"An evangelical pastor from Atlanta [Rev. Louie Giglio] announced Thursday that he would not give the benediction at President Obama’s swearing-in ceremony after a sermon he gave on homosexuality in the mid-1990s resurfaced earlier this week."
Suspicion: Giglio was chosen with full knowledge of that sermon and the intention that it would "resurface" and that he would then conspicuously withdraw. This would promote Obama's pro-gay stance and take the heat off Chuck Hagel, who's got an anti-gay remark in his record which the Obama people would like to submerge. It was all planned: the desire for Hagel to become Secretary of Defense, the known problem of his anti-gay remark, the desire to perform a conspicuous expiation, the identification of Giglio as a plausible benediction-giver with an anti-gay remark in his history, choosing Giglio, revealing the old Giglio sermon, Giglio bowing out in a tribute to Obama's rejection of homophobia, Hagel saved by the scapegoat.
I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, and I certainly have no inside knowledge. I'm just noticing the correlations and putting together a hypothesis. Please discuss.
You can pull me back from this suspicion if you make a great case for why else Giglio would have been chosen for this honor. He's a white male, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
Covert racist race card playing double-dealing double-tongued hypocritical homophobes.
Oh its Glglio. I thought mabe the DEA was arranging speakers.
I don't buy it. I don't think Obama and his buddies have the wits to pull off such a sophisticated maneuver.
Wouldn't this make it more likely for Hagel to withdraw. If the benediction giver withdraws shouldn't the guy for Secretary of Defense. Also, Hagel was strongly opposed to repealing DADT. Now he's going to make sure it's implemented properly?
Nice catch Althouse.
Louie Giglio was chosen because of his work against human trafficking/slavery.
Agrees with John. BTW it's National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.
I don't buy it. What does Hagel bring to SecDef that's worth all this trouble? He doesn't have any special influence with the Pentagon or Republicans, let alone Democrats. And if he's ever shown any special insight into defense policy, I'm not aware of it.
In other news, the Obama administration announced that it would excise any readings from noted Christian homophobe St. Paul from the inaugural proceedings.
Bill Clinton also asked that any mention of the 6th commandment be kept on the QT.
Giglio is a very big figure in evangelical circles. His "Passion" conference drew 60,000 young people to the Georgia Dome last week. The theme was opposition to human slavery.
Here is Louie's statement on the issue: http://www.passioncitychurch.com/blog/
the Obama administration announced that it would excise any readings from noted Christian homophobe St. Paul from the inaugural proceedings
You might have meant that tongue-in-cheek, but Christianity would be much better served if folks paid more attention to Jesus and less to Saul.
Giglio as sacrificial anode.
John, thanks for the link.
Liberal Progressives and Christians do have some common ground, as the President is trying to unite the country 'ThinkProgress' has to cause conflict. It's a Benediction, by a man who has done good work on those exploited by modern day slavery and we can't even have that objection.
Think Progress whines and moans, like a million moms.
Oh boy! Another fact free Althouse conspiracy theory. You would have thought she learned her lesson with the fake Hillary blood clot discussion.
It doesn't have to be cover for Hagel. The goal could simply be a forum for Kabucki theater. The media gets an opportunity to ostracize opposing viewpoints without engagement, activists get an event they can pretend justifies their fundraising.
Louie Giglio has a name that doesn't fit his profession. He should be a designer of trashy costume jewelry.
You would have thought she learned her lesson with the fake Hillary blood clot discussion.
I'm pretty sure she did learn that lesson, but not like you think. Posts like these are obviously good for her business, no?
It'd be kind of cool if it turns out Jesus was a slave owner and banged Sally Hemings.
Freder Frederson said...
Oh boy! Another fact free Althouse conspiracy theory. You would have thought she learned her lesson with the fake Hillary blood clot discussion.
Freder, there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis. But it's ok. We don't expect you to grasp any subtleties.
Another fact free post.
Yes. You'd have thought she, we, I would learn. What was it we were supposed to learn? To trust what comes out of the Hillary camp? Sorry. I still don't believe a word. Not one word. And again, when she testifies on Benghazi I won't believe that either and still have no reason to.
She's taught us not to trust so I never do and never will.
So no, Freeder, I didn't learn a single thing except to keep on not ever trusting anything any Clinton says. Ever.
Mitchell the Bat said...
It'd be kind of cool if it turns out Jesus was a slave owner and banged Sally Hemings.
