (Matt. 6:5-13; 1 Thess. 5:17-18), directs us how to give to Him (Matt. 6:2-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 9:7), shows, even models for us how to sing His praises (Zeph. 3:17 NIV). He regulates these but does He also regulate how we should be clothed before Him in worship? Spiritually speaking, absolutely!
We can only appear in the presence of God clothed in the righteousness of Christ. This is a cardinal truth of the gospel. Our natural, spiritual condition is one of depravity, guilt and unrighteousness. The Lord, however, dwells in holiness and possesses only purity and righteousness. Never the twain shall meet! But once we are in Christ by repentance and faith through the gospel of Jesus, we’re covered in His righteousness imputed and gifted to us in grace. Notice the language the Bible uses for this. “I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, my soul will exult in my God; for He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels” (Isa. 61:10). “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal. 3:27). “…and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph. 4:24). Clearly, we cannot enter into the presence of Him whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil [nor] look on wickedness with favor” (Hab. 1:13) without having our sin covered by the righteousness of Christ.
We must be clothed in Him under His gospel. That’s the covering of the soul but what about the covering of the body? Does worship before the Lord affect this covering? Does the Scripture in any way regulate this?
This isn’t even a question often asked within broad evangelicalism but should it be? Isn’t it a bit trivial? Where would we go to even begin to find an answer? Perhaps the worship found in Genesis 4 can give us a starting point.
Brothers Cain and Abel were involved in the first recorded act of worship in the Scripture presumably having been taught this by their father. In verses four and five we’re told that the Lord found Abel’s worship acceptable but not Cain’s. The difference in God’s response surely has to do with the distinction made concerning their respective sacrifices which was indicative of the spiritual condition of their hearts. Cain is said to have brought an offering of the fruit of the ground with no further characterization made about it (v. 3). On the other hand, Abel sacrificed to the Lord from his flock what was designated to be “of the firstlings…and of their fat portions” (v. 4). The “firstlings” is simply the first from the flock; off the top as we could say. The “fat portions” of the sacrifice under the Old Covenant were considered to be the best part of the animal that could be offered as an honor to the Lord (See Gen. 45:18; Lev. 3:14-16; Ezek. 34:3). Abel offered God the first and the best he had. Shouldn’t this truth guide our worship of the Lord even today? How would it work?
On a personal level, I have followed the monthly practice of making the first check I write be our tithe to the church. My wife and I want to give the Lord from the first of His blessings to us right off the top. Is this required? No, but we desire to do it this way from hearts that are thankful to Him. In our congregation some years ago, we changed the Sunday morning schedule from Sunday School first to corporate worship being first. We found that people were a bit tired in worship after spending time in a study class and we wanted to offer the Lord in worship the first and the best of our time. Don’t we all do this naturally in our churches? In worship we use the best musicians from our congregations, we’re led by the elders who can best guide us to honor Christ, we have the best preaching available. But what about how we dress? Shouldn’t we come before the Lord in the best clothing we have?
For me that means a suit and tie; I don’t own anything better so that’s what I wear. Doesn’t dressing in the best we have as we come into the Lord’s presence honor Him and show our respect by following Abel’s example of giving Him our first and best? Then what about my young musician friend? If his clothing that morning in church was the best he had to wear, I would have no problem with it. None. In fact, I would thank God that he had come to worship with the saints spiritually clothed in the righteousness of Christ and physically clothed in his best.
So, does the Bible require us to dress up when we go to church? Not necessarily. But why wouldn’t we?
Dr. Randy L. Steele is a Minister in the Bible Presbyterian Church and serves as Pastor of Providence BPC in Albuquerque, NM.
Related Posts: -
Did You Miss Something in the Isaiah 7:14 Prophecy?
The true author of Scripture, not only can accurately predict future events but is also sovereign over the development of language. God knew Isaiah 7:14 would be further fulfilled by Jesus’ birth to a virgin, even though the original sign wasn’t about a virgin, but a young woman giving birth to a son and naming him Immanuel.
Have you ever thought you were so familiar with something, only to find out later you’d been overlooking some important details? This happens to me with songs, books, and movies. I hear, read, or see them so many times, only to be amazed when, out of the blue, I notice something in them I didn’t see before. Sometimes this happens to us with familiar Bible passages too.
