Make no mistake, this is a purposeful, contemptuous slap in the face of Christians in the United States.
If your goal is to drive Christianity out of the public square and replace it with Paganism then this makes total sense.
I have documented the truth of Miller’s characterization for years, most recently in a four-part post series titled “Our Mengele *and* Frankenstein Moment.”
The Democrat Party has replaced Christianity with Paganism, full stop. Some say that this is an act of provocation. My guess is that it is primarily an act of demonstration. That being we can spit in the face of Christianity and the Church will accept it. They have demonstrated that Christianity is led by cowards and collaborators.
Why can’t we be more like Jesus Christ when confronted by evil?
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.” Mt 23:15.
Dr. Phil: “And we know that. We knowingly are spending our tax dollars to sell children into sex trafficking. How under any theory is that OK for us to be spending tax dollars to traffic children?”
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:6
As I documented in the previous two posts on this topic, these awful harms to both the illegal immigrants and to the citizens of this country are real and pervasive. And yet, huge numbers of Christians are hypnotized into believing that blanket support of mass illegal immigration is the only valid Christian position. The question must be asked and considered: How is this accomplished?
The first thing to understand is that, particularly if you are in a Mainline denomination, the leadership is completely dominated by people with a powerful allegiance to the secular, Progressive political project. I’ve covered this claim extensively and offered overwhelming evidence for this assertion. Perhaps my most comprehensive and clear description of this situation was provided in a post from 2022 (emphasis added).
This merging of religious and secular ideology is so complete that it has become virtually impossible to find separation between them. If secular Progressivism embraces abortion on demand (even up to the moment of birth), the Mainline denominations fall into line. If secular Progressivism decides on a policy of open borders and nullification of immigration laws, the Mainline follows suit. And, if secular Progressivism decides to embrace Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory and Wokeness; resulting in rioting, murder, mayhem, arson and looting, the Mainline enthusiastically agrees. The same statements can be made about policies on “climate change,” criminal justice, marriage, foreign policy and other major issue areas.
But the domain with the longest and deepest collaboration has been in policy towards the poor and oppressed. The Mainline has completely absorbed the socialistic, paternalistic policies of Progressivism. In effect, the Mainline has taught, for generations, that Progressive policies are indistinguishable from Christian teaching in this space.
This situation has led the Mainline leadership into a devastating dead end, where they feel compelled to maintain support for utterly, catastrophically failed policies out of political fealty to a secular group. And this support trickles down into the local churches, leading to an oppressive pall over discussion and debate on these issues.
What you need to understand is that, because of this allegiance to the Progressive Movement, Mainline leadership sees its primary mission to be the creation of Biblical support for secular, Progressive positions. Therefore they will carefully curate and even censor the Bible to ensure that only Progressive ideas are affirmed.
For example, Bible passages that affirm collective social responsibility are highlighted and accentuated while passages that affirm private property and personal morality are minimized if not excluded altogether. They also, by sleight of hand, imply that it is only through redistributive government power that our moral obligations to the larger society can be fully met. Thus, the Christian duty to be generous is converted into the (false) Christian duty to support oppressive secular Progressive policies.
But there are deeper, more sinister deceptions that underlie even this appalling theological fraud.
The first theological deception centers on the Christian concept of sin. Christians are generally very sensitive to the issue of sin because it is the central focus of Christ’s sacrificial death. Christ died to pay for our sins. But Progressive Christians use this sensitivity as a weapon to intimidate and demoralize regular Christians. They do this by twisting the Bible’s teaching on sin:
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
into the heretical teaching of:
“For [only you Christians] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Heretics translation).
By so doing the Progressive Christians convince regular Christians that they are uniquely the worst sinners in the world, and therefore have no standing to pass moral judgement on anyone or anything. Also, illegal immigrants are deemed to be innocent by definition.
The second theological deception expands Christ’s sacrificial offering of Himself on the cross to be the only moral measure of all Christians. That is, the most moral Christian is the one who willingly, nay, gratefully, gives all of his/her rights and privileges to others. It doesn’t matter if the others are criminals, oppressors, perverts or anything else. No, the Christian can only be moral if they become a doormat to whoever or whatever wants to wipe their shoes on them.
