Category Archives: Counselling

Visualization and Affirmation

 

(image courtesy sherrysnider.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Contact (May 1997) recommended visualization [which is also known as guided imagery] and affirmation for “harnessing the power of the mind toward achievement and goals.” That is not what those involved in occultism say. David Conway, in Magic: An Occult Primer, exposes some of the agenda of visualization:

By now the adept has visualized the required forms, and, it is hoped, contacted their astral equivalents. In addition the force behind these forms will have been admitted into the circle. At this point we come to the most important part of the ritual… We shall flick the switch that lets in the cosmic power….

To do so he must temporarily lose his reason, for it is reason which bars the doors of the conscious mind where the astral world lies waiting. The way to open these doors is to assume a state of unreason similar to the divine frenzy of the Bacchantes. Like their delirium the aim of such unreason will be to receive the deity that is being invoked….


At last–and he will certainly know when–the god-form will take control of him… While the power is surging into him, he forces himself to visualize the thing he wants his magic to accomplish, and wills its success” (Conway 1973, pp. 129-32).

As articulated above, these deities being invoked often have very evil ramifications. However, nowhere in Contact‘s promotion of visualization was there even a hint of people losing their reason and unreason taking over. Instead, it was the road to mental health. The research literature and personal experience of occultists confirm that visualization is sometimes associated with horrific evil. Why was there no warning in your article?

“Many new age disciplines offer various techniques of visualization as a help to contacting the spirit world” (Ankerberg & Weldon 1991, p. 148). Hunt & McMahon show where such visualization may lead:

It promotes the unrealistic attitude that, rather than face a problem in the real world, the solution is to fantasize a different illusion, which becomes one’s new `reality.’ Instead of correcting this madness, many psychologists encourage it. In fact, a growing number of today’s psychotherapies are based upon this very theory. Such therapies incorporate visualization and the acting out of fantasies, a process which encourages the idea of escaping from problems rather than confronting them and working out a real solution (1988, p. 210).

Dennis Livingston of New Age Journal understood the implications when he criticised new age guru, Shirley MacLaine

I found the implications of her philosophy basically cruel and callous. . . MacLaine’s basic truth is that we create our own reality. . .
Are you poor? You chose poverty because you need to learn certain lessons. . . Do you have cancer? . . . Did you lose a loved one? . . . You participated in creating that reality . . . nobody is a victim . . . evil is just a matter of your point of view.
It sounds like the perfect yuppie religion, a modern prime-time rerun of nineteenth-century Social Darwinism. Both blame the victim. Only now, the poor are not poor because they are ‘unfit’ . . . [but because] they want to be poor . . .
If I were a dictator, I could think of nothing better than to have a nation dedicated to following MacLaine’s agenda (1987, p. 79)

Former occultist, Johanna Michaelsen, believes that “without a doubt one of the most powerful techniques being used to initiate the next generations into the New Age religion is visualization.” She is clear about its intention to help people “look within themselves to discover and release their divinity. . . It is not a neutral technique” (1989, p. 109). Even church leaders have wrongly bought into this technique. Michaelsen said that

in personal interviews with Witches I have been told that their covens have `laughed themselves silly’ at how the church has so wholeheartedly adopted their occult techniques, thinking that as long as they tagged `Jesus’ at the end of them that they were perfectly okay. In my own earlier days I used extensive guided imagery/ visualization techniques for developing psychic powers and mediumship. . . It was a colossal shock to me to discover that virtually the same techniques I had practiced as a occultist were being used in the church” (1989, p. 110).

Yet, Contact wanted to promote visualization as a road to mental health. I appeal for an honest evaluation of the techniques being advocated.

Works consulted

John Ankerberg & John Weldon 1991, Can You Trust Your Doctor?: The Complete Guide to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.

Contact, Issue 10, May 1997, produced with assistance by the Bundaberg Consumer Advisory Group at the Office of the CDO for Mental Health, PO Box 2730, Bundaberg 4670, Australia; phone (o7) 4151 8111. The newsletter offers the disclaimer: “The opinions expressed within `Contact’ are not necessarily endorsed by those who produce, sponsor or fund this newsletter.”

David Conway 1973, Magic: An Occult Primer. New York: Bantam.

Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon 1988, America: The Sorcerer’s New Apprentice. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

Dennis Livingston 1987, “Taking on Shirley MacLaine,” New Age, November/December.

Johanna Michaelsen 1989, Like Lambs to the Slaughter, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

 

Copyright (c) 2007 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date:  9 October 2015.

Why should we oppose homosexual marriage?

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

Spencer D Gear

My local freebie newspaper[1] had 3 letters in favour of homosexual marriage in its ‘Speak up’ (letters to the editor) section, under the heading, “Pollies are under fire over gay rights”. This was an opportunity for the newspaper to print 3 pro-homosexual marriage letters. There was not any letter opposing homosexual marriage.[2]

Let’s summarise what these letters promoted:

1. One said that it was amazing that government agencies, Centrelink and the tax department, allow same-sex relationships but ‘the government will not allow it’. This person found this to be a contradiction and considered that it was discrimination against homosexuals. Pollies need to ask: “Would they be in government without the votes of homosexual citizens?” This person did not think so.

2. The line taken by the second person, a father, was that he supported gay marriage because his son is gay and has found his ‘soul mate’. This son and his partner are organizing a wedding in Sydney for next year. Both families support this union ‘wholeheartedly’ and believe they should have the same right to marriage as anyone. Homosexuals can’t change and it’s a hard road when they experience so much discrimination. This son and his male partner will marry whether it is legal or not and celebration will be with family and friends. This Dad is ‘proud’ of his homosexual son and the son will live with his partner ‘as a gay married couple’.

3. We need to ‘move with the times’ and legalise same-sex marriage, said the third advocate of gay marriage. Because marriage has always been a heterosexual union, doesn’t mean it should continue to be that way. There were no votes for women, no IVF, etc, but “we live in the 21st century” and we should allow same-sex marriages, with the legal protections of a heterosexual couple.

A.  How should we respond to the promotion of gay marriage?

1. Not one of these writers or I would be here if same-sexual relations were the norm. It takes an ovum and a sperm (woman and man) to create a human being. Same-sex marriage will not do it. A contribution from the opposite sex, whether through sexual intercourse or IVF, is necessary for a child to be born.

A zygote is the initial cell formed when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm. An ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male are needed to create a new human being. A zygote contains DNA that originates from the joining of the male and female. It provides the genetic information to form a new human being. Two males can’t achieve a zygote; neither can two females. It requires a joining of a male and a female in sexual union or through IVF. Shouldn’t this need for the genetic material from a male AND a female send an important message? Gay marriage will not do it!

2. Besides, from a biological point of view, the vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was up to 50 times higher than the normal rate.[3] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact”.[4]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria.

The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak would not want us to know that.

No matter how much some want to make same-sex marriage appealing, from the beginning of time marriage has involved the union of a man and a woman. If that link is broken, we don’t have marriage. It’s as simple as that. No claims like “I have a gay son”, “we must move with the times”, or “we live in the 21st century”, will change the fact that marriage is a heterosexual union.

B.  The intolerance of tolerance

During the 2019 Australian Open Tennis Grand Slam, Anna Wintour, fashion editor with Vogue, raised her disagreement with champion tennis player, Margaret Court, over the homosexual issue.

Dame Anna Wintour DBE dived into the ‘intolerance’ issue against homosexuals. Her target was tennis champion, Margaret Court.

A woman with brownish hair, lit by the sun from outside the top right of the image, is seen from her front left. She is wearing a light-colored short-sleeved collared jacket with elaborate jewelry, a white top beneath it, and sunglasses. In her right arm she is holding a cell phone to her mouth; she is apparently in the midst of a conversation(Wintour at the September 2013 Milan Fashion Week, photo courtesy Wikipedia)

The Canberra Times reported that Wintour ‘has thrown her support behind the push to rename Margaret Court Arena over the tennis champion’s opposition to same-sex marriage’.

Wintour stated, ‘I find that it is inconsistent with the sport for Margaret Court’s name to be on a stadium that does so much to bring all people together across their differences”’, in a speech delivered at the Australian Open Inspirational Series in Melbourne on Thursday, to applause.

She continued: ‘This much I think is clear to anyone who understands the spirit and the joy of the game. Intolerance has no place in tennis” (Singer 2019, emphasis added).

I find it interesting when a person opposes the ‘intolerance’ of Margaret Court on the subject of homosexuality and doesn’t see her own intolerance towards Court’s view.

B.1  Anti-Margaret Court intolerance

The Collins’ Dictionary (online) defines ‘intolerance’ as an ‘unwillingness to let other people act in a different way or hold different opinions from you’ (2019. s.v. intolerance).

Therefore, to accuse Margaret Court of intolerance because she didn’t support same-sex marriage is to engage in an act of intolerance towards Court. When will the supporters of homosexual relationships wake up to the fact that to accuse opponents of being intolerant, is to engage in an act of intolerance perpetrated by themselves?

That’s what happened with this example from Anna Wintour and her opposition to Margaret Court’s view on same-sex marriage.

It is a self-contradictory statement to accuse another person of intolerance while perpetrating intolerance oneself.

Image result for clipart intolerance homosexuality

(image courtesy Brotherhood News: Facebook censors biblical posts against homosexuality)

C.  What about these issues?

(1)   Mother and father are important for a child’s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothers’ reports”.

See Bill Muehlenberg’s summary of this study of the need for both a heterosexual mother and father in, Why children need a mother and father‘.

(2)   God’s design from the beginning of time was for marriage of a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24-25, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (ESV).

Jesus Christ affirmed this passage according to Matthew 19:4-6, “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’ (ESV).

(3)   Paul, the apostle, was able to speak of ‘men who practice homosexuality’ as being among those who were among ‘such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). In this list, homosexuals were placed among the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers who were the ‘unrighteous’ who would not inherit God’s kingdom. But Jesus changes all of these people – even homosexuals. If you don’t believe me, read my interview with a redeemed lesbian, Jeanette Howard, “One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard“. I recommend her book, Out of Egypt: Leaving lesbianism behind.

Here are some more reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.

The homosexual sexual act is a revolt against nature. For procreation to allow for the continuation of the human race, a heterosexual liaison is needed. If homosexual sex were normal and practised extensively, the human race would be greatly diminished.

There is a natural factor: Which part of the body lubricates when stimulated: The vagina (through clitoris) or the rectum? The answer is obvious. The vagina is meant for penetration; The anus isn’t.

See my article: The dangers of anal sex and fisting

Other resources

Genetic cause of homosexuality?

Governments may promote gay marriage: Should we as evangelical Christians?

Polyamory: Poly leads to society’s destruction.

Works consulted:

Singer, M 2019. ‘Intolerance has no place in tennis’: Wintour criticises Margaret Court’, The Canberra Times (online), 24 January. Available at: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/intolerance-has-no-place-in-tennis-wintour-criticises-margaret-court-20190124-p50tcs.html#comments (Accessed 25 January 2019).

Notes:

[1] Northern Times (Pine Rivers edition), September 2, 2011, p. E8.

[2] I sent a letter-to-the-editor to this newspaper, opposing homosexual marriage, but it was not printed.

[3] These details are in the article ‘The unhealthy homosexual lifestyle’, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 26 September 2011).

[4] Ibid.

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 25 January 2019).

My response to Pat Robertson’s advice to divorce for dementia

Pat Robertson Paparazzo Photography.jpg

Pat Robertson (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Controversy has erupted in the Christian community over Pat Robertson’s advice on his national Christian Broadcasting Network TV programme in the USA, ‘if he’s (the Christian husband) going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again’. He said that it was OK for a husband to divorce his wife who has Alzheimer’s disease (dementia). Robertson did this on the 700 Club, 13 September 2011. This is some of how it was reported in an article in Christianity Today of Pat Robertson’s advice to a viewer on[1]

yesterday’s 700 Club to avoid putting a “guilt trip” on those who want to divorce a spouse with Alzheimer’s. During the show’s advice segment, a viewer asked Robertson how she should address a friend who was dating another woman “because his wife as he knows her is gone.” Robertson said he would not fault anyone for doing this. He then went further by saying it would be understandable to divorce a spouse with the disease.

“That is a terribly hard thing,” Robertson said. “I hate Alzheimer’s. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.”

Co-host Terry Meeuwsen asked Pat, “But isn’t that the vow that we take when we marry someone? That it’s For better or for worse. For richer or poorer?”

Robertson said that the viewer’s friend could obey this vow of “death till you part” because the disease was a “kind of death.” Robertson said he would understand if someone started another relationship out of a need for companionship.

Robertson gave the example of a friend who faithfully visited his wife every day even though she could not remember his visits to illustrate the difficulty of caring for someone with the disease.

“It’s really hurtful because they say crazy things,” Robertson said. “Nevertheless, it is a terribly difficult thing for somebody. I can’t fault him for wanting some kind of companionship. And if he says in a sense she is gone, he’s right. It’s like a walking death. Get some ethicist besides me to give you an answer because I recognize the dilemma and the last thing I’d do is condemn you for taking that kind of action.”

Robertson’s advice stands in stark contrast with most theologians and ethicists who would advise fidelity. The decision would not be easy.

What the mass media are saying

The New York Times of 16 September 2011 reported this news in, ‘Robertson Stirs Passions With Suggestion to Divorce an Alzheimer’s Patient’. In the article was this comment:

Dr. James E. Galvin, a neurologist who runs a dementia clinic at New York University Langone Medical Center, said it was wrong to say that people with Alzheimer’s were “gone,” or to call its late stages “a kind of death.”

“While it’s true that in terminal phases, patients may not be fully aware of what’s going on, they tend to recognize the people who are closest to them,” Dr. Galvin said.

With good care, people may live 15 to 20 years with the disease, most of that time at home, Dr. Galvin said. If they eventually move to a nursing home and seem unaware of what is going on around them, he said, then spouses face “an individualized decision” about when and how to develop new relationships, ones based on religion and ethics, not science.[2]

Other mass media headlines included:

The After-Wife;

Pat Robertson Says Alzheimer’s Makes Divorce OK;

Is Alzheimer’s grounds for divorce?

Pat Robertson’s Alzheimer’s Divorce Comments Demean Marriage;

Pat Robertson Says Divorcing Spouse With Alzheimer’s is OK;

Pat Robertson says Alzheimer’s justifies divorce;

Pat Robertson: Alzheimer’s Justifies Divorce;

Pat Robertson: Divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer’s is justifiable;

Pat Robertson infuriates Christian faithful with Alzheimer’s comments;

OK to divorce Alzheimer’s wife: TV evangelist (an Australian newspaper).

How are Christian leaders responding?

The Christian press and voices have been devastating in their critique of Robertson’s advice:

Pat Robertson Says Divorce Okay if Spouse has Alzheimer’s;

Pat Robertson Alzheimer’s Comments ‘Carnal and Selfish,’ Say Christian Leaders;

‘700 Club’ Addresses Pat Robertson Alzheimer’s Quotes as Debate Continues;

Rick Warren Reacts to Pat Robertson Alzheimer’s Comments by Highlighting Marriage Vows;

Joni Eareckson Tada Dismayed by Robertson’s Alzheimer’s Remarks;

Follow McQuilkin not Robertson on Alzheimer’s and divorce;

On Marriage and Alzheimer’s Disease: Listen to Robertson McQuilkin and not Pat Robertson;

Pat Robertson: Divorce OK in Case of Alzheimer’s;

Pat Robertson: Alzheimer’s is a “Kind of Death”, So Divorce is Permissible.

How should a Christian respond?

On a Christian Forum, a Christian wrote:

After reading his [Robertson’s] own words on this I find they are even more mature and better than I had thought. He recognizes the difficulty and is not saying one way is right, so much as in real life sometimes we live with hard choices. He accepts the fact of what is called ‘cold logic’ can apply, and so works to mitigate the damages instead of insist on an idealistic absolutism of behavior that in the end leads to law breaking.

Note that he insists that the person get good care, not be just abandoned. Note also he does not say such a move is ‘right’ but that if it is done we should not lay a ‘guilt trip’ on the one doing it. That is, no compromise in the moral law, but in the acceptance of imperfect persons in an imperfect world.[3]

My response is:

You are rationalising Pat Robertson’s ungodly advice. There are at least two issues here that a godly person should pursue and Robertson should be advising:

1.  Your faithfulness to your wife is critical to truth in marriage. Never, ever break your vow to be faithful to her in sickness and in health.

2.  God’s advice to you if you have a husband or a wife with dementia is, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:2-4 NIV). God’s desire is for your faith to mature through the trials you face. This is one of the many trials God is sending your way, to test what kind of stuff your faith is made of.

I consider that we are advocating soft Christianity instead of what God wants according to passages such James 1:2-5 and 1 Peter 1:6-7.[4]

I find Pat Robertson’s advice reprehensible. Since I have counselled a number of men and women down through the years whose spouses have had Alzheimer’s, in my professional counselling role, I understand the struggles they have. My wife and I recently visited our former neighbour. His second wife (he was a widower when he married this widow) has deteriorated so badly with dementia over the last 4 years that he is at the point of despair, not knowing what to do with her, except to be there for her. He is not a Christian believer.

Compared with Pat Robertson’s advice, there is a much more mature, wiser and godly approach to a spouse who contracts dementia by Robertson McQuilkin. He was president of Columbia Bible College & Seminary when his wife of 40 years contracted Alzheimer’s disease. He wrote this about his personal journey back in 2004,Living by vows“. I re-read it and tears came to my eyes to listen to this godly man and his response to his loving wife who could no longer communicate with him. There is an interview with McQuilkin in Christianity Today regarding his wife Muriel’s Alzheimer’s, ‘The Gradual Grief of Alzheimer’s‘. Muriel died on 20 September 2003 after suffering from Alzheimer’s for 25 years.[5] Robertson McQuilkin wrote after Muriel’s death, ‘Grieving with gratitude’, in which he reflected, ‘In the week after my wife’s death, I struggled with whether I should be grieving my loss or celebrating Muriel’s gain’. He resigned as president of Columbia Bible College and Seminary[6] in 1990 so that he could care for Muriel.

J Robertson McQuilkin (courtesy Columbia International University)

Columbia International University where J Robertson McQuilkin was president, 1968-1990, has stated of President Emeritus McQuilkin that ‘in 2005 McQuilkin married Deborah Jones, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Nursing. Deborah also has a teaching ministry in conferences and women’s groups. Between them, Robertson and Deborah have nine children: four in Christian ministry, five in the marketplace’ (accessed 22 February 2015).

‘For better or for worse’ is the vow I made in 1968 to my wife, Desley, and I will maintain that to my dying day, even if she is stricken with Alzheimer’s. Desley has assured me that she will apply the same standards even if I should contract dementia.

However, for a prominent person like Pat Robertson to make these kinds of statements on national television was a shocker for me to hear. However, it may be used by the Lord to help people evaluate their relationship before the really tough times of dementia could arrive.

I could not make a defence of Pat Robertson’s advice to divorce a spouse with dementia from a biblical mandate.

When a Christian supports Pat Robertson by saying that Robertson insisted on the person receiving good care, not being abandoned, the decision not being ‘right’ but to avoid laying the ‘guilt trip’, then this person in the forum is not complying with Scripture in my view. This person said that there was no compromise in the moral law with this decision to divorce a spouse with Alzheimer’s, but was on the basis of accepting that we are imperfect persons who live in an imperfect world.[7]

This is rationalising Pat Robertson’s ungodly advice. There are at least two issues here that a godly person should pursue and Robertson should be advising:

  • Faithfulness to one’s wife is critical to truth in marriage. We should never, ever break our vow to be faithful to a spouse in sickness and in health. When I married my wife, Desley, in 1968, I made this vow, ‘I, Spencer, take you, Desley, to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part’.[8]
  • God’s advise to you if you have a husband or a wife with dementia is, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:2-4 NIV). God’s desire is for your faith to mature through the trials you face. This is one of the many trials God is sending your way, to test what kind of stuff your faith is made of.

This person on the forum was advocating soft Christianity instead of what God wants according to passages such James 1:2-5 and 1 Peter 1:6-7.

Russell Moore[9] has written a follow-up article for Christianity Today, ‘Pat Robertson repudiates the Gospel’.[10] Moore began his response
.

This week on his television show Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said a man would be morally justified to divorce his wife with Alzheimer’s disease in order to marry another woman. The dementia-riddled wife is, Robertson said, “not there” anymore. This is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Few Christians take Robertson all that seriously anymore. Most roll their eyes, and shake their heads when he makes another outlandish comment (for instance, defending China’s brutal one-child abortion policy to identifying God’s judgment on specific actions in the September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, or the Haiti earthquake). This is serious, though, because it points to an issue that is much bigger than Robertson.

Marriage, the Scripture tells us, is an icon of something deeper, more ancient, more mysterious. The marriage union is a sign, the Apostle Paul announces, of the mystery of Christ and his church (Eph. 5). The husband, then, is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). This love is defined not as the hormonal surge of romance but as a self-sacrificial crucifixion of self. The husband pictures Christ when he loves his wife by giving himself up for her.

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.[11]

To be faithful to the Gospel means to be faithful to what Jesus said about marriage and faithfulness to one’s spouse. What are the reasons Jesus gave for divorce (Matthew 19:9)? Only one – for adultery. There is not a mention of anything like dementia (Alzheimer’s) being one of Jesus’ reasons to divorce a spouse.

We are not being faithful to the Gospel if we follow Pat Robertson’s advice to divorce a wife if she has Alzheimer’s. To think that Robertson’s advice is acceptable for an evangelical Christian is an example of Scripture twisting.[12]

I find Robertson’s statements to be as ungodly as they are unscriptural. The Scripture only give us one possibility of divorce and that is if the spouse is unfaithful in the sexual relationship. Therefore, Pat Robertson is recommending an anti-biblical action when he affirms that it is acceptable to divorce a spouse with dementia because she has ‘gone’ and has experienced ‘a kind of death’ with Alzheimer’s.

Notes:


[1] Tobin Grant, Christianity Today, ‘Pat Robertson says divorce Okay if spouse has Alzheimer’s’, 14 September 2011, available at: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2011/09/pat_robertson_s.html (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[2] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/us/pat-robertson-remarks-on-alzheimers-stir-passions.html (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[3] Christian Fellowship Forum, Christian Morals, ‘Whither Pat Robinson (sic)’, #6, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120817 (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[4] Ibid., #13.

[5] See the article, ‘Remembering Muriel McQuilkin: A life of love and ‘looking up’, Wife of former CIU president dies after suffering from Alzheimer’s for 25 years’, The Columbia World, available at: http://www.worldnewspaperpublishing.com/news/FullStory.asp?loc=TCOLW&id=1007 (Accessed 24 September 2011). On 22 February 2015 when I updated my article, the ‘Remembering Muriel McQuilkin’ article was no longer online.

[6] It is now called Columbia International University.

[7] Christian Fellowship Forum #6, loc. cit.

[8] For a sample of wedding vows, see ‘Your wedding vows’, available at: http://weddings.about.com/cs/bridesandgrooms/a/vowwording.htm (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[9] Christianity Today stated that Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Speaking Out” is Christianity Today’s guest opinion column and (unlike an editorial) does not necessarily represent the opinion of the publication.

[10] Christianity Today, 15 September 2011, available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/septemberweb-only/robertson-alzheimers-divorce.html (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[11] This article originally appeared on Russell Moore’s blog, Moore to the Point, in the article, ‘Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson’, 15 September 2011, available at: http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/09/15/christ-the-church-and-pat-robertson/ (Accessed 24 September 2011).

[12] I am referring to the comments made by the Christian in Christian Fellowship Forum #6, as above.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 March 2017.
Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

Dealing with male domestic violence

 

Image result for man kicks door

(image courtesy openclipart)

By Spencer D Gear

When sporting icons hound women in pubs, abuse them with obscene phone calls, or have sex with prostitutes, they are acting like thousands of other young Aussie men. This behaviour is not restricted to professional sportsmen.

According to a national survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since the age of 15, “25% . . .of women experienced unwanted sexual touching compared to 9.9% . . .of men.”[1]

  • This means that approx. 1 in 4 women has experienced domestic violence (DV), compared to 1 in 10 men.
  • DV ranks in the top 5 risks to women’s health in Australia;
  • 1 in 3 children has witnessed DV;
  • DV costs the Australian economy over $8 billion per year;
  • An Access Economics report in 2004, found that 87% of DV is committed by men against women.[2]

That’s why 87% is 100% too many for DV perpetrated by men against women.[3]

What is meant by domestic violence?

Australia’s CEO Challenge, which attempts to address the issues of domestic violence, gives this definition: “Domestic violence is the use of violence by one person to control and dominate another. The term is used to describe any form of abuse that occurs in intimate personal relationships,”[4]

DV can include the physical, sexual, psychological, social isolation, financial, intimidation and controlling abuse of men against women and women against men.

In addressing this troublesome, provocative and sometimes controversial topic of targeting male DV abusers, I have been greatly helped by the seminal work of Dr. Michael Flood of La Trobe University and Chris Laming’s development of “The SHED” project.[5]

Causes of high incidence of male domestic violence

The Better Health Channel reports that these are the common factors:

There is no such thing as a ‘typical’ perpetrator of domestic violence. However, researchers have found that men who abuse family members often:

  • Use violence and emotional abuse to control their families.
  • Believe that they have the right to behave in whatever way they choose while in their own home.
  • Think that a ‘real’ man should be tough, powerful and the head of the household. They may believe that they should make most of the decisions, including about how money is spent.
  • Believe that men are entitled to sex from their partners.
  • Don’t take responsibility for their behaviour and prefer to think that loved ones or circumstances provoked their behaviour.
  • Make excuses for their violence: for example, they will blame alcohol or stress.
  • Report ‘losing control’ when angry around their families, but can control their anger around other people. They don’t tend to use violence in other situations: for example, around friends, bosses, work colleagues or the police.
  • Try to minimise, blame others for, justify or deny their use of violence, or the impact of their violence towards women and children.[6]

What can we do to prevent men’s abuse of women? We need to tackle this on several fronts because this intimate partner violence is caused by a variety of factors.

We face a significant hurdle. Evaluations of primary prevention strategies have been minimal. We have indications that some prevention approaches work but there are many that may be promising but not tested.

We should do all we can to

1. Increase individual knowledge and skills.

Healthy families, strong socio-economic support, and better parenting skills do help to reduce violence. This message needs spreading while support is offered to help such people.

2. Engage in community education regarding DV.

Obtaining access to children and youth in schools may have a positive impact if the education is well-designed for the age group. In my region, many parents do not know how to curb youth abuse in the home. We need creative people in the mass media who will come on board in what Michael Flood calls, “social marketing campaigns,” against male intimate violence.

3. Develop networks of men in the community?

I call on men to step forward to help in targeting groups and sub-cultures that support violence in peer groups. I challenge young men to join me in reaching the sporting sub-cultures and the youth culture where abuse may be tolerated.

4. Educate providers

There seems to be a reticence to work with male perpetrators. I would like to see a change in professional responses in the welfare community not only to deal with victims of domestic violence, but also to offer interventions for perpetrators to change their behaviour. We also need to

5. Influence policies and legislation.

Legal and policy reform is needed to deal with this horrendous problem of male violence against women. We need funding to match the need to help those of us working at the coalface.

What will men do to help prevent DV predators from exerting their power and control over women in our communities?

6. Get to understand the core of what causes domestic violence?

You won’t read this in the government’s reports, the community agencies writings, but it is at the nucleus of this problem. The secular gurus will run a country mile from this kind of explanation.

The prophet Jeremiah put it this way, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9 ESV). The greatest early promoter of the Christian message, the apostle Paul, nailed it: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The God-man who changed human history and human hearts, Jesus Christ, stated the core issue with clarity:

But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person (Matthew 15:18-20).

Because the sinful human heart is at the core of the problem of evil in our society, no matter how many secular DV solutions are attempted, they will not get to solving the core DV problem. That’s because only the committed Christian can help a DV perpetrator get to the core of his problem.

For a fuller explanation, see Ron Hamman’s assessment: “A biblical view of domestic violence“.

In summary, the core problem is sin and the core solution is a changed heart through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Endnotes:


[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005, “Personal Safety, Australia , 2005 (Reissue), available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/cat/4906.0 [6 June 2009].

[2] Australia’s CEO Challenge, “What is domestic violence?” available from: http://www.ceochallengeaustralia.org/01_cms/details.asp?ID=18 [6 June 2009].

[3] The above details are from QCA Contact (Queensland Counsellors’ Association), June 2007, available from: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:dtR7cKzf9wMJ:www.qca.asn.au/index.php/Download-document/17-Contact-2007-June.html+%22%E2%80%A2+DV+ranks+in+the+top+5+risks+to+women%27s+health+in+Australia%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au [6 June 2009].

[4] Australia’s CEO Challenge, loc. cit..

[5] The SHED Group manual is available online at: http://www.networklearning.org/books/shedding-abuse.html [12 May 2007].

[6] “Domestic Violence – why men abuse women,” The Better Health Channel, available from: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Domestic_violence_why_men_abuse_women?OpenDocument [6 June 2009].

 

Copyright © 2009 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 September 2018.

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

Some of the effects of alcohol use – a Christian response

By Spencer D Gear

To discuss alcohol or no-alcohol use with evangelical Christians is like opening up the topic of speaking in tongues, eternal security or millennial views. If you don’t believe me, please take a read of some of the discussion on the blog, Christian Fellowship Forum, “Request” (posts 18-72; I’m ozspen).

This is part of what the Australian government, Department of Health and Ageing, says about alcohol:

Due to the different ways that alcohol can affect people, there is no amount of alcohol that can be said to be safe for everyone. People choosing to drink must realise that there will always be some risk to their health and social well-being.

What about drinking alcohol during pregnancy? This research, “Alcohol in pregnancy: What questions should we be asking?” stated:

“If you are planning a pregnancy, are pregnant or are breastfeeding, it is safest if you do not drink alcohol at all. Drinking alcohol may cause harm to your baby. At high levels it can also harm your health. There is no evidence for a safe level of drinking in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Either stopping or dinking less alcohol at any time during your pregnancy will reduce the risk of harm to your baby.

Benefits of stopping drinking include reduced risk of:

  • alcohol crossing the placenta into your baby’s bloodstream;
  • miscarriage, bleeding, premature birth and stillbirth;
  • Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This can lead to learning difficulties, poor coordination, slow physical and mental development and defects of the face, heart and bones
.

Breastfeeding: If you drink, breast milk will contain alcohol. This can:

  • affect the development of your baby’s brain;
  • affect your baby’s ability to feed;
  • reduce the milk supply available to your baby (p. 65).

Other Christians who join me in opposing the use of alcohol are:

To drink or not to drink? We have taken a sober look at the question. What is the answer? Just say No! Why? Because drinking alcoholic beverages is unbiblical, deadly, addictive, unhealthy, costly, a bad example, not edifying, and unnecessary. Clearly, total abstinence is the safest policy.

Why then is our society in general—and evangelical Christianity in particular—on such a self-destructive alcoholic course. Hosea gave part of the answer: ?My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge? (Hos 4:6). The rest of the answer lies is in resisting temptation. The Bible declares that no temptation (including drugs) is too strong to resist: ?No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it? (1 Cor 10: 13). Mark Twain once said of the temptation to gamble that the best toss of the dice is to toss them away.

Likewise, the best use of the beer can is to toss it into the reprocessing bin—after the contents have been poured down the drain!

Land and Duke conclude their study with these recommendations:

In conclusion, we offer five general principles that the Christian would do well to follow when he is making a decision about alcohol use or any other activity. First, the lordship of Christ takes priority. Christians are not free to do anything they please. They belong to Christ and should make every effort to engage in behavior that honors his lordship over their lives. Paul provides the definitive expression of this principle: ?For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:20). Second, selfishness should be shunned. Selfishness is the root of all sin. It leads people to seek their own interests, even to the detriment of others. The biblical guidance is clear: ?Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor (1 Cor 10:24). Third, sacrifice is a Christian virtue. The needs of others must overrule our own exercise of freedom. Paul taught, “But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor 8:9). Someone might say that the weaker person is the one with the problem and that stronger Christians should not allow weaker ones to impose standards on them that God has not required. Paul does not qualify his statement, however. In fact, he exaggerates this principle of sacrifice for the weaker Christian, declaring, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (1 Cor 8:13). Jesus provides the supreme example of such a sacrificial mentality. He recognized the human need for forgiveness and willingly gave up his rightful place in heaven, took on human flesh, and sacrificed his life on the cross for the sake of others. We are not saying that it is not the right of Christians to drink alcohol if they choose to do so. We are saying that Christians should not consider that their rights are more important than their responsibilities to live in such a way that their fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord are not offended.

We recognize that this is not always practicable. Christian legalism, for example, may become so demanding that it creates an unrealistic intrusion into the lives of other Christians. When this occurs, Christians should not feel bound to accommodate these expectations. For some, the issue of alcohol use is such an intrusion, but we ask how the Christian is harmed or his spiritual liberty is hindered if he abstains from drinking alcohol for the sake of his fellow believers? Alcohol consumption is not the same as some other activities legalistic Christians might expect others to give up. Alcohol is a dangerous drug which has and continues to devastate millions of people. When one refrains from drinking alcohol, he is avoiding an activity that is not only offensive to some, but that is deadly to many. This seems to us to be an appropriate application of the principle of sacrifice.

Fourth, God‘s glory should be the most important concern for Christians. With every activity, the Christian should ask whether or not God will be glorified. Paul summarized, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). We ask any Christian who chooses to drink alcohol whether God is glorified more by the one who drinks or by the one who abstains. Considering the principles we have already laid out, it seems obvious to us that God is glorified most by the Christian who abstains. There is no glory for God in the willful pursuit of pleasure that has no regard for one‘s influence or effect on others.

Finally, the Christian must remember that he will be judged for his every deed, both those that affect his own life and those that affect the lives of others. Paul counsels, “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (1 Cor 11:31). Whether in this life or the life to come, God will hold Christians accountable for their behavior. It does not even matter whether or not we believe we are justified to engage in certain activities. The real question is whether or not God thinks we are. Given the current problems alcohol is causing in our culture, the potential that our drinking has in influencing others to drink, and the many health problems associated with alcohol, it is inconceivable that God considers recreational or social drinking to be the best choice a committed Christian can make. Every Christian should live to hear his Lord declare, “Well done, good and faithful servant “, throughout each day of his life and ultimately on that final day of judgment which awaits us all.

We have supported these five principles with passages from one book of the Bible, Paul‘s first letter to the Christians at Corinth. It should not come as a surprise that so many principles for spiritual decision making would be found in this letter. The church at Corinth was evidently one of the most carnal and immature fellowships of Christians with whom Paul had to deal. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected. The culture in
Corinth was one of the most debased in the Roman Empire. It was so bad that the term “Corinthianized” became the word of choice throughout much of the Roman Empire to describe someone who had fallen into the darkest depths of immoral behavior. Unfortunately, some of the Christians who came out of that cultural morass brought their liberated mindset into the church in Corinth. Paul‘s extant letters to that church reveal the extent of the problem their attitudes were causing. Paul found it necessary to counsel the Christians who had escaped the immorality of their debauched culture to ?be imitators? of him (1 Cor. 4:16). He also shared many principles for faithful living with them. American Christians find themselves currently in the midst of an increasingly secular and immoral culture—a culture devastated by alcohol abuse. Today‘s Christians run the same risks that they too will become influenced by a mindset too fixed on personal pleasure and liberty. We would do well to follow Paul‘s counsel as well and apply the principles he shared with our Christian counterparts nearly 2,000 years ago.

Kenneth Gentry supports the “moderation” view in, “The Bible and the question of alcoholic beverages”. His conclusion is:

The thrust of my study is intentionally narrow. My concern is to present the biblical data regarding the general question of the morality of alcohol consumption. Though other issues might tangentially bear upon the topic, the ultimate issue in the debate should be, ?What saith the Lord?? Or to put it in contemporary parlance, we might ask, “What would Jesus do?” And we have seen that he would make wine and drink it (John 2:1–11; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34).

In the final analysis it is quite clear that Scripture neither urges universal total abstinence nor demands absolute life-long prohibition.

Although alcoholic beverages can be, have been, and are presently abused by individuals, such need not be the case. Indeed, the biblical record frequently and clearly speaks of alcoholic beverages as good gifts from God for man’s enjoyment. Unfortunately, as is always the case among sinners, good things are often transformed into curses. This is true not only with alcohol but with food, medicine, sex, wealth, authority, and many other areas of life. In fact, gluttonous eating of food is paralleled with immoderate drinking of wine in Scripture (Deut 21:20; Prov 23:20–21; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34), just as is the perverted use of sex (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; 1 Pet 4:3).

The reader should not conclude that I intend for this study to encourage drinking by those who do not presently do so. I do not. I have never and will never encourage others to drink. Whether or not an individual wants to drink is a matter of his own tastes and discretion (within biblical limits, of course).

Neither should the reader think that this study presents all that can be said on the biblical understanding of the question of alcohol use. Again, such is not the case. Space constraints prohibit an in-depth analysis of all the data of Scripture. Nevertheless, I believe that the issues presented herein capture the essence of the biblical position.

The only point I make herein is that the biblical evidence shows that God allows alcohol consumption in moderation. Too often the Bible takes the back seat to emotional, anecdotal, and social arguments against alcohol consumption. This is most unfortunate — especially when considering the matter in ecclesiastical circles for Christians must “let God be found true” (Rom 3:4).

Link between alcohol use and cancer

There is a report in The Independent (UK) newspaper, 8 April 2011, about the link between alcohol use and cancer, “Report reveals alcohol cancer link”. Part of the report reads:

One in 10 cancers in men and one in 33 in women across Western Europe are caused by drinking, according to new research.

While even small amounts increases the risk, drinking above recommended limits causes the majority of cancer cases linked to alcohol, experts said.

And even former drinkers who have now quit are still at risk of cancer, including of the oesophagus, breast, mouth and bowel.

NHS guidelines are that men should drink no more than three to four units a day while women should not go over two to three units a day.

But the new research, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found cancer risks at even lower levels.

Experts analysed data from eight European countries, including the UK, and worked out what proportion of men and women were drinking above guidelines of 24g of alcohol a day for men and 12g a day for women.

In the UK, one unit is defined as 8g of alcohol, meaning 12g is roughly a small 125ml glass of white wine (1.6 units).

In the British Medical Journal, 7 April 2011, “Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study “, these were the results and conclusions of this research:

Results If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries. For selected cancers the figures were 44% (31 to 56%) and 25% (5 to 46%) for upper aerodigestive tract, 33% (11 to 54%) and 18% (?3 to 38%) for liver, 17% (10 to 25%) and 4% (?1 to 10%) for colorectal cancer for men and women, respectively, and 5.0% (2 to 8%) for female breast cancer. A substantial part of the alcohol attributable fraction in 2008 was associated with alcohol consumption higher than the recommended upper limit: 33?037 of 178?578 alcohol related cancer cases in men and 17?470 of 397?043 alcohol related cases in women.

Conclusions In western Europe, an important proportion of cases of cancer can be attributable to alcohol consumption, especially consumption higher than the recommended upper limits. These data support current political efforts to reduce or to abstain from alcohol consumption to reduce the incidence of cancer.

An Australian study from 2009, according to ABC News [Australia], “Study bolsters alcohol-cancer link”, stated that:

The National Drug Research Institute has found more than 2,000 Australians die from alcohol-related cancers each year.

The study, conducted by researchers at Curtin University, found 1,200 men and 900 women in Australia died from alcohol-related cancer in the past year, with 200 deaths in WA.

The institute found links between alcohol consumption and cancer to be extensive, and says the numbers could increase as links to other cancers are discovered.

Currently links between alcohol and mouth, throat, oesophagus, liver, breast, colon, rectal and prostate cancers have been established.

Researchers also found a woman who consumes five standard drinks a day is five times more likely to be diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer than a non-drinker.

Tanya Chikritzhs from the National Drug Research Institute says the links between alcohol and cancer are extensive.

“Basically the more you drink, the more you’re at risk,” she said.

“Heavy drinkers, when it comes to let’s say rectal cancer for instance, are many times more likely to be at risk of cancer than a person who is a very light drinker.”

Professor Chikritzhs says she was surprised by the research relating to colon and rectal cancer, as the risk of death for women who drink moderately was considerably greater than men.

“For a man who drinks 2.5 standard drinks a day, the risk is about 10 per cent greater than someone who doesn’t drink. For a woman, it’s over 200 per cent greater,” she said.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May 2011, in the article, “Quit drinking to cut cancer rate”, stated:

CANCER COUNCIL AUSTRALIA has revised dramatically upwards its estimate of alcohol’s contribution to new cancer cases and issued its strongest warning yet that people worried by the link should avoid drinking altogether.

New evidence implicating alcohol in the development of bowel and breast cancer meant drinking probably caused about 5.6 per cent of cancers in Australia, or nearly 6500 of the 115,000 cases expected this year, a review by the council found. This was nearly double the 3.1 per cent figure it nominated in its last assessment, in 2008.

The council’s chief executive, Ian Olver, said the updated calculations revealed breast and bowel cancer accounted for nearly two-thirds of all alcohol-related cancers, overtaking those of the mouth, throat and oesophagus.

”The public really needs to know about it because it’s a modifiable risk factor,” said Professor Olver, calling for awareness campaigns to alert people to the link. ”You might not be able to help your genes but you can make lifestyle choices.”

Professor Olver said public advice should not conflict with the National Health & Medical Research Council’s 2009 recommendation people should drink no more than two standard alcohol units daily, already half the previous safe threshold for men
.

”I’m not talking about tobacco-style warnings but at the moment there’s no requirement for any health advice on alcohol packaging, and that’s wrong,” said Professor Daube, from Curtin University.

So what will now be done by governments that have this research? Remember what happened when research found the link between cigarette smoking and cancer? Will the same happen with this research link between alcohol use and cancer? I’m not holding my breath!!!

The above presents some of the evidence on which you can make a decision with your God-given discernment and conscience. For my wife and me, we have chosen to avoid the consumption of alcohol. You can read some of our reasons in: “Alcohol and the Christian“.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.

Polyamory: Poly leads to society’s destruction

Polyamory heart by phidari

(polyamory public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Linda Kirkman, a PhD candidate of Latrobe University, Melbourne, Australia, wrote this article, “Poly is the new gay“. She began with this statement:

“Keeping up with social change is exciting, and important. There is a growing awareness of polyamory [group sexual relationships] as a way to form relationships and families, and it is on the frontier of social change in acceptance of relationships. The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is” (emphasis added).

Historically, this is an inaccurate statement.

The Macquarie Dictionary’s definition for the third edition of 1997 is that monogamy means “marriage of one man with one woman”.  J. D. Unwin of Cambridge University did his study (in the 1920s) on the historical and sociological understanding of marriage. His conclusion from the evidence was:

“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilised unless it has been completely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a life-long association has been an attendant circumstance of all human achievement, and its adoption has preceded all manifestations of social energy…. Indissoluble monogamy must be regarded as the mainspring of all social activity, a necessary condition of human development”.

I refer you to Unwin’s works: “Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal 25, no. 4 (July 1927); no. 100, 662–77; and “Marriage in Cultural History,” in The Hibbert Journal 26, no. 4 (July 1928), no. 104, 695–706.

Kirkman has given this example:

The Australian newspaper ran a story on November 20, 2010, Three is the new two as couples explore the boundaries of non-monogamy, about a poly family of two women and a man who are having a baby. The writer, Emma Jane, used pseudonyms for the family, presumably to protect the people against discrimination, but wrote a supportive and positive article about this family’s normal and thoughtful existence, and about the growing emergence of polyamory worldwide. I hope it won’t be long before people in poly relationships don’t feel the need to protect themselves with pseudonyms. A same sex couple having a baby would no longer feel the need to hide their identity in this way. I look forward to a society where any loving family, irrespective of how many people it includes or what sex they are, feels safe to be open about who they are. [The Australian article may be found at, “Three is the new two as couples explore the boundaries non-monogamy”.]

In that respect, poly is the new gay.

Kirkman has given a modern interpretation, not a historical perspective. Unwin’s research demonstrated that the promotion of group loving relationships/sex is not the way to a more healthy society. Monogamy, one woman for one man for life, is the way to a healthy society, not Kirkman’s promotion of polyamory (consensual non-monogamy). The fact that polyamory is not even included in the third edition of The Macquarie Dictionary of 1997, indicates that it is a term of modern invention – dare I say, political correctness and promiscuity.

Bill Muehlenberg has exposed the dangers of group sex / polyamory in “Three cheers for polyamory”. For an article in support of heterosexuality, as opposed to homosexual marriage, published by The Australian newspaper, see Bill Muehlenberg’s, “Heterosexual marriage is society’s bedrock”.

 

Copyright (c) 2014 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at date: 9 October 2015.

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

Reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

By Spencer D Gear

There are rational reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. These are some of them:

1. The homosexual sexual act is a revolt against nature. For procreation to allow for the continuation of the human race, a heterosexual liaison is needed. If homosexual sex were normal and practised extensively, the human race would be greatly diminished.

2.  The rectum is not designed for sexual penetration; the vagina is. Anal sex is a high risk sexual activity. One of the many hazards is the vulnerability of the tissues to tearing and bleeding. Damage can be done to the sphincter muscles that may lead to incontinence and rectal prolapse. There is a high level of organisms that may cause disease in the rectum. If pathogens are introduced in the sex act, contagious diseases may spread. There are some authorities who oppose all anal sex as an unsafe sexual act because of the high rates of condom failure, even among condoms that are strengthened. (Some information from Wikipedia, “Anal sex“.)

3. Some research has shown that the risk for transmission of the HIV virus is higher for anal sex than for vaginal sex.

This report from 2008, “Inequitable Impact: The HIV/AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men in Massachusetts“, demonstrates the increased HIV rate among MSM (men having sex with men) in Massachusetts:

“This is the second in a series of reports examining the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on residents of Massachusetts. The first report, An Added Burden: The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Communities of Color in Massachusetts, focused on the ongoing racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence and prevalence in the Commonwealth. This report examines one mode of HIV exposure, same-sex sexual behavior between men, and its role in an inequitable impact of HIV on gay/bisexual men and other men who have sex with men.

Efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV in Massachusetts have been successful in a number of populations at risk, including injection drug users and heterosexual men and women. However, less success can be reported from work with gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), who represent over 50% of HIV cases reported among Massachusetts men between the years 2004 and 2006, and 39% of all HIV cases reported during this period. These rates of new infection are striking in light of the fact that only 4.3-9.4% of Massachusetts men (18-64 years old) report having had sex with men in the past twelve months on standardized behavioral surveys over the past seven years. These impacts represent an inequitable rate of infection that is nearly 25 times higher for men who have sex with men than for men who report only having had sex with women (emphasis added).

While the impact of HIV on MSM is most evident among white men, at 70% of new white male cases, MSM has emerged as a first- or second-ranked mode of exposure for black and Hispanic men in recent years. In half of the health service regions of the Commonwealth, MSM is the leading mode of exposure for persons recently reported with HIV, particularly evident in Boston, Metrowest, and Southeastern Massachusetts. The inequitable impact of HIV on MSM is also seen among the youngest persons at risk, with 44% of individuals age 13-24 recently reported with HIV having MSM as their mode of exposure. Even among men not born in the US, MSM represents over a third of new HIV cases reported in Massachusetts.

In Africa, “On average it is estimated that HIV infection rates amongst MSM (men who have sex with men) are four to five times higher than the population overall, with highs in certain areas” (AFRICA: Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV).

The male homosexual lifestyle does increase the risks of HIV.

The levels of promiscuity in the homosexual community also elevate the rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This summary report, ‘The health risks of gay sex’, by John R. Diggs Jr. M.D., states:

Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:

  • Levels of Promiscuity

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

4.  I found some interesting dynamics in the front-page news of The Courier-Mail newspaper of surrogacy for homosexual male parents (Joy and condemnation of gay dad’s legal surrogacy, 20 November 2010).  For a child to be born to make such surrogacy possible, it is not feasible without the involvement of a female ovum and a male sperm. Paradoxical, isn’t it? What would happen if the child born for this male homosexual couple were a female? Would that be another reason for killing the pre-born through abortion?

5.  This is not just an issue for homosexuals. A 2005 survey found that ‘40% of men and 35% of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner,” 40% of men and 35% of women, aged 25-44” (CDC), were engaged in heterosexual oral sex. This was a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

6. Please read this assessment by Brian Camenker in 2008 of “What same-sex marriage has done to Massachusetts: It’s far worse than most people realize“.

Examine the impact in Massachusetts on education in schools right down to the primary school level. Observe how it influences public health, increased domestic violence, business, the legal profession, adoption of children, Government mandates, the public square and the mass media.

7. These are excellent physiological reasons for rejecting homosexual marriage and the anal sexual act. However, for me a greater moral issue is God’s view that heterosexual marriage is God’s ordained method for marriage and reproduction. From the very earliest of times, according to Genesis 1:27-28, we know this: “’So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ˜Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. This is impossible for the homosexual to do. As for the marriage union, God said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design is for the marriage union to be between a man and a woman.

For any country or state to vote against this law of heterosexual marriage and support homosexual marriage, it will be promoting what is unnatural, ungodly and destructive to the country.

 

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.

Noah's Animals

One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard

Out of Egypt

(image courtesy Book Depository)

By Spencer D Gear

Former lesbian, Jeanette Howard of England, says: “I stand in awe at what God has done in my life. Where I saw hopelessness, he saw hopefulness. Where I saw pain, he saw potential. Where I saw disaster, he saw a daughter” (from the cover of her book, Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind. (1991. Oxford: Monarch Publications).

During her visit to Australia’s capital city of Canberra in 1993, I (Spencer Gear[1]) interviewed Jeanette. At that time I spoke with Jeanette about her lesbianism and the way out. I found Jeanette to be a forthright, open and friendly woman with a burden to minister to people at all levels of society, not just the homosexual community. (Note: My questions to Jeanette are in bold.)

Spencer: Jeanette, when did your struggle begin with lesbianism?

Jeanette: I wouldn’t have put a name on it, but from a very early age (about four or five), I felt very different, very alienated from my own sex. I had very much gender confusion. I would look at boys and think, well I’m not a boy, but I would look at girls and think: I don’t think I’m a real girl either. And although I never classified it as lesbianism, it certainly was a path towards choices that I made later in life.

There was a sense that biologically I knew I was female, but I really didn’t have an identity of being female, a sense of femaleness – very much a third sex mentality. I just couldn’t emotionally relate to what a woman was all about.

In my pre-teen years, my greatest delight was being mistaken for a boy. I have photographs of one incident I remember. We all bought cowboy outfits, my brothers, sister and myself. I bought a cowgirl outfit with my sister, a nice looking skirt for cowgirls, but in the photo I am without the cowgirl’s skirt. “That’s not who I am, so I’d rather not wear anything than be identified with a female,” was how I thought.

Can you understand when that began? What were the influences that caused you to feel that way?

Gender confusion? I really don’t know. It was just an increased sense of “I do not belong.”

Was there some kind of rejection in your family?

You know, there is a funny thing about rejection, whether it’s real or perceived, the individual feels it. If you ask my mother, “Did you reject Jeanette?” she’ll say, “Absolutely not.” You must understand that my mother worked full time fairly soon after the five of us were born, so she had five children under the age of six years and was a school teacher. She always talked about her children in school. My understanding was that they meant more to her then we did. We were unable to express ourselves emotionally at all.

The whole family?

Oh yes, and my parents did not express their love for one another in any way that I saw, either verbally or emotionally.

So you had this gender confusion. When did you begin to identify with or practise as a lesbian?

I didn’t practise lesbianism until I was 18 years old, but in the early teenage years I went to an all-girls’ school and we were quite happy pretending to get married and there was a lot of unity there. I was very happy, but I certainly took a tomboy role. That was natural to me, I guess. I was very much the boyish type. Very early in the teenage years, it almost seemed like overnight the girls became aware of boys. And they were beginning to be obsessed about pop stars and the boys across the river, the boys’ school across the river. It really left me quite high and dry. It’s almost like I’d stood still; they were wandering off and I made quite abortive attempts to retain their interest. I had my hair cut like the most popular pop star; I wore boys clothes. I didn’t particularly act in a mannish manner, but when I look back on it now it was a very non-feminine type of behaviour.

So, if you put on the facade, you will get their support?

That’s right, because I didn’t understand what else they could be interested in. Naturally enough, that didn’t work. Then I started having crushes on teachers and older girls in the school. Female teachers. That was a little worrisome, so I went to the library and got out a book on child development. I was about aged 14. Of course I read that it’s often a phase that people go through and grow out of, so that waylaid my fears, except that I didn’t grow out it. It was a long wait, this outgrowing.

You said you moved into lesbianism at about 18. What happened at that time?

I had opportunities to go into lesbianism before, from a couple of the girls in school, but I was too frightened. Fear was always a great motivator in my life. But when I went to university, I was seduced by the senior lecturer. She was 30 years older, had four children, the eldest of which was only three years younger than I. But it was a sense of belonging, this is me.

This relationship lasted three years. I guess I was faithful for two years, and then I used to go to the gay night clubs and had a series of relationships after that.

We use the term “gay” and some counsellors and others are saying that it’s not quite as gay as it’s made out to sound. What was your lesbian lifestyle like?

Well it was a sense of belonging, a sense of sisterhood, bonding, that I had lost from about age 11. I didn’t have that for about six years. So when I walked into my first gay bar, I sensed that this is where I belong. If you’ve spent that long not belonging anywhere, you’ll take on anything.

I would look at men and women in the street holding hands, and I guess my thought really was, “Why can’t I have a girlfriend and do it that freely?” So it wasn’t a sense of being . . . it’s like, why must I hide?

So you weren’t ashamed?

I guess I must have been ashamed in that I didn’t tell my parents. I kept it from most of my straight friends; there was fear of rejection. If they really knew me, they wouldn’t have liked me. So what was it like to be a lesbian? I was never good at making friends, so there was no great depth to a relationship. I think part of this was because I was brought up in a family that did not know how to express themselves, either verbally or emotionally. I don’t know if that has to do with my lesbianism, but I knew that I couldn’t really invest in people. I trusted no one but me. I was very withdrawn emotionally. The only way I knew how to express myself was through sexual relations.

What then are the roots of lesbianism? What are the factors that influence one towards a homosexual lifestyle?

This is not set in concrete, because of what I’m going to say. I’ve been in ministry now for five years, and spoken with a number of ministry leaders, and I’ve found there seems to be a consensus of opinion, but bearing in mind that everyone’s individual, and not everyone has every factor in their life. But one of them is a sense of rejection from the same sex parent, and the lack of bonding.

This has been my experience in counselling homosexuals over a number of years. It seems to be fairly much across the board, male and female, that sense of rejection, lack of bonding with the same-sex parent.

That’s right, lack of bonding, and then the relationship with the opposite sex parent often is at fault. For me, I always strove to get affirmation from my father.

And did you get it?

If I performed. But I think of one occasion when I was shattered. I was useless at maths and I got 9 out of 10 for a test, which I thought was pretty good. I came home, told my father, who turned to me and said, “What was wrong with the other one?” And yet I think he was pleased. He had no idea how to express himself, or to receive anything good. He probably was doing the best he could, he had no idea. He still has no idea.

Jeanette Howard 140x210 (photograph Jeanette Howard, courtesy Hope for Wholeness Network)

What was your relationship like with Mum.

Distant and cold, I guess. It took me a long while to realise that her way of expressing love was through finances. I remember as a teenager coming home and she gave me some money, and I remember thinking, “All I want is for you to hug me.” I had a nervous breakdown when I was 10. The relationship with my mother was not good. I remember at the age of 18 months (yes, I can remember back that far) when I was being potty-trained. I didn’t want to go on the potty and mother was making me. We were watching a circus on television and she sat behind me and put her hands on my shoulders and made me sit. And I remember thinking, “You’ll never touch me like that again.” So there was a real detachment on my part too, there was a pulling away from, and I think that’s probably why I spent so much growing-up time watching television with those happy families and wanting her to be my mum. There were a number of women I wanted to be my mother, who expressed care, compassion, love and acceptance, which is what I didn’t feel.

Your book, Out of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind (Monarch Publications) describes your journey. What’s the significance of the phrase, “out of Egypt”?

Long before I knew that I was going to deal with my homosexuality, I was talking to a woman about my story and she said, “You know, that is just like coming out of Egypt.” That was back in 1987 and it pierced me. I don’t know why. But of course later I knew. I looked at the walk of the Hebrews and saw that the journey out of Egypt was just the first step. God’s almighty parting of the Red Sea, a mighty deliverance, then on into the wilderness and finally Canaan, the land of promise. I thought that really has been my walk. God delivering me out of a bondage and yet it has not been straight from bondage to promise. I don’t believe there’s a three-minute prayer that’s going to pop me out of one life into another.

What sparked your interest in Jesus Christ?

I was a school teacher with a low threshold of interest and I became bored teaching in the school that I was in and we had a sister school in Tamworth, NSW. Some of the students would go for a term exchange. I thought of a way to retain my job and go to the other side of the world, and leave my current lover. (I didn’t know how to do that properly.) So I suggested that I’d do a year teacher’s exchange in Australia. But I didn’t realise it was a Christian school. I fought tooth and nail against anything Christian, and I strongly objected to people thinking they had two minutes to convert you now.

