Monday, June 18, 2018

Ed Shaw, Gospel Coalition and Homosexual Feelings: What They Say and What Jesus Said


Ed Shaw, Gospel Coalition and Homosexual Feelings: What They Say and What Jesus Said

By Julio Severo
“Same-Sex Attraction and the Church—The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life,” published by InterVarsity Press Books in 2015 and written by Ed Shaw, is an account of a “Christian” man’s struggle with his homosexual desires and feelings.
Shaw addresses homosexuality specifically in the case of Christians. The Chapter One of his book, The Plausibility Problem Peter, uses the hypothetical example of a seventeen-year-old evangelical named Peter, who is the “eldest son of a deacon and the kids’ church coordinator, he plays electric guitar in the worship band, runs the Bible club at his school.”
Peter “struggles at youth group to push away the attention of some of the girls while trying not to focus too much attention on one of the guys.” For Shaw, Peter has “become an expert at faking heterosexuality.”
Even though Shaw avoids terms as “sexual orientation” and “homosexual identity,” his book addresses homosexual feelings and desires as an integral component of homosexual Christians. He said about Peter:
“The church youth group prides itself on its good Bible teaching. Its leaders take their responsibilities seriously, especially when it comes to explaining the church’s traditional teaching on sex and relationships. Peter has been told repeatedly that sex is for the marriage of a man and a woman. Until then, he’s to resist the temptation to be sexually active in both thought and deed. So, for instance, he’s been told what to do when he’s sexually attracted to a woman—of how it’s not wrong to notice beauty but of the dangers of a second look and the mental undressing that can follow. But the problem is, he’s attracted to men, so even the first look, the first attraction, feels wrong to him—he’s been paralyzed with guilt by the feelings brought on by watching that guy he likes undress in the dorm on a church weekend away. Because the one thing that he’s heard about homosexuality is that it is all wrong—a no-go area for a good Christian like him.”
While the issue about homosexuality has largely been discussed among evangelicals as an issue between Bible teaching and homosexual practice, Shaw found a Third Way: Feelings and desires. Basically, his book is an attempt to build a Third Way, which he thinks that is far away from the perspective of homosexual activists, but actually it is not near what the Bible says.
For example, the Bible records King David saying:
“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26 ESV)
Where the Bible recorded deep friendship, homosexual activists see homosexual acts.
Where the Bible recorded deep friendship, Shaw saw a Third Way: deep homosexual feelings. He said about David,
“Why not conclude that he’s not saying Jonathan was better in bed than his wives—but that Jonathan’s friendship was better than anything David did in bed with his wives?”
Shaw wants his readers to conclude that David thought that “Jonathan was better in bed than his wives.” This is homosexuality. Shaw’s other conclusion is equally disturbing: “Jonathan’s friendship was better than anything David did in bed with his wives” — this is, David and Jonathan, according to Shaw’s view, were aware of their homosexual feelings and desires, but limited these feelings and desires to a friendship.
Why homosexualize David’s friendship with Jonathan to “help” Christians with homosexual feelings and desires?
In this point, David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his many wives are a historical and eternal witness against all slanders pointing that David had homosexual acts or feelings. His sexual feelings and acts clearly led him to women.
In his book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics” (Abingdon Press, 2001), author Robert A. J. Gagnon dispelled the theory that there was homoeroticism between David and Jonathan. He said,
“There David extols both Saul and Jonathan as “beloved and lovely” (hanne¸îm)—surely David was not referring to Saul’s erotic attractiveness to other males… T. Kronholm… says the word is being used in 2 Sam 1:26 of intimate friendship, not erotic love.”
If Shaw and other homosexual “Christians” can pervert David’s friendship with Jonathan to fit their theological liberalism, what can keep them from perverting the whole Bible to fit their personal whims?
Even though several prominent leaders at the Gospel Coalition — which sees itself as exclusively Reformed — have praised Shaw’s book, there are troubling issues in his stance. In fact, Shaw is also a member of the Gospel Coalition.
Shaw said in his book, “As a theory on the origins of homosexuality, being born gay works for me better than any other on the market today.” (p 51)
If a man can be born an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a killer, certainly he can be born a homosexual. But does being born with a sin mean that a man is condemned to have a destiny in adultery, robberies, lying, killings and homosexuality?
Shaw mentions “Evangelical Christian who experiences same-sex attraction” (p 23), and says, “You see, when a same-sex attracted Christian embraces a gay identity and lifestyle, we (the church) need to recognize that it may be, to some extent, not just their fault, but ours too.” (p 29)
Churches should recognize their fault if they do not offer the resources of the Holy Spirit for a man seeking help to be delivered from his sin. No church has a call to lead such man to embrace same-sex attraction without engaging in homosexual acts. Only the Holy Spirit can deliver a man from same-sex attraction and acts.
In this sense, many Reformed churches are at fault because they do not allow the Holy Spirit and his gifts to operate to help oppressed Christians.
Shaw also said,
“And how tempting that is! I would dearly love to stay within evangelicalism and do that with a beautiful man by my side.” (p 26)
“But, of course, all of this is very painful for me and the thousands of other Christian men and women like me who would love to marry someone of their own sex, who wish we would change the essence of marriage. How do we cope with this clear message of the importance of sexual difference when we desire to have sex with someone of our own gender?” (p 91)
How long will Shaw resist same-sex demons lurking and preying on his deepest desires?
Shaw seems to see celibacy as the last recourse to face what he sees as the immutability of same-sex attraction or homosexual feelings. But what he calls same-sex attraction the Bible defines just as “temptation.” Why use fancy names to describe temptations? Why adorn temptations?
I do not know all the members of the Gospel Coalition, but because they seem a close-knitted group of Reformed ministers, I will try, in a general sense, to deal with the example of one of them.
Rev. Augustus Nicodemus, the only Brazilian Calvinist prominent in Gospel Coalition, has advocated cessationism — a theological theory that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased 2,000 years ago. You can read more about his stances here: Why Cannot a Cessationist Calvinist Theologian Use His Pulpit for Crusades against Abortion, Sodomy and Feminism, But Can Use it for Crusades against Charismatics, Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals?
It is very easy for a cessationist not to see Christians being delivered from homosexual temptations and accept that a Christian can live with homosexual feelings and desires.
I do not know if Nicodemus supports Shaw’s lukewarm stance (which is a powerful beachhead for theological liberalism), but I am sure that he, who likes to write and condemn abundantly non-Calvinist issues (especially charismatic teachings and experiences), has not addressed Shaw’s teachings, experiences and feelings and certainly he has not exposed and denounced Gospel Coalition’ theological liberalism and its theology of homosexual feelings and desires.
How is he to denounce the Gospel Coalition if he is its member? In 2012, Nicodemus published an article at the Gospel Coalition titled The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story.” What he sees as “crisis” is the supernatural and explosive growth of Pentecostal and charismatic churches in Brazil. These churches are usually very hostile to theological liberalism and gay theology in any form. What he does not see as growing crisis is the homosexualization of his own group, the Gospel Coalition. I answered Nicodemus with my article “A Charismatic Response to ‘The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story.’”
Often, adherents of cessationism accuse that Christians who have the same supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit that the New Testament believers had are guided by feelings and emotions. Yet, strangely, Nicodemus has kept his silence about Shaw’s emphasis on homosexual feelings, attractions and desires. If silence is consent… Actually, there is no silence at the Gospel Coalition about Shaw and his stances.
Vaughan Roberts, who wrote the foreword of Shaw’s book, introduces himself as a Reformed minister with same-sex attraction. Vaughan said in his column at the Gospel Coalition, “God has the power to change their orientation, but he hasn’t promised to and that has not been my experience.” Why not seek the Holy Spirit incessantly? Why put his failed experience above God’s Word and the Holy Spirit?
In the foreword of Shaw’s book, Vaughan said, “This is not, as you may imagine, simply a conservative book” and “the ‘Just Say No!’ approach to homosexuality is no longer compelling.” I agree with him. Certainly, there is nothing conservative about Shaw’s book. And I can add: Without the Holy Spirit empowering, “Just Say No” to any sin has no power. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can live an effective Christian life against sin and its temptations.
Vaughan added, “From the world’s perspective, Christ’s call to a wholehearted, sacrificial discipleship seems implausibly unattractive for anyone, regardless of their sexuality.” He is implying that homosexuality is a sexuality when God’s Word recognizes only two sexes — male and female — and confines homosexuality not to the realm of sexuality, but to the realm of abominable sins.
Sam Allberry, who is the editor for The Gospel Coalition, also recognizes that he has same-sex attraction. In fact, he has a book, “Is God Anti-Gay?: And Other Questions About Homosexuality, the Bible and Same Sex Attraction,” where he makes such recognition. He said, “I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex.”
Allberry, a Reformed minister, signed a public letter, in conjunction with several other pastors, that said:
“We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction which they experience. We would welcome initiatives to help local churches do so in a way that is affirming of and consistent with Scripture and would hope to support suggestions you might wish to bring to Synod to that effect.”
What does the resolution of the Synod say?
“We call upon the Church and all its members to work to end any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and to oppose homophobia.”
This resolution is endorsed by the three founding members of Living Out, an organization designed allegedly to “help” Christians who have homosexual feelings and desires. Allberry is one of those founders.
Living Out is promoted by the Gospel Coalition. Two of the three founders are writers at the Gospel Coalition (Allberry and Ed Shaw). And those founders’ books are favorably reviewed by the Gospel Coalition.
Adrian Warnock, who is a member of Gospel Coalition, has praised Shaw’s book.
The real shock is to know that the founder and president of the Gospel Coalition, D. A. Carson, endorsed the book “Single, Gay, Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity,” written by homosexual “Christian” Greg Coles. Ronald J. Sider, a known left-wing evangelical leader, also endorsed it, saying, “Simply fabulous.”
Yet, in his article “What Would St. Paul, the Apostle, Say to The American Church Embracing So-called ‘Gay Christianity’ & ‘Spiritual Friendships’?” published in BarbWire, Stephen Black, a former homosexual, said,
“‘Gay Christianity’ is being promoted at an alarming rate in several places in the Church worldwide. Understandably, there are certain liberal denominations where most would expect to see a digression from biblical orthodoxy and promote ‘gay Christian’ teaching. These same institutions are also comfortable with distorted, emotionally-enmeshed and co-dependent relating under the banner of ‘Spiritual Friendships.’ However, to see these kinds of unbiblical beliefs being embraced by many who are considered conservative Christians and/or reformed Christians is very disturbing. I was very distraught over seeing D.A. Carson’s endorsement of a young gay man’s book. He endorsed Gregory Coles’ book, Single Gay Christian.”
Even though Shaw’s book and his lukewarm theology of homosexual feelings above God’s Word have been endorsed by leaders at the Gospel Coalition, I have found no recommendation for such book coming from major Christian outlets as Charisma and the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Such lack of recommendation from prominent U.S. evangelical websites is no surprise. In 2016, The Gospel Coalition published several articles supporting Hillary Clinton and attacking Donald Trump. Clinton is a hard-core left-winger. Only a left-winger supports a left-winger. So it is not hard to conclude that The Gospel Coalition is left-wing.
Even though real Christians have some disagreements with Trump, they have total disagreements with Clinton.
The bad influences in the Gospel Coalition are spreading to other nations. Shaw’s book has been published in 2018 in Brazil by Editora Vida Nova. D. A. Carson was a speaker at VINACC, the most prominent Calvinist conference in Brazil, in 2017. And Ministério Fiel, one of the most prominent Reformed ministries in Brazil, has published in 2017 Shaw’s piece suggesting that David felt homoeroticism for Jonathan.
Editora Vida Nova publishes theological literature especially to Christian ministers in Brazil.
Carson spoke to over 100,000 Brazilians. Even though VINACC is controlled by Calvinist leaders, most of its public is Pentecostal and often unable to understand how the U.S. Calvinism is plagued by theological liberalism. VINACC has become an attempt to Calvinize such Pentecostals. But is such Calvinization good for Pentecostals or theological liberalism?
The fact is, theological liberalism, in its beachhead of support of sodomy through homosexual feelings and desires, is spreading fast from The Gospel Coalition to Brazil through Reformed leaders. The Gospel Coalition is bringing left-wing Reformed evangelicalism to Brazil. And the only bridge between The Gospel Coalition and VINACC is Nicodemus himself, who is a leader in both groups.
Since the 1990s, especially through my book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement) published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers, I have been warning Brazilian evangelicals about the homosexual ideology being imported from the United States. What the Gospel Coalition is doing to promote the left-wing ideology and homosexual ideology is a disservice to the Gospel in Brazil and in the United States.
In an article titled “Liberals May Win Control of Largest U.S. Protestant Denomination” in New American, author Alex Newman said,
One of the key players he identifies in the move to fundamentally change the Southern Baptist Convention and other historically conservative denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America is the so-called Gospel Coalition. The alliance, which brings together various leaders from ostensibly conservative churches, sounds very conservative — at first glance. But through alliances with controversial groups and affiliations with controversial activists, the “fruit” that is emerging is a major threat to the Christian faith, Littleton argues. “Most people in Gospel Coalition-affiliated churches have no idea what’s going on,” he said.
According to Newman, many of those involved in the Gospel Coalition openly worked to sabotage former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in his U.S. Senate campaign, even though evidence clearing him of the vile false allegations was coming out every day. I was one of the official supporters of Judge Moore.
Newman adds:
Even more alarming is the so-called “Revoice” movement, which is working to normalize homosexuality and gender confusion by treating those issues as part of a perso’s identity. On the Revoice website, the mission is defined as “supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”
Now, just in time for Gay Pride month, Revoice is being promoted by the Gospel Coalition. There are direct links between the Gospel Coalition and Revoice in terms of who is involved in these.
“This movement [Gospel Coalition] was seen as a reformed theological movement,” [Rev. Thomas] Littleton said. “The problem is it's highly ecumenical, highly emergent, and it is highly political. While it has been masked as theologically conservative, it is not conservative in any way.”
Shaw’s influence at the Gospel Coalition is incontestable. In an article in the Gospel Coalition, in a list about “What Can We Do?” about assistance to homosexual Christians, Shaw put as the number 1 item: “We must keep apologizing for genuine homophobia in the past and present.”
Interestingly, the fight against homophobia has been a top item in the homosexual agenda. As a Christian, as a top item in a Christian agenda, I would recommend to seek the Holy Spirit, his presence and supernatural gifts incessantly — a recommendation that would be opposed by Nicodemus of the Gospel Coalition. More interestingly, no Gospel Coalition leader has protested against Shaw’s priority of “homophobia.” This is a typical priority of homosexual activists.
Despite his obvious longings to be in relationship with a man, Shaw has chosen life long celibacy and declares, “celibacy is a good thing.” (p 107) Quoting Catholic teacher Christopher West, Shaw writes, “Celibacy for the kingdom is not a declaration that sex is ‘bad.’ It's a declaration that while sex can be awesome, there's something even better — infinitely better! Christian celibacy is a bold declaration that heaven is real, and it is worth selling everything to possess.” (p 112)
It seems a quite odd analogy to say that celibacy is better than married sex and then point that God put sexual pleasure in marriage “to make us want to go to heaven.” Shaw said,
“God created the two sexes—and sex—in this world as a trailer for life in the world to come. To help us understand the power of his love for us in the here and now, and the pleasure that will be ours when we live with him and his new Heaven and Earth. As film directors put romantic scenes in their trailers to make us want to go to their movies, God has put sex on this planet to make us want to go to heaven.” (p 87)
So if sex as God intended is so good, why doesn’t Shaw ask the Holy Spirit to visit him and help him, delivering his feelings and desires from homosexual temptations? Why doesn’t he seek brothers in Christ supernaturally empowered by the Holy Spirit to help him in his spiritual quest? Why doesn’t he seek the assistance of brothers in Christ who defeated demons of homosexuality?
It is very obvious that Shaw is confused. If celibacy is better than married sex, why avoid something that God has put on this planet to make us want to go to heaven?
His stances are lukewarm. They are not conservative and they feign not to be liberal. They seek a compromise, and the core of compromise in the Bible is to be lukewarm. What does Jesus say about lukewarm Christians?
“So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:16 ESV)
If celibacy were a successful Third Way for Christians who do not have a power encounter with the Holy Spirit to deal with their homosexual thoughts and feelings, the Catholic Church would be a paradise for such Christians. Doesn’t it seem that many young men chose celibacy through the Catholic priesthood to defeat homosexuality just to eventually end in horrendous homosexual sins? Celibacy is not working in the Catholic setting to solve homosexual issues of young men.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the Apostle Paul put homosexuals with other sinners who are banned from entering God’s Kingdom: idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers.
So if homosexuals, in Shaw’s view, can choose celibacy to enjoy homosexuality only in thoughts and feelings without practicing it, why cannot idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers equally choose celibacy to enjoy their sins only in thoughts and feelings without practicing them?
Though Shaw would clearly enjoy being in a marriage with a man, he chose celibacy because he knows that homosexuality is a sin and also because he has never found any ministry empowered by the Holy Spirit to help him. Or perhaps, as a Reformed minister, he has a closed heart to the supernatural visitations of the Holy Spirit.
Only the Holy Spirit can help a Reformed pastor who clearly longs to be married to a man.
In the article “What conservative gay Christians want” in the British newspaper The Spectator, Shaw said, “As a pastor, I thought being open about my sexuality would be a disqualification for the job.” It is a disqualification and it should be a disqualification, but incredibly and shamefully, a Reformed church ordained him as a pastor, even with his homosexual attraction and desires.
In spite of the fact that Nicodemus and other Calvinists accuse Pentecostals and charismatics of putting experiences and feelings above God’s Word, didn’t they put homosexual feelings above God’s Word when they embraced, praised or ordained Shaw as a Reformed minister with same-sex attractions, which the Bible would call homosexual temptations?
Correctly, in his book Shaw quotes the following Scriptures (NIV):
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers— perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11)
Yet, he immediately concludes:
“That used to convince. That used to be a plausible argument for most. To be an evangelical has always meant holding to the truth of ‘the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture as originally given and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.’ And when it comes to homosexual practice, those Scriptures are pretty clear. Evangelicals like clarity, and those verses were more than enough clarity for many, for years. We all knew where we stood. But that is no longer the case. Things have changed.”
The Holy Spirit who changed homosexuals into former homosexuals in homosexuality-riddle Greece through the ministry of Apostle Paul has not changed and his supernatural empowerment of Christians has not ceased. If Christians do not seek this empowerment, they do not find it. If they seek it, they find it.
Basically, what Christians can interpret in Shaw’s book is: He has not found this empowerment and he wants, as a Reformed minister, to teach evangelicals to be content with a life without such empowerment and that the Bible instructions about homosexuality apply only to acts, not to feelings and attractions. Sooner or later, Shaw’s adherents will face disaster.
Jesus said,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30 ESV)
Jesus meant that all sex acts, feelings and desires, outside of marriage and not for marriage, is a sin. It is not a sin to have sex with a woman, if you do it within marriage. All that is outside marriage and not for marriage, is a sin.
Yet, in the homosexual case, all sex, in and outside marriage, is a sin, because homosexuality is not sexuality. It is perversion of sexuality.
Considering that Jesus clearly addressed sexual desires, his comment can be applied to “Christians” with homosexual feelings and desires:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.’ But I say to you that every man who looks at a man with lustful intent has already committed abomination with him in his heart. If your sex organ causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose your sex organ than that your whole body go into hell.”
Today, homosexuals are praised when they choose mutilation to engage in homosexual sins. Why not mutilation, as Jesus pointed, to avoid homosexual sins?
Yet, I think that there is a better way than a Third Way and mutilation. Apostle Paul said of former homosexuals, former thieves, former adulterers and others:
“Some of you were like this; 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 Co 6:11 HCSB)
Some were homosexuals, in acts, thoughts, feelings and desires. But they were washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Only the supernatural activity of the Holy Spirit can defeat other spiritual forces that excite homosexuality and other sins in people’s minds, feelings and acts.
John Wimber, who had a Calvinist outlook with a charismatic flavor, said in his book “Power Healing” (Harper & Row, 1987, p. 118):
“Demons gain a foothold in people’s lives through a variety of ways. The first… is through sin. Unrighteous anger, self-hatred and hatred of others, revenge, unforgiveness, lust, pornography, sexual wrongdoing, various sexual perversions (like transvestism, homosexuality, bestiality, sodomy), and drug and alcohol abuse commonly open the door to demonic influence.”
Demons usually operate by influencing feelings, desires and acts.
Wimber said in Power Healing (p. 123, 124):
“Most people who are demonized are not aware of it, but there are many symptoms present in demonized people that help us identify demons: A problem with compulsions such as… homosexuality…”
Ed Shaw, D. A. Carson and the Gospel Coalition are playing with demons when they advocate, contrary to God’s Word, that it is ok to accept homosexual feelings and desires. They are not promoting the Gospel in its totality and truth. They are not promoting the wonderful deliverance Jesus offers in the Gospel. They are promoting theological liberalism.
There is an obvious lack of humility. If they do not have the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to help Christians oppressed by demons and homosexual feelings and desires, why do not they refer such oppressed Christians to churches open to that power? Why ordain them as Reformed ministers?
The Holy Spirit is above theological liberalism.
After seeing several Reformed leaders in the Gospel Coalition supporting the false teaching that Christians can embrace homosexual temptations in their feelings and desires and after seeing them supporting Hillary Clinton, my only advise comes from the Bible:
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 5:6 ESV)
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1 ESV)
With information from The Gospel Coalition, New American, Canyonwalker, Patheos, The Spectator, 9Marks and Pastor Mathis.
Recommended Reading:

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Google Imposes Propaganda of Homosexual “Pride” on Users


Google Imposes Propaganda of Homosexual “Pride” on Users

By Julio Severo
I was searching through Google last week when the Google page flashed on my face,
“Celebrate Pride Month” #ThisIsFamily
This propaganda was accompanied by homosexual flags.
A whole month to celebrate… perverted homosexual sex and pervert the meaning of family for the advantage of the homosexual agenda! Cannot Google dedicate a whole month for the celebration of the natural family? Cannot Google dedicate a whole month to Jesus and the Bible, which had a fundamental role in the U.S. history and culture?
People want to celebrate positive events as Christmas and Easter, not negative events as pride in homosexual sex. When most people think of family, the first picture that comes naturally to the mind is a man, a woman and children, never a group of worshippers of anal sex celebrating homosexual sex. Why pervert the natural family and induce people to celebrate proudly the crime of perverting it?
I am not celebrating any “pride” on homosexuality. Most people also are not celebrating it. Why then does Google impose such propaganda on its users?
Normal people have no pride in anal sex. They are proud of the natural family: a man, a woman and children. No one is proud of a group of worshippers of anal sex celebrating homosexual sex!
Google is an American company created by Americans. Most Americans celebrate Christmas and Jesus, but Google never mentions this celebration massively recognized by Americans.
Most Americans celebrate Easter and Jesus’s resurrection, but Google never mentions this celebration massively recognized by Americans.
Most Americans celebrate family as a man, a woman and children, but Google’s idea of family includes a group of worshippers of anal sex gathered together. Google’s idea and propaganda have no place in the whole American history. George Washington, the first U.S. president, in no way accepted worshippers of anal sex.
Why does Google reject popular historical celebrations respected by large numbers of Americans and give preference to a “celebration” of pride of anal sex and other homosexual perversions accepted only by a fringe of extremists?
It is a duty of the U.S. government to intervene against threats to its national security. Is not family such a national security issue?
Google suggested that pride in anal sex is “family.” Did the founders of America see worshippers of anal sex as “family”? Were they worshippers of homosexual depravities? Did they advocate that pride in homosexual sex represents family? So why does the U.S. government do nothing to stop this desecration of its most important national resource, family?
For lesser threats, the U.S. has militarily intervened in the affairs of other nations. Why not a military intervention in Google too?
If the U.S. can send troops to far-away nations to solve issues with no relation to the U.S. national security, why cannot the U.S. send its troops to the Google headquarters and stop its abuses against its users and the American family?
Forsaking one’s own family to meddle in the affairs of distant nations is not patriotism. It is to betray the most important values of a homeland.
Why wage stupid wars in far-away nations if the U.S. is not able to wage the most important war in its own soil and protect the integrity of family from greedy companies that have overstepped their limits?
If the U.S. government cannot intervene in Google, why intervene in far-away nations? Is oil more important than family? To protect and heavily arm the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia is more important than to protect family?
Yet, how can the U.S. government intervene in Google if its own State Department, headed by an evangelical Christian, has also declared June as the LGBTI Pride Month?
Recommended Reading: