Current Issue Commentary

Article: Why Rush and O'Reilly are Right: Homosexuals Win

You don't have to be a news junkie to know that America is about to reach the culmination of an epic cultural battle between homosexuals and heterosexuals over the historic definition of marriage and the legalizing of same-sex marriages. The media coverage has been intensely focused on both the Supreme Court (as it hears arguments pro and con) and the commentators (especially conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly). What has really made news has been the comments by both of these men to the effect that they believe the homosexuals will win. While I would like to believe they are wrong, I believe they are right. Here's why, and why I believe we ended up here.

"Civil Rights" vs. Right and Wrong

To answer this question, we have to understand what has taken place in America over the last 50 years. There is no other nation on earth in which the clarion call of "freedom" resonates so deeply in the hearts of all its people. Our nation was founded on the premise that every citizen (not just a favored few) has "certain inalienable rights", rights that are not subject to the whims of government change, but which are so obviously part of the natural structure and order of society they are described as self-evident endowments of a kind Creator who saw them as necessary for the success of human society... at least that's what the Founding Fathers thought.

There were not many of these inalienable rights, but the few that were acknowledged were deemed as precious privileges, to be protected at any cost. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are words which all citizens know (or at least they used to). On their face, they would seem to be straightforward and obvious in their meaning. But, a little closer look can be concerning. How do you define life? If "liberty" is meant to be synonymous with "freedom", what are you free from? What are you free to do? Who will decide what "happiness" is? Who decides how this is to be interpreted? The real question is, "Who decides what is right and wrong?" Rest assured, someone will decide.

For the Founding Fathers, this was not a difficult issue. They all signed a document declaring that a Creator had exercised His authority and power to establish mankind with "certain inalienable rights". They also believed that He had given a moral compass to guide mankind in how we should live. That compass was the Bible. Not all of them agreed on all the doctrines and teachings of the Bible, but they did agree that it was the only sufficient and authoritative guide to regulate moral behavior.

Today, this will sound like foolishness to many. For the last 50 years our nation, especially our legal and legislative systems, have been used to attempt to systematically remove the moral component (i.e., authority of our Founding Father's "Creator" God) from our national life. Today, right and wrong are determined by what the civil law says it is. There is no longer an objective, moral foundation provided by a higher, morally superior authority to guide us. We now have a system which determines right and wrong by what the people want it to be. If we don't like what the law is, we elect representatives to change it.

This doesn't sound too bad at first, "we the people" determine what is right, fair and good for us. But, there are two problems with this approach. First, left to our own devices, we are not fit to determine what is right and wrong. The fact is, by and large, we are a deeply, morally flawed race. We are selfish, greedy, and often downright mean and nasty. And that describes the best of us. Without an objective, authoritative guide to prescribe for us what is truly right and wrong, we will determine it by what the majority or the influential minority wants at the moment. And this will constantly change, since our desires are neither stable nor ever truly satisfied.

The second problem is that it leaves our system of government potentially open to minority influence or outright manipulation. The die was cast for this in a landmark piece of legislation enacted in 1964. After over a hundred years of grievous abuses towards black Americans, legislation was passed that was intended to grant our "inalienable rights" to all black Americans. Legislation was passed which gave black Americans the right to vote. It was believed that this minority group was being denied a voice in our government and this law would right that wrong. JFK was the first president to push strongly for this legislation, but with his untimely death it was Lyndon Johnson who actually signed it into law in July, 1964. It was the right thing to do, but there may have been a wiser way to do it.

The real challenge lay ahead in the practical application of the law. The law specifically made it illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, creed or gender. Long-held prejudices did not die easily, especially in the South. I live in the South now. It's been quite an education. It's been difficult to square how such a deeply religious people could be so deeply prejudiced. Clearly, sometimes their religion didn't make it to the marketplace. Thankfully, most have made the transition...and are glad they did.

The problem with this transition is that the driving force to bring about the change took place in the legal/legislative realm instead of the moral realm. The argument for the wrongfulness and unfairness of the way blacks were treated was being done based on the constitutional rights of being a citizen of the United States and not on the Biblical, moral premise of "Love Thy Neighbor..." and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you..." It was here that the premise of future legal battles moved from being based on "right or wrong" and began to be based on individual "civil rights". Now, every battle would be fought on the basis of a legal claim of "discrimination" rather than a moral ground of right or wrong. Apparently, we still have not understood how devastating that transition was...but we are seeing it now.

Institutionalizing "Victimization"

For the last 50 years we have seen the cry of "discrimination" used to eradicate virtually every ounce of common sense from our legal/political arena. The amount of time and money wasted on trying to rectify every ridiculous claim of discrimination would be appalling (assuming we could figure out how to count it). But, it was just the beginning.

Once people figured out they could claim to be victims of discrimination, the moral issue of right vs. wrong was jettisoned in favor of the more legally powerful claim of "discrimination". If a claim could be constructed and worded so that it appeared that a person's rights were being violated (no matter how preposterous the claim), it stood a much better chance of success. Astute lawyers realized this. It's all about semantics. If you can frame the argument in a particular way, you can exploit the opportunity.

Liberals/Progressives realized that if you change the words and define the terms a certain way, you can exploit the system and eventually impose your will on the entire society. They did this with the volatile abortion issue. They framed the argument not in terms of whether an unborn child was being murdered, rather it was all about a woman's right-to-choose how her body is used. The wording was carefully chosen. It was not formed as pro-life vs. pro-death; that would imply murder and murder is still pretty much a moral issue. In order to avoid the moral element, the argument needs to be framed in terms of a person's "rights" being violated. Pro-death became Pro-choice. Conservatives still don't "get" it.

This is the same approach being used in the same-sex marriage issue. Homosexuality is a Biblically, morally unacceptable lifestyle. According to the Bible, God has declared it to be a sin which, if not repented of, will land a person in Hell (so will adultery, murder and lying, to name a few more). Those who end up there will know that God does not discriminate when it comes to unrepentant sinners. You can accept or reject this as truth (that is a God-given right), but it's clearly what the Bible teaches.

The proponents of the homosexual lifestyle don't want to argue this issue on a moral basis (whether it's truly right or wrong); they want to argue it on the basis of "equal rights". If that is the basis upon which this argument will finally be decided, then those who oppose it will lose. Without the moral component it is inevitable. Ultimately, it's just my opinion versus your opinion. What would make mine morally superior to yours? Nothing, unless it has an objective moral foundation. Unfortunately, moral equality tends to occur only at the lowest common denominator.

Once your laws and your perception of "rights" become untethered from a Biblical, moral foundation you are left with the whims of the majority or, in the current scenario, the most influential minority. In our case, we are saddled with the insanity of "political correctness" as our moral guide. The laughable result is that every conceivable "offense" is treated as legitimate and, as a result, every tradition we have cherished is being eliminated because it's offensive to someone. Is it possible to stop this insanity?

Theoretically, yes; realistically, probably not. We have convinced ourselves that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are best achieved without the moral authority of God constraining us. Those in power believe that social equality is the ultimate goal. The problem with this thinking is that social equality (i.e. social justice) is only achieved when the lowest common denominator is reached. When everyone is equally poor your goal is reached. But, most of us would not view this as "happiness".

The truth is that we are as morally bankrupt as a nation as we are financially bankrupt. Our endless efforts to provide welfare benefits to create the illusion of prosperity are the moral equivalent of our Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars to create the illusion of a nation that is not bankrupt. It will all eventually collapse and the truth will be revealed.

What most people don't realize is that we are about to cross a moral line which, IF THE BIBLE IS TRUE, will mean the end of the American political "experiment". The last few verses in the first chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans seems to describe in vivid detail the very scenario that is playing out in our nation right now. The judgment appears unavoidable.

The tide of support for homosexual rights is growing stronger, at least the media would have us believe so. What appears to be a lull around us now (as we wait for the Supreme Court decisions) may turn out to be like the ominous silence of the tide going out which signals a moral tsunami is building and a tidal wave of moral destruction is about to sweep over our nation.

All the signs seem to indicate that Rush and O'Reilly are right; we lose. But, at least we will find equality for all; we will all lose equally. After all, it's our right.

 R.I.P.

Blogpost #19

Chapter 7: The Eternity of God . . .  Eternal vs. Everlasting

He has set eternity in their hearts.
 (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

A moment's reflection and all of us can testify to the truth of this statement. No one wants to die. The will to live is about the most powerful human reaction we know. There is something in us that instinctively tells us death is wrong; we should not die, and life should never end.

But it does; life ends for all of us at some point. But it wasn't always this way. I think this fact is often forgotten by many Christians. The truth is that when God created this world and put us in it, death was not a part of it. Creation was all about life; from its beginning to its finish it was all about fruitfulness, prospering, delight, joy and peace. Death was the judgment that put an end to this "life in Paradise" experience; it was a penalty for rebellion against the Creator, the One who was the source of life and had given life to all things.

We really should stop periodically and spend a few moments imagining what it was like for Adam. What was it like to live in a world without death? In a world where fear, especially the ultimate fear of death, is nonexistent? It is not wasted time. Scripture says that day will come again . . . maybe soon. Life is meant to last forever. You have to kill life; death is not natural to life.

Biblically, if you take away death, you have life . . . endless life. Life, by its very nature, must come from somewhere. The Bible tells us that the Father has "life in Himself" (John 5:26). He is the source of life. Since God is eternal (He has no beginning and no end), He is the "I am"; His life is eternal. Therefore, whatever He gives us of Himself must have the same quality. If He gives us of His own life, it must be eternal. Our experience of it may only be "everlasting," that is, it begins at a point in time and continues forever, but it is our entry into God's life, eternal life.

Is Eternal Life More Than Everlasting Life?

Most people naturally think of eternity as an infinite extension of time. They view it as almost entirely interchangeable with everlasting, that eternal life and everlasting life are the same thing. Depending on the context, this can be true; sometimes the Bible uses them interchangeably. But sometimes there is more to this. You begin to see the distinction in their particular usage in the Old and New Testaments.

Interestingly, the word "eternal" is rarely used in the Old Testament, though it is used more than 70 times in the New Testament. By contrast, the word "everlasting" is never used in the New Testament, but it is used well over 100 times in the Old Testament! Only twice in the Old Testament is the word "eternal" used in relation to God (once in Deuteronomy when Moses says, "The eternal God is a dwelling place . . ." and once in the famous Isaiah 9:6 verse where the Christ is described as "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace . . . " [translations will vary here].

The Psalmists use one phrase to try to describe this concept when they say, ". . . from everlasting to everlasting . . . ." So while we wouldn't want to say that the idea of eternal was unknown in the Old Testament, it was not the concept they were most comfortable with. But the New Testament almost seems to abandon the idea of everlasting in favor of eternal. The obvious question is, why? Why the distinction? What is the difference? What has changed?

. . . all things become new.

The answer lies in the simple word "new." Everything changes in the "New" Testament, and, as the Book of Hebrews reminds us, it is all for the better! The importance of this word cannot be overemphasized. The Greek language is quite specific in its usage. There are two words used to describe newness. One was to identify something which was new in the sense that it was unused or the latest model of something.  Another way the word was used was to describe something that was new in the sense that it had never existed before; it was unique. Every year "new" cars come out. They are not new in the sense that they never existed before; they are just the latest model.

But there was a day when the automobile was first debuted and it was "new" in the sense that this kind of transportation had never existed before; it was uniquely "new" and of a different kind than anything else before it. We would say the same thing of the telegraph as a means of communication or the telephone of voice communication or email of electronic communication. These were not just the latest model or an improvement of something which already existed, they were "new" and of a different kind than had ever existed. Christianity was a "new" thing . . . and its centerpiece was the gift of eternal life. But, how?

. . . by a [uniquely] new and living way.

This is the idea of this word "new" in the New Testament. The book of Hebrews presents it as a "new" way to have a relationship with God, a "new and living way" which had never existed before. It was based on a "new" covenant which made the old Mosaic covenant (of law) obsolete. This new covenant was between the Eternal Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. It promised eternal life to those who became partakers of the eternal covenant of which Jesus Christ was the Mediator. They enter that covenant by faith, and as a result, they are baptized into Christ and become partakers of all the many blessings of this new covenant. One of the great blessings of that covenant is the gift of eternal life. But what does that mean?

You may say, as many do, that our sins are forgiven and we get to go to Heaven and live forever. That is essentially true. But is that all? Are we missing something here? Did God give His only Son over to be crucified simply so that our sins could be forgiven? Doesn't the Bible say that "for the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, despising the shame" and now sits at the right hand of the throne of God? What was the joy that motivated Him to endure the shame? The answer is that the Father had granted to the Son the authority to give eternal life to those He had given Him. There was a prize for His suffering.

And lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said,"Father, 

the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 

even as You gave Him authority over all flesh,

that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life" 

 (John 17:2 NASU).

This all sounds wonderful (and it is!), but is it just saying that Jesus can give us everlasting life? Is that the joy which motivated the Son? Not according to the next verse in John 17. This next verse gives us a whole new dimension to the phrase "eternal life."

This is eternal life , that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 

 (John 17:3 NASU)

This is the only place in Scripture which defines eternal life, and it does not include a time element. How can this be? Simple. When you truly enter eternal life, you leave the time element behind. Time is not a variable in the eternal realms where God dwells. What is the focal point? It is the relationship you have with the Father and the Son. This is eternal life. You don't have eternal life until you have entered this relationship. Not until you know who God is experientially do you have eternal life. The Holy Spirit will be your witness. Not until you know who the Son is and can put your whole-hearted faith and trust in Him do you have eternal life. John plainly says, "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." How do we get this saving knowledge of the Son?

This knowledge only comes by revelation and then a faith experience. The Holy Spirit must open our eyes to this truth. It is not a matter of the quantity of knowledge. Jesus only put one description on this knowledge. It is the knowledge that the Father is the only true God. Once this knowledge is grasped and accepted, all kinds of things fall into place. He is separated from all the other competing gods. His sovereign power and authority are understood, and His right to rule our lives becomes clear. His commands are the guideposts of our lives, and pleasing Him and glorifying Him is the goal of our lives. It is then that the value of the ministry of the Son becomes clear. He is the Savior, the Shepherd, the High Priest, the Mediator who leads us back to God.

The truth of Scripture is that there is no way to enter this relationship with God . . . apart from the Son. Even when we know the truth about God, we are helpless to enter this relationship. But that is what the Son has done. He has made a way. He said it plainly, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6 NASU).

To know the Lord is to know God the Father . . . and this is the beginning of the experience of eternal life. We do not get all the knowledge of God all at once . . . it is a life-long learning experience. But the more we seek Him, the more we learn to live with Him in the heavenlies, the more we understand that eternal life is more than just entering a timeless existence. It is the beginning of an experience of the life which the Father and the Son have enjoyed together . . . from all eternity.

And we know that the Son of God has come, 

and has given us understanding 
so that we may know Him who is true; 
and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and eternal life. 

(1 John 5:20 NASU)