City Council Demands Churches Conduct Same-Sex Weddings
(Stefano Bolognini/Creative Commons)
A local council in the U.K. has been forced to apologize after issuing a letter that incorrectly demanded churches be licensed to perform same-sex marriages.
Essex County Council wrote to all churches in the county registered as wedding venues telling them that with “immediate effect” they “must” be licensed to “conduct same sex marriages.”
The words immediate and same were bold and underlined, with the latter also capitalized.
Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute says the council’s letter shows the need for churches to know their legal rights.
He says, “There is no legal reason whatsoever for churches to stop holding marriages in the ways they always have. They are free to do so.”
The Christian Institute has produced a new free legal guide, which gives reassurance that churches are well within their rights to say no to same-sex marriages.
“The behavior of Essex County Council goes to show why churches need to know their legal rights, because bureaucrats who want to push for gay marriage will try and go beyond the law,” warns Calvert.
He adds, “We want to be clear that Christians still have the right to express their belief that marriage is between a man and woman. Christians have every reason to be confident and bold in upholding the truth about marriage.”
“This is just the kind of thing we feared would happen,” says Colin Hart, campaign director of the Coalition for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition to the introduction of same-sex marriage.
“If this has already happened in Essex, there is a real danger that this kind of pressure will be applied by unelected officials across the country,” he warns.
The letter “lifts the lid on the Orwellian future that this ill-thought-through law creates,” Hart says.
Hart calls on the government to urgently issue advice to all local authorities in light of the new law and says Essex Council should conduct an urgent investigation as to “why this threatening letter was sent out to churches that are supposed to be exempt from the effect of the legislation.”
A spokesman for Essex County Council says, “Essex County Council’s guidance on registering a building certified as a Place of Religious Worship for same-sex marriages applies only to those institutions which want to conduct such ceremonies.
“A letter sent to churches in April may have created a different impression, and we issued a clarification within a week explaining the correct procedure.”
This Is Shariah Law in Action: Indonesian Woman Who Was Gang-Raped Now Faces Caning for Adultery
Islamic religious police in Indonesia plan to publicly flog a 25-year-old widow and a married man for adultery after vigilantes gang-raped her as punishment for having extramarital sex. (Adam Jones/Wikimedia Commons)
Islamic religious police in Indonesia plan to publicly flog a 25-year-old widow and a married man for adultery after vigilantes gang-raped her as punishment for having extramarital sex, according to media reports.
The woman and her paramour, a 40-year-old father of five, were surprised late Wednesday by seven men and a 13-year-old boy who barged into her home in Aceh, which is the only province to enforce the system of Islamic law known as Shariah, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Tuesday, citing The Jakarta Globe.
The group tied up and beat the man, repeatedly raped the woman and poured raw sewage over them before taking the couple to the local Shariah police.
“We want the couple caned because they violated the religious bylaw on sexual relations,” Ibrahim Latif, the head of the Shariah police of the town of Langsa, told the Globe. He said the couple had “confessed to having sex on several previous occasions.”
Because the gang-rape happened after the adultery, it will not mitigate the Shariah punishment, he said. Each faces nine lashes with a cane in public. No date was given.
The caning was endorsed by the provincial head of Nahdlatul Ulama, the country’s largest Islamic organization, but he said the vigilantes should be punished in criminal and religious courts for taking the law into their own hands.
“The punishment for the mob that raped the victim must be much harsher because they have set back efforts to uphold Shariah in Aceh,” said Teungku Faisal Ali, who leads the Islamist group in Aceh.
Two men and the teen have been arrested, and police have appealed for the other five to surrender.
6 Really Bad Charismatic Doctrines We Should Retire
(iStock photo)
I will never apologize for being a charismatic Christian. I had a dramatic experience with the Holy Spirit many years ago, and nobody can talk me out of it. I love the Holy Spirit’s abiding presence in my life and His supernatural gifts. I love to prophesy, speak in tongues, pray for the sick and see people changed by the Spirit’s power.
