In the Wake of the Episcopal Church’s “Punishment” …

Holy Marriage vs. Gay Marriage

A Christian’s Case for the Haitian Model of Marriage

Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.  Matthew 22:21

Last week, as I write this, the worldwide Anglican Confession booted the American Episcopal Church out of their communion. The Episcopalians are in an organizational “penalty box” for the next three years, all because of their “secular” and profoundly politically correct stand in support of gay marriage. 

And not just secular gay marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace or by “Elvis” in Las Vegas. No, the Episcopal Church in the US has come out in support of offering to perform sacramental marriage, officiated and blessed by a priest, in a church, standing before God’s altar.

In this conflict of standards between the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church in America, basically it comes down to a simple dichotomy.  When it comes to marriage as a holy sacrament, the Episcopalians are for sanctifying gay marriage. However, the Anglican Communion – and, I believe, God – are against sanctifying gay marriage.

I’m sure that statement – and what follows – will outrage some gay Christians (as well as gay non-Christians), along with many of their non-gay supporters.  There are some people for whom playing the victim card (as I wrote about in American Thinker), or for whom attacking others instead of engaging them in reasonable discussions are their “default settings.” 

From these angry, always-ready-to-be-offended card-carrying victims, I’m expecting charges of homophobia and “hate speech” and worse. 

To that I say:

·       First, you don’t know my heart, and if you think you do, you’re almost certainly wrong.

·       My oldest and closest friend in life – the man who was, for more than 40 years, literally the brother I never had – was a gay man who was also a practicing Christian. He attended church regularly and sought out God, trying to find a balance between what he felt was his nature and what God had in mind for him. 

·       Bottom line:  I have no issues at all against individual gays – every gay man or woman I’ve ever gotten to know personally became a friend. However, I do have issues with organized pressure groups (gay or otherwise) who try to enforce their secular agendas on me, my family or my church.

So, if you don’t like what I have to say here, and you think that instead of a reasoned reply, your best and most effective response is to attack me personally, then all I can say is this:

Bring it on.

But set aside potential personal attacks – let’s return to the issue at hand.  This issue not only involves the Episcopal Church in the USA, but it now also transcends that one denomination. Pressures by gay activists and their supporters are reaching into every aspect of Christian church life. 

This issue matters to me for a couple of reasons. First, I was raised by my mother in the Episcopal faith, and I’ve always had affection for the Episcopalian Church.  Second, my wife and I have been visiting an Episcopal congregation here in town, with thoughts that we might join. 

However, the support by the Episcopal Church for performing the sacrament of marriage for gay couples has changed that.  Though we may continue to visit, joining that congregation is no longer an option for us, for reasons that I hope to make clear.

Consider this: the entire gay marriage issue is being mis-represented.  It is being framed by gay and pro-gay Episcopalians as being all about “gay rights.”  Yet this church issue actually doesn’t have anything at all to do with gay rights.  Instead, it’s about who the church is listening to – to God, or to those politically-correct activists.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court settled the gay marriage matter last year when they ruled that gays have a legal, constitutional right to be married – by the state.  Despite your feelings or mine, that legal rights issue is over.  In America, any two consenting adults can demand the right to be married by a JP or other licensed marriage officiator – including, at least in Las Vegas, Elvis – regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Period!

However, that ruling has no force on churches which – under our constitution – still cannot be forced to sanctify a gay marriage that is in conflict with the church’s core, doctrinal beliefs.  At least not yet.

Despite what outraged gay Episcopalians (and others, gay or straight, Episcopalian or non-believer, who support them) have been saying, this whole issue isn't about "rights," let alone “gay rights.”  As noted, those rights have already been secured by the courts.  Rather, this whole cosmic kerfuffle is all about a denominational Church of God choosing to sanctify a behavior that embraces both intentional, habitual and unrepented sin.  

That choice – to sanctify before God an inherently sinful relationship – runs against everything the bible says about sanctifying any kind of sinful behavior. It also runs against 2,000 years of biblically-sound Christian thought.

Correct me if you think I’m wrong (and I’m sure that some will), but as far as I can tell, there is no equivocation in the bible when it comes to the sin of homosexuality. Nor does the bible equivocate when it comes to the sin of fornication, or adultery, or blasphemy, or theft or murder.   

This isn’t about homosexuality – God doesn’t “play favorites” among the various kinds sins.

