Not Joseph nor Mary

This little item caught my eye: Churches offer refuge for Central Americans facing U.S. deportation.

Key quote:

Leaders of the multi-denominational Sanctuary Movement, which has sheltered at least 10 immigrants from deportation over the past 18 months, joined in the criticism on Friday, alluding to the biblical Nativity story of Mary and Joseph seeking refuge before the birth of Jesus.

"As pastors we know that each and every family is a holy family," said the Rev. Alison Harrington, pastor of Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. "We open our doors to today's Josephs and Marys. ... The gift we have to offer on Christmas Day is the gift of sanctuary."

The biblical illiteracy of these "pastors" is staggering. First of all, Joseph and Mary were not refugees (nor were they homeless, which is the other falsehood that is usually trotted out at this time of year). Instead, they were legal residents of their home country. Joseph and Mary were forced to journey to Bethlehem by a government determined to make them pay more taxes. The illegal aliens being lauded by these churches are lawbreakers and (in some cases) violent criminals.

This issue is of great personal interest to me. Last week my wife became an American citizen - legally. It irritates me that the false teachers and prophets of the Sanctuary Movement are willing to use racial and ethnic hatred for political gain. The Sanctuary Movement is a deliberate slap in the face of all legal immigrants such as my wife. The Sanctuary Movement has also shamelessly played the race card in its utter contempt for the law and its scorn for the reasonable objections to uncontrolled immigration many Americans have.

Christians must love our neighbors as ourselves. Because the Sanctuary Movement promotes lawlessness and contempt for others it cannot be considered Christian.

Freedom is slavery

...or so believes Tanya Cohen. Read the article (which unfortunately is not satire) and judge for yourselves.

Key quote:

Most countries have freedom of speech, but only in the US is “freedom of speech” so restrictive and repressive. Not only is the US the only country without any laws against hateful or offensive speech, but it’s also the only country where the government cannot ban any movies, books, or video games, no matter how dangerous, demeaning to human dignity, or harmful to society they may be. The US government is also the only government that cannot ban any groups or political parties, even when those groups or political parties pose a serious threat to democracy. This is completely incompatible with international human rights standards, which clearly state that freedom of speech does not protect speech which is harmful to society, to morality, or to human rights. Countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Australia – to name just a few examples – take a much more sensible approach to freedom of expression. They allow legitimate freedom of expression while banning bigots, hatemongers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-pedophile groups, terrorist sympathizers, harmful media, Holocaust deniers, pick-up artists, climate change deniers, and other forms of expression which damage society and social cohesion.

The United States has a very limited and very outdated understanding of human rights and political freedoms. In all other countries, it is simply common knowledge that freedom of speech does not permit hatred or other human rights abuses. This is not something that anyone outside of the US would ever question. In the US, however, it’s a concept that seems to be utterly alien to the vast majority of the population. The US appears completely backwards and positively uncivilized to the rest of the world when it refuses to crack down on manifestations of hatred.

While America has always been far behind the rest of the world when it comes to basic human rights – we still have yet to ban firearms, we still have yet to provide free higher education, and we still have yet to implement free universal healthcare, for example – the need to outlaw hate speech is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights obligations.

Wow. When it comes to dangerous paranoia, Richard Nixon could take lessons from Tanya Cohen.

Of course, it is easy to undermine the logic behind Cohen's love-letter to totalitarianism by asking a few simple questions. For starters: who gets to decide which groups/ideas are "legitimate" and protected by the State, and which ones are not? Cohen's short answer is: her side does (how she became the moral and intellectual judge of what is right and wrong with the legal authority to punish dissent is never explained). The irony is exquisite: if a Christian merely says that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ or that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, he or she is denounced by secular progressives as a dangerous theocratic bigot. Now Cohen is proposing jailing people just because they disagree with her. Dissent used to be the highest form of patriotism; now (according to Cohen) it should be considered a crime against the State.

Another question to ask her is: how do you protect free speech by decreasing it? Cohen's "Freedom is Slavery" argument, that liberty is expanded only when it is rationed and doled out by those who presume to know more than everyone else, is an Orwellian nightmare. One may as well argue that the only way to combat hunger is to ban food. America suffers from too little free speech and too little freedom, not too much.

There is no question that Cohen's thuggish plea comes from her fear that she is losing the debate on many political and social issues. Rather than win legitimately by argument and persuasion (which I doubt she is capable of anymore), she instead seeks to use the power of the State to persecute those whom she hates. So much for "diversity and tolerance".

While it would be easy to dismiss Tanya Cohen as a powerless fringe kook, it would not be wise. Cohen's totalitarian fantasies are unfortunately widespread in academia, the media, and other organizations where our self-anointed moral and intellectual betters tend to congregate. Having wrecked the US economy, politicized Federal agencies like the IRS, enabled Islamic terrorist groups abroad like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and poisoned race relations, all that modern-day progressives like Cohen have to show for their efforts are very impressive, lengthy enemies lists - and little else. It should not surprise anyone that they will do anything to continue to cling to power.

The Bible tells Christians that we are to respect those who are in authority over us (Romans 13). At the same time, we are not to put our trust in the princes of this world (Psalm 146:3). When we make government a god (as some liberal Christians seem to want), we instead make government a demon. I strongly recommend reading Tanya Cohen's article, since it reminds us how cruel and bloodthirsty people can become when they prize political power above all else.

Decline and fall of the Episcopal Church

Walter Russell Mead has an interesting essay on the decline of the Episcopal Church (h/t: Instapundit).

Key quote:

It used to matter what the Episcopal Church thought of this or that social issue. Other mainline Protestant churches and many social and political leaders followed its theological and political debates. Now, basically, no one outside the dwindling flock in the pews really cares what The Episcopal Church says about anything at all. General Convention can pass a million resolutions, and nothing anywhere will change. No one is even really angry anymore at anything the Episcopal hierarchy does; at most, there is a sigh and a quiet rolling of the eyes. Soon, there will not even be that.

It’s an extraordinary decline in an institution that a generation ago was still one of the pillars of American life. At this point the disaster appears irretrievable; those running the church are determined to run it into the ground and it is hard to see how that can change.

This is what happens when a church (liberal or conservative) places political activism above obedience to God and His commandments. While I do not advocate Christians washing their hands of politics entirely, a bit of humility would not be a bad idea. We Christians cannot usher in God's kingdom through petitions, social statements, demonstrations, and marches on behalf of secular political causes. We can only proclaim its coming.

Chuck Colson: Hellbound?

Frank Schaeffer, a leading liberal Christian, suggests that Chuck Colson is now in Hell. Wow. And people say the Religious Right is judgmental and intolerant!

Still, I suppose this represents a bit of progress. At least Schaeffer seems to think Hell is real, even if he regards it as somewhere you go when you die if you are not a registered Democrat. The notion that Hell is not real and everyone eventually goes to Heaven seems to be quite popular in post-Christian circles, and Schaeffer is cutting against the grain on this one (even if does he regard Hell as a private torture chamber for people whom he hates for political reasons).

Whether it is mixing politics and religion to a frightening degree, or exploiting the poor for political gain, or just plain old-fashioned intolerance, no one can hold a candle to the Religious Left.

The mathematics of the post-Christian Church

David Barnhart has an interesting post at his blog that shows the membership of the ELCA since its beginnings in 1987. With the exception of 1990 and 1991 the denomination has lost members every year.

Overall, the ELCA has experienced a 19.2% decline in its membership from 1987 (5,288,048) to 2010 (4,274,855). By far the steepest decline was from 2009 to 2010 (5.9%, or 268,182 members). It will be interesting to see what the figures for 2011 will be like.

Supporters of the ELCA might argue that most denominations have been losing members during that period of time. That may be so, but as I recall one of the major selling points of the ELCA's 2009 decision to reject the clear teachings of the Gospel was that the new emphasis on "diversity" and "tolerance" would bring in the unchurched. That does not seem to be happening. The mathematics of post-Christian churches appears to be subtraction (driving away faithful Christians) and division (bringing conflict and chaos among those who remain).

By far the most interesting aspect - to me, anyway - of the ELCA's decline is the fact that it is slow and steady. Had the ELCA lost 19.2% (one in five) of its members in 2009-10 instead of the actual 5.9% it might have caused quite a stir among those left behind. A major loss like that would have captured the attention of even the most laid-back of laypersons. It might even (horror of horrors!) have caused people to dare to ask questions of the ELCA's leadership.

It is a situation familiar to every driver. If one of your tires blows out, you are forced to stop the car and deal with the problem. But if you have a slow leak, you can be tempted to put off facing the situation and drive on. The second scenario is the one the ELCA appears to be locked into.

The question of what the ELCA will look like a decade from now also fascinates me. I seriously doubt that the ELCA will one day go completely out of business, so the question is: will it be absorbed into another denomination (such as the Episcopal Church USA) or become a small rump of what it once was? To me the latter seems most likely. But only God knows, and He will make it known to us in good time.

The Church Lite

Only 15 percent of members of the Church of Sweden believe in Jesus. Another 15 percent are atheists.

I am shocked to the very core of my being: I had no idea there was still a Church of Sweden.

Key quote from the article:

"Many are members, not for religious reasons, but because of the role the church plays in society, or because it serves as an organisation which maintains Swedish traditions," said [Jonas] Bromander.

"In fact, there are many members who would rather that we focus more on our social work in Sweden than on Sunday services."

That is the ELCA in a nutshell. Less of that pesky troublemaker from Nazareth who claims to the Son of God, and more protests, campaigning, and signing petitions.

Theologically and intellectually the ELCA's laity and clergy are very weak. The ELCA is primarily a political organization in thrall to a god of secular politics. Gone is the Lutheran tradition of salvation through grace alone. Gone are thousands of years of Biblical scholarship. Gone is the testimony of Christian witnesses and martyrs for the faith. Gone.

Instead, a purely secular doctrine has become the new gospel, in which race, ethnicity, gender, age, and income are the real measure of our character. And forget Heaven - the ELCA believes that paradise on Earth can be fashioned by government laws and regulations. Thank Darwin the ELCA can fix what God screwed up! In fact, this calls for a new Beatitudes:

Blessed are the petition-signers, for they shall be praised in the pages of the New York Times.

Blessed are the political protestors, for they shall be on TV.

Blessed are the community activists, for they shall hold a two-thirds majority of the seats in Congress.

Blessed are those who spend taxpayer money for all sorts of social programs, for they shall receive the praises of the glitterati.

Blessed are those who deconstruct the Bible, for the Bible was written by a bunch of racist misogynist homophobic dead white guys who lacked our modern scientific understanding of the world.

Blessed are those who fashion their own gods in their own images, for they shall be called the fathers of gods.

NALC nominates four to be bishop

The North American Lutheran Church (NALC) has nominated four candidates for NALC bishop. They are the Rev. John F. Bradosky, the Rev. James T. Lehmann, the Rev. Paul A. Schultz, and the Rev. Jacob Larry Yoder.

My wife and I are now members of a congregation belonging to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Nevertheless, all Christians will be affected by success or failure of the NALC in fighting the growing secular political activism and false teachings of the so-called mainline churches.

Please pray for the NALC and the four candidates for bishop.

Into the abyss

One of the reasons (though certainly not the only reason) for the decline in so-called mainline Christian denominations is their obsession with sexual matters. Now comes word that the Episcopal Church is breaking new ground in this area. Or (depending on your point of view) the Episcopal Church has hit bottom and is now blasting and digging.

An interesting quote from the link:

Patrick Cheng, an ordained minister in the majority-homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches and an openly homosexual faculty member at [Episcopal Divinity School], attempted to claim biblical characters such as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 as examples of transgenderism.

“That’s the first queer person of color in the Bible,” Cheng said of the Ethiopian eunuch. Cheng also named Joan of Arc, Saint Perpetua, and early church theologian Origen as people who defied traditional gender expectations: Joan for her use of male clothing, Perpetua for her visions of gladiatorial combat, and Origen for reportedly castrating himself.

“There’s a lot of work being done on the transgendered Christ,” Cheng revealed, producing several different books that either focused upon or addressed the notion of Christ as transgendered.

Wild speculation unencumbered by fact, a near-complete ignorance of Biblical scholarship, and a blatant in-your-face blasphemy. This is the sort of pseudo-intellectual pap the modern Episcopal Church goes bananas over.

It will be interesting to see if the ELCA follows the Episcopal Church over this particular cliff. In many ways the Episcopal Church is the spiritual/political mentor of the ELCA. It seems that whatever the Episcopal Church does the ELCA mimics sooner or later.

Or maybe not. My own experience with both denominations (I taught at an Episcopal school for several years) leads me to believe that the Episcopal Church fancies itself the intellectual savior of Christianity. Like the ELCA, the Episcopal Church has an unhealthy involvement in left-wing secular politics that has driven away many confessional Christians. But the Episcopal Church seems more interested in gaining acceptance for its crackpot theology than in manipulating the political process. By contrast, the ELCA worships a god of secular politics, and is obsessed with using "social statements" to fashion a secular political platform that is often at odds with Christianity.

Put another way: the Episcopal Church is deeply interested in how many angels (or, in Rev. Cheng's case, transgendered spiritual beings) can dance on the head of a pin. The ELCA is concerned about the angels' gender, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, and whether dancing on the head of a pin causes cultural imperialism, deforestation, anti-immigrant xenophobia, or global warming.

When I read articles like the one in the link above I feel like a shipwreck survivor. At the time I was involved with the ELCA and the Episcopal Church I was uncomfortable with what seemed to be many excesses and weird ideas in these denominations. But I believed that the leaders of these denominations were my brothers and sisters in Christ and kept my misgivings to myself. Now I realize that many of these leaders - perhaps most of them - are false prophets and teachers who are trying to trick others into abandoning the Word of God for purely secular teachings.

Do as they command, not as they do

Religious Left attempts to fight Federal budget cuts.

It was not that long ago that we were being told that any involvement by Christians in the political process was a prelude to a right-wing Christianist theocracy. It reminds me of the recent calls for more civility in political debate. Some of those calls that were made by those willing to engage in ugly and vile behavior if they thought it would help their political cause (see the recent fight over the budget in Wisconsin).

Jim Wallis and the rest of the Religious Left have a Constitutional right to engage in political debate - or make political prayers, for that matter. But I don't want to hear any more from him or others like him about how conservative Christians represent some sinister threat to democracy merely by voting and speaking out.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Former Atheist Aims to Reverse Negative Christian Stereotypes.

The article is about the efforts of R. Brad White founder of Changing the Face of Christianity Inc. to overcome negative stereotype about Christianity among the young. A key quote from the article:

Dan Kimball opines in the beginning of his book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, that the emerging generation is spiritually open to talk about Jesus but are very disinterested in joining or being associated with church.

Kimball argues that pastors and ministers have lost touch with the younger generation by shutting out all other viewpoints and opinions but those of fellow Christians.

White has taken the argument a step further and states that church members and leaders have blatantly turned them off by "hating the sin and the sinner." He said this is most evident with homosexuality. Church leaders have mixed the Bible with politics to condemn homosexuals for their lifestyles, he lamented.

Though the sentiment may be based on the Bible, he noted, "The things we say and the way we say them turn them off."

The above quote from the Christian Post article reminded me of this skit from Monty Python:



I must confess (due to more than just a mortal fear of the soft cushions!) that I am not in sympathy with the goals of Mr. White and Mr. Kimball. For one thing, their approach has already been tried for decades in "mainline" denominations like the ELCA - and has been an unqualified disaster.

For another, trying to make the church more palatable to the world will never work. Jesus warned us about the conflict between the church and the world when He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." It is true that some Christians (including myself) have been guilty of hating both the sin and the sinner. But I do not think that is what is going on in this case. If anything, the church has been too timid in confronting the sin of homosexuality. Anyone who accepts the world's ground rules in any debate - rules which are stacked against Christianity - should be prepared to lose time after time. You cannot use the ways of the world to win converts to Christ.

But above all, young people need to hear the truth so they can make their own decision. We must tell young people the truth about homosexuality and many other things acceptable in popular culture, such as casual sex, pornography, disrespect of the elderly, contempt of tradition, etc. It is important that folks like Dan Kimball and Brad White realize that when the world (smug in its own self righteous cocoon and judgemental of all opposition) demands tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle, what it really wants is 100% acceptance with no dissent. In other words: total surrender.

Like the old women in the Monty Python skit: having the church confess to crimes it did not commit should be a cause for nothing except laughter.

Interview with Rodney Stark

This is an interesting article about the decline of liberal American Protestantism.

(Hat-tip: Rev. Paul McCain)