Select Page

america at war title graphic

(This originally appeared in the Fall 2002 edition of the MCOI Journal)

In the August 9, 2002, online edition of World Net Daily, in an article entitled Why are Christians Losing America? David Kupelian writes:  

Most Americans call themselves Christians.  

Twice they chose as their supreme leader Bill Clinton – a sexual predator and pathological liar who regarded the “religious right” as enemies and radical homosexuals as friends, and who by any meaningful and historical measure was a traitor.

After that, millions of Christians came within a hair’s breadth of electing Clinton’s partner in crime, Al Gore – another pathological liar, a radical environmentalist who reveres “Gaia” but believes the internal combustion engine should be outlawed (according to his book, “Earth in the Balance”).

Christians have stood on the sidelines during the breathtaking transformation of their once-great Judeo-Christian culture into today’s neo-pagan, Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style freak show. Christians have lost the 30-year war to protect the unborn. Even easy victories – like partial-birth abortion, which virtually everyone opposes – have eluded them.

Christians have lost the war for America’s schools – which have been scrubbed antiseptically clean of the Christian principles and traditions that once guided those institutions and are now filled instead with every conceivable form of propaganda and perversion.

Christians have lost their former influence in politics, in the press, in entertainment, in literature – in virtually every major area of life.

And now, Christians are losing the war for their very own institutions – their churches. The clergy sex scandal is the tip of the iceberg. Both the Catholic Church and most of the major Protestant denominations are literally being ripped apart – from within – by double agents who pretend to be “faithful” but actually loathe Christianity’s historical precepts and values.1David Kupelian, “Why Are Christians Losing America?” Article ID # 28562, on-line edition of World Net Daily, August 9, 2002

america at war graphicAre things really that bad? Is America lost? Are most Americans truly Christians? And will genuine Christians be able to regain some of the ground they have lost in the past 25 years or so? We agree our beloved country is in trouble and that the church has been largely ineffective in stemming the tide of cultural decay. We believe millions of people who consider themselves Christians (because they may attend church, or follow the golden rule, etc.) are not truly Christians. But, we disagree with Kupelian’s conclusion. He believes the major problem in the church today is that too many Christians hold to the idea “I’m saved, so it doesn’t matter how I live,” so they go right ahead and live like the Devil. Many Christians may abuse God’s grace and live contrary to their calling, but that certainly would not explain the millions of Catholics and others who do not hold to the “once saved, always saved” belief and yet mirror the culture in their daily lives and attitudes. We believe a better explanation is the vast propagandizing power of the popular culture to mold the minds of the citizenry. Just imagine our grandparents and great-grandparents being dropped into our culture for a time. With their frame of reference being the cultural times in which they lived, they would be dumbfounded—shocked speechless—by the things we see every day. But our frame of reference, our context, is twenty-first-century America; and most people, especially those with no knowledge of history, are unaware of how absolutely bizarre and ungodly our culture (and the problem is global, not just American) has truly become. And even when Christians do realize how far society has sunk and understand what is going on, many are reluctant to swim against the current.

The Counterculture

Back in the 60s, the “counterculture” was the vanguard of social change, made up of those seeking to radically remake a conservative society that was largely “Christianized” if not Christian. These radicals, seeking complete freedom from the sexual (and other) restraints of the past, were running counter to the mainstream American culture of the time. Make love not war! . . . Burn Baby burn! . . . and all that. The sexual revolution really took off.

Now, however, leftist radicals no longer comprise the counterculture—they are the culture today—right in the mainstream of society! They just don’t seem that radical any more! Now it is discerning Christians who make up the counterculture—we are the ones out of the mainstream of “Middle America” today. Cool, huh? Far out, man! Psychedelic! Unfortunately, being counter to the culture today is not considered all that cool, like it was in the 60’s; and Christians, for the most part, don’t want to be on the fringe. Most of us yearn to “fit in” to “Middle America,” but we cannot do so and remain faithful to our faith and our LORD.

The Leftward Drift

“Middle America” is called that because they are in the middle! “Middle America” is not overly committed to the ideology of the right or the left. They are busy working their jobs, providing for their families, saving for vacations, sending the kids to college, and trying to provide for their retirement years. When an anti-abortion radical blows up an abortion clinic or kills an abortion provider, “Middle America” shifts left. On the other hand, when a radical leftist takes some outlandish action like attacking flag displays or the Pledge of Allegiance, “Middle America” shifts right. They traditionally are not that comfortable with “activism” from either camp. Yet, their views have been subtlety shaped over a span of years and decades by the media in ways which many of them do not fully comprehend. Since the vast majority of our mainstream media leans to the left, and since the majority of “Middle America” gets their news from these tainted sources, the country had been drifting further and further to the left of center in recent times. The media portrays their predominately leftist view as centrist and the “normal” view (and any opposing view) as radical rightwing extremism. As a result, many of our countrymen are quite confused in their thinking and influenced heavily by the liberal media which generally disguises its agenda by using the language of “personal liberty” or “civil rights,” yet still holding onto many of the “values” (such as respect for life and the care of the weak) derived from our Judeo/Christian heritage. Our culture is rife with contradictions stemming from this clash of opposing worldviews. One clash involves the traditional American respect for life versus the “right” of a woman to choose to end her pregnancy on any grounds.

Americans, always big on personal freedom, generally believe people should be able to do pretty much as they please as long as “nobody gets hurt.” Over the last quarter century or so, though, “Middle America” has been sold the bill of goods by the now-cultural elites that “personal liberty” encompasses even such things as the killing of the unwanted pre-born while ignoring the inconvenient truth that someone does get hurt in such a case—namely the poor little one in the womb.

Truth Is Not Absolute, But Relative

After undergoing relentless indoctrination by popular culture—movies, popular music, sitcom television programs, and network news, etc.—most Americans (yes, even many Christians) have become moral relativists, believing we ought not make any judgments at all on moral grounds. Adultery, living together without benefit of marriage, homosexuality, no-fault divorce—all of these things are either protected “personal choices” or issues a person is seen as having no control over—“they were born that way”—and who are we to judge? American sense of fairness has been exploited by “multicultural” moral relativists bent on brainwashing us to believe all personal choices are equal—that there are no truly right or wrong choices or lifestyles, just “different strokes for different folks.”

The religious arena has likewise experienced a great sea of change in our times. The view of the elites, which has trickled down to a great number of the common folk, is that religion also is just a matter of personal choice or taste—there is no ultimate truth to know, no one to save us, and indeed, nothing to save us from. Sing it, friends: “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys—there’s only you and me, and we just disagree…” This love affair with religious pluralism—which is the religion of the cultural elites, the only religion that is believed to be really TRUE!—has brought considerable wrath down on Christianity with its core beliefs that there is a TRUTH to know, a Hell to shun, and Jesus is the only way to the Father. On any given night, you can find various television programs that cast doubt on the truth of the Bible and the claims of Christ. We are bombarded by shows purporting to expose the “myths” of the Bible, such as Noah’s flood, the Bible “story” of Sodom and Gomorrah, and on and on ad infinitum. One program defended the biblical Queen Jezebel as just a religiously oppressed woman defending her right to hold onto her foreign gods and beliefs amidst the “intolerant” culture of ancient Israel. Of course, it is not just the people of Israel but the God of Israel Who is defamed by this characterization.

Recently, Peter Jennings hosted a program on primetime network television attacking the person of Christ and Christianity, which featured many of those liberal scholars of the type that David Kupelian fears (with good reason) are taking over our churches and Christian institutions. Of course, all of these attacks show the hypocrisy of the liberal left in claiming to believe in religious pluralism. Wouldn’t you think, for example, if Jennings and his ilk really believed all religions are equal and all religious beliefs equally valid, that they would not persistently and continually portray our belief in the most negative possible light? It reminds us of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others!

Schizophrenic Nation

Those Neanderthals who refuse to bow down at the altar of religious pluralism and multiculturalism are arrogantly dismissed as “narrow-minded,” “judgmental,” or “extremist,” which are some of the worst things you can be called today. But what much of “Middle America“ has not yet realized is that, because of religious pluralism, multiculturalism, and moral relativism, our culture is at war with itself. We have a truly schizophrenic society here in the States and the Western world.

While Americans generally may no longer hold tightly to “morality” in the sense that it was understood 50 years ago—i.e., chastity outside of marriage, marital fidelity, etc., we struggle valiantly to hold to our “values.” We believe the powerful should not exploit the average man—think Enron. The strong should not subjugate the weak—think rape and incest. Minorities and women should be protected from the presumably racist, sexist majority. The old should have their Medicare, the young should be provided with a good education. The handicapped should have special parking privileges, and slow learners should have Special Ed. And perhaps our strongest value: All children (those born at least) should be protected—from sexual predators to schoolyard bullies to low self-esteem. Yet, with Christianity discredited and Darwinian Evolution as the underpinning of our secular culture, we have no real basis for the “values” we hold dear based, as they were, on “old-fashioned” biblical morality. As the late, very popular evolutionist Stephen J. Gould pointed out in the PBS documentary A Glorious Accident, morals and values are about “oughts,” and the evolutionary process is not about “oughts.2See article by Don andJoy Veinot, “Once Upon a Time…Plus Chance,” highlighting this PBS interview with Gould. Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4 (September/October,1998) In Darwinian Evolution, the only thing that matters is surviving and reproducing. The strong subjugate the weak, and that’s all there is to it. Nothing is right, and nothing is wrong; nature knows only predator and prey. Yet, the majority of Americans accept as fact that we are mere products of evolution—that we clawed our way up the evolutionary chain by killing or subjugating the weak; but they also suppose we “ought” to behave in certain civilized ways that fly in the face of that belief!

Is Rape Natural?

Recently, Randy Thornhill (from the University of New Mexico) and Craig T. Palmer (from the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs) published a book that created consternation and caused quite a stir among the academic elites. The book was entitled A Natural History of Rape. These two scientists argue that rape is a natural mechanism that enables less-desirable males, who might otherwise be rejected by females, to successfully reproduce.

Now everyone knows it is a strongly held value in our society that rape is a crime of violence and power against women, which should be severely punished. But this “value,” though still widely held, is actually just a holdover from the Judeo/Christian era when God informed us of what was right and wrong. Violence and power are the mainstays of Darwinian Evolution. How could any species hope to survive without them? Thornhill and Palmer may have run afoul of our values, but they are merely exhibiting consistency in their thinking. In fact, if Darwinian Evolution is true, there is no such thing as racism, sexism, or all the other “isms.” We may as well ask pigs to curtsy as to expect the “human animal” to respect these values if they are merely cultural taboos. Nature is not polite, sensitive to “feelings,” or politically correct. The animal kingdom is driven by the desire to survive and procreate. Niceties like asking permission to take a mate are just not dreamed of in the jungle, field, or barn. If men are mere animals, and some women are convinced of it!, why should they behave any differently than stallions or bulls? Yet, we ignore these inconsistencies in our logic—to our peril—and plow ahead.

Who Are The True Bigots?

One area that shows the fuzzy thinking of the “politically corrected” is the issue of homosexuality. If a Christian even timidly asserts practicing homosexuality is a sin3Today, all the dirty words George Carlin once said could not be uttered on television are being shouted from the rooftops, but the “S” (aka sin) word is a big no-no—no different than adultery, lying, stealing, etc., we are excoriated as narrow-minded, bigoted “homophobes.” But is judging sin really rejected by the PC crowd? No, they have merely chosen different “sins” to denounce. Are they not judging bigotry and homophobia are “sins” that should be condemned? Of course, they are! Are they “tolerant” of opposing views? Are you kidding? No! “Tolerance” of the liberal stripe is only shown to other liberals.

Where Are We Headed Next?

We held an apologetics conference at a local area Bible Church just a few years ago. The last session was a question and answer forum where we and our guest speakers made up a panel, and the audience asked us different cultural and apologetics questions.

One question we were asked was, “Where is our culture headed—what sort of changes do we see occurring on the cultural front in the next 25 years or so?” We answered the question by asking them to contemplate the changes that had been wrought in the last 25-30 years—the legalization and embrace of abortion, the blasé acceptance of “living together” as an alternative to marriage, the acceptance of the “gay” lifestyle, casual divorce, etc. All of these were considered WRONG, even IMMORAL (such an outdated word!) 25-30 years ago by the overwhelming majority of Americans—Christian or non-Christian. And since the radical left never rests but keeps pushing the boundaries ever further, we can sadly assume and expect that what “Middle America” generally holds as being WRONG today will be perfectly acceptable in another 25 or 30 years. So we suggested that we may expect pedophilia, now considered by “Middle Americans” to be an unspeakable crime, would someday in the not-too-distant future be “normalized”—and if you dare to speak out against it, you will be considered the worst kind of bigot just as you are now for rejecting the “normalcy” of homosexuality. The audience had a hard time accepting that seven years ago, but to our revulsion, we are seeing this prediction beginning to come true right before our eyes.

Clashing “Values”

Here’s the problem with “values.” Values, as opposed to morals, are based on popular opinion, and so are as changeable as the wind. That is not to say that most of our commonly held “values” are bad; it’s just they may not hold their value as time goes on. Another problem is that values often clash, which results in rather strange paradoxes. To illustrate one of our more vexing cultural inconsistencies, we need to look no further than two stories that dominate the news today. The media is openly excoriating the Catholic Church (and rightfully so!) for admitting pedophiles IN to its priestly ranks where they have access to children while condemning the Boy Scouts of America for trying to keep pedophiles OUT and away from their kids! Which “value” will prevail in the end—are we going to protect our precious children or protect the precious “rights” of child predators?

Is Pedophilia More Common Amongst Homosexuals?

Whistleblower magazine reports that despite the angry denial by Gay activists of any link between homosexuality and pedophilia,  

“Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate much higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.” 4Steve Baldwin, “Child Molestation and The Homosexual Movement,” Whistleblower,Vol. 11, No. 7 (July 7, 2002), p. 5. Whistleblower magazine is a monthly publication

NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association) considers itself to be a homosexual group and makes common cause with Gay Rights activists. One of the missions of NAMBLA and other similar groups is to lower the age of consent so its members may openly and legally engage in sex with children! Lest we think only males are involved in this type of perversion, a website out of the Netherlands openly touts sexual relations between lesbian women and prepubescent girls! The website’s name is Butterfly Kisses (subtitled celebrating love between women and girl), and the introduction has this to say:

Hello and welcome to “Butterfly Kisses.” This web site is about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls. Our primary goal is to give women and girls a tool for expressing their feelings and their love about this controversial topic, and to get people to open their minds to ideas about romantic and erotic attraction between women and girls that our society in the past has not been able to discuss openly and rationally. We also want to provide a place where women and girls can express themselves and can learn about their love in an atmosphere where they are encouraged to feel good about themselves and their sexuality.

Obviously, the information presented here is of an open and frank sexual nature and there is no “tap dancing” around sensitive topics. Hopefully, this will actually be a comfort to everyone because it will present the “touchy” subject of female child love to people to think about, without having to be influenced by sex-oppressed media, religion and governments. The topics discussed, articles/essays posted and the stories/poetry written on this site are different from what society’s expectations of women and girls are, and as such this site strives to liberate women and girls from the oppression imposed on their sexuality.

Within the pages of Butterfly Kisses you will find sexual issues and topics of female, and particularly lesbian pedophilia, and some of them will probably make some people uncomfortable. …Many of these topics, if we will just stop overreacting to them and calmly, rationally think about them, may turn out to be less controversial than we thought.

If we just think rationally about these issues, they “may turn out to be less controversial than we thought…” THAT pretty much spells out the game plan of the radical left. This agenda has worked before like a charm with the normalization of homosexuality, so there is no reason to think the same strategy will not work again—this time to normalize pedophilia.

Incidentally, the website denounces the Boy Scouts of America for the stand they have taken against allowing known homosexuals to be Boy Scout leaders. The Girl Scouts of America, on the other hand, is praised as being far more “open” and “tolerant” of lesbians. The site even provides links to the website of the Big Sisters and the Girl Scouts so these child predators can get involved with these organizations and influence and “mentor” young girls. It is truly sickening.

The Blueprint for Social Transformation

We do not believe most homosexuals condone pedophilia today, just as the vast majority of heterosexuals are very opposed to child molestation, yet, some heterosexuals are pedophiles. So we are not trying to single out homosexuals as worse sinners than the rest of us (ALL of us are sinners, and all variety of sins are an affront to God’s holiness); but it is very instructive to look at how homosexuality was “normalized” and then accepted into the mainstream of our culture to see the blueprint for eventual acceptance of pedophilia and other perversions.

First of all, homosexuality underwent a transformation from a “sin” to a sickness—a mental illness. The common thinking among mental health professionals is that homosexuality should not be condemned but understood. Within the span of a few short years, however, the APA decided it was not an illness after all—homosexuality was a normal variant of human sexuality. As long as the sexual experience was consensual, it was not harmful to anyone and no longer needed to be understood or cured but accepted. And it has been accepted—so accepted that to oppose the homosexual lifestyle is considered bigotry, hatred, or a result of irrational fear. In fact, protecting homosexuals from “hate crimes” has become the new cause celibre’ in American culture.

We believe the exact same path taken by “Gay Rights” advocates and activists will inevitably lead us to legalization and then widespread acceptance of pedophilia. Pedophilia today is outlawed, yet at the same time, therapists “treat” pedophiles for their “illness.” That confuses the issue, doesn’t it? Most people, it seems, think child molestation is so very awful that the pedophile must be sick rather than evil. After all, who could intentionally harm a child in this way? People have lost the ability to see evil as evil. And they are not taking into account the fact that pedophiles do not see what they are doing as harmful to children at all. Many, if not most, pedophiles truly believe they are not hurting anyone—that there is no trauma involved in child sexual abuse, and the child actually enjoys the experience!

The Radical Goes Mainstream

Although the idea pedophilia is harmless is currently a fringe idea in society, it is a concept gaining ground and going mainstream. In 1999, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) published a fact sheet warning that the American Psychological Association (APA) had published a study that was “opening the way to the normalization of Pedophilia.” Here is what NARTH reported:

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.’s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin.5Rind, Bruce; Tromovitch, Phillip; and Bauserman, Robert.(Temple U. Dept. of Psychology, Philadephia, PA). “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, No. 1 (July, 1998), pp. 22-53 It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse. The author’s conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm—and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s background. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is enjoyed, it may not be harmful at all. The article proposes that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like “child abuse,” “molestation,” and victims,” using instead neutral, value-free terms like “adult child sex.” …The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term “abuse” may only constitute a violation of social norms. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish…but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.

In March of 1999, Dr. Laura Schlessinger brought this issue (of the APA’s publication of the “study”) to public attention on her popular nationally syndicated radio program. Schlessinger (who is a Jewish Conservative) rightly condemned the APA for their apparent sanction of pedophilia and very quickly had that organization on the defensive. While a spokeswoman for the APA, Rhea Farberman, admitted Schlessinger’s criticism was valid, she contended the APA’s position on pedophilia is that it is a mental disorder that is extremely harmful to children and should remain illegal. However, she then criticized Schlessinger for “making a big issue of the piece.”6Debra J. Saunders, “Lolita Nation,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1999 One wonders how one should react when an organization as prestigious as the APA publishes a piece apparently sanctioning a practice that Farberman herself asserts is “extremely harmful” to children.

There are those who may want to dismiss NARTH and Dr. Laura as radical right-wingers who may have misinterpreted the study or ripped quotes from their context in order to make the APA look bad. We can assure you the APA needs no help in looking bad, and their published “study” indeed implies pedophilia is far less harmful than generally believed. We read the report ourselves, and it is still out there on the net for those who care to check it out for themselves.7 We found NARTH and Schlessinger were absolutely correct in their assessment of the report and not being “alarmist” at all. If anything, we found it to be even worse than expected.

But even with an organization as highly esteemed in our culture as the APA. seemingly endorsing these radical claims, is it possible that “Middle America” will ever accept pedophilia as a normal human variant, given the current loathing of the practice? We believe so. No matter how reviled and hated the practice is today, the day is probably coming when it will be normalized and accepted, and only “sexually suppressed and oppressive bigots” will oppose it. There will inevitably be a generational “changing of the guard,” and younger and more heavily PC-indoctrinated (and even less biblically influenced) people will become the movers and shakers of our society. On what basis will they reject pedophilia as just another “alternative lifestyle?”

We hope to be proved wrong, but such a “tolerant” stance taken by an organization so prestigious and influential as the A.P.A. is like the distant hoof beats of approaching horsemen—we can watch the horizon and wait for their appearance—and it’s not going to be Roy Rogers and Dale Evans! Furthermore, the article in the Psychological Bulletin is not the only sign the times they are a changin.’ The repugnant philosophy—that “adult-child sex” is not always harmful to children and may be beneficial to some—is echoed in a new book recently published by University Press of Minnesota. The title of the book is Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex. Newhouse News Service, who interviewed the author Judith Levine, quoted her as saying a sexual relationship between a priest and a youth could “conceivably” be positive.8Joel Reese, “They Shall Overcome …Maybe,” Daily Herald, Daily Living Section 4 (July 22, 1999),p. If it is a “conceivably” positive relationship, who except for bigots could be against it? Is this just a fringe book with no possible influence on the populace at large? The foreword of this book was written by Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States! While Elders is definitely considered a “fringe element” by a wide swath of Americans, she obviously does exert influence on many. We are a divided nation in many areas, and we forget that to our peril.

They Were Born That Way

One of the primary arguments for the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” is that “they were born that way” and cannot change even if they want to. The argument is already being made by psychologists that pedophilia is “a compelling desire that will not go away with medication, time or therapy.” “Pedophilia,” reports The Seattle Times, “is a sexual disorder” that “remains a mystery.”

Psychologists struggle to treat it without even fully understanding its causes. It cannot be cured, even when an offender wants to change…“The only thing we know for sure is that it is not a voluntary choice,” said Fred Berlin, a psychologist and founder of the Sexual Disorders clinic at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. “No one decides that they want to be attracted to children.” …Psychologists say it’s time for society to start treating pedophilia as a public-health issue, conducting the research that’s needed to uncover its causes and develop other treatments. “One of the problems is that pedophilia has always been looked at as a moral issue, and it is a moral issue, but there are also legitimate questions of science and biology that need to be addressed.”9Robyn Suriano,“Pedophilia: Psychologists struggle to treat it without fully understanding its causes,” The Seattle Times on-line edition, April 26, 2002

Pedophilia is a “disorder” that should be treated, even though no treatment, no medication—nothing can or will change the sexual orientation of a pedophile. If it becomes widely believed pedophiles, like homosexuals, were destined by nature or God with a certain sexual orientation and cannot change, can “normalization” and “acceptance” be far behind? How shall we deny the pedophile’s “right” to sexual satisfaction?

Where Has All The Tolerance Gone? 

We now have the spectacle of the Catholic Church caught in the crossfire of two contradicting “values” (protecting children versus protecting the “rights” of pedophiles) like a startled deer in the headlights, wondering just where they went wrong. They have been consistently castigated by the elites for being “regressive” and generally “intolerant.” Well, weren’t they being extremely “tolerant” and “progressive” in therapeutically “treating” pedophiles rather than expelling them from their positions? You would think they would get some credit for keeping up with the times! But they are getting no credit, only condemnation from the same elites who argue for the acceptance of homosexuality as just an alternative lifestyle. Why are they being so “intolerant” about the alternate lifestyle of the pedophile priests? If we must tolerate everyone’s personal choices, wouldn’t that include the personal choices of pedophiles? Sadly, given the time, it probably will. It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church is not alone in exercising exceedingly poor judgment in its handling of this issue. Because of the late-twentieth century’s love affair with psychotherapy, many churches of all stripes have turned to therapy to “help” leaders and laymen caught in homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia.

Sick or Evil?

The Chicago TribunePARADE magazine contained a very interesting lead article titled, “What We Must Do… To Protect Our Children” by Contributing Editor and Attorney Andrew Vachss. He is concerned and outraged about the sexual assaults on minors. Of course, we share his concerns. He bemoans the fact there seems to be such confusion in our society about whether pedophiles are sick or evil. He asserts the issue is not all that complex. In fact, he believes the complexity “is an illusion.”10Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), p. 4 He then goes on to give some working definitions to help the reader understand what he is talking about. Writes Vachss:

Sickness is a condition—evil is a behavior and is always a matter of choice. Evil is not thought; it is conduct. And conduct is always volitional. And just as evil is always a choice, sickness is the absence of choice. Sickness happens. Evil is inflicted. 11Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), p.4

These are not bad definitions—downright refreshing views to be found in a secular magazine! It is this confusion of action with thought (temptation to do evil) that has led people to believe a homosexual, or a pedophile is someone who desires to engage in homosexual behavior or to molest children. This is completely untrue. Someone who is tempted to steal is not a thief—someone who steals is a thief! The person who is tempted to lie is not a liar—he has to actually lie first! A homosexual is not a person who is tempted—attracted to a person of the same sex—a homosexual is someone who indulges his desire and actually engages in the behavior. By the same token, as hard as this is to understand to a person who doesn’t battle this particular temptation, a pedophile is not someone who is attracted to children sexually and tempted to act on this evil desire, but someone who actually seduces or molests a child. Our society consistently (intentionally?) mislabels homosexuals as people who are attracted to persons of the same sex who are tempted to engage in homosexual behavior. Case in point: A few years back, our newspaper had an article about the issue of whether or not a homosexual can change. One man was quoted as saying he tried the “straight life” but it didn’t “work.” How did he know it didn’t “work?” He knew it didn’t “work” because the temptation was still with him.

Hope For Sinners

Biblically speaking, we know homosexuals are not predestined to the behavior and can change, because the Apostle Paul refers to some of the Corinthians as former homosexuals.

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. 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 5:9-11, NIV)

Some of the Corinthians WERE homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, etc.—past tense. Does this mean none of them were ever again tempted to engage in immoral behavior, thievery, drunkenness, or homosexuality after their justification? Certainly not. We are all tempted in various ways all of our lives!

God Made Me This Way?

Several of those interviewed for the aforementioned newspaper article claimed they had to accept the fact God had made them that way, as though God designed some people to be homosexuals and others to be “straight.” We do not deny that people seem prone (tempted) to different types of sin. And we are universally prone to sin in one way or another! That’s the human condition as a result of The Fall. People were not designed by God to have serial partners or to engage in same-sex sexual relations, nor was any child designed by God to be an object of sexual desire. Nor did God design people to steal, lie, cheat, murder, and slander. God didn’t make us this way; our sin nature makes us this way! We’re all battling something! Temptation Alley is where we live. But it is not our temptations but our behavior that counts. Moreover, we are all going to be battling various temptations our whole lives. There is no magic bullet. We must just continue the struggle until we are delivered from these bodies “prone” to sin. The Bible does not consider homosexuality, any more than thievery, as a “condition” to be delivered from, but it is a behavior which must be forsaken no matter the cost or personal effort required. Therefore, we thoroughly agree with Vachss when he states,

…If the individual chooses to act upon those feelings, that conduct is evil. People are not what they think; they are what they do.12Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002),.,p. 5

But as much as we agree with Andrew Vachss in so much of what he said, he unwittingly sets up the refutation for the very foundation of his argument in the article itself when he asserts:

We, as a society, determine whether something is sick or evil.13Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), 5

He certainly doesn’t realize it, but he is arguing for mob rule. What happens if the time comes when the “mob” decides pedophilia is perfectly acceptable, as long as “no one gets hurt?” Or what if the “mob” further decides that it doesn‘t even matter anymore if someone does get hurt? A thoroughly paganized society may very well return to behaviors that “worked” for pagan societies in the past—such as human sacrifice or gladiatorial contests. Under these systems, people certainly got hurt; but there was no legal sanction against such vile practices. By the way, don’t ever buy the argument that pagan societies of the past were peaceable, gentle, and civilized folks living in complete harmony with nature and each other. Nonsense! Just take a good honest look at the “civilized” Romans or the “peace-loving” Mayans where the blood freely flowed! When human opinion is the moral arbiter of a society, look out! Human opinion changes with the wind that blows, as is proved by our own rapid descent to debauchery.

And what about the fact our own society deemed it socially acceptable to hold slaves? Were the abolitionists wrong to fight the evil that society had determined was good? No, the abolitionists were right, society was wrong. The truth is, society cannot be trusted to determine what is good and evil. Morals are not determined by democratic rule or human opinion. Morals are based upon God’s opinion as spelled out in His Word—the Bible. As we, as a society, reject God’s Word to a greater and greater extent, and as our “Christian hangover” continues to wear off, we shall slide ever deeper into hedonism and barbarism. We can all find ways to justify any behavior we desire to engage in, from murder to genocide. Even mass murderers don’t see themselves as evil people. To the Nazis, killing 6 million Jews was necessary. The Khmer Rouge believed slaughtering the Cambodian middle class—the “proletariat”—was crucial in order to establish a more just society. Kids are taught multiculturalism from grade school—the lie that all cultures are basically equal and that one’s society determines right from wrong. Once these kids gain control of society’s institutions and the government, what will keep them from determining anything and everything is right if that is what the majority wants? And who can argue with these opinions if all opinions are equal?

What Can Christians Do?

As citizens of a republic with the right to vote, we have the responsibility to be informed on these issues and vote for candidates to elective office who most reflect Christian views and morals—we have to say “most reflect” because our choices are limited to fallible human beings—which means there are times when we are forced to vote for the lesser of two undesirables! That alone tells us politics will never be our “salvation.” Beyond that, however, what can we do? We realize our culture may be too far gone to ever return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Lassie may never come home. And it is important to realize our job as Christians is to serve as God’s ambassadors in whatever culture we find ourselves in—to try to persuade people to be reconciled to God. Our job is not to save our culture, and we may be just as unable to do that as the prophet Jeremiah could turn the cultural tide in ancient Israel when the majority of the people were determined to reject God and His messenger. This doesn’t mean we should abandon our culture and head for the hills, but we should be realistic in our expectations and not get sidetracked from the goal of winning people one by one. Having said that, if all believers in Jesus Christ thought like Christians, lived like Christians, and loved like Christians, we would certainly be a force for good in our society.

Love Like Christians

How can we win people to Christ in a culture that grows more paganized with each passing year? It is instructive to take a look at how the early Christians turned their pagan culture upside down. Our day is more like the early days of Christianity than any other time in between. “Civilized” paganism was the culture of the Roman Empire. In the Greco-Roman culture, homosexuality and pedophilia were common and quite acceptable. Something changed the attitudes and behavior of that civilization which lasted until 30 or so years ago. The early believers didn’t have money or political clout. They didn’t have television and radio stations or print media. They didn’t even have large buildings of their own to meet in. But they turned the world upside down. It is a matter of historical record that one way they impacted their culture was through charity. These early Christians truly cared for the pagans around them. Julian, the last pagan emperor of Rome (360-361 AD), attempted to resurrect the pagan religions in hopes of rebuilding the former grandeur of Rome. He poured money into pagan temples, education, and the priesthood. It didn’t seem to help. We get a glimpse into the reason why in a letter he wrote to the high priest in Galatia, Arcasuis:

Why do we not notice that it is their kindness to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [Christianity was considered “atheism” since it rejected the idea of multiple gods.]? I believe that we ought really and truly to practice every one of these virtues. And it is not enough for you alone to practice them, but so must all the priests in Galatia, without exception…In the second place admonish them that no priest may enter a theatre or trade that is base and not respectable…in every city establish hostels in order that strangers may profit by our generosity; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money…for it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg and the impious Galileans {Christians} support both their own poor and ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.14Richard A. Todd (Associate Professor of History at Wichita State Univ.,KS), Eerdmans Handbook to the History of Christianity, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 137-138

Jesus told His followers people would see their good works and glorify the Father in Heaven, and the early church seems to have really put that into practice. Yet, charity isn’t all that is involved in loving our fellow man. Loving our fellow man involves sharing the Gospel with him or her—meeting their most desperate need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God. What use is it to only meet the physical needs of people if they ultimately wind up in Hell? Francis A. Schaeffer spoke directly to this issue:

I have a question in my mind about us as Evangelicals. We fight the Liberals when they say there is no Hell. But do we really believe people are going to Hell?15Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century, (1970; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, Feb. 1971), pp.108-109

We can’t leave evangelism up to the “professional Christians,” pastors, and such. We are surrounded by lost people who matter to God and should matter to us also. All of us need to be involved in reaching the lost. We cannot influence the people God has put in your path, and only we can reach those in our circle.

This Is Scary

We know evangelism is scary, especially since the root of the Gospel is that human beings are lost in sin, which, frankly, offends people who have come to believe, “I’m okay, you’re okay.” Sharing the Gospel likewise involves asserting that Jesus is the only way to the Father, which flies in the face of the politically correct, religious pluralism fantasy. So courage will be needed for this task, although probably not as much courage as it took for first-century Christians to face the lions.

All of us can reach out to individuals who are struggling through this life and on their way to Hell. Jesus had great compassion on sinners, even the “untouchables,” and extended friendship to them. How can we help those whom we will not “touch” or associate with? There is a “Christian” group led by Fred Phelps that regularly shows up at gay events sporting large signs with such slogans as “God hates fags” and “No fags in Heaven.” How many hearts do you suppose are changed by such a mean-spirited display? Hearts will only be further hardened to the Gospel and turned away from the God they perceive such people are serving. In fact, we can’t think of a more wrongheaded approach to “evangelism!” We don’t have to seek out gatherings of sinners—they’re everywhere!! We all know individuals who need the loving touch of God in their life. Homosexuals, feminists, obviously lost hedonists and, for that matter, just-as-lost moralists, young and old, rich and poor, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, and should be precious to us if we have the mind of Christ. If we don’t care about lost people, something is dreadfully wrong!

Shouldn’t Christians Shun Immoral People?

Now wait just a minute, Veinots—aren’t Christians supposed to avoid immoral people like the plague? Are we really to associate with them? Maybe we should let the Apostle Paul answer that:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, and swindlers, or with idolators; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolator, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.161 Corinthians 5:9-13, NASB

It is the immoral people inside the church Paul says should be judged and removed. God will judge outsiders—we don’t have to!

But doesn’t James say, “friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (James 4:4). Yes, but what does it mean to be friendly with the world? Does it mean (as some would have it) we cannot be friends with unbelievers? No. Friendship with the world involves taking on worldly attitudes and living like the world, as evident from the context of the passage. Don’t open your mind to the world’s belief system, but do open your heart to your non-Christian neighbors. In order to extend God’s love and compassion to lost people, we are going to have to befriend the lost.


We are not going to reach the lost if we don’t know any, and we can’t reach them if we go around with a “holier-than-thou” chip on our shoulder. We may not be homosexual, we may never have had an abortion, we may never have abused drugs, but we certainly are sinners! Have we categorized sins to such an extent that we feel superior to the “terrible sinners out there?” That kind of self-righteous attitude is a grievous terrible sin in and of itself, and add to that the fact we are yet full of “impurities” ourselves. Who among us can claim to have arrived at holiness? Look at the list of sins to be found in Romans 1:29-31 (NIV):

They have become filed with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless and ruthless.

Notice gossip, envy, and disobedience to parents are right up there with the really “bad” sins! We are just sinners saved by grace; and if we keep this fact uppermost in our minds in our dealings with others, we won’t be tempted to “talk down” to those we hope to reach. We shouldn’t be out to set people straight, but throw them a lifeline. They, too, just like us, can find forgiveness and peace with God.

Live (And Think) Like Christians

It is not enough to love like Christians; we must live like Christians as well. The church today, rather than collectively influencing society for the better, has allowed herself to be influenced by the world and to reflect the culture in which we find ourselves.

Christian Pollster George Barna has been sounding a warning to the church for many years now. The latest issue of Christianity Today has a feature article on Barna. They quote him as saying:

“There was such a radical gap between what we heard Christians professing they believed and the values and the lifestyle that grew out of the values.”17Tim Stafford, “The Third Coming of George Barna,” Christianity Today, Vol. 46, No. 9 (August 5, 2002, p. 36

Christianity Today goes on to report Barna’s findings:

Marriages, for example, were as likely to come unglued for believers as for unbelievers. Churchgoers didn’t seem to have any real understanding of the Bible’s distinctive message; many practicing Christians believe that the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” A morally relativistic American culture was shaping Christians more than Christians were shaping the culture.

Over hear them talk about how the lives of their people were so demonstrably different that people had to pay attention to the cause of Christ and take it seriously.”18Tim Stafford, “The Third Coming of George Barna,” Christianity Today, Vol. 46, No. 9 (August 5, 2002, p. 36

Sadly, we don’t live or think all that differently from the outside world. Why should they forsake their sin if we don’t forsake ours? It seems we’re more into “therapy” and “self-esteem” than repentance and self-control. We should be dealing with unrepentant sin within the church. It is way past time for us to clean house.

Moreover, we need to think differently than the culture. Many Christians are themselves moral relativists who do not believe in absolute truth. Why should our non-Christian friends believe in absolute truth if we don’t? We need to begin judging what we think by the Bible instead of judging the Bible by what feels true to us. We need to understand these issues and to be able to explain to others—starting with our children!—why we say relativism as a philosophy is bankrupt, and how we know Christianity is TRUE! We need to be able to answer the arguments posed by various factions within our culture—why do we reject Darwinian Evolution, multiculturalism, moral relativism, and the other falsehoods swamping our culture?

These issues go beyond the scope of this little Journal article, but there are some great resources out there to equip Christians to understand these issues and be able to make a defense for the Christian worldview. Reason in the Balance by Phillip Johnson, The Death of Truth by Dennis McCallum, Legislating Morality by Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Pagans in the Pews by Peter Jones, and Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl are just a few of the well-reasoned books out there for Christians who are willing to learn to defend the faith from the lies of our culture.

Further, we should practice biblical discernment to judge false teachings that have crept into the church and are devastating the flock. We should likewise be unafraid to judge false prophets and false teachers who exercise great influence within the church—Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Bill Gothard, Kenneth Copeland, Gwen Shamblin, Joyce Meyers, Harold Camping—the list goes on and on. We should not be afraid to name names and give them the boot, no matter how much popularity they enjoy (c.f. 2Tim 2:15-17, 4: 3-4).

In short, we need to begin living much more like the first-century believers. Befriend and help non-believers, and let God work on them. We must engage in real training in the home and churches. Young people need to be taught not only the Scriptures but how to think, reason, and ask questions—train them in logic—as well as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Equip them to interact with the culture—arts, politics, news, media, university professors, and other professions—without selling out to the culture or buying into its lies. Teach them compassion, humility, and charity. Show them—by example—that you do believe in Hell and care enough about the lost (even the “untouchables”) to pray for them and reach out to them, speaking the truth in love.

We may, indeed, lose the culture war, and our beloved land may go the way of past civilizations that rose and fell. However, when history wraps up, it won’t be as important that we lived in a great country but that we served the LORD to the best of our ability for the time we were given.Ω

Don and Joy Signature 2

© 2015, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.

End Notes

End Notes
1 David Kupelian, “Why Are Christians Losing America?” Article ID # 28562, on-line edition of World Net Daily, August 9, 2002
2 See article by Don andJoy Veinot, “Once Upon a Time…Plus Chance,” highlighting this PBS interview with Gould. Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4 (September/October,1998
3 Today, all the dirty words George Carlin once said could not be uttered on television are being shouted from the rooftops, but the “S” (aka sin) word is a big no-no
4 Steve Baldwin, “Child Molestation and The Homosexual Movement,” Whistleblower,Vol. 11, No. 7 (July 7, 2002), p. 5. Whistleblower magazine is a monthly publication
5 Rind, Bruce; Tromovitch, Phillip; and Bauserman, Robert.(Temple U. Dept. of Psychology, Philadephia, PA). “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, No. 1 (July, 1998), pp. 22-53
6 Debra J. Saunders, “Lolita Nation,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1999
8 Joel Reese, “They Shall Overcome …Maybe,” Daily Herald, Daily Living Section 4 (July 22, 1999),p.
9 Robyn Suriano,“Pedophilia: Psychologists struggle to treat it without fully understanding its causes,” The Seattle Times on-line edition, April 26, 2002
10 Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), p. 4
11 Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), p.4
12 Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002),.,p. 5
13 Andrew Vachss, “What We Must Do … To Protect Our Children,” Chicago Tribune, PARADE magazine, (Sunday, July14, 2002), 5
14 Richard A. Todd (Associate Professor of History at Wichita State Univ.,KS), Eerdmans Handbook to the History of Christianity, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 137-138
15 Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the 20th Century, (1970; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, Feb. 1971), pp.108-109
16 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, NASB
17, 18 Tim Stafford, “The Third Coming of George Barna,” Christianity Today, Vol. 46, No. 9 (August 5, 2002, p. 36