The War on Christianity

The Biden Administration’s Easter Chaos and the Reformed Answer

It’s been clear for some time that Christianity’s relationship to American culture has changed dramatically in recent decades. 

You may have rolled your eyes at “The War on Christmas” as the rants of out-of-touch, older generations. Maybe the culture warriors’ focus on stopping the removal of nativity scenes in town squares and Ten Commandment monuments in courthouses only briefly caught your attention. You might have thought their work was important but these changes were probably not the signs of a looming cultural disaster. Now, however, it is beyond doubt that these warnings were prophetic and have been nearly all vindicated. 

What seemed like overweening nostalgia for better times was actually a perceptive sense of massive shifts away from America’s historic traditions, which were largely the product of an Anglo-Protestant culture. The past 70 years in America have shown that the slippery slope is very real indeed. 

Over the past few years, this cultural downgrade has been captured on social media by a picture of three buildings along the Lower Manhattan skyline on Good Friday in 1956. Each features lighted-up office windows in the shape of a cross, depicting the crucifixions of Jesus and the two thieves. Measuring 150 feet tall, these crosses were “sent over the wire by United Press Telephoto and appeared in newspapers around the United States—often front page center,” as Fox News reported.

This a far cry from what you will likely observe in NYC today. Now, instead of seeing purely Christian symbols and themes, NYC skyscrapers light up in the colors of the LGBT flag and other emblems of our 21st-century public morality, which uses many of the outward trappings of Christianity as a skin suit. 

This fundamental moral reorientation becomes very apparent when considering how Easter is treated by the spokesmen for the current moral consensus.

Our social media behemoths routinely ignore the day that celebrates Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Google has not put up an “Easter doodle” on its homepage since the year 2000. On Easter Sunday in 2013, Google instead featured a web designer’s rendering of Cesar Chavez, the activist labor titan. 

When Easter isn’t being sidelined altogether, it’s being used as a prop to support the latest regime propaganda that strikes at the heart of orthodox Christianity.

The Biden administration issued a short statement on Easter Sunday that was overshadowed by an ebullient and lengthy proclamation that declared March 31 a “Transgender Day of Visibility.”  The now-highest holy day of modern liberalism was created by Michigan transgender activist Rachel Crandall-Crocker in 2009. 

Biden’s proclamation affirms “the most fundamental freedom” of trans people “to be their true selves” against “extremists” who “are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families.” Such supposedly horrific laws include “silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.” Contrary to Biden’s assertions, all these types of laws are ones that Christians should unequivocally support in principle. Students need to be protected from reading books filled with filth in public schools and from doctors and hospital systems that push them through the trans meat grinder. That Biden and his cronies think these things deserve to be praised and honored is a window into the soul of the modern Democratic Party.

Steve Sailer has aptly described the Democrats as a “coalition of the fringes,” one which has clearly molded the party into its own perverted image. It’d be interesting to see what Joe Biden from 1975—or even Biden from 2008—would’ve thought about praising procedures that dismember and disfigure the human body in the name of autonomy and freedom. Following Biden’s example, the supposed “centrist” adult in the room, Democratic members of Congress, notable state governors like Gavin Newsom and Kathy Hochul, and lawmakers in virtually every state all either promoted Transgender Visibility Day alongside Easter, or promoted the former exclusively and made no mention of the latter.

Among the many phrases that The Blaze’s Auron MacIntyre has made famous, the one that applies here is that systems are never broken—they produce exactly what was intended. Likewise, the messaging priorities of Biden and the Democrats are purposeful. And what they intend to communicate is clear: honoring transgenderism is not only fully compatible with the teachings of Scripture but must be trumpeted from all the high places. 

The Left’s aim is to make transgenderism a positive good that must be affirmed by all Americans. Those who violate the tenets of our new Constitution—both its written and unwritten forms—will face consequences, including social ostracism, removal from elite circles, and legal action. As Daniel J. Mahoney wrote at The American Mind, “A denial of the most elementary realities is now a precondition for being tolerated by those who adhere to the new morality and who control the commanding heights of our society.”

In the Left’s twisted theology, transgenderism is a sacrament that promises rebirth and renewal but delivers only despair, pain, disfigurement, and death. It sells the lie of salvation through the mutilation of mostly the bodies of young children. 

While Christ’s body was crushed for our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5) for making atonement for sin, transgenderism leaves scarred bodies in its wake for a fruitless quest that will end with the just judgment of God.

The idolatrous sins that St. Paul catalogs in his letter to the Colossians that invite God’s wrath—“sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness”—are what the Biden administration enthusiastically celebrates as good with its honoring of the trans lie. The prophet Isaiah, of course, had something to say about “those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

As evangelical elites are fond of saying, character matters. Evangelicals for Biden, Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden (pure Orwellian Newspeak), and other “Christian” pro-Democratic groups and “conservative” political commentators who made it safe to vote for Biden need to repent and publicly talk about their sins. Political leaders who voice their full-throated commitment to acts that are on par with bloodthirsty Aztec rituals need to be called to account. As the opening verse of Psalm 94 reads, “O Lord, God of vengeance, O God of vengeance, shine forth!” 

After you finish praying the imprecatory Psalms, you must get to work. To launch an effective political counteroffensive, Reformed Christians need to start by mining the riches of our own tradition. As E.J. Hutchinson has written for the Davenant Institute, we have the resources “to aid in the formulation of a coherent Christian political philosophy that not only takes freedom seriously, but takes the moral end of government, as the Apostle Paul sets it out in Romans 13, seriously as well.”

We need to recover the teachings of the Reformed Confessions on political theology, which features a consistent doctrine that stretches from the French Confession to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Even the American revisions to the WCF, which call the magistrate “to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth,” agree far more with the Reformed consensus in principle than what some modern theologians and podcast hosts would care to admit.

We then need to elevate those into political offices who understand both the key principles of Reformed political theory and how to tailor them to meet the exigencies of our day. Following the teachings of Peter Martyr Vermigli from his commentary on the Book of Judges, these officeholders must see to it that laws “be diligently kept, the guilty punished, and the good holpen and fostered.” 

The foregoing means rejecting the current model of evangelical political theology that attempts to Christianize politics in favor of one in which Christians do politics as Christians. Younger generations seem especially interested in rejecting the false choice of political quietism vs. transformationalism and look to reassert the public dimensions of Christianity based on a solid understanding of historic Reformed theology.

As Stephen Wolfe has argued at Mere Orthodoxy, this work includes creating and sustaining a culture that catechizes citizens in Christian practices. Even the new atheist Richard Dawkins recently said that he calls himself a “cultural Christian” and wants to preserve England as a “Christian country.” While insufficient as it relates to salvation, Dawkins understands better than most evangelical elites the importance of a good culture, which should promote patterns of living that point citizens toward eternal truths.

By recovering our Reformed heritage and finding the will to advance the concerns of Christians in politics again, perhaps someday massive crosses will again be towering over the New York City skyline. 


Image Credit: Unsplash

Print article

Share This

Mike Sabo

Mike Sabo is a Contributing Editor of American Reformer and an Assistant Editor of The American Mind, the online journal of the Claremont Institute. His writing has appeared at RealClearPolitics, The Federalist, Public Discourse, and American Greatness, among other outlets. He lives with his wife and son in Cincinnati.

21 thoughts on “The War on Christianity

  1. The article is written in ignorance. First, The Transgender Day of Visibility was designated for March 31st in 2009. This year, it happens to fall on Easter.

    Second, it is the cited passage in the WCF that declares war, not Biden’s announcement. The cited passage from the WCF imposes Christian morals and standards on all citizens of a given state. The Transgender Day of Visibility imposes nothing on anyone. And in fact, inclusion of the LGBT community as having full equality in society so that none of the members of that community are marginalized in society is what is attacked by the cited passage of the WCF. As it stands now, we religiously conservative Christians can peaceably coexist in society with the LGBT community. We can adequately describe the LGBT lifestyles as being sinful in ways that cause people to neither persecute nor marginalize those in that community. There is nothing in that declared Transgender Day of Visibility that attempts to move religiously conservative Christianity to the margins of society. The cited passage from the WCF would be the basis for not only returning the LGBT community back to the margins of society, but would also send those from different religious faiths to the margins of society as well. So who is declaring war here?

    Disagreement is not hostility toward others nor is choosing alternative lifestyles. Trying to persecute or marginalize a group is hostility. And the only thing we are being cited for is attempting to deny those from the LGBT community full equality in society. Trying to marginalize the LGBT community is not essential to being a Christian. Preaching against the lifestyles of the LGBT community is. And preaching is important here because the Gospel is the power of God for righteousness; legislating lifestyles is not.

    The Apostolic Church faced a society and state that allowed as many sins, if not more, than ours does today. The Apostles showed how we can coexist in such a society. And in a democracy with equality, we do the reputation of the Gospel unnecessary harm by attacking the equality of any marginalized group. In addition, there are very likely physical causes for same-sex attraction as well as possible physical causes for gender dysphoria. Shouldn’t we come alongside those in that community with the preaching of the Gospel rather than demanding that the government and society deny the full equality of those in the LGBT community and perhaps of those from other communities too? Or do we have selfish desires to create a state and society that denies others their equality for the sake of our own comfort? It is those who act on those selfish desires who are declaring war on others in society.

    Finally, Romans 13 does not support the imposing of Christian values on society. What is good and evil in that chapter of Romans is assumed to have been understood rather than explicitly or implicitly stated. We do know Paul’s attitude toward sexual immorality in society (I Cor 5:12-13). We do know Jesus’s warning against imitating the Gentiles of his day in how they ‘lord over others.’ When the preaching of the Gospel met resistance, Jesus told his disciples to leave to preach elsewhere. We are told by Peter and the author of Hebrews that we live in exile and that we have no home on earth. And we are told not to withdraw from the immoral unbelievers of Paul’s day which included homosexuals and the effeminate. So what is the above article saying that fits in with the New Testament?

    1. The Apostles loved in a different society than we do. American Christians have the right to vote and to petition the government for the redress of grievances, and to speak out in a public forum on political matters, for example. Christian Americans have as much right to exercise these rights as LGTBQ Americans do.
      Nothing in the NT makes it a sin to exercise any of these rights.

