Newsweek hates homosexuals, actually...

(Tim) When I was a child, Dad subscribed to Time for a time. Then came the day they ran an ad for men's cologne pictured in a bottle shaped like a phallus. Dad wrote them strenuously objecting to such degradation.

Since then, our family hasn't been big on news magazines. The only one that's ever entered our home is World, to which we have a lifetime gift subscription kindness of its founder. Truth be told, I'm not at all fond of Time and Newsweek (especially), and Newsweek's current issue provides a good example of my reasons.

The cover story is a puff piece on sodomite marriage. The really disgusting thing, though, is that Newsweek's editors allowed their female (and yes, I believe sex matters here) religion editor, Lisa Miller, to play the schoolmarm to the nation on the true doctrine of Scripture concerning sodomy. The story's title tells it all: "Gay Marriage: Our mutual joy; Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side."

Yes, of course; Newsweek's religion editor is going to lecture us on the Bible's teaching on love. And I'm guessing she believes in the slaughter of little babies in their mother's womb, too, and could lecture us on Scripture's doctrine of love there, also. Our chattering class has Goebbels' principle down cold...

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

So Rev. Lisa Miller tells assures us love is the heart of sodomite relationships and the prime motivation of those speaking up in defense of those relationships.

But this is detestable hypocrisy. Same-sex intimacy is always and in every case utterly destructive to the glory of God, the dignity of His creation, and the loving union of two persons bearing His Image. Start with the body parts, if you have the courage. They don't fit and I'm neither joking nor being mean.

Then move on to the psyches of two men or two women wanting to unite monogamously in heart, mind, and body for life. They don't fit, either. It's not just a body thing.

Even the sodomites' willing helpers, social scientists, haven't been quick enough to remove all the evidence quite yet. Did you know, for instance, that lesbians have the highest rate of physical abuse, and commit the most serious abuse of all couples? This is self-reported, even when asked to compare the abuse to prior heterosexual relationships.

Is self-proclaimed Prophet Tony Campolo brave enough to come to a single conclusion from this evidence? His wife? Maybe Brian McLaren's up to the job?

Is there anyone--anyone at all--willing to love, to really love sexual sinners today, rescuing them from physical and spiritual death?

Which of course brings us to the main point. When a culture talks endless about something, we can be sure it knows nothing about that thing. Today, for instance, every evangelical patters on about his passion for God. The reason?

We have no passion for God. We only have passion for ourselves, so we cover up our naked betrayal of the lover of our souls with words that claim we possess the very thing whose absence we mourn. You know, "Our first commitment here at Church of the Green Narrative, Square Glasses, and Chai is worship that risks expressing our deepest passion for God."

Yeah, right.

So also with love. All you need is love, love, love is all you need. Everybody now...

Because the church has traded love for lust, the world is blind to the distinction. Because the church has turned her back on God's story and now uses the pulpit to narrate her own, truth is dead and the world is lost in narcissism. Because the church hates her sons, she doesn't discipline them and the world concludes the man who disciplines is a monster motivated by hatred.

Listen; I'm not scandalized by Newsweek or her religion editor. Why not?

Because it's the church that's brought us to where we are. We have no one to blame but ourselves. And if we repent for our fornication, adultery, unbiblical divorce, pornography, masturbation, incest, molestation, and denial of our bodies to our spouses, disciplining those who call themselves "brother" while committing these sins, the Roman Empire will be reformed once more, just as it was in the past.

Pastors and elders and deacons and Titus 2 women, there's work to be done. And I'm not talking about writing another letter to the editor.


God bless you, brother. A culture that stops hating homos is a culture that has signed its own death warrant.

Sherman, I love homos, fagots, sodomites, gays, queers--whatever derisive term you want to call them. I love them all. Have for years, and still do. Relentlessly. Fulsomely. Unequivocally. Christianly.

Really I do. Just as I love gossips and rebels and the greedy.

