Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
We welcome you to the Harvester podcast.
Welcome to season 2 episode 8.
I am Brian Kenyon and along with me are
Steven Ford.
Forest Antemesaris
George Beals.
And George is a guest speaker on the program this time.
He's been on there last couple episodes, and we're thankful that he's here again today.
And we are continuing our discussion on homosexuality.
On episode 6, we looked at what does the Bible teach about homosexuality.
And then episode 7, last time, we talked about addressing some of the arguments against
what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.
And today we want to look at some cultural things, what's happening in our culture
relative to homosexuality.
And we're going to begin by referring back to a court case that was in 2015, a decade ago,
but yet has done a whole lot to shape the attitudes and the ways people think about this
topic.
And it's known among some as the
over oh
Very good.
Obergefell.
it is.
Obergefell decision.
so George, fill us in on what we need to know about that as we begin.
Well, thank you, Brian.
I do want to talk about that and go into some detail to sort of set the stage for the
discussion.
But before I do, if I may, I would like to just oh characterize, oh we step back and try
to characterize what's been happening in our culture uh more and more over the decades
with respect to homosexuality and related matters.
The way that I would summarize it all is that subjectivism has gone to seed.
That is, uh whatever I feel is right, whatever I want to be right is what makes a behavior
right.
It's the idea of I feel I want to be a blank and fill in the blank.
uh A man
says that he wants to be a woman.
A woman says she wants to be a man.
A boy to a girl, a girl to a boy.
Maybe uh even a human to a favorite animal.
These are called furries.
There are some that actually believe that, I heard a documentary one time where uh a
person said, I am a cat.
And uh so if I feel that I wanted,
be such and such, that's what makes me such and such, irrespective of my biological
makeup.
So subjectivism gone to seed.
And I'll just say a word or two about what I mean and what is meant by subjectivism versus
objectivism.
And then I will lead into this Obergefell decision by the United States Supreme Court and
then take it from there.
So ah if this were a video,
I would show you a line drawing that I use, have used over the years to distinguish
between objective ethics and subjective ethics.
But here in this audio, I'll have to draw a word picture of it.
So if you draw in your mind, draw a circle and inside that circle call that I feel.
And then, uh
arrow pointing down to this action is moral and then another action pointing down to this
action is immoral.
So that's subjectivism.
I feel that something is the case or maybe uh I choose a selected number of other human
beings who feel a particular way about a particular action.
That is what makes it whatever they feel that's what makes it right or wrong.
Morally, that's called subjectivism.
Moral subjectivism.
As opposed to objective ethics.
objective ethics can be illustrated like this.
Again, draw a circle.
And in that circle, uh put human beings.
And then draw a line from that circle up to another circle.
And in that, put God.
and then an arrow down from the God circle saying this is moral and an arrow down from the
God saying this one is immoral.
This is illustrating the fact that objective ethics is that the human being looks outside
of himself to determine what is right and right is wrong, not within himself as the basis
of morality.
So what we see here in our culture are manifestations of subjective ethics more and more
frankly worse and worse.
And this is in contradistinction from biblical ethics because biblical ethics teaches that
subjective ethics is wrong.
For example, Jeremiah 10, 23, the way of man is not in himself.
It is not in man to direct his steps.
That's a rejection then, a denial of subjective ethics.
And an affirmation then of its alternative, namely objective ethics.
The objective standard, the standard of right and wrong outside of us is God and His word.
That's where we learn about God's will.
And it's God then that determines what is moral and what is immoral as to our actions.
Now with that having been said, let me talk about this Obergefell v.
Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court in 2000.
2015, I think that's an important decision and action that has been made in our culture.
And what that did, this was a razor-thin decision, a five to four decision that requires
all states in the United States and its territories to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples and recognize such marriages.
As you might expect, the liberal justices Ginsburg, Breyer,
Sotomayor and Kagan, unfortunately along with the swing vote at that time, Kennedy, made
up the majority and the four who opposed it were Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices
Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Now, let me just, before I say much more, talk about uh the subject of legal theory.
