Kathy Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising their 4-month-old child, Storm, without revealing the child’s gender, saying: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime.’ On June 23, 2011 the Los Angeles Times featured a front page colored picture of four year-old Kate Eisenpresser, being raised by her three lesbians “mommies,” calling the arrangement “normal.” A recent J. Crew catalog featured a young boy with pink-painted toenails.
Not long ago, such items would have been considered fringe elements, coming out of left field, so to speak. Not any more. Left field is now center-stage. Leading Republicans recently ensured that gay marriage became state law in New York. The sexually abnormal is the new normal, and our children’s future defies description. A worldview tsunami, made of the wildest waves of human fantasy, is bearing down on Western culture, which, shorn of its biblical moorings, will be carried helpless into a nightmare destruction of biblical values. Though proponents of this pan-sexual vision optimistically declare: “We are beginning to see the dark walls of discrimination crumble,” what is crumbling is the foundational building block of Western civilization, the monogamous, heterosexual family — with nothing enduring to put in its place. Al Mohler calls this “a moral revolution,’ and John Piper speaks of “a new calamity.’
The confusion about who we are as sexual beings creates suspicion of all limits on gender roles, as the parents of the appropriately-named “Storm” suggest. These well-meaning folks represent a growing movement, begun by the 1970s Feminists, to eliminate gender from social consideration altogether. Thus college dorms are “gender neutral”; high school homecoming proms pick random male or female “kings” and “queens; and certain State departments have abandoned “father” and “mother” in favor of “parent A” and “parent B.” Support is building for non-gender-designated bathrooms, washrooms and locker rooms.
All this was predicted by ex-Evangelical lesbian, Virginia Mollenkott, who, in her youth, memorized parts of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Sounding like a lone voice in 2001, she published Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach, proposing a then radical paradigm for the future liberation of sexuality — an “omnigender” society in which virtually all sexual choices are normal. Over a decade ago, she called for the elimination of oppressive gender-specific pronouns like “he” and “she,” and “M” and “F” boxes on government application forms, drivers’ licenses, passport applications or marriage forms. She concluded: “When all the variations of human gender and sexuality become acceptable . . . then everyone will be ‘normal’ and ‘normalcy’ will lose its coercive power.” Her predictions have come true, so we should take seriously what she also predicted in 2001: “In all probability, official church policies will be the rear guard on gender, being dragged along towards gender justice kicking and screaming when the secular society will no longer tolerate anything else.”
Church policies are coming along, some even rejoicing, because the liberation of sex has included the liberation of spirituality. By 2001, the “trans-sexual” Mollenkott had become “trans-religious,” a very spiritual pagan One-ist who converted to I Ching divination and the New Age A Course in Miracles. This, too, was no surprise. In 1977 June Singer, a spiritual Jungian psychiatrist, published Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality. Why did we need a new theory about sex? Because we were entering a new age, the Age of Aquarius, which, she affirmed, was also “the Age of Androgyny.” This new day would be a time of true spiritual liberation, including being both male and female in the same person, thus witnessing to “the primordial cosmic unity . . . of monism.”
Faced with this catastrophic moral implosion, the Church must speak out meaningfully on gay marriage, not to save America, not to pick on certain kinds of sinners, but to save souls from eternal doom. The clarity of the Gospel is at stake. Without the unambiguous embodiment of difference (hetero) in our sexuality, as part of the image of God, we begin to lose the essence of who we are as human beings. Only heterosexuality, and especially monogamous heterosexual marriage, reflects both God’s Trinitarian image of unity and difference, and the Gospel, which is the good news that God the Creator, different from us, redeems sinful creatures, to restore personal fellowship based on otherness.
In these deeply religious (why do gays want “marriage”?) issues of human identity, The Church addresses The State, so the only question is: Which church — the Church of Aquarius and of “primordial cosmic unity,” or the Church of Jesus, the image of God, against which the gates of Hell will not prevail? “You’ve gotta serve somebody.’
May our marriages, like the law, bring many to Christ, the true Bridegroom.
Peter Jones is a true prophet, NT scholar who speaks forthrightly, intelligently — Biblically — to the pressing social issues of the day.
It certainly appears that they and many of the “indifferent” have been sent a strong delusion(2Thess.6:10-12)
I wonder how long before “In God We Trust” is replaced with “Pax Romana”.
You mean SPQR
These people have probably done little research on the nature nuture issue. I wonder if they take the time to realize how our society has them in friendly captivity in so many ways.
What disturbing days we live in and what a challenge for the church to stand true to Scripture and to biblical morality, not the relativism of our day. Thank you for this straightforward message. I would like to borrow it to publish on my blog with full credit to the author.
Thank you, Forrest. You have full permission to share this article with appropriate credit. We thank you for doing so.
If the Church does not multiply laborers into the largest, most forsaken mission field, children, they will be consumed by the moral & sexual revolution swamping Western culture. Only a constant, clear, biblical proclamation of the Gospel, including the “gold page” of our Trinitarian Creator who made boys and girls different and in His image, and who redeems sinners by Christ, will save them from eternal doom.
Thank you Paul. My wife is a CEF worker in Somerset West South Africa and we praise God for the many opportunities to reach the boys and girls in our area. God bless.Dan and Petro du Plessis
Thank you, Dan. May the Lord continue to be glorified in all you both do for His kingdom there.
Storm is a sadly appropriate name for this dear child.
I published this column at http://forrest-long.blogspot.com. It’s an important message to share with others! Thanks
Yes, Very disturbing to read. Good post. Cheers
I am confused with regard to “The Church” addressing “the state” in this article. Is Peter saying Christians need to be involved with public policy? If so, I totally agree with him. However, I am at a loss regarding what Westminster’s position is with regard to a Christian’s role in culture. From what Horton has written regarding the “two kingdoms” I get the impression he is saying we are to focus solely on the City of God and not the City of Man. My understanding is that Jesus is Lord of every sphere of life, including the City of Man. The fact is however, that Christians have generally given the spheres of government over to the homosexuals since many do not consider government participation to be a “spiritual” activity of the Christian life. This retreatist pietistic view has not been the historic role Calvinism has played, as Francis Schaeffer’s works pointed out.
Peter is a solid thinker – solid is Biblical Truth. I am not positive on his exact Theonomic viewpoint. But based upon many of the things I have read – I would say he believes that Horton is not professing the Christianity of the Bible.