Equal Rights: Is marriage a right?

In most of the Western world everyone has the right to protest laws or stipulations that they believe is unjust; and ever since the Stonewall Inn riots in June 29, 1969 in Greenwich Village, New York millions of LGBT advocates all over the Western Culture have been doing just that - fighting against the discrimination against gay people and homosexual unions. In 1969 homosexual behaviour became permissible in Canada; but it wasn't until 2005 homosexual unions were not given legal status of 'married'; a status that heterosexual couples have always been offered. 

Now like with every political decision there were (and still are) people on both sides of the issue: supporters of recognizing homosexual unions and those who don't support it. I do not support the recognition of same sex union under the banner of legal marriage. However I do agree with the LGBT community's right to protest their desire to have their unions recognized; I also agree with legally permitting homosexual behaviour; and I support their right to celebrate their political victory by the means of the Gay Pride Parade and merely walking around with rainbows and signs that say "Gay Is Good". If I believe that all people gay or straight are equal under the law and are subject to the same laws and offered the same rights and opportunities why then do I not support the LGBT's right to have their same-sex unions legally recognized? 

1: Marriage is *not* a right

There is a distinct difference between a right and a right to pursue; one is an innate right and the other is an extended right or an opportunity. For a long time the politically given right or opportunity to legally marry was exclusively offered to a union of two heterosexual legal adults; so any union that exceeds outside of the parameters of two, single-statused, consenting, legal adults, of opposite sexes was not eligible for legal marriage. Now of course, irregardless of relational type and status all members of a democratic country have the right to appeal to their government that that same opportunity to enter a marriage include their type of relationship, but they should not expect it as it is not owed to them. Why? ANSWER: Marriage is not a right, its an opportunity. Now it is true that as how the natural process of democracy goes, if the masses want X (e.g. gay marriage) then the constructs of the democratic country requires them to listen to the public and respect the majority vote; so to a degree a citizen is innately owed their right to X if they are a member of the majority vote. However a question is: "Should a democratic society bend to every cry of the majority of society?" ANSWER: No; for an example what if the majority of people want theft under $1000.00 to be legal; so it would be legal to steal from someone, a store or a bank, just as long as the value is under $1000.00; should the government even entertain such a request by beginning the political democratic processes? ANSWER: No! 

2: Gay marriage is *not* good for society

And in the same way the government should not have even entertained extending legal marriage to same-sex unions. Why should a government even legally recognize a relationship between its citizens? ANSWER: The relationship is good for society; so marriage is more than an opportunity for a committed couple, it is beneficial to society. But isn't same-sex unions good for society? (Or at least effectively neutral?) No. 

• Society grows and gets stronger with people; society relies on its citizens to produce the next generation - heterosexual marriages keep societies moving forward. 
• It is true that there are many heterosexual couples who do not want to have children or who cannot have children. However the heterosexual union is the ideal platform for child rearing if a couple in the future wishes to have a child; or if a baron couple received a "miracle baby" of sorts, or if they wish to nurture the next generation via adoption. 
• The homosexual couple is designed not to have children - ergo their design does not help society by this means. 
• Now it is true that on the big scheme of things the LGBT community is a mere sliver of the total population and as such their lack of fertility won't make any serious impact on society's population. However it isn't a pragmatic issue, but a logical issue. There is no logical reason to support same-sex unions whereas there is both a logical and practical reason to support heterosexual unions. 
• Homosexuality is expensive. In an article I wrote located here, I indicated that the Canadian Aids Society stated: 

"Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population."[i] 

In the same way Health Canada writes:

"Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults..."[ii] 

Regarding the homosexual sex act a 2010 Health Canada article states for 2006-2009:

"Despite differences in methodology, studies continue to document a relatively high incidence of HIV among MSM,...,"[iii] 

On the financial end of things; for 2009 the Canadian Aids Society indicated:

...that the economic impact of 3,070 new HIV infections in 2009 has a lifetime cost of $4,031,500,000, ...[iv]

Now STI's (sexually transmitted infections) do not favour homosexuals - they don't care about race, creed, religion, how careful one tried to be while having sex or drug use, or sexual orientation - they will infiltrate and ravage the life of a heterosexual person with the same amount of indifference as they will the life of a gay man or woman; but the choice to enact on the homosexual inclination (for men in particular) is the bulk of the HIV cases and as such the bulk of the moneys spent on HIV prevention and treatment is due to the active homosexual lifestyle.

3: Gay marriage *is* dangerous!
Homosexuality is a dangerous sexual practice. STIs are only one danger in the homosexual lifestyle; the lifestyle itself is inherently abusive to the human body. However homosexuality is not the only dangerous sexual act; there are a myriad of heterosexual sex acts that are equally stupid to engage into. However everyone has the right to do ill-advised behaviours (drink ones self into a stupor, engage into dangerous sexual practises, etc.) but the government doesn't have to recognize or endorse them. 

4: What about marriage and God? 

One argument offered by many Christian, as almost as a knee-jerk reaction, as one of the most important reasons to not support gay marriages is that marriage is an institution that was created by God; and it is only supported by human governments, at the hand of God. Theologically however marriage is more than a creation, it is a reflection of God's nature. For an example marriage is the image of the Trinity; just as there are three distinct persons in the Trinity - The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, there is three distinct roles being played in the marriage: God's role, the husband's and the wife's. The homosexual marriage is replacing one of those roles with a duplicate of an already established role; theologically that would be akin to a trinity consisting of: The Father, The Father and The Son (for example); this is not God and so God cannot be a part of a corruption of his creation; a creation that is supposed to reflect his nature. Romans 1:20 makes it clear that creation, shows God's divine nature. This passage often is alluded to in scientific circles so to allude to God being seen through the physical creation - and rightfully so. However marriage is also a creation and the Trinity is a divine nature - a nature that is seen through his creation since its birth. 

__________________

[i] -  http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed March 5, 2014

[ii] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed March 5, 2014

[iii] - Ibid.  accessed March 5, 2014

[iv] http://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous - accessed March 31, 2014

Apologetics: Articles for your interest

Here is a selection of blog-posts I have written in the past. I hope these posts don't just find your interest but are also helpful! Enjoy!

General Topics:

Passing Judgement: Is Phelps in Hell?

Matthew 7:1: "Do not judge, or you too will be [judged]", is the, if not one of the most cited (and quote-mined) Bible verses in this secular and religiously counter-Christian culture. It is often offered loudly and with a finger in the face of the Christian that is being accused of judging. Is Jesus telling us to not pass judgement in this passage of 7 verses? No.  - Continue Reading Here

The Answer Is (C): Who created God?

...one of my sixth graders that I minister to as their youth-pastor interrupted my Bible lesson with a retort to something that I said:"Okay that's all good and all..." he commented. "...but if God created us, who created him?" - Continue Reading Here

Breaking News! Macro Evolution Is A Fact!

The Macro-Evolutionism controversy is a hot topic and I’d say as a result a lot of plainly false conclusions have developed on both sides of the debate. - Continue Reading Here

Killing Religion: Should the world be rid of religion?

"...religion has been an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred, with members of each group talking of the other in precisely the tones of the bigot." ... This line came after 20 pages of examples of how religious convictions have been used to harm and kill people throughout the years, all around the world. - Continue Reading Here

The Good News is Old News: How old is the Christian religion?

There are things in life that should be common knowledge, but isn’t. 2) Those things should be common knowledge because they are, like the relationship between the two fictional characters Jessica and John, ‘old news’. - Continue Reading Here

Leave Your Religion At Home!

Political laws and personal convictions are founded on morality and the tenets of one’s morality is founded on a worldview. - Continue Reading Here

Heresy & Apostasy: Be careful what you say

...the abandonment of a religious faith thus it would be true that someone who abandons their faith in toto, e.g. Christianity to Islam *could* be classified a heretic; - Continue Reading Here

Homosexuality:

True Or False: Gay marriage?

Is accepting homosexual unions under the banner of marriage the same thing as putting a ramp on a bus or building a ramp to the front of a house? - Continue Reading Here

More Than Equality: Responding to the LGBT tactics

In many Christian conservative circles where homosexuality is frowned upon there is a common belief in the existence of the infamous 'Gay Agenda': an agenda to make the world gay affirming! It sounds like a great plot for a James Bond spoof film doesn't it; but is it true? - Continue Reading Here

Canada's Praise For Perversion: The fear of offending the LGBT community

Regarding Canada's mindset - where is it at these days? In the name of equality and rights we in the West are blinded so much so that we can't see past the term 'good cause' as it relates to an assumed good cause called - gay rights. - Continue Reading Here

Dealing With Sin In The Church: Is the sin of homosexuality worse than others?

I was recently having an online conversation with a skeptic about a blog that I wrote... . ... In no uncertain terms Joe expressed his view of Christianity in America. He said:americas church has no interest in solving poverty or helping the poor - nope they spend MILLIONS upon millions of dollars trying to pass laws to get rid of the evil gays. - Continue Reading Here

Did Jesus Talk About Homosexuality?: First, who is Jesus? (Part -1)

Did Jesus say anything on the issue of homosexuality? There are many issues within Scripture that many people believe God is silent on: homosexuality, the doctrine of the Trinity, abortion are only three examples. - Continue Reading Here

Russia's Homosexual Law: Is there wisdom in it? (Part 1)

[What does] 'being gay' or 'being a homosexual' means. In a discussion on a friend's Facebook page, a Facebook "friend" of his proposed this question, "Does the bible really say that being gay is wrong". - Continue Reading Here

Beyond The Russian Boarder: The effect of Russia's ban on 'homosexual promotion' on the world

Are homosexual relationships equal: In health safety? Natural compatibility? Diverse parenting needs for children? - Continue Reading Here

Protecting Children From Evil Info: Russia's ban on gay publicity

Is all discrimination bad? We discriminate against theft. Are we being bigots for not letting someone break into our home and steal our property? Even if perhaps it was for survival? No. Is someone a bigot then for not permitting a certain type of information to be given to our children? Maybe? What if this information was harmful? No; in fact not exposing vulnerable children to harmful information might be considered an act of maturity and responsibility. - This mature and responsible act was made federally legal on June 29, 2013 in Russia. - Continue Reading Here

Heresy & Apostasy: Calling evil good

Why is promoting or permitting a sin like homosexuality wrong? - Continue Reading Here

Series:

Proselytization & Defending: Loving or Harmful?

...Paul’s passage refers to unbelievers. How can ‘the world’ call on the name of the Lord and thus be saved, if they are not told about Him?  - Continue Reading Here

Your Personal Story: A study in 1 Peter 3:15

19 year old William Swinimer was suspended from school for being a religious zealot of sorts regarding his Christian faith. He was overt about his faith to his classmates, but the straw the broke the camel's back if you will was a shirt he wore to school one day: A bright yellow t-shirt that said: "Life is wasted without Jesus." - Continue Reading Here

Dealing With Evil With Love: A study in 1 Peter 3:15

One big issue that the world (and even many Christians) have with many Christians, not Christianity as that is another matter, is what I have called the Cavalier Christian; the Christian who will run in relentlessly preach, citing scripture hear and there and swoop out! This is especially problematic in some Christian apologetic circles; many people, youth and adults alike seem to get it in their heads that they are out to save the day! - Continue Reading Here

Responses:

What Is The Proper Vehicle For Evangelism?: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 1

In a recent article entitled Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism Pastor Randy Clark argues that the use of reason has no place in the act of evangelism. ... What is effective evangelism - Continue Reading Here

Signs, Miracles, Wonders & Apologetics: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 2

A few days ago, I was flipping through status updates on Facebook to come across a very frustrating article entitled Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism by international speaker and pastor, Randy Clark. I wanted to write a response to his article, but not because I was offended at his suggestion that apologetics, an issue that I am greatly passionate about, is not a viable evangelism tool but rather because he is making two very flawed proposals. - Continue Reading Here

The Dual Effect Of The Evangelistic Methods?: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 3

Some people don't need to be given more proofs for God's existence, or evidence for creation; - Continue Reading Here

Missing The "Academic Elephant" In The Room: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 4

Evidence! This word has been running around the blogosphere, a very wide variety of academic literature and in personal and professional conversations for years - heck, as it relates to the last two paradigms the word evidence has been used for centuries! But it begs the question: when a group such as members in the scientific community or individual people proclaims something to be 'evidence of X' what are they insinuating? - Continue Reading Here

True Or False: Gay marriage?

Cold, wet and late! 

It was cold and wet and I was about 20 minutes late for work already. I was on time for my bus, but the wheelchair accessible bus that was scheduled to stop at that stop had broken down; and so the bus station took out of retirement one of the old-school inaccessible busses to fill that void. I have been in a wheelchair all of my life and as such I have a strong upper body and I have learned to adapt to my surroundings, so climbing up three steps into a bus with my wheelchair in tow isn't difficult for me; but dealing with bus the driver's discrimination was almost impossible and ultimately unsuccessful; here is the end of the story: after explaining that I am capable of climbing on the bus, a few responses to his objections and some more pleading from me the driver shut the doors and drove away leaving me in the cold and rain. I ended up being an hour late for work. What was the driver's rationale? ANSWER: He is not insured to take me on the bus unless it was accessible; even though I am capable getting onto it without help. (The city buses have a 'bring on what you can carry' rule.)  I was able to single handedly bring myself and my wheelchair, but because of the latter stipulation the rules didn't apply to me. Needless to say I was angry!

A temptation for manipulation.

To offer another story: I was preparing to have a few friends over one night. I had virtually no food in the house and I needed to eat supper before they came. So I went down the street to the nearest grocery store with my grocery basket on my knee. I filled it to the brim with cereal, cheese, yogurt, and a few other items and then made my way to the cash. It was a busy night and all the lineups to the cashes were long - except for one. I made a bee-line for it just to discover that the cash was closed; and the cashier was just finishing up with the previous customer who managed to get in before she closed it. I gave an involuntary frustrated grunt, spun around and slotted myself in the next line, which was the shortest of them all.

My frustrated grunt was heard by the young woman who closed her cash; I knew I got her attention because both herself and the woman who she was ringing through groceries for looked at me. In my heart I was hoping that my grunt was pitiful enough for the cashier to take pity on me and ring me through without having to wait in line first; and then temptation rose: to manipulate the cashier into taking me to her cash by using my disability. In sum I was tempted to play the 'poor crippled boy - card' to get a pass - a pass that no body else would have gotten, but I might have because I am disabled.

Now, I didn't use my disability, as just because I am disabled doesn't mean that I should get special treatment; I was quite capable waiting in line like everyone else.

What is the difference between these two stories? The first one discusses a genuine discrimination against me; as a member of my city I have the same rights to public transportation as anyone else; but because of my disability I was refused service, even though I had the capability to part take of it, despite my disability. Now I am grateful for being a Canadian citizen. The Canadian government is willing to offer, with a doctors note, disability for life; public institutions are required by law to incorporate ramps, elevators, and so on. In a public areas where animals are technically not permitted a service dog gets a pass, etc. And all the busses are now renovated to be accessible to persons in wheelchairs or who use walkers and the elderly, even the backups. My other story however talks about a temptation to require special treatment because of my disability. However isn't the above amendments 'special treatments'? Isn't putting in ramps and elevators, special treatment? Isn't it special treatment to overhaul all public transit just to cater to the physically disable? Isn't the blind person getting a pass on the 'No Dogs Allowed' rule in restaurants and other public institutions, special treatment? No; those are necessary amendments so to give the disabled community access to public services.

Is the LGBT subculture simply asking for parallel treatment? Is accepting homosexual unions under the banner of marriage the same thing as putting a ramp on a bus or building a ramp to the front of a house? No. That house is still a house - it just has a new feature. The phrase: "including same-sex unions in marriage" is a misnomer as it isn't merely adding a new feature to an existing entity, it is destroying the entity 'marriage - one husband and one wife' and building a new institution that encompasses a greater number of combinations; the distinction is this: One is marriage (a house) and another is [?] (an apartment building).

However aren't homosexuals functionally excluded from marriage on the account of them being gay, just as a wheelchair bound person is functionally excluded from a restaurant for example who is wheelchair inaccessible? No. A gay man can marry to a woman - he just doesn't want to, and visa versa for a gay woman. This is akin to my second story where I was not excluded from service, I just didn't want to obtain it in the way it was offered to me. My disability does not give me the right to demand a reorientation of the rules if the original rules are within my ability to honour. In the same way the LGBT community has no right to use their homosexual attraction to change the rules of the marriage game.

What is wrong however with tarrying down an old institution - marriage (the house) and building up an institution that is relevant for modern society - [?] (the apartment building)? Where does the renovation stop? This new institution *called* marriage is compared to an apartment building because both same-sex unions and opposite sex unions share the same real-estate; however it has no roof! How many stories will be put onto it? A union between a human and an animal? Yep.[i] How about a union between a human and an inanimate object? Yep.[ii]

So even though the Canadian government legally recognizes same-sex couples and offers them all the financial and monetary benefits that is offered to opposite-sex couples - they are not literally married, they are only legally married. The question however is: Should the same-sex union be legally supported? Why does a government even back marriage? Because people are in love? No. Because people are attracted to each other? No. Its because marriage benefits society; does same-sex unions benefit society? No. So was it wise for Canada to accept same-sex unions? No. So if legal marriage, not literal marriage is an evolving entity can heterosexual married couples consider themselves literally 'married'? Yes; this is despite that Canada has force them to move into the perpetually renovating building called legal marriage.

Having same sex attraction isn't a disabling factor when it comes to marriage it just may not be something a gay man or woman would be interested in. A gay man or woman may desire that the government legally recognizes their same-sex union; and being in a democratic society they have the right to freely speak up and demand recognition; but the government is under no obligation to comply; and even though a gay man or woman has no interest in partaking in the unity between a husband and a wife, a.k.a 'marriage' it doesn't give them the right to destroy marriage and call their union marriage.
____________________

[i] http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/ - accessed March 25, 2014
[ii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html - accessed March 25, 2014

More Than Equality: Responding to the LGBT tactics

In many Christian conservative circles where homosexuality is frowned upon there is a common belief in the existence of the infamous 'Gay Agenda': an agenda to make the world gay affirming! It sounds like a great plot for a James Bond spoof film doesn't it; but is it true? The answer is yes and no. The fact is there is a very large majority of gay people who are just trying to get through life with their dignity in tact and with at least a little happiness; they have no intentions to making the world gay, straight or affirming any other sort of sexual orientation. However politics is important. One thing a friend reminded me about (something I never had any disagreement with) is that the ideology of: shaming gays for proposing that homosexual behaviour is wrong or homosexuality is a sexual perversion, is from the extreme political-left; groups like GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network). How is this political angle important? It is the popular lobbyist groups that change the views of the masses; so more and more average persons - gay and straight - are believing and being staunch advocates for these extreme politically-left views. Not everyone - gay or straight - believes in the extreme leftist nonsense regarding 'gay rights' but they are increasingly becoming popular views among common folk.

Making sense of nonsense:

Lets briefly analyze four examples of ideals that are held and promoted by many extreme political leftists:

• Say anything bad about the LGBT community is to shame them. 
• To argue that homosexuality is perverted or gay people are obsessed with sex or to simply argue that 'gay is *not* good' is parallel to saying that the gay man or woman is ontologically perverted, sexually driven and thus *not* good. 
• There has to be a distinction made at this point: there is saying something bad about 'the person' and speaking ill of the sexual orientation and its associated behaviour. The former would be an ad hominem attack whereas the latter is a proclamation about a situation and an action. The situation is a sexual attraction towards members of the same sex and the action is responding in kind to that attraction. There are good people in this world and there are people who are not very good, lets call them bad for distinction purposes. A good person can be in a bad situation and decide to make bad choices, but that doesn't make them a bad person. To say something bad about the LGBT community as people is wrong and it should never be done; but again there is a distinction between characterizing someone based on their behaviour and or worldview and attacking their character: Adolf Hitler was a bad person, Mother Teresa is a good person. Just as there are nasty people who are straight and good people who are straight there are gay people who are just not nice and others who are very personable; the niceness or meanness of someone has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. However to say something good or bad about a community in terms of its ideals should be done based on the ideals.  
• To hold the LGBT to the same standards that everyone else is subject to is shaming them. 
• A common criticism made by many conservative Christians is the idea of the LGBT community doesn't want equal-rights, they want uber-rights. What would normally be applicable to 95% of the population the LGBT community should be exempt - this is obvious in a Gay Pride Parade.  
• 99% of people in the LGBT community are level headed, law abiding citizens; and I'm pretty sure that there are many pro-gay people who are against the debautry that goes on in the Gay Pride Parade and the 'gay scene' all together. However as pointed out my previous article (located here) there seems to be a view that all acceptable behaviours are void in the name of gay pride, during the Gay Pride Parade such as walking fully naked past a crowd filled with spectators of all ages, including children. Why should the LGBT community get a pass on illegal activity, such as flashing their genitals in the name of the alleged goodness of the homosexual orientation?
• To merely suggest that the homosexual orientation is something to be discouraged is shaming them. 
• To argue that homosexuality is ill-advised and thus should be discouraged has been interpreted to suggest that the gay man or woman should be discouraged in being themselves. 
• There are situations and actions that are wrong and they are thus to be discouraged. Homosexuality is one such example. This is a criticism of the homosexual orientation, not on the person who is gay. 
• Legal recognition of marriage is not enough - everyone has to personally accept them - as homosexuals - in mind and heart.
• Much of the LGBT community is not just interested in having the same legal recognition as heterosexuals do regarding marriage - they want homosexuality to be praised as good; and unless all hearts are praising it as good, the mere tolerant heart is blamed to be a bigoted heart. 
• In a perfect world everyone would accept everyone; even though pro-racism is functionally obsolete on the political arena there are many individuals who merely tolerate people of different ethnicities but personally disassociate themselves from them based on race. Women and men are equal in society today - yet there are plenty of people who are sexist. In sum to desire a perfect world is to live in a world of fantasy. In the same way the LGBT community should revel in their victory in establishing a legal recognition of gay marriage and just ignore persons who they believe are bigots - people who merely socially tolerate them but keep their distance from them based on their sexual orientation.

Responding to the Gay Pride Parade: 

There was a time when gay bars were routinely raided, and often it was done without pushback.  However in 1969 in Greenwich Village, New York at the the Stonewall Inn "...things were different. The clientele fought back, and soon the police were dealing with with a full-blown riot."[i] As the night of arrests progressed a crowd of 150 gay people gathered outside the Stonewall Inn.[ii] By now the media was involved and "...intrigued by the fact that it was homosexuals ... who were fighting back..."[iii] And "less than 24 hours after the initial raid, several thousand people had gathered in the Village proclaiming "Gay Power," "We Want Freedom Now," and "Equality for Homosexuals."[iv]

Given the oppression the LGBT community has had in the past the Gay Pride Parade (GPP) is understandable - but given its pornographic style it is unacceptable. In this light the GPP is more than a good time for the LGBT subculture but it is a time for remembrance of their oppression and a celebration of sorts for how far they have come. Just like how religious people have the right to celebrate their religious holidays the LGBT community has the right to celebrate a significant or memorable time for their people. I agree with the former Canadian Prime Minister, Perrier Trudeau when he stated: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."[v] However consensual adult sexuality in all its forms is private; as such there's no place for the bedroom in the public streets of the nation, and this applies to the LGBT community as well. So if the LGBT community wishes to celebrate gay-pride let them do it appropriately. Their celebration should *not* be done in a sexual way. I remember doing a project for school where I had to do a study on sadomasochism - there were two types of websites dedicated to this perversion: A) pornographic and B) educational. The LGBT community should celebrate their gay-pride educationally, not pornographically; and be willing to deal with objections to their celebration intellectually not emotionally.
___________________

[i] - Michael Brown, A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been. (New York: Equal Time Books, 2011), 15.
[ii] - Ibid., 16.
[iii] - Ibid., 18.
[iv] - Ibid., 18.
[v] - http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/rights-freedoms/trudeaus-omnibus-bill-challenging-canadian-taboos/theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation.html - Accessed March 24, 2014

Canada's Praise For Perversion: The fear of offending the LGBT community

In December 11, 2011 CBC Manitoba records that "...a 19-year-old [man was] accused of flashing women."[i]; in sum showing unexpecting and non-consenting women his genitalia. This man was "...charged with 10 counts of indecent exposure and six counts of sexual assault." (As he also was guilty of groping women). Taking away for a moment the man's actions of groping, even if all he did was expose himself to unwilling persons most of us would be cheering for him being charged with the 10 counts of indecent exposure; as it is not only illegal but offensive - exposing ones self to unwilling persons is essentially a form of visual sexual assault - hence its illegality.

Now no one should be quick to make judgments on this man as a person - that is until all the facts are known. Was this young man mentally disabled? Was he drunk and temporally out of his mind? Or was (or is) he just morally corrupt? Etcetera. In so far as this article goes your guess is as good as mine. His state of mind may explain his behaviour, but irregardless of where his head was at, his behaviour was still wrong.

Regarding Canada's mindset - where is it at these days? In the name of equality and rights we in the West are blinded so much so that we can't see past the term 'good cause' as it relates to an assumed good cause called - gay rights. What am I talking about? Let's return to the aforementioned 19 year old. What if he had exposed himself to children? Well he'd probably be in a similar situation as another man north of Winnipeg was in 2009. CBC Manitoba records in 2009 about a 48 year old man being "...charged on allegations he exposed himself to two children..."[ii] What is the penalty for such evil behaviour in Canada? The Canadian Legal Information Institute website states:

173. Exposure ... (2) Every person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person who is under the age of 16 years 

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days; or 

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 30 days..[iii] 

So anyone who exposes their genitalia to persons under the age of 16 is awarded a prison sentence for maximum two years but no less than 90 days; but if convicted of such an effect on 'summary conviction'[iv] the person is awarded imprisonment for maximum of six months but no more than 30 days. That is unless you are a homosexual traipsing down the street in Toronto naked during the Gay Pride Parade; under these circumstances flashing your genitals to children is not only be to be permitted it is also to be praised - hence the parade.

Life Site News Journalist Peter Baklinksi published a short article where one picture spoke louder than any of the words on the page. Baklinksi wrote:

...our managing editor Steve Jalsevac published a slideshow with his photos from the 2011 Toronto Gay Pride Parade.[v]  

The pictures Jalsevac assembled showed that rainbows and rainbow-colour clothing were not the only thing worn that day - some men (and probably women too) were waring - absolutely nothing. What makes this photo enlightening is it showed a young girl in the crowd - probably no older than 10 years old - who was absolutely mortified as a middle-aged, big-beer-bellied, naked man (except for suntan lotion on his face, a hat on his head and sunglasses over his eyes) paraded by her. Baklinksi's photo has her covering her eyes.

Even if you are a staunch advocate for the LGBT community, lets put this scenario in a different circumstance; you are at the store with your 10 year old son or daughter and this man, walks past you and your child with no clothes on. Your child's visceral reaction will probably be to cover their eyes as this young girl did and if you had any sense of morality you would be on the phone with the police; and rightfully so. If you are an advocate for the Gay Pride Parade then why would you promote and praise this event and perhaps even encourage your child to go and see men and woman displaying themselves like this under the premise of gay-pride, yet call the police on someone who is flashing themselves on a typical Monday morning? ANSWER: As pointed out above this Western culture is blinded by hot button terms like good-cause and discrimination, resulting in us being afraid of being charged with a new definition of discrimination. What is this neo-discriminatory act? Merely proposing that homosexuality is actually a sexual perversion. To put a stop to the gay-pride parade, or at least put some pants on it, would be (or could be) construed as bigoted and shaming the LGBT community. So gay people, while in the parade are immune from prosecution for flashing themselves to children.

The good news however is this little girl isn't doomed; in September, 26, 2013, journalist for The Guardian, Norman Doldge recorded neuropsychiatrist Dr Valerie Voon effects of pornography on the brain. Doldge records:

Until recently, scientists believed our brains were fixed, their circuits formed and finalised in childhood, or "hardwired". Now we know the brain is "neuroplastic", and not only can it change, but that it works by changing its structure in response to repeated mental experience.[vi]

So it would be erroneous to suggest that her experience that day at the 2011 Toronto Gay Pride Parade will have ever lasting effects. Her brain will evolve as she gets older and shape and change in accordance with new experiences. She may be permanently mortified, or her memory of this event may get overwritten by new memories; but she also may develop an appreciation for homosexuality. What would be so wrong with her becoming tolerant of homosexuality as a sexual orientation? A tolerance or even a positive acceptance of homosexuality is an acceptance of dangerous lifestyle - the encouragement of the homosexual lifestyle is parallel to encouraging someone to endorse *as good* the life of drunkenness or drug abuse. Like the lifestyle of the drunk or drug abuser the homosexual lifestyle is wrought with physically dangerous and deadly behaviours - even the traditionally and very infrequent monogamous kinds.

Moreover, not only will she be subject to dangerous lifestyle choices under the premise that they are good but she will develop a perverted view of sexuality. Sexuality is a multi-facet part of reality. It is a reality that encompasses physical, emotional and spiritual attraction and some basic functions of life. Homosexuality paints the wrong picture of what sexuality is supposed to be pictured as - hence it being a 'perversion' of sexuality.

So where is Western culture's head these days? ANSWER: In a non-thinking and over-emotionalizing state. What can be done? ANSWER: In a democratic society people should be permitted to make stupid choices (extra marital sex, engage into homosexual relationships, participate in drunkenness, smoke cigarettes etc.); but, just as we are doing in almost every commercial set on television with cigarette smoking, society should discourage these stupid behaviours and don't let the masses make a mess of society by emotionally manipulating society as a whole into endorsing them.
_____________________

[i] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/man-charged-with-flashing-groping-women-1.1045922 - accessed March 21, 2014
[ii] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/man-48-charged-with-indecent-exposure-1.863412 - accessed March 21, 2014
[iii]  http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec785 - accessed March 21, 2014
[iv] "A summary offence is a crime in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment... In Canada summary offences are referred to as summary conviction offences. As in other jurisdictions summary conviction offences are considered less serious than indictable offences because they are punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence - accessed March 22, 2014
[v]  http://www.lifesitenews.com/heartbreaking-photo-young-girl-covers-her-eyes-as-nude-men-walk-past-during.html - accessed March 22, 2014
[vi]  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/brain-scans-porn-addicts-sexual-tastes - accessed March 22, 2014

Passing Judgement: Is Phelps in Hell?

Several years ago we had an art show at our church. I had been giving a series of teachings on peacemaking and we invited artists to display their paintings, poems, and sculptures that reflected their understanding of what it means to be a peacemaker. One woman included in her work a quote from Mahatma Gandi, which a number of people found quite compelling.  

But not everyone.   

Someone attached a piece of paper to it. On the piece of paper was written: "Reality check: He's in hell.[i]    

Above is a quote is from the infamous or famous (depending on who you talk to) Rob Bell from his book Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived.  Pastor Bell's hippy theology has condemned him as a heretic in the eyes of many orthodox Christians; but there are many others who are singing his praises for his wishy-washy teaching on God's love. Love Wins is 99.9% incoherent, heretical gobbliygoop; in fact the only page in the entire book that has some genuine food-for-thought is on page one, which began with the citation above and ends with this question:

Really, Gandhi's in hell? ... We have confirmation of this?[ii] 

Matthew 7:1: "Do not judge, or you too will be [judged]", is the, if not one of the most cited (and quote-mined) Bible verses in this secular and religiously counter-Christian culture. It is often offered loudly and with a finger in the face of the Christian that is being accused of judging. Is Jesus telling us to not pass judgement in this passage of 7 verses? No. He is telling us to clean up our own act first so that when we do judge we are ensuring that we have nothing to be judged by. As Christians we are called to make judgement calls; in fact judgment calls are things that everyone irregardless of race, religion, creed or sexual orientation make, every day, towards inanimate objects and people, all the time. We judge a cup of coffee to be not as good as the first; we tell people who are, in our view, misbehaving that they are behaving badly, etc. Even though being told that we are wrong regarding a behaviour or the answer to some academic question, e.g. mathematics, isn't pleasant, it is sometimes necessary; a young child doesn't like being told by their teacher that their answer to the mathematical equation is wrong, but without that verdict or judgement how will they learn? And so without being held accountable for our actions, how could we learn that an action we are doing is wrong and encouraged to do the 'right thing'? Everyone needs to be held in check by outside parties from time to time regarding many aspects of their life, may it be behaviourally or academically.

However, as Christians are there things that we can't make judgements on? I am not talking about areas where we *should not* make judgements on but, *can't* make judgements on? Yes, there are and one such judgement regards salvation. Several years ago I knew a man who called himself a Christian, but his behaviour was anything but Christ like: he was abusive, he did drugs and drank, he was sexually perverted, he cherry-picked with laws he wanted to obey (hence his purchase and use of marijuana); yet he was consistently at church, he read his Bible and he (seemingly) held God's word to a high regard. Paul argues:

...do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Paul here is making allusions to lifestyle choices, not mere moments of failures and alludes that people with sinful lifestyles will not enter heaven. With this man's aforementioned behaviours, of which some were described in Paul's words above was his lifestyle, and he had no issues with it. As such, for many Christians there may be a visceral instinct to conclude that he is not a Christian and if he died he would be in hell, (but I am thankful he is still alive and well). This conclusion may be made on Jesus's words:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. - Mathew 7:21

So even though this man read God's word and was at church every week doesn't mean that he is genuinely trying to live life as Christ would; but in contrast his very sinful lifestyle doesn't mean that God is not working on him and the fruit of his (God's) labour is yet to be seen. So how then can we deal with people like this? ANSWER: Pray, from a distance, for them. Jesus warns us to “[watch] out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them." - Matthew 7:15-16 This man wasn't a prophet, false or otherwise but Jesus' warning against false prophets applies to everyone, including you and me. How does people like him fit with the characterization Jesus attributes to false prophets; making them akin to being a ferocious wolves? His values held that he is his own God and if one is sucked into that thinking their demise may be parallel to their end if they had come across a wild wolf on the hunt.

[iv]

Does this only apply to people who are clearly regular individuals with no real impact on the church? No. The late Reverend Fred Phelps, the pastor of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) in Kansas is likewise infamous for his hate-filled, bigoted hate-speech against the United States of America, the US soldiers who fight for their country and homosexuals. It isn't surprising to see at funerals of recently deceased homosexuals and soldiers members of WBC picketing with signs offering hate-fueled bigotry; two examples can be found here and here. Phelps would be characterized to some as: "...having a form of godliness..." 2 Timothy 3:7, as he was a pastor of a church, thus he represented Christ, supposedly. Even though level headed Christians would scoff at such a premise (and rightfully so) it is the Phelps' of the world that paint Christ in the wrong light for 'the world'. Many people get a long-lasting bad taste in their mouth about Christ because of kooks like the members of the WBC.  

However  before midnight on March 19, 2014 rolled around Phelps had died.[iii] Where is he now? Heaven or Hell? One cannot make that conclusion. I am personally very skeptical of his salvation as he did not show in any way, shape or form Christ in his life - he gave no evidence that he was truly repentant of sin and that he followed Christ, even failingly. However is it possible that he repented of his evil ways and truly became dedicated to doing the will of God, in the last few minutes of his life? Yes. Would we know about it? No. So if was truly saved and God was working on him, even though no signs of Godliness was apparent or he did do a 'death-bed repentance' it is logical to assert that he is at the right hand side of Christ, right now, (cf. Ephesians 2:5-6).

To conclude what can we learn about judging people's Christianity? ANSWER: Judge and respond Biblically! Recognize good fruit from the bad fruit and stay away from people who offer the latter but with prayer for their repentance. However we are to likewise show them love, grace and the willingness to be there for them; and lastly regarding people who display hypocrisy don't forget that no one is better and we are all guilty of hypocrisy. In sum do not make a verdict about one's salvation as God promises to finish a good work, (cf. Philippians 1:6); even though we don't see the fruit and even an expanding amount of evil doesn't mean that God isn't at work in them. - If you ever get the urge to declare someone's eternal state ask yourself this: "Do I have confirmation about their legal standing before God - a.k.a righteousness?"

___________________

[i] - Rob Bell, Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived.. (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 1.
[ii] - Ibid. 1.
[iii] - http://www.christianpost.com/news/westboro-baptist-church-founder-and-civil-rights-attorney-fred-phelps-dies-116478/cpf - accessed March 20, 2014
[iv] - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps - accessed March 20, 2014

Reason: A sign pointing to God

Have you ever been in a formal debate, or even in just a friendly discussion with a friend over the validity of something: the morality of abortion or the effects of same-sex unions on society? Or what the true story scientific studies tell regarding God's existence - does science support the existence of God - yes? no? Or even a discussion where a degree is functionally irrelevant, such as which brand of coffee is better? Jamaican Blue Mountain or Maxwell House. If you have then you should know the first two commandments of debating are:

1. Thou shall define thy terms; this is the first and greatest commandment in debating.
2. And the second is: thou shall not equivocate; in other words if the word you are using has multiple nuances, don't interchange between nuances to mean the same thing.

In this era of materialism and skeptism the term *evidence* is more often than not associated with the physical and historical sciences. For many scientists rock layers and rock dating is *evidence* of this universe being billions of years old. In paleontological studies there is disagreement between scientists regarding the validity of the Biblical flood of Noah (cf. Genesis 6-8) based on dinosaur fossils; some say that the fossils support the assertion of gradual accumulation of dirt over millions of years while others assert that the same fossils support the claim of a flood that engulfed the earth a mere few thousand years ago. In the same way historians are at odds with what the historical data, *the historical evidence* says about many famous historical claims: the holocaust in WW2 and the resurrection of Christ over 2000 years ago, to name two examples. In sum the physical and historical sciences are visible signs of something and what the 'signs' point to is open for interpretation. However *evidence* is more than "a visible sign of something[i]" as how Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as; Merriam-Webster also defines it is as: 

"something which shows that something else exists or is true"[ii] 

The term *evidence* covers more than history and the natural sciences. When someone makes the assertion that DNA is a sign that points towards an intelligent creator or dinosaur fossils point to the assertion of a global flood (or accumulation of millions of years of dirt) it begs the question: How did you arrive at that conclusion? ANSWER: Reason! 

A sign: reason:

However how do people *reason* that X is evidence of Y? Reason is itself a sign. The two terms *reasonable* and *unreasonable* describe an identifiable division between each other; if X is determined to be reasonable then it cannot be unreasonable. This is the logical law of excluded middle. It is true that in many cases reason is subjective (so X can be reasonable and unreasonable; but its ontology would depend on the situation);  so a reasonable decision for my life might be a very unreasonable move for yours; but for objective data, *reason* is founded on the objectivity of an axiomatic premise, (a premise that is assumed to be true.) Creationists *reason* that the scientific data is a sign that points towards God; they interpret the data from the assumption that God exists. Atheists are no different - atheistic scientists interpret data in light of the presumption that there is no God. But what many atheists will argue is that *the evidence* does not point to towards God and say that it is the use of *reason* that brings them to their conclusion; however the creationists will also say that *reason* is what aided them to their conclusion.  

Reason is itself a sign. Where does this sign point? Towards the existence of necessary preexisting factor - God. On what grounds does someone conclude an interpretation of data-X is reasonable or unreasonable? ANSWER: A determining factor: God. However, God is subjective in our culture: Yahweh, Allah, Elohim (Mormonism), Vishnu, Hare Krishna and so on; with atheists we are *God*, the one who makes our own decisions and judgment calls of right and wrong. The Atheist Experience co-host, Matt Dillahunty argues:

When we talk about why secular morality is superior its because we say so ... we have been able to build off of the foundations that other people have left us and learned what works and what doesn't.[iii]

So today's morality is subjective, a morality that has been developed by the subjective views held by people of our past. Regarding objective morality, Dillahunty believes that there is such thing; he states:

...there is no one moral answer that addresses every situation; but within a specific situation I think there are absolutes. This is because within any given situation there is a finite pool of possible actions one could take. We can compare the results of those actions with each other; some of them are going to be better and some of them are going to be worse, which by definition there is some subset of actions that represent the moral pinnacle for that particular situation.[iv]  

Dillahunty's objective morality is very subjective. The subjectivity of his morality consist of a number of options and the option that is chosen is done based on the situation. Therefore abortion is wrong based in one situation, but it is justified in another situation: what is the conclusion? Abortion is not objectively wrong.

As such one's 'God' is their foundation of reason. The difference between moral subjectivity and moral objectivity (something that Dillahunty I assert is willingly ignorant of) is moral objectivity deals with the object - abortion, charity, etc. Moral subjectivity, deals with the subject - the person by which the objective move is applied to. An issue like abortion may be the best move for someone's situation (in their view), but that doesn't mean that it is the right move. 

So the question then is, whose God is right? The atheist's, 'self'? The Christian's, Yahweh? The Muslim's, Allah? The Hindu's, Vishnu? When we say: "It's reasonable that abortion is good or bad or morally neutral."; which God are we pulling that judgement call from? Reason is a sign that points to the morality or immorality of something and a rational conclusion of ones analysis of the sciences, history, philosophy, ethics, etc.; and so it is reasonable to pull our reasoning from a logical foundation - a naturally reasonable source will give reasonable results by necessity. So the relationship between reason and its origin is the answer to the age'ol question: "Which came first the chicken (reason) or the egg (reasoning person)?" The answer is: that is the wrong question. What then is the right question? "Which came first the rooster (God) or the chicken (reason)?" ANSWER: Both. However it is important to clarify that God and reason are not two separate entities; they don't merely coexist any more than fire coexists with a flame - a flame is the very nature of fire and in the same way reason is the nature of God. As such this universe is structured on reason - its creator: 

Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. - Job 25:2

So who is your God? How could the right God be determined? In short the God of the worldview that is consistent with reality in-toto. 

__________________

[i]  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence - accessed March 13, 2014
[ii] Ibid., - accessed March 17, 2014
[iii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4 - accessed March 17, 2014
[iv] Ibid., - accessed March 17, 2014

Missing The "Academic Elephant" In The Room: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 4

[0]

Evidence! This word has been running around the blogosphere, a very wide variety of academic literature and in personal and professional conversations for years - heck, as it relates to the last two paradigms the word evidence has been used for centuries! But it begs the question: when a group such as members in the scientific community or individual people proclaims something to be 'evidence of X' what are they insinuating? What does the word 'evidence' mean? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as:

• a visible sign of something[i] 

A visible sign of what? Creationists argue that the universe is a sign of a supernatural creator; atheists argue that the universe is not a sign at all.  Here we are presented with a fundamental law of logic: the Law of Excluded Middle. Either this universe and all within is a sign pointing to a creator[ii] or it is no sign at all. So for simplicity lets give Christians the benefit of the doubt and entertain their premise that their God, the triune God of Scripture is that creator. 

If you have been following me over the last few days you would have been following my response to Pastor Randy Clark's article Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism. This is the forth and final part of this series response; the first three parts can be located here[iii]. In summary Clark asserts that apologetics should not be used as a tool of evangelism. He argues that "Biblical evangelism is a revelation encounter with the power and presence of God, resulting in faith (“hearing” and obeying [God)]"[iv] - a position that have consistently supported throughout my response as it is only through the activity of the Holy Spirit in one's life that one receives salvation and the ability to effectively do the will of God, (cf. John 6:44, Phil. 1:6); something that I reiterated throughout the first three parts of this response; but Clark believes that the most effective tool of evangelism is the works of God through signs, wonders and miracles; as he states: 

"...most of the ... evangelical missionaries on the Sinai peninsula told me that they had met and discovered that none of them had ever led someone to Christ through apologetics but only after the indigenous people had seen signs, miracles, healings, visions, dreams about Jesus did they become Christians."[v]

Regarding apologetics Clark states that "[it] may be perfectly reasonable to show that Christianity can be confirmed by biblical archaeology or philosophical proofs for the existence of God, but apologetics appeals more to those who already believe than to those who don’t.[vi] He is treating the Gospel as a numbers game - do the style of evangelism that has the highest salvation count; and by necessity this gives partial credit to the evangelist; but as already seen throughout this series the efforts of salvation is credited to God alone. 

Now Clark isn't denying the fact that that apologetics has led people to the foot of the cross, but he cynically asserts that for most of the skeptics that hear the Gospel apologetics will not have any effect - But, perform signs, wonders and miracles, and let the people see the wonders and work of God! Let  the disabled be publicly healed for all to see; bring grieving parents their dead children back to life; let people see the happiness that is only found in Christ pour out of them like a waterfall, etc. However as pointed out in the second article how effective is a sign without an explanation? ANSWER: Not effective; without the explanation (the apologetic) the signs are nothing more than a spectacle. 

However there is another aspect that Clark is seemingly missing or is willingly blind to. These words: signs, wonders and miracles hold for Christians like Randy Clark a specific nuance - unusual, nonnatural, events that only have one explanation - an act of God, etc - much like the many of the events recorded in the book of Acts and throughout all four Gospels. However when you concentrate on looking at these acts of wonder, you are missing out on the most basic wonders of God:

You:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." - Psalms 139:13-14 (my emphasis).

This universe: 

...I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; - Psalms 8:3 (NASB) (my emphasis)

The resurrection of Christ:

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-14. (my emphasis)

Etcetera. As discussed earlier apologetics for many people is frightening because it is synonymous with academics - the sciences, philosophy, history, etc. And not everyone is academically astute and nor do many people have the time to be; but as also explain apologetics is much more widespread than the academics; but a big arena were apologetics is used is throughout academia. The Gospel message:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

...calls attention to the study of history and ethics. It asserts that Christ died as a consequences for sins and rose three days later. The word sins teach a violation of God's moral law (cf. 1 John 3:4); it suggests that there is such things as the two planes *right* and *wrong* and we have done the latter. The word 'rose' isn't metaphorical but is to be taken literally; over 2000 years ago in human history Jesus literally rose in bodily form from after being physically dead. Paul states a few verses after that Jesus resurrection is the emulsifier for Christianity - if there was no risen Christ there is no Christianity. His wonder, this miracle is claiming to be historical and thus inviting us to research its claim.  

If someone enacted Clark's petition to exclude apologetics from evangelism in this ministry they would be disabling themselves from being able to show the facts that God has given to validate his claims - creation, his resurrection, etc. Moreover, God has given us minds that for those who are being reformed into the image of Christ, (cf. Romans 8:29) their minds are being reformed (cf. Romans 12:2); a reforming mind is a mind that is under repair however how can one repair something that isn't broken to begin with? One issue many atheistic skeptics at least is the validity of the idea of miracles; however miracles, such as Christ's resurrection or the healing of the disabled man in Acts 3 is easily explainable by simple logic: 

Premise #1: If God created the heavens and the earth (cf. Genesis 1:1), he would be able to manipulate its contents, including repairing physical brokenness and resurrecting the deceased. 

Premise #2: God created the heavens and the earth (cf. Genesis 1:1).

Premise #3: Therefore God can manipulate its contents, including repairing physical brokenness and resurrecting the deceased. 

This is education is found in study of logic. To conclude this response to Pastor Randy, if we excommunicate apologetics from evangelism then what God has offered to us becomes unintelligible and it also tells God that we are not going to show people him through the other means he has shown us himself through, (cf. Romans 1:20). 

__________________

[0] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 15, 2014
[i]  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence - accessed March 13, 2014
[ii] For the purpose of this thesis it is not top relevance, but it is still important to note that the law of excluded middle is played out within the creationist community as a whole, but on a much more larger scale - which creator does this universe as a sign point to? (Allah, Elohim [Mormonism], the God of the Jehovah Witnesses, Yahweh, etc.). If this universe points to the God of the Christian Bible then by necessity everyone else's divine entries are out of the running.  

[iii] A Response to Pastor Randy Clark's article, Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism

• Part 1: http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/03/what-is-proper-vehicle-for-evangelism.html - accessed March 15, 2014
• Part 2: http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/03/sign-miracles-wonders-apologetics.html - accessed March 15, 2014
• Part 3: http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/03/the-duel-effect-of-evangelistic-methods.html - accessed March 13, 2014

[iv] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 15, 2014
[v] Ibid., - accessed March 15, 2014
[vi] Ibid., - accessed March 15, 2014

The Dual Effect Of The Evangelistic Methods?: A response to Pastor Randy Clark - Part 3

[0]

Over the last few days, I've been carefully, thoroughly and respectfully responding to an article written by Pastor Randy Clark entitled Leave Apologetics Out of Evangelism. In this article Clark attempted to make a case arguing "Biblical evangelism is a revelation encounter with the power and presence of God, resulting in faith (“hearing” and obeying God)[...]"[i]; this of course is something which no Christian should take issue with; but the crux of his argument is that "[new Christians] come to Christ primarily through the demonstration of the power of God in signs, wonders, healings and [miracles,]"[ii] (my emphasis). In the first part of my response, located here, I represented the frequency of reported signs and miracles and their effectiveness. I also showed however that signs, miracles and wonders were not the only method God used to bring people to repentance. I briefly went through 5 methods God uses to bring people to repentance of which signs, miracles and wonders was only one package and apologetics is another.

In the second part, located here, I showed how both the two methods of evangelism, 1) signs, miracles and wonders and 2) apologetics were used together and how if divorced or used separately they would fail. God used, not to the exclusion of signs, miracles and wonders but in addition to them, the tool of apologetics - the defence or explanation of these signs, miracles and wonders.

As cited before for many people apologetics is a scary word and a paradigm that thus should be avoided. The reason for this is because for many people, as Dr. Richard L. Pratt explains is often ...thought to be too philosophical, abstract, and impractical for the layman."[iii] Apologetics is often associated with the academics: philosophy, logic, the sciences, history, etc. in an attempt to show the truth of Scripture. But the average man or woman who isn't in any of these fields has a life to live where they have a family and friends and a job, etc. Most Christians want to learn how to represent God in their lives by how they do their job and how they act at the office water-cooler; in sum they want to be the evidence for God. And due to life being 'life' most people don't have the time to dive into these deep academics. However let us say your child comes home from school after learning about how God has been disproved via science; and assuming that you have been telling them  from the cradle the truth (God created them and the universe) they believe you; nevertheless though they are curious and they ask you why is their teachers wrong? What are you going to tell them? Or what if a colleague asks you over coffee break about how you reconcile the evil that they keep reading about in the newspaper with your belief in the existence of an allegedly all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God; what are you going to tell them?

I am positive Clark would have answers for all of these questions - they may be good or bad - but they would be answers; in sum he would have his apologetic. So it is safe to assume that Clark isn't against the use of apologetics in-toto; he admits:

It may be perfectly reasonable to show that Christianity can be confirmed by biblical archaeology or philosophical proofs for the existence of God,...[iv]

But he makes a judgement call that is not his to make in his next statement:

...but apologetics appeals more to those who already believe than to those who don’t.[v]

Read his statement carefully: "...apologetics appeals *more* to those who already believe than those who don't." He asserts that the study of apologetics, the proofs for God's existence, the evidence from creation, and so on is really for the edification of the believer than the unbeliever. What is the judgement call that he is making? Its subtle but its there: 'Evangelism is the cooperative work of the evangelist and the evangelized'. Since apologetics in Clark's view (and many others, BTW) serves the Christian in most cases then don't use it on the non-Christian, even though it may actually work on a small number of unbelievers. I am reminded of a gentleman who told me one time while I was street preaching that he prefers to use the evangelical method that gets most persons saved - the simple 'Jesus loves you' method. It stands to reason that Clark is someone who would agree with this person. However here is the problem, evangelism is not a numbers game! And even if it is, as discussed in the previous articles, this is the ratio of Evangelist to God success rates for salvation: Evangelist - 0%, God - 100%.

Evangelistic methods meet needs:

Why is Clark's judgment call not his to make? Who is he to determine what tool to use? As described in part one of this response, there are 5 main types of evangelical methods that has been used. Each method is akin to a method of meeting a need. If someone came hobbling up to you holding their chest, sweating and mumbling, "c-c-c-call, call 9-1-..." then they collapse to the ground. Would you interpret their body language to mean that they are exhausted and thus you 'serve them' by getting them a coffee? No. If you had any sense you'd be on the phone with emergency calling for an ambulance as this person has just had a heart-attack.

In the same way, wisdom should be used to determine what a person needs in terms of evangelism. Some people don't need to be given more proofs for God's existence, or evidence for creation; what they need is someone to love them and 'show and tell' the love of Christ. Giving an essay on the ontological argument of God to someone who needs to be loved is like giving a cup of coffee to someone who just had a heart attack. Conversely however if someone is clearly trying to make sense of their world regarding mere their existence - they are asking question about creation, morality, evidence for God, etc. - then discussions that play in the sandbox of academic (science, ethics, philosophy, history, etc.) would be the remedy.

So arguing for the abandonment of apologetics in evangelism is parallel to telling someone that due to them being in a minority their concerns are not really important - "but hey let me tell you that Jesus loves you and allow me to show you a wonderful sign instead."

However is the number of those who are saved through inquiry really small? No. Thousands upon thousands of people have been brought to the cross because they had questions that were answered by God obeying Christians.

Evangelistic methods have a duel effect:

However all methods of evangelism are not only good for bringing people to the foot of the cross; these same tools keep people there. Even though someone might have found salvation because of signs, miracles, and wonders of God that they were a witness to; the tool of apologetics, or a reiteration of Jesus love, and all the rest of the methods all play an active part to keep them there. In the same way even though someone may came to salvation through inquiry, what would be keeping them there is the use of all forms of evangelism. So the point is we should never stop showing and telling the love of Christ, answering questions people may have and standing on the word of God as foundation.

________________

[0] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 13, 2014
[i] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014
[ii] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014
[iii]Richard L. Pratt, Every Thought Captive: A study manual for the defense of Christian truth. (Atlanta Georgia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979), 7.
[iv] http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-news/columns/67-pastors-heart/19752-leave-apologetics-out-of-evangelism - accessed March 13, 2014
[v] Ibid., -  accessed March 13, 2014