She wasn't around then, but maybe he nailed Helen Thomas.
The penquin says pay attention to Jesus, not Saul of Tarsus.
What about the verse, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Some might find that a tad "narrow-minded" if you know what I mean!
@purplepenguin,
The idea that there exists a vision of Jesus apart from the Pauline writings is the invention of certain segments of the Enlightenment. It has no basis in any historical fact.
The Pauline corpus is the earliest Christian writings we have. They pre-date the earliest Gospel (generally thought to be Mark, but may be Matthew) by 15-20 years.
Textually & theologically, there is no historical Christianity without St. Paul.
My guess is the belligerant arrogance of the Gay Mafia is about as due for a comeuppance as the Israel-Firsters.
It seems you can get away with demanding and getting a few heads of people opposed to any aspect your agenda by screaming Homophobia and "Nazi Anti-Semite!!" - But after a while - the fact that large majorities STILL believe we don't owe Israel shit, let alone new major wars started to help them, STILL don't believe that everything Gay is the most fabulous lifestyle imaginable - begins to exert itself and activists demanding society kowtow to them and give them the heads of any they demonize as bigots ends....
Hagel is actually a serendipitous "2-Fer" Obama fielded.
He really can't be beaten and left tied to a fence to die by gay extremists - for having the same position on gay marriage Obama had - both have since shifted. Obama caved to the gay extremists on Hagel, it would make the gay extremists in charge of the show when 80-90% of the country does not want militant homos as the ones who decide what values Americans are permitted to have and express.
And on Israel...Hagel has said AIPAC has far too much power and money to intimidate Congress into starting new wars, doing Israels bidding. Hardly a good idea to have the Zionist activists then show they do have too much control over the American Congress by destroying all those in Congress that say they have a veto on US foreign policy and military engagement priorities.
Paul is a lot easier guy to take sometimes compared to James and Peter.
Paul is a lot easier guy to take sometimes compared to James and Peter.
It wasn't even a conspiracy theory about Hillary. It was just asking questions about incomplete facts and uncertainty about what will happen in the future.
I sure got the message that I should shut up about that. This post reflects how seriously I take that message. I take it very seriously. Of course, I won't stop. Letting me know how much this bothers you is encouraging. Thanks!
Giglio's remark was not anti-gay; it was anti-sin.
I mean, I understand that tolerance of others' religious beliefs is no longer possible for Progressives, but that does not mean that the morality of a behavior changes.
A new persecution has begun.
I won't stop. Letting me know how much this bothers you is encouraging.
I propose an Althouse appreciation day ;)
I can't believe that there are actually folks on the forum who aren't cynical about the actions and motivations of our political class.
Do you really think that major decisions taken aren't polled & war-gamed & discussed out the wazoo before they're executed?
Really?
You folks need to live in DC for a couple of years. You then learn that all that polling & war-gaming & discussing is what your neighbors do for a living.
I must be dyslexic. When I see Giglio I read gigolo. Bill Clinton must in the mix somewhere.
I also noticed our resident Nazi and and camel jockey apologist has come to Hagel's defense.
"Giglio's remark was not anti-gay; it was anti-sin. I mean, I understand that tolerance of others' religious beliefs is no longer possible for Progressives, but that does not mean that the morality of a behavior changes."
The question is why was he invited to do the benediction at the inauguration. That's way beyond tolerance. It's a special honor. Of all the ministers in the world, why him?
I understand the quarrel with the word "anti-gay," but from Obama's political position -- and it's his inaugural -- what Giglio and what Hagel said counts as anti-gay.
I know many people who think gay marriage is a bad idea will say they don't want to trouble gay people, they just don't want to have to... whatever.... and I'm sorry if my use of the term "anti-gay" rankles for that reason.
But you know what I'm talking about here, and within this topic, that's a sidetrack.
Has anyone answered my question why else would Giglio have been picked?
All I've seen is: "Giglio is a very big figure in evangelical circles. His 'Passion' conference drew 60,000 young people to the Georgia Dome last week."
A conference that draws a mere 60,000 is enough to vault you to this level? Seems to me you'd need 10 times that. And we have to believe that he wasn't checked out for inappropriateness.
Sorry, I'm nowhere close to abandoning my hypothesis. You have to beat it with something that seems more likely.
Manipulating identity blocs is now what passes for leadership in the Democratic Party. It is one of the few skills at which Obama is a master.
So, sure, Ann's hypothesis makes sense to me. Though I see no way to prove it or persuade those in Obama's camp.
why else would Giglio have been picked?
Obama asked for a gigolo by email and mistyped it?
Do you think his sermons from the 90's are on-line?
Obama was allegedly surprised by Wright's sermons, so not only was he not listening in church, his staff did not bother to investigate to prepare for attacks from Hillary! More poor staff work.
"You might have meant that tongue-in-cheek, but Christianity would be much better served if folks paid more attention to Jesus and less to Saul."
Jesus and Paul are inseparable. So is the Church and God. And Christianity and culture. You can't pry them apart.
You think you know right from wrong, good from evil, what should be instead of what is. You're alienated from your origin.
Ann
What put Giglio on Obama's radar was some common social justice concerns. He is very big on ending Sex slave trafficing and other forms of modern day slavery worldwide and other social justice issues dealing with poverty. That why to many what happened is so sad. He is a mover and shaker in the evangelical community on these issues
I was following their conference last weekend #passion2013 to some degree and it was indeed a focus.
IF you go the Passion web site
Here is their presentation from their web site
http://268generation.com/passion2013/freedom/
In fact from the statement of their principles
5. willingness to shine the gospel to all people -
because God is seeking worshipers of all peoples, i will spread his fame among the nations, fully participating in his global purposes and engaging poverty and injustice in jesus’ name.
http://www.268generation.com/3.0/#!declaration
So he was on the Obama radar in a legit way.
Sadly the President caved in.
More poor staff work.
Never attribute to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence.
PP snarks: You might have meant that tongue-in-cheek, but Christianity would be much better served if folks paid more attention to Jesus and less to Saul.
Community organizers would be much better served if they paid more attention to Jesus and less to Saul (Alinsky).
The real issue for these anamoral clowns is there can be NO line of ridiculousness, no border of conspiracy complexity, no margin of outrageous bomabast, no malevolence of deceit above outside of beyond nor below we can imagine they COULD NOT, WOULD NOT, MIGHT NOT go in pursuit of obfuscation of their true motives and conmcelament of their real agenda.
@David R. Graham: PurplePenguin is a closet Sullivanist..it's been obvious to me that he/she cares most about gay marriage than much else in the scheme of things.
A related link that gives background to him
"Does The LGBT Agenda Hope To Perpetuate Global Slavery?: 5 Questions About The Louie Giglio Controversy"
http://doughankins.com/does-the-lgbt-agenda-hope-to-perpetuate-global-slavery-5-questions-about-the-louie-giglio-controversy/
Hope this helps as to the background on him
James H, We don't know if it was the President who caved it....
I can work with progressives on the issue of homelessness at a local level, they don't crap on me (that much) knowing I'm a Catholic and I hold specific views openly.
Renee
I would hope the President did not cave in but all I have to go off is the New York Times reporting yesterday that his withdrawal was promoted by a suggestion of the Whie House itself. Now was Obama persoanlly involved. One would think maybe since this would be a mahor dustup but perhaps Staff did it without consulting him
"Sorry, I'm nowhere close to abandoning my hypothesis. You have to beat it with something that seems more likely."
Not possible. There's not a more likely description of this incident. Maybe a little more detail? Such that he was offered to withdrawn or be forced out/humiliated? But that would strengthen the hypothesis.
I think you see what went on there. I'm glad you expressed it.
If Barry wanted to nominate somebody without a lot of baggage, he'd put up Flournoy, one of the few Democrats who really has a clue about defense unlike Lurch or the late Les Aspin.
@chickelit - Roger that.
Has anyone answered my question why else would Giglio have been picked?
All I've seen is: "Giglio is a very big figure in evangelical circles. His 'Passion' conference drew 60,000 young people to the Georgia Dome last week."
Which just goes to show that you don't bother to read the comment thread very closely. His work on human trafficking was mentioned several times.
It wasn't even a conspiracy theory about Hillary. It was just asking questions about incomplete facts and uncertainty about what will happen in the future
No argument here. Your "questions" amounted to no more than pure conjecture injected with a dose of rabble rousing and disdain. You couldn't form a rational (or even irrational) conspiracy from them.
I bet the Penguin is not a Christian, just another liberal busybody chock-full of advice for how Christians should be Christian.
I bet he doesn't know St. Paul beyond the contentious bits about women and sodomy.
