This Blog -
Moved To:
http://professor-howdy.blogspot.com/

"When You Feel Like Giving Up"
Nehemiah 4

Listen to the audio broadcast!
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhurl?p=pnm&f=/rhm/sounds/awwy/awwy5063.rm

The man who first climbed Mt. Everest said his reason for risking it was simply "because it was there." That's how it was with that monster sand dune near a Bible conference where I was speaking. It was no Mt. Everest, but it was a pretty daunting mountain of sand. The reward for reaching the top was a scenic view of a nearby lake and the satisfaction that you did it. I convinced two of our team members to climb that dune with me. Climbing sand is a "much effort, little progress" activity as your shoes start filling with sand and your legs start yelling "Stop this!" We were about halfway to the top when my younger colleagues said, "Is this far enough?" They were ready to quit. We stopped to catch our breath and I pointed to the bottom of the dune and I said, "Look at how far we've already come! Let's not turn back now!" They rolled their eyes and grudgingly agreed to follow the old guy all the way to the top. We were very hot. We were very tired, but the view at the top !
and the joy of conquest made it worth it!

I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "When You Feel Like Giving Up."

We were halfway there and we were tempted to turn back. You might be at that point today. It's been an exhausting climb, you don't have much left, and there are reasons to be discouraged; reasons to wonder if you'll ever make it the rest of the way. God is showing up today to say, "Don't give up now!"

His message to you could come from our word for today from the Word of God in Nehemiah 4, the story of one of the most amazing victories in the Bible. Against all odds, God's people, under Nehemiah's leadership, rebuild the devastated walls and gates of Jerusalem in just 52 days. Like you, they had plenty of reasons to quit when they had "rebuilt the wall till all of it reached half its height." They were at that dangerous point of being halfway there; maybe much like you are.

Their reasons for giving up are familiar ones. Their responsibilities had exhausted them so, as the Bible says, "the strength of the laborers (was) giving out." There was also rubble that discouraged them. Some were saying, "There is so much rubble we cannot rebuild the wall." The other factor that can tempt you to turn back is resistance that unnerves you. They were surrounded by enemies who were ready to attack them to stop them. I can guarantee you that if you're doing something God wants you to do, the devil is throwing attacks at you to stop you.

But Nehemiah 4 shows us the three energizers that will keep you in the game. First, Nehemiah "stationed ... people ... at the exposed places." You fight back by fixing the leaks; strengthening those gaps in your life or your work where Satan could get in. Secondly, you focus on the Lord. Nehemiah said, "Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome." You focus on the great Lord who brought you this far rather than the great load that's been weighing you down.

The third energizer when you're staggering at the "halfway there" point is to fight for lives. Nehemiah reminded his workers of what was really at stake in their finishing, "Fight for your brothers, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes." Remember, in any work for the Lord, it's not about tasks to accomplish; it's about lives at stake!

Fix the leaks that could sink you, focus on the Lord who brought you this far, and fight for the lives that need for you to finish what you've started. Jesus didn't bring you this far so you could quit. He's counting on you, not just to start this race, but to finish your race as He did for you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss today's "A Word With You," post your comments, or encourage others in our discussion forum!
http://forums.gospelcom.net/view/rhm/awwy



To find out how you can begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, please visit YOURS FOR LIFE: HOW TO HAVE LIFE'S MOST IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP at:
http://www.yoursforlife.net
Or, call 1-888-NEED HIM.

"A Word With You" by Ron Hutchcraft is a daily radio challenge, with slice-of-life illustrations and insights - providing practical help on the issues that matter most. If your local Christian radio station does not air "A Word With You," please let them know how much you value this program. Over six years of transcripts are available online, at http://rhm.gospelcom.net/awwy.php
  .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

What's Wrong with Gay 'Marriage'?
Regis Nicoll

Late last month a Georgia judge struck down an amendment banning same-sex marriage. The ruling turned on a technicality which limits amendments to one topic. The constitutional change, approved by three-fourths of the State electorate, defined marriage as between one man and one woman, while also banning gay civil unions. But, according to Judge Constance C. Russell, that was a disservice to voters "who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society [and] also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place, although not marriage."

While I believe the judge was wrong to overrule the will of the people by the power of the bench, I believe his assessment of popular sentiment is sadly right. According to a 2004 poll, whilethere is nearly a 2-to-1 opposition to same-sex marriage, popular support of civil unions is 54 percent--up from a 43 percent in July 2003.



Consequently, as the U. S. Senate prepares to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the next couple of weeks, the question on many people's minds is "Why shouldn't gays be given the benefits of marriage?"



Threat, what threat?

One of those is Karl Giberson, editor of Science & Theology News and a self-described conservative who values marriage. In an editorial last year, Giberson shared his hopes for his eldest daughter to: find the "right person"; have a long, happy marriage; and provide grandchildren. At the same time, Giberson said he didn't understand why gay "marriage" was a threat to those hopes: "I don't understand how heterosexual marriage is 'protected' by denying gays the right to marry."



Giberson is not alone. One of my life-long friends, who is a practicing physician with a traditional Catholic upbringing, believes that since "gays can't help it, we should let them marry...it's the right thing, the compassionate thing. Any way, what harm could come of it?"



My friend and Giberson are like others I've talked with who can't understand how gay inclusion would adversely affect heterosexual marriage or the common good. A few even consider gay "marriage" a good thing for society.



For instance, before leaving the "lifestyle," one friend of mine became troubled over the morality of his long-term partnership, only to be told by more than one pastor that a committed relationship was a gift from God to be received with thanksgiving, not guilt. On another occasion, a pastor advised a gay man to seek a committed homosexual partner in order to avoid the hazards of single gay life. One wonders how the pastor would have counseled a pedophile.



Sympathizers for gay "marriage" generally offer one of several arguments: Jesus never proscribed homosexuality, so neither should we; since homosexuality is "how some people are born" it would be unfair and heartless to deny them the benefits of marriage; marriage is about love and commitment, not sexual orientation; and finally, as Giberson implies in his editorial, allowing committed gays to marry wouldn't hurt society, but likely improve an institution marred by heterosexual divorce and infidelity.



First things first

Before we examine the societal effects of gay "marriage", we need to set the record straight about the moral teachings of Jesus. While it's true that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, it's also true he never mentioned the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse, to name a few. In fact, the New Testament records very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. It would be reckless, therefore, to assume that anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. What the scriptures do record, however, is Jesus's shift from old covenant particulars to core moral principles.



The shift begins with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus expands the reach of the Decalogue. It continues with his summation of the Law to love God and to love neighbor. And it culminates with his ultimate standard to love as he loved--an infinitely comprehensive principle that encompasses every aspect of life.



Above all things, Christ-love means valuing others as his image-bearers. In contrast with the cultural "accommodators" who take the low view of man as a powerless victim of base instincts, the Christian view of man is as a moral being blessed with a conscience and free exercise to act against his carnal pull.



Consider Jesus's conversation with adulterous woman. Jesus didn't treat her as a poor creature helplessly controlled by her earthly desires. He treated her as a free moral agent capable of choosing a different way to live. Consequently, he didn't give her the false compassion of tolerance toward her lifestyle. Out of true compassion, he showed her the way out of her broken condition by challenging her to "go now and leave your life of sin."



This is a helpful pattern for us. The disproportionate incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, disease, mortality, and suicide among homosexuals reveals the truth behind the gay lifestyle: it is anything but gay. By following the example of Jesus, our compassion should involve encouraging those with homosexual urgings to live chastely, rather than affirming and enabling them in a destructive lifestyle.



Genetic robots?

Next is the claim that homosexuality is an inherited trait. I've had more than one Christian tell me they believe same-sex orientation is no different than a physical or mental defect brought on by a genetic mutation. They reason that since God "made them" that way, and since "God don't make junk," individuals with same-sex inclinations can't be held morally accountable for homosexual behavior. That logic is flawed on several points.



First of all, despite the frenetic search for the "gay gene" by gay rights advocates, there is no demonstrated genetic link to same-sex orientation. In fact, study after study confirms what several ex-gays have personally told me: same-sex preferences come from backgrounds of sexual abuse or from families with an abusive, absent, or emotionally distant father and an overly-controlling mother.



Even if we accept that sexual preferences are genetically determined, sexual behaviors are not; unless, that is, we take the low view of man as a genetic robot. For example, although a Down's child cannot, by strength of will, choose to have an IQ of 130, a person with homosexual inclinations can choose to be celibate. Is it an easy road? No. But neither is it for the person who struggles against addictive behaviors like pornography, overeating, and alcohol. To deny their power of choice is to consider them no better than brute animals fatally controlled by instinct.



But the real question for the Christian is whether a genetic link really matters. The doctrine of the Fall tells us that all of creation is groaning from the pervasive effects of sin. So while it's true "God don't make junk," what he made has been deformed from its original state.



It would not be surprising, then, if some day researchers discovered genetic links to proclivities like anger, violence, alcoholism, and even same-sex orientation. At the same time, a genetic proclivity does not justify behavior. We should no more condone homosexual behavior for those with an inherited predisposition, than we should condone spousal abuse for those genetically-inclined toward violence.



All ya need is love

Gay advocates and sympathizers also believe that marriage should be the legal right of any two people who love each other. After all, marriage is all about love and commitment, right? True, but commitment for gays holds a very different meaning. For instance, a 2003 study of gay men in the Netherlands indicated that the average gay man in a committed relationship has eight extra-marital partners per year.



That would seem to be the norm according to gay activist, M. Sinorile, who writes, "Monogamy simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity...[but] a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex, or share partners."



But to the larger issue: if marriage is primarily about love and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Why not three, five, or twenty? Why not allow a brother to marry his sister, a father marry his daughter? For that matter, why should marriage be limited to the human species? Why not have cross-species marriages for a woman and her dog, a man and his goat, or three women and a horse?



If you think that's a stretch, consider that earlier this year a British woman married a dolphin! No, it wasn't an impromptu college prank after a night of binge-drinking, it was a planned ceremony conducted fifteen years after a love-at-first-sight encounter between 41-year old millionairess, Sharon Tendler, and Cindy, the dolphin. (The slope is indeed slippery, and we are well on our way down.)



What's the harm?

At the same time, gay advocates are right to point out the failures of the heterosexual marriage. Beginning in 1969, no-fault divorce made it easier to get out of a 25 year marriage than to get out of one's cell phone contract. Within 15 years, the divorce rate soared to 250% of its 1960 value with the majority of divorces involving minor children headed by a single-parent woman.



Prior to that time, the strong marriage ethos of our society meant that most pregnant women were either married or got married. But by 1992 the number of children born outside of marriage jumped from 11% to 30%. Tragically, those children are more often victims of abuse, domestic violence, anti-social behavior, depression, substance abuse, and poverty than children brought up by both biological parents.



To answer Mr. Giberson on how gay "marriage" will affect this trend, we need look no further than Scandinavia. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard, Scandinavia has had gay "marriage" for over a decade. During that time it experienced a 25 percent increase in co-habitation and unmarried parenthood, resulting in a 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in some Scandinavian countries.



In addition, studies compiled by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey show that children raised by gay couples risk a 50 times higher incidence of incest, a two times incidence of domestic violence, and perform worst in nine out of twelve social and academic areas, as compared to children in other family types.



Thus, the results for the gay "marriage" experiment are in: By further elevating the desires of adults over the needs of children, gay "marriage" widens the gap between marriage and the stable nurture of the next generation.



Has the blight of heterosexual divorce undermined the welfare of families and children? Sadly, yes. But that is no justification to redefine marriage, or sanction other family configurations that deepen the problems of fatherless homes, single-parent moms, and at-risk children.



"[T]he lives of millions of adults and children will judge us harshly for not learning the marriage redefinition lesson the first time. People get hurt deeply when you tinker with the essential nature of marriage..." -- Glenn T. Stanton




View the most recent entries on Regis' blog.

(This article originally appeared on Breakpoint.org)



For Further Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/us/17georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin--Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down by Georgia Judge



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-09-gaymarriage-usat_x.htm --Civil unions gain support



http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1161.htm -- The real assault on marriage, Karl Giberson



Fertility of American Women: June 1994 (Washington D.C.: Bureau of the Census, September 1995)



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 -- The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, Stanley Kurtz



Getting it Straight, What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, Peter Sprigg, et al, Family Research Council



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549217/posts -- British Woman Marries Dolphin



http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/a0032550.cfm -- What No-Fault Divorce Can Teach Us About Same-Sex Marriage, Glenn T. Stanton



Scripture verse: John 4:11 (New International Version)



Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at: centurion51@aol.com.
  .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

What's Wrong with Gay 'Marriage'?
Regis Nicoll

Late last month a Georgia judge struck down an amendment banning same-sex marriage. The ruling turned on a technicality which limits amendments to one topic. The constitutional change, approved by three-fourths of the State electorate, defined marriage as between one man and one woman, while also banning gay civil unions. But, according to Judge Constance C. Russell, that was a disservice to voters "who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society [and] also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place, although not marriage."

