Category — ex-ex-gays

Using black social inequality in America as a comparison to legitimize homosexual sin is a signal tenet in the agenda of religious gays. In all actuality, they can’t help but parrot the political agenda of their secular counterparts. The entire gay christian movement with its attendant off-shoot sects is little more than the gay political movement in heavy religious blackface. Don’t expect any revelation (although they claim “God is still speaking“) because they are fresh out and the truck wont be in for another millennia.  GCMW found the perfect example of what a recycled lie looks like from a gay christian site called “The Great Heresy”. Since it has Anthony Venn-Brown’s name stamped everywhere, we’ll assume he’s the author.

The Great Heresy’s recycled premise, in simplified form, is this:

Since the “church” was wrong about  the shape of the earth and wrong about black folk, then (brilliant minds began churning at this point) viola!, they are wrong about gays too!

Before we get started, let’s look at what heresy is. The reason you have to look at classical definitions when dealing with homosexual theology/ideology is because they redefine EVERYTHING their uncircumcised hearts latch onto. Everything.

So in simple terms, a heresy is willful deviation from the truth. To qualify truth as being the standard of what is being deviated from, you must include that God is not only the source of truth, but he is truth personified in Jesus Christ (reference John 18:38).

In his commentary called Once Heresy now Truth, Venn-Brown treads a familiar gay christian path of tangled logic, convoluted theory and self-serving conjecture. He states five points where in his estimation what was once considered heresy (using his surreptitious  redefinition) is now truth (using his surreptitious  redefinition).

1. Once Heresy now Truth —The world revolves around the sun. The churches [sic] previous position — The earth is the centre of the universe.

VB argues that four centuries ago, Catholic and Protestant  leaders rejected scientists like Galileo who said the world revolved around the sun.

An overarching problem with VB’s statements is his attempt to position “the church” as the source of truth, when its not. The church is comprised of people who admittedly do engage in error. And if “the church” were the source of truth, VB would have a valid argument. But the church is not the source of truth it is a conduit of truth. And while the conduit may indeed be in error at times, the source is never in error.

His first unspoken parallel is that the sun revolution around the earth is a moral/sexual issue. Its not. Its good that science has clarified that the world revolves around the sun, but even if it didnt it would not alter biblical truth that homosexuality is sin.

2. Once Heresy now Truth —White and black are equal The churches [sic] previous position —White is superior, black is inferior.

In this argues that the beliefs of white religious slave owners aka “the church”, were wrong  about the color of one’s skin making one inherently superior or inferior. And guess what? They were wrong.  Those slave owners used scripture not only for moral justification of their wickedness, but as a way to continue the cash flow off the backs of slaves.

The unspoken parallel is that skin color and sexual behavior are one in the same. They are not. Skin color is an immutable trait, while sexual behavior is fluid and changeable. In short, a person can choose to have sex with anyone they desire.  Actress Cynthia Nixon was whipped mercilessly by the contemporary keepers of the white  slave owner flame for stepping out of line on that issue.

Moreover there is no legitimate science to the oft repeated theory of being born gay. The fact that scientific evidence is even needed to prove the “born gay” point is ridiculous. Why do you even need scientific proof of such a thing.? One only need look at an African American to see the obvious sans “scientific evidence”.

3. Once Heresy now Truth — Two people who love each other should marry no matter what colour their skin. The churches [sic] previous position — God separated the races therefore they should never marry.

For his third ideological prooftext position, Venn-Brown hauls out the “two people loving each other” meme. Notice the sleight of hand here.  A man and a woman has magically become “two people”. He had to redefine to make his argument sound plausible.  And remember he is soliloquy-ing his was to his climax, so these layers of lies are intended to reprocess your thinking for the big “a-ha” moment.

VB writes” “The last states in the US to remove the law that banned interracial marriage were in the ‘bible belt’ (the area in which conservative Christian Evangelical Protestantism is a pervasive or dominant part of the culture)…Finally when two people of different races fell in love they were allowed to marry. The oppressed were set free.”

4. Once Heresy now Truth —Men and women are of equal value and worth. The churches [sic] previous position — men are superior, women are inferior.

Per Venn-Brwon: “Up until the middle of the 19th century, most Christians had a pretty clear understanding of the role of women. It was all there in the bible. To be a good Christian woman you had to dress and behave in a certain way, your chief roles being that of keeping house, raising children, and submitting to the will of your husband.”

If VB were being truth and not superimposing a half-truth over his theories, he would tell you that this was not a Christian imposed norm. It was a cultural norm. Pretty much every one —Christian, atheist and Jew– thought the same way. So this whole argument and its intended moral is trashed for lack of honesty.

Now, finally, we have arrived at the big bang moment. Get ready, here it comes….

5. Once Heresy now Truth — same sex orientation, for a percentage of the population, is a normal expression of sexuality and occurs in all of creation. The churches previous but changing position— the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

For his finale, Venn-Brown vomits out the most outrageous lie he can cough up. “The statement ‘the Bible says homosexuality is a sin’ is actually a false statement. It’s impossible for homosexuality to be a sin. We know from science today that homosexuality is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and therefore it’s amoral.”

To further drive home his anticlimactic lie, he says that only “six passages out of 31,240 verses” are associated with homosexuality. So then, are we to believe that numbers confer validity?  Out of the millions of false gods, deities and idols there is only 1 true God.  Is then God irrelevant because he is one? I think not.

The truth is there there exists no legitimate scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. Galileo had an honest desire that was beneficial far beyond himself. The homosexuals who conducted the highly inconclusive gay gene tests admitted the tests were largely self-serving.

By using the political gay movement’s unfounded talking points to disprove God’s truth about sexual expression, Venn-Brown has proven nothing but his own foolish desire to justify to own sin. And that’s a human trick that has been recycled since the garden of eden.

There’s a new pecking order of  gay christians in town. As defined by the gay christian network (GCN), individuals who believe you can be gay, have unrestricted sex and the whole nine are called “Side A” gay christians. The ones who believe you should just call yourself gay but refrain from sex for an unspecified amount of time are labeled “Side B” gay christians. But after a visit from Alan Chambers, the public face of Exodus International to a GCN conference Jan 6th in Orlando, we are prompted to add one more class of gay christian and name it “Side C”.

The C is for compromised, confused, careless and carnal. One thing is ironically clear: statements about homosexuality by Alan Chambers rarely result in clarity.

Over a roughly two hour period, Chambers rattled off a stream of statements seemingly more in sync with trending progay theology than the biblical position Exodus claims to uphold for the last 30-odd years.  In response to a question about the Exodus slogan “change [from homosexuality] is possible”, Chambers said:

“The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know do still experience some level of same-sex attraction.”

Reflections, Reactions and Rebranding

The aftermath of Chamber’s appearance with the self declared homosexual christian group set off a firestorm of support, sharp criticism and everything in between.

Randy Thomas, a former Exodus official: “This isn’t shocking to me because Alan has always had a heart for those that oppose the work of Exodus and the truth of Alan’s testimony (which directly and indirectly represents thousands of us in some way shape or form.) I trust Alan and know his strength of conviction is completely wrapped up in God’s redeeming grace … I wasn’t worried for him or them. I was actually quite proud of him.”

Haydn Sennitt, a Syndey based ministry leader: “However, being outnumbered on such a huge scale would have put psychological strain on him to obfuscate, weaken his position, say things which- in hindsight- he might regret.  In the first 5-6 minutes he did exactly that: his first comments were to joke about drinking martinis and smoking cigarettes at an Exodus conference and laughed at a joke by the ‘gay Christian’ conference convenor that tacitly mocked Exodus conference attendees.  I was shocked. ”

Debbie Thurman, Christian journalist and former lesbian,  “I commend Alan for his honesty and clarity. Is that [Chamber's statement] an earth-shattering statement, as some are interpreting it to be? Not for me, and not really for Alan. “I have said similar things before. The fact of the matter is that 100 percent of humanity is fallible and we will be until death parts us from our flesh,” he told me. “I cannot speak for others who say that temptation or attraction don’t equal orientation. As a layman with regard to that issue, I tend to link them all together, and that is where that 99.9 percent, non-scientific/anecdotal/experiential statement comes from,” Alan added.

