Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts

Monday, May 23, 2016

How God Conquered One Lesbian's Heart


By Michelle D. Smith. Posted by Charisma News on 22 May 2016.

It took me a couple of years before I could work up the courage to go back home for a visit. I wouldn't go alone and took my girlfriend, Ann, and her daughter, with me. My mom was very warm and welcoming, even loving toward all three of us. I thought perhaps things had changed in the nearly seven years I'd been gone.

She pulled me aside and said, "Michelle, I love you, and you are all welcome to stay here tonight, but you'll have to sleep in separate rooms." I was mad, but I understood and appreciated the forewarning. We went to a hotel.

Mom continued to love on us by sending cards and money on birthdays and holidays. I joked it wasn't fair Ann got the same amount of money on her birthday as I did from my parents.

I was beginning to calm down, to live a more stable life, one that wouldn't cause the neighbors to blush. Normal. I thought perhaps I should also pursue a more normal religious identity. I was still seeking God. I knew I couldn't return to mainstream Christianity, just the thought of it still gave me the heebie-jeebies, but I had a deep longing I couldn't satisfy. I was still writing, reading and viewing porn.

I began studying Kabbalah and the Zohar (both Jewish mysticism), and I decided I needed to talk to a rabbi, to learn as much about the foundational aspects of Judaism as possible before I could truly attain proficiency in Jewish mysticism. At the time, this seemed to fall within the realm of "normal" for me. I met with a rabbi in the Reformed tradition, one who assured me it was OK to continue my life as a practicing lesbian.

Although the thought of entering a Christian church or speaking to any of my former mentors and friends who were Christians almost sickened me, I could read the Bible if I was doing it to pursue Jewish knowledge. I stuck to the Old Testament, which kept me safe from the pesky and disturbing writings of Paul. I couldn't deal with Jesus either, but that was OK for now. He seemed safely ensconced in the New Testament.

What I didn't intend during my course of study was to have feelings about God emerge. I began to sense an awareness of Him again. My previous experiences into other forms of spirituality (or non-spirituality) had always been to soothe an ache, but had always been unsuccessful. They were fun, scary, encouraging or wishful, but never fulfilling. I began to pray the serenity prayer and the 23rd Psalm.

More than a year passed as I met with the rabbi once a week, alone and in a small group. I rarely went to synagogue. I am an introvert by nature, and couldn't seem to break into this Jewish family in any meaningful way. Finally, Rabbi M. told me it was time to pick a date for my official conversion ceremony.

Within days of the announcement, I received devastating news. Aunt Jan, dearly beloved and only 11 years older than me, had died unexpectedly. My entire family felt this loss deeply. I drove with my girlfriend to Oklahoma to the funeral.

As I sat in the funeral home chapel, listening to a sermon by a very inexperienced friend of my uncle's, I heard a voice say to me, "You can't give up Jesus." I turned my head to the left and to the right, but no one was looking at me. "You can't give up Jesus." Again, I looked around and no one was paying any attention to me. It repeated again, and perhaps one more time.

I found myself saying, "I can't give up Jesus. I can't give up Jesus." The voice of the minister had faded. I wasn't aware of anything except that thought. I knew to convert to Judaism was to deny Jesus. It turned out I wasn't prepared to do that.

Strangely, even in spite of hearing an audible voice inside my head, I continued to be lost. I searched on the internet for an acceptable church. When I would find a local church that accepted and endorsed the gay lifestyle, I would get excited and go try it out. However, I never went back to any of those churches. It was as if there was a heavy cloud over every single one of them. It was like a giant room lit with only a few 25-watt bulbs. Any church that would accept me as a practicing lesbian lacked all credibility with me. I knew it was wrong, and having someone tell me it was right made me lose all respect for their authority.

I began reading theologians in what is called Progressive Christianity such as Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong. While their theology was appealing to someone who wanted Jesus without sacrifice, Christ without obedience, I was still hungry. The intellectual spin was interesting, but didn't sound the bell of truth in my spirit. I had experienced a relationship with God when I was a child. I longed to be deeply loved and cherished by Him.

Excerpt from "Prodigal Pursued" by Michelle D. Smith. Former Assistant District Attorney, Michelle spent nearly 25 years as an out, loud, and proud lesbian. A feminist, separatist and anarchist, she wandered through New Age beliefs, witchcraft, Buddhism, agnosticism and all the other "isms" available to explore. At last she encountered the undeniable, indescribable love of Jesus, and everything changed. Today Michelle not only reaches out to touch the LGBT community with the love of God, but also speaks to the church, sharing a message of hope to those who feel they have lost a   loved one to the LGBT lifestyle.

Link: 

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Finding Real Love

BY CHUA EE CHIEN. Published by Asian Beacon on 28 July 2013.
Edmund Smith is a good-looking pastor, loving husband and father of two children who once led a “wild homosexual lifestyle,” as he says.
Smith had his first gay relationship when he was 18. A pub singer at night and a special education teacher by day, he used to entertain thoughts of having a sex change and tried to behave as femininely as possible. Plucking his eyebrows and shaving the hair on his legs were just two of his many womanly routines. What drove him to this lifestyle and what made him walk away from it?

Confusing Childhood

“I am the fourth boy in my family. When Mum was pregnant with me, they had hoped that I would be a girl. Perhaps that’s why, until I was five, my mother brought me up like a girl. I played with dolls and wore dresses,” says Edmund. “My father rejected me – he never
hugged me or touched me. My rejection deepened especially after my younger sister was born because I could remember clearly my father loving her and saying nice things to her just because she was a girl.”
“So, for the first five years of my life, I remember wishing to be a girl due to all the ‘self issues’ that had developed because of how my parents treated me and my confusing upbringing. I hated being a guy and naturally I began to think, feel and talk like a girl,” he recalls.
“When I reached the age of six and started to go to kindergarten, my mum suddenly decided to stop treating me like a girl after receiving comments from others and she started abusing and beating me up, making me more confused,” he says.
Edmund was later sent to an all-boys school and there he found boys who were just as effeminate. So, at the age of 13, he began his homosexual life.

Triggers

Based on his personal experience, he finds that there are mainly three specific issues which would trigger one’s journey to homosexuality, if not dealt with.
The first is the ‘vacuum’ issue, which is related to a lack of parental love. “Everyone needs the ‘V’ love. A mother’s love flows down from one side, and a father’s love flows down from the other and a child needs both parents’ love. Most gay guys have never had a father’s love,” he says.
The second trigger is the ‘self issue’, which is basically something about ourselves that we reject. For example, if you are a man and you reject your masculinity, that becomes a ‘self issue’ towards your gender.
The third trigger is the ‘barrier issue’, which causes one to look at the opposite gender negatively due to bad experiences such as abuse and bitterness.
Unfortunately for Smith, he had all three issues and therefore, looked for real love among his kind all through his secondary school days, while trying to be as feminine as possible.
Smith had his first real relationship with a man when he was 18 but it only lasted a year as his partner became possessive. He then started another relationship with another man.
It was not until he was 24 when he was dumped by his third lover that Smith decided he was sick and tired of his lifestyle and decided that he’d rather be single than be used by men again. It was a lonely journey to recovery as he had to walk away from his friends and give up his lifestyle of frequenting gay clubs and saunas.

Meeting The Right Man

Brought up in a Roman Catholic home, Smith faithfully went to church even while he was practising the homosexual lifestyle. “I went to church every Sunday, but I never had a relationship with Jesus,” he says.
His turning point came when he met Jenny, his colleague at Salvation Army where he worked as a teacher. “One day, Jenny asked me, ‘Why don’t you give Jesus a try?’ I then decided to open up my heart and receive Christ into my life.”
Upon Jenny’s invitation, he started attending the Salvation Army Church and grew in his relationship with this Jesus.
Looking back, Smith realises that his “right man – Jesus” had always been by his side because when he was going through his third break-up, he happened to be at a place where he was surrounded by Christians.
“If not for Jesus and the support from fellow Christians, I would have gone back to my old lifestyle. The journey to recovery from sexual brokenness is not an easy one. You need a church or group who can listen to you and lift you up when you fall,” Smith says.
One of Smith’s greatest blessings is his wife, Amanda Amutha Perumal, who was his colleague and good friend at Salvation Army. In 1997, Smith and Amanda went to Singapore Bible College to further their studies and there, they got to know about Choices, a Singapore- based organisation which reaches out to homosexuals.
They were trained at Choices for their ministry with homosexuals and in 2003, they moved back to Malaysia and set up Real Love Ministry (RLM) in Malacca.
“I started the ministry with the goal of raising up Befrienders-trained RLM workers who will journey with homosexuals who want to leave their lifestyle. I also started giving talks on the issues of sexual brokenness and formed support groups,” says Smith.

Spreading The Love

In 2006, Edmund and Amanda felt God’s call to start a church in Malacca which they later named Real Love Fellowship. Today, Edmund is the Senior Pastor of the church, reaching out and spreading the love of Jesus to the sexually-broken and marginalised community. His church is attended by the young and old from all walks of life.
The proud father of two – Angel and Ethan – has a passion for the performing arts and still sings, acts and dances professionally. His album, Wake Up, was inspired from his years of community work with the mentally-challenged, AIDs patients and homosexuals. He also travels frequently as an itinerant speaker, sharing his testimony to many.
Seeing the huge need of the homosexual community, Smith says that his church is looking to doing more work among the community. “There are hundreds of homosexuals who want to come out, but we have only few Befrienders,” he says. “We need more people to step out to reach out to these people.”
The Smiths also hope to purchase their own building to cater to the increasing needs of their church members and ministry. More information on Real Love Ministry is available at www.r-l-m.com.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

周慧敏的公公、香港多产作家倪匡:我为何弃佛信耶稣?


2014-06-15 邮报 阿摩司的训诲.

“我本来信佛教,但佛经太艰深,我太懒,受不了,”科幻小说作家倪匡在香港书展“卫斯理五十周年座谈会”上与书迷见面时,被问到为何弃佛信耶稣,他回答说,“基督教的《圣经》简单,只有一个字──便是‘信’,你信他就得!”

       倪匡这位与金庸、梁羽生并称“香港武侠三大家”的创作者所塑造的人物“卫斯理”早已深入许多武侠迷的心中。然而谈到信仰,倪匡确实毫无虚构,他坦诚地告诉书迷们:“你只要真的很虔诚地信,很由衷地信,没有半分勉强地信,必可以得到回应。”

       据香港基督教媒体报道,早年信佛的倪匡归信基督的经历也颇具传奇色彩。思考人生的意义未果,而借着基督徒梁上元向他传福音,他的心结逐渐解开最终受洗归入基督。而且,因着牧师祷告医治他多年的酒瘾后,他的信心更加坚定,多次在港台做见证。

       这位在武侠小说中把人物写活的“才子”曾经也遇过人生的低谷,因想不通人活着的目的甚至有过轻生的念头。“只知道不快乐,人生没有了活下去的意义,每一个明天都是今天的翻版,后天又是明天的翻版,”据福音站报道,倪匡曾经如是分享,“一眼可以看到底了,作为一个人,生活和昆虫一样,那有什么趣味?”

       然而,神听到了他的心声,藉着梁上元的基督教资料和开导,他慢慢地从迷茫和挣扎中看到“这真是真理”,心中的一个个疑问也渐渐解开,1986年复活节,他在台北一间教会受洗归入基督。

       不仅如此,神还以戒烟戒酒的奇迹祝福了他在主内的新生。倪匡在视频中见证说,一次跟牧师交流时,牧师鼓励还不怎么会祷告的他,想向神说什么大声念出来就可以;他说他真的很诚心地祷告说,“我酒瘾很痛苦,我又不想这样被酒控制一生……”就在当晚,他就不再恋酒了,他说这一神迹连自己都难以相信。

       年近八十的倪匡,家庭也十分蒙福。儿子倪震与其艺人妻子周慧敏在2010年也一同受洗归于基督。

       喜欢本文请转发:
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3OTM0MDYxOQ%3D%3D&mid=200266419&idx=1&sn=c17f8339263c83a5196a5c270a6f346e&scene=4#rd

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

US Supreme Court Permits Jesus Prayers at Government Meetings


By Ruth Moon. Published by Christianity Today on 5 May 2014.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that explicitly Christian prayers at government meetings do not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. At least in the 94,000-person town of Greece, New York, which may continue to open its council meetings with sectarian prayer after the court's 5-4 reversal of an appeals court's ban on the tradition.

Requiring prayers to be nonsectarian would require courts to "act as supervisors and censors of religious speech," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority opinion, "thus involving government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town's current practice of neither editing nor approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact."

Two residents of Greece had sued the town board for its practice of beginning meetings with prayer, saying the practice violated the establishment clause (full summary below). The Second Circuit Appeals Court agreed, saying that even though the town board allowed members of any faith to pray, functionally, a majority of the prayers contained "uniquely Christian language."

But the Supreme Court reversal highlights the difficulty of determining where the line is between sectarian and nonsectarian prayer. Phrases like "Lord of Lords," Kennedy points out, might seem ecumenical to many Christians but exclusive to practitioners of other religions. "The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech," Kennedy said in the opinion. "Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian." 

Such prayers might offend people, Kennedy acknowledged. "Offense, however, does not equate to coercion," he said. "Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a legislative forum."

The court handed down several opinions: Kennedy wrote the court's opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined in part and filed a partially concurring opinion; Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined a dissenting opinion by Elena Kagan.

Kagan in the dissenting opinion said the Greece prayers were "more sectarian and less inclusive" than any allowed in the precedent case, Marsh v. Chambers. That 1983 case upheld the state of Nebraska's tradition of opening legislative sessions with a chaplain's prayer.

"When citizens of all faiths come to speak to each other and their elected representatives in a legislative session, the government must take especial care to ensure that the prayers they hear will seek to include, rather than serve to divide," Kagan said.

The Greece case, the first legislative prayer case taken by the Supreme Court since 1983, has been closely watched. CT, which previously examined whether Christians must pray in Jesus' name at public forums, noted how the Second Circuit ruled that the town didn't try hard enough to find non-Christians to give the invocations—even if that required recruiting beyond the town's borders. But many expected the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, and wondered how narrow or broad the reversal would be.

Most of Kennedy's opinion "is devoted to refuting respondents' argument that the Establishment Clause requires legislative invocations to be non-sectarian," explains Religion Clause's Howard Friedman in his analysis, while most of Kagan's dissent "emphasiz[es] the differences between city council meetings and state legislatures" on religious equality.

"The Supreme Court has again affirmed that Americans are free to pray," said David Cortman, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the town of Greece before the Supreme Court. "Opening public meetings with prayer is a cherished freedom that the authors of the Constitution themselves practiced. Speech censors should have no power to silence volunteers who pray for their communities just as the Founders did."

ADF believes the ruling has ramifications for similar cases in other courts, and "will seek to resolve those cases in light of the decision."

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a great victory for religious liberty," said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "Prayers like these have been taking place in our nation's legislatures for over 200 years. They showcase our nation's religious diversity, highlight the fact that religion is a fundamental aspect of human culture, and reinforce the founding idea that our rights come from the Creator—not the legislature."

The decision highlights U.S. freedom to enjoy religious liberty, said Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which also filed an amicus brief in the case. "I am very thankful the Court did the right thing," he said. "Prayer at the beginning of a meeting is a signal that we aren't ultimately just Americans. We are citizens of the State, yes, but the State isn't ultimate. There is some higher allegiance than simply political process."

Here is the Supreme Court's summary of Greece v. Galloway:
Since 1999, the monthly town board meetings in Greece, New York, have opened with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory. While the prayer program is open to all creeds, nearly all of the local congregations are Christian; thus, nearly all of the participating prayer givers have been too. Respondents, citizens who attend meetings to speak on local issues, filed suit, alleging that the town violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian prayers. They sought to limit the town to "inclusive and ecumenical" prayers that referred only to a "generic God." The District Court upheld the prayer practice on summary judgment, finding no impermissible preference for Christianity; concluding that the Christian identity of most of the prayer givers reflected the predominantly Christian character of the town's congregations, not an official policy or practice of discriminating against minority faiths; finding that the First Amendment did not require Greece to invite clergy from congregations beyond its borders to achieve religious diversity; and rejecting the theory that legislative prayer must be non-sectarian. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that some aspects of the prayer pro- gram, viewed in their totality by a reasonable observer, conveyed the message that Greece was endorsing Christianity.