      The LGTBQ agenda is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. It is contrary to the ways and will of God, as revealed to us through His Word. Any responsible Christain can and should speak out against this agenda and can do so without denying an LBGTQ individuals rights.

      1. “The LGTBQ agenda is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ…”

        Please show us the red letter proof of this statement. I’d really like to see Christ’s words on this.

        1. The Bible is unambiguous about things like homosexuality and people wishing to “change” their sex.

          For starters, Jesus defined His brothers and sisters as those who “do the will of My Father.”

          So what is the will of God when it comes to sex? Sex was God’s idea, and its purpose is defined pretty clearly as to enable a man and a woman to become “one flesh” and to perpetuate the species (be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth). Sex is not meant simply to gratify lust and sinful desires. Jesus, in no place, contradicts this. In fact, He, and His chosen Apostles, confirm it as I’ll show below.

          Homosexual sex does not produce life and thus is not in keeping with God’s model for sex (this is why it is referred to as an abomination-a perversion of His plan and intent for the act).

          In the case of male on male homosexuality, one man’s organ that is meant to impart life into the woman is actually inserted into another man’s organ that is meant to expel waste. This is not what God intended.

          Jesus nowhere changes God’s definition or intent for human sex. He does state quite clearly that sexual immorality is grounds for the destruction of a sacred covenant in the eyes of His Father (He is speaking of marriage in this case-see Matthew 19) but He does not list all things that are considered sexually immoral, He simply makes very clear that sexual immorality is egregious sin, so much so that is tears apart what God brought together.

          Paul (Jesus’ Apostle, who speaks with the authority of Jesus on the matter) does further define sexual immorality with other forms of immorality (he lists homosexuals, sodomites and adulterers among other people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God-the Kingdom Jesus will rule- see 1 Cor 6). He further addresses homosexuality in other letters (see Romans 1 and 1 Tim 1 for example).

          While Jesus doesn’t specifically list homosexuality when He speaks of sexual immorality, He also doesn’t mention things like bestiality, or incest, or men raping women. But none of these things are consistent with God’s will either, and therefor Jesus would call us to repent of them, as He would all things that His Father considers sinful and abominations of His ways.

          As to boys becoming girls and vice-versa: did not Jesus say, “haven’t your read…the Creator made them male and female?” God chose our sex for us, before we were born and made us for His purposes. Any attempt to deviate from that is in direct contrast to His plan for us and is thus sinful and an abomination in His sight.

          Again, the OT and NT have a completely consistent message when it comes to homosexuality, and other sexual immorality.

      2. DRW1,
        First, your comment addresses very little, if anything at all, of what’s in my comment. But I do agree with one of your sentences:

        Christian Americans have as much right to exercise these rights as LGTBQ Americans do.

        But if Christian Americans have as much right to exercise those rights as LGBTQ Americans do, then shouldn’t that mitigate how we use those rights? For if we use our rights to take away the equal rights of others, then aren’t we denying your statement that I quoted? After all, that was the point of my 3rd paragraph. And our rights aren’t limited to what is specified in the 1st Amendment

        Sabo’s article was about an alleged war on Christianity based on Biden’s declaration of Transgendered Day of Visibility and that our laws allow for sins that the WCF says should be prohibited. But Biden simply announced what was already in place since 2009. And what the WCF says about our laws violates the rights that our Constitution guarantees for us. For example: the Establishment Clause also goes against teachings of our Lord and the Apostles.

        All of that is why we have the Church rather than a Christian Nation. The Church consists of those who are called out to follow Christ.

        1. I cant say I agree or disagree completely with everything in the article. I wasn’t addressing it specifically. Your post was too long to address in entirety. You suggest that Christians speaking out against the LGTBQ agenda is someone denying LGTBQ rights. How exactly is a Christian, speaking out in legal ways about things happening in our current society, “taking away the equal right” of others?

          1. DRW1,
            It depends on how we speak out against the “agenda.” I put that word in quotes because the LGBT community is not monolithic. There might be multiple agendas depending on which group of the LGBT community one is talking about and so the agenda to which you refer to depends on which group in the LGBT community you are speaking..

            The above article, as well as previous ones, wishes to deny those in the LGBT community their full equality. posted on this website. That is what my first comment was targeting.

            Sorry about the length of many of my comments. Wish I could be more concise.

          2. Reply to Curt Day post April 8, 2024 at 4:45 pm, (didnt see a ‘reply’ link under your latest comment)

            Here are examples of statements I think are consistent with the LGTBQ agenda, and that I think should be completely refuted and rejected by the Christian community:

            -Homosexual activity is good, and should to be celebrated.

            -Homosexual marriage is a good thing, and should be celebrated.

            -For the “T” in LGTBQ, the idea that a man can become a woman, and vice-versa, is a clear assertion of the movement. It is simply not true and is certainly not consistent with anything taught in the OT or NT.

            There is nothing healthy about these agenda points and certainly nothing consistent with following Christ. Refusing to “affirm” these lifestyles, or to accept the lies behind them, is not denying anyone their rights. In fact, those brave enough to refuse to “affirm” the simple statements I’ve made above are in much more danger of having their rights trampled in modern times than those who willingly go along with them.

          3. DRW1,
            First, not everyone in the LGBT movement is happy with all of the directions that the Transgender part of the movement has been going. In fact, even outside of that, the LGBT community is not a monolith.