Exgaywatch, a blog that primarily criticizes Chambers and Exodus: “Playing to both sides on this issue of gay Christians is not new for Exodus International. In March last year, Chambers enthusiastically affirmed the existence of gay Christians in an interview with the Oprah network’s Lisa Ling, only to water down his statements when challenged by his conservative evangelical constituents. What is new is that some gay Christians are now taking him at his word.”

Nakisha Thomas, an Orlando based ministry leader:  “I was a supporter of Exodus in the past. I had a wonderful time when I attended the national conference and encouraged my church to join their network. However – I am severing all ties with them because as the Bible has instructed – I have gone to the group privately on several occasions. I have reached out with witnesses – but I believe now is the time to warn the church of the danger of embracing an organization that will lead people into confusion and not to the light.”

Just who’s side is he on?

Imagine the president of Pepsi going  to a meeting of Coca Cola employees and saying to them that he only knew about 3 people who really liked Pepsi.   That probably would never happen in the dog-eat-dog cola wars, but Exodus’ president  expressed the same sentiment to the GCN who are admittedly hostile to the message of change, Exodus’ signature mantra.   The meeting was reported by the antichange website Exgaywatch,  and has subsequently sparked sharp debate even among homosexual activists. Chambers reportedly requested to be a guest on a panel session with the Gay Christian Network. For more about the GCN and its founder Justin Lee read here.

The panel discussion moderated by Lee also featured former Exodus leader John Smid, former Exodus leader Wendy Gritter and former Exodus leader Jeremy Marks. All of the aforementioned  now advocate prohomosexual theological positions.

While some are attempting to spin the appearance as “bridge building” and “being light among darkness”, the discussion doesn’t confirm that. Chambers didn’t spread light, he compromised truth to gain some sort of emergent church-like unity. Can supporters of Exodus now expect some reciprocal appearance by a gay christian at the Exodus “Freedom” conference?

If you want to review the entire 3 hour discussion, feel free: part one, part two

Flipside

Aside from the appearance itself, Chambers statement is problematic for several reasons:

1. The monkey wrench in mature discussions about change from homosexuality is the  “sexual orientation” theory. You can not argue biblical truth by attempting to juxtapose it with cultural ideology.  Sexual orientation is a linguistical misnomer created by the gay community to frame homosexuality as an immutable trait.  But the bible speaks from a different perspective. It tells us without equivocation that there is nothing that cannot change by the power of God. Not even death is permanent under his supernatural power. What’s more the Gospel itself is HOPE for change from whatever binds us. That Chambers cannot follow the biblical script is a sign of spiritual immaturity. And spiritually immature people have no place attempting to lead such a critical ministry outreach.

2. Chamber’s comments are a betrayal of biblical truth namely: (a)change or deliverance is fundamental biblical truth,  (b)the process whereby a person is changed once they confess and follow Jesus Christ is sanctification and (c) the ultimate consummation of change which occurs when Christ returns is (glorification). There is no separate trajectory for those who struggle with same sex attractions. The stark difference between the bible and gay christian theology is the definition of the word sin. They believe homosexuality is not a sin, the bible says it is.

3. Change in “sexual orientation” is a false –not to mention unbiblical– goal. The bible doesn’t make “changing sexual orientation” the goal of the Christian because there is no such thing. If God required the homosexual has to change his “orientation” then the heterosexual would have to likewise change his. But this is foolish carnality on display.  Biblically, there is only one “orientation”. Man to woman and woman to man in covenant marriage. Anything else is sin. Thus, our goal is to reject sin and embrace original intent holiness. Chamber’s assertion that 99.9% of people he’s met have not changed their “sexual orientation” is either a brazen lie or its a stunning testament to the failure of Exodus.  Its my belief that our goal should be the same goal as every other believe: to be holy. Our goal should be God’s goal for us, since we are his children.