It is true that some Christians act – and may even believe – that homosexuality is a “special” kind of sin.   The only “special” kind of sin I can find reference to in the New Testament is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, a sin against which Christ warned in all four Gospels.

But homosexuality is not a “special” sin – it is merely the often-condemned sin of carnal lust, with a twist.  1 Corinthians (pronounced “First Corinthians”) condemns homosexual acts, but in that book Paul does so in the same breath as he condemns nine other kinds of equally egregious sins.

Also, God makes a big difference between the temptation to sin between man with man, or woman with woman, and the act of giving in to the temptation.

God’s anger is not directed toward the person who feels inclined toward homosexuality – or adultery, or fornication, or theft, or any other sin, whatsoever. His anger is directed toward the person who acts on the temptation.   We are all tempted by sin, every day.  Yet God judges us not by our temptation, but only by our ability to resist temptation. He further judges us, after we fall – and we will fall, all of us – based on our willingness to repent of that sin. Then by our trying, as Jesus admonished us, to sin no more.

For example, many men and women are tempted in the direction of infidelity and adultery, which are egregious sins.  Our divorce statistics show that far too many people cave in to those temptations, and not once, but habitually.  Yet our “stay married” statistics show that many people manage to resist those marriage-destroying temptations. Instead, they choose to remain pure within the bounds of their marriage.

Yet there remains a  profound difference between the church sanctifying a marriage among two sinners who are not intent on committing habitual sin, and the church violating everything the bible teaches on the subject by sanctifying a marriage based on the intent to habitually sin.  One marriage represents an honest attempt by two repentant sinners to place God’s commands ahead of man’s weakness.  The other so-called marriage enshrines man’s weakness and sanctifies his intent to keep sinning, all in violation of both teaching and tradition.

This does cut both ways.  This is not just about homosexuals choosing to marry, and to do so in a Church and blessed by God. It can apply in other ways as well, if only hypothetically.

Ask yourself:  “What would God and the Church do if a couple, upon getting married, vowed to stray from their marriage bed every chance they got? Would the church sanctify that marriage?”  

Of course not. 

No priest or pastor is going to give God’s blessing to a marriage doomed to failure by the parties’ prior commitment to sin in such a fashion.  The church sanctifies a marriage based on the shared vow to “forsake all others”, and to “love, honor and cherish for as long as we both shall live.”

Jesus made it clear that any sin (except, as noted, for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit) is forgivable.  This includes the sinfulness of the homosexual act.  There is no question that such acts are sinful in the sight of God.  On that issue, both the Old Testament and the New Testament seem clear and unequivocal.

·        You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22)

·        If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act … (Leviticus 20:13)

·        Therefore, God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature, rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. (Romans 1:24-25)

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.  And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper (Romans 1:26-28)

·        Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; neither the fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves; nor the covetous; nor drunkards; nor revilers; nor swindlers shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

However, note two things. 

First, as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 6:11, the sin of homosexuality can all be forgiven through Jesus. 

Second, while the sin of homosexuality is a barrier to inheriting the Kingdom of God, it is not the only such barrier – and all may be forgiven.  Barred from the Kingdom are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, the effeminate, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers are all also barred from inheriting the Kingdom of God.  Paul noted this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

In God’s eyes (except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit), all sins are equally damnable, and equally forgivable

Yes, I know that attitude is politically incorrect. However, God isn’t bound by the transitory expectations of hedonists who want what they want, when they want it and the way they want it, all without the risk of condemnation or judgment.

Homosexual acts are forgivable.  However, that sin (like all other sins) can only be forgiven as long as the person who commits the sinful act repents and tries to turn his back on that sin.  Jesus says, in John 8:11 and John 5:14, and min many other verses, "I forgive you of your sins – now go and sin no more."

God’s forgiveness comes linked to repentance, as well as to a commitment to at least try to sin no more.  Yet a “sanctified” gay marriage is entered into by two people who intend to keep right on sinning.  How can the church sanctify, through a holy sacrament, that kind of marriage? 

Whether it is two gays pledging to keep engaging in homosexual sex or two straights pledging to engage in extramarital affairs at every opportunity, no church can honor God and still sanctify such a union.

Which brings us back to the Episcopal Church I was raised in, and the Church my wife and I have been visiting locally.  While we had been visiting, we had not joined, in large part because we are uncomfortable with this denominational policy of sanctifying sinful behavior.

But we were on the fence until the events of this past week.  This Anglican Communion ruling against the Episcopal Church brings it all to a head.

This Church has (in my opinion) made a serious doctrinal error by embracing man's (politically correct) standards of the moment in the place of God's eternal standards. I further believe that the Anglican Communion was right in citing scripture reflecting God's view on homosexual acts.

I take the Anglican Communion’s action as rebuking the Episcopal Church.  “Rebuking” in the sense of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Personally, and from a purely secular perspective, I don’t care who marries whom in a civil marriage.

But as a Christian, I cannot see a gay marriage being sanctified. Such a marriage enshrines a sinful foundation, which is not in accord with God’s law as I understand it.

Of course, we are all sinners, but there is a huge, fundamental difference between struggling against sin and embracing sin as a lifestyle choice. The Episcopal Church, with its openly (and apparently actively) gay priests and bishops, as well as its embrace of gay marriage, seems to have forgotten this lesson.

God loves and forgives sinners, but the Church is expected to follow the rules, not rewrite them to suit the politically-correct flood-tide of transitory public opinion. The Reformation took place because the Roman Church lost sight of this. In the process, Western Christianity was torn asunder.

Sadly, those who insist that being politically correct is more important than being justified before God are inviting another “Reformation.”

 However, there is a solution that should satisfy people of goodwill on both sides of the gay marriage debate within the faith. 

In many places throughout the bible, I find references to God’s double-standard.  God doesn’t expect heathens to follow Christian principles, since they don’t know Christ.  However, He doesn’t (and I mean REALLY doesn’t) expect Christians to slip into the pattern of following secular principles. 

I think that this fact could – properly applied – go a long way toward resolving the gay marriage kerfuffle that’s going on in society, and among Christ followers.

I could be wrong here, and if someone with a better understanding of the bible can point me in the right way, I’d be deeply grateful. Until then, allow me to offer a few thoughts on the subject. 

Starting with Haiti.

A while back, a friend of mine got married in Haiti – twice.  First, he and his new bride had a sanctified-before-God religious wedding, conducted in a chapel and presided over by the two ordained gentlemen (a priest and rabbi) who ministered to the two people getting married.  Then, following the reception – a celebration of their “real” marriage – my friend and his bride complied with local laws and had a secular marriage, performed in the office of the Haitian equivalent of a Justice of the Peace. 

In Haiti, as a matter of policy, the state recognizes that a marriage is a state-supported contract used for taxing and benefit purposes. That is essentially a secular marriage, and under Haitian law it should be performed by a JP.  However, the Haitian law makes it clear that a sacred marriage is something entirely different – it is a sacrament performed in a church or synagogue by an ordained priest, pastor or rabbi. The state has no power to intervene or control that, just as the church has no say in the secular wedding.

Frankly, I think they’ve got the right idea here.

Embracing this dualistic approach could help us Christians to put behind us the semantic and spiritual battles between the one-man-and-one-woman Christians and anybody-who-wants-to gays and their liberal supporters.

It’s hard for most Americans – especially those of us who’ve actually been there (as I have) – to view Haiti as being ahead of the good ol’ USA in any dimension, but this time, I think they are.

Why does this matter?  It matters because it offers a conflict-free resolution to the thorny question of gay marriage.

Though the Supreme Court has blocked states from banning gay marriage – meaning that gay marriages are the constitutional “law of the land” – millions of Christians still hold fast to the idea that a marriage is a sacred rite performed between one man and one woman.

This is where the Haitian model comes into play.

If we Christians embrace that the belief that the only “real” marriage is one performed by their priest or pastor, then regardless of whatever gays and lesbians swear to in front of a justice of the peace, that is between them and the state, and has nothing to do with our faith.  In this scenario, we have no need to attack gay marriages.  To us, those aren’t “real” marriages, and frankly, what they are is none of our business. 

We don’t need to condone them, but as Christians who are in no way involved with them, we also don’t need to attack them.

If you’re also a political conservative who has political issue with gay marriage, by all means, speak your mind.  But please do so as a conservative, not as a Christian.  Why?  Because, realistically, what gays and lesbians do in front of a justice of the peace (or in their own bedrooms) is their business, and what they do doesn’t touch us as Christians.

The problem (if any) arises if gay couples ask for – or demands – a sanctified church wedding. To them we should respectfully and lovingly explain that God’s commands will not allow us to do this.  We can bless them and pray for them, but we cannot sanctify their union.

God does not follow the polling numbers. He doesn’t wait to see what is trending on Twitter before making up (or changing) His mind.  God is not Politically Correct.  And, with His hand held out to sinners with the offer of forgiveness, God still maintains that a sin is a sin – yesterday, today, tomorrow. 

The Church forgets that at its peril.

As always, I could be wrong - I claim no direct line to God's thoughts, so these statements are my beliefs, based on my own reading of scripture.

Convicted by The Holy Spirit

 Ask, And The Holy Spirit Will Help You Fight Sin ...

One Sin at a Time

Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," and it is often useful to remember that this "God-breathed" means that the Holy Spirit was inspiring the scripture writers.  However, it is perhaps even more useful to remember (or realize) that the indwelling Holy Spirit can and does "God-breath" on the born-again followers of Jesus, to help each of us live better and more Christ-centered lives.  All we have to do is ask.

I have been working on four distinct sets of sinful behavior that I want to reject from my life; however, on my own, I found it hard to make any inroads in those sinful traits that were now causing me so much grief.  So I decided to ask The Holy Spirit to help me out - to rebuke me, to correct me, to teach me and to train me to live a life free from these sins.

What follows is my path from one to four sins, and my "proofs" that The Holy Spirit really does work within me - and if God's Spirit can and will work in me, He will work in anybody.  The procedures I observe here are all possible because of the Holy Spirit. Any improvements within me are due to the blessed intervention of the Holy Spirit, and even with His help I suspect that I have a long way to go - and that's my fault.

There is nothing special about me, nothing to make me worthy of special favor.  So, before I continue, I ask you this:

If you have some habitual area of sin you would like to eliminate from your life, and if you have accepted Jesus into your life, then go ahead and ask the Holy Spirit to help you, to - as Paul said to Timothy - teach you, to rebuke you, to correct you and to train you.  I believe that if you ask with a sincere desire to change, the Holy Spirit will work with you.  However, if you have not asked Christ to take control of your life, realize that such a born-again experience is necessary before the Holy Spirit can be inside you, from where He can help you.

Perhaps you'll receive your help in ways different from my own - perhaps you'll hear His voice, or see the words (at least in your mind's eye).  But based on my experience, my unworthiness and the real and reliable impact of the Spirit, I believe that any Christ-follower can ask for these gifts, and confidently expect to receive them.

So back to my experience.

After I asked in prayer for this help from the Holy Spirit - and I chose to begin with a single and troublesome sin - I didn't know what to expect.

A red flashing light whenever a sin approached?

A blare of trumpets and a thundering voice from above?

To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure that The Holy Spirit lived within me, for I sensed no presence there.  There had been no "dove" moment, no "licking flames of fire" moment, no Pentecostal rushing of wind or, really, anything else.  But I knew I needed help, and I knew I'd accepted the Lord, so I asked for The Holy Spirit to catch me when I sinned.  Preferably quickly enough to short-circuit the sin before it became obvious.

That first sin has many related names. Prejudice. Bigotry.  Pride.  Self-Righteousness.  But I really think it all boiled down to Judgment, and I wanted to, as Scripture says, "judge not, lest I be judged."  What this amounted to was, when I saw someone who was in some way "different," my mind immediately made a (never positive) snap-judgment on that person.

Wild tattoos and equally-wild hair and body-piercing?  Snap-judgment.

Racial, ethnic and religious difference?  Snap-judgment.

Political or philosophical choices?  Snap-judgment.

After I'd come back to church after many years, I realized what this was within me.  I quickly came to hate that sense of self-righteous judgment in myself.  Yet I'd been raised up in a time when judgments were not just acceptable, but expected.  It was part of my family, and part of my culture.  I had no idea how to rid myself of these self-righteous snap-judgments, especially since the reaction within me seemed as quick as thought.

I wasn't sure that even The Holy Spirit (if He did dwell within me) would be fast enough - forgetting, of course, that with God, all things are possible.

What I found was this:

As soon as such a self-righteous judgmental reaction had started - before it could even gain much headway within my awareness - I "received" a clear message that I was about to sinfully judge another.  It wasn't in words - at least not in spoken words. It was more like reading something that had been typed out, yet I could not literally "see the words." Yet I could "read" them, and they were always just words - no emotion came with them.  No emotions of rebuke or correction.   No sense of anything akin to human awareness on the other end of the words. 

