The Rev. Canon J. Edwin Bacon Jr. is an Episcopal priest, the rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, USA. He is described as a “supporter” of gays and lesbians, and of same-sex marriage. His recent pro-gay comments on the Oprah Winfrey show stunned even Oprah who has some rather way-out New Age beliefs of her own.

“Being gay is a gift from God,” Bacon declared in an episode that aired Jan. 7.

Appearing shocked, Winfrey responded, “Well, you are the first minister I’ve ever heard say, ‘Being gay is a gift from God,’ I can tell you that.”

The Christian Post

The Rev. Bacon clarified his meaning to Oprah a few days later by saying:

I meant exactly what I said. It is so important for every human being to understand that he or she is a gift from God, and particularly people who are marginalized and victimized in our culture. Gay and lesbian people are clearly outcasts in many areas of our life and it’s so important for them to understand that when God made them, God said you are good. That is a gift, that is a blessing, that is the original blessing with which every one of us is made by God and loved by God.

Well, you might think that an Anglican clergyman would know what he is talking about, but this one seems to be making it up as he goes along. These ideas need more than just a few squirts from the can of bs repellent… or else a disclaimer that they are not to be found in the Bible as stated.

Yep, God made us, His creatures. That is not under dispute. God also declared that His creation was good. But that declaration of pleasure in His workmanship came well before everything slid downhill when mankind disobeyed his Creator. Or so the Bible teaches. Contrary to how The Rev. Bacon tells the story, the Biblical version is that mankind messed up Big Time and we are no longer “good”. We are rotten at the core. No matter how hard we try, not one of us is righteous as God had originally made us, and so had first described us (and all His creation) to be good. The Rev. Bacon has muddled his timing in that respect.

Yes, we are a gift… children are definitely a gift from God to their parents, friends to each other, and so forth. But The Rev. Bacon has added his own little spin to that, a rather subtle spin that can have us thinking we are “good” because we are good gifts from Him. Be careful not to fall for that little confusion. We are not basically good. The Bible does not teach that. Instead, it teaches that we are all flawed beings, far from perfect, far from righteous, while still being gifts from God to each other.

Being gay (homosexual) is not a gift - not according to the Bible. Homosexual practice is described as sexual immorality, a sin, a behaviour of flawed individuals and just one more falling short in our efforts to glorify God. There are lists of gifts mentioned in Scripture, but absolutely nowhere is this human flaw included as one of them. The Rev. Bacon is making it up. This is man-made stuff, not genuine Biblical Christian teaching at all. This man might be a clergyman, but he is actually a false teacher, one listening to the political agendas of the day and bending Christian truth that cannot be bent and still remain truth.

Check this out: Jesus and Homosexuality

Christians are often slandered for quoting verses from Scripture, accused of taking them out of context to throw around rather like a silly bun fight. I can find plenty of Biblical references to back up this theologically sound Christian position from which I challenge the nonsense of The Rev. Bacon. However, it does get tedious when the false teacher has his feet firmly caught in the mire of liberal theology and usually spurns Biblical authority anyway. I have already done so many times before, in many posts to Judah’s Journal. The bottom line is that we can either accept Biblical wisdom and truth, or listen instead to secular humanism that is profoundly anti-Christian at its core. It definitely is the latter that the Rev. Bacon is teaching.

It may be a little while ago now but I can still remember perfectly clearly. New life began when a sperm penetrated an ovum. This was called fertilization. It was also called conception. In terms of human reproduction, a new individual, another little person, had been conceived. All the DNA required to direct the development of this new little being was present in that fertilized ovum, and already the process of cell division was taking place. Its conception had occurred.

But my High School days were some time ago, and the most certain things in life are not just taxes and death but also the fact that things change. Language, or the use of language - the meanings of words - also undergo change.

The word conception these days has been divorced from the event of fertilization and is now used in conjunction with the event of implantation. A new life is not considered conceived until the fertilized ovum, by then a clump of cells (called a blastocyst) following its numerous cell divisions, has become successfully implanted in the uterine wall. Conception is said to occur upon implantation, not upon fertilization. This change in definition has become so commonplace that it is now reflected in standard medical reference books such as OB & GYN Terminology (E. Hughes, ed., Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972):

Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization.

This is the new meaning of the word, the way it is to be used these days - not as I was taught in High School biology.

So when does pregnancy begin? The Planned Parenthood Federation of America offers an answer:

Medical and scientific experts agree that pregnancy begins with implantation. It happens several days after fertilization when the developing pre-embryo is implanted in the wall of the uterus. Implantation begins the release of hormones that are necessary to support a pregnancy.

In short, a woman is not pregnant until the developing pre-embryo is attached to her and gets nutrients from her. For example, a fertilized egg in a petri dish does not represent a pregnancy.

(Reference: How Pregnancy Happens)

Well, we know that saying a petri dish is pregnant is rather silly. But when this event occurs within a woman, not a petri dish, then that distinction of language is hardly necessary. Or is it?

If a woman is not pregnant, then she cannot miscarry nor have an abortion. If a fertilized ovum is not a newly conceived individual, a new life, then there can be no moral implications in making certain no implantation will occur. Birth control measures that prevent implantation can be regarded as no different in this respect than those that prevent fertilization in the first place. All are bundled together under the term contraception and no distinction between them is considered necessary. If a blastocyst or “pre-embryo” (don’t these technical terms help us to de-humanize nicely?) is deliberately deprived of the requirements to continue its life and development, then contraception can euphemistically be said to have taken place. It is a far more comfortable and forgiving word than abortion.

Unique DNA is considered the determination of a specific individual. The DNA of all individuals is proven to be set at fertilization, not at implantation which is just one of many stages of human development. Choosing implantation as the stage at which conception occurs (and thus new life begins) is indeed arbitary. Why choose implantation and not some other stage? Why especially when fertilization is the point at which one’s unique DNA is set? In the past the first movements felt by the expectant mother, the quickening, have been considered the beginning of life. We count a person’s age, their length of life, from their date of birth, not that of any pre-born stage - but clearly life had begun much sooner than that. The fallacy of arguing for implantation as the beginning of life is that any stage of development can then be chosen to redefine this occurrence. It becomes a matter of personal opinion, open to any interpretation, justified however one chooses (e.g. the irrationality of a pregnant petri dish) and moral codes can be overwritten by the political agendas of various lobby groups and governments. It seems they already have!

The stark and unrelenting truth is covered up by this clever shift in language. As I know it, my son was conceived the instant that an ovum of mine was fertilized by one of my husband’s sperm. It didn’t happen in a petri dish so I am quite happy to be considered pregnant right from the time the tiny fertilized ovum he was came tumbling down my fallopian tube. He had come into being even when I was not aware that he had. There was no time between fertilization and implantation that he wasn’t alive and growing. The conditions for his survival needed modification all the time, and while implantation was an obviously essential one, it hadn’t been required during those first few days when he would have been labelled a “pre-embryo” and yet those cells were most definitely alive. Essential too was continuing placental proficiency, and protection from all kinds of potential harm.

Language can play clever tricks. Meanings of words can be changed to provide spin, to distort or mask particular ideas, but none of those changes can alter the truth - the absolute truth that is absolute reality no matter what.

Mt Egmont, reaching a height of 8,260 ft with its base at sea level, is often claimed to be one of the most symmetrical volcanoes in the world. It is usually covered with snow, but it is summer at present in the Southern Hemisphere and I took this photo just yesterday. The mountain is frequently cloaked in cloud but the winds above obligingly unwrapped its form though left in place a hazy veil of UV light. It erupted last about 350 years ago and is considered dormant rather than extinct.

The first time I was welcomed on to a marae (Maori meeting house) and permitted to speak, I was required to introduce myself by naming both the river and the mountain with which I identify. As a South Islander with a special fondness for the Southern Alps, I nominated Mt Cook as my mountain, and having been born in Christchurch, the pretty meandering Avon River as my river. That one identifies with a territory, not just a name, is interesting to me. It locates one’s origins geographically. Mt Egmont appeals to me aesthetically, but it is not my mountain in the same way that I feel towards the Southern Alps.

As a New Zealander, I belong to this country. As a human being, I belong to this world. In terms of time, I belong to this present Age. However, my real home is not of this world, nor of this Age. I have dual citizenship, that of this world where I live at the moment, and that of elsewhere in another, the one where I truly belong. Submitting to the lordship of Christ provides a dimension that radically changes perspective, that gives assurance that this earthly life is not all there is. There is far more to creation than that of which our senses appraise us. This kind of knowledge comes as a gift. It is not a consequence of being in any way deserving. And the Giver is indeed gracious beyond measure. He has said:

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

It is customary on many forums that members add a favourite saying, comment or quotation as part of their signatures, and these have often intrigued me. I have a favourite one that is a quote from G.K. Chesterton, namely…

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.
It has been found difficult; and left untried.

On one Christian forum I noticed a member, someone very new to the faith, had chosen the words of Romans 2:7. Quoting from the New International Version, these are…

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life.

This single sentence left to stand on its own can give quite the wrong message.

These words were written by the Apostle Paul to the people of the church at Rome prior to, and probably in preparation for, his visit to them. These were people who had already received the Gospel message which is that salvation and eternal life can come only through faith in the Son of God (that faith being a gift of God’s grace) and is not a matter of good works alone. Throughout his letter Paul carefully presents the closest that we have from him of a systematic theology. He addresses the themes of sin and spiritual death, the unrighteousness of all people, and salvation by faith through God’s gift of grace. The context of the sentence quoted above is that such faith will produce good works, not that good works (deemed as such by non-believers) is any substitute for such faith.

Yes, context absolutely does matter! Without this faith in the Son of God, no “good works” are good enough for the gift of eternal life. We are quite unable to be good enough to earn such a reward. After all, it was Jesus Himself who said…

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,
but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.
(John 3:36 … bold emphasis mine)

I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me.
(John 14:6)

Being a “good person” who does “good things” is simply not enough. Paul is not contradicting Jesus. The good works that are written of by the Apostle Paul are those that God brings forth in true believers.

Good works, in the context of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, cannot be divorced from faith in the Son of God.

And mere intellectual assent as a form of belief is not enough either. True faith will be evidenced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit. It will be a witness to the lordship of Christ in the life of the believer. Under His lordship these good works come forth.

I guess that having ended the previous year’s entries with a vivid sunset, it is appropriate to begin the New Year’s entries with a glorious sunrise. So here it is… with best wishes to all who stop and visit here, that you may be granted a New Year filled with all things good, as rich in events and insights as this sunrise shows in promise for the day that is dawning.