Pride month and the LGBT assault

Church leaders fail to understand its true subversive agenda

Family, community and marriage

How to do ‘church’ at home

Rebellion – not revival – is a key sign of the times.

Ugly domestic row casts political spotlight on the family

We ignore the basic building blocks of God’s Creation at our peril.

Recently I discovered a booklet lodged between two books on a shelf in my study. I had not seen it for many years. It had been given to me by a colleague in the LSE when I was lecturing in Sociology in London University. Its title is ‘The Gay Liberation Front Manifesto: London 1971’. Here are a few quotes from it.

Under the heading ‘Family’ it says:

The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family, consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.

Under the heading ‘Church’ it says:

Formal religious education is still part of everyone’s schooling, and our whole legal structure is supposedly based upon Christianity, whose archaic and irrational teachings support the family and marriage as the only permitted condition for sex.

Under ‘Compulsive Monogamy’ it says:

We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over.

Under ‘Aims’ it says:

The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up. (emphasis added)

In sociological terms, the family is the basic unit in society responsible not only for passing on the culture from generation to generation, but for the stability of society as a whole. Once the family breaks down, all the structures of society are destabilised (it is important to grasp that what we are dealing with here is a foundational social issue, not a critique of a particular minority group).

The family is the basic unit in society responsible not only for passing on the culture from generation to generation, but for the stability of society as a whole.

The Cost of Broken Homes

When family life crumbles the first to be affected are children, who depend upon the family not only for learning the rules of society, culture and language, but also for their identity, protection, security and confidence. Millions of children are damaged every year by domestic violence, the breakup of their parents’ relationship and the upheaval of an unstable home-life.

In 1998 I was one of a group of academics who did a survey of family life in Britain and presented a report to the then-Home Secretary, Jack Straw MP. The report presented irrefutable proof that the heterosexual married couple family is the most stable form of family life and presents the best outcome for children. All other types of family leave children disadvantaged and negatively affect their future life-chances.

Jack Straw responded stating “The family is the building block of society”. He recognised the need to prioritise the married family and promised to publish a White Paper with Government measures to strengthen it. But he ran into problems in the Cabinet because the Blair Government had been heavily infiltrated by LGBTQ+ supporters who were strongly opposed to family and marriage. Straw was never able to publish the White Paper.

Family Matters

The report, ‘Family Matters’,¹ gave strong warnings of what would happen if there were no measures to strengthen the married family. It stated that the number of fatherless children will increase; so too will sexually transmitted diseases among young people. The number of insecurely attached and disturbed children will increase, worsening behavioural and mental health problems among schoolchildren. The cumulative effect of these and other trends will put pressure on the health and welfare services, resulting in a wide range of social problems.

The warnings were ignored - with the result we see today in our daily newspapers and on TV: knife crime, guns and drugs, self-harm (affecting one in five girls aged 13-16), and the rise in the suicide rate among young people, especially teenagers.²

But all this is only the tip of the iceberg of what will happen in the future if we continue breaking down gender differences among children in our primary schools. The level of mental health problems will go through the sky! Gender is a basic building block of God’s Creation which we ignore at our peril!!

Gender is a basic building block of God’s Creation which we ignore at our peril!

Warnings Ignored

We are in a similar position to the people in Jerusalem in Jeremiah’s time, when he sent a strong warning to the King, on a scroll read by a court messenger. King Jehoiakim, instead of taking careful note of the warnings, destroyed the scroll: “Whenever Jehudi had read three or four columns of the scroll, the King cut them off with a scribe’s knife and threw them into the brazier, until the entire scroll was burned in the fire” (Jer 36:23).

Jeremiah went back before God in his prayer time and heard the response: “I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them because they have not listened” (36:31). Then Jeremiah took another scroll and dictated similar words and a lot more warnings. As we know from history, the warnings were ignored and Jerusalem was destroyed, with thousands losing their lives.

Even those who are not Bible-believing Christians should be aware that the heterosexual married couple family is the only unit in our culture capable of maintaining the very fabric of our civilisation. If it is destroyed, which is the stated aim of the LGBTQ+ lobby, they will actually destroy the foundational structures of society in the Western nations, which can only lead to chaos.

Deafness in Church and State

Yet politicians and church leaders are deaf to all warnings. Either they are so incompetent that they cannot grasp simple facts; or they are bent on a suicide mission to destroy Western civilisation that will bring about their own demise along with millions of others. The Methodist Church in their Annual Assembly are due to debate same-sex marriage next week. Will the successors of John Wesley uphold his commitment to biblical truth, or will they acquiesce to the powers of darkness seeking the destruction of humanity?

Politicians and church leaders are deaf to all warnings.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has already set down a marker for the ‘Apostate Church’ of the last days by encouraging CofE Primary Schools to promote cross-dressing among little children,³ to prepare them for living in the brave new world that the LGBTQ+ lobby are intent upon creating. Jesus said that it would be better for those who harm children to be thrown into the sea and drowned.

Surely God will bring judgment upon those who distort his word and play havoc with the truth. Billy Graham said that if God does not bring judgment upon America he will have to apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Surely the same applies to Britain. But what will our new Prime Minister do, whether it is Boris or Jeremy (Hunt or Corbyn…)? Will any one of our politicians recognise the threat to the future of our civilisation posed by the destruction of the family and have the courage to reverse the tide of change – and will believing Christians have the courage to hold them to account?

References

1 Download the full report here.

2 E.g. see here and here (p7).

3 The Independent, 13 November 2017.

Frances Rabbitts reviews ‘Same-Sex Parenting Research: A Critical Assessment’ by Walter R. Schumm (2018).

In a week when a former magistrate has lost his appeal over his right to express (even in private) Christian views about same-sex adoption, it seems especially pertinent to review this 2018 book from Wilberforce Publications on academic understandings of gay marriage and parenting.

In the second of two gold standard studies commissioned by the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life (the first was published in 2014 as The Marriage Files), US Professor of applied family science Walter R. Schumm provides a comprehensive review of the academic social science literature on the politically charged issue of same-sex parenting. In so doing, he challenges the claim, presented so often as incontrovertible, that same-sex partnerships are no different to heterosexual partnerships when it comes to the raising of children.

Schumm sets out to ‘follow the evidence where it leads’, unwilling to accept brazen claims of absolute academic consensus on this issue at face value. Undeterred by the many powerful enemies this has made him, Schumm not only presents a fair-minded review; he also levels a devastating critique at academia’s co-option by LGBTQ+ dogma, leading one scholar to label the book the “social science parallel to Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses being nailed to the Wittenberg Chapel door”.

Incorrect and Over-Blown Claims

The book is organised into 15 relatively short chapters grouped into six sections, making it easy to use for reference purposes. The main body of the research is contained in sections 2-5, with each chapter organised into ‘What has been claimed’, ‘What we know’, a critical assessment of the existing literature and a short conclusion. As the book progresses, a pattern quickly becomes evident: “the facts on the ground do not support many of the so-called ‘consensus’ claims” (p229) about the issue of same-sex parenting.

Part 1 is given to background information, including a summary of the LGBTQ+ challenge to traditional marriage, and social science theory on sexual morality, marriage and happiness. Part 2 starts with assessing the number of children raised by same-sex parents in the US. Here we gain an astonishing insight into the way academics can get their most basic facts wrong, rushing to echo wildly incorrect but convenient claims without due consideration: Schumm traces the oft-cited figure of 6-14 million children back to an unsubstantiated newspaper article, with the real figure more likely to be about 200,000.

Schumm challenges the claim, presented so often as incontrovertible, that same-sex partnerships are no different to heterosexual partnerships when it comes to the raising of children.

Other chapters confirm that academic claims about the benefits of same-sex parenting have also been vastly over-blown, with many gaping holes in the literature and lesser-known studies indicating that the real picture is more complicated. For instance, some research suggests that children of same-sex parents may be vastly less likely to enjoy a stable family home, and that children may act as destabilising factors in same-sex marriages (cf. they act as stabilising factors in heterosexual marriages).

Parts 3 and 4 focus on the impacts of same-sex parenting on children’s sexuality, gender identity, mental health and value systems. Schumm challenges the flat academic denial that same-sex parenting is any different to heterosexual parenting, citing newly emerged studies but also recognising the lack of research into this issue. In Part 5, we are given some insights into the potentially negative consequences of same-sex marriage and parenting on society as a whole, before Part 6 offers some conclusions.

Science ‘Thrown Under the Bus’

Schumm is obviously an expert in his field who balks at his profession being corrupted by politically-motivated claims that cannot be backed up by sound empirical evidence. He challenges anyone to conduct a wider-ranging and more scholastically sound review of the literature than he has managed here (his bibliography runs to 31 pages, a tenth of the book), with the same willingness to consider all the evidence - even that which doesn't fit the given narrative.

But he has done more than review sociological understandings of this issue: he provides an eye-opening account of how social science has largely capitulated in the ideological battle for Western culture, throwing itself “under the bus” (p225) to advance the LGBTQ+ cause.

Schumm points to the increasingly totalitarian atmosphere of higher education, with scholars who dare to deviate from the consensus position ignored, ridiculed, silenced or sacked. His epilogue and appendices are dedicated to reflecting on this professional cost of dissent, including his personal defence against his critics, and testimony about his own and colleagues’ experiences of being discredited and shut down.

Readers begin to understand that behind the culture wars in the West being fought in the courts, the papers and the schools, lie the hallowed halls of our universities, where most of the radical anti-Christian ideas that are now transforming our society were conceived and incubated.

Schumm is obviously an expert in his field who balks at his profession being corrupted by politically-motivated claims that cannot be backed up by sound empirical evidence.

Honest and Refreshing

Schumm’s devotion to scholarly excellence is refreshing, allowing the literature to speak for itself rather than imposing his own value judgments. He is not afraid to critique careless science, to offer caveats and clarifications, to anticipate counter-arguments and to acknowledge areas where further research is desperately needed. Much of this (including his statistical analyses) may not be directly useful to the lay reader, but it does underscore the author’s honesty and diligence, strengthening his credibility.

Do not be fooled into thinking that this book is not for you because it is an academic literature review – apart from being a helpful encouragement that ‘the science’ behind same-sex parenting is still developing and certainly does not discredit the common-sense view derived from Scripture, it is just as valuable for its window in on the battle for ideas raging in academia.

Though aimed predominantly at scholars and students, it is a surprisingly easy read that will be both accessible and relevant to church leaders, professionals and anyone seeking to better their own understanding of the issue. An ideal resource for anyone concerned to confront the gender ideology juggernaut and its over-simplistic, ideological claims with a more reasonable, evidence-based view of reality, written in the belief that science should be about searching for the truth, however inconvenient it may end up being.

‘Same-Sex Parenting Research: A Critical Assessment’ (308pp, paperback) is available from Amazon for £14. Also on Kindle. Read more on the Wilberforce Publications website.

Jeremiah's insight into the Father's heart.

“I myself said, ‘How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation’. I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me. But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:19-20)

This is another lament expressing the grief in God’s heart as he reflects on the history of the people of Israel, from the time he made a covenant with Moses, drawing together the tribes of Israel into a special relationship with himself.

That special relationship was, “I will be your God and you will be my people”, and from that time they became a family created by God, with a beautiful land in which to live together with a rich inheritance. Every true family has a father to whom they look for love, protection and provision. In the same way, God expected the people of Israel, his family, to regard him as their Father, so that he could treat them like sons.

Sadly, they had turned away from the truth that he had presented to Moses for their health and security, and to enable them to follow him so that he could work out his purposes for the world through them. Israel had never been faithful: they had never fully put their trust in God and, like an adulterous marriage partner, they had been unfaithful to him, causing untold grief in God’s heart.

Idolatrous, Unfaithful Israel

This is what Jeremiah discerned in his times of entering into the council of the Lord and he broke entirely new theological ground in daring to put words into God’s mouth, “I thought you would call me ‘Father’” (v19).

None of Jeremiah’s forebears – the 8^th-Century-BC writing prophets such as Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Nahum – would have dared to make such a statement. Priests and prophets alike in pre-exilic Israel/Judah all avoided the word ‘Father’ in relation to God, because of their fear of idolatry. The Canaanites had introduced Israel to the Baals (local gods who supposedly owned the land) as the fathers of the people, who had to be worshipped in order to produce the fruits of the soil upon which the people depended for their sustenance.

Jeremiah broke new theological ground in daring to put words into God’s mouth, “I thought you would call me ‘Father’”.

Many of the local shrines, under groups of trees or on high places in the countryside, were occupied by altars to Baal. For the sake of peace and harmony, many of the priests of Israel and Judah practised at these shrines, offering thanksgiving to the God of Israel but also paying respect to the local Baal. It was against this practice that Amos was sent to protest at Bethel, where Amaziah ordered him to leave:

Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don’t prophesy any more at Bethel, because this is the King’s sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom. (Amos 7:12-13)

Jeremiah saw exactly the same thing happening in the countryside of Judah that had been denounced by Amos: the mixing of Baal worship with the worship of the God of Israel. He spelt out his complaint in one of his earliest statements: “As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the house of Israel is disgraced – they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. They say to wood, ‘You are my father’, and to stone, ‘you gave me birth'” (Jer 2:27).

The Abomination of Syncretism

Jeremiah continued this theme when explaining why there was a drought covering the land of Judah in the late 7^th Century BC (this has enabled us to date this pronouncement to early in Jeremiah’s ministry): “You have defiled the land with your prostitution and wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld, and no spring rains have fallen” (Jer 3:3).

In the next verse he spelled out the theological error that was being encouraged by priests and prophets: “Have you not just called me: ‘My Father, my friend from my youth, will you always be angry? Will your wrath continue for ever?’ This is how you talk, but you do all the evil you can”.

In these words, you can feel the horror that Jeremiah was experiencing, perhaps reflecting his own suffering at the hands of his father, brothers and sisters, who had publicly denounced him and were even threatening his life. He saw the people, and probably some priests from his own family, officiating at the shrines on the high places where they were actually offering sacrifices to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, on an altar dedicated to Baal.

Jeremiah’s horror at what God was experiencing was reflected in his own suffering at the hands of his family.

It was the abomination of people publicly acknowledging a pagan god as the father of the nation that Jeremiah found almost beyond description. It caused him so much grief because he himself had come into such an intimate relationship with God, the Creator of the universe, who was the true Father of the nation of Israel and his own precious Heavenly Father.

Our Father in Heaven

Jeremiah was the first in the history of Israel to recognise the Fatherhood of God. None of the pre-exilic writings in the history of Israel mention it; the other references are all post-exilic, such as Isaiah 63:16 and 64:7, and Malachi 2:10.

This is why Jeremiah was such a theological giant. Not only was he the first to recognise the Fatherhood of God, he was also the first to hear God’s plan to create a new covenant relationship with the houses of Israel and Judah (Jer 31:31) that would one day be extended to people of all nations through Messiah Jesus.

This is why there is such affinity between the ministry of Jeremiah and the ministry of Jesus, who sometimes quoted Jeremiah word for word, such as when he said, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest your souls” (Matthew 11:29, from Jeremiah 6:16). Much of John’s Gospel is about the Fatherhood of God, first revealed to Jeremiah, especially Jesus’ teaching at the Last Supper (John 13-17), which centres around his statement, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Jeremiah’s Personal Anguish

It may have been because of Jeremiah’s own experience of rejection by his own family, and the intense sorrow that this brought to him, that he was able to perceive the depth of suffering in God’s heart at his own ‘covenant people’ being so unfaithful to him. Jeremiah’s personal anguish came tumbling out of his mouth a number of times when, in mid-flow, he was describing the terrible consequences to the people of Israel of deliberately turning away from God and forfeiting his covering of protection.

Not only was Jeremiah the first to recognise the Fatherhood of God, he was also the first to hear God’s plan to create a new covenant with Israel, and with all nations.

A good example of this is Jeremiah 15:10 where, in the midst of describing what was going to happen to Jerusalem, he suddenly broke off and proclaimed, “Alas, my mother, that you gave me birth, a man with whom the whole land strives and contends! I have neither lent nor borrowed yet everyone curses me.” In the very next verse, Jeremiah returned to the theme of declaring God’s willingness to protect his people from disaster and drive out their enemies, if they would only repent and return to him.

It is Jeremiah’s own close relationship with God, reflected in his affliction even more than in his bold and fearless declarations of the word of God, which makes his teaching of such value for us today. He reflects to us the grief in God’s heart at those who have his truth but deliberately reject his word, thereby forfeiting the wonderful benefits of God’s loving intention to treat us as precious sons and daughters in his own special family.

This article is part of a series. Click here to read other instalments.

Bible-believers chased out of Britain for not keeping to the script

It is perhaps ironic that, on the approach to the 400^th anniversary of the Mayflower’s sailing in 1620,¹ the British nation is plunged into the same sort of fractious, volatile scenario that led to that great exodus of the faithful.

When, following the Elizabethan era, James I ascended the throne in 1603, he introduced a policy enforcing religious conformity which almost blew up in his face.

First, there was the unsuccessful ‘gunpowder plot’ through which Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators registered Catholic opposition to the new king with their attempt to reduce Parliament to rubble.

Then the Puritans and Separatists came in for the monarch’s ire. At a time of significant political and religious tension, he tried to steady the ship by ensuring that all his people followed the same pseudo-Protestant script.

Harrying Out the Faithful

As with the Catholics, he also saw the Puritans as potential enemies, warning that he would “harry them out of the land”.

And indeed his dire threat duly succeeded in driving out the so-called ‘Pilgrim Fathers’, who had inaugurated the Separatist Church on the borders of Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire.

Like other Puritans, they were devout Christians who believed the Church needed purifying from ritualistic dross. But whereas the Puritans sought change from within, the Pilgrim Fathers were convinced such endeavour was a lost cause and that they needed to “come out from among them” (Isa 52:11).

But some were fined, others were imprisoned and the pressure of persecution eventually led, in 1608, to their escape to a more tolerant Holland.

In the 17^th Century, devout Christians were imprisoned, persecuted and driven out of the country.

James I, whose policy of religious conformity made life difficult for Puritans like the Pilgrim Fathers.Seeking Freedom

It was a further dozen years before they sailed for the New World in the Mayflower, the king having changed his mind and given them permission to establish a colony there.

And so these Christians laid the foundations of what was to become the greatest nation on earth, built firmly on the principles of the Bible that had been challenged back in England.

These courageous pioneers were thus used to loose us from the chains of slavery to religious conformity which saw communities forced to attend the state-recognised Church where ritual and dead orthodoxy reigned, and where the Bible was chained to the pulpit.

Those who sought to experience the vitality of New Testament Christianity with its emphasis on freedom of the Spirit and a personal relationship with God were deemed outcasts.

Back to the ‘Dark Ages’?

It seems we have come full circle. Faced with the ever-present threat of terrorism, along with aggressive lobbying of secular humanists, we are now urged to follow the politically correct script - or else.

The Bible has been jettisoned in favour of what is effectively cultural Marxism, commanding what is and is not permissible to say and do.

Politicians condemn Brunei for proposing draconian new laws on corporal and capital punishment, seen as a return to the ‘Dark Ages’. But we are hardly squeaky clean ourselves in the way we have driven a coach and horses through the Ten Commandments, seriously undermined marriage (which is designed to create safe boundaries for the protection of family life and society in general) and by proposing state-sponsored child abuse through the indoctrination of children as young as four with the idea that they can choose their gender.

I suppose, in a way, this is the natural outcome of the state-sanctioned massacre of nine million unborn babies over the past 50 years.

Today, we are all urged to follow the politically correct script – or else.

The Blame Game

When will we acknowledge our own guilt? When will we stop pointing a finger at other people’s sins and take the ‘plank’ out of our own eye?

Under the proposed ‘no-fault’ divorce law, adultery will no longer be regarded as a sin – not even legally. It is supremely ironic that in a culture in which we are encouraged to blame everyone else for our troubles at a cost of millions, we are about to be exonerated in a key area of life on which almost everything else depends – that is, marriage and the family.

It means that no-one will officially be to blame for break-ups which will have caused untold heartbreak in countless homes. If we are no longer to be held responsible for solemn vows we have made in front of witnesses, what hope do we have of carrying out honest business in the wider world, or of being trusted by others?

What sort of spineless adults will emerge from witnessing their parents split at the drop of a hat? Throwing your toys out of the pram is surely an indulgence reserved for babies who are subsequently disciplined to consider the wider effects of their tantrums.

Shirking Responsibility

New housing estates cannot be built fast enough to keep up with the ever-increasing number of people who no longer know how to live with one another. It’s surely time we encouraged people to take responsibility for their actions.

Instead of honouring role models of commitment to family life, we fawn over celebrities and sportsmen who become the heroes we worship even though, as in some recent high-profile cases, they have set a shocking example of leadership in the home.

On the other hand, rugby stars soon get knocked off their pedestals when they express Christian beliefs on the subject, as did multiple Wimbledon champion Margaret Court.

It’s surely time we encouraged people to take responsibility for their actions rather than resorting to the default position of blaming someone else.

The Way of Escape

The fact is, there is always someone to blame – not just for break-ups, but for the mess we get ourselves in every day, including the Brexit botch-up. That is why Jesus came – to set us free from the burden of brokenness, guilt and regret, and give us new hope, especially with broken relationships.

As we celebrate Easter, we remember that Jesus became our Passover Lamb who frees us from sin through his blood shed on the Cross, prefigured in Egypt 1,500 years earlier by the freedom from slavery of the Jews who marked their doorposts with the blood of a sacrificial lamb.

What Jesus has done for us can be likened to the action of a First World War chaplain who, when asked for prayer by an officer who was about to embark on a dangerous mission into ‘no man’s land’, said he would do more than that – he would go with him. And when a shell exploded near the two men, the chaplain threw himself on the officer and died in his place.²

Offer of Peace

Do not follow the politically correct script. When ancient Israel disobeyed the Lord’s commands, the Prophet Isaiah warned them that “there is no peace for the wicked” (Isa 48:22). But there is peace - and forgiveness, and life - with Jesus!

References

1 Find out more on the Mayflower 400 website.

2 CWR’s Every Day with Jesus, 15 April 2019.