Showing posts with label lesbians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lesbians. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Christian Bakery Must Pay Damages to Gay Couple

Christian Bakery Must Pay Damages 

to Gay Couple

Associated Press photo
The owners of a bakery in Oregon are being ordered to pay "damages" to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, a lesbian couple, after declining to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding.

A hearing is scheduled in March to determine how much the owners of Sweet Cakes Bakery will be required to pay.

The judge says the Aaron and Melissa Klein discriminated unlawfully against the lesbian couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodations.

The owners say they don't have a problem serving gays and lesbians, but they cannot make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding because of their religious beliefs.

"First Amendment, Constitution. Freedom of religion. I'm free to exercise my religion however I see fit," Aaron Klein said. "If I'm told to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, I feel that I'm violating my beliefs. I don't think I should have to do that."

The Kleins had to close their shop and work from home after gay rights activists organized protests and threatened vendors against doing business with them. Their children were subjected to death threats, Fox News host Todd Starnes reported.

Investigators for the State Bureau of Labor and Industries recommended each of the Kleins pay $75,000 in damages.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Messianic Guest House Loses Appeal to Lesbians

Messianic Guest House Loses Appeal to Lesbians

Thursday, December 04, 2014 |  David Lazarus  ISRAEL TODAY
A Jerusalem District Court has rejected the appeal of the Messianic village of Yad Hashmonah and has ordered it to pay compensation to the tune of USD $15,000 to two lesbians for refusing to allow a wedding reception on its premises.
Judge Moshe Hacohen upheld the previous ruling that since the Yad Hashmonah Messianic Guest House is a open to the public, the community cannot impose its religious faith on individuals or groups who want to use its facilities.
“There were no contradictions in this case,” said Hacohen. “Yad Hashmonah refused to allow the wedding reception because the women are lesbians. In their appeal, the village claims that they have authority to refuse the reception because of their faith. Most of the members of the village are Messianic Jews, who base their faith on elements of Judaism and Evangelical Christianity, a faith based on the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as the word of God.”
In its appeal, Yad Hashmonah explained that “the lifestyle of these lesbians is in absolute contradiction to the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament. The laws regulating freedom of religion must protect us from allowing a ceremony in our backyard which is in complete contradiction to our faith.”
However, the Jerusalem Court determined that the refusal by Yad Hashmonah to allow the lesbian celebration is against the law, which states that “it is forbidden to act in a way that discriminates against persons for services rendered or entrance to public places.” The judge pointed out that the village’s Messianic meeting room is completely separate from the guest house, which is a secular tourist business.
Yad Hashmonah’s lawyers, Michael Decker and Sarah Weinberg, argued that it was the village’s legitimate right to refuse the lesbian celebration given its members’ beliefs in the Bible and their faith, which prohibits same-sex marriages. The lawyers explained that the Messianic believers hold dearly the importance of traditional marriage between and a man and a woman.
The court agreed that the residents of Yad Hashmonah had every right to practice their faith. However, since they are running a regular secular business, they are required to adhere to the law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual preferences. If Yad Hashmonah wants to open its business to the general public, the judge ruled, then they must be willing to provide services even to persons or groups who are not to their liking or taste.
There are many guest houses and businesses in Israel that are owned and operated by Messianic or Christian organizations. The ruling comes as a warning to all faith-based establishments in Israel that they cannot refuse use of their facilities once they have opened them up to the public.
Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates from ISRAEL TODAY.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

No One Is Born Gay - Michael Brown

No One Is Born Gay





There is no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. (Angie Draiville/freeimages.com)

In the Line of Fire, by Michael Brown
If there were reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God's image and yet we are a fallen race, and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.
But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay.
As stated by gay activist and history professor John D'Emilio, "'Born gay' is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It's an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. What's most amazing to me about the 'born gay' phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn't matter. It's an idea with such social utility that one doesn't need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible."
In other words, because the "born gay" idea has proved so useful, the fact that there's virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It's an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.
As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, "There [was] a survey in The New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly."
And so, the argument goes, "If I'm born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I'm born this way, how can you expect me to change?"
Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn't mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.
And even if no one is born gay, that doesn't mean that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.
But why base a so-called civil-rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?
One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."
Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently back tracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added, "It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life."
That's why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, "Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the 'gay gene'" (in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons).
Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.
But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay
According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, "The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We've crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are 'born that way.' But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we've supposed?"
Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, "Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. ... No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."
Paglia also asked, "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible."
Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia's opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: "I've made a mistake and learnt from it. I'm deeply sorry for any offence I've caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat."
Despite this apology, he was still firedand the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today's climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?
Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply rooted in some people's lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn't mean you chose to have the attractions.)
It simply means that one of the major gay-activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.
It's time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.
Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.
Did you enjoy this blog? Click here to receive CHARISMA NEWS by email.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

SunTrust Cuts Ties with Benhams after HGTV Flap

SunTrust Cuts Ties with Benhams 

after HGTV Flap

CBN News May 16, 2014

More than a week after HGTV dropped David and Jason Benham's reality show over their views on same-sex marriage, the brothers and business owners announced SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with them.

According the Daily Caller, the Benhams said SunTrust's decision came "without warning or explanation" and "took place over a 15-minute period" Thursday.

"We were caught off-guard with this one," David Benham said. "Keeping us off television wasn't enough, now this agenda to silence wants us out of the marketplace."

Faith Driven Consumer founder Chris Stone agreed, suggesting the move by SunTrust was punitive and part of a growing movement to silence people of faith.

"SunTrust's actions have effectively put into place a belief-oriented litmus test for its business partners seeking to compete in the marketplace of goods, services, and ideas," Stone told Charisma News. "This is discriminatory, intolerant, and in direct opposition [to] everything that America is about."

"Faith Driven Consumers, and all fair-minded Americans, are getting tired of this," Stone continued. "They know it's wrong, and they are not going to tolerate this kind of bullying."

SunTrust issued a statement Friday saying the move had to do with changes in management and was not motivated by politics.

"SunTrust supports the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion," they said.

"Mid-2013, we consolidated the management of certain residential assets with a third party vendor, which has the relationship with Benham Real Estate," they continued. "While we do not publicly comment on specific vendor relationships, we don’t make choices on suppliers nor base business decisions on political factors, nor do we direct our third party vendors to do so. We clarified our policies with our vendor and the issue has been resolved."

The Behnam controversy is the latest evidence of shifting attitudes toward marriage.

Ten years after same-sex marriage first became legal in the state of Massachusetts, acceptance of gay marriage has grown across the country.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to wed.

Although 30 states have voter-approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, judges in seven of them have struck down those laws.

Meanwhile, recent polls show 53 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. A decade earlier, that number stood at 30 percent.

***Is it inevitable that gay marriage will become a norm in America? Chris Plante, with the National Organization for Marriage, addressed that question and more on CBN Newswatch, May 16.

If you want to voice your discontent with Sun Trust Bank and HGTV. Write, call, email, or comment on Twitter:

SUNTRUST

Write to the office of the president:

7818 Parham Road Richmond, Virginia 23294

Call Headquarters: 303 Peachtreet St, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Phone number: (404) 588-7711

HGTV

Write:

HGTV Corporate Office Headquarters

500 W Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902

Email your complaint.

Tweet @HGTV

Friday, May 2, 2014

Franklin Graham: The Flood of Compromise

Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham: The Flood of Compromise

Noah, the latest Hollywood epic, splashed across the big screen last month, revealing a flood of compromise. Described as a “biblically inspired fantasy film,” reviewers bragged that “despite its compromises … it retains a sense of religious awe.” But the great compromise cannot drown the truth. To use the phrase biblically inspired and the term fantasy in the same thought adulterates a historic record.
Some say the world is not held responsible for misinterpreting God’s Word, but the Bible does not agree, as we clearly see in the story of Noah: “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ... And He was grieved in His heart. ... And God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth'” (Gen. 6:5-6, 13).
God not only holds His followers to account, but all of mankind. The human race continues gulping the bitter water in the sea of immorality, rejecting truth and trying to silence God’s people.
Because of pressure from the LGBT community, A&E tried to suppress Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame by suspending him from his television series because of his biblically based convictions. The Robertson family was willing to walk away from their wildly successful reality show rather than compromise their beliefs.
Facing the possibility of losing the Robertsons—and millions of viewers—the network reinstated the patriarch star. The family-oriented Cracker Barrel restaurant and country store that had pulled Duck Dynasty products from its shelves in the midst of the uproar also had to back up and restock the Duck Dynasty merchandise, issuing an apology for offending a large percentage of its clientele.


    In both cases, the LGBT lost. While many in the liberal and progressive media have deceived the public into thinking that this group makes up a large portion of our nation’s population, surveys support the fact that this small but boisterous movement consists of less than 2 percent of society.
    On the heels of these upheavals, it was particularly jolting when those who call themselves Christians departed from the clarity of God’s Word, as the leadership of World Vision U.S. did in March when they announced their employment of “gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages.”
    The very day World Vision announced its great compromise on a basic truth of Scripture—that a homosexual lifestyle is sin and that marriage is between one man and one woman—the Supreme Court began hearings to determine if the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, should be required to provide life-terminating drugs and devices in their employee health care plan, contrary to the Christian family’s spiritual convictions.
    The contrast was stunning. While the Christian-owned business stood up against a federal government bent on forcing them to compromise the right to life, a Christian charity compromised the sacredness of marriage, stating that “it’s the right thing to do for unity within the church.” Forty-eight hours after World Vision’s announcement, the organization was forced to reverse its epic decision after a flooding backlash from offended donors.
    The Bible gives strong warning to those who tamper with God’s truth: “From among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away [followers] after themselves” (Acts 20:30).
    The charity’s original announcement was personally shocking to me because World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse were founded by the same man, my mentor and dear friend, the late Dr. Bob Pierce. Much of my adult life has been guided by something he often said: “I want my heart to be broken by the things that break the heart of God.” I believe the heart of God was broken by the decision of the board of directors of World Vision. This is no small matter. I was as grieved by it as I have been by anything in my lifetime of ministry, because the heart of World Vision was revealed—a disregard for biblical truth.
    There was a day when World Vision’s board was made up of people who believed in and stood on God’s Word, but in making this decision, they completely disregarded Scripture and made a decision based on what they perceived as public acceptance and popularity.
    I do rejoice that the board of directors reversed its decision, but I pray that the fallout will cause a depth of soul-searching. True followers of Jesus Christ, whose salvation is based entirely upon God’s Word, cannot endorse same-sex marriage, regardless of what our president, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the media or the latest Gallup poll says about the matter.
    This moral issue has been settled by God Himself and is not subject to man-made revisions or modifications. In the end, I would rather be on the wrong side of public opinion than on the wrong side of almighty God, who established the standard of living for the world He created. Marriage is a biblically moral issue, not a political or theological one.
    This debate is ultimately about something much more important than the question of same-sex marriage. It is about the great compromise, calling into question the authority of Scripture. If Christians do not agree concerning the authority of Scripture, we will eventually disagree about all sorts of things.
    The church is tied up in the red tape of compromise that is being played out in rewriting the Bible and preaching a gospel emphasizing the works of mankind.
    The Bible says, “Now the Spirit [of God] expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy” (1 Tim. 4:1-2).
    I agree with the late Adrian Rogers, who said, “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to stand alone with the truth than to be wrong with a multitude.”
    It is time for the discussion of unity within the church to come into alignment with God’s Word on the issue of marriage. When there is division within the church, it is because individuals are against Christ Himself, for He is the head of His church, made up of the redeemed who are called to be one with Christ.
    The church is on dangerous ground when it departs from the teaching of Christ and attempts to redefine His commands and compromise His truth. There are many things in Scripture that Christians disagree on, but the Bible is crystal clear about the sanctity of life and marriage. It is also clear that homosexuality is spelled out as sin—there are no ifs, ands or buts.
    The only way the church can be unified with one another is to be in unity with Jesus Christ, unified in “faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God ... to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be ... tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ” (Eph. 4:13-15).
    Compromise is dangerous territory for the Christian—mixing a little truth with a lot of error, wavering between right and wrong. Jesus said, “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. ... Therefore ... repent” (Rev. 3:15-16, 19). I pray that the church will return to its calling to stand on God’s principles—not wavering, but steadfast, discerning the evil times in which we live. Charles Spurgeon once said, “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.”
    My father has always said, “From compromise to deceit is a small step.” Let’s not compromise by seeing how close we can get to right; let’s stand on God’s promise to walk so close to Him that almost right becomes evil in our sight.
    “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
    For anyone reading this article, if you belong to the LGBT community, you may question whether God loves you and will forgive you. The answer is yes. I want to assure you from His own Word that God is eager to forgive all sinners, including the one penning this article.
    The Bible says, “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins. ... State your case, that you may be acquitted” (Is. 43:25-26). I am a great sinner who has received forgiveness by a great Savior—the Lord Jesus Christ. He went to the cross and shed His blood to cover our sin. He extends forgiveness to all who will call on His Name, turn from sin, believe in Him, follow Him as Master and Lord, and live in obedience according to His Word. My friend, God will heal your heart and give you peace the world cannot offer. Peace of mind and soul can be yours today. 
    Franklin Grahamson of evangelist Billy Graham, is the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.
    Click here to read the original article at BillyGraham.org.

    Love For His People Editor's Note: I highly respect and appreciate Franklin Graham. Having worked at Samaritan's Purse for several years during the Christmas Shoebox time, I saw what the ministry does, as one of their major specific outreaches. It is amazing, and Franklin is such a great and honest leader. 
    Thank you Franklin for your commitment to share the truth, no matter what the backlash brings. We stand with you in your proclamations and witness of the truth.
    Steve Martin
    Founder
    Love For His People

    Tuesday, April 8, 2014

    I Hate to Say I Told You So by MICHAEL BROWN


    I Hate to Say I Told You So



    For years I’ve been sounding the alarm about an impending social, cultural and spiritual crisis, and for years critics have compared me to Chicken Little, discounting my warnings as the ravings of a hysterical, religious fundamentalist. Well, it’s a little late for that now.
    Ten years ago, I charted this progression and made this prediction:
    • First, gay activists came out of the closet.
    • Second, they demanded their “rights.”
    • Third, they demanded that everyone recognize those “rights.”
    • Fourth, they want to strip away the rights of those who oppose them.
    • Fifth, they want to put those who oppose their “rights” into the closet.
    • From here on, embracing diversity refers to embracing all kinds of sexual orientation, (homo)sexual expression and gender identification but rejects every kind of religious or moral conviction that does not embrace these orientations, expressions and identifications.
    • From here on, hate refers to any attitude, thought or word that differs with the gay agenda, while gays are virtually exempt from the charge of hate speech—no matter how vile and incendiary the rhetoric—since they are always the (perceived) victims and never the victimizers.
    • Children in elementary schools will be exposed to the rightness and complete normality of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender expression, and opposing views will be branded as dangerous and homophobic, to be silenced and excluded from the classroom. 
    Initially, I was met with scorn and derision: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”
    The last few years, the tone has changed to “Bigots like you belong in the closet!”
    I hate to say it, but I told you so.
    After the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, the influential gay blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote, “The whole episode disgusts me—as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out.”
    Not long after, the ultraliberal Bill Maher said on Real Time, “I think there is a gay mafia. I think if you cross them, you do get whacked.”
    This echoes comments made years earlier by lesbian journalist and author Camille Paglia in her book Vamps and Tramps. “One reason I so dislike recent gay activism,” she wrote, “is that my self-identification as a lesbian preceded Stonewall: I was the only openly gay person at the Yale Graduate School (1968-72), a candor that was professionally costly. That anyone with my aggressive and scandalous history could be called ‘homophobic,’ as has repeatedly been done, shows just how insanely Stalinist gay activism has become.”
    Stalinist? Was she overstating her case?
    In my 2011 book A Queer Thing Happened to America, I noted, “It would appear, then, that ‘civil rights’ for some means ‘limited rights’ for others, and that by specific design. As stated explicitly in a teacher’s lesson aid published by the Gay and Lesbian Educators [GALE] of British Columbia: ‘We must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.’”
    In that same book, I explained what was already here and what was on the immediate horizon, including this:
    • From here on, tolerance refers to the complete acceptance of LGBT lifestyles and ideology—in the family, in the workplace, in education, in media, in religion—while at the same time refusing to tolerate any view that is contrary.
    • From here on, inclusion refers to working with, supporting, sponsoring and encouraging gay events and gay goals while at the same time systematically refusing to work with and excluding anyone who is not in harmony with these events and goals.
    What exactly would this look like? Again, here is what I wrote in 2011:
    • Middle schools, high schools and colleges will go out of their way to encourage both the celebration of homosexuality and deep solidarity with gay activism.
    • The federal and state governments will legalize same-sex marriages, meaning that all heterosexuals must accept the legality of these marriages and that anyone refusing to do so could be prosecuted for discriminatory behavior.
    • Corporate America will embrace every aspect of nonheterosexuality (including bisexuality, transgender and beyond), calling for the dismissal of those who refuse to follow suit, and religious groups will no longer be allowed to view homosexual practice as immoral, branding such opposition as “hate speech.”
    Yes, all this was written before the Mozilla debacle (which was justified, absurdly, in the name of being “inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all”); before the Walt Disney Corporation gave the Boy Scouts of America an ultimatum that they had to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders or lose Disney’s financial support; before the Girl Scouts announced that boys who identify and present themselves as girls can join their Scouting clubs; before pastor Louie Giglio was disinvited from praying at President Obama’s second inauguration because he preached a biblical message on homosexuality more than 15 years ago; before the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act and the military overturned "don’t ask, don’t tell"; before the passing of ridiculous bills like California’s SB 777 (mandating the celebration of LGBT American history for all classes, K-12) and AB 1266 (allowing students to choose the bathroom of their personal gender identification as well as play on the sports team of their choice, using that locker room as well, resulting already in a 17-year-old boy playing on the girls’ softball team); before Facebook created the customized gender option with 50 gender choices; before different states banned professional counseling requested by minors with unwanted same-sex attractions; before companies like Sweet Cakes by Melissa were put out of business because they would not participate in same-sex “weddings”; and before Attorney General Eric Holder told state attorneys general that they were not required to uphold and defend laws against same-sex “marriage” if they didn’t want to—just to mention a few.
    I hate to say it, but I told you so.
    Do you believe me now? And would you like to know what is coming next and what we can do about it? And would you like to know why I am convinced that, ultimately, the gay revolution will fail?
    Stay tuned for more. I’m glad I have your ear.
    Michael Brown is author of Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.
    Did you enjoy this blog? Click here to receive CHARISMA NEWS by email.

    Thursday, February 27, 2014

    Some Honest Questions for Andy Stanley - Dr. Michael Brown

    Dr. Michael Brown

    Want to receive In the Line of Fire by email? Sign up here

    Some Honest Questions 

    for Andy Stanley

    Andy Stanley
    Andy Stanley
    According to megachurch pastor Andy Stanley, if your religious convictions conflict with your ability to serve those you differ with, that’s your business, but you should “leave Jesus out of it.”
    What exactly did he mean by this? And has he thought through the implications of his statement?
    Since I have been unable to reach Pastor Stanley directly and since he expressed his views publicly, I want to take this opportunity to raise some questions for him—really, for all of us—to think through carefully.
    But first let me give the background to the controversy, which surrounded Kansas House Bill 2453, designed to protect religious individuals, groups or businesses from being penalized for refusal to participate in services related to same-sex marriage.
    Although the bill has been dropped from consideration for the moment, many critics have been up in arms about it, comparing the bill to Jim Crow laws. (For a refutation of that complete misrepresentation of the bill, see Ryan T. Anderson’s article“‘Homosexual Jim Crow Laws’? Get Real.”)
    One of those critics was Fox News correspondent Kirsten Powers, who wrote that pastor Andy Stanley told her that “he finds it ‘offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law.’ He said, ‘Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.’”
    He further stated, “Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it’s adultery. So if (Christians) don’t have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.”
    Here are my questions for Pastor Stanley, and I ask these for the purpose of clarification, not as an attack on his faith or his commitment to the Lord:
    1. Were you responding to the actual content of the bill, or were you responding to how critics misrepresented the bill? As Ryan Anderson notes, “The bill would protect all citizens from being forced by the government into recognizing or celebrating a same-sex marriage if it ran contrary to their religious beliefs.”
    So, the issue is not whether a bakery would be willing to sell cookies to a same-sex couple or would “do business with gays and lesbians.” The issue is whether the bakers could be punished by the government if they declined to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony, which would mean inscribing it to “Bob and Bill” and putting two male figurines on top of the cake. Were you aware of this distinction?
    2. Why do you find it “offensive” that people of faith also “leverage faith” when it comes to freedoms of conscience, speech and religion? If the government told you that you were required to perform same-sex weddings in your church, would you not “leverage faith” in your response?
    3. You stated, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity,” and I absolutely understand the point you are trying to make. But are you telling me that, if I am in the medical supply business and I am asked to supply medical equipment for a late-term abortionist, I should do so, since “serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity”? Are you saying that it is the “essence of Christianity” to help a late-term abortionist rip up a baby in the womb?
    Are you telling me that if I lived in the days of slavery and I was asked by some slave traders to manufacture shackles for the slaves that I should do so with excellence and diligence, since “serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity”?
    Is that what you mean? If not, could you clarify what is different between these scenarios and that of a Christian being asked to help facilitate a homosexual marriage, something that our Father clearly abhors?
    4. Do you see a difference between Jesus dying for a world “with which He didn’t see eye to eye” and Jesus participating in sin? According to the Scriptures, Jesus didn’t participate in the stoning of the woman caught in adultery—to the contrary, by His words, He stopped it from happening—but He certainly died for those who wanted to stone the adulteress. (He died for her too.)
    Can you agree that it is one thing to lay our lives down for our lost friends and neighbors and another thing to participate in their sin? Didn’t Paul tell us directly in Ephesians 5 not to partner with the sons of disobedience in their works of darkness?
    5. Is it right for you to tell a Christian company that if they want to act on their convictions, that’s their business, but they should “leave Jesus out of it”?How does a Christian business “leave Jesus out of” their business? How do people who seek to put Jesus first in every area of their lives now leave Him out of their lives when it comes to making important moral and spiritual decisions?
    Pastor Stanley, if you were a Christian photographer and a nudist colony asked you to do a photo shoot for their annual volleyball tournament, would you “leave Jesus out of” your decision and just tell them, “I’d rather not”? Or would you tell them that, as a follower of Jesus, you could not do this in good conscience? Or perhaps you would do the very best photo shoot they’ve ever had, since “serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity”? Is that what you mean?
    My dear brother, would you please clarify your position? The stakes are very high.
    Michael Brown is author of Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.
    Did you enjoy this blog from Michael Brown? Click here to receive it by email.

    Tuesday, February 11, 2014

    Deliverance from Sexual Sins - Jim Croft

    Deliverance from Sexual Sins 
    - Adapted from sermon on Omega Man Internet Radio Show 11/19/13

    Jim Croft


    This article is designed to give Christians a biblical perspective about sexual practice and orientation. It is presented to answer questions that Christians frequently asks about sex practices. The word definitions offered can be verified by Strong’s Concordance; the footnotes and lexicon of Zodhiates’ KJV Study Bible; Dake’s Bible; and English language dictionaries. 

    Please be forewarned that the explanations given require vividness beyond the comfort zones of routine Christian reading. As you read, it would be beneficial to keep a scriptural proverb and a spiritual principle in mind. The scriptural proverb: "I am not my own. The members of my body are for the Lord. I have been bought with a price: The precious blood of Jesus." 

    The spiritual principle 

    Without discipline, there cannot be any lasting enjoyment of life’s pleasures. 

    Target Audience 

    This piece is not intended to be overlaid on the unconverted of American society. It is not a demand that they see the matters at issue from a Christian perspective. Those who have not experienced the light of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ are not automatically predisposed to sense a need to distinguish right from wrong in regard to sexual activity and sexual orientation. 

    There are believers who claim that our society’s preoccupation with sex and acceptance of aberrant sexual practice is a primary cause for national woes. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community are often named as a major focus of blame. The attitudes displayed by many toward those of homosexual orientation are un-Christian, unbiblical and un-American. 

     It is inappropriate to suggest that they should be barred from public employment based upon private sexual practice. The Bible admonishes Christians to be at peace with all men and to honor all people. (Heb 12:14; 1Pet 2:17) Cordial respect for people in the thoroughfares of life does not carry innuendo that every aspect of lifestyle is condoned. The Corinthian believers were guilty of grievous sexual sins. Nevertheless, the opening remarks of Paul’s first letter gave them credit for where credit was due. (1Cor 1:4-7) He made honorable mention of the many areas of spirituality where they excelled. (1Cor 1:5-7) 

    Lesbians and Gays tend to have reputations for dedication to vocational excellence and to pleasing business clients. Christians called to exemplify the peace of God should be willing to honor LGBT people for the contributions they make to daily life without making an issue of their chosen sexual orientation. 

    Some pulpits assert that the reason that there has not been widespread national revival is because of its decadence. This position does not have biblical support. It is a deception directly from Satan’s playbook. This can be seen by considering the evangelistic success of the First Century Church and by examining the writings of the Apostle Paul. 

    The Gentile cultures of his day had been steeped in every form of deviate sexual practice for centuries. It was en vogue for the wealthy to have mistresses. Male and female temple prostitutes were available for idolatrous heterosexual and homosexual rituals. Pedophilia was a point of pride and bestiality was not uncommon. 

    The intensity of their societal decadence far surpasses that of present American culture. Nevertheless, the cultural preoccupation with sex did not hinder evangelism. Churches had numerous people who had once been adulterers; promiscuous libertines; and those of (LGBT) orientation. Overall, the adversarial environment to which some Christians have contributed by not minding their own business has not enhanced the world’s view of the Body of Christ. (1Pet 4:15) 

    Our Business & God's Business 

    Even though Paul commended the Corinthians in his opening remarks, he later reprimanded them for the various forms of sexual immorality that were common among them. He made special emphasis about a man guilty of incest with his stepmother. Paul compared sexual sins to yeast that spoiled the purity of the loaf of Christian fellowship. He called for cleansing repentance from sexual sin’s yeast. (1Cor 5) 

    Paul insisted that believers were not to keep company with professing Christians who persisted in sexual immorality. He specified that he was not speaking of the necessary interaction that believers must have with the unconverted in this life. Restrictions that broad would require removal from the planet. (1Cor 5:9- 10) The world’s attitude about what it means to be Christian would tend to be more favorable if believers would abide by New Testament principles. The Word does not commission Christians to judge and condemn the people of the world for any sins, sexual or otherwise. 

    The apostle Paul stated emphatically that it was not his place or ours to condemn deviate behavior among the unconverted. (1Cor 5:9–13) We are, however, charged to gently approach fellow believers when we sense that they are snared by aberrant behavior. It is our business to judge ourselves to prevent God’s judgment from falling on any of us. It is God's business to convict the unconverted about the danger of judgment for sin, including sexual impropriety. (1Cor 5:9-13)

    Perverse Sex Insults God’s Holiness 

    After God created Adam and Eve, He commended His handiwork by saying it was very good. The goodness God spoke of included their capacity to enjoy sexual relations. The bond of physical intimacy between a husband and wife typifies the relational non-sexual intimacy that the redeemed are to have with the Godhead through the Holy Spirit. (Eph 5:30–32) 

    Husbands and wives are one flesh. Those who are joined to the Lord are one in spirit and body with Him. Salvation’s mystical union unites believers with the Trinitarian oneness of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. 

    Satan and his evil spirits have never been offered an intimate familial relationship with the Godhead. The devil and his minions, therefore, are insanely jealous of the quality of trust that sexual intimacy between married couples of the opposite sex represents in the eternal realm of the Spirit. Satan and evil spirits are incapable of attacking God directly. 

    This is why demons throughout human history have concentrated so much effort on polluting sexual intimacy. The unholy and unnatural defilements that mankind invents at the urging of evil spirits are designed to insult God. 

    Origins of Perversity 

    Romans 1:18–32 outlines how sex perversions evolved. Subsequent to the fall of Adam, mankind began a downward spiral. The motivating factor was pride. It caused mankind to suppress the truth that God’s invisible attributes and the path to godliness can be clearly understood by observing creation. There are many facets of life that are designed to reflect God’s glory. 

    The devil enticed humans to become preoccupied with self-centeredness that led to idolatry. His first subsequent step was the perversion of sex. According to the Bible, the natural sexual functions of men and women were exchanged for unclean acts that were unnatural. The progressions within the verses seem to indicate that women led the way in craving unclean sex acts that were against nature. 

    We need to examine the implications of terms used in Rom 1:24-27. The basic meaning in Greek for “unclean” can be physical or moral, or can infer both simultaneously. The Old Testament was given to enlighten us about godly principles. This has relevance to what falls under the term, unclean.

    God walked among the tents of the Israelites in the Wilderness and their camp was to be kept holy. When pressed to have bowel movements, which are routinely accompanied by urination, they were instructed to go out of the camp. The refuse was to be buried with a digging implement. The instruction’s purpose was to prevent God from seeing the uncleanness and removing his protective hand from his people. (Deut 23:12-14)

    The concept that refuse and urine polluted the camp and was repulsive to God can have a message for Christians. It might be considered strong suggestion that oral and anal sex is unclean. Those acts bring the partner performing the act directly into contact with the residue of the fecal material or the urine residue of the recipient. Some might complain that they are under grace and not the Law. 

    In the context of sex the apostle Paul disagrees. He said that the Law was specifically for those who committed unlawful acts that were against sound doctrine. Fornication and sodomy were in the list. (1Tim 1:8-10) Later in this article, you will see that sodomy’s definition includes oral and anal copulation. The word translated as “lusts” in Rom 1:24 is the longing for that which is forbidden. The definition for “against nature” in Rom 1:26, is “against germination.” 

    Here is the gist of what is conveyed in Rom 1:24-27: Perhaps to avoid unwanted pregnancy and surely with ungodly craving, men and women engaged in forbidden immoral sex acts that were unnatural and physically unclean. Eventually, the sex acts expanded to use among same sex partners. In other words, the corruption of sexual relations began with heterosexuals and subsequently homosexuality evolved as a deeper unnatural corruption. 

    By definition, activities designed to implant seed emitted from the reproductive organs of one sex into that of the opposite sex for fertilization are natural. Emissions with those of the same sex are unnatural. The same might be said of emissions into body cavities that do not lead directly to fertilization. 

    This puts heterosexual oral and anal sex at question to the same extent as homosexual practice. Rebellion by committing unnatural sex acts led to other sins such as greed, deceit, strife, unforgiveness, and hatred for God. Mankind was permitted to go its own way. All the while the voice of conscience warned that those who sow such acts chance reaping self-inflicted judgments. (Rom 2:1-16) 

    Further Definitions 

    Newer translations of the Bible do not give the clarity of the KJV in relation to terminology related to sexual practice and compulsions. The definitions become more understandable by Greek Lexicon and English language dictionary searches. I will provide some definitions and will make remarks that you can weigh with your conscience to evaluate what might be applicable to you. 

    Sexual immorality 

    According to Webster’s Dictionary the word immoral is defined as not conforming to accepted patterns of what is considered right and wrong behavior in a culture. This is problematic for Christians because the societal understanding of what is acceptable sexual practice has changed over the past generation. Many converts that have come into our churches in recent decades have a concept of sexual morality that is far more permissive than that of previous generations. 

    Much of what they practice and think is morally OK is actually sexual immorality. At this point newer translations of the Bible are not helpful. Sexual immorality is often used as a generic term that blurs the meaning of distinct objectionable sex acts. 

    One of the words often blanketed is fornication. Throughout the Bible, fornication denotes most every unlawful sex act that is against sound doctrine. Its use in the KJV includes promiscuity among the unmarried, adultery and incest. (Matt 5:32; 1Cor 5:1, 6:9) 

    In Heb 13:4, avoiding adultery and fornication are mentioned in relation to the sanctity of the marriage bed. This leads me to believe that fornication might also apply to some sex acts within marriage by which many are polluting the marriage bed without knowing it. 

    Many relatively recent converts do not understand that the mindset they brought into the salvation about sexual morality might not meet authentic biblical standards. 

    I once had a conversation with a minister who had a broad ministry with Christian singles. As he traveled from church to church, he frequently asked for a show of hands from those who were sexually active. He said the norm was well over 80%. 

    Sodomite (1Cor 6:9 NKJV) – Sodomy defines the sexual practices of LGBT people and of many heterosexual teens, adult singles, and married couples. The dictionary definition of sodomy gives reason for concern. It is anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; and it is also copulation with animals. 

    For the sake of decency, I cannot go into details about how the bestiality happens. However, it is not unusual for ER workers to be called upon to extract declawed rodents from the body cavities of homosexuals. 

    Oral sex is extremely common in Christian circles. Girls as young as eleven are giving oral sex to lines of waiting boys. It is touted in some areas as “the new goodnight kiss.” 

    Twenty years ago, I frequently ministered at the 3rd largest Pentecostal assembly in a faraway State. The music team of young singles trusted me as a spiritual confidant. They once asked if I thought it was OK for them to service one another to relieve stress. I asked what servicing meant. They said it was giving oral sex to team members of the opposite sex who were chosen at random. 

    The answer that I gently gave them was nothing akin to what they had hoped. Anal sex is less common, but there are Christians who have no pang of conscience about engaging in it as a substitute for vaginal intercourse and as sexual foreplay. Like oral sex, it is at times employed with dating couples who plead monogamy as they intend to marry. 

    Most would concede that marriage plans do not always work out. Even if they did, the concern of believers should be to do all things as unto the Lord. 

    Harlotry

    A harlot is a woman who sells a variety of sex acts. The Old Testament expands harlotry to “playing the harlot.” This was reference to young women having premarital sex. The penalty was death by stoning. (Deut 22:20-21) 

    We can all be grateful that the death penalty does not apply under the New Covenant. But, we cannot assume that God has dismissed his objections to single women playing the harlot. And, for sure men are not given a free pass in the matter. 

    This is made evident in 1Cor 6:15-20. Whether male or female the bodily parts of a Christian’s body are joined to the Lord. Entrance into the body of another and conversely being entered, whether vaginal, oral or anal; in affect unites the Lord and the two committing the sinful act together as one. 

    Our temples of the Holy Spirit are not to be used to drag the Lord through sinful mires. 

    Masturbation

    There are Christians who say there are not any explicit admonitions in the Bible against masturbation. Jesus stated that any man, who looks on a woman with lust, has committed adultery in his heart. (Mt 5:28) 

    During masturbation, normally speaking, another person is envisioned as a participant. Does it not stand to reason that the fantasies imagined while bringing about orgasmic release intensifies the sinfulness? Those who are lenient with themselves about masturbation risk giving invitation to depraved sex spirits.  
    I once dealt with a seminary student who confessed addiction to necrophilia. He masturbated with dead fur-bearing animals. God set him free of that hideous demon. There are those who claim that masturbation can be enacted mechanically without thinking about another person. The Book of Jude speaks about those who are sensually minded and are not exhibiting the Spirit of God. A sensual person has excessive devotion to fulfilling bodily appetites. 

    Jude compared the sensually minded to the people of Sodom who were only interested in self gratification. He stated that the wayward believers were acting like brute beast. (Jude 1:4, 7-8, 10, 16, 18-19) Beasts seek sexual release without reasoning about anything beyond the drive to fulfill a bestial urge. Can it possibly be righteous for a Christian to release an urge in a non-thinking manner that was intended to foreshadow eternal intimacy with God? I think not. 

    We are new creations in Christ and we must not be reduced to acting like brute beasts. 

    Homosexuality 

    Most anyone who counsels churched people has encountered closet homosexuals and bisexuals. In the context of Christianity and the born-again experience, the argument about whether homosexuality is genetic or acquired is rendered moot. Even the rare instances in which a person is born with homosexual desires or tendencies do not provide a free pass to engage in a sodomistic homosexual lifestyle. 

    It is just as ungodly to live out the tendency toward homosexuality as it would be to live out an inborn tendency to be a drunkard. 

    Some complain that homosexuality is natural because some same sex animals ride one another sexually. They did not do so at creation. God referred to them as good and blessed them with the good ability to be fruitful in producing after like kind. (Gen 1:21-25) 

    The fall of Adam corrupted the entirety of creation. For this reason creation groans, waiting for redemption from the ugly futilities of the fall of Adam (Rom 8:20-22) 

    It is not life-threatening to say no to the forbidden behavior for the sake of Christ. One can go to heaven with unfulfilled sexual compulsions. No one can see God unless he or she has reckoned those unlawful passions as dead in the active pursuit of holiness. (Col 3:5; Heb 12:14) 

    The claim of Satan’s propaganda machine is that that sexual abnormalities do not succumb to reparative therapy. That is not what the Bible teaches. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–13, there is a list of unrighteous individuals who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and revilers are mentioned specifically. 

    The passage proclaims boldly, however, that these ones can be changed by salvation. I have added italics to verse eleven to emphasize that after being born again, those who previously sinned in that way were no longer ensnared in those sins: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 

    Without question, those who want to continue homosexuality after experiencing the new birth often exhibit a double standard. Let us imagine a professing Christian homosexual couple has one partner who is a thief and is given to abusive speech. It is highly probable that the law-abiding, verbally abused partner would press the offending partner to stop stealing and to control his tongue. Furthermore, he would expect him to succeed at doing so. 

    Biblically, thievery and abusive speech appear in the same list as fornication and homosexuality. Remember the phrase that such were some of you in 1 Corinthians 6:11: Is there any biblical reason why it applies to thieves and revilers and not to homosexuals? There is no difference. Sin is sin. 

    Christ within empowers believers to put all sinful inclinations into the past tense. 

    Testimony 

    There is a need for the churched to confess and to receive deliverance from homosexual temptation. When I was 9 years old, my father invited a member of our church to have Sunday lunch with us. While my parents were preparing the table, the man watched television with me.  He began to fondle my privates through my clothing. 

    It was very frightening and after a few minutes I jumped up and ran to tell my father. He expelled the man from our home. However, the man continued attending our church and no one was warned about his predatory homosexual pedophilia. 

    Several years later it was discovered that the church's minister of music was a ravenous bisexual. I never gave the incident another thought until after my salvation at age 24. I had no interests in homosexuality and in fact had no idea about what they did to one another. 

    However, shortly after I accepted Christ I began to have weird compulsions and fears. At times, I wondered what it would be like to dress like a woman. This gave me the tormenting fear that I might be a latent homosexual. I never gave in to the compulsions nor did I ever experiment with what I feared. Where did this plague come from?

    Fear trauma had gripped me as that man briefly fondled me at age 9. This gave entrance to evil spirits that fueled the compulsion and my unreasonable fears. The light of Christ and the rain of the Holy Spirit that came with my baptism in the Holy Spirit exposed the evil spirits and caused them to surface with fury. (Eph 5:8-14; Heb 6:7-8) 

    I praise God that I had the Christian discipline to resist the cross dressing compulsion. I learned about deliverance from evil spirits. Through self- deliverance, I expelled the effeminate demon and the demon of the fear of latent homosexuality from myself. I have been completely free since that time. Through deliverance ministry, Satan’s plans to destroy my marriage and my ministry were spoiled. 

    Marriage 

    With married couples, the voice of God within is a trustworthy gauge to help discern what is appropriate and what is not. Certainly within the bonds of married love, there is room for variety in sexual positions and so forth. 

    If, however, the “so forth” experimentation makes either partner uncomfortable, the uneasiness is likely justified. It is sinful to coerce a spouse to engage in a sexual activity that they cannot perform in good conscience. Anyone who continually ignores godly inhibitions is at risk of opening up to spirits of perversion. 

    Further enticements for more intense types of experimentation are likely to follow. Astonishingly, for example, there are sophisticated people who are addicted to pain during sex. Two of the bizarre practices are choking and fisting. Both were surely spawned by demons. 

    With choking, the female’s breath is cutoff when she signals nearing orgasm. This supposedly heightens intensity of orgasm. Fisting is used in masturbation. The operative partner puts direct finger pressure on a male recipient’s prostate to bring about excessive ejaculation. Or, the operative partner yanks on a male or female recipient’s lower bowel when told orgasm is beginning. 

    It is not unusual for hospitalization to be requited for the severely injured. Satan’s objective is to inundate the marriage bed with activities that cause couples to cast aside all thoughts of holy union. In such instances, many would testify that any momentary gratification they might experience carries a heavy price tag of emptiness of soul the morning after. 

    Motives 

    I realize that this reading has provoked varying reactions. Some are relieved for clarity about practices about which they have had doubts. Others wish I would keep my opinions to myself. It would be appropriate for the latter to weigh their motives. 

    All of the ways of a man are right in his own eyes, but God weighs the motives. (Prov 16:2) What is driving your resistance? Are you sure that the Holy Spirit within your conscience is giving you liberty to do whatever you like in sexual practice? Or, could it be that what you long for is actually your carnal mind warring against the truth in your spirit? (Rom 8:5-9; 1Pet 2:11; Gal 5:17) 

    Believers are to set their affections on complying with God’s Spirit. We are to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive unto righteous behavior. Our bodies are to be considered dead to the fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affections and evil concupiscence that we once walked in that provoke the anger of God. (Col 3:1-7) 

    Some practices and attitudes are physically filthy and morally defiling. The footnotes and lexicon of Zodhiates’ KJV Study Bible bring clarity to those found in the Col 3 passage. Zodhiates defines fornication as the sexual sins of the unmarried and married, including adultery, homosexuality, and incest. 

    The Greek for inordinate affections is pathos epithumia. Pathos is to have a diseased condition of soul. Epithumia is the lusts that are spawned by a diseased soul. Evil concupiscence is a longing, especially for that which is forbidden or constitutionally bad, evil. Older translations of the Bible make reference to lasciviousness in 2Cor 12:21 and Gal 5:19. 

    Biblically it means to stir-up lusts in others that cannot be legitimately fulfilled in holiness. Isa 3:16-25 gives a flaming indictment against the daughters of Zion who walked in haughty flirtatious. Christian women and men are of Zion and there are those who dress and behave in a sexually provocative manner to draw attention. (Heb 12:22) 

    It must be remembered that the scriptures warn that those who do not repent shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. I do not know the full implications of inherit. I imagine that at best it means that such individuals will be granted entrance into heaven, but will not ever have right to wield authority in the eternal Kingdom. I shudder even to think about the far worse alternative consequence for rebellion. 

    Christians are in a race to win God’s crown of approval at the Judgment Seat of Christ. We are to keep our bodies under subjection lest we reject conscience and make shipwreck of our faith. Those who do so risks shrinking back in shame at the Lord’s coming. 

    We are to be able to face the Lord in full expectation of the highest afterlife rewards. (1Cor 9:24-27; 1Tim 1:19; 1Jn 2:28-30; Philip 3:13; 2Tim 4:6-8) 

    Deliverance 

    The first step toward liberation from all forms of sexual sins is to genuinely want deliverance. It is unproductive to submit to deliverance just to please parents or to comply with the wishes of a spouse or to ease momentary guilt pangs. The primary motive must be the Spirit-inspired conviction that the act at issue insults the holiness of God. 

    All sins are primarily of the flesh and any can be exacerbated by evil spirits. For this reason, it is appropriate to employ deliverance as well as repenting of the particular sin when it has not previously responded to routine Christian discipline. Going after a possible demon can completely eradicate some problems and can lower the intensity of others so that you can effectively resist temptations. (Gal 5:19-21) 

    You must be absolutely committed to the reality that the old carnal nature was crucified with Christ at Calvary. That entity is dead and was buried in the waters of baptism. With those factors established, the specific demon of perversity must be expelled. 

    If you are seeking help in this area, treat that demon with utter hatred over the despicable acts it has compelled you to perform. Homosexuals who have flaunted gayness in spiteful arrogance should repent of glorying in that which is shameful. (1Cor 5:1–2, 6; Eph 5:11–12) 

    When I minister to those given to sex perversions and to sex addicts, I ask them to lay their hands on their erogenous zones, one by one. As they do so, I command the particular evil spirit to leave each location in Jesus’ name. 

    In addition, sex addicts I have counseled have described what I define as an erotic demonic energy resident in them. It causes their flesh to tingle with desire for erotic flesh on flesh contact internally as well as externally. I have them repeat the laying-on-of-hands procedure and ask them to personally command that demonic energy to leave them. They often report that they felt the energy draining from them. I have seen the siphoning sensation weaken some to the extent that they physically collapsed. Have confidence that the Lord has given you authority to minister self-deliverance. 

    This article has covered some sensitive core issues. It is fitting to spend some time seeking God as to whether or not areas in your life need adjustment. I suggest that you remember this article’s introductory scriptural proverb and repeat it several times. "I am not my own. The members of my body are for the Lord. I have been bought with a price: The precious blood of Jesus." 

    If you sense deliverance from evil spirits is needed, confess the introduction’s spiritual principle with this add on before ministering self-deliverance: “Without discipline, there cannot be any lasting enjoyment of life’s pleasures. I will exercise discipline in all bodily appetites. By the power of the blood of Jesus, I will keep my body under subjection to the Cross of Christ. I command every sexual demonic spirit to leave my mind and soul now. The power of the strips of Jesus now heals my soul of its pathos diseased condition. My soul is healthy in righteousness and no defiling lusts will spring from it again. In Jesus’ name Amen.”

    Jim Croft