Choose You This Day

If anyone has been reading my blog postings (to date) they may falsely accuse me of being homophobic and a bigot; they might wrongly conclude that I hate gay people and lack the love of Jesus that I’ve proclaimed for the past 37-years of ordained ministry.  If that is their best analysis, then they are no doubt those simple-minded people who take the words of Jesus out of context and love to proclaim – “Jesus loves everyone … regardless …” Really?  Think again!

 

Since the time in which Christ Jesus established His Church some 2000 years ago, the Church has distinguished between the ‘sin’ and the ‘sinner.’  We can say with certainty that Jesus loves all people; but righteously hates the sinful acts of a deprived humanity.  In fact, God came to earth in the person of His beloved Son to die for the homosexual (and every other sinner); to shed His sinless blood on Calvary’s cross for the redemption of every repentant human being; and there paid the price for our sins, and provide the free (for us) but costly (for Him) gift of salvation.  Clearly, Jesus loves gays and lesbians; but hates the abominable acts of homosexuality as contrary to the truth of God’s Holy Word.

 

Undeniably, the Christian biblical worldview runs against the grain of today’s progressive thinking.  Many of America's young have come to accept that homosexuality is a natural preference of a significant minority and ought to be accommodated; and same-sex unions ought to be treated as traditional marriages.

 

Case in point: At George Washington University, two students have demanded that Father Greg Shaffer of the Newman Center be removed for creating an environment hostile to gays.  The priest's offense:  When President Obama endorsed same-sex marriages, Shaffer posted a blog restating Catholic teaching condemning homosexual acts as unnatural and immoral.  In private sessions, Father Shaffer also counseled gay students to remain celibate for the rest of their lives.  One senior, Damian Legacy, says he was shaken by Father Greg's admonition that he was risking his soul and by his ouster from the Newman Center after the priest learned he was in a relationship with a male student.  Legacy and his partner have filed complaints against the Rev. Shaffer with the university Office for Diversity and Inclusion, alleging his homophobia has had a detrimental effect on the emotional health of gay students.

 

Though a minor collision in the cultural war, this clash at GWU may be a forerunner of what is coming … as the homosexual community seeks to have its agenda written into law and openly practiced in society.  The traditional Christianity's view … that homosexual acts are immoral and same-sex marriage an absurdity … cannot be reconciled with the view that homosexuality is natural and normal, and gay marriage a human right.  Like abortion, it is an issue on which both sides cannot be right.  Yet it is an issue of paramount importance both to devout Christians and to the homosexual rights movement in America.

 

While today’s culture war may seem as a little skirmish, we have not begun to see the magnitude of battle.  A new era of civil disobedience is being prepared among the true people of God.  Which side will you be found to enlist your faithful service?  Choose you this day whom you will serve.  Like Joshua, I will serve the LORD!

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Demonizing of Christians in the Military

As many of you know, I spent the last twenty-five years of my life as an U.S. Army Chaplain where I fought the good fight of faith in the context of the military community.  In fact, at one time I was the Command Chaplain for the U.S. Army Reserve Command.  If I were yet in that position, I would find myself involved with the likes of these incidents that recently surfaced.

 

An U.S. Army Reserve unit in Pennsylvania was recently given a briefing on “Extremism.”  Within that PowerPoint presentation there was a slide (#24) under the heading “Religious Extremism” with more than a dozen examples of extremist groups. Al Qaeda was listed fifth. Hamas was sixth. The Ku Klux Klan was eighth on the list. At the top of the list was “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” was tenth.

 

The Department of the Army contends this was an isolated incident, and that the materials were not condoned by the Army. Sadly, that’s not true; for not long after there was news that U.S. Army LTC Jack Rich of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, sent a 14-page email warning of behaviors inconsistent with “Army Values” and warning about various groups that “do not share our Army Values.”  Among those groups listed in his email were neo-Nazis and the KKK, along with pro-family Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. 

 

Sadly, this is more evidence that left-wing activists who equate traditional Biblical values with bigotry and extremism have burrowed their way into the government bureaucracy and are even moving up the ranks of Obama's military.

 

The source for this briefing and email appear to have been the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center.  According to the American Family Association, the Southern Poverty Law Center brands anyone with a biblical view of homosexuality as extremist; therefore targeting the American Family Association who insists that the Bible teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that same-sex relationships are sinful.  

