Messages From Heaven: Pregnancy… Unplanned: What Do I Do Now?

Messages From Heaven: Pregnancy… Unplanned: What Do I Do Now?: The story has been repeated a hundred different times in a hundred different ways: an unwed teenager learns she is pregnant. But, on this...

Pregnancy… Unplanned: What Do I Do Now?

The story has been repeated a hundred different times in a hundred different ways: an unwed teenager learns she is pregnant. But, on this occasion, the stigma of being unmarried and with child looms especially heavy. The fact that she is engaged hardly deflects the eyes of accusation glaring at her . . . for her fiancé knows that he is not the father.
Rather than eagerly anticipating his wedding day, his heart is heavy—his dreams are dashed. Thoughts whirl through his mind as he tries to consider his options: What is he to do with the one who was once the “love of his life”? And what will happen to the child she is carrying?

Neither parent could have fathomed God’s plan regarding this pregnancy. Never could they have known the path their lives would take, nor the supernatural work God would accomplish through the child of His making. This baby would be named Jesus . . . Jesus the Christ, the Savior of the world! “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

An unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is a crisis for some and a “mere inconvenience” for others. But regardless of the circumstance, the joy of pregnancy and the pride of parenthood are painfully missing. Feelings of guilt … hurt… anger… fear… all bond together like a ton of bricks and press down heavily on the heart. Like Mary and Joseph (Jesus’ parents), you may not understand all that God has planned for you or your baby, but you can know that it is God who formed your baby in the womb, and He did so with a good purpose.

What God Says
“As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.” Ecclesiastes 11:5

"Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies," Psalm 103:4

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

President Obama, You Have Crossed a Dangerous, Unprecedented Line!

Dear Mr. President, I write to you today as a concerned citizen of our great nation, standing as a witness against your historic actions on the morning of July 21, 2014, actions which I hope you will one day repudiate with deep remorse and regret.
I am referring, of course, to your signing an executive order Monday banning "discrimination" by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.
This was an outrageous act of discrimination against religion in the name of anti-discrimination—an act of bullying people of faith in the name of the prevention of bullying.
How can you, as a man who professes to be a person of faith and a follower of Jesus, throw religious Americans—in particular Christians—under the bus?
How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?
Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?
It was unfortunate that you did not reflect on the recent Supreme Court decisions that made clear that you and your administration have consistently overstepped your bounds. Instead, once again, you bypassed the will of the people, as reflected in their elected officials, and simply made a decision affecting millions of Americans.
Worse still, you ignored the appeals of trusted religious leaders, some of whom campaigned for you in the past and others of whom have been among your trusted advisors, deciding instead to side with radical LGBT activism.
These leaders made a righteous and reasonable appeal to you, writing, "Mr. President, you have spoken eloquently of your commitment to protecting religious liberty, our nation's first freedom. As you seek to promote the rights of LGBT persons, please also protect the rights of faith-based organizations that simply desire to utilize staffing practices consistent with their deep religious convictions as they partner with the federal government via contracting or subcontracting."
In response, you mocked these "deep religious convictions," and there are no words you can say to minimize the seriousness of your actions.
Mr. President, what was wrong with letting Congress make an informed decision on ENDA? Do you scorn the political process so much that you bypass it entirely?
You stated that, "I'm going to do what I can, with the authority I have, to act," but the implications of your actions are massive.
An organization like Prison Reform, which utilizes federal funds to help transform the lives of inmates, would suffer dramatic financial setbacks should they simply refuse to hire individuals who violate their time-proven, biblically based code of conduct.
Children supported by World Vision, with the help of federal funds, would be deprived of food and shelter unless World Vision leaders compromised their Christian convictions. (After much soul searching this year, they have made clear that they will not compromise).
Fine Christian universities, which provide important academic and ethical training for the next generation of leaders and which are also the recipients of federal funding, could suffer a massive blow unless they forsake the faith on which their institutions were built.
Mr. President, must you now even take the place of God and tell Christians what they can and cannot actively practice?
I concur with Peter Sprigg who wrote that, "This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts."
In truth, this is not a civil rights issue, as if gay were the new black. As Catholic leader Austin Ruse observed, "the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known," while, in contrast, "Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking and much else, hunted down and lynched."
As our nation's first African-American president, you must surely see the difference. Or is it true, as your critics claim, that you really intend to declare war on religion in America?
It is one thing to treat all people fairly, be they male or female, gay or straight, young or old. It is another thing to trample religious freedoms under foot and to attempt to coerce, with the full force of the government, men and women of deep religious faith and commitment.
Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who pray for you on a regular basis, and I have often called on my radio listeners to pray that you would be the greatest president in American history.
Despite those prayers, you took it upon yourself to enact an order which declares that, in the workplace, sexual rights trump religious rights. What a terrible, tragic shame.
I do pray for you, sir, as my president, that God would grant you the humility to recognize the error of your ways. At the same time, I assure you that there are countless thousands of Christian leaders and people of faith who will neither abandon their convictions nor be silenced from articulating those convictions.
And so, perhaps, in God's providence, what you intended as a religious restriction will become the impetus for a religious awakening.
After all, you might well be the most powerful human being on the planet, but we will all bow down one day before the throne of God, and He will have the final say.

Messages From Heaven: The HRC Is Inciting Fear and Hate!

Messages From Heaven: The HRC Is Inciting Fear and Hate!: The pictures are dark and ominous, the charges chilling: "There exists a network of extremists ... [who] spew venomous rhetoric, ou...

The HRC Is Inciting Fear and Hate!

The pictures are dark and ominous, the charges chilling: "There exists a network of extremists ... [who] spew venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories, and discredited science."
Just who are these evil people, and what are they doing?
According to the Human Rights Campaign, the world's largest gay-activist organization, this "network" consists of American, conservative Christian leaders "who are working tirelessly to undercut LGBT people around the world at every turn."
I have made it onto this list—unfortunately, only with a "dishonorable mention"—adding to my already impressive resume of being marked by groups like GLAAD, which seeks to censor opposing viewpoints through its Commentator Accountability Project (which is why I have renamed them the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement), and the SPLC, which not only seeks to malign conservative Christians but also has blood on its hands. (Criminology professor Mike Adams has rightly dubbed them the Intellectual Poverty Law Center, evidenced in part by the SPLC's placing me on their list of "30 New Activists for the Radical Right," along with neo-Nazis, white supremacists and New Black Panthers. See also here and here.)
Not to be outdone, the HRC's latest report, entitled, "The Export of Hate," contains written descriptions of this alleged network of extremists as well as black-and-white sketches (or white on black sketches), depicting us with inaccurate and scary images. (About the only thing they got right in my sketch, on p. 22 of their report, is that I'm a male with a mustache.)
Given the fact that the HRC has an annual budget of roughly $45 million, one would think they could hire an artist who could actually draw, which suggests that the menacing images of this so-called "network" of "extremists" who allegedly export a "vicious brand of bigotry" are intended to incite fear and loathing toward us.
Why not simply report the facts?
Could it be that the HRC is describing its own work with the title "The Export of Hate"? Could it be that the HRC is guilty of spewing "venomous rhetoric"?
Other gay publications, like the flagship Advocate.com, are repeating HRC's claims, announcing "America's globetrotting extremists exposed" and stating that "the Human Rights Campaign has taken off the gloves to expose American extremist organizations and individuals in a new report about the homophobic hatred they spread around the globe." Indeed, "'The Export of Hate' profiles America's worst globetrotting homophobic offenders [with] a rap-sheet style that also puts them 'on notice.'"
Well, I'm here to the put the HRC on notice: Your fear-mongering tactics will be exposed and, speaking for myself (but with confidence that my words apply to others), I will not bow down to your bullying tactics or your rap-sheet nonsense.
Here are some salient facts:
First, there is no "network." Virtually all of the individuals and organizations listed work independently, and a good number of us have never met or worked with most (or even all of) the others on the list. This means that the HRC chose the term "network" quite intentionally to give the impression of some type of worldwide collaboration, when no such thing exists. (Shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)
Second, the annual budgets cited in the report underscore the fear-mongering, hatred-inciting nature of the HRC's report, with chief offender Scott Lively's ministry listed with an annual income of $90,259, Peter LaBarbera's organization listed at $110,000 (surely way too high), and others listed at $54,494 and $26,569. Yet the HRC, which draws guest speakers like President Obama, Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder to its annual fund-raising events, states that their report outlines "some of the resources at [the] disposal of this "network." What resources!
As for the larger organizations, like the ADF (the Alliance Defending Freedom) and ACLJ (the American Center for Law and Justice), with budgets in the 10's of millions of dollars, the quotes associated with them can in no way be construed as a "vicious brand of bigotry." (For example, the ADF's Benjamin Bull is excoriated for stating that "HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN A RALLYING CRY FOR PEOPLE INTENT ON IMPOSING THEIR WORLDVIEW ON OTHERS"; their emphasis).
Third, the HRC report blatantly misrepresents the truth in claiming that all of us on their list are guilty of exporting hate. Since I can't speak for everyone in the report (nor would I agree with the approach of everyone in the report, although some on the list are respected friends and colleagues), I will speak for myself.
According to the HRC, "in March 2014 ... Michael Brown made the trip to Lima [Peru]. Brown ... addressed the Peruvian Congress on 'the consequences of redefining marriage' and warned lawmakers to learn from the 'mistakes we've made in America' by allowing civil unions or full marriage equality."
My talk, which was also aired on national TV, began with these words (displayed on PowerPoint slides, before being translated into Spanish): "My purpose is not to demonize those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, nor is this about inciting hatred against anyone.
"It is very possible that you have family members or friends of colleagues who identify as gay or lesbian, and they may be some of the finest people that you know.
"That is not the issue. The issue is what happens when you normalize homosexuality in a society? What happens when marriage is redefined? In which direction will the nation go?"
And I simply reported the facts in terms of American culture and education and the media and religious rights in light of LGBT advances.
How then could a speech that began with these words and maintained a tone of civility and grace throughout, earn me a spot in the "Exporting Hate" report? How does this amount to spewing "venomous rhetoric" and equate to a "vicious brand of bigotry"? How does this put me in the class of the "worst globetrotting homophobic offenders"? (Again, I only use myself as an example; others on the HRC's list have been just as egregiously mischaracterized.)
I was invited by a Peruvian congressman to deliver the speech to congressional members, university chancellors and others, and Peru, it must be remembered, is a conservative Catholic country that has placed pro-life values at the beginning of its constitution. (For the record, I had to supplement my airfare, and I received no money for making the trip.)
Yet today, in the hate-filled climate created by groups like the HRC, if you say that you don't believe it's best for a man to "marry" a man (or a woman another woman), you are attacked in the harshest and ugliest terms imaginable.
That is the small-mindedness of gay activism. It cannot recognize any possible moral or social or cultural or religious argument against redefining marriage. Those who reject same-sex "marriage" are simply haters and bigots of the worst order.
The Advocate cited Ty Cobb, the HRC Foundation's director of global engagement, who stated that, "Hate is not an American value, and we must expose and fight these individuals and their extremist allies." He continued, "This is a destructive group of activists spreading anti-LGBT rhetoric, promoting laws that criminalize LGBT people, and seeking to restrict their speech and those who support them."
The truth be told, it is the HRC that is engaging in destructive activism by spreading misinformation and inciting fear, and it is the HRC that must be exposed.
Thankfully, they got one thing right in the report, stating that our "voices are being heard" and our "impact is being felt."
By God's grace, as we continue to speak the truth in love, the real bigots will be revealed.

Messages From Heaven: Some Honest Questions for Gay Activists!

Messages From Heaven: Some Honest Questions for Gay Activists!: I must say that as activists for your cause, you have developed many effective strategies, most of which involve a brilliant use of words...

Some Honest Questions for Gay Activists!

I must say that as activists for your cause, you have developed many effective strategies, most of which involve a brilliant use of words. You have even cast yourselves as “pro-marriage” while branding those of us who stand for natural, male-female marriage as “anti-marriage.”
Given your careful and deliberate choice of words, I believe it would be very helpful if you could give us specific definitions to some key words and concepts, unless, of course, your goal is to stir up people’s emotions without any reference to truth.

Let’s start with the term “homophobia” (and related to it, “homophobic” and “homophobe”).
Some of your colleagues have referred to me as a vicious homophobe, as one of the nation’s most virulent homophobes (and much more), but I’ve yet to hear a cogent, gay-activist definition of homophobia, which historically (since 1969) meant, “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”
By your definition, what exactly is homophobia? What constitutes a homophobe or makes one homophobic?
Once on the radio, I dialogued with a gay-activist pioneer – really, an icon in the movement – and I asked him if I respected him as a fellow human being, sought to protect him against mistreatment and harm, but did not affirm his homosexuality, would I still be considered homophobic in his eyes.
He replied emphatically that, yes, I would still be homophobic. Do you agree?
If so, it would appear that your definition of “homophobia” would be the failure to affirm (or celebrate or support) homosexuality, which would be quite a change from the dictionary definition of the lexeme, not to mention completely unrelated to any kind of “phobia.”
To avoid potential misunderstanding, then, let me present this scenario.
Let’s say a lesbian couple lives next door to my wife and me, and the two women are raising a child together. My wife and I reach out to this couple, have them over for dinner, make sure their lawn is mowed when they’re away and even watch their child when they have an emergency.
At the same time, these two women know that my wife and I believe that their relationship is not valid in God’s eyes and that homosexual practice is sin. Are we thereby homophobic?
If not, then I would suggest you and your colleagues are throwing this epithet around as a tool of defamation even when it doesn’t truly apply. (In reality, there’s not a homophobic bone in my body, using the accurate definition of the word.)
If you have, however, decided to change the meaning of the word, you have now engaged in semantic dishonesty and are guilty of willfully using a dangerous weapon to disparage and discredit.
What about the word “extremist”? The Human Rights Campaign has just published a mini-book called “The Export of Hate” (replete with ridiculous, denigrating graphics), which alleges that, “There exists a network of extremists … [who] spew venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories, and discredited science.”
Now, I might mention the irony of calling an organization the “Human Rights Campaign” when the HRC has never done a single thing to help oppressed women worldwide, to feed starving children worldwide, to work for religious freedoms worldwide, to launch educational programs for the impoverished worldwide. To the contrary, it has worked exclusively to support LGBT rights, and those rights alone.
To the HRC leaders, I ask, why not call yourselves the Homosexual Rights Campaign – or would that have been self-defeating? But I digress.
I’m really wanting to understand what you mean by an “extremist,” which a major dictionary defines as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.”
In your lexicon, am I an extremist if I state (as a biblical scholar) that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual practice, but the good news is that Jesus died for homosexual and heterosexual alike and offers us forgiveness of sins and new life? Does that make me an extremist?
If I quote a number of top LGBT scholars who agree with my view that the Bible condemns all forms of homoeroticism, does that make them extremists? Again, I’m just trying to understand what you mean by the term, since the HRC put me in their unfortunate and ill-conceived mini-book, branding me an extremist.
Is it only political and religious fanatics who believe that a child deserves a mom and a dad and who believe that we shouldn’t tamper with the institution of marriage? Is there any possible basis for these views that is rational and not fanatical?
And what about the term “hate”?
I know that some prominent judges have recently claimed that only anti-homosexual animus could lie behind the opposition to redefining marriage, and it would appear that you share that point of view.
But again, to be clear, let me ask you directly and forthrightly: Is it possible that I could not affirm homosexual practice without being motivated by hate? Is it possible that I could state that God clearly designed men for women and women for men without being motivated by hate? Is it possible that I could bemoan the terribly high rates of STD transmission among gay men without being motivated by hate?
I assume that folks from the LGBT community will post responses to this article here or on social media, and some might even respond with a blog, but since these really are weighty issues, and since gay activist organizations like the HRC and GLAAD and many others have used these terms so freely to vilify their opponents (not to mention allies like the SPLC who do the same), it’s only fair that you, as gay activists, provide simple answers to these questions.
So, please do define your usage of terms like homophobia, extremist and hater, not with misleading sound-bite clips used to demonize people of good conscience on my side, but rather with simple responses to my questions.
Or would that hurt your strategy?