NO COMPROMISE: WHY WE MUST STAND STRONG AGAINST THE WHOLE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

NO COMPROMISE: WHY WE MUST STAND STRONG AGAINST THE WHOLE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

By: Philip Rosenthal
Date: 4 October 2006

INTRODUCTION 1
ARGUMENTS GIVEN FOR COMPROMISING POSITION 2
1. We must present an alternative that addresses the legitimate needs of homosexual relationships 2
2. Compromises are more likely to be accepted by authorities than an absolute position 3
3. Compromise helps us gain acceptance from authorities 4
4. Compromise is more loving because it avoids offending homosexuals 6
5. We need to avoid offending homosexuals to win them to Christ 6
6. The word ‘marriage’ is the boundary we must defend. Other things are not the issue. 7
7. The Bible is outdated. Times have changed, we must interpret it differently now. 7
8. Homosexual unions deserve recognition like Moslem and Hindu marriages 7
9. We should not impose our religious belief on others in law 8
10. Homosexuals are a minority. It doesn’t affect us. Why bother to fight? 9
UNSPOKEN REASONS FOR SOFTENING OF POSITION 9
1. Media brainwashing 9
2. Fear of man 10
3. Maintaining unity with other Christians 10
4. Evil seems good when contrasted with greater evil 10
5. Ignorance of the situation 11
6. Sloppy phrasing of position and rushed thinking 11
COMPARISON WITH OTHER ISSUES 11
CHALLENGE 12
REFERENCES 12

INTRODUCTION

In the face of the current onslaught of the homosexual agenda against marriage, some Christian leaders are softening on the historic Biblical Christian position against homosexuality and any state benefits for such behaviour. There are different degrees of compromise. Some for example, say they oppose ‘same-sex marriage’, but support ‘civil unions’ as an alternative. Others, adopting a ‘conservative position’, will support the status quo of ‘homosexual rights’ laws granted already by government and the courts, but don’t want any new ones. Some adopt an ‘apologetic’ position implying that the church has been too harsh on homosexuality in the past. Some have succumbed to using newly coined homosexual terminology such as ‘homophobic’ or ‘sexual orientation’ – which imply the normality of homosexuality. Many Christians are very sincerely believe they are not compromising on the Biblical position, while in fact they are actually doing so. Christians who write submissions, articles and position statements on ‘same-sex marriage’ should be careful not to follow other misguided leaders in compromising the true Biblical position.

Before addressing the issue of compromise it may be helpful to briefly re-state true Biblical Christian teaching on homosexuality. We know from creation design that sexual relations are meant to be between a married man and woman (Genesis 2). God first expressed his view of homosexual sin by burning to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19; Jude 7). In the law of Moses it was punishable by death. In the New Testament it is punished by exclusion from God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9) and if the person is unrepentant, excommunication from the church (1 Corinthians 5:9-12). The good news is that under the New Covenant, Jesus gives hope for homosexuals to be freed from their sins (1 Corinthians 6:11). The idea of endorsing homosexuality, either morally or as a political right, is never entertained anywhere in scripture. Nor has it until very recently ever been entertained in any significant part of the Christian church.

In addressing the issue of homosexuality, it is important that we distinguish between some different related concepts. First is that that of ‘gender confusion’. This is psychological problem often caused by a childhood failure to develop close relationship with a parent of the same sex. It does not need to manifest as homosexuality, but leaves a person more vulnerable to homosexuality. Such people need love, help, teaching and counselling. The second is that of homosexual temptation. Everyone experiences some form of sexual temptation. For some people this temptation homosexual. All sexual temptation is evil, but provided that we do not entertain or give in to such temptation it does not need to become sin. Some Christians struggle with such temptation and they need love and support from other Christians. The third concept is homosexual practice (relationships and/or physical sexual relationships). This is very serious sin. The fourth concept is political activism to promote tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality. This is also very serious sin. Not all homosexuals do this. This article is dealing with this issue of political activism. It is not addressing in any depth the previous three issues. Obviously homosexual rights activism will create an environment, which will encourage more gender confusion, homosexual temptation and homosexual practice.

Why then do Christians sometimes now take a compromised position? Let us examine first the arguments they give; secondly other unspoken reasons they may not state.
ARGUMENTS GIVEN FOR COMPROMISING POSITION

In this section we examine the most common reasons some Christian leaders give for compromising their positions on homosexual rights. The argument in favour of compromise is stated in the heading sometimes with an explanation. Then the counter-arguments against compromise are presented.
1. We must present an alternative that addresses the legitimate needs of homosexual relationships

ANSWER: Firstly, there is not such thing as a legitimate homosexual relationship. God forbids homosexuality. Therefore there is no need for homosexual relationships or any legal recognition or benefits for them. Some Christians have sadly swallowed some of the lies of the politically correct media brainwashing. Homosexuals need to be challenged to repent and clean up their sin, not given legal recognition for it.

Secondly, yes, homosexual relationships can cause problems for the homosexuals, but that does not mean we need to pass laws to protect them from the consequences of their sins. Take another sin as an example. Many people lie. Those lies lead to relationship problems for them. Do we therefore need to pass laws to protect liars from the consequences of their lies? No we don’t. Neither do we need to protect homosexuals from the consequences of their immorality.

Thirdly, there are already numerous laws available to anyone, regardless of their sexual morality, which homosexuals can use if they wanted to for purposes of securing relationship benefits. For example, they can choose to put a partner into their will or they can write a normal legal contract. The main issue here however is that homosexuals are mostly not really after legal benefits, as they are trying to use the law and discrimination accusations as a lever to try to force acceptance of homosexual behaviour.

Fourthly, society has always recognised the need to promote and support marriage as special, above other forms of relationship, because it creates social stability. If one grants special rights and benefits to homosexuals or other immoral couples, then one is actually giving them advantages over moral unmarried people.
2. Compromises are more likely to be accepted by authorities than an absolute position

ANSWER: Firstly, one must differentiate between a moral position and a political compromise proposal. A moral position is what you believe and say is right and just. A political compromise proposal is a suggestion for the best outcome you think you can reasonably negotiate in a particular situation. As Christians, we must never ever compromise on our moral position. We may in certain circumstances be forced against our will to consider political compromise proposals. When we do so, we must very cautious in the way we do so to avoid becoming tainted by the sin. We must first carefully evaluate the other political alternatives, which might not involve compromise. We must be very careful to avoid creating the impression that we believe the compromise to be morally right and just. We must ensure that we ourselves are not becoming complicit in assisting sin. This is a very complex issue with which this article cannot comprehensively deal.

Pope Benedict, put it this way "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, "could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality", on condition that his "absolute personal opposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment." (Ratzinger, 2003).

Secondly, there is also the alternative of phrasing a political statement so as to be silent on some issue of controversy, simply to retain focus on the issue we most want to influence at the time. This is not the same as moral compromise. To state that we support some social evil, in order to gain credibility to oppose another social evil, is a foolish approach. It does not work in practice, but rather encourages a slippery slope of compromise. But whether it works or does not work, it is unethical for a Christian to practice. The scripture condemns such pragmatic thinking (Romans 3:8).

If for example, a Christian missionary is working in a communist or Islamic country, they would not be wise to take a public profile on political issues since that might endanger their opportunity to work there. This is not compromise because the missionary is not endorsing what they disagree with. They are just using wisdom in being silent. The same silence is at times a reasonable option in politics. Nevertheless, those who get involved in a controversial issue should realise the dangers and be prepared not to compromise by endorsing evil. If they are not prepared to they should rather keep out of politics.

Thirdly, as Christians we are called to be faithful, not necessarily to be successful. We should not be most afraid of losing. We should be afraid of dishonouring God. We must be faithful and trust God with the outcome.
3. Compromise helps us gain acceptance from authorities

Some argue that a strong moral Biblical position will lead to rejection from authorities such as academics, the courts, the media, and the government – and that we need to compromise to come over as more reasonable. This then enables us to gain social acceptance with these elites and to win pragmatic compromises. In some cases, a person’s job or promotion prospects can be at risk if they take an uncompromising Christian stance. They feel they can do more good taking a compromising stance, and thus gaining the promotion they want.

