8 - WHAT’S WRONG WITH STATE SPONSORED INDIFFERENCE? - RELIGIOUS REASONS TO OPPOSE MARRIAGE REDEFINITION
In 1999, MP Svend Robinson tabled a humanist petition to replace “God” in our Constitution with the words “intellectual knowledge.” Our Preamble reads: “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.” The bill was defeated. However, with the enactment of same-sex marriage law, homosexual liberationists have accomplished what MP Svend Robinson and some humanists could not achieve by petition. The Preamble statement is now worthless to Christians, indeed, meaningless to all Canadians practicing orthodox faith. The state’s decision to redefine marriage symbolizes a level of liberalized governance, which now leaves no public space for beliefs opposed to the homosexist worldview. Canada, for all intents and proposes, has become a godless secularized state. The rivalry over the correctness of homosexuality in our society, between secular humanists and the religious, has ended in favor of homosexism and against orthodoxy. This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn by traditional believers. However, not so in the minds of a relatively novel (less than half century old) religious movement adhering to “liberal pro-homosexual theology” uniquely adapted for Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other traditional faith. In order to forge a new homosexist cosmology, it was inevitable that traditional religion would have to be silenced or morphed into something new or both. Troy Perry, founder of Metropolitan Community Churches for homosexuals described what may be called the “homosexist strategic assessment”: “I knew I would have few if any problems with the so-called liberal churches. Liberal churches do not usually deeply involve themselves with Scripture.” Some scattered liberal congregations and one complete denomination have adopted a disingenuous postmodern hybrid theology. Whether by willful, incremental, and democratic decisions over decades, or by a process of pro-homosexual activist hijacking, these churches chose to adopt a theology which is a compromise of selected self-serving “intellectual knowledge” mixed with a few generalized cognitions rooted in Scripture. Seen on a spectrum of worldviews, with temporal belief systems on the left and traditional religions on the right, liberal churches contend there is a place for theology in the center:
Secular Humanism ---------------------- (Liberal Theology) ----------------------- Orthodox Religion
(homosexism) (hybrid) (heterosexism)
United Church Moderator, the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short lobbied this liberal theological analysis to MPs at a Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast in February, 2005. He said, “My hope is that the contribution the United Church has offered in this debate is a window for politicians to see the possibility of balancing human rights, tradition, faithfulness, and religious freedoms by voting in favor of civil same-sex marriage.”
As the basis of discussion switches from secular (non-religious) matters to issues of faith, secularists and humanists may be encouraged to read on because the analysis will still be highly “rational” and “intellectual.” It will be argued that there are certain acceptable variances in the beliefs held within established faiths (Christianity being the example) and that there are untenable positions, which the unfamiliar non-religious eye will even recognize as apostate theology. For instance, a tolerable theological variance would be the method of Christian baptism. Some churches baptize by full water immersion, others by partial anointing. On the other hand, a church claiming to be Christian, yet holding to the belief that Mary delivered a baby girl, who she named Jesus Christ, would be an absurdity. To claim to be a Christian and contend that God is a human projection would be no less of a theological farce. To be a Christian and refer to Christ’s Heavenly Father as “Mother God” is no less bizarre. Sadly, all of these assertions have been made in the past on behalf of theological liberalism. The remaining sections are written to reveal that self-professed Christians who advocate same-sex marriage as fulfilling Scripture or satisfying God’s extra-scriptural intent are no less delusional.
A struggle over the imprudence of Christian liberalism is an unavoidable necessity if one is to accurately measure the adverse consequences of same-sex marriage. Tragically, for Canadian Christendom, the “liberal pro-gay witness” reached full denominational approval in the name of the United Church of Canada (UCC). The UCC has become the proverbial “quisling,” defecting from the Christian heterosexist worldview in support of marriage redefinition at just the right time to deliver all of Christendom over to state sponsored homosexism. After declaring itself to be Canada’s largest mainline protestant “Christian” church, the UCC testified before the Supreme Court that “there is no theological impediment that would prevent same-sex couples from participating in this [marriage] union” - end of the constitutional discussion. This witness must have been gladly received by the so-called “Court Party.” As a result of United Church testimony, the Supreme Court can claim the Preamble intent has been legally upheld and shifted to a homosexist worldview. According to the UCC, Canadians concerned over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage may now rest! Marriage redefinition is anchored in principles “recognizing the supremacy of God.” Canada will be blessed.
In January 2005, UCC Moderator, The Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, wrote to Members of Parliament lobbying them to vote for marriage redefinition, in effect declaring his denomination’s course was in sync with that of the Court Party: “I believe that this decision has been reached not by abandoning Christian faith, tradition, and values, but by implementing them. I write to you in the hope that you will resist the assumption that anyone who speaks from the Christian faith, tradition, and values must be against equal marriage. Some are, some aren’t. This is true within the United Church…In some ways, The United Church of Canada is tracking a common path with the courts and the federal government…I understand faith to be a way of living. To have faith is to implement a vision in one’s daily life; in this sense, all live by some faith or other. Faith is not simply about received doctrines…Changing circumstances and changing ideas are not the enemy of faith. In fact, change is the only medium in which faithfulness can truly become faithfulness. Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot.
God will not be mocked. The fact the UCC testimony gives a false Christian witness to our secular Supreme Court (and Parliament) is no small travesty. And as Edmund Burke points out: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing.” So where was the voice of orthodox (true) cross-examination? The second greatest travesty in this struggle over marriage redefinition has been the apathy and silence shown by evangelicals who should be demanding the UCC declare itself apostate and outside of the Christian fold. The UCC assertion before the Supreme Court, if true, casts Christianity, as previously understood and practiced for two millenniums, into total disrepute. And, as if that assertion was not absurdity enough, the UCC actually professes to a theology which allows its adherents to be either liberal or orthodox; entire congregations may vote on whether to support or reject implementing same-sex marriage. Is there anything democratic about God’s will? Can both orthodox and liberal have God’s favor? In a letter to Prime Minister Martin, the General Council articulated how to have one’s cake and eat it too: “The United Church unequivocally supports the rights of same-sex couples to have access to civil marriage; it also unequivocally supports the right of communities of faith to decline to perform such marriages.”
Had the UCC disavowed their claim to be Christian before giving the Factum testimony, their witness would have been admissible, since religious freedom is a constitutional right. Had they stated orthodox reservations to their liberal theology, the Factum would have at least been more “balanced.” Instead, the UCC Factum went on to state: “…excluding same-sex couples from this expression of the covenant relationship undermines their [homosexuals] basic human dignity…The United Church does not agree with the AGC [Attorney General of Canada] that the purpose of marriage is procreation; procreation is one aspect and purpose of marriage but not the defining or only purpose.” The dilemma of the struggle between homosexist and heterosexist worldviews is that there is no rational compromise middle ground, not politically, not constitutionally, not legally and not theologically. The solely homosexist UCC witness before the Supreme Court reaffirms this point. There is absolutely no intimation in their testimony that orthodox Christianity may be correct. Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee freedom to practice “counterfeit” religion? Is the Charter now a constitutional protective haven for apostasy? Christianity is not a smorgasbord of religious tenets and Christ cannot be divided. One, either the liberal or the orthodox believer, is apostate. It is nonsensical to claim as the United Church does that both are right. Is the Holy Spirit of two minds? In due course much more will be said about the irrationality, indeed, apostasy of United Church theology and the senselessness of evangelicals remaining in association with the church. The following are eight “orthodox” religious reasons to oppose marriage redefinition.
8.1 - Unrepentant Homosexuals Will Not Inherit God’s Kingdom
In his letter to the Romans (1:18-32), Paul details the linkage between idolatry and sin, which pro-gay Christians now claim is Biblical text out of touch with modern realities and understandings: “Therefore God gave them over in the sexual desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth for created things, rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not be done (22-28).”
Robin Scroggs, author of The New Testament and Homosexuality, raises two points of clarification to this text. First, the phrase “God gave them up” means that people now living in the false reality do what they choose. God does not force them into such false actions; His judgment lies in leaving them where they want to be, in actions which, they think to be good and right. This is the ultimate irony of their fate. Second, Paul also heaps up anthropological terms - heart, body, passions and mind - apparently to indicate that this false reality permeates a person’s entire existence. All dimensions of one’s self are distorted by the false reality in which he or she lives.
Liberal theology erases this condemnation - “God gave them up” - and declares what was once a wrong and false reality is now, thanks to scientific knowledge, correct and true. The scientifically proven reality that homosexuality is hard to overcome is cited as just cause for ignoring Scripture and abandoning traditional Christian morality. To buy into this line of thinking one would have to accept that the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul’s letters condemning homosexuality (and the numerous other reproving texts in the Old and New Testaments), just did not have a contemporary understanding of sexual orientations (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and queer), did not know that oral and anal sex can be performed relatively safely with prophylactics, or did not know that 98 percent of gay men have no affinity towards monogamy. Not surprising, in liberal theology it is politically incorrect to talk about the sexual acts committed in the course of living out these loving homosexual relationships. It is equally, politically incorrect to talk about the moral status of the sexually active but unmarried homosexual.
Where do we find the modern day homosexuals described in the above passage from Romans? Are they the promiscuous men and women populating bathhouses and swing clubs or parading on gay-pride days? Now that same-sex marriage is legal and sanctified in liberal churches what is the moral status of the 97 percent of homosexuals who will never marry, but will be “sexually active”? The unending challenge of a counterfeit theology is finding a rational place to end the chain of heresies. One unorthodoxy begets a dozen more. For two millenniums sex outside of the bounds of marriage has been deemed a Christian sin. Liberal theologians have been deceitfully silent; not admitting that what morally goes for homosexuals must apply equally for heterosexuals.
In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Lord” (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11). Here Paul reveals that saved Christians are not homosexual offenders, but are ex-gays or ex-lesbians. Yes God loves homosexuals, no less than you, me or a drunkard. The standard is the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals - no one enters the kingdom of God until they are born again (John 3:3). Liberal theology is disingenuously ambiguous on the infilling of the Holy Spirit and on the consequences of having God’s “Counselor” advising on moral behavior. Liberal theology refers to the Holy Spirit as “Comforter,” rather than the Spirit for conviction of sin. Liberal theology is also in denial about the Christian witness of ex-gays and ex-lesbians.
8.2 - Same-Sex Marriage Denies the Witness of Ex-Homosexuals
Same-sex marriage is the crown of liberal theology, a religion that denies the witness of ex-gays and ex-lesbians who testify that it was Christ’s grace that freed them. Ignoring scientific evidence for successful sexual reorientation, liberal theology cleaves to the discredited notions of Derrick Bailey’s invert theory and the gay gene theory. Bob Davies of Exodus Ministries writes, “Many former homosexuals tell us that there is only one genuine reason that they have been successful: they have abandoned homosexuality in obedience to God’s Word. They see changing their homosexuality as a side effect of an ever bigger goal: being conformed to the image of Christ.” The cognitive dissonance caused by the testimonies of ex-homosexuals, declaring the saving grace of Jesus Christ as the source of deliverance, is impossible for the homosexist to reconcile emotionally or theologically. God cannot be delivering people from their homosexual lifestyles (indeed orientations), while at the same time giving His blessing to homosexual sex, homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage. One perspective is grossly in error. Homosexist activists vilify ex-gays and ex-lesbians; less vocal homosexists choose simply to deny the witness.
The Right Rev. Dr. Short, United Church Moderator, writes in a letter to MPs, “Some will protest that we must have faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavourable view of intimate same-sex relationship. But I would answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of received text. It is a mindful commitment to the power of love, to which the text seeks to give witness…In fact, change is the only medium in which faithfulness can truly become faithfulness. Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot…the measure by which we choose a course of action is the measure of the love of Christ, a measure that judges even scripture. It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda.” Setting aside the problem of Dr. Short’s rejection of the authority of God’s holy Word, the reality is that the power of Christ’s “love” is freeing believers from homosexuality. To date no reader has responded to the question, “Do you believe the testimony of ex-gays and ex-lesbians, who claim that Jesus Christ delivered them from homosexuality - Yes or No?”
8.3 - God is Not Indifferent to Sexual Orientation
Homosexism is a new cosmology, an umbrella ideology for most non-heterosexuals: gays, bisexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and self-labeled queers. Liberal “homosexist” theology proclaims that one’s sexuality is God given and not a matter of choice. Paradoxically, gays and lesbians claim an innate same-sex orientation; transsexuals and queers contend sexual orientation is fluid (changeable); and bisexuals declare alternating and simultaneous heterosexual and homosexual orientations. And liberal theology professes to confirm God’s blessing on any sexual attraction other than bestiality and pedophilia. The theology remains mute (in denial) on the irrationality of sanctifying these contradictory “innate” attractions. Ironically, the God-given-orientation tenet in liberal theology offers no sanctuary for the pedophile trapped in what to him seems an insurmountable innate man-boy attraction. Liberal theology tacitly declares the age of puberty as God’s dividing line between what is a sanctified man-man sexual relationship and what is an abomination in God’s eyes – a man-boy orientation. Where is this in Scripture?
Rev. Jackie Harper, Program Officer for Family Ministries comments that United Church theological understanding of marriage is grounded in love - “God’s love for humanity, love between life partners who seek to live in relationships based on trust, mutuality, and commitment. It is also about the love of caring communities - families, friends, and churches - that acknowledge, support, nurture, challenge, and honour such relationships.” Furthermore, the UCC Factum states that marriage is “one of the fullest expressions of the covenant between God and humanity” and that to “exclude same-sex couples from this covenant relationship undermines their basic human dignity.”  There is not one Scriptural reference justifying these free love assertions. God will not be mocked. The heterosexist nature of Christianity and the marriage covenant between God and humanity is explained in Matthew 19:4-6: “‘Haven’t you read,’ Christ replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate.” In God’s plan heterosexual marriage is the pre-condition for sexual intimacy and “one flesh” is essential for procreation. Sex outside of the covenant “heterosexual” institution of marriage is not to happen. On the other hand, liberal theology simply ignores the unholy nature of homosexual intimacy and denies the scientific ecological hazards of gay sex. The very existence of the “Condom Code” with its inevitable failure rate undermines any notion of virtuous gay sex. There is nothing dignified about AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. There is nothing dignified about the sexual acts which enable their transmission.
8.4 - God is Not Indifferent to Experimental Sex
Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus, 1193-1280, teacher of Thomas Aquinas), in a short reference, gives five reasons to avoid indulging in homosexual behavior: “This is the most detestable of practices: it proceeds from a burning frenzy; it has a disgusting foulness; those addicted to it seldom succeed in shaking off the vice; and, finally, it is as contagious as any disease, rapidly spreading from one to another.” It is to his last reason - the matter of contagion, that we need focus in this sub-section.
The contemporary and pragmatic, Phyllis Chesler argues, as do many others, that anyone can become bisexual, if not, homosexual, just by acquiring enough experience. She cites the following passage from Gilbert D. Bartell, Group Sex, 1971, in illustration: “When a couple is new to swinging and the woman has never been exposed to another woman, she usually says that she would find this repulsive and cannot imagine it. After the first two or three parties where she sees women obviously enjoying each other, she is likely to modify her stand and say, ‘I do enjoy having a woman work on me, but I could never be active with another woman.’ Then, when she has been in swinging for several months and attending many parties, she may well say, ‘I enjoy everything and anything with a woman, either way she wants to go.’…at large open parties we observed that almost all the women were engaged in homosexual activity with obvious satisfaction, especially if a younger group is involved.” Alfred Kinsey claimed the first few sexual encounters could be crucial to influencing the direction of sexual preference. Negative experiences drove people away from particular practices and positive experiences reinforced behaviors. One heterosexist web site had this to say about sexual experimentation: “We do not recommend trying GBLTQ out. Having sex with another of the same sex will not tell you whether you are gay or lesbian! It will tell you your body is designed to respond to physical and sexual touch, indeed gross deception.” In their study of bisexuals at the San Francisco Bi-center, Martin Weinberg cites experimentation (they used the word “encouragement”) as instrumental in leading people to initially adopt the label bisexual. The opportunity for experimentation often came from a partner who already defined himself as bisexual. Weinberg records a female’s testimony: “We had been together two or three years at the time – he began to define as bisexual….[He] encouraged me to do so as well. He engineered a couple of threesomes with another woman. Seeing one other person who had bisexuality as an identity that fit them seemed to be a real encouragement.”
Against these conditions of sexual contagion, liberal theology offers no guidance to the “wavering youth” - the child who is capable of either sexual orientation. An extract from a gay-affirming pamphlet at Calgary Public Schools highlights the heart of the heresy of such pro-gay thinking: “Our sexuality develops over time. Don’t worry if you aren’t sure. The teen years are a time for figuring out what works for you, and crushes and experimentation are often part of that. Over time you’ll find that you are drawn to men or women - or both - and you’ll know then.” God is not indifferent. The notion that there is no relationship between the human body that God designed (anatomy and genitalia) and His intent for gender is false and sexual experimentation is both a trap and a sin.
One wonders what pro-gay theology has to say to our youth about experimental opportunistic sex and God’s will. The boundaries in orthodox Christianity are clear and feasible – no sex before monogamous marriage, no sex outside of marriage, no experimental sex. For the past two to three thousand years sexual performance (eros and pleasure) in bed, in the bushes, or wherever, has never been condoned as a factor in Christian mate (partner) selection. Imagine you are the pastor at a pro-gay “Christian” church. You are holding a boys or girls youth (12-15 year-olds) discussion group. What will you tell them is permissible? One possible orthodox response – experimental sex is not God’s will. “But how will we discover our orientation?” asks a youth. In time you will mature and fall in love with a man, or a woman, or both. You will choose to marry one or both. After God’s matrimonial blessing you can have sex. The two or three of you will be bound for life. The two or three shall become one. [I don’t think so].
A more likely pro-homosexual response - experimental sex is a natural process which allows you to find out your sexuality. God has not necessarily indicated your sexuality by the genitalia you have; therefore, only through trial and error will your true orientation be revealed. Since the ability to experiment is constrained by the “opportunities” that come along, same-sex activities usually come first. An astute youth, with no particular leanings either way, naively asks, “If same-sex experimentation gives us great pleasure, how much experimenting should we do before checking out the opposite sex?” Another adds, “I thought we had to get married before engaging in sex?” One answers before the pastor can respond, “It is okay to have pre-marital sex as long as you are honest and tell the partner you are just experimenting.” “Does it matter if the trials are done in a group?” “Is it okay to get an older person to explain how and what we are to do?” “So it is permissible, even if I think at the time that I am straight, to check out gay or lesbian sex, just to make sure?” “What if we enjoy both?” “Pastor what is lust?” The pastor is just about to say something when the question is asked, “Is there anything we shouldn’t do in order to please Jesus?” The pastor stays silent. Like so many doctrinal issues in an “inclusive” and “compromised” church, it is better to just not talk about them. It is impossible to conceive of same-sex marriage without the pre-condition of pre-marital sex.
8.5 - God is Not Indifferent to Family Variations
Rev. Jackie Harper, Program Officer for Family Ministries, comments that the United Church has found that many of the alleged benchmarks for confining marriage to opposite-sex couples do not, in fact, bar same-sex couples. She explains, for instance, “that procreation can no longer be cited as a defining dynamic of marriage in Western society and that extending the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples will in no way undermine society's understanding of family.” Yet, in the 2001 Census, family is categorized as married couples, common-law couples, or lone parents. Of all family categories 63.5 percent have children. This percentage does not take into account newly married or newly cohabitating couples (recorded as childless families) who will go on to raise children. The 2001 Census also reveals that 9 of 100,000 couples are gay parents and 34 of 100,000 couples are lesbian parents. Three percent of gay and 15 percent of lesbian couples have children. From a statistical perspective heterosexual marriage is about family, homosexual coupling is not.
In effect the UCC theological analysis is self-serving and anti-Christian. The exclusive connection of the design and purpose of male and female, the role of marriage as the sacred portal for procreation and its institutional basis in the Scriptural family are all rejected in the liberal view. However, the Bible is unambiguous in declaring that God’s plan is for all children to be born in wed lock. This tenet is further buttressed by the laws declaring sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin (fornication or adultery). Furthermore, the Bible explicitly states that children are to be raised by their biological parents, since God hates divorce. Around 2430 years ago, Malachi, an Old Testament messenger from God summed up God’s marriage-procreation-family code, which liberal theology seeks to overturn. He wrote: “You flood the Lord’s altar with tears [shed by your unoffending wives, divorced by you that you might take heathen wives]. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, ‘Why?’ It is because the Lord is acting as the witness [to the covenant made at your marriage] between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the Lord made them [husband and wife] one [flesh]? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because he is seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. ‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel…” (Malachi 2:13-16). The Lord cannot make two females into “one” flesh; nor can two males become “one” for the creation of offspring. Marriage is exclusively a heterosexual covenant.
Liberal theology overlooks the inert nature of homosexual union (and the anatomical mismatch of same-sex intimacy) and simply asserts a human rights, indeed “dignity” claim, that there are no grounds for marriage discrimination. The term “dignity” is used numerous times throughout the UCC Factum to the Supreme Court in reference to the values of the Charter: “Canada by the broad scope and fundamental fairness of s. 15(1) has taken the further step in the recognition of the fundamental importance and innate dignity of the individual. That it has done so is not only praiseworthy but essential to achieving the magnificent goal of equality for all. It is the means of giving Canadians a sense of pride…Restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples questions the capacity of gays and lesbians to develop love and intimacy, undermining their human dignity and reinforcing prejudicial attitudes…” Like “sexual orientation,” the word “dignity” is not found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The word was read into the legal case of Egan v. Canada by one of the dissenting justices, Madame Claire L’Heureux Dubé. However, marriage already discriminates among heterosexuals. The state currently allows marriage between one man and one woman but prohibits marriage to a close relative. Indeed, the Supreme Court finding in Egan v. Canada upheld the view that discrimination against homosexuals can be constitutional under certain conditions. Use of the exclusive term “spouse” in the Old Age Security Act was ruled constitutional in 1995, on the basis of Section 1 of the Charter, which provides for “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
The issue of human “dignity” in same-sex marriage is particularly ironic in the context of the homosexist effort spent over the last forty years to describe the heterosexual institution as oppressive, patronizing, hierarchal, anti-liberation – not worth the piece of paper. Marriage redefinition is equally paradoxical set against the predominant promiscuous homosexual life-style. Many gays and lesbians have expressed fear that the elevated “pride” and “dignity” of the married homosexual will be at the cost of their dignity, if not also the cost of the heterosexual married couple’s dignity. Paula Ettelbrick, Lambda’s legal director, who upholds the original radical feminist analysis, opposes marriage, describing it as oppressive and discriminatory, an intrusion of state authority into individual relationships. If gay men and lesbians were given the right to marry, she fears, a replication would occur of the discriminatory two-tier system already existing among married and unmarried straight couples. Legalized gay marriage would make gays who don’t marry, in Ettelbrick’s words: “outlaws among outlaws.”  From a social utility perspective, 3 percent of homosexuals interested in marriage may feel more dignified, but at the expense of the other 97 percent. The “human rights” or “dignity” claim to marriage access is also paradoxical because of the cultural and legal prohibition on <incest>.
Rev. Jackie Harper, explains “liberalized” family policy: “The United Church seeks to support the diversity of families who uphold a secure environment for nurture, growth, and development and that will contribute to the spiritual, social, psychological, sexual, physical, and economic wholeness of the members. It is the experience of the United Church that non-traditional family forms equally advance family values.” Christians are called to minister to unwed mothers, single parents of divorce, children without parents, children in foster care and people from broken homes. It is one thing to reach out in support of people in these challenging situations; it is another to assert that these family variations are equal. God intended the ideal family to consist of married opposite sex parents and their biological children. The number of single parent families is a cause for societal concern. No political party has ever campaigned on raising the number of single parents, unwed mothers or homosexual couple adoptions. One biological mother, an absentee father or unknown male sperm donor, one parenting female lover and some children is not equal to God’s intended family. Two gay men with some adopted children may be a social reality, but this reality is not God’s ideal. In arguing that same-sex couples “can and do have and raise children” the UCC ignores the heterosexual origin of these offspring and implies indifference to whether a child has either a mother or a father. The pro-gay theology further implies a biological relationship (one flesh connection) between a child and its parents is not God’s wish. Motherhood and fatherhood are divinely given roles and requirements. No authentic Christian doctrine can claim indifference to one or the other.
8.6 - The Gospel of Jesus Christ Cannot be Divided
It is hard to visualize a more damaging act of legislation than same-sex marriage upon the veracity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The state and the United Church of Canada are now united in views and pitted against religious orthodoxy. The homosexist worldview of the United Church is summarized in a commentary by the Right Rev. Peter Short, Moderator, and Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, General Secretary, General Council: “The Council has clarified that our welcome is to all people regardless of sexual orientation--and that it is an unqualified welcome. For the Council, this means that for all who believe in Jesus Christ and want to live in obedience to his way, there is a welcome to baptism, a welcome to membership and confirmation, a welcome to mission and to pastoral care (both given and received), a welcome to church courts, and a welcome to the full life of Christian community. The Council has now clarified that its welcome includes a welcome to marriage.”  Once again there is no middle ground politically, constitutionally, legally or theologically.” The choice is between heterosexism and homosexism. According to the UCC position there are two possible scenarios: (1) for two millenniums, Christians have wrongfully witnessed against homosexuality and tragically misread Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s counsel; or (2) new pro-gay evidence has been discovered since the start of the sexual liberation era to which the Holy Spirit and Bible authors were not previously aware.
Contrary to liberal theology, same-sex marriage is not an issue that Christians can politely agree to disagree on. We are not talking about whether to place cushions on the eighty-year-old pews. We are not arguing over the cost of a church elevator renovation. The liberal theological position supporting the redefinition of marriage is either the greatest gift of revelation since Jesus Christ walked this earth or the adoption of a homosexist worldview by this historical Christian denomination (UCC) is final proof of its abject apostasy. God will not be mocked. Either both belligerent evangelicals and Catholics will face judgment for their persistent condemnation of homosexuality or liberal-minded “Christians” will be duly punished for their blatant disregard of Scripture and lack of obedience to God’s Word.
One of many paradoxes in liberal theology is the notion that it is okay for the other Christian to hold totally contradictory beliefs. As will be discussed in the next section PROFILE OF A “LIBERAL PRO-HOMOSEXUAL” RELIGIOUS ENTITY, this flexibility in conviction even goes so far as to claim it’s okay if you are not Christian - God still loves you and you will be saved. Choice Okoro, Program Officer for Human Rights explains that while the UCC unequivocally supports the right of same-sex couples to have access to marriage, it also unequivocally supports the right of religious communities to refuse to perform such marriages. She argues, “The United Church does not believe that the faith stance of a community which supports same-sex marriage undermines the faith stance of a community that does not.” This conviction goes so far as to apply within the United Church denomination. The UCC Moderator and Secretary of the General Council detail how God’s will is implemented in their church: “The fact that General Council makes some decisions about marriage and congregations make other decisions reflects the wisdom that some decisions are best made centrally and some decisions are best made locally. We know, for example, that farmers rely on central agencies like governments and co-ops to regulate and facilitate certain aspects of their work, such as, crop insurance or marketing. But the government does not tell a farmer when to plant the lower field in a wet spring. Only the farmer who knows and loves the land can make that kind of decision. In other words, The United Church of Canada recognizes and honours more than one voice in this conversation of discernment. There are other institutions and agencies where one voice speaks for all. With us it is not so.” Can the Holy Spirit speak on same-sex marriage with two voices, sending contradictory messages, as if transmitting on different frequencies? Jesus Christ said of division: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25).
In a September 2000 Ruling about "Services of Blessing for Same Gender Partnerships," the General Secretary, Virginia Coleman, stated, "that a minister is not required to take part in a service of blessing. If the minister refuses to take part, the minister should make every effort to assist the persons requesting a service of blessing by arranging for another United Church minister to perform this function." And God Almighty is reverenced by such double-minded theology? The Apostle James points out that one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. United Church liberal theology has not been sprung upon its membership. The decision to welcome “all people regardless of sexual orientation” to “baptism, membership, confirmation, [ordination], mission, pastoral care, church courts, and full life of Christian community,” has taken decades to unfold and could be predicted to end in same-sex marriage. It is a bit late for doubts. “That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does” (James 1:6-7).
The double-mindedness of UCC theology bears witness to its own irrationality. Moderator, the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short writes, “If the local Session denies its clergy the right to conduct same-sex marriages while in that pastoral relationship, we have a serious conundrum: a congregation denying its covenanting minister permission to conduct a worship ceremony.” The UCC Factum (before the Supreme Court) explains the denomination’s “model process” to allow decisions regarding same-sex marriage to be made at congregational level: “One congregation decided not to vote. One congregation, through their Session, decided they were not ready to accept same-sex marriages in the church building, but would be open to further discussion about the Minister performing marriages outside the church building. The third congregation decided at the Board level not to have a congregational vote, but passed a motion affirming the present marriage policy which is as follows: That the Minister may marry people at her discretion if they have a valid marriage license.” What is the isolated evangelical to do in a “democratically” pro-gay church, if not leave? The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be adopted piecemeal in self-serving ways to reflect congregational votes. The Christian faith has nothing to do with democracy. Parliament can vote to break the state away from its theist roots, but the revelation of Jesus Christ is not negotiable. Christianity is not a political movement. Similar compromised theology in the Church of Laodicea literally made Christ sick (Rev 3:16). Either the liberal or the orthodox believer is in a terrible state of apostasy.
8.7 - If We Get God Wrong – We Get Everything Wrong
God is not a human projection, to be treated like a spiritual rheostat, by which you adjust His guidance (Law) and impact in your life to suit the desired situation. The idea of a spectrum of right and wrong depending on contextual preconditions like sexual consent, love, utility or sexual orientation, defiles holiness and the idea of one truth before God. Those who claim to be Christian and choose to treat the Word of God in a rheostatic fashion, who promote unbiblical norms in ethics in the name of “authentic personality,” are in reality against Jesus Christ. Pro-gay theology proposes to set aside explicit Biblical teaching and substitute secular alternatives. Liberal Christians choose to explore “new ways of bearing witness to the good news of Jesus Christ.” Their aim is to transform the traditional Christian sexual ethic into the image of sexual liberation values. And here, homosexual “rights” have been used to pioneer this change. The following quotes help to frame the context of the on-going attempt to reimage Christ to a God of moral indifference:
It is because the concept of a Creator-God interferes with our sexual mores. Thus we have rationalized God out of existence. To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland. - Aldous Huxley, humanist, free love advocate.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference. - Richard Dawkins, Darwinist, Oxford zoologist.
All the crosscurrents of present-day [sexual] liberation struggles are subsumed in the gay struggle… sexual identity is in crisis throughout the population, and gay people – at once the most conspicuous subjects and objects of the crisis – have been forced to invent a complete cosmology to grasp it. No one says the changes will come easily. But it’s just possible that a small and despised sexual minority will change America forever. - The Nation, May 3, 1993.
The chief opposition to gay equality is religious. We may conduct much of our liberation efforts in the political sphere or even the ‘cultural’ sphere, but always undergriding those and slowing our progress is the moral/religious sphere. If we could hasten the pace of change there, our overall progress would accelerate - in fact, it would be assured. - Paul Varnell, gay columnist.
I knew I would have few if any problems with the so-called liberal churches. Liberal churches do not usually deeply involve themselves with Scripture. - Rev. Troy Perry, Metropolitan Community Churches.
If we perform the radical surgery [on Christianity] that is required, not only will certain traditional formulations of faith fall by the wayside, but also much of the presumed content of Christianity, and rightly so. Our only consolation is that if we do not intervene radically and soon the patient will die.  - Thomas Sheehan, professor of religious studies, Stanford University.
We reimage God to keep the world from enduring the pain of a continuing reliance on a theistic deity…That same theistic God is quoted by people who want to impose their definitions of homosexuality or their values in the right-to-life movement on everyone else. So it matters how one thinks of God. - Rev. Dr. John Shelby Spong.
If there are other choices open to homosexuals, why should not these options be available to heterosexuals as well? Homosexuality may well serve as the ‘test-case’ of Christian sexual ethics since it poses the clearest challenge to the universal evangelical character of that ethic. - James P. Hanigan.
Pro-gay theology seeks the impossible - to reimage God - and asks its adherents to live in this false reality. The UCC Committee on Theology and Faith has chosen to deny the claim declared in Hebrews 13: 8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
8.8 - The Light and the Law: Inseparable Revelations from God
I [Jesus Christ] am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. (John 8:12)
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s One and Only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been through God. (John 3:18-21)
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: ‘Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’ (Ephesians 5:6-14)
Liberal Christians, certainly pro-gay Christians, appear to wish for a revised worldview in which a rewritten Gospel of Jesus Christ amputates the content of the Law along with its convicting intent, particularly as it applies to human sexuality. To evangelical eyes the pro-gay theological goal is to alter the Gospel to ensure that Christ’s Light casts no sinful shadows. Terms like obedience, sin, hell, judgment, guilt and condemnation are expunged under the new theological mantra of an all inclusive unconditional loving God, an “anything goes” God. A God so indifferent that, as Aldous Huxley declares: “He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat.” This new age mantra has also been labeled the doctrine of cheap grace. Candice Chellew, editor of Whosoever, an on line magazine for gay and lesbian “Christians” describes what should be labeled a Gospel of Cheap Grace: “Indeed, we are assured in Romans: Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Nothing. Not homosexuality, not disbelief in certain creeds, Bible passages, litanies or opinions of other believers. Not sin, not death, not anything, not even being wrong. I suspect that’s good news for all of us! My fundamentalist friends, do you realize the freeing beauty of these words??? Nothing!! NOTHING! Will you take those words at heart? Will you believe the Holy Word of God when it says NOTHING separates you from God??? Or will you continue to thump your Bible and point out all those who ‘you’ believe have been separated from God?" In a separate article she details the new image of a pro-gay Christ: “Getting stuck worshipping Jesus as a name, as a person, or as a Messiah, detracts us from the real goal. Getting to God, becoming the living embodiment of God here on earth should be our ultimate aim. Jesus points us in the right direction…Worrying about getting our dogmas right about Jesus and who he is only leads us to an idolization of Jesus.”
It is true that God is for us. What is more, He is for us even though our very nature is against Him. Moreover, He is not for us merely in a general attitude, but He has effectively acted towards us. The measure of His “unconditional love” can be summed up in the name of His Son. Jesus Christ is the grace of God towards us. In contrast to pro-gay theology, the Christian worldview leaves the authority of the Law intact and records that Jesus is the empowering source of the grace to overcome the unrighteousness, transgression, judgment and condemnation instructed by the Law. Although Jesus alters the application of so-called “cultural” laws ending hypocritical legalism regarding food, drink, festivals and Sabbath activities, there is no evidence to substantiate a change in application of the traditional morality provisions, directed at keeping a righteous heart. Jesus declares: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).
Love is at the core of this Law. And the Law is fundamentally an expression of the perfect character and will of God. It would be impossible for the Law to cease to be the ideal of human morality. Rightly understood the Law has always demanded a heart conformed to God. The regenerate (or saved) are commanded to follow the Law and are, to a large extent, enabled to fulfill the Law, by gracious guidance from the Holy Spirit and by a motive of obedience anchored in the redeeming love of Jesus Christ. The Christian is under the obligation to claim Christ as his first love and then to love his neighbor as himself (Matthew 22:37-39). The Law is meant to define the unrighteous dark shadows of life with the Light of Jesus Christ to show the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). The perfect obedience of Christ to the Law of God is not simply an example, but the basis of the redemption of His people, who otherwise lay condemned by the Law: “But when the time had come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5).
God’s grace received by the saved Christian does not mean the weak and careless forgiveness of sins, for our pardon was bought by the judgment, condemnation and execution of His One and Only Son. It is the righteousness of the Law which illuminates and convicts us of sin. This sin separates us from a Holy God and points us toward God’s only solution for forgiveness and restoration - Jesus Christ. If we allow the Law to be arbitrarily erased, for self-serving purposes, we construct our own false reality. We think we live in the Light but we are actually in its shadow, making Christ’s sacrifice in vain. The Law and Jesus Christ are paired and matched revelations. Much like male and female, the designed purpose of one can not be fulfilled without the other. Male and female are necessary to give us our first fleshly birth. The Law (inanimate basis for conviction of sin) and Jesus Christ are needed to bring about the second spiritual birth (the infilling by the Holy Spirit). To erase the Law is to reimage Jesus Christ. And to willfully reimage divine revelation to suit human political exigencies is hugely wrong. Under the subject title Homosexuality, the NIV Study Bible lists Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude 1:8 as references reaffirming Old Testament Law. Paul writes of the Law in his first letter to the church at Corinth “homosexual offenders…will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
The fact that the homosexual is listed in convicting terms numerous times in the Old and New Testament is a key barrier to revisionism. However, the targeting of the homosexual needs to be placed in the context that all (you and me), if we are not born again of the Spirit through faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, will not inherit the kingdom of God (John 3:3-8). The Law brings the condemnation, but God has the same solution for the homosexual as He has for you and me. Proponents of cheap grace emphasize God’s willingness to forgive, often citing the adulterous woman (John 8:10-11): “‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she added. ‘Then neither do I condemn you?’ Jesus declared.” However, Christ’s grace does not erase the Law, He concludes His conversation with the woman by saying: “Go now and leave your life of sin.” To the blind man that Jesus healed, He said, “See you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (John 5:14). Although, all judgment (separating the redeemed from the lost) has been given to Christ (John 5:22), the Law also remains a key revelation of our perfectly righteous and holy God. The Christian witness of ex-gays and ex-lesbians verifies Christ’s redemptive and sanctifying power over the sinfulness defined by the Law.
Another barrier to liberal revisionism, regarding same-sex marriage, is the Law found in Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus gives the following context and purpose for marriage: “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So that they are no longer two but one.” Humanity seeks a life philosophy for happiness and freedom. The Christian worldview for maximizing one’s peace is a perfect combination - the Law and the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ. The liberal pro-gay theological worldview is to either amputate the Law and demote Jesus Christ to the equivalent of a historic sage like Mahatma Gandhi or, like the free sex advocate Aldous Huxley, erase God to gain his freedom. Pro-gay theology cannot erase God; therefore the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be reframed to adopt what is in reality a false freedom. Rudolf Bultmann offers an insightful articulation of the need for the Law as God has revealed it: “Genuine freedom is not subjective arbitrariness. It is freedom in obedience. The freedom of subjective arbitrariness is a delusion, for it delivers man up to his drives, to do in any moment what lust and passion dictate. This hollow freedom is in reality dependence on lust and passion of the moment. Genuine freedom is freedom from the motivation of the moment; it is freedom which withstands the clamor and pressure of momentary motivations. It is possible only when conduct is determined by a motive which transcends the present moment, that is, by law. Freedom is obedience to a law of which the validity is recognized and accepted, which man recognizes as the law of his own being. This can only be a law which has its origin and reason in the beyond. We may call it the law of spirit or, in Christian language, the law of God.”
A lesson taken from Don Juan, illustrates why erasing God’s Law (moral code) is not a good idea. The Devil asks, “What is the use of knowing [a moral philosophy]?” To this question Don Juan responds: “Why, to be able to choose the line of greatest advantage instead of yielding in the direction of least resistance. Does a ship sail to its destination no better than a log drifts nowhither? The philosopher is Nature’s pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer.” Bultmann writes that until one has appropriated the grace of God manifested in Christ’s work, he is “alienated from life, enslaved under hostile powers and in bondage to death.” Same-sex marriage is against God’s Law and; therefore, against Jesus Christ. Paul writes to the church at Rome: All who sin apart from the Law will also perish apart from the Law, and all who sin under the Law will be judged by the Law. For it is not those who hear the Law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous. (Romans 2:12-16).
Previous Contents Next
 Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement (Eugene Oregon: Harvest House, 1996), p.84.
 News Release, United Church of Canada, “United Church Moderator Hosts Parliamentary Breakfast on Marriage,” 24 February 2005, www.united-church.ca/news/2005/0224.shtm.
 In April 1984, the Episcopalian Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York displayed Edwina Sandys’ bronze of a female figure on a cross. Episcopalian Rev. Dr. John Shelby Spong wrote in 2001, “We reimage God to keep the world from enduring the pain of a continuing reliance on a theistic deity…That same theistic God is quoted by people who want to impose their definitions of homosexuality or their values in the right-to-life movement on everyone else. So it matters how one thinks of God,” taken from John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity For a New World (San Francisco: Harper, 2001), p.230. In 1982, Anne Hepburn, National President of the Women’s Guild of the Church of Scotland, prayed to “God our Mother,” and “Dear Mother God.” To fit the feminist and liberal agenda, the language and the symbols of Christianity are being feminized, stripped of divinity and androgynized. Placing greater value on theological inclusivity over Scriptural accuracy, the United Church also refers to the Holy Trinity in Faith Talk II as: “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer;” “God, Christ and Spirit,” “Mother, Friend, and Comforter;” and “Source of Life, Living Word, and Bond of Love.”
 FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, The United Church of Canada, Supreme Court File No. 29866, May 11, 2004, p.2.
 Moderator’s Letter to Members of Parliament on Equal Marriage, January 17, 2005, www.united-church.ca/moderator/short/2005/0117.shtm, 20/08/2005
 FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, The United Church of Canada, Supreme Court File No. 29866, May 11, 2004, pp.2 and 7.
 Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p.113.
 Bob Davies with Lela Gilbert, Portraits of Freedom (Downers Grove, Illonois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p.17.
 Moderator’s Letter to Members of Parliament on Equal Marriage, January 17, 2005, www.united-church.ca/moderator/short/2005/0117.shtm, 20/08/2005.
 Factum of the Intervener, The United Church of Canada, Court File No. 29866, May 11, 2004, p. 2
 John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual (Mission Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1976), p.95.
 Phyllis Chesler, Women & Madness (New York: Avon Books, 1972), pp.183 and 184.
 Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams, Douglas W. Pryor, Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexuality (New York: Oxford Press, 1994), p.30.
 Calgary Birth Control Association, “What Everyone Should Know About Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirited & Transgendered Youth,” undated pamphlet.
 FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, p9.4 and 6.
 Real Women of Canada, “Judges Party with Homosexual Activists,” www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2003_july_aug/article_4.html, 10/15/05.
 Wikipedia, “Egan v. Canada,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v._Canada, 11/08/05.
 Frank Browning, The Culture of Desire (New York: Crown Publishers, 1993), p.153.
 FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, The United Church of Canada, Court File No. 29866, 11 May, 2004. p 12.
 Committee on Theology and Faith, The United Church of Canada, FAITH TALK II: A DRAFT STATEMENT OF FAITH FOR DISCUSSION AND RESPONSE, January 2005.
 Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995), p.133.
 Quoted in Gregg Easter Brook, “Science and God: A Warming Trend?” Science 227, 1997, p.892.
 Robert M. Baird and M. Katherine Baird Ed. Gash Homosexuality: Debating the Issues (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 1995), pp. 31 and 32.
 “Learning From Catholic’s Change,” Out NOW! 27 June 1995, vol. 3. No. 13, p.15.
 Troy Perry, Don’t Be Afraid Anymore (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), p. 41.
 John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity For a New World (San Francisco: Harher, 2001), p.57.
 Ibid., p.230.
 James P. Hanigan, Homosexuality: The Test Case for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), p.18.
 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), p.40.
 Cited by Howard Bloom, Global Brain (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000), from Don Juan, George Bernard Shaw.
 Rudolf Bultmann, Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era, (Collection of Essays), Ed. Roger Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 186.