            Second, some agenda points are made in the context of promoting equality for the LGBT community. And that is where we Christians need to exercise nuance with our words so as to not compromise our beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity while not speaking about sexual orientation and gender identity in ways that interfere with their equality in society.

            There are ways in which we religiously conservative Christians can overstate the seriousness of of how sinful homosexuality is as described in the Bible. It is a very serious sin and so certainly homosexuality can’t be accepted in the Church. But that doesn’t mean that it cannot be accepted in society. And all of that is a distinction that should govern how we describe homosexuality as a sin.

            Third, much of what I just wrote about homosexuality applies to Transgenderism. However, we should note that both religiously conservative Christians and the LGBT movement present two different sides of the same counterfeit coin. That coin conflates biological sex with gender identity. And while navigating how to recognize the Transgendered as being fully equal in society, we need to maintain the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. And with the former, we need to realize that we also have an intersex gender which might contain more people than we originally thought.

            In terms of accepting those lifestyles, it really depends on the context. We can’t accept those lifestyles in the Church and our evangelical messages need to call those in the LGBT community to repent. In society. On the other hand, the status of the LGBT community is the same as the status of those who adhere to different religions other than Christianity. Certainly their choices can’t be confirmed in the Church, but that implies nothing about their choices being rejected by society. In short, in society, we need to give people the freedom to choose what we don’t want them to choose. It would be unhealthy to do otherwise.

          4. Curt Day,
            Again, alot to respond to.
            For Example: “And that is where we Christians need to exercise nuance with our words so as to not compromise our beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity while not speaking about sexual orientation and gender identity in ways that interfere with their equality in society.”
            I’m not sure what this statement calls for. I dont think followers of Christ should be “nuanced” in calling sin what it is, sin; or in calling people to repent of it, especially their fellow Christians. I personally know homosexuals who have not indulged their desires for years, in deference to Christ and the teachings of the NT. They have denied themselves in the name of their faith. Amen I say to them. They are true followers of the Lord. “Nuance” could mean alot of things though, to include what I see plainly happening in front of me right now: Christians embracing this sin, telling people its OK, in the name of inclusivity, and even celebrating it. Christ dined with sinners and spent His time with them, not to celebrate their sin but TO CALL THEM TO REPENTANCE. This is obvious by His statements, like “Go and sin no more,” and “its not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick.”

            You cannot overstate the seriousness of unrepentant sinful activity. It leads to spiritual death, the worst kind of death there is. Christ makes this clear in His words: our spiritual condition is far more important than our physical condition, and sin sets us apart from God and the ones who loves us. Its kills us spiritually. Christ, who loves us, came to save us from that.

            No time at the moment to comment on the social construct of gender identity, but I’ve already quoted Jesus on the differences in sex, its clear cut in the Bible, which even acknowledges the occasional individual born with crossed up sex organs (an anomaly at best).

            Dont disagree about giving people outside the church the freedom to choose what we dont want them to chose, we cannot force Christianity on people. I do not call for any such course of action, nor do I think the writer was doing. But much of this agenda is pure evil, straight from hell, the stuff of lies meant to destroy us. We are failing in our Christian responsibility to be “salt” and “light” if we do not speak out about the gross sin some people will chose to engage in and call it what it is. This is not denying those people’s rights, or their very humanity, it is being straight forward and honest. This is something that is far more loving and merciful than embracing and celebrating their sin. This is what Christ showed us (for example, Mark tells us Jesus looked on the rich young ruler and loved him…but He still spoke truth to the young man and let him walk away when he rejected Christ’s direction for his life). How can we be any different and call ourselves followers of Christ?

          5. DRW1,
            I meant exactly what I said when I said we need a more nuanced way of speaking about the sin of homosexuality. Why? Because I am assuming that our audience in this case is society. No such nuance is needed when speaking to those coming to Church and to those who profess to be Christians. Both nuance and firmness is needed in our evangelism because we say that homosexuality is sin, but not in ways that motivate people to deny the LGBT community of their equal rights in society.

            Just as we can speak of the freedom of religion as being a good thing but choosing a false religion is wrong, I can celebrate that homosexuals have the right to follow their sexual orientation and have the right to marry whom they want to regardless of their partner’s biological sex but note that they are making a morally wrong choice. I can celebrate homosexuals have an equal place in society with everyone else including us religiously conservative Christians. After all, they have as much to contribute to society as we do in terms of being members of their local communities, being fellow citizens, being coworkers, being friends, and so forth. As Romans 2 talks about Gentiles doing good, which was meant to incite guilt in those who believe in God, the same applies to homosexuals and us.

            Our nuance then is there to recognize the rightfully deserved equal place that those from the LGBT community should have in society. After all, homosexuality is not portrayed by Paul as something that should surprise us about unbelievers unlike the sin Paul deals with in I Corinthians 5. And considering that same-sex behavior has been observed in well over 1,000 species of animals, there is ample reason to believe that there are physical reasons why at least some have same-sex attraction. That means that nature as God designed it and a person’s own physical nature might be giving some homosexuals mixed messages and we heterosexuals can relate to that conflict. After all, God tells us that sex only belongs in a heterosexual, monogamous marital relationship but many of us struggle with desires for sexual experiences outside of that relationship both before and after marriage. Perhaps that is why in Romans 2 when Paul warns us against judging lest we condemn ourselves, that when we judge those who commit adultery, we need to ask ourselves if we are committing adultery.

            That a person’s own physical nature might contradict nature as God has designed it should not challenge our theology. After all, with Adam’s sin, nature fell too. But it should move us to come alongside homosexuals as peers in being sinners to share the Gospel including the need to repent.

            Sorry about the length of the response. I tend to be conciseness-impaired.

          6. Curt Day,
            I cannot comment specifically on a couple of your points until you are more specific.

            I disagree that nuance is not needed for those in the church, on the grounds that many in the church do not understand Christ’s teaching. This is because they are not studying them the way they should be (the fault of many pastors/elders in today’s churches IMO). Having said that, I understand the distinction between followers and non-followers in society.

            “Both nuance and firmness is needed in our evangelism because we say that homosexuality is sin, but not in ways that motivate people to deny the LGBT community of their equal rights in society.” Before I comment, I need to understand what ways you refer to that would cause people to deny another citizen’s rights in society. Right to what? Please give a specific example or two.

            “I can celebrate that homosexuals have the right to follow their sexual orientation and have the right to marry whom they want to regardless of their partner’s biological sex but note that they are making a morally wrong choice.” We all have a right to make a morally wrong choice, but no Christian should “celebrate” anyone making a morally wrong choice. The morals outlined in the Bible reflect the very nature of God, and are thus not subject to the changing opinions of society. No follower of God should celebrate anyone (believer or unbeliever) making morally wrong choices, regardless of whether a given set of manmade laws legally allows them to do so or not. Further, the true church should speak out, in moral and legal ways whenever possible, against society’s laws and opinions that are not in keeping with God’s nature and opinion on moral matters. If called by the HS to do so, they should also lobby the governmental powers to change existing laws so as better to reflect God’s moral laws (or at least vote for leaders and legislators whose opinions on the matter reflect as closely as possible God’s opinion on the matter). This will only benefit society in the long run. The more eloquently and effectively Christians do so the more benefit will likely come from it.

            “I can celebrate homosexuals have an equal place in society with everyone else including us religiously conservative Christians.”
            If by this you mean all members of society have the same rights as derived in the DOI and Constitution, we can agree that is a good thing and consistent with God’s intent for how earthly governments and societies should function. But what I see happening now is not what you describe in many cases. For example, homosexuals have demanded the right to change the definition of marriage. No one in the history of human society has ever had that right. The constitution certainly doesn’t codify that right. The fact that the supreme court obliged homosexuals is irrelevant. Marriage is God’s idea and not subject to any earthly government or entity’s re-definition (or more accurately, un-definition). As such, no citizen, or body of citizens, has the right to overrule God and change its definition, a definition Jesus affirmed in the NT. It has been established clearly by the One who came up with the idea in the first place; there is no moral way to undo it. Yet that is exactly what has happened, and now many call for it to be “celebrated.” I am quite confident God is not celebrating it (see Psalm 2). I am stunned and disappointed that church leaders are not pointing this out more often. Taking away the “right” to homosexual marriage would be a misnomer since that right has never existed. Doing so would not in any other way impede a homosexual’s ability to function in or contribute to society any more than it would impede an unmarried adult’s ability to function in or contribute to society.

            “And considering that same-sex behavior has been observed in well over 1,000 species of animals, there is ample reason to believe that there are physical reasons why at least some have same-sex attraction.”
            We’re not animals. Cannibalism appears in nature, incest appears in nature, animals eat their young in nature. As you state yourself, nature is fallen. The fact that same sex behavior occurs in various species is irrelevant and should not confuse anyone as to “right” and “wrong” sexual activity. The second part of your statement goes to temptation. I understand temptation as much as the next guy. Even Jesus was tempted. We are all tempted by something, even sexually tempted (by same sex attraction or by attraction to certain members of the opposite sex). But Jesus calls us to “repent,” and to “deny ourselves” if we want to be His followers. Thus, the duty of the Christian is to fight temptation, to turn from our sin, and to invoke the aid of God and His HS to assist in enabling us to do so. Homosexuals who refuse to do so are no different than adulterers who refuse to fight their temptations by cheating on their wives. They care more about their carnal and lustful desires than they do about pleasing their Lord. They take their eyes off the hard road. Jesus never took His eyes off the hard road, and we’re called to be like Him. Thank God He didnt, and instead took the hard road to the cross for us. Sinners who refuse to repent and deny themselves are saying, in a sense, “anything but the hard road for me. I love my sin too much.” They remain self-centered, not God-centered.

            “That a person’s own physical nature might contradict nature as God has designed it should not challenge our theology. After all, with Adam’s sin, nature fell too. But it should move us to come alongside homosexuals as peers in being sinners to share the Gospel including the need to repent.” I would word it differently by saying a person’s fallen nature contradicts what God had intended. To your last statement I say “amen.” We can share the Gospel and the need to repent without denying anyone their rights as Americans or as human beings. Nothing I’ve stated above denies any individual such rights, including the right to live sinful and ultimately self-destructive lives.

