Nation Shocked, Horrified As Christians Hold Christian Position

U.S.—Reports from around the nation Thursday indicate that millions of American citizens were still reeling from the revelation that a prominent Christian couple holds a historically Christian position.

“We’re not saying people can’t be Christians,” a Seattle woman said in a Facebook comment. “This is a free country, after all. But when Christians decide to actually have Christian beliefs about things—I’m sorry, that’s just too far.”

A man in Denver agreed, stating that he prided himself on his deep appreciation of and support for freedom of beliefs and religious tolerance, “so long as Christians don’t publicly hold opinions I find disagreeable.”

“It’s almost as if they take the Bible seriously or something,” he added, shaking his head.

This revelation comes on the heels of a national Gallup poll released earlier this week indicating that over 95% of Americans agreed with the statement, “Christians are allowed to practice their beliefs, as long as everyone agrees with them.”

Zadok, Christian Churches and the LGBT Split

A supporter of same-sex marriage waves a rainbow flag during a rally outside the Legislative Yuan in Taipei, Taiwan
A supporter of same-sex marriage waves a rainbow flag during a rally outside the Legislative Yuan in Taipei, Taiwan. (REUTERS/Tyrone Siu)

An interesting separation is taking place in the Christian community today over homosexuality and gay marriage. One leader opposes. Another affirm. Yet most just sit silent.

But not for long.

The agenda to impose participation and celebration of the gay lifestyle—and all the expressive events surrounding it—is more aggressive than ever before. It has steamrolled through the spheres of culture (education, media, business, government, etc.) and now it has the church (“the last man standing”) in its crosshairs.

Why? Because the church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15c).

The good news is, these attacks are revealing which Christian leaders truly walk in the presence of God and which simply enjoy a platform for Him.

But regardless, no matter how much care and concern true believers have for homosexuals as precious image-bearers of God, the agenda to eliminate Christian witness on sexual morality will take no prisoners.

Now more than ever before in our lifetimes, those holding to a moral, biblical orthodoxy must prepare for a bold stand. Will the radical agenda to transform America—and the entire Western world—topple two millennia of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality?

Not if the Zadok priesthood has anything to do with it.

So who the heck is Zadok, and what does he have to do with sexuality and gay marriage?

It sounds random, but it’s truly profound. Hear us out on this.

In the time of Israel’s captivity in Babylon (605-535 B.C.), God gave Ezekiel the prophet a message for His people, explaining the many reasons their nation was destroyed and the people were taken captive. The main reason above all the rest was they had weak priests who refused to stand against the evil of their time and lead the people to truth.

Listen to what God said to Ezekiel: “Her priests have violated My law and have profaned My holy things. They have made no distinction between the holy and profane, nor have they shown the difference between the unclean and the clean” (Ezek. 22:26a).

The priests refused to tell the truth about right and wrong, so the people went astray. The “church” wasn’t being the church. Her leaders refused to clearly distinguish between God’s way and the world’s. They mixed the holy and the profane. Maybe they didn’t want to come across as “bigoted” or “hateful.” Who knows?

Now enter Zadok and his descendants. He was a godly priest who was faithful during the time of rebellion under King David, while the other priests simply went along with the cultural current of the day (1 Kings 1-2). As a result, God blessed Zadok and his sons for toeing the line.

Ezekiel prophesied of these “sons of Zadok”—a remnant of priests within the priesthood who spoke truth to the people. These guys were the ones in the middle of all the other priests who stood up and spoke the word of God clearly, leading the people toward the truth instead of away from it. No matter how strong the influence of culture was upon them, the sons of Zadok remained—and would remain—steadfast, teaching the way of God in truth.

“But for the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me. … They shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean” (Ezek. 44:15a, 23).

The Zadok priests made clear, moral judgments about right and wrong, while other priests clouded the truth and refused to show the way of righteousness. (As former baseball players, we’d call all these other priests R.O.Y.s—which means the “rest of y’all.” In baseball, fans pay to see the stars play while the R.O.Y.s simply make the game happen.)

Keeping with our baseball analogy, the Zadok priests were the stars, while all the other priests were just the R.O.Y.s

But (and that’s a big but), the R.O.Y. priests were still part of the game. Check out how these guys continued to serve in the temple, but God clearly distinguished the Zadok priests above the rest:

“He said to me, ‘This chamber that faces south is for the priests who have charge of the temple. The chamber that faces north is for the priests who have charge of the altar. These are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, who come near to the Lord to minister to Him'” (Ezek. 40:45-46).

The R.O.Y. priests got the platform, but the Zadok priests got the presence. Though the R.O.Y. priests still served in the temple, they had to keep their distance. But the Zadok priests were able to draw near to God—because they remained faithful to Him and His ways during times of rebellion.

Today, New Testament believers are called to be a remnant of priests.

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may declare the goodness of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

The question is, which priest are we, and which one do we want to be?

Will we be a Zadok priesthood—those who shine the clear light of God’s truth into a darkened world that desperately needs Him? O will be just be like the R.O.Y. priests—those who refuse to teach others the difference between the holy and the profane?

The radical LGBT agenda is forcing the choice.

So as the separation in the Christian community continues, it will be much easier to see difference between “priests” who’ve chosen a platform and those who’ve chosen God’s presence. {eoe}

3 Reasons Why you should read Life in the Spirit. 1) Get to know the Holy Spirit. 2) Learn to enter God’s presence 3) Hear God’s voice clearly! Go deeper!

Has God called you to be a leader? Ministry Today magazine is the source that Christian leaders who want to serve with passion and purpose turn to. Subscribe now and receive a free leadership book.

The Re-imaging of Humanity – 3 – The Transgender Revolution


This weekend we have just had our SPA weekend (St Peters Alive)…we had a tremendous time together as a fellowship looking at the whole issue of identity.  Glynn Harrison was superb and I hope the talks will be online soon.   One of the issues covered was of course that of gender and transgender.  This is part three of my talk to the Solas Day in Edinburgh in which we look at issues of gender, transgender and children.

Re-imaging Humanity – Part 2 Sexuality, Marriage and the Fall

Re-imaging Humanity – Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Inhumanity of 21st Century Humanism – Part 1

Gender – gender as identity makes a whole lot more sense. After all what is more basic for the cry  to come from the nurse to the mother of the newborn – it’s a boy/girl!  Most people today have been brought up in a world where we were just male and female aka Genesis.   We no more got to choose our identity in terms of gender than we do in terms of skin colour or height. But this is now all changing. First of all we are being told that gender is much more than biological and it really is dependent on how we feel. Whereas gender dysphoria was a recognised psychological disorder now we are being told that we all have the right to choose our own gender. And it is not limited to two…. That is so binary. You can have your 56 genders if you wish. In fact one activist told me that there are as many genders as there are people.

You realise of course what is happening when you get to that stage? You’re getting rid of gender altogether. The practical effects of this are phenomenal. For a start it kills all women sports. Have you seen the Iranian womens football team – eight of whom are biologically male? Or how about This story from the US?

It will also put to an end the Scottish government’s plans to have gender quotas in terms of politics and business. It’s how you end up with the great restroom row in the United States. And in case you think this has nothing to do with us here in Scotland every new school building Scotland will now be built with specifically gender neutral toilets.

Transgender –. A recent parliamentary committee report called for a move away from viewing transgender identity as a disease or disorder of the mind, and replacement of the present medicalised process with a simplified administrative procedure based on self-declaration by the individual applicant, free of intrusion by medical and legal personnel.

The same report proposed that 16- and 17-year-olds should be eligible to apply for gender recognition, that children should be able to use puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones earlier, and that Government should move towards ‘non-gendering’ official records. In other words you could walk into a post office tomorrow, and declare that you are the opposite gender of the biological sex to which you were born.

Again I want to ask where all this lead us.. Where is the harm?   Members of the transgender population are at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population. Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.

Multi- Gender – The Scottish government is going to change the law to allow for non binary gender – in a recent article the New York Times celebrated the fact that Scotland has now become the most homosexual and transgender friendly society in the world!

“It’s extraordinary: We have started a conversation about a genderless society,” said Bob Orr, 66, who in 1982 co-opened Edinburgh’s first lesbian and gay bookshop, Lavender Menace. That bookshop closed years ago, as have several gay bars. Gay people increasingly go to mainstream places, Mr. Orr said, and several singers in his “L.G.B.T. choir” are straight.  “The boundaries are going,” he said. “And that was always the point — that sexuality ceases to matter.”

Again what is happening here is that gender is moving from identity to being self-identity. One aspect of this is the use of non-binary pronouns –  as in this card developed by the University of Wisconsin to guide students.


Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and a clinical psychologist. He has found himself an enormous difficulty because he refuses to accept the current fad for gender neutral pronouns – read about his horrendous story Here

In New York there are now 31 protected gender identities. (Facebook offers you 58). You can be fined if you refuse to use the preferred pronoun. It is not just that speech is being confused, it is that freedom of speech is being taken away. In our attempt to become as God we are creating a new tower of Babel.

But again we ask – where’s the harm in the gender fluidity? Apart from the mass confusion.  For me the main thing about what is happening is that it is a form of child abuse.

It has long been recognised that the best context in which to bring up a child from birth to adulthood is within the context of a family, and that family has normally been understood as being a man and a woman and whatever offspring they may have.

Whats the harm? Research on children in same sex households shows that normal households with a mum and a dad are by far the better context to bring up kids.

I don’t have time to go into the research on this but it should not be surprising to those of us who follow the maxim, or by the maker’s instructions, that children do better with mum and dad. For couples with children, the dissolution rate for same-sex couples is more than double that of heterosexual couples.”

Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. It is important to realise that only  a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.

Let us ask the question again – Where is the harm? I think that transgender people need help. It is a genuine psychological condition.  But there is a world of difference between realising that a small group of people need help and support and thinking that this justifies attempting to change the whole way we view ourselves and bring up children.

Where’s the harm?   Think of Aaron an 18 year man old in Polmont Young Offenders prison, accused of two rapes.  He now says he is a woman called Alexis. Women prison officers have been ordered to do rubdown searches on him. Other females prisoners are concerned because he will have open access to women.s prison cells.  In what world does this make sense?  Putting a rapist into a women’s prison because he says he is a woman?!

But there is harm in other ways.

Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults. (The American College of Paedaetricians)

Also see this article about the abuse involved – Here

Let me put it very simply and quite straightforward. When the Scottish government say that they are going to enforce and promote a radical culture which says that children can choose their own gender, they are engaging in organised, systematic, state enforced child abuse. And in case you think this is some kind of fanciful horror story from the future – let me tell you about one seven year old girl who came home from school the other week and told her parents that she had been taught in school she could choose whether she wanted to be a boy or a girl.  This is happening now.  Today. In Scotland.  It is State sponsored child abuse and for the sake of our children we need to take a stance against it.

It is important to understand that in in our post-truth society the promotion of transgender and gender fluidity has nothing to do with facts or truth.  It is political and sexual ideology being imposed on the rest of us by those who regard themselves as the cultural and social elites.  Their position is ‘right’ and anyone who dares question it is obviously an idiot, or a homophobe or a transphobe – and probably all three!  The BBC for example are now proposing to indoctrinate children into this ideology through CBBC

Next week in part four we will look further at the implications for society…

Meanwhile I would highly recommend Vaughan Roberts little book about this subject which is very helpful to anyone seeking to understand –


Islamists Won: Charlie Hebdo Disappears

  • “The newspaper is no longer the same, Charlie is now under artistic and editorial suffocation.” — Zineb el Rhazoui, French-Tunisian intellectual and journalist, author of Destroying Islamic Fascism.
  • “We must continue to portray Muhammad and Charlie; not to do that means there is no more Charlie.” — Patrick Pelloux, another cartoonist who left the magazine.
  • “If our colleagues in the public debate do not share part of the risk, then the barbarians have won.” — Elisabeth Badinter, philosopher, who testified in court for the cartoonists in the documentary, “Je suis Charlie.”
  • After the Kouachi brothers slaughtered Charlie Hebdo‘s journalists, they ran out into the street and cried: “We have avenged Muhammad. We killed Charlie Hebdo.” Two years later, it appears that they won. They succeeded in silencing the last European magazine still ready to defend freedom of expression from Islamism.

Over twenty years, fear has already devoured important pieces of Western culture and journalism. They all disappeared in a ghastly act of self-censorship: the cartoons of a Danish newspaper, a “South Park” episode, paintings in London’s Tate Gallery, a book published by the Yale University Press; Mozart’s Idomeneo, the Dutch film “Submission”, the name and face of the US cartoonist Molly Norris, a book cover by Art Spiegelman and Sherry Jones’s novel, “Jewel of Medina”, to name just a few. Most of them have become ghosts living in hiding, hidden in some country house, or retired to private life, victims of an understandable but tragic self-censorship.

Only the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was missing from this sad, long list. Until now.

The disappointment with what Charlie Hebdo has become is reflected in the words of the French journalist, Marika Bret: “From Italy we receive many threats.” The reference is not to some Italian jihadist cell, but to a September Charlie Hebdo cover that mocked victims of the earthquake in Italy. It seems that the satirical weekly, almost destroyed by French Islamists two years ago, has been “normalized”.

Take Charlie’s recent covers. Against terrorists? No. Against those who called them “racists”? No. It was against Éric Zemmour, the brave French journalist at Le Figaro who has led a public debate about French identity. “Islam is incompatible with secularism, incompatible with democracy, and incompatible with republican government,” Zemmour wrote.

Laurent Sourisseau, aka “Riss,” now the publishing director and majority owner of Charlie, was shot during the 2015 attack on the magazine, and lives under police protection. He depicted Zemmour on the cover with an explosive vest, effectively comparing him to a terrorist.

Charlie Hebdo also recently satirized Nadine Morano, a critic of Islam, depicting her as a baby with Down Syndrome.

Riss also recently published a comic book attacking another easy target of submissive conformists, entitled “The Dark Side of Marine Le Pen.” Le Pen leads France’s National Front party, with a platform fighting for national sovereignty and Europe’s Judeo-Christian identity. In Charlie, the political leader of the French “right” is dressed as Marilyn Monroe.

For the first anniversary of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo‘s office, Riss released a cover not with Mohammed, but depicting a murderous Judeo-Christian God, as if Riss’s colleagues had not been butchered by Islamists but by Catholics. Riss had, in fact, announced earlier that the magazine would “no longer draw Mohammed“.

The first person at Charlie to capitulate was “Luz”, a well-known cartoonist. He surrendered, saying: “I will no longer draw Muhammad“.

Charlie Hebdo, after Islamist terrorists murdered much of its staff in 2015, announced it would “no longer draw Mohammed.” Instead, the magazine now focuses on attacking critics of Islamism, and mocking the Judeo-Christian God.

“The transplant that works worst,” said Jeannette Bougrab, the companion of Charlie’s late editor Stéphane Charbonnier, “is the transplant of balls.” Bougrab charged the attack’s survivors with bowing to terrorism and threats by betraying the legacy of free speech for which these truthful men were murdered.

After the massacre of January 7, 2015, the cartoonist “Luz” cried in front of the cameras after presenting a cover depicting the survivors, in which Muhammad was portrayed as saying, “All is forgiven”. Luz then appeared in Le Grand Journal along with Madonna, and in a gesture of sad voyeurism, displayed his genitals, covered by the logo “Je suis Charlie”.

Charlie‘s “normalization” was also reflected in the recent dramatic decision to terminate the magazine’s relationship with another survivor, the French-Tunisian intellectual and journalist Zineb el Rhazoui, who also now has to live under police protection for her criticism of Islamic extremists.

“The newspaper is no longer the same, Charlie is now under artistic and editorial suffocation,” she told Le Monde. Rhazoui is the author of a new book, “Détruire le Fascisme Islamique” (“Destroying Islamic Fascism“).

“We must continue to portray Muhammad and Charlie; not to do that means there is no more Charlie”, said Patrick Pelloux, another cartoonist who left the magazine.

There were seven cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. Five were killed on January 7, 2015: Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski. The other two, Luz and Pelloux, resigned after the massacre. The headline of the monthly Causeur captured the atmosphere: “Charlie Hebdo Commits Hara-Kiri,” playing with the Japanese form suicide and the previous name of Charlie (which was “Hara-Kiri“). Between murders, desertions and self-censorship, Charlie‘s story is almost over.

What is happening? Sadly, the Islamists’ threats and attacks are working. A similar crisis affected the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the 12 cartoons of Muhammad, which Charlie Hebdo immediately, to show solidarity, reproduced. “The honor of France was saved by Charlie Hebdo,” wrote Bernard-Henri Lévy when the magazine republished the Danish cartoons, while many “right thinking” media blasted the “Islamophobia” of those caricatures.