Here’s the familiar: Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 prophesied about it. Nothing shocking yet. But let’s look at the details surrounding Isaiah’s statement about the virgin birth.
King Ahaz of Judah was having a bad day. Ephraim and Syria were attacking Jerusalem and trying to overthrow the king. So, God sends Isaiah to King Ahaz to tell him these attackers won’t be successful but will be destroyed. Then God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refuses. God gives him one anyway. Here it is: “Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14).
Wait a second. How is the prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin a sign for Ahaz? Jesus won’t be born for another 700 years. Let’s keep reading.
He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isa. 7:15–16)
These verses explain the sign God is giving Ahaz. A baby named Immanuel will be born, and before the kid is very old, the kings attacking Ahaz will be gone. This was fulfilled in Ahaz’s day, and the little boy named Immanuel was an ongoing sign that God delivered Ahaz and Judah. We find in the very next chapter of Isaiah that Immanuel was living during Ahaz’s reign (Isa. 8:8).
The main point of this sign in Isaiah is that a child would shortly be born.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The First Amendment vs. The First Commandment
The religion of Americanism teaches us that God’s law is not valid outside of the church; maybe the last six of the Ten Commandments are valid (and even that is considered debatable), but certainly not the first four. Modern theologians like to divide the ten commandments into parts, as if God has two minds. We are told that the Law was only given to Israel, and thus today it is only for the visible church. This comes from both evangelical pulpits and from Civics 101 in public education. There is not much difference between the two.
Americanism is the name I have given to a new dominant religion in our beloved nation. It is a final reference point for almost every moral and political issue, and it has the endorsement of most all conservative pastors in this country. To challenge this new religion means a quick cancellation, especially in evangelical circles.
This new religion is mostly derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The religion of Americanism interprets the First Amendment as guaranteeing the right of every American citizen to say anything they want to say (except a few things like shouting fire in a public place, or racial slurs), to turn art into blasphemy (Christ in a bottle of urine), or to worship any god of their own choosing (including Allah).
It also protects the right of men to express themselves physically as women, the right of BLM to destroy private property in public protests, the right to produce and distribute pornography, and the right for university students to call for genocide. It protects the right of anyone to burn the American flag. It protects the right to erect Satanic idols in state capitol buildings. It protects the rights of Drag Queens to read stories to children in public libraries. It protects debauchery. And yet, in this new religion of Americanism, the First Amendment is still considered sacred even by leading evangelicals.
The protection of debauchery was never the intent of our founding fathers. The First Amendment was created to limit the power of the Congress, and not the power of the individual States. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, most states had either officially or unofficially adopted the Christian Faith as the State religion. State legislators could establish an official religion, but Congress could not. State churches were legal, but a national church was not. There would be no Church of the United States as there was a Church of England across the pond. Thus, Congress was prohibited from establishing a national church, but States had every right to establish a State Church. States were respected as sovereign entities. This was a long time ago, but it demonstrates the value of studying history.
The Church of England was the official church in the State of Virginia. State taxes were used to pay the Anglican clergymen, who alone were allowed to preach in the Commonwealth. Soon, however, both Baptists and Presbyterians were given the freedom to preach (without going to jail). The First Amendment became a basis for guaranteeing free speech to all Christian Protestants (not all religions). The First Amendment was still rightly understood.
However, things have changed. The First Amendment may soon be used to curtail the free speech of Christians because Christian morals are in direct opposition to the public morals of the day. This is already happening in universities and corporations. Outside the safety of the visible church, employees of both colleges and businesses are walking around on eggshells afraid that they might use the wrong pronoun and put their jobs in jeopardy with a visit from the DEI police.
The problem with the First Amendment as presently interpreted is that it contradicts the First Commandment. The First Commandment says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” God does not tolerate competition. A First Amendment that allows for gods other than the God of the Bible to be worshiped is contrary to the First Commandment. The First Commandment also summarizes the other nine Commandments. Neither does God tolerate decadence. Under the First Commandment, not only are the worship of all other gods forbidden, but derivative events like gay-pride parades would be prohibited. The riotous destruction of private or public property would be forbidden. Drag Queens in public would be forbidden. And on and on!