While I believe the judge was wrong to overrule the will of the people by the power of the bench, I believe his assessment of popular sentiment is sadly right. According to a 2004 poll, whilethere is nearly a 2-to-1 opposition to same-sex marriage, popular support of civil unions is 54 percent--up from a 43 percent in July 2003.



Consequently, as the U. S. Senate prepares to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the next couple of weeks, the question on many people's minds is "Why shouldn't gays be given the benefits of marriage?"



Threat, what threat?

One of those is Karl Giberson, editor of Science & Theology News and a self-described conservative who values marriage. In an editorial last year, Giberson shared his hopes for his eldest daughter to: find the "right person"; have a long, happy marriage; and provide grandchildren. At the same time, Giberson said he didn't understand why gay "marriage" was a threat to those hopes: "I don't understand how heterosexual marriage is 'protected' by denying gays the right to marry."



Giberson is not alone. One of my life-long friends, who is a practicing physician with a traditional Catholic upbringing, believes that since "gays can't help it, we should let them marry...it's the right thing, the compassionate thing. Any way, what harm could come of it?"



My friend and Giberson are like others I've talked with who can't understand how gay inclusion would adversely affect heterosexual marriage or the common good. A few even consider gay "marriage" a good thing for society.



For instance, before leaving the "lifestyle," one friend of mine became troubled over the morality of his long-term partnership, only to be told by more than one pastor that a committed relationship was a gift from God to be received with thanksgiving, not guilt. On another occasion, a pastor advised a gay man to seek a committed homosexual partner in order to avoid the hazards of single gay life. One wonders how the pastor would have counseled a pedophile.



Sympathizers for gay "marriage" generally offer one of several arguments: Jesus never proscribed homosexuality, so neither should we; since homosexuality is "how some people are born" it would be unfair and heartless to deny them the benefits of marriage; marriage is about love and commitment, not sexual orientation; and finally, as Giberson implies in his editorial, allowing committed gays to marry wouldn't hurt society, but likely improve an institution marred by heterosexual divorce and infidelity.



First things first

Before we examine the societal effects of gay "marriage", we need to set the record straight about the moral teachings of Jesus. While it's true that Jesus said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, it's also true he never mentioned the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse, to name a few. In fact, the New Testament records very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. It would be reckless, therefore, to assume that anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. What the scriptures do record, however, is Jesus's shift from old covenant particulars to core moral principles.



The shift begins with the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus expands the reach of the Decalogue. It continues with his summation of the Law to love God and to love neighbor. And it culminates with his ultimate standard to love as he loved--an infinitely comprehensive principle that encompasses every aspect of life.



Above all things, Christ-love means valuing others as his image-bearers. In contrast with the cultural "accommodators" who take the low view of man as a powerless victim of base instincts, the Christian view of man is as a moral being blessed with a conscience and free exercise to act against his carnal pull.



Consider Jesus's conversation with adulterous woman. Jesus didn't treat her as a poor creature helplessly controlled by her earthly desires. He treated her as a free moral agent capable of choosing a different way to live. Consequently, he didn't give her the false compassion of tolerance toward her lifestyle. Out of true compassion, he showed her the way out of her broken condition by challenging her to "go now and leave your life of sin."



This is a helpful pattern for us. The disproportionate incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, disease, mortality, and suicide among homosexuals reveals the truth behind the gay lifestyle: it is anything but gay. By following the example of Jesus, our compassion should involve encouraging those with homosexual urgings to live chastely, rather than affirming and enabling them in a destructive lifestyle.



Genetic robots?

Next is the claim that homosexuality is an inherited trait. I've had more than one Christian tell me they believe same-sex orientation is no different than a physical or mental defect brought on by a genetic mutation. They reason that since God "made them" that way, and since "God don't make junk," individuals with same-sex inclinations can't be held morally accountable for homosexual behavior. That logic is flawed on several points.



First of all, despite the frenetic search for the "gay gene" by gay rights advocates, there is no demonstrated genetic link to same-sex orientation. In fact, study after study confirms what several ex-gays have personally told me: same-sex preferences come from backgrounds of sexual abuse or from families with an abusive, absent, or emotionally distant father and an overly-controlling mother.



Even if we accept that sexual preferences are genetically determined, sexual behaviors are not; unless, that is, we take the low view of man as a genetic robot. For example, although a Down's child cannot, by strength of will, choose to have an IQ of 130, a person with homosexual inclinations can choose to be celibate. Is it an easy road? No. But neither is it for the person who struggles against addictive behaviors like pornography, overeating, and alcohol. To deny their power of choice is to consider them no better than brute animals fatally controlled by instinct.



But the real question for the Christian is whether a genetic link really matters. The doctrine of the Fall tells us that all of creation is groaning from the pervasive effects of sin. So while it's true "God don't make junk," what he made has been deformed from its original state.



It would not be surprising, then, if some day researchers discovered genetic links to proclivities like anger, violence, alcoholism, and even same-sex orientation. At the same time, a genetic proclivity does not justify behavior. We should no more condone homosexual behavior for those with an inherited predisposition, than we should condone spousal abuse for those genetically-inclined toward violence.



All ya need is love

Gay advocates and sympathizers also believe that marriage should be the legal right of any two people who love each other. After all, marriage is all about love and commitment, right? True, but commitment for gays holds a very different meaning. For instance, a 2003 study of gay men in the Netherlands indicated that the average gay man in a committed relationship has eight extra-marital partners per year.



That would seem to be the norm according to gay activist, M. Sinorile, who writes, "Monogamy simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity...[but] a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex, or share partners."



But to the larger issue: if marriage is primarily about love and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Why not three, five, or twenty? Why not allow a brother to marry his sister, a father marry his daughter? For that matter, why should marriage be limited to the human species? Why not have cross-species marriages for a woman and her dog, a man and his goat, or three women and a horse?



If you think that's a stretch, consider that earlier this year a British woman married a dolphin! No, it wasn't an impromptu college prank after a night of binge-drinking, it was a planned ceremony conducted fifteen years after a love-at-first-sight encounter between 41-year old millionairess, Sharon Tendler, and Cindy, the dolphin. (The slope is indeed slippery, and we are well on our way down.)



What's the harm?

At the same time, gay advocates are right to point out the failures of the heterosexual marriage. Beginning in 1969, no-fault divorce made it easier to get out of a 25 year marriage than to get out of one's cell phone contract. Within 15 years, the divorce rate soared to 250% of its 1960 value with the majority of divorces involving minor children headed by a single-parent woman.



Prior to that time, the strong marriage ethos of our society meant that most pregnant women were either married or got married. But by 1992 the number of children born outside of marriage jumped from 11% to 30%. Tragically, those children are more often victims of abuse, domestic violence, anti-social behavior, depression, substance abuse, and poverty than children brought up by both biological parents.



To answer Mr. Giberson on how gay "marriage" will affect this trend, we need look no further than Scandinavia. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard, Scandinavia has had gay "marriage" for over a decade. During that time it experienced a 25 percent increase in co-habitation and unmarried parenthood, resulting in a 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in some Scandinavian countries.



In addition, studies compiled by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey show that children raised by gay couples risk a 50 times higher incidence of incest, a two times incidence of domestic violence, and perform worst in nine out of twelve social and academic areas, as compared to children in other family types.



Thus, the results for the gay "marriage" experiment are in: By further elevating the desires of adults over the needs of children, gay "marriage" widens the gap between marriage and the stable nurture of the next generation.



Has the blight of heterosexual divorce undermined the welfare of families and children? Sadly, yes. But that is no justification to redefine marriage, or sanction other family configurations that deepen the problems of fatherless homes, single-parent moms, and at-risk children.



"[T]he lives of millions of adults and children will judge us harshly for not learning the marriage redefinition lesson the first time. People get hurt deeply when you tinker with the essential nature of marriage..." -- Glenn T. Stanton




View the most recent entries on Regis' blog.

(This article originally appeared on Breakpoint.org)



For Further Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/us/17georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin--Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down by Georgia Judge



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-09-gaymarriage-usat_x.htm --Civil unions gain support



http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-1161.htm -- The real assault on marriage, Karl Giberson



Fertility of American Women: June 1994 (Washington D.C.: Bureau of the Census, September 1995)



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1 -- The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, Stanley Kurtz



Getting it Straight, What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, Peter Sprigg, et al, Family Research Council



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549217/posts -- British Woman Marries Dolphin



http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/a0032550.cfm -- What No-Fault Divorce Can Teach Us About Same-Sex Marriage, Glenn T. Stanton



Scripture verse: John 4:11 (New International Version)



Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at: centurion51@aol.com.
  .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}