 

Earlier this year, a report from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point labeled as part of the “violent far right” anyone who espoused “strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights.”  That could well be a majority of the country!  According to a Pew Research poll taking in February, 53% of Americans view the government as a threat to their liberty.

 

For decades, the political left has been on a cultural jihad to purge God and faith from the public arena. (Don’t forget last year’s DNC Convention that just about voted God out of their platform.)  The political left mocks Christian conservatives as “the American Taliban.” Now we are being told that believing marriage is between a man and a woman is bigotry.

 

When leftists outside the government condemn men and women of faith, why would we be surprised when leftists inside the government start producing reports calling Christians “extremists”?  If any fair-minded observer in the media wanted to figure out why there is such a concern about universal background checks and a national registry of firearms, he should look no further than this latest Army briefing and email, and he will see the left's routine demonization of normalcy.

 

Let me venture a guess as to why this is happening. It is the slippery slope of repealing the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. As the administration began to demand tolerance for alternative lifestyles, the word quickly went out from the top that tolerance had its limits. LTG Thomas Bostick, then the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, said, “These people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out.”  Why, even the U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains (MG Douglas Carver) said as much to the Corps of Chaplains.  Since the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (Dec 2010), we have gone from tolerance for homosexuals serving in the military to intolerance for men and women of faith serving in the military.

 

Don’t be fooled – There is occurring a direct assault on religious liberty.  It is blatant anti-religious bigotry that seeks to force men and women of faith into the closet.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 3 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April and 1 May blogs

 

III. Homosexual couples should not be denied to marry.

 

Extending legal protection to sexual preferences and elevating personal sexual preferences to that of a “civil right” (ultimately leading to the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and marital entitlements) will not simply alter American culture and traditional marriage; it will destroy the culture and the sacred institution as we know it.

 

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages.” Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it’s unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners. “They don’t do it for straight people, and they’re very unlikely to do it for gay people,” Frank said, unless, someone were to use the U.S. military to impose a risky “social experiment” to satisfy an agenda.    

 

The same-sex “marriage” movement has crystallized the difference between two distinct views of marriage:

·         The recent view advocated by same-sex proponents can be summed up as follows: “Marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple, for the couple.” Under this view, the human arrangement is merely a private, and, perhaps in some cases a sexually intimate relationship that deserves a license by the government in order to obtain certain legally recognized benefits. This view of marriage believes that it is discriminatory to favor one kind of personal relationship (between a man and a woman) over other kinds of relationships (between people of the same sex). Those who advocate this private view believe marriage is “just one lifestyle choice among many.”

·         The historic view of marriage does not consider the institution to be merely a private relationship but rather a public good. What every known human society calls marriage shares certain basic, recognizable features, including most especially the privileges accorded to the reproductive couple in order to protect both the interests of children and the interests of the society. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged.  By socially defining and supporting a particular type of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.

 

Understanding marriage as a public good is fundamentally different from viewing it as merely a private relationship. Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male and female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers; that societies need babies; and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so, as to give their children stable families in which to grow up and thrive.

 

The problem with endorsing same-sex “marriage” is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family norms, but it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires. The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not some sideline discussion. It is the marriage debate itself. Either we win or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex marriage poses to marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope; it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is, in itself, a disaster; we have already lost the marriage ideal.

 

Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine in law a public judgment that the public desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen “good.” It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

 

Marriage between one man and one woman is a public good that is best for society, and particularly its children and future generations. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would equalize same-sex relations with marriage and parenthood. In doing so, marriage and parenthood would be severed, and the structure of children raised with a mom and a dad would suffer. It is one thing to tolerate personal relationships that are different from ours, but it is another thing for society to elevate such a relationship to a preferred status; and, that’s what same-sex “marriage” would do. To sanction same-sex “marriage” would be to say that there is no relevance to gender; and thus, result in the abolition of gender. Indeed, many same-sex and transsexual proponents advocate the abolition of gender, stating that the concept of male and female is an outdated, stereotypic model that needs to be abolished.

 

Once the government says that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state as a “marriage,” it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamous or even cohabitating relatives and friends. And once everyone’s relationship is recognized, marriage is gone; only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left.

 

Some would ask: Is equal protection violated by prohibiting same-sex “marriage?” Preserving marriage between one man and one woman does not violate equal protection any more than gender-specific restrooms. Marriage has never been open to any and every one. The Supreme Court has approved banning polygamous marriages, and most states ban incestuous marriages and place age restrictions on marriage. These restrictions have never been thought to violate equal protection.

 

Some argue that same-sex “marriage” proponents want marriage for its benefits. If benefits are the issue, then instead of deconstructing marriage itself, advocates of same-sex “marriage” should focus on the specific benefit desired rather than create a new form of marriage. Marriage is more than benefits. Marriage is a universal human institution. Marriage predated America, as it did every civilized society. Thus, before there was any law regarding marriage, marriage existed. Marriage is not merely a set of benefits. The laws and benefits associated with marriage are designed to support the institution because it is so fundamental to our society and future existence. Laws that promote marriage between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other are supported by compelling governmental interests in the preservation of society and the public good.

 

Although for different reasons, same-sex “marriage” opponents and some states rights advocates oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Protecting traditional marriage is, and always has been, a federal matter. The act of amending the Constitution is an exercise in states’ rights. Marriage will be national one way or another. Either the courts will dictate marriage policy or the people will. If a federal constitutional amendment is not adopted, the courts will no doubt alter traditional marriage policy.

 

Now some argue that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, and thus should not license marriage. In this way marriages could consist of either private, religious or secular ceremonial services, but with no state sanction. While this argument has some surface appeal, it fundamentally misunderstands the importance of marriage and its impact on society. The state has always been empowered to regulate in order to protect the public health and welfare of its citizens. Thus, we have laws protecting our personal security and property rights. Although consensual, we have laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and private drug use. The reason society has chosen to regulate these areas of our lives is because these private acts have public consequences. The same is true with marriage. Marriage is not merely a personal, private act. Children are part of marriage, and as such, the greater society is affected.

 

It is neither wise nor desirable to deregulate marriage because, in so doing, our society would suffer. No, marriage is a public good, and it is precisely one of the areas in which the government should and must continue to regulate in order to protect the public good. Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” would have a profound destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education and morals of the country. We should not play Russian roulette with marriage.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

 

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 2 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April blog

 

II. Homosexuals were born that way; and therefore should have the right to marry.

 

The typical definition of “sexual orientation” includes the status of being or the perception of being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or even the most recent label, “questioning youth.” The definition itself includes the entire spectrum of human sexuality. Homosexual groups are lobbying to amend laws to include such terms as “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Homosexuals have attempted to point to certain “genetic” studies touting the idea that homosexuality is a genetically inherited characteristic. However, many of these studies are fraught with methodological flaws and are not replicated by reputable scientists. 

 

In contrast to these flawed methodological studies, more than 70 years of therapeutic counseling and case studies suggest homosexuality is a gender identification issue that is environmentally influenced. Homosexuals can change their behavior. There are numerous examples of changed sexual behavior documented in many studies, including the landmark research of Masters and Johnson. (From 1968 to 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute ran a program to convert or revert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This program reported a 71.6% success rate over a six-year treatment period.  At the time of their earlier work, homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, a classification which was repealed in 1973.)  A new website has since been launched by the American College of Pediatricians that cautions educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion.  (It was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide accurate factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.) The college further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long, and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

 

Bottom line: There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic and, therefore, immutable. It is noteworthy that Dr. Robert Spitzer, the man who was instrumental in pushing the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, has now acknowledged that homosexuals can become heterosexual. His (2003) treatment-outcome research concluded that change, though of unknown frequency, does occur for some individuals and that reorientation therapy should not be dismissed as a treatment option.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 1 of 3)

Today, there is a lot of oxygen being “sucked-up” on both sides of the issue of same-sex “marriages.”  There are those who just think it’s wrong; that it is contrary to the Creator’s design; that it is biblically chastised; that it threatens society as we know it.  While others say it’s natural, and that homosexuals should not be denied the opportunity to happily marry the person they love, and be afforded the same entitlements granted to heterosexual marriages.  The debate uses tradition, personal experience and logical reasoning … on both sides of the issue.  One side calls the other intolerant and homophobic; while the other is called perverted and immoral.  There’s not a whole lot of middle ground on this subject.  And because “we the people” are so divided, we appear more than willing to let the government decide.  Even persons of conviction preferred not to decide … as evidenced in the recent “Minnesota nice” outcome of the vote for a Minnesota Amendment to the State Constitution defining marriage as “between one man and one woman.”  
 

I would suspect that everyone knows someone for whom this is their sexual preference or orientation; and for that reason, are reluctant to express themselves publically; and, therefore, prefer to let the legislative or judicial branches of government “make the call.”

