Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality: “Sexual desire or behavior directed towards a person of one’s own sex.”

A Literal Interpretation of Biblical Passages would, most likely, conclude that Homosexuality is condemned by scripture.  This is called: “The Traditional View.” This view came into usage only about the Late Middle Ages. Prior to this, a much more tolerant attitude prevailed (John Boswell: “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality”).

Modern Biblical Scholarship, and the increasing clinical evidence, would strongly suggest that these passages utilized to condemn Homosexuality are wrong, that they do not condemn, or forbid, loving Homosexual Acts in a relationship of lasting commitment and mutual respect. Modern Scholarship indicates that all references to Homosexual Behavior and Acts (in both The Old and New Testaments) are related to ancient practices of Fertility Religions.

The original languages of the Bible were Hebrew and Greek. No reputable scholar would read the word Homosexual” in any Biblical reference because it just doesn’t exist.

The word “Heterosexual” was coined in 1888.

The word “Homosexual” first appeared in English in the 1890’s, when it was used by Charles Gilbert Chaddock (the translator of R. von Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis”). It had originally appeared in German in 1869 in an anonymous pamphlet. Havelock Ellis, a British physician, writer, and social reformer who studied human sexuality, and who co-authored the first medical textbook in English on Homosexuality in 1897, said it was a “barbarous neologism sprung from a monstrous mingling of Greek and Latin Stock”:

Greek:  “Heteros” (different) and Latin: “Sexualis” (sex)

Greek:  “Homos” (same) and Latin: “Sexualis” (sex)

TEXTS OF TERROR (aka The “Clobber Passages”)

A)  The Sodom and Gomorrah Story:  Sodom (“place of lime”) and Gomorrah (“fissure” or “submersion”):

Genesis 18:16 – 19:38

These were cities in the Jordan Valley where Lot, Abraham’s nephew, settled with his family. Genesis 19:5 is a key verse which utilizes the Hebrew Word: “yadah” (“to know”). The word can be translated either in a sexual, or non-sexual manner depending on its usage i.e. Genesis 4:1 where it is stated that “Adam knew (yadah) his wife and she conceived”, obviously used here in a sexual context.

So what is being condemned in this story?

·      Inhospitality and intolerance of strangers (i.e. Hebrews 13:2; I Timothy 5:9-10). In Ezekiel 16:49-50 (which lists the “sins of Sodom”) no mention is made of sexual improprieties.  It links “Sodom’s Sins” with violating the ancient code of hospitality and rejection of the needs of the poor.

·      Sexual Violence and Rape (i.e. Judges 19:13-30.

·      Sexual Relations with Angels.

·      Initiation into sexual rites of Fertility Religions in the Jordan Valley.

·      Worship of Pagan Deities (Hebrew Word used: “Catamites”).

Homosexuality (as a Psycho-Sexual Orientation) is not mentioned or involved here. (The Ancient Hebrews would not know of such modern knowledge). The story does not speak to a loving, but exploitive, relationship (use of people as objects). Correlative texts: Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jeremiah 23:14; Luke 10:10-12; II Peter 2:6-8.

There are 2 works used in the Bible meaning “to know”. “Nakar” (“to know”; “to regard”; “to recognize”; “pay attention to”; “be acquainted with”), is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and is used for the first time in Genesis 27:23 (physical apprehension). “Yadah” (“to know”), a word which occurs in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Arabic (infrequently), Aramaic, and Hebrew languages, is utilized 1,042 times in the Bible (995 in Hebrew and 47 in Aramaic).

Essentially, “yadah” means:

·      To know by observation and reflection (thinking), as in Genesis 8:11 where Noah “knew” the floods had abated by seeing the olive leaf in the mouth of the dove.

·      To know by experiencing, as in Joseph (Genesis 42:33); Adam and Eve (“knowledge of good and evil”); and Israelites (Deuteronomy 8:5).

·      Used of knowing and giving back. Cain “did not know” he was Abel’s keeper (Genesis 4:9). Abraham “knew” Sarah was a beautiful woman (Genesis 12:11).

·      Know by being told (Leviticus 5:1). Potiphar didn’t “know” (Genesis 39:6)

·      Knowing by sexual relations, as in Adam “knowing” Eve (Genesis 4:1).

·      Knowing intimately and personally, but not by sexual relations. God “knows” Abraham (Genesis 18:19). God relates or “knows” Israel as a chosen people (Amos 3:2). Pharoah denies that he “knows” God (Exodus 5:2).

Note:  It is strange that people utilize The Sodom/Gomorrah Story to condemn Homosexuals, and say nothing of Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped by the men. In the ancient world, they were Lot’s property, and he could do whatever he desired with them. But if the men of Sodom were Homosexuals, why would they even consider Lot’s daughters? Again, Lot offered them up rather than violate the ancient code of hospitality. Furthermore, in the ancient world, to make someone “play the woman” was a way to emasculate them, which soldiers would often do to a captured enemy.

B)  Leviticus 18:22: “Tohevah” (“an abomination”):

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (KJV)

The Hebrew Word: “tohevah” or “toebah” (“an abomination”) indicated that something was repugnant from the standpoint of Cultic Rules and Laws (i.e. Genesis 46:34; Genesis 43:32; Deuteronomy 22:5; Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 20:17-18; II Kings 21:1-6). The prohibition in this verse was one of many prohibitions considered “Tohevah” by the Hebrews (also 20:13), and is part of The Hebrew Holiness Code which insured Cultic and Moral Purity. It was a Tribal Code, and contains

other prohibitions such as:

·      Eating rabbit or pork (Leviticus 11:1-8)

·      Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-10)

·      Sex with a menstrual woman (Leviticus 18:19)

·      Cross-breeding, cross-pollinating, wearing garments of two fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)

Lots more could be added to this list.

To the Ancient Hebrews, any “abomination” (“tohevah”) was centered on this Holiness Code, including same-sex activity. The foundation for this was that in their belief system, doing so emasculated and debased the one who “played the woman”. Males were dominant and females were subservient, inferior and treated as property. Same-sex interaction was also against the Biblical Command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:11). Sex was only for pro-creative purposes and never for pleasure. It was the means to increase the tribe and to add to one’s property and value.

Orthodox Jews still believe and uphold all 613 Laws, believing that Christ is the Messiah, Christians have, largely, ignored these laws believing that His atoning work on the Cross fulfilled the Law – except when they isolate and use this verse as ammunition against Homosexuality. This is hypocritical, at best, and theological heresy at worst, driven by an anti-gay agenda. As Ann Lamott so eloquently and succinctly summarized it:

         “You know you’ve created God in your own image – when He hates the same people you do”.

C)  Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “Cultic Prostitutes” or “Catamites”:

17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abominations unto the Lord they God. (KJV)

The work used here is: “Qadesh” (“Cult Prostitute”), which is translated (incorrectly) as “Sodomite” in The King James Bible, and also mistranslated in verse 18 as “dog”. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which gives “Sodomite” as meaning of “dog” (“keleb”), is also without justification. The translation here should be: “Temple Prostitute”. The passage is against idolatrous worship in Fertility Cults, and has nothing to do with a loving, caring, committed, non-exploitive relationship.

D)  Romans 1:26-27: Sin, in a setting of Idolatry:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 An likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (KJV)

 Paul speaks of pagans of his day. The “Image” of verse 23 refers to idols and idol worship. In verses 26-27, Paul is referring to Heterosexuals who turn to immoral, libertine lust. Among the Greeks and Romans it was not unusual for a man (with a wife and children) to have a young male lover. Older men were expected to tutor (or initiate) younger men in the art of love. The only prohibition was that the older man was not to be the “receiver” of this sexual activity. The young partner was to assume the “female role.” The word for this young man was (in the Greek) “ganymedes” (boy kept for sexual purposes). Once reaching puberty, the young man usually went on to marry and have children and, probably, tutored or mentored another young man. In keeping with the constant average of at least 3-10% of the population being exclusively Homosexual, some of these young men (ganymedes) were of this orientation and entered exclusive Homosexual Relationships.

Paul was a devout Jewish Heterosexual (no evidence that he was a repressed or tortured “closet Gay”).

He believed that the only “natural” sexual relationship was between a male and female which could produce offspring. In Ancient Hebrew and Jewish Tradition, having children and posterity was crucial to the survival of the race and religion. Anything which precluded this(including “spilling one’s seed” or “masturbation” (as in the case of Onan in Genesis 38:8-10, who did so rather than fulfilling The Levite Law to give progeny to his dead brother’s wife so they could inherit estate)),  was taboo or “tohevah”.  Paul would have had no understanding of “Constitutional Homosexuality” which has now been confirmed by clinical facts not known to the ancient world of Paul’s day. To them, it was simply a “choice”, an act of volition.

The Cultic Prostitution and practice of tutoring young men was part of Paul’s World. In Romans 1:29-31, Paul describes how evil and ugly this idolatrous lifestyle is. Either Homosexual or Heterosexual People can be part of such a lifestyle. Paul is not dealing with a loving relationship in the context of acknowledging God and of honoring the Imagio Dei (“The Image of God”) in another as a person to be loved, treated with dignity, and valued.

E)   I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10: More of the same:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

For whore mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (KJV)

The Greek Word used here has no relationship to the coined words Homosexual or Heterosexual. “Malakos” (“effeminate”; “womanly”; “soft” as in Moral Softness) and “arsenokoites” (“arseno” – “male” and “koites” – “bed”). The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, in its first edition, mistranslated these words as “Homosexual”. The Second Edition (1971) correctly translated these words to “sexual perverts.” Malakos is rightly translated as “moral weakness”. “Immoral persons” is a better and more truthful translation, with no reference to Homosexuality. “Arsenokoites” is closer to our slang word “F---er”.

Young’s Analytical Concordance renders “arsenokoites” as: “lying with a male”, but it could apply to both Heterosexual and Homosexual Activity. It likely refers to “Temple Prostitutes” involved in Pagan Fertility Rites.

In I Timothy 1:8-10, moral concerns in Ephesus (Greek Speaking City) are addressed.

“Malakos” (“morally soft” and “arsenokoites” (“Temple Prostitutes”) are a truthful translation again, and also for I Corinthians 6:9. There is no justification in translating the words as “Sodomites” or “Homosexual” here, as Corinth was dominated by the Fertility Cult Worship of the Goddess Venus, and Ephesus was dominated by the Fertility Cult Worship of Artemis (Acts 19:23; 34-35).

Paul also argues about what is “natural” and “against nature” (“para pusin” in the Greek). But this can cut both ways. If one’s sexual orientation is “naturally” Heterosexual, or if one’s sexual orientation is “naturally” Homosexual, then for each to move outside this orientation would be “para pusin” for them.

What did Jesus say about Homosexuality?

NOTHING!

His references to Sodom and Gomorrah are:

·      Matthew 10:11-15 (inhospitality)

·      Matthew 11:20-24 (denial of works; miracles)

·      Mark 6:10-11 (inhospitality)

·      Luke 10:10-12 (inhospitality)

·      Luke 17:26-29 (Days of Noah – marriage and giving in marriage). No mention of anything else.

Every passage where Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned lists nothing of any sexual activity. Scripture only points out that they were “wicked cities”.

The Roman Centurion

Matthew 8:5-13

I think the most definitive passage has to be when the Roman Centurion approached Jesus to heal his servant who was critically ill. This Centurion was a pagan, and a worshipper of the god Mithra. Most Roman Soldiers worshipped this deity, who was an ancient Savior/God who was:

·      Miraculously born of a virgin;

·      A attar proclaimed his birth;

·      Performed miracles’

·      Was crucified on a cross;

·      Buried, rose again, and ascended.

This Centurion was leader of 100 soldiers. He told Jesus that he was not worthy for him to come to his home; just “say the word and my servant will be healed”. Many overlook the words that he utilized in describing his servant. They are” “doulos” (“servant” or “slave”) but he adds before this word: “pais” (“beloved”). Slaves were expendable in the ancient world. This was a “slave” or “servant” who had a special relationship to this Centurion. No doubt this was his “body slave”; the one who took care of his personal and sexual needs.

Jesus had every opportunity to castigate, censure and condemn this Centurion for his Paganism and his admission that he was engaged in a Homosexual Relationship. Jesus does none of this. He tells the Centurion that his servant is healed. He then remarks to those standing around listening (mostly the religious crowd and leaders of First Century A.D.) that “no greater faith has He found, not even in Jerusalem”. This is something to consider in the debate over Homosexuality and The Bible. Jesus does not condemn here; He commends.

Conclusions

There is a strong argument to be made that participation is such Fertility Cults and Worship is what is being condemned in all these texts (except the Sodom/Gomorrah Story). These texts do not address what we understand as Homosexuality today. The Bible relates to various situations at the time of writing:

·      Paul’s instruction to slaves to accept their status (I Corinthians 7:20-24)

·      Women to be silent in the Synagogue (we translate this as “church” with no justification to do so)

·      Women to be subservient to their husbands (I Corinthians 14:34)

The Bible gives us moral, ethical and spiritual guidelines. It is up to us to study and apply them, as best we can, in a spirit of faith and love. We are responsible to take both guidance from scripture and dialogue with scripture, in light of reason, continuing experience, and revealed knowledge (both Biblical and Clinical). The Religious Community must reach an enlightened consensus about Homosexuality, one that has its foundation in modern scholarship and clinical understandings. We cannot base our beliefs and actions on outdated hermeneutics, which are devoid of such scholarship.

In has been proven, via indisputable facts, that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are natural variations in human beings from the beginning of the creation. It is, therefore, realistic to establish codes of behavior in each relationship which are moral, ethical and spiritual.

Eventually, consensus may be that all sexual activity is to be affirmed when it is couched in a relationship of loving, caring, and nurturing foundations. We should not affirm relationships (either Homosexual or Heterosexual (where people are treated and viewed as objects to be exploited, but rather as people who have value and validity, where the foundations of such relationships are rooted in mutual love, affection, caring, compassion, and the desire to live out the “Golden Rule” of wishing for another the same things we desire for ourselves, and to do all in our power to make that a reality.

This is just a start in developing a “Sexual Ethic”, which will enhance our humanity, society and world.

The Rev. Dr. Ronald A. Sparks, BA, M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.

The Community Church of California City, CA.

United Church of Christ

Scriptures quoted are in the King James Version (KJV)

Selective Bibliography

·      “On Being Gay” – Brian McNaught; St. Martins Press

·      “Is It A Choice?” – Eric Marcus; Harper/Collins

·      “Homosexuality And Ethics” – Edward Batchelor Jr; Pilgrim Press

·      “What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” – Daniel Helminiak; Alamo Square Press

·      “Homosexuality And Christian Faith” – Walter Wink; Augsburg Fortress Publishers

·      Homophobia: A History” – Byrne Fone; Metropolitan Books

·      “Homosexuality” – Robert M. Baird; Prometheus Books

·      “The Way Forward: Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church” – Timothy Bradshaw, Eerdmans Publ.

·      “Those 7 References” – John Dwyer; Book Surge Publishing

·      “Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality” – Jack Rogers; Westminster John Knox Press

·      “God Is Not A Homophobe” – Philo Thelos; Trafford Publishing

·      “Rescuing Sex From The Christians” – Clayton Sullivan; Continuum

·      “Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?” – Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott; Harper Collins Publishers

·      “The New Testament And Homosexuality” – Robin Scroggs; Augsburg Fortress Publishers

·      “Can Homophobia Be Cured?” – Bruce Hilton; Abingdon Press

·      “Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology” – James B. Nelson; Augsburg Books

·      “The Church And The Homosexual” – John J. McNeill; Beacon Press

·      “Christianity, Social Tolerance And Homosexuality” – John Boswell; University of Chicago Press

·      “Jonathan Loved David” – Tom Horner; Westminster John Knox Press

·      “The Children Are Free”- Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley; Life Journey Press

·      “Setting Them Straight” – Betty Berzon; Plume Books

·      “Holy Homosexuals” – Michael Piazza; Sources of Hope Publishing

·      “We Were Baptized Too” – Marilyn Bennett Alexander and James Preston; Westminster John Knox Press

·      “How To Make The World Better For Gays And Lesbians” – Una Fahy; Warner Books

·      “Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible” – Nancy Wilson; Harper Collins

·      “Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto” – Robert Goss; Harper Collins Publishers

·      “Stranger At The Gate” – Mel White; Plume Books

·      “The Antigay Agenda” – Didi Herman; University of Chicago Press

·      “Take Back The Word” – Robert Goss; Pilgrim Press

·      “The X-Rated Bible” – Ben Akerley; Feral House

·      “A Place At the Table” – Bruce Bawer; Poseidon Press

·      “The Joy of Sex” – Alex Comfort, Crown Books

·      “The joy of Gay Sex” – Dr. Charles Silverstein and Edmund White, Crown Books

·      “The Joy of Lesbian Sex” – Dr. Emily L. Sisley and Bertha Harris, Crown Books

Oscars Criticized for Revoking Nomination of Christian Song 'Alone Yet Not Alone'

By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor

 February 1, 2014|4:26 pm

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is being criticized for rescinding the Oscar nomination of the song "Alone Yet Not Alone," which is from the Christian film of the same name. Calls are being made to allow the song to compete.

Artists for Life, a project of Cherish Life Ministries and whose affiliated artist Joni Eareckson Tada has sung the song, has issued a statement calling on the Academy to allow "Alone Yet Not Alone" to compete with other selections for the Oscar award.

The song was nominated for Best Original Song on Jan. 15, but the Academy rescinded the nomination on Jan. 29 on accusations that its composer, Bruce Broughton, used his leadership position in the Academy to improperly influence members to select the film. It is the Academy's first such action on ethical grounds.

"Bruce Broughton has a long and distinguished career which deserves better treatment at the hands of the Motion Picture Academy," Albert Strong, director of Artists for Life, said. "God will use this questionable ruling for His Glory and the song will be magnified through this episode more widely than we can know."

Broughton is a former governor of the music branch and current member of the executive committee of the Academy. He sent an email to about 70 of the branch's 239 members whose addresses came from his own Rolodex, not an academy database, according to The Los Angeles Times.

"I'm dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57," he wrote. "I'm sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any music branch member; it's the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song."

In an interview with The Christian Post on Friday, Broughton said, "My take on it is that it's a personal attack in order to discredit a nomination that disappointed the people who had spent a lot of money for something else." And in that way, they have been very successful, he added. "I have been discredited. My character has been besmirched and sullied."

Broughton went on to say that his campaign, "which I guess was the production company's campaign," was limited to writing some emails. "I didn't ask to vote for the song. I didn't call anyone up, I didn't promote the movie. I didn't do anything. I just pointed out the song on a list of 75 songs on the DVD that the Academy is sending."

Tada, who is also a disability rights activist and author, also issued a statement, saying the Academy's decision "in no way detracts from either the song's beauty or its message."

"I was humbled and honored to have been asked to sing it for the film, and was as surprised as anyone when I learned of the song's nomination," she said. "The decision by the Academy to rescind the nomination may well bring even further attention, and I only hope it helps to further extend the message and impact of the song."

According to veteran awards consultant Cynthia Swartz, Broughton's email wasn't different from other things that the Academy allows during campaigning for Oscar nominations.

Swartz, president of the Oscar consultancy Strategy PR, told the Times that Broughton's actions were "innocuous." She explained that it is not unusual for producers and studio executives to send email invitations to friends for screenings of their movies and events.

However, the president of the Academy, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has said that "no matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one's position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one's own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage."

Daniel Diermeier, a professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management and an expert in crisis management, suggests there's no easy way out for the Academy now.

"If the Academy is just hoping they can keep quiet and this story will go away, they need to find a different strategy," he was quoted as saying. "It's a David-and-Goliath story, and in those stories people always side with the little guy. And then you add a faith-based culture-war dimension that plays into how some parts of the population see Hollywood. There are incentives all over the place to keep the story alive."

The film is based on the novel Alone Yet Not Alone by Tracy Leininger Craven, which is inspired by the true story of Barbara and Regina Leininger, who were taken by force from their German immigrant family in 1750s Pennsylvania.

Amid the struggle of the colonies to survive the opposing European power and hostile native tribes, the two sisters are captured and then separated, testing their faith to its farthest reaches. "Alone Yet Not Alone" is the hymn that holds their resolve and family strong, helping to guide their life-defining decisions and actions through their most perilous times.

Alone Yet Not Alone Oscar Pulled - Too Christian for Hollywood's False Glitter?

Raised with a heavy involvement in the Salvation Army, Broughton got his first musical training at Salvation Army summer camp, learning to play trumpet and piano. He thus found himself well ahead of the game by the time he began studying composition at USC. “My first semester in college when I was learning harmony, it actually pissed me off that I had to go to class because I´d already learned this stuff and taught it to kids.

“I had a good, solid B-flat background in music. I was a good classical pianist and a terrific sight-reader but I was losing interest in that and getting more interested in writing. I studied orchestration on my own. I thought if I took piano that would be really boring and I took composition thinking I could study that until I figured out what I really wanted to do – and I never did. So I graduated as a composer. Right after that I got a job at CBS as an assistant music supervisor. 

This year’s most-obscure Oscar nominee is no more.

At a meeting this week, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences board of governors decided to strip the surprise nomination for Best Song from “Alone Yet Not Alone,” which appears in the independent Christian-produced film of the same name.

PHOTOS: OSCARS: The Academy's stunning snubs

Writer Bruce Broughton, a former member of the board of governors and currently on the music branch’s executive committee, violated the Academy’s rules against lobbying by personally e-mailing “members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period,” according to a statement released by the governors Wednesday.

The nomination of “Alone Yet Not Alone” raised the eyebrows (and hackles) of many veteran Oscar-watchers when the nominations were announced Jan. 16. The film had a public profile more associated with obscure foreign films and nobody had tipped it as a possible nominee in any category.

“Alone Yet Not Alone” played on 11 screens nationwide for one week in October and grossed less than $135,000, BoxOfficeMojo.com said. As of Wednesday evening, fewer than 100 people had rated it on the Internet Movie Database. By comparison, the Sandra Bullock October release “Gravity,” which was nominated for 10 Oscars, has grossed more than $260 million and been rated by more than 250,000 IMDb users.

The producers of “Alone Yet Not Alone” plan a broader release in June.

Studios sometimes give films a short end-of-the-year “qualifying run” to make it eligible for the Oscars, with a broader release planned for the spring, cashing in on the publicity and cachet of the nomination.

The Japanese animated film “The Wind Rises” by Hayao Miyazaki was nominated for Best Animated Feature this year using the same strategy. But that strategy usually requires a much more-aggressive and high-profile publicity campaign than “Alone Yet Not Alone” could manage.

Ironically, the song had survived an earlier challenge to its eligibility based on the fact the film’s producers had not purchased any advertisements for its short and barely-noticed qualifying run in Los Angeles. The Academy ruled in that case that the theater listings for its showtimes qualified as the required advertisement.

According to the Academy governors, no other song will be nominated in place of “Alone Yet Not Alone” when the final ballots are sent out Feb. 14, and the Oscar will go to one of the four remaining nominees on March 2.

“Alone Yet Not Alone” is a religiously themed period piece about 18th-century settlers dealing with colonial wars and Indian kidnappers in the Ohio Valley. The song is presented in the movie as a traditional family hymn and sung on the film’s soundtrack by Joni Eareckson Tada, a well-known evangelical minister.

Mr. Broughton, who wrote the song with lyricist Dennis Spiegel, told the Hollywood Reporter that he was “devastated” by the stripping.

“I indulged in the simplest grassroots campaign, and it went against me when the song started getting attention. I got taken down by competition that had months of promotion and advertising behind them. I simply asked people to find the song and consider it,” he told the prominent trade publication.

The film’s status as a small Christian film led Orthodox Christian film blogger Peter Chattaway to predict charges of religious persecution in the coming days, playing off the image of Hollywood as a liberal bastion hostile to Christianity.

“The Academy may or may not have ruled correctly when it comes to Broughton’s e-mails. But it probably, however unintentionally, just gave certain Christians a little more fodder for their persecution narrative, and thereby threw just a little more fuel on the culture-wars fire. Sigh,” Mr. Chattaway wrote on his Patheos site Wednesday night.

The charges were quick to come in the comment boxes at Variety magazine.

“This is Blacklist Baloney. There’s nothing wrong with sending an email alerting people about something that’s trying to compete against major works. … Maybe they just don’t want to hear about Jesus at the Oscars,” one commenter speculated.

  

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/29/christian-film-stripped-best-song-oscar-nomination/#ixzz2s3gmAy00 

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitte;

Homosexuality, a Biblical Perspective - Resource Center - Truth For Life

CLICK ON THE TITLE TO LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST: Homosexuality, a Biblical Perspective - Resource Center - Truth For Life

Alistair Begg has been in pastoral ministry since 1975. Following graduation from The London School of Theology, he served eight years in Scotland at both Charlotte Chapel in Edinburgh and Hamilton Baptist Church.

In 1983, he became the senior pastor at Parkside Church near Cleveland, Ohio.  He has written several books and is heard daily and weekly on the radio program, Truth For Life.  The teaching on Truth For Life stems from the week by week Bible teaching at Parkside Church.

He and his wife, Susan, were married in 1975 and they have three grown children.

France's first same-sex wedding was held this week.  The latest New Yorker's Mother's Day cover pictures a lesbian couple reading a card from their three children in their kitchen.  Since last March, when the Supreme Court heard arguments over same-sex marriage, three more states have legalized gay marriage.  

Yesterday, Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stated that "no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality." He adds: "Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident—with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other."  I agree.

I could write a Cultural Commentary every day on topics related to homosexuality—that's how pervasive this issue has become.  If I did, would you soon tire of reading what I wrote?  Have you grown weary of this subject, as important as it is?

I'm grateful for every believer who is willing to take a biblical stand in this debate and defend Scripture by "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).  At the same time, I fear that we are in danger of allowing this controversy to distract us from the larger issue.  In 1973, psychiatrist Karl Menninger wrote a book titled, "Whatever became of sin?" Let's consider what was happening in our culture 40 years ago that might have prompted his question.

In 1973, The Exorcist was released; many felt that it glorified Satan and demons.  That same year, the film Jesus Christ Superstar was widely criticized for blasphemy.  Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace.  The Watergate scandal dominated headlines and would lead to President Nixon's resignation the next year.  The Yom Kippur War erupted in the Middle East.  And in 1973 the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Roe v. Wade.  Since that time, 56 million abortions have been performed in this country.

Here's my point: Human nature doesn't change.  We are broken, for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).  Every problem we've discussed this morning is a symptom of the underlying disease.  The only cure for sin is the forgiveness of God and transforming work of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17).

David Platt was right: When Jesus set out to take the gospel to the world, "all He wanted was a few men who would think as He did, love as He did, see as He did, teach as He did and serve as He did.  All He needed was to revolutionize the hearts of a few, and they would impact the world."

Has he revolutionized your heart today?

Illinois bishop: ‘Punish’ LGBT people like children if they get married

By David Edwards

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

A Catholic bishop who performed an exorcism after the state of Illinois legalized same-sex marriage said last week that he did it because he loved LGBT people and they needed to be punished like children.

Just minutes after Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage last November, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki performed an exorcism on the entire state of Illinois.

Paprocki told Life Site News during last week’s March for Life in Washington D.C. that he went through with the exorcism because the church was “under persecution.”

“Certainly the redefinition of marriage is an opposition to God’s plan for married life,” he explained. “So I thought that would be a fitting time to have that prayer, really for praying for God and his power to drive out the Devil from his influence that seems to be pervading our culture.”

“To be opposed to the redefinition of marriage and to be opposed to things that are sinful, that’s actually a very loving thing,” Paprocki continued. “Perhaps it’s the permissiveness of our society that people think that if you don’t get what you want that you’re somehow being hateful, if you don’t give them what they want. But sometimes, like any good parent will tell you, that sometimes you have to discipline your child, sometimes you have to say no. And sometimes, you even have to punish.”

“And when a parent does those things towards their children, they’re actually being very loving by correcting them and showing them the right way to do things.”

Paprocki reminded Life Site News that the “redefinition of marriage” came from the “father of lies,” and that the media had lied by claiming that children could be nurtured in LGBT homes.

“We are facing a lot of untruths out there,” he warned. “We just have to be persistent and courageous and stand up for the truth.”

Watch this video from Life Site News, broadcast Jan. 26, 2014.