          7. DRW1
            There is a difference between celebrating a person’s right to make a choice and celebrating the choice they make. I don’t think I was clear enough here and that is my fault. I don’t celebrate a person making an immoral choice. I only celebrate that they had the freedom to choose. Freedom can be about supporting a person’s right to choose even if they are choosing what I don’t want them to choose.

            As for equality and marriage, for the heterosexual, that means naturally choosing a person from the opposite sex to marry. And so for the homosexual, that means naturally choosing a person from the same sex to marry. Would heterosexuals have equality if homosexuals could marry the person they chose but heterosexuals could not? The past definition of marriage, as biblical as it is, discriminates against the homosexual. And remember that we Christians share society with unbelievers. So what right do we have to define marriage for the unbeliever in a society in which homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal?

            We can use the Scriptures to define marriage in the Church. But if Christians and unbelievers have equal places in society, then the state must define marriage in ways that do not discriminate against unbelievers. And so society’s choices don’t always coincide well with what the Scriptures mandate. That is where evangelism comes into play. Otherwise, we Christians must work to dominate state to a significant degree so that the state uses the definitions that the Scriptures give us. But do the New Testament Scriptures tell us to so dominate the state and society?

            What about history and the definition of marriage? Doesn’t the Old Testament allow for polygamy, which is a different definition of marriage than what we have? Nero married a boy. In precolonial Africa, women were allowed to marry each other. That also occurred during the Ming Dynasty in the province of Guangdong, And so, historically speaking, besides multitudes of same-sex unions, there were some same-sex marriages and marriage ceremonies.

            Regarding same-sex behaviors in well over 1,000 species of animals, we may not be animals but we are not unrelated to animals. DNA can attest to that. We share many traits that animals do. And I only bring this up because it points to physical reasons why some have same-sex attractions. Again, this should not threaten our religious beliefs. After all, nature has fallen too. But on the scientific side, one study showed that between 8% to 25% of same-sex behavior could be related to genetics while biological factors, as well as environmental ones, also contribute too (cited in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/ ). But suffice it to say that making firm genetic connections to same-sex attraction has met with problems but there are other avenues to explore such as matching the same connections to same-sex behaviors.

            We should note Romans 2:1ff here. After listing homosexuality and a bunch of other sins Paul saw in unbelievers, he then warns us religious people against judging others lest we condemn ourselves. How do we condemn ourselves when judging others? Paul said it is because we commit the same sins as they do. James tells us not to judge because when we commit different sins than the people we judge, we join the people we judge as lawbreakers. Then James goes on to say that we all ‘stumble in many ways.’ Paul gives a similar message in Romans 7 and tells us of our vulnerability to sin in Galatians 6.

            If you want me to, I could go into some of the possible physical causes of gender dysphoria.

          8. Curt Day, I cant say I haven’t enjoyed the conversation but I can see its going nowhere. I have tried to be specific as I can, in describing my position and in asking the questions I do. You haven’t answered many of my questions, and instead present new questions that are more like false equivalencies (such as comparing the worshipping of false gods, which is not the subject of the article or the debate in the thread).

            Forgive me but your exegesis on “judging” is highly questionable, and I think you are a bit confused about it. I have spoken to Christians who seem to take the same approach as you though.

            Regarding why people are gay or transgender: I’m sure there are numerous reasons for people to feel attraction to the same sex, or to genuinely believe they are actually a member of the opposite sex. So what? Both things are not naturally built into them by God and are really nothing more than products of the influence of this broken world; in other words: temptations. If entertained further, they will lead to misery and self-destruction and the opposite of what God intends for us. Indulging people’s temptations is not “progress.”

            I doubt I’m going to convince you of anything or even of making you understand my position.

            I am a poor beggar who has found a lifetime, unlimited, supply of bread. I can only do what I can to show other poor beggars the way to the same supply. Doing so at no profit to myself is not “judging,” it is pointing out the truth and offering the promise of redemption that has been set on my own heart. Other poor beggars will either listen or not. Arguing about their “rights,” or about the scientific/pseudo-scientific reasons they feel certain temptations, while ignoring the bread supply, will only lead to their eternal destruction. Celebrating the civil or legal advancement of things that are contrary to the way Christ wants us to live and act will only lead to pain and suffering in the end.

            Like I said, I have no illusions about my ability to convince you of anything; its clear your mind is made up. I suspect you feel the “loving” thing to do is to somehow celebrate and embrace people in a way that fails to point out to them their sinful and destructive lifestyles. Me on the other hand: I’m content to let any other readers, who are so inclined to, read the thread and make up their own minds.

          9. DRW1,
            First let’s get things. You haven’t always asked questions, but you have made points that I addressed.

            For example, look at your comment from April 10th at 1:50 PM. In that comment you said that a Christian should never celebrate anyone making morally wrong choices. Now forget the fact that that was a response to where I said that I can celebrate homosexuals having the right to choose something that I didn’t want them to choose. So I wasn’t celebrating their moral choice as much as their right to make that choice. So you kind of misrepresented me there. But how did I respond to that comment? I said that there is a difference between celebrating the right to make a choice from celebrating the choice. Then I went on to talk about marriage and equality society.