ANSWER: Firstly, with the previous question, we must differentiate between moral position and political compromise. Sometimes, as with the example of Esther, in scripture a Christian may strategically decide for a time to be silent about their position on an issue, or chose not to state it but not fight about it. Nevertheless, in doing so, we should never ever go as far as endorsing, helping or legitimising evil.

Secondly, as with Esther and with many other heroes of scripture, the time came when they had to speak up for what they believed, even at the risk of their lives. We must be prepared to make such sacrifices and suffer the pain that results. Stopping the homosexual agenda is going to require great sacrifice. Jesus set us an example by dying for us. We should be prepared to do so for him, and also any lesser form of suffering that may result. True Christianity advances through confronting people with the truth of God’s word. Imagine if John the Baptist had decided not to condemn the immorality of Herod? Then he would not have been beheaded after less than two years of public ministry. Would he have achieved more if he had lived longer? No. He made a statement by his death and willingness to suffer, and that is one of the main ways the gospel has always advanced.

Thirdly, such people often completely misjudge their real potential for winning political conflict with God’s help. Somehow they think that a majority who opposes homosexuality is just doomed to be defeated and walked over by a tiny minority of sexual revolutionaries. Have they ever considered that fighting might be worth a try first? Maybe the reason for the previous defeats was their being too willing to compromise rather than fight? Christians have often won conflicts with homosexual revolutionaries and others when they have fought.

Fourthly, we are all ultimately in eternity to be judged by God for what we do – not according to what our government or church did. Other people may, despite our good advice, make bad decisions. We however must promote what is right. We must obey God and stand up for truth. We are not responsible for the foolishness of others. While trying to help and influence the situation, we must protect ourselves against becoming complicit in the sins of others. Therefore we must staunchly oppose all such social evil.

Fifthly, with respect to redefining morality, the main effect of authorities taking a sinful position is educational. In granting homosexual rights, and in particular civil unions or ‘same-sex marriage’, they are teaching the population, and especially children, that sexual immorality is either normal or not so serious. But there are many authorities, which the next generation look up to. On moral issues, in South Africa, most actually have more respect for the church than they do for the government or the courts. Thus, while the sin of the courts is bad, the compromise of the church is actually more destructive than that of the government. When the church does this, they are effectively teaching the next generation to sin, something that Jesus condemned in the strongest possible terms (Matthew 18:6). While the church, or a part of it, stands firm on morality, there still is a hope of recovering the lost ground; winning over the rest of the church and reversing bad laws. But when the church compromises on morality it becomes like salt that has lost its saltiness (Matthew 5:13). Protecting the purity of the church is in fact a higher priority for Christian leaders and activists than trying to reform the government. A God-fearing church will, over the long-term, exercise good moral influence on society. A compromised one will not.

Sixth, we are not meant to be pragmatists. Pragmatism is an American ideology promoted by John Dewey that teaches that good is measured by the likely outcomes. The belief is foolish for many reasons -not least because we are not good at predicting likely outcomes. The Bible is not based on this belief. It is based on absolute commands of God’s word. We are not required by God to solve all social problems or take responsibility for all outcomes. We are simply responsible to be faithful and obedient. The Bible is God’s word, we must obey it. Christians are not pragmatists. In other words, even if it was true that some moral compromise would lead to various overall benefits, we are not as Christians permitted to do so.

Seventh, when we speak for God we have a sacred responsibility to represent him faithfully and truthfully. We are not free as Christian leaders to say whatever we want to, but to present the Word of God to our generation. If we don’t, we will be judged by God. God has given us his Word in the Bible and we are not free to substitute this or modify this with our own views. We must present His Word, however unpopular it may be with sinners in our culture, and whatever the consequences. When we are faithful to God’s word, then we speak with all the spiritual authority of heaven behind us. But when we take compromised moral positions, even if they are better than what others are saying, then we are not representing God – we are just acting in our own strength. We cannot present a position offensive to God and out of line with Biblical truth and then expect that somehow God will bless our efforts. Rather, we then leave ourselves open to being judged along with other rebels against God.

