Category Archives: Debate

Concerning Same Sex Adoptions

Yesterday, a friend’s question on social media in response to an article I shared about children in same sex households provoked the following thoughts on the issue of adoption, even dealing with single parent adoptions and the detriment to the child (not to mention the selfishness they expose). Here is the article I shared:

Here are my thoughts on the issue of same sex couple adoption and single parent adoption, as well as the destructive force they (in particular same sex couple adoptions) have on children and on society:

Yes, I am opposed to single parent adoptions. Though, I will firmly argue that a single parent is less destructive than homosexual parents – who effectively guarantee the perversion of the child’s mind from naturally understanding God as their Father and the Church as their Mother. For no one can have God as their Father if they do not have the Church as their mother.

Further, at least a child with a single mother or father can have a motherly or fatherly figure (respective of the one missing) enter their lives through other relatives or friends or future marriage. Same sex couples are claiming to be married and in need of no other member of the opposite sex to be required in the household (though I’m sure some single parent adopters have thought the same thing, wrongly).

Now, I say this not to disregard the grace of God in saving people out of their twisted thinking and broken upbringings… I am saying this as a point of genuine natural law and civil society. As Christians – by conceding this to be acceptable – we further degrade and destroy our society and our witness to those who would seek to understand what a true human society should look like.

For those of you who might think that (simply) 2 is better than 1… This thinking ultimately breaks down because all children in America today (who are not being held captive by criminals of course) have plenty of people helping to raise them in their lives – whether it is school teachers, grandparents, neighbors, fellow church members, etc.

This issue, from a Christian perspective, has everything to do with nature, the created order, and human salvation – and NOT anything to do with having enough people to help a child have some kind of ‘better’ life. For a child who has a better life and ends up not worshiping God will receive more damnation in hell than the child who was poor and needy, yet still did not believe. For we are all going to be judged according to our deeds – either for rewards in heaven or punishments in hell.

By nature – on the adoption issue – any child raised in a single parent or same sex couple situation is going to be devoid of any real life experience of how God created them to grow up naturally – thus the basic problem of allowing either kind of people to adopt. Therefore, as Christians, to have any part in “okaying” or affirming such practices in adoptive circumstances is to rip apart the very fabric of our civil society. It not only harms the child, but it also puts one more stumbling block in the way of that child growing up to see these two fundamental truths of reality:

  1. No one can have God as their Father who does not have the Church as their Mother. (Galatians 4:26)
  2. Marriage between a man and a woman has always stood to show this mystery – the relationship between Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:32)

And as we all should recall here… Jesus said, “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:2)

Culture News: Trade your Bible in for porn!

That’s right, this past week at the University of Texas at San Antonio students were able to trade their Bibles or Qu’rans in for pornography. And who was leading the way? The Atheist Agenda, a student organization the university that had their first “smut for smut” event back in 2005.

According to My SA News, “In the view of club members, religious texts are as smutty as pornography because they contain violence and torture and spark religious wars. But mostly, it’s a public relations stunt meant to ignite debate and attract new members to the club.”

I don’t have much to say for this. It seems to me that the group is just looking for a lot of attention.

Psalm 53:1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.” Read the rest of Psalm 53 here.

An Evening of Eschatology

After this year’s Desiring God Conference, the Bethlehem College and Seminary put on an excellent ’round-table’ discussion and debate moderated by John Piper. The three major eschatological viewpoints were represented: Premillennialism (Jim Hamilton), Amillennialism (Sam Storms), and Postmillennialism (Doug Wilson). The representative speakers for each view are in parentheses. For more information about the debate, go here.

But getting to the good part… they have posted the audio and video on the desiring God web site and offered it for free viewing to all of us!

So, with no further ado, I give you “An Evening of Eschatology”!!!

Culture News: US Gov. tells the Elderly how to die?

From the Mere Comments blog:

Here is a comment about a controversial section of HR 3200, the health care bill.

Statement by House GOP Leaders Boehner and McCotter on End-of-Life Treatment Counseling in Democrats’ Health Care Legislation

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) today issued the following joint statement regarding a provision targeting seniors contained in Section 1233 of H.R. 3200:

“Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate – the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill.

“This provision of the legislation is a throwback to 1977, when the old Department of Health Education and Welfare proposed federal promotion of living wills for cost-savings purposes described as ‘enormous.’ At that time, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago decried this effort by saying: ‘The message is clear: government can save money by encouraging old people to die a little sooner than they otherwise would. Instead of being regarded with reverence, and cherished, human life is subject in this view to a utilitarian cost-benefit calculus and can be sacrificed to serve fiscal policy and the sacred imperative of trimming a budget.’

“With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself.

“Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all.”

Perspective & Proportion: Abortion, Islam and Radical Leftists

Well, for too long in recent days the Liberal Left has been crying about how we need to be kinder to Islam and harder on the U.S. for its past foreign policies. Islam is a “peaceful religion” and its those extremists that are not true Muslims… Right? Don’t think about it… just say, “yes!”

Well, after 10 years and no abortion doctors being murdered… An abortion doctor is murdered at his church and now the Liberal Left are screaming that all anti-abortionists are extremists and spreading hatred with their speech!

OH! Pardon me… I didn’t realize that a small number of extremists meant that all anti-abortionists were extremists! (Let’s play the “double standard” card. That will make us feel better and help us force more people under our thumbs.)

Well, now that I’ve had my say… I mainly wanted to point you over to the St. Johnny blog to encourage you to read an article on the recent Tiller murder. Anthony Horvath has some great insights into what is taking place in the political sphere regarding the Liberal Left and their extreme hypocrisy and fear mongering.

Here is an excerpt from his article:

I indicated that the reason why proportion and a sense of perspective were necessary regarding the Tiller killing was because in the liberal mind, referring to abortion as murder, etc, is inflammatory language that really is ‘hate speech.’

The current hate speech legislation coming through Congress (Matthew Shepherd Act) aims to draw exactly this kind of connection, though of course this legislation is related more to homosexuality.  The idea is the same, though:  if anyone person commits a crime and it can be tracked back to someone who can be perceived to have ‘instigated it’ the person who did the ‘instigation’ is equally guilty and consequently should be punished under the law.

In today’s perusal of the web I found more evidence of this attempt to condemn the entire pro-life movement because of this single event.  The irony is that the day after Tiller was killed, an American soldier was gunned down at a recruitment center by someone we now know was acting on Islamicist principles.

Besides there being little media attention about that, it should be noted that the Left does not apparently have an interest to condemn all Muslims because of this single event.   There is clearly a lack of perspective here:  in ten years one abortionist was killed but in that same ten years thousands of Americans died at the hands of Islamicists and numerous attacks have been thwarted.  But let’s not make any unwarranted generalizations, shall we?  Unless it’s pro-lifers.

But about that evidence I was referencing.  This article on Newsmax describes how the Left is attempting to link the Tiller killing to Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the pro-life movement.   This article on LifeSiteNews illustrates some of the same.

[Continue Reading…]

Homosexuality and the Church

James Grant says:

In the previous post regarding the Church of Scotland and the appointment of a practicing homosexual to a particular ministerial post, someone left a comment stating that this is a healthy move for the Church of Scotland, and American Christians should follow their lead, referencing this article by Walter Wink: “Homosexuality and the Bible.” In this article, Wink provides several arguments as to why the church should not condemn homosexuality, but at the heart of his article and argument is this statement: “The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic.” Indeed…that is a crucial matter on several levels (not to mention an significance difference of opinion on the nature of Biblical revelation).

I do hope Christians can have open and civil discussions, even about this controversial matter, but it is important to realize that Wink’s arguments will not persuade Christians who oppose the practice of homosexuality and have thought through the textual, biblical, and historical issues. It is not as if Christian’s haven’t dealt with Wink’s arguments both throughout church history and in our more recent cultural situation.  Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of those books that helps Christians get the right perspective on this issue. It is the most comprehensive book-length response to the interpretive assumptions that go into this type of discussion.

Robert A. J. Gagnon

I would also encourage you to check out Robert Gagnon’s website. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and his credentials are superb: a B.A. from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained elder in a Presbyterian Church (USA) in Pittsburgh. His website is a comprehensive response to the homosexual movement within the church, which he faces in the PCUSA. You can view some of his specific responses to particular articles and reviews here. This includes a response to Walter Wink’s arguments from Christian Century. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see links to the pdfs. If you prefer to hear Gagnon, Issues, Etc., has a two part interview with him (Part 1 & Part 2).