By Jennifer Hartline Published on December 6, 2017

Social media was buzzing last week with the photo of a gay nativity scene in the front yard of a home in California. Two pink Josephs kneel by the baby Jesus. Many people shared the photo with gushing words of praise and fawning admiration.

I have a few different words. Mostly just one: demonic. Not merely misguided and wrong, but a perverse lie from the pit of hell.

No one has any right to create a perverted image of the Holy Family. This isn’t a fictional story that’s open to reinterpretation.

You don’t get to erase Mary from the Holy Family. You’re not being progressive and you’re not being tolerant or loving. You’re rewriting God’s final Word.

Replacing Mary with another Joseph is mocking God. It’s saying: “Hey God, I’m going to recreate your family the way I want it, to affirm my sexual passions and preferences. I’ll make it reflect my desired reality.”

Refashioning the Holy Family to reflect homosexual coupling is demonic. Erasing Mary from the scene is demonic. (And yes, erasing Joseph in favor of two Marys would also be demonic. So would erasing Joseph for Mary as a single mother.)

Erasing Woman

This gay nativity isn’t loving or inclusive. On the contrary, it’s quite unloving and exclusive, and not only to the Virgin Mother of God. By excluding Mary, woman has been excluded. Erased from the picture. No mother needed. Only a “gestational carrier” who is hired for her services and then dismissed after delivery. She is needed for parts, manufacture and labor, but nothing more.

What could be more insulting to women? Why would any feminist stand for it? Why are the women praising this gay nativity so content to see Mary deleted from the scene? Why would any woman be happy to have her role as a mother dismissed as unnecessary?

Defiling God’s Design for Family

The Holy Family isn’t a fictional story that’s open to revision. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and His birth are sacred and historical events in the human timeline.

God spoke His final Word in the miracle of the Incarnation. Christ, in all His divinity and glory, humbled Himself to take on human flesh, and began His human life within Mary’s womb. All because Mary said yes.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

God could have decided that Jesus would simply descend to Earth a full-grown man and fulfill His mission that way, but He chose otherwise. Even Jesus would be born into a family. Christ was not taken in by two men, or two women, but was born into the family of Joseph and Mary.

God sends us a very clear message in this. He considers the human family sacred and essential. And the elements of the family as He established it are unchangeable: father and mother are both required. Husband and wife form the foundation on which the family is built and children are properly welcomed.

Same-sex “marriage” remakes the human family against God’s plan. It eliminates either mother or father to satisfy disordered sexual preferences.

Same-sex “marriage” remakes the human family against God’s plan. It eliminates either mother or father to satisfy disordered sexual preferences. It denies the child his or her inherent right to both parents. It serves the desires of the adults, but casts off the needs of the child.

It sets up a false image of the family as equal in every way to God’s design. That’s Lucifer’s only trick. He can’t make anything. He can’t do anything new. All he can do is mock, pervert and try to destroy what God has made.

A Display of Deception

I can’t see into the hearts of the folks who put that blasphemous gay nativity on their lawn. I cannot judge them, but I can judge what they have done. The essence of their little scene is demonic.

What greater family to mock than the Holy Family? What greater woman to dismiss and erase than the Mother of God? How better to spit upon the reverence and mystical meaning of marriage than to scorn the most pure marriage of Joseph and Mary?

Yes, Satan is surely quite pleased to see this little stunt and bask in all the applause it has received. They are deceived fools who cheer this display as something worthy and happy. It is offensive and condemnable.

May God forgive such blasphemy against His family.
Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    Actually this kind of thing gives us more tools to mock the lgbt propaganda. Everyone knows this is stupid. Its no different than when a guy puts a skirt on he thinks that makes him a girl. Or that there can be such a thing as homosexual “marriage” when we all know that to have a marriage you must have a husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without this you don’t have a marriage but a legal fake marriage.

    Let them go public with nonsense. Just remember to point out the lies to their embarrassment.

  • tether

    They may think this is smart, cute, or funny, but our God will not be mocked. God the great Jehovah is a righteous And just God. I don’t envy those who have done this and will have to face Him in the end.

  • Patmos

    That display needs to get the money changers treatment.

    • Tom Bor

      Too bad it’s on private property and is protected speech. Seems you’re not much of a fan of the Constitution.

  • Brand New Key

    Still waiting for two men to make a baby together.
    Until then, no such thing as “marriage equality.”

    • JP

      Homosexual “marriages” are not true marriages. Here is why: to have a marriage you must have a husband and wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without this you don’t have a marriage but a legal fake marriage.

  • meamsane

    Yeah, the scene depicts what is contrary to reality. Reminds me of the entire population of Sodom banging most aggressively and intently on Lot’s door “demanding” that Lot send the “two men” out. Like today, the same aggression being displayed by homosexuals “banging” on everyone’s “door” demanding the “Right” that everyone must be compelled to “affirm” and “celebrate” their phony “marriages”. (5 lawyers seem to have fallen for it)

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Hey, it’s a California nativity. Probably Southern California.
    Probably voted for Obama. Probably voted for Hillary.
    Probably not displayed for lack of an available “Mary ‘ figure.
    Probably have two Mary figures in the garage.
    Definitely not right …!

  • Trilemma

    I see two gay shepherds keeping an eye on the baby Jesus while Mary and Joseph are out shopping for diapers.

    • Paul

      Nice try.

    • Fang

      Is that considered “humor” in your bath house?

  • p.bernhard

    Thank you for the clear and blunt words. The ugly truth reveals itself through your words. Again a real “Hartline”.

  • Trilemma

    It would have made more sense to stage this with two female figures, Mary and Josephine. Being a virgin birth, Joseph was unnecessary. Also, how are two guys going to nurse the baby Jesus? They didn’t have baby bottles back then.

  • Mo

    How appalling! And yes, demonic!

    Lord, have mercy on this country. We are SO overdue for major judgment. It’s terrifying.

    • barbara

      Agree…

  • QUESTION: Do you think this would have ever occurred in 17th-century Christian Colonial America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon Yahweh’s immutable moral law, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 ?

    ANSWER: Of course not!

    Consequently, there must be a definitive moment in America’s history when her Christian character and biblical course were officially altered. That point was in 1787 in an upper room in Philadelphia when a cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic thinkers replaced the 17th-century Colonial governments with a humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made traditions:

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1,7)

    Today’s America is merely reaping the inevitable intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers.

    Had the constitutional framers did as their Christian forbears did, there would be no homosexual agenda in America because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves (pun intended) to petition government (or to put up such abominable nativity scene) for their “rights.”

    For more, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of free online book “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

    Then, find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Tom Bor

      The framers of the Constitution were setting up a secular government, to serve a pluralistic society, not setting up a “theocracy” based on one groups biblical interpretations.

      • Tom, thanks for helping to make my point with your first phrase.

        As for a theocracy, that’s exactly what both the 17th-century Christian Colonials and the 18th-century Enlightenment and Masonic cadre set up. The former a biblical theocracy, the latter a secular humanist theocracy.

        When one understands that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

        Question: Were the governments in the Old Testament under the god Baal (or any other false god named in the Old Testament) theocracies?
        Answer: Of course, they were.

        Question: Was Baal (or any other god named in the Bible) real or were they merely ancient forms of We the People?
        Answer: Merely ancient forms of We the People

        Consequently:

        “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

        “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The
        question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

        • Tom Bor

          Ted, your welcome.

          Keep your biblical theocracy to yourself.

          • When you quit promoting your secular humanist theocracy, I’ll think about it.

          • Tom Bor

            You mean the founding documents of our democracy?

            Sounds like your suggesting an overthrow.

          • Read the Declaration of Independence

          • Millard

            This is why the lunatic left is so delusional. It is they that want to overthrow the government. They somehow believe that socialism is great and wonderful. Me thinks they need to move to Russia, China, North Korea et al and see how that works for them. Just sayin’.

          • Tom Bor

            Millard, I think your a little confused. I believe in the Constitution

            It’s Ted that wants to get rid of it.

          • Tom, see my response to Millard.

          • AndRebecca

            Ted Weiland is more than a little confused. He goes around to all the Trinitarian blogs telling them they aren’t Christian and neither were their forefathers.

          • Millard, thanks for responding.

            This is in response to Tom Bor’s reply to you. Just wanted to make sure you saw it:

            Socialism is impossible under a biblical government, like those established in 17th-century Colonial America. So is today’s homosexual agenda.

            Today’s socialism is but one of tens of thousands of consequences of the whirlwind today’s America is reaping thanks to the wind sown by the constitutional framers:

            “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

            “…3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone
            financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as
            much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)….

            “On February 27, 2009, James Dobson conceded that we have lost the culture wars. This is the consequence of Christians [including Dr. Dobson] having spent the last two centuries lopping at the rotten branches of our culture’s corrupt tree while watering and fertilizing its roots. We should lop away at the tree’s corrupt branches (infanticide, sodomy, the economy, etc.). However, until the root of these problems is Biblically addressed, we will never shut down the infanticide mills, we will never defeat the sodomites, and we will never fix the economy. In short, we will never win the culture wars. This issue is more than important for anyone concerned about God, our nation, and the future of our posterity, it’s the cutting- edge issue of our day….”

            For more, see our Featured Blog Article “5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue.” Click on my name, then our website. This article will found at the top of our home page.

            Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

  • KRM

    And they say that Republicans have waged a war on women? Seems like this is yet another example of the left’s real war on women. God used a woman to birth His son into the world to show the importance of women and motherhood. That the left embraces excluding Mary from the scene should be expected.

  • Jeremy L

    If God is gendered male, Jesus was indeed guided by two male figures growing up – a Heavenly Father and a foster father. His family was hardly “traditional”, especially since he considered anyone who did the will of his Father to be his “brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). So, Jesus could be said to have more than one mother as well – Mary and those who followed his Father’s will (very interestingly, he doesn’t even explicitly say it’s only women who could be his “mother”). Jesus did not go out of his way to defend traditional gender roles, nor did he define family as narrowly as so many Christians do today.

    • Tim

      4 He [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    • Millard

      Too bad you don’t read the Bible. There is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) AND God the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS been called “he” whether the delusional left likes it or not. Jesus only had one Mother…..Mary. Again, if you had really and truly read the Bible you would know what It says about traditional marriage and not try to change to match your delusional narrative you so lovingly admire as you new god.

      • Jeremy L

        “There is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) AND God the Holy Spirit.” So, if the Holy Spirit is gendered male, like the other parts of the Godhead, then I guess Jesus had three male guardians growing up: God, the Holy Spirit, and Joseph.

        “God has ALWAYS been called “he” whether the delusional left likes it or not.” I never denied God has always been referred to as “he.”

        “Jesus only had one Mother…..Mary. ”
        He says whoever does the will of God is his mother also:
        -“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and MOTHER.” (Matthew 12:50)
        -“Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and MOTHER.” (Mark 3:35)
        -“But he said to them, ‘My MOTHER and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’.” (Luke 8:21)

        “if you had really and truly read the Bible you would know what It says about traditional marriage.”
        You mean like how those who marry and are given in marriage don’t belong in the resurrection? (Well…in Luke, at least). ” “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.” (Luke 8:21, NRSV)

        • AndRebecca

          The Holy Trinity…It is a puzzle. That is why you need to read the Bible and listen to those who have studied Christianity for many years in order to understand it. The Bible from beginning to end is for traditional Christian marriage, one man and one woman. The 1970 no fault divorce legislation in California was to get rid of Christian marriage and make other types of relationships O.K. in America. There is nothing Christian about getting rid of Christian morals and replacing them with mockery. You need to be concerned about what God says and not what your neighbors think unless you don’t care about your future. Your bible quotes show you don’t understand God’s message about marriage.

          • Jeremy L

            “The Bible from beginning to end is for traditional Christian marriage, one man and one woman.” This isn’t the truth. You’re indulging in revisionism.

            The New Testament is clearly pro-CELIBACY, above all. Luke 20:34-35: “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage” (NRSV – ya know, the one not flooded with deliberate mistranslations). In the context of the New Testament, written by people who believed the world was ending, marriage is DISCOURAGED and singleness is advocated. Notice the passage I cite from Luke even goes as far as to say people who marry are not worthy of the resurrection, which people in NT times thought was close at hand. Read 1 Corinthians 7, NRSV. Paul only thought of marriage as a way of containing lust. He permitted marriage “by way of concession, not of command”. He wanted NO ONE to marry.

            The Old Testament is pro-POLYGAMY. “Among [Solomon’s] wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). And so many other OT heroes were polygamists, from Abraham to Jacob to David.

            Your ideas about what is in the Bible conflict with what’s actually in the Bible.

        • You can take any scripture you want out of context. To say he had the influence of 2 men is true, but that is not the same scenario that is being portrayed here and you know that. I am not homophobic but this is wrong. No matter what scripture you twist to try to make this work, it’s not the truth. The argument actually has nothing to do with marriage or homosexuality. It’s about the truth of God’s word and not changing it to suit us. To do this changes the whole story, geneology and lineage of the Virgin birth. God specifically talks of the lineage of Joseph and Mary..

          • Jeremy L

            I’ve not taken any scriptures out of context whatsoever. In the snyoptics, there is an episode where Jesus is told his mother and siblings want to see him, and he replies his true family is everyone who hears and heeds God’s word. He doesn’t champion “traditional family” at all, ever. He also seems to require celibacy in Luke. And Paul advocates celibacy over marriage in 1 Corinthians. Several celebrated Old Testament figures were polygamists.

            I’m not trying to “twist scripture” to make this gay nativity work, I’m saying Christians are ridiculous to be so obsessed with “traditional family” when Jesus couldn’t care less about it. They are ridiculous also to obsess over “traditional marriage” when the New Testament advocates celibacy. And they are ridiculous to think two men raising a child will corrupt the child when, as the popular meme goes, “Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright.”

            If the worry is historical accuracy, then yes, this gay nativity isn’t accurate. However, many scholars doubt the manger scene’s historicity anyway.

  • Tom Cherney

    I guess by removing Mary were talking adoption,since any chance of inception in the sinless virgin birth wont occur here in the Son of God: the darkened human heart and mind places such judgment upon itself…yet
    Christ will continue to shed His light into the darkest vilest crimes ,nevertheless Truth of the incarnation.

  • MsBAF

    Typical guys think a woman giving birth is no big deal so she does not need to be included because they got what they wanted…a baby..so who cares…it’s all about them…fu&$king men…war on women, erasure of women

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us