What spoke to me were those people who didn’t mention Jesus. Their quality of life would haunt me, the way they lived their life. One woman purchased a new car one week and she lent it to me the next week. That just threw me beyond belief that someone did not see that the things she owned were hers, but were to give out and bless others. That struck me beyond anything else. But it was their quality of life that spoke to me and I started getting interested in God. But of course pride got in the way. For eight months, I’d been close to stoning the Christians, I wasn’t really going to turn round and say, “Now can I come to church?” But there was a woman on the staff, a pastor’s wife, and I was able to speak to her and I said, “Please give me a book to read, but put it in a brown paper bag, put it under my desk in the staff room and don’t you dare tell anyone that I’m going to read a Christian book.” And I used to read it at night under the bed clothes with a torch. And that was my first interest. This was at Calrossy Girls School in Tamworth.

You haven’t shared with anybody at that School about your own struggle and how you came out of lesbianism?

The pastor’s wife knows, but she has moved to Sydney.

So that was the starter, the lifestyle of Christian teachers.

Observing them. I knew they had something I did not have. That was powerful stuff. But you know how Satan is? At the same time I got into a relationship with a Christian girl. She was everything I’d always wanted in a relationship. So I had this tussle–I wanted God, but I also wanted my lover. I thought: I’ll be a gay Christian, that’s the obvious thing to do. I’m a great one for going to textbooks, so I got out some theological books and of course half of them were so theologically liberal. They said, “Yes, of course you can. It’s just another expression of God’s love.” In retrospect, I knew the Holy Spirit was beginning to work.

It’s interesting the way people acted with me. I did end up going to church and I got in the drama team, the evangelistic drama team. This was a good ploy because I was good at drama.

At Christmas I moved out to stay with someone. I led her to the Lord without ever being a Christian myself. I told her what to do. She said, that seems good. I said it does, doesn’t it? She became a Christian. I left Australia as a non-Christian but with a Bible. I went back to England on New Year’s Eve, and went straight to a gay bar to bring in the new year. From a year of complete Christian company, to walking into a gay bar on new year’s eve night is what I needed. I needed the shock value and I went round telling my friends, “I have something better than this.” They asked what it was. I said I didn’t know, but it’s better than this.

I went round all the friends I’d not seen for a year saying, “I have something better.” Of course I hadn’t a clue what it was. I thought it was Christianity but I’d not really heard the gospel.

The amazing workings of God, the prompting of the Spirit of God, now that you look back.

That’s right. And I just read my Bible. I knew that I wouldn’t go back to the bar and I didn’t know one Christian in England. So I just read my Bible all the time, apart from teaching. And I’d be reading all through the night, a couple of hours sleep and I’d get up, teach, and I’d come straight back to read the Bible.

I read the Bible for hours and hours. I nearly read the whole Bible through in the month, and then I got to John 15:16 where it said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last.” And it suddenly hit me that God had chosen me and my response was that I either totally rejected or I totally accepted. A black and white thinker is good when it’s under the lordship of Christ.

But I also knew that if I was to become a Christian, I had to turn my back on homosexuality. I couldn’t be both, I knew that.

So here you were, you hadn’t yet made a commitment to Christ, but you knew

that you had to go away from the lesbian lifestyle.

Yes, and I knew that it was not God’s best for me. Now that was a major decision because I really didn’t know anything about God. And yet I had to put all my eggs in one basket.

How do you respond to the statement that the biblical teaching with regard to

homosexuality relates to homosexuality as sin and we need to grieve over our

sin, and of course repentance is involved. How do you see that?

I didn’t think I had to grieve over it. I did repent. But lesbianism to me was not a sin, it didn’t feel like a sin. Now God said it was a sin, but it sure didn’t feel like it to me. So the first thing I had to do was to ask God to help me see my lesbianism as He saw it. Because I saw it as somewhat fulfilling, natural and acceptable, that’s not what I read.

How did you move from a third sex view to it’s natural, I like it, to the point

where God is confronting you with what He thinks of it?

I just had to ask Him for His eyes. Gradually that happened. At the point of conversion, I turned my back on homosexual activity and identity. That was a choice, that was not an emotional response. All I had at my point of conversion was tears. That was on January 23, 1985, 2:30 am.

Reading your Bible?

Yes, reading my Bible.

You weren’t with anybody else at the time?

No, but I had read somewhere that you’re meant to tell someone. And I thought, well, I don’t know anyone and also it was 2:30 in the morning. So I phoned Australia. I thought I have to tell someone, so I actually phoned my Christian lover and she was pleased, but she knew what it meant for our relationship–it was over. So that was with mixed feelings too.

I understand that you went to an ex-gay ministry, Love in Action, in the San Francisco Bay area of California for a 12-months live-in program. What was the purpose of this?

Psalm 68:6 says “God sets the lonely in families”. The way this ministry is set up is that people who struggle with homosexuality live in different houses with leaders and assistants. The goal is to re-establish or perhaps establish for the first time a family-type environment and do the normal duties in a family. This helps to bring some stability into your life within a family. That part of my life was very stable anyway, apart from the family relations.

There were group meetings to deal with issues. We attended Bible study nights and were integrated into the life of the church. This was an instrumental part of my healing process. I would say a year in that program took three years out of the healing process.

What were the elements in the Love in Action program that projected you into a faster growth rate?

Accountability, honesty, communication, just everything came under the lordship of Christ. You could run but you couldn’t hide. It’s interesting that most people now stay on for a second year because obviously not everything’s dealt with in a year. You’re in a very intensive program, so the second year eases off; it gives you more responsibility to get back into society.

Let’s talk about instantaneously coming out of homosexuality. There’s a view that says, “Jesus is in the supernatural business, He has the ability to change you immediately.” Obviously He has that ability, but what happens with homosexuality? Do you see much of that taking place, where somebody is lesbian one minute, and the next day is something quite different?

You have to look at the reasons why people express themselves in a homosexual way–their background, motivation factors, rejection, sexual abuse, peer group pressure. There are a number of areas like that, which you’re not delivered from but are healed through.

A lot of homosexuality is learned behaviour, which has to be unlearned and then new behaviour taken on board. In my five years of being in ministry, I’ve yet to see anyone instantaneously changed. With wholehearted commitment you see major change in a few years. With half-baked commitment, I see them sliding back.

On the healing scale, if we could use that sort of analogy, where are you in the

healing process? Let’s say 100% being you are perfectly whole and healed.

Well, today, I’m about 98%. Tomorrow I could be 90%, or I could be 99%. It’s not one day at a time inasmuch as I live in fear, but I am aware. Recently a prominent Christian in America has sexually fallen, again. It keeps coming time and time again, so I am careful lest I fall, but I know what I call my red flag areas. I know when I need to be more careful.

Can you share some of those?

Sure, like I need to know my body cycle, the times of the month when I’m more vulnerable to people showing me affection. With women, emotional dependency often precedes lesbian activity.

One of the chapters in your book has that title, “Emotional dependency”. What are you referring to?

We’re talking about healthy relating. If I have a friend, I often say, if she breathes out, I breathe in. It’s an unhealthy enmeshment. My security is dependent on her being in my life. The two become one almost; there seems to be a lack of boundaries; I don’t know where I end and you begin. Often it ends up that you wear similar clothes. The “I” becomes “we”. There’s a state of panic if you think that you’ve got to not see her for a day, not be in contact by phone for a day. There’s a fear of loss because you see her as a possession. This is unhealthy emotional dependency that often is a lead into lesbianism.

Now that can happen in male/female relationships as well.

Course it can. It’s not a homosexual problem, it’s a people problem, but we find it manifests itself greatly with the lesbian. Interestingly, many of the men have not experienced emotional dependency until they start the healing process, until they stop allowing themselves sexual expression. It opens the doors to how they feel. And often the guys will get into a dependent relationship for the first time ever during the healing process. So it’s not necessarily to be seen as something totally negative for the guys especially. But it does need good control in accountability area.

The liberal church tends to want to endorse homosexuality, right? How can the evangelical church minister to the homosexual?

You don’t need to be an expert, and that’s the good news. Most of my healing has come from being accepted, feeling secure, affirmed within my church body. My church body recognised a call on my life to full-time ministry and they paid for me to go to a discipleship school and it was there God convicted me that I had to be real with my church, I had to go back and tell them. So I did that, received the pastor’s permission, and one Sunday morning I asked for their forgiveness. For two years I’d presented an image to them, an acceptable image of Christianity, but that was not who I was, and I shared who I really was. And as one, they stood up, gave a standing ovation, and said, whatever it takes for your healing, we will support you.

That’s an encouraging response. But that’s not always the way it is. In talking with male and female homosexuals through the years, they generally find that the evangelical church can be a place of rejection.

Rejection often is the response to ignorance and fear. One of the desires I have in my heart is to educate the churches.

What are some of the elements of the education process? What would you tell the evangelical church in Australia, concerning homosexuality, that would help them to better understand it, accept the homosexuals and minister to them?

First, they need to know that God changes lives. It’s worth investing in an individual. It’s not a wasted cause. Second, by knowing some of the root causes, you can apply the healing balm, that sense of identity. You can draw out of churches the Christian woman, Christian man, who can be role models. So, you need to get your own life in order to be a good role model. By going to lunch after church with a family, I learnt things like a husband and wife can argue and still respect one another, the children have a voice in the house, there’s really no problem that’s too big if God is the head of the household. I came from a dysfunctional family and I had much to learn. Not out of a textbook, I learnt by going to lunch with people just what a Christian family is all about, transparency. It is no good saying, “Hey we’re a church that welcomes those who hurt, come in, but we’ll keep our Sunday masks up, we’ll hide behind masks of arrogance, or humour or anger.” You need to be transparent yourself.

There should be no taboo subject in the church, because I should not feel too shamed to speak out about those areas that hurt me, and have affected me. There’s no sin too big for God.

Yet homosexuality is very often almost looked upon as the unpardonable sin. Is that your experience sometimes?

Yes. If you believe a lie long enough, it’s as though it’s truth, and society

puts out that you’re born that way, and therefore, what can the church

do? You’re never going to change, you’re just as you’re going to be, a

bad influence in this church and I’ve got children; the doors close and the

arms get folded. But because it’s a sin, that’s good news.

How can that be?

If it’s genetic, hormonal, or anything like that, then I’ve got no hope apart from some scientific breakthrough, but if it’s sin, then like any other sin, Jesus Christ died for it. When Paul tells the Corinthians the list of sins–of being drunkards, swindlers, everything else. [I Corinthians 6:9-11] He says that “such were some of you.” We often stop at the list and forget the next phrase, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified.”

That was good news for me, that it was sin, because then you know that you can be changed.

Let’s say a church wants to help the homosexual community. Where can it begin?

In my opinion, it’s not going on the streets. If you come from a basis of rejection, and you get someone on the street challenging you that your homosexuality’s wrong, to the person challenging they’re saying one aspect of your life is wrong, but to the homosexual that is their life. You’re saying the way you think, the way you breathe, the way you emote, every single aspect of your life is completely wrong. You see, what you say to me and how I receive it are two entirely different things. And if you come from a basis of rejection, you do not want someone telling you overtly that you are unacceptable. And it’s also no good saying, “But you know I love you.” God has to open your eyes to the sin of homosexuality. God opened mine.

The heterosexual community has far more in common with homosexuals than is immediately recognised. I struggle with pride, but you struggle with anger, but we all struggle. But we all need a Saviour. Not I need a Saviour because I’m a homosexual.

So let’s work on the similarities and not on the differences. Then you will win trust eventually, and then you let them bring up the homosexual issue. Let them lead the way on it.

So really, you’re doing evangelism and it doesn’t matter what sin you’re committing?

Exactly. It’s not a bigger deal to reach the homosexuals. Crusades into the homosexual community produce anger, violence and a real closing down to the gospel.

So you don’t head onto the streets to minister to the homosexual?

You go on the streets and evangelise everyone. Let them raise the issue of their homosexuality. We must get this straight: God’s not concerned whether you go to hell as a homosexual or a heterosexual. So homosexuality’s not an issue. It’s the fact that you need a Saviour, whatever you’ve come from.

Where does one begin if one wants to counsel the homosexual?

You’ve got to build trust, but that’s through any counselling, so that’s no different. You have to be aware that people are living under deceit very much. They will have been brought up thinking, I’m born that way, life is tough, the change process is tough, and of course you’re always tempted to return to your old thought processes. Or haven’t I changed enough God? At least I’m not sleeping with her! So at every level of healing there will be a bit of marching time, I am weary of this, and understandably so. But it’s like: how much of God do you want in your life? The pursuit is wholeness, not heterosexuality.

The angle I take is that they’ve still got homosexuality, that’s the common factor within the group. But if I’m just aiming for heterosexuality I’m aiming low, because heterosexuality is as fallen as homosexuality in this world. So I pursue wholeness in Christ, what it is to have Jesus in every aspect of my life, in every thought that I think, every action that I do, every emotion that I feel. A by-product of that is a heterosexual orientation. But if I aim for heterosexuality, God can get by-passed in that. Guess what happens when your sexuality comes under the lordship of Christ? The Elim program I do with my men and women coming out of homosexuality hardly touches on homosexuality.

I spend a few weeks on who God is. With a faulty understanding of God, we’ll get faulty healing. You build a tower and the foundations are cracking; guess what happens to the tower? So who is God? I spend weeks on that. Now can I trust Him? Yes. So we look at who I am. God gives me an identity. I had one as a lesbian, but God’s giving me a new one: who I am in Christ.

You’re not a homosexual in your identity; who are you in Christ now?

A child of God. What on earth does that mean? The apple of His eye, accepted in the beloved.

Then I look at forgiveness, trust, honouring your parents, things that I’ve taught regular men and women too; it’s the same program. But I have questions at the end for their homework. Do the teaching before you start going over the questions; we take a few weeks at that and praying through it to find out where their faulty thinking is. That’s where the homosexual information comes up.

Any new books in the pipeline?

I’ve had a number of requests for a workbook to go with Out of Egypt. So I’ll be preparing something similar to the program that I run, to go with the chapters in the book. I would like to do a follow-up book, but I believe I’m walking that process at the moment.

Since that interview 22 years ago, Jeanette has written a new book. In January 2016, Monarch Books (Oxford, UK) will release Jeanette Howard’s new book, Dwelling in the Land: Bringing Same-Sex Attraction Under the Lordship of Christ.

Dwelling in the Land

(image courtesy Book Depository)

Notes:


[1] This interview was published in two parts, “A Changed Life”, New Day, October 1994, pp. 12-14 and “A Changed Heart”, New Day, November 1994, pp. 14-15. New Day is currently not being published.

 

Copyright © 2010 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 September 2016.

 

Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21Flower21

Governments may promote gay marriage. Should we as evangelical Christians?

LGBT flag
(courtesy LGBT, Wikipedia)

Spencer D Gear

Governments have changed legislation and brought in new social changes through the centuries. Christians are bigoted, intolerant and narrow-minded for considering that homosexuals will burn in hell.

That’s the view of Meryl Miller, a new columnist in the Fraser Coast Chronicle (FCC), in her new column, The M-Files, “Face the facts, folks: gay marriage is on the way” (3 December 2010, p. 21). On 6 December 2010, I phoned the FCC editor, Peter Chapman, to ask if he would accept an article as my right of reply to Miller’s article. Even though I pressed for the need for balance by adding my opposing article, he refused, claiming that the controversial nature of some columnists encourages people to write letters to the editor. He said that he would consider a lengthy letter from me.

Miller’s new column generated so much telephone response that editor, Peter Chapman’s “My Comment” column, “New column had the phone ringing” (FCC, 4 December 2010, p. 18), stated that “I have asked her not to write about religion next week nor cats, dogs and dingoes”. Miller had advocated for “the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to marry their partners”, according to Chapman. However, Chapman’s views are that “it’s a touchy subject for many of us” and “the truth is it’s really something we are going to have to accept”.

Really? Not in your life for me. On 7 December 2010, I sent a letter to the editor of the FCC that incorporates some of the following material.

Miller promotes the following fallacies on which her philosophy teeters.

Taking examples from contemporary society as norms for morals is a dangerous practice (examples given in the article were of deaths of the indigenous, equal rights for women and against domestic violence, out-of-wedlock babies, defacto relationships, climate change, flat-earthers, Salem witch-hunters, etc). It’s dangerous because relativism and pragmatism at government level, have produced some of the most horrendous ethics in world history. Ever heard of the Holocaust, Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, Stalin’s killing fields, the genocide of abortion, euthanasia in Holland, etc? When I give individuals and governments the right to make up their own moral framework, I cannot stop the logical conclusions of giving that right to everyone.

By the way, I take public stands against discrimination and immorality based on ethnicity, domestic violence against women, sexual abuse, pedophilia, abortion, euthanasia, etc. However, that does not give governments or individual human beings the authority to invent what is right and wrong. Ethics needs a higher norm than puny human decisions.

To say that “slowly, inexorably, we are inching towards a society which is more tolerant, more understanding, more compassionate, more open-minded” is a very intolerant statement because it opposes all those who do not accept Miller’s agenda of ‘tolerance’. Miller is as intolerant as anyone around, except she is intolerant towards those who oppose her views, while blaming the Christians and heterosexuals for being intolerant.

If “gay marriage is no more harmful to our moral fibre than other modern conventions we once found so shocking”, why is it that heterosexual marriage has been the norm throughout human history? Scoffing at “archaic views on gay marriage” amounts to being scornful of the tried and tested moral absolute of marriage exclusively for a man and a woman. Miller establishes her own absolute of relativistic pragmatism. She promotes her intolerant ‘tolerance’ towards those who support exclusively heterosexual marriage. Hers is a self-defeating argument. It is not an “open-minded” approach but a promotion of homosexual marriage while rejecting the heterosexual exclusive nature of what God has created.

God’s view is that heterosexual marriage is His ordained method for marriage and reproduction. From the very earliest of times, according to Genesis 1:27-28, we know this: ‘God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”’.

This is impossible for the homosexual to do. As for the marriage union, God said: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design is for the marriage union to be exclusively between a man and a woman. This is impossible for homosexuals to do.

As for the marriage union, God said, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design has been for the marriage union to be between a man and a woman. Governments that change this are working according to their own, fallible, imperfect human ethics.

So they are “religious extremists who preach from their lofty soap-boxes that homosexuals will burn in hell”, according to Miller. This is a self-defeating argument as the author herself is promoting an extremist position of tolerance towards homosexuals but she is not prepared to be tolerant to “religious extremists” who differ from her view. By the way, she has no clue about the doctrine of hell when she doesn’t understand who will be going there. It’s time she read and understood the Bible (I’m working on my PhD in New Testament).

Miller opposes the intolerant, bigoted, narrow-mined, heartless people who state that homosexuals will burn in hell, while claiming she is a Christian. It’s time that Miller knew the Scriptures which state that all unrepentant unbelievers will not inherit the Kingdom of God. First Corinthians 6:9-11 includes the sexually immoral, including adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals, idolaters, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. The good news of the Gospel is “that is what some of you were”. Jesus changes all sinners from the inside out.

Since when did Miller become a systematic theologian to pronounce that “the laws of God do not, should not, determine the laws between consenting adults in a committed relationship”? That’s Miller’s relativistic invention, not God’s standard.

She says that “I consider myself a Christian – but that does not give me the right to be a moral dictator”. What is a Christian that enables Miller to make such an anti-biblical statement? Christians believe that governments “do what is good” (according to God’s standards) and government is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoers” (Romans 14). These are wrongdoers according to God’s absolutes of right and wrong according to Scriptures, not relativistic governmental standards and the norms of morality created by Miller.

She rejoices in the birth of Connor Harris through surrogacy and two male homosexuals are the parents. It takes a male sperm and a female ovum to create human life. Homosexuals cannot create human life alone.

What has happened in Massachusetts (USA) with the legalisation of homosexuality and homosexual marriage has provided an example of the increase in HIV infection within the homosexual community. This report from 2008, “Inequitable Impact:The HIV/AIDS Epidemic Among Gay and Bisexual Men and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Massachusetts”, demonstrates the increased HIV rate among MSM (men having sex with men) in Massachusetts:

“This is the second in a series of reports examining the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on residents of Massachusetts. The first report, An Added Burden: The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Communities of Color in Massachusetts, focused on the ongoing racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence and prevalence in the Commonwealth. This report examines one mode of HIV exposure, same-sex sexual behavior between men, and its role in an inequitable impact of HIV on gay/bisexual men and other men who have sex with men.

Efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV in Massachusetts have been successful in a number of populations at risk, including injection drug users and heterosexual men and women. However, less success can be reported from work with gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), who represent over 50% of HIV cases reported among Massachusetts men between the years 2004 and 2006, and 39% of all HIV cases reported during this period. These rates of new infection are striking in light of the fact that only 4.3-9.4% of Massachusetts men (18-64 years old) report having had sex with men in the past twelve months on standardized behavioral surveys over the past seven years. These impacts represent an inequitable rate of infection that is nearly 25 times higher for men who have sex with men than for men who report only having had sex with women (emphasis added).

While the impact of HIV on MSM is most evident among white men, at 70% of new white male cases, MSM has emerged as a first- or second-ranked mode of exposure for black and Hispanic men in recent years. In half of the health service regions of the Commonwealth, MSM is the leading mode of exposure for persons recently reported with HIV, particularly evident in Boston, Metrowest, and Southeastern Massachusetts. The inequitable impact of HIV on MSM is also seen among the youngest persons at risk, with 44% of individuals age 13-24 recently reported with HIV having MSM as their mode of exposure. Even among men not born in the US, MSM represents over a third of new HIV cases reported in Massachusetts.

In Africa, “On average it is estimated that HIV infection rates amongst MSM (men who have sex with men) are four to five times higher than the population overall, with highs in certain areas” (AFRICA: Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV).

The issues here are God’s absolutes versus humanistic relativism created by Miller, the Massachusetts legislature and others. What’s the difference? The differences are the reasons for opposing homosexual marriage. Miller’s major fallacies are that she creates her own relativistic absolutes that oppose God’s standards. None of us would be on earth if homosexuality were the norm. In addition, she is discriminatory against other relationship aberrations such as bigamy, polygamy and polyandry.  See Bill Muehlenberg’s excellent piece of satire, “Time for some real marriage equality”. The high level of HIV infection in the male homosexual community should sound alarm bells!

The Fraser Coast Chronicle deserves better than to promote a one-eyed columnist who is narrow-minded in her opposition to what has sustained societies throughout human history – heterosexual marriage.

On 7 December 2017, Australia became the 26th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 September 2018.

Marriage Garments (Colossians 3:12-19)

Wedding couple

(dreamstime.com)

By Spencer D Gear

This is the message that I presented when I married a Christian couple. I have changed their names to preserve their privacy.

I know this is a very personal question, Bill and Cindy. What clothes will you be wearing for the very first night of your marriage? If you are only thinking of skimpy negligee or sexually stimulating undies, you may be very disappointed by your first night. In fact, those kinds of clothing are designed to bring a bit of spice into the relationship, but you will need more than that for a lasting marriage.

If your clothing is from the list I am about to read, it will:

  • give you a magnificent start to your marriage;
  • be the greatest gift you can give to each other for a lifetime of marital bliss–and I mean that. If you put on these clothes,
  • it will guarantee that your married life will be like heaven on earth.

I do not have time to talk about the ragged clothes that you need to discard. These are the clothes that build a magnificent marriage:

Are you ready?

As God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity… 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (Colossians 3:12-14, 17-19 NIV)

That’s not the normal list of clothes for your honeymoon. This spiritual clothing is critical, not only for a dynamic fellowship of Christian believers, but also for a marriage that has the blessing of God himself.

In your marriage, both of you need to put on,

1. Compassion.

Being able to feel with somebody who is experiencing joy or sorrow and then act show identification with joy and to bring comfort for those who are injured. “Compassion, pity, mercy.”[1] The “oh, no” that comes when you see another’s misery. 2 Cor. 1:3, God is called the “Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.”

God and Christ are like this. In Jesus’ parables, certain key people show what God’s compassion/mercy is like.

  • Take the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matt. 18:27, “The servant’s master took pity on him, cancelled the debt and let him go.”
  • Luke 10:33, “But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.”
  • The parable of the prodigal son (the lost son), Luke 15:20, the prodigal concluded, “So he got up and went to his father. `But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him. He ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.”[2]

Each of you, Bill and Cindy, may have times of sickness, injury, or feeling down. As believers in marriage, you must not be indifferent to suffering. You should be concerned to meet one another’s needs. This is compassion

Another piece of clothing that is related to compassion is:

2. Kindness

“The radical idea of the word is profitableness. Compare have become unprofitable. Hence it passes readily into the meaning of wholesomeness.” It is the opposite of being abrupt and severe in your words and actions. “Gentle, gracious and kindly.”[3]

Christ called the weary and burdened to come to him for rest. “Take my yoke…For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” “Easy” is the related word to “kindness.” It does not mean “easy” as we understand it. The idea is that Christ’s yoke is “good, serviceable.” Luke 5:39 says the “old wine is better.” “Better” is the same word. It means “good, mellowed with age.” It is hard to get an English word that conveys the idea. Christ’s yoke is “wholesome, serviceable, kindly.”[4]

“A gentle, gracious disposition.”[5]

Again, this is a quality which God demonstrates in very specific ways. It expresses “the abundance of his goodness which he displays to his covenant people–indeed to all men as his creatures. His constant mercy and readiness to help are essential themes of the psalms (Ps. 25:7; 31:19; 65:11; 68:10; 85:12). We see it with the prophets where the “kindness of God is all the more amazing in the face of his people’s sin (Jer. 33:11).” “As a response to God’s merciful kindness the person who has put on the new man, the Lord Jesus Christ, is to show kindness to others. This does not come naturally; nor can it be produced from one’s innate ability. Along with `patience’ it is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) and according to I Corinthians 13:4 is a direct outworking of love (itself a fruit of the Spirit): `love is patient and kind.'”[6]

John MacArthur says that “kindness” is “the grace that pervades the whole person, mellowing all that might be harsh”. A kind spouse is as concerned about the other spouse’s good as about his/her own. God is kind, even to ungrateful or evil people. Jesus said, “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back, then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35).

3. Humility

“Having a humble opinion of one’s self, a deep sense of one’s (moral) littleness, modesty, lowliness of mind.”[7] In the NT, this word speaks of the “lowliness” with which one serves Christ. In Acts 20:19, in his farewell to the Ephesian elders, Paul said, “I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews.”

This lowliness causes us to be “submissive to other Christians” (Eph. 4:2; 1 Peter 5:5). Phil. 2:3-4 beautifully summarises what this clothing should look like in the Christian church and in marriage,

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”[8]

“Humility” is clothing that must replace the self-love and selfishness that will poison your relationship.

4. Gentleness

Closely related to humility. This word needs to be understood against its OT background. This word in the Greek translation of the OT (the LXX) was “used to designate the poor in Israel, those without … property, many of whom were victims of unscrupulous exploitation (Isa 32:7; Ps 37:14; Job 24:4. The `poor’ are the defenceless, those without rights, who are oppressed, cheated and exploited (see Psalms 9 & 10). However, Yahweh is the God of those without rights (Ps. 25:9; 149:4; 34:2); he comforts those who find no mercy from their fellow-men (Isa 29:19; Job 36:15) and will finally reverse all that is against them (Isa 26:6; Ps 37:11; 147:6).

“Meekness” is another translation and it is one of the marks of Jesus’ ministry. This is how Jesus treated people when he was on earth (Matt 11:29).

Gentleness/meekness if the way Christians are to treat fellow-believers who have sinned (Gal 6:1-2) by bearing one another’s burdens and thus fulfilling the “law of Christ.” This is also the way we are to treat outsiders (Tit 3:2; cf. Phil 4:5, “let your gentleness be evident to all”). One of the fruit of the Spirit.

We must not confuse this gentleness with weakness. It contains these two elements:

  • consideration of others, and
  • a willingness to waive one’s rights.[9]

“An inwrought grace of the soul, that temper of spirit in which we accept God’s dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting… Does not fight with God… or struggle to contend with Him.” It is “first of all a meekness before God… In the face of men, even of evil men, out of a sense that these, with the insults and injuries which they may inflict, are permitted and employed by God for the chastening and purifying of His elect” (Trench).[10]

This is not spineless Christianity. Instead, it is the “willingness to suffer injury instead of inflicting it. The gentle person knows he/she is a sinner among sinners and is willing to suffer the burdens others’ sin may impose on him/her. This gentleness can only be produced by the Holy Spirit” (cf. Gal 5;22-23).[11]

5. Patience

Long-suffering. “The patient person does not get angry at others.” If you are injured by your spouse by words spoken or actions against you, you do not allow yourself to be provoked by him/her or to flare up in anger. “Patience under ill-treatment of others.”[12]

We see this with God himself and His people. Ex. 34:6, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.” God’s patience with people means that we ought to act in a similar way to others. It’s a fruit of the Spirit. You can’t generate it yourself from your own resources.[13]

Bill and Cindy, your clothes of “patience” endure wrong and put up with exasperating conduct of others rather than flying into a rage or wanting to get even.[14] It’s the opposite of resentment or revenge.

This is the way all Christians are to treat others, especially believers.

6. Bear with each other

“Holding yourselves back from one another.”[15] It simply means to “endure,” “bear with,” “put up with.” Present tense means it is continual, but it is also reciprocal, “one another.”[16]

“To endure, to hold out in spite of persecution, threats, injury, indifference, or complaints and not retaliate.” It is what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians, “When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly” (I Cor 4:12-13). It did not characterise the Corinthians who were taking each other to court.

“`To bear with’ suggests the thought of putting up with things we dislike in others.”[17]

7. Forgive as the Lord forgave you

What did Jesus say in Matt. 6:14-15? “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

You will only receive the forgiveness of God if you forgive others.

Here in Colossians, this is not the most common word for remission, forgiveness. The usual word (aphiemi) means to cancel, remit, pardon. This one emphasises the “gracious nature of the pardon (at Luke 7:42 in our Lord’s parable of the two debtors, the KJV translates the word, “frankly forgave.” It is elsewhere in Paul’s writings, speaking of “God’s gracious giving or forgiving” (Rom 8:32; I Cor 2:12; Gal 3:18; Eph 4:32; Phil 1:29; 2:9; Col 2:13).

Again it’s the present tense. This forgiveness is “to be unceasing, even unwearying (a point which Jesus himself taught when instructing his disciples that forgiveness ought to be `not seven times, but seventy-seven times’ or `seventy times seven.’[18]

Built on God’s “grace”, so it means “to grant as a favor.” Sometimes this special word was used for the cancellation of a debt (Luke 7:42-43).[19]

Within your marriage (and the Christian congregation), “there will be grounds for grievance from time to time” of one person against another. Whenever these grievances arise, Bill and Cindy, you are to forgive. How often? Seventy times seven–an endless number. In the church, in a Christian marriage, it ought to be a mutually forgiving fellowship.

Why should we do this? The example that has been set for us: “Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” “God did not love us, choose us, and redeem us because we were deserving, but purely because He is gracious.” Rom 5:8, 10 reads, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us… When we were enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son.” “If God is so gracious to us, how much more, then, should we be … forgiving to fellow-sinners, especially to one another.”[20]

If we harbor bitterness or are driven by an unforgiving attitude, we ignore what Christ has done for us. Can we do less than forgive one another when we have been forgiven so much by God?

“Leonardo da Vinci was one of the outstanding intellects of all time, for he was great as a draftsman, an engineer and a thinker. We’re told that just before he commenced work on his`Last Supper’ he had a violent quarrel with a fellow painter. So enraged and bitter was Leonardo that he determined to paint the face of his enemy, the other artist, into the face of Judas. In this way, he would take his revenge and vent his spleen by handing the man down in infamy and scorn to succeeding generations. The face of Judas was therefore one of the first that he finished, and everyone could easily recognize it as the face of the painter with whom he had quarrelled.

“But when Leonardo came to pain the face of Christ, he could make no progress. Something seemed to be baffling him, holding him back, frustrating his best efforts. At length he came to the conclusion that the thing which was checking and frustrating him was the fact that he had painted his enemy into the face of Judas. He therefore painted out the face of Judas and commenced anew on the face of Jesus, and this time with success the ages have acclaimed.[21]

The lesson? Cindy and Bill, you cannot at one and the same time be clothing yourselves with the features of Christ in your own life and at the same time be putting on other clothing of animosity and hatred. Whenever there are spats in your marriage (and they will come because of your sinful natures), forgive one another as Christ has forgiven you.

8. Love, which binds them all together in perfect unity

The image is of loose eastern garments. “Put on love as the binding factor, which will hold them together and make them useable… When these virtues are practiced without the accompaniment of divine love, they are as sounding bras and a tinkling cymbal.”[22]

Love is the garment that produces these qualities and unity in marriage and the church. Bill and Cindy, you will never have a magnificent marriage of superb Christian fellowship through compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, bearing with each other and forgiving one another, unless you love one another with a truly, self-sacrificing, giving kind of love that only God can give. We can sum up these commands in Colossians 3:12-14 by “love one another.”

Paul, to the Romans (13:10) said, “Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.”

To all Christian believers, not just this Christian couple entering marriage, “love is the beauty of the believer, dispelling the ugly sins of the flesh that destroy unity.”[23]

If your life is clothed with these garments, Cindy, you will find no difficulty in submitting to Bill, your husband.

Bill, if you put on this attire, you will “love your wife, Cindy, and not be harsh with her.” You will love her as Christ loved the church.

Notes:


[1]Kenneth S. Wuest 1973. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Colossians), Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 224.

[2] Based on Peter T. O’Brien 1982. Word Biblical Commentary, Colossians, Philemon. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, p. 199.

[3]Marvin R. Vincent 1887. Word Studies in the New Testament (The Epistle to the Romans), vol 3. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 335.

[4]Vincent, vol 1, p. 70.

[5]Wuest, p. 224.

[6]O’Brien, p. 200.

[7]Wuest, p. 224.

[8]O’Brien, p. 200

[9]O’Brien, p. 201.

[10]Wuest, p. 224.

[11]John F. MacArthur Jr. 1992. Colossians & Philemon (New Testament Commentary). Chicago: Moody Publishers, p. 156.

[12]Wuest, p. 224.

[13]O’Brien, pp.24-25.

[14]O’Brien, p. 201.

[15]A.T. Robertson 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, p. 504.

[16]O’Brien, pp. 201-202.

[17]Frank E. Gaebelein (gen ed) 1978. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians – Philemon, vol 11 (Curtis Vaughan: Colossians). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 215.

[18]O’Brien, p.202.

[19]Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Colossians, p. 201.

[20]John F. MacArthur 1986, Ephesians (New Testament Commentary). Chicago: Moody Publishers, p. 190.

[21]Gene A. Getz, Living for Others When You’d Rather Live for Yourself (Studies in Ephesians 4-6), Regal Books, 1985, p. 82.

[22]Wuest, p. 225.

[23]MacArthur, Colossians, p. 157.

 

Copyright © 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 January 2014.