"Equal" is not "the same"

The "sly ways" (2 Corinthians 2:11, The Message) of Satan, who is always "[prowling] around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour," (1 Peter 5:8, NKJV) are foiled by Christian soldiers who do not bow to his deceitful teachings. Secular humanists are fond of saying that men and women are "equal." What they mean is they are "the same." There is a vast difference between two things being equal and their being the same.

For example, an ounce of lean meat and an ounce of refined sugar have roughly "equal" caloric content, but I don't think anyone would say they are "the same." A ton of bricks and ton of feathers are "equal" in weight. If they are "the same," I am sure you would just as readily agree to having a ton of bricks dropped on you as a ton of feathers.

The fact is that men and women are "equal" in value in God's economy. "There is neither...male nor female; for all are one in Christ." (Galatians 3:28, NKJV) But men and women are not "the same." Beyond the physical differences, there are recognized differences in brain chemistry, not to mention readily observable differences in temperament. God tells us that women have "...the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4, NKJV). He tells us that husbands are to "...dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life..." They are not "the same."

Desmond Morris, in his book "Intimate Behavior," (Random House, 1971) wrote about the universal sexual progression that he observed in many diverse cultures worldwide. That progression from recognition to sexual consummation, according to Morris, universally follows this pattern:

1. Eye to person. (He notices her)
2. Eye to eye. (Their eyes meet. Magic in the air.)
3. Voice to voice. (Getting to know you. No overt sexual overtones. Happens in group setting.)
4. Hand to hand. (We are a couple. This is the first “sexual” contact.)
   
5. Arm to shoulder. (This is the first signal that “I want to protect you.”)
6. Hand to waist. (Vision, deeply held beliefs, values and life goals are shared. This is an opportunity to know one another rather intimately without sexual pressure.)
7. Face to face (Mouth to mouth. Kissing occurs for the first time.)
8. Hand to head. (This signifies complete confidence. Whom do you allow to touch your head? Only those you trust completely.)
9. Eye to body. (This is not sexual in nature. “I’ve grown accustomed to the tent you live in.”)
10. Hand and mouth to breast.
    
11. Hand to genital.
12. Genital to genital.

As you can see, Morris designates the first "sexual" contact to be holding hands (step 4). I seriously doubt that secular humanists consider this to be sexual. Why? Because it fits their agenda which is expressed succinctly by a Planned Parenthood staff member:

...the goal of Planned Parenthood is to help “young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.” (Faye Wattleton, “Reproductive Rights for a More Humane World,” The Humanist, July/August 1986, p. 7.)

This is very different from the Seventh Commandment : "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14, KJV) God knows that sexual union is more than a mere physical experience. It is the engine that drives the biblical family. It makes a man and woman "one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) It creates an emotional bond that is real, no matter how much the secular humanists try to deny it.

All of the above is about bringing me to the point of this post. As reported by Jim Daly of Focus on the Family:

Last week, Cassy Herkleman was scheduled to wrestle Joel Northrup in the first round of the Iowa state high school wrestling tournament. But as you may know by now, Joel refused the match, walked off the mat and forfeited the round and his chance at a state title.

Why?

"As a matter of conscience and my faith,” he wrote in a statement, “I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner."

Joel, who is home-schooled, is also a pastor’s son. His father, Jamie, was strikingly blunt when speaking with the Des Moines Register about his son’s decision:

"We believe in the elevation and respect of women, and we don't think that wrestling a woman is the right thing to do. Body slamming and takedowns -- full contact sport is not how to do that."

[ESPN reporter] Rick Reilly was not convinced. He wrote that Joel was “wrong” to refuse the match and that “If the Northrups really wanted to ‘respect’ women, they should've encouraged their son to face her.”

Why? Because men and women are "equal," according to the prevailing cultural view. By refusing to wrestle Cassy, Joel was essentially saying, in the secular humanist view, that they were not "equals." In fact, by standing for the biblical view, Joel was not saying Cassy was not "equal" to himself, but rather that she was not "the same" as he is.

In our sex-saturated culture, the idea that two teen-agers of opposite sex should roll around on a mat, with their bodies in intimate physical contact and covered with sweat doesn't even raise an eyebrow. But given Morris's culturally universal observations about the power and meaning of physical contact between persons of opposite sex, I wonder if the secular humanists are not overlooking the obvious. Couple Morris's observations with the biblical assertions that men and women are indeed not "the same," and I think there is every reason to think that Joel did the right thing, no matter what your religion.

Did Joel disrespect Cassy, because he stood his ground where biblical truth is concerned? Or did he, rather, show deep respect for her in protecting her from making a spectacle of herself through inappropriate touching for unwed people of the opposite sex? The secular humanists, who by definition choose to value human wisdom above the divine (just as Eve did in the garden, at the behest of Satan), surely will have different answers to those questions than Joel did, standing on biblical truth. Chalk up one more for a soldier of Christ.

You can't have it both ways.

There is a cost involved with failing to take up arms against the lies of Satan. According to Chuck Colson, on his Breakpoint broadcast this morning:

In its 2003 Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court overturned Texas's ban on sodomy. Critics, I among them, warned that this precedent would open the floodgates to gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of horribles. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent, charging that Lawrence "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."

Colson goes on to say that critics of Scalia's dissent at the time said that such a position was hysterical and homophobic. Well, now the Court is having to revisit the Lawrence decision. Why? According to Colson:

The occasion for revisiting Lawrence is the revolting case of Columbia University Professor David Epstein. Epstein is charged with third-degree incest for having a sexual relationship with his daughter. What made this case stand out, apart from Epstein's Ivy League credentials, was that his daughter was 24-yers [sic] -old and, by all accounts, a consensual partner to this repugnant union.

This fact prompted William Saletan of Slate to ask a question many people desperately wanted to avoid: "If homosexuality is okay, why is incest wrong?" Saletan isn't trying to justify incest-he's merely trying to get people to articulate a reason why, in light of Lawrence and similar arguments, society should distinguish between the two.

My question is a bit different: "Where were the Christian soldiers who should have stormed the Court demanding that the wisdom of God's Commandments rule the day, rather than the politically correct nonsense that seems to have a strange hold on our courts?"

Ideas have consequences. Morality is inextricably tied to theology. We either agree with God's design for sexuality, or we abandon all pretense of any sort of moral outrage, no matter how repugnant we find a given perversion.

Spiritual warfare is not an academic exercise; it is not a battle to be fought by clerics; it is not someone's fanciful imagination. It is real. Satan's primary weapon in the war is deceit. In the case of the Lawrence decision, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States were deceived into believing that we can allow a little bit of perversion, without opening the door to every kind of perversion that the totally depraved mind of man can invent.

Soldier, it is up to you to be salt and light within your sphere of influence. Get informed about what is going on around you. Understand what the consequences of ignoring God's precepts are, so you can winsomely engage in apologetic discourse with deceived unbelievers.

It is my belief that bombarding unbelievers with Scripture references to refute their worldly views is about as effective as reading them a few lines from the phone book. But understanding God's reasons for the boundaries He has graciously provided to protect us from the consequences of our total depravity, will allow you to argue irrefutably against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age.

Failure to be thus prepared may result in your being put in the same untenable position as the SCOTUS finds itself in currently. According to Colson:

Epstein’s lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, said [as] much in a television interview: “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

While defenders of Lawrence purport to be appalled by such arguments, this is exactly what Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent. According to Justice Kennedy in Lawrence, the fact that the majority “has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral” isn’t sufficient justification for outlawing the practice. This kind of disapproval doesn’t justify an “intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

As a result of one bad decision, compromising with moral absolutes SCOTUS faces this dilemma:

If Epstein raises the Lawrence decision in pre-trial motions or on appeal, judges will be caught in a dilemma: apply Lawrence and sanction perversity or tie themselves into knots trying to distinguish what, under Lawrence, is indistinguishable.

It’s a dilemma of the Supreme Court’s making: It usurped the prerogative of the people and their elected representatives and created a hole so big that any kind of perversity could drive through. (Colson)

Remember, soldier, put on the full armor of God, including the belt of truth; the breastplate of righteousness; feet shod with the gospel of peace; the helmet of salvation; the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; the shield of faith; and above all, intercessory prayer. Know God's precepts and the implications of ignoring them, and then, sergeant, get into the fray.

Dismissed.

Planned Parenthood advises "pimp" on abortions for his underage sex slaves

If you think there is no evil our there, watch this video of a Planned Parenthood office manager advising a "pimp" about how he can have his underage prostitutes get abortions without their parents being notified.



Planned Parenthood, "The nation’s largest abortion seller received $363 million in government funding during fiscal year 2008." (Source) Your tax dollars are being used to murder innocent unborn children, and now we learn the same organization is aiding and abetting sex-traffickers who enslave young teen girls.

According to President Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, here's how this video came to be made:

The undercover operation was organized by Lila Rose of Live Action, a youth-led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion. Ms. Rose, a student at UCLA, founded Live Action in 2006.

When the news of the sting operation broke, Planned Parenthood dismissed it as a hoax. The video of the incident had been edited, they claimed, and didn’t properly reflect the full context of the discussion.

Yet, as the news began to spread and spiral downward, Woodruff’s employment was terminated.

Here is some more information about Lila Rose, a Catholic and pro-life activist, who is obviously engaged in the war against Satan and his minions in a meaningful way. Are you ready to engage the enemy, soldier?