Category: Uncategorised

The Dinesh D’Souza Controversy

What can be said about the controversy involving D’Souza? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

What can be said in light the Dinesh D’Souza controversy (accusation) (response) (King’s College Resignation)? At the very least, Dinesh began a relationship which led to engagement with Denise Joseph while separated from his wife, Dixie. His filing for divorce was registered with the court on October 4, but he had started the process, which takes time, two weeks before that. His wife initiated their two-years separation, while Dinesh initiated the divorce process they are currently undergoing, and he claims to have biblical grounds for it. The stronger accusation, which may be false, is that he and Denise Joseph shared a Comfort Suites room together after attending the Truth for a New Generation 2012 conference September 28 in South Carolina.

I am a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance (link) and the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance (link), where this story was brought to my attention. I was recommended, as our “pro-family” guy, to be the one to write on this. This is not an official CAA statement, and I claim full responsibility for all the words and any errors in this post.

I am a fan of Dinesh D’Souza. I have enjoyed a number of his debates, such as his against John Loftus. I did go and see the 2016 movie. I have a copy of “What’s So Great About Christianity?” and had my picture taken with D’Souza at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Readers also know that, personally, I am a strong conservative, so great bonus points to someone who worked in the Reagan administration.

Yet now, his reputation is being called into question.

There are some things that are agreed upon. It is agreed that D’Souza has been separated from his wife for two years. D’Souza says that Dixie demanded it before he went to Kings College. Unfortunately, what is not given is the reason for the separation.

It is also agreed that he had a fiancé. D’Souza presented her at a recent Christian apologetics conference as his fiancé. D’Souza says he would not have done this if he had thought he was doing anything wrong. They have decided to suspend their engagement. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

There is debate on whether he shared a room with his fiancé. Some people are saying, “Yes, he did.” Dinesh is saying, “No, I didn’t.” I recommend, at this point, until we have absolute certainty, that we not argue that he did or didn’t do anything. This has become a case of “He said, she said.” Reputations can be too easily destroyed, and let’s be sure of this: No one wants to do that. I have seen people attacked in the Christian community for offenses that are imagined but not real. Note that I am not saying anyone is deliberately presenting false information. We don’t know what has happened exactly, but let’s be a community of grace for the time being.

In our community, when sin comes out, before seeking to condemn, we should seek to reach the person first (Matthew 18:15-17). When we go immediately to the public, as did Marvin Olasky, we automatically begin a kind of polarization. It would be better if these kinds of matters could be discussed behind closed doors first, but that does not seem to be what happened. It’s too easy to turn others against someone, when others are not likely to read the other side.

So let’s talk about what is most concerning here in all of this to me.

Why is Dinesh filing for divorce?

There are biblical reasons for divorce, but does D’Souza have them? Has he done everything he can to make matters right? Now, if his wife, who initiated the separation, will not seek reconciliation, then there is really nothing Dinesh can do. However, even if that is the case, it would be most proper for him to wait until his divorce is finalized before getting engaged to another woman. As it is, it appears he began the relationship with her before he began filing for divorce, unless he decided he would like to begin a lifelong relationship with her the moment he decided to file. Either alternative does not seem to take marriage seriously.

Let’s suppose biblical reasons are not there. If that is the case, then what we need to do is to seek restoration for Dinesh and his wife Dixie. In our day and age, marriage is being deteriorated and if the reasons are not biblical, then we are adding to the deterioration and making matters worse for society as a whole. We should all be seeking to do what we can to uphold marriage and treat it seriously to a world that does not.

Those of us who are married know that marriage is hard work. It is also very revelatory. I find that when I have one accusation concerning my Mrs., there can be a large number coming back at me. It has been a point of mine to look at myself and ask, “How am I doing?” For we men especially who believe we are the leaders of the household (I do hold to that, although not every Christian does), we need to realize that we are to be constant examples to a watching world and especially our spouses.

Marriage is hard work, but it is worth it. We should be seeking to build one another up and constantly asking ourselves how we can do better. Men, instead of asking, “How can my wife be a better wife?” should ask, “How can I be a better husband?” Women should not be asking how their husbands can be better husbands, but how they themselves can be better wives. In your marriage, you can influence one spouse and directly change another one. Guess which one is which.

What is concerning, for those who don’t know the facts, which includes pretty much all of us, is what kind of idea of marriage D’Souza is presenting. For instance, in his 2016 movie, I am sure that D’Souza mentions he got married the same year Obama did. If someone sees that and then hears him at a conference saying “Here’s my fiancé,” then what are they to think? What if someone in the audience is not sure if he should continue being married to his wife? Could he not look at this and say, “Well, here’s a great Christian leader who doesn’t seem to have a problem. I guess I wouldn’t, either.”

Keep in mind that applies even if the reasons for the split between D’Souza and his wife are biblical. A person listening in the audience could be persuaded to think that divorce is no big deal. Hopefully, this is not the message that D’Souza would intend to share, but we must be aware that people watch for how we act.

At this point, until there is proof that a room was shared at a conference, or that it wasn’t, it needs to be discussed behind closed doors. What the Christian community needs is men who will surround D’Souza right now and ask how they can pray for him and help him out and if possible, seek what restoration could take place. If there are no biblical grounds for divorce, then D’Souza does need to be called out on it, though not publicly. The possible dirty laundry does not at this point need to be publicly aired.

Definitely until matters are cleared up, it is good that D’Souza has suspended his engagement. Again, even if the reasons for divorce are biblical, he is not divorced yet and needs to consider how people considering backing out of their marriage could consider the situation. As far as it looks right now, he had both a wife and a fiancé.

While D’Souza has said he has sought to see if it is legal for that situation, we must remember that legal does not equal moral. There are a number of practices today that are legal but would not be advisable for Christians to do. What should have been done is to make sure that D’Souza has good pastoral, not only legal, counsel. If D’Souza did not think that he could approach the Christian community with his concerns, then that is an even greater indictment on us to do better.

For the time being, be praying for D’Souza and please avoid sharing information about him that is not proven to be accurate. Words can destroy a reputation immediately even if they might be untrue. Let us remember that we seek to build up the body and not tear it down.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Addendum: As D’Souza has stepped down from his position as president of King’s College, we do hope that this time will be used to answer the issues about which we expressed concern.

Jonathan’s Impact

What difference can one life make? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The author of James reminds us that we are but a vapor that lasts for a moment. Nevertheless, a vapor can make a difference. It can provide a moment of heat for a world. Some of us live lives not realizing the future that awaits us. We do not realize that we will have left this world either dragging it down or making it better. People will remember us after we are gone. We will either leave them for the better or the worse. The question is not “Will we make an impression?” The question is “What kind of impression will we make?”

Many of us believe we will have a long life. As it stands, I have lived on this Earth for 32 years now. My wife has lived for 22 years. We are fortunate for those years. My grandmother died two years ago as her time had come. My own parents are around the age of 60 at the moment. I live next door to an aunt and uncle that I have known from birth who are my grandmother’s sister and her husband. I can think about when I was about to have surgery shortly before I turned 16, my youth minister at the time was having his first child and now she is a little past the age I was at that time. I look on Facebook and see people I went to school with and realize how much has changed.

How much time do I have? I do not know. Being a husband now, it is something I think about often. How long will I be around to provide for my wife? In some ways, I realize it is harder for me since I am nearly 10 years older than she is. Still, I want to make the most of the time that I have left. I look sometimes at all the books I want to read and all the subjects that I want to learn and realize there is so much. One thing you learn in apologetics after awhile, as is most likely in any field of knowledge, is not what you know, but how much you don’t know. You can look and wonder if you will reach your goal and if you do, then what? What all does it mean? Will you have left this world having made a difference?

What if I told you you had seventeen years to live? What would that mean to you? Many of us as youth would think such a thought preposterous. We are young and invincible. No one really makes a plan to die early like that, but the sad reality is that several do. There are tragedies in this world. We seem to realize that such events in an ideal world would not happen, but they do. This world is not ideal. That is why we must all make an effort to make it better.

Jonathan Dileo was one who did.

What is Jonathan’s story? Jonathan was a happy kid who loved Christ and Christian apologetics. He was a great fan of William Lane Craig. I got to know him through TheologyWeb where he was a beloved member. In my position, I often served as a mentor type for men growing up in the field and have sought to be that. It is not just my hope to teach them how to be good apologists, but even more so, I want to teach them how they are to be good men. Jonathan and I formed a fast friendship.

At one point in his school, his class had readings of “Tuesdays With Morrie.” They were stories about a man talking to another, Morrie, who was dying, and gaining his wisdom. The students were told to find a wiser person they considered a Morrie and talk with them for an hour at a time on various topics. I was very surprised one day when Jonathan messaged me on AIM and asked me to be his Morrie. It was a thrill and when that time came, I dropped everything and focused for an hour. We talked about so many different topics. Love, death, the perfect day. I got to see Jonathan’s reports and thoroughly enjoyed them.

Then tragedy came.

Jonathan was found to have a cancerous brain tumor.

Four months later, he was gone.

I won’t deny to you, I feel a great sadness rising up inside of me as I write this. Jonathan was a bright light and then that light was extinguished.

Or was it?

As said, a vapor can leave a bit of heat. Some of us leave more behind than we realize.

Before he died, Jonathan was visited by the Make-A-Wish foundation and asked to make a wish. Let’s be honest. Most of us would want to meet a celebrity or go to Disneyworld or be in the audience of a TV show or something like that.

Most of us are just selfish like that.

Jonathan wasn’t.

Jonathan had already done mission work.

Jonathan’s wish was for a water system to be built for the Mbuya Nehanda Children’s home, an orphanage in Melfort Zimbabwe.

That vapor is still giving off its heat.

The world is a bit warmer because of it.

Today, his parents have set up “Jonathan’s Impact”, a ministry dedicated to fulfiling the dream of Jonathan. The irrigation system he wanted is up and running, but more is being done to make sure that orphanage, and I’m sure several more, have what they need. Today, many children are able to have growing crops and good water because of the dying wish of Jonathan.

Today, lives all over the world are changed because of one boy’s wish.

Today, I am changed by remembering his impact and wanting to make sure I leave the impact.

Today, I hope you will be changed the same way.

I often wonder about where those who have gone on are exactly right now. Sometimes I think they could be on Earth, but more walking on another plane of existence as it were where they see fully through the presence of God. Living in my grandmother’s old house, I often wonder if she could be watching my wife and I sometimes. Sometimes, when I think about this, I wonder if Jonathan is. He knew I deeply wanted to get married and I wonder if he knows now and is happy. I wonder if I can make the impact that Jonathan did and it took him a short time to do it.

Why did he make that impact? He did something many of us, including myself, have a hard time doing. He didn’t focus on himself. (Something incredibly hard to do in the world of the Aspie, though it could be this is much harder for others than I realize)

My own wife does know that there are times I talk about Jonathan, someone she knows very much about, and I just have to have a hug from her then. He was my friend, and I miss him. I still talk to his dad regularly on the phone. He even sent my wife and I flowers for our first anniversary. He is a great guy still fighting on hard. I admire his ability to keep going despite such a tragic loss that is the nightmare of any parent.

Like all ministries, what I do here is supported by donations. I do hope for your support, but also please add another ministry to your list and tell others about it. Jonathan’s Impact is one that should be felt everywhere. At the end, I will include a link to this where you too can find out more.

And as for you Jonathan, I do miss you greatly and I look forward to seeing you again someday.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Jonathan’s Impact Orphan Ministries

Biden On Abortion

Is Biden’s answer to the abortion question a good defense of the pro-choice position? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Like many of you last night, I watched the vice-presidential debate and I was definitely pleased to hear the abortion question come up. Thankfully, Ryan did not get interrupted during what I thought was an excellent answer. Ryan got to the facts of what abortion is, which is the main question to answer. Then we turned to Biden, who like Ryan, is Catholic. Biden gave an answer that I’m sure many Christians thought would be difficult to argue against. Is it really a good response? Let’s find out.

Biden: My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

Response: Of course, we would not have much problem with this. Granted, I am not a Catholic, but by and large, we would not have problems as Christians even if we’re not Catholics with the idea that we should help others who cannot take care of themselves. The difference is I would include babies in the womb at this point.

Biden: With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

Reply: Here is the key point. Biden has just said life begins at conception, which is exactly what Ryan had said earlier. This is the opinion of the RCC as well. Biden says that he accepts it personally.

Biden: But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

Reply: For many, this sounds so good and non-judgmental and tolerant, which is what we’re taught to be. “I personally am against abortion, but I’m not going to limit your freedom to do that.”

And hey, we don’t want anyone imposing their worldview on us. Right? We don’t want to live in a theocracy or anything like that do we? What could we have against this?

Biden’s problem is that his view is imposing. Let’s look at this with what he says next.

Biden: I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that.

Reply: Once again, this fits with our modern milleu, but it assumes at the start that the life in the woman is her body, which is just its first major problem. If that life in there is something that might depend on the woman but is itself not part of the woman, then it is not the woman’s body. It is another body that is growing inside of the body of the woman.

We also do a number of times tell women they can’t control their body. If a woman goes out and strips nude in a public place, we will arrest her. It’s her body, but she is not allowed to publicly expose herself. If a woman gets drunk and tries to drive, we will arrest her for what she is doing with her own body. The idea that if someone does something with their own body then it is automatically justifiable is simply false.

Now by and large, we do let people do what they want with their own bodies, but only until they endanger the freedom of another. You have the right to free speech, but that does not mean you can use it to walk into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” or make a threat on the life of a government official. Recently someone on Twitter, for instance, said they would assassinate Mitt Romney. While they later said it was a joke, one suspects the Secret Service might not be laughing.

Biden’s position is in fact imposing. He is imposing the idea on people that the baby in the womb is included in the woman’s body and is not a separate body. For the sake of argument, he could be right about that. That needs to be argued. If this is a life, as Biden himself has said, then Biden is essentially saying that he believes this is a new life that has come into existence and he is opposed to abortion, but he will not stop it if a woman wants to do that, even though, as said, it is a new life.

Would the same apply to a toddler? Would Biden be personally against killing a toddler, but if a woman wants to do that to her toddler, well that’s her right? As has been said, there is nothing magical about the birth canal that suddenly makes the baby a new life. The question we could ask Biden is at what point does it become wrong to kill the life and why is it at that point since you hold that life begins at conception?

We also all impose our views on another person to an extent. Every law is the imposition of someone’s view. If I’m out driving, I cannot suddenly drive on the left side of the road here in America and respond to the police officer with “Don’t impose your views of driving on me!” Every law is built on some moral basis and it is declared that a society is better if it follows that moral basis than if it does not.

What are we saying about abortion? We are making a statement about life in relation to abortion. There are people who are saying to give out contraception so there will be fewer abortions and if it is not given, we will keep having sex and you will be responsible for the abortions.

No. We’re not. We’re not responsible for what someone else does. If someone wants to avoid pregnancy, then there are contraceptives out there they can use. There are natural family planning routes as well one can take for those who do not support contraception. However, if you have sex when it is prone to bring about pregnancy and you get pregnant, the person responsible is you and the person you had sex with. (This is assuming a natural case and not the case of something like rape) If you choose to abort, you are not forced to. You choose to. (All things being equal. I know there are sad cases where a husband or boyfriend or some other figure forces an abortion.) This is simply emotional blackmail.

What needs to be asked is if this is the kind of behavior we want to promote? Do we want to promote the idea that sex is a natural act just like any other act and can be done with most anyone and anywhere, or do we want to promote the idea that sex, while a natural act, is a sacred act that is reserved for those who have given the highest level of trust to one another? Do we want to say it should happen in marriage so that children born can be raised by their biological mother and father in a stable and committed relationship?

Biden’s own position has him doing an imposition on the baby especially. The baby is denied the right to exist in this world in the name of supposed freedom of the mother. We would not allow the killing of a toddler or a young child for that reason. Why do we allow it for abortion?

The rest of what Biden says is more into political aspects I will not get into. I simply wish to point out that Biden’s argument does not work. If life begins at conception, as Biden says, then Biden is saying he thinks the taking of innocent life should be legal. This is not a position a Christian should take. It would be interesting to see if they have not spoken out already what the RCC happens to think of Biden’s position. It could be someone might not be allowed to partake of the Eucharist.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Going Against The Flow

Is that flowchart accurate? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Several have already undertaken a look at the flowchart going around Facebook that starts with the question of if one thinks homosexuality is sinful. If someone doesn’t, then homosexuals should not be allowed to redefine marriage. So is it really sinful?

There’s a problem right at the start. We could say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is not immoral and it would not therefore follow that it would be good to redefine marriage. The other side needs to not just deal with arguments against, and this one is quite a straw man, but also present arguments for.

At any rate, let’s look at the arguments.

To begin with, it is assumed that if you don’t think homosexuality is a sin, then you are part of civilized society. This is just more of the love and tolerance we’ve come to expect. Either you agree with us or you are just not civilized. Why should this be the case? Why should those who support redefining marriage be the ones who get to determine what in society exactly will qualify as civilized?

The first statement on the left is that Jesus said so. Well Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality. That’s true. He never said anything about rape or child sacrifice or bestiality or incest either. Silence does not equal approval. However, there is a bigger flaw with this.

Jesus lived in a society where the Torah was seen as divinely revealed. Now you can say that the Torah was wrong, but Jesus did not. In fact, if anything, with the moral pronouncements of the Torah, Jesus raised the bar extremely. Now if he had thought the message on homosexuality was wrong, he could have said that. He said nothing. In that society, that would imply an implicit agreement with the Torah. When he thought something was wrong, he was quick to say so. That he said nothing about homosexuality being okay should lead us to think Jesus would go the other way.

Next we go to the Old Testament. Well the Old Testament also says it’s sinful to eat shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, and eat pork.

It also says murder, adultery, and theft are sinful. Shall we call these into question?

The problem is such an approach does not differentiate between the ceremonial and civic law and between the moral law in the Bible. Now once again, the Bible could be wrong on the moral law, but let us be sure that we are not being wrong in what it teaches. The context determines what kind of abomination something is. It does not always mean something wicked, but it can. What is the context of the condemnation of homosexuality? It’s in a list of sexual sins and right between bestiality and child sacrifice.

Somehow, I don’t think the Bible ever approves of child sacrifice nor does YHWH in the Bible ever treat it as something you need divine revelation to know is wrong.

Why are pork and shellfish not to be eat? Most likely, it’s because these mix two different spheres in some area. For instance, shellfish can be like land creatures but they are water-dwellers, unlike fish that are pure water creatures. We might think this is silly, but to the ancients, purity was huge. We have that in our own way. We sell hand sanitizer profusely and anywhere you go you can find something to clean your hands.

Another example is mixed fabrics. Why? Every aspect of the life of the Israelite was to remind them that God was pure and that went to the clothes that they wore. Note that these laws were for Israel alone. No other nation was ever punished for not living according to the law of Torah. They were punished for not living morally.

What about the rest of the NT? Well the word refers to molestation and prostitution and not to committed homosexual relationships. A number of problems. First off, we are told no Greek scholars that say this. Before we believe this, we need to see it. I know of no Greek scholar that says that about passages like Romans 1 or 1 Cor. 6.

Second, with committed homosexual relationships, in our own day and age, purely monogamous relationships that are same-sex and sexual are incredibly rare, especially among men. Furthermore, Paul would not have known what would be meant by someone being homosexual. Homosexuality was not seen as an identity but as just a behavior. A person engaged in same-sex behavior but they were not described as a homosexual.

Also, Paul said women should be silent and not hold authority over a man. Many scholars think that 1 Cor. 14 could have Paul stating what the Corinthians were saying and then responding. Note that earlier in the letter he talked about a woman prophesying. Paul may be wrong on some things, but he’s not an idiot. He’s not going to talk about women leading worship and then say the women should be quiet.

For the part about not having authority, one wonders if the writer looked at any commentaries on the passage whatsoever. It’s quite likely Paul was dealing with a certain teaching at the time and saying that insofar as leadership went, a woman was not to lead over a man. In fact, in our own day and age, there are some women who would agree with this on that level saying that there is a reason for male headship. This is not to be used to lower women. That there is a difference in position does not mean a difference in humanity or value. I’ll say for the reader, my position is not set in stone yet.

The next part is that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Correct, and Jesus himself affirmed this as the design of marriage and there is no change. In the Old Testament itself, it’s said a man will leave a father and mother and be united to his wife. God could have easily created several men from scratch and several women, but he chose one family at the start and when it comes after the flood, we see no change in that.

The Bible does not define marriage as one man and one woman.

I leave that to my friend J.P. Holding here.

The last one is because it disgusts me.

Well sorry, but I don’t see that one being argued. Again, my personal tastes should not be the standard for anyone, but then neither should that of the left.

That’s my take on this poor argument. Another great look can be found by my friend here.

Don’t be a conformist. Go against the flow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Restitution

Must you make it right? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In our look at the Old testament Law, we come to Exodus 22:3b-6 which reads as follows.

“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. 4 If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession —whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.

5 “If anyone grazes their livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in someone else’s field, the offender must make restitution from the best of their own field or vineyard.

6 “If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.”

In each of these, we have the eye for an eye principle. Thievery is taken seriously, but notice that it is not punishable by the death penalty. This is immediately after an account about someone breaking into your house. While in some societies, someone could be killed or even mutilated for stealing, it was not the same in the Israelite society. Possessions are to be treated as possessions and not as people.

For the first, why should a thief pay back double if the animal is live? For one thing, the thief would have the benefits of the animal and then he would have no cost after that. He got an ox let’s say and got the ox to do some work for him and maybe even do some mating for him and then he had to give the oxen back to its owner. It becomes a kind of borrowing that is done without permission and the thief still gets the benefit. If he has to pay back double, then he does lose. He may have some benefit that is not known about, but there is no doubt that he has a loss. Without this, there would be nothing to stop a thief from deciding to steal.

The next cases do not involve intentional thievery but damage to property. Note that the repayment must come from the best. You could not go and give rotten fruit to someone when their good fruit had been eaten. You had taken someone’s livelihood from them and you must give of your own to make sure that that person had enough. Such a practice would help to make sure that you did your part to take care of your animals.

What about a fire? This would point to carelessness. If you are careless, you pay the price. We could prosecute someone for starting a forest fire even if unintentional today. If you do, you must make restitution and in this case, this could mean making restitution to several different people depending on how powerful the fire is.

What does all this mean for us today? Many of us would by and large I suppose not have a problem with laws such as these. Today in our system of justice, we believe in such repayment. It can often be done in the form of community service or something of that sort since many of us do not have livestock in that way or garden the same way.

We can also appreciate that the biblical writers were concerned for the justice of each person in the Israelite society and making sure that any loss would be taken care of.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Supporting Marriage In Your Area

What can you do to support marriage where you live? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Sunday, I listened to a podcast from the Ruth Institute that really inspired me. It had someone named Tom Peters (No relation) speaking on what anyone can do to support marriage and one idea was to use social media. Now I use social media quite often but decided that come Monday, since I avoid Facebook on Sundays, that I would start up a group to support marriage in my area. Living in Tennessee, I created the group Tennesseans For Marriage.

If you live in Tennessee, I invite you to join the group and help us support marriage. If you don’t, here’s my recommendation. Start one up in your own state. If the whole state seems to ambitious for you, at least go for your city or community. There are several people out there who support marriage, as we have seen in states where this has been put to a vote. The reason you don’t hear from them could be that they are scared to speak thinking they are in a minority. A group is a great way to get people together, especially since all they have to do is like a page. They may not be able to debate, but they can see those who can and get information and support when they face the “love and tolerance” from those who disagree.

Keep in mind also that you are not anti-gay. No Christian should be. We are to love those who have same-sex attractions. What you are is pro-family. You support the right of a child to be attached to their biological mother and father. Note also then that in your groups, you should be seeking to build up marriage. What is it that is required to live a life of love with your spouse? How can husbands be better husbands? How can wives be better wives? One argument often given to us that we must admit has credibility is that the church has not done the best job of honoring marriage. While I do think the 50% divorce rate is not accurate, I think most anyone would agree in the church that it is still too prevalent and this has only damaged marriage.

Your group is also not just a Christian group. In my group, I welcome all people from all political persuasions and from all religious beliefs. I would not have a problem with an atheist joining even if they agreed that marriage is a man and a woman. This is a belief that transcends religions. It is also one that transcends politics and so once again, make sure that if you start a group, that it is open to anyone who wants to join. Be sure to support those who are out there fighting for marriage, even if they are not with the party that you normally side with.

The reality is that the facts are on our side and we can win the battle for marriage. What it will require is simply that we act. This might be a small way to start to act, but it is something, and it does not require much of you. Take your stand and support marriage today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Israelite Anti-Theft

Can you shoot the intruder? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently there have been a number of shootings in our country that have sparked talk about gun control. What does it mean to really be able to protect one’s self? As we are going through the Old Testament, we find that our passage today is discussing just such an incident. What happens when someone breaks into your home and what makes the difference? The passage is Exodus 22:2-3.

“2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.”

Okay. What makes the difference here? Is there one time of the day when it’s acceptable to kill someone and a time of the day when it is not? Not really. This is another instance of a case when it is important to know about the context of the ancient world and really begin to think about how different it is.

Tonight, when I go to bed, if I wake up in the middle of the night, I can get a small flashlight near our side of the bed if I need to get up during the night and easily find my way anywhere if need be. If we heard an intruder coming into our house, we could turn on the light to expose them and call the police or deal with them in any way that is necessary.

If you lived in the ancient world, you could not turn on a flashlight or flip a lightswitch. Instead, you would have to light a lamp of some kind and that would require producing a flame first. It would not be as easy to produce light. Now it’s the middle of the night and you hear someone breaking in. You go and engage the intruder in combat. You don’t know if he has a sword or club or some other weapon, but you know your family is in danger. During the melee, you kill him. In the morning, you look and you find out that he is unarmed. He is dead, but you are safe.

A thief breaks into your house during the day. He comes in unarmed and you pick up your sword and run him straight through. Now you are guilty of bloodshed.

This is an example of the principle of eye for an eye. Thievery is a crime, but it is not one that is to be punishable by death. Now supposing the thief tried to kill you during the day when he broke in, that would of course change the situation. Please keep in mind the laws were not necessary ironclad in the sense that they always had to be followed to the letter. Mitigating factors were taken into consideration.

The principle is the same kind that we are dealing with still today. How is it that one can defend themselves? Generally, we can usually speak of sufficient force today. A punishment must fit a crime as well. Our look at the text today shows that these are not new. You could not have vigilante justice. You had to make sure you used only force necessary to protect yourself. Also, contrary to some today, you were allowed to kill in self-defense if you thought your own life was in danger.

We may not live in the Old Testament times, but as we can see, there is still much we can learn from the Old Testament Law.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Shut Up!

Can’t you be more tolerant? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In the debates over marriage today, we are often told as Christians that we are haters, we are bigots, we are homophobes, and we are intolerant. Now keep in mind I don’t mind someone having a different opinion on homosexuality than I do. What I do mind is this kind of behavior that does not deal with the arguments but rather deals with the attitudes of the person. Arguments like this distract us from the data.

Keep in mind there were people who were screaming for us to be open for years for people to live the way they wanted to individually. If they wanted to be homosexual, let them be homosexual. Let them love the person they want to and let us stay out of it. Now I think that their behavior is immoral, but fair enough. I don’t want to legislate against it. One aspect of Natural Law thinking is that you are willing to allow some lesser evils for the greater good of human freedom.

Now today we are the ones telling the homosexual community and their supporters to do what we have really been doing. That is to allow us the right to live the way we do and practice our religion that way. We believe homosexual behavior is sinful. Now you are free to believe all you want that it’s a sexual behavior with no moral ramifications. The point is that we do not think so. We think that whole debate is still open and to not listen to that debate is to treat our opinion like it doesn’t matter, not really tolerant is it?

You may not think homosexual behavior is wrong. Fine. We as Christians do think it is and if we really think that, which we do, it is the most loving thing that we can do to state it. Now of course, that does not mean that it is always said in a loving way or said out of love period. The reality is that when it’s done in an immoral way we condemn it even if it is true. While we hold that homosexual behavior is immoral, that does not mean we support a group like Westboro Baptist. I think bullying is wrong on all fronts and the only people I get tough with are those who are trying to bully others.

And yes, that is happening. There are people being hurt by the homosexual community and their supporters by this title of “haters.” Consider the case of Adam Smith who drove through the drive-thru at Chick-Fil-A and told the girl running the drive-thru that their company was a hate company. This man did not have the guts to park his car, get out, and go into the store and talk to the manager who would have some authority. This lady is just doing her job and got bullied. Now the guy got fired, but what happened to that girl for the rest of the day?

What about the store that had spray-painted on it “Tastes Like Hate.” Anyone working there could think that if a person is willing to vandalize, what else could they be willing to do? Look. We understand that you want to get your viewpoint out there but the best way to do that is not to try to win by using these kinds of tactics. If you want to discuss the issues, discuss the issues. (Note also I do realize not all homosexuals and not all people who agree with SSM are like this)

What is this doing when someone is told that they are a hater? Here is what the person who is being called a hater is being told. “SHUT UP!”

What you are saying is that your mind is made up, and there is nothing wrong with having a conviction mind you, but you do not even think the other side deserves a hearing. You are telling them that you will not listen to them at all. Their opinion is not worth it. This all the while telling them they should be tolerant of the other side. Excuse me if we don’t hear it when this kind of event happens.

This keeps you from discussing why the person holds the opinion that they hold. Why do that? Because in telling them they’re a homophobe or a bigot, you’re just saying “I don’t care why you think what you think. I’m going to tell you to be quiet or you will not be accepted.” If you’re sure your opinion is the correct one, the reality is that you should not be afraid to hear the other side. Why should anyone treat your opinion seriously when you automatically refuse to listen to someone else’s?

As one who is in the area of apologetics, I find that I love to hear what the other side says. I am sure I am right. I realize I could be wrong, but I have my opinion after years of study. It is enjoyable to enter into the debate and think you can win simply by pointing to the facts on your side and the bad reasoning and lack of facts or information that is not true but is claimed to be factual that the opponent presents.

What is happening is meant to end dialogue and not encourage it and quite frankly is simply emotional reasoning. You cannot determine whether homosexual practice is right or wrong based on how you feel. What if someone else feels differently? Why should your feelings trump everyone else’s? You also cannot command someone to just feel differently. IF that were the case, most of us would command ourselves to feel happy. We’d like to, but we don’t. Ever had one of those nights where you want to try to sleep but you’re up worrying? Telling yourself to feel calm doesn’t really end the matter.

How about we come and actually discuss the data and not use emotional reasoning. Let’s discuss homosexuality. Let’s discuss marriage itself. Let’s discuss morality. Let’s talk about the data. I don’t come to this debate to talk about you or me. I come to talk about the data. Let’s do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Concerned Christians and Homosexuality

Can you be a good Christian and still not accept homosexuality? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A lot of Christians have some concerns over the debate going on over Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) today. Honestly, I don’t think this is directly the fault of individual Christians so much as it is of churches. Our churches have failed us by and large. We have not been taught how to think Christian. We have only been taught to be good little children, as if the only reason Jesus came and died and rose again was so that we could all get along.

Now I’m not objecting to Christian morality. It should be taught. However, it needs a foundation. It has one already, but it is not known. Too many Christians have this idea that they will sit down with their Bible and God will just beam down the information to them as they read or some mystical experience like that. That can happen, but it is not to be expected. The reality is like learning anything else, you will have to do some study and frankly, you can’t count on your pastor to do it all for you. (And personally, I think most pastors have no business being in the pulpit. Pastor. If you cannot give a case for Christianity beyond personal experience and can’t answer critics, you have no business being in the pulpit.)

What I am wanting to do in this post is to introduce you to a new way of thinking on the issue, but I recommend you go online and look up sites in Christian apologetics on thinking about these issues. If you do not know, Christian apologetics refers to the defense of Christianity. In our day and age, you will need much more than just “The Bible says so.” In fact, I would discourage you from using the Bible in this debate. It makes the issue a religious issue instead of a social issue. Marriage existed before the Bible and exists around the world even where there is no Bible. It is known through general revelation. You don’t need the Bible to know what marriage is and to know homosexual behavior is wrong.

For now, let’s look at some concerns Christians have.

“But I don’t think we can judge can we?”

Matthew 7:1 seems to be the most popular Bible verse. Is Jesus condemning all judging? Not at all. Looking at the context, Jesus is condemning hypocritical judging. Note he says to not give what is sacred to dogs and throw our pearls to swine. You have to judge to know what is sacred, what are dogs, what are pearls, and what are swine. You have to judge to know there is a speck in your brother’s eye as well as a plank in your own.

This is something we do regularly. When you go out somewhere and leave your car, you lock the doors. Why? Because you know there are people who might want to steal your car or items in it. When we go to sleep at night, we lock our doors. Why? Because we know there are evil people out there who might want to rob us and hurt us. If you are married, you made a judgment whether to marry your spouse or night. If you have kids, are you going to let anyone who knocks on your door be a babysitter when you go out at night?

As soon as you call something right or wrong, you are making a judgment. In fact, the reason Jesus came was to deal with sin. If you are going to give the gospel to someone, you have to tell them that they are in sin and that involves a judgment. You have to tell them that Jesus is Lord and that involves telling them all other claimants to the title are wrong.

Yes. Make a judgment. You have to. Be loving in your judgment. That does mean you might have to say something that does initially hurt. We all do that. In fact, many of us have appreciated when someone came and hit us right between the eyes with a judgment we needed to hear because they loved us enough to say it. If you think someone is living in sin that will cause them to not be in the presence of God, it is the most loving thing to do to tell them.

“Isn’t it wrong to hate?”

No!

What? Did I surprise you with that?

You hate several things like me I’m sure. I hate lies. I hate injustice. I hate bullying. I hate evil. If you love something, you will want to go against that which contradicts it. If my wife is being hurt by someone, I can hate that she is being hurt. It does not necessitate that I hate the person doing that to her, but it does mean that I hate what is happening to her. We’ve been taught in our society that all hate is evil. This is not the case. Some hate is essential because it goes against what we love.

To be clear, we are not to hate homosexuals. We can hate homosexual behavior however because we believe that this keeps people from being all they can be. It is the same reason you hate alcoholism in a loved one if you have one who is alcoholic. If you have a friend who has a pornography addiction, you will hate that addiction and still love the person. Now you could be wrong for the sake of argument on homosexual behavior being harmful. I don’t think you are, but you cannot be wrong in why you think you are doing it. You are the one who knows that.

Keep in mind when someone refers to you as a hater or a homophobe or a bigot, they are begging a huge question. They are assuming that it is already an established fact that homosexuality is perfectly moral and everyone knows that. Therefore, the issue is not open for debate and the problem must be you. You are what is wrong. Don’t fall for it. For instance, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose I hated homosexuals. Does that mean that my position on homosexuals is wrong? No. The way you know my position is wrong only by looking at the data. Calling someone a hater or some other name is a way of avoiding the real issue. Don’t fall for it.

“Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.”

Explicitly? No. However, Jesus didn’t speak about rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other issues. The idea is that if Jesus was silent on an issue, then obviously that meant he did not have a problem with it. That being said, let’s suppose you’re a Christian at church and you meet someone else who is a Christian. Do you usually ask if they believed Jesus rose from the dead? No. If you’re a Christian, it’s understood you believe that. If you’re a Jew in 1st century Israel, there was much to disagree on, but one thing could be agreed on. At least the first five books of the Old Testament came from God.

Those first five books also condemned homosexuality.

We have instances where Jesus did say something different, such as pronouncing all foods clean, but we don’t have him changing moral issues. Well, not in the way we think. When he changed moral issues, he made them stronger. The Old Testament said “Do not commit adultery.” Jesus said “Do not lust.” It said “Do not murder.” Jesus said “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Do we have any reason to think he would have changed the homosexual rules, especially with all the other sexual rules that went along with it?

Notice also there is no hint of change in the New Testament anywhere on this. Look at how many times sexual sin is condemned in the New Testament. In 1 Cor. 5, we have the case of a man with his stepmother. The Corinthians could have seen this as freedom from the Law and they were celebrating it. Paul had none of it and let them know that this was something so wicked it was not even done among the pagans!

If Jesus was silent, it would be more likely that He DID agree with the beliefs that were taught in the first five books. We do not have anything from Jesus correcting the Jews on this issue and if it was such an important one, then it would seem that Jesus would have said something about it. Even when he showed grace, remember he still condemned sin. If you consider the story of the woman caught in adultery authentic, Jesus did tell her to go and sin no more. (By today’s standards, since Jesus condemned sin, do you realize he would be called a hater?)

“Isn’t Leviticus just something that is temporal? Aren’t I being arbitrary?”

A lot of people make the claim that the only verses in Leviticus Christians know are the ones condemning homosexuality. This is indeed a shame. Leviticus is the one that has the word to love your neighbor as yourself. It also talks about the Day of Atonement in there, something all Christians should know about. Still, Leviticus says this is an abomination, but it also says that eating shellfish is an abomination. Aren’t we picking and choosing?

First off, the word abomination can refer to something ritually unclean, but it can refer to a wicked act. How can you tell? Context. Look at the surrounding passage. For one thing, these activities mentioned are not just rituals. There is a reason you’re not to marry close relatives and I believe it was for more than just DNA mixing too closely producing children with genetic conditions. It was blurring the lines of the family.

But most importantly, in Leviticus 18 and 20, the verses following the list of sins tells us that it is for committing these sins that other nations are being cast out. Other nations were never punished for not following the dietary restrictions or wearing mixed fabrics. Those were practices that set Israel apart from the other nations as a sign they were in covenant with God. The other nations were commanded by Israel to live moral lives, but they were never commanded to follow Jewish practices. Jews could be condemned for trading with other nations on the Sabbath, but the other nations were not condemned for working on the Sabbath.

Note also that this places homosexuality in the category of general revelation. Other nations were cast out because of doing things that we can say that they should have known better. It would not make sense for God to punish a people when they could not have known that they were doing anything wrong. Since this is in general revelation then, you don’t need the Bible. It would be better to study other issues relating to homosexuality and how it affects other people.

“Aren’t we denying equal rights?”

Let me make a list of my rights as a heterosexual man for choosing a spouse.

I must marry someone of the opposite sex.
They cannot be a close relative.
They must be a human.
They must be someone of age.
I can only marry one person.

Here are the rights of a homosexual person.

They must marry someone of the opposite sex.
They cannot be a close relative.
They must be a human.
They must be someone of age.
They can only marry one person.

The criteria aren’t different. Now they can tell us they can’t marry the person they love. You are not so much meant to marry the person you love, as you are to love the person you marry. When my wife and I went to get our marriage license, we were never asked “Do you two love each other?” Frankly, the state couldn’t care. All they care about is that we’re a couple coming together that can build up the next generation.

What is being asked for in this case is different rights. The whole idea is that all that matters is the happiness of the persons involved. The question is not asked about whether this is good for society as a whole. Note also we have a bad view of happiness today. We think happiness means a sort of good emotional experience. No. Happiness is found more in realizing your place in the universe and fulfilling it. For the ancients, your happiness could be altered after you were dead, and for someone like Aristotle, you wouldn’t even exist then and could have your happiness changed!

We all know happiness does not come from getting everything we want. There are many things we want that are not good for us. Wives. Consider this. When your husband is walking down the street and he sees other women, he is tempted with something that he wants. Now do you want to allow him to go out and have a number of affairs just because that’s what he wants? Or, should it be that he should seek to change his wants so that he only wants you? For we men, this is a battle we have to fight. We have to train our eyes. We are all called to faithfulness, but that does not mean that it is easy.

“You can’t help who you love!”

Would the case be the same if someone loved children, such as goes on in NAMBLA? Now immediately too many in the homosexual community says that that is not homosexuality. Now I would agree that the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles. That is true. However, if you have attraction for someone of the same sex, that is what it is. I am thankful that homosexuals by and large would also condemn such behavior.

The problem with this is that you can help who you love. If a married man starts developing desires for another woman, he would not be justified in telling his wife “I’m having an affair because I can’t help who I love.” The man has to change his desires and that can be a battle. People treat this as easy. They often say “Why would someone choose to be homosexual?” Why would a man choose to desire other women? He doesn’t. It is just his nature and as much as he wants to change it, he also has to work on it. If a desire is wrong however, then that is what must be done.

“How can you deny their love?”

How can you deny incestual couples their love? How can you deny polygamous couples their love? How can you deny the love of a man and a boy in NAMBLA? The objection assumes all love is good. There are loves that we have that are not good and we should seek to change them. Not all love is equal.

“It doesn’t harm anyone!”

If an action is sinful, even if it is just internal, it harms someone as it builds up an attitude. Note also the affect this has on families. Do you believe a father and a mother are the best environment for a child to be raised in, and most preferably their natural parents? If so, then you should support traditional marriage. To accept homosexual marriage is to accept that men and women are interchangeable as parents. Only a man can truly teach a boy how to be a man and teach a girl how to relate to men and vice-versa for women.

At the bottom of this post, I will also have a link showing the effects of SSM on Massachusetts that a friend sent me.

Keep in mind also that laws change attitudes. Divorce laws for instance affect those that will never get divorced. Why? It builds up in our culture the idea that marriage is not a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman but something that can be broken. That idea can be built up in someone implicitly and they live in marriage with the idea that their spouse could leave them at any moment even if their spouse would never dream of it.

“Aren’t we just legalizing a religion?”

No. We are making a law about a practice. This practice happens to be condemned in a religion, but it is not exclusive to the religion. We can say that the Ten Commandments condemn murder, but that does not mean that we are going to throw out the laws against murder just because a religious institution upholds it. What we need to do is not look and see “Does a religion teach this?” but rather “Is this a true moral principle?” If it is, we should uphold it whether any religion believes it or not.

“But we can’t legislate morality!”

Baloney. Morality is the only thing that can be legislated. Let us suppose that I was president and passed a law that forbid drawing stick people on Friday and if you did so, you would be executed. You would say “Nick. That’s ridiculous!” “Why?” “Because there’s no basis for such a law and with such an extreme penalty.” Exactly. There’s no basis. All laws have to have a moral basis in order to be valid. Our branch of government in the U.S.A. is called the Legislative Branch. We did not see ourselves as lawmakers but revealers of the law.

“Aren’t we to love?”

Yes. We are to love, but we are not to love that which is wrong. If someone is in the wrong, then it is loving to point that out to them. Yesterday, someone asked me if I would have an outcry if someone was trying to treat Christianity the way homosexuality is supposedly being treated. I said I would have no problem. In fact, I’d love it. I think one of the best things ever for the church has been the rise of the New Atheists. I want people to come and challenge my position. Why? Because that is when I get the chance to demonstrate my claim. I am sure my position is right, and therefore I don’t fear dialogue. Now if you’re sure yours is, you should have the same opinion.

Good Christian. I applaud you in wanting to be loving, but don’t accept it on the terms of the world. Don’t play the game according to the rules of the other side. If they do not want to dialogue, don’t dialogue. Someone who just calls you a hater, bigot, and/or homophobe is not someone who is interested in dialogue. I will engage with them in the public forum only to demonstrate to other Christians that these guys can be answered.

I also recommend for more information resources such as the Ruth Institute with the work of Jennifer Roback Morse.

I also ask your prayers in all of this. I and others are on the front lines and we value your support.

In Christ,
Nick Peters.

Information on the effects of SSM in Massachusetts can be found here.

The Emotional Tyranny of Whiners

Did your fries come at the cost of a soul yesterday? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, my family and I went to our Chick-Fil-A. If your situation was like mine, we had police cars out front guiding traffic and long long lines outside the door. We waited well over an hour in line. We were there for dinner and were told we might not have any nuggets by the time we got in. I understand that Dan Cathy tweeted Rick Warren saying they had record sales even before the time came for our service. We just helped add to it.

At the one I was at, I saw no hatred of homosexuals. I saw no animosity. I saw a lot of happy and smiling people. I was even able to witness a youth ministry taking place with a youth pastor teaching his students from Scripture in the parking lot? What was he teaching on? Bashing homosexuals? Not a word said about it. How to judge others? No. He was teaching them to remain sexually pure for marriage.

What a message of hatred!

Compare this to what Chick-Fil-A has received. They were villainized in the media and told they were anti-gay and opposed to equality. A boycott was called on them. Two cities said they would not welcome Chick-Fil-A into their city, an affront on free speech which the left has generally so very much valued.

Why did they get this?

Because Chick-Fil-A believes in the family.

Thus, in the name of tolerance, Chick-Fil-A was not tolerated. In the name of inclusion, Chick-Fil-A was excluded. In the name of love, Chick-Fil-A was regularly smeared. In the name of diversity, Chick-Fil-A was cast out.

A lot of Christians decided this was the last straw. Mike Huckabee called for people to go to Chick-Fil-A to show their support. No one forced this on us. We chose to do so freely. It was a great day for Christians to come together.

Some preferred not to.

Enter Rachel Evans.

Rachel wrote about feeling out of step with her faith. Notice that right at the start. This is about how Rachel feels. It is not about the truth of the matter. Is homosexuality right or wrong? Not discussed. As a Christian, what does Scripture say? Irrelevant. Should marriage be between a man and a woman only? Who cares?

Rachel wants to know if Christianity is all about eating a sandwich to prove a point.

No. Not at all, but that can go right in line with our Christianity. Christianity is about making Christ the Lord of your life. It is not about making your feelings the Lord of your life.

Rachel complains about having pictures shoved on Facebook in the face of homosexuals. Rachel. Let me remind you of how Facebook works.

Facebook is a social media where you can put up on your page your views and your opinions. No one is forced to look at it. If someone wants to unfriend me because of my stances, then that will be their choice. Are you wanting to say that I should not put my opinion up on my own Facebook page? I don’t know about you, but I would hope my friends are better than that and if they break with me on that point, well they weren’t really much of friends to begin with.

Keep in mind the homosexual community has been in our faces. One can hardly watch a TV show without having homosexuality treated like normal, especially in the program being advertised during the Olympics, The New Normal. Keep in mind some homosexual groups are planning a kiss-in for Chick-Fil-A. This is where homosexual couples will come in and publicly kiss each other in front of the clientele of Chick-Fil-A.

Somehow, I doubt Rachel will be complaining as much about that.

Now let’s look at what else Rachel says that will show us where she’s coming from.

“Suddenly, my religion is alien to me—small, petty, reactive. My faith has lost its bearings. I don’t feel like praying anymore, not even for the mom who begged me to pray for her gay son who vowed yesterday never to return to church again.

Can I blame him? Perhaps it is better if he stays away.”

Yes. Our religion is being small and petty. We only have the sacred institution of marriage that is the foundation of our society and celebrates the love we have for the most important person in our lives being under attack! How dare we stand up for the institution of marriage we believe was designed by God Himself in this way!

Rachel doesn’t feel like praying. Tough! I don’t feel like praying a lot of times and I do it anyway. When I wake up in the morning, I read Scripture first. Sometimes, I don’t feel like doing it, but I do it. I don’t feel like loving my neighbor a lot of times. I don’t feel like loving the Mrs. sometimes. I don’t feel like honoring God sometimes.

I cannot live my life based on feelings. Somehow, when I stand before the throne of God, when He asks me why I didn’t do X, I don’t think saying “I didn’t feel like it,” will cut it. “Why did you not love your fellow man that time?” “Well Lord, I just didn’t feel like it.” “Oh my! You should have said so earlier! I’m so sorry for you! All is forgiven!”

The next section from Rachel will clinch the point.

“I am hanging by the tips of sweaty fingers on this ledge of faith, wondering if letting go will bring freedom or death. I’ve hung on before—through the science wars, the gender wars, the Christmas wars, the culture wars—but I’m just so tired of fighting, so tired of feeling out of place. ”

Yes everyone. People went to Chick-Fil-A and Rachel considers apostasizing from the one who is to be called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In this, Rachel is guilty of idolatry and needs to repent. She has not asked the question of if God exists. She has not asked the question of if Jesus rose from the dead. She is not asking if Jesus is the God-man. She is looking and saying “Christians went to Chick-Fil-A! Christians stood up for what they believed in! Some people were hurt!”

If you’re hurt by someone getting a chicken sandwich, get over it.

Reality is that we all get hurt most every day. I am married and happen to live next door to my folks with my aunt and uncle being my other neighbors. Even in a close-knit community like this, we all can hurt each other at times. It happens. Sometimes it’s intentional. Sometimes, it’s unintentional.

What we cannot do is be forced to walk on eggshells because someone’s feelings might be hurt. We will not sacrifice truth in the temple of feelings.

Rachel is a whiner engaging in emotional tyranny. She is saying that because of what happened, she is tempting to give up. Because a homosexual person was hurt, she is considering not taking a stand for Christian sexual principles.

And this is a form of tyranny.

This is what whining does. It makes the rest of the world your emotional hostages. You are not allowed to say or do anything because that might hurt someone’s feelings and they will hold you personally responsible for that. It’s so odd. When we were growing up, most of us were told to not pay attention to people who called us names and to learn to ignore and move on.

I somehow think that that principle can still work today.

Rachel. Jesus told us all that if we love anyone more than Him, we are not fit to be a disciple of His. For me, that means if I love my own wife more than Jesus, my wife who I am commanded to love and to be willing to lay my life down for, if I do not love Him more than her, I have no right to be His disciple.

His call is severe. It is serious. It is lifelong. It is not based on feeling. It is based on the identity of Jesus as king of the universe.

If you say you are not sure if you can hold on because some people offended homosexuals, then you are more concerned about offense to the cause of homosexuals than you are about offense to the cause of Jesus Christ.

That’s why I say to repent.

Now if you see this, you will not like it. You will cry about it. You could label me as someone who hates. You can go ahead and do that all you want, but it will not change the reality. The reality is Jesus Christ must be Lord of your life and you are not to hold the rest of the world hostage to your emotions as you are being held hostage by the homosexual community. God gave you a mind. Use it.

Does that mean ignore feelings altogether? No. Feelings will not tell you the truth about right or wrong. Feelings will tell you only about yourself. If you want to know about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality or SSM, you need to look at those topics.

Rachel ends her piece with the passage about Jesus saying that He will give rest and decides she can maybe hold on for one more day.

Thus, the emotional tyranny continues.

Rachel. I am not your parent. I am not responsible for how you feel. If you abandon Christianity, you cannot blame me. It is your choice. Don’t dare hold the rest of the world hostage to your emotions. Don’t make us responsible. When you stand before God, you will give account for what you have done as will I. You can say I was a mitigating factor in your apostasy as were others, but it will have been your choice. There will be no partiality before the greatest judge of all.

Remember, the blame game began in the Garden of Eden. It did not work then. It won’t work now. It will not work in the future.

Take control of your own life. Realize what right and wrong is. Don’t be a slave to the emotions of everyone else around you and don’t be a slave to the emotions that are within you. There is nothing wrong with having emotions but there is wrong with emotions having you.

You want to show love to the homosexual? By all means do that! I encourage that! Don’t hesitate to call sin, sin however. I can love the homosexual, but I will not tolerate sin in the name of love. That is not love. I will not change the institution of marriage to make it be what it is not. That is a denial of reality and again, it is not love.

Remember Rachel, if your love for God is not first, it will put all others love out of place in life. Nothing will really fit. If you are more concerned about the heart of homosexuals than the heart of God, you will have a problem. It’s the same for the most important relationships we have. If I put my wife before God or she puts me before Him, our marriage will have problems. If I put my parents or friends before God, there will be problems.

Jesus came to give rest, but it was not rest from emotional struggles. That would have made no sense. It was rest from having to do everything exactly right as the Pharisees did. It does not mean the way of Christ is easy. If anything, Jesus raised the bar. Yet despite that, Jesus gives rest in that He fulfills His promises to us if we remain faithful to Him.

Rachel. It’s time to put your emotions in the right place. Don’t hold the rest of the world hostage to them and don’t hold yourself hostage to them. Grow up and take charge for yourself without having to bend the halo to please everyone.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Rachel’s blog can be found here.