Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by Matthew Charles White

Open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

 

This letter was previously sent directly to Archbishop Welby, but was evidently not shown to him. The reply from a “safeguarding officer” was a form letter that failed to address the issues raised. Believing those issues to be important, the undersigned invites concerned persons and/or organizations to repost it.

 

Dear Archbishop,

 

I write as a practising Christian man born in England, baptised and raised in the Anglican Church, who is a survivor of multiple incidents of childhood sexual abuse by homosexual men, including an Anglican priest (name will be supplied on request).

 

I was dismayed to read in a recent newspaper report that you “joyfully” welcomed proposals to bless same-sex married couples. What, I ask, is there to be joyful about when there is clear evidence that homosexuality embraces blatantly unhealthy, injurious and, in some cases, vicious practices, and that its victims include many children?

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading United States public health service organization, regularly publishes detailed statistics about sexual health. Results of surveys differ, but it is probable that homosexuals and bisexuals actually comprise no more than 3.5% of the population — far less than LBGTQ+ propaganda routinely claims. Asexuals are estimated to comprise less than 1%, so 95.5% are heterosexual, i.e normal (typical, usual, or ordinary). These numbers are intended to place the following statistics in context. The numbers vary slightly from year to year but the CDC have reported that:

 

Males (including boys) who have sex with men (MSM), most of whom are homosexual rather than bisexual, accounted for 70% (22,400) of the 32,100 estimated new HIV infections in the USA, and 86% of estimated infections among all males (2021).

 

The estimated lifetime risk for HIV infection among MSM is one in six, compared with heterosexual men at one in 524 and heterosexual women at one in 253.

 

HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer.

 

MSM are significantly more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhoea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%). They also account for 55% of all HIV infections while representing only between 2% and 6.8% of the U.S. population, and are infected with intestinal parasites at more than four times the rate of heterosexual men. In the case of the relatively new viral infection human mpox (popularly called monkeypox), the CDC reports that 94% of cases reported recent male-to-male sexual or intimate contact.

 

While sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) affect individuals of all ages, STDs take a particularly heavy toll on young people. The CDC estimates that youth ages 15-24 account for almost half of the 26 million new sexually transmitted infections that occurred in the United States in 2018. By the current United Nations definition of a child (i.e. a human under the age of 18), this means that nearly eight million of those newly infected were very likely children.

 

Dr. John Diggs, a medical doctor and Christian from South Hadley, Massachusetts, has been treating homosexual men and women since the HIV/AIDS outbreak in the early 1980s. He has  warned that society has been too quick to accept the homosexual lifestyle — ignoring the serious medical, psychological and possibly deadly risks and consequences for those who engage in homosexuality. Inter alia he has written that (apart from the diseases I have already mentioned) the following diseases have extraordinary frequency among “gay” men: chlamida trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giarda lamlia, herpes simplex virus, isopora belli, viral hepatitis types B & C. Further, he has stated: “The transmission of some of these diseases are (sic) so rare among heterosexuals as to be virtually unknown.”

 

Sadly, despite his decades of dedicated work, Dr. Diggs has been mendaciously denigrated by some homosexuals as being a homophobe, as indeed, have the authors of many of the studies I cite, and as I, too, have been for my 2012 book on the homosexual abuse of minor children Gay Lies — Sad Truths (Huxley’s Books, ASIN:  B009PNKYI6). Such wholesale disparagement is, of course, not surprising given the the concerted efforts by homosexual advocacy groups (the “gay” lobby to suppress criticism and to cancel — i.e. to harm — those who seek to tell what to them are unpalatable truths.

 

Unfortunately, many people, including large numbers of Christians, appear to have swallowed the lobby’s propaganda and have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into accepting the dogma that any critique of homosexual culture, regardless of how genuinely well intentioned or justified, is per se a mark of intolerance, oppression and even hatred.

 

Among aspects of homosexual conduct that are surely not just antithetical to joyfulness but are downright evil and therefore justify severe criticism, is the intentional transmission of HIV (and other diseases) by HIV-positive men to their HIV-negative sex partners. Variously called generationing, stealthing and/or (contemptuously) gift-giving, this results principally from “barebacking”, a not uncommon practice in which the penetrator purposely engages in unprotected anal sex. Who would do that and why, you may ask? Well, ballet dancers Rudolf Nureyev and Gary Burne, and singer Freddie Mercury were all notoriously reputed to be gift givers. All three died prematurely without, so far as I am aware, regretting that their callous appetites can hardly have failed to infect some (many?) of their sex partners with life-shortening diseases. One hopes that these “lovers” were at least consenting adults, even if they were not fully informed as to what they were consenting.

 

Children under 16 in the UK cannot, by law, consent to sexual activity. It nevertheless happens on a very large scale. Data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in January 2020 shows about 709,000 men in England and Wales were victims of sexual abuse before the age of 16. As most studies indicate that the majority of child sexual abusers (at least 80%) are male, then MSM are likely to account for more than 567 000 of these cases.

 

Is this not also evil? It seems to me to be perfectly clear that Jesus considered it so, given his injunction in Luke 17:2 (and a similar one in Matthew 18): “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”

 

LGBTQ+ communities, from either ignorance or dishonesty, routinely deny that homosexuals are unduly attracted to children as sex partners, and endlessly repeat that the majority of sex offenders against children are heterosexual. This is misleading and deceitful, however much the innumerate may be taken in by it.

 

Firstly, as can be calculated from figures given above, heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals and bisexuals more than 27 times.

 

Numerous studies attest to the proportionally far higher rate of sexual activity between homosexuals and children than between heterosexuals and children. For instance, a study published in the learned journal Archives of Sexual Behavior found that: “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of which is homosexuality… Surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighbourhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30% to 40%.” ( Blanchard, Ray et al: Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, April 1999 [Volume 28, Number 2], pages 111-127, <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10483505>)

 

The findings are supported by other peer-reviewed studies, e.g.:

 

A study by Groth and Birnbaum found that approximately one-third of all cases of child molestation involve an underage boy and an adult male.  (A Nicholas Groth and H Jean Birnbaum: Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons, Archives of Sexual Behavior 7, no. 3 (1978): 175. <www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/>

 

A study by Freund and Watson found that in North America homosexuals account for more than 33% of all reported child molestations. (Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37, cited by Frank Joseph, MD, in his Internet post Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals. <www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html>

 

A follow-up study by Freund et al noted that “... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.” (Freund, Kurt et al: Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference. Journal of Sex Research, February 1989, Volume 26, Number 1, pages 107-117. <www.jstor.org/stable/3813052>)

 

 

Using the figures that present the least bad case, i.e. the case that reflects the lowest rate of child sexual abuse, then: Homosexuals and bisexuals, who are currently reckoned to constitute no more than 3.5% of the population (though LBGTQ+ sources claim it is higher), commit 30% of reported child molestations. Simple subtraction tells us that heterosexuals, who constitute the 95.5% of the population, commit 70% all reported child molestations. This means that, at the very least, homosexuals and bisexuals perpetrate child sexual abuse at more than 11 times the rate that heterosexuals do. The actual figure is thought by some researchers — and may well be — even higher.

 

Another important and entirely separate study also points to the significantly higher level of depravity exists among homosexuals than heterosexuals. The study Do Those Who Engage In Homosexual Sex More Frequently Rape and Murder The Underage? A Test Of Traditional Moralit, was published in the Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior Volume 1 No. 20, © 2007. It concerns the rape and murder of children, and is based on an analysis of newspaper reports indexed by LexisNexis, the world’s largest electronic database for legal and public records information.

 

In the 25 years from 1980 to 2005, 668 reports about the rape and murder of children (again defined as those under the age of 18) were analysed in more than 50 major newspapers indexed by Lexus-Nexus. The analyses found that 202 (or 30%) of those stories involved perpetrators who engaged in homosexual sex, and that “about three-quarters” of all the children victimized were aged under 13.

 

30% is, please recall, the same proportion that has found to have been perpetrators of other varieties of child sexual abuse. So, by the same arithmetical process, homosexuals are more than 11 times more likely to rape and/or murder children than are heterosexuals.

It is important to note that denial that sexual activity between adults and children is harmful is common among pederasts, paedophiles, hebephiles, ephebophiles, homosexuals and their supporters. Peter Tatchell, a self-identified homosexual activist with whom you claim to have held a “constructive dialogue”, has (despite later protestations and “clarifications”) vehemently sought to minimize the perception that the sexual abuse of children causes them harm.

 

In a speech to the Sex and Law Conference in Sheffield in 2010, he said: “Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, under-age sex is mostly consenting, safe and fun. It does not result in any damage. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of sex per se.”

 

That this is a long-held view is clear from Tatchell’s 1997 letter to The Guardian defending the book Dares to Speak: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Boy-love edited by Joseph Gerachi, which states that it “offers a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people” and documented “examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.”

 

Tatchell has stated elsewhere, including on his own website, that:

 

“… the positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to Western cultures.”

 

“… it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

 

Reinforcement of this view is apparent in an interview, again posted on his website, with “Lee”, whom he describes as a“bright, articulate, sure-of-himself, and mature beyond his years” 14 year-old who claimed to have been having sex with boys since the age of 8, and with men since he was 12.

 

Further, in a fulsome obituary Tatchell described Ian Dunn, a co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an organisation that, before it disbanded, campaigned to legalize sex between adults and children, and to promote acceptance and understanding of adults having sex with children, as a “pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality…for 30 years.”

 

In a chapter he wrote for the book Betrayal of Youth, or BOY, edited by the vice-chairman of PIE and paedophile ring member Warren Middleton (also known as John Parratt, who was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment after being convicted of making drawings of children being raped), Tatchell stated that the concept of an age of majority serves no purpose other than “reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era.”