I bet he hasn't read Paul's glorious, heart-melting writings on love and Christ.
I bet he doesn't know that Paul was known as the "Apostle to the Gentiles" because Paul, along with Peter, was one of the key leaders who opened Christianity to all peoples.
"... Giglio bowing out in a tribute to Obama's rejection of homophobia ..." Obama's endorsement of gay marriage was a rejection of homophobia? Opposing gay marriage is homophobic? Oh, please!
Giglio was reportedly selected because of significant work against human trafficking. What a surprise that homosexual marriage trumps human trafficking among Obamadupes and gay activists.
What next? Flash: Medal of Honor recipient excoriated, asked to return medal, after discovery that he is an Evangelical Christian who voted against gay marriage 10 years ago?
Petty McCarthyist jackasses.
Google is clogged up with stories about the anti-gay homophobe conservative Christian pastor so took a while to dig down to pre-inauguration stories.
I see where stories are distancing Obama from this guy (Inauguration Committee selection reversed, etc.) but Obama selected this guy personally.
(http://www.2013pic.org/press/release/news-pic-announces-participants-selected-to-deliver-invocation-benediction)
Obama had met him at least once before, at an Easter service in 4/12 (use of term "resurrection" in headline and bonus Biden stupidity quotes included). Giglio probably gave him some cover with Evangelicals in the election, ie., was a backer.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-remembers-sacrifice-triumph-of-christ-at-easter-prayer-breakfast-72647/
Also, clearly, Giglio does good works in the field of human trafficking.
Here's the speech itself.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/09/1422021/inaugural-benediction-to-be-delivered-by-anti-gay-pastor/?mobile=nc
Is it fair to call this "anti-gay" or "homophobic"? He's phobic to the political agenda and the conventional gay lifestyle, but to gay individuals? No.
One headline actually gets it right: Pastor under fire for saying things that are in the Bible. Stunning development.
Purple p wrote: "You might have meant that tongue-in-cheek, but Christianity would be much better served if folks paid more attention to Jesus and less to Saul." 11:43
Right. We can just ignore 40% of the NT in order to accommodate the LGBT activists. After all, Jesus was a big proponent of sodomy, same sex marriage, etc.
He wasn't? How could the penguin have gotten that wrong?
Oh. Moral relativism. Of course. Obamadupes define morality without metaphysical grounding, so Paul's 40% doesn't matter.
I'm just noticing the correlations and putting together a hypothesis. Please discuss.
Lunacy, Althouse-style.
Why was he chosen? Your narrow worldview is showing again. Contrary to the beliefs of a few, "gay rights" is demonstrably not an extraordinarily important issue to many individuals but rather it is one for which they shrug their shoulders in indifference. Therefore, the issue plays little role in their political decisions.
Giglio is a key figure in the Passion Conferences which are important to many young voters. These events are high tech and use sophisticated means to raise large sums of money from young adults. This group of people will play an important role in the future of politics. Although they are evangelical Christians, they espouse causes that could fit comfortably within the Democratic Party platform (e.g. concerns regarding human trafficking).
It is bizarrely simplistic and very old-fashioned to look at all political choices through a handful of filters: abortion, gay rights, climate change.
Many of us are individuals who know how to think.
If Barry wanted to nominate somebody without a lot of baggage, he'd put up Flournoy, one of the few Democrats who really has a clue about defense unlike Lurch or the late Les Aspin.
It's a wonder that Obama doesn't consult edumbshit.
Phx wrote: "The right seems to consistently underestimate Obama's intelligence. Seems to me that's key to how he defeats them."
No. It's actually his duplicity they underestimate.
No, I don't think Obama planned this. This selection was payback to a liberal backer who does good works. There was no vetting, though, clearly. Lord Obama does not need to vet his choices since bad decision-making will be out-sourced to others and blamed on conservatives in any event then spun in his favor.
And the spin begins:
-It wasn't really Obama's choice.
-He meant to do it so he could look good to gays by getting rid of the guy.
-He's so gracious that he lets Christians speak at his events, even though those terrible Christians always quote from the Bible and stuff. Ew.
-This conservative Christian is a homophobe, and so's that other conservative that Obama's trying to include, yaknow, whatsisname
-Conservatives are so intolerant that intolerance of them is actually tolerant.
@jacksonjay: While I am familiar with the verse, I don't know what you're trying to say with it.
