thoughts concerning the Supreme Court's attempts to redefine morality

I would guess that most of you have heard about the Supreme Court's decision to somehow find gay marriage in the Constitution. Much like the so-called Constitutional right to kill children who have not yet been born, one has to wear special glasses to find this new so-called right, I guess. But, be that as it may, here we are. Hardly a day for rejoicing, when evil is call good and celebrated.

So, what now?
 

Take these thoughts for what they are worth, I'm putting them out there for consideration. No doubt, others have and will give their opinions and thoughts.
 

Separation of God and country
 

For a while, we've accepted a couple of curious ideas —the notion of the separation of church and state along with the notion of a mixing of God and country. I can listen to AFR and hear this in their motto “faith, family, freedom”, I have been to churches which have the country's flag almost as prominently shown as the cross, I can hear and read the non-stop cacophony of calls revival revival revival because that is the only hope for our country and we need to attend the next big conference or rally or stadium event and show people how serious we are and we need to cry out to God for revival and so on and so forth.
 

Maybe it's time to stop trying to dress God up in the American flag.
 

Is patriotism and love of country wrong? I don't think so. One can read the biblical book of Romans and see Paul's love and concern for his kinsmen, even as they were rejecting him and his message. One can read the gospels and see Jesus' concern and heartbreak over Israel, even as He was pronouncing judgment on them for rejecting Him.
 

But love isn't blind. Israel was (and is) a people with a covenant from God, but while Paul lamented his kinsmen's blindness, he also saw that he had another set of kinsmen. He called those who believed in Jesus Christ, who had repented of their sins, his brothers and sisters.
 

Let me give another example. The family is a good thing, something God created, and is one thing being attacked by this attempt to create a new morality. But Jesus also said that those who follow Him are to hate their father and mother and even their own lives, and said that for those who follow Him that their enemies will be those of their households.
 

This is a difficult way to think. We'd rather have a simple dichotomy, “This is good here, that over there is evil”, but we are given a more difficult way of thinking, “Love of country and family is good, but that country and family can become your enemies if you follow Christ”.
 

I'm a citizen of the US, and that's fine as far as it goes. But for Christians, our ultimate citizenship is in Heaven. The bond I have through Christ with the Christians in various prisons across the world, with those being persecuted in various ways, is far stronger and more eternal than the bond I have with anyone claiming only national citizenship.
 

There are no white hats
 

To employ this way of thinking in a more negative way, it's become plain that both side of the aisle, politically and religiously, are simply wrong.
 

It's easy to see how the people on the left are wrong. What evils do they not condone and celebrate? The murders we call abortion and assisted suicide, the various kinds of sexual perversions, government theft and corruption and greed and control.
 

But it's when I have looked to the right, thinking I'm with the “good guys”, the white hats, that I've seen that they really aren't all that good. I may agree with many of the things they stand for, but...

When I look at the religious right, I see much the same kinds of lust for power as I see on the left. I see compromise, even in regards to the basic Christian beliefs. For political reason (and perhaps other reasons, too), Franklin Graham stopped referring to Mormonism as a cult. I can look at the speakers for the Values Voters Summit, and see a Mormon, a few Roman Catholics, and someone with connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. The leaders of the religious right are people like Peter Wagner, a man who is a partner with the worst of the worst in regards to false prophets, false teachers, fake healers.
 

If you don't know the word “dominionism” and the ideas behind it, get acquainted with it. To put it simply, Wagner and those with him want power. They think they have a divine command and even right to run the world, to take over what they call the spheres of society, that they must do those things before Christ will return for His mature warrior-bride.

Now, don't think that dominionism is only a religious right thing. Though he may not use the word dominionism, Brian McLaren is just as set on remaking the world into his own image as Peter Wagner is. But my main concern for the moment with the supposed “good guys”, the ones trying to sport the white hats. But when I look at Wagner and has cronies, I see their hats are just as black as those of people on the left.
 

I'm not a prophet, and not going to pretend to be one, but I'm going to make a non-prophetic prediction, one that I have a small hope will be wrong but I'm pretty sure is going to happen, because it's already happened to some degree, for example with Graham's compromises concerning Mormonism. I predict that many in the NAR will continue to drift to the left, and will even embrace this new morality. They will dress their compromises up in pietistic rhetoric, they will find sad stories they can use to make themselves appear compassionate, they will end in devouring those who stand against them.
 

In other words, when power and wealth are your goals, then compromises will find their needed excuses. The NAR is already built on lies and distortions, they have no solid ground to anchor themselves to anything.
 

Broadly speaking, the Bible tells us these kinds of things will happen
 

Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the dominionists, the Bible tells us that the world will become a darker and more evil place in these end times. Evil men will grow worse and worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves. The times will be perilous for those with faith in Christ. False messiahs and saviors will rise, and many will be deceived by them.
 

Mankind doesn't want to change, unless it is that it wants to dive more and more into sin. And it will continue to the demand that the Church accept its sins, approve of its perversions, check off on what it wants. The world will demand that the church become its friend, and if the church doesn't, well, the church will have to pay.
 

And the US church has not helped itself. It has fed the people in its pews and stadium seating a steady died of theological fluff, promising people their best lives now if they follow the prescribed rituals and say the correct positive words, promising a life of fulfillment and adventure if people make prayer circles and tell the sun to stand still and be audacious and other such things. People in churches think they are lions when they are merely lambs, and not even God's lambs, only meat for the world's grinders. Pastors who pose as tough guys will topple like houses of cards, and their people will follow them.
 

We are being disillusioned. Let us rejoice in that, and repent of believing the earlier illusions. The US is not Heaven, it is not God's Kingdom. I have a greater kinship with many of the people whose sufferings are told on the Voice of the Martyr's website then I do with many politically conservative and liberal politicians and activists.

is there no shame?

So, yesterday, I'm cruising the internet, doing a bit of this of that, when a link over at Charisma Mag caught my eye. It was for something called Dominion Camp Meeting.

Now, if you've been coming here for a while, you may have seen that I will occasion voice an opinion about Dominionisms (I think they stink). So, with that being a bit of a source of curiosity to me, I clicked on the link.

Dominion Camp Meeting is something put on by Rod Parsley. The site is incredibly uninformative, containing mostly rah-rah rhetoric that kinda like cotton candy--all fluff and little substance. Still, the so-called Prayer Form page was most informative, in it's own way.

Prayer Form

Please understand, I don't link to this page to in any way encourage anyone to go there and give this charlatan money.

In the upper right corner of the page, there is a video of Parsley speaking to us viewers. It's not even really much about the camp meeting itself, though it does get some mention.

In the video, he claims...

God sent me with a divine mandate to get you dreaming again.

This kind of rhetoric is very common nowadays. Dreams are the current big selling point, claims that God wants to help you fulfill your dreams are the main message coming from far too many churches. It is, to put it blunt, one of the most popular false gospels being proclaimed today.

But Parsley's just getting started.

Proof of desire is in the pursuit. This is the time to act, this is the time to move, this is the time when we understand that our faith, to operate in faith, required a response.

Oh, a response? Well, what might that be?

Let me encourage you to take a step of faith toward God, toward your dream, your dream, by sowing a seed that God has already placed in your hand. 

And the last part of that statement is accompanied in the video by footage of someone filling out a check. Yeah, now you know what's going on. Why?

Because the realization of every dream begins with a simply step of faith and obedience toward God. 

Really? I guess people who don't believe in God don't get their dreams fulfilled, because they can't take steps of faith toward God?

Your seed is the only influence you have over tomorrow. Your tomorrow different than today, a seed is the mechanism of the deliverance.

So, don't worry about studying or getting job training or anything like that, those have no influence over tomorrow. No, only giving a lot of money to someone like Parsley will change your tomorrow. And, yes, it will change your tomorrow. It'll make you a lot broker.

So, right now, as an act of your personal faith toward God, I want to challenge you to sow a seed with a purposeful expression of the number 14, that God's opening the door to your dreams again. Maybe that seed's $30.14, $50.14, or $114, whatever it is, make sure that 14 is in there, it'll build your faith. 

I am so tempted to fill out the online giving form on that page for $.14, just to see if that would fit within his "whatever it is". I have my doubts that it would be considered acceptable to him, though, and I doubt the teaching set that comes with a generous donation is worth that $.14 anyway.

Listening to Parsley is a study in inducing nausea, though he does have a most revealing story about something he claims former charlatan Oral Roberts said to him.

Let me put this bluntly--what Parsley is saying here is blasphemy of the worst sorts. Nothing of what he says is biblical at all. Giving him $30.14 will do nothing to build your faith, it will only build his bank account and shrink yours. This is a scam, a fraud, and it is a shame to the church that charlatans like Parsley are in any way tolerated by the church.

Last year, there was the Strange Fire Conference, which got a lot of charismatics riled up. But are they riled up over this blasphemous camp meeting? Why not? Why are people like Michael Brown not getting on their soap boxes over Rod Parsley's blasphemous rhetoric? I found out about this camp meeting from an ad at Charisma Mag, why are they allowing such rot to be advertised on their site?

Can a church that tolerates people like Parsley really be expected to stand firm when the world comes knocking, demanding that their pet sins be tolerated, too?

so, no war on Christmas?

Kinda a follow-up to yesterday's post.


Media Finally Outraged Over Christmas Censorship – When It Involves the Word ‘Gay’

While the overall premise of the piece is interesting, this is what I want to focus on.

What you may not have heard covered in the MSM was an essay penned by one Colin Curran, a 16-year-old high school junior from New Jersey. Taking to the Huffington Post during this same time period, Colin told a story about a high school assignment which involved creating a music playlist for a young children’s holiday breakfast. There was one catch – none of the songs could contain a certain set of offending words, such as Christmas, Hanukah, Jesus, God, or Santa Clause. The reason, Colin explains, is that the “principal does not want to offend anyone with belief-specific music”.

So, this kid couldn't choose songs that had anything to do with the One whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Heck, even Santa was verbotin, because I guess what with the word "santa" meaning "saint", that just wouldn't be PC.

Wow.

So, let's see...there goes "Silver Bells", because it mentions Santa. No "Rudolph", though I guess "Frosty" may survive the cut so long as it isn't too closely linked to the cartoon. "The Twelve Days of Christmas" gets axed. Ah, but wait, this kid could still put "Jingle Bells" on the list. Can't offend anyone with that one.

Oh, wait, maybe the PETA kids. After all, it's about riding in a one-horse open sleigh, which means that the poor little horsey is pulling the sleigh, running around and probably cold. Can't have that, gotta nix that one.

Wow, I'm struggling to find any songs at all that this kid could have put in this program. But we must press on, because woe betide if we offend anyone at all in our seasonal music, except those religious people who wonder what happened to anything about the Christ child whose birth is celebrated at Christmas. Don't worry about them.

making a mockery of the Hallelujah Chorus

Let it be known that the decadence of Sojourners and those they support no know bounds.

Hit the Hallelujah Button: Sing it, Mr. Sister!

Each day leading until Christmas we will post a different video rendition of the "Hallelujah Chorus" for your holiday enjoyment and edification.

Today's installment comes from an unlikely gaggle of nuns — in full habits. They are members of the Turtle Creek Chorale, an all-men's chorus from Dallas, Texas. The Chorale has traveled to Europe, performing sold out concerts in Barcelona, Berlin and Prague; as well as two appearances a Carnegie Hall.

So, men dressed as nuns singing the Hallelujah Chorus is a rendition worthy of Sojo approving and displaying.

Now, who is this Turtle Creek Chorale? From their website's mission statement.

Celebrating a positive image of the gay community and partnering with artists and organizations that share our values and mission.

Although the website itself has little information about them, it does mention a smaller group that is a part of them, the Strangerettes. Basically, a group of men who dress up like show cowgirls and perform in, perhaps among other things, gay pride events. Look them up, if you're curious.

So, basically, TCC is a bunch of people living in open sexual sin, encouraging others to accept them in their open sexual sinfulness, and thus mocking the message of the music like the Hallelujah Chorus by dressing in religious drag while singing it.

No wonder Sojo approves.

This is why I always wonder why some people insist on playing nice with people like the head Sojrone, Jim Wallis. For example, in a recent debate between him and Albert Mohler, a man for whom I have great respect, while I thought Dr. Mohler made great points against many of the things Wallis tries to teach, in the end there was still a sense that they were playing nice. It was mentioned a few times that before the debate they prayed together.

Why? What makes anyone think that Wallis prays to the God of the Bible? His entire "God's Politics" thing engages in open mockery of the Bible, Sojourners' Sojrones can't dig deep or far enough to find things that are contrary to biblical teachings and morality, and hold those things up as things to accept and celebrate. A while ago, they held up for approval a calendar of Unitarian churchmen who posed in the nude. They approved the bloody movie "Red State", while of course coming out against such movies as "Courageous". They have lent unquestioning support to the rabble and lawbreakers of Occupy Wherever, encouraging them in their disruptions.

The impression I get from the early church is that they were not so nice when it came to those who taught things contrary to the Scriptures. When, for example, a man in Corinth engaged in sexual immorality, Paul told them to cast him out (later, that man repented, and Paul said they were to accept him back). Paul's words were unsparing when he addressed the Galatians about those who were trying to say that they needed works as well as faith in order to have salvation.

This Sojrone's promotion of this Chorale's mockery of Handel's work is an attempt on this Sojrone's part to support this Chorale's agenda. If Wallis is truly a Bible-believing Christian as he claimed in his debate with Dr. Mohler, let him start policing his blog more vigorously, so that sin and immorality are not encouraged.

(yeah, like that's gonna happen)

another case of conservatives tying to the wrong people?

I would really like to think this event would be a good thing. Really. But I have my doubts.

The Response

For one thing, I've simply become unimpressed with these big gatherings. This isn't the first thing like that's happened in recent years, that's suppose to be some significant event where thing happen. And, usually, it seems things after the event are very much the same as before.

According to the Bible, the answer to a nation in such crisis is to gather in humility and repentance and ask God to intervene. The Response will be a historic gathering of people from across the nation to pray and fast for America.

I'm not sure where "according to the Bible" this answer is located. If they are referring to what Solomon prayed at the Temple's dedication, then we have to keep context in mind. Very likely, Solomon's statement was meant only for Israel.

Plus, when I look at the people leading or supporting the event, many red flags go up in my head. Connections to the International House of Prayer in Kansas City seem to be numerous. IHOP-KC is a part of this apostolic/prophetic movement that is simply fake. Several people on the leadership page are associated with IHOP.

And the co-chairs and endorsers continue the questionable associations. The IHOP head honcho Mike Bickle is there, as is Cindy Jacobs. There is a man who calls himself an Apostle. As well as Ed Young Sr.

There are things about this event that just don't seem right.

doing some in-house work

This blog, for what it's worth, is usually devoted to issues involving the nonsense coming from emergents and progressives. It is necessary, and frankly because of time and other reason there has not been much effort to branch out from that. Anyway, there is so much material, too.

But with this one, I'm going a bit in-house, because I think this is an issue worth bringing more to light.

I am a conservative, both politically and religiously, and I write that without shame. So, in going in-house, what I'm bring up here has to do with things in conservativism, in this case both politically and religiously.

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT UNITING WITH RELIGIOUS RENEGADES

What is wrong with this picture? People from the NAR who are in the grip of evil were invited to participate in both of these events. One example is Cindy Jacobs. Jacobs is the NAR’s “lead U.S. National Apostle.” Cindy is supposedly a modern day prophet. But I beg to differ. This woman has uttered more false prophecies than Walgreen’s has pills, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she is no more a prophet of God than Lady Gaga! The truth is, Cindy Jacobs is a false prophet.

Before I move on, I should point out that there is nothing wrong with Christians gathering together to stand up for biblical principles and fight the forces of wickedness that are destroying America. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with praying for our country and for the men and women in the armed forces who put their lives on the line so that we can live free. To say that our nation and our soldiers are in dire need of prayer is an understatement. Even though the Christian Right (CR) often shares a stage with controversial groups/persons it does not mean that they necessarily share their views; what it does mean however is that when controversial groups/persons are invited to participate in a CR event it appears that they endorse these groups/persons. It grieves me to say this—and I’ll get a lot of flak for it--but many professing Christians seem to have little or no problem partnering with false teachers and cultists, perhaps because these groups/persons are useful in furthering their political causes.

