Remember Lot's wife...

Herewith my very serious observations on the utterly revolting subject every man is having shoved in his face today: there's nothing at all interesting about Chief Justice Roberts or his motley crew of half-wits who will join him in declaring sodomy and its malignant sister, sodomite marriage, to be a civil right under protection of the Constitution of these United States.

It's shameful lawlessness. But hey, that's the nature of our Supreme Court for a couple generations, now. The Constitution and the merits of the case have died and in their place is political conniving. Try to imagine how awful it must be for men like Scalia and Thomas to have to sit with these cowards. No wonder Thomas doesn't utter a word...

It must be said that the media's victory lap is a bit unseemly this time. Declaring victory before the arguments began has given the impression of maybe a little bit of circularizing the court. Have you noticed the drumbeat of "landmark" in every article you've read?

But face it, long ago our fourth estate declared the competition meaningless and guilty fathers like Mr. Portman have provided good cover. Then too, there's been hardworking Andrew Sullivan travelling the country to provide a reasonable face to bestiality.

Did I say bestiality? I'm sorry, I meant pederasty.

Oh no, sorry, sorry, sorry—I meant sodomy.

Oh my, will this never end? Excuse me again; I meant gayness or queerness or homoness—whatever we're calling it today.

Aaargh; can't keep up any longer. But you know, if I were to want to put a reasonable face on Republican Sodom and Gomorrah, I'd find a spokesman who's lesbian rather than a spokeswoman who's gay. Nawmean?

* * *

It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God—just ask rich and sleek and callous Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do you think any Christian asked for a quote in this lead-up to the offense that must needs come will warn the nation about Sodom and Gomorrah's fire and brimstone? Do you think any man of God will warn Bible-believing Christians to remember Lot's wife?

It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back.

Remember Lot’s wife.

                                                     - Luke 17:28-32

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

I had an email exchange with a radio/blog personality the other day, and the gist of his position is that even if sodomy is bad for a person or society or it hurts the parties, it isn't the government's responsibility to act on moral matters and to keep willing participants from doing it. I could have responded that isn't the government's responsibility to put its stamp of approval on it either. With that said, on what basis would you like to see the government prohibit gay marriage, or abortion for that matter?

So... they are, what, about to extend a protection to sodomite marriage that doesn't exist even for straight marriage?

Or is marriage listed somewhere as a constitutionally-protected human right?

Because the Bible states that the government "is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." (Romans 13:4)

So, governments are to bear the sword against evil practices, not allow, much less promote them. If murder and sexual immorality don't qualify as evil practices, one wonders what would?

Nevermind, I withdraw my question. Google first, then ask.

Just to be clear, I was a responding to Denver Todd above.

Pastor Bayly,

One argument is that he made was that sodomy doesn't hurt the individual. I countered that it does, in various ways. His response: " I think even most Christian conservatives would not say that protecting someone's spirituality is a proper role of government."

I made the assertion that the evil one is at the root of same sex marriage and abortion. His response: "As for satan...We are not a theocracy. I have never believed in anything like satan, but even if I did it is absolutely, clearly none of the government's business to protect me from him/it."

So would you say that your response to both of these paragraphs would be "oh yes it is!"?

Sorry Denver, I think I misunderstood your first question. As a Christian, my understanding of what the government should do is driven by what the Bible says the government is for. That verse makes clear that at the least it is for punishing evil. But it doesn't appear that's what you were asking. Let me try again.

First, sodomy does actually hurt both individuals physically, not just spiritually. But let me move on to addressing a non-Christian who says "even if sodomy is bad for a person or society or it hurts the parties, it isn't the government's responsibility to act on moral matters and to keep willing participants from doing it."

I would ask him whether he is opposed to sweatshop labor where people willingly work for small amounts of money in terrible and dangerous working conditions? Is he okay with a woman selling herself into sex slavery? Is he okay with the government repealing all environmental protection laws? These things are bad for a person or society, but are willingly engaged in by all parties. Things along these lines will show the nonsense of his argument, which is just a slightly modified version of "You can't legislate morality."

Hope that gets you a start at thinking more about this.

Warmly,

Do you think sodomy should still be considered a criminal offense? In other words, should people involved in homosexual behavior be incarcerated? 

The courts long ago strayed from their strictly-defined roles because of man's pride of man in wanting to sit on God's throne. But in the case of CA Prop 8, the argument really has nothing to do with sodomite marriage. The question at hand is do the States or the People have a right to qualify what is recognized as a marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue, so this really should be a 2 second hearing. The states already define what is marriage in their borders. If SCOTUS deems Prop 8 unconstitutional (which it obviously is not, but since when does SCOTUS care what the Constitution says), then that means no state can define anything with respect to marriage. Sister/Brother, Father/daughter, Grandpa/dog, or Cousin Ernie with his 4 wives and three husbands. This is a state's rights issue. Plain and simple. Yet another very dangerous precedent could be set here.

Now the wickedness of a state government granting "marriages" to Sodomites is something to fight. Of course the case here is of liberal CA SUPPORTING one man/one woman monogamy, which is quite remarkable, considering. But at the stroke of an ego and a pen, the right of any state or people to do so will be forbidden.

Mr. Todd, w/r/t your first post, ALL laws legislate "morality". That's the whole point of governments and legal systems...to provide justice to the people within its jurisdiction. Every law says either "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" because it is "right" or "not right" to do such and such.

Dear Denver Todd,

Several years ago, Christianity Today magazine (not in favor with many readers and the owners of this blog, I know) had an article about ~ a dozen secular reasons against "so-called same-sex marriage". I think searching their archives is free. If you could find that article, would that help you out in your discussion with this person?

Polygamy is about 10 years behind gay marriage, according to Jonathan Turley, the lawyer representing the Browns (the Mormon family from Sister Wives). The Browns are suing the federal government for their religious freedom to practice polygamy.

Just a note about defintions of polygamy, which is more of an umbrella term. When a husband is married to more than wife at a time, it is called polygyny.  When a wife is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry.  Neither of the former involve relations between the duplicated spouse.  Group marriage, on the other hand, is a marriage of multiple partners in which all of the members have relations which each other.  When most people think of polygamy, they think of polyandry. But if gay marriage is approved, it is likely that group marriage, the arguments for which seem to mirror those for gay marriage, will not be far behind.

Sue,

Its a side issue so I'll leave this at one comment.  There are good reasons for *all* Christians to be ashamed of the enterprise calling itself "Christianity Today". Not least of which are their support of gay "marriage" and eugenics.  Lavonne Neff, one of the originators of their women's blog, Her.meneutics and frequent CT contributor as well as being the wife of one of their senior editors is a proud supporter of same sex "marriage". They also have published, then fired, then gave her book a glowing review - the eugenicist Ellen Painter Dollar. 

so, yes, good reasons. 

Thank you, Kamilla, our mother in Israel. Just going home after our Maundy Thursday Lord's Supper. Love,

Hi Dan,

Sorry for the delay. I just saw your question again. You asked, "Do you think sodomy should still be considered a criminal offense?"

Yes. I would think that would be obvious. That's the whole point of arguing for sodomy laws. Either we should have laws against it, in which case, it's a criminal offense, or we shouldn't have laws against it, in which case it's not a criminal offense. Civil offenses don't enter into this discussion, I'm pretty sure.

We could argue about the practicality of laws that are difficult to enforce all day long. We could talk about what the proper penalty should be for breaking said laws (fine, incarceration, death) all day long as well. But there is no such thing as a law that makes something illegal but doesn't bring the sword as a threat to those who break it.

I hope that helps.

-Joseph

Yes Dan, as Joseph said. Sodomy and adultery and fornication and bestiality and pedophilia and rape should be against the law.

This would prevent a huge number of deaths and ameliorate our present public health crisis of, say, the 110,197,000 people the CDC tells us suffer with sexually transmitted diseases in our nation just now. But beyond these clear financial and health benefits, the laws also would educate citizens of the nature of God's coming judgment and how to flee the wrath to come. As the law does right now educate men concerning the coming judgment and fleeing the wrath of God in the matter of sex with animals and killing law enforcement officers, for instance.

Love,

Dear Tim,

Whoa, Nellie! Pedophilia and rape are already against the law and should be, in my opinion, as should bestiality if it isn't already. And adultery, grounds for divorce (both in court and as a Christian), sure, but illegal - I sure wouldn't drink to for that. But do you really want to have the government being the bedroom police? Of course, I believe homosexual behavior (I don't use the term sodomy because by definition it can't include lesbianism) is sin and so is any non-marital sex. But illegal? I appreciate the individual and public health benefits, but smoking or chewing tobacco also kills and is restricted in public, but isn't illegal. In addition, I imagine these laws would be like Prohibition. Even if they became law, they would be so widely unpopular that they would be skirted all the time and repealed before very long. I'm not sure what your views about a theocracy are, but  if you thought a theocracy would be acceptable in the U.S. this wouldn't matter to you, I guess.

Love in Christ,

Sue

Dear Sue, when I read your responses, they seem simply to be the talking points of postmodern destroyers. "You don't want government in the bedroom." Laws against fornication, adultery, and sodomy would be, like Prohibition, "wildly unpopular." Are you aware that just a few years ago every state had laws against baby-slaughter? Against adultery? Against sodomy?

Yet you want these things legal because you don't want the government in our bedrooms, and also because the government penalizing the killing of our unborn babies and the breaking of our vows and the perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah would be wildly unpopular. You know, like taxes and the draft and the speed limit?

As for you not being willing to speak of "sodomy" because it excludes lesbianism, did you know that God made men the representatives of women? Thus when you speak to and of men, you are speaking to and of women of a similar vein. Try it out—it's the way every last page of the Bible is written, starting with the federal headship of Adam. You know, "In Adam's Fall, we sinned all."

Then, if I'm correctly understanding your inquiry whether I'm a theonomist, apparently you suspect anyone who says adultery and sodomy should be illegal of being a theonomist. So, until recently every state of the Union was theonomist because every state had laws against sodomy?

Ridiculous.

* * *

Note our dear sister wants laws against bestiality and sodomite marriage (in a comment under another post), but she has no place to stand in this curiosity because she's already indicated that laws concerning sexual behavior would bring the government into the bedroom, and she's against that. But wouldn't the prohibition of bestiality bring the government into the barn—which is nothing other than the sheep and goat's bedroom? And what about laws against incest—would they not bring the government into the bedrooms of children?

But our dear sister doesn't want government in the bedroom.

Those keeping track know that incest and child molestation are wildly popular right now. I spend a significant portion of my life working with the victims and their predators. Yet see how many Christians just now have no understanding concerning the crimes against God and man that lead to men and women molesting and raping little girls and boys.

Very sad.

Our sister wants to live in the reasonable middle of the intersection of faith and unbelief in the public square, but she doesn't realize that her center is the DMZ Satan has constructed to make faithlessness appear tenable to naive Christians. She wants her religion in private, but there is no such thing as a private religion. As Lewis put it, they'll tell you you can have your religion in private, then they'll make sure you're never alone.

Our dear sister's views on government are far away from what God Himself says is the entire purpose of government: to reward good and punish evil. So punish bestiality and sodomite marrieage, but don't punish sodomy or adultery? Where does that parsing come from?

Of course, from Andrew Sullivan and Congressman Portman and the wicked talking points of our degenerate age. There's no possible way to parse sexual crimes as she does and claim to have an historical or Biblical view of government.

Dear brothers and sisters, you can't live halfway between the wickedness that has so very recently taken over our public square and Scripture. Either you live by faith or you live by unbelief. Tipping your hat to private faith while endorsing public wickedness is not to live by faith no matter how you gussie it up to look like faith.

If you find yourself dismissing the rule of law of all the states of the Union until the past couple of decades as "theonomy," you're in need of a remedial education in American history; but also a recovery of Christian faith that is real, being active somewhere outside the church and home saying something other than "God loves you and has a wonderful man for your plan/wife for your life/plan for your wife/plan for your life."

Love,

Dear Sue, you're very confused. These things were all against the law already. It's not like we've come up with this new idea. Rather, the idea to legalize them is new.

You're arguing that we should remove the laws that already exist. But why  should we decriminalize sodomy without decriminalizing bestiality? In English common law, and all common-law states, adultery is illegal, just for one example. 

That line about the "bedroom police" is a dead giveaway that you've bought hook, line and sinker into the lies of the sexual revolution. And you don't even know that you're agreeing with the sexual revolutionaries! You're blind, Sue, and it's time for you to open your eyes and see. What we are advocating is not shocking or worthy of a "WHAT?!?!" It's exactly what Christians and non-Christians have believed for centuries. 

If you want the bedroom off-limits to the law, you're complicit in the abuse that takes place there, both against women, children, animals, men, and God himself.

In Christ,

Pastor Joseph

And laws against sodomy were upheld by the Supreme Court less than 30 years ago.  Which shows how fast we're speeding downhill.  It was ordinary and normal to have laws against sodomy. 

Dear Tim and Joseph,

(1) I realized I used a very loaded term in "bedroom police". Maybe I should have said something like how could these laws be enforced without being overly intrusive in peoples' lives? Maybe I flew off the handle and imagined some kind of law enforcement personnel knocking on the doors of apartments and condos known to house many singles and requiring them to whip out a marriage license or else. Would the police have to "catch them in the act"? Would neighbors rat out their neighbors who they have ongoing feuds with? Would you call the police on your neighbors or parishioners who were committing adultery or would you try to reason with them first and discuss the serious of their sin first?

(2) Did I ever say that I believed that laws against incest, physical abuse, or sexual abuse were wrong? I'll stand on record that I think they are very important, but do we have to catch people performing these acts to arrest them. Did I say that laws strongly limiting abortion were wrong? If I didn't, I'm against abortion except in narrow grounds -- to save the life of the mother, rape, incest, and abnormality to the growing unborn child incompatible with life (such as anencephaly. In these situations, I believe that Christian parents or a single woman should consult with their clergy, the woman's doctor/CNM, and the Lord to decide what to do. I would support any woman/couple who would continue a pregnancy in these circumstances, but neither would I condemn anyone who would not. Such laws, properly enforced, would eliminate ~97% of abortions in our country. And we don't need bedroom police to eliminate abortions.

(3) Seriously, how would you intend to make such laws passed at the local, state, and federal levels? We (local citizens) have to vote them in by referenda, adding them to our state constitutions, electing members to our city councils, county commissions, state legislators, or the U.S. Congress that would vote them in. Or do you wish to take the government at all levels by force and impose them against the will of our people?

(4) When the laws you described were in forced, how often were they enforced? Did it matter by jurisdiction? If enforcement was virtually non-existent or varied widely, what's that telling our young people about trusting the government? There's always been hypocrisy in all levels of government in both political parties. If I'm right about the enforcement, why bother. In my opinion, that only makes us more cynical of the government.

(5) I believe churches of all branches of Christendom, as well as Orthodox Jews, have a serious responsibility to call out sin (both corporately as well as individually) where it exists in our country, but as I've alluded to before they can't compel replacement of laws that have been removed from the books or keeping some laws on the books if voters want to remove them.  We are to be salt and light to society and live out our faith boldly, within our churches and denominations even if we get in trouble for it. 

(6) Finally [and probably, thank God, for many of you :-)], I'll never forget what a Christian clinical psychologist told me ~20 years ago. She said something like this: In graduate school, I was shown all sorts of videos and read all sorts of materials about sexual aberrations, partly to desensitize us and partly to allow us to listen to our patients' stories and not jump down their throats. I thought I was cool and hip and had forgotten my Christian roots; surely these things couldn't be so bad. But it took me only a couple of years in private practice to see how damaging sexual sin (both homosexual and heterosexual) was. With my Christian patients, it didn't take long to discuss about how God's word about sexuality was to protect you, not to take away all your fun. This became my ministry with my Christian patients. Confront them with their sin when they were ready to hear it, but also bring back to the transforming love of Jesus and their church. I [Sue] daresay that this approach, done by Christians on a large scale, would accomplish much more than all proposed laws against adultery, "sodomy", and non-marital sex  combined. I consider the other laws different because they directly harm men, women, and children. Laws against the former acts are sinful, are but I just can't see where they rise to the level of illegality. Maybe I'm all wet; maybe I'm like the Supreme Court justice who said about porn, "I know it when I see it."

Love in Christ,

Sue

P.S. Best wishes for a glorious feast of the Resurrection of our Lord tomorrow!

>>> But it took me only a couple of years in private practice

She's a clinical psychologist! No wonder she refuses to listen to any pastor. She is a priestess herself, a priestess of modern psychology.

(A Christian priestess of course, a Christian priestess---and I'm sure our dear sister Sue would disagree that she's a priestess, can't you be a counselor without being a priestess? And what about male counselors who are Christians, am I saying that they would be priestesses too, wouldn't they be priests instead? And perhaps I'm wrong to call it "modern" psychology, maybe "modern" is now an antiquated term that is widely misunderstood and misapplied these days---and maybe she doesn't deal in "psychology" proper, maybe there is a more applicable term; and besides, am I saying that all psychology is bad? Perhaps she can give several personal examples of times that psychology was used in tandem with religion to great benefit in someone's life...)

I think that for the honor of Christ and for the good of Sue we must sharpen our words to her---not to drive her away, but to drive her to decide between the false and the true. It is becoming a scandal to have this woman continually tearing her house down with her own hands.

Love,

Daniel

>>Would you call the police on your neighbors or parishioners who were committing adultery or would you try to reason with them first and discuss the serious of their sin?

>>do we have to catch people performing these acts to arrest them.

>>do you wish to take the government at all levels by force and impose them against the will of our people?

Dear Sue,

Increasingly I find your comments tiresome. When, after many months of discussion on this blog, you come out with straw men as ridiculous as the above in response to the very sane and entirely Biblical (Rom. 13:3-6) proposal that government punish evil and reward good, it's clear the discussion is at an end. The statements above are simply hoots and catcalls from the peanut gallery and I don't believe in dialoging with the peanut gallery.

I trust you had a blessed Easter.

Love in Christ,

Daniel,

I will be happy to give you several examples where working with a Christian psychologist, licensed independent social worker [LISW] (also called licensed clinical social worker [LISW] in some states) or licensed professional clinical counselor (LPCC) has been quite beneficial. Medication has also been added as adjunct sometimes as well, too. I do not want to discuss these examples on a public forum, however. If you give me your e-mail address, I'll give you this information off-line.

Love in Christ,

Sue

Kamilla,

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but where is the evidence that Christianity Today has endorsed "gay"/"so-called same-sex" marriage? I try to glance through their current issue when I go to the closest library to our house and I don't recall reading that. (It is also possible that I missed something like that because I don't have time to read every issue cover-to-cover.)

Thanks,

Sue

Kamilla,

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but where is the evidence that Christianity Today has endorsed "gay"/"so-called same-sex" marriage? I try to glance through their current issue when I go to the closest library to our house and I don't recall reading that. (It is also possible that I missed something like that because I don't have time to read every issue cover-to-cover.)

Thanks,

Sue

Add new comment