Go to: => TOP PageWhat's New?;   ROAD MAP;   Contact Us;   Search Page;   Emmaus Ministries Page


Emmaus News

January 1999

A Friendly Word

Greetings in the Lord,

This is a three-issue mailing (December, January, and February) in order to get caught up from the December delay due to moving from Ambridge, PA, down to the Washington, DC, area.  This January issue fortuitously coincided with a conference held in the state legislative building in Annapolis, Md., on January 9 at which I spoke on dealing with the "victim" image which homosexualists are so good at promoting for themselves.  I wrote the article below to be passed out to attendees.  Readers of Emmaus News will note many themes from previous articles put to work here.

The article points out the strategy by which persons who want the truth of the matter can (and eventually will) win the public arena back for spiritual, moral, and sexual sanity.  So I urge readers to use this material in local situations.

We must distinguish between homosexual persons who understand that they are in sexual bondage, many of whom are leaving the homosexual lifestyle, and, on the other hand, those who want to believe that they have either made a rational choice to be that way or that they are born that way.  So I use the term "homosexualist" to indicate anyone who promotes the homosexual lifestyle as though approved by God and as a healthy, "mainstream America", normal way to live.  A homosexualist may or may not be engaging in homosexual behavior.

December 1, I became the director of men's ministry at Transformation Christian Ministries (TCM), one of the many "ex-gay" ministries helping persons exit the homosexual lifestyle.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (P-FOX - no relation to E. Fox) which works with TCM is a new and expanding ministry, assisting relatives and friends of homosexual strugglers to provide support groups based on truth and compassion. 

I have purchased a house in Alexandria, VA, from which Emmaus Ministries will continue to produce Emmaus News and other apologetics materials, a project right in line with the goals of Transformation and P-FOX.

Faithfully in Christ,
             Earle Fox

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Our Reasonable God

"Victim" or Victor?

Contents:
1. The "Victim" Strategy
2. The "Victor" Strategy
3. Opening the Vulnerability Door
4. Honest Pluralism
5. Honest Critique
6. The Moral High Ground
7. The "Elijah Test" 

- 1. The "Victim" Strategy   -

The killing last year of the young homosexual person, Matthew Shephard, was a tragic event, but like the AIDS crisis itself, it was a boone to homosexualist strategists.

If that seems an unkind and cynical thing to say, one need only read After the Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, who "wrote the book" on homosexualist strategy.  Kirk and Madsen, highly trained in psychology and sociology, brazenly propose to manipulate the American public.  They use the term "propaganda" of their own work, and spell out the methods they have used so successfully.

The "victim" strategy is a two-edged sword: (1) paint themselves very warmly and humanly as victims, and (2) demonize the opposition.  An abusee implies an abuser.

"Bracketing", described in Kirk and Madsen, is a media method of demonizing by association.  The target opposition is shown in the worst possible light by starting with a scene in which the alleged victims (homosexuals) are being abused by persons known to be abusive, such as Nazis.  A second scene then shows the target making "abusive" remarks about the abused class of persons (such as suggesting that homosexuality is not approved by God), followed by a  third scene, again with a Nazi abuser.  Without quite saying so, the target in the middle is made to look like a Nazi.  So, to avoid being called a Nazi, we shut down our critique.

After the Matthew Shephard killing, the Exodus (and other) ministries were likewise likened to those who had killed Shephard, even accused of having promoted such actions.  The killing provided good political copy for the homosexualist PR campaign.

The charge is deliberate propaganda nonsense, but because the media is willing to air such comments, usually with no critical comment or response from the target (e. g., ex-gay ministries), the impression is successfully given that persons who think homosexuality is wrong are "homophobic", or as Kirk and Madsen have it, "homo-haters".