@YoungHegelian: I agree that the Church would not exist if it wasn't for the actions&words of Paul. But I also beleive that the Church has strayed very far, if not a complete turnaround, from the original teachings of Jesus...mostly due to the words/actions of Paul.
@David R. Graham: Saying that Jesus and Paul are inseparable seems to indicate that Paul is on the same level as Jesus. Would you mind clarifying that?
@chicklit: You must have me confused with someone else. While I do discuss it from time-to-time, the issue of "gay marriage" is hardly the biggest/most-important for me. And while I don't understand the "Sullivanist" remark at all (Google takes me to a steakhouse), I sure got the message that you want me to shut up. Our hostess put it best: Letting me know how much this bothers you is encouraging. Thanks!
@creeley23: How much were those bets? 'cause you gotta pay up...
@hombre: I never claimed that Jesus was a big proponent of blowjobs and same-sex marriage. But I sure haven't seen him say anything against 'em...have you?
@anyone-else: Sorry I missed your direct comment to me. 'twas not intentional.
Penguin: So you are a Christian -- a churchgoing one who can recite the Apostle's Creed and mean it, you have read the Pauline books of the New Testament, you know that Paul spoke most movingly of love and Christ, and you know that Paul was called the Apostle of the Gentiles.
Really?
I didn't know that purple is the color of the disingenuous.
Really-truly Creeley. Tho I haven't been to church for a while. And if you truly beleive that having to have the Creeds&Prayers memorized is a defining part of being a Christian, well...then I reckon you would say I ain't one.
Was raised mostly Methodist, but also attended Assembly of God and FourSquare (on my own, not dragged by my parents) while in High School. And yup, I've read the entire Bible (Twice back-to-back. Didn't even skip the begats).
And yes, I know that going to a church doesn't make one a Christian anymore than sitting in a garage makes one a car. While often failing, I truly do try to live my life according to the Two Laws that were taught by Christ.
So, how much were those bets again?
Penguin: I didn't say you had to have the Apostle's Creed memorized. I asked if you could say it and mean it.
Here's the Church of England's version:
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholick Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.
Do you really believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and buried, then resurrected on the third day, etc?
Good for you on reading the Bible.
I always thought "recite" meant "memorized"...sorry about the confusion.
And if you ever figure out how much those bets were, please donate my winnings to the Red Cross. Thanks.
Penguin: if you put quotes around "sullivanist" you'll get plenty of google hits. I love how the term rankles some. It is odd how the term without quotes leads one astray on Google -- kinda like what happens if you google "Santorum"
Penguin: You still haven't answered my question.
@chicklit: Nope, doesn't rankle me, rather just doesn't make sense at all...even with your further explanation. (Well, explanation of how to look for a definition.)
Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? 'cause best I can tell you're saying I'm just another Republican homosexual (NTTAWWT, of course) that is constantly focused on same-sex marriage...and nothing could be further from the truth.
@creeley: Yes, I have answered your questions about the four different claims you leveled against me. I responded in detail and respectfully.
However, you haven't answered the one&only question asked of you, even tho it has been asked more than once: How Much Are Those Bets For?
Why the need for such Machiavellian strategy by the Obama camp? What force opposes the tyrant at this point? The fact is we're at the point where he can appoint anybody he wants, hand down any edict he wants and roses will be strewn in his path by the MSM, the opposition, to the extent it still exists, utterly marginalized. He is El Jefe, The Chief, The Leader. No, the strategy is that he be LOVED, be Dear Leader...no matter what he does from now on.
@creeley: Yes, I have answered your questions about the four different claims you leveled against me. I responded in detail and respectfully.
No, you have not. Respectfully.
Do you really believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and buried, then resurrected on the third day, etc?
purplep wrote: @hombre: I never claimed that Jesus was a big proponent of blowjobs and same-sex marriage. But I sure haven't seen him say anything against 'em...have you?
Jesus used the OT as a proof text on many occasions and also affirmed it as law, particularly in Matthew. 'Nuff said.
And: While often failing, I truly do try to live my life according to the Two Laws that were taught by Christ.
That's more of an excision than Thomas Jefferson's and it's certainly more consistent with progressives' and progressive Christianity's moral relativity than trying to live up to all Jesus' teachings.
Yes Creely, I do beleive as such. I thought my previous responses made that clear.
So how much were those bets you were making? (Something tells me that the amount now is gonna be a lot less than what you first had in mind.)
And no Hombre, I am unaware of any verses in Matthew where Jesus spoke about homosexuals. Can you please be more specific?
Jesus was a Jew who hedged his bets with the God is Love doctrine. Ergo the hate the sin not the sinner Christian stance vis-a-vis homos. Orthodox Jews still call it and them an abomination which it and them are.
Penguin: No, you answered exactly like a liberal, make-believe Christian trying to evade the question.
I asked you four times if you could say the Creed and mean it and three times you managed to miss the point.
Only now do you say yes, you believe -- though with the odd-sounding condition, "as such."
Throughout history Christians, until the modern era, would say simply and straightforwardly, "Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he was crucified, died, then resurrected."
As to our bet, I did not specify a sum and not all bets involve a sum. I admit that I misjudged on your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. If I have misjudged you on your faith, that too, but you have not persuaded me.
Will the ignorant ones stand aside so that Barry can work his magic?! Why will they not see the light?!?!
Giglio was chosen with full knowledge of that sermon and the intention that it would "resurface" and that he would then conspicuously withdraw. This would promote Obama's pro-gay stance
No one seems to have pointed out in the previous 78 comments how RECENT Obama's pro-gay marriage stance is - he was against gay marriage much more recently than Giglio's sermon!
I don't get it, how does a homophobe/scapegoat inoculate Hagel? Are you saying gay lobby is flighty and easily distracted? Sounds like typical stereotyping.
Anyway Hagel won't hit the fan until until whatshisname is forgotten. I think the fan will be weak, BTW
The Obama administration plays the media like a piano, and those pianos don't come cheap!
I attended liberal Episcopal churches throughout the 2000s. One Easter Sunday I asked several of my congregants whether they believed in Christ's Resurrection. Only two out of seven said yes, and they were both ex-evangelicals who had become liberalized and so left their more conservative churches.
My impression is that very few liberal Christians are actually Christian by the standard of the Apostles Creed. They are mostly in church for the fellowship and the politics. Probably 95% of them believe in Obama and Gay Marriage. I'd be surprised if 25% believed in Christ and the Resurrection.
I stopped going a few years ago when the rector devoted his Easter sermon to his memories of being a young gay Christian.
Same issue 4 years ago with Rick Warren. Difference: he didn't back out.
purplep wrote: And no Hombre, I am unaware of any verses in Matthew where Jesus spoke about homosexuals. Can you please be more specific?
My point was that Jesus reaffirmed the law of the OT in Matthew and homosexuality is condemned in the OT.
I did not say he spoke of homosexuals directly.
creeley wrote: They are mostly in church for the fellowship and the politics. Probably 95% of them believe in Obama and Gay Marriage. I'd be surprised if 25% believed in Christ and the Resurrection.
Exactly. I keep wondering when our neighborhood UCC is going to change its name to the UCDC - United Church of Dale Carnegie.
The irony to me is that I was required as a teen to memorize the Apostles' Creed to be confirmed into an Episcopal Church.
creeley23,
Liberal Christians just like an excuse to get together and congratulate themselves on how great they are, how much more enlightened they are as opposed to other people. Whatever the sect, the most comprehensive description of the breed is Not Evangelists. In truth, there's no more thinking going on in Liberal Christian churches than there is in the most snake-handling bleach-drinking TV-watching glassy-eyed Jesus Freak churches that they look down on. There's just less snakes, bleach, TV, and Jesus. And more "Dog is My CoPilot" and "Jesus was a Community Organize" stickers. Because irony and nuance.
@purplepenquin: What is also important is to keep in mind that, as John closes his gospel, Jesus taught so many things that they could not all be recorded. The Church Fathers, who walked with Jesus, and those who were taught by them, taught the morality that Jesus taught.
They condemned homosexual behavior as a serious sin, and approval of homosexual behavior (and all extra-marital sex) is a novelty, a fashionable sentiment having no relevance to Jesus' teachings.
That "churches" adopt such things is not surprising. Once the apostolic connection was severed 500 years ago, such churches lost the protection of the Holy Spirit and wandered away from Truth.
By their fruits shall you know them is still true, and VD disease epidemics, VD bacterial strains no longer treatable with oral antibiotics, demographic decline, skyrocketing divorce rates, and the loss of a solid family-based culture are the fruits of the moral drift in the last fifty years.
Post a Comment