Baptists give strong devotion to the First Amendment because they identify themselves with a history of persecution. They believe that the First Amendment protects their rights to believe and preach according to their own consciences. They are big supporters of Americanism. However, I believe they need to get beyond the Munster cages of the 16th century and realize that with their large numbers in America today, the roles would be reversed in a hypothetical theocracy. The vision of a Baptist Prince is more realistic in our day than a Presbyterian Prince. However, to be more sensible, I think all of us are all in the same boat now.
More broadly speaking Americanism finds its hope in the United States Constitution. The only problem with this is that the meaning of the Constitution cannot be predicted anymore. Whoever thought just fifty years ago that the rights to abortion and homosexual marriage would be discovered in the Constitution? The Constitution only means what five Supreme Court judges in black robes say what it means. Even as frightening, the United States Congress no longer has any realistic function. Civil power is now in the hands of either a sitting President or a bureaucracy of unelected college graduates from elite and secular universities. Christians are expected to leave the public square and wait for either death or the rapture, whichever comes first.
Americanism also puts a great amount of faith in democracy, where the people vote to decide who will hold office and thus, and consequently, what will be considered publicly right and wrong in our nation. However, even that hope now is teetering. So many people have lost their confidence in the integrity of elections that this tenet of Americanism is dying.
Americanism believes in American exceptionalism. Indeed, we have seen our glory days, but many other nations in the world now view America as the great whore. We are still building on the capital from the past, but decadent immorality has painted us as a prostitute on the world stage. We lost admiration a long time ago. Putin’s Russia or Mao’s China may both be a holy step above us because they have banned homosexual marriage and transgenderism. Militarism for the sake of securing democracy around the world is now viewed as a failure. It was a recipe for death, and has only created more enemies than friends.
The religion of Americanism teaches us that God’s law is not valid outside of the church; maybe the last six of the Ten Commandments are valid (and even that is considered debatable), but certainly not the first four. Modern theologians like to divide the ten commandments into parts, as if God has two minds. We are told that the Law was only given to Israel, and thus today it is only for the visible church. This comes from both evangelical pulpits and from Civics 101 in public education. There is not much difference between the two.
The only problem with this is that it is not true. Paul in Romans 13 says plainly that the civil magistrate is a servant of God and is to promote good and restrain evil. Paul wrote this while living under a Roman hegemony, looking forward to the day when all nations would be Christianized through the preaching of a gospel that would teach them to obey God’s law, as Jesus had spoken. Good and evil can only be defined by God’s law—all of it, including the first four commandments.
Our forefathers understood this. They knew that the United Sates would not survive apart from being a Christian nation. John Adams reflected this when he said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” By the word religious, he was referring to Christianity. Although I believe that the Enlightenment had a major impact on our founding forefathers, they still maintained enough Christian heritage to understand that Christianity must be the foundation of this nation or this nation will perish.
In a Christian nation, foreigners from other nations are welcome to enjoy the blessings of God with us, but they would not be allowed to worship their gods in public within the boundaries of our country. God’s goodness to us might be an avenue for their conversion. What a blessing it would be to preach the gospel to them in such a context.
What am I saying? I am saying that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as presently interpreted by most institutions including the church is in direct opposition to the First Commandment. Yes, this is a radical statement, but we live in radical times when our presuppositions must be reexamined. Yes, it is revolutionary. But is it true? That is the question.
Since the dominant religion of America moved from Christianity to Americanism, we are watching the demise of this nation. We are under attack by Cultural Marxism, and the religion of Americanism will not protect Christians. As a matter of fact, it will be used against them.
Under the guise of the Constitution, we have brought the Middle East and her wars to America. We dilute our heritage with illegal immigration. We have substituted a constitutional republic with tyranny. We have declared that all gods are equal, contrary to the First Commandment of God. We once had a Christian nation, but now we have sanctioned polytheism. God hates polytheism. He always has.
I know it is too late to do anything about it, save for a biblical revival and reformation, but I do pray that the America I knew as a child will survive. I’m not calling for a revolution. I’m only identifying the problems. When future generations ask what went wrong with the American Experiment, I hope they will learn from our mistakes.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: