The RECORD

By Rev. Dallas E. Henry

Col 2:6-8

Mel Gibson has been quoted as saying, "America is Bible illiterate," meaning that people don't have a clue what the Bible says concerning today's issues, and therefore do not live what the Bible says. It's really because of ignorance. Apparently in the ministry of many churches, the truth has not been taught nor communicated to people. They have not been told Jesus is the answer for our lives, and for the crisis the world finds itself in.

Perhaps you are already aware of the surprising statistics concerning Pastors and certain Faith groups: Half the Christian leadership in America don't have a Biblical worldview.*

A Biblical worldview means that we make our decisions and live our lives according to the Word of God and not the world's philosophies. Therefore, if 50% of church leaders don't have a Biblical worldview, what do our congregations think? What do they believe in?

A church will never take a stand on issues if they don't believe something to be true. Christians must understand the core values of the Bible and be able to explain them to unsaved people. We can't explain something or tell someone about something if we don't know what we are talking about.

According to God's Word, we need to give an answer when the reason for our faith comes into question. We need to know why certain issues are wrong, so we can be a witness and give an answer to our community.

Below are six core beliefs that I would like to offer for consideration for the Church to live by. They should be taught to our children and families, our friends and community. These core beliefs are what shaped our nation before, and they need to be taught again and lived by in our generation.

Core Value 1: Understanding Salvation

Our world says there are many ways to God. Many people have differing views about getting to Heaven.

The Bible is clear concerning salvation:

1. Salvation is available to all - Isaiah 45:22 says, "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."

2. Salvation is based On Faith - Romans 4:3 says, "What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Romans 10:9-10 says, "That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

3. Salvation is conditional - Ezekiel 18:24 says, "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die."

4. Salvation involves freedom from sin - John 8:36 says, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." I John 3:10 says, "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."

5. Salvation is by grace - Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."

Core Value 2: To Live In Holiness (Obedience)

Anyone can say a prayer, but the truth of that prayer needs to be lived out. When a sincere heart confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and gives his life to Him, a change takes place. Some people view holiness as a threat, a loss of fun. People think living a Holy life can be boring. But, Bible Christians know that is not the case. This misconception is a trick of the enemy so that we will not live holy lives unto the Lord. When we receive Christ into our life, we are forgiven, and God takes residence in our lives. Now we must live for Him, but how? We need to be filled with the Holy Spirit - "It's for power to be a witness and to live out the Christian life." Acts 1:8.

We need to seek Him and commit ourselves to learning. I Peter 1:2 says, "Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His Blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." So a person must willing strive to live a holy life before the Lord, but understanding Jesus is the one who makes us clean before God.

Core Value 3: The Second Coming Of Jesus

The Bible says in I Thes 4:16-17 says, "For the Lord Himself will come down from Heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

II Tim 4:8 says, "Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."

We must be a people who are longing for His return. We need to encourage people with these words because our world is in a terrible mess. Many people think that God is slow in His promise and will not return and that God has forgotten us and abandoned us. I Peter 3:3 says, "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is the promise of His coming? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'"

Core Value 4: The Existence Of The devil (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Some people believe that these verses not only refer to the King of Babylon (vs 16) but also refer to Satan because of what Jesus says in Luke 10:18, He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lighting from heaven." Satan is real and his whole objective is to destroy Christians and non Christians. Satan is deceptive and exists to deceive. John 10:10 says, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."

One of the greatest tricks of the devil is to convince people that he doesn't exist. His goal is to deceive the Christian in walking away from God. The Bible says in II Cor 11:13-15, "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Through deception, Satan and his servants have made playing around with occult games like the Ouija board, Dungeons and Dragons, etc. appear as harmless and fun. Also astrology, fortune telling, and psychic readings are portrayed as harmless. And anyone who says they are wrong is labeled a religious fanatic. Satan is also out to get our children. The intoduction of Harry Potter who goes to a school to learn wizardry, to cast spells, and to invite demonic spirits etc. has captivated even children who live in Christian homes. The devil always tries to prove that He doesn't exist, trying to work his way into every life to destroy it. On the other hand, God's plan is to give full life and not to trick anyone. [John 10:10]

Core Value 5: Prayer

Did you ever consider the fact that Jesus didn't teach His disciples to preach, but He did teach them to pray? In Matthew 6 we see the prayer of our Lord that He taught His disciples. Prayer is communication with God. Failing to pray one for another is sin. I Sam 12:23 says, "As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by failing to pray for you." We need to pray to develop our relationship with God. When we fail to pray our relationship with God, weakens, the presence of the Lord is not as strong, and we fail to hear the voice of the Lord.

There are many things we need to pray for, some are:

1. Praying against evil - Psalm 35:1-38;
2. Praying against anxiety - Psalm 142:1-7;
3. Praying for Forgiveness - Psalm 38:1-22;
4. Praying for God's Will to be done.

Core Value 6: Tithing and Giving

In Malachi 3:6-12, we have the account of the people robbing God by failing to bring Him their tithes. When believers don't tithe, the potential of a curse is placed on the individual. But for those that do, a blessing is promised. (Malachi 3:10) If the people would repent, return to God, and as a sign of their repentance, begin to support God's work and ministers with their tithes and offerings, God would abundantly bless them. We express our love and devotion to God when we tithe and give offerings to support God's work and extend the Kingdom. The tithe goes to the local church to support its ministry.

This is a very brief overview of some of the core values of the Christian today. It would be helpful if everyone had this information. They could provide it to their church members to help them live by and apply it to their lives. The world needs to see that the Church has the answer to life's problems. These basic core values will bring hope, peace and security from God to our world.

The Christian Civic League of Maine has been fully engaged in this war of the clashing of worldviews for over a century now and has some experience at the battle. Churches, ministries and individuals who partner with the League are also engaging in this battle and helping to win it. Please consider supporting the League with regular contributions if you haven't already. Another very important blessing to the ministry of the League is prayer. Pray for Executive Director Michael Heath, the staff and Board of Directors. The League has a prayer partnership network that receives regular prayer updates. You can contact the League office to become part of the network. Thank you for your support and may God richly bless you and your ministry.

May we be found faithful and fully committed to the cause of Christ here in Maine. May we be willing to endure persecution as we stand unashamed for the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

The League is committed to proclaim the truths of Jesus Christ. It is bringing its influence to the State House. You can log on to the Record website here and read about the proposal to ban ministers from "Approving" marriages in Maine. By the way, we won on that one. After the response through the Citizen Action Center, one of the Judiciary committee members said "With the hundereds of emails we have received, the will of the people is abundantly clear."

Also keep your eyes open for a report in the RECORD of the hearing having to do with granting homosexual couples even more benefits. It is LD 375. You can express your opinion on this one too. It is even more important than LD 779. A church denominational representative lobbied at the hearing IN FAVOR of the bill.

If you haven't checked out our Citizen Action Center on the internet you need to do it. This is a very easy and quick way to communicate with your legislators and others who you select. It can be done from the comfort of your home or office. To further help you, a message has been prepared for you to use or, even better, you can write your own. An initial registration is required and then you can use it on a regular basis. You will see a list of issues the League is interested in bringing a Christian/Biblical influence to. Please pass on this information to others you regularly communicate with.

And finally, if you are not aware of it, Mike Heath regularly speaks on current issues of today, from a biblical perspective. He speaks at regional conferences and radio programs, and also speaks in churches across Maine bringing an update of the work of the League.

Please consider having Mike Heath speak at your church for a "League Sunday". He teaches adult/teen Sunday School classes, using multimedia and leading a discussion. Mike also preaches on the subject of Christian Citizenship, bringing a biblical sermon in morning and evening worship services. He is glad to provide pulpit supply for pastors.

You may contact Paulie Heath to schedule an event with Mike.
Phone: 207.215.6886
Email: paulie@paulieheath.com

By Mike Hein

The public policy representative of the Roman Catholic Chancery leveled a serious charge against the Christian Civic League of Maine in Sunday's Maine Sunday Telegram.

The paper reports that the Diocese of Portland (ME) will work with all parties of good will. This Diocese is a member of the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage Maine Council of Churches. While he doesn't claim that the League acted with ill will toward the Chancery, Diocesan Public Affairs Director Marc Mutty claims that the Chancery has found that it is "impossible to work with [the League]." He further states that the League has been "unkind and un-Christian."

"I am saddened by the Chancery's remarks," said League Executive Director Michael Heath. I've worked well with Marc Mutty and the Chancery in the past on issues where we have been able to forge agreement." The League has partnered more than once with the Chancery in both the State House, and in referendum campaigns. The League has been unwavering in its stand against sexual immorality being forced on Mainers, and has called on the Roman Catholic Church to join it in it's stand.

On Saturday, Heath joined 27 Catholic men on a bus trip to the annual Boston Men's Conference. Heath talked briefly with Archbishop Sean O'Malley in the lobby of the Boston Conference Center. He also listened to the leader of the Knights of Columbus and a Cardinal from Africa.

"The Cardinal spoke of family practices in Africa," said Heath. "He said families in Africa don't nurture an awareness of rights, only obligations. I liked that. While I disagree with some of the theology of the Catholic Church, I came away appreciating much of what I saw and heard. I especially enjoyed time spent talking with the Catholic men on the bus, including my good friend Paul Madore."

The leadership of the Roman Catholic Diocese in Maine has adopted a relaxed strategy toward the threat posed by sexual orientation theory. The League has remained steadfast and unwavering in its support of Biblical moral purity.

Heath stated, "We've worked hard to stay close to God and the Bible on all matters related to sexual morality. For this we have been condemned viciously by Maine's institutional leadership. The people of Maine, of course, agree with [the League's] position when they are allowed to fully appreciate it."

Heath lamented the lack of comity that currently exists between the League and the Chancery. He said he sees little likelihood of improvement as long as Mr. Mutty is allowed to launch public attacks against the 110 year-old Christian ministry. The League is merely working politically in the light of the Gospel on matters related to sexual morality, law and politics.

Heath said, "I extended an invitation to Marc Mutty personally to join our Coalition for Marriage at a lunch in 2005. He never responded."

Heath expressed deep disappointment with the Chancery over their support of so-called 'gay rights' in 2005. Their support tipped the scales in favor of sexual orientation theorists, and unleashed an unspeakable evil on our homes.

One young man in Rockland is facing imprisonment now because he was proselytized by confused adults into living with a homosexual identity. He has twice threatened his male lover with a knife. In his second encounter he succeeded in stabbing both him and his father. This man's confusion is made worse by the Chancery's refusal to act and speak with clarity and precision about sexual morality.

"The Bible and the Vatican are clear about sex outside of marriage. The Diocese of Portland (ME) has a duty to be equally clear." said Heath. "Paul the Apostle said homosexuals will spend eternity in hell. And Jesus said it was better to lose an eye than to practice adultery."

Heath has said many times that Maine will fall to same-sex marriage or civil unions unless the Church decides to stop it. The Roman Catholic Church claims almost a quarter million members in Maine. Most Catholics are Democrats. While the Maine Republican Party is somewhat favorable toward traditional morality, the Democratic Party in Maine has been stridently liberal on abortion and homosexuality for decades.

Maine's Catholic Chancery confirmed on its website today that it supports a bill that is the top priority of Maine's most radical homosexual rights group, Equality Maine. Hundreds of emails have been directed at the Chancery spokesman, Marc Mutty, in the past few days. While Mutty has ignored emails from the League for comment, the Chancery published a clarification of its position in support of "LD 375, An Act to Amend the Family Medical Leave Act."

The Chancery's written clarification repeats their view that Equality Maine's support is "incidental" to the purpose of the bill. The statement goes on to allow, "As a point of information, the diocese does not endorse the use of the term 'domestic partners' to refer to 'same sex couples.'"

League Executive Director Michael S. Heath observed, "The problem with Mr. Mutty's point of information is that the bill does exactly what he says they don't support. Unless the Chancery wants to propose an amendment immediately the League calls on them to withdraw their support of LD 375 by sending a letter to the members of the Labor Committee outlining the detail of their amendment."

The Chancery supported "gay rights" in 2005. Had the Chancery accepted the League's invitation to join the "Coalition for Marriage" that year Maine would not now be vulnerable to court action forcing same sex marriage or civil unions.

"What person in his right mind doesn't believe that there isn't some liberal judge in Maine that is going to connect all these legal dots at some point here and force same sex marriage." Said Heath. "It is tragic, really awful, what the Chancery is doing ... very disappointing. All they are doing is confusing people. Shame on them."

LD 779: An Act To Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses
A Portland, Maine State Representative has submitted legislation this session that would remove all of Maine's ordained or licensed minister(s) of the Gospel from the state statute that currently allows them to solemnize marriages. If passed, Rep. Boyd Marley's (D. Portland) bill would allow only judges, lawyers, and notaries public to validate marriages in Maine.

In an online news article by Victoria Wallack, Rep. Marley stated that he submitted the legislation at the request of a Congregational minister in his legislative district, Rev. Mark Rustin. Rev. Rustin has been leading the North Deering Congregational Church in Portland since 1987. He is an active Freemason and a racecar enthusiast.

Regarding his motivation for the request, Rev. Rustin stated, "Being agents of the state isn't an appropriate place for (religious leaders) to be." According to the news article Rustin states he has never done a homosexual marriage ceremony, but if his North Deering congregation wanted him to, he would bless the union of a homosexual couple.

"If, and when, a gay couple comes to me and says, 'We want to be married,' at that juncture I would go to my congregation and ask, 'What say ye'"? Rev. Rustin was reported to say.

Rev. Paul Nielsen, who leads the Lutheran Church of the Resurrection (LCMS) in Waterville, disagrees. "I think that Rev. Rustin is at least a little bit confused about what his role in the marriage rite is from a civil perspective," said Rev. Nielsen. "I'm not sure why the state would have any interest in disqualifying clergy as one of the qualified witnesses to a marriage."

Pastor Nielsen explains, "Currently the state of Maine only asks the clergy to sign the wedding certificate as indication that the wedding actually took place. I don't think that clergy are acting as agents for the state of Maine."

Dr. Philip Watkins, who advises the Campus Crusade for Christ at the University of Maine at Augusta, agrees with Pastor Nielsen's assessment. He calls this legislative bill "a waste of time" and notes that it is indicative of the increasing secularization of our culture.

Dr. Watkins notes that religious leaders in Maine are currently not required to solemnize marriages nor to sign marriage certificates. He says that people like Rev. Rustin can simply opt not to sign marriage certificates if they are concerned about the perception of being an "agent of the state." Dr. Watkins flatly rejects Rev. Rustin's rationale for requesting Rep. Marley submit this legislation.

Legislative Document (LD) 779 would specifically amend Sec. 1. 19-A MRSA, Paragraph 655, Sub-paragraph 1 by striking the words An ordained minister of the Gospel, a person licensed to preach by an association of ministers, religious seminary, or ecclesiastical body, and an ordained or licensed minister of the Gospel from the state statute that authorizes persons to solemnize marriages.

LD 779 was referred to the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee on February 15, but has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing .

By Rev. Dallas E. Henry

If you have ever watched the news reports of a Gay Pride march, you would notice the tone of some of the posters and banners that are carried. You might see some that read It's not about religion, and "Hate is not a family value," and more with similar slogans. You may hear comments like, "All this hate seems so un-Christian."

Have you ever become curious about the history of the Gay Pride marches? The first Gay Pride march took place in 1970, a two-pronged march held simultaneously in Los Angeles and New York. As you read about it and look at some of the photos of the marchers, you would be struck by the very different tone of the messages of the marchers as compared to today. Back in the 70s you would find posters like, "2-4-6-8, gay is just as good as straight"; or "Not all of us walk poodles"; and, "Better blatant than latent." [1]

There is a sharp contrast in the language of the posters, then and now. The first march was aimed at the culture, and used the language of legitimacy. The so-called "liberation" movement started with Women's Lib and the Civil Rights marches earlier in the 60s. Then, hard on the heels of Women's Liberation and the Black Power movement came The Gay Pride movement. [2] This not only followed after these other movements, it modeled its approach after them, being vocal and visible. But after this 30-year time frame, their target has shifted from the culture to the church. Why the shift?

For one thing, the goals are much different now. The initial byword was "acceptance", an aim that has been achieved for the most part in our culture. The homosexual agenda finds a promotional voice in much of the media, and many companies now offer benefits to same-sex couples.

The goal now is for moral legitimization, with a strong push going on in some states to legitimize same-sex "marriages", and even stronger pushes for ordination of homosexuals in several of the mainline denominations. It is easy to see just how much the media provides a platform to support homosexuality, by watching any of a number of afternoon talk shows. [3] [4]

The place we find ourselves now, 30 years down the road from the beginnings of the movement, is the result of some very savvy leaders in the movement who knew from the outset the power of the media to sway public opinion, and made the necessary political maneuvering from within the media to gain support. With that kind of power and support, the only battle left to win is the battle for moral legitimacy as well. And since the ultimate source of morality is God, the battleground has now shifted to the Church.

The same tactics are being employed to win the battle in the Church as were employed to win the media battle: conquer from within. And so the controversies arise from most of the major denominations each time they meet in large sessions, and the reason they do goes right back to the acceptance and support already gained: if the power of the media is on your side, and you make a lot of noise, you can be assured of maximum coverage (and maximum slant) on the evening news.

Another shift that has occurred involves the language used to describe homosexual behavior. The early expression was "sexual preference", a term that, not surprisingly, mentioned about the first Gay Pride march. Something about the term didn't quite seem to suit someone, though, and a gradual shift led to the later development of the term "alternate lifestyle." That one was fated to change also, giving way to the current one, "sexual orientation." Now even that one may be on the way out, to be exchanged for one that is tossed around these days in America, "sexual identity." The reason for the shift is quite obvious: a move has to be made to extract their own self-description from the language of choice. "Sexual preference" was a definite description of personal choice, a term that was used at a time when homosexuality was widely viewed as a choice. "Alternate lifestyle" was somewhat better, but it still left the idea of choice dangling in there, "alternate" implying one of several options, and "lifestyle" implying something selected as well. "Sexual orientation" probably was carefully selected, since "orientation" slides the meaning a bit more toward something innate and beyond choice. But "sexual identity" is the strongest term yet, and will probably gain quick acceptance and usage. [5]

The current use of the term "sexual orientation" has come about largely because of the genetic "research" done by one man, Dean Hamer. Many people who have seen the results of this "evidence" plastered on the front pages of newspapers and television screens have simply bought into the idea that those involved in homosexual behavior "can't help it." How reliable was his work? The basic finding upon which his conclusions were based was a study of 40 gay, non-twin brothers, analyzing the X chromosomes. 33 of the pairs had five identical lengths of DNA on the tip of the strand. Somewhere within the hundreds of genes contained in this small piece, says Hamer, we will find the "gay gene" responsible for homosexuality. [6] In other words, the evidence is not totally conclusive, and the "gay gene" has not been located. This research followed an earlier study suggesting that a small structure in the brain was smaller in gay men than in straight men. [7]

The strange tendency of such studies has been to overstate the results. For instance, Science magazine in its report stated, "Scientists, educators, policy makers and the public should work together to ensure that such research is used to benefit all members of society."[8] This sounds okay, but when the media take studies with inconclusive evidence and portray them as solid scientific fact, there is reason for doubt. The problem is that many, including those in our churches, often accept what the media tells them without question. The truth is that none of the studies on gay brains, gay genes, or transsexual brains has been replicated by other labs. One of Hamer's ex-collaborators even accused him of selecting only data that support his hypothesis. [9] These accusations caused Hamer to be put under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity. [10] The question must arise also why Hamer was conducting this study in the first place, since he is not a geneticist, but a molecular biologist with the National Cancer Institute. It has also been pointed out that most or all homosexuality requires an environmental, as well as a biological, push. The fact that half of all the identical-twin brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual renders it exceedingly unlikely that much homosexuality is caused by biology alone. [11] Even Hamer himself admits, "We already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors." [12] Besides, other studies have suggested genetic links to violent behavior, [13] and even to child molestation. [14] And certainly there is no great push on to legitimize the behavior of those prone to violence or pedophilia, deciding that they "can't help it."

Here is another interesting fact. According to Time magazine in 1970, "Sociologists reckon that the nation's homosexual population, open and secret, is about 4,000,000," [15] or about 2% of the total population. By 1980, according to a Christianity Today article, the figure was estimated as between 10-15%. [16] Looking at figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 1980, it increased by 11.4%, from 203.3 million to 226.5 million. That was down from a 13.4% increase for the previous ten-year period, and the increase from 1980 to 1990 was down even further to 9.8%. [17] Going back to the estimates of the homosexual population, even if we take the more conservative figure of 10% offered in Christianity Today, 10% of 226.5 million is 22.65 million. In other words, at a time when the general population increase has been on a steady decline, the homosexual population has increased exponentially, at a rate of over 400% between 1970 and 1980 alone! That flies in the face of the suggestions of the role that the genetic link plays in homosexuality. In fact, that totally undermines any true scientific logic that relates to the field of genetics. Scientists tell us that we are evolving, and that certain characteristics become more or less prominent through the process of "natural selection." If this were true, then when we speak of genetic links to homosexuality, and when we consider the fact that far fewer homosexuals actually reproduce and pass on those gene's then how in the world could homosexuality be that much on the increase? Even when we factor in the potential for genetic anomalies that occurred during that particular decade, such as Three Mile Island, the Love Canal, and Billy Beer, we still can't account for the difference. It is as it has always been from the beginning: a push for an unblameable and unchangeable basis of legitimization like race and gender, the only comparable quality that was lacking between the early Gay Pride marches and the movements they were modeled after.

Let us consider still another aspect of this issue and consider the gay agenda and its push for legitimization from the church. In 1972 the official stand of the United Methodist denomination was; "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." In 1980, a measure was defeated which would have prohibited the ordination of "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals." In 1984, the defeated measure came up again and passed. In 1988, the language from the 1972 Discipline was brought up again for re-vote, and was upheld by an 80% to 20% margin. A committee was appointed to study the issue and make recommendations to the 1992 conference. In 1992, the committee gave its report and recommendations, but a vote rejected the 17-4 majority opinion to change the 1972 Discipline language, by a margin of 61.5%. When the floor vote came up, the 1972 language was upheld by 74%. In 1996, fifteen bishops broke protocol, and made a statement (bishops are not supposed to attempt to influence the legislative process) in support of several issues being brought up by the homosexual agenda. A committee recommendation to change the 1972 Discipline language is defeated by 60.4%, a count which is accepted without a re-vote. Other homosexual issues were also defeated, by a 74% margin.

This discussion is happening in every denomination in the world. The question is how are we to respond faithfully and consistently in light of all the muddle? There are four possible areas of responsibility we may want to consider as Christians:

(1) Prophetic responsibility. We must uphold the truth of God's Word and proclaim the reality of a REVEALED norm, not a norm that is culturally determined.

Truth, if it is indeed truth, will transcend changing culture and time and any other barriers we can put in its way. We must uphold the consistent witness of the revelation of the Word of God if we are to overcome attempts to remove discussion of the homosexual issue from the realm of morality.

(2) Exegetical responsibility. Clear, plain interpretation and exposition of the God's Word are essential to protect against false, manipulative, accommodative interpretations of Scripture. "Let God be true, and everyone else a liar."

(3) Social responsibility. Jesus said we are to be salt and light in our culture, bringing illumination to this and other social issues as a part of our witness before the world. There are right ways and wrong ways to go about this. In the film footage of the Greenville Gay Pride march, the camera dwelled for quite some time on a young man, a literal "Bible-thumper", carrying his Bible along the parade route, yelling at the participants, "HELL will be your home!" That's definitely NOT the route we should go in our witness. There are many ways to extend the love of Jesus to those broken by the deception of homosexuality. The Christian Civic League can recommend many of these alternatives.

(4) Pastoral responsibility. Just as anyone else, homosexuals are in need of the grace of God. We are to minister to ALL those who are hurting, who are in error, who are in the bondage of sin. The Church has been given a false identity, having been portrayed as haters and bigots. We must overcome that by continually telling the truth while extending love and compassion.

There are certainly a lot of organizations out there who are holding the line for a culturally unpopular theological stance. Among these are The Christian Civic League of Maine, Concerned Women for America, Exodus International (a ministry helping gays to exit the lifestyle), and the Christian Legal Society (a ministry helping with legal expenses necessary in this struggle). Focus on the Family is another group which is on the front lines in this issue. They are taking on the battle on our school campuses, fighting against textbooks which normalize homosexual behavior. They also have entered the public arena with a strong witness to the transforming power of Christ: the "Love Won Out" seminar, a group of several hundred ex-gays who have chosen to leave the gay lifestyle. They have traveled around the country to several cities carrying the message that change is possible. The Christian Civic League participated in a Love Won Out conference in Boston a couple years ago. The homosexual protests were beyond belief.

This is an area where our social responsibility can be the toughest, because the ex-gay message is one that the homosexual lobby does not want heard by anyone else. And for all their preaching of the right-sounding and publicly popular message of "tolerance", they can be very intolerant. Michael Heath tells of having had his speeches interrupted in High School and College campuses by shouting and whistles, and even teachers and professors being extremely rude. The Love Won Out seminar faced particularly strong opposition: "In Tampa, vandals spray-painted a local church (that had no connection to the seminar) with pink triangles and the words, 'Are You Tired of Being Baptist'"? The attack came in response to a Focus ad campaign asking, "Are You Tired of Being Gay"? [18] They also have crashed a press conference, launched phone campaigns against advertisers, and even intimidated churches. In Southern California, for instance, several churches refused to host the seminar. And there is a strong reason for their resistance: "When ex-gays publicly choose heterosexuality, they threaten the gay lobby's core message that homosexuality is not a choice." [19] The common argument they offer against the "choice" idea is, "Why would I choose to enter a lifestyle where I will be humiliated and/or persecuted this way"? (To which might be countered that choice doesn't necessarily indicate deliberateness or intentionality. For instance, in other matters we consider to be choices, if I choose to break certain laws and wind up in jail, I might say in all honesty that I didn't really want the consequences I received).

Another area where the battle will be tough is public perception. Opposing homosexuality as a behavior is seen by many as preaching a message of hate. "Homophobia" is the byword of the times, and it defies all definition. Gary Bauer, for instance, was a guest speaker at Harvard University (on a totally separate subject), and in a question and answer session, a student asked a question which compared his position with Nazi Germany, where gays and lesbians were persecuted. He countered with: "There is a difference between opposing the political agenda of the gay rights movement and being an oppressor of gays. The way that you choose to live your life or that others choose to live their lives is up to you. But when you come into the public square and suggest that the rest of America needs to redefine marriage . . . and insist on the right in the public schools in America to teach my children that the way you have chosen is no morally different from the way I have chosen to live with my wife, you should in a rational, reasonable world expect opposition." [20]

The battle on this front has been hindered greatly by the "hate preachers" like Fred Phelps in Kansas, and many others like him. In fact, by one estimate there are about 5,000 "hate sites" on the World Wide Web, and at least 250 of those preach their message using the Bible and the language of the church. [21] But occasionally there are surprising indications from unusual sources that at least somebody out there understands the difference: "Discrimination against homosexuals is not the same as personal distaste for homosexuality . . . identity and behavior are not synonymous." [22]

Can homosexual behavior be changed? A 1979 study suggests it can. A Pentecostal church worked with several gays, in ministry with them helping them to exit the lifestyle. Out of 11 in the study, 8 were completely cured; six got married out of a motivation of attraction to the opposite sex. [23] It is not impossible, but all indications are that a key component is the desire to change. Only 1 in 10 ever seek help, but we must be there and ready when they do. The League supports and recommends the ministry of "Free Indeed" based in Waterville that is having great success in helping the sexually confused.

We should add here a word of caution concerning the use of language about this issue. In many denominations, words like "inclusiveness", "reconciling", and "welcoming" are user-friendly terms that put a mask of legitimacy on the face of a theological lapse. We need to learn to recognize the difference between ministry and theology. Supporters of the gay agenda gain support by attacking theology in a context of ministry. If we make the statement that we believe the biblical witness is against the practice of homosexuality, then we are somehow branded as not being inclusive, reconciling, or welcoming. But our consistent theological mandate is to do both theology and ministry in dealing with this and every other issue. Stating that the practice of homosexuality is
"incompatible with Christian teaching" is a theological statement; stating that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth" is a pastoral statement. There is no reason in the world to suspect that we cannot maintain both positions as equally important. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has had to strike that same balance: "We told the gay caucus, 'You're still welcome; we love you. But we cannot accept your theology." [24]

Be careful of the language as well that would paint a rosy picture of the homosexual lifestyle as simply a group of misunderstood individuals, a bunch of committed, monogamous couples much like the heterosexual couples we know. Actually, a 1978 study by A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg reported that 74% of male homosexuals had more than 100 sexual partners during their lifetime, and 28% of them had more than 1,000 partners. [25] It makes much plainer Paul's discussion of what is considered "natural" and "unnatural."

The needs are pressing in our approach to what has become a sensitive and controversial issue. If dialogue is to take place, there needs to be a separation of areas of discussion and/or clarification of language before even attempting dialogue. Theology and ministry are separate arenas and must be treated as such; and yet theology necessarily informs the way we approach ministry. When it ceases to do so, then "Just as I Am" becomes a concession rather than a confession. The Biblically based stance conservatives take now is largely a response to the unbiblical stance taken by the homosexual agenda.

And when we take a strong theological stance, the only thing many homosexuals see is the hate-preaching which is actually done by some groups. It comes across as being more of the same. All that some people have ever seen is hate, either from the general society, or the church either one. It is up to us to show them and everyone else that the true stance of the church, even when it stands against the practice of homosexuality, is not one of hatred or judgment. People are responsible for their actions. We can judge those actions. Only God can judge people. [26]

[1] Queer Notion, National Review, Vol. 45, No. 15 (9 August 1993, p. 16.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Oprah Winfrey Show, WFBE-TV, Greenville, S.C., 5 May 2997.

[4] The Ananda Lewis Show, WDBD-TV Charleston, S.C., 19 February 2002.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Sharon Begley, "Does DNA Make Some Men Gay"? Newsweek, vol. 122, No. 4 (26 July 1993) og, 59.

[7] Sharon Begley, "Nature Plus Nurture", Newsweek, Vol. 126, No. 20 (13 November 1995), p. 72.

[8] William f. Allman, "The Biology-Behavior Conundrum", U.S. News and World Report, vol. 115, No. 4 (26 July 1993), p. 6.

[9] Begley, "Nature Plus Nurture", p. 72.

[10] "Culture and Ideas", U.S. News and World Report, Vol. 119, No. 19 (13 November 1995).

[11] "Queer Notion", National Review, vol. 45, no. 15 (9August 1993), p. 16

[12] Anastasia Toufexis, "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'", Time, Vol. 146, No. 20 (13 November 1995).

[13] Allman, p. 7.

[14] "Queer Notion", p. 17.

[15] "The Nation."

[16] "Homosexuality: Biblical Guidance Through a Moral Morass", Christianity Today, Vol. 24, No. 8 (18 April 1980), p. 13.

[17] U.S. Census Bureau online, accessed 20 February 2002.

[18] Candi Cushman, "Will Love win Out"? World, (16 June 2000), p. 26.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Gary Bauer, "Questions and Answers on homosexuality", Family Research Council, 8 May 1998.

[21] Jody Veenker, "Called to Hate"? Christianity Today (25 October 1999), p.89.

[22] Jonathan Alter, "Degrees of Discomfort." Newsweek (12 March 1990), p.27.

[23] Reformed Journal, March 1981, p. 10.

[24] Alan Kemp, "Sexuality Soundbites", Christianity Today (22 July 1991), p. 37

[25] Randy Frame, "Seeking a right to the Rite", Christianity Today, Vol. 40, No. 3 (4 March 1996), p. 64.

[26] William Dannemeyer, "Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America", San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989, p. 96