We Christians are not Christ. And, God’s elect in the Old Testament were not doormats. Nor was Christ Himself a doormat when the issue was soul destroying sin. Nor were the Apostles. And yet, the lie that we must meekly accept evil and lawlessness in order to be moral Christians has taken hold to a massive degree.
It is by these theological deceptions that Christians in the West have been stripped of all ability to think and act as moral agents. We have been converted into beggars who seek the crumbs of morality that fall from the secular Progressive table. The Woke Progressives are therefore able to shove any wicked, destructive policy down our throats, because we have been morally disarmed by their heretical theology.
Returning to the American Mind article, here are the fighting words that place this situation into perspective.
I am done having my devout religious beliefs used as a skin suit by Soros-funded globalists who want to use it as a disguise while they overthrow “our sacred democracy” from within. I am not in favor of having my Catholicism used as a club to beat me to death.
For Catholicism substitute Christianity and you have a fine nondenominational formulation.
Now, pick up the doormat and put it where it belongs.
Today we take up the question of how the Woke “elite” have attempted to subvert the Christian Church itself, and therefore the beliefs of faithful Christians themselves. This goal cannot be achieved by direct assault, as by the previously discussed replacement of Christianity by Paganism. No, a far subtler but no less destructive strategy is needed to turn faithful Christians into New Persons of the Woke revolution.
The strategy to accomplish this wicked goal relies on the power of heresy. Now, Christians may scoff that, since heresy is a very bad thing, most Christians will immediately recognize and reject this plan. The problem is that heresy is rarely openly wicked. Rather, it latches onto one (or a few) good aspects of Christianity and then magnifies and distorts them into something that is secretly anti-Christian. An article in Breakpoint titled “Why Wokeness is a Christian Heresy” well summarizes this idea (emphasis added).
“Heresy” comes from the Greek verb hairein, which means to choose. The idea is, heresy is the result of choosing one thing that is true and then running with it until it distorts everything else. “Wokeness,” a way of seeing the world built on critical theory, fastens onto the Christian idea that oppression is evil, but makes it the sole significant fact about humanity and society, while rejecting so much else that Christianity teaches — original sin, forgiveness, and salvation.
So, how does the Woke “elite” justify the abandonment of Christianity by Christians? They do so by convincing Christians that they are moving to a “better” Christianity. This con is executed by pretending to maintain the Christian concept but moving it far beyond the point determined by Christian doctrine and experience, for example, maximizing the concept of empathy for the “oppressed” without reference to any other of the Christian virtues.
This internal cohort of Christian frauds has been turning Christianity from its infinite scope and depth to a pathetic focus on one thing: virtue signaling our “kindness” towards the “oppressed” (as specifically defined by their Woke pagan masters). This project has been camouflaged by the concept of “niceness”.
But, as I have pointed out in the previous post of this series neither Jesus Christ nor His Apostles were always nice. And the reason for this apparent contradiction is that God hates sin. And, he hates those who by cruel cleverness lead people into sin. God wants us to know without doubt what He considers to be sin. And, He wants us to understand just how destructive and evil are the consequences of sin, both for the the person and society.
This heresy was most recently on display in a Christianity Today article that praised Taylor Swift and The Barbie Movie as worthy ideals for Christian life (Barbie and Taylor Swift are Bringing Us Together). This exercise in cultural surrender and religious subversion is effectively called out by an article in Not the Bee, which concludes thusly.
This CT article is the perfect example of how blind guides have infiltrated the top ranks of church leadership. These people would shame you for implying some people are fat and lazy, just like they would tell you to beware the “idolatry of marriage” while the world goes to literal hell in a hand basket.
They are so wedded to the “Thou Shalt Be Nice” command of Satan that they readily do his work for him!
Let me end with an important reminder for all the “nice” Christians who spout off screeds about being “unloving” (that tactic used endlessly during the pandemic):
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
The modern American church has forgotten about the bold part, and in forgetting that love cannot coexist with evil, it has made friends with the devil in the name of “niceness.”
Thus you understand what has happened to Christianity Today.