At the same time, I’m aware that since the charismatic movement began in the 1960s, people have misused the gifts of the Spirit and twisted God’s Word to promote strange doctrines or practices. Seeing these errors never caused me to question the authenticity of what the Holy Spirit had done in my life. But I knew I had to stay true to God’s Word and reject any false teachings I encountered.
My simple rule is based on 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (NASB). In other words: Eat the meat and spit out the bones.
As I have traveled throughout the body of Christ in recent years, I’ve experienced the good, the bad and the ugly. I love God’s people, and I know there is a healthy remnant of Spirit-filled churches that are striving to stay grounded in biblical truth. But I also know we have reached a crossroads. We must clean up our act. We must jettison any weird doctrines we might have believed or practiced that are hindering our growth today.
Here are a few of the worst errors that have circulated in our movement in the past season. You may have others that need to be added to this list. I believe we are grieving the Holy Spirit if we continue to practice these things:
1. "Touch not My anointed." Chances are you’ve heard this weird doctrine based on 1 Chronicles 16:22. In an attempt to discourage any form of disagreement in the church, insecure leaders tell their members that if they ever question church authority, they are “touching the Lord’s anointed” and in danger of God’s judgment. Let’s call this what it is: spiritual manipulation. It creates worse problems by ruling out healthy discussion and mutual respect. Church members end up being abused or controlled—or even blacklisted because they dare to ask a question.
2. Dual covenant. We charismatics love and respect Israel. Some of us even incorporate Jewish practices in our worship—such as wearing prayer shawls, blowing shofars or celebrating Hebraic feasts. These things can enrich our Christian experience—but some leaders go too far when they begin to teach that Jews don’t need to believe in Jesus Christ to experience salvation. They imply that Jews have special access into heaven simply because of their ethnic heritage. This is a flagrant contradiction of everything the New Testament teaches.
3. Inaccessible leadership. In the 1980s, some charismatic ministries began to teach pastors and traveling ministers that in order to “protect the anointing,” they must stay aloof from people. Ministers were warned to never make friends in their congregations. Preachers began the strange practice of skipping worship on Sunday mornings—and then appearing on the stage only when it was time for the sermon in order to make a dramatic entrance. Shame on these people for attempting to justify arrogance. Jesus loved people, and He made Himself available to them. So should we.
4. Armor-bearers. The same guys who developed item No. 3 started this strange fad. Preachers began the practice of surrounding themselves with an entourage: one person to carry the briefcase, another person to carry the Bible, another to carry the handkerchief. Some preachers hired bodyguards … and even food-tasters! The armor-bearers were promised special blessings if they served preachers who acted like slave-owners. Reminder: True leaders are servants, not egomaniacs.
5. The hundredfold return. Before his death in 2003, Kenneth Hagin Sr., the father of the faith movement, rebuked his own followers for taking prosperity teaching to a silly extreme. In his book The Midas Touch, he begged preachers to stop misusing Mark 10:28-30 to suggest that God promises a hundredfold return on every offering we give. Hagin wrote, “If the hundredfold return worked literally and mathematically for everyone who gave in an offering, we would have Christians walking around with not billions or trillions of dollars, but quadrillions of dollars!” Hagin taught that the hundredfold blessing refers to the rewards that come to those who leave all they have to serve God in ministry.
6. Money cometh. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for giving money publicly to be seen by others. Yet in the 1990s, some charismatics got the wild idea that God would release a magical blessing if we would drop wads of dollar bills at the preacher’s feet while he was in the middle of his sermon. Leroy Thompson of Louisiana popularized this flamboyant practice with his infamous 1996 sermon, in which he encouraged people to shout in King James English, “Money! Cometh to me now!” Then the people would run to the front of the auditorium to pour cash into his coffers. The money came, for sure, and more cash-hungry preachers jumped on the bandwagon. Taking an offering became a form of exhibitionism, and Christians began viewing their offerings like lottery scratch-offs.
God requires holiness not just in our behavior but also in our doctrine. Let’s discard these and any other foolish teachings that have brought confusion and dishonor to the body of Christ.
Floyd Mayweather About Miss Jackson’s Abortion: ‘She Killed Our Twin Babies’
Floyd Mayweather with ex-girlfriend Shantel Jackson in 2011. (Facebook)
Floyd Mayweather is a fierce component in the ring—but he’s also a champion for life.
The undefeated boxer is revealing inside information about why he broke up with Shantel Jackson.
The 37-year-old heavy hitter was set to marry Jackson but his distaste for her pro-abortion maneuvers was a TKO for the once-happy relationship.
Mayweather last week posted a sonogram photo to his Facebook page and shared with his adoring fans the reason he untangled the knot: She had an abortion.
"The real reason me and Shantel Christine Jackson @missjackson broke up was because she got a abortion, and I'm totally against killing babies. She killed our twin babies," he captioned the photo.
Mayweather opened up even more in an interview with V-103, expressing his hurt over the abortion.
"It hurt my feelings, all because she's selfish because all she's worried about is looks, talking about, 'I don't want to mess my body up.' Everything you got on your body, I paid for so it's OK,” he said. “Even if you had the baby—even if you had the babies, if you wanted me to put you back together like I did in the beginning, I could've done it again."
Jackson, 37, seems to have moved on in a hurry. Miss Jackson, as she’s also known, is now dating the rapper known as Nelly.
Why Christians May Be Flogged, Dismembered or Stoned to Death in Brunei
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah's image is posted on shops in Brunei. (World Watch Monitor)
The sultan of Brunei has announced a controversial new law based on Islamic criminal punishments criticized by U.N. human rights officials and other human rights groups.
"I place my faith in and am grateful to God the Almighty to announce that Thursday May 1, 2014, will see the enforcement of Shariah law phase one, to be followed by the other phases," Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, leader of the country’s absolute monarchy government for nearly 47 years, said in a speech the day preceding the implementation of the law.
Brunei, a tiny country of just over 420,000 people nestled in Southeast Asia, has already been practicing Islamic laws to regulate civil affairs such as personal and family issues, but now the laws will be extended to cover criminal offenses.
The new Islamic penalties will be introduced over time, at least another year or two, and will eventually include severe bodily punishments, such as: flogging for adultery, cutting of limbs for theft, and stoning to death for rape and sodomy.
The first phase includes laws for offenses against eating or drinking in public during Islam’s fasting month, which are punishable by fines and imprisonment.
Parts of the law also apply to non-Muslims. In February, Shariah law experts from the Ministry of Religious Affairs announced that non-Muslims could be punished for wearing indecent clothing that "disgraces Islam." The offender could be jailed for up to six months, fined a maximum penalty of BN 2,000 ($1,600), or both.
Even now, it is mandatory for women of all religions—including Christians—to wear a hijab (head covering) if they work for the government or are attending official functions. However, now that the Shariah penal code is enacted, a violation against these religious instructions will be criminalized.
In the past, church leaders claimed to receive heavy monitoring by the government so the new penal code is expected to add pressure, anxiety, and fear upon Christians who make up 8.7 percent of the population.
"Brunei’s decision to implement criminal Shariah law is a huge step backwards for human rights in the country. It constitutes an authoritarian move towards brutal medieval punishments that have no place in the modern, 21st century world," says Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch.
Another restriction aimed at Christians who converted from a Muslim background includes a law that prohibits any Muslim parents from letting non-Muslims care for their child. The act is punishable by a jail term of up to five years, a fine of up to BN 20,000 ($15,600), or both.
Consequently, people who convert to Christianity can lose custody of their child should their new faith come to light. “All parental rights are awarded to the Muslim parent if a child is born to mixed-faith parents and the non-Muslim parent is not recognized in any official document, including the child’s birth certificate,” wrote the U.S. Department of State in the 2012 International Religious Freedom Report.
What’s more, once Shariah law takes effect, the restriction may be extended to daycare services operated by non-Muslims.
The new penal code also cites that non-Muslims can no longer share their faith with Muslims and atheists. Offenders are at risk of being fined of up to BN 20,000 ($15,600), sent to jail for five years at most, or both.
Teaching other religions outside Islam to a child of Muslims or atheists carries the same punishment. Because of this, the few Christian schools will receive a setback as many of their students are non-Christians; the school day normally begins with a reading from the Bible.
“Even now, parents have started demanding that we begin every gathering with a Muslim prayer instead,” an unnamed school official told WWM.
Lastly, following the lead of neighboring Malaysia, the penal code claims 19 words to belong solely to Islam. Therefore, Christians are banned from using words like Allah (God) and Firman Allah (God’s Word), which are found in the Malay language Bible commonly used by Bruneians. Christian materials also cannot be brought into the country.
The extent to which the laws may affect non-Muslims is hard to predict given the fact that it is early in the implementation stage. The government admits lacking the infrastructure to support Sharia law. For one, there is a shortage of specialized judges in Sharia courts.
However, with a budget of BN 2 million ($1.5 million) for the 2014-15 fiscal year, it is only a matter of time before it puts the system in order. Once this is accomplished, Shariah law can be easily enforced to the small Bruneian population. By then, the above scenarios could become the reality of many Christians in Brunei, which ranks as the 24th most difficult country to be a Christian, in an annual list of 50 countries on the World Watch List.
Michael Egan (left), pictured at 17, claims director Bryan Singer (right) abused him when he was just 15 and Singer was 32. (Herman/Splash News; Franz Richter/Wikimedia Commons)
Shocking allegations by former child actor Michael Egan against openly gay X-Men director and producer Bryan Singer have stunned Hollywood into relative silence. I say “relative silence” because unless he’s a Catholic priest, the relativist left’s false narrative is that a gay man is always the victim and never the victimizer.
Nonetheless, this latest episode has once again shined the spotlight on the long-established link between the homosexual lifestyle/movement and pedophilia—a link that, despite “progressive” denials to the contrary, is hiding in plain sight.
Egan has filed suit against Singer and several other high-profile Hollywood figures for homosexually assaulting him and other boys repeatedly at several “‘infamous' coke and twink pool parties” back when Egan was 15 and Singer was 32. (In the LGBT vernacular, twinks, also called chicken, are highly-sought-after underage boys used for sex by adult gay men.)
Egan’s claims eerily mirror those of former child actor Corey Feldman, who similarly alleged last year that such homosexual abuse is rampant, even systemic, in Hollywood.
But are these allegations really that shocking? Regrettably, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the abuse runs rampant well beyond just Hollywood.
To be sure, not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Yet a grossly disproportionate number of them are. I don’t write this to be insensitive, hateful, intolerant or homophobic.
It’s just the facts, ma’am.
Consider, for instance, a study published in the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior of over 200 convicted pedophiles and pederasts. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that “homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”
This makes perfect sense when coupled with another 2001 study in the same peer-reviewed publication. It found that nearly half of all gay-identified men who participated in research were molested by a homosexual pedophile as boys: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”
The connection between homosexual abuse and gay identity is undeniable. Although clearly not all gay-identified men and women abuse children or were abused as children, the verifiable reality is that an alarmingly high percentage of them do and were. As with most forms of abuse, the cycle is both circular and vicious. Born that way? Not so much. Made that way? Sadly, it appears so.
But of equal concern is the fact that many of the most prominent LGBT activists across the globe have either overtly endorsed or given their implicit approval of what the left euphemistically calls “intergenerational intimacy” (read: child rape).
Take marriage equality activist Peter Tatchell, for instance. The GLAAD-affiliated blog Good As You glowingly describes Tatchell as a “noted British rights activist.” He’s “one of the most widely respected leaders of the international LGBT movement,” one of the blog’s commenters gushes.
Here’s what “widely respected” and “noted rights activist” Tatchell thinks of child rape. He wrote the following in The Guardian, one of the U.K.’s premier newspapers:
“The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends—gay and straight, male and female—had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. … It is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”
Or remember Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “safe school czar” and founder of the sexual extremist group GLSEN?
The Washington Times wrote of Jennings in 2009:
“A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an ‘older man.’ At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s ‘safe school czar.’ …
“In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.”
Jennings later lied about the encounter until audio surfaced of him bragging on it. “I looked at [the boy],” he quipped, “and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”
Still, this pattern of homosexual abuse and facilitation of such abuse by the LGBT movement is nothing new.
Take Jennings’ hero Harry Hay. Hay is considered the founding father of the modern gay rights movement. Among other things, he has been honored as an icon for LGBT History Month by the entire homosexual activist community.
Not surprisingly, Hay was a child rape enthusiast and avid supporter of the pedophile North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAM/BLA. In 1983, while keynoting a NAM/BLA event, Hay said the following:
“It seems to me that in the gay community the people who should be running interference for NAM/BLA are the parents and friends of gays. Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”
Or take LGBT martyr Harvey Milk, a sexual predator known to have statutorily raped, repeatedly, a drug-addicted teenage runaway boy. Milk’s punishment? The Obama administration just awarded him an honorary USPS postage stamp.
Am I the only one who sees the pattern here? Has the goddess of tolerance really driven the world completely blind with madness?
If consistency holds and these allegations against Bryan Singer prove true (the evidence suggests they well may), I’ll wager he ends up with his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the next keynote at the annual HRC gala.
I’ll also wager that, either way, we’ll soon begin seeing more intergenerational sex aficionados “coming out of the closet.”
Beginning on Tuesday, April 21st, Dan Haseltine, front-man for the popular Christian band Jars of Clay, took to Twitter to announce his apparent support for same-sex “marriage.” And for the life of him, he can’t figure out a single good reason to oppose it.
It is for reasons like this that we have been sounding the alarm these last 10 years.
In a series of tweets posted over a three-day period, and prompted by a movie he watched while in flight, he wrote: “The treatment of people as less than human based on the color of skin is crazy... Or gender, or sexual orientation for that matter.”
Of course, to compare skin color with “sexual orientation” is to compare apples with oranges, as has been demonstrated many times before.
But that was only the beginning. He added, “Not meaning to stir things up BUT... Is there a non-speculative or non ‘slippery slope’ reason why gays shouldn't marry? I don't hear one.”
This really boggles the mind.
When you’re sliding down a dangerous slippery slope, you don’t say, “Give me one good reason we’re in danger, other than the fact that we’re careening down this deadly slope.”
No. You grab hold of something to stop your fall and then figure out how to climb back to solid ground.
Does this gifted artist not realize that the only reason we’re talking about redefining marriage today is because we are well down that slope already?
This is the day of full-blown incestuous relationships on popular TV shows like Game of Thrones; of other shows glorifying polyamory (married and dating!), polygamy (from Big Love to Sister Wives to My Five Wives), and teen pregnancy; of news reports about the “wedding” of three lesbians. It is the day of almost half of all first-time American mothers having their babies out of wedlock, with cohabitation rates up more than 700% since 1960, and it is against this backdrop that talk of same-sex “marriage” has become prominent.
Do we really want to accelerate the destruction of marriage?
Dan also tweeted, “I'm trying to make sense of the conservative argument. But it doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. Feels akin to women's suffrage. Is the argument born of isolated application of scripture or is it combined with the knowledge born of friendship with someone who is gay? I just don't see a negative effect to allowing gay marriage. No societal breakdown, no war on traditional marriage. ?? Anyone?”
Assuming Dan’s sincerity, let me reply to his questions.
First, for years now, Christian leaders have been articulating many good reasons why it is not good for society to redefine marriage, quite apart from the (very valid) slippery slope argument, and some of them have not even used the Bible to prove their points. Important books on the subject include those of Frank Turek, Matthew D. Staver, Erwin Lutzer, and, most recently,Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Andersen, among others.
Second, while there is strong biblical support for gender distinction, there is no support for the oppression of women, which is why the spread of Christianity around the world has had a liberating effect on women over the centuries. In stark contrast, the Bible condemns all forms of homoeroticism (as is recognized by many gay scholars as well), while every single example of God-blessed marriage or romance takes place between a man and a woman.
I have an online lecture that addresses this issue, and I tackle the subject at length in my new book as well. There is simply no comparison between women’s rights and sanctioning homosexual practice.
Third, the argument against same-sex “marriage” is based on the consistent testimony of Scripture, affirmed by Moses, Jesus, and Paul, and it is never contradicted a single time from Genesis to Revelation. Again, I demonstrate this in my new book, and other scholars, most notably Robert A. Gagnon, have argued this persuasively in depth. (Despite many attacks on his work, his arguments stand strong.)
Fourth, many of us have gay friends or relatives, and our positions are motivated by love. But what does having a gay friend or relative have to do with understanding God and his Word? I have dear friends who are very religious Jews, and they are some of the finest people I know, yet I still believe they are lost without Jesus. (And they, of course, see me as gravely deceived.)
Do we rewrite the Bible to accommodate our sentiments towards others, just because they are nice people?
Fifth, as articulated in the books cited in the first point, above, there are many negative consequences to redefining marriage, including: The assault on the freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion of those who do not accept this redefinition; the establishing of households that guarantee that a child will have either no father or no mother; the transformation of children’s education to include the validation of all forms of “marriage”; the continued deconstruction of gender distinctions, leading to all kinds of societal confusion; and much, much more.
It is for good reason that gay activists have long declared that if they can redefine marriage, the rest of their goals will inevitably be realized.
In short, yes, redefining marriage declares a massive war on “traditional marriage” (better framed as “true marriage” or “natural marriage”) and yes, it leads to all kinds of societal breakdown.
Put another way (and this is a question for you, Dan), Do you think that God’s order for marriage and family, established plainly in the Word and recognized by virtually all societies in history, can be thrown aside without consequences?
Dan, you wrote, “Never liked the phrase: ‘Scripture clearly says...(blank) about... Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong.”
Perhaps this is the root of your problem? Is the Bible not clear about anything? Sin? Salvation? Forgiveness? Jesus being the only Savior and Lord? Adultery being bad? Fidelity being good? Shall I list 100 more items that are abundantly clear in Scripture?
But it appears you’re not really certain about many moral issues, based on your tweet that said, “I don't think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality,” and, “I don't particularly care about Scriptures stance on what is ‘wrong.’ I care more about how it says we should treat people.”
Did you really mean to write this? Is it possible to spend 5 minutes reading God’s precious Word without recognizing that Scripture clearly states a tremendous amount regarding morality and that, without his moral standards, we will never treat others rightly?
You also asked, “Just curious what ‘condoning a persons [sic] homosexuality’ does. Does it change you? Does it hurt someone? What is behind the conviction?”
Do you not realize that couples involved in consensual adult incest (and other relationships) are asking this exact same question? What do you say to them?
Perhaps it is a Jesus-based, Spirit-led, scripturally-grounded morality that is behind our convictions? And if we condone something God opposes – which means that it is not good for the people involved – how are we showing them love? To the contrary, we are actually hurting them.
My brother, as an influential Christian leader, you have a tremendous responsibility before the Lord to those who follow you, especially to impressionable, young believers, and you have not acted wisely by opening up a volatile discussion like this on Twitter.
Were there no godly leaders you could counsel with privately? Was it good stewardship of your popularity and influence to announce your views on Twitter and then expect a substantive dialogue delimited by 140 character tweets? Are subjects like the meaning of marriage and the authority of God’s Word in the life of a Christian now decided by who can come up with the catchier sound bite?
You probably don’t know me from Adam, but I’ll be glad to spend time with you to help you address these issues from the position of grace and truth. My door is open to you, and as one who greatly appreciates the culture-impacting power of music and song, it would be my privilege to meet with you.
That being said, if these tweets expose the soft, scripturally weak underbelly of the contemporary Christian music scene, then let’s put on our seatbelts and expect the worst.
The good news is that this will separate the wheat from the chaff, and in the end, the light will outshine the darkness.
Editor’s note: On the afternoon of April 25th, Dan Haseltine posted a statement on his websiteseeking to further clarify his remarks and offering apologies for some poorly worded statements.
As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield/ Christianity Today
The word Jesus stuck in my throat like an elephant tusk; no matter how hard I choked, I couldn't hack it out. Those who professed the name commanded my pity and wrath. As a university professor, I tired of students who seemed to believe that "knowing Jesus" meant knowing little else. Christians in particular were bad readers, always seizing opportunities to insert a Bible verse into a conversation with the same point as a punctuation mark: to end it rather than deepen it.
Stupid. Pointless. Menacing. That's what I thought of Christians and their god Jesus, who in paintings looked as powerful as a Breck Shampoo commercial model.
As a professor of English and women's studies, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, I cared about morality, justice, and compassion. Fervent for the worldviews of Freud, Hegel, Marx, and Darwin, I strove to stand with the disempowered. I valued morality. And I probably could have stomached Jesus and his band of warriors if it weren't for how other cultural forces buttressed the Christian Right. Pat Robertson's quip from the 1992 Republican National Convention pushed me over the edge: "Feminism," he sneered, "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." Indeed. The surround sound of Christian dogma comingling with Republican politics demanded my attention.
After my tenure book was published, I used my post to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful, and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: aids activism, children's health and literacy, Golden Retriever rescue, our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few. Even if you believed the ghost stories promulgated by Robertson and his ilk, it was hard to argue that my partner and I were anything but good citizens and caregivers. The GLBT community values hospitality and applies it with skill, sacrifice, and integrity.
I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track: the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics, and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers. It was 1997.
I was a broken mess. I did not want to lose everything that I loved. But the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world.
The article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk: one for hate mail, one for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn't argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn't know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.
Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken's letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.
Friends with the Enemy
With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen. Oh, I had seen my share of Bible verses on placards at Gay Pride marches. That Christians who mocked me on Gay Pride Day were happy that I and everyone I loved were going to hell was clear as blue sky. That is not what Ken did. He did not mock. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward: Surely this will be good for my research.
Something else happened. Ken and his wife, Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We did book exchanges. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. They did not act as if such conversations were polluting them. They did not treat me like a blank slate. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. Vulnerable. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken's God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.
I started reading the Bible. I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations. At a dinner gathering my partner and I were hosting, my transgendered friend J cornered me in the kitchen. She put her large hand over mine. "This Bible reading is changing you, Rosaria," she warned.
With tremors, I whispered, "J, what if it is true? What if Jesus is a real and risen Lord? What if we are all in trouble?"
J exhaled deeply. "Rosaria," she said, "I was a Presbyterian minister for 15 years. I prayed that God would heal me, but he didn't. If you want, I will pray for you."
I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired. But the Bible got to be bigger inside me than I. It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in. The image that came in like waves, of me and everyone I loved suffering in hell, vomited into my consciousness and gripped me in its teeth.
I fought with everything I had.
I did not want this.
I did not ask for this.
I counted the costs. And I did not like the math on the other side of the equal sign.
But God's promises rolled in like sets of waves into my world. One Lord's Day, Ken preached on John 7:17: "If anyone wills to do [God's] will, he shall know concerning the doctrine" (NKJV). This verse exposed the quicksand in which my feet were stuck. I was a thinker. I was paid to read books and write about them. I expected that in all areas of life, understanding came before obedience. And I wanted God to show me, on my terms, why homosexuality was a sin. I wanted to be the judge, not one being judged.
But the verse promised understanding after obedience. I wrestled with the question: Did I really want to understand homosexuality from God's point of view, or did I just want to argