News from California travels around the country, so perhaps you have heard about Bill AB 2943 here in the state legislature and its relationship to religious liberty. People like me don’t want it to pass. We oppose it, but I think it probably will become law no matter how many people in California are against it. Here is the exact wording of the crux of the California bill:
Existing law prohibits mental health providers, as defined, from performing sexual orientation change efforts, as specified, with a patient under 18 years of age. Existing law requires a violation of this provision to be considered unprofessional conduct and subjects the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.
This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
The bill continues by also arguing the following:
Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender [lgbt] is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness. . . . [S]exual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.
Of course, true Christians, those who follow biblical teaching and practice, don’t agree. They want conversion of the above, “lgbtq,” (“q” means questioning, that is, someone who is uncertain of his sexual orientation) because they believe that those lifestyles are not congruent with a scriptural doctrine of salvation. They also deny that those are natural behaviors or that those people were born those ways. God’s Word calls for repentance from those because they are sins or perversions of right or God designed behavior.
Another angle on the bill is first amendment rights for Christians: freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Do the secular theories of psychiatry prevail over the beliefs of Christians? Christians would think they could speak and practice biblical truth, the latter under the free exercise clause, but not if the state rules that this causes psychological and even physical harm to “lgbtq.” Some of this might enter into parental rights too. If a child grows up with homosexual interests and a parent doesn’t like it, can he “attempt to convert” his own child. Churches and church leaders see these confrontations just over the horizon, perhaps generating a constitutional crisis.
For the rest of this post, I’m going to call “lgbtq,” sodomites, not as an offense to them, but because I believe and think that it is a more accurate title. I don’t believe there is actually such a thing as “lgbtq.” I like the designation “q” because those people are uncertain, like a lot of people are about a lot of things. Their uncertainty fuels their perversion. They are perverse acts and no science has proven they are natural.
Are the authors and supporters of this bill attempting to protect children? Is that really their agenda? The bill will do just the opposite of protecting children. For instance, you have a little boy, who likes dressing up like a girl. If passed, this will make that easier for him. Sodomites can confuse, convert, and push their adherents all the way to sexual reassignment surgery without charge. The authors and advocates are conspiring to legislate the acceptance of Christians or at least gloat in their power to subjugate them. They don’t care about the kids.
In a technical sense, one might argue that Bill AB 2943 doesn’t prohibit churches from evangelizing sodomites. However, based on past history, these types of laws are very often applied later in court to people who “attempt to convert.” The Federalist says that the bill, if passed, could ban Bibles. My main purpose for writing this post is to contend that the new law won’t stop biblical evangelism of sodomites. A biblical theology of evangelism will not either stop evangelism of sodomites or break whatever interpretation of the new law its advocates might make.
In the history of Christian theology, you read the technical language, “free offer of the gospel.” Not everyone will want to listen to the gospel, but you can offer it to them. You offer sodomites the gospel. If they don’t want it, you don’t have to do more. Churches offer them the opportunity. You see in scripture the language of the free offer.
Psalm 34:8, “O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.”
Proverbs 1:24, “I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded.”
Isaiah 55:1, “Come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”
Isaiah 65:1-2, “I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people.”
Matthew 22:2-3, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.”
Matthew 23:37, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
Luke 14:16-18, “A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse.”
The teaching of a free offer originates from scripture. It is implied in Jesus’ teaching and practice of shaking the dust from ones feet, which appears four times in the gospels, including Matthew 10:14, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
Not everyone is going to listen to the gospel, nor do they always want it. Believers not only have no responsibility to preach to people who don’t want to hear it, but Jesus commands believers not to preach to them. Whenever I approach sodomites with the gospel, which is all the time out of love for God and the sodomites, if they don’t want it, I don’t give it to them. I try, but if they are unwilling, as many times they are not, I move on.
Whatever bad AB 2943 will do in California, it won’t stop biblical evangelism with anyone. Conversion comes through biblical evangelism. If a sodomite doesn’t want conversion, then we don’t have to give it to him. It’s not our responsibility as Christians to preach the gospel to those who don’t want to hear it, and since conversion comes by preaching the gospel, sodomites will only be converted if they will listen.
I wrote this because I thought people should care. It's serious. People should know what's going on and how to think about it, but also as an encouragement that we don't have to view it as losing religious freedom if we see evangelism in a scriptural way.