Having reviewed both the criticism and approval of the family model God gave at the dawn of civilisation in the previous five Q&A’s, let us now look at Scriptures that show how necessary the family is in a well-ordered society and how it will be in the soon-coming Kingdom of God on earth when Jesus Christ returns.

In our booklet “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families”, we read the following on page 18 under the heading “The Christian Family”:

“As the Bible gives clear instructions as to the individual roles and functions of husbands and wives, it also explains the duties and responsibilities of fathers and mothers toward their children, and of the children toward their parents.

“As we have far too many marriage problems, we also have FAR too many family problems. Too often, parents know little about proper parenting, and rebellious children are the result. Children who are victims of divorce are expected to be resilient when someone they love suddenly disappears from their life. More often than not, they grow up with multiple mothers, fathers, and grandparents due to remarriage, and yet are left to fend for themselves too much of the time, because no one has time for them.

“We read, in fact, a startling and sobering prophecy in the Bible for the very last days—just prior to the return of Christ—that addresses the tragic reality of broken families. Sadly, this situation HAS also affected the attitudes of true Christians, and God says that unless these conditions change, something terrible will happen to this planet.”  

This booklet was written in 2002 and problems with family matters have worsened as we have seen with continued empowerment of minority interests who have little or no interest in promoting marriage and the family unit.

In Colossians 1:15-16 when talking about Jesus Christ, we read: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”

We see here that God created all things through His Son, Jesus Christ.  In Genesis 1:26-28 we read:

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”

This clearly shows that God the Father and Jesus Christ were both involved in the creation, and man was made in their image.

Genesis 2:21-25 shows that Adam and Eve were man and wife and that a man was to leave the family home and be married:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

There is no suggestion anywhere in the Bible that there were to be more than two sexes – just male and female who were to become man and wife.   Today, there are those who would have you believe that there are over 100 different gender identities.  It was reported in January 2021 that a BBC programme aimed at 9-12-year-olds included the astonishing claim that there are ‘over 100 gender identities’. The film, “Identity – Understanding Sexual and Gender Identities”, is being offered on the corporation’s website as part of its relationships and sex education package.  It comes despite Government guidance published last year which advised schools to exercise caution when teaching children about gender issues.   This just shows how even a national broadcaster, of long-standing, can be biased when it takes a stance on the matter of gender identity which can then affect the traditional and godly family.   

The article about the BBC went on to say that “The programme, which features children asking adults about sexuality and gender on behalf of their peers, suggests the different identities include ‘bi-gender’, ‘gender-queer’ and ‘pansexual’.”  The film also tells children that becoming transgender is “a way to be ‘happy’ while making no mention of the growing legal and medical concerns about the rising number of children saying they want to change gender.”

The BBC said teachers were “strongly advised” to watch the film before viewing it with their pupils.

God says there are male and female only; the BBC and many others say that there are 100 different gender identities, depending on who is making the claim.   Who do we believe?  God who is the great Creator of heaven and earth or fallible man who makes up his own mind contrary to his Creator?

In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus, the Creator along with His Father, had this to say about a question that the Pharisees put to Him: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together [or “bound”], let not man separate.’”

And so, Jesus confirmed that marriage was God-ordained.   A man and his wife and children from that union was a family.

In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul teaches about marriage and the husband’s and wife’s responsibilities, and mentions the comparison with Christ and the Church which shows why marriage and the family are so important.   Satan knows this and that is why, as the prince of the power of the air (see Ephesians 2:2), he is broadcasting his opposition to those who are members of the Church who will marry Christ at His return (see Revelation 19:7-9).

There are many other Scriptures that further show how a family is to behave and function which is for their own good (see Exodus 20:12; Proverbs 1:8; 6:20; 15:20; 20:7; 22:6; Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 3:4; and many others).

CONCLUSION:

The attack on the institution of the family is being brought about by a concerted effort by many in the education of the young, and not so young, including by many politicians and a growing number in all the many facets of the media and even some mainstream churches, who “go with the flow” rather than with biblical injunction.   That’s a heady mix of influencers and pressure groups who mold and shape society to their way of thinking.  It does seem in some cases, that once a group has achieved their goals, they are then emboldened and then try and stifle any further discussion on the matter.  

Schools, colleges and universities have access to the minds of their pupils from a young age where they can be molded and shaped according to society’s immoral and God-defying culture.

In her book “Aware, Not Woke” Noelle Mering makes these interesting comments on pages 73/74 in the chapter “Will Over Reason: “Rather than conforming ourselves to him, we have made ourselves into our own gods around whom God must adjust.   Instead of progress, this is the worst form of cultural regression.   It is as if the scientific community returned to the pre-Copernicum thinking of the sun revolving around the earth.

“In order to disobey God, we must first diminish him.   We will not adore a being who is our subordinate.  We don’t stand in awe of what is beneath us.   Once diminished, devotion to him becomes unnecessary but unreasonable.   This is why for so many today, the Christian faith seems to be a sign of weakness, or even stupidity.

“In ensuring God revolves around us, we conceive of him as being what he is not, and in that void, we make gods of ourselves.   This is at the heart of the will’s triumph over reason, over nature and over God.     What we desire becomes right by the sheer fact of desiring it.   It is now we, not he, who know all, love all, are all powerful.   If we keep God around at all, it is for the sake of sentimentalism or custom.   Either way, it will not last.”

Those are powerful words about the current woke culture where they seem to insist that God must bend according to the will of man.  It is stupidity on a massive scale that will ultimately fail.   And those who want to reduce God to having to bend to the will of puny man are those who also want to dismantle and dismiss the importance of the family as we have known it over the last 6,000 years.

There can be little doubt that there are many who are on a quest to try and eliminate the family as we know it—that which has been the hallmark and bedrock of a stable society down through the ages. God who created mankind in the first place, set out the right way of living which is clearly revealed in the pages of the Bible.   However, the world’s best-selling book is probably one of the least read or understood and many just ignore its profound wisdom. The reason is that Satan has blinded their minds so that in most cases they CANNOT see and understand. 

In Hosea 4:6 we read a prophecy where God levels charges against Israel which also applies today:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”

In the previous few verses are other charges laid against Israel both then, and now, for their lack of restraint and disobedience.   Surely, we can see how this applies in our lands today.

The divorce rate in most of the English-speaking nations continues to be high but because there are so many doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with the institutions of marriage and the family, but the problem is always with the people concerned, albeit sometimes when it may not be their fault.

The institution of family is perfect!   It is perfect because God created a man and a woman and instructed them to be a family and raise children.   Any problems with any family are because of the individuals involved, not the institution itself.