            In talking about equality in society and marriage, you said that homosexuals have no right to change the definition of marriage and that no one in human society has ever had that right. My next comment to you addressed that point. I mentioned how the definition of marriage changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament regarding polygamy. Then I talked about the past where same-sex marriages were allowed. So I addressed your point with examples, not moral equivalencies.

            You wrote that Christians must speak out when society’s laws don’t coincide with God’s nature and opinions on matters. And I responded that we can do that when we evangelize. I’ll add to that. Otherwise, you are arguing for theonomy. Theonomy leaves no room for equality in society. It prohibits the convictions of unbelievers from being encoded into law. Again, that is why I responded that we do speak out when society’s laws don’t coincide with God’s nature and statements when we evangelize. Again, I addressed your point.

            When I mentioned that we see same-sex behavior in over 1,000 species, you responded by saying that we are not animals. You also said that the presence of same-sex behavior in over 1,000 species was irrelevant because of other behaviors that occur. BTW, I didn’t state the presence of same-sex behavior in over 1,000 species to say that it was right. I said it because it indicates, if not implies, that a person’s own individual physical nature might be telling them something different than what God’s design for nature tells them. How did I respond to that point? I wrote that we may not be animals but neither are we unrelated to the animals. I could have added that we are in a class of mammals, a class we share with many animals. I also wrote about what science is saying. I cited a study that gave a percentage of how genetics could be contributing to a person’s homosexual behaviors. Certainly the science isn’t clear now, but I addressed your point.

            The above just mentions some of the points you made in your April 10th, 1:50 PM comment as well as how I addressed those point in my following comment on April 10th after 7:00 PM. I could go to other comments and show I addressed the points you made.

            Up until this very last comment of yours, I did enjoy our correspondence. It was free from accusations and focused on the points each person was making. And your accusation made in this last comment, overall, I enjoyed our correspondence. BTW, I am not addressing any other points that you made in your last comment because of the time it takes to provide the examples showing you that I addressed your points.

            So you take care.

        2. Curt Day,
          I think I’ve made very clear that I believe freedom is a good thing and I do not believe in taking away someone’s right to choose, within reasonable limits. For example, a woman should not have the right to “choose” her convenience over the life of her unborn child. That is murder. In the end, people will be responsible for what and why they chose what they do, this is consistent with God and His concept of justice. And Christians are responsible for being “salt and light” too, as I’ve already said.

          “As for equality and marriage, for the heterosexual, that means naturally choosing a person from the opposite sex to marry. And so for the homosexual, that means naturally choosing a person from the same sex to marry.” Same sex attraction is not natural according to the Bible. It is referred to as an “abomination” and “unnatural” in the OT and the NT. And marriage is clearly defined as a covenant only authorized between a man and woman in the OT and NT. Again, man does not have a right to change what God has ordained, not in the name of “equality” or supposed enlightenment or anything else. I have not called for “dominating” anything so if you’re trying to put words in my mouth please stop doing so. Christians in this country have a right to speak out against bad law and bad policy, yes or no? And we define bad law and bad policy as that which is contrary to God’s Word and God’s law (as MLK wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail).

          Having said that, there are many who would call for me to be jailed for writing this and/or certainly for saying it publicly (in the name of “hate speech” laws). So if that were to happen to me, whose rights would be trampled then? And who would be seeking to “dominate” society then, me or those calling for my incarceration (or worse)? and who would be seeking to impose their views of morality then, me or those calling for my incarceration (or worse)?

          See, here is the thing: everyone gets their opinion on morality from somewhere. Something shapes it, and their worldview. I simply choose to have mine informed by the Living God, the God of all truth and wisdom, whose nature and character was ultimately personified by Christ in the flesh. And pointing out where and how society is wrong for deviating from God’s Word, and the harm it can cause by doing so, is not denying anyone their freedom. It is speaking God’s truth to the masses. And refusing to acknowledge or affirm sinful lifestyles is not denying anyone their right to choose to walk down the path of destruction.

          On judgement, you seem to be suggesting that no Christian can “judge.” What do you mean by that? Christians are expected to make good and sound judgements every day of their lives. How do they do so? With wisdom and discernment, informed by the Word of God. I believe you are trying to use Scripture to justify the Christian never judging anything. That would be fine if that is what Scripture says. Paul and James warn us against judging others, while being in unrepentant sin ourselves, not against judging behavior and activity we know to be sinful and wrong. How can the Christian avoid such things if not making sound judgements about them? This is entirely consistent with what Jesus says in Matthew 7 and John 7. Jesus expects us to judge not according to appearance but to judge righteously (in a way informed by the Word of God and recognizing our own fallen nature). This is entirely consistent with OT guidance, which admonishes us to love the truth, speak the truth and render truth in judgement.

          Again, it is through proper judgement and discernment (informed by God’s Word) that we are able to avoid bad and self-destructive behavior and relationships with the ungodly. Did not Jesus warn us against false prophets? or “casting our pearls before swine?” How can we avoid such things if we do not judge? Perhaps you are speaking of “condemning” others, which Scripture admonishes us not to do (that is God’s business). But “condemning” and “judging” are two different things. One the Christian is expected to do, and do well. The other is not the responsibility of the Christian.