This barrage by the homosexualist media has gone largely unanswered in public forums, so that most persons will not criticize homosexuality for fear of being labeled "homophobic".  Just a "frisson" of a doubt (as Kirk and Madsen say), has been implanted so that instead of speaking out, people who ought to know better remain aloof from the debate.  Kirk and Madsen let us know that that is all the success they need.  As often observed, the only thing necessary for evil people to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

The homosexualist strategy, by the testimony of their own chief strategists, is mind-control and brainwashing, and must be called what it is -- deliberate deceit. Charles Socarides, MD, has noted that the techniques use by homosexualists, led by Kirk and Madsen, are almost point for point the same as those used by the Chinese Communists to control their population.  [I have gone into much more detail in these matters in Homosexuality: Good and Right in the Eyes of God? ]

The above would not work but for the other half of the "victim" strategy, i.e., their success in telling personal and painful stories picturing themselves as just ordinary folk who are victims of abuse and of circumstance.  Telling personal stories is the consistent mode of presenting their case.  The reason for this strategy is not that they have better stories than others, but simply because it is very difficult in public to challenge with fact and logic a personal and painful story.  A challenger looks like an abuser.

Ground rules of discussion are thus deliberately set up to favor sentimentality over fact or logic because neither fact or logic will support the homosexual lifestyle.  [See my booklet, Dialogue in Darkness on the subversion of ground rules.]
 

- 2. The Victor Strategy -

The best defense is still a good offense.  The effective way to deal with the victim strategy is a strong and affirmative campaign to reestablish honest rules of engagement for public debate -- putting the focus back where it belongs -- off the "victim" and back onto the evidence.

The basic issue is not victimhood, but the subversion of truth and the ground rules of discussion (as per Romans 1:18 ff.) -- to turn you, their opponent, into their victim.  The defense against becoming a victim of the "victim" strategy is for oneself to become a  victor.

Understanding and enforcing honest rules of engagement is the way to becoming an honest victor.  The last thing the homosexualist strategists want is open discussion based on fact and logic -- because there is not a teaspoon of objective evidence which will survive peer review and support the notions either that God approves of homosexual behavior or that such behavior is a safe way to live.  The evident truth is that God does not approve, and evident reasons for His disapproval are (1) that the homosexual lifestyle is a compulsive and lethal addiction, and (2) that the homosexual image is contrary to the Imago Dei in which we are made, male and female (Genesis 1:26-28).
 

- 3. Opening the Vulnerability Door -

Anyone engaged in contentious debate should memorize the following 2-liner:

You and I are on opposite sides of the homosexual issue, but if the evidence shows that homosexuality is good and right in the eyes of God, and that the homosexual lifestyle is a healthy way to live, I will stand with you.

But if the evidence were to show that God does not approve, or that the homosexual lifestyle is not healthy, would you not be willing to reconsider your position?

In two sentences, the issue is framed and the ground rules set.

Most discussion today takes place between "liberals" (pseudo-liberals who do not know how to liberate) and "conservatives" (pseudo-conservatives who do not know how to conserve).

"Liberals" have abandoned the quest for truth, because they think there is none, and pursue instead a quest for feeling good.  "Conservatives" think there is a truth -- and that they have it all.  Clearly these two groups are never going to communicate.

Honest liberals seek to liberate by setting us free to seek truth yet unknown.  Honest conservatives conserve truth that has been garnered over long centuries at great cost.  Liberals and conservatives are united in a common concern for truth, and work together in a healthy culture.

In any discussion today, one must ask: "Why are we having this discussion?"  If it is not to seek the truth of the matter, there is no reason to proceed.  If the quest is not for truth, it will disintegrate into some form of brainwashing and power struggle.

One might also ask up front, "Do we have any infallible persons among us?"  If there are, then discussion is not needed.  We need only wait upon the infallible pronouncements to come forth.  But lacking infallible participants, we are cast back onto long established rules of engagement -- epitomized in the West by the rise of science and by the rise of due process as in English Common Law, and in the American democratic republic under God.  Persons, on the other hand, who subvert honest and open discussion based on fact and logic indicate that they think themselves to be so infallible that they need not trouble themselves with the hard and painful work of honest and public truth-seeking.

In short, there is no mystery to  what makes intelligent discussion.  The mystery is why we in America have, allowed persons with no visible interest in truth to commandeer the public microphones and rewrite the ground rules for discussion of public policy.  [Again, I have dealt with this at length in Homosexuality: Good and Right in the Eyes of God?In any event, we can quickly drive a spike into the foolishness which has taken hold of public discussion.

But it will not be painless.  It is dishonest on our own part to ask the "other side" to make themselves vulnerable to the possibility that they might be wrong if we are not first willing to do so ourselves.  The first line of the 2-liner above makes us vulnerable.  I do not want to be telling untruths to anyone.  If the other side has something I need to learn, I want to learn it.  If God indeed approves of homosexuality, if that is a safe way to live one's life, then I will side with them.  With Gamaliel, we surely do not wish to find ourselves fighting God. .
 

- 4. Honest Pluralism -

But how, then, do we know who is right?

By creating an arena in which all sides are free to express their viewpoints, and in which there is a common agreement to pursue the facts and to reason carefully from the facts to our conclusions.  We must have, in Biblical terms, teachable spirits.  Persons with a "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up...." attitude have an unteachable spirit, and are not qualified to participate in discussion of public policy -- because public policy deeply affects the lives of countless persons who cannot be there to defend themselves.  Persons discussing public policy are thus under the highest obligation to be truth-seekers and truth-speakers -- at any cost to themselves.

Only as we make ourselves vulnerable, admitting the possibility, however small, that we might be wrong, that we might have something to learn from the "other side", can we ask the other side to be vulnerable with respect to us.  Anything else dishonors both God (whose stated and demonstrated policy is "Come, let us reason together...,") and the persons with whom we discuss.  To make oneself vulnerable in pursuit of truth is to honor both God and neighbor.

Creating open public discussion based on objective truth is the way of the cross for the intellect and for public policy.  We give up the right to "be right", and seek instead just to tell the truth, whatever it may be, allowing truth and the Lord of truth to speak for themselves.  That is the very meaning of the objectivity of truth and of the due process enshrined in science and the western civil law tradition.

Honest pluralism does not tell us that truth is "relative", and that we can therefore each have our own personal truth about life.  Rather, honest pluralism, built into the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, tells us that truth is singular but that viewpoints are plural.  Rather obvious.

But plural viewpoints can be in conflict.  When they are (honest pluralism tells us), holders of each viewpoint have equal freedom to enter the public debate without fear of coercion or reproach -- to find out whether one's viewpoint is true or false, right or wrong.  No one will be maligned merely for the holding of a view.  Any view, no matter how wrong, can be offered, but everyone is free to critique the view on its merits.  Those who lose the vote will not be shot at dawn, they are free to return another time to present their (perhaps new and improved) view again.

Truth is singular, viewpoints are plural.  The arena of discussion is not to celebrate diversity in the silly contemporary sense -- relativizing all views into innocuous mush.  The arena of discussion has the stern task of sorting out truth from untruth, morality from immorality.  And, in the case of civil law, imposing the results with coercive force.

The whole structure of our democratic republic is built on the premise of honest pluralism, and will not survive the loss of it.  Only by that process can the imposition of coercive force (the realm of civil government) be tamed and rationalized for the benefit of the people.  The uproar over homosexuality is only one of the current cases of need for reasonable discussion to protect us all from unjust and irrational imposition of coercive force, as will happen if homosexualists gain control of government.
 

  - 5. Honest Critique - .

Homosexualists often spike our guns by a clever use of guilt.  One is made to feel abusive and mean-spirited for even raising the issue of homosexuality, so we do not say anything at all, or say it so mealy-mouthed that no one pays attention.  Silencing the opposition is the aim of "bracketing" and other mind-control techniques.

However, I am not abusing homosexual persons by saying that homosexuality is a lethal and compulsive addiction.  That, after all, could be true.  Neither are they abusing me by replying that homosexuality is healthy and approved by God.  That also could be true.  We each have the right and obligation to state our cases clearly so that the various positions may intelligently be examined on their merits.

What is abusive of all concerned is subversion of the rules of engagement so that no healthy debate can happen to sort out the truth.  Neither pseudo-liberals nor pseudo-conservatives promote honest discussion, and both are abusive of the common good.

So we must insist on the second half of the opening 2-liner -

But if the evidence were to show that God does not approve, or that the homosexual lifestyle is not healthy, would you not be willing to reconsider your position?

Our first task is not to convince the other side about homosexuality, but to promote honest discussion based on fact and logic, and let truth and the Lord of truth do their own convincing.

St. Paul gives us in Romans 1:18 ff. a description of the Fall in three stages.  First comes suppression of truth.  That leads to idolatry, trying to make the creature do the work of the Creator -- an impossible and self-defeating task.  Which in turn catapults us into compulsive, self-destructive activities, among which Paul lists homosexuality.

Paul describes precisely what happens in the  homosexualist program.  The subversion of truth (as per Kirk and Madsen) leads to a reliance on something other than God, i.e., to false dependency relationships, and then to compulsive and self-destructive behavior -- from which we can be rescued only by the intervention of God Himself -- the only reliable dependency relationship.
 

- 6. The Moral High Ground -

As necessary as it is, reasoned logical debate will not by itself win the battle for sanity in the public arena.  Reason and evidence make  little dent in the armor of those defending homosexuality (a situation precisely paralleled in the present presidential impeachment debate).

That is because "liberals" believe they hold the moral high ground -- or at least they have convinced the public that they do.  Their ability to create the illusion of holding the moral high ground has won the day for the homosexualist cause.  Moral conviction, right or wrong, will always win over fact and logic.  But the view which unites fact and logic along with morality and compassion will win over all others.

Moral ground for the American public has come to mean the "nice", compassionate, pseudo-forgiving way which imposes no burden of stern righteousness.  "Liberals" have been able to make "conservatives" look mean-spirited for their concern both for moral righteousness and for evidence.

Without the law of God, however, there is no moral law, no purpose for existence.  An accidental world can have no moral principles.  All decisions are morally arbitrary and capricious.  Public discussions become dog-fights.  So, despite the popular illusion of morality without God, a Godless world is an amoral world.  But because homosexualists have successfully pictured the law of God as mean-spirited, the law of God has lost the vote in public policy discussion.

The fact is that the medical and psychological evidence (despite a cowardly AMA and APA) wholly and totally support the law of God concerning homosexual behavior.  Homosexual behavior is so self-destructive that that average homosexual loses about 40% of his or her lifespan -- before AIDS is factored in.  AIDS then reduces the lifespan another 7% or so.  It makes no more sense to approve of homosexuality than it would to approve of one's child playing in the toilet, and for about the same reasons.

The primary abusers of homosexual persons are thus the homosexual persons themselves, and by a wide margin.  Only an ignorant or loveless person would insist on promoting such a lifestyle as good and right.

So the morality of God is far more compassionate than that of the homosexualist.  Only a malicious God would deliberately create persons who would compulsively destroy themselves.  God says "no" to homosexuality, and the empirical medical and other evidence tells us why God says "no".
 

- 7. The "Elijah Test" -

Elijah asked (I Kings 18:209 ff.), "How long with you go limping with two different opinions?  If the Lord is God, follow Him, but if Baal, then follow him."  That is an appeal to logic.  He then proposed a put-up or shut-up empirical test to decide just which of the two candidates was in fact God.

According to Elijah and to consistent Biblical witness, God is willing to make Himself vulnerable, to rest His case before us on an open test of the truth, winner take all.  Isaiah 40-50 gives God's means for discerning the true God from the false gods.  The true God will be able to keep His word, the false gods will not.  All very logical and all very practical.  And not at all abusive.

God holds both the moral and the compassionate high ground.  He also holds the  intellectual high ground of fact and logic.  He alone is able to combine all four together, and He knows how to win.

So the "Elijah test" for today is the same -- Christians must do as God does, make themselves vulnerable to an open test of the truth, and let truth and the Lord of truth prove their own case.

Our spiritual maturity requires it, for only so can we honor God, and only so can we rightly ask others to enter into that open arena of honest discovery, into which God calls us -- the very arena of both reason and revelation.

************

Quote of the Month

"We begin our public affections in our families.
No cold
[family]
relation is a zealous citizen."

- Edmund Burke -

*****************************************

Go to: => TOP Page; => EMMAUS NEWS Library; => Politics Library; => ROAD MAP

Copyright, Earle Fox 1998