Always a good question to ask is “What are the fruits?” and in connection with all of the immorality and God-defying attitudes today, the answer will be obvious for those who have eyes to see.

All the information that we have looked at in these 6 Q&A’s are but a drop in the ocean, but they should give us a reasonable overview of the parlous state our nations are in.  Many people around the world may not always fully appreciate how far this assault on the God-ordained family has gone, along with many other ungodly practices.   Those of us in the Church of God need to make sure that we are not taken in by any of the practices which society allows, and in many cases encourages.   We are fighting an uphill battle as a sodomite-type culture continually approves of wrong behaviour, and we know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah!

In the soon-coming Kingdom of God, true, right and good governance will be the order of the day under the righteous rule of Jesus Christ and His government here on earth.   That is the future that all of God’s people must be looking forward to, but in the meantime, all of those who have been called and chosen by God need to ensure that we are following His righteous ways and recognising the stupidity of man’s current governance.

We know that Satan and his demons want to cause doubt and distress to those who are being, and have been called and chosen.  By sowing seeds of doubt about the institution of the God-ordained family, these spiritual forces reduce the importance of it in so many people’s minds. In our Q&A, “Where will the marriage supper between Christ and His Church be held?” we read:

“Revelation 19:7-9 states the following about the marriage between Christ and His Church: ‘Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb [Jesus Christ, compare Revelation 5:1-14] has come, and His wife [the Church, compare Ephesians 5:31-32] has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’”” 

Here we read of the importance to God of the marriage supper and to the future Family of God.   Undermining marriage, as society now dictates, will in many people’s minds reduce and possibly eliminate the need for people to be married at all at this time, and this will inevitably impact their view of marriage.   Such people could have a hard time understanding the marriage supper of the Lamb! 

We mentioned our booklet “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families” earlier and it seems appropriate to finish this Q&A with the final paragraphs on page 36 from this booklet under the heading “Use These Keys!”:

“We have seen from the Bible the vital keys to happy marriages and families. God wants mankind to apply His perfect laws for our own good. In fact, if we do, God will be in our marriages and in our families, guiding and protecting us as we seek to follow His lead. In Isaiah 66:2, God promises to help us, if we have an attitude pleasing to Him, ‘But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word.’

“In the book of Malachi, God takes special note of those who fear or respect Him and who esteem His name. Consider what God says to those people, ‘‘“…And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him”’’ (Malachi 3:17). God is revealed in the Bible as our Father (cp. Matthew 6:9; 23:9). He wants His family to be happy, and the way for us to do that is to apply His keys revealed to us for this tremendous purpose.

“We have been given an awesome privilege of knowing HOW we can better our marriage and family relationships. But with knowledge comes responsibility! We need to ACT upon what we know! Rather than being forgetful hearers or readers, let’s become DOERS of the Word of God (James 1:22–25). And if we do that, the product will be happy and successful relationships, and our marriages and families will stabilize and will last.

“It’s up to us now to respond to God’s challenge—are we going to apply God’s Word in our lives, or not? Our very physical and spiritual survival—as well as the survival of our families—will depend on it!”

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

In the 4^th part of this Q&A, we started to look at those who are committed to, and promote, the institution of the God-ordained family.   Let us continue to review this much more positive attitude towards the biblical family environment which is the bedrock of a stable society.

Quoting selectively from the USA website concernedwomen, we see that they are concerned about:

1.    The disrespect for and devaluation of the family and for the unique contribution of fathers and mothers. The attempt to deny biological distinctions between men and women.

2.    Sexual promiscuity, cohabitation and sexually transmitted diseases.

3.    The alarming increase in violence in American households, including same-sex and opposite-sex partner assaults, spousal assaults, and child and elder abuse.

And they are working to see:

1.    The family esteemed as the bedrock institution of society consisting of individuals related by blood, marriage (the legal union of one man and one woman), birth, or adoption. The respect for the distinctiveness of men and women.

2.    Society value and respect marriage, encourage sexual abstinence before marriage and educate on the dangers of promiscuity.

3.    An end to violence within households, especially the sexual abuse of children, while reinforcing the importance and autonomy of healthy families.

And, importantly, they are doing this from a biblical viewpoint, which is encouraging to see.

In his article “In defence of family life” in January 2023, Niall Gooch wrote about a new study investigating the financial costs of having children.

“There is something profoundly wrong-headed about the whole endeavour of trying to evaluate the good of family life in economic terms, or to treat the raising of children as simply one option among many in the great lifestyle marketplace. And yet many people persist with doing so. 

“More fundamentally, some things in life are, and should be, set apart from the realm of price and economic calculation. I am not among those social conservatives who are completely disdainful of the need for growth and prosperity, but it is bordering on immoral to insist that a parent’s responsibility to an abstraction like GDP supersedes their natural and healthy desire — and responsibility — to be closely involved in the raising of their own children. It is, after all, a well-established finding in social science that most women would like to spend more time with their children in the early years.

“This is an entirely reasonable and wise wish. The family is at the heart of our civilisation. As the site of the raising of the next generation, it is crucial to our ongoing survival and flourishing. It precedes all our political and economic arrangements and it will, hopefully, outlast them. At its best it is a place of unconditional love and rootedness. This is what we mean when we talk about Home. It is where we learn the arts of humanity: compromise, forgiveness, tolerance, humour. It is where we find consolation and rest among those whose bonds with us go deeper than choice or shared interests. The value of this way of life is literally immeasurable. 

“The weakening of the family does have consequences. Consider how contemporary culture, especially those parts of it entangled with social media, is increasingly febrile and antagonistic. A special status attaches to ‘safety’, understood not in the traditional sense of physical protection from harm, but as the right to be insulated from strong challenges to personal opinions or conceptions of the world. Commentators often speculate about how this has come about. No doubt the demand for a ‘safe space’ is often made cynically, to intimidate opponents. But equally it seems that many people do genuinely experience questioning of their worldview as an attack on themselves. 

“A society that wishes to remain open and wealthy must pay attention to the preconditions of liberty. Robust families which take care of their own as far as possible, minimising reliance on the state, are one of those preconditions. Rushing parents back into the workplace, to leave their small children with strangers for eight hours a day, and leaving them little time for informal caring responsibilities or community involvement, is almost certainly a false economy.