I won't get into this in too much detail, but just to point out that there is a legal
theory out there.
that has been influenced by people who hold to it who have been influential are people
like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
and then legal scholar, Jerome Frank.
And this will give you a flavor as to what I'm talking about.
For example, Frank quoting another with approval affirms that judge made laws, law is real
law.
that is judges start with their own conclusions.
He says this, quote, the process of seldom begins with a premise from which a conclusion
is subsequently worked out.
Judges begin, a judging begins rather the other way around.
A man ordinarily starts with such a conclusion and afterwards tries to find premises which
will substantiate it, unquote.
Again, quoting another with approval, Frank explains that quote, now note this, the judge
really decides by feeling and not by judgment, by hunching and not by radiosenation,
radiosenation being uh looking at premises first and then drawing conclusion, reasoning to
those conclusions.
He says, such radiosenation appearing only in the opinion, unquote.
So,
how do these judges, how do these hunches come to a judge?
He says it like this, quote, the rules and principles are one class of such stimuli, but
there are many others concealed or unrevealed, not frequently considered in discussions of
the character or nature of law.
They have been usually referred to as the political, economic, and moral prejudices of the
judge, unquote.
And then quoting Holmes, he says this.
the real justification of a rule of law, if there be one, is that it helps bring about a
social end which we desire, unquote.
So that's what you're seeing here.
Obviously these five liberal justices have made a decision out of their own viewpoint.
there is a...
In words, there's a social position that they adhere to, an ideological viewpoint that
they hold to, and then I believe that they've gone into the Constitution and American law
and tried to find a search for a justification for it.
The other judges say that, justices say no, that uh they think that they have found
something in American law when in fact it's not there.
And uh if you examine this decision,
carefully and you can find it, it's online, you'll see that the five liberal justices have
taken a position that uh imply that the New Testament is wrong because they talk about the
integrity uh and the fact that we should be doing this and we should be affirming this and
so forth and so on and that we've grown to the point in this culture where we've
We've come to these decisions and we sort of have learned these, etc.
And yet when you look at the Bible, it's clear that what the Bible has to say is in
conflict with their decision.
And so then they have infringed upon, I believe, the religious rights of citizens and that
uh forcing it down down our throats a decision that we believe is contrary to the
scriptures.
They are not morally neutral, in other words.
their decision.
Now from there ah and prior to that decision as well, the culture has seen a lot of
activity in the direction of homosexuality and transgenderism and so forth.
We can just enumerate some of these to get this out on the table and then we can look at
some discussion about these matters and what the Bible has to say.
Maybe I can point out uh some of the books that are aimed at children.
Let me give you some titles.
Adopting my two dads, Albert the confused manatee, another Bob the ladybug, Bob's new
pants, another a cat like that, and then daddy, papa and me, another daddy's roommate,
another a girl named Adam, and a whole bunch more.
So the gay affirming community,
has had some success in incorporating books such as these and other vehicles into the
public school system and uh to the objection of a lot of us.
And understand that uh it is mandatory in this country for a child to go to school.
And I believe what has happened is that when the left
The social left has got in power, that is to say when they get governmental positions,
they've had a tendency to use the power of the state to force down the throats of the
society their ideological viewpoints that in these cases are contrary to the scriptures.
Now ah a question arises, how should we deal with these matters?
Well there are other actions and other matters as well and maybe some of the other folks
here can
talk about other um manifestations of this thinking that uh is in the culture?
You might want to talk about gender changes and so forth.
Anybody?
Yeah, when you were speaking about that and the one quote really stood out where the
judges are ruling social things that they've already decided upon that they want to force
and see in society, which of course is totally backwards from the way judges should be
operating.
And it me think of Herod in Mark chapter 6 and verse 8.
where john the baptist said in the hair is not lawful for you to have my brother's wife
and so here's a law where civil law it's okay to do that and even our country we we
mention this i think an episode or two ago about you know once we start allowing divorce
remarry for any reason contrary to god's word then as a as a country as a legal system we
we open up the door for any kind of marriage any kind of thing and so
you know, we move away from that standard, there's nothing holding us back.
And so we have to stick to the standard.
And of course, judges are not to judge based upon what they wish was the case, but they're
to judge based upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all of that, at least in
this country.
Yeah, I think this is good example.
know, I think one of the things we need more of, maybe we could say, is we need some more
John the Baptist type characters, right, who um will say what needs to be said, regardless
of the consequences, not just to be belligerent or contrary, but because truth matters and
out of a love for God, you know?
And I think for whatever reason, sometimes, and I think part of why this
You know, Bergefell case is so consequential because a lot of times in our culture, once
something's legal to speak against it, kind of becomes like almost like a type of like
public heresy or public blasphemy, right?
Where it's like, well, you might have your opinion, but the Supreme Court has spoken,
right?
So that idea of even if it was civilly lawful for Herod to have his wife, John understood
there was a law.
that transcends that law, right?
That we're all beholden to.
And I think that's what we need to be pointing people to more and more as, you know, our
civil law and points where it disagrees.
Have the courage to say, hey, even like that, that was a personal basis.
imagine you're imprisoned by a man and you got an opportunity to speak to him.
And instead of trying to butter him up and try to get out, you're just saying, hey, you
know you're you know you're sinning, right?
You're not supposed to.
You know, so I think that kind of courage we need more of and not allow these things, you
know, kind of have this defeatist mindset of we can't speak on these things because the
Supreme Court's already spoken.
God has spoken, and that's what's most important, and we need to share that with others.
The other side of that too is that...
when something is legal for, let's say, the left, they will appeal to the law as a final
word.
However, if something is illegal that they wanna do, they will appeal to popular opinion.
And so it's kinda speaking out of both sides of their mouth, it's not an ideal, it's not a
situation where they're saying, hey, we just want to be legal.
It's an idea, we wanna do what we wanna do, regardless of if the law says what it says.
And it really demonstrates, or at least it calls to mind in Acts chapter 17, where there's
a group of people
who are not necessarily trying to do what the Lord wants them to do and when things are
being taught that should set the world right, they say these have turned the world upside
down.
And so to many people who are promoting uh sinful behavior like that of homosexuality, it
may feel as though their world is being turned upside down because they are living...
they aren't living right side up in the world.
so it may feel as though things are uh unfair, unjust, harsh toward them.
In a previous episode, we talked about the terminology of homophobia and things of that
nature.
So it may feel as though they may be verbally or socially or legally accosted, but that's
because the things they're doing are immoral.
And what we're promoting is not being mean to them or anything, but let's just promote
what the says the Lord, because that is what is good, right, and everlasting.
I think there's a tendency on the part of the uh left to be originalists regarding the
Constitution when the Constitution is in agreement with them.
But then if the Constitution is in conflict with what their view is, then we need to
expand upon and update the Constitution.
So, uh, and of course you can also make that application.
There are some people that do that with the Bible.
Uh, the, uh, the whole to the Bible, if it's in harmony with their wishes, uh, Matthew
seven one, right?
And, on the other hand, uh, if it's not in harmony with my view, then, then, the Bible
needs to be improved upon or, or maybe use strategic silence.
and ignore certain passages that is not an honest way of studying the bible
twist the hermeneutics to get it to teach what we want it to.
I'm also reminded of Acts chapter 5, if I could just read, looking at verse 25.
No one came and told them, saying, look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in
the temple and teaching the people.
Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared
the people, lest they should be stoned.
And when they had brought them and they set them before the council,
And the high priest asked them, Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?
And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man's
blood on us.
But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
So there we have a uh biblical case of opposition to free speech.
Fortunately, in this country we have free speech in the Bill of Rights.
and we need to exercise it especially on matters like this.
And furthermore, if a politician is, whether on the left, a Republican, a Democrat,
usually it's on the side of the Democrats, frankly, that take a position that is
anti-biblical in conflict with the scriptures, frankly that person now is fair game and
needs to be rebuked as well.
That's a point.
think a lot of this too comes back to authority, where obviously as citizens of this
country, we recognize the authority, for example, the Supreme Court has the executive
branch has, etc, etc.
But we also have to acknowledge there's an authority above that authority to which we're
all beholden.
And you know, the Supreme Court doesn't get to define marriage.
United States of America didn't invent marriage, right?
God did.
So if we're going to talk about, know, who's the eligible party for a marriage?
When is a marriage a marriage?
What marriages should be, quote unquote, recognized?
We have to go to God to find that out.
You know, in anything we say that contradicts him, by definition, is false.
And by definition, doesn't have to be heeded to that degree.
Yes, and it's good point.
We talked about that back in episode five, a lot of stuff there about marriage.
But I thought also that the homosexual thing is almost like in a different category than
other legal decisions.
Like, for example, we can speak against drinking alcohol even though we're allowed to by
law.
I think it goes back to the whole like immutable characteristic and identity and
everything.
That's what I was going to point to because it's almost like speaking against the sin of
homosexuality, you're speaking against in their mind someone's personhood.
Right.
You know, that their identity is a person and so to deny them that, you're denying them
their personhood, their civil rights, etc., etc.
But such, of course, is not the case because God's law, as has already been said, is above
all that.
And so we have to stick with God's law.
There is a passage over in Acts 18 that gives good advice to a member of the government.
This is coming at looking at verse 12 that talks about Galio who was a Roman consul,
proconsul of Achaia, a Roman official.
And it says, when Galio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against
Paul and brought him to the judgment seat saying, this fellow persuades men to worship God
contrary to the law.
And then verse 14 reads, and when Paul was about to open his mouth, Galio said to the
Jews, if it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, oh Jews, there would be reason
why I should hear you.
But
if it is a question of words and names and your own law, to it yourselves for I do not
want to be a judge on such matters." Now we can extend that of course to uh moral issues
as well, but uh the government, according to the scriptures, if they make a ruling that
is, and try to implement it, that is contrary to uh the teachings of the Bible,
then of course in Acts 529 we must obey God rather than men.
There may be consequences to that, but nonetheless that's what we're supposed to That's
what the Bible would have us do.
I think too sometimes we talk about like quote unquote culture wars, know, I know that
used to kind of be a buzzword, but I think that there needs to be a sort of call to action
for Christians to, for lack of a better phrase, produce culture, right?
Like all these gay books are trying to get into schools.
We need to be writing Christian children books from, my opinion, this is just my opinion,
other people might disagree with me.
But why aren't we writing, and I know some of us are, shout out PGK publications, but we
should be writing Christian children's books.
And whatever that process is to try to get in the library, try to get it in the library.
Like worst case scenario, they're gonna say no and there's gonna be a stink and it'll
bring attention to it at least.
know what I mean?
Things like that, we're kind of, hey, ah because we want to influence as many people as
possible with the truth and for good.
And it seems like for whatever reason.
it seems like oftentimes the people on the ungodly things side of things are a lot better
about i was a pushing issues but getting those things in front of people's faces you know
i mean and i think that we should we have an opportunity at least to be strategic and to
try to say hey we're gonna crit as christians were to make some of our own stuff you know
we want we want people to hear this you know and especially with marriage i think
Part of the reason why this is, obviously it has to deal with the interpersonal
relationship, but also we know that marriage isn't just a Christian issue.
Marriage is foundational to all of society.
And that's not a Christian idea.
mean, people have been talking about this for hundreds of years, thousands of years,
right?
Where households and families dictate the rest of a civilization.
I think we're just talking about, you know, from, I think from our perspective, a degree
of this is what kind of society do we want?
our children to grow up, grandchildren to grow up in.
We know all things are possible with God.
We know even if society gets flushed completely down the toilet, by faith in God we can
overcome and we can still be victorious.
ah But in the meantime, I don't think, I don't see anything wrong with Christians, you
know, us trying to produce our own culture for lack of a better term.
I mean, here we are having a podcast, right?
We want people to listen to this, to hear it, to think about these things, hopefully to be
convicted about these things.
And that's the kind of thing.
from my perspective, need more of.
Why do you suppose there is a reluctance on the part of Christians to do that?
I don't know.
It does appear to me that sometimes this subject matter, for example, is not brought up in
Bible classes or sermons.
I mean, are some brethren and professed Christians afraid of the repercussions from the
state?
all the social pressure that they're going to experience.
I think some of it might be, I know, from the perspective of...
Those who may be in the congregational setting who aren't members of the church, sometimes
there's this, you know, this uncertainty of, I want to burn a bridge before I have the
opportunity to cross it.
You know, I don't want you to write me off because of a political opinion before I have
the opportunity to share the gospel with you.
But obviously when these political issues, quote unquote, are moral issues and the gospel
does speak to them, obviously I would argue we have, you know, we have
the mandate to speak on these things abortion homosexuality the gender stuff et cetera et
cetera
I don't see that a politician gets to hide behind politics.
If he takes us to position, he becomes fair game in that case.
Now, if we're talking about legislation having to do with the, uh, the speed limit out on
main street or, uh, what the budget is supposed to be, you want to have 350 million on
this, uh, on infrastructure versus, uh, 325 million go for it.
But when they get into matters that the Bible,
insists upon as being obligatory whether prohibitions or requirements and they started
legislating and Limiting what the Bible has to say now they've become fair game that issue
has become fair game even though it also was political in the society and We must speak up
acts 529.
We must obey God rather than
Yeah, I think there's a reluctance sometimes even on Christians' part that they just
don't, they're kind of like non-confrontational.
Their idea is, I'm just going to live the gospel myself and teach my family what you guys
do, you guys do.
But of course, that's just kind of going to allow this to grow and stuff.
And I remember something you told us, George, a long time ago when your daughter was in
school that you would sometimes go to the PTA meetings or the school board meetings or
whatever.
Back before that was on nightly news.
Yeah.
and stand up for what's right and that really encouraged me to do things like that.
Of course my kids were out of school by then but as parents we can be involved in those
things.
City Commission meetings, County Commission meetings, things like that if we take the
time.
Run for president, George Beals for president.
President Stephen
Ford.
We need a new one.
ford and the white house but anyway there are things like that that we can do that may
seem minor that may seem inconsequential but they they do make an impact and then
especially when multiplied by many church members they do make an impact and so those are
some things that we can and we should do just basically whatever opportunity we have to
speak up for truth might be in the line of the grocery store or whatever
Whatever opportunity we have to stand up for what the Bible teaches, we should take
advantage of that.
think that the, one of the things that could be an issue, I don't know that most people or
many people anyway would be afraid of litigation, ah more than I think there's a social
pressure, that people don't want to be ostracized because of their opinions and so we keep
them to ourselves.
The other, uh the other side may be, I think that some people may feel, have a defeatist
sort of attitude, you know, because it's so,
loudly shouted.
It feels like all the world is, you know, leaning toward homosexuality or whatever
perverse sexual uh thing there is of the day.
And that's not the case.
I think that most people are moderate thinking people.
I think that most people would want to uphold some sort of moral standard that would be uh
at least closer to uh scriptural authority than not.
ah But the idea that's promoted is that that's not the case.
That everybody's doing it.
And so, you know, if you feel I'm one voice in a sea of millions screaming the other
thing, then you may feel well, my one voice won't matter.
When in reality, there are lots of voices and we just need to make them heard ah so that
we don't end up in a situation like after Joshua, where there's a generation of people
that don't know God.
We want to continue to promote we want to continue to preach we want to continue to herald
the news and not just Within our homes though.
That is good.
You know there are neighbors friends co-workers family members Strangers that need to hear
the same good news to know that there is a better way to live There are better promises to
lay hold to there are better ways to interact with people there are holy ways to interact
with people because there is a judgment day coming that's one of other things that I think
needs to also be promoted that there is going to be
end of this world and in various places throughout the New Testament you'll find warnings
about life with the end there's a judgment coming and so if people are you know not to
scare people hellfire and brimstone every day but the reality of it is is we are heading
toward an end and just like a doctor would tell you sir ma'am you know if you don't stop
your health condition is going to result in your death you know now that they are wishing
for your death they want you to
be able to make a sober decision and realize just how grave your situation may be.
And so in the same way, we need people to understand just how serious their situations are
and that there is a solution.
That Jesus is the solution.
Whether you feel I'm compelled to do this action because I was born this way.
Whether you feel that I was, you know, objectified or I was subjected to certain things
and so now I feel this way.
Whatever it is, the Lord Jesus through his word,
can help us to know that there are better ways to live and give us guidance on how to live
those ways.
What about the medical profession?
The fact that uh there is now an industry among medical doctors in doing sex change.
Any thoughts on that?
First of all, how much of that is happening?
Yeah, my thoughts on that is it goes back to Romans, what ties back into, me, Romans 1, 26
and 27, going against nature.
You cannot get any more going against nature than injecting with steroids, know, female
hormones into a male body.
Genital mutilation basically is what it is, but I mean, that's just, you can't get any
more against nature than that kind of stuff.
And that's explicit, literally, going against nature.
And it's just terrible.
It should be a crime that you should not be allowed to do that to anybody against their
will.
And what child?
mean, what child would actually really want that?
And we're talking four, five, six, seven, eight-year-old children that that has been done
to in some states.
And so I think it's just an atrocity.
And some of it's irreversible
Yeah, and I think you know thankfully It seems like the tide Spartan starting to change on
that a little bit I don't know if you saw I think just the other day the Department of
Health and Human Services released a 300 page paper Which was surveying?
How they've been dealing with you know some of the sex change operations and the puberty
blockers.
There's just a comprehensive review and just as this was just last week and uh
It really is a departure from what it's been for a while where there's nothing wrong with
these puberty blockers.
We have to affirm their gender, da da da.
Which of course, if our physical characteristics doesn't impact our gender, why do I have
to change my physical characteristics to affirm my gender, right?
The whole thing kind of is nonsensical and inconsistent.
But I think it is one of those follow the money situations where
all the money.
I mean there are people who are profiting off of this and from everything that's coming
out it doesn't seem like they're going to be for a whole lot longer.
I'm reminded of 1 Timothy chapter six, verse 10.
For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
For what some have strayed from the faith in their greediness and pierce themselves
through with many sorrows.
Again, the love of money is the root of all evil.
Now not the, not that money is, but the love of money.
And people are making a profession out of this and getting paid for it.
And there I came upon a,
what was called an Atlas the other day.
think that was published in 2023 that is aimed at medical doctors, written by two medical
doctors and aimed at surgeons, showing them how to perform this, what we would call
genital mutilation.
And it's just part of the whole situation that we're running into.
Now Isaiah chapter 5 verse 20 says, Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who put
darkness for light and light for darkness.
And then over in 1st Peter chapter 3 verse 15, we're told to be able to give a reason for
the hope that is in us.
And uh Forrest mentioned this uh getting involved ourselves.
in the culture and having an influence.
As a matter of fact, the whole field of apologetics can be divided into two sections, two
giant sections.
One is called cultural apologetics, which is just that.
That is, it focuses on what is happening in the culture, the influences, the various means
and media by which people are being influenced.
Books, podcasts,
TV programs uh and a lot of other things.
uh That need not be limited to those who are opposing the scriptures.
uh Then the other field is intellectual apologetics which deals with arguments for the
existence of God and the Bible is the Word of God.
But cultural apologetics certainly has its place.
And we will definitely follow up on that in another podcast sometime, the whole
apologetics thing, but we're kind of running out of time here.
We just appreciate the input from these brethren.
And I just think about what was said earlier.
I think about what Paul preached to Felix.
He reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come.
And I think if we take those three areas serious,
and we get the word out in our communities, our schools, whatever influence, we can also
make a change for good culturally by using the scriptures.
And I like what Forrest said about making our own culture and having that influence the
present culture.
And that will go a long way toward uh combating some of the foolishness being perpetuated
by our culture.
Well, we appreciate your listening in on us.
And if you have any questions or follow up, we would invite you to go to our website and
leave us an email.
We would love to communicate with you.
But until next time, we thank you for joining us and hope to see you next time as we
continue our discussions on these cultural issues in season two of the Harvester podcast.