Eighth, a morally compromised position today seriously undermines the potential to reverse bad laws in future, because our opponents can ask us why, if Christians endorsed something before, are we now opposing it. Compromises reinforce the view of the courts and governments that they can ride over Christians and ignore their viewpoints.

Ninth, moral compromise is a slippery slope. If we give in to some demands of homosexuals, they will simply continue with more and more demands of their agenda, until eventually Christianity is forced to the margins of society and the entire society is sexually corrupted, as was Sodom and Gomorrah and Ancient Greece.

Tenth, as James Dobson has pointed out, the homosexual militants are currently behaving towards the moral portion of society as do rebellious teenagers against their parents. The lesson in parenting is that if the parent gives in to the intimidation and manipulation of their rebellious child, the consequences are very severe. To stand strong may be difficult, but it is absolutely necessary. In the same way, we have to refuse to give in and resist the demands of the homosexual militants at every step.

Eleventh, not all people are confused on these issues. It is mostly an elite minority in the media, courts and government. The media makes out that the ‘politically correct’ are in the majority, but this is not true. Most people can see that ‘same-sex marriage’ is madness. The majority look to religious leaders as the bastion of strength to defend morality. If we fail them, and give in to the homosexuals, then they will lose respect for our Christian belief. People criticise the church today for not standing strongly enough against apartheid yesterday. If we are not careful the same will happen to us. Christianity may be brushed aside by some other belief that does not flinch and compromise in the face of attack by the immoral. We are not just being judged by today’s generation, but also by people of the future. Even if the media is confused on homosexuality now, they will not be in the future. It is obvious that homosexuality is not natural. One does not need a Bible to see that. If we don’t stand up for the truth, people will dismiss our religion.

Twelfth, people focused on short-term compromises fail to understand the Biblical pattern of God’s judgement. Our main threat is not the homosexuals, but God. When people rebel against him, then he hands them over to increasing wickedness, until final judgement comes. He did this to the Canaanites (Genesis 15:16); he did it to ancient Israel (Ezekiel 20:25) and he does it also to individuals (Romans 1:26). The degeneration of our law to accept ‘same-sex marriage’ is a warning sign that we have abandoned God. But this happened some time ago and we have come a long way down this path. God will judge all of us for what we have done. His standards are absolute and unchanging for all time. Christian leaders need to repent of previous compromises in failing to oppose the homosexual agenda in the past, in order to obtain God’s forgiveness and thus His help. Then we can start to reverse the many evil laws passed in this country.
4. Compromise is more loving because it avoids offending homosexuals

ANSWER: Firstly, this idea confuses what it means to be loving. Many people have different understandings of love. The Bible tells us God’s definition and plan of what love means. Christian love is based on truth and righteousness. It must not be confused with tolerance of sin. Biblical love is not just doing what people want to make them happy. It is not loving to support and encourage someone’s self-destructive, sexually perverted lifestyle, that will eventually send them to burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Rather, it is loving to tell them the truth, and try persuade them to turn from their sins.

Secondly, this idea confuses personal relationships with homosexuals with opposing the political homosexual agenda. It is for example, possible to have a harmonious relationship with a homosexual colleague at work, without supporting any of the political homosexual agenda.
5. We need to avoid offending homosexuals to win them to Christ

ANSWER: Firstly, this view confuses evangelism with the political debate. The two are separate and different issues. Not all homosexuals support the political agenda of the activist radicals. These are separate issues. Arguing about the homosexual agenda is different to trying to win them to Christ. The two issues can impact each other, but they are different.

Secondly, the first word of the gospel is ‘repent’. In other words it means ‘change’ or ‘turn around’. It requires convincing someone that they are a sinner in need of salvation from God’s wrath before they can truly convert. People do not become Christians because they enjoy church tea and biscuits but because they see their need of Christ to save them. Many Christians have become so timid and silent in their presentation of Christian truth that most non-Christians do not see themselves as sinners having any need of salvation. If a person ‘converts’ to Christianity without this understanding, it is very often a false conversion and soon they become bored or frustrated with Christianity, they lapse back into their worldly lifestyle. This sin-free, judgement-free Christianity is a false gospel. The true gospel must include teaching on what constitutes sin. That includes homosexual sin. The political proclamation that homosexuality is a sin helps, rather than hinders, the preaching of the true gospel.

Thirdly, homosexuals, rather than being put off by Christians who speak out politically on the issue, are often drawn to ask them questions about faith. Many homosexuals are insecure people who want to know the truth, even if it isn’t nice. They want honest answers. Politics can be a conversation starter and it can help lead them on the path to salvation. Homosexuals will often listen earnestly to someone with an attitude that cares about their eternal future.

Fourthly, people who worry about offence often have a misunderstanding of the Christian teaching on ‘grace’. They think grace means avoiding challenging sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus did not avoid confronting sexual sin (John 4:17-18; 8:11). Peter, in the book of Acts, did not shy away from confronting the crowd and religious leaders with their sin of having murdered Jesus (Acts 2:23; 3:15). Grace provides a way of forgiveness and salvation for sin. It does not mean overlooking serious sin.
6. The word ‘marriage’ is the boundary we must defend. Other things are not the issue.

ANSWER: Firstly, yes the word ‘marriage’ is a major boundary we need to defend, but there are other issues as well. Marriage is a special and unique institution and not just a legal term. We must oppose not only the misuse of the word ‘marriage’, but anything that undermines the uniqueness of the institution. For example, Civil unions and ‘registered partnerships’, which give similar legal rights and responsibilities to marriage, based on a sexual relationship, undermine the institution of marriage in a number of ways. Firstly, marriage is an institution uniquely ordained by God and uniquely recognised in all human cultures. Any other sexual relationship, given legal recognition, undermines the uniqueness of marriage and should be opposed. Secondly marriage alternatives encourage the idea that sexuality and relationships are primarily there for the benefit of adult pleasure, rather than as a sacred commitment for the benefit of the natural family.

Secondly, the Christians have a duty to proclaim the truth to those who are confused on a variety of related issues. Many people are confused about gender issues and role and about sexuality. Whether they like it or not, we must lovingly help them by bringing clarity where there is confusion. Compromise on such issues has enormous social impacts.
7. The Bible is outdated. Times have changed, we must interpret it differently now.

ANSWER: People who question the authority of Scripture are sometimes confused Christians, sometimes not Christians at all, but wolves in sheep’s clothing. This was the first question Satan asked in the Garden of Eden: “Did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1). There are others who have written extensively in replying to the various arguments of modernist and post-modernist interpreters of scripture, which are available on request from mail@Christianview.org . The purpose of this article is to respond to people who claim to be Bible believing Christians but who believe it is okay to take a compromised political position on homosexuality.
8. Homosexual unions deserve recognition like Moslem and Hindu marriages

Some argue that homosexual unions deserve recognition like Moslem and Hindu marriages.

ANSWER: Firstly, Moslem customary marriages, although not currently recognised by South African law, are real marriages. A man and a woman covenant to each other. The Marriage Act does not recognise them because such unions are potentially polygamous. It is a debatable issue about how exactly this should be handled in our law. Nevertheless, a sexual union between two men is not a marriage – it is just perversion. Calling it marriage is insulting marriage.

Secondly, the Moslem and Hindu religions as well as many other ethical belief systems encourage stable society, honesty, family life and good citizenship. While Christians may disagree with the truth of many of their teachings about God, they do not as such represent a threat to society. Homosexuality on the other hand, is perversion, which causes huge harm to those who get involved in it, in terms of their physical and emotional health and their relationships. The relationships are mostly unstable and a very unhealthy environment to bring up children. The behaviour adds nothing of value to society and is not deserving of protection or encouragement.
9. We should not impose our religious belief on others in law

Some argue that opposition to religious belief is a religious viewpoint and religious people should not impose their views in law on others.

ANSWER: The view uses a number of mistaken assumptions. Firstly, it is not just religious people who are opposing the homosexual agenda. Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) opinion polls found that four out of five South Africans agreed with the statement that “Sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are always wrong” (HSRC,2004). An even greater proportion likely disagrees with the creation of special rights and recognition of so called ‘homosexual marriage’ or ‘civil unions’. Religious people often lead the opposition to public immorality, but they are supported by the overwhelming democratic majority. Therefore, in opposing homosexuality we are not imposing a minority religious viewpoint, but demanding democratic recognition for a majority viewpoint. Rather it is a minority who are trying to impose their will on the rest of us.

Secondly, the view assumes that it is possible for law to be neutral. This is not true. All law is based on enforcing some kind of belief – whether based on a formal religion or an ideology. It is a question of whose beliefs form the law. Should our law be based on the common beliefs of Christians and other moral and religious people or should it be based on the ideas of a group of sexual revolutionaries? Why should Christianity, which forms the views of the majority of South Africans, be disqualified from the political and legal arena. This is a view promoted by Albie Sachs, the judge who led the ruling in favour of ‘same-sex marriage’. If we give in to the lie, then our entire legal and political landscape will be corrupted by the exclusion of God’s viewpoint.

Thirdly, Christians by asking for morality in law, are not asking for any sort of special privilege for themselves outside of the democratic process. They are still doing everything according to the same democratic political procedures open to everyone else, Christian or not. We are using the democratic process to advance our views. On the other hand, the sexual revolutionaries are trying to abuse the courts to manipulate and circumvent the democratic process to achieve what they could never do through democratic means.

Fourthly, the view that we should not impose our beliefs ignores the issue that as Christians we are not just expressing an opinion. We are promoting absolute truth. The teachings of the ‘politically correct’ and gender revolutionaries are lies incompatible with truth. Our view of marriage and morality is obviously reflected in the creation design. Theirs is not. Religious and scientific truth affirm each other. There is no scientific basis for example of the claim of a ‘homosexual gene’. Medical science affirms the harm sodomy does to the health of those who practice it. Sociology affirms the value of marriage and stable family. The truth about sexuality and marriage is not just a religious belief. It is true in church and it is true in the hospital and in parliament. It is true because God said it is true and because he created the world, the human body and human society in accordance with the same truth. It is true everywhere. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is a perversion. It is not just a religious opinion. If for example, the government was to pass a law changing one of the laws to say that ‘One plus one equals three’, that would not make that statement true. It would just show everyone how foolish the government was being. You don’t need to be a Christian to see that. Neither do you need to be a Christian to see that homosexuality is unnatural behaviour. Therefore we must have confidence to stand up unashamedly for this absolute truth.
10. Homosexuals are a minority. It doesn’t affect us. Why bother to fight?

Some argue that homosexuals are such a tiny minority that what they do does not affect us and so we shouldn’t bother to fight.

ANSWER: Firstly, this view reflects an ignorance of the full homosexual agenda and what is being done in other countries. Homosexual revolutionaries are not simply looking for rights. They are looking to impose their view of sexuality on society. They wish to ban or marginalise the Christian viewpoint in the media and church as discrimination or ‘hate speech’ and have the state and media promote homosexuality to all, including children. This is already well underway. They seek to persecute moral people who stand up for truth, for example to make it illegal for a Christian bed and breakfast to refuse a same-sex couple a room with a shared bed. They aim to force Biblical Christians who oppose homosexuality to resign from political office, as they have already done in Europe.

Secondly, the homosexual activists aim to spread homosexuality through society. Once legal and social constraints are removed, there will be nothing to stop them. Historically, this happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. It happened in ancient Greece, where homosexuality, bisexuality and paedophilia became accepted and practiced as normal common behaviour. The public and legal promotion of homosexuality has already resulted in a huge increase in homosexuality and gender confusion, especially among youth.

Thirdly, even if homosexuals were to stay a minority, the public loss of respect for marriage and sexual purity has an enormous impact on heterosexuals. The idea is promoted that sexuality is just for pleasure and not something sacred. This is already seen in countries such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where as a result of legalised ‘civil unions’, fewer people get married. More have children out of wedlock and more divorce. Where marriage is dishonoured, society degenerates to a set of individuals in unstable relationships.

Fourthly, homosexual rights are often granted in parallel or closely together with rights for other immoral relationships. In South Africa for example at present, the Civil Unions Bill is also proposing recognition of heterosexual couples who form either registered or unregistered ‘domestic partnerships’ outside of marriage. Thus it creates an alternative to marriage, which will result in less people getting married. In France, for example such domestic partnership arrangements first created for same-sex couples, has been used by many more opposite sex couples.

Fifthly, for most people, the law informs conscience. Therefore an evil law threatens to corrupt the conscience of the nation.
UNSPOKEN REASONS FOR SOFTENING OF POSITION

Nevertheless, apart from the reasons that compromising Christians give for their positions, there are some other reasons which are often unstated.
1. Media brainwashing

Whereas fifteen years ago, many Christians would be revolted by the mere mention of homosexuality, many have been numbed by constant media brainwashing, promoting its tolerance as a normal lifestyle. While homosexuals make up a tiny minority in the population, they are the constant focus of newspaper articles and television programmes – no longer in scandal stories, but portrayed as victims of unjust discrimination. Many Christians thinking has been corrupted by this lie.

Many Christians have forgotten how far we have fallen and been corrupted in such a short time. Sodomy was only decriminalised in South Africa in 1996 and less than ten years later we have to defend the definition of marriage against such behaviour.

Some Christians buy into at least some of the lies of the homosexuals. For example they see them as a persecuted minority, who need some protection and redress – instead of as a group of people who need to repent of their sins and compassionate help to rehabilitate their lives. Another successful lie is the secular media attempt to caricature biblical Christianity as ‘right wing fundamentalism’, which is hateful of homosexuals. Some Christians sadly believe such slander and thus try to avoid sharing the same label by taking a position which is much too weak and out of line with scripture.

If every Christian would simply stop listening to the secular media for a year, and instead spend the time reading their Bibles and prayer, there would be a revival of Godly attitude to sexual purity. Our minds would be cleansed of all this mind pollution.
2. Fear of man

Many Christians are compromised by a fear of man. Lawyers want to fit in with other secular humanist lawyers and judges. Journalists want to fit in with humanist editors. Pastors want to avoid offending sinful and compromised congregation members. Some fear criticism from the media, the politically correct or from homosexual activists. So they compromise their viewpoints. As Christians we need to be courageous and stand for truth, even under attack.
3. Maintaining unity with other Christians

Some Christians, while personally opposed to a particular evil, wish to maintain unity with other Christians who support the evil. Thus they allow their good name to be used by a leadership representative in support of evil. This is not ethical – especially in the case of serious issues such as the homosexual agenda. There are a number of options open to such people, which include voicing objection, lobbying for change and withdrawing support. Obviously it is preferably to maintain both unity and truth, but unity cannot be at the expense of truth, on issues as serious as this.
4. Evil seems good when contrasted with greater evil

Some Christians, when first faced with homosexual rights, opposed them. But then as the homosexuals make even more absurd demands, such as ‘same-sex marriage’, their earlier demands, which were formerly opposed, don’t seem so bad. So then such people adjust their view to oppose the most extreme demands, but support the earlier ones. Such Christians do not have their beliefs properly rooted in scripture. They may know some scripture, but are allowing the surrounding culture to form their political beliefs instead of scripture. Their beliefs are motivated more by conservativism than Christianity. They just want to keep things as they are and prevent them getting worse. They compromise more slowly than the radical extremists, but eventually they get to the same place. Conservatism is progressive. Just lose the battle one step at a time. The only difference between the conservative and the radical is that the conservative compromises late while the radical compromises early. Christianity should cleanse the culture. The culture should not corrupt Christianity.

These Christians are being manipulated by the sexual revolutionaries, but they don’t realise it.
5. Ignorance of the situation

Some people say they support the rights already granted by the courts without realising what these rights include. For example the courts have already allowed adoption by homosexual couples. This leaves vulnerable children in the hands of sexual perverts. Even if such children are not abused sexually, they will have no role model for normal gender relationships. It is a serious sin against children and against God.

The whole concept of Civil Unions incorporates the right of homosexuals to adopt children. Therefore those who support civil unions are implicitly also supporting homosexual adoption of children. But many don’t realise or think about this. Some Christians don’t realise they are compromising at all because they compare themselves with others who are compromising more than they are.

Many people are completely ignorant of the degree of promiscuity in the homosexual community, and that even those getting ‘married’ or entering into ‘civil unions’ have multiple partners every year. Their idea of marriage does not necessarily include faithfulness.
6. Sloppy phrasing of position and rushed thinking

Some Christians will support or state a compromised position not after carefully calculated decision, but just because they were in a rush and didn’t have the time to study a statement carefully before publishing it or endorsing it. Maybe they didn’t think about the political or spiritual implications of the position in relation to other issues. We can’t all be experts on every issue. Then others draw concerns to our attention and we realise we don’t really support the compromised statement. Probably most of us do this from time to time. Nevertheless, when we realise our mistake, we should try to make an effort to correct it, to prevent it doing further damage.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER ISSUES

It may be helpful to compare the homosexual agenda with the apartheid issue. The first is a set of laws to promote sexual perversion. The second was a set of laws to promote racial discrimination. Now imagine someone says ‘I support racial discrimination in general, but I think the pass-laws are unfair’. One older man admitted to me ‘I was a racist, but even to my racist mind it was unfair that black people were not allowed anywhere on the beach at Mossel Bay’. Are these acceptable positions for a Christian? No. The point is that for both, the whole set of laws are rotten and unjust. Maybe for political purposes, one may chose to focus fighting one problem at a time, but one should never endorse one evil in the process of trying to fight another. The same with those who say they oppose ‘same-sex marriage’, but support other ‘homosexual rights’. These are not legitimate. They are evil. It is one thing to tolerate some racism in society - this can never really be totally eliminated. It is totally another thing to support laws to encourage racial discrimination. In the same way, we cannot totally eliminate homosexuality, but we should not support laws that encourage it.

Another historical example is that of the Nazis. Read the following letter to the Nazi Minister of Justice protesting about the murder of handicapped Germans: “Dear Reich Minister, The measure being taken at present with mental patients of all kinds have caused a complete lack of confidence in justice among large groups of people. Without the consent of relatives and guardians, such patients are being transferred to different institutions. After a short time they are notified that the person concerned has died of some disease...If the state really wants to carry out the extermination of these or at least of some mental patients, shouldn't a law be promulgated, which can be justified before the people - a law that would give everyone the assurance of careful examination as to whether he is due to die or entitled to live and which would also give the relatives a chance to be heard, in a similar way, as provided by the law for the prevention of Hereditarily affected Progeny?” (Chief of institution for feeble-minded in Stetten, 1940) What is wrong? Answer: The writer is implying that if the killing was done legally according to due process, then it would become morally acceptable. In hindsight it is obvious that this protester was being far too compromised in his statement, but at the time it might not have been clear to him. He should have protested the killing without qualification. Let us not make the same mistake again in protesting too weakly against the homosexual agenda.

The church has had to fight off many heresies over the centuries. Compromise with sexual perversion (‘same-sex marriage’) and murder (abortion) are the main battles we are fighting now. The health or problems of Christianity today is often a result of the battles fought over the previous centuries. We must stand strong today.

CHALLENGE

Maybe you have swallowed some of the lies of the homosexual activists and compromised on the Biblical Christian position on homosexuality or homosexual rights, without realising it. Please consider this possibility. If so, please reconsider what you have been teaching and saying to eliminate any compromises. Pray for God’s forgiveness for the harmful effect of any compromises you may have made in the past. Speak out with the uncompromised Christian message on these issues. Please also challenge others to do the same.

A key issue to remember in stating your position is to state clearly what is right and if you propose any form of political compromise with evil, you need to avoid endorsing it as a moral good. For example, you can say that an alternative is less evil than another alternative, but one should not just say you support the evil. Your moral position must be differentiated from the compromise proposal.
REFERENCES

Chief of institution for feeble-minded in Stetten 1940, to Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Frank, September 6, 1940 [ToWC, Vol. I, p. 854], Letter, http://www.remember.org/witness/links.let.eut.html

HSRC, 2004 “Rights or wrongs? Public attitudes towards moral values” By Stephen Rule, September 2004, www.hsrc.ac.za

Ratzinger, 2003: Congregation for the doctrine of the faith: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. Issued on June 3, 2003