Yes, this is precisely what has happened to much of Christianity in the West, and was led by heretics in sheep’s clothing, most definitely including Christianity Today and the PCUSA leadership, among many, many others. This is the stolen morality of Wokeness from Christianity that destroys the Church while substituting an evil counterfeit.
To whom is the Apostle Paul referring by the “weak” and the “strong,” and how do these designations fit into contemporary Christian theology?
Introduction
One of the more insightful observations about the nature of Woke ideology is that it is a heretical repurposing of Christianity. That is, it has claimed aspects of Christianity as its own while distorting and degrading them for purposes other than proclamation of the Gospel. By so doing the Woke are able to steal the legitimate power of Christian doctrine for purposes that negate Christian life. An article in Breakpoint titled “Why Wokeness is a Christian Heresy” well summarizes this idea.
“Heresy” comes from the Greek verb hairein, which means to choose. The idea is, heresy is the result of choosing one thing that is true and then running with it until it distorts everything else. “Wokeness,” a way of seeing the world built on critical theory, fastens onto the Christian idea that oppression is evil, but makes it the sole significant fact about humanity and society, while rejecting so much else that Christianity teaches — original sin, forgiveness, and salvation.
The Venerable Fulton Sheen once prophesied the conflict of the future would be between “the God who became man” and “the man who makes himself God.” While the former is grounded in the theology of the cross, the latter is based on the tyranny of individual will. …
The rejection of God’s creation of man and woman in His image, the attribution of evil to “oppressor” races and social structures rather than original sin, and the affront to the Author of life by relativizing the butchering of around 1 million innocent babies in the womb each year in the United States alone, is an elevation of man over the cross.
I implicitly raised this issue of heresy regarding the “weak” and “strong” in the seventh and eighth posts in the series titled “COVID and the Christian Church.” In the seventh post I defined these two categories within the context of COVID-19.
Here another important dimension is introduced, that being the tension between the “weak” and “strong.” Within context of COVID-19 the “weak” could be defined as those who live in fear of infection, embrace all recommended means of protection and look to the government for authoritative information. The “strong” could be defined as those who consider Covid to be only one of many risks, are selective in their acceptance o[f] protective recommendations and look beyond the government for information.
In the eighth post I discussed how these categories of people were treated, within context of Romans 14’s discussion of the “weak” and “strong,” as the church struggled to develop responses to this crisis.
The Apostle’s perspective is truly revolutionary. For, in a culture that exalted strength and despised weakness, Paul taught that the weak and strong were equals. …
In the contemporary Christian church this parity between weakness and strength has been destroyed. This situation was highlighted by our response to COVID-19, where the “weak” were allowed to completely control policy decisions. Just as in so many other cases those who exhibited the most emotional, fearful, even irrational responses were submitted to as moral paragons. However, anyone who took a more analytic, dispassionate, skeptical approach was accused of being cold-hearted, neighbor-hating and even murderous. And our church leaders (as usual) threw their weight completely behind the position of the “weak.”
Thus the Christian balance taught by the Apostle Paul was ignored. The “strong” found themselves isolated and ignored by leaders and parishioners alike. Any argument to consider anything other than perfect personal safety was deemed to be immoral and unworthy of consideration. …
The “weak” have built a wall of intimidation around their fears. There is no “parity,” no respect, no communication. There is just silent frustration and resentment.
This introduction provides the starting point for my contention that, under the influence of what we now call Wokeness, the Christian understanding of “weakness” has been invaded by a heretical cult and repurposed to justify injustice and oppression.
What in God’s good earth has changed to enable a mass psychosis breakdown in what is arguably a plurality of our population? I’ve been indirectly exploring the reasons through posts on postmodernism in general, and postmodern Christianity in particular. I’ve also addressed this issue through posts like “The Strange Persistence of Guilt” and post series concerning the nature of our rulers (deranged, wicked, clueless and vacuous). As with all massive human movements the reasons are complex and diverse. There’s no one”theory of everything” to diagnose nor a “silver bullet” to correct the situation.
But that’s no reason to stop pondering and developing theories. One recent contribution to this deliberation was published by First Things in an article titled “Spiritual Death of the West” by Nathan Pinkoski. The author there reconsiders the 1973 fictional novel The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail. Mr. Raspail tells the (prophetic?) story of how a mass immigration event brought down European culture and governments. As you can easily imagine this novel is hated and assaulted by our moronic intelligentsia. But Mr. Pinkoski’s review and commentary on the novel’s ideas provide useful insight for those not ideologically lobotomized. For example:
Yet The Camp of the Saints is not a disaster novel. The book’s significance does not hinge on whether Raspail was correct to predict mass immigration or describe it in catastrophic terms. Rather, the novel’s genius lies in the depiction of an apocalypse in the original sense of that term. Properly translated, apocalypse is rendered as revelation, disclosure, literally an “uncovering.” The Camp of the Saints unveils the perverse logic that pervades late Western civilization, and throws into sharp relief the nihilism of guilt whereby the West welcomes its own destruction.
Now that’s a bracing introduction! What is the nature of this civilization destroying this “nihilism of guilt?”
It was not Raspail but Jean-Paul Sartre who first envisioned the Global South invading the Global North. In his 1961 preface to Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, written as Charles de Gaulle was preparing to lower France’s flags in Algeria, Sartre argued that decolonization was not enough to settle the score. France and the French deserved punitive subjugation. “Our soil must be occupied by a formerly colonized people and we must starve of hunger,” he wrote. …
Sartre may have desired reverse colonization, but he didn’t see it as a real possibility: “This won’t happen,” he complained. Raspail’s chief purpose, therefore, was not to predict an imminent future. He sought to take seriously the sentiments of self-loathing and the desire for reverse colonization that were gaining strength in Europe. The Camp of the Saints is best read as a long thought experiment, a fictional depiction of the civilizational consequences of this way of thinking.
This vague “nihilism of guilt” crystallized into a specific ideology that has conquered much of the West.
The West’s brand of moral universalism, Raspail’s novel suggests, causes its demise. Westerners have made a categorical imperative out of Mrs. Jellyby’s comically flawed humanitarianism—“do-gooderism” unto a distant other, while one’s own are neglected. In this moral climate, the piety required to love one’s community and the fortitude required to defend it become vices.
And, central to Raspail’s case is the treason of the Christian Church (sound familiar?).
In Raspail’s telling, Catholic Christianity has for some time been in thrall to humanitarian universalism. The novel satirizes a left-liberal Catholicism that disdains national and civilizational particularity and renders the faith indistinguishable from the moral universalism of non-believers. Under the banner of “charity, solidarity, and universal conscience,” progressive clerics abandon their neighbors for the sake of the stranger. They practice the religion of humanity, a Christian heresy.
The Europeans (and also we in the Unites States?), having lost our Christian faith and civilizational self-respect grasp at straws as we descend into the deep.
Again and again in the novel, cowardice and self-hatred are masked and moderated by the conviction that mass immigration into Europe and the deconstruction of European identity will somehow take away the sins of the West. But Raspail knows the truth: Third World immigrants do not have the power to deliver Europeans from their sense of worthlessness. Once one embraces the logic of civilizational repudiation, the endpoint is nihilism and cultural death. The Alpha is white guilt. The Omega is Francocide.
We can only pray that our merciful God will protect us from the consequences of our own moral and spiritual failures.
Contemporary excesses have their origins not in recent events, but in a much older and deeper spiritual sickness. Raspail’s poetic millenarianism illuminates what Badinter feared. Sometime during those seemingly good years after World War II—Les Trente Glorieuses, as the French call this period, which still prevailed when The Camp of the Saints was published—the West lost its soul. In a sense, the apocalypse has already happened. That’s why Westerners in Raspail’s novel lack the fortitude to defend their civilization and why so many find reverse colonization desirable. We live in a civilization that is already damned.
Regardless of if we are “already damned,” those of us who reject the “nihilism of guilt” through the forgiveness and new life through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, must speak up for His Gospel and the civilization nurtured under its influence.
First Lady Jill Biden was a special guest at the 2023 Grammy Awards, which included a Satanic worship event (Sam Smith). Do you doubt me? Try on the following set of Tweets for size.Folks, that’s the official CBS Twitter account responding to Sam Smith’s promotional Tweet about the Satanic Grammy performance with “We are ready to worship!”
The Daily Wire reports:
Many Grammys viewers were shocked by the fact that this year’s show was sponsored by none other than pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.
Music fans made their opinions known on Twitter, noting how Sam Smith and Kim Petras’ hell-themed performance of their award-winning song, “Unholy,” immediately preceded a reminder that Pfizer was financially supporting the whole thing.
So, we have here the unholy combination of the Democrat Party, Big Pharma and Big Entertainment in an event at which a Satanic Worship act was included. Will the supposedly morally superior “Progressive Christians” avert their eyes or speak up?
When I served as a Presbytery of Chicago Commissioner for my local church (2012-2014) one of the most shocking discoveries was the beliefs of our candidates for ministry. In the PCUSA the Presbytery decides who is fit to be a pastor in its group of local churches. The candidate would read a statement of faith and then be questioned by members of the Presbytery. I was stunned and appalled by the almost uniform inclusion of statements that denied the authority of Scripture. In numerous cases the candidate even denied the existence of sin. Not one of these candidates was ever challenged from the Floor of Presbytery on these and many other statements of apostasy. The only real challenge I recall was made by a twenty-something man (likely a theology post-doc) to a woman candidate demanding that she justify her submission to Christ since He was a man (and thus I suppose part of the Patriarchy). My point is that, even a decade ago, the vast majority of candidates for ministry were openly politically Progressive and theologically hostile to God’s Word.
However, the Presbytery of Chicago was very progressive (theologically and politically). There were other Presbyteries where an orthodox Christian pastor could find a welcoming home. But that all changed in 2014 when the PCUSA approved gay marriage. Look at the figure at the right showing the impact on candidates for ministry. Between 2013 and 2014 almost half of our candidates fled the denomination. And, who were those exiting candidates? They were certainly dominated by people who held orthodox positions on theology, among other areas. What was left were the Progressive candidates who celebrated the denominations apostasy.
I bring this up because another issue vexing our church is difficulty finding an Associate Pastor. Now, I don’t (and shouldn’t) know the reasons that our Pastor Nominating Committees have had this difficulty. But, for a church, particularly one in the Presbytery of Chicago, that has a significant contingent of orthodox members, it may well be difficult, post 2014, to find a suitable candidate. I even wonder if the Presbytery of Chicago would accept a candidate who affirms Christ’s explicit definition of marriage.
The point is that this potential reason for our difficulties hasn’t to my knowledge been part of the discussion. Rather, the issue is treated like something that has just, for inexplicable reasons, occurred. And, the “solution” is to encourage young people to become ministers. But how exactly will we convince Bible believing young people to become ministers in a denomination that defies the clear teaching of Christ Himself on marriage? And the PCUSA’s recent embrace of transgenderism will just make the situation worse. Yet, this issue is unspoken and therefore unaddressed,
So, once again, the deeply detrimental consequences of remaining in the PCUSA have been suppressed. Apparently we would rather pretend that all is well rather than grappling with the consequences of our association with this collapsing denomination.
‘Bones and All’ review: Timothée Chalamet cannibal romance is gory — and gorgeous … Money Quote: “Both actors somehow turn young killers into deeply relatable outsiders. Taken at face value, they are monsters who should be maligned by society. And yet we are totally helpless in our affection for them. We just want what’s best for these CANNIBALS.”The Daily Wire comments: “Now, we have The Washington Post writing a rave review for a play that casts pedophiles in a sympathetic light, suggesting their punishments are often too harsh. In a column titled, “‘Downstate’ is a play about pedophiles. It’s also brilliant,” theater critic Peter Marks praised the play for being “tough stuff, questioning how society treats those convicted of heinous acts.””Coming to a pulpit near you: “‘I Left The Service In Tears’: Dean Of Trinity College Defends Sermon Claiming Jesus Could Have Been Transgender. Sermon claimed wound in Jesus’ side “‘takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance.””
This is just the material available on one day. But hey, nothing to see here, move along plebe.
The desired end-state of Progressive Christianity.
I’ve written numerous times about the organizational rot of the PCUSA. For example, their defense of our clergy’s, elders’ and deacons’ commitment to the authority of Scripture.
One issue addressed is the accusation that the PCUSA has abandoned adherence to the authority of Scripture. He defended the denomination by stating that all ordained PCUSA leaders promise to adhere to the authority of Scripture in their vows. This was the full extent of his response.
Perhaps I’ve convinced you (or at least got you wondering) that there is an army of grifters out there who use their official positions of responsibility as platforms from which to advance unrelated partisan political goals. This army thus takes all of the money, prestige, power and influence associated with their official positions and use them only secondarily (at most) to exercise their official duties. As a consequence the organizations they run are hollowed out and repurposed as just another vehicle for Progressive political action. If you wonder why so many of our major institutions have become utterly incompetent at executing on what was their original purpose, this is a major if not the dominant cause.
It turns out that both of these processes have been occurring in the SBC. I therefore continue commentary on the transcript from The Sword and The Trowel discussion between Tom Ascol and Mark DeVine.
Tom Ascol: It’s not that we have rejected the theology, we’ve just taken theology from the center and moved it over to the edge. And that has helped me to understand some of the conversations I’ve had with evangelical leaders over the last five years or so, when I’d say but how can you hire this person, how can you let this person teach in your faculty? And I get the answer: “Well Tom, she signed the Baptist Faith Message, or they signed the Chicago Statement. … And it’s like OK they’ve signed it but look what they’re advocating that is completely inconsistent with that! And it’s like, no you’re not supposed to talk about that. We were living within the boundaries of these confessions that we all say we hold to, and these other things are incidental, but it’s those incidental things that become then the norm by which the folks like you are cancelled.
Mark DeVine: I think a takeaway might be that … formal and even sincere affirmation of a fully [developed] doctrinal statement [while] necessary, it is not sufficient to protect the clear message of the gospel. And it’s not sufficient to keep that body of beliefs as the foundation for communal bonds and ministry partnership among people. If you allow some other … alien norm to come in … and shape our message. It has happened. And the proof is that those who were part of the movement and were welcomed and share that theology are not allowed to have their voices heard. … These views are not refuted, they’re simply ignored, or cancelled. It is an insidious issue, and if you don’t understand it you … just feel like, you know, maybe I’m crazy because these are good guys this is a good institution, these are folks that we’ve trusted.
I recently attended an Episcopal church. Outside the church were physical signage proclaiming their adherence to all of the secular Progressive causes. But the service’s liturgy was utterly orthodox. This seemed to me the perfect metaphor for the Mainline. On the outside and in actual fact they are fully committed to the secular elite Progressive proto-totalitarian cause. But on the inside they maintain the pretense of orthodox Christianity. I suspect it’s done for two primary reasons, those being:
To maintain adherence of orthodox-leaning members who actually seek the solace of Christ and His Gospel.
To camouflage their apostasy in order to leverage Christianity’s moral capital into secular political gain.
If the SBC falls to this secular ideological invasion we may well enter a dark age of Christianity. On the other hand, if it is successfully repulsed by the orthodox it could be a rallying point for broader opposition. Yes, it’s ultimately in God’s hands, but so are we. Will we remain confused, demoralized and bewitched or will we stand up for Christ’s Gospel as found in Holy Scripture?
God’s revelation of Himself to mankind or a tool of Progressive propaganda?
I continue commentary on the transcript from The Sword and The Trowel discussion between Tom Ascol and Mark DeVine. Professor DeVine provides an excellent and concise description of the Mainline Protestant view of Scripture.
Mark DeVine: The original Protestant liberals rejected their theology. They admitted that they come to the Bible with [an] understanding about what modern man can believe and not believe. What can modern man find relevant and what can they not find relevant. And so, they scrapped their confessions of faith and wrote new confessions of faith they believed modern men and women could stomach. They admitted that when they come to the Bible they bring that norm, if you will, on what modern man can hear and find relevant and then they separate wheat from chaff and use what the Bible has in it that can scratch the itches, if you will, and not offend modern men and women.
In the PCUSA this rejection of their historic theology was certified by acceptance of the Confession of 1967. This Confession is the headwater for much of the heresy and apostasy that now permeates the denomination.
But the more insidious consequence is the careful curating of Scripture by pastors and elders whereby it becomes a tool for justifying their secular political goals. That is, they carefully select and utilize only those parts of Scripture that, legitimately or not, can be used to justify their political positions. Thus, Jesus Christ becomes a Democratic Socialist who supports every policy of that secular ideology. Helping the poor can only be accomplished by supporting and massively expanding the welfare state. There is never any justification for violenceunless in is in support of “racial justice” or other goals of the Progressive Left. The government must be “resisted” if a non-elite, non-Progressive wins office but slavishly obeyed if an elite Progressive is in charge. This all adds up to the conversion of Jesus Christ from who the entire scope of Scripture says He is to a pathetic avatar for Progressive elite ideology.
This curating occurs for the entire Bible. So, only those verses from the Old Testament that can be twisted into support of Progressive ideology are quoted and discussed.
By this means a pastor can appear to be providing Biblical instruction while actually distorting Biblical truth and deceiving the congregation. Only by a deep, broad understanding of Scripture can this deception be reliably detected. However, there are situations in which this deception becomes obviously apparent.
For example, consider the case of the Christian definition of marriage. Let’s say that you belong to a denomination or local church that claims to have a high view of Scripture and a goal to “follow Christ,” and the definition of Christian marriage becomes an open issue. If that denomination’s or local church’s leadership avoid and ignore Jesus Christ’s explicit, unmistakable teaching on the definition of Christian marriage (i.e., Matthew 19:4-6) then you can be pretty certain that the whole enterprise is a fraud (unless the reason is ignorance and incompetence at an unimaginable level).
That is, they have demonstrated by their action that “following Christ” and “trusting the Bible” aren’t foundational principles but rather are camouflage for a censored Bible and a politically domesticated Christ. And, it must be pointed out that for both the Mainline denominations and the Evangelical Industrial Complex (EIC) the controlling group for that censoring and domestication is the “blue communities” (i.e., “college educated, Democrat-voting denizens of the nation’s cities and blue enclaves”). So what is selected from the Bible and what is preached is what will not offend but rather scratch the itch of the socially and economically dominant “blue communities.”
Obviously this censoring and domestication goes in the other political direction(s) as well. And I’ve been clear in my position regardless of which direction this polarization of Christianity goes.
The point is that using Scripture in this manner trivializes and demeans it. Scripture becomes seen as simply a tool by which I can justify my political beliefs and policy choices. Under this interpretative regime there is no way for the Authority of Scripture to be upheld. We become Scripture’s master, deciding that certain passages are legitimate and binding while others are not.
We must rediscover the understanding that Scripture judges us, not the other way around. Scripture doesn’t exist to justify what we haven chosen to believe, but rather judges those beliefs within context of God’s ultimate, perfect Truth. Were we to recover this understanding we would likely remain Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Progressives, Independents, etc. But we would be far more humble, far more willing to listen to other points of view and far more careful about the thought process by which Scripture is applied to the problems of this fallen world.
But in our current situation it is the “blue communities” who have taken control of virtually all our institutions of power and are using that power to drive anyone who disagrees into submission (or destruction if submission is not offered). The “non-blue communities” are fighting a desperate defensive battle to maintain their beliefs and commitments in the face of this proto-totalitarian onslaught. Perhaps in future generations the roles will be reversed (pray that this is not our fate). But for now it is the relentless, pagan Progressive Movement that seeks to destroy the Christian Church. Yes, they are attacking God Almighty, who needs not our support. But yes, God Almighty has given us the privilege of testifying to His grace and justice in this fallen world. So, live not by lies but rather testify without fear or favor.
However, the Presbytery of Chicago was very progressive (theologically and politically). There were other Presbyteries where an orthodox Christian pastor could find a welcoming home. But that all changed in 2014 when the PCUSA approved gay marriage. Look at the figure at the right showing the impact on candidates for ministry. Between 2013 and 2014 almost half of our candidates fled the denomination. And, who were those exiting candidates? They were certainly dominated by people who held orthodox positions on theology, among other areas. What was left were the Progressive candidates who celebrated the denominations apostasy.
The Reformed Sojourner 