Rev. Koole is pastor of Grandville Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan.
Of all the evils that threaten the world and that Satan is using against the Christian witness against sin, there is probably none so diabolical, dangerous, and influential as the radical feminist movement. This movement seems to mother, nurture, and carry all the other demons in its womb. It carries the seed of the serpent, is filled with malice towards the Woman and her seed, and will stop at nothing to put itself and its offspring in ascendancy. It, like Herod and Athaliah of old, will even devour its own (through murderous abortion) if it feels these offspring stand in its way. This movement is dangerous because of the growing number of females (one blanches to call them women) involved in the movement and the places of power they occupy (from the Supreme Court on down) and places of influence they hold (Universities are shot through with them). They have an agenda that they are pushing with fervor.
In an insightful article, not to say troubling, entitled “Depraved New World: Radical Feminists’ Plan for America” (Chalcedon Report, December 2003), Lee Duigon underscores what this movement is up to, pointing out that the gay movement itself is riding on the—dare I say—”apron-strings” (perhaps better, the steel corset) of the feminist movement. As Mr. Duigon points out, while the gay marriage campaign is getting all the publicity, it is really “only the camel’s nose in the tent.”
The gay activists get the publicity, but the serious work is being done behind the scenes by academic feminists. They have a plan for America, and they have clearly articulated it in print, at public meetings, and in their classrooms. Not since Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kampf has a blue print for revolution been so openly laid out.
What this agenda is was made clear last spring at a conference on “Marriage, Democracy, and Families” hosted by Hofstra University on Long Island, New York. Duigon informs us that the participants “included the elite of America’s family law profession, many of whom are lesbians and radical feminists.” Having listed a number of the leading participants of one panel discussion dealing with an assault on marriage (referred to as “Beyond Marriage”), Duigon asks, “Who are these people?” and then informs us that:
They are respected, highly paid professors of prestigious universities. Some of them are on a career track that can lead to a federal judgeship, as was the case for U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They are teachers and trainers of future lawyers and judges, founders and members of legal advocacy groups…, authors whose works are regularly published in America’s law journals.
…they are…the power elite of American family law. As such, they are in a strong position to influence public policy — especially through the courts.
Now notice what they want and intend to push for, things that are already being suggested in the public forum. According to Duigon:
First, an end to marriage. “The institution is a failure,” Fineman says in the SCU Law Review. Indeed, according to Fineman, traditional marriage is “plagued with violence” against women and “inappropriate for many people in today’s world.” The family, says Ertman, is “exploitive,” and not “normatively superior to domestic partnerships.”
“Gay marriage,” for them, is only a step toward the goal of abolishing marriage altogether. This makes good sense to Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley. Rather than fall into endless debate over gay marriage, “That solution is to end the institution of marriage.” Family law revolutionaries ignore the public debate and seek ends well beyond gay marriage. In place of traditional marriage, they would, in Professor Stacey’s words, completely “redesign” kinship “with creativity and verve.”
Between them, Fineman and Ertman have developed a scheme to replace marriage by treating every “intimate affiliation”—any relationship involving any number of consenting adults (sic! kk)—as a legal contract among private parties, subject to enforcement by the courts as other contracts—say, between a swimming pool owner and a cleaning service—are enforced. Existing contract law could be adapted for this purpose.
Notice that reference to “any number of consenting adults”! Later the article gives us the new word coined to cover this new abomination—”polyamory.” As any novice in Latin knows, this is an invented composite word that means “love between many.” In other words, sex communes would become recognized as marriage (marriages?), or, if you will, “intimate affiliation” contracts, with all the rights and liabilities that go along with such. Indeed, it becomes plain, we haven’t seen anything yet! Not if these radical feminists have their way.
This is the agenda of the intellectual elite. For all their making claims in the name of freedom and the expression of true democracy, they have no regard for the rights of others. The elite are tyrants at heart. In the name of freedom and democracy they intend to demolish marriage, family, and Christianity, and impose their cravings and will on the rest of the population, like it or not. They alone know what is good. Duigon points out:
As Thomas Sowell explains in The Vision of the Anointed, these elitists believe strongly that their exclusive possession of the truth authorizes them to say and do anything to promote their policies. This is why they habitually resort to the courts rather than subject their schemes to the uncertainties of legislation or election. After all, the non-anointed will probably get it wrong.
The radical feminists are like the ruling pigs of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, who, while maintaining that indeed “all animals are equal,” yet insisted that some (of us) “are more equal than others.” These elitists, or, as Sowell calls them, “the Anointed,” are hypocritical to the core, and dangerous. What governs them is pride, lust, and malice. An unholy trinity if ever there was one.
As Duigon asks at the end of his article, how long will it be before the proponents of these insanities demand “penalties for churches that refuse to perform ‘gay marriage’ ceremonies, restrictions on Christian homeschooling, and an end to the church itself as one more ‘restrictive’ social institution?”
One thing is certain, Satan’s mistresses are hard at work. The book of the Revelation does not describe the church’s great enemy in terms of being the “Harlot” and the “Great Whore” for nothing, you know.
What has been warned about above is no mere alarmism. Those with the radical agenda are making progress, more than we sometimes may want to acknowledge. In the same issue of the Chalcedon Report as above (December 2003) in an article entitled Intolerant Tolerance, Warren Kelly lays out evidence of this progress. He identifies the spirit of “pluralism,” the ruling philosophy of the day, as the driving force behind the intolerance of all things right and good and Christian today, pluralism—which claims to be committed to toleration.
The tolerance movement is an outgrowth of pluralism, which holds that all beliefs are morally equal and need to be treated with equal respect. It believes that all religions contain truth and no one religion or belief system is superior to another….
Having pointed out that pluralism has become “the dominant belief system of our media, Hollywood, and many of our political and cultural leaders,” as well as increasingly “the committed enemy of Christianity,” Kelly points out:
For those who believe in the god of pluralism, the only true sin is violation of its principle doctrine, tolerance. Christianity is based on God’s absolute values and … is an abhorrent concept for pluralists.
The definition of tolerance has gradually been adapted by our pluralist society. No longer is it adequate to allow (sic!—kk) others to hold their own beliefs; tolerance now dictates that we must accept (sic!—kk) the beliefs and practices of others and respect them as equal to our own, no matter how distasteful they may be.
At this point Kelly confronts us with the progress the radical movement, so hostile to and intolerant of Christianity, is making.
Consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would make it a criminal act for a Christian employer, even a church, to deny employment to someone based on his lifestyle. If passed, this legislation will be used to force churches and Christian schools to hire homosexuals.
Senator Ted Kennedy’s proposed hate crime legislation will also be used against Christians. Again, the language has been carefully crafted to make the legislation difficult to oppose. What kind of person would be in favor of hate? The strategy has been effective, as already forty-nine Senators have signed on as cosponsors to the bill.
Unless we take action now, it will soon be illegal for a pastor to condemn sinful lifestyles from the pulpit. Even the reading of certain Scripture will soon be illegal.
Many would say that this is alarmist rhetoric and that it could never really happen. Tell that to our Christian brothers in Canada where it already has. Just a few miles to the north, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned all radio and television stations airing anything negative about homosexuality.
In Ireland, Christians faced up to six months in jail for distributing literature that opposes same-sex unions because to do so would violate the 1989 Incitement of Hatred Act.
Kelly informs us that one such piece of literature produced by the Romish Church (which opposes homosexual activity, but not homosexuality) has already been targeted, simply because it is “likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the Act.”
The evidence is irrefutable. The silencing of the testimony of the Christian faith and its warning against sin is not just in the wishful thinking stage, the assault has already begun. Can we afford to keep silence in the face of these brazen outrages?
The question of human cloning remains a hot issue. While “reproductive cloning” (with a view to producing fully developed children) has generally been condemned and banned in the West, approval has been given to “therapeutic cloning.” Therapeutic cloning is justified in the name of humanitarian purposes, namely, to grow healthy body parts (or as they say in PC language, “body tissue”) for people with sickness and disease. Can love thy neighbor require anything less?
In an article entitled “THOU MUST MURDER ? Killing Clones around the world” (Reformed Perspective, October 12, 2003) Ike Van Dyke points out that on closer inspection therapeutic cloning is no more morally justifiable than reproductive cloning, and ranks right up there with abortion when all is said and done.
Therapeutic cloning is done with the intent of killing the clone and experimenting with its cells. Let me restate that to make it clear. In therapeutic cloning scientists create a human being, and then kill it so that they can play with its body parts. I wish I could say this in some much more horrifying manner, but hopefully you are already struck by the sheer vileness of this idea.
Things get worse when you consider what it really means to ban reproductive cloning while still allowing therapeutic cloning. Creating clones would still be legal, but it would become illegal to let them live and grow to maturity.
This is the law of the land in Britain right now. In that country reproductive cloning is illegal but therapeutic cloning is allowed. Clones can be created but these people must be killed!
This is worse even than the legalization of abortion. Yes, by allowing abortion the state does stand idly by as millions of unborn infants are murdered. But the British government has gone even further with their cloning legislation—they don’t just allow the murder of clones, they require it. It is illegal to let clones live and be born.
No matter how you cut it, as Van Dyke points out, “Clones, too, are people. It doesn’t matter how their life began—it matters only what they are, and they are human.” Therapeutic cloning adds murder to the list of sins committed by reproductive cloning. So much for the tender mercies of the wicked.