“There remain, finally, the human truths about the relative importance of work and family. There is nothing to compare with watching your children take their first steps or perform in their first play, or finally master reading. These things have no conceivable monetary value. It’s not your colleagues who will look after you in your old age. Your headstone is unlikely to feature glowing personal tributes to your professional life. I think often of a simple inscription I saw above a grave many years ago: ‘To a devoted father, a loving husband & loyal friend.’ Which of us, when our time comes, could really hope for more than that?”

As we pointed out before, some of these are certainly worthwhile comments, but they also show how difficult it might be to carry them out, since our governmental and economic systems, all being inspired and controlled by Satan, make this often impossible. But again, we can try to do the best under a corrupt and deeply ungodly government and in a God-defying evil and rotten society. 

Some years ago, Rita Kramer wrote a book  “In Defense of the Family,” and Chester E. Finn reviewed this and reported as follows: 

“At once stern and affectionate, (Rita Kramer) harbors what many will deem old-fashioned views, namely, that an authentic family consists of husband, wife, and children, and that raising the children is the foremost responsibility of the parents, not something to be done for them by public or private agencies while the adults engage in other pursuits. Her book, however, is not an exercise in finger-wagging or tradition-mongering. Rather, Mrs. Kramer’s image of the proper ordering of family and society is grounded in her understanding of child development, of human psychology, and of the requisites for the emergence of an autonomous young adult as a responsible and productive member of democratic society who will in time become a competent parent of the next generation.

“To state her thesis simply, the successful development of the child requires the sustained and active involvement of both parents. This does not mean entrusting the child to the care of well-chosen professionals; it means looking after the child oneself. And those doing the looking-after must act like his parents, not his buddies…

“Does a child grow up with the sense of being protected in a world that makes sense?  Such a beginning provides the basis for the flexibility of response that will help him learn and overcome difficulties in later life. Such parents are able to let the child go little by little as he indicates a need and an ability to move out on his own. They instil conscience rather than dependency. The paradox is that only by remaining strong, authority figures can… help their child become independent. He learns from what they are, what they do, what it is to be an adult.

“The centrality of the parents and the stability of the family have several corollaries. Formal institutions, notably the schools, are to play supporting rather than leading roles in the drama of child-rearing. If parents attend to their child’s values and character, if they assume responsibility for sex education and moral development, the schools can concentrate on cognitive skills and subject matter. This is desirable, both because intellectual development is something that schools can do well (and that parents seldom can) and because the controversies surrounding such curricular and pedagogical matters are far less fractious than those involving issues of faith and morals.”

Again, we would not agree with everything stated above, especially with the idea that parents can seldom help with the intellectual development of the child. That concept seems to be dead-wrong. It also overlooks the terrible and God-defying role which schools are playing in far too many circumstances. 

That’s quite a defence, if one was needed, about the necessity and need for a properly constructed family as God ordained.   Her supposed “old-fashioned views” are nothing of the sort; that is a tag that so-called “progressives” like to use in a derogatory way to support their own man-made conclusions that they arrived at where the teachings of the Creator God are ignored or not even considered.   After all, man thinks that he knows best in all things including redefining the family unit.   What a lesson these people will learn in the future!

Finally, in this section, we will quote an article headed “The Decline of the Traditional Family and the Threat to Democracy” by John W. Whitehead, which is a robust support of the God-ordained family and we will quote from this article as follows:

“The traditional family–a married man and woman with children–is in decline, even as lip service to ‘family values’ is being paid to its importance from both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. Under the swirling current of this double-speak, the entire social fabric of American culture is being upended as a result of deteriorating family life and the conditions that undermine care for our children.

“These startling conclusions are backed by a recent report of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The report concludes that households will move even further away from the family-structure model of a stay-at-home mother, working father, and children. [As we have pointed out before, this rather sad development is many times dictated by economic realities, not necessarily by choice or preference. It is simply not desirable to become homeless while insisting that a mother must stay at home rather than fulfilling the need of supplementing the family income]. 

“Because of divorce, cohabitation (unmarried adults living together) and single parenthood, a majority of families rearing children in the 2lst Century will probably not include the children’s two parents. Moreover, most households will not include children at all. ‘Marriage has declined as the central institution under which households are organized and children are raised,’ commented Tom Smith, author of the report. In fact, a growing proportion of children has been born outside of marriage.

“These structural changes in the family have obviously led to a reassessment of values. And, as the study illustrates, the U.S. has not reached a peak of modernity. More changes, thus, are in store.

“Values have shifted in several areas. For example, ‘the climb in divorce and liberalization of divorce laws,’ the report states, ‘went along with public support for the idea that divorce was preferable to continuing failed marriages.’ [Sadly, if a marriage has failed indeed, perhaps due to adultery and other sins, divorce might very well be the preferable and only alternative.] Moreover, greater tolerance of premarital sex coincided with gains in teenage sexual activity, cohabitation and non-marital birth. In brief, changes in structure and values have gone hand-in-hand over the last generation to transform the American family in both forms and norms.

“However, the effect of this transformation may have other consequences for society. In 1952, a California appeals court touched on what the impact may be:

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity initiative that distinguishes a free people.

“From antiquity, the family has served as the basic building block of free societies. Likewise, we find a strong emphasis on the high estate of parenthood and history. Wherever we turn in the ancient world, to Judaism, to Greece or to Rome, the family structure has been revered. And long before foreign invaders toppled any of those great societies, they collapsed from within, due largely to the deterioration of their family structures.

“The family, not the state or the school, therefore, has been primarily responsible for teaching lessons of independence and proper conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If, as we now see, these family functions begin to break down, then everything else we cherish is in peril.”

You will see that we have deliberately underlined the phrase “has not reached a peak of modernity. More changes, thus, are in store” as structural changes in the family have obviously led to a reassessment of values.  That was prophetic as this was written in 1999, some 24 years ago where society then was markedly different to 2023, and not for the better.   There has been an acceleration in the downgrading of the traditional family to an extent that has been breathtaking in its progress.

As a final note in this section, we quote from our weekly Update #1095, dated 22nd December 2023, under the heading “Blasphemous Woke Nonsense”:

“The Daily Mail wrote on December 18:

““Couples getting married will be asked if they want to be called ‘husband and wife’ under new woke Church guidelines. It is part of new ‘inclusive language’ rules published by The Methodist Church, which warns that old-fashioned terminology ‘makes assumptions about a family or personal life that is not the reality for many people’.

““The guidance also advises preachers to share their pronouns with congregation members ‘to create a safe space for people to be themselves.’… they should use ‘gender-neutral language’, opting for words such as ‘folks, teammates, friends, colleagues, or simply people’.  It adds: ‘People of different genders may choose to use a gender-neutral title such as Mx’…””

Such action from a mainstream Church is both deplorable and laughable and is indicative of the way that mainstream Christianity has, in the main, followed secular leadership in downgrading the importance of the Family unit.

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

After looking at a sample of the criticism of the godly-ordained family where there is so much antipathy towards this institution, let us now look at those who contend earnestly with the opposite view – that of preserving what God has designed although many approach this from a human point of view, resorting to human reasoning, and, often, without any references to God’s instructions on the matter.

In the Daily Mail newspaper in May 2022, excerpts were published from the new book “The Case Against The Sexual Revolution” by feminist Louise Perry.  We will quote, selectively, what she has to say about marriage.

“Monogamous marriage is by far the most stable and reliable foundation on which to build a family.

“But while the monogamous marriage model may be unusual, it is also spectacularly successful. When monogamy is [adopted by] a society it tends to become richer and more stable, with lower rates of both child abuse and domestic violence. Birth rates and crime rates both fall, which encourages economic development, and wealthy men, denied the opportunity to devote their resources to acquiring more wives, instead invest in property, businesses, employees and other productive endeavours.

“A monogamous marriage system is successful in part because it pushes men away from cad mode, particularly when pre-marital sex is also prohibited. If a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially acceptable, he has to make himself marriageable. That means holding down a good job and setting up a household suitable for the raising of children. In other words, he has to tame himself. [The need to “tame” oneself applies of course also to a woman, not just to a man.]

“The monogamous marriage model is also the best solution yet discovered to the problems presented by child-rearing.

“There was a wisdom to the traditional model in which the father was primarily responsible for earning money while the mother was primarily responsible for caring for children at home. Such a model allows mothers and children to be physically together and at the same time financially supported. In an age of labour-saving domestic devices it has become more feasible for mothers of young children to do paid work outside of the home, as most of us do and take pleasure from. But not during the early months of a baby’s life.

“I know full well that I was irreplaceable as mother to my new born child – not only because I was the only person who could breastfeed, but also because children have a relationship with their mother that cannot be handed over without distress to both mother and baby. If we want to keep that maternal bond intact, the only solution is for another person to step in during these times of vulnerability and do the tasks needed to keep a household warm and fed.

“Perhaps we could call that person a spouse. Perhaps we could call their legal and emotional bond a marriage.

“Which is why – as a feminist – the most important piece of advice I can offer to the young women of today is this: get married and do your best to stay married. Particularly if you have children. And if you do find yourself in the position of being a single mother, wait until your children are older before you bring a stepfather into their home [We would not necessarily agree with this advice at all].

“These directives are hard to follow because we no longer live in a culture that incentivises perseverance in marriage. But it is still possible for individuals to go against the grain and do the harder, less-fashionable thing.

“The critics of marriage are right to say that it has historically been used for the control of women by men, and they’re right to point out that most marriages do not live up to a romantic ideal. The marriage system that prevailed in the West until recently was not perfect, nor was it easy to conform to, since it demanded high levels of tolerance and self control. Where the critics go wrong is in arguing that there is any better system. There isn’t.”

As we pointed out in part 1 of this series, we realize, of course, that the comments above by a “feminist” are extremely “optimistic” and “idealistic” and are in many cases impossible to carry out today. This is especially true for the idea that the man alone can be the breadwinner today while the wife can stay at home. That would be somewhat ideal, but almost far from being doable in today’s societies. Still, the comments above can serve as guidelines to do what we can do under the best of circumstances.

On dailycaller, dated 27th November 2022, Liz Wheeler wrote an article headed “Twelve Republican Senators Betrayed The Institution Of Marriage,” and below are just a few comments from a long article:

“On November 16, all 50 Democratic senators and 12 of their Republican counterparts voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, circumventing the filibuster and paving the way for the bill’s imminent passage.

“In what should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the insidious tactics utilized by the Marxists currently in control of our government, the goals of this bill are being completely misrepresented. It’s time we cleared up exactly what this bill means and break down the sinister ramifications of its potential passage.

“At its core, this legislation would force the federal government to recognize any marriage that was performed according to a state law. If a same-sex couple gets married in a particular state— California, for example — then the federal government would be required to recognize that union.

“There are at least three major problems that would necessarily result from this.  First, the bill amounts to a direct assault upon religious liberty. The anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-religion, anti-God, secular mob will undoubtedly use this law to target people of faith. They will target non-profit organizations. They will target churches. They will target religious schools. You won’t be able to conduct business under the premise of the biblical definition of marriage or you will likely come under fire.

“Which leads us to the second problem: this bill gives government the power to redefine words. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation or sexual attraction. It’s about the definition of the word marriage, and whether government at the federal or state level has the right to redefine what marriage is, and has always been, since before the inception of our country.

“After all, if the federal government can be forced to recognize a same-sex union, what would the limitation be upon recognizing polygamous marriage? What about a marriage between an adult and a child? Once definitions become malleable and subject to political whimsy, they cease to have any meaning, and can be wielded against society at will. There are no limitations.

“Our government does not have the right to redefine words. That is a core tenet of authoritarian rule.”

“Third — and perhaps most importantly — the bill will inherently become a legal catch-all for the Democratic Party’s radical progressive agenda, which hinges upon the deliberate Marxist goal of destroying the nuclear family and ultimately deconstructing our society’s moral fiber.

“Ultimately, this bill is not about equal rights or codifying gay marriage into law. This is a radical leftist agenda that assaults the rights of religious people and institutions, grants government virtually unlimited power to define truth and morality, and provides protection for perverted, anti-American individuals and organizations.”

There are others who have written eloquently about the value of marriage.

Michael Ayling wrote in the Australian Spectator in June 2017: “The Left needs to destroy the family unit to succeed in the long-term. Over the last few years, we have seen numerous attempts to make the meaning of the word ‘family’ whatever anyone wants it to be, to strip it of any collective meaning. The Left needs to attack and to destroy the family as the basic building block of society in order to progress its goals.”

Mr Ayling then goes on to give an account of his schooling and how his school was taken over in 1980 by a highly ideological left-wing couple, calling themselves co-principals where he, and the other students, were exposed to their teaching which was based on their political leanings. Today, in so many areas of education, that same approach continues apace.

Without the protective influence of the family, we are left with “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” as Benito Mussolini once said. The radicals seek to own the idea of the family, by redefining it out of existence.

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

In the first two parts of this series, we looked at just a tiny part of the criticism directed at the traditional family – husband and wife, plus any children they may have.  Much of the criticism, but not exclusively, comes from those intent on pushing the sexual agenda emanating from LGBT+ issues.   With the uptake in different ungodly lifestyles, removal of existing norms is seen as necessary to accommodate the new “freedom” to do what they want and that is expressed as contempt to what the great God of the Bible stated in His Word at the dawn of civilisation.

Another criticism can be read in fee.org. “Even today the aversion to the traditional family remains strong in socialists.  A 2019 article in The Nation, titled “Want to Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish the Family,” offers a glimpse of the modern socialist critique of the institution.

“We know that the nuclear private household is where the overwhelming majority of abuse can happen,” author Sophie Lewis explains. “And then there’s the whole question of what it is for: training us up to be workers, training us to be inhabitants of a binary-gendered and racially stratified system, training us not to be queer.”

“For true believers of collectivism, there’s little question that private family matters are also state matters. Socialism requires collective control of resources, and humans are the ultimate resource. This is why the traditional nuclear family, which places authority in the hands of parents rather than the community, is an affront to so many socialists.”

To be clear, we thoroughly condemn this socialist, communist and fascist approach, as it would give the ungodly state total control over the people.

Timothy P Carney wrote the following in the Washington Examiner, on December 17, 2020:

“In Alienated America, I argue that strong communities need strong families and vice versa. Where community breakdown occurs, it’s often the fruit of family breakdown. Children raised by only a mother are at a disadvantage, but their neighbors suffer, too, because that mother (probably working full time and charged with all household duties) is less available to coach, volunteer, or just sit on the front porch keeping an eye on things.

“Marriage implies permanence, dedication, and commitment. Communities need those things. Less marriage means weaker communities.

“Raj Chetty’s research, in fact, suggests that having many households with two married parents is the best way to guarantee the upward mobility of children.”

An older, but still very relevant essay published by docslib outlines the grim reality of “The Decline of the Traditional Family”:

“The traditional family today has been transformed into a post-modernistic family, as the modern culture has pulled apart the connected bonds of a family. Our popular television shows today portray wrong visualizations to their commonly young audience with inappropriate content and family morals.  The ‘Little House on the Prairie’ TV series, popular in the late 1900’s, was a refreshing family show that portrayed the common traditional family in that era.  However, new TV series accentuate today’s post-modernized family that makes untraditional family morals desirable for their viewers. One of the newest series ‘Modern Family’ portrays the life of three modern related families of today, including same-sex partners with an adopted child.  The appeal to be like the celebrities on these post-modernistic shows are draining away the traditional values families should have.  However, ‘Modern Family’ is one of the top TV series today, winning up to 11 Emmys.

“This essay will focus on the core of the decline of the traditional family as divorces, abortions, same sex marriages, and ignorance of biblical principles increase daily-making our present families diverse from tradition.

“The government is also encouraging the destruction of the traditional family.  One example is the rising of same-sex marriages.  The title, ‘Ex-Lesbian: Obama Destroying Traditional Families,’ is as shocking as it sounds.  Janet Boynes, a former lesbian, is now the leader of her Christian ministry called Janet Boynes Ministries, where she ministers to individuals who either question their sexuality or wish to leave a homosexual lifestyle.  Janet affirms that it is hard to keep the values [of] traditional family ideals today, because our current generation and government powers are advocating rights for homosexuals. Ms Boynes mentions that President Barack Obama is using the financial governmental power to encourage people to accept and normalize same-sex relationships!  This rips apart the picture of the traditional husband and wife.

“The government’s intentional ignoring of Biblical values are affecting the children of America. The children’s educational system that used to be taught with Biblical-based principles is now the design of a humanistic, person-centered program that is corrupting our future traditional families with immoral doctrines.  The ability to pray or talk about God’s love is banished from the classroom and discouraged from children’s vocabulary!  Parental consent is also considered unneeded for the health of their children.

“Today, traditional family values are being destroyed as if crushed by a huge rock.  Matthew 5:13 says, ‘Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.’  The children of today have lost their identity, living opposite to the Bible!  

“We must stay strong to the faith and proclaim God’s Commandments to all!   Together, let us empower ourselves with the determination, as one nation under God, to revolutionize our future and bring back the traditional family.”

In the Daily Mail, dated Monday, Feb 13th 2023, one of the headlines was: “I’m a psychologist and these are 13 reasons why people DON’T want to get married anymore – and why staying single makes you happier.”   It went on to say:

“If you are about to have a baby, chances are you are more likely to be unmarried than married.  Figures from the Office of National Statistics (in the UK) show that 2021 was the first year on record that more children were born out of wedlock than in it. It follows a long-term trend of declining marriage rates and rising numbers of cohabiting couples seen in recent decades.

“Explaining the decline, Dr Max Blumberg, a relationship psychologist and chartered member of the British Psychological Society, says that marriage no longer offers what it used to.” 

Below is how he breaks down exactly why the traditional institution is on the way out.  We have deliberately not quoted the text under the headings except for number 11, as this was too long to quote in its entirety.

1. Traditional reasons for marriage no longer matter 
2. People marry when they are happy (and we are less happy)
3. Growing acceptance of cohabiting
4. High divorce rates paint a bad picture
5. No evidence to show that marriage makes you happier and healthier (especially for women)
6. Cost of weddings
7. Marriage is not promoted by UK government
8. Women are fine doing motherhood alone
9. People don’t want to invest
10. Being born out of wedlock is no longer a social disgrace
11. Sexual fluidity

The younger generations are far more likely to be open minded than older generations. An increasing number are gay or lesbian or pansexual, as well as being gender fluid. If people want to date people of differing and varied sexes, then again marriage is less likely to be an option, particularly as the church does still not support gay marriage.

12. Lack of married role models
13. Sexual liberation and the pill 

We could respond to each of the items above but that could seem somewhat tedious and the answers are pretty obvious!

Julie Roys, a speaker, freelance journalist and blogger in the USA wrote: “A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. In the USA, Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, ‘Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family.’ Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

“Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where ‘the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair.’”

We hasten to add that this is not only true for socialist or communist societies, but also for fascist regimes which try to control their people. National Socialism under Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler would be prime examples. 

In a paper “Redefining the Family: Undermining the Family,” by John DeWitt Gregory” from the University of Chicago Legal Forum, the following snippet is interesting: “In addition to casebook editors and treatise writers, professorial contributions of legal scholarship in law reviews have contributed frequently and at length to efforts to redefine the family. One prominent commentator, for example, has stated bluntly: [Our] society has undergone profound transformations in the past century, and the long-standing legal structure of marriage may now be anachronistic. The state’s interest in preserving the traditional family may not be important enough to offset new societal and individual needs which require more flexibility and choice in family forms.”

On the website voiceofthefamily, we read how local government is usurping the authority of parents in raising their children in a family environment.  “A group of parents in Wales is asking the High Court to overrule a decision by the government in Cardiff to make attendance at sex education classes mandatory in local primary schools. When the Welsh government introduced a ‘new code’ for the teaching of ‘sex and relationships education’ (RSE) earlier this year, it removed the right of parents to withdraw their children from the lessons.

“Sadly, parents in the rest of the UK, the Irish Republic and across most of the Western world have already been confronted with the situation unfolding in Wales. And although the legal action against the Welsh government is unlikely to succeed, there is a strong body of international law aimed at protecting the family and the rights of parents. The fact that governments no longer respect these rights is the result of a strategy worked out decades ago by organisations, such as International Planned Parenthood Federation. These organisations, which have managed to seize control of the agencies established by the United Nations, are now sufficiently powerful to have their agenda enforced across the globe.”

We can see how those who want the rights of the godly-ordained family to be paramount are overridden by those who think that the state knows best.   The family is certainly under threat by bureaucrats who think that they know better than God who created the family 6,000 years ago.

The traditional family, according to the Word of God, is simply put: Marriage as God ordained it is between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24).   For a more thorough exposition on this subject, please see our Q&A as mentioned in the second part in this series: https://www.eternalgod.org/what-is-a-family/

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

The day of the “nuclear” family” – husband, wife and children – is no longer applicable. An article in “betterhelp” states: “Gone are the days when nuclear families (mom, dad + one or more kids) are considered the norm in the United States. These days, different family types are not only common but also much more accepted than they were in the past. It’s not uncommon to be raised by a single mother or be part of a mixed family. It seems more uncommon to live in a household where both parents are happily married, unfortunately, although many of those families do still exist.”

The family is under attack because of its importance. It is yet another attack on the family which God initiated some 6,000 years ago and has continued right down through the millennia attacking the family at every available opportunity. It would be fair to say that such attacks on the family will, somewhere, have the fingerprints of Satan on it.

So, first of all, let us look at those who are in favour of its removal or dismissal, undoubtedly with Satan somewhere in the mix.

In the New York Post in September 2020, it was confirmed that “Black Lives Matter scrubbed a page on its website this week that disparaged the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure….they removed a page titled ‘What We Believe’ that included its public policy positions as well as describing itself as part of the ‘global Black family.’  It read, before its removal, as follows:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

Noelle Mering in her book “Awake, Not Woke: A Christian Response to the Cult of Progressive Ideology” wrote the following: 

“Targeting of the family is intrinsic to the agenda of woke ideology precisely because of the way the family is meant to uphold the dignity of the person and serve as a bulwark against political tribalism. A healthy well-formed family is preventative; it provides the belonging and care that prepares one to walk confidently into adulthood. As the family is weakened, the pull toward tribalism grows, feeds, and repeats itself.”   

A review of her book states that ‘‘Awake, Not Woke’ unmasks this ideology by examining its history, major players, premises, and tactics, showing us that ‘Wokeness’ at its core is an ideology of rupture. Indeed, it is an ideology with fundamentalist and even cult-like characteristics that is on a collision course with Christianity.”  It goes on to say “This is a spiritual battle, and it is not accidental. The architects of revolution have long known that the transformation of the West had to come by way of destabilizing the social, familial, and religious pieties of a citizenry.”

Clearly, those who oppose God and His plan for humanity want to destroy the traditional family because it stands in the way of their desire to rule in God’s place.

John Deighan wrote in Faith Magazine (November-December 2007) the following, and these are but brief extracts from a long article, entitled, “The Undermining of the Family: Where are we at?”:

“The Church recognises the family as the building block of society and for good reason has carefully defended the understanding of family relationships and of human sexuality which is so intimately linked to the ordering of family life and the procreation of succeeding generations.

“Recent changes in legislation have transformed the legal understanding of family structure and human sexuality. These changes have been preceded by changes in the views being promoted in the culture shaping institutions of society such that there are now a considerable number of people in the areas of politics, law, media and education who are ready to implement a new agenda for family and social life.

“Issues around sexuality and sexual practice are therefore powerful factors in shaping public attitudes and concomitantly the policies of public authorities. An important aspect of this cultural development has been the influential presence of the homosexual movement in public life. The role of this movement as a tool to marginalise religion in society should not be overlooked. An overview of the progress of the homosexual movement in recent years is necessary to assess its rapid and startling success.

“To gain an insight into the end point aimed at by homosexual campaign groups it is useful to consider and the terms ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexist’. We need to understand what the abolition of the supposed social evils they label will achieve. The former is understood as dislike of homosexuality and the latter as the belief that heterosexuality is the norm. By working to get these recognised as social evils akin to racism or sexism it has been possible to get towards the goal, which is that homosexual behaviour is firmly accepted in society and that society should be indifferent to the form of relationships which individuals choose to enter or make the basis of their family lives.

“In 2000 we saw the removal of the law which prevented the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities (Clause 2a) because it was maintained that no-one would ever want to promote homosexuality.

“The next stage was the promotion of the concept that sexuality is not biologically determined but rather socially constructed. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced to allow individuals to choose their ‘gender’ and it is permissible to be of male sex and have a female gender.

“The Civil Partnership Act, passed in November 2004, raised homosexual relationships to the same status as marriage by granting the same rights to couples entering a civil partnership as to spouses entering marriage. 

“Having established that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, the next step of promoting homosexual relationships as equal in providing a suitable environment to raise children logically and actually followed. The adoption bill permitted homosexual couples jointly to adopt and in another strike against the status of marriage also allowed unmarried couples to adopt. This bill was given overwhelming approval by the Scottish Parliament in December 2006. 

“The homosexual lobby has been very effective in aligning itself with minority groups, is prominently represented at the Holocaust memorial service each year and has created an image of itself as a group of people under persecution. This further prepares the mood for dealing with those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle, or in fact not just those who oppose it but those who fail to approve it.”

We can see the “frog in boiling water” principle at work in the above account. The end product is that today, any group of people can live together and proclaim that they are a family. By biblical standards they are not, unless they conform to the biblical standard of a husband and wife and any children that they may have, which is something that society is trying to eliminate.

On the biblicalhealingrevolution website under their heading: “Is woke-ism trying to Eradicate Christianity and the family?” we read:

“Their agenda includes teaching our children critical race theory, child molestation, paedophilia, drag queen children’s shows, same-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and men competing in woman’s sports.  Worse yet are puberty blockers, gender transformation, body mutilating sex-change surgeries for children, and yes even children sacrifice.”

We know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) but Satan the devil is, as he is trying his best to turn everyone, especially those called by God, away from the way that God wants us to live according to His Way of Life.

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

On christiantoday.com, we read a typical repudiation of the order that God has set in the Church. Here is a brief extract:

“Another context we need to take into consideration was the cultural background of the time and proximity. The church of Corinth is not a congregation that was born two weeks ago. It was a church built by people of a different time and a different culture all together. What may mean something to us will mean something completely different to the people of that time.

“What was ancient Corinth like? It existed in a day and age and in a culture where it was more beneficial and secure for women to refuse certain cultural and societal roles — and leadership was one of them.

“But today, that’s no longer the case. It’s now safe and beneficial for women to lead. That gives all women just as much right to spiritually and strategically lead as men.”

What a flimsy argument that is, to be able to negate clear Scriptural instruction in order for women to do what they want to – and this article was written by a man!

1 Corinthians 14:37 is clear.  The apostle Paul wrote: 

“If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

He did not state his own opinion and he did not repeat the thoughts and ideas of another human being – but he proclaimed “the commandments of the Lord.” 

On placefortruth.org, Joseph Hamrick in June 2019 wrote an excellent article about the “Argument from Culture.” Below are a few selected comments from this presentation.

“There is an argument, not exactly new, that has been making its way through the church today. The argument from culture, let’s call it the argumentam ad culturam, is an attempt to undermine the legitimacy and primacy of Scripture for Christian living, while claiming to honor the Scripture for what ‘it really says.’ It is the basic hermeneutical assumption of the culturalists.

“This argument states that since Christ (or Peter, or John, or Paul, etc.) addressed people bound by a certain place, time, and culture, the message’s proscriptions and prescriptions are likewise bound by a certain place, time, and culture.  Scripture does not utter statements once and for all authoritative; rather, it records statements held to be authoritative once upon a time. Following proper and sometimes extensive adjustments, some authority may still hold for us (e.g., support orphans and widows); largely, however, that authority is now gone with the wind–as are the place, time, and culture in which they were uttered.

“The problem with argumentum ad culturum is those who use it miss the scriptural context they try to gloss. For them, misapprehension of the scripture hinges on a failure to understand a preposition.  That is, they are blind to the difference between making an argument to a culture and arguing from one. Christ, Paul, and others took the former route. Progressive Christians take the latter.

“As has been argued, Paul’s words, and Christ’s, are not merely cultural arguments, they are more. They are the very word of God, which cannot change.

“Culture cannot, and must not, dictate the word of God.”

The points made by Mr Hamrick are very well taken when he states that culture cannot “dictate the word of God.”

In a speech in 2022 to the Oxford Union debate on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, in opposition against “This House Supports Same-Sex Marriage in Church,” Calvin Robinson, an Anglican deacon, and Dr Ian Paul went up against the Bishop of Buckingham, the Bishop of Dudley and the Bishop of Worcester.   Again, we will quote excerpts from this presentation.

Mr Robinson said: “We are up against the authorities – three bishops from the Established Church. That means either I am wrong – and Christians have been teaching incorrectly on marriage for 2,000 years – or we have Church leaders attempting to drag the Church into apostasy.

“Suffice to say we lost the debate: 186 for, 41 against. I would like to thank those 41 sound students at Oxford who braved the lion’s den. It must be a very lonely place for them. 

“… Paul describes marriage as, ‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh,’ in which he is mirroring the language of Genesis, where God tells man and wife to ‘Be fruitful and multiply’.

“People will argue, ‘we know more about homosexuality now than we did then,’ maybe so. But are you then suggesting God knew less than we do now? For either all Scripture is God-breathed, or it isn’t. Either we believe Christ, or we don’t.

“Are we looking to alter the catechism of just the Anglican Church, or should the Catholic Church ‘get with the times’, too? 2,000 years of Christian doctrine and 4,000 years of Jewish doctrine cannot be altered at the whim of a few liberal bishops. What is God-ordained cannot be adjusted to suit our liberal progressive worldviews. Marriage is heterosexual and monogamous and should be open to the possibility of children.

“… Jesus talks of marriage in Mark and Matthew, both in the context of heterosexual union.

“So my question to the bishops would be, do we not believe in the authority of the Scriptures any more? Can we pick and choose which parts of the Gospel we adhere to?

“We are directly talking about undermining God’s plan as he has revealed it to us. We are replacing his authority with our own.

“Another one, we’ll hear plenty of is ‘inclusivity’. Shouldn’t the Church be more inclusive?

“Again, it’s a play on words people use to virtue signal. To appear good rather than being good.

“As Christians, we are called to be in the world but not of the world.”

Mr Robinson has also opposed the ordination of women.  His ordination in the Church of England was blocked after several bishops had expressed concerns about his outspoken views.  In essence, as his views were from the Bible and not politically correct in today’s permissive woke culture, he was “cancelled”.

On epm.org, we read: “After all, we are all influenced by the values of the times in which we live. A quick note, though. If we are rejecting the time-bound values of the Bible because we now have new values, how do we know that ours aren’t time-bound? In fact, how do we know that our culture’s values are not even worse? These are questions worth pondering.

“But to claim that the Bible simply reflects the viewpoints of its time is to misunderstand the Bible entirely. Far from simply being a product of its time, the teachings of the Bible consistently confront readers with counter-cultural messages. Even the creation narrative itself stands in contrasts to other ancient creation myths.”

One person wrote that “Many things in the Bible are unacceptable to modern Christians. Why? Because they do not sit right with contemporary moral sensibilities.”  

In 2021, a report headed “Social media manipulation by political actors an industrial scale problem” offered these findings:

“Oxford Internet Institute team warns the level of social media manipulation has soared, with governments and political parties spending millions on private sector ‘cyber troops’, who drown out other voices on social media. Citizen influencers are used to spread manipulated messages. These include volunteers, youth groups and civil society organisations, who support their ideologies. This activity has become professionalised, with private firms offering disinformation-for-hire services.”

In other words, the manipulating of people’s views and understanding on many issues can be shaped and activated to lead many down the path of the loudest and most influential voice.   It is almost inevitable that this will be against the clear teachings from the Word of God which is derided, dismissed, disparaged and ridiculed as being of non-effect in such an “enlightened” society.   Conformity is usually required.

It can be seen from even “Christian” sources that, allegedly, “many things in the Bible are unacceptable to modern Christians. Why? Because they do not sit right with contemporary moral sensibilities.”   In other words, in order for Christianity to be relevant to some/many people today, the Way of God has to be moulded and shaped to the requirements of contemporary society.

In conclusion, it seems that counterfeit Christianity is determined to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong—not the great Creator God (the Father) who created all things through Jesus Christ. The extraordinary arrogance and ego of man who thinks that he knows best is truly amazing!

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

In a Q&A in April 2017, entitled “Does God Change?” we quoted the following observations.  We have underlined key phrases:

“In an article in April 2015 in the New York Times, a columnist wrote: ‘And homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere. That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.  But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras. It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable.’”

Can we see how subtle and deceptive this all is? The article goes on to show how “advances” in understanding have been made with respect to slavery, contraception, gender roles and same-sex marriages. This author and the people he quotes who share many of his views obviously think that they know better than God.

We continued in our Q&A:

“God does NOT change when it comes to the eternal truths that He has made clear in His Word. God has, and is, perfect character which cannot change and we have to have the spiritual insight and understanding to comprehend this, rather than lumping everything together. 

“Moral absolutes are just that – absolute. They cannot be changed and God does not change in this area.” 

We reviewed a few examples where God DID change His mind, but none of these changes involved alterations to His unalterable spiritual law. For example, Abraham debated with God how many righteous were to be found in Sodom and Gomorrah that would save it from destruction and he negotiated it down from 50 to 10 – but God does NOT change when it comes to the eternal Truths that He has made clear in His Word.

Another example we quote is in Numbers 14 which tells the story of Israel refusing to enter Canaan and instead of entering the land immediately, God changed this by deferring their entry for 40 years. These are just things of a temporary nature but nothing changes about God’s eternal Law.

A further example was when God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon the Ninevites – because of their repentance.

And so, let us look at the “culture of the time” argument.

You’ve no doubt heard this argument.   A while ago, the Episcopal church in the USA, which is part of the Anglican movement worldwide and allied to the Church of England, were debating the appointment of a practicing homosexual to a senior position. The following comment was made live on television:

“The Bible has to be interpreted in the light of contemporary society – not in an arcane way” (that is, a primitive or outdated way).

In other words, as society becomes more and more liberal and permissive and controlled by the media and those with vested interests, God’s Word has to be altered and manipulated to fit in with the world’s ways. This would, in reality, be moulding and shaping God into the form that we wanted or suited us – and that is preposterous.   It would mean that those who are “influencers,” to use a modern word, could come up with all sorts of ideas and then God’s Way would have to be interpreted in the light of their musings and pronouncements!!  What utter nonsense that is!

In short, today, many can use the arguments that as culture changes, God will go along with the flow and bend according to the particular dictates of man at any given time. They don’t phrase it that way of course, but that is how they view it.

How ridiculous that would be, but it is the way of some – but, hopefully, not those of us in the Church of God!  If that were the case, we could justify ANYTHING – anything at all.    God does not change – and His Word doesn’t change.   That’s the way of the world.  

Hebrews 13:8 says: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.”  Does Jesus Christ “move” with the times and go along with the musings of men?  

In Malachi 3:6, we read the following: “For I am the LORD, I do not change;”  

Barnes Notes on the Bible read:

“I am the Lord, I change not – better, more concisely, ‘I, the Lord I change not.’  The proper name of God, ‘He who Is,’ involves His unchangeableness. For change implies imperfection; it changes to that which is either more perfect or less perfect: to somewhat which that being, who changes, is not or has not. But God has everything in Himself perfectly.”

We read in the Pulpit Commentary:

“For I am the Lord, I change not; or, Jehovah, I change not. This is to show that God performs his promises, and effectually disposes of the allegation in Malachi 2:17, that he put no difference between the evil and the good. The great principles of right and wrong never alter; they are as everlasting as he who gave them. (our emphasis). God here speaks of himself by his covenant name, which expresses his eternal independent being, ‘the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning’ (James 1:17). ‘Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed’. Because God’s eternal purpose stands good, and his ‘gifts and calling are without repentance’ (Romans 11:29), therefore the Israelites are indeed chastised and corrected, but not wholly consumed; they have a place and a nation, and the great promises made to their forefathers will all be fulfilled in due time (Jeremiah 30:11; Micah 7:20).”

If God does not change, neither will His Word.  2 Timothy 3:16 is further evidence of the permanency, constancy and dependability on the Word of God whichever century or millennium it applies to: “All Scripture (not just that which is convenient – but ALL Scripture) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

And there is yet another passage of Scripture that those who want to bend God’s Word into their own interpretation and ignore its clear instructions, would find very hard to defend. John 17:17 quotes Christ’s words: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”

Our approach is exactly the opposite to that of the world – we DO believe God.   Sanctify means to set apart – and true Christians are set apart by the Truth – and God’s Word is Truth. Why can’t others see this?   We know that at the right time, God will remove their spiritual blindness.  But we have been called now – and we know the Truth.  And as we take the approach of the Bereans by searching the Scriptures, we will ensure that we find out what God’s Will is and subjugate our own human reasoning to His perfect Will and Way. That is the approach that God expects of His children.

Some time ago, one letter in a newspaper said:

“The Church of England should go the whole hog and just sling the Bible in the bin.   It could then preach its ‘anything goes’ philosophy to its largely empty churches.   The rest of us will have moved on to a Christian church.”

The Daily Caller wrote on August 30, 2023: “The Church of England’s (CofE) liberal drift continues as a new survey shows that a majorities of priests now support abandoning traditional Christian sexual ethics.

“A survey by the Times found that 62.6 percent of priests believe the church should relax its teaching that all premarital sex is sinful. A smaller majority (53.4 percent) voiced their support for same-sex marriage. The Church of England currently allows marriages only between men and women, though the General Synod — the CofE’s legislative body — voted in February to offer blessings to civilly married same-sex couples.”

While this was talking about the Church of England, it could certainly be extended to cover many more in mainstream Christianity.   There is no leadership in the most important area of all – that of Bible understanding. Judges 21:25 tells us, and this was applicable thousands of years ago and is certainly applicable today:

^“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

This is a repeat of what is stated in Judges 17:6. The fact that this concerned royalty does not deflect from the principle.   For “king,” we can substitute “leader” – and the fact that there is no clear, unambiguous and moral leadership in the Church of England, and in so many other churches allowing women in the ministry, and many other things, which are not approved or sanctioned by Scripture—means that everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes.  

(To be continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)