Columbus Ohio’s Consideration of Conversion Therapy Band

Just read an account where the Columbus, Ohio city council, following Toledo and Cincinnati, is considering making conversion therapy illegal to engage upon within the city limits as applied to anyone under 18 years of age. Conversion therapy is therapy trying to help deliver someone from the insanity of identifying as LGBQT.

http://nbc4i.com/…/city-council-considers-ordinance-bannin…/

1.) This is the criminalizing of Christianity among the professional class. Who else in the medical or psychological professional field except a Christian would pursue this kind of therapy as help for the mentally ill? Christians in these professional fields are being told that they must not seek to apply Biblical Christianity as a means of making the sick whole.

2.) This is sacralizing Sodomy and the whole LGBQT phenomena. If a law is passed forbidding medical professionals fromm seeking to convert the pervert then what else can that be except an action which sacralizes and makes untouchable the LGBQT individual?

3.) As such it goes a long way towards establishing a religion in Columbus. Adherents of LGBQT’ism may not be touched. They are Holy to the Columbus Lord. Perverts have special rights and having special rights their religion of LGBQT’ism has special rights. This kind of legislation, applied as it is to the professional class, is a banning of repentance as that might arise in the context of professional counseling.

4.) If the city council meeting that I viewed is any indication of what is going on in Columbus, the measure is being passed on the strength of emotional testimony. The pervert crowd testifies that the fences that Taboos provide are so mean and that their feelings are hurt. Tears flow in the audience. No one stops to consider that Taboos that build fences of social ostracization serve a purpose to protect the community.

One wonders if there is any perversion that can be named wherein it would be acceptable to shun someone with harsh words? Is it acceptable to say to a pederast, “You’re an abomination?” Is it within proprietary  bounds to tell someone who is a practitioner of Coprophilia that they “better repent or they will burn in hell?” Is it socially unacceptable to tell someone who keeps goats for bestiality purposes that they if “you get near my children you won’t need the goats anymore?”

And yet, all because people are putting verbal boundaries between themselves and mentally ill people (see the testimonies in the link) apparently we must have a law that protects pervert LGBQT’ism and so eliminates the associated and protective social order taboos.

5.) Of course, the accredited shrinks were on hand insisting that conversion therapy is of the devil.

“Opponents of conversion therapy, including many in the medical community, said the practice is not legitimate and cannot change one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Yet we know that it is perfectly acceptable for medical professionals to do conversion therapy via sex change operations. We know that legion is the name of shrinks that seek to help people to adjust to the discovery of their new gender. This is more evidence that this is a faith-based decision that is prioritizing the religion of LGBQT’ism.

And again,

“There’s not a shred of evidence that shows that’s (gender conversion) even possible,” Dr. Jim Broyles, a psychologist, said.

Broyles, who is the former head of the Ohio Psychological Association, said the therapy can be “harmful and damaging” to patients.

This completely ignores that there is not a shred of objective evidence (tearful subjective testimonies don’t count as objective evidence) that gender fluidity exists. There is not a shred of objective evidence that people are born sodomite or were born female in male bodies.

6.) The star witness was a 14-year-old LGBQT person of one variety or another. The audience and council members fawned all over herm for herm bravery and eloquence. Evidence that we are no longer a Christian people as we give our sympathy to the wicked.

7.) In as much as we are protecting the criminally insane by legislation, it goes a long way towards proving that we as a people group are ourselves criminally insane.

8.)  “At the end of the day, this is about protecting people for who they are,” Zach Klein, president of the Columbus City Council.

Really? This is the only standard Zach? Then why not protect the pederast? The goat lover? The coprophiliac? The necrophiliac?  After all, if law is going to be based on protecting people for who they are how dare we not protect one and all for who they are?

9.) As this proposed law would apply to only those under 18 it seems clear that this is an attempt by the LBGQT community to sustain and grow their numbers. Obviously, if a confused child isn’t helped before they are 18 with sexual confusion then it makes it that much more likely that their sexual identity will be set in concrete once they are 18 and older. Every year that goes by wherein a child is allowed to be confused sexually makes it that much more unlikely that they will ever be unconfused. As such this proposed law would have the effect of swelling the numbers of the LBGQT pervert community.

10.) This proposed law takes parental responsibility away from the parent and places it in the hands of the state. The state will not allow parents to seek out professional help in Columbus to find help for their child. Of course, parents can still go to a religious counselor, per the law’s proposed content, but if the “professional” community is not allowed to pursue this then what is communicated is only fringe nutcase religious people try this kind of “nutty” therapy.

In the end, we have become a social order that is so inclusive that we have lost the ability to name anything as taboo, except the naming of having taboos as being taboo.  As a people, we desire to so include everyone that the only people we will exclude are people who own the standards that were once considered the essence of being civilized. The only abominations, the only ones who can be damned to hell, the only ones that we must protect our children from, the only ones who must be shoved in the closet and so socially ostracized are those who insist this is all insane fecal reasoning.

 

 

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day — Seminar’s Examined

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day

Courageous Conversations Seminars

All About the Bass: Searching for Treble in the Midst of a Pounding Culture War, presented by Dr. Scott Burson:

In recent years, many evangelical Christians have taken up arms against those who are not part of their tribe, whether they be liberals, the LGBT community, or Muslims. This Us vs. Them approach seems to be fueled by the assumption that faithfulness to the righteous standards of the Gospel requires a hostile orientation toward “the Other.” This interactive workshop will challenge this paradigm and explore ways in which Christ-followers can cultivate a more faithful, holistic response to the entire gospel message, a message that emphasizes not only righteousness, but compassion, as well.

Rev. McAtee responds,

Note well the “Us vs. Them” approach implied in this Seminar.

Us = Tribal Members who believe that their assumption the compassionate standard of the Gospel requires a hostile orientation towards “the Other” who putatively wrongly emphasizes the righteousness of God’s character in a culture hostile to Christianity. 

Them = Those “others” who believe that compassion and love are defined as speaking the truth, without hostility, about God’s righteous standard to those who are lost and in rebellion against their Creator.

Dr. Burson’s assumption, given the description of the seminar, seems to be that there is no necessary antithesis in a Gospel proclamation. He seems to be hostile to any notion of “other” that Christianity has baked into its very definition. One can’t help but wonder if Dr. Burson might think that the God who hates the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11) is part of the problem with Christianity.

Christianity is certainly compassionate but it does not demonstrate its compassion when it gathers a seminar that seeks to dilute God’s righteous standard.

Indiana Wesleyan University 1st Annual “Multi-Culturalism” Day

Courageous Conversations Seminar

An Intercultural Marriage: A story of God’s love, presented by Dr. Harriet Rojas: Harriet met Ner Rojas when she was teaching in Chiclayo, Peru. Hear more about their love story and God’s love.

Rev. McAtee responds,

The current culture we are living in are slamming kids 24-7 with the virtue and normalcy of Inter-cultural marriage. While certainly inter-cultural marriages can work our children ought to be taught that they are not the norm and create a marriage where many pitfalls exist that do not exist in marriages where there is a shared background and culture. Inter-cultural marriage should be discouraged for those unmarried while still providing community support when such marriages take place.

As a minister who has counseled more inter-cultural troubled marriages than I care to remember I can tell you that inter-cultural marriage, normatively, is not a good idea.

IWU’s “Courageous Conversations” on their first Multicultural Days.
Breaking down the walls, presented by OILE:

This experiential session is designed to unify, empower, and engage participants to break negative socially accepted stereotypes. This activity is meant to question generally accepted beliefs and open a conversation about how we view other people groups and why we feel this way.

___________

Rev. McAtee responds,

One would LOVE to know just exactly what “negative socially accepted stereotypes” we are talking about. What “generally accepted beliefs” are going to be questioned?

In Corporate settings I’ve been a participant in these “experiential sessions,” and typically they are designed consistent with the Delphi technique. Is IWU going to Delphi their students by manipulating a false consensus? Will this really be a conversation or students going to be psychologically herded into a predetermined conclusion?

Finally, note that OILE is going to be asking why people “feel” this way as opposed to why they think the way they think.

IWU’s “Courageous Conversations” on their first Multicultural Days.

Supporting Even When We Don’t Understand, presented by Jackie Stancil, Nicole Stancil, and Risha Ruono:

Students who struggle with mental illness, survivors of sexual assault, or those with questions about their sexuality or gender often bring their struggles to friends before they speak to teachers, doctors, or counselors. What can we say in support without damaging relationships? This workshop offers ideas about how to walk brothers and sisters through painful struggles.

____________

Rev. McAtee responds,

First not all the items mentioned in the description belong in the same category. Survivors of sexual assault or those with genuine mental illness are not necessarily struggling against sin as those who are having questions about their sexuality or gender. These category differences need to be kept in mind when approaching this subject. If the category distinctions are not kept in mind then one runs the danger of not naming the potential sin in the matter sexual and gender confusion.

Naturally, the Christian desires to be compassionate to those who are struggling with what the Scripture calls “Besetting sins.” However, we must first keep in mind that compassion begins by not allowing the person struggling to coddle or excuse their sin. To not challenge the person struggling, even in the context of coming alongside to minister, would be an act of hateful aggression against the one who struggles. There is zero compassion in enabling the sinner in their sin. Sodomy and LGBQT’ism must be named as sin even as we seek to come alongside those who are struggling with these questions.

In terms of damaging relationships, the main relationship we need to keep in mind to avoid doing damage to is our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. If we coddle people in their sin … if we enable them in their sin … if we become codependent in their sins we dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ and damage His relationship with us and our relationship with Him.

This workshop concerns me greatly because it has all the potential of winking at the sin of LGBQT’ism.

IWU Courageous Conversations

Authentic Relationships: Why Empathy Matters, presented by Laura Bronsink:

Showing empathy is a key component to building meaningful relationships. It is the only way that we can fully accept others.
Challenging the dominant culture of individualism, this session will cover basic principles of empathy and strategies for building it.

—————-

Rev. McAtee responds,

Who will be empathetic to those who are lifting the prophetic warning concerning the heresy that is Multiculturalism and Cultural Marxism? Who wants to have meaningful relationships with the Prophetic voice that says IWU Multiculturalism days are days of anti-Christ and so death?

Secondly, IWU’s Multiculturalism days SCREAMS that the culture of individualism is dead at IWU. What we are seeing is University-wide group think. IWU challenging the dominant culture of Individualism is like the reporter who went to a Goth bar and asked the Goth patrons why they were into Goth, only to be told, as surrounded by a sea of Goth, that they “just wanted to be different.”

There is no culture of individualism at IWU and there is no dominant culture of individualism in the West and any lecture warning about the dangers of  a dominant culture of Individualism is pursued to the end of making sure no individualism survives the group think.

I’m hoping Laura can empathize with me on this.

IWU Day of Courageous Conversation Session Descriptions

Bridging the Gap:

Facing challenges of loving beyond the familiar, presented by Chris Heuertz and Heather Roberson, LMHC: Often our social world can be limited to those who are similar to us in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, and views. In this interactive session we will learn how to challenge our false centers, avoiding the pitfalls of tokenism and one-up helping relationships, in order to create authentic friendships and community at the margins.

____________

Bret responds,

How about the false centers of those running this seminar? They have a false center that insists that one can’t have a true center unless others have the same center they have. Their social world is limited to those who agree with them that social worlds should be diverse. Are they going to be friends with me when I tell them that they are not as diverse friendly as they would like to think they are? If they were really diverse friendly they’d give me a hug every time I told them that these ideas are self-contradictory. Are they going to embrace when I skewer their multiculturalist religious faith tenets? Will I be part of Chris and Heather’s “community at the margins?”

IWU Day of Courageous Conversation Session Descriptions

Loving Refugees;

Student led, facilitated by Dr. Bart Bruehler: This event will seek to raise awareness of the global refugee crisis through stories from IWU students, Gabriella Garver (alum), Ryan Smith, and Whitney Renfroe, who have helped with refugee care in Pennsylvania, Greece, and other locations.

————
Rev. Bret McAtee responds,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PzT8vEvYPg

Will awareness be raised by handing out this booklet to each attending student?

https://www.amazon.com/Refugee-Resettlemen…/…/ref=sr_1_sc_1…

Mrs. Corcoran reveals that refugeeism to the States has an agenda that is committed to overturn historic and traditional American culture.

Also, will anyone go into the fact that this global refugee crisis has been intentionally created in order to salt historically White Anglo-Saxon Christian Nations with people of a different ethnic and religious origin to the end of creating a New World Order global arrangement?

 

 

 

 

 

Economics 101 Thursday Class Assignments

Interviews for Lessons 2, 3, 4

https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson-0

Listen to the first 30 minutes of this lecture

Vocabulary

Apprise
jingoistic
oblique
jocular
garrulity
wend
putative
pyrrhic
quagmire
dementia

Remember your reading Assignment in “Economics In One Lesson,” and your summary notes.

Parable of Good Samaritan

We come to a passage this morning that is likely one of the most well known passages in Scripture. It is also one of those passages that is one of the most misinterpreted and most ill used.

It is a simple enough passages. Two exchanges between Jesus and a Religious Lawyer at the time. I believe that the exchange was adversarial between the two. In other words I believe the the intent of the Lawyer in questioning Jesus was not benign. I advance this because of the word “test” in the passage.  The Lawyer “stands up” which was a sign of respect in the culture and asks a question to “test Jesus.”

We see this “testing of Jesus” frequently by his detractors.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. (Mt. 16)

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Mt. 19)

They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him.  (John 8)

The fact that this is an adversarial setting is important to keep in mind because in such situations Jesus seldom gives a straight answer to questions but instead often answers their questions with questions. What happens here is no different. The Lawyer asks questions and Jesus deflects the questions with questions of His own to drive the conversation Jesus desires.

Well, back to how the text is misused. Time does not allow us to go as fully in depth in dismissing these errant readings as I would like. I want to raise them. Try to dismiss them. Then move on to the correct reading of the Parable.

I.) Mis-reading #1 — The Good Samaritan Parable Was Given In Order to Support Amnesty Legislation for Illegal Immigrants in the West.

I can’t tell you how much material I’ve run across in preparation this week which appeals to the Parable of the Good Samaritan as the template that all Christians must use in order to demand that amnesty for illegal immigrants be put in place.

The Good Samaritan has been made the tool of Social Justice Warriors everywhere and by it we are being taught that in order to inherit eternal life we must disinherit ourselves and our children so that the alien and the stranger can inherit the here and the now. This is an exceptionally un-neighborly thing to do to our Children and our descendants. According to this interpretation the teaching of the Good Samaritan means that we must treat our children and our people as Aliens and Stranger in order to treat Aliens and Stranger like our children and our people.

The failure with this interpretation lies in the attempt to universalize a particular obligation. Jesus is teaching here in a very specific and particular situation.  The Lord Christ was not laying down policy for 21st century Nation States to take up. He was not creating new policy for Magistrates of all time everywhere to pursue. He was speaking to a religious Lawyer in order to crack his smug confidence that he indeed was a good person.

Jesus is giving ethical instruction, I believe, to the end that the Lawyer would see that he is not an ethical person.

The thinking that insists that the parable of the Good Samaritan is about immigration and amnesty policy, if taken literally, would mean the disappearance of borders and nations and peoples. It is a world where we can

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do

Upon giving this Parable, Jesus was not setting National or International Policy. He was not teaching on the Universal brotherhood of all man. He was not negating the reality of ever widening concentric circles whereby we first have to look out for our own who are of the household of faith. Jesus was not negating the prioritizing of them who are of the household of faith in terms of our care and affection.

He is simply teaching that in the course of our daily living, as we walk through life, when we come upon a real live human being in desperate need of care we have a duty and privilege to care for the least of these.

Some will retort that by seeing this passage as individual and personal that I am not loving my neighbor. Some will insist that by not championing that the Government open up the borders that I am not loving my neighbor. But what of my next door neighbor who can’t find work? How loving is it to that neighbor to glut the market with cheap labor so he will never find work? What of the minority communities in this country who’s unemployment rate is 25-30% in some quarters? Is it neighbor love to them to insist on an amnesty which will cement their unemployment? Is it neighbor love to fellow Christians to invite in a global population that is hostile to Biblical Christianity? Is it neighbor love to Christian women to open the borders to those from misogynistic cultures?

Those who want to use the Parable of the Good Samaritan to the end of pursuing the Cultural Marxist agenda of Social Justice have only incompletely thought through the matter. In many instances the misuse of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is just a means to advance a liberal humanist non Christian agenda.

Much more could be said but time wanes.

II.) Mis-reading #2 — The Good Samaritan Parable Was Given In Order That We Might Be Able to Inherit Eternal Life

One of the curios of this passage is that many people don’t bother to spend the time to point out that Jesus is not here pointing out how it is that someone can go about inheriting eternal life.

What the Lord Christ is doing here is showing the folly of the premise of the Lawyer. You want to inherit eternal life? Fine … go to the law and fulfill all that it requires you will inherit eternal life?

What does it mean to fulfill the law to love God and neighbor? Well, let me tell you a story. Now, you go on loving God and neighbor in just this way and you will indeed inherit eternal life.

The “Go and do likewise” we find at the end of the passage was NOT good news.  The impact of the “go and do likewise” at the end of the passage would have been punctuated by the sound of wind being sucked through the collective audience’s teeth as they doubtless asked themselves “who then can be saved.”

The impact of this teaching, I am convinced, is to bring the man to the end of himself. The necessity of loving God with all my heart, soul and mind and my neighbor as myself as a prerequisite for inheriting Eternal life is not good news for humans this side of heaven. We are a people who are incessantly self centered. In even the most thoroughly converted of us we tend to look to our own interest and not the interests of others. We have problems loving our own kith and kin unselfishly never mind the complete stranger … or worse yet time worn enemies.  What Jesus tells this man he must do to inherit eternal life is not possible for those of us who know ourselves.

Love God and neighbor? Is that all? Well why didn’t you tell me that sooner Jesus? No problem. Is that the way we would really have God’s people think about this passage? As ministers do we want our people leaving service thinking that they can indeed do something to inherit eternal life?

So, why does Jesus play along with the Lawyer here? Why not just say … “Only legal heirs inherit eternal life, there is no doing unto Eternal life?”

Likely the answer to that is that Jesus desired the Lawyer to come to that conclusion by lifting the requirement bar for doing that would bring inheritance so high that the Lawyer would conclude, “Who then can be saved.”

Jesus speaks this way from time to time. When he says that “ye must be perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect,” He raises the behavior standard so high for inheritance of heaven that it is seen as impossible.  When Jesus gives the behavioral standard for a rich man to get into heaven He is met with the exclamation … “who then can be saved.” When Jesus speaks this way the intent is to both esteem the Law AND to bring people to an end of themselves in terms of thinking of themselves in terms of doing the law in order to inherit eternal life.

So, this parable is not here so that people can love God and neighbor so well that they can inherit eternal life. The passage is not here to stoke confidence in the self which is exactly what the Lawyer is seeking to accomplish. We know this because the text tells us of the Lawyer,

29 But he, desiring to justify himself  …

Benson in his commentary offers,

(He asks this), to show he had done this, and was blameless, even with respect to the duties which are least liable to be counterfeited … ”

The Lawyer wanted it to be clearly seen that he indeed had fulfilled the law in terms of loving God and neighbor and had earned his inheritance of Eternal life. Jesus tells the parable, I’m convinced, in order to dissuade this Lawyer and everybody else of this conviction.

So, the Good Samaritan Parable Was not Given In Order That We Might Be Able to convince ourselves that we are the excellent doers, who, because of our doing, will inherit eternal life.

So, what is the proper reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan? If these are improper readings what is the proper reading of this text.

III.) The Proper Reading of This Text Examined

A.) A proper reading of the parable reminds us that the function of the law is both a street light to show us our sin and a guide to life.

Jesus goes to the Law, thus demonstrating He is not antinomian.

But the Law has more than one purpose. As I have said earlier the purpose here is to cut out the legs from underneath this self righteous lawyer’s misinterpretation and smugness.

However, this does not mean that the law does not have the purpose as a guide to life. It should be our intent to be a people who help others in need as we have opportunity and means.