Are we to establish a Kingdom of God upon earth? Listen to what Jesus says:

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36).

The article is quite long, and these are only excerpts. Please read the whole thing.

When I read works by emergents or entries at Sojourners, they often go on about The Kingdom of God, about how they are trying to establish the rule of God on Earth or some such thing. Such rhetoric always makes me a bit ill, as 1) I don't think Sojo and emergents have any business trying to speak about the God they so often malign, and 2) there is no call in the New Testament for us to try to establish some kind of government-enforced kingdom of God.

Yesterday, I was listening to a program on AFR. The hosts were in DC, and the discussion was mostly political. Much of it I probably agreed with, but there was one part that really bothered me. The hosts and guest were talking about politics and the church, and how there were some churches who were saying that Christians should have little if anything to do with politics. The guest disagreed, and his point basically was that it is the church's job to "bring Heaven to Earth".

I have no desire to live under the kind of left-wing socialist regime the Sojo and emergent types want to force on us, but I am equally put off by the dominionist rhetoric of many religious leaders who would be considered on the right. And the fact that so many on the right are making nice with false teachers like Joyner, Jacobs, and Wagner is very bothersome.

The NAR has one thing right. The ministry of the apostles continues today:

Not in the person of anyone claiming to be an apostle, but in the New Testament. Every time the Word of God in the New Testament is read and proclaimed, the apostolic ministry and office fulfills its role. The apostles of the first century live on today, in the Church, through the Word God has given us through them.

dippy quote from sojo

It Takes a Movement: The Next Steps

This quote is actually from the comments.

I believe there is also no contradiction in allowing abortion to remain legal and supporting the poor, minimizing unwanted pregnancies, and supporting pregnant women and their families.

In a non-homogeneous society such as ours, I think this is the best option

If you could imagine someone in the 1930s or 1940s, trying to argue that there is no contradiction in supporting the Nazi's attempts to round of Jewish people, take away their property and put them in concentration camps, and eventually kill millions of them, while also supporting ways to help get those same Jewish people out of harm's way through underground means, then you can see how ridiculous this person's statement is.

conservative ecumenism

So, for once, theOoze actually has an article of some interest.

Co-Existing with the New Black-Robed Regiment

It's about some things that happened at the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally, a bit about what was called 'the black-robed regiment'. It's a bit of a link with the past, when pastors at the time of the American Revolution opposed the British. In this new version of it at the Beck rally, though, it wasn't just Christian leaders in the mix, but also rabbis of the Jewish faith and Muslim imams.

Let's summarize what he have so far: The black-robed regiment is back again today to turn the heart of the nation back to God, God is the answer. But this effort isn't Christian, it isn't political, and it isn't sectarian. It includes Catholic priests, rabbis, Muslim imams, all working toward spiritual renewal and the rebuilding of a civil society one person; one family; one church, mosque, synagogue, temple and one community at a time because there is no right God or wrong God.

The aims of the new black-robed regiment appear to work quite nicely with these objectives:

- To promote, encourage and support engagement between Jews, Christians and Muslims both individually and through their respective communities through dialogue, education and research.
- To promote and facilitate the education of the public in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths and belief and in particular to advance the knowledge and understanding of: the teachings, traditions and practices of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths; the shared history of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths; both the common ground shared by the faiths and the theological, philosophical, cultural, political, and economic bases of and differences between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths and communities.
- To promote for the benefit of the public, religious harmony between Jews, Christians and Muslims by encouraging among them a greater understanding and appreciation of and Muslims by encouraging among them a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s distinctive faith, beliefs, and practices and their common ground. And to this end also to promote friendship, goodwill and mutual trust among them.

I must admit, this fairly recent development as been largely surprising to me. I've thought of ecumenism as mostly a liberal, progressive thing--it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you're a social justice type, all religions are viable ways to god, and all that.

On the other hand, I've known that politicals has in the past made for strange alliances. Evangelicals and Catholics are both largely pro-life, so that issue has made tem do some things together. A few years ago, Mormons were among the ones leading against the move in California to legalize homosexual marriage, which put them on the same side as Evangelicals.

And now, we seem to have the developing of another form a ecumenism, a politically conservative kind.

Most weekdays, I get a chance to listen to a bit of Beck's radio show. Maybe only a half-hour, roughly, but I still enjoy it, and find it informative. Although I don't listen to him as much as I did a few years ago, I like Hannity, and agree with him on many things, even though he is Catholic, and there are things in Catholicism that I have problems with.

It's an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, I'm an American, and I think our freedom of religion is a good thing. Were I, for example, a part of a pro-life organization, I think I would work with people of other flavors of Christianity, or other religions, or even those who claim no religion, in the goal of helping to save the lives of those who are unborn. I would definitely vote for, say, a Mormon or even a Muslim who would be politically conservative instead of a Protestant whose positions are liberal.

On the other hand, support for a person based on political or social positions should not be confused with thinking that person is a fellow believer or Christian. Confusion on this point may be easily possible, but it is important that it not be allowed to happen.

Although I like Beck and enjoy his show, and although I find much in his opinions that I agree with, I simply cannot accept that he, as a Mormon, is a fellow believer. Mormon doctrine is simply too deviant from biblical teachings. It does make me sad to write that, and I can only hope that a day comes when he will discard the unbibical elements in is beliefs and trust in the true God revealed only in the Bible, but that day is not now.

Nor can I agree with his attempt at a conservative form of ecumenism. If he were to keep it in the realm of political and social issues, I may not have as much of a problem with it (I must also acknowledge that my source here, theOoze, and whatever there sources are, may not be the best). It's when he goes over into saying that a largely undefinied 'god' is the answer that I get very squirrelly.

the more things change...

To think of Christ as the center and norm of all humanity made a certain sense in the Ptolemaic universe, which had the earth at its center. It continued to make sense, however strained, in the Coperican universe, which had the sun at its center. Today, Christocentrism cannot make sense in the Einsteinian universe, which has no center and in which every structure is a dynamic relationality of moving components.
Tom F Driver, quoted in A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, p. 97

Oh, my.

You know, way back when, someone forgot to tell God that the earth actually orbits around the sun.

And Jesus, well, when He said that only He was the way to the Father, well, He just didn't know about molecules and atoms and quarks and stuff.

But we today, well, we're smarter than God. And we know that those statements have to be discarded, because our voices have thundered from on high (though there is no up there, we believe we know).

So, because Einstein was born, God is taking Muslims in to Heaven.

Or something like that.

a shade of sadness

Sometimes I read things that make me a bit sad, for whatever reason. One thing I read a few moments ago was this, from a site called Faith House.

My Summer of Religion

Here are some things in it that saddened me.

3. Music creates sacrality for me. I’ve chanted to Allah, sung to Jesus, and la-la-la-ed through Jewish melodies.

I'm sorry, but if you're chanting praises to Allah, you're not singing songs to the real Jesus. There is no communion between those two. Any Jesus that lets you worship a false god is not the real Jesus, but a construct of your own mind.

When I visited Nur Ashki Jerrahi, I had no idea what I was saying, or what the meanings of the various movements were - and I imagine many who visit a Jewish community are overwhelmed by all the Hebrew. But I learned to let go of my need to understand the why and what to every religious practice. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow, and in doing so you learn the how. There is a leap of faith in letting go – letting go of my desire for explanation, letting go of my fear of appearing ignorant – and through this leap I was able to experience other faiths as I wanted to: with compassion, empathy, and a receptive heart.

I suppose I'll never understand this worship of ignorance on the part of pomos, which I guess this person's internship at Faith House shows her to be. But it makes it convenient when there are those who try to sell them the idea that all religions are equally valid ways to God. Tell people to don't bother with understanding, and you can pretty much sell them anything.

I wonder, sometimes, if people like this ever read the Bible. Do they ever really read the New Testament? Do they ever really see that Christian grew in a climate of various religions around it? And that, far from trying to appreciate, say, the worship of Athena, they came out against it and tried to bring people out of it?

a bit of cheese with the whine

You know the type of rant where someone who goes on about the nastiness and judgmentalness of other, while all the while showing only the ranters nastiness and judgmentalness of those he's writing against? Well, you know that no judge is worse than the judge who judges you while telling you to not judge. That's a lot of what you'll see in the Ooze rant.

It takes him a bit to get going, but not long. First, he talks about someone who grew up what he calls a "fundamentalist", though he then cuts that off at the knees by saying that the religion the man was in was "cult". Then, he brings in the real issue--homosexuality. Apparently, Henri Nouwen struggled with it, though he never acted on it. But that's just him warming up.

I have friends that are involved in ministry to people that struggle with many issues including homosexuality and the way that they are treated by the majority of Christian leaders is horrendous, absolutely horrendous. One friend of mine spoke up for gay rights and was immediately black balled from speaking at several engagements due to his love for people that struggle with these issues. He has a message of GRACE just like the message of JESUS, yet, he was banned from speaking unless he towed the company line and tickled the ears of the listeners and fat cat political Christianistas.

So, if examples of this "horrendous, absolutely horrendous" treatment is one man not being allowed to speak about the liberal issue of gay rights, then I suppose we can understand where this writer is coming from. We may safely think that his idea of Jesus' "message of GRACE" (in all caps, of course) is an approval of homosexual behavior and a blanket approval of gay rights.

Oh, and the "Christianistas" comment shows his love for the brethren. But not to worry, all this speaker has to do is switch to the liberal camp, along with the emergents, and he and his message will be most welcomed there. He'll have plenty of ears to tickle, both of listeners and of fat cat political christianistas.

I kind of wander if Steve Camp would approve of this use of his song lyrics?

And someone should tell him that the quote he says is from a DC Talk song, isn't. It is from one of their albums, but it was a speaker on it, not a song.

When you see how soo many people are ostracized by factions within Christianity, do you feel the pain that they feel in their hearts?

Yes, I understand such ostracism. I am ostracized from the emergents and liberals, because I can't stomach their compromises, their whining, their faith in their own opinions. And their nastiness and judgmentalism.

There are soo many people running around that are rude and abrasive and as soon as someone tells them that they are offensive they claim that it isn't them that is offensive, it is the gospel. Well here is a little insight that, it isn't the gospel, it is YOU.

Oh, please. Yeah, people are just lining up to really follow Christ, just so long as He toes their party line.

People do not hate Jesus, Jesus is a rock star, people think He is awesome, it is many of his followers that they don't like. You can ask Ghandi, he has a very famous quote on the subject.

Of all the silly things I've read, "Jesus is a rock star" ranks up there close to the top.

And I think I'll go with what Jesus said, not Ghandi. Such as how He said that if the world hated him, it will hate us who love Him, too.

We are called to serve THE LEAST OF THESE and in so doing, we serve CHRIST.

Have you ever noticed how liberal christians (notice the small c) and emergents love to truncate that phrase of Jesus'? They almost always rather conveniently leave of the last couple of words, "the least of these my brothers".

In a somewhat bizarre twist to Hinduism, for such as this writer it may be said that the poor and outcasts have become the Untouchables. One dare not say that anything they do is wrong, one dare not question how they became poor, one dare not do anything except speak sweet nothings to them and give them a dime or two. Dare to raise a question about their behaviors, say that they are living in sin and need to repent, say that welfare only encourages poor people to stay in poverty, claim that charity was not meant to be handed out indiscriminately, and your a bad, nasty, judgmental person.

We are dealing with peoples lives here, we are not playing a game where everything is fine afterwards and everyone goes home friends. When we make statements about homosexuals where is the love? When we put targets on peoples forheads and try to evangelize them without even knowing them, where is the love? When we judge those with AIDS and say, well they have what's coming to them, where is the love in that.

I actually wish he would believe his first statement here. But if he did, his view and tone in this rant would have been different.

Where is the love? Tell us, sir, where is the love in approving of behavior that God clearly says he does not approve of? Where is the love in supporting people in their sinful behaviors? The truth is, there is no love in that, none at all. It may seem loving, people may say you're being loving when you do it, but they are wrong.

The world has little idea of what real love is. Perhaps that's why they have to try so hard to make Jesus more acceptable--saying he didn't say what he said, saying we've no real idea of what the real Jesus said or did, and so on. As one liberal scholar put it, in his mind Christianity must change or die. But the truth is, the truth of the Gospel does not change with the times, because man 2000 years ago is in the same condition as man now.

One wonders if he's ever read the Bible to ask the question about evangelism. Did Philip know the Ethiopian before he evangelized him? Did the Apostles know the people they preached to at Pentacost? Did Paul when he witnessed to the rulers of his day?

The only real issue the writer has that's worth mentioning is that about AIDS patients, though one has to ask where he is going. I think I know. Again, they are Untouchable.

Why are we so quick to judge?

Well, I, for one, wonder why this writer is.

But, there is one thing that you should never do. Don't ever disagree with them. They will make a public spectacle out of you.

Oh, yes, happens all the time. Disagreeing with liberals, of political and religious sorts (if the two can be divided) is a hazardous thing, because all ethics and fair play go out the window.

Now, for one of the kickers.

In the Old Testament you can take a look at all of the things that God's prophets went through. They stayed committed to God even to death. They were misunderstood, without a home, they roamed in the desert, the religious leaders largely despised them because of their message of judgment that came out of their mouths.

All this time, the writer has been going on against judging. But here, near the end, he notes that the prophets often had a "message of judgment". He's right, of course. Whether individually, as to David concerning his affair with Bath-Sheba, or to Israel and other nations as a whole, their message was of judgment both in the sense of saying "You've done wrong" and "If you don't repent, bad things are coming".

But if he's going to say that prophets spoke of judgments, he's obviously lost any right to say things like this.

Why are we so quick to judge? Why is it that we make decisions based on very little if any knowledge and then jump to the conclusion that either someone is a bad christian or not a christian because they did something that we disagree with? Notice the lowercase “c”. Aren't Chrstians supposed to be called to a higher standard than to kick God out of the judgment seat? Yet, we, small little people get so arrogant as to think that we can be His vessel of wrath.

And let's close with this.

What if those that are hurt most deeply by the church are actually the prophets that God wants to use today? What if He has profound things for them to speak forth to the church, but, the church refuses to listen.

Someone should tell him to stop reading McLaren. The "What if...?" schtick is getting old, as it really doesn't say anything.

Again, the Untouchable--those hurt by the church. Their word is as the prophets of old, not to be questioned, not to be judged. We can't ask why they were hurt by the church, or whether maybe perchance they may have been wrong and the church right.

Imagine this kind of mindset in Corinth, when Paul wrote his first letter to them. He singles out one man, who for whatever reason had married his mother-in-law, and Paul writes quite harshly to the church about their acceptance of this couple's behavior. He chastizes them quite harshly for their pride in accepting this couple. Why, I can easily how, with the mindset above, some in the church may have thought something like "Who is Paul to judge? An Apostle? He's just trying to make a public spectacle of us for doing something he disagrees with! We know this couple, and it's been years since he was here. In fact, we'd rather have this couple's words be as the prophets to us than the words of this gadabout Paul!"

look familiar?

See how this reads to you.

We feel that a holistic political conversation--one honoring the powers of mind and spirit to help heal the world--is emerging throughout the global community. The Global Renaissance Alliance embodies its vision through small gatherings of citizens called Citizen Circles. Meeting in living rooms, at churches, around campfires, or anywhere else, we are joined with others of like mind in meditating for world peace; speaking from our hearts about our wishes for a better world; and working together to make it so. Within the Citizen Circle, we commit to cultivating an intimate fabric of deep community, and through our individual and joint efforts to create real change in ourselves and the world around us. Dedicated to the divine love in ourselves and in one another, we seek to extend the principles of forgiveness, atonement, reverence for life, faith, service, and compassion into the political and social dynamic of our time.

This paragraph is on page 413 of the book "Imagine: What America Could Be in the 21st Century", a collection of essays edited by Marianne Williamson. The book is essentially a bunch of articles or essays by such new-agey lowlights as Deepak Chopra (who with a name like that missed his calling as a rap artist), Neale Donald Walsch, and I suppose others who think they've been talking with one god or another. The book claims that all proceeds for the book go the above-mentioned Global Renaissance Alliance (the book was put out in 2000, and I don't know if said alliance is still around or not; anyway, I found the book at one of the 'all the stuff in here is only $1' shops, and while in one sense it wasn't even worth that much, in another it's interesting to see what these types are thinking).

Consider that paragraph from the book, and please ask, "Does this seem familiar?"

I think that it does. I think it's very much like what the emergents are doing and trying to do.

I've thought for a while that, if you want to know where the emergents are going, you need to look at the "death of God" philosophers out there, or those who contend for some variation of the philosophy such as Caputo. I still think that, but maybe that's not the only things we need to look at, too. Perhaps those who are more well-known to the average person, popularizers like Chopra and Walsch and Lamott, are another source for information on where emergents are going.

That makes sense. Most people will not know of Caputo or Vattimo or Altizer, but they will be much more familiar with the people who put out the feel-good new-agey books, who claim to be channeling conversations with a god who doesn't do the judgment-and-wrath thing anymore, or who speak with some kind of strange accents so they must know what they're talking about.

Consider the Seeds of Compassion event last year, essentially a gathering of these kinds of ecumenical all-roads-lead-to-god types. To that event, with sported the luminary Dalai Lama and people from some other religions, two emergents were invited to participate in a Q&A--Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt.

Consider some things said in some of their books. Both Bell and McLaren have made positive comments about one Ken Wilbur, another in the new-agey thought rigamaroll. Bell even goes so far as to recommend a deep study of one of Wilbur's books.

If at one time all roads led to Rome, perhaps now it seems like all road lead to heresy and eventually hell. Or maybe it's just that it's one road, and it's very broad.

follow the threads

Ok, how about some threads.

Diane Butler-Bass, in her book "Christianity for the Rest of Us", takes an approving look at one St. Andrew Christian Church in Kansas. Here is an excerpt from that church's beliefs page on their website.

We welcome and affirm all children of God of any color, class, sexual orientation, age, gender, ability or thought.

While following the guidelines of the denomination, we have developed as a congregation that is particularly passionate about preserving the dignity of all, valuing diversity, seeking justice for the disadvantaged and preserving the delicate balance of Earth’s ecosystem.

In other words, a church that's so in the liberal's back pockets.

This church is a part of a group with the oxymoronic name The Center for Progressive Chrisitanity. The CPC's website's links page has come interesting things on it, like a link to the Westar Institutes, the people who have given us the travesty called the Jesus Seminar.

And there's the link to the progressive hymn writer, William Flanders. And from his site, one can find the lyrics to his hymns. Here's a couple of stanzas from one of them, with a possible spelling correction noted by me in one of them.

The God that we love is no God we hear.
While “Thus says the Lord” rings bold and sincere,
The words are the prophets’, theirs evermore.
Still unheard but, our God, listened for.

The God that we love may not even be;
To face this our mind must always be free.
Our heart says that God awaits us, instead,
Our (perhaps that should by 'out') of sight and, always, up ahead

So, in this man's head (and likely in that of these 'progressives' he writes hymns for), when the prophets said "Thus says the Lord" they were only speaking and writing their own words, and the God he claims to want to hear from may not even exist.

Don't be surprised at this, please, unless you really are new to this kind of progressive non-thinking. There are many out there who claim the name Christian who are really little more than athiests in their philosophies and beliefs--Spong, Borg, Crossan, Caputo, Vattimo, and others, and one can see the emergents going the ways of these people, though they are not there yet (while noting that Butler Bass is an emergent in her own right, and it was her book that lead to finding this songwriter).

Why these people want to call themselves Christian while denying everything true in Christianity is beyond me. Were they honest, they would drop the pretenses and own up to their athiesm. Since they don't, I don't think it too harsh to think that there are subterfuges and manipulations they can pull off on the 'inside' of the church that they can't do if they were 'outside' it as self-proclaimed nonbelievers.

immorality should be legalized???

First, let's get this out of the way.

As will be discussed later, I believe the Bible says that same-gender eroticism is wrong.
Tony Campolo, Adventures in missing the point, p. 178

Campolo begins this chapter, where he discusses homosexuality, with a story apparently from his high school years. It's about another boy in his school, who was apparently known to be homosexual, and the things he suffered from the other students, which seem to have eventually led to his suicide.

I think it can be agreed that if things happened like Campolo claimed, than what happened to that boy was wrong and ugly. Such cruelties are not good and not to be condoned or encouraged.

But then Campolo makes this leap.

I believe that if Jesus were in our shoes, he would reach out in love to his homosexual brothers and sisters and demand that they be treated justly, that we end the discrimination that has too often made homosexuals into second-class citizens and denied them their constitutional rights. If Jesus were in our shoes, he would work to create an atmosphere in society wherein homosexuals could be open about who they are without fear of oppression and persecution. If Jesus were in our shoes, those with a homosexual orientation would be treated with dignity and respect.
p. 178

One division Campolo makes is between 'orientation' and 'behavior', which may help explain some part of the statement above. Some, but not all.

For example, what constitutional rights have been denied homosexuals? When I see that, I think "he means homosexual marriage". And when he writes that they should be "treated justly", isn't that also what is meant, though other things may be thrown in too?

So, is he in essence saying "I think that homosexual sexual acts are sinful, but that we must recognize the people who engage in them, let them marry and have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, let them adopt children, and treat such marriages as normal and even right"?

If so, I have to ask "Why?"

Campolo says that Jesus, if He were here today (and really isn't He, I might add), would demand that homosexuals be treated justly. Very well, but what does that mean? Does it mean "Their sexual activities must be approved on socially and in the church"? Does it mean "Churches should not call homosexual sex sin"? Does it mean "Society must recognize gay marriage"?

To which I have to think, no, Jesus would not be for those things. I think very strongly that He would not approve of the mistreatment of Campolo fellow student in his boyhood, but at the same time, I don't think He would tell that student that his sexual choices were acceptable.

One can point to the instance when a group brought the adultress to Jesus for judgment. He points out the group's sinfulness, but also doesn't let her completely off the hook by telling her that while she is not condemned by Him, she is not to do that again.

We do not see Him demanding that her adultrous relationship be recognized and accepted by the nation. We do not see Him saying that her sin wasn't really a sin.

I would well image Jesus in a similar spot as Campolo gives concerning his fellow student being tormented by other students. He would likely have those tormentors remember their own sins (what magazines do they have hidden under their mattresses, or what were the one boy and his girlfriend doing in his car a couple of evenings ago). Perhaps (and I stress perhaps) after that, he would turn to boy being persecuted, and say that He will not condemn him, but he is not to act that way any more.

What I can't see Jesus doing is demanding that even if homosexuality is sinful, it should be recognized and accepted by society and homosexuals should be allowed to marry and be considered normal. There is a certain twisted-ness about that thinking, for how can we on one hand say that something is wrong and immoral, and on the other say that it should be lawful and legal?

“Enough with the Bible already…”

The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

If it is truly the Bible that is causing some to hold these discriminatory beliefs, then perhaps we need to set the Bible aside for awhile. Perhaps we need to not construct a belief system about LGBT folk built on the foundation of a couple verses in scripture. Perhaps that isn’t healthy, fair, just or Christian.

For some, I believe the Bible has become an idol. Some place the Bible above Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity, and hold steadfast onto what they believe to be the correct interpretation of a small amount of verses that speak about same-sex relations. To those who repeatedly start quoting Leviticus and Romans verses as soon as anyone brings up the topic of homosexuality, I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

These statement are almost beyond commenting on, or needing commenting on. Seriously, what can be added to what is said?

I mean, really, how arrogant does this man have to be, to say that if the Bible disagrees with him and people of his ilk, then the Bible is the thing that has to be discarded?

And this man is strongly in the emergent slum, a contibutor to the book "An Emergent Manifesto of Hope".

But there are his words, voicing his willingness to thumb his nose at God and say "I know better than You!!!"

Sickening. And indicative of emergents as a whole.

ht Apprising Minsitries

ok, who DIDN'T see this coming?

How I Went from There to Here: Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

With that in mind, I always responded, "I'm holding that issue in abeyance. I haven't made up my mind yet, and I'm in no hurry to. Homosexuality," I would say, "I one issue that I don't want to get wrong."

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. ("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Ok, so, a few months ago, I showed some excerpts from Tony Jones' book "The New Christians", which show how some emergent churches mentioned in the book were already compromising on the homosexual issue (even as some claimed to not want to deal with it).

Given all that, this move on Jones' part is completely predictable. The only question was the timing.

("Aha!" my critics will laugh derisively, "I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!")

Umm...yes, Jones, you and your ild are continuing your leftward slide. Those of us you look seriously at your movement are not surprised, because that is what you have been doing--sliding more and more leftward.

getting it all backwards

He (Vincent Donovan) explains, "I was to learn that any thoelogy or theory that makes no reference to previous missionary experience, which does not take that experience into account, is a dead and useless thing...praxis must be prior to theology...In my work [theology would have to proceed] from practice to theory. If a theology did emerge from my work, it would have to be a theology growing out of the life and experience of the pagan peoples of the savannahs of East Africa". Similarly, I have become convinced that a generous orthodoxy appropriate for our postmodern world will have to grow out of the experience of the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 100

If the whole postmodern virus as it concerns religion could be summed up in one small phrase, a good one would be "praxis must be prior to theology".

Or to sum up in other words, "we have to do everything backwards".

We have to change the message of the Gospel to fit, so we think, the heathen peoples to whom we are suppose taking to Gospel to. We have to know what the people want so we can give it to them, rather then giving them what they need.

(and if you live in the country, tough bananas, pal, because they're only concerned about "the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century"/.)

Instead of going to the Bible to see what message we should give to the heathen, we go to the heathen to see what message we should give to them.

Because Jesus said "Go into all the world, and get from them the gospel". Didn't he???

As someone who spent a few years in missions himself, I can only say that these men's ideas are hogwash.

friends in low places

No. The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat. We should be seen as a protector of their heritages, a defender against common enemies, not one of the enemies. Just as Jesus came originally not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, not to condemn people but to save them, I believe he comes today not to destroy or condemn anything (anything but evil) but to redeem and save everything that can be redeemed and saved.
McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 287

What is evil but religions that teach people to worship and serve other beings but the true God? What is evil but religions that teach people to seek their own salvations in their own works--acts of 'righteousness', pursuit of nothingness, an unending cycle of reincarnation?

There is the definition of evil. True Christianity cannot but be the enemy of such things, as even Jesus and the Apostles knew.

Other religions are the enemies of God, and as such the enemies of the people in those religions. Those religions are misleading the people, giving them false hopes and false assureances, and as the Truth Christianity cannot be anything else but the enemy of those things.

Christianity must love the people in other religions enough to tell them the truth, that they are worshiping what is not true, worshiping devils and demons, thinking they are saved when in reality they are lost, and telling them to repent and leave those things and come to the living God.