4. Sexual orientation has no bearing on temptation. Temptation is allowed by God and used a tool to sharpen, strengthen and test the believer’s devotion to God’s standards. Temptation is not a sin and never will be. If it were,  Jesus Christ himself would be a sinner. Unfortunately, in the unyeilding black-white world of gay theology, even the slightest glimmer of  homosexual temptation is viewed as proof that the individual is still homosexual.

As a recognized “leader”, Chamber’s serial inconsistency has deeply affected the quality of ministry to individuals seeking freedom from homosexuality through faith in Christ. Chambers is quoted on a NARTH website as saying “I am one of tens of thousands of people whom have successfully changed their sexual orientation.”. But now, almost no one has changed? Not even him? This type of schizophrenic commentary is damaging and a disgrace to the legacy of the great pioneers of the freedom movement.

Be it resolved: The Exodus board should relieve Alan Chambers of his duties until he has satisfactorily completed comprehensive bible study.

Dr. Kerby Anderson, national director of Probe Ministries [source article] explains why:

At this point in our discussion, we need to consider the claim made by some homosexuals that, “God made me gay.” Is this true? Is there a biological basis to homosexuality? For the remainder of this essay, we will consider the evidence usually cited. Simon LeVay (a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute) has argued that homosexuals and heterosexuals have notable differences in the structure of their brains. In 1991, he studied 41 cadavers and found that a specific portion of the hypothalamus (the area that governs sexual activity) was consistently smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. He therefore argued that there is a distinct physiological component to sexual orientation. There are numerous problems with the study. First, there was considerable range in the size of the hypothalamic region. In a few homosexual men, this region was the same size as that of the heterosexuals, and in a few heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.

Second is the chicken and egg problem. When there is a difference in brain structure, is the difference the result of sexual orientation or is it the cause of sexual orientation? Researchers, for example, have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger. Third, Simon LeVay later had to admit that he didn’t know the sexual orientation of some of the cadavers in the study. He acknowledged that he wasn’t sure if the heterosexual males in the study were actually heterosexual. Since some of those he identified as “heterosexual” died of AIDS, critics raised doubts about the accuracy of his study.

In December 1991, Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard published a study of homosexuality in twins. They surveyed homosexual men about their brothers and found statistics they believed proved that sexual orientation is biological. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual, 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only 11 percent of those who had an adopted sibling said their adopted brothers were also homosexual. They attributed the differences in those percentages to the differences in genetic material shared.

Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.

Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality. Next we will consider a third study often cited to prove the claim that “God made me gay.”

Now let’s look at another study often cited as proof of this claim. This study is often called the “gay gene” study. In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced “preliminary” findings from research into the connection between homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their mother’s side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers acknowledged that these were “preliminary” findings. In addition to the sample size being small, there was no control testing done for heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social histories of the families involved.

Second, similarity does not prove cause. Just because 33 pairs of homosexual brothers share a genetic variation doesn’t mean that variation causes homosexuality. And what about the other 7 pairs that did not show the variation but were homosexuals?

Finally, research bias may again be an issue. Dr. Hamer and at least one of his other team members are homosexual. It appears that this was deliberately kept from the press and was only revealed later. Dr. Hamer it turns out is not merely an objective observer. He has presented himself as an expert witness on homosexuality, and he has stated that he hopes his research would give comfort to men feeling guilty about their homosexuality.

By the way, this was a problem in every one of the studies we have mentioned in our discussion. For example, Dr. Simon LeVay said that he was driven to study the potential physiological roots of homosexuality after his homosexual lover died of AIDS. He even admitted that if he failed to find a genetic cause for homosexuality that he might walk away from science altogether. Later he did just that by moving to West Hollywood to open up a small, unaccredited “study center” focusing on homosexuality.

Each of these three studies looking for a biological cause for homosexuality has its flaws. Does that mean that there is no physiological component to homosexuality? Not at all. Actually, it is probably too early to say conclusively. Scientists may indeed discover a clear biological predisposition to sexual orientation. But a predisposition is not the same as a determination. Some people may inherit a predisposition for anger, depression, or alcoholism, yet we do not condone these behaviors. And even if violence, depression, or alcoholism were proven to be inborn (determined by genetic material), would we accept them as normal and refuse to treat them? Of course not. The Bible has clear statements about such things as anger and alcoholism. Likewise, the Bible has clear statements about homosexuality.

ATLANTA – Newly announced homosexual activist Don Lemon may be adept at reading prompters in front of the CNN cameras, but his cut and paste attempt to smear the power of God is nothing short of juvenile story-telling. In his opinion peice for CNN’s belief blog, Lemon’s argument is biblically flawed with such severe defects, it needs to come with a large “reader beware” label.

Lemon claimed on air that since he asked his interview subjects for honesty, he felt he was required to do the same. There’s one glaring problem with that scenario. None of us asked Lemon to tell us he was having sex with men. Its just not something any decent person is really interested in knowing when you are watching the news. But gay activists need to leverage the strawman somehow. Then too, with a book out, Lemon must manufacture a fair amount of controversy to help book sales along. What better way to do that than take a swipe at deliverance, one of the central tenets of the scriptures. Since the beginning people have called on God in prayer to deliver them, give them freedom from and power over the destructiveness of sin. And with amazing results! Lemon says he tried it, but failed. But just because 10 people go to Harvard and fail, does that mean Harvard is a bad school and no one should go there? Faulty logic, Mr. Lemon.

Its no surprise then that Lemon would fish out a slur (from  the same slur cesspool as nigger and faggot) to launch his ill-conceived notion that prayer to God is useless against the APA’s doctrine of unchangeable “sexual orientation”. So who would you believe: Don Lemon or the Bible?

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. James 5:16-18

Its unfortunate that Lemon didn’t use his journalistic training to  research and deliver a more mature opinion piece. Instead, he hit the familiar cursory gay church talking points. From My Faith: How I learned to stop ‘praying away the gay’

“By age four or five, I was too young to sexualize my infatuations but I knew that everyone else, including my family and friends, would think it was wrong.

Perhaps it was the conversations I overheard from adults around my hometown of Port Allen, Louisiana, who’d mimic gay people, calling them “funny” or “sissy” or “fagots.”

Perhaps it was Sunday mornings at our Baptist church, where preachers taught that liking someone of the same sex was a direct and swift path to hell. And that if that person would just turn to the Lord and confess his sin, then God would change him back into the person He wanted him to be – a person who only had crushes on the opposite sex.
All of which meant that, from a very early age, I began to think I was dirty and that I was going to hell. Can you imagine what that feels like for a kid who was just learning to read and perform basic arithmetic? It was awful.

I prayed the silent prayer for God to change me every chance I got until I started attending college in New York. That’s when common sense began to take hold and I realized that no amount of prayer would change me into something that wasn’t natural to me.

Please God, make me straight

GCM Watch addressed this common prayer fallacy used by “ex-ex-gays” to support their claims that prayer doesn’t work.

The main dysfunction with the  “God make me straight” prayer seems to be focus. Prayer has never been about getting God to give us what we want, but rather aligning ourselves with His will. As Jesus prayed, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  If the will of God is for man to be holy (Lev 20:7),  but an individual prays to be straight,  conflict is inevitable. God doesn’t bend to our desires, we must adjust to his will.

How long does a person wait for God to answer before he or she decides that’s enough…and then answer his or her own prayers? Who decides when enough is enough? Again, stories from ex- ex-gays reveal that it wasn’t  God  who provided an “answer” to their misdirected prayer. Other means were used to “reconcile” the conflict. This dangerous practice can only lead a person into a rejection of God’s will and plan for man. Don Lemon is proof of that.

“With my religious upbringing, I’d had the opportunity to study religious doctrine. But I learned from different perspectives, from Catholic Mass on Fridays to Baptist services on Sundays to vacation Bible school in the summer to Bible study with a Jehovah’s Witness as a teenager.”

With so many divergent doctrinal perspectives floating around in his head, its no wonder Lemon is confused about the bible.

“As I got older I began to realize that all these people and institutions interpreted the Bible somewhat differently. I had a sort of epiphany: the Bible was about the lessons you learned, not about the events or words.

When I became old enough, intelligent enough and logical enough to discern the difference between metaphor and reality, everything changed. I realized that Jonah living in the belly of a whale was a parable written in the same vein as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. saying that he had “been to the mountaintop.”

Neither Jonah nor King had actually been to those places. They were metaphors for lessons for those of us who cared to absorb them.
So many of us, especially in the black community and in churches, tend to think that religious teachings happened word for word as they were written in Scripture. I think that’s naïve, even dangerous.”

Lemon suggests that since people interpret the bible differently, he could come up with his own interpretive version. And guess what? In his version, homosexuality isn’t wrong! But if he can dismiss someone else’s  interpretation as “naive and dangerous” solely on the assumption that they see things literally, what makes his version legitimate?

“Imagine if we had allowed Christian doctrines and teachings that supported slavery, segregation and the subjugation of women to pervade our society all the way up until the current moment. What kind of world would that be?
Instead, we got on our knees, just as I did as a little boy, and prayed that slavery, segregation and the subjugation of women would end. In the United States, at least, those prayers have largely been realized.”

If Lemon were honest, he would admit that white religious racists were wrong about slavery, white social alpha males were wrong about women, and white progay revisionists are wrong about homosexuality. By aligning yourself with the latter, youre no better than the former.

There’s really only one thing you can do when you realize you’ve been sold a lemon. Get rid of it as quickly as possible. Then warn others not to get taken by the deception.

In case you aren’t aware, one of the most telling battlefronts is already in full swing. That is for the hearts, minds, influence and souls of the youth. Homosexual activists have pretty much written off trying to change the older generations about homosexuality. But the minds of youth are still pliable and they are taking full advantage of that through education, entertainment and believe it or not religion.

Its a sad testament that the church is not just losing this battle, but appears to be still in the tent sleeping. While religious homosexuals are pulling out all the stops to endoctrinate young people into the false ideology that “sexual orientation” (read:homosexuality) is genetic and immutable, the church, in between intermittent cat naps, only manages to say something completely stupid like “God didnt make Adam and Steve, he made Adam and Eve!”.

The theological poison being offered by gay christian clerics should be ground zero targets in this battle, but until the church see them as enemies to the cross —not brothers and sisters in Christ— the young people of the future church are pretty much on a trajectory to eventually accept homosexual behavior as normal. You heard it here first.

In this Religion and Ethics produced video, we see how so many young people are already saturated with false teachings, they have no compass whatsoever in determining what is right or wrong.  As we saw with the Tonex interview, the battle has been cast as between people who are homosexual and the church. If there was no God and no Word, if would be an accurate casting. And the so called issues of fairness and inclusion would indeed be in play. But God is just, not fair. Or at least not how these individuals have redefined fairness.

One video subject, Joey Heath says,  “At the time I believe that it  [homosexuality] was something I needed to be healed from, and so I would pray every day that God would just heal me of this, this evil part of me, and that this would be just removed and I would be cleansed and made whole again.” [full transcript]

Joey represents many youth who are partial victims of unbalanced and/or incomplete teaching on holiness, God and responsibility. We have talked about the MMS (make me straight) prayer before here and here. Unless individuals understand that God doesn’t want to make you “straight”, he wants to make you holy, the result of such prayers will be what Joey says next.

Today, Joey says he feels whole, but he’s still gay and still facing the kind of condemnation he faced in his United Methodist church when he first came out.

“I was involved somewhat in the leadership of the campus ministry, and then my campus minister said I can no longer speak on behalf of the ministry because it’d be an endorsement of my lifestyle, which for me was devastating.”

In other words, since God didnt make Joey “straight” per his “prayer” whether sincere or not, then Joey comes to the conclusion that God wants him to be a homosexual AND then promptly recast the conflict as “condemnation” from the church. In reality the conflict remains between he and God’s Word which declares his behavior sinful and needing change.

The other very serious issue is how homosexual activists will toss out false statistics with no substantiation. Their teen counterparts have picked up on this tactic and use it. Notice in the video, the interviewer does not even slightly question Rittenhouse’s claims.

Here in New York City, 7,000 kids identify as gay or lesbian, and they’re on the streets for various reasons, and there’s definitely some religious ties to that.

Later Rittenhouse makes yet another highly emotional and controversial claim:

“They had told us all that by the end of this six weeks we would all be heterosexual men and women walking in the light of the Lord.”

If I were the interviewer, I would immediately ask who said that to you? What position did they hold? Did you go into the program because you were assured you would be a heterosexual?

But there was no followup to the remark. The reason its allowed to stand unchallenged is because it is highly emotional. And most people are being conditioned not to think critically about homosexuality but to to react and think emotionally. You’ll notice most media stories about homosexuality are emotionally charged in favor of homosexuality.

Sadly, this same mindset has infiltrated the church. Instead holding the Word of God forth as our first instinct, we think hurt, pain, anger and rejection the person may or may not have endured. And while it is a valid concern, one’s hurt, rejection, pain and anguish does not trump the call to repentance. I dont know of many people who haven’t suffered some form of hurt of pain in this world, even Christ did to a greater degree (Is 58). Offense is the nature of the world.   Should we minister to the hurt and pain of youth who are confused about homosexuality? Absolutely. But not out of emotional overdrive which could very well cloud our spiritual judgment.

Most children —through education, entertainment and online sources— have twice the amount of exposure to homosexual ideology than they do the word of God. Without any intentional intervention from Godly parents or the churches they attend, such ideology will soon become embedded in their minds. In fact if you look at any of the current slate of youth conferences held by churches it mostly involves entertainment and music but very little instruction —if any— on the issues of sexuality and moral conduct.

Perhaps the words of the formerly homosexual Pastor Purdue should serve as a guide: “They haven’t walked where I’ve walked. They haven’t been where I’ve been. While I haven’t changed my theology on what homosexuality is that I have definitely changed my attitude toward people who struggle.”

According to Anthony Venn-Brown, a certain mega church pastor now lurking in the shadows, is questioning  whether culture and history carry more authority than the Bible on the issue of homosexuality. And the unnamed pastor (location also withheld) says more evangelical/pentecostal leaders are “discussing” the same thing. If that’s true —and without any intervention— gay christian heresy may find eventually find a more welcome home among pentecostals than it currently does in the Episcopal church.

Venn-Brown, the ex-ex-gay turned life coach, whom we wrote about back in April 2008, posted a letter on his blog he alleges is from a “mega church pastor” who expresses an all too familiar line of heretical reasoning popularized by gay christian theology.

“We are very encouraged to find that there are a growing number of Evangelical/Pentecostal leaders who are willing to question firstly, if their attitude toward gay people has been Christlike and secondly if possibly our teachings about homosexuality have been more influenced by a cultural mindset and personal biases than a genuine reading of the scriptures in the light of historical/cultural contexts and with a sound knowledge of the original languages.”

Venn-Brown says the pastor will reveal his identity in his own time. Of course, instead of seeing God as the determinant of what defines sin, Venn-Brown conveniently blames the church for not affirming homosexual sin, and thus, he laughs it is “reaping what it has sown”. What’s more, Brown says that because the church rejected homosexual sin, the world is in turn rejecting the church.

Other than the word hate being used, Brown’s statement bears no resemblance to what Jesus said would cause the world to reject the church.

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:18,19

Im not sure about you but when it comes down to believing the words of Jesus or the words of a confused Australian life coach, I choose Christ.

Nevertheless, the letter is somewhat of a confirmation to what we have been warning. The pentecostal church has double-agents in place and its only a matter of time before they use their considerable influence to sway those weak in the faith to accept abomination vis-a-vis ideological seduction.

Beware and let no man deceive you with vain words no matter who they are.