And so a proper reading of this text esteems the law, as rightly interpreted.

B.) A proper reading of the parable casts us upon Christ.

Our tendency in reading the Scriptures is always to make the Scripture about ourselves. This text is no different. Often we leave the text examining ourselves to see if we have been Good Samaritans in our lives. And there is nothing automatically wrong with that. Scripture calls for self examination.

However before we make the passage subjective as about us we should pause to ask if the passage is about someone else being a good Samaritan.

Examined closely the parable of the good Samaritan is not teaching us about what our immigration policy should be. After all, this parable was not given in order for the Magistrate to set policy but it was given that men might see Christ and their own individual duty. The parable is not teaching us that we can earn eternal life. After all, if loving God and neighbor perfectly is the standard who can earn eternal life? The parable is only about us after it is about Christ. Christ is the good Samaritan who found us as beaten by the fall and stripped of any hope. The Priest and the Levite, representatives of the Law, passed by, unable and unwilling to do us any good. It is Lord Christ, who was, just as the Samaritan was, one who was not received by the institutional religious community and it is the Lord Christ, just as the Good Samaritan, who stops and binds up our wounds and gives us the medicinal oil and wine of the Gospel … who has compassion upon us as completely unable to help ourselves … who took it upon Himself to do all the doing that we as beaten sinners could not do.

You see, we are not so much the Good Samaritans of the account here. We are the unidentified chap robbed, beat up, and left for dead. The Good Samaritan is Christ who has bound up our wounds and treated us with the oblation of Himself.

Here is the picture of inheriting eternal life. We were left for dead and someone came along and did all the doing.

If we have any hope to be Good Samaritans ourselves it is only in light of the reality that Christ was first our own Good Samaritan. He had pity on us as beaten and stripped sinners and provided our healing and paid all our costs.

The parable thus shows that Eternal life is not a matter of us fulfilling all the law and so being worthy of life as inheritance. The parable demonstrates the Gospel of Christ as doing what we can’t do for ourselves.

________________________

Conclusion

1.) Many people want to use this parable to show that Jesus was sharply attacking communal or racial prejudices. I don’t see that in the text. The chap beaten up was unidentifiable. The Priest and the Levite do not pass by because they know the victim is Gentile or Samaritan or Jew. There is no communal or racial prejudice connected with their passing by.  They pass by in keeping with their teaching from the book of Ecclesiasticus,

12 When you do a good deed, make sure you know who is benefiting from it; then what you do will not be wasted.[a] 2 You will be repaid for any kindness you show to a devout person. If he doesn’t repay you, the Most High will. 3 No good ever comes to a person who gives comfort to the wicked; it is not a righteous act.[b] 4 Give to religious people, but don’t help sinners. 5 Do good to humble people, but don’t give anything to those who are not devout. Don’t give them food, or they will use your kindness against you. Every good thing you do for such people will bring you twice as much trouble in return. 6 The Most High himself hates sinners, and he will punish them. 7 Give to good people, but do not help sinners.

They pass by because of concerns about becoming ceremonially unclean.

If Jesus is sharply attacking anything He is sharply attacking what He constantly attacks in Scripture and that is the damnable hypocrisy of the Religious leadership.

Jesus introduces the Samaritan in order to demonstrate that those thought to be religiously and racially vile are more righteous than the supposed religious good guys.

The Samaritan likewise knows nothing about the victim. The point isn’t that he is rising above his racial prejudices. The point is that the hated Samaritan enemy is more of a lawkeeper than the righteous.

2.) We live in an age, as one writer has put it, of pornographic compassion. We bleed over the sensationalism made by the news media of the suffering in Rawanda, or Afghanistan, or Syria, all the while we turn a blind eye to the needs that Jesus has brought to our own feet found among our family and neighbors. We rush past the stripped and beaten of our own circle of influence so that we can feel good about ourselves by how big a check we cut for the stripped and beaten 4000 miles away.

In the words of Thomas Fleming,

“We have been plagued … by the cynical sentimentalism that raises trillions of dollars to help strangers while poisoning us against the needs of family, neighbors, and friends.”