Monday, June 28, 2010

School Czar Kevin Jennings has openly supported sex between adults and children.



Jennings also gave his support for a book titled "Queering Of Elementary Education!" Jennings also threatens educators who don't undergo gay re-education training.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The children of "gay" parents are speaking.


"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex. I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991." - Read the rest here.


OUT FROM UNDER:
The Impact of Homosexual Parenting
by Dawn Stefanowicz

The IMPACT of HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING is a compelling, fast-paced, and no-holds-barred narrative of one child’s journey from birth to the end of innocence—and beyond—as the daughter of a homosexual father. Dawn Stefanowicz honestly and sympathetically exposes the transfixing saga of unexpected emotional tangles, discarded dreams, and a desperate search for Daddy’s love. Sobering and colorful, revealing while upholding a standard for good taste, the book uncovers Dawn’s shocking experiences, confused responses, and ultimate redemption as she compassionately reaches out to her father, facing a tragic death from AIDS, in 1991. Now an outspoken advocate of laws protecting children, it took Dawn into her early 30s to realize how her “alternative” rearing impacted her. See how she confronts the forbidden darkness of sexual activities, gets out from under the foreboding weight of family secrets, and finds a future filled with surprising hope, happiness, and healing. *Release date October 2007.


Press here to read Book Review "Out From Under" by The Canada Post in the United Kingdom
Press here to read Book Review "A review of Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting by Dawn Stefanowicz" by Bill Muehlenberg
Press here to read Book Review "Out From Under: The Impact Of Homosexual Parenting by REAL Women of Canada
Press here to read review "When Dad is Homosexual" by Gail Besse of The National Catholic Register
Press here to read Listening to the Children of Gay Parents by Marjorie CampbellPress here to read a review by Rory Leishman of The London Free PressPress here to read a review by Janice Graham of The Standard of Liberty Voice
Press here to read a critique by Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, psychologist and author. This critique is published in the Empirical Journal Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and the Dutch version appears in “Nucleus” (Ghent, Belgium).
Press here to read a review by Tony Gosgnach, Assistant Editor of The Interim.

About the book:
Dawn knows from personal experience that the environment in which a child is raised matters. Her story delivers a provocative, gripping, no-holds-barred account of what it was like to grow up with a homosexual father, his partners, and a chronically ill and passive mother. Candidly, transparently, yet respectfully, Dawn raises the blinds on a home shrouded in secrecy, conflict, confusion, and abuse.

"Out From Under should be read by every legislator, lawyer, physician and mental health professional in a position to lobby for the best interests of children. May society heed Dawn’s courageous testimony and spare other innocents the suffering she and her siblings sustained." -Michelle A. Cretella, M.D., Board of Directors, American College of Pediatricians, and Chair, Committee on Sexuality, ACP, United States

"Out From Under is a personal account told in an emotional narrative. Stefanowicz tells of the enormous burden that was thrust upon her as a young person, a burden that is too great for any child. This story compels one to ponder the vulnerability of children, human suffering, and the meaning of life itself." -Senator Anne Cools, Ottawa, Canada

"Dawn Stefanowicz has the courage to write a politically incorrect book. She has the right because she was raised in a homosexual environment and suffered because of it ... there are few books like this one, which argues that such environments are disturbing to children."-Professor John Patrick, M.D., Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada

"Dawn Stefanowicz writes ... her personal experience, illustrating the unnaturalness of her parenting situation, the hypocrisy of those in her environment who pretended not to see this unnaturalness, and the loneliness of a child who is imprisoned in that situation ... "-Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., psychologist specializing in the treatment of homosexuality, and author of many articles and several books, the Netherlands

Dawn Stefanowicz is an author, speaker, media spokesperson, licensed accountant, and home educator. She recently addressed the Canadian Senate on hate crime legislation and appeared on EWTN. She advocates for children and families, pertaining to marriage, parenting, sexuality, and education. Dawn is a resource to family policy, legislative, medical, research, and scholastic organizations. She offers a safe place for adult children from similar households. Dawn has been married for twenty-three years and has two children.

Visit http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/.

What are the dangers of postmodernism?

Answer: Simply put, Postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, Postmodernism’s viewpoint is exemplified in the statement “that may be true for you, but not for me.” While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of taste and opinion with truth.

The term “Postmodernism” literally means “after Modernism” and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of Modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to Modernism’s failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of Modernism’s beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, Postmodernism seeks to “correct” things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individual’s beliefs and desires.

The dangers of Postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begin with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and finally culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #1 – Relative Truth

Postmodernism’s stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance periods of the 14th – 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at human periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be Modernism’s grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Renee Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer – man now was.

The Enlightenment was in a way the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth and claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was left out and discarded. The philosopher who straddled this epoch’s and Modernism’s contribution to relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Among other things, Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible so he created a divide of knowledge between “facts” and “faith.” According to Kant, “Facts have nothing to do with religion.” The end result was that spiritual matters were assigned to be matters of the heart and just opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. And while Modernism believed in absolutes at least in the area of science, God’s special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From Modernism came Postmodernism and, whereas Kant marked the philosophical transition from the Enlightenment to Modernism, Frederick Nietzsche may symbolize the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to “perspectivism,” which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsche’s work (e.g. Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical march through history against objective truth has resulted in Postmodernism having a complete aversion to any claim to absolutes, with such a mindset naturally painting a huge bull’s-eye on something that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #2 – Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.” What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern – the capability to distinguish “this” from “that” in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern individual, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of their work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book really means – a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple interpretations, with the end result being no universally valid interpretation.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard or benchmark that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion because the philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modernism had already deposed religion to the compartment of opinion. Such being the case, it naturally follows that attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion (ones that dare suggest that one belief is right and another invalid) carries no more weight than one person arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. In such situations, it becomes impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #3 – Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be given equal weight and considered valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in Postmodernism is “philosophical pluralism.” With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the other competing faiths false, or even relatively inferior. For those who espouse a philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelical’s concerns about what they see as the dangerous element of pluralism when he says, “In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.”