 

Since the adverse publicity generated by the exposure of the perverted activities of members of such groups as PIE and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), many proponents of LBGTQ+ causes have denied having ever supported paedophilia or paedosexuality (in general usage, both terms include pederasty). One of the strongest denials appears in an undated post published online by USA Today, which has the fourth-largest circulation of any newspaper in the USA. The article, headlined “Fact check: LGBTQ community rejects false association with pedophiles” quotes Rich Ferraro, chief communications officer of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), who states, inter alia: “No LGBTQ organization has condoned pedophilia…”

 

This is simply untrue as any competent and honest fact-checker could have established within minutes, if not seconds.

 

The Gay Activists Alliance not merely condoned paedophilia, it was instrumental in founding NAMBLA, while Zymurgy, Inc., an LBGTQ+ non-profit company (not to be confused with the brewing company of that name) fronted for NAMBLA in order to allow the association to benefit illegally from its tax-exempt status for the spreading of its baleful credo.

 

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), which has a North American & Caribbean chapter and United Nations consultative status, formerly represented NAMBLA among more than 1,600 affiliated organisations worldwide. ILGA actively campaigns for adult-child sex via the elimination of  “all laws and policies … that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents to provide consent to sex”. The World Health Organization, please note, defines adolescent as “those between the ages of 10 and 19.

 

Among the most egregious and uncompromising condonations — indeed, it amounted to a full-on endorsement —of paedophilia by a United States LGBTQ+ organization was a conference held at Tufts University on the 25th of March 2000. Called “Teach-Out”, but better known as “Fistgate”, it was organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which was founded by President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”, Kevin Jennings, a proselytizing homosexual. Children as young as 12 were encouraged to attend, and many were bussed in from around Massachusetts to meet homosexual and paedophile activists from across the country. The conference received its cognomen after Margot E. Abels, an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Education, gave children at a workshop a graphic account of “fisting” (inserting an entire hand into another's anus or vagina), which she described as “a very emotional and intense experience.”

 

In Britain, PIE received support from, among other organizations, the Albany Trust (which was founded to complement the Homosexual Law Reform Society), the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, Gay Left (a collective of  “gay” men and a socialist journal of the same name) and the Spartacus International Gay Guide.

 

Other paedophile groups having links with LBGTQ organizations are numbered among the 40 associations on Wikipedia’s List of Pedophile Advocacy Organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pedophile_advocacy_organizations).

 

As previously noted, Tatchell is a particularly fervent advocate of lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex. One key consequence of the Labour Party’s legislation (Blair’s Buggery Bill, as it was appropriately called) to bring this about was that, in the decade from 1999 (the year before the homosexual age of consent was reduced to 16) and 2008, the annual number of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases soared. During 2008, 7,298 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK — more than double that of 1999, according to the international HIV and AIDS charity AVERT. And, according to the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA), a major cause of the rise in the incidence of STDs in the UK was an increase in unsafe sexual behaviour among young people, those aged 16-24 years being most at risk. (Sexually transmitted Infections and Young People in the United Kingdom: 2008 Report, HPA Centre for Infections, July 2008.)

 

Many who claim to be Christians apparently agree with much of what Tatchell preaches. Despite his frequent and virulent attacks on Christianity, he received a standing ovation at the 2010 Greenbelt Festival. How many of those who stood and applauded had accepted his false statements on the harmlessness of adult-child sex, I wonder?

 

Fortunately, most members of the 2014 Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse established by the UK government did not. The high risk of disease aside, among their findings were also:

 

Child Sexual Abuse can have wide-ranging and serious consequences. For some victims these effects endure throughout adult life. Child sexual abuse can affect psychological and physical well-being, family and intimate relationships, faith, and education and career. Victims and survivors can also be two to four times more likely to become victims of sexual, physical or emotional abuse again in their lifetime.

 

One of the most profound effects of child sexual abuse is the damaging impact it can have on the ability to form and maintain close, loving relationships &#8210; both intimate and platonic. It can affect the relationships that victims and survivors have at the time of the sexual abuse and for the rest of their lives. They may find it difficult to talk to partners, family and friends about the sexual abuse, preventing others from being able to help and offer support. 42% of victims and survivors who participated in the Truth Project have said that child sexual abuse has adversely affected the relationships they have with others.

 

Child sexual abuse can cause difficulties in forming intimate and trusting relationships. Relationships can remind victims and survivors of the sexual abuse, and there may be emotional barriers that make it difficult to talk about sexual abuse with partners.

 

There is much more I could write, but I shall end by asking you to acknowledge that a large number of Anglicans and you personally, despite your many good works, have exhibited reprehensible moral and intellectual cowardice in the face of the ongoing woke assault on Christian teachings and civilized values. I strongly suggest that much more than a pallid apology and passive repentance are required. You and others in the church need to take urgent action to ameliorate the great damage you have caused by failing to resist the spread of this pernicious culture.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Matthew Charles White

Trump Evangelicals are not ... Evangelical

If you want to know the larger reason for the cultural rot in our country, look no further than the truth beliefs and dynamics of the Trump Evangelical voters.

Check out this article from the New York Times: Trump is Connecting with a Different Type of Evangelical Voter

Karen Johnson went to her Lutheran church so regularly as a child that she won a perfect attendance award. As an adult, she taught Sunday school. But these days, Ms. Johnson, a 67-year-old counter attendant at a slot-machine parlor, no longer goes to church.

She still identifies as an evangelical Christian, but she doesn’t believe going to church is necessary to commune with God. “I have my own little thing with the Lord,” she says.

Christian faith is about more than our subjective identification. We are called to believe in a real, objective Savior.

What kind of Christianity is this? It's not the real deal, but rather shows the declining religious fervor in this country, and why this country is in big trouble.

Ms. Johnson’s thing includes frequent prayer, she said, as well as podcasts and YouTube channels that discuss politics and “what’s going on in the world” from a right-wing, and sometimes Christian, worldview. No one plays a more central role in her perspective than Donald J. Trump, the man she believes can defeat the Democrats who, she is certain, are destroying the country and bound for hell.

“Trump is our David and our Goliath,” Ms. Johnson said recently as she waited outside a hotel in eastern Iowa to hear the former president speak.

"Trump is our David and our Goliath." Huh? Those two persons in the Biblical accounts were polar opposites, one determined to destroy the other, and one destroyed the other. This kind of self-destruction is why the culture is in trouble in the United States.

White evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades, driving conservative cultural issues into the heart of the party’s politics and making nominees and presidents of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

But no Republican has had a closer — or more counterintuitive — relationship with evangelicals than Mr. Trump.

The reason for the counter-intuitive realities is that too many Christians are not reading their Bibles and they are not connecting with their living Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus is not a means to a political end, either. He is the leader. He is not just our king, but the King of Kings. Yet the growing idolatry among many so-called Christians towards Trump is really disturbing.

But religion scholars, drawing on a growing body of data, suggest another explanation: Evangelicals are not exactly who they used to be.

Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large.

And this is precisely the problem. Church has become a cultural thing, an identifier for political and social purposes, rather than an identity fully ensconced in Christ Jesus. This is beyond unacceptable.

People are basically worshipping a different Christ when they start establishing their own norms and customs for what defines faith.

“Politics has become the master identity,” said Ryan Burge, an associate professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor. “Everything else lines up behind partisanship.”

This assessment is astute in its correctness. Ben Shapiro has been sounding the alarm on people using politics as their main source of identity, will, and purpose. That kind of low-leveling thinking has led to the growing divide in our country, and the growing weakness of the Church in the United States.

The head of the Church is Christ Jesus, not Trump, and a political agenda must not push aside, or "trump," the necessity of the Gospel being preached. I don't come to church just to learn how to vote. I come to church to see Jesus, to be transformed by His Holy Spirit to be more like Him.

In his last (written) words to the Church, Peter told us to "Grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord." (2 Peter 3:18). 

It's all about Jesus, not political outcomes. It's about Jesus, not our limited goals and our feel-good interests.

These "Evangelical" voters are not really all the evangelical, since they aren't all that interested in spreading the Good News, unless it's good news about Donald Trump.

Emptying Pews

Ms. Johnson’s Sunday morning routine changed well before Mr. Trump arrived on the political scene. In her early 20s, she was married to a man who didn’t believe, so she “dropped off going to the building.” She didn’t lose her faith, but life, including children and a few moves, pulled her in other directions.

In this she was typical. Church membership in the United States has been slipping for decades, along with the share of Americans who identify as Christian — and particularly as Protestants, the branch that has historically been the gravitational center of American religion. In the middle of the 20th century, 68 percent of Americans described themselves as Protestant. By 2022, 34 percent did, according to Gallup. (A further 11 percent described themselves as simply “Christian,” a category Gallup did not include until the late 1990s.)

Here's the core cause of our nation's ills. We have lost our identity in Christ, in Church, in faith, and we have gravitated toward our little goals and limited interests. Social cohesion is falling apart, in large part because people are not going to church anymore, either.

And recall at the beginning of the New York Times article, how Ms. Johnson considers herself a faithul believing Christian, even though she forsakes the assembly of herself with other Believers in Christ.

At first, declines mostly affected the more liberal mainline Protestant denominations. But in recent years, self-identified evangelical church attendance has dropped as well, and a larger share of conservatives than liberals report leaving church. In 2021, for the first time on record, less than 50 percent of Americans were members of a church.

COVID-19 and the horrid government backlash to this disease revealed the spiritual weaknesses in America. So many churches went along with the closures, required masks, or settled for online gatherings, despite the guarantees for freedom of religion in the United States Constitution. The fact that churches would cave so quickly to the state exposed their doctrinal and spiritual weakness.

“It’s the largest and fastest religious shift in our nation’s history,” said Michael Graham, the former executive pastor of a nondenominational church in Orlando, Fla., and the co-author of the recent book “The Great Dechurching.”

The transformation has been particularly visible in Iowa, where self-identified evangelicals, who make up about a quarter of the state’s population, are influential bellwethers in Republican politics — but where religious practice has changed more starkly than almost anywhere else in the country.

From 2010 to 2020, the state’s population of church adherents — people with some level of involvement in a congregation — fell almost 13 percent, a sharper decline than in any state except New Hampshire, according to the U.S. Religion Census, a comprehensive decennial survey of congregations.

No wonder Iowa went for Trump again, even though DeSantis demonstrated more religious adherents and political bona fides than Trump.

And the schedules of blue-collar jobs and youth sports no longer consider Sunday mornings sacrosanct, making regular attendance more difficult for working people and families.

Tricia Shuffty, 42, a Republican-leaning independent in Lucas County, said she voted mostly on “biblical issues.” But “unfortunately, I work Sundays,” Ms. Shuffty, a security guard, said, “so I don’t get to go to church regularly.”

The economy has taken a bad turn, for sure, and more people are working two or three jobs just to stay ahead. I do not view this challenge as the bigger reason why the Church in the United States is in trouble.

Clergy and religion experts are quick to note that people who have left church, or did not attend in the first place, have not necessarily abandoned religion. Evangelicalism has long had an individualistic strain that resists the idea that personal faith requires church attendance. Many people whose connection to organized religion has eroded continue to strongly identify as Christians.

That individualistic strain is straining this country. Civilization is not possible without societal cohesion, and that cohesion gives way when people focused on their little lives to the exclusion of everyone else. The Republican Party's drift toward license in the name of liberty, coupled with a complete abandonment of virtue, reflects this larger societal problem.

‘The Only Savior I Can See’

There was little sign at the outset of the 2016 Republican primary season that evangelicals would take to Mr. Trump as enthusiastically as they eventually did. When World magazine, an influential Christian publication, surveyed about 100 evangelical leaders in December 2015, none of them named Mr. Trump as their preferred candidate.

But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church.

These are the same "evangelicals" who likely do not read their books and have used Trump as the replacement Savior for Christ, whom they are not encountering, in part because they don't read their Bibles, and in part because they don't go to church.

Final Comment

Let's face it: the "Trump Evangelicals" are more in love with Trump than they are with Jesus.

They are not going to church.

They are not reading their Bibles.

They are not walking by faith.

They are reframing Jesus and adherence to His grace and truth based on their limited political and cultural interests.

And this trend is a larger reason why our country is in trouble right now.

No presidential candidate is a savior or a Messiah for the country. No one person in the White House is going to fix the spiritual and societal ills ruining this country.

We need a Great Awakening, and that means a restoration of the Gospel, which necessarily rests on the Centrality of Christ.

The Church MUST Influence Goverment

 

FEC United Faith Pillar Devotional November 7, 2022

The Church Should Influence Government   When did the Church decide we shouldn't be a part of government decisions?  Why did we fall for the incorrect interpretation of "separation of church and state?"  That seems like a scheme of the devil to me.  Without the influence of God in our government offices, the laws change to more lawlessness, Biblical values are taken out of the public square, and we wind up with the mess we are in now.    Recently, I was reminded of many Bible prophets, and leaders that were willing to listen to God for guidance and wisdom.  Let me share a few to remind us that the Church (its people) should very much be right in the middle of what happens in our government offices locally and nationally!   Abraham—the father of all nations by God's promise to be his shield and his very great reward (Genesis 15)   Joseph—interprets Pharaoh's Dream and becomes the 2nd in command of Egypt (Genesis 37)   Moses—God gave him the Ten Commandments and much more to teach to the people on how they should live (Deuteronomy 5)   Joshua—God fights for His people when they are strong and courageous (Joshua 1)   Deborah—Used by God to judge the people when they once again turned from God and did what was evil in the sight God (Judges 4)   Gideon—Commanded 300 men to defeat an army of 1000s because he listened to God (Judges 7)   Prophet Samuel—Advised 2 Kings (Saul:  1 Samuel 9-16 David:  1 Samuel 16-25)   King David—Serves God throughout his reign as king (2 Samuel)   Prophet Nathan—Rebukes King David (2 Samuel 12)   Prophet Elijah—Tries to warn King Ahad that turning from God would be his demise (1 Kings 17-22)   Esther and Mordecai—changed Israel's future through King Ahasuerus by standing firm on God's promises even though all seemed lost (Esther)   Prophet Isaiah—advised four Kings (Isaiah)   Nehemiah—Even as a cup barrier he influenced the king (Nehemiah) Jeremiah—tried to warn the leaders of Israel that the country would fall into the hand of Babylon (Jeremiah)   Ezekiel—prophesied hope and reassurance to God's people while enslaved in Babylon (Ezekiel)   Daniel-- serving king Nebuchadnezzar and his successors with loyalty and ability until the time of the Persian conqueror Cyrus, all the while remaining true to the God of Israel (Daniel)   John the Baptist—Warned King Herod that his lifestyle would be his demise (Matthew 14)   Jesus—Our savior from the dying world (throughout Bible)   Paul—Spoke with Government leaders throughout his journeys across the nations (Paul wrote 13 books of the New Testament)   These are just a few people that served the Lord faithfully during their lifetime that had  major influences on their governments.  I encourage you to read the Bible chapters and books listed above to help encourage us that we, as a church, must be an integral part of the decisions made within our government today.   PLEASE VOTE!!!   If you would like to be a part of the FEC UNITED Pikes Peak Faith Pillar, CONTACT:   National FEC Chaplin and Pikes Peak Faith Pillar Pastor Garrett Graupner:    ggraupner@fecunited.com    Pikes Peak Faith Pillar Admin. Jeri S: jeri@fecunited.com

Singapore Christian Lawyer Dishonors Faith in Suit to Repeal 377A

It is very troubling to me the lengths that individuals will go to in order to justify promoting or defending worldly or ungodly tenets all while calling themselves Christians.

One of the thorniest issues in this conflict is homosexuality.

There are a cohort of Christians who think that tolerance of homosexuality is acceptable. It's not.

The proper, holy response to this matter is the Gospel. God sent His Son to die for us sinners, to put away our sins forever, and to bring us into reconciliation with His Father, and now our Father.

This reconciliation takes us from death to life, from sin to son:

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)

"Such were some of you". We are not called to remain in sin once we receive the perfect work of the Son.

So, why do Christians insist on placating homosexuals and accommodating homosexuality?

This problem comes up in a considerable fashion in the legal challenges to Singapore's statute 377a, a law from Britian's colonial rule over Singapore (and other countries) which criminalizes sodomy and other acts of gross indecency.

One lawyer who is fighting for repeal of this law, Jordan Tan, makes the case that his advocacy to repeal this law is fully in concert with his Christian faith:

Christian lawyer in 377A constitutional challenge explains why hisinvolvement is consistent with his faith

Jordan Tan is one of the lawyers bringing the constitutional challenge against Section 377A in the Singapore Court right now.

Mr Tan is also a Christian. This is noteworthy now because he mentioned that there have been queries as to why a Christian lawyer would be involved in such a case, given that he is advocating to repeal a law that criminalises consensual sexual acts between adult males which goes against the teachings of the church.

Indeed, and it goes against nature itself. God made mankind male and female, and He designed marriage for one man and one woman. This is not open for debate.

On 15 November, Mr Tan took to Facebook to answer this question. He said, “Although my relationship with God is a personal private matter, Christian accountability and the exhortation not to stumble others (Romans 14:12-13) calls for an open and honest response to such queries.”

Here is his Facebook post:

 
Our Relationship, our standing before God is NOT a private matter. This idea that our relationship with God has no bearing with public awareness and conviction is just inconsistent with Biblical revelation.

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33)

How do we come to faith in Christ?

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)

Confession is a public act. Christians do not have a private faith with Christ Jesus.

He explains why he is acting as a counsel to advocate for the constitutional challenge against 377A and why he considers it consistent with and is an advancement of his Christian Faith. He said, “I am completely at peace with my role advocating the constitutional challenge against section 377A in the Singapore courts.”

Indeed:

"They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace." (Jeremiah 6:14)

People can say peace all do, but it does not mean that their standing is in concert with God's grace or His goodness in a fallen world.

In his post titled “A Christian Advocate’s Role in the Constitutional Challenge against Section 377A”, Mr Tan laid out five points to explain why he thinks that not only is it appropriate for him as a Christian advocate to be involved in this challenge but that it is “required” by his faith.

Quoting Romans 13:1 which says that Christians should submit to the government authorities for all authorities come from God, this means that the constitution is the highest authority in Singapore since that is where the power of all three branches of the government – executive, legislative, judicial – is derived.

We submit to governing authorities as unto the Lord, for:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)

The highest power belongs to God, and He has empowered all who believe in His son to reign in life (Romans 5:17). Paul the Apostle did not hesitate to appeal to Caesar when he was wronged in court, for example (Acts 25:1-12).

Mr Tan explained, “Given that there are legally meritorious grounds to support the conclusion that section 377A is unconstitutional, it would be wholly inappropriate to shirk away from the responsibility of scrutinising that law against the Constitution and to have it construed or read-down in a manner so that it is consistent with the Constitution.”

No, there are no grounds for repealing the law. Acts which criminalize, and thus discourage gross indecency, carry merit all of themselves.

He added, “Accordingly, advocating the constitutional challenge against section 377A advances, instead of detracts from, the highest authority of the land, namely, the Constitution. It is a submission to authority which is called for in the Word.”

The highest authority for a Christian is not a man-made Constitution, but Christ Himself. Full stop.

Mr Tan’s second reason was that he is assisting the court by presenting rigorous arguments in an intellectually honest manner, which is in line with the value of justice. He said, “in our system of law, the adversarial system works best when both sides of an issue are presented rigorously and in an intellectually honest manner. The Court is more ably assisted and the crucible of the adversarial system produces more robust and better-reasoned judgments.

Honesty requires a recognition of the truth, not just speaking one's honest feelings or thoughts on a matter. I may honestly believe that I am the prime minister of Singapore, and I may ardently profess that I am such. That does not make me the prime minister.

Mr Tan quoted Psalm 37:28 which highlight’s God’s love for justice and said that “it is appropriate to participate in a process which serves the ends of justice and to do so in a manner that promotes, at the minimum, better-reasoned judgments.”

Therefore, the just thing to do is maintain 377a. Acts of gross indecency should be criminalized.

The third reason Mr Tan outlined was his view that God prefers obedience grounded in faith instead of fear. He said “my firm view that God does not delight in compliance with the law for fear by persons of criminal sanction; God delights in obedience which comes from believing in Him and having a personal relationship with Him, not fear of going to jail.”

Yes, we should come to God in faith, not fear. His perfect love sent His Son to die for us, to rise for us, and that through Him we live. Part of walking by faith is walking in concert under His grace. The grace of God teaches us to reject sin and live godly lives (Titus 2:11-14). Homosexual conduct is sin, and anyone under grace is no longer under the dominion of sin:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14)

Next, Mr Tan highlighted Jesus’ iconoclastic way of life as he spent time “in the company of the very religious and the powerful, pursued the marginalised, the weak, and the downtrodden”. Quoting Matthew 20:16 which says the last shall be the first and the first shall be the last, Mr Tan noted how Jesus “loved and cared for the last”.

Connecting that to Singapore, Mr Tan talked about how Section 377A alienates, discriminates, and marginalises an entire community. He said, “In the course of my work, I have found that it has had seriously damaging effects on the LGBTQ+ community and demeans them. In some extreme cases, it emboldens those who would actively discriminate against them.”

This is the most outrageous, failed argument yet. Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. LGBT "people" is a non sequitur, and this flawed reasoning evades proper debate.

The behaviors themselves are demeaning, for God did not create man to engage in sexual perversion, male with male, or female with female.

He says this is morally wrong.

Finally, Mr Tan pointed out that 377A forms a serious barrier in the communication and forming of relationships between the Christian community and the LGBTQ+ community, and presents a block for the latter community to form relationships with God.

The Christian community is the Church, the Body of Christ. The Church is not peripheral to the world, but vice versa. The Church does not need to change and conform to allow for more people, but to speak the truth of God's grace in love.

God calls all of us to come out of the fallen world and come home to Him, to come home to His love.

He says, “It is self-evident which is more important: the roadblock or the potential of forming meaningful relationships with the entire LGBTQ+ community.”

The Church needs to invite homosexuals, transgenders, and other sexual paraphiliacs to be reconciled to God!

"20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:20-21)

He continued, “It also self-evident which will lead more people into a relationship with God.”

No. The purpose of the state is to restrain evil. The purpose of the Church is to bring the Goodness of God to the world.

In concluding his post, Mr Tan said he wanted to title the post “A (struggling) Christian’s Role…” for fear that he might be holding himself out as a paragon of a Christian, which he admits he is not. But he decided against it because all Christians are struggling Christians, said Mr Tan.

Mr. Tan is not a paragon of Christian virtue. Not once has he magnified Christ Jesus and His finished work. Not once has he declared that homosexuality is something to abhor and reject, but that God loves sinners, and does not reject those who come to Him.

Rather than normalizing or enabling the destructive behaviors, Mr. Tan should be advocating for the further dissemination of God's Word, Grace, and Truth to those who are in bondage to homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like.

He then recalled something his senior pastor once said, “The litmus test of whether one is a Christian is whether one struggles. The struggle reflects the continued desire to do God’s will and the human failings which call for the need to rely on God’s strength.”

NONSENSE. The Christian life is a life of rest--the only struggle is to enter into His rest!

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." (Hebrews 4:1)

Yes, there is a passage about fighting:

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." (1 Timothy 6:12)

The literal translation reads "Let the good fight of faith by fight."

This is a fight of trusting God, of resting in the truth of His Word. Faith, after all, is about seeing what is invisible, and recognizing that God's promises have come to pass.

Mr Tan continued, “In my years on this journey with God I have found that in addition to weighing decisions against the Word and prayer, it is peace which characterises making the correct decision which pleases God.”

No. We are always supposed to have his peace. It's not the sudden presence of peace upon making a decision which matters. We should refrain from actions when there is a lack of peace:

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

In this case, Mr Tan says “I am completely at peace with my role advocating the constitutional challenge against section 377A in the Singapore courts.”

Final Reflection

This Jordan Tan fellow is brazenly disregarding Christ and Him Crucified. There is some other perverse pretext for his advocating the repeal of 377A. He is more interested in being liked and accepted by some community of sexual deviants, perhaps.

Or, if his sentiments are genuine, he is clearly misguided about this effort. He thinks that he is helping individuals come closer to Christ by taking away the secular sanction against an abominable behavior. What church, what pastor has told him that the quiet promotion of homosexuality is acceptable and in keeping with Biblical truth?

This challenge must be met with conviction and clear understanding of God's Word. The churches of Singapore must restore the full understanding of the Gospel, which takes us from death to life, which takes from living in sin to living in the Son, and thus sets us free from dead works, sin and death.

Keep 377A.

Grace, Law, and Immigration: Does the Bible Teach Open Borders and Amnesty?

Does the Bible teach amnesty?

Does the Gospel of Grace mean that people who broke into a country illegally should be allowed to stay?

The Bible does NOT teach that.

Let's start with Scriptures in the Old Testament, the expectations laid out for men and women who wanted to immigrate into Israel.

First, a brief summary provided by Thomas Williams on Breitbart:

Every nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.

In a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.

The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”

Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”

  

“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.

In the Old Testament, there were clear passages against allowing certain people to even enter into the congregation of worship until certain generations has passed.

"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:" (Deuteronomy 23:3)

Notice how severe the stricture was here.

But ... a Moabite would eventually enter into the congregation of Israel.

Ruth and Naomi

How and when did this happen? Through Ruth!

She was a Moabitess, therefore a despised people whom the Israelites were supposed to have no concourse with.

Yet Noami, an Israelite, ended up in Moab because of her husban Elimelech, who decided to settle there because of a severe famine.

The husband died, and their two sons also died, and the two daughters-in-law remained.

Then check out what Ruth said to her mother-in-law:

16And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: 17Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. 18When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

Let's declare the clear demacations of a proper immigrant:

First of all, she didn't barge into Israel on her own. She didn't violate the borders of the state of Israel. She recognized her initial status as a Moabite.

Second, she came in legally, specifically through a sponsor: her mother-in-law. She was related by kinship and had a base of support with her.

Now, notice the five-fold identification she established with her:

1."Where you go, I will go." Her pathway would be determined by the Israelite, not her own. She would live with her family member. In Hebrew, the word "Halak" speaks not just of walking, but identification. She would conduct herself in Naomi's fashion, she would act according to her precepts and principles, not her own. 

2. "Where you lodge, I will lodge." She did not become a burden on someone else. She did not seek to take up space or squat in someone else's home. She will rest in the home of her mother-in-law. She seeks refuge with a family member, not with the government.

3. "Your people will be my people." The Israelites did not tolerate or embrace mulit-culturalism. The people who entered Israel were expected to become Israelites. Immigrants must give up their full identity to their home country and assimilate into their new country.

4. "Your God will be my God." This is the most powerful statement in the list of five points. She would reject the pagan traditions of her country and embrace the spiritual values of her new country. This statement is especially crucial, because a country's moral compass and world view determines whether a country and a culture survives or not. 

This tenet should give us every right to reject Islam and reject Muslims from entering the United States.

5. "Where you do, I will die and be buried." With this statement, Ruth announces that her future will be invested in her new country. She refuses to be buried in her former homeland, choosing to identify fully with her new home.

These are the principles, the expectation which everyone of us should expect from immigrants. Men and women who want to enter the United States must do so with the express interest of embracing the American culture, both moral and political, and desire to become Americans.

There are other clear passages about keeping out ardent enemies and their ways from Israel:

30Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

Immigrants should come to a country to enjoy and enter into the culture. They should not come in to take from everyone else and degrade or destroy the country which they are entering.

The New Testament

Granted, God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son (John 3:16)

That's about as inclusive as it gets.

But what about nation states? Do they not matter?

Yes, they do.

God had already intended for men and women to be separated into different peoples when He divided their languages:

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Paul and Peter urge respect for temporal authorities, too.

First, Paul:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. (Romans 13:1-3)

The same powers which come from God outline clear borders and distinctions among peoples.

The phasing out of national borders will not come until His reign on the earth.

Then Peter:

13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. (1 Peter 2: 13-17)

We are called to honor temporal authorities, in that they are in full submission to the will and direction of God. In modern times, republican forms of government have emerged, which permit citizens to elect their representatives and leaders.

The distinctions between countries, the borders and the enforcement of immigration laws all fall under "Fear God. Honor the king." People who break into another country are trespassing, and that is a crime. They are not honoring the rule of law in their home country or the other country.

This is a basic principle, which no one has a right to deny or dispute.

Even in the Church, there were clear borders, in the metaphorical sense that anyone who was not conducting himself according to the Gospel of Grace was confronted on it--and anyone engaging in ongoing perversion without consequence was held accountable:

"7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:" (1 Corinthians 5:7)

and

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20: 28-30)

By the way ... even the New Jerusalem will have walls:

"And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:" (Revelation 21:12)

Final Reflection

Borders, security, national identity, inclusion vs. exclusion, and immigration, Christians can respond effectively to these issues through the Bible. The Bible does NOT teach that countries should allow men and women from other countries to flood another country. The Bible does not teach or outline that borders should be phased out, and that men and women should strive to impose some one-world, borderless government.

The Bible does not teach that individuals must go out of their way to succor and supply everything to illegal aliens. Yes, there is such a thing as "illegal", and the word of God does not impose on men and women in any country to give up their own resources by force.

Look again to Ruth and her assimilation into the Commonwealth of Israel. That picture, by the way, is a picture of God's grace. She was not supposed to even enter the congregation of Israel at all! Yet she did.

Yet even in the picture of God's grace, behold how Ruth gave up her Moabite status and past and embraced being a Jew, a convert to Israel. God not only blessed her, but she became an ancestor of the great kings David and Solomon, and the Greatest King of All, Jesus Christ! (Matthew 1:5)