RSample.com

KnoxNews.com broke an interesting story. Seems that the ACLU is suing the Knoxville and Nashville school districts because the schools have filters on their internet that block access to gay and lesbian information sites. The suit also claims that while informational sites are banned, what are not banned are sites that disagree with the homosexual/transgender lifestyle.

The suit is brought on behalf of students and a Knoxville school librarian. The librarian, Karyn Storts-Brinks, is the faculty advisor for the Fulton High School Gay-Straight Alliance. In her interview with KnoxNews.com she says:

…some students might be questioning their sexuality, some might already be confident in their sexuality and some might be getting harassed, and they need access to legitimate educational LGBT sites for information and support. (KnoxNews.com)

Thank you, ACLU. Not for leading another charge against traditional moral values, but for bringing this story to the forefront. I had no idea that there were such things as Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in our high schools and middle schools. I wonder how many parents know that at school-sanctioned meetings their teen can discuss sexual identities with other students and outside guests. There are a multitude of problems here, but let me focus on three:

1. Once again, parents are taken out of the loop in how their kids are raised. According to the Gay-Straight Alliance handbook, parents are the key, just not necessarily a student’s own parent:

First, you have to find a committed and enlightened parent. Start with your group or circle of friends: does anyone have an enlightened, supportive, committed parent?

If you can’t find a supportive parent among your group’s parents, contact a PFLAG chapter, a Unitarian church, a GLSEN chapter, or the ACLU chapter in your area, and ask if anyone there knows of a parent in your school district who is supportive. (Make It Real)

In other words, if a student’s own parents are not in agreement with the homosexual or transgender lifestyle, go out and find a parent who is. It is the duty of the parent to raise their children, and to address these issues, not the school’s. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

2. The Gay-Straight Alliance maintains that they do not promote alternative lifestyles, just provide a “safe-zone” for its discussion:

Mission Statement

Gay-Straight Alliance Network is a youth leadership organization that connects school-based Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) to each other and community resources. Through peer support, leadership development, and training, GSA Network supports young people in starting, strengthening, and sustaining GSAs and builds the capacity of GSAs to:

1. create safe environments in schools for students to support each other and learn about homophobia and other oppressions,
2. educate the school community about homophobia, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues, and
3. fight discrimination, harassment, and violence in schools. (Gay-Straight Alliance Mission Statement)

On its surface, GSAs seem designed to create an atmosphere of open discussion. However, they have teamed up with an organization called Frameline to produce a series of “free LGBT themed movies to GSAs” throughout California. Frameline definitely has an agenda:

Founded in 1977, Frameline’s mission is to strengthen the diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and further its visibility by supporting and promoting a broad array of cultural representations and artistic expression in film, video and other media arts. (Frameline)

GSAs are not neutral in these discussions. They are actively promoting a lifestyle that is in full opposition to the values of many school parents.

3. Any kind of sexual activity outside of marriage is out of bounds according to Scripture. “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” (Hebrews 13:4) Homosexual practices receive an even stronger condemnation:

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Teenagers are sexually stirred up, but that does not mean that they have to be sexually active. Clubs like the Gay-Straight Alliance promote a sexual lifestyle that teenagers are not ready for, and are sinful no matter what the age.

If you are a parent with a child going into middle or high school, you should be worried. You should be angry. You should be saddened. The question is, what now?

Speak to the sons of Israel, saying “If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them…
-Leviticus 4:2

The entire fourth chapter of Leviticus deals with the consequences of unintentional sin. Unintentional sin – an offense unknowingly committed, a line crossed unawares. Intentional sin is dealt with severely, but in the Law of God there is exceptional grace for the unplanned transgression. God has been sinned against, but in His mercy He provides for avenues of atonement that both testify to the nature of human sinfulness and the lengths to which God will go to demonstrate His love for us.

Of interest in this chapter is the graduated scale of sacrifice needed to atone for these sins, a range which is based upon the standing of a member in a community. Going in reverse order, a “common person” is to offer a female goat or lamb without defect. (Lev. 4:27 – 35) A leader of the people would sacrifice a male goat, again without defect. (Lev. 4:22 – 26) If the community as a whole has unintentionally sinned against God, they are to offer a bull of the herd. (Lev. 4:13 – 21) A priest who is found guilty is to offer a bull without defect. (Lev. 4:2 – 20) This graduated scale is based upon the impact of unintentional sin on the community, based on one’s standing in that community. A common person is to offer up a lamb – which will hurt, but not have far reaching consequences. A leader, by offering up a male goat without blemish, is also sacrificing some longer term benefits for his herd. The community as a whole is to offer up a bull, a symbol of strength and power, which will also have long term effects on that herd. A priest who brings guilt upon the people by his transgression is to offer a bull without defect – a sacrifice that will take a long time to overcome. Actions have consequences, and the greater one’s standing in the community, the greater and more far reaching those consequences become.

By the grace of Christ, we no longer have to offer up sacrifices. We still unintentionally, or often intentionally, sin against God’s Law. Here is what we must learn from this passage:

1. We must constantly be guarding our own hearts and ways. Are we daily seeking guidance from the Word of God, participating in His will through our prayers, and walking in His Law in our daily actions? In this lifetime we will never be free from sin, but are we trying our hardest to walk as people of grace? Do we actively go to God in a spirit of repentance, knowing that He will both discipline us in the long or short term, but also knowing that He does so out of love and forgiveness?

2. We must realize the enormous responsibility our political and religious leaders have. Are we praying for them – even if they did not receive our vote? Are we holding them accountable for their transgressions against God? If they repent of their sins, are we extending to them the same kind of grace that God has shown us?

3. As a community, do we understand that by straying from God’s law we have caused Him to withdraw many of His blessings from our nation? Are we willing to sacrifice our pride which demands that we go our own way, instead recognizing that Christ is the King of all nations? Will we work for revival in our churches and communities – praying that God will light an unquenchable fire in the hearts of all people – leaders and followers alike?

Where do we stand with the Law of God? Will we first seek the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness? Or will we continue to sin against the God of all love – whether knowingly or not – and thus bearing the consequences of His wrath.

Real. Comfortable. Church. That was the billboard that overlooked the highway cutting through Knoxville for quite a while. The picture of a couch behind these words made the meaning clear – we want you to be as relaxed as possible while worshipping the King of kings.

A culture of informality has swept over this nation. Casual Fridays are now the norm in many areas – I still hesitate to sign over my hard earned check to a bank teller that is dressed down. At a local eatery that I frequent, I routinely see men and women dressed in what must be pajamas coming in to get breakfast. Customer service agents call me by my first name without asking permission. It seems that at times we are working very hard to break down the structures of civilization – all in the name of being comfortable.

This informality has spilled over into our churches. Dress for church was a special thing – our Sunday best. A tie at the least, a tie AND jacket would be preferred. Women were also tastefully and modestly dressed. The overall goal of Sunday clothes was not to show off what we have – but to put on the best garments for the formal worship of our Creator. Jackets and ties now are often the exception in our houses of worship. The standard attire for Sunday mornings is now polo shirts and pants (or shorts) for the men and comfortable (and often very revealing) dress for the women. Pastors have left their robes in the closet, and now preach in jeans and golf shirts.

Back to the billboard. In order to be theologically correct, they should have tagged on this warning: “Choose Two.” A Real Church cannot be comfortable – as the Word of God rightly preached often convicts to the very soul. A Comfortable Church is not real – as it will never address the issues that face faith and life in a biblical and fruitful way. As for being Real Comfortable – staying at home on the couch is where we would find that.

What we need is a true revival in our churches. A revival of spirit – so we may correctly and faithfully follow the Holy Spirit in all that we do. We need a revival of purpose – so that we may carry out Christ’s command. We need a revival in community – for only together can we hold each other accountable. And a revival of attitude – for we are saved by grace by none other than the King of kings and Lord of lords. In that, and not in our pursuit of the informal, may we find our comfort.

This passage of Scripture reminds me of a conversation concerning Date Rape that I had a few years back.  The gist of the conversation revolved around the question of who is at fault in this mostly college-prevalent crime.  The opposing viewpoint coming from another employee was very clear on the matter – the male is 100% at fault, every time.  Whether the girl says no, or says yes, if she states the next day that she was in no position to make that kind of choice, the boy is at fault.  The male, sober or blitzed, must make the call between a “yes” that means “yes”, and a “yes” that means “no”.  I took the position that each case must be examined differently.  While rape of any kind is a crime, the question that I posited is does the girl bear any kind of responsibility in this matter?  Was she drinking excessively?  Was she dressed provocatively?  Did she knowingly place herself in a position where such a devastating thing could happen?  Did she cry out?  If we are to hold men to such high standards, I asked, should we not hold women to some kind of code of conduct as well?

Scripture is very clear on the matter of forced sexual relations – “for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.” (Deut 22:26)  The penalty for rape at all times is death.  It is violent, it is deviant, and it flies in the face of the Covenant of love and law that God so clearly outlines for His people. Deuteronomy 22: 23 – 29 speaks of two kinds of sexual encounters.  The first case involves a man finding a girl “in the city”, who is a virgin and engaged to another man, and “lies with her”.  The penalty for this infraction is that both are put to death in order to “purge the evil from among you.” (Deut 22:24)  A horrifying, and some would say unjust,  outcome.  The location for this event, though, is important.  The cities of the Hebrews were not the cities of today – bastions of individual fortresses surrounded by sound-proofed walls of steel and concrete.  These ancient cities were open and bustling with activity.  If this action had truly been rape, such a violent act would have been noticed, the screams of help would have been heard, aid would have been rendered.  There are always exceptions, and Scripture provides a just way to handle them.  (Deut 25:1)  But barring any exceptions, this episode is not considered rape, but an encounter between two willing parties.  Since sex outside the covenant of marriage is taboo, the penalty for both is death.

Verse 25 is the second case, one where there is no possibility of hearing a call for help.  If this event happens “in the field”, then “you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin…”. (22:26)  Verse 27 states, “there was no one to save her.”  This encounter is clearly unplanned on the part of the woman, in a place where she cannot get aid.  Clearly, Scripture considers this event “rape”, with all the violence and trauma associated with that crime.  The girl is not held accountable, as justice requires.  The man is put to death, being held solely liable for his actions.

In cases of clear rape, where the woman was alone and unable to get aid, Scripture mandates a prosecution of the man only  – the woman is to be held sinless.  Whether or not rape should be a capital offense is another discussion, but Scripture does mandate a pretty stiff penalty for this crime.  (For an excellent discussion on capital punishment, see Daniel Van Ness’s article “What’s the Bible’s Position On The Death Penalty”.)

Yet, if there is no clear distinction between the guilty parties, if no cries for help were ever made, if the situation entered into was such that a sexual encounter of some sort was bound to occur, then how can only one party be held 100% accountable?  Though adultery is no longer a capital offense, the results of marital infidelity or sexual promiscuity have dire consequences.  Scripture is calling for a mantle of responsibility to be placed on both parties.  Far from holding the woman accountable for the man’s actions, Scripture holds each party individually responsible for their own  actions.  The man must not have sex outside of marriage,  not be in a questionable area with a woman, be in charge of his faculties.  The woman must also have some sense of self control – does not get drunk, watches her surroundings, be aware of who she is with, be committed to sexual fidelity.  Such vigilance on the part of both parties will greatly reduce the chance of any illicit encounter, as well as decrease the probability of charges of rape.

To go back to my conversation, how we address the issue of Date Rape reflects upon how well we know and apply the Law of God.  If we see the Law as merely a set of rules and restrictions, then we will spend a great deal of time inventing ways to circumvent those laws in order to have complete license in all that we do. The result, of course, is the moral anarchy that we are experiencing today.  Far from merely being restrictive, the Law is God’s gift for righteous living and healthy human interaction.  Once we begin to see that there is no action outside of the Law, we can also begin to see how God has already addressed difficult issues such as Date Rape.  Will we continue to measure these matters by human varying standards, codes of conduct that change with the times and political pressures?  Or,  will we submit ourselves to live according to how God would have us live?