Contend For


Gen. James Green

“Well, yes, I think we’re supposed to,”

so goes your average “Christian.”

L ET’S BE MORE specific here: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:3, 4).

Forward 2015! What the church (real word=Ekklesia) used to be was ON GUARD and ready to FIGHT the GOOD FIGHT (1 Tim. 6:12 and 2 Tim. 2:2-4)—and what it is today spells BACKSLID!!

How did the people of faith—the Biblical faith—get here? What made the church change sides?—from standing AGAINST GLBTQ barf, over to siding WITH it (there are exceptions, but even these are fading away like early morning mist. I believe TOLERANCE for the FORBIDDEN is mostly to blame)?


Sick Culture of Tolerance

AS THE ODIOUS “pink stink” of the GLBTQ movement mounts up (not like an Eagle, as in Isa. 40:31, but like a vulture), even your normal Churchite is sucked into the osmosis of “pink stink.” Your average Churchite knows NOTHING or LITTLE about Spirit warfare. No, they are worldly-minded, thus, languid. While the GLBTQ (acronym for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer/ questioning) flexes their “pink” muscles, the average Churchite cringes in the corner of their church, or hubrisly joins them in their “Pink Revolution” against God and His Word.

How, dear ones, did the shift occur from (Biblical) morality, to humanist rights, and why has it proven persuasive? I think Thomas E. Schmidt (New Testament and Greek teacher [or was] at Westmont college) has a good take on this question:

“In the broadest terms, we might consider developments in Western and especially American culture. Begin with the affirmation that all people are created equal (whatever that means!), and continue with the principle that the state should not rule in matters of personal conscience. Implication: the state should protect privacy” (“Straight and Narrow,” p. 25, 26). Well, now, that used to be true. Not now. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, what we Christians believe (Biblically=ONE man with ONE woman in a life-long marriage covenant) has just been flushed down the “pink stink” toilet. Will our speaking OUT against this GLBTQ filth be next to be flushed?

For what Schmidt has written, here’s the rub—gradually REMOVE the nation of a universal standard by which to evaluate behavior (Judeo-Christian tradition), and people are left to evaluate THEIR OWN behavior, which, according to Schmidt, is all equally moral, because it is all equally legal. But, be warned, the other side to it all, is this: it becomes immoral (or illegal) to express INTOLERANCE, and the definition of intolerance could (and probably will) extend to any challenge to a legally protected behavior or opinion. Think about it.



WELL, “they’re here, and they’re queer” is the result of the Church falling asleep on guard duty!! Let’s face the facts: the Church, in the last 30-40 plus years has “gone a whoring,” “played the harlot,” and “sucked after the world.” Now, the State demands tolerance of such unethical, unholy, unclean, unBiblical and unhealthy acts—just as we see here in America. Judges 21:25 is ALIVE!

Let it be said, being a homosexual is not something you are (“we’re born this way” argument), but something you’ve learned to be. Sure, you may have been born with a same-sex attraction, just like someone who is born with opposite-sex attraction…which later turns one into a whoremonger/whore, or a thief who feels the urge to steal etc. Public perceptions of the inevitability of GLBTQ behavior is skrewed. ON WHAT BASIS DOES ONE DECIDE WHAT IS, OR IS NOT, INEVITABLE?

We may ask WHY do the majority of “Pink” Theologians, Scholars, and Pastors etc. get away with dismissing all those Scriptures that deal with this issue of same-sex sex? Are the heterosexuals the only ones that have “Thou shalt not” thrown at them? I’ve studied my share of pro-GLBTQ authors, pastors, and theologians who dismiss all those ‘clobber Scriptures’ as: “You misinterpret them; they don’t really mean that” (order our many “Gay Way” booklets/magazines, CDs, and DVDs for our critique of the “pink stink” promoters).

 H A, H A,


I’M NOT FOOLED! You poor suckers in Church-la-la-land may believe their “pink stink” propaganda, but that’s your problem. You see, public tolerance of these unBiblical SINS/ABOMINATIONS, dramatically increases when (dumbed-down) people are convinced that a desire for same-sex sex is biologically driven. Well, give us proof please. None as of late. We’ve got to DROP the view that homos do not DO, but ARE. In other words, we must drop the view that we can’t condemn these poor pitiful souls if THEY ARE (that way)! Therefore, these sickos demand, and I mean DEMAND that we accept…and even celebrate, them. HA! I don’t celebrate what God’s Word condemns.

Vice List

ONE ONLY has to go to the (several) vice lists in the New Testament. Jesus put forth a lengthy one in Mark 7:21-22, in which: “evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,” are at the top. He says in v. 20: “That which cometh out of a man, that DEFILETH the man,” that is, to be separated from salvation. If one researches “fornications,” one will see that, in the big picture, it deals with all unnatural, unholy, unethical, and unhealthy sex sins, not just pre-marriage sex.

Here is the apostle Paul’s vice list (one of them, 1 Cor. 6:9): “Or do you not realize that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral...”

This word is Greek pornoi (G4205)= “fornicators;”

~ NRSV, NAB, REB, NASB, ASV, AND KJV use “fornicators;”

~ “The sexually immoral,” is used by the NIV/NJB (or New Jerusalem Bible);

~ “The immoral” is used by the RSV;

~ “One who is immoral” is used by the CEV;

~ “Those who indulge in sexual sin” is used by the NLT translation.

Paul puts “fornicators, idolaters,” and “adulterers, effeminate” (males who play the sexual role of females [Greek malakoi= “men who assume the female role in sex,” “men who assume a passive sexual role with other men.”] B. Brooten, a lesbian author/theologian/scholar with plenty of “degrees” says this), “male prostitutes” (NRSV, NIV, NLT), “boy prostitutes” (NAB), “effeminate call boys,” “the self-indulgent” (NJB), “perverts,” “catamites,”…and the lists by other (both hetero/homo) scholars/authors could be included.

What is Paul saying? He is saying that those who practice those things (sex-sins) will be KEPT OUT OF THE KINGDOM (V. 10).

If one dares to examine the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai, one will get the true meaning. Paul gives a similar vice list in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 in which he mentions “the sexually immoral” (Greek pornoi or “fornicators”) and “males who take other males to bed” (Greek arsenokoitai).

Now, pray tell me, HOW these “pink stink Christians” can NOT see that these vices will keep one out of the Kingdom? Even the vice list in Gal. 5 mentions: “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, and idolatry.” These are all sex-sins, or sins connected with them. Again, Paul tells us that these SINS will keep one out of the Kingdom (Gal. 5:21). Yet, whole churches tolerate these sins, and are even “doing” them.

Paul dealt with a case of incest in cpt. 5 (a specific case of porneia, mentioned as “sexual immorality”)...what did he do? Celebrate that sin? NO!... “remove from your fellowship and your midst” (5:2). Incest is a sin according to Lev. 18:6-16, just as male with male homosexuality is, Lev. 18:22; 20:13.

Back to Fornication

AS ALREADY STATED, “fornication” is more than premarital sex. Paul calls incest, “fornication,” in 1 Cor. 5:1. Paul writes in 6:18 to: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

Note: if “fornication” only means premarital sex, why does Paul address the church at Corinth as more than people that were not married (see cpt. 7 for his instructions to the “married”). Paul instructs the Ekklesia at Corinth to FLEE FORNICATION(6:18), the use of the present tense indicates that the Christian must repeatedly FLEE sexual immorality (homo, hetero or otherwise, i.e. transgenderism). How is it that the “pink stink” GLBTQ camp tells us otherwise? They just LIE! They tell us that GLBTQ sins are permissible, but heterosexual sins are not. WOW!

Their Word?

ALL THIS “pink stink” propaganda has a powerful cumulative effect—at least to dumbed-down America. It creates the impression that “their word” is serving the cause of civil/human/gay rights against the miasma and bigotry of Biblical Christianity. Their ad hoc warfare amounts to, in their sight, profundity, ad nauseam.

Who are we to believe: the GLBTQ, or God’s Word? The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation affirms heterosexuality and denounces homosexuality (but it also condemns heterosexual sex-sins). NOWHERE in Scripture do we find GLBTQ examples of virtue, examples to follow, honor, or anything worthy of praise.

Our GLBTQ opponents tell us that Jesus never condemned homosexuality...but He didn’t have to, it was illegal already, and hardly ever found in Israel in His day. However, He did mention adultery as SIN in Matt. 5:27-30; however, adultery was a “natural sin,” not a “unnatural” one. Notice in 5:32 Jesus’ wording: “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery…” Notice how He uses the word “fornication,” not as a premarital sex sin, but as adultery itself. So this shows once again, that FORNICATION INCLUDES ALL SEX-SINS (see also 19:9 where “fornication” is again used, plus in vv. 4-8 Jesus reinforces the man/male with woman/female marriage of Genesis 1:27 and 5:2. Not one word about same-sex sex, or same-sex marriage).

Our opponents try to tell us that Jesus never used Biblical passages to condemn behaviors. Well, His vice list in Mark 7 certainly mentions sinful behaviors (of course Mark 7 had not yet been written in a New Testament Bible, but He drew from Old Testament sources).

Lastly, look at 1 Cor. 10:1-12, especially v. 8: “Neither let us commit FORNICATION, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” 23,000!!! I can assure you, these ALL were not people having premarital sex. I’m sure there was every kind of sex act going on to provoke God’s fury.

We pray for the salvation, not damnation of GLBTQ peoples. Yet, if they are stubborn and bent on destroying others, we pray a bit differently. Promiscuity, alcohol/drug abuse, depression, suicide, self-hatred, and even God-hatred is the lot of most “gay” people...not to mention the diseases they spread.

I have done my share of reading their “rants” and “excuses,” as well as personally working with and praying deliverance for many GLBTQ peoples. Their highly propagated and clouded interpretation of Scripture is not convincing. Rather, it is pathetic indeed, with quotations taken totally out of context, questionable translations, and lots of “pink” speculations to fill in the gaps.

John Boswell (who died at 47 of AIDS) was a good case in point of a “scholar” (he knew several languages and had degrees in history) who CHEATED in order to make it appear that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality (see my critique of his book)—in order to promote this “pink stink” stuff to get the acceptance of the heterosexual community.

Unethical justifications and explanations are common among the “pinkos.” THERE IS NO WAY TO JUSTIFY REBELLION AGAINST GOD, HIS WORD, OR HIS NATURE. As a “moral” category, “natural” refers to something that is in accord with God’s intentions. God did NOT intend for men to lie with men, nor women to lie with women. Amen.

We would like to hear from you!
To request literature or more information
about us or our community please