Category — parachurch groups

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.

Via Stephen Black and Oklahoma City based First Stone Ministries,  a message to Pastoral Care Leaders seeking to navigate the muddy cross sections of the Gospel and “gay Christianity.”

“The Gospel according to Jesus Christ is the same message for a gay-identified person, an idolater, an adulterer, a fornicator, a pornographer, a liar, a thief, a gossip, a slanderer or a murderer.  The message of good news–redemption into a love relationship with God–is the same for all sinners.^[1] Many “Christian” leaders communicate a message that is not Biblical, but instead is deceptive and eternally dangerous. It is certainly not a message of love to lead a person into a false hope.  Unfortunately, this misleading message of “gay Christianity” is spread by perhaps well-meaning but Biblically-illiterate leaders who present a message based not on the truth of the Bible, but on a man-made theology. Other leaders purposefully and deceptively spread this message, which is a much graver offense.  Deception–which leads people astray–is not love; it’s evil.^[2] I share this concern with the same grief-filled compassion as expressed by the Apostle Paul to the Romans in Romans 9:1-3^[3] when he wrote “with a great heavy heart and many tears.” Sincerely I write this article after much heart-ache and many tears. Paul reminded us that many will fall away from the faith in the last days.^[4] This perversion of The Gospel is an example of the message of ease, love of pleasure and living unrepentantly with which many will go astray.^[5] This article is equipped with many end-notes of Biblical references to back up the emphatic statements and is a Bible study with over 150 verses.  Please read the Scripture references with this article and let God’s word be your guide.”

The writeup contains a wealth of teaching, scripture and resources to equip pastoral leaders in the contemporary church. Many are unnecessarily falling victim to the seductively false doctrines of the gay christian movement. But the question comes down to this: will we believe the gospel or man’s replacement ideologies? Souls hang in the balance of our answer. Stephen Black succinctly fowards the challenge to believe the gospel of Jesus against the growing apostate teachings of the gay christian movement.

“Several church leaders^[40] embrace the emergent message of gay Christianity and present a gay Gospel.  Their teachings are not based upon the sound doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or New Testament Biblical instruction. They choose to embrace a false social gospel of a more palatable feel-good-God, a man-made theology, yet they do ‘good things’ under the banner of Christianity.  Unfortunately, rather than embracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel of self-denial that produces a Spirit-filled life that really does do good,^[41] they are embracing a man-made theology promoting gay Christianity. Which gospel message will you embrace?  Will you follow a Biblical message that allows the human heart and soul to be transformed by the Word of God or a man-made theology that allows men to live in self-centeredness and indulgence?^[42] Shall we teach people that just praying a prayer and being a part of a community saves them eternally? Or shall we teach a true belief, that accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and following Him in discipleship will result in a life of righteousness? Which Gospel will you teach or follow?^[43] The true gospel of Jesus Christ, which leads to life, or a gay gospel according to man’s words, which leads to death? “There is a way that seems right to man, but the end leads to death.”^[44]

Any leader who follows or teaches any other gospel other than what has already been given to us is to be accursed (Gal 1:8).  Lies kill people and destroy souls but the truth of God delivers people from the snare of the devil into new life with Christ. Read the entire article here.

CHICAGO  – Since the massive –but impotent– religious giant Willow Creek Church announced in late June that it was severing ties with Exodus International over issues with homosexuality, the smell of gradual decay continues to rise from its headquarters at 67 East Algonquin Road in South Barrington, IL.  And if the church is spiritually decaying, its a sure sign that its leadership has already decayed.

According to 1 Tim 4 widespread apostasy will significantly mark the latter years of the church.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.  Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

The “latter days” are not coming, they are here.

Two recent developments in the story shed light on the new brand of apostasy Willow Creek is unfolding and why the world wants churches to sell out completely.

Today, Exodus President Alan Chamber released a statement revealing that Willow Creek no longer believed that people could change from homosexuality.