          To what point and purpose would you “go into” causes of gender dysphoria with me? To convince me that the way to solve the problem is to carve up people to “change” their sex? To show me why overweight men in drag “twerking” in front of children is somehow a good thing? Understanding more what may cause people to reject God’s plan for them is fine I guess, if your ultimate intent is to help people find the truth, in love. But is it?

          1. DRW1,
            Yes, homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible. But what about worshiping false gods? Yes, homosexuality goes against God’s design for nature. But what about worshiping the creature instead of the Creator? Doesn’t the trading in of something made for the maker go against what the creation tells one? Doesn’t worshiping the creature instead of the Creator change what God has designed us to do?

            If we are talking about the Church, then homosexuality and the worship of false gods must not be tolerated. But what about in society? In terms of evangelism, we must preach repentance. But what about laws that would prohibit same-sex marriage? After all, doesn’t Paul, in Romans 1, describe homosexuality in terms of something that should not be surprising amongst unbelievers? So why should we single out homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage as something to be prohibited in society. The driving of the homosexual community underground meant giving reason for promiscuity in that community. Wouldn’t it have be wiser and more reasonable to encourage marriage in that community instead? What would happen in the heterosexual community if marriage had always been denied to them?

            What standards are you using to determine what is reasonable in terms of freedom? You are using the Scriptures. But here we are talking about society which contains unbelievers and believers. How does using the Scriptures to define what is reasonable ensure that both believers and unbelievers stay on an equal footing in society? The same goes with morality? I agree with you that we believers must use the Scriptures. But if all of society’s standards for morality depend on the Scriptures, how does that maintain an equal status between believers and unbelievers in society? We should note here that even with the Spirit of God given to us in a redemptive relationship with God, we struggle to be moral. So what do you expect from an unregenerate person who does not have God’s Spirit to make it a struggle for them?

            And so in terms of judging, it goes back to condemning the sin but realizing that condemning the sinner means that we are eventually condemning ourselves regardless of our level of sanctification. Are we judging just the sin, or we including the sinner too? Certainly legal judgments must be made to protect society when one person victimizes another. But what about consensual sexual relationships between adults? Why should we prohibit same-sex marriage in society?

            As for gender dysphoria, some struggle with the condition because of a genetically caused failure to process certain hormones. Others struggle possibly because the sex of their brain structure does not match their observed sex organs. I say possibly because the causes for having a different sex brain structure from what one’s genitalia indicates are unknown. But suppose some of the causes are physical, then, as with those who are classified as intersex, we have person with mixed sex physicality. BTW, there is a male brain structure and a female brain structure.

            In addition, and this is observed in some fish, since hormones are not filtered from the water supply, it is possible that the water people drink is causing problems with gender identification or even sexual orientation. Sex transitioning in some species of fish has already been observed in our rivers. That speculation has not been investigate by research as far as I know.

            BTW, I try to stay away from mixing the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ for a specific reason. That is because one’s sex is biological and physical. Gender identity is psychological though it might be determined because of biological and physical conditions.

  2. There is no “war” on Christianity. There is a particular class of Christians who are looking for reasons to be offended when the rest of the world doesn’t agree with their political, social, and religious points of view. It is a highly vocal minority. These same “Christians” usually also fall into the Christian Nationalist movement, while many can also be described as White Christian Nationalists. The types are not Christian; they’ve subverted the teachings of Christ to give cover to some of the most repugnant political and social views.

    1. There has been a war on Christianity since soon after Jesus’ earthly ministry started, and it will continue until He comes back. Whether it is waged overtly (as organizations such as ISIS do by sawing off the heads of Christians on live TV), or more covertly and subtly (as organizations and governments endorsing and pushing ungodly agendas in the name of “progress” do), the war is very real and very dangerous for mankind. There have even been times in history where people calling themselves Christians have waged a war on true Christianity. To claim that this is not happening is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary and to ignore the very warnings of Christ Himself. Whether engaging in overt or covert action against Christ’s agenda, the people who do it are of their father the devil. The agenda that is the subject of the article is in direct contrast to God’s will and teaching and as such is “at war” with God’s agenda. Jesus called His followers to be “salt and light,” to educate the world in God’s ways, to speak His truth on behalf of the Lord, and to walk His “way.” That includes calling sin what it is and speaking out against it.

    2. J. Matthew,
      I fully agree that there is no war on Christians. But to give a perspective of why some Christians, including those who are not Christian Nationalists, would interpret things differently, I’ll say the following.

      Currently the world is seeing a conflict between Democracy with Equality and Authoritarianism with hierarchy. Because of what we are taught in our churches, we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. And the hierarchy that we assume should come with that authoritarianism is one that favors Christianity. And so when people disagree with us or choose alternative lifestyles, we see that as hostility toward Christianity when really all it is is a denial of the hierarchy that we assume should be in place.

  3. I’m surprised that a conservative writer, supporting Christianity would still affirm the phrase “character matters”. That phrase has been totally sidelined not by leftist sins needing repentance, rather by conservative fealty to a morally flawed individual who refuses to even pay lip service to the tenets of Christianity.

    That blind spot has done more to hard the Christian faith and shatter unity than any perceived cultural war we’re supposedly living through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *