Thursday, April 16, 2015

New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."

Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.

Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.

The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.

The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."

We've evolved.

The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.

The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.

Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.

Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."

"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."

In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.

He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."

Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."

Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBTpeople."

Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another "evangelical' author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."

"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"

Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.

Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."

The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.

This idea is being advanced with the endorsement of the President of the United States, and the full force of our newly minted laws.

Eric Metaxes writing for Break Point, defines this as the "new religion" in America. And signals a shift, or at least an attempted shift in the definition of religious freedom.

Metaxes wrote this week, "The message is clear: not only should Christians remain silent about gay marriage if we know what's good for us, but we must be made to agree with and even celebrate what Scripture calls sin."

He quotes Ana Marie Cox with MSNBC who recently said of biblical Christians, "You're going to have to force [them] to do things they don't want to do." Obviously in full agreement with Mitchell Gold.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, himself a biblical Christian, is supporting a bill in his state that attempts to address this issue from a political and legislative perspective.

In his State of the State address this past Monday, he said, "In Louisiana we do not support discrimination and we do support religious liberty, and we believe that we can uphold both of those values simultaneously," referring to the bill.

The bill, "The Marriage and Conscience Act," would prevent the state from punishing people for actions they take regarding participating in same-sex "marriage" ceremonies due to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. The bill would actually codify the very thing the homosexual activists were asking for themselves while demanding that marriage be redefined in the state.

This response is very revealing. Speaker pro tempore in the State House of Representatives Walt Leger III (D), immediately responded with a lengthy op-ed article in The Times-Picayune newspaper in New Orleans.

The article begins with a quote from American Founder John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Leger explains he is a devout Christian, and those seeking protection of religious liberty and freedom of conscience under this bill are actually trying to pervert Christianity "that was founded on the premise of 'love thy neighbor'." He says, "Christ died for this."

He says the bill is "Bigotry enshrouded in religion."

And besides, he says, "Louisiana cannot afford to lose visitors who spend some $10.8 billion annually. We need to send a message to the world that Louisiana is welcoming."

Got it.

The Supreme Court seems poised to impose same-sex "marriage" on America this summer. Sadly, too many politicians and more sadly pastors and religious leaders have "evolved" regarding biblical Truth and the most fundamental family model--- marriage between one man and one woman---a model created by God which predates all organized civilizations and societies.

Princeton Professor Robert George said last week of the movement against biblical Christian beliefs: "The lynch mob is giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of it's victims."

He says, "It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the 'beautiful people' and the intellectual class. It has been joined up by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance."

Some say the battle is lost. George asks, "Who will stand? Who will muster the courage to confront the mob?"

Much can be learned from the well known account of David and Goliath.

I'll be talking a bit about the sling and the stones today on the radio. Join me live at 9 AM PDT or rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT from anywhere in the world. Here's how.

Be Vigilant. Be Fearless. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


  1. Defying the armies of the living God are they? I know their day is coming.

  2. I've heard of the governor's dissatisfaction with the state auditor, because of some kind of alleged mishandling of funds or something, but where is the public outrage over the state A/G for their dealings against the flower shop in Richland?

    If it is time for a new auditor, how about a new A/G?

    Or is it that the new evolving deal is that if a homosexual wants a list of pork items for his "wedding", and the caterer doesn't taste or even touch pork for his personal religious reasons, then the new thing is to go after the caterer for all he's worth? Is this the new deal?

    How about we get back to some common sense and the constitution?

    Everything about the gay agenda should be thrown out. It's of the enemies of God, and therefore destructive.

  3. Whatever the mayor, governor, judges or whatever "cleanses", that we are not to call unclean, is that it? Is that the new constitution now? Where do they come up with that? I guess they make it up as they go along. Lawless government, Do whatever, is that it? Just because they can?

    Time for some more serious voting.

  4. How is it that some seem to thing that the gay agenda must have came down from heaven as a gift from God or something?

  5. So their fall was incremental. It seems to me that first they must have thought about the constitution as being a "living" document, not something written in stone, and then they must have began stretching some things a bit, just a little I suppose, and then some more, straining it as much as they could, until it seems they were taking all the life out of it that they could.


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