Dr Paul Allen

“Nearly 30% of Gen Z women identify as LGBTQ, Gallup survey finds,” cheered the  NBC headline  Wednesday. NBC ran an  almost identical headline  about another survey in January. Our first thought was that taking 30% of women out of human reproduction would have devastating consequences for our nation. Our society can’t survive if male/female couples don’t reproduce. Our culture will collapse as traditional nuclear families are destroyed. It’s almost as if some people think that’s the point and the goal. To be sure, virtually the only reason  30%  of young women identify this way is that “LGBTQ+” is a social contagion. There is  no more celebrated group  of people on the planet than those who are confused about what gender they are or what sex they’re attracted to. Oh, they pretend to be oppressed, but for nearly the entire year, the national calendar is full of  days of recognition and celebration  for the Rainbow Cult. Even Joe Biden’s White House is  decked out in garish colors  to s

The coronation of King Charles III went off as planned, with pomp and ceremony designed to invoke a thousand years of history, tradition, national identity, and royal majesty. Observers might be forgiven for wondering just how the elaborate ceremony in Westminster Abbey might be described as “slimmed down” from earlier traditions. Still, it was cut down a bit from the coronation of the king’s mother, Queen Elizabeth II, 70 years earlier. The king did take the title “Defender of the Faith” because the law concerning the monarchy required it, but no one took the new king as very serious about defending the Christian faith. He had proposed changing the monarch’s title to ‘Defender of Faith” rather than “Defender of the Faith,” but that was a step too far for the British. The king did arrange to have representatives of several religions participate in the ceremony. Still, the traditional language of the British monarchy and the Church of England prevailed, with many readings based on the B

Let’s talk about polygamy. I’ve heard it said, and maybe you’ve heard it said, “The Bible approves of polygamy.” But does it? In this article, I will demonstrate why this claim is simplistic and misguided. A Man Named Lamech The first polygamist in Scripture is Lamech, in Genesis 4. There’s a positive character named Lamech in Genesis 5, and he’s the father of Noah. I’m not talking about him. The Lamech in Genesis 4 is from the line of Cain. We’re told in Genesis 4:19, “And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” The surprise here is the number two. Lamech took two wives. The first time we hear of marriage is Genesis 2, when Adam and Eve were in covenant before the Lord. The biblical author draws a conclusion from their relationship: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). One man, one woman, in the covenant of marriage—that’s what Genesis 2:24 is talk

Song of Songs 2:10,15 – My beloved speaks and says to me: “Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away…Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards…” There are probably times in every romantic relationship or marriage, especially early on, when you can’t imagine the other person ever hurting or annoying you. But because we’re all human and sinful since the Fall in Genesis 3, this changes at some point in every relationship. In Song of Songs 2, the woman (who we are referring to as Abbi) is making deposits into their relationship by the words she speaks, as the way we speak and act towards each other can be described as deposits and withdrawals, similar to a bank account. We want to make many, many deposits so that the withdrawals, or tough conversations, can be in a more relational context and hopefully not sting so much. She calls Solomon “my beloved” (2:8-10) and says things like “…your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely.” (2:14) In the very next verse,

Why This Issue Matters I’m a pastor. My concern is with the church—what she believes, what she celebrates, and what she proclaims. Achieving some legal and political end is not my primary calling and yet, I’m concerned that many younger Christians—ironically, often those most attuned to societal transformation and social justice—do not see the connection between a traditional view of marriage and human flourishing.  Many Christians are keen to resurrect the old pro-choice mantra touted by some Catholic politicians: personally opposed, but publicly none of my business. I want Christians to see why this issue matters and why—when same-sex marriage became the law of the land—the integrity of the family was weakened and the freedom of the church was threatened. I know this is an increasingly unpopular line of reasoning, even for those who are inclined to accept the Bible’s teaching about marriage. Perhaps you believe that homosexual behaviour is biblically unacceptable.  And yet, you wonde

“Some words, like strategic castles, are worth defending, and evangelical is among them,” Michael Gerson wrote. “While the term is notoriously difficult to define, it certainly encompasses a ‘born-again’ religious experience, a commitment to the authority of the Bible, and an emphasis on the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.” Gerson wrote those words in an article for The Atlantic in 2018. He ends his essay by saying,  “This sets an urgent task for evangelicals: to rescue their faith from its worst leaders.” Gerson, who previously served as a top aide and speechwriter for George W. Bush and is the author of Heroic Conservatism and coauthor of City of Man (a book edited by Collin Hansen and Tim Keller), has been an evangelical voice in the public square. It’s unfortunate, then, that he now uses arguments about sexuality that contradict Scripture and the church’s historic witness. As he notes, being an evangelical means being committed to the Bible’s authority—a position he seems to have

1 Corinthians 7:6–7 “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” Wrong views of marriage and sex can lead to all sorts of problems. In the first-century Corinthian church, a radical dualism that separated soul and body resulted in believers’ thinking it was acceptable to visit prostitutes, to be celibate even in marriage, and to satisfy sexual desires outside of marriage because of that celibacy.  Thus, Paul stresses the importance of personal holiness and the duty of husband and wife to give their bodies to one another in the sexual relationship. Following such direction would lessen the strength of Satan’s temptations to illicit sexual encounters and bring glory to God (1 Cor. 6:12–7:5). Many commentators believe that the people advocating marital celibacy in Corinth were appealing to Paul’s own celibate singleness to justify their position. That would certainly explain

1 Corinthians 7:3–5 “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (V3–4). God’s Word does not frown on the sexual union of man and woman or view it as a necessary evil merely for the sake of procreation. Instead, Scripture tells us that sex is good and even holy when it takes place in the proper context, the one-flesh relationship of husband and wife. Clearly, we are to infer as much from the account of marriage’s institution in Genesis 2:18–25. Today’s passage also affirms the goodness of the sexual relationship between spouses. Paul’s teaching on sex within marriage is extraordinary. He says that husband and wife should give one another their conjugal rights (1 Cor. 7:3). Each has a right to enjoy sex and each has an obligation to help the other enjoy sex as well. Both spouses sh

1 Corinthians 7:1–2 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” First Corinthians, was written in part to respond to a letter that the Corinthian church had sent Paul. This passage makes that clear, for the Apostle begins to address a matter about which the church “wrote” him (1 Cor. 7:1). In so doing, Paul gives vital practical instruction for honourable Christian living. Paul says that he will respond to an argument summarized by the phrase “it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (v. 1). Some have contended that this phrase represents Paul’s actual position, that he believed lifelong celibacy was a good thing for all people. However, the whole scope of 1 Corinthians 7 makes that view impossible. The Apostle does state that some advantages attend being unmarried and celib

Recently, the option of living together, rather than moving into a formal marriage contract, has proliferated in our culture let alone fake marriage that homosexuals pursue. Christians must be careful not to establish their precepts of marriage (or any other ethical dimension of life) on the basis of contemporary community standards. The Christian's conscience is to be governed not merely by what is socially acceptable or even by what is legal according to the law of the land, but rather by what God sanctions. Unfortunately, some Christians have rejected the legal and formal aspects of marriage, arguing that marriage is a matter of private and individual commitment between two people and has no legal or formal requirements. These view marriage as a matter of individual private decision apart from the external ceremony. The question most frequently asked of clergymen on this matter reflects the so-called freedom in Christ: "Why do we have to sign a piece of paper to

Sitting across from me at the kitchen table this afternoon, you poured out your heart. When you married your high school sweetheart at 19, you never once suspected you would be in this place. Now, at 39, after twenty years of marriage, you call yourself gay. In tears, you tell me that you have “come out,” and that you’re not looking back. You haven’t had an affair. Yet. But there is this woman you met at the gym. You work out with her every morning, and you text with her throughout the day. Even though you are a covenant member of a faithful church, sit under solid preaching, and put up a good front for the children, you have been inwardly despising your husband for some time now. Hearing him read the Bible makes you cringe. You haven’t been intimate with him for over a year now. You tell me you can’t bear it. Is Gay Good? You tell me that leaving your husband for a woman is not an act of unfaithfulness. You tell me that you are being faithful to who you really are, and