It was just a "knowing," in the form of a brief, declarative statement that, more often than not, froze me in my tracks before my sinful, self-righteous judgment could be fully-formed.

I'm not sure what you'd do with a message like this - but what I did, each time, was freeze my reaction in its tracks, then voice a small sub-vocal or softly-spoken prayer thanking the Spirit for convicting and rebuking me.

The more often this happened, the more quickly I was "caught in the act," stopping my next self-righteous judgment before it even got started.  Occasionally, I was rebuked before that reaction could get started, and that proved to be a form of spiritual training intended to prevent sin. This, to me, was and is indeed a gift from God.

I used this "ask-the-spirit" again in dealing with homeless panhandlers.  Once I ignored them with scorn, judging them but also denying them any help.  I even complained to store owners who let the homeless hang out, thereby "forcing me" to run a gauntlet of real human need, "forcing me" to ignore the plight of my fellow man.  In retrospect - now that I know that God expects me to help the needy instead of shunning them - I have the tiniest bit of a sense of what Saul must have felt once he realized that instead of persecuting the followers of Jesus, he should have been one of them.  I don't put myself on the same plane as Paul, except that I "persecuted" a group of people who definitely included "the least of these," in the terms of Jesus.

However, after I'd returned to church after many years, I realized that I was judging these poor and hopeless fellow humans.  Some might have been scam artists, but others were clearly the people Christ had commanded me to help.  Worse, even when I did consider giving them a donation, I was judging their worthiness to receive my alms-gift.  Someone in a wheel chair who'd lost a leg was "worthy."  Someone who seemed physically able, not so much.

But, thankfully one day it was given to me that it was my "job" to offer them my blessing and my charity; it was God's job to deal with those who were running scams.

Still, once I decided to help, there were times when I caught myself changing lanes at an exit ramp to avoid where panhandlers might be hanging out.  That way I wouldn't have to "judge" their worthiness, but I wouldn't have to give, either.

However, the more I thought about it, I realized that each new in-need panhandler was yet another opportunity to give - and that was a blessing ... to me.  So I asked the Holy Spirit to help me to fight off my feelings of judgment and of parsimony, and He has.

Here's the best example I have of how the Holy Spirit has helped me.  Just recently, I not only got into a lane away from where one of these panhandlers might be, but I'd purposely "lost myself" in my smart phone, so I could pretend (to myself) that I didn't see him.

As soon as that hard-hearted act was beyond catching and correcting, I got a most stern rebuke from the Holy Spirit.  It was the inner equivalent of a scolding in bright, fiery letters (that's an analogy, folks - no real flames).  I immediately had to agree with the Spirit that I'd purposefully (not entirely consciously, but not entirely unconsciously, either) avoided the man in question, because I just didn't want to be bothered.  My "need" to be left alone trumped his need for generous help from a fellow human being.  Me.

As I drove away, the shame of what I'd just done sank in.  I really got a sense of what a "rebuke" was.  It was harsh and strong because, as I thought back over it, I recognized that the Spirit had hinted that I should help this man - so I'd not only ignored the man in need, I ignored help from the Spirit - help that I'd specifically prayed to receive.

For something that is neither heard nor seen nor felt, that rebuke "tanned my hide" but good.  And despite the shame and the pain, I thank God for that lesson - it's one I won't easily forget.

Knowing that while it would not erase the sin, it would at least eliminate the damage my sin had caused, I did a u-turn, got back on the freeway, went to the next exit, got off, then circled around and back on, this time heading toward "my" exit.  There, I not only was able to give this hard-luck man something to help him get through the night, along with a blessing, but I also learned that earlier that day, someone had stolen his sleeping bag.  So (assuming he was telling the truth, and I do believe him), he needed my gift even more than on a usual evening.

Doing this did NOT erase my shame, but at least the man on the street corner didn't have to suffer for it.   Very clearly, "somebody" had caught me out and rebuked me most sternly, and rightfully so.  And though it hurt, I was and am grateful for that rebuke from the Holy Spirit.

There are two other sins for which I've asked for help from the Holy Spirit, and have gotten the same kind of help.  First, I realized that I was an "angry" driver - judging others for not driving the way I thought they should.  Driving was like combat, and I was not about to take prisoners.  But since it all remained in my mind (or at least inside my car) I hadn't given it much thought, until I read a scripture and commentary about anger, and the harm my anger does me.

So I asked the Holy Spirit for help, and the results were, no-joke, miraculous.  Now, every time I even start to judge another driver and react with anger, I get a wordless message of calm, and I immediately let go of my rage and calm down.  Sometimes, the Spirit even heads me off before I could react (though in each of those cases, I could tell that anger was just instants away from erupting).  And I find I'm driving much less aggressively - yet, amazingly - still getting to where I'm going in just about the same amount of time.

Finally, and perhaps my biggest sin-challenge, was the sin of bearing false witness.  Even as I admit to this sin of deceit, I find myself reluctant to call it lying.  I'd grown up that way - I was that "bright kid" who was always creating chaos but not getting caught.  Early, I learned that the "right story" was far better than accepting the consequences of my actions.  Unfortunately, that was a lesson I'd carried into my adult life.

My late wife, Karol, did not find that attribute appealing, and for 20 years, I worked on this habit - without God's help, and with only moderate success.  The results were much better than if I hadn't tried, but much worse than it could have been.  And when, as a recent widower, Lynn and I connected and married, I re-embraced my old faith in God and began to try living more as a child of God.  However, when my depression would strike, causing me to miss client/business deadlines, I re-learned the lesson that the "right story" was far better than accepting the consequences of my actions.

But just a few weeks ago, after my wife and I faced and weathered a crisis - and weathered it because I told her uncomfortable truths instead of the "right story," I realized that I no longer wanted to live that way. I no longer wanted to be a follower of the "Father of Lies," Satan.

Having seen what my own efforts could do, once again, I asked the Holy Spirit for help.  So far, I am getting the help that I need, in the same recognizable ways.  I know the Spirit is working in me on this, because I really did NOT want to include this sin into this blog - I'd been content to do three, which is how I'd planned things  But I got a push that could only have come from the Holy Spirit, directing me to own up.  I actually started-and-stopped several times before I wrote this last part.  And truth to tell, I find I have a long way to go.  This is a life-long sinful habit that will not be gone overnight - and won't be gone at all without the diligent help of the Holy Spirit.

After reading this back over, I do not want to come across "self-congratulating" in any sense.  All glory for any of my successes in any of these four areas goes to the Holy Spirit.  He has done all the heavy lifting - all I have to do is listen and respond, which is not always as easy as it might seem - but that difficulty comes from my own hard-heartedness, and not from any lack of rebuking from the Holy Spirit.

Bottom line. If you're a believer in Jesus and have accepted him as your personal savior, then the Holy Spirit lives within you. Ask Him for His help in overcoming some of your more intractable sins ... and you will receive help. Perhaps not like the help I receive, but help.  The Holy Spirit is there for you, but ... hey, you've got to ask.

Duck Dynasty Dropped Over Freedom of Religious Expression Issue

  A&E Shoots Self in Foot - Having First Put Foot in Mouth ...

Ned Barnett

First, a disclaimer.  From 1973 until his death earlier this year, my oldest and closest friend was Gay, and while he didn't advertise this, he made no secret of it.  He was also a member of a Christian Church, and prayed that God's infinite grace would save him.  I share that prayer, for he was a good man - and though his sin lists high among many conservative Christians, we are all sinful, and all need God's Grace.  It's impossible for an honest man to have a Gay man who was, for 40 years,  my very closest friend, my frequent business partner and my co-worker and also harbor ill-will toward Gays.  I hold no such animosity.

But, like hundreds of millions of other Americans, I also believe in the bible - and I have a good idea of what the bible says about sin in general, and that one particular sin (among all the particular sins).  Finally, I know that all people (including me) sin.  So anything you read here that you "think" is anti-Gay is either your mistaken impression or, more likely, my own poor choice of words.

Now, another (the last) disclaimer.  I have never watched Duck Dynasty - from what I've seen, I don't much care for reality TV, but beyond that, I'm not a hunter.  By choice, I don't tend to watch shows about hunting. I prefer target shooting.   I'm not anti-hunter, either - my son's a bow-hunter, and I'm proud of his skill - but hunting is just not my "thing." 

However, I am passionate about the First Amendment (I make my living as a writer and communicator).  In one sense, I do not see this as a First Amendment issue - a private company can fire or hire whom they please, and only government censorship is prevented by the First Amendment.

The idea that a man should be punished, publicly and financially, for expressing his own deeply-held religious beliefs, that is anathema in a country protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion clause.  In addition, that this man was punished for sharing his mainstream Christian beliefs that are spelled out repeatedly in the bible - in a country with a nominal majority of Christians - well, that says something deeply serious about the culture war against those persons of faith in America.  That's my other disclaimer, or caveat.

On with the show (so to speak).  Those two disclaimers aside, and more to the point, since 1975, I have routinely been called in by clients and employers to resolve self-generated crises, and this is a great example of just such a self-inflicted business and PR disaster.  A&E was pressured to take action when one of its stars honestly spoke of his honest religious beliefs - which is odd since he was hired because of those beliefs and because of the way he expresses them.  A&E, in promoting Duck Dynasty, called this employee a "bible-thumper" in their show promotion.

But they were pressured by well-organized advocates who speak for a minority of Americans, as is their right.  They have the same First Amendment freedoms as does Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, to say what they believe in the public marketplace of ideas.  However, unlike Phil Robertson, who asked for no censure or punishment for those who violate God's laws, leaving that up to God Himself, GLAAD insisted that any public figure who disagrees with them must be punished - including being deprived of their income.

The irony here is rich.  By asserting the right to demand that others be punished for disagreeing with them, GLAAD, by necessity, must grant the right for others to demand that GLAAD and its constituents by punished for speaking out their own views.  Either that or they're saying that only one set of views (GLAAD's) is legitimate of public protection, and that view can be found nowhere in the Constitution or in statutory law.

A&E, which is in business to make money, not to advocate for fairness or constitutional principles, felt the pressure from GLAAD, and decided to act.  However, they didn't have to boot Robertson off his own show - they could have just decried his position and moved on.  But they did choose to punish Robertson, and now, millions of their viewers will make sure that A&E pays the consequences for their one-sided and anti-religious stance.

The Problem

A&E essentially fired key program cast member Phil Robertson for something he said. Worse, they didn't fire him for anything he said on the show, but for something he said to a reporter from GQ, a magazine interviewing him.  Further, they fired him for speaking out about a topic that had nothing to do with the show.  What Robertson said was a bit crass, but I take it that "crass" is part of his style, part of what makes the show a financial and ratings success for A&E.

I have read the comments, which offer his perspective on what the bible says about all the varieties of sex a person can have that is outside of marriage.  Basically, the bible says that any extra-marital sex is bad, and lists a number of examples, from infidelity to bestiality to homosexuality to male prostitution. 

Here's the rub.  A&E has promoted Robertson and his show for their bible-thumping religiously-conservative and very outspoken views.  They attracted 11.8 million fanatic followers to the premiere episode of their current 4th season - a landmark viewer record for any cable program - and for A&E, that's a gold mine.  According to some sources, episodes of Duck Dynasty have been all five of the top-five A&E shows of all time.

In creating and promoting the show, A&E executives have all but egged Robertson on to become an outspoken redneck "character," and to do that for all for the almighty dollar.  Now, when Robertson does nothing more than express his belief in the bible - which very definitely speaks out against all manner of out-of-wedlock sex, including infidelity, bestiality, homosexuality, the temptations of lewd women (the book of Proverbs is filled with that) and male prostitution.  In this, he was acting in character as a bible-believing saved-by-Christ "bible thumper," exactly the character A&E bought and paid for - exactly the character who helped create the most profitable program in A&E history.

Had any member of the A&E leadership team bothered to check their cash cow, they'd have known that:

a.  He believes what the bible says; and
b.  The bible says that homosexuality is a forbidden sin

If anyone should have been punished (and nobody should) it should be the A&E executive who didn't bother to read his bible before unleashing the Robertson clan on America.  Phil was just doing what he's always done - and what A&E had been paying him handsomely for.  He was telling the truth as he saw it, citing the bible as his source of truth.

Apparently, speaking the truth about belief and about what's in the bible has become - if not against the law - then punishable here in the United States, which was once a bastion of religious freedom.

The Solution

Predictably, the Gay defense groups such as GLAAD immediately denounced Robertson for exercising his First Amendment rights of free practice of religion and free speech.  In their eyes, free speech of course applies to anyone who will speak out in favor of homosexuality - as it should, because advocating for rights and respect for homosexuals is absolutely protected speech.  However, in their eyes, that freedom only works one way.  You're free to support them, but if you oppose what they stand for, you should be pilloried, fired, banished, castigated and mocked in public.  That's their position, and they're entitled to it, but it does tend to make them look like hypocrites, and does make it harder for non-members to support their extreme and one-sided position.

GLAAD also showed themselves to be clueless about Christianity.  GLAAD's spokesman Wilson Cruz told the public that "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe."

"What true Christians believe?"

If GLADD's spokesmen and leaders had just read the bible, they'd know that Phil Robertson didn't lie about what the bible says.  The bible takes a harsh view on any kind of sexual activity outside the man-woman marriage bed, including homosexuality - but the bible doesn't single that out as an especially damnable sin.  The bible - and bible-believing Christians - take it as an article of faith that all sexual activity outside the marriage bed shared by a husband and wife is on God's sin list.

This isn't "hate" - as far as the bible goes, it's "fact." 

From a purely PR point of view, GLAAD could have decried Phil's views without trying to "out-Christian" a man known primarily for his Christian beliefs.  It's just foolish to appear both more knowledgeable about a belief than it's believer, and to also appear so ignorant in public, especially when there are other options.

But that was GLAAD.  Their default message for those it opposes is a commercial "off with his head."  No surprises there.  But what about A&E?

A&E, which had many options, decided that it's solution was to suspend Robertson indefinitely.  They had other options.  Take a look at their public statement:

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community ... "

If A&E had stopped there, they would have expressed their displeasure at Robertson's statement - and his beliefs - and distanced the network from its largest-ever and most profitable star.  End of story.

Except ... they added one more sentence.  They took a reasonable statement and pushed it into the realm of trying to destroy someone financially for the sin of  sharing his heart-felt religious beliefs, beliefs backed by the bible (the best-selling and most-read book in history).  A&E added:  "The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely," and immediately all hell broke loose.

Already, the Robertson family has rallied around Phil.  They have said publicly:  "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Phil would never incite or encourage hate."

Much more important, however, the family is fighting back, with the only weapon they have - threatening to walk, calling into question the very future of the show that is the top-rated cable program of all time, and A&E's biggest cash cow.  

"We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty." 

Along with that ringing but not unexpected rebuke, CNN reports that more than 350,000 people have already signed online petitions or in some other way "voted" against A&E.  Those who are serious won't just boycott this one A&E program - they will vote with their eyeballs and their wallets and take their viewing elsewhere.  With 500-plus cable channels, plus Netflix and Hulu and Red Box, those viewers won't be starved for entertainment - but A&E will be starved for the revenue they'll lose because of the way they caved in to a special interest group.

There's real iron here -  is A&E's suspension of Robertson is a kind of hollow suspension. It doesn't include next season's shows (which include Robertson in all of them) because they have already been filmed, and to throw them away to enforce the suspension would cost A&E money.  The suspension, if it actually happens, will apply to next season (2015), but only if the show's renewed, and only if anybody still remembers this kerfuffle in 12 or 13 months.

To me, this is a lose-lose situation, and for a couple of reasons.

First, this action has already begun to polarize Duck Dynasty viewers who share a strong Christian faith with its star - and it's a fair bet that few of GLAAD's members are avid Duck Dynasty viewers.  Beginning now, A&E is losing business, and it will only continue as the controversy roars on.

Second, this is a "lose" for GLAAD because it exposes the group's intolerance to a wider public than ever before - and as Christians begin to see GLAAD as an oppressor actively stifling public expressions of faith and belief, they will see a backlash from those who neither want to victimize Gays nor to be victimized by Gays.

Finally he big losers are A&E's shareholders, most of whom (statistically) are more likely to be at least nominal Christians than they are to be Gay, or passionate supporters of Gay advocate groups.  Were I a stockholder, I'd already be asking the executives why they'd taken actions sure to "tank" the value of the stock.  Wall Street doesn't give a tinker's dam about "causes."  They care about profits, and when they see A&E losing viewers, stock prices will inevitably fall.

I would not want to be an A&E shareholder today, nor would I want to be an A&E executive.  Stocks will fall and heads will roll.

But this should also concern any foresighted GLAAD leader, because as networks see the financial cost of supporting a single-issue advocacy group that has nothing to do with their (the network's) business, those networks will re-think blindly caving to GLAAD in the future.

In the long run, the big loser is A&E - a bigger loser will be GLAAD (once for-profit businesses see the dollar-and-sense cost of blindly caving to their high-pressure demands).

But the big winner may be bible-believing Christians, who come to realize that their beliefs are under attack, but that they are also not alone