And because of this love God has put in my heart, I tell all of these men (including those tempted by same-sex intimacy) this: turn and repent, or you will surely die and be cast into Hell.

Fulsomely? Really?

Fulsome doesn't mean full. It means obviously insincere.

Dear Sherman.

Fulsome is in old word that has been used to mean abundant and is still acceptable to be used in this way.

Dear Pastor Tim,

Thank you for this post. I receive a free subscription of Newsweek magazine and my copy just came in the mail today. I have been fully distracted by the distortion of Scripture that is contained in this particular article by Lisa Miller. Of course, previous issues have caused me to cry out to God in similar ways but I have never seen the writers and editors go so public with their hatred for God.

>Fulsome doesn't mean full. It means obviously insincere.

Actually, not. Merriam Webster's complete definition:

* * *

1 a: characterized by abundance : copious b: generous in amount, extent, or spirit c: being full and well developed 2: aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive 3: exceeding the bounds of good taste : overdone 4: excessively complimentary or flattering : effusive

— ful·some·ly adverb

— ful·some·ness noun

usage The senses shown above are the chief living senses of fulsome. Sense 2, which was a generalized term of disparagement in the late 17th century, is the least common of these. Fulsome became a point of dispute when sense 1, thought to be obsolete in the 19th century, began to be revived in the 20th. The dispute was exacerbated by the fact that the large dictionaries of the first half of the century missed the beginnings of the revival. Sense 1 has not only been revived but has spread in its application and continues to do so. The chief danger for the user of fulsome is ambiguity. Unless the context is made very clear, the reader or hearer cannot be sure whether such an expression as “fulsome praise” is meant in sense 1b or in sense 4.

* * *

The context of my use was "very clear."

I stand corrected, brothers.

But I don't love homosexuals. The Bible says they should be executed for their crimes against nature, not "loved."

cross posted at ironink

Love & Hate

Over at Bayly blog, in response to a entry on Newsweek Magazine and homosexuality someone could write and say,

God bless you, brother. A culture that stops hating homos is a culture that has signed its own death warrant.

Now this post warranted a response by Tim Bayly insisting that he didn’t hate sodomites but loved them generously. Now, I understand why Tim would respond this way but I want to take this a step further by observing that I honestly don’t have any idea where the problem is in the blockquoted sentiment.

It is true that a culture that stops hating buggers who advocate buggery hoping to overturn God’s normative definition of marriage and coital relationships between men and women within the bonds of marriage is a culture that has signed its own death warrant. A culture that will not hate buggers and buggery is a culture that hates God, God’s normative definition of marriage and coital relationships between men and women, and the buggers themselves.

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that Hate is always a God dishonoring emotional and willful disposition. Yet, the Holy Spirit could say in the Psalms,

“Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?”

The Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Paul counseled,

“Hate that which is evil, cling to that which is good.”

The Belgic Confession of Faith can say of anabaptist error,

“Therefore we detest the error of the anabaptists…”

There is some irony here though. It is by hating those who hate God that we reveal our love for them. True hatred would be to ignore their hatred of God without giving them warning of the coming wrath of God. If we really hated Buggers we leave them unmolested in their buggery. So our hatred of the enemies of God is born of love for God and love for God’s enemies as seen in commanding all men everywhere to repent.

Secondly, we hate them because we love God, and God’s hatred upon His enemies is potentially evangelistic, so that we can say that God hates His enemies because God loves His enemies. The expression of God’s hatred against sin and sinners is often times with the purpose of awakening fear in the sinner of the coming wrath of God. If the sinner is elect and yields to that awakening fear he will discover that God’s wrath and hatred against him was for the express purpose of moving him to close with Christ – the only remedy for God’s just anger. God’s hatred against sin and the sinner was serving the higher end of God’s love – a love that used the reality of divine wrath and enmity to move the elect sinner to sue for terms of peace.

