For years Dear Abby and Ann Landers have promoted homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle, and one would hardly expect that anything coming out of Hollywood would do other but contribute to the nation’s DeGeneresy. But it is surprising that some, who are generally thought of as moral conservatives, have not take a stance against this sin.
Dr. Laura Schlesinger, for example, is usually a hard-hitting, no-nonsense type of person. Yet, for all that, about the strongest thing she has said on this subject is, “Homosexuality is different.” Such a statement scarcely reflects her usual “Here’s-exactly-what-I-think” approach. Certainly, no one could argue against the fact that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality; that much is true simply by definition. There is further not even a hint of condemnation in her appraisal, since Dr. Pepper has assured us that “Different Is Good.”
It is our understanding that Dr. Schlesinger is Jewish, and therefore we are as puzzled about her as we are the two advice columnists mentioned previously. What God did to Sodom and Gomorrah is related in the very first book of the Jewish Bible–Genesis. And it reads for Jews just as it does for Christians. The translation published by The Jewish Publication Society of America in 1917 reads as follows:
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: ‘Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out to us that we may know them’ (Gen. 19:4-5).
Reading just a bit further yields the same final result: God rained down “brimstone and fire” upon those cities (Gen. 19:24). Leviticus 20:13 still prescribes the death penalty for homosexual males. So why would a Jewish person “pass over” these Scriptures?
Does she really believe that homosexuality is all right, or has there been a threat to drop her program if she speaks up on this point? If it is the latter, could such be called “censorship”? Surely, that cannot be the explanation. So, why the reluctance?
Do any of these promote homosexuality? Considering the respect Mr. Harvey has for religion (in just about any form), how does he not notice the discrepancy between the morality that all of these uphold as taught in the Bible and the immorality of homosexuality? Furthermore, Mr. Harvey has always been a promoter of marriage and families. For years he has mentioned couples whose marriages have endured the longest (frequently 75 to 80 years). How is it that he does not see homosexuality as a threat to the home and society?
On his February 25th, noon broadcast he mentioned a news story out of Austin, Texas. The 180-member executive board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas (this information can be found in AP articles printed on the same date) voted to “disassociate itself from Austin’s University Baptist Church” because they were fellowshipping practicing homosexuals.
Consider the issue: It is not the case that the University Baptist Church feels compassion toward homosexuals and is working to help them change; the church has accepted the practice. In other words, they have renounced what the Bible teaches about this sin and told homosexuals that they can continue to sin (with no intention of repenting) and still be in fellowship.
So what did Paul Harvey have to say about this newsworthy event? What follows is not an exact quotation, but itÕs the gist of what he said.
This is not the first time this church has been in trouble. In 1948 they were censured for allowing blacks to worship with whites. And their critics had Biblical reasons for opposing integration. Then in the 1970’s they were in trouble again for ordaining women deacons.
Now what do these comments imply? One would conclude that this church is on the cutting edge of doing what is fair and right. First, they granted the equality of blacks, then women, now homosexuals.
Blacks and women ought to be outraged at being compared to homosexuals. It is no more sinful to be dark-skinned than it is light-skinned. Pigmentation is not now, nor ever has been, a sin! It is, unfortunately, true that some, in an effort to try to maintain the status quo and traditions with which they were reared, did try to seek Scriptural support for segregration and the superiority of the White race, but there was never any substance or merit in such futile imginations. Such efforts really did constitute resistance to change.
Women ought to feel equally insulted by being put in the same category as homosexuals. Gender is not a sin, and never has been, any more than race is. Women ought to be further insulted by the idea that they cannot be equal unless they can be deacons, elders, and preachers, when God has given the role of leadership to men. The University Baptist Church was wrong [of course, they are also wrong in name, salvation, doctrine, and worship] for granting women a function God specified for men, and all the churches that followed in their footsteps have also departed from New Testament teaching (1 Tim. 2:9-14).
But, while race and sex are not sins, sexual preference is. Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as in the Old (Rom. 1:23-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). In fact, consider this strong condemnation.
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7).
Those who practice homosexuality will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; such is hardly a punishment to dismiss without giving it serious thought. Certainly, such a grievous sin cannot be fellowshipped by those striving to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, who have set their sights on the holiness of heaven.
Would the University Baptist Church also accept into fellowship members practicing polygamy? If they had an unmarried “youth minister,” who decided to “shack up” (to use Dr. Laura’s terminology) with one of the congregation’s single women, would they fellowship him? If their “pastor” and one of the “deaconesses” moved into an apartment together, would that be acceptable? Would they continue to be on the cutting edge in these instances?
If so, why not just go the whole nine yards and say, “We don’t really think anything is sinful; the Bible is wrong”!? After all, it is just as easy to ignore fornication and adultery as it is homosexuality. In many cases, these sinful deeds are in the same verse or passage.
Now, Mr. Harvey, why are you so homosexuality friendly? It is certainly not you or your family that prompts such an attitude. What is it, then, that causes you to contradict the family, moral, and Biblical values that you usually champion (and for which most of us listen to you)? Are there some colleagues that prompt this aberration? Are there some artistic friends of your son who prevent any condemnation of the sin?
Whatever the reason, you should know that it is disappointing and disillusioning for those who believe the teachings of the Bible that there is not even one national voice to condemn this sin. Sure, Rush Limbaugh has spoken out against preferential treatment of homosexuals and “gay” lobbies (which is pretty gutsy), but even he imposes limitations on going any further than that.
Is there not one nationally-known voice who can acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin? If it be argued that it’s not part of the job description to preach against sin (although value judgments are constantly made as to right and wrong), could you at least not be supportive of a practice that God has defined as a sin worthy of eternal condemnation? And could you refrain from insinuating that those who reject such behavior are prejudiced, bigoted, and antiquated? The Bible is right; the Word of God is truth: why are you opposed to it?