Link: 

Friday, May 2, 2014

Haters Under The Facade Of Atheism

By Michael Gryboski. Published by The Christian Post on 30 April 2014.

A West Virginia school district has painted over a Bible verse formerly located in the gymnasium of one of its high schools. Philippians 4:13, which was inscribed on Parkersburg South High School's gymnasium wall more than a decade ago, was painted over last week after the district received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group based in Madison, Wisconsin.

"Last week, the Bible verse was painted over after a recommendation from our legal council informing the administration we were in violation of State and Federal Law," Tim Yeater, president of the Wood County Board of Education, told The Christian Post on Wednesday.

Yeater also told CP that the decision to paint over the verse has received a "mixed response" from the community. "The local media and a few community members have taken the viewpoint that we need to maintain a definitive separation between church and state, while most community members I have heard from thought we reacted too quickly and should not have painted over the Bible verse," said Yeater.

"I think the bigger issue from the public was protecting the rights of our students and ensuring we permit the students to wear T-shirts with the verse while in school or attending athletic functions," he added.

In a statement to local media Pat Law, superintendent of Wood County School District, said, "We asked them to take it down. We have to follow the law, whatever that law might be. We're going to be certain that everyone's rights are being protected."

The verse, Philippians 4:13:  "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me," was placed in the gymnasium wall outside the wrestling room at Parkersburg South High. Philippians 4:13 was not only on the wall, but is also the motto of the high school wrestling team and is on their official T-shirts.

The FFRF sent a letter of complaint recently to Wood County regarding the presence of the Bible verse on both the gym wall and the T-shirts. "We needed to point out the obvious fact that this cannot be a team's motto; that this is unconstitutional for a public school to endorse or advance religion," Patrick Elliott, an FFRF attorney, told WTAP regarding his organization's action. "And so, that was our letter to the superintendent on April 11 about that being the team's motto."

The debate about whether or not the Bible verse will remain the wrestling team's motto and if the T-shirts will continue to have Philippians 4:13 on them is ongoing. Supporters of the T-shirts and motto have argued that, since parents purchased the shirts, no public funds were used, and thus no public funding of a sectarian enterprise.


Published on 18 April 2014. By Michael Gryboski.

A Wisconsin-based atheist organization has announced their intention to "scrutinize" the Bible class that an Oklahoma school district recently approved. The Freedom From Religion Foundation of Madison expressed their intentions Wednesday in response to Mustang Public Schools approving a Bible class elective championed by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green. In the statement, FFRF announced that they are "keeping a close eye on the Bible course developed by Green for public school students."

Dan Barker, FFRF co-president and a former pastor, stated in the press release that he was troubled about the possible content of the elective course. "In the religious climate of the Bible belt, given the impetus for this class, we are seriously concerned," stated Barker. FFRF, along with other groups focused on church and state separation, have expressed their concerns since last November.

A letter from FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel was sent to Mustang Schools Superintendent Sean McDaniel last year. "The Green family's constant attempts to impose their evangelical Christianity on Hobby Lobby employees has secularists naturally suspicious that any Hobby Lobby Bible class will not conform to the law," wrote Seidel. "Previous investigations have revealed that Bible classes in Texas rarely comport with the law, that teachers lack training, and that teachers impose their personal religious beliefs on all students."

Last November, Hobby Lobby's president announced his effort to create a Bible course for public schools that focuses on its history, meaning and impact. "With the history, we want to show the archaeological evidences of the Bible and then we want to show the impact of the Bible," Green told the Mustang Times. "The Bible has had an impact on just about every area of life, whether you like it or not, it has. It has impacted government, education, art, science, literature, you name it. Thirdly, is the story, meaning what does the book say."

Earlier this week, Mustang Public Schools voted to approve the elective for Mustang High School, with the course being introduced in the fall. In an earlier interview with The Christian Post, McDaniel said that he's "excited to offer the elective." "The Green Scholars Initiative has brought in more than 70 renowned scholars of different faiths from Jerusalem and Oxford to Baylor University to create the curriculum," said McDaniel. "The course is an elective. When our pre-enrollment packets were returned by students earlier this semester, more than 170 students indicated the course would be their first choice for an elective class."

Regarding church and state concerns, McDaniel told CP that it is a voluntary course, so "no student will ever be required to take it." "Also, the professors with the Green Scholars Initiative who put together the curriculum come from different personal faith backgrounds, not just Christianity," said McDaniel. "The curriculum has been through a rigorous review to check for bias and to ensure the content is neutral."


By Katherine Weber. Published on 19 April 2014.

A small, coastal town in central California has settled a lawsuit regarding prayer at City Council meetings, ultimately agreeing to no longer hold any form of prayer, whether sectarian or non-sectarian, ahead of the local government meetings. City officials say they decided to settle the lawsuit to avoid further legal costs paid by taxpayer money. 

Pismo Beach city officials announced their settlement earlier this week, nearly six months after the Freedom From Religion Foundation [FFRF] and the local chapter of Atheists United San Luis Obispo filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that it had violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state and the state Constitution's "No Preference" Clause by allowing predominately Christian-themed prayers before city council meetings.

The groups argued that the city had allowed its volunteer chaplain, the Rev. Paul E. Jones, to lead predominately Christian prayers ahead of city council meetings from 2008 to 2013. The lawsuit alleged that Jones often called on Pismo Beach citizens to live a "Christian lifestyle in accordance with the bible," among other sectarian statements.

As part of their settlement, city officials agreed to do away with the volunteer chaplain position, and Jones has resigned. The city has admitted no liability in the lawsuit, but said it would settle with the FFRF to avoid using taxpayer money to fund what would likely be a costly litigation process.

"[…] in keeping with the city's goal of carefully managing taxpayer funds, the City Council determined that it would not be a prudent use of public monies to contest the suit through trial," City Attorney David Fleishman said in a statement, according to The San Luis Obispo Tribune. The city will be paying $47,500 in attorneys' fees.

David Leidner, a board member of the local Atheists United San Luis Obiso group, told the Times Press Recorder that his group is "very happy the city of Pismo Beach has decided to end this exclusionary and unconstitutional practice and make their government meetings welcoming to all citizens."

The Pismo Beach ruling comes as the Supreme Court currently weighs the case of Greece vs. Galloway, in which residents of Greece, N.Y. are contesting their city council's references to "Jesus Christ" during government meetings. A decision is expected to be reached by June.

Another battle over prayer at government meetings is currently taking place in Carroll County, Md., where one city commissioner disobeyed a judge's recent ruling to temporarily stop sectarian prayers when she referenced "Jesus Christ" and "God" in a prayer prior to a commission meeting. Carroll County Commissioner Robin Bartlett Frazier decided to deliver the sectarian prayer in spite of the judge's injunction because she said the ruling was an "infringement on my First Amendment rights of free speech and free religion."

U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. had temporarily banned Carroll County commissioners from saying sectarian prayers at their government meetings after the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit against the county, arguing their prayers were a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

Carroll County commissioners have since passed a resolution agreeing to comply with Quarles' injunction as the lawsuit proceeds through court. If the Carroll County lawsuit is resolved before the Supreme Court rules on Greece vs. Galloway, the ruling could become moot depending on the higher court's ruling.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

How God Became Jesus—and How I Came to Faith in Him


Published by Christianity Today on 16 April 2014.

Bart Ehrman, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is something of a celebrity skeptic. He's written a number of bestsellers exposing the alleged errors in traditional accounts of early Christianity. His book Misquoting Jesus (2007) asserts that the manuscripts used to compile the New Testament are corrupted and unreliable, deviant from original autographs. His book Forged (2011) claims that many of the New Testament writings were counterfeits written pseudonymously under the names of the apostles.

In his latest book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Ehrman argues that belief in Jesus' divinity evolved over the first few centuries and eventually crystallized into what we know today. Jesus didn't claim to be God; rather, his followers thought he was divine because they believed he rose from the dead. But even then, the understanding of Jesus' divinity was incredibly elastic, ranging from a man exalted to be God's vice-regent to a pre-existent person who was equal with God. Only much later was Jesus identified as the Almighty. You can read Ehrman's own summary of his book at The Huffington Post.

Ehrman has a famous de-conversion, turning from an evangelical Christian to an agnostic. And he loves to tell his story. Ehrman is a gifted communicator, never short of a provocative quote. He knows how to stir a crowd, and he does well in talk shows, conferences, presentations, and debates.

But I've got my own de-conversion story to match his.
From Skepticism to Faith

I grew up in a secular home in suburban Australia, where religion was categorically rejected—it was seen as a crutch, and people of faith were derided as morally deviant hypocrites. Rates for church attendance in Australia are some of the lowest in the Western world, and the country's political leaders feel no need to feign religious devotion. In fact, they think it's better to avoid religion altogether.

As a teenager, I wrote poetry mocking belief in God. My mother threw enough profanity at religious door knockers to make even a sailor blush.

Many years later, however, I read the New Testament for myself. The Jesus I encountered was far different from the deluded radical, even mythical character described to me. This Jesus—the Jesus of history—was real. He touched upon things that cut close to my heart, especially as I pondered the meaning of human existence. I was struck by the early church's testimony to Jesus: In Christ's death God has vanquished evil, and by his resurrection he has brought life and hope to all.

When I crossed from unbelief to belief, all the pieces suddenly began to fit together. I had always felt a strange unease about my disbelief. I had an acute suspicion that there might be something more, something transcendent, but I also knew that I was told not to think that. I "knew" that ethics were nothing more than aesthetics, a mere word game for things I liked and disliked. I felt conflicted when my heart ached over the injustice and cruelty in the world.

Faith grew from seeds of doubt, and I came upon a whole new world that, for the first time, actually made sense to me. To this day, I do not find faith stifling or constricting. Rather, faith has been liberating and transformative for me. It has opened a constellation of meaning, beauty, hope, and life that I had been indoctrinated to deny. And so began a lifelong quest to know, study, and teach about the one whom Christians called Lord.

As a biblical scholar with expertise in early Christian history, I spend most of my time teaching and writing about Jesus, the early church, and the development of Christian thought.

In many ways, I am the anti-type of Bart Ehrman—a biblical scholar with a university doctorate and a modest quiver of publications under my belt who has shifted from the secular to the sacred, transitioned from skepticism to faith. Consequently, I do not see Jesus as merely another man whom people later venerated as a god. No, when I look to Jesus, I see that God is with us and for us, because he became one of us. I believe that God became a man, Jesus of Nazareth.
Fighting for the Faith

When I heard Ehrman had a forthcoming book about how Jesus became God, my interest was piqued. I'm intimately familiar with Ehrman's earlier works—and I often enjoy them—so I had a pretty good idea where he was going with this topic.

I also knew that while Ehrman could be informative, his retelling of church history could also be wildly skewed in some places. So I teamed up with four colleagues (Craig Evans, Simon Gathercole, Chris Tilling, and Charles Hill), all leading authorities in their own fields, to publish an immediate response to Ehrman. We read Ehrman's manuscript over the winter and set out to write How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature. In this book, we challenge Ehrman on the when, where, how, and who of the origins of belief in Jesus as God incarnate.

For many secularists, Ehrman is a godsend who propagates common misconceptions about Jesus and the early church. He believes there was a spectrum of divinity between gods and humans in the ancient world. Therefore, he asserts that the early church's beliefs about Jesus evolved: from a man exalted to heaven to an angel who became human to a pre-existent "divine" person who became incarnate to a subordinated or lesser god to being declared one with God.

My faith and studies have led me to believe otherwise. First-century Jews and early Christians clearly demarcated God from all other reality, thus leading them to hold to a very strict monotheism. That said, Jesus was not seen as a Greek god like Zeus who trotted about earth or a human being who morphed into an angel at death. Rather, the first Christians redefined the concept of "one God" around the person and work of Jesus Christ. Not to mention the New Testament writers, especially Luke and Paul, consistently identify Jesus with the God of Israel.

Many people get the idea that Jesus was just a prophet and never claimed to be divine. But a careful look at the Gospels shows that the historical Jesus explicitly claimed to exercise divine prerogatives. He identified himself with God's activity in the world. He believed that in his own person, Israel's God was returning to Zion, just as the prophets had promised. And he claimed he would sit on God's throne. These claims, when studied up close, are de facto claims to divine personhood, the reasons religious leaders of the day were so outraged.

Evidence shows that Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, and within 20-some years after his death and resurrection, Christians were identifying him with the God of Israel, using the language and grammar of the Old Testament to do so.

Sure, some sects in the first few centuries held heretical beliefs about Jesus. But the mainstream, orthodox view of Christ's identity was always consistent with and rooted in the New Testament, though orthodox Christology became more refined in the following centuries.

Ehrman's book is genuinely informative and provocative in places, but he gets many things wrong. Modern secular audiences—who prefer provocative sound bites from Richard Dawkins and conspiracy theories from Dan Brown—love to hear Ehrman's message. He provides solace to secularists: the whole Jesus-is-God thing is a big mistake that has negatively affected human history. In our culture, unbelief is trendy and religion is passé; people of faith are often derided as superstitious yokels from the boonies.

Some have great confidence in skeptical scholarship, and I once did, perhaps more than anyone else. If anyone thinks they are assured in their unbelief, I was more committed: born of unbelieving parents, never baptized or dedicated; on scholarly credentials, a PhD from a secular university; as to zeal, mocking the church; as to ideological righteousness, totally radicalized. But whatever intellectual superiority I thought I had over Christians, I now count it as sheer ignorance. Indeed, I count everything in my former life as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing the historical Jesus who is also the risen Lord. For his sake, I have given up trying to be a hipster atheist. I consider that old chestnut pure filth, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a CV that will gain me tenure at an Ivy League school, but knowing that I've bound myself to Jesus—and where he is, there I shall also be.

The real story of Jesus Christ is good news, and it transformed my life. That's why I'm fighting to tell it amidst a cacophony of misguided voices.

Michael F. Bird is lecturer in theology at Ridley College in Melbourne and coauthor of How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature (Zondervan).

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

He is not here; he has risen, just as he said

Painting by Simon Dewey entitled 'He Lives'. This sort of realistic painting, showing a triumphant Christ, is disparaged by the Art cognoscenti, but it is very popular, and in fact Simon Dewey is one of the most visible religious artists of the late 20th century. Its message is strong and direct: Christ is risen, he is the Saviour. The stone is rolled away, and darkness and death are behind him.


Matthew 28:1-10 

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." (NIV)
See also Mark 16:1-8 and Luke 24:1-12.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

World Vision's Decision to Hire Employees in Same-Sex Marriages


By Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber. Published on 24 March 2014.

World Vision's American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.

Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America's largest Christian charities.

In an exclusive interview, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained to Christianity Today the rationale behind changing this "condition of employment," whether financial or legal pressures were involved, and whether other Christian organizations with faith-based hiring rules should follow World Vision's lead.

Stearns asserts that the "very narrow policy change" should be viewed by others as "symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity." He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.

[Editor's note: All subsequent references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

In short, World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently "tearing churches apart" over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

Given that more churches and states are now permitting same-sex marriages (including World Vision's home state of Washington), the issue will join divorce/remarriage, baptism, and female pastors among the theological issues that the massive relief and development organization sits out on the sidelines.

World Vision's board was not unanimous, acknowledged Stearns, but was "overwhelmingly in favor" of the change.

"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

Stearns took pains to emphasize what World Vision is not communicating by the policy change.

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

"We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," said Stearns. "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church.

"This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more."

Yet the decision is still likely to be regarded as noteworthy by other evangelical ministries. Aside from World Vision's influential size—it took in more than a billion dollars in revenue last year, serves an estimated 100 million people in 100 countries, and ranks among America's top 10 charities overall—World Vision also recently fought for the right of Christian organizations to hire and fire based on faith statements all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—and won. It also opposed a 2012 attempt by USAID to "strongly encourage" faith-based contractors to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians in order to receive federal funds.

In other words, other Christian organizations look to World Vision for leadership on defending faith hiring practices. Stearns acknowledges this, but wants observers to understand why World Vision is voluntarily changing its own policy.

Stearns said World Vision has never asked about sexual orientation when interviewing job candidates. Instead, the organization screens employees for their Christian faith, asking if they can affirm the Apostles' Creed or World Vision's Trinitarian statement of faith.

Yet World Vision has long had a Christian conduct policy for employees that "holds a very high bar for all manner of conduct," said Stearns. Regarding sexuality activity, World Vision has required abstinence for all single employees, and fidelity for all married employees.

However, World Vision now has staff from more than 50 denominations—a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is now legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia, and federal judges have struck down bans in five other states (Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and—most recently—Michigan) as well as required Kentucky to recognize such marriages performed in other states. (All six rulings are stayed until the appeals process is complete.)

Stearns said World Vision's board has faced a new question in recent years: "What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?

"Under our old conduct policy, that would have been a violation," said Stearns. "The new policy will not exclude someone from employment if they are in a legal same-sex marriage." Stearns said the new policy reflects World Vision's parachurch and multi-denominational nature.

"Denominations disagree on many, many things: on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.," he said. "So our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles' Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our [Trinitarian beliefs], and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters."

The reason the prohibition existed in the first place? "It's kind of a historical issue," said Stearns. "Same-sex marriage has only been a huge issue in the church in the last decade or so. There used to be much more unity among churches on this issue, and that's changed."

And the change has been painful to watch. "It's been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church," he said. "It's tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We've got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity."

Highlighting the church/parachurch distinction: Board member and pastor John Crosby, who served as interim leader when a number of churches split off from the Presbyterian Church (USA) after the denomination dropped a celibacy requirement for gay clergy in 2011. At a conference that laid the foundation of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Minnesota megachurch pastor stated, "We have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center."

However, as a World Vision board member, Crosby didn't have a problem voting for the policy change. "It's a matter of trying to decide what the core mission of the organization is," he said.

Crosby, who leads Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, Minnesota, told CT that the decision was about making sure that World Vision is focusing on its mission to eliminate poverty worldwide. World Vision stretches across countless cultural and theological divides in a hundred countries, and so the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church, he said.

"Many of us support World Vision specifically because of its Christian identity. While there are many other good relief organizations, it's the faith component of World Vision that makes it distinctive for us," said Crosby. "[But] how can we represent ourselves as a Christian organization in such a diverse world? That's what we're trying to work through on a daily basis."

Board member and seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah told CT the decision to leave theology to others "honors the church as a whole." "It is not a statement in a particular direction, but it is trying to acknowledge the proper relationship between the church and the parachurch," he said. "If there is something we can learn from [this], it is the value of having conversations and commitment to prayer, over not just this particular issue but all controversial issues that divide the church."

Stearns was adamant the change will not impact World Vision's identity or work in the field. "World Vision is committed to our Christian identity. We are absolutely resolute about every employee being followers of Jesus Christ. We are not wavering on that," he said.

"This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture," said Stearns. "People can say, 'Scripture is very clear on this issue,' and my answer is, 'Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.' The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are an operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ."

In recent years, World Vision and other evangelical organizations that partner with Uncle Sam to deliver humanitarian aid overseas voiced concern over USAID attempts to "strongly encourage" all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation or risk losing federal funding.

"Concerns over government funding had no impact on this decision," said Stearns, noting that World Vision caps federal funding at 35 percent of its cash revenues. "We fought for the whole Christian community, reminding USAID that faith-based organizations have a religious exemption and are not required to follow government hiring guidelines.

"If the U.S. government ever requires us to give up our religious hiring rights in exchange for grants, we would walk away from U.S. grants. World Vision's ministry is not for sale."

World Vision's 2010 victory before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on faith-based hiring practices was watched closely by many Christian organizations (500 people signed up within 24 hours for a related ECFA webinar in April 2010). World Vision general counsel Steve McFarland later gave a series of ECFA webinars advising how other ministries could best structure their statements of faith to defend their hiring practices.

Yet Stearns said World Vision is not suggesting other ministries should now follow its lead.

"We made this decision for our organization based on who we are. Every organization has to come to its own conclusion," he said. "We are still passionate about protecting religious hiring rights—making sure that every Christian organization gets to decide this issue for themselves and not have the government decide it for them." (The latest example: World Vision's amicus brief on Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court case against Obamacare's contraceptive mandate.)

"We're not doing this for any legal reasons," he said. "If we wanted to, we would fight another battle on this all the way to the Supreme Court."

So the question becomes: Will supporters, particularly theologically conservative ones, let World Vision adopt a neutral stance on same-sex marriage? One of the first prominent voices out of the gate: Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who tweeted, "I'm glad Carl Henry didn't live to see this," and promptly penned a reaction, concluding: "World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Maintaining neutrality on such divisive issues is proving increasingly tricky for Christian organizations with broad coalitions. The most recent example is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, which has declared neutrality on abortion, same-sex marriage, and guns as it seeks to encompass more Christians yet preserve its diverging base of 2.5 million Lutherans. Yet Thrivent's theologically conservative wing has not been pleased.

And the policy change comes as World Vision has reduced its U.S. workforce by 10 percent over the past 15 months as expenses have risen and government grants have decreased, reports The News Tribune in nearby Tacoma, Wash. "The last 12 to 24 months have been among the most challenging of any we have ever faced," Stearns wrote to 408,000 donors in a January letter that marked "the first time Stearns had sent out a letter asking child sponsors to increase their giving due to cutbacks," the newspaper reported.

Stearns hopes World Vision will not experience similar division like Thrivent and risk losing conservative supporters as a result.

"I don't want to predict the reaction we will get," he said. "I think we've got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we're doing this, and it's my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us. But we do know this is an emotional issue in the American church. I'm hoping not to lose supporters over the change. We're hoping that they understand that what we've done is focused on church unity and our mission."

And Stearns believes that World Vision can successfully remain neutral on same-sex marriage.

"I think you have to be neutral on hundreds of doctrinal issues that could divide an organization like World Vision," he said. "One example: divorce and remarriage. Churches have different opinions on this. We've chosen not to make that a condition of employment at World Vision. If we were not deferring to local churches, we would have a long litmus test [for employees]. What do you believe about evolution? Have you been divorced and remarried? What is your opinion on women in leadership? Were you dunked or sprinkled? And at the end of the interview, how many candidates would still be standing?

"It is not our role to take a position on all these issues and make these issues a condition of employment."

Stearns said he doesn't expect any outcry among World Vision's 100 country affiliates, since World Vision International allows each country to set its own hiring policies appropriate to its local legal context. Even in Uganda, where a high-profile new law criminalizing gays and lesbians has been opposed by World Vision Uganda, it stated: "The issue of same-sex relationships will neither prevent us from serving children, families and communities around the world, nor obstruct our collaboration with one another and with our partner organizations."

The policy change will also not affect World Vision's partnership with ministries that maintain current faith-based bans on same-sex behavior. "This is a very narrow policy change. It's strictly about whether this issue should be a condition of employment at World Vision."

How would Stearns respond to critics who bemoan the decision as yet another Christian organization caving before the advancing gay rights movement?

"We're not trying to do anything that's symbolic for the rest of the church," he said. "But if we're making a statement at all, I hope it's a statement about unity.

"I hope it's a statement that says when Christ left, he gave us the Great Commission [to make disciples] and the Great Commandment [to love others as ourselves], and we're trying to do just that," said Stearns. "Bridging the differences we have, and coming together in our unity."

Stearns has even written books on this subject. "In some manner we haven't finished Christ's mission for the church because we've been divided and distracted by too many other things," he said. "We've got to find our way to unity beyond diversity in the Christian church.

"I know the Evil One would like nothing better than for World Vision to be hobbled and divided on this issue, so that we lose our focus on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission," said Stearns. "And the board is determined not to let that happen.

"I hope if it's symbolic of anything, it is symbolic of how we can come together even though we disagree. We—meaning other Christians—are not the enemy. We have to find way to come together around our core beliefs to accomplish the mission that Christ has given the church.

"We feel positive about what we've done. Our motives are pure," said Stearns. "We're not doing this because of any outside pressure. We're not doing this to get more revenue. We're really doing this because it's the right thing to do, and it's the right thing to do for unity within the church.

"I'm hoping this may inspire unity among others as well," he concluded. "To say how can we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom."

Read more here:

By Alex Murashko, CHRISTIAN POST Reporter. Published on 25 March 2014.

Christian leaders such as evangelist Franklin Graham and Russell D. Moore, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, expressed outrage that Christian relief organization World Vision announced it would hire employees in same-sex marriages on Monday.

"I was shocked today to hear of World Vision's decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages," Graham, the son of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, said in his statement. "The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan's Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin," Graham, who is the president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Moore also released a statement on Monday in which he pointed out that World Vision, one of the largest Christian relief organizations in the world, said its move was no capitulation, just a recognition that some groups supporting World Vision have differing views on sex and marriage.

"This is no surprise, on one level," Moore explained. "The constellation of parachurch evangelical ministries founded after World War II have been running headlong, with some notable exceptions, toward the very mainline liberalism to which they were founded as alternatives. Some think if we can just barter away Christian orthodoxy fast enough we can catch the wave of that Presbyterian Church (USA) church growth boom.

"But here's what's at stake. This isn't, as the World Vision statement (incredibly!) puts it, the equivalent of a big tent on baptism, church polity, and so forth," he writes. "At stake is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish."

Moore's statement includes his belief that the world has entered an era "where we will see who the Evangelicals really are, and by that I mean those who believe in the Gospel itself, in all of its truth and all of its grace." He continues, "And many will shrink back."

He writes that there's "an entire corps of people out there who make their living off of evangelicals but who are wanting to 'evolve' on the sexuality issue without alienating their base."

"I don't mind people switching sides and standing up for things that they believe in," Moore states. "But just be honest about what you want to do. Don't say, 'Hath God said?' and then tell us you're doing it to advance the gospel and the unity of the church."

He concludes, "Donor bases come and go. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands forever. World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, said the decision by World Vision brings on a time to grieve for children everywhere.

"No matter what you think about this decision, I hope you feel a sense of grief…for the children," Wax wrote on The Gospel Coalition's blog. "This is a story of deep and lasting significance, because there are children's lives at stake in how we respond.

"Children will suffer as Evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith and repentance."

After listing reasons children suffer in so many ways, not just in decisions such as the one that World Vision made, and how Evangelicals will respond with grief, he writes. "But we also grieve for children here at home who are growing up in a culture in which sexual idolatry distorts the meaning of marriage and the beauty of God's original design."

Read more here: