The Christian Post had an inspiring piece yesterday on pastor Greg Laurie, who came from a broken and messed-up home and through the intervention of God, turned out much better than his circumstances would have normally dictated.
Without taking away from the happy ending and uplifting story, Laurie's story also illustrates why it is so critically important that we as a society move back in the direction of solid, whole, healthy families.
There are too many children being born out of wedlock, or born into a home that gets torn apart by divorce, and end up in an emotional hell. And with the fight to protect marriage from being hijacked by homosexual activists, we may soon see significant numbers of children (some already are) subjected to chaotic homes where they are also robbed of either a mother or a father.
From the Christian Post piece, consider Laurie's childhood:
"My life should have been a complete disaster," Laurie said in a sermon earlier this year at Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, Calif. "I could've ended up in a lot of places but God intervened and changed my life.
"God can take bad things and turn them into good things."
Laurie grew up with five different stepfathers. His mother, a Marilyn Monroe look-alike, went through seven marriages and would stay out most of the time, partying and getting drunk. Laurie was conceived out of wedlock and discovered, in his forties, that he was the product of a one-night stand. Most of his life, he believed his father was the first man his mother married. With no one to call "dad" and his mother never at home, Laurie questioned his existence.
"When you find out you're illegitimate, that you weren't planned, that's kind of disconcerting," he said. "You ask yourself 'Was I really meant to be? Was I a mistake? Is my life an accident? Or does God have a plan for me despite my rather inauspicious beginnings?'"
Throughout his childhood, Laurie witnessed men abusing his mother, was sent to military school twice and was "passed around" often between grandparents and other family members as his mother struggled to take care of him.
From my years in law enforcement and attempts to minister to broken families, I've seen a heartbreaking number of families and children like this.
Growing up in this kind of chaotic environment, lacking in guidance and supervision and love, kids often end up angry and hurting. They get in trouble with the law, or locked up in juvenile detention or jail. They sometimes end up getting killed by neighborhood thugs. They sometimes end up killing themselves because of their inability to cope with the pain of their lives, and see no way out.
If we really cared about children as much as our platitudes are meant to sound like, we'd put an end to our selfishness and strengthen families. We'd do everything we could to preserve our marriages and the marriages of those around us. We'd refuse to allow children to be put in homes with two homosexuals.
We reap what we sow. And we've spent the last 50 years sowing selfishness, rebellion, breakdown and chaos. Now we're reaping a crop of all that, with an infestation of the weeds of hurt and pain, to boot. And as each broken generation begets another even more broken generation, the suffering only multiples.
11 comments:
"We'd refuse to allow children to be put in homes with two homosexuals."
Statements like these worry me, because I'm afaid of where it will go. What next? Laws that require the physical removal of children from households with two homosexual parents? Compulsory registration for all known homosexuals to blacklist them from adoption agencies? Laws that require children to have adult supervision when entering the home of a homosexual couple?
And what's all this talk about how we've "spent the last 50 years sowing selfishness, rebellion, breakdown and chaos"? What was different 50 years ago, and how was it better for society?
"And we've spent the last 50 years sowing selfishness, rebellion, breakdown and chaos."
I'm genuinely confused as to whether this is a random number, or if things were so drastically different 50 years ago -- and not, say, 30 or 40 -- that you use this as a basis for comparison to today's social climate.
Also, statements like "We'd refuse to allow children to be put in homes with two homosexuals" really worry me. Where do you draw the line? Is it permissible to have the state physically remove children from their homosexual parents and place them in foster care? Should all known homosexuals enter some national registry so that they can be blacklisted from adoption agencies? Must children have adult supervision when they visit the home of a homosexual couple?
How far should we go?
Sorry, didn't mean to post so many times. I thought it didn't take my first attempt.
Fifty years ago we didn't have no-fault divorce, ripping homes apart and hurting children because the parents got bored or got an itch. Fifty years ago we didn't cart our kids off in huge numbers and dump them in daycare for someone else to raise our children. It was better for our children and society because most children had a stable home where they were taught values and ethics, instead of a host of single-parent homes, shackup homes and homes where they spend more waking hours in a daycare than in the company of their parents. This selfishness has resulted in a lack of stability in homes, which has resulted in children's emotional problems, academic problems and getting in trouble with the law.
On the other hand, fifty years ago homosexual people were considered mentally ill -- not just by the religious community, but by medical/psychological establishments as well. They could be committed to institutions against their will. They could be arrested simply for going into a gay bar. They were misunderstood and stigmatized to such a degree that people genuinely believed that their young boys were in danger of being molested, kidnapped, or killed.
Fifty years ago, it was considered socially acceptable to force black people to sit at the back of the bus and use their own drinking fountains.
Fifty years ago, if a young woman got pregnant after being raped, and her health was in danger if she carried the fetus to full term, she was not permitted to abort the pregnancy. Not even if the fetus would have died of natural causes anyway (also known as a miscarriage, or God's version of abortion). The law required that two people must die instead of one -- the latter possibly too early in its development to even feel pain.
Fifty years ago, husbands and wives could not divorce for reasons other than adultery, abuse, and other forms of misconduct. If either partner should happen to be profoundly unhappy in the marriage, the law essentially forced them to stay together. Imagine how many children had to endure an environment in which neither parent loved the other, but because neither had been unfaithful or abusive, they had to stay together.
Fifty years ago, a woman was expected to conform to certain societal roles. Not because that's what was necessarily best for her individually, but because "that's the way things have always been." Imagine having little to no choice in what you could do with your life, because in doing so you ran the risk of losing the approval and acceptance of your community.
Fifty years ago, boys and girls were expected to follow certain socially acceptable behaviors. Boys played sports and girls learned to clean and cook. If a boy didn't fit the mold of a "man," he was branded a sissy. And other boys were taught that it was ok to call him that.
Bob, things weren't as squeaky-clean as you make them out to be. Society was far from perfect fifty years ago. And while I won't argue that things are generally getting worse, we have made many important advancements, and now it's at least acceptable to talk about things that were once considered taboo.
The first question in my earlier post was genuine: Where do you draw the line when you say things like "If we really cared about children, we would refuse to allow them to be put in a home with two homosexuals"? Are the alternatives I listed valid ones? Where do you think all of this is headed? Rather, where do you WANT all of this to be headed?
Homosexuality should still be considered a mental illness and probably would be had they not aggressively lobbied the psychiatric association in the 1970s and essentially forced a politically correct (not scientific or medicinal) decision on them. The behavior is obviously a departure from what is normal, natural and healthy. It is unhealthy not only mentally and emotionally, but very disease-prone as well. People would be better off getting help to remedy this behavior than being patted on the back for their physical and spiritual ruination.
It was indeed socially acceptable to segregate black people in SOME circles 50 years ago, but not all. The world was not perfect 50 years ago, and this is one area where much needed to be done, but children and families were much more stable and much more healthy, and consequently there was much less crime and societal decay.
Fifty years ago most people recognized that an unborn child was a unique human being deserving of life, regardless of how the child was conceived. To the best of my recollection, one of the few allowances for abortion prior to the 1973 Roe decision was to save the life of the mother.
No-fault divorce also didn't come along until the 1960s; before that, people needed to exercise greater care in choosing a marital partner because they were forced to (gasp) honor their vows. If children are involved, parents should cowboy up and keep the marriage going for the good of the children; that's part of that "unselfishness" I alluded to, i.e. putting someone else's (the child's) needs ahead of their own. Love is a decision and an act of the will at least as much as it is a feeling.
To your question from the previous comment, I think laws to remove children from homes where two homosexuals are present may be a good thing. I would like to think one of the parents would be heterosexual and responsible enough not to subject the child to sexually confusing messages in the home; if not, a relative might be in order. Incidentally, I would expect similar care in a heterosexual setting, i.e. it would be improper and harmful to the child for their to be a heterosexual "other" outside of marriage in the home.
Again, this is part of what I was alluding to when I originally mentioned the selfishness of our current culture. Our culture demands sexual fulfillment in any fashion deemed attractive by the adult(s): divorce, adultery, shacking up, one-night-stands, homosexual relationships and the like. And the health and welfare of the children involved BE DAMNED!
This self-centeredness that puts sexual pleasure ahead of the well being of children is egocentric in the extreme and should not be tolerated by a civilized society.
"I think laws to remove children from homes where two homosexuals are present may be a good thing."
As someone who personally knows a gay couple raising a child, I can tell you what response you'd get: "Over our dead bodies."
It's absolutely terrifying that people like you are allowed to vote, let alone inform the public about what you think constitutes a civilized society.
For what it's worth, I find it horrifying that those who should be the guardians of child welfare would instead rather worship at the altar of political correctness and feel-good emotionalism, sacrificing the well-being of children to the god of selfishness.
Bob,
No, your explanation is worth nothing. I have been commenting on your site for a number of weeks now, partly to engage in debate and partly to get a sense of how certain Christians really feel. But what you just said about wanting to tear children away from their gay parents is truly abhorrent, and it disgusts me even more that someone can excuse such a thought with nothing more than stereotypes, biased research, and the primitive rules of a patriarchal, masochistic, and repressive cult.
You've said repeatedly in many threads that you know gay people personally. You are either lying or are so absolutely delusional that you are blind to common sense and reality, because anyone who's had even a passing conversation with a gay person could see that being gay is not a mental disorder. Only a mindless fanatic, a liar, a homophobe, or an idiot would think that way. You apparently are all four.
For what THIS is worth, Mr. Ellis, here is one less person who will read your narrow-minded, judgmental, and hateful little blog. Here is one less person who will give your opinions any credence or attention. People like you are slowly yet inevitably fading into irrelevance. The more you say, the more you come off as a comically outdated zealot, broadcasting what amounts to little more than the alarmist rantings of a sad old man reaching out to anyone who will listen. Here is one less person who is listening.
Well, I'm sorry that you'll miss out on one of the few places you're likely to find some truth in the public square, but that's your decision if you don't want to come back.
You assume (or tell yourself) my statements are based on "stereotypes, biased research, and the primitive rules of a patriarchal, masochistic, and repressive cult," but they are based on transcendent morality, nature, science, good health and good order. It's sad that you are so invested in defending an indefensible behavior that you cannot see this, but again, that is your choice.
You also are either unwilling or unable to grasp the fundamental truth that knowing a person who is doing something bad does not in any way change the morality, safety or practicality of that practice; familiarity does not change facts, nor does it change reality.
Hopefully someday before it's too late you'll realize the truth of what I've tried to convey here, and that it was done out of concern for the people caught up in this destructive lifestyle, those around them affected by it, and the society which suffers because of it.
Applauding or even condoning a behavior which is clearly destructive to the individual and to society around them will never be a loving act. I pray that God helps you understand that someday.
Post a Comment