These progressive dangers of Postmodernism – relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism – represent real and imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively relegate God’s Word to something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religious voices. What is Christianity’s response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

It should first be stated that Christianity claims to be absolutely true, claims that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and claims to be correct in its claims about God with any contrary claims from competing religions being incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of “arrogance” and “intolerance” from Postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of Postmodernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianity’s claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent and born to do one thing: “to testify to the truth” (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is one that is self-defeating – it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that Postmodernism does believe in absolute truth, and such a fact is exemplified by its philosophers who write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace and believe as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, “When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So don’t.”

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. However, it should be understood that those claiming that meaningful distinctions do not exist between religions are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christian’s truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently than they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding man’s lostness before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Paul’s declaration was not a “this is true for me, but may not be true for you” statement, but rather an exclusive and universal command (i.e. a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says this is false is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy that says no faith or religion is incorrect because, once again, he violates his own mandate of saying every religion is equally true.

In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that 2+2=4 or for a locksmith to insist that only one key will fit a locked door, it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against Postmodernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false. Absolute truth does exist, consequences do exist for being wrong, and while pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not so in matters of truth. The Christian is to present God’s truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

Recommended Resource: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

Some Thoughts on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

When teaching or preaching the Old Testament as Christians, we have a responsibility to bring Christ into every sermon. Spurgeon explained his preaching method by saying, “I take my text and make a beeline to the cross.” Christian pastors or teachers often bring Christ into the OT in some rather strange ways (allegory, excessive typology, etc.) and not every OT passage is about Christ. Our job is not to make Christ magically appear in every OT text, but we also have not really done our job as preachers unless we explain how Christ relates to every message we preach from the OT. Bringing Christ into the passage is especially a challenge when we preach the OT prophets. It’s easy to see Christ in the “messianic prophecies” like Isaiah 9, 11, 53, 61, etc., but what about Isaiah’s judgment speeches, his calls for justice, or his oracles against the nations?

In exploring how we preach Christ-centered sermons from the OT, Bryan Chappell has explained that the OT points to Christ in four specific ways. First, the OT predicts about Christ (we could look at OT messianic prophecies, messianic psalms, etc). Second, the OT prepares for Christ. OT persons, events, and individuals provide a bridge to Christ (the sacrifices pointing to the need for an ultimate payment for sin and the temple system pointing to God’s ultimate presence with his people in the person of Jesus). The OT also points to dead-ends where Christ becomes the solution and ultimate answer (the failed leadership of Israel; Israel’s inability to keep the law and its other covenantal failures). Third, the OT is a reflection of Christ—God’s calls for love, justice, and his holiness find their perfect reflection in Christ. God’s redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt or the deliverance of Israel form the Babylonian exile reflect God’s deliverance of his people from sin in Christ. Fourth, the OT points to the results of Christ’s coming and work (the salvation portrayals and announcements of the OT in passages like Isaiah 2:2-4 and 4:2-5 would fit into this category—and thus are not just things that will be true in the future kingdom but are also things that have at least become partial realities in the present in light of the first coming of Christ).

Preaching and teaching Christ from the prophets is more than just throwing in a correlating NT passage as a footnote to your lesson. Many times in the prophets, the text will present a problem; our job is not just to diagnose how that problem infects our lives, churches, or culture but also to show how Christ is the answer to that problem. For example, Isaiah 5:8-30 documents the problems of Judah’s oppression, selfishness, pursuit of pleasure—teaching this passage requires more than just showing how we struggle with these same sins in the present; Christian preaching and teaching must also show how the cross and knowing Christ provide the antidote to this type of living. If we fail to do this, we really are doing nothing more than moralizing about the text. We’re like a doctor who diagnoses a disease but then offers to healing prescription for the malady. We are preaching the law but offering no grace.

Chappell made the point in his message that the only reason sin has any power in our lives is that we love it. Our job as Christian teachers and preachers then is to help people love Christ more than they love sin and to point to the grace of Christ that helps them to break sinful patterns in our lives. The people of the OT followed idols and so do we because we love those things more than we love the Lord. It’s easy to simply use the prophets to catalog and condemn the idols in our lives; the real task is to show people how much Christ has loved them and to produce love for Christ that will ultimately transform the human heart.

- Dr. Gary Yates -
Professor of Old Testament
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Cheated by the Affirming Church

"Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality—and not its suppression—that enslaves people like me." - anonymous, 2004.

The silver tongued lie that sexual expression doesn’t matter to God as long as its based on mutual love is a soul killer.

Gay churches who dangle this poisoned carrot in front of confused, hurting and struggling men and women manipulate their hurt and promise them freedom when just the opposite will result.

The only answer to the devastation of sin is to repent of it and live a disciplined life in submission to Christ.

HT: GCMW - full story here.