“The truth is that for us it would be totally irresponsible to publish the cartoons today,” the director of Jyllands-Posten, Jorn Mikkelsen says to justify his self-censorship. “Jyllands-Posten has a responsibility to itself and its employees.” Such as Kurt Westergaard, author of the caricature of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, who now lives in a house-fortress, with cameras and security windows and machine-gun toting guards outside.

An ideological clash inside Charlie Hebdo developed well before the terror attack. Zineb el Rhazoui arrived at the weekly magazine through editor Stéphane Charbonnier, “Charb”, the brave journalist who lead the battle against Islamist intimidation in Europe. Even from his grave, he penned an “Open Letter to the Fraudsters of Islamophobia Who Play Into Racists’ Hands.” But, as Libération writes, “Riss opposed Charb; he is less politically identified, more introverted than him.”

Charbonnier belonged to the generation of Philippe Val and Caroline Fourest, the libertarian journalists determined to criticize Islam, who, from 1992 to 2009, shaped the weekly magazine.

Charb? Where is Charb?“, shouted the terrorists in Charlie Hebdo’s office, to make sure they found the journalist they considered responsible for the Mohammed cartoons controversy.

Philippe Val, who as a former Charlie Hebdo editor, was put on trial in Paris for printing those cartoons, published a book “Malaise dans l’inculture” (“Sickness in the Lack of Culture“), which attacks “the ideological Berlin Wall” that has been raised by the Left.

In 2011, after a firebombing that destroyed Charlie’s offices, an appeal by frightened, intimidated journalists announced their refusal to support the magazine’s stance on Islam. Two years later, one of the signatories, Olivier Cyran, a former editor of Charlie Hebdo, charged the magazine with being “obsessive about the Muslims.” So did a former Charlie journalist, Philippe Corcuff, who accused his colleagues at the magazine of fomenting “a clash of civilizations.”

The attacks continued with another former cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, Delfeil de Ton, who, in Le Nouvel Observateur, after the 2015 massacre, shamefully accused Charb of “dragging” the staff into the slaughter by continuing to satirize Mohammed.

After the Kouachi brothers slaughtered Charlie Hebdo‘s staff, they ran out into the street and cried: “We have avenged Mohammed. We killed Charlie Hebdo.” Two years later, it appears that they won. They succeeded in silencing the last European magazine still ready to defend freedom of expression from Islamism. And they sent a special warning to all the others. Because after Charlie Hebdo, writing articles critical of Islam, or penning a cartoon, make them a target for assassination attempts and intimidation campaigns.

The feminist and philosopher Elisabeth Badinter, who testified in court for the French cartoonists in the documentary, “Je suis Charlie,” said: “If our colleagues in the public debate do not share part of the risk, then the barbarians have won.”

The magazine Paris Match asked Philippe Val if he could imagine the disappearance of Charlie Hebdo. Val replied: “This would be the end of a world and the beginning of Michel Houellebecq’s ‘Submission'”. After attacks comes self-censorship: submission. If Charlie Hebdo is tired and fleeing from responsibilities, who can blame it? But the others, the rest?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Re-imaging Humanity – Part 2 Sexuality, Marriage and the Fall


For part 1 click Re-imaging Humanity – Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Inhumanity of 21st Century Humanism – Part 1

We now begin to look at some of the ways the Fall has impacted Humanity and Sexuality 

Sexuality –

“heterosexual? Sexual? Who gives a sexuality”” Smirnoff advert 2015.

In answer to the age old question – Who am I? our children today are being taught that sexuality is a key part, if not the key part of our identity. Media, schools and the big corporations (see the Diageo £4.5 million campaign Here) are pushing this as a given. And yet the notion of sexuality as identity is a relatively new one stemming from the late 19th century and especially from the work of Freud.

In the arguments in the church about sexuality one has stood out as the most powerful. Its what I call the Lady Gaga theory – Born This Way

The initial reason for accepting the idea of an innate sexuality as normative came about because people argued – what could be wrong if God made me this way? But such a question betrays a shallowness in understanding, both of what humanity is, who God is and how the fall has affected us. In more recent years the notion of a fixed sexuality is now being challenged by those who once argued that it was the very basis for accepting gay rights. Rather than God made me this way we are now coming to a position where people get to choose their own sexuality. It becomes a question of self-identity. Fixed sexuality is becoming fluid sexuality. That’s why in Britain today although only around 1% of young people will claim to be homosexual, 2% will claim to be bisexual. By the way I was speaking at a school this week and asked the young people what percentage they thought of people in society were homosexual the estimates varied from 10% to 30%! Recent studies have demonstrated: (This is from New Atlantis)

  • The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that way”—is not supported by scientific evidence.

  • While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.

  • Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).

In this highly significant quote Peter Tatchell argues for the end of homosexuality and heterosexuality altogether.

“Overcoming homophobia will result in more people having gay sex but fewer people claiming gay identity.

The medieval Catholic Church, despite all its obscurantism and intolerance, got one thing right. Homosexuality is not, it suggested, the special sin of a unique class people but a temptation to which any mortal might succumb.

It now seems fairly certain, in the light of modern research, that most people are born with a sexual desire that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction. Once homophobia declines, we are bound to witness the emergence of a homosexuality that is quite different from the homosexuality we know today. With the strictures on queerness removed, and same-sex relationships normalised and accepted, more people will have gay sex but, paradoxically, less of them will identify as gay. This is because, in the absence of homophobia, the need to assert gayness becomes redundant. Gay identity is the product of anti-gay repression. When homosexuality is disparaged and victimised, gay people understandably feel they have to affirm their desires and lifestyle. However, if prejudice is vanquished, and if one sexuality is not privileged over another, defining oneself as gay (or straight) will cease to be necessary and have no social significance. The need to maintain sexual differences and boundaries disappears with the demise of straight supremacism. Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive clearly demarcated orientation and identity will then begin to fade (as will its mirror opposite, heterosexuality). Instead, the vast majority of people will be open to the possibility of both opposite-sex and same-sex relations They won’t feel the need to label themselves (or others) as gay or straight because, in a non-homophobic culture, no one will give a damn about who loves and lusts after who.”

Tatchell is winning the argument.  In a recent survey more than half of young people in Britain said they saw sexuality as fluid. The Daily Telegraph carried an article which stated that there were NO women in Britain who were exclusively hetrosexual. Yes – this is the mad world that we create when we seek to remake humanity in our own image rather than God’s!

One positive thing about this is the recognition that sexuality can actually change. Although our liberal elites are a little confused on this one. On the one hand they want to ban reparative therapy claiming that it is harmful because it goes against a person’s innate sexuality, on the other hand they are now teaching that we can choose our sexuality.   I think that from a Christian perspective we can recognise that our sexualities can be confused and messed up and that in a fallen world, genetic, environmental and historical factors can each play their own role. I remember discussing this with a gay activist who was furious at the idea of a ‘gay gene’. He argued that his sexuality was something he chose and he resented those who sought to portray it as some kind of genetic disfunction.

I am greatly impressed with those Christians who have come to terms with the fact that they are attracted to people of the same sex and yet refuse to self-define as homosexual. They prefer the more accurate term ‘same sex attracted’. The Living Out website is a superb resource.

What harm does it do?  The question is often asked – if its not doing any harm then whats the harm? The presupposition is that there is no harm but is that correct. I remember thinking that when listening to Patrick Harvie arguing for the special health needs of LGB. Why I wondered, if there are no health implications, do we need special health care? In reading Thomas Schmidt’s Straight and Narrow I was stunned by the health problems and harm portrayed in that book. Having read several other things since then – both pro and anti I think there is little doubt that, at the very least, homosexuality is more harmful than heterosexuality.


Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.

There’s numerous research that indicates that active homosexuals have a significantly shorter lifespan. People who engage in homosexual activity lose 25 to 40% of their lifespan. Factors include various sexually transmitted diseases, infectious hepatitis, anal cancer, amoebic and other infectious bowel diseases, herpes and other viral infections, and HIV/AIDS, among others. (Satinover, J. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Baker, 1998. Pp. 51, 68-69.  Also that domestic violence is higher in same-sex relationships

Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide. Now of course life is more complex than the simple citation of figures – and the question of why these figures are so bad need answering first. But they certainly raise a red flag.

Marriage – for decades queer theory activists like Peter Tatchell have sought to destroy a marriage. Just over a decade ago he even wrote an article attacking homosexuals who wanted same-sex marriage, because he wanted to destroy marriage not embrace it. I debated Peter Tatchell on Revelation TV .

(Peter Tatchell v. David Robertson – Part 1)

(Peter Tatchell v. David Robertson – Part 2)

I pointed out that I don’t think his opinion has really changed. All that changed was the tactics. He knows that in order to destroy marriage all that had to happen was people like David Cameron, Obama and others agreeing to “redefine” marriage. I suspect that many of the politicians who voted for the redefinition of marriage did so because of the political pressure, because they had not thought about it too much and because they expected it to be the end. But the reality is that the redefinition of marriage is just part of a wider philosophy which seeks to redefine humanity and create a world in which we can choose our own sexuality and our own gender, because ultimately they do not matter. In the beginning God created them male and female, in the end ‘man’ created them trans- human.
(In part three next week we will look at the next stage in the re-imaging of humanity).

Part three Here

Re-imaging Humanity – Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Inhumanity of 21st Century Humanism – Part 1



This is an adapted and expanded series based on my talk at the  Solas Conference Edinburgh – 29th October 2016.   It is a subject of massive importance for the Church and society.  I have split my paper up into several sections and will be putting one out every Monday.

Part One – Two Big Pictures

As we talk about this subject we need to realise that we are dealing with individual stories. This is not theory.  This is not political ideology.  We are talking about real people.  Last week I watched a BBC Scotland programme about individuals who were transgender.  It was one of the saddest and most depressing things I had seen for a long time.  Human  beings made in the image of God, confused, hurting and being offered a solution based on falsehood and a fantasy.

These issues are very much part of society today – as they have been in different forms throughout human history.  I think of Jane (note – the names used are are of course general) who thinks she is a boy trapped in a girls body; John who was bullied at school and who now wants to marry his boyfriend; Susan who finds that she is attracted to other women but for some reason feels guilty about it.  Everyone’s story is different and yet everyone’s story fits into a bigger picture.

The Freedom of Love and the Repression of Humanity

For many people in our culture the bigger picture the narrative that 21st century liberal humanism teaches.  This is the narrative that is predominant in education at all levels, in the secular media and amongst most politicians.  It is taught as fact, although in reality it is a big picture story that does not really fit the facts.



Let me give one example.   Diarmid MacCulloch recently had a three-part series on BBC2 entitled On Sex and the Church.    “I think religion has got everything appallingly wrong and it has been terrible for us in sexual terms,”. The basic resume of his position is that before Christianity came on the scene sex was a pleasure which people enjoyed in the Greco-Roman pagan paradise. But then along came Christianity, and especially St Paul and then Augustine, and lo and behold sexual repression entered into Western society. It has taken many hundreds of years, but now finally after the Enlightenment we are returning to those wonderful golden days. The only barrier remaining in the way is repressive religion, especially that of the Calvinists and the Catholics. In our brave new world people should be free to sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want. After all sex is just an appetite like eating. What’s wrong with having a smorgasbord of love? As long as we don’t harm anyone what’s the problem?

The Freedom of God (who is Love) and the Dignity of Humanity (made in his image)

But there is another big picture. One which, for the moment, we are still allowed to teach. One upon which the whole of our society has been based. We are currently in the process of rejecting that picture, but maybe we should stop and consider. Maybe we are not heading to a secular sexual nirvana? Maybe we are heading into the pit of hell?

Let’s consider this  alternative big picture.

What is Humanity?   Psalm 8

Psa. 8:1    LORD, our Lord,  how majestic is your name in all the earth!

You have set your glory

in the heavens.

2               Through the praise of children and infants

you have established a stronghold against your enemies,

to silence the foe and the avenger.

3               When I consider your heavens,

the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars,

which you have set in place,

4               what is mankind that you are mindful of them,

human beings that you care for them?

 What is man?   That is the title of an essay by Martin Luther King published in 1959 in which he argues that humanity is more than an animal and less than God. It is the basic understanding of humanity which has prevailed in Europe and the West for most of the past 2,000 years.  It is an understanding of humanity which is, ironically, being destroyed by our secular humanists.


When we cease to believe in God, it is not just that we lose the sense of the divine – we also lose the sense of the human. That is why the ultimate in humanitarianism, or humanism is to enable people to know God. In fact without the divine, we are missing an essential part of what it is to be human.

The Shorter Catechism sums up the biblical teaching nicely.

10. How did God create man?

  1. A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge,righteousness, and holiness,with dominion over the creatures.

 This involves

a) Gender – we are created male and female

b) Identity – our identity is found in God.

c) Marriage – we are created for one another.

d)  Society – we serve God, and one another by following the maker’s instructions.

But then things go wrong.  The Fall of humanity described in Genesis has an enormous impact.  The fallout is considerable affecting the environment, society and our relationship with one another and with God.  It disturbs, disrupts and destroys our most basic relationships.

The basic difference between humanity before the fall and humanity after, is that before the fall we lived to do the will of God, after the fall we are autonomous and seek to be as God. We do it our way. We go our own way. We are as gods – determining our own right and wrong. At least that was the promise of the devil. Autonomy is at the root of all our troubles.  And autonomy is what our society demands and celebrates:

And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain
I’ve lived a life that’s full
I’ve traveled each and every highway
But more, much more than this
I did it my way (Sinatra).

Sin is rebellion against God and an assertion of our own sovereignty and authority. No Christian with any biblical understanding would ever say – its my body and I’ll do with it what I want!

The secular humanist world view takes what humanists would like to be true today and interpret the past through that limited and fanciful view.  The Christian worldview interprets the present through the eyes of the past.   Next week in part two we will see the practical consequences of these world views….

New Assistant Bishop of Brisbane is “happy to abandon the Creed”

David Ould reports on the appointment of a post-Christian bishop, Jeremy Greaves, for the Anglican Church of Australia

Greaves’ appointment will be viewed by many as controversial and even provocative. He gained notoriety for himself when Dean of Darwin Cathedral as a proponent of “progressive Christianity”, most recently being lead organiser of the 2016 “Common Dreams” conference in Brisbane. He is an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage but perhaps even more troubling he rejects key understandings of Christianity that he will be required to reaffirm at his consecration (having already promised at his ordination to teach them). One particular example will suffice.

In a 2010 ABC Radio National interview with Rachael Kohn he took part in a discussion of Progressive Christianity. The interview includes this exchange:

Rachael Kohn: Do you specifically then have difficulties with the Apostles’ Creed that you might like to rewrite it or ditch it?

Jeremy Greaves: I’d be happy to abandon the Creed.

As a bishop in the Anglican Church of Australia Greaves may struggle to represent the church with integrity. The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia [pdf] opens with these words:


  1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.

It will be his role to uphold and teach that faith which is in particular set forth in statements that he has publicly stated he would “be happy to abandon”.

As the interview concludes we hear this as he discusses the tension being speaking clearly about what he actually believes and the need to continue to draw a salary from his position:

Rachael Kohn: When you said the gut, it reminded me of what Gretta Vosper said, she was quoting Carter Haywood, who named the lurch in her stomach as God. What was your response to Gretta’s charge to the conference here to leave behind a lot of what has been traditional about Christianity, and even abandon some of the terminology?

Jeremy Greaves:I feel very conflicted about some of those things because – and she talked about that chasm between what so many of us believe and what we feel we have permission to say in our churches. And for so many of us in ministry, we’re locked into a model where the people who sit in the pews pay our salaries, pay our way. I have a wife and three small children to support and so the challenge of being too prophetic and changing too many things too quickly is that there won’t be enough people left in the short term to help me survive financially, and that’s a brutal and very difficult challenge.

And for so many of my colleagues in their 60s, which the majority, certainly in the Anglican church clergy are, they can probably get away with doing the same thing for another three or four years, and I have probably 30 years of ministry ahead, and that won’t work. And so the real challenge, from what Gretta has said, is knowing that we need to be somewhere else, but for me it’s the fear that comes with that and perhaps lacking the courage sometimes to go quite as far as we perhaps need to go.

It does seem now that fear of loss of income or worry about permission to speak is no longer a problem when the Archbishop is happy to appoint as bishop a man who publicly stated he would abandon the Apostles’ Creed.

Reprinted with the author’s permission from