Friday, April 20, 2012

Has KOMO's Ken Schram Eaten The Bad Fruit?

Ken Schram, the secular progressive voice of KOMO 4 TV and KOMO radio in Seattle, has taken to holding catechism class for the Catholic Church in which he was raised.

This week he publicly reprimanded and slammed Seattle's Archbishop J. Peter Sartian for asking 180 parishes to make Protect Marriage petitions available to the church members. 

Why? Because the Bishop believes in traditional, biblical marriage. Schram does not.

Schram awarded the church leader his "Schrammie" award because, he said, Bishop Sartain may remember his Latin, but "I think he's forgotten his place." Schram says the Bishop is "using the church as a weapon."

Perhaps Mr. Schram has forgotten his place and is using the press as a weapon.

He condemns the Bishop for having biblically based convictions about marriage and teaching them in the church he leads, while forcefully advancing his own secular agenda of redefining marriage.

I am not a Catholic, nor do they need my defense. However, Schram seems to be suggesting that spiritual leaders should not lead in spiritual matters in their own church, but rather seek to match up with and affirm current, relativistic cultural beliefs.

So, according to Schram's catechism, the church should follow, not lead. There are others who also believe that.

Schram seems to think the Christian church is a big box retail store trying to discern what the customers want so they can  market and merchandise toward the latest cultural, moral whim.

In fact, he seems to suggest that he, rather than the leadership of the church and their biblical teaching on marriage, should write the lesson plan for catechism and the basis for personal conviction. 

This reminds me of another, older, yet current narrative.

Coming to the woman, the serpent said, I know God said you could eat all of the fruit except for the one, but God is good and loving, surely He would not punish you. In fact, when you eat that particular fruit you will "become like God, knowing good from evil."

They ate it.

They did not become like God. And they became confused over what is good and what is evil.

The long term consequence of this act of rebellion is that "by one man sin entered the human race. " 

The immediate consequence after eating the fruit, was that Adam and Eve recognized they were naked and estranged from God and His Truth. So they sewed a few fig leaves together in an attempt to cover it up.

God has clearly taught in His Word that homosexual relations are wrong. He calls it sin, regardless of what Sen. Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, Gov. Gregoire or Ken Schram happens to believe.

On moral issues they should follow, not lead.

MEMO to Schram:

You have eaten the fruit. Please sew together some fig leaves and cover yourself. You are naked, unattractive and should be charged with indecent exposure.

And I present you with  the "Bad Apple" award.  

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Faithful.  Be Blessed.

28 comments:

  1. Personally I'm glad they are passing the petitions at church.
    1) it is the same situation as if a boss was passing them at work and telling his employees to sign. A person with authority over you is saying you should sign, is passing out the petitions, and retaining them so they can see who has and hasn't, and has opportunity to reward signers and motivate or punish those who didn't.

    coercion lawsuit waiting to happen, could sabotage the entire petition effort.

    2) Total abandonment of the high road. Another nail in the coffin that the RCC is making for itself here in the US.


    3) nothing Washingtonians hate more than an authoritarian bully - they got the eventual approve side more votes than they'll get signatures.


    Again, wonderful development all around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't understand the difference of this situation:

      1) yes a church can advocate a position, they should go out and sign it - that's totally ok.

      2) but for an official church representative to tell you to sign, and then the church organization itself, an organization know for giving and withholding services necessary for 'the spirit', makes a petition available at that same place, and retains them so they reasonably can be expected to know who did or didn't sign, is reasonably seen as coercion. A person of authority NEVER has the right to tell someone to sign a petition, double downed in this situation when they provide the petitions and know who did and didn't sign before the signature gathering effort is completed.

      Doesn't matter if its a classroom, workplace, or church - a person of authority with the ability to reward or punishment behavior telling people to sign and then doing that signature gathering themselves is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

      Pretend its not all you want, warning you and having you ignore the warning is just icing on the cake.

      And we will never ever hear whining about privacy and petition gathering again, of course.

      Delete
    2. Oshtur, you're over reacting. No one is going to feel any pressure at all to do something just because they're church is monitoring it. It's just the Catholic church, after all, not some authoritarian force that demands obedience. Chill.

      Delete
  2. I'm hoping Sartian will get a review from the IRS. Could you imagine if we finally taxed all that prime catholic property? Bye bye budget shortfalls!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't wait to hear his response. Ken has eaten more than the bad apple. Thank you Gary for saying the TRUTH that is in God's Word and thank you for your boldness to speak out for Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gary, you wrote that the Catholic Church does not need your help in their defense. You are wrong, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians do need each other help in defending traditional marriage. Otherwise we will lose this battle and the fight gets harder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have written to the Archdiocese (I am Catholic) of Seattle thanking the Bishop for his public support of marriage and asking him how to remove Schram from teaching catechism classes. It's more than unacceptable that a person charged with teaching our future Catholics our doctrine is someone who doesn't live by our doctrine. He is what I call a drive-by Catholic -- picks from the menu what he chooses rather than letting God choose and he obeys. Evil is amongst us and it is getting the upper hand. We need to stop being silent good people. Today, I gather signatures on the petition. Everyone -- please help!

    ReplyDelete
  6. All Catholics should contact the Bishop and thank him for his leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks, Gary, for an absolutely perfect response to Schram! What a stupid moron he is - or, perhaps, he is gay, and that would explain it. Too bad that 3.8% of the population is causing all the rest of us to defend ourselves and our families from the horror of homosexuality. The homosexuals have all the freedom (within their own bedrooms) to do as they wish, provided no harm comes to others. So WHY do they want us to say it's OK to marry??? Because the militant homosexuals are EVIL, they HATE, are driven by Satan, and want all to die with them. NO MARRIAGE FOR GAYS, NO WAY!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfect illustration of how it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between sarcasm mocking anti-gay views and anti-gay views.

      Delete
  8. Is this a war for cultural dominance? Or peaceful coexistence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since both sides support traditional marriage it seems it is a unilaterally declared war.

      Delete
  9. This is just another example of a self described Intellectual speaking about things he knows nothing about. To say the church has no place in speaking out about things it considers wrong and telling her people to vote accordingly ignores history. Who does Mr Schram think helped foment the American revolution? It all started in the churches and the pastors telling their people to revolt. It is not only the churches place but her duty to lead her people in truth.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Schram is a yellow journalist. I was a member of a team that was involved in some 'self-help training' within the prison system many years ago. Schram was just blossoming his career. He interviewed several of us and several inmates. I over heard him talking about how they were going to spin the whole project. It had nothing to do with reality or truth. When we all watched we were all to a person shocked by what he came up with. Twisted words, twisted purpose. Just created something that he thought would be dicey. I have never had one ounce of respect for the man ever since. I don't know understand how KOMO can support him at all.

    As far as giving out his Schrammies....can you imagine anyone more arrogant that placing himself in the lofty position of critiquing others and their intentions. Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "can you imagine anyone more arrogant that placing himself in the lofty position of critiquing others and their intentions"

    Exactly! I can't imagine anyone would... wait a sec... hmm... can't be.... whoaaa, isn't that what Gary does??? You tricked us!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Gary for once again shining light on darkness. Hmmm.... bad apple, would that make Schramm the worm?

    I've got issues with RCC doctrine, but on this I agree, the church must lead and supplying petitions is not a lawsuit waiting to happen, regardless of Mr. Vishanti's protests. My church does the same and it's nondenom, there is no pressure to sign. Only a desire to be obedient to God's word, which clearly defines the marriage relationship as between 1 man and 1 woman. (Gen 2)

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh craig, it only tookm4 liars to send the R71 complaint to the Supreme Court. All it would take is a few people saying they were pressured to sign to meet the criteria of coercion which is criminal in petition gathering. Anyone on your side that isn't concerned bout that is criminally stupid.

    And as anyone know the Law of Moses and befor was inclusive, not exclusive, I.e., anything it didn't expressly prohibit was not prohibited.

    And under the Law of Christ there is nothing excluding same sex marriage, which is of,this world and irrelevant to God, Grace, and salvation.

    Again, I do have the guilty pleasure of warning you of your fate and having,you ignore the warning, guess that's just the one thing I won't do - worry more about your soul than you should.

    Its a secular cei e - commit it at your own peril.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Oshtur, while it's true that people can lie to upset the applecart and there is concern that someone might. You're side wouldn't stoop that low, would you? Of course you would. =) That doesn't remove the responsibility of the church to speak on issues of morality or forbid them from supplying the means to advance Christian principles in the culture. If there is out and out threats that a person better sign or else, then that would be a problem. That hasn't been demonstrated here, so go RCC!

      What? You do know this is the "Word who was made flesh" speaking in Gen. 2, as well as in 1Cor. 7, Eph.5, Col. 3:18-19, God instituted marriage, not man. "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the 2 shall become one flesh" is both before the Mosiac Law and affirmed by Jesus Christ himself through the Apostle Paul.

      At no time is same-sex marriage affirmed, so you are right, it is of this world. Christians are called to be in the world, not of it. So there goes your argument, who's in danger of treating Grace as a filthy rag? What part does Christ have with Belial?

      I really appreciate your concern for my fate, never fear, as the song says 'all is well with my soul', because I stand on the rock that shall never be moved. The Word of God, Jesus Christ.

      Delete
    2. You're side wouldn't stoop that low, would you? Of course you would. =)
      Ah you are some how saying what exactly, that its alright if you assume someone else has done it? Isn't that situational ethics?

      At no time is same-sex marriage affirmed, so you are right, it is of this world. Christians are called to be in the world, not of it. So there goes your argument…
      You make no sense - same sex marriage need not be 'affirmed' just as flying in jets, eating Twinkies, wearing seat belts or anything else needs to be 'affirmed' for Christians. Christ's Law is about what we are supposed to do, not about what we aren't.

      Are Christians proscribed from marrying someone of the same sex? No. Are gay Christians better off married than unmarried? Yes. Again, to a Christian, its about what's best and people, gay or straight, are better off married to their spouses.

      Delete
    3. No, I don't assume it's alright for someone to do it or have done it, only that it's certainly possible for an unscrupulous person to stoop that low. There are people on both sides of the issue who might, man is sinful, remember? It was said somewhat in jest, hence the smiley face=).

      Really? Who's making no sense? God doesn't affirm putting on your socks before your shoes, not picking your nose in public, etc. So what? None of those things, including airplanes, twinkies or seatbelts will send you to hell. Sexual immorality will. Treating Grace as a fithy rag will.

      As you say, Christ's law includes what you're supposed to do, if you're a man marry a woman and vice versa. Where in Christ's law are you told to marry a man? Hmmm... you mean nowhere?
      Imagine that. Where is Titus' husband? or Timothy's ? or Lydia's wife? Certainly someone in the early church practiced same-sex marriage since it's o.k. with God, right?

      This is what happens when people teach a gospel that is not really the gospel, false prophets who tickle people's ears to gain converts for themselves. As Romans 1 says, "they not only continue to practice these things, but also approve of those who do"

      God is patient, kind and longsuffering towards us, forgiveness thru repentance and confession is available to all. Lord knows I need it, so do you. As I've said before, God loves you and so do I. Don't treat his mercy with contempt, humble yourself before Him and He will heal you. Peace out.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    4. God doesn't affirm putting on your socks before your shoes, not picking your nose in public, etc. So what? None of those things, including airplanes, twinkies or seatbelts will send you to hell
      Exactly, they are things of this world.

      Sexual immorality will.
      and being gay isn't sexually immoral. That's the wonder of Christ's Law, we can make decisions like that. There is no identifiable difference between the affection of a gay couple and a straight one. We are allowed to make decisions like that now under Christ's Law.

      Treating Grace as a fithy rag will.
      Which is done by those that reject Christ's Law and the Grace it provides. Anyone at their most righteous is no better than 'filthy rags', that's why there is the gift of Grace. Obsessing about the the possible specks of others by ones carrying around logs is just what Jesus chastised men for.

      I. Don't treat his mercy with contempt, humble yourself before Him and He will heal you
      If you would just follow your own advice your world would be a far less unpleasant place. Gay couples married are just as righteous as any other of God's children - you are worrying about things that don't need it.

      Delete
    5. Homosexual relations are of this world, we are told to be in the world, not of it.

      Since I have no problem with a homosexual log in my own eye, I am free to try to remove the homosexual speck in yours. That's the point of Jesus' discourse on the issue, don't call someone out for struggling with the the same sin as yourself. How can you help someone if you haven't overcome it yourself? I don't have that log, so I can see clearly.

      I am under Grace and believe me, I know I need it. I have no righteousness of my own, as I've said many times.

      Gay couples can't marry, it's not marriage per God's plan, you can have all the affection you want. It won't change God's mind.

      Delete
    6. All sexual relations are of this world, there is no marriage in heaven. And there is no 'homosexual' speck to begin with, condemnations in the Bible are to types of relations, infidelity, rape, idolatrous. There is nothing intrinsically sinful about homosexuality anymore than there is heterosexuality.

      And gay couples marry all the time - the one thing we should both be able to agree on is you don't know God's mind, let alone know if it needs changing.

      Delete
  14. 8:25 Gary is an ordained minister and life long pastor. That gives him credential to lead in spiritual issues. Schramm does not. This goes to the point Gary is making. Are people like Schram, Murray, Gregoire and some others suppose to decide what the church is supposed to teach? If that is the case, why go to church? Thank you Gary for telling it like it is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "an organization know for giving and withholding services necessary for 'the spirit', makes a petition available at that same place, and retains them so they reasonably can be expected to know who did or didn't sign, is reasonably seen as coercion."


    WOW , where is Rob McKenna when we need him . Maybe the catholic church will make those names available to others too . The horror ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't understand the issues. Before they are turned in they are not public records at all. There is no legal obligation to even do that, and they are of no concern to the Secretary of States or Attorney General's offices - yet.

      And they could make the signatures available, there is no restriction on that. Shoot during R71 they admitted that the signatures are often sold to the US Supreme Court.

      Save your sarcastic outrage for situations that actually fit the situation.

      Delete
  16. Gary, I appreciate what you do. I don't always agree with you or your tone in this blog, but you appear to be speaking from a place of conviction in your own heart, and I believe that is what gives your words weight. You seem to be very concerned with discerning between right and wrong, and you probably get that people need to respond from their own places of conviction. I don't think you are surprised by the angry exchanges that take place after you post, and I am guessing that you rejoice when your words birth integrity in others. Gary, I am so glad you continue stating what has been written on your heart as truth, despite what others will say to and about you. I sometimes see your struggles in the words you choose, and I am inspired by your determination. Again, I don't always agree with you, nor do I always like the way you approach those issues on which we do agree. However, by continuing to run the race that has been set before you, you encourage me to do the same. Thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.