“Willow Creek was one of our first Exodus Church Association partners. They have had an incredible outreach for two decades to people dealing with same-sex attractions. In 2009 an inquest of sorts was embarked upon, led by one of their elders to find out what they were offering to people affected by unwanted homosexuality.  The inquest culminated in a meeting between members of the Exodus staff, the elder in question and the staff person overseeing their recovery ministries.  At that meeting they shockingly declared that they didn’t want to help people overcome because that wasn’t possible.  They simply wanted to tell people that abstinence was the only option and then provide them with comfortable place to abstain. “

Chambers said Willow Creek’s decision “failed to convey the heart and truth of Christ.”  Chambers is correct. When a church fails to tell the whole truth about homosexuality (like it should do for all sin) it intentionally subverts the message of the cross. Willow Creek is moving to the religious center. Its new message is that so-called sexual orientation cant change, therefore individuals who struggle with homosexual desires they do not want have no option other than to be single, celibate…and miserable for the rest of their lives. By defining the issue as one of  “sexual orientation” and not as sin, its easy for the church to capitulate to gay ideology and eschew the bible.

And with progay theologians like Tony Compolo appearing at the church, its clear Willow Creek and Bill Hybels want to dumb down the brutal truth to satisfy the demands of external opposition.

Speaking of external opposition, the second situation involved a cancelled appearance at Willow Creek by Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Shultz.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Shultz cancelled but stopped short of saying it was because of the church past belief that altering a person’s “sexual orientation” is possible.

But the church’s membership in Exodus ended in 2009 when the church re-evaluated all of its healing ministries for people facing addiction, divorce, cancer or sexual identity issues, said church spokeswoman Susan DeLay. She said Willow’s views had evolved since signing up for Exodus decades ago.

“They were one of the few Christian organizations having conversations with people who struggle with being gay,” she said.

But after careful contemplation, Willow now espouses the belief that “coming to faith in Christ doesn’t promise a change in sexual orientation,” she said.

Scholars have noted that many contemporary evangelical leaders welcome people of all sexual orientations, but stop short of affirming committed same-sex relationships that they still believe violate Scripture.

Mary Lou Wallner, a former member of Willow whose lesbian daughter committed suicide 14 years ago, said a semi-private conversation with Bill Hybels, senior pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, three years ago gave her hope.

At the end of that conversation, Hybels said he didn’t believe homosexuality was a choice or that it could be fixed. But he did believe Scripture calls for gays and lesbians to be celibate, she said. “Someone like Bill Hybels could change the world,” she said.

Hybels is supposed to explain the church’s new position on homosexuality at a news conference today.

UPDATE 08/12

Hybel’s addresses the controversy [video] by insisting that his church is not “antigay”.  He offers a sounder explanation of WC’s beliefs than his press secretary, but does not repudiate the remarks.

CHRISTCHURCH, NZ – The noose around the neck of churches and religious parachurch organizations that do not play along with the demands of the social gods has just tightened again. As reported by the Christchurch, NZ Press,New Zealand has pulled the plug on a Toronto based international ministry that pioneers harvest work to people who struggle to overcome unwanted homosexuality. The reason is not because of financial mismanagement or falsifying documents or any sort of legal impropriety. Their crime: the message that homosexuals can change.

A Christian trust that claims to be able to “cure” homosexuality has been declined charitable status.

The Exodus Ministries Trust Board is affiliated with the United States-based Exodus Global Alliance, which claims “change in homosexuality is possible through the power of Jesus Christ”.

The New Zealand trust appears to keep a low profile, but also claims its members work with churches to counsel and “cure” homosexuals.

Exodus Ministries has had charitable status, exempting it from income tax, for more than a decade but the status was removed by the Charities Commission this month under a regime introduced in 2007.

The commission said the trust was not performing any public benefit because homosexuality was not a mental disorder and did not need curing.

The commission noted that the American Psychological Association said there was little scientific evidence to show that homosexuality could be “cured” and attempts to do so could cause harm.

The trust argued it had a legitimate point of view and provided support to homosexuals during “very difficult times”. It said gay support organisations, such as Rainbow Youth, had been granted charitable status.

The article also mentions (perhaps to suggest there was no discrimination against Exodus Global), that the Charities Commission had rejected some “1406 organisations while another 1224 have been deregistered for being too political, too commercial or not having the required paperwork.”

I served with Exodus Global Alliance for a year as a board advisor and adjunct missionary to help raise up ministry in the Caribbean and some African nations. In them, I found a deeply passionate desire to plant and raise up ministries to affected people who were crying out for help. Like this brother in the Philippines. In many places in the world, the only “help” available to people who struggle with homosexuality are progay organizations whose message suffocates them under a damning message that they cannot change what is “natural”.

The implications of the New Zealand action is already being quietly shopped in America by homosexual political groups and their advocates.  They plan to link discrimination policies to government benefits. What that means is that if you as a church religious organization want  to get or continue receiving the “benefits” of something like 501 C-3 status, you will have to allow homosexuals full access and power sharing in your organization. The gay political movement is driving the perversion of just about every law that has made this country great. In the same way, the gay christian movement is working just as feverishly to pervert every law of God which has made the church a great beacon of hope for the hopeless.

How is it that the government can redesignate and diminish the church of the Living God to a mere “charitable organization” just like a witches coven which gives out free clothes or a atheist group which picks up stray animals?  They can do it because they have convinced churches that mammon is the answer to their “ministry” problems. And the greed of hirelings on their knees for the government goody bag ensures that the true mission of the kingdom of God will be obscured if not outright rejected. Look closely and you will see that 501c-3 “benefits”  system exclude and restrict the preaching the gospel —our PRIME MANDATE— as a viable function of the church!

Mark my words, churches are already being groomed to accept this mark of so called distinction. Many now tout their 501-c3 status as if it is some badge of honor and integrity, when it actuality it is a noose that is gradually tightening around their necks. To get out of it, they will be forced to compromise or repudiate the bible’s core tenet on sexual expression.

The legalization of homosexual marriage will be the catalyst to forcing the issue into the courts and into the arms of prohomosexual “judges”. You already know the outcome of that.

If you are a wise pastor and do not want find your voice, witness and passion to preach the full gospel to this dying world neutered because you want tax breaks, then you will begin weaning yourself off 501 C3 as soon as you read this. You are not a preacher of the state, you are a preacher of the gospel. Any world authority which imposes restrictions on what you can and cannot preach truth, when and when you cannot preach it, where and where you cannot preach, it is a control tool of our enemy satan and the coming antichrist.

Free yourself and get off the government’s plantation. The handwriting is on the wall.

A couple of heartening stories to report. Small in comparison to the tidal wave of gay christian activism in churches but nonetheless encouraging.

First, in Auburn, IN one Lutheran church has overwhelming decided they will no longer be subjected to the gay affirming aggression leaders in their denomination have embraced.

A Lutheran church in Auburn this week joined a growing number of congregations in voting to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over its recently broadened stance allowing homosexual ministers.

Members of St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, 211 E. Ninth St., voted 161-25 Sunday to withdraw from the ELCA, the Rev. Stephen Kummernuss, church pastor, said Friday.

A second vote must be taken in 90 days to confirm the action, he said.

“In August 2009, the ELCA changed its policy to allow same-gender persons in a committed relationship to be ordained, and we don’t agree with that,” Kummernuss said, adding the congregation is not against gays.

“No, absolutely not,” he said. “We believe that God made male and female for relationship with one another and not otherwise. We accept (homosexual) people but are not going to accept the act as part of God’s creation, and … not (among people) in ministry.”

The Journal-Gazette story also said the denomination previously allowed gays and lesbians in the clergy if they remained celibate. The policy change does not force any particular congregation to accept a non-celibate homosexual pastor.

But the move sparked an outcry in many ELCA churches, and many members of St. Mark’s felt it went too far, Kummernuss said. Some [members] began not attending church in protest, and giving dropped 50 percent, he said.

Nothing speaks louder to these apostate leaders than decreased money and members. If more churches would take action, they would no be so bold in installing homosexual leaders in authority. Part of the problem it seems is that many unsuspecting members are deceived with promises of more “dialogue” when in their inner circles they already have determined they will go against the Word of God.

Thankfully, for bible-adhering Lutherans there are options. Leaders have formed CORE, a “coalition of pastors, lay people, congregations and reforming groups. We seek to preserve within the Lutheran churches in North America the authority of the Word of God according to the Lutheran confessions.”

Meanwhile in the UK, a gay cleric was denied a key leadership position for the second time. The UK Guardian reported:

A gay but celibate clergyman has been blocked from becoming a bishop for the second time, following a row over his inclusion on the shortlist for the choice to run the Anglican diocese of Southwark.

Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, was under consideration for the post and would have replaced the Right Rev Tom Butler, who retired earlier this year. In 2003 Dr John had been forced to stand down from his appointment as suffragan bishop of Reading.

When news of his second candidacy was leaked, the prospect of the first openly gay bishop in the Church of England immediately angered conservative evangelicals, who threatened to seek alternative leadership overseas and warned of a schism.

Of course per biblical standards, John shouldn’t be in any position of leadership in the first place, but the politics of religion have gotten him to where he is not biblical integrity.  Its interesting how  John is being marketed as a “gay but celibate clergyman”.  But further in the story says he is in a “civil partnership” but then again reasserts he is “celibate”. Sure, he is.  These agenda driven clerics will tell any lie they can to get into position.  So much for “honesty and integrity” they claim is the hallmark of being openly gay.

John reinvents the atonement  into a English tea party and in the end God and man decides to be friends. [source]. Where have we heard that type of lunatic religious heresy before?

The liberals in the church’s left wing are predictably outraged, because they want to seat these sexual apostates in power. We all know what they will do once in power. Look no further than the vindictive  Vickie Gene Robinson and its clear that keeping people like John out of power in the church is a fight worth engaging in.

Okay, so we played with the title to make a point.

The “yeah right” came after I read a column in Ministry Today by Exodus leader Jeff Buchanan. Their title asked if church was a safe place for all? By “all”, Im assuming they meant homosexuals since, that’s what Buchanan wrote about, not “all”.

That kind of perturbed me as I read the commentary. Maybe it was because the title asked a question that the article didn’t address or maybe it was because the article didn’t address critical aspects of the question. Or maybe I am just sick of making church “safe” for homosexuals (all) when we are in the midst of a significant battle with apostasy at the hands of false teachers and leaders. Not to mention biblical illiteracy is at an all time high.

So help me sort this out.

Buchanan writes:

If we’re honest, the issue of homosexuality intimidates most church leaders. It makes us feel helpless. When someone pulls us aside and confides in us that he or she struggles with same-sex attractions, we diligently put on our “leader face” while we shrivel on the inside, feeling absolutely incompetent to address the situation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you believe God’s Word to be true, then you automatically have the needed tools for effective ministry, since all Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NIV). Therefore, we are equipped as the church to minister to anyone who walks through our doors—homosexual or not.

Unfortunately, intimidation and partiality often attempts to rob us of the opportunity to minister and experience the full gospel. A healthy church already has what the same-sex struggler needs; we just have to realize what those things are:

And then he lists them and talks about them. Compassionate truth, discipleship, community. And for the record Im for all that.  But there are quite a few levels of educational dissonance going on here.

First, if a pastor conducts outreach to homosexuals (and lets assume these are lost people) how can the pastor provide them with compassionate truth, discipleship and community when there is still such confusion about homosexuality in the church? I remember when I was a member of one church I was very, very hesitant to invite homosexuals to the church because I wasn’t sure what they might hear on any given Sunday. Its like, why bring someone into a place where they could be potentially insulted and called names? That would really destroy my work of getting them to church.

It seems the priority is to really get “the house” in order before we bring in souls that could be damaged even further by someone’s spiritual ignorance.

The other problem is the gay christian movement. Although it appears they are currently on the fringe, people like Tonex and other mid level apostates continue advancing the errant idea that one can reconcile homosexuality and Christian living.  And though some balk at it, if enough people keep repeating this lie (thanks for the help Lexi) soon it will become commonplace. That’s how false doctrine seats itself in our midst. We dont cast out and reject those who are spreading it. Instead we say just “love them and pray for them”. Right sentiment, wrong practice.

John MacArthur said Paul himself started the process of eliminating false teachers. In 1 Timothy 1:20 he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander, perhaps two of the leading false teachers in Ephesus, whom he “delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

The Apostle Paul told Titus to shut down false teachers (like Tonex) who are spreading evil words.

“For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. Titus 1:10.11

Which brings me back to the first point. How can you invite homosexuals into the church to be changed when there is a visible faction of people in the church which teach that there’s no need for them to change? Frankly, Im sick of the “just love them” mantra. That doesn’t solve anything and it really looks like a easy way to detach oneself from the seriousness of what’s happening right before our eyes.

A wise preacher once said to me, “God could save and deliver every homosexual in America tomorrow, but if he does, will the church be ready to receive them?” The answer is no. And that only complicates our mandate to reach every person.

Everyone wants to include homosexuals because they have been positioned as the face of the contemporary outcast. Its almost fashionable to have a streak of tolerance towards homosexuals partly because some are afraid of the vicious invective if you don’t. And some partly because secretly believe that in time unrepentant homosexuals will be fully accepted into the church just like blacks and women.

That’s why the Buchanan article left me with a tinge of whatever. Not saying anything about all of the complications embedded into this “outreach to homosexuals” isnt helping the church to be truly prepared.

Is the church a safe place for homosexuals? If we’re honest, we cant answer that question yet.