Reversal

There's a warning to each of us in 2nd Timothy 3, a passage that can inspire us to not only identify sinfulness in culture, but in our own individual lives:
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

Certainly we can read that list and lament over these sins that will proliferate in the "last days."  But, we can also use these verses as a plumb line or measuring stick for our own lives.  We can seek to identify these errant attitudes and activities that are disobedient to God, confess them as sin, and humble ourselves before God, releasing the Holy Spirit to cleanse us and to correct our path.  God did not send His Son to make us feel better about ourselves; no, He has come to show us how to die to ourselves and take His identify upon ourselves.

+++++

In Isaiah 5, we see a warning against confusion over what is right and wrong, and encounter a
passage that provides clarity in the area of sinfulness:
18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of vanity, And sin as if with a cart rope;
19 That say, "Let Him make speed and hasten His work, That we may see it; And let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, That we may know it."
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!

Well, there seems to be a whole new definition of "wickedness" that's floating around, thanks to an article in Rolling Stone magazine.  In a culture of moral relativism, where the lines between good and evil, right and wrong have been blurred, the clarity of what is "wicked" has been expressed in this way, according to an analysis at The Federalist website:

'The wicked’ is anyone who stands in the way of progress on equal rights for LGBTQ people: politicians, activists, lawyers, some people of faith, and plenty more with no religious affiliation whatsoever.

That's actually from a follow-up analysis by Bre Payton at The Federalist, who had been chided by the author of the original Rolling Stone article - a profile of wealthy gay donor Tim Gill, who has been known for donating millions of dollars to promote pro-homosexual causes. In the original article, Gill had been quoted as saying: "‘We’re going into the hardest states in the country,’ he says. ‘We’re going to punish the wicked.’"

Payton contends that indeed this vitriol is directed at Christians, who hold to a Biblical view of sexuality:

Ah, so “the wicked'” whom Gill says need to be “punished” are indeed Christians, as well as everyone who agrees with them. Anyone who stands up for a Christian’s right to live in accordance with his or her religious beliefs will also be targeted for harassment in public and the legal system. Further, he clearly defines “wickedness” as adhering to centuries-old Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) beliefs on human identity and sexuality. To Gill, orthodox Christian beliefs comprise “wickedness.” Thanks for clearing that up.

The activities of the so-called "wicked" are outlined here, in a quote from the Rolling Stone rebuttal:

‘The wicked’ refers to the lawmakers who, in response to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage, have introduced dozens of so-called religious freedom restoration bills that would give legal cover for individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

Payton offers some insight into these religious freedom restoration bills:

They are not, as liberals and those in the media like to paint them, bigoted, anti-gay pieces of legislation, nor do they legalize discrimination. As Sean Davis explained, these laws simply ask judges to use a balancing test when ruling on religious freedom cases.

Davis explains in an article at The Federalist website that "the government may only substantially burden the free exercise of religion of a person or organization if the government 1) has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) is using the least restrictive means possible to further that compelling interest.

This will be something to perhaps watch when the case of Jack Phillips goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Phillips declined to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony in Colorado, and his actions have been ruled against by the Colorado Supreme Court.  This will be the first case of its kind to go before the high court.

Isn't it a strange reversal?  Now, actions taken by Christians in accordance with our deeply held beliefs, rooted in Scripture, are being called "wicked."  This raises an important question:  so who gets to decide?  There has to be some prevailing authority when you are dealing with morality.  We are trending toward mob rule - the majority gets to set the boundaries, but the morals and rules change depending on who has the power.   That is why we need objective authority - that is why the teachings of Scripture are so important.  We know what is right because God says that it is.

The progression is something that I have discussed with guests throughout the years - this particular sin, of homosexuality has attempted to gain tolerance for years.  It was once a play for tolerance - just let them live their lives, even if you disagree.  Then it was acceptance - they wanted to have their behavior accepted, or endorsed.  Then it became forced acceptance.  Now, we have entered the realm where the game is "punishment."  There are those, such as Mr. Gill, who want to punish the "wicked," i.e. those who do not gladly accept their practice of behavior that the Bible deems to be sinful.

And, there are those in the Church who too often have played along. That's why you have a dangerous and deceptive movement, even among so-called "evangelical" leaders and churches, that advocate LGBTQ "inclusion."  We have to be discerning about this type of philosophy that infiltrates the body of Christ.  Jesus is certainly "inclusive" - He invites all, but He calls people to come to Him on His terms, to change them - He has a clear definition of sin and wickedness, and loves people into a relationship with Him so that they may be set free from the power of sin, which leads to death.  Homosexuality is a sin; so are adultery, fornication, lust, greed, gossip, and slander. He prescribes that sin is dealt with through repentance, not with acceptance and bold proclamation. When we "own" our sins, we are not to trumpet them; rather, we come to Him in humility and allow Him to forgive and restore us.  We must identify sinfulness in the way that the Bible does and not shy away from calling out sin so that Christ's forgiveness might flow.