Category Archives: blogs
San Francisco based author Erik F. Wait has jumped to the forefront of scholarly exposition on gay christian theology with his new book Do Not Be Deceived: A Christian Worldview Response to Gay Theology and a blog of the same name.
We’ve known Erik for many years and his work is a welcome addition to the massive task of educating the church and equipping the saints on one of the most insidious attacks on the faith in recent memory.
The 674 page book is no lightweight read. It thoroughly addresses flawed epistemological foundations, as well as the hermeneutical errors of this growing movement and provides a thorough exegesis of the relevant Biblical texts on human sexuality.
Sadly the gay church movement and its parasitic theology has caused massive damage to foundational beliefs which have sustained the church through many challenges. But this is an internal spiritual infection and its unassuming until the symptoms began to appear.
Deception and spiritual identity fraud is just as much a growing problem for the church as it is in the secular world. They take it very seriously and have developed all types of protective measures but the church still treats identity fraud as a low priority issue. This is why gay church theology has been able to deceive so many so quickly.
You can protect yourself and innoculate yourself with this powerful resource Do Not Be Deceived.
Fourth in a series of articles during EXhomosexual awareness month highlighting the continued challenges faced by EXGLBT Americans.
White homosexual activists who profit off the false “no change” doctrine of the American Psychological Association, hate and despise me and the work of liberation I do. This poster is a replica of the original wanted poster for Ms Harriet Tubman, the famous black American abolitionist. The wording is almost exact to prove a point that helping people escape any form of slavery, will evoke strong hate and reaction from slave owners, whether presumed or real. I’ve been writing to show some of the parallels between America’s proslavery antagonists and the new gay rights movement.
The good thing is that now we know the face of the real enemy of freedom. Their insatiable thirst to uphold their shallow lie pushes them to strike out myself and other EXGLBT Americans and our message.
Brian Tashman, a sycophant for the proslavery group RightWingWatch is making sure the massahs and slave catchers are being kept abreast of my writings. Tashman is acting like those who, using the power of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, released posters and fliers to aid the slave catchers in their apprehension of runaway slaves. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Law stated that every citizen was responsible for helping to recover and return fugitive slaves; so any white person from the North or South could be, and was expected to be, a fugitive slave catcher. So no doubt Brian Tashman feels a certain sense of importance by “exposing” my work of helping homosexuals change and celebrating those who have. RWW, the SPLC and HRC most likely already feel the threat and thus feel compelled to alert others that we are helping homosexuals escape their psychological plantations by empowering them with spiritual truth.
Just like Jesus, we come bearing a message of freedom.
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God,
Try as they may with unjust laws and devious lies, THIS message cannot be stopped because deep down inside people yearn to be free from that which enslaves them. Jesus said “Everyone who sins, is a slave to sin”. Freedom from sin is a right and a promise given to all who accept the sacrifice of Jesus’ shed blood. As a sin, homosexuality renders its victims powerless to think in the realm of what man (the APA and its affliate social institutions) claims is impossible. Yet, GOD declares that through his power, nothing shall be impossible. Nothing. Homosexuals yearn to hear that they can be free. But their self appointed masters in the media, political world and the homosexual activist community continually feed them the slop of the “no change possible” message.
If you want to join me and help homosexuals escape their bondage and find safety, security and freedom in the arms of Christ, the Liberator contact me immediately! Your obedience to God’s call means that together we can on earth, mirror the will of God in heaven.
Over the last twenty years, you’ve seen them fall like dominoes: the so-called Christian denominations that have policied themselves into homosexual acceptance. It doesn’t just happen. The homosexual antinominialists and their blind eye allies, employ a number of subversive tactics to turn whole denominations away from what used to be their foundational principles. A major problem of the contemporary church and its Sauls Army of members is that their fear of what homosexuals are doing is evident. That fear has emboldened an enemy of the cross that could be put down with one smooth stone. But there must exist a resolve to do so.
A great blog on the Gospel Coalition site by Kevin DeYoung takes you past the smoke and mirrors and reveals how this train wreck of a theological tragedy is occurring before our very eyes. DeYoung cites Tom Oden’s prophetic book of warning “Requiem”. Three steps and centuries of foundational truth is trashed as if it were a musty pair of old socks. Tolerate. Accept. Endorse.
The first step is always a study committee.
In response to claims for moral legitimization of behaviors widely thought displeasing to God, each of the mainline denominations has dutifully appointed elaborate study commissions to report back to the general legislative body on how the church might respond to this form of sexual orientation, practice, and advocacy. (152)
If the first study committee comes back with a traditional reading of the text, or if the legislative body dismisses the committee’s progressive interpretation, you can always assign another study committee amidst outcries that the recalcitrant conservatives suffer from “homophobia and reactionary stupidity” (153).
And if the traditional view cannot be overturned right away, try dismissing the whole controversy by telling people (with no small amount of chronological snobbery) that saner Christians understand this is nothing worth fighting over.
The fact that homosexual practice is not a weighty moral matter was asserted by the United Methodist Sexuality Report as a “consensus among Christian ethicists,” yet without any evidence to support this curious assertion. All the conspicuous Christian teachers who have resisted same-sex intercourse (John Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other consensual ecumenical teachers) are weighed in the debate less heavily than selected modern proponents of moral relativism and utilitarian permissivism. (153)
The next step is admonish “the people of God to wait for a firm ‘scientific consensus’” on the matter (154).
Then some leading lights in the denomination can offer new exegetical avenues for avoiding the traditional understanding of familiar texts. Three evasions in particular are quite popular.
The first evasion is that the normative moral force of all biblical texts on same-sex intercourse may be explained away by their cultural context. This leads to the conclusion that any statement in the Bible can be reduced to culturally equivocal ambiguity and indeterminacy on the premise of cultural relativism…
The second evasion hinges upon a strung out interpretation on Romans 1:26-27…
The third evasion argues that when Genesis 1:27 declares that God created male and female, the text has no normative significance for how sexual behavior is to be understood, since it is merely a distinction with no further moral meaning. (154-55)
If all else fails, the final step is to announce triumphantly and with a terrific celebration of grace that “Christ is, in an amoral fashion, the end of the law” and charge others with legalism if they don’t share in your antinomianism (156).