 

While for some it is a matter for the government to resolve; for others it is a matter of personal preference; and still others it is a matter of principle. For me as a Christian, I must come from a Biblical worldview, which says I must think on “… whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable …” (Philippians 4:8) 

So, seeking to address this matter with truth, let’s examine several of the arguments expressed by the advocates of same-sex “marriage.”
 

I. It is a civil right of same-sex couples to marry.

 

In order to gain power, the gay-rights movement has sought to ride the civil rights train. Using words like “rights,” “discrimination,” and “tolerance,” the homosexual movement has successfully convinced many to believe their cause is just and the right to practice openly-homosexual behavior should be permitted to climb the platform atop the civil rights pedestal. However, a person’s sexual preference is not a civil right and has nothing in common with the civil rights movement of the twentieth century.
 

The federal law known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was part of a landmark legislative attempt to remedy discrimination on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation; it bans discrimination in public facilities and in public education; it prohibits discrimination against recipients of federally assisted programs; it addresses discrimination in the workplace. This Act laid the foundation for future civil rights laws that were later adopted by several states, including local governmental subdivisions such as municipalities. An understanding of the historical background and reasons for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is important when considering adding any new class of persons to a protected civil rights category.  The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and, secondarily, out of discrimination against women. The Act prohibits discrimination against individuals on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” All five categories have at one time or another been the subject of no less than five constitutional amendments.

 

No one can seriously argue that African-Americans did not suffer rampant, widespread discrimination. Blacks were forced to use separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They were prohibited from staying in motels or from patronizing restaurants. African-Americans (and other people of color) were prohibited from voting until the states ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those of Korean, Japanese, Jewish, and German descent also faced discrimination following World Wars I and II. Women faced similar discrimination. They were prohibited from voting until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.  Like African-Americans, women were also excluded from the job markets and from places of political influence. The widespread discrimination against Blacks, women, and other people with particular national origins undeniably resulted in blatantly direct employment discrimination which excluded them from the economic marketplace. 

 

Race, color, sex, and national origin share common immutable characteristics. (An immutable characteristic serves to identify the protected class.)  A person’s race, color, sex, and national origin are unchangeable characteristics. One cannot transition from one category to another. A person is either born African-American or Caucasian, male or female. There’s no such thing as an ex-African-American. The ancestry of a person is fixed at birth.

 

Religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act that does not share the pattern of an immutable physical characteristic as do the other four categories. However, the characteristic of immutability in terms of religion is rooted in the 1st Amendment, and indeed, predates that Amendment. The drafters of the 1st Amendment considered the freedom to believe in God and the free exercise of religion to be a sacred right, which may not be alienated by any sovereign government. The 1st Amendment affords special protection to religion, in part, because of the history of religious oppression. This special protection was codified in the Civil Rights Act.

 

The matter of whether a person’s sexual preference meets the immutability requirement is not debatable. The practice of homosexuality is a matter of choice. In contrast to the immutable characteristics of race, color, or national origin, a person’s sexual preference is not static; it is an ever-moving target and, as such, can never be considered immutable. Fluidity of one’s sexual preference and the lack of any evidence establishing its immutability precludes defining a protected class based on sexual preference. 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel 

It’s Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom from Religion

The primary legal source that protects religious freedom for all American citizens is the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses forbid governmental entanglement with matters of religion.  This means government may not favor one religion over another; may not target one religion for particular benefits and burden another; may not entangle itself in core ecclesiastical subjects; may not set itself up as the arbiter of religious truth and enforce its determinations as law … just to name a few.  With this simple statement, the U.S. Constitution rightly established the proper boundaries for religions and for the state.  The two clauses protect the same central liberty … from two slightly different directions: the “establishment” clause forbids government prescription of religious exercise; and the “free exercise” clause forbids government proscription of religious practices.  The government should not try to force compliance with any particular religious belief or practice, or compel people to support any particular religion – because religious belief … if it is to be genuine … cannot be forced on people against their will.

 

By the same token, the opposite of the “compel religion” view is in error: that we should “exclude religion” from the public square; that religious belief should be kept at home and limited to places of worship; that it should not influence a civil society. 

 

This “exclude religion” view has had a strong influence in recent campaigns to persuade the courts and public opinion in legalizing same-sex “marriage.”  If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed, they could well be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments in light of their moral values against the likes of abortion, euthanasia, mandated costs of reproductive health by employers, and in the case of Christian owned/operated businesses – requiring them to service the gay agenda … all of which encroach on their religious principles.  By such reasoning, all actions of religious citizens and civil officials for almost any moral issue could be found invalid.  This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established and contrary to what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the 1st Amendment.  This changes freedom of religion into freedom from religion.  Our Founders never envisioned that the 1st Amendment would become a weapon to excise Christian or traditional religious expressions from the public arena.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

Lawsuits Against Christians Refusing Business to Gays

Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same-sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer.  Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won.  In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.

 

Now the State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs.  Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, WA, is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.  “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

 

On March 1, a longtime customer asked Stutzman to provide flowers for his upcoming same-sex wedding.  According to court documents, she told him that she would not be able to do so “because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.”  The Attorney General’s office sent a letter to the florist on March 28 giving her a chance to reconsider her position and sign an agreement indicating her intention to comply with the law.  But Stutzman refused.  “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” the attorney general said.  In their letter to Stutzman, they told her the only way to avoid a lawsuit was to agree to provide services for homosexual weddings.  “This means that as a seller of goods or services, you will not refuse to sell floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if you sell floral arrangements for opposite-sex weddings,” the Attorney General’s office wrote.  The Attorney General is seeking a permanent injunction forcing the flower shop to comply with the law – as well as $2,000 in fines for every violation.

 

Attorney JD Bristol called the notion that his client was guilty of discrimination “nonsense.”  “Arlene’s Flowers has catered to all patrons, including homosexuals, for many years,” Bristol wrote in his reply to the Attorney General.  “Arlene’s Flowers has had openly gay employees.”  He told The Seattle Times that he believes the state is trying to make an example of the flower shop.  “This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person being gay,” he told the newspaper.  “She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not homosexuality.  It violates her conscience.”

 

Bristol said he believes this is a freedom of religion issue.  “What the government is saying here is that you don’t have the right to free religious exercise,” he told the newspaper.  Religious liberty groups in the State of Washington and across the country are voicing their support for the flower shop.  “You may not be a florist, and you may have made a different decision, but liberty is at stake for all of us,” said Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.  “Draw your line in the sand right here.”

 

Backholm sent an email blast urging supporters to stand with Arlene’s Flowers.  “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet,” he said.  “A small business owner is looking at years of litigation and huge legal expenses because she won’t bow to the political elites.”

 

Peter Sprigg, with the Family Research Council, told Todd Starnes of Fox News they are seeing more and more of these types of cases.  “People need to be aware this is the underlying motive for the push for same-sex marriage,” he said.  “It’s not just about legal rights and benefits.  It’s about forcing everyone in society to recognize their relationships as being one hundred percent equal to opposite-sex marriages.”  He called the lawsuit a dangerous step towards encroaching on religious liberty.  “It also reflects a narrow view of religious liberty where people may have freedom to exercise religious liberty in their church, but they don’t have that right when they go outside those four walls,” he said.

 

Well before our nation’s birth, a biblical basis for freedom of religion came from the words of Jesus who said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” (Matthew 22:21)  In this statement, Jesus established the principle of a distinct realm of “things that belong to God” that should not be regulated or constrained by the government (or “Caesar”).  Although Jesus did not specify what things belong to this realm that is outside of Caesar’s control, certainly “the things that belong to God” must include decisions and actions regarding faith and practice.  This means that people's religious convictions and activities should clearly be an area in which government gives citizens uninhibited freedom. 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

To Stomp or Not to Stomp

You’ve no doubt heard about it.  At Florida Atlantic University (the Davie campus, near Fort Lauderdale) a student was suspended from class after he refused a professor’s directive to stomp on a piece of paper with the name of “Jesus” written on it.  “I’m not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated,” student Ryan Rotela told television station WPEC.  “I truly see this as I’m being punished.”

 

Rotela, (a devout Mormon) said the instructor in his Intercultural Communications class told the students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper.  Then, they were told to put the paper on the floor.  After which, the professor told them to “Stomp on it.”  Rotela said. “I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.  The young college student told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting, offensive, inappropriate, and unprofessional.

 

Rotela said the idea of stomping on the name of Jesus was beyond his comprehension.  “Any time you stomp on something it shows you believe that it has no value,” he told the television station. “If you were to stomp on the word Jesus – it says the word has no value.”

 

Rotela took his concerns to Poole’s supervisor – where he [Ryan] was promptly suspended from the class.  [Ryan has since been reinstated in the class, thanks to the help of the Texas-based Liberty Institute.]  The university is defending the instructor’s assignment to stomp on the name of Jesus.  “As with any academic lesson, the exercise was meant to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies.  The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus … and not any other religious figure.

 

The lesson on bashing the name of Christ is included in a textbook titled, Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (5th Edition).  The synopsis of the lesson reads – “Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper.  Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up.  Ask the students to think about it for a moment.  After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper.  Most will hesitate.  Ask why they can’t step on the paper.  Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

 

Paul Kengor, the Executive Director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, PA said he’s not surprised by the classroom lesson.  “These are the new secular disciples of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ – empty buzzwords that make liberals and progressives feel good while they often refuse to tolerate and sometimes even assault traditional Christian and conservative beliefs,” Kengor said.  Kengor said classes like the one at Florida Atlantic University often demonstrate the contempt many public institutions hold for people of faith.  “It also reflects the rising confidence and aggression of the new secularists and atheists, especially at our sick and surreal modern universities,” he said.   “Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed,” Kengor wondered.

 

What’s wrong with these academics?  Do they really think they can hide behind their diplomas and degree?  There’s an incredible irony in this professor’s actions.  Just as there is sarcasm in all the Christian bashing we seem to find in this culture.  Here’s the irony: Each breathe of life and beat of the heart is by the grace of Christ Jesus.  When the Son of God says, “Enough,” life is over!  And to Him we must all give an account.  Contrary to all the St. Peter at the Pearly Gates jokes, Jesus is the one to whom we must answer for every thought, word, and deed.

 

The apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked.  A man reaps what he sows.  The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” (Galatians 6:7-9)

 

Paul began his statement of this eternal principle with some very disturbing words, “Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked.”  Why did Paul say that?  Is it possible for us to be deceived?  Maybe we think we have pulled the wool over God’s eyes; that God doesn’t see what we are doing, or know what is going on inside our hearts and minds.  But Paul says, “You must not deceive yourselves.  You are not deceiving God.  God knows what kind of seed you are sowing, and whatever kind of seed you sow, that is the kind of seed you will reap when the day of harvest comes.”

 

Now here’s the good news. If you’re not very proud of the seed you have sown, then the best news is that Jesus Christ came to die for your sins and for mine, and to cleanse us with His own precious blood.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The CUNY Abortion Game

If you want to see just how bad the depravity of the American people has become, turn your attention to some students at Hunter College in New York City.  Founded in 1870, Hunter College is now the largest college in the City University of New York (CUNY) system.  Located in the heart of Manhattan, its current enrollment runs around 22,000 from all different backgrounds.

 

Recently, some of their sundry students gathered in a cafeteria and began playing a game that they called ‘Abortion Battles.’  Students, mostly male, placed a balloon under their shirt and then would square off against another balloon toting student and try to pop each other’s balloon with a plastic fork.  The game itself seems harmless at first, but when you think about the implications, it’s rather chilling. 

 

Assuming these students are under the age of 40 and thinking, they should have been giving thanks to God for their very lives … because since 1973 (40 years ago) it was perfectly legal to terminate their lives.  They should be asking – Why was I spared being aborted?

 

Now kids have been trying to pop each other’s balloons since I was a kid.  It was just what kids innocently did with no malice.  However, in this case, the college students are mocking and trivializing abortion, and the killing of unborn innocent babies.  Much of this mockery was captured on video.  In one part of the video, you can hear a bystander shout, “Kill the baby, kill it.”  Sadly, more and more Americans believe there is no real difference between popping a balloon and murdering an unborn child; and the actions of these college students clearly demonstrate it.

 

America is becoming desensitized to the horror of abortion.  With all of the violence on television, in movies and video games, they are numb to pain inflicted on a child in the womb … when they have their limbs ripped from their tiny bodies.  Popping the amniotic sac and emptying out its contents to them is no different than popping a balloon and emptying out its contents. 

 

Surely our time of judgment as a nation is coming, and perhaps it’s already here.  God gives nations rulers that they deserve; and since America has murdered nearly 60-million unborn children since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, our current governmental officials could be just what God wants us to have as part of His judgment.  And I’m sure that judgment includes the fall and collapse of America as we knew it; all because we turned away from God and embraced a hedonistic religion that thrives on the blood sacrifices of unborn children.

 

Trusting that God is not finished with the United States, I want to give you three specific things that you can do to end abortion:

I.  Speak Out

Proverbs 31:8-9 says, “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate.  Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”

The 60-million babies aborted in the United States since 1973 don’t have a voice, but we do.  We need to start talking about it whenever and wherever the subject matters.  That means defending life in the relevant conversations in the coffee shop … as well as to contacting our law makers on capitol hill.  The trends in this nation right now are clearly showing that people are uncomfortable with abortion.  We have an opportunity (right now) to set right millions of wrongs.  But we’ve got to make noise to make it happen.

For years the tact of the liberals and abortionists has been to make the most noise.  It’s time that we talk back.  We may not get a chance to testify before a congressional committee, but each one of you can contact your congressmen.  You should – “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate ...” (Proverbs 31:8)  That is righteousness; that is religion that God sees as undefiled.

Now, you might ask, “What will I say?”  Tell them what you know.  You don’t have to be a neonatal specialist to have a clue here.  Women – I would think that your testimony is stronger in some respects than that of men.  Way back around 200 AD there was a Christian theologian named Tertullian who recognized that as he argued against abortion in his day (it is an ancient evil) he said, “I call on you, mothers, whether you are now pregnant or have already borne children; ... Tell us: Do you feel any stirring of life within you in the fetus?  Does your groin tremble, your sides shake, your whole stomach throb as the burden you carry changes its position?  Are not these moments a source of joy and assurance that the child within you is alive and playful?  Should his restlessness subside, would you not be immediately concerned for him?”

Take what you know to be true and speak out!  The goal must not be merely to limit, but to end the murder of innocents.  We need to speak out, even at the risk of offending people.  We need to win in the court of public opinion, and we need to win on capitol hill, and in the Supreme Court.

But we have to do more than speak out, we’ve got to step up to the plate and take action.

II. Step Up

Proverbs 24:11-12 reads, “Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die.  Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it.  For God knows all hearts, and he sees you.  He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew!  And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”

We have got to do whatever we can to save those innocent lives.  What does that mean you can do?  In addition to equipping yourself to think and argue persuasively on the pro-life issue, we need to begin acting as if we believe that abortion is a serious moral wrong.  We normally act based on what we believe to be true; but too often we’ve decided to become completely passive.

Now many of you might agree with the person who says “I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t have a right to tell a woman what to do?  Oh really?  Than why do we lock up thousands of people in prison for murder, rape and drugs every year?  Haven’t we made an action based upon what we believe to be right or wrong?  If we really believe abortion is murder (and it is) than we have the mandate to act against it.

How do you do that?  Pray for God’s intervention certainly, but how about being the intervention?  Rescue the perishing by intervening in the process … if we can.

Yet as we step up to the plate to take action, we’ve got to remember that our goal is not to destroy people, but to bring them redemption.  We need to destroy the sin, but we have got to make sure that in the process we don’t destroy the sinner.  Remember the purpose of Christ? – To seek and save the lost?  We, too, have got to reach out with compassion in hopes of redemption.

III. Reach Out

It is sad to say, but it’s easier as a Christian to confess to sins of adultery, fornication, or theft than it is to be a Christian who has had an abortion.  We cannot forget that the procedure has two victims.  The child is gone, but the mother remains … and more often than not, she is daily haunted with a memory she can’t erase.  To that woman, God offers the sacred gift of complete forgiveness.  Abortion has created a multitude of ‘walking wounded’ who silently suffer their guilt and their shame.  And the devil uses the rhetoric to keep them locked in feelings of guilt, even if they’re Christians now.

My friends, the Church cannot afford to be self-righteous.  Psalm 14 reminds us, “...There is no one who does good.  The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.  They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;  There is no one who does good, not even one.”

When we talk about an action plan, perhaps this one point needs to be actively put into our lives more loudly than the others; and that is this – An offer of acceptance and forgiveness to any who would dare to seek it.

Are you willing to be like Jesus in this?  He stood before the crowd around Him and offered them redemption.  Matthew 11:28-30 reads, “Then Jesus said, ‘Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you.  Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke fits perfectly, and the burden I give you is light.’ ”

As we reach out to a sin worn world, we need to carry the message that redemption is possible; acceptance is available; and that we are the people willing to offer it in the name of Jesus Christ.

I challenge you to contact your congressmen; to put some feet on what you believe; to speak out for the unborn; to step up to action and reach out to the wounded.

I for one will accept without judgment and with compassion anyone who seeks redemption for anything.  How about you?

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel