JULY FOURTH

In keeping with the American tradition of abbreviating names and terms, many refer to Independence Day as JULY FOURTH. That was the background that prompted an American to ask her pastor, Stewart Briscoe, if his homeland England had a JULY FOURTH. The witty Briscoe quickly replied, “No…we go from JULY THIRD to JULY FIFTH.” About 15 years ago my wife and I heard Briscoe’s response and smile whenever July 4th is approaching.

Well, it is time for us to smile again - in a few hours America will be celebrating her 236th birthday on July 4, 2012. Although still young when compared with many countries in Europe, it is an achievement for which every American should be proud. Apart from the national sense of pride, we ought to be proud because of the role the Christian faith played in the declaration of independence in 1776.

Agreed, today America is the most religiously diverse country in the world. However, it was Christianity that influenced the foundation of the nation in 1776. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, about 95% of them were orthodox Christians. Here is a breakdown of the religious affiliation of the signers:

Episcopalian/Anglican      32      57.1%
Congregationalist              13      23.2%
Presbyterian                      12      21.4%
Quaker                               02      03.6%
Unitarian/Universalist      02      03.6%
Catholic                             01      01.8%

In addition, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 of them held seminary or Bible school degrees. It has been said that “the Declaration is a statement of religious faith as well as a political manifesto.”

The document contains repeated references to God:
“…the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…”

 “…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

“…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions…” and

“…a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.”

Despite this information, many modern day historians would want us to believe that many of the nation’s founders were a diverse group of atheists, deists and revolutionaries. How could that be, especially in light of direct religious quotations attributed to the Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence?

One such signer was John Adams. He was a judge, diplomat and the second president of the United States. He believed, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. Xlll, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813).

Similar quotations can be cited from many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. For instance, it was Senator Charles Carroll who said, “Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July, 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2nd day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer…” (Kate Mason Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1890), Vol. 2, pp. 373-374).

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, once asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Until recently, most Americans had little difficulty acknowledging the relationship between God and the freedoms offered to this place we call home. However, we are now overrun by atheistic and politically-correct ideologies that have expunged God from the marketplace of ideas.

Take some time this JULY FOURTH and thank God for the Founding Fathers who set us on the right course. Today, 236 years later, we are recognized as one of the most stable societies in the world.

RECOMMENDED:

Barton, David. The American Heritage Series (DVD);
         -Why History Matters
         -Unearthing America’s Christian Foundations

Benson, Lossing. Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Atheist Pastors?

What would your church do if your pastor says he is an atheist? A church in the Netherlands had to answer that question after their pastor wrote a book entitled: Believing in a God Who Does Not Exist – Manifesto of an Atheist Pastor. The church came to the conclusion that his atheistic views did not differ fundamentally from those of other liberal theologians within the denomination and therefore retained his services as pastor.

After some 25 years of ministry as a Pentecostal preacher in Louisiana, Jerry DeWitt also announced to his congregation that he was an avowed atheist. Recently, DeWitt told a group in Johnson County, Kansas: “If you don’t believe, then you will be like me – you’ll suddenly find yourself where you only have two choices. You can either be honest that you don’t believe…or you can pretend that you do – which is what so many people are doing and that is called faith.”

DeWitt is now Executive Director of Recovering from Religion, an organization he founded in 2009. Since leaving the pulpit, DeWitt was nurtured by Clergy Project – a movement aimed at giving doubting and atheist preachers a community in which they can talk about their disbelief. The Clergy movement is a growing community with former rabbis, imams and Catholic priests. Most members in this 300 member organization are Protestants.

DeWitt and members of the Clergy Project claim that they no longer hold to a belief in anything beyond the natural. Since the existence of God or gods falls into this category, they deny the existence of deities. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural. Hence, they cannot believe in miracles, because miracles imply an intervention of someone beyond the natural.

Interestingly, atheism is acceptable within some religious belief systems like Jainism, Buddhism and Neo-pagan movements like Wicca. Although very humanitarian in their practices, these and similar belief systems will not acknowledge divine intervention.

However, Christianity has always maintained a belief system that includes divine intervention. As a matter of fact, Christians believe, Jesus is God manifested in the human form. Christians teach, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made His dwelling among us…” (John 1:14). Christians contend that the birth and resurrection of Jesus were miraculous acts.

How is it possible for one to have taught these things and now to deny them? DeWitt claims that he was first confronted with his disbelief when he “became the person who got the burden of preaching about hell.” Apart from questions about hell, DeWitt began to doubt certain biblical translations, healing and the failure of prayer.

DeWitt has now joined ranks with Teresa MacBain, who for 44 years was in ministry, culminating in a senior pastoral position at a Methodist Church in Florida. She is now Acting Executive Director of the Clergy Project. At an American Atheists convention in Maryland, she announced her atheism, inspiring a roaring round of applause.

I believe there are a number of factors that can drive clergy to deny the faith. Some of these existed in the first century. Peter refers to them as “false prophets” and “false teachers.” Peter contends such leaders “will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them…” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

The truth is we have grown accustomed to a type of Christianity without divine power. Some of us are best known for our social programs, our diversity and pluralism. Although noble, they have replaced practices like revival and spiritual renewal. Our sermons are no longer convicting, they merely inspire and soothe discomfort.

One priest along the Texas-Mexico border now tries animal therapy. His dogs have their own vestments and greet parishioners and accompany the pastor during the service. This priest believes, “In this dehumanized era, dogs are the angels that will keep us human.”

Some churches still teach how to position your lips in order to speak in tongues – isn’t this an attempt to disguise supernatural intervention? From our pulpits we have replaced the grace of God with the greed of gold. It is only a matter of time before we or our listeners get sick of this charade.

Because I have personally experienced the power of God in my life and ministry, I am saddened with much of what passes for Christian ministry today. We have allowed others to determine our priorities and see little need “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). To contend is an athletic term that means to fight with all one’s strength…to strive energetically…to be strenuous in defense.

I am still convinced that what was entrusted to us is worth defending. That is why Christianity continues to soar as the best of the belief systems. Even with unanswered questions, it offers a hope that is indisputable.

How Much Is Dad Worth?

According to Insure.com, in 2012, dad’s contribution at home is worth about $20,000. A few weeks ago this same group assessed a mother’s worth at about $60,000 per annum. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the researchers assessed the value of dad’s domestic duties based on the hourly compensation individuals receive for performing similar tasks.

The bottom line, dad’s contribution is important, but not that significant. When added to the feminist frenzy of the seventies, some have concluded that dad’s physical presence is optional.

In many ways, our society has moved from the domination of men to the demise of men. We have fewer men in our classrooms both as students and teachers. With the increase of single mothers, there are fewer fathers at home with their children. This trend would seem to suggest that dad’s role is no longer unique - rather, it is optional.

This perception of dad is not consistent with a biblical understanding of fatherhood. Neither is it consistent with recent research. Dr. David Popenoe, one of the pioneers of the relatively young field of research into fathers and father-hood, stressed, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home.” Popenoe contends, “Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring” (Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society - page 163).

The term “involved fathers” is the preferred term used by scholars who are involved in researching the impact of dads. One such scholar, Dr. Kyle Pruett (Yale Child Study Center) believes responsible fathering involves:

1. Feeling and behaving responsibly toward one’s child

2. Being emotionally engaged

3. Being physically accessible

4. Providing material support to sustain the child’s needs and

5. Exerting influence in child rearing decisions.

 

In his book, Fatherneed:Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, Pruett tells the story of his eighty-four year old mother.

“My mother, a veteran of fifty years in elementary education and still teaching at age eight-four, tells me she can pick out the “well-fathered” kids in her classes by their self-confidence and willingness to try new things” (page 42).

Pruett’s mother is correct, good fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of their children. One study of school-aged children found that children with good relationships with their fathers were less likely to experience depression, to exhibit disruptive behavior, or to lie and were more likely to exhibit pro-social behavior (Mosely & Thompson (1995). Fathering behavior and child outcomes: The role of race and poverty. In Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 148-165).

One of the most important influences a father can have on his child is indirect – fathers influence their children in large part through the quality of their relationship with the mother of their children. Fathers who treat the mothers of their children with respect and deal with conflict within the relationship in an adult and appropriate manner are more likely to have boys who understand how they are to treat women and who are less likely to act in an aggressive fashion toward females.

Girls with involved, respectful fathers see how they should expect men to treat them and are less likely to become involved in violent or unhealthy relationships (Gable, Crnic & Belsky (1994). Coparenting within the family system: Influences on children’s development. Family Relations, 43(4), 380-386).

Literature and research in the field of fathering is impressive. Some of the findings indicate:

- children have better educational outcomes;

- children are more emotionally secure;

- children are more confident to explore their surroundings and relate better to their peers.

In light of the increasing research findings, one is prone to ask, what about persons who are deprived of father-figures in their lives? The Bible often places widows and the fatherless in similar categories. Both groups have lost significant males in their lives. Both groups are left with a void. Both groups appear to be defenseless. These are the ones the Psalmist had in mind when he said: “A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in His holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families…” (Psalm 68:5-6).


Happy Fathers Day!

JUNE BRIDE: A Thing of the Past?

This week’s commentary is different – it is excerpts of a letter authored by Congressman Frank Wolf (Republican) and Former Ambassador Tony Hall (Democrat). I share the conviction of both gentlemen that the voices of America’s church leaders must be heard as the nation debates the meaning of marriage. Here is the letter addressed to church leaders:

"The Bible is clear - God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman." These simple, but provocative, words spoken by the Reverend Billy Graham, whom we have both long admired, were featured in an advertisement that ran in multiple newspapers in North Carolina leading up to that state's recent ballot initiative on marriage.  The initiative, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, passed overwhelmingly.

North Carolina joined 29 other states in making this determination.  At the same time, national polling data indicates that many, especially the young, are increasingly open to the idea of same-sex marriage.  This generation views the issue in terms of civil rights - understandably an American virtue.  Reframing the debate in this way is a triumph for those who seek to redefine marriage.  It follows that those who dare disagree and who align themselves with the historic Judeo-Christian understanding of a God-ordained union are often characterized as intolerant or bigots.

It is clear that our culture has begun a profound shift. For millennia, marriage has not been tampered with, and yet, in a matter of decades a relatively small segment of our society has succeeded in calling into question this institution with a swiftness that would be almost inconceivable were it not reality.  The fact that ballot initiatives, such as the one in N. Carolina, are even necessary speaks to the underlying crisis.

In the last month alone, both the President and Vice President of the United States stated their unequivocal support for same-sex marriage.  Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson described the President's "evolution" on this issue writing, "He justified his recent switch on gay marriage, in part, as the direct application of Christian teaching.  'When we think about our faith,' [Obama] said, 'the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.'

In 2008, he justified his support for civil unions by saying: 'If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.'" Given that the President cited Jesus, it should also be noted that in the Gospel of Matthew (19:4-6), Jesus says, "Haven't you read...that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate."

Talking heads and strategists in Washington are busy analyzing what constituencies have been mobilized, energized, secured or alienated by the timing of the President's announcement.  But the implications of this shift are more far-reaching than November's electoral outcome

We believe that the President's position, which he sought to justify by citing Scripture, necessitates a response - a reasoned, winsome, faithful interpretation of what Scripture actually says about God's intent for the sacred institution of marriage. For those of us who identify ourselves as followers of Jesus, this apologetic for marriage must be seasoned with grace and love while also being grounded in truth.

The nation needs to hear from its church leaders on this issue. Some segments of the church are already engaged – for those, we express our profound gratitude.  Others, however, are noticeably silent, which begs the question: where are the Christian apologists who will sound the clarion call for Biblical orthodoxy on the institution of marriage?  Where are the William Wilberforce's and the Mother Theresa's and the C. S. Lewis' for our day? 

The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, "Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?"  We fear that the trumpet's call is muffled - that there is uncertainty and confusion among people of faith.

We are asking you, as a follower of Jesus and a leader in His church, to leverage your influence. Consider the teachers in your congregation and the students they shape on a daily basis, or business people wielding their influence in the marketplace, or film students seeking to address the culture. 

On this issue, as on so many others, the discussion among government leaders and opinion makers is simply a downstream manifestation of what is already happening in the broader culture, which is why your leadership is so important.

We write to you not as a Republican and a Democrat, which we are, but as men of faith who take seriously the teaching of Scripture - as do you. German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, "Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act."  In that spirit, we implore you, with an urgency that the situation demands, to boldly lend your voice to the public square on this defining issue - for such a time as this.

The Faith of Our Presidents

Article Six of the Constitution clearly states, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” However, John McCollister was very clear when he said, “Nobody will ever be elected to the presidency of the United States who does not show a strong faith in Almighty God. In addition,” he told the Baptist Press, “there’s not going to be any president elected who is an agnostic or refuses to acknowledge that he depends on God.”

McCollister should know, as a historian, he devoted much time to studying the faith of the presidents and published his findings in God and the Oval Office: The Religious Faith of Our Forty-Three Presidents. McCollister contends that studying the beliefs of America’s first few presidents can help us in national contemporary debates.

National interest in the faiths of our presidents is as strong as ever. The fact that President Barack Obama found it necessary to part ways with his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is a classic example of the importance of religion in the lives of our presidents.

Despite Article Six of the constitution, all presidents of the United States have aligned themselves with Christianity. Other than President Kennedy, the others sided with the Protestant branch of Christianity.

During the 1960 presidential campaign, the issue of whether the nation would elect a Catholic to be president raised the specter of an implicit religious test. John F. Kennedy, in an address on September 12, 1960, confronted the question directly. With much clarity he stated,

“Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article Six of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it... contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.”

Kennedy’s response to his critics is particularly appropriate in this presidential campaign year. For many, the question of President Obama’s faith is still not clear – is he a Muslim or a Christian? To date, he acknowledges that he was born a Muslim, but as a young adult, he made a conscious decision to embrace Christianity.

However, his former pastor Jeremiah Wright has a few questions about the President’s Christianity. Recently, Wright said on tape: “…and even after Barack and Michelle came to the church…their kids weren’t raised in the church like you raise other kids in Sunday School. No. Church is not their thing. It never was their thing. The church was not an integral part of their spiritual lives after they got married. But the church was an integral part of Barack’s politics. Because he needed that black base” (The Amateur by Edward Klein: page 43).

But another situation confronts evangelical voters during this presidential campaign – the President’s opponent is a Mormon. That is correct; the Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney shares religious views that can be considered heretical by many evangelicals. Should this pose a problem in the upcoming presidential elections?

Richard Land, a leader in the Southern Baptist Church, believes the media will highlight every variant belief among Mormons to influence the vote of independents. If elected, Land believes Romney’s faith will inform his decisions. But should that be a problem for evangelicals?

Land admits, “Most of the Mormons I know are decent, God-fearing, honest people. I think that Romney, as a serious Mormon, is far less likely to have any sexual scandals than a person who wasn’t a person of faith. He is far more likely to keep his word - far more likely to be a role model than were he a person of no faith. I think most Americans like having a president who is aware and acknowledges he is accountable to a higher authority than himself. If his Mormonism informs his policies, he will be pro-life, he’s going to be pro-family, and pro-traditional marriage” (“The Daily Caller,” April 11, 2012 – by Caroline May).

Recent studies on those who practice Mormonism in Utah produced some interesting results:

- Mormons live longer than most Americans; men by eleven years and women by eight years;

- Utah ranks 50^th in the nation in smoking, alcohol consumption, drunk driving and heart disease. The study (WilmingtonFAVS: Faith & Values; April 02, 2012 – Cynthia P. Barnett), provides a glimpse into the overall impact of healthcare costs in society.

In this brief overview, it is obvious that both presidential candidates have and will make policy decisions, influenced by their religious worldviews. Please keep this in mind as you go to the polls in a few months.

AS AN EVANGELICAL I Support the Catholics

I am in support of the forty-three Catholic dioceses, charities and organizations that filed twelve different lawsuits across America against the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services mandate. The mandate forces Catholic organizations to provide contraception, a violation of their religious beliefs. This is an attempt by the Obama administration to force religious organizations to provide something that violates their faith.  

This mandate sets a dangerous precedent. It will allow government to dictate which religious beliefs are lawful and which are not. In a May 21 Editorial, The New York Sun contended “the Church is seeking shelter under both the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and a statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” This Act was passed in 1993 – by an overwhelming voice vote in the House and a 97-03 vote in the Senate – with the aim of protecting free exercise.

 

The Act requires strict scrutiny of laws, and prohibits the government from substantially burdening “a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

It would seem as though, the case the Catholic Church has launched against the government, has the potential to emerge as one of the great civil rights lawsuits of our time. The implications are great, not only for Catholics, but for all religious groups in this country.

In the wake of the Catholic lawsuits, leaders from a variety of faith backgrounds, politicians and educators met last Thursday in Washington, D.C. for the National Religious Freedom Conference. In attendance was former Health and Human Services secretary, Michael Levitt. Levitt said of the conference, “this is the uniting of the faith community to declare that we’re going to fight back to defend religious freedom.”

The conference outlined three major threats to religious freedom: The first is the government mandate that religious institutions, such as hospitals and universities, act contrary to their conscience by offering birth control coverage to their employees.

The second is what religious leaders say is a threat to the autonomy of religious organizations to choose their own leaders.

The third issue is religious principles in everyday life, like pharmacists who object for moral reasons to carrying what believers equate to abortion-causing drugs or religious student-groups being marginalized on school campuses. One example of the latter is the fight at Vanderbilt University over its non-discrimination policy, requiring student religious groups be open leadership to anyone, even those who don't hold to their beliefs.

 

Like delegates at the conference, I am very uncomfortable about government’s growing trend to marginalize religion in the marketplace. In a major foreign policy address last December, before United Nations delegates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified  “deeply-held … religious beliefs” as among “the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people.” (LGBT – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)

 

This growing hostility is not American. The American founders viewed churches as a central institution within American life. The founders saw religion as providing the moral foundation of self-restraint and community awareness for the success of self-government.

Churches have contributed to the success of America by encouraging virtue. Research in Social Science has also shown that churches provide direct and indirect economic and social benefits to communities. Churches provide community volunteerism, education, civic skills-training and reduced levels of deviance.

 
In addition, churches encourage civility, instill hope contribute to the long-term health of communities. If it were not for churches, government would have to expand public funding to replace the community benefits that churches provide.

Be encouraged – the first intensive effort by the state to eliminate Christian thought came after the burning of Rome during the reign of the Emperor Nero in 64 C.E. Nero made the Christians the scapegoats for the disaster, and they were savagely tortured and burned, at least in and around Rome. Untold numbers of Christians died heroically for their faith. So impressive were the many who died gladly for Christ that they were more than replaced by new converts. The Christian writer Tertullian observed: “The blood of the martyrs is seed.”

 

For this reason I am strong, and so should you. As a way of moving forward, the National Religious Freedom Conference announced plans to create religious freedom caucuses in every state, an effort designed to bridge the gap between politics and religion. Remember, retreating is not an option.

Homosexual Rights?

President Obama’s decision to support gay marriage demonstrates his commitment to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law. As Chief Executive Officer, the President is committed to providing equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, national origin, or religion. I have no problem with that; hence my support for the civil rights movement.

Historically, the Civil Rights Movement referred to differences over which one had no control. Hence the emphasis on race, gender, disability and so on. To include gay marriage into this category is to suggest that being gay is like being black or being female – in other words, being gay is an inherent genetic or biological condition. Hence, just as one cannot change his or her gender, one cannot change his or her sexual orientation.

Simply put, one needs to answer the question, is one’s sexual orientation determined by behavior or a biological condition? If behavior, then behavior modification is possible; if biological condition, then one’s sexual orientation is natural.

For a moment, let us look at a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based on pederasty – a socially acknowledged relationship between an adult male and a younger male, usually in his teens. Some scholars believe pederasty was introduced as an initiation ritual in Crete, where it was associated with entrance into military life.

Pederasty and eventually homosexuality were practiced in Greece and Rome for centuries. If such practices were genetic, why are they not as prevalent in these cultures today? Has the gene pool changed? The truth is, the ancient Greeks and Romans were both homosexual and heterosexual. In other words, ancient Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.

The practices were so prevalent in those ancient cultures, many may even have thought they were natural. However, with time the practices waned and the prevalence/frequency relegated to the archives. That would not be the case if the practices were genetic. Rather, if the practices were genetic, the tendency for increased homosexuality would be understandable.

By the first century, pederasty was no longer as accepted as it had been in classical Greece, nor did such “Greek love” ever enjoy equal acceptance in Roman life. Female homosexuality was hardly ever mentioned in classical Greek literature.

Jewish historians like Philo and Josephus concur that homosexual behavior was common among non-Jewish communities. Jews considered the practice to be unnatural and intolerable before God who created human bodies to be compatible with the opposite gender.

Paul picks up the Jewish rhetoric and strongly condemns homosexuality. Interestingly, during Paul’s time, pederasty was not as prevalent as in ancient Greece. Hence, to use that as an argument to suggest that Paul was discussing pederasty in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is untenable.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul actually used two Greek words to describe what he was talking about. He used the word malakos in a metaphorical sense to designate the passive partner of a homosexual relationship. Some English translations correctly use the word effeminate in reference to malakos. Paul also uses the Greek word which identifies the male in a homosexual relationship. To be more specific, the Greek term describes “a man who lies with another man.”

As far as Paul was concerned, he was describing a behavior. Actually, he listed other undesirable behaviors in the text. Paul went further to remind the Christians in Corinth – “and that is what some of you were” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

From this brief historical overview, it would seem obvious that there is nothing in ancient history to suggest that homosexuality is biological. If this were to be the case, then the Bible would be unreasonable to condemn practices for which the practitioners were totally not responsible. Furthermore, the Bible would again be unreasonable to expect persons to change genetic or biological conditions for which they were not responsible.  

When in need of a companion, Adam was presented with “a helper suited to his needs.” In Hebrew, the term actually means “that which is opposite” or “that which corresponds.” The person who was provided was biologically and emotionally compatible to meet his needs.

The Defense of Marriage Act, although not a religious document, was designed to defend the compatibility referred to in the Bible. The Act was intended to protect the family, a social institution that has successfully served civilizations for millennia. The Act reflects my biological right. It should not be replaced to accommodate behavioral rights.