Careful Who You Let In the Door

The apostle Paul wrote that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”. (Galatians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:6) In appealing to the Judaic symbolism for sin, leaven, Paul warns us to beware of tolerating subtle and seemingly harmless influences which can corrupt our walk with Christ.

One wishes, in certain instances, to be able to lead the horse to water and make him drink as well. I allude to the old saying because too many Christians haven’t heeded Paul’s advice. Their willful ignorance and non-compliance with the sacred text has resulted in devastation.

Consider how immoral ideas have crept their way into modern church circles. Take homosexuality as an example. Even though the Bible couldn’t be more explicit about the abomination that is same-sex behavior (1 Cor. 6:9; Romans 1:26-27), throughout the past few decades it has found greater acceptance among self-professed believers. This has occurred for two primary reasons. They are manifested in the form of certain tactics which were designed to create an atmosphere of normalization for sin.

Firstly, a full force campaign by secular groups to both convince the public and the church into embracing homosexuality and its corollary, homosexual marriage. (The reason same-sex marriage was coined as a concept was to promote the fallacious idea that homosexuals didn’t enjoy the same “rights” as their heterosexual counterparts. Please note that in denoting it as a “right”, the militants found a way to use the blunt-force instrument of the law to impose recognition of homosexuality as an “alternative”.) This would be accomplished by the use of propaganda.

Advocates used the entertainment industry, educational system and politics in general to endear persons to the “cause”. The idea was to use heavily charged, emotional imagery to create the illusion that homosexuals were routinely persecuted throughout the country, thereby needing special protections (especially from “bigoted” and “intolerant” Christians). They appropriated themselves of the messaging of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, although slightly refashioned, to portray themselves as the national victims. In the end, much of the general public and the church, by extension, dropped their guard by believing the fabricated narrative.

Seemingly overnight, Americans came to sympathize with the imaginary plight of the homosexuals and have gone on to view homosexuality as “normal” and view the corruption of marriage, named gay marriage, as equally valid as normal marriage.

Soon enough many churches began to demonstrate their willingness to compromise the eternal Gospel by “praying over the matter” or simply staying silent about homosexuality altogether because they wanted to appear “inclusive”, “open-minded” and “tolerant”. Forget standing fast in the doctrine given by God to the saints. This development was and is in flagrant violation of the Biblical mandate regulating sexual behavior and thought. (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

In essence, the church acquiesced to a fraudulent sob story. Yet, there were still holdouts. Those dissenters would be the beneficiaries of the second prong of a two-pronged attack against Biblical values which the supposed “tolerant” and “loving” sodomites always held back from the public view for obvious reasons.

Since the resisters wouldn’t be convinced by the emotional propaganda, they needed to be coerced by any means necessary. What many didn’t expect was for the affable and harmless “gays” to launch a campaign of slander, vindictiveness and economic terrorism against those who dared to disagree with the normalization of homosexuality. The intention was to both shame them and pressure them via financial repression into silencing their personal oppositions. A “hit ‘em where it hurts” crusade, as it were.

Lawsuits and smear campaigns (through the mass media) ensued. Christian bakers, florists, photographers, ministers, churches and even pizza shop owners were intentionally and maliciously targeted and persecuted by the Gay Bolsheviks.

Again, either by infiltration or by outright intimidation, forced adherence to the desensitization of homosexuality was always the goal.

It is the infiltration aspect of this movement I would like highlight in order to make the salient point of this article. It’s occurring again – albeit, in a much more seductive manner.

I will assume that the reader will have come to know all of the details pertaining to the riots which occurred at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago, meant to intimidate the school into prohibiting polemic commentator and flaming homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos from addressing a group of students.

Yiannopoulos has made a name for himself within conservative circles for being a personification of the counterargument against the leftist talking point: “Conservatives hate gays”. Since he loudly denounces feminism and speaks his mind without obeying the repressive rules of political correctness, conservatives have opened their metaphorical doors to him and embraced him as a fellow conservative.

However, a half-hearted believer does not a believer make. In the same vein, a half-hearted conservative does not a conservative make. Yiannopoulos, by definition, cannot be a conservative due to his incessant flaunting of his homosexual bona fides and his usage of foul language and reprobate imagery to communicate his ideas.

If conservatives believe that the nuclear family (one man, one woman) is one of the cornerstones of what Edmund Burke called “civil society” (along with the “Christian religion”, public virtue, liberty and limited government), why would they allow a person whose personal life contradicts this vital principle to be a part of the fold?

In the name of disproving the blatant misrepresentations and lies leftists have promoted about conservative hate-filled attitudes towards homosexuals, conservatives have embraced an individual who violates one of the inviolable principles of conservatism.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Having the token “conservative” homosexual is sure to fool many into adopting the corrupted form of conservatism instead of the real thing. Just the same, it can be said that when Christians allow anti-Biblical thoughts, notions, attitudes and people into the fold and call it “Christianity”, many will mistakenly and perilously adopt a corrupted form of Christianity.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Anything that deviates, even slightly, from the Biblical counsel ought to be wholly and emphatically repudiated. Let it not be that in the name of appearances and public opinion we allow a seditious element among us. (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Cor. 5:9-12; 1 Timothy 6:3-5)

Just like we do not open our literal doors to anyone in the name of protecting our families and property, we should not carelessly and mindlessly open our spiritual doors to anything that may have an appearance of piety, but is in fact a treasonous element. (2 Cor. 11:14)

One thought on “Careful Who You Let In the Door

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s