Love is never a zero sum game. Often a passionate love that moves in one direction will reveal itself as a passionate hate that moves in the opposite direction. If I love God, I will hate idols. If I love chastity I will hate whoredom. If I love covenant theology I will hate that which denies covenant theology. If I love heterosexual covenant marriage, I will hate anything that seeks to overturn it (from adultery to fornication to buggery to …. well, you get the idea.)

>“Therefore we detest the error of the anabaptists…”

Which is quite different from detesting the anabaptists.

Why not just post the link to your blog and those who find you compelling can read it?


Why not look at who wrote it and when you find out its me just skip it?

"Because it's the church that's brought us to where we are."

What does it mean exactly when you write "the little-c church"?

The "church" is not monolithic, and so the criticism just doesn't quite apply in a neat and clear way.

The "church" is not monolithic, and so the criticism just doesn't quite apply in a neat and clear way.

I thought it was perfectly clear. The church is "My people which are called by My name". Had God's people been faithful, salt and light so to speak, then this country wouldn't be where it is right now.

2Chr. 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The clear implication there is that had his people been living a humble life,praying and seeking his face, shunning wickedness,(instead of voting for BHO) he would have kept their land.

I couldn't resist pulling a few quotes from the article.

--The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary says "The religious argument for gay marriage is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."--

Regardless of what the Bible passages actually SAY about sexual sin, we are all sure that the overarching theme of the Bible is one of inclusiveness, so we're perfectly justified in ignoring all those pesky parts of the NT that say "NO."

how convenient.

also, this gem

--If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that.--

Note the conflation of two categorically different things-- skin color [involuntary, non behavioral] and sexual PRACTICE [voluntary, behavioral]

Her use of the term "sexuality" instead of "sexual practice" tries to frame the entire debate in terms of something that people "are" rather than something that they "do."

And also, I'm apparently not even a semiserious person, but any of you who know me personally already knew that right?

Lastly, the audacity of so many who speak authoritatively of what Jesus "really thought" or "really meant" in spite of what Scripture records boggles my mind.

--"Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad."--

that's not Jesus. that is an idol.

" then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality"


I think you've missed the larger point we should take from the quote: nothing is being denied homosexuals (male or female). They have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as everyone else.


Mark Chambers,

The brush that you're smearing the church with is too broad. That's why it I was asking for clarification. For there are a sizable number of Christians who have been faithful, shunning wickedness, and not voting for Obama. Why should they be smeared with your indiscriminate judgmentalism?

Or let me put it another way. For every social and cultural ill that this country has ever experienced, there are Christians that have been involved. And since some number of Christians have always been involved in these various ills, should the church as a whole always be smeared? Be consistent.


Better give Psalm 11 a read.

"God hates workers of iniquity."

More anon,

Dear whatever your name is,

"The brush that you're smearing the church with is too broad. That's why it I was asking for clarification."

No it isn’t too broad and the fact that you need clarification proves the point. And contrary to the pietistic pastel water colors you seem to be painting with it is a Biblical one.

"For there are a sizable number of Christians who have been faithful, shunning wickedness, and not voting for Obama."

Indeed but that is quite irrelevant in this context. But I’ll ask, what exactly is a sizeable number and how many would it take to spare this nation? Read the verse from Chronicles again and deal with the logical implications of it. When the church acts as salt and light the nation prospers. As the church goes, so goes the nation. It is precisely your type of individualistic thinking that is the problem. The church is a corporate entity; it is an organism and it is an organism that is sick. This people’s heart, its corporate heart, has grown dull.

"Why should they be smeared with your indiscriminate judgmentalism?"

Oh it is anything but indiscriminate. You don’t think corporately and by that I mean covenantally. The church, while certainly made up of individuals, is a singular body comprised of individuals that are members of one another. When one suffers all suffer. Don’t imagine that to be confined to the individual hurts that we all experience in this life.

There is a corporate dimension there that you fail to see and it reeks of self righteousness. The body is sick. Jeremiah was a righteous man who cried out for decades and there was no doubt a remnant then who lived in obedience to God. But when Babylon carried the nation away into bondage those were carried away as well. When someone is sick and soils their pants the whole person stinks. But in this day and age it seems the church has lost her sense of smell, or we have individual members standing there saying “it wasn’t me!”

"For every social and cultural ill that this country has ever experienced, there are Christians that have been involved."

Oh? Has the church educated her children or has she surrendered that duty to the state? Is the church the source of supply for the widow and the orphan or has she surrendered that duty to the state? Should I go on?

"And since some number of Christians have always been involved in these various ills, should the church as a whole always be smeared?"

Indeed it should because it is a body and we are individually members of one another. The body is sick. The church is ill. No one has denied that there are some beacons still lit. No one denies that there are scattered pockets of salt, individuals here and there that have eyes to see the condition of the body--you’re on the blog of two men that do. And how unfortunate it is that most of the resistance incurred by those that see the situation for what it is comes from within the very body that needs healing.

"Be consistent."

Climb out of your individualistic pietistic mindset and try thinking covenantally.

This is an easy category distinction that Jetbrane of Iron Ink doesn't seem to grasp.


Could you define love for me? Do you love whom God hates?

Newsweek hates homosexuals, actually...

Mark Chambers thinks its always the church's fault, actually...


It is always the Church's fault. As goes the Church so goes the nation. And part of that fault extends to people who are in denial that it is the Church's fault.

This is a Biblical principle. Read Daniel 9 and Daniel's prayer and note that though he is a righteous man he uses a plural pronoun in confessing the sin of he and his people.

The Church in the West is sick ... perhaps terminally so. We rejoice in the presence of the few white blood cells in the body who are still fighting the infection but the body is sick.

Take care TUAD,

"It is always the Church's fault."

What utter nonsense.$

My favorite quote, "no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or

anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible


Somehow I doubt this writer knows any conservative Christians.

Joel Klein's comment is a perfect example of why so many men regard Christians as pansies and sissies.


You make a good case and I agree that there's a lot of confusion about the meanings of love and hate.

I always think of the passage (Genesis 25:34) that says, "Thus Esau despised his birthright." This is not a visceral emotional hatred but an activity of forsaking or turning away from something. I think it's an unfortunate anthropomorphism that attributes our brand of hatred to God's hatred for sin and, less often, for sinners. His hatred of sinners is more of a turning away from them or a refusal to bless or prosper them. Our responsibility to hate whom God hates should be taken, then, as a type of separation or rebuke, but not some visceral, slobbering rage by which we gnash our teeth against the very essence of another person. We can do the former without being possessed by the latter.

“First, it needs to be pointed out that neither you, nor anyone else advocating the hatred of homosexuals (which as I pointed out above appears to be a non-Biblical and personal hatred) has dealt with the full counsel of Scripture.”

Did I do that? Really? Where?

“None of you have looked at the sundry verses that explicitly call us to love and keep company with sinners.”

And my question made that necessary? Furthermore an offhand reference to whom love is to be directed does not tell me what love is.

“Also, both of you seem to have made the error of thinking that God's hatred is like man's hatred.”

I did? By asking two very short and simple questions?

“Mark has asked me to define God's love”

No that isn’t what I asked. This is what I asked

1. Could you define love for me?

2. Do you love whom God hates?

The conclusions you’ve drawn from those are frankly absurd.

“First, don't think that I have some mamby-pamby definition of love, thinking that God loves everyone indiscriminately in a warm and fuzzy way, and that He will therefore save everyone because he is just so darned loving.”

Until now I didn’t think anything about you or your definition. That’s why I asked. What I think now is that you ramble on in a manner that is both unscriptural and confused. And it has nothing to do with whatever issue there may be between you and Bret.

"Even so, God still desires that they be saved - this is basic Scriptural knowledge that my 3-year-old Sunday School class understands: Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. That is a deep truth that seems lost on you."

That is a perfect example of such confusion. It is an understanding that may be fit for a three year old but has no place in the theology of one claiming to be a consistent Biblicist, Piper and his Are There Two Wills in God not withstanding. I read that article years ago, have written a number of papers critiquing it and think it perhaps one of the worst pieces ever written. Horrible. It is so hopelessly illogical and confused that reading it is actually painful.

The spam filter has made it impossible to address anything at length. Furthermore this is not my blog and it would be rude to take up the amount of time and space required to address this. If you want to pursue it you can email me at MarkAllenChambers at Gmail dot com.

Dear Mark,

I apologize for lumping you in with some other comments on the blog (namely Brett and Sherman's). I associated your comments with theirs and upon looking over things again, this was a mistake. Your questions were good questions, albeit terribly difficult to answer. If you have any insights on the issue I will be happy to read them.



The manly thing to do would be to deal with the Scripture and the arguments I presented.

I agree that there's a lot of confusion about the meanings of love and hate.

Most of that would disappear if one realized that both those words are verbs and not descriptive of particular emotions.

[Clint:] Somehow I doubt this writer knows any conservative Christians.

If he does, they would obviously not be considered "sensible modern persons."

[Sherman:] Joel Klein's comment is a perfect example of why so many men regard Christians as pansies and sissies.

Well, the homosexuals should feel right at home, then.

Your questions were good questions, albeit terribly difficult to answer. If you have any insights on the issue I will be happy to read them.

Joel I'm not sure what you think the issue is. You've misread Bret and you misread me. I don't know what point you're addressing. I'll say this concerning the Piper article that there is no contradiction, apparent or otherwise between the divine desire and decree. There is no 'sense' in which God decrees one thing while desiring another. Piper would have us believe that God desires what he can't have and does what he doesn't intend. A little time with Turretin will fix that confused thinking.

And if we repent for our fornication, adultery, unbiblical divorce, pornography...

Several have rightly alluded to the fact that in the blazing light of God's holiness, we are all detestable perverts of one form or another. We all have our skeletons locked in the closet that we aren't wanting to ever see the light of day.

Admittedly, there's always the temptation to be pharisaical, "Lord, I thank you that I am not like that nasty sinner."

But there is something different about the modern homosexual movement. They've brought their skeletons out of the closet and proudly parade them around for all to see. In fact, they want the church to recognize their rotting skeletons as being just as wonderful as a real live, healthy person. People who oppose them are the ones called dangerous kooks.

It would be like some husband bringing his mistress to church with him and expecting the relationship to be publicly recognized as a godly alternate lifestyle. It would be like holding rallys to get the church to recognize pornography as an acceptable form of Christian entertainment. It would be like demanding the right to marry your sister. These people could all claim that this is the way God made them, and they shouldn't be discriminated against.

We are all perverts. But are we proud of it, do we promote it, or are we ashamed? Those who, far from being ashamed, wish to aggressively foist their garbage on society deserve to be singled out for special condemnation.

And we shouldn't be "disappointed" in Newsweek, we should condemn Newsweek for using God's word to promote its evil propaganda.

Bret McAtee: "It is always the Church's fault." [In support of Mark Chambers claim.]

Sherman: "What utter nonsense."

With all due respect, I agree with Sherman. I'm not saying the Church is blameless, mind you, but I will not say that it's always the Church's fault either.

In case anybody missed it, today was National "Day Without a Gay" Day.

People were urged to "call in gay" [very similar to calling in sick], and not to spend money.

__SAN FRANCISCO – A daylong work stoppage for which people were encouraged to call in "gay" to express support for same-sex marriage drew spotty participation Wednesday, with some gay rights activists praising the event and others questioning its value.__

__The protest... was designed to demonstrate the economic clout of same-sex marriage supporters following the passage of voter-approved gay marriage bans in California, Arizona and Florida last month.__

__The organization was encouraging gay people who could not miss work to be open about their sexual orientation with co-workers and urging straight employees to speak up...__

[Excerpts. I could post the link, but I don't want this to get bounced.]

They sure do value high visibility. What other sins we can promote in this manner...? "Day Without a Fornicator/Thief/Liar"? Yeah, and they should be open about discussing their habits at work with co-workers, too.

Sherman, please note the message I've sent you on the main page, sir. You are not to comment here until you've done what I asked there in that post.

Tim Bayly

With all due respect, I agree with Sherman. I'm not saying the Church is blameless, mind you, but I will not say that it's always the Church's fault either.

But that's what you did say--at least what you suggested I said. But I didn't say that. I never used those words. What I did say affirmed and provided a bit more delineation for Tim Bayly's "The church brought us to where we are" a point with which you took issue. It did and he's right your disagreement not withstanding. I suggest you mount an argument from Scripture if you are able. To this point you have an opinion with nothing substantial to support it but a few snarky comments.


I didn't find Cason's book "The Difficult Doctrine Of The Love Of God," to be particularly persuasive. Similarly, I have not found satisfaction with Piper's "Two Wills In God" speculation.

Now, I could say a great deal here but I will leave my detailed response to your aimless written meanderings at IronInk. If you wish to take up these issues you may turn your attention to my blog home. But please do come prepared for a full and frank discussion.

What I will offer you here is three book recommendations that you could profit from.

Books by Calvin, Owen and Giradeau against Arminianism.

Given what I've read of your thoughts I think these books could be profitable in your continued pursuit of Biblical Christianity.

Good reading,


This brings me back to my first question to you. What does it mean to love your enemy? How does that work itself out if life. For example did Calvin love Servetus? Calvin didn't want Servetus roasted over a fire of green wood but he did think he deserved to be executed. Now tell me, is that love?

Joel quoting Calvin: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

I do know a good deal about Calvin and if you'd like I'll post some quotes that address limited atonement. As to the quote above, when Calvin talks about the human race, do you think he is talking about all men without exception or all men without distinction? God can love mankind (the world if you will) without loving every individual in the world--Esau comes to mind.

Hypothetical universalism is fraught with insurmountable problems, the idea that God desires the salvation of every single person while decreeing from eternity that not all will be saved being one of them. Does God do other than what he desires? Does he act contrary to his intentions? Does he wish he could have done something else? Is he confused?

God is eternal and God is omniscient. Consider that and what is required by it.


I addressed you again at Ironink. I think you are missing what is being said to you, and I think you are somewhat wrong on hate and love.

But if you count noses, no doubt you position will be vindicated.

God's best on your work,

I would have to disagree with some points of this post. We are not meant to hate homosexuals, we are to hate homosexuality. When Jesus came in the form of flesh, did he hang around all the pompous people who thought they had it all together. Quick answer... NO, he hung around people who in modern times would be drug dealers, prostitutes,etc.
I don't believe in gay/lesbian marriage, but then again I wonder the point of marriage between atheists. The very root of marriage is in religion, it doesn't matter which one, its there and no where else. Humans are the only monogamist species, so from an evolutionary point, what is the point of marriage? There is none. But from a religious stand point, marriage displays God's oneness, or other qualities of gods or love from other religions.
I agree we have done this to ourselves. We need to reverse what hundreds of years of pagan christianity has done to our culture. We need to live messed up lives. We need to embrace our fellow homosexuals, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. and tell them that they are special and the one true God loves them and longs for them to come home (although probably not in those words) we need to fix the definition of marriage, and the definition of christianity, and all religion (don't get me started on the relation vs. religion thing...)

If we as brothers and sisters in Christ can do that, then we will see the Kingdom of God right before our very eyes, and no one will look at us the same.

To do this, we need love. Love for our brothers, love for our sisters, and the Love of the Lord Jesus Christ



Add new comment