For Christians and parents, this fight involves the eternal salvation of children’s souls. For this reason, Drag Queen Story Hours have generated a firestorm across America with hundreds of protests. So many rightly oppose this attack upon that God-given childhood innocence that prepares the soul to live a virtuous life and to desire heaven.

The innocent child instinctively and implicitly knows what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly. Like the innocent child denouncing the emperor’s “new clothes,” he recognizes the drag queen as ugly and sinister as a wicked witch in a fairy tale. The child does not bend to the politically- correct opinions and says what he thinks.
Suddenly, a new figure has appeared on the scene, invading public places, libraries and schools. His appearance is shocking and lewd. He is the drag queen who demands the right to read stories and have access to toddlers and children.
There is no explanation why he must read his stories about sexual fluidity to little children. Nothing like this has ever been done. He does it because he can do it—a decadent society lets him do it. The media actively promotes these indoctrination sessions as manifestations of “tolerance” and diversity.
Propaganda Not Entertainment
The drag queen makes no secret of his links to the LGBTQ+ movement, and he serves as its unofficial spokesman to the children. He is not reading fairy tales but telling toddlers that men can be women and that same-sex marriages are good under the label of “family-friendly” entertainment. Schools, libraries, or other public places become platforms for his anti-Christian morality message.
Thus, parents have every right to reject this shameless advocacy that will corrupt their children and present sinful relationships in a favorable light. Indeed, one drag queen in Lafayette, Louisiana, admitted at a town hearing that the purpose of his performance is “be the grooming of the next generation.”
While not every child will attend these events, the children who do will spread their confusing messages to those who don’t. The eventual goal is the mainstreaming of drag queens. Reportedly, Michigan’s lesbian Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel, mockingly called for “a drag queen in every school.” Taco Bell is holding drag queen events in its restaurants.
The Target is Childhood Innocence
These reasons are enough to demand the closing down of these morally-toxic shows. Children must be protected from exposure to lewd men in dresses with sinful messages. And parents, informed by the Church, not the media, are the ones to judge the moral dangers of these shows.
However, the program’s target is not only to expose children to immoral ideas. Children have something special that terrifies the drag queen. And for this reason, he targets children and seeks to rid them of their special quality.
That quality is childhood innocence.
Innocence Is Seeing Everything With a Spirit of Harmony
Innocence is the child’s ability to see everything in a spirit of harmony that God puts into the soul. It allows the child to be open to all forms of rectitude, marvelousness, purity, and beauty found in the nature of things. For example, the child, a young boy, develops a notion of how things should be. He imagines the ideal models of things.
This perception facilitates a relationship with God as the author of the harmony and marvels that the child sees, imagines and loves. It encourages the practice of virtue and creates a desire for heaven.
Everyone has witnessed this childhood innocence. The child exhibits this marveling spirit with great exuberance toward the good, true and beautiful and a rejection of the contrary. During early childhood, the boy develops his first certainties. He will be full of admiration, trust and hope that comes from the joy of new life. All these things develop inside this wonderworld of childhood innocence.
The Need for Protection
However, this splendid gift must be protected against evil, sin and deception.
Read More
Related Posts:

The teaching takes place not only by hearing the message that people around us sing, but by singing the message ourselves. This benefit is confirmed by modern observations about how people learn. People learn more effectively and more deeply if they not only hear, but try to re-express what they learn. Getting one’s voice involved deepens one’s participation. Singing engages our emotions, and may help to make the message more memorable. People remember songs that they have sung repeatedly, and embrace them more deeply. Their active participation reinforces their memory.

For decades now, Christian congregations have had to deal with differences in musical styles in Christian worship. Some prefer “contemporary music.” Others prefer “traditional music.” The differences become a source of contention. Sadly, we now have the term “worship wars,” as a label to describe the extent to which music in worship has become a battleground.
We should not want more wars, especially within the bounds of the church. Therefore, a discussion of music and singing in the church must begin by recalling Christ’s command: Christians should love one another as Christ has loved us (John 15:12 ESV; see 13:34; 1 John 4:19). Loving one another is a central principle in the life of the people of God. We need not only to teach the principle, but to practice it. Any disagreement or tension in the body of Christ should be seen as an occasion to practice Christian love.
My purpose here is not to talk about Christian love, important as that is. My focus is rather on one specific element: congregational singing. I wish not to create tension, but to ask both pastors and musicians, both leaders and followers in the Christian faith, to approach the issue of congregational singing with wisdom and with balance. For the sake of the health of the church, we want congregational singing to contribute to that health.
How do we best do that? In this four-part series, I briefly set forth my own thoughts. Even if other brothers and sisters may not agree, I hope this may help lead the conversation in a positive direction.
As we have observed, one prime factor is love, and with love, patience. We should bear with other people in the congregation, and bear with decisions about singing with which we disagree. But now what else should go into the decision-making and practice of a Christian congregation?
Mind the Goal
What should be the long-range goal in congregational singing? Everything that we do in Christian worship and in all of life, we should do for sake of honoring God, that is, for sake of promoting the glory of God: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). The glory of God is primary and essential.
In addition, the Bible indicates that church meetings should have the aim of building up the church: “Let all things [that take place when the people assemble] be done for building up” (1 Cor. 14:26). The goal is that the people should grow in spiritual maturity, not only individually but as a body, as a community. Nearly the whole of 1 Cor. 14 is about the importance of building up the church, and how this goal regulates and guides the details of what happens during a congregational assembly. Likewise Eph. 4:1-16 has a focus on building up the church. According to Eph. 4, the goal is “the stature of the fullness of Christ” (verse 13). We are “to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (verse 15).
We have two goals before us: the glory of God and the building up of the church. These two goals are not two diverse goals that pull in opposite directions. Rather, each implies the other. Building up the church takes place properly only when we are serving God and seeking to please him. So we need to seek the glory of God in Christian worship.
We can also reason the other way, starting with the glory of God. Seeking God’s glory includes seeking to honor his commandment to love one another. This means we cannot seek God’s glory properly without attending to the goal of building up the church. Seeking the glory of God and seeking to build up the church are two sides of the same coin. The two aspects, oriented toward God and toward fellow Christians, are intended by God to work together harmoniously.
How do we build up the church? Much is involved. We need the power of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us and among us.
Read More

For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat. 

Probably no one is more disappointed in the failure of Overture 15 than I am. Overture 15 would have codified the position that Side B homosexuals will not be allowed to be ordained as officers in the PCA. Last year, I predicted it would not pass the two-thirds threshold vote required of presbyteries, but until recently, I still maintained a small amount of hope.
How a statement so straight-forward and plain could fail is incomprehensible.  In days when perversion is becoming rampant in our society, we did not make a clear and unequivocal stand on this important issue. We failed to bear a good testimony to a generation living in darkness.
Like many of my brethren in the PCA, I must not only deal with disappointment but also with fatigue.  After fighting this battle for several years, I am tired and weary. Something in me just wants to give up, transfer to another denomination, or just become part of a local independent church. Some PCA churches undoubtedly will withdraw into their own local shell and isolate themselves, ignoring what goes on in the broader church.
I know that those who voted against the Overture will have well-developed and refined theological arguments for their vote.  I suspect that their consciences are clear.
However, one of my major concerns is perception. For example, I have heard others outside of the PCA interpret our action as opening the floodgate for homosexual preachers.  I do not think they understand all the nuances of the action, but regardless, this is how the PCA is now perceived in reformed and evangelical circles. At times, perception is everything.  This may not be everything in this case, but it is a major consideration.
I have dedicated much of my life to the PCA.  I am hurt because her character has been tarnished. It is akin to someone impugning the reputation of my own wife.
Yet, I am reminded of a few biblical passages that give me some encouragement.  “And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for we shall reap if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).  For we have “not resisted to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 14:4).” Weariness is never a reason to give up the fight.  Weariness produces a temptation that must be resisted.
I am encouraged by several of things in the PCA.  First, it was heartening to me that even though the majority report of the Committee of Commissioners at the 49th General Assembly voted against the Overture, a minority report supporting the Overture was adopted by the Court.  According to the latest report at www.pcapolity.com, 45 presbyteries have now cast a positive vote for Overture 15, a majority of the total of 88 presbyteries, with 12 more still to vote.  I am also encouraged that a number of other overtures on this same issue will be forthcoming at the 50th General Assembly in Memphis. Greg Johnson and the Memorial Church have left the PCA.  This has promoted the peace and purity of our denomination.  There is an awareness among conservative presbyteries that we need to put more of our men on the GA Nominating Committee.  Thus, even with this defeat, overall, there are positive signs of hope.
Then too, I can always come home to my own Presbytery (Westminster) where we have already taken our stand on this issue. Only a judicial case against us could possibly change our minds, and I do not see that happening. In a document adopted by our Presbytery, (a document that does not rise to the level of our confessional standards), we have stated clearly that “men who identify as homosexual, even those who identify as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy in that self-identification, are disqualified from holding office in Westminster Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America.”  Any man who seeks to become a part of this Presbytery will be sent a document containing this statement, and told if he does not agree with it, then he need not apply for membership. He will not pass our examination. I would encourage other presbyteries to follow our example.
For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat.
We are Presbyterians and we do believe that the church is connected by way of graded courts. We are not Congregationalists. We believe that our system of government is biblical, or so at least we took a vow declaring it to be so.  Every elder in the PCA has an obligation to participate in the work of the church at both the Presbytery and General Assembly level. To fail to do so, apart from providential reasons, is to fall short of our calling by God.
It is my personal conviction that Presbyterianism in America reflects modern consumerism more than it does the Bible or even the examples of our heroes of the past.  We are raised in a culture of a multitude of choices evident every time we go shopping.  We can buy a Chevrolet or a Ford. We are free to move from one state to another at our own discretion.  Sadly, this consumerism mentality has negated a right reading of the Scriptures and carried over into our “religious” choices.  American religiosity now allows us to move with ease from one church to another, and from one denomination to another any time we like. This is not to say that it may be necessary in some cases, but the choice is just too easy.
We recently celebrated the life of J. Gresham Machen, 100 years after he penned his landmark book “Christianity and Liberalism” in 1923.   However, little attention was given to the fact that he was suspended from the ministry by a Permanent Judicial Commission of New Brunswick Presbytery. He then appealed the matter to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and lost the appeal.  When under duress, he did not immediately transfer to another denomination, or walk down the street to form a “Continuing Presbyterian Church,” never to be heard from again.  He used every avenue available to him in the Church.  He stayed in his church for the duration of the fight.  Not only should he be a model for us theologically, but also ecclesiastically.
Machen’s day was a different era. Thoughts of transfer, starting a new denomination, or even quitting was never the first thing on their minds.  His fame was greatly enhanced because of his courage before the church courts, and thus he became the hero that he is today. Heroes are not created by disappearing into a fog of obscurity, but by being suspended from the ministry (defrocked) by your own Presbytery for unjust cause. Heroes are made by those who endure to the end.
So, how do we overcome our discouragement.  We rise to the occasion and fight on.  We do not succumb to temptation and flee when the opposition appears strong, but rather we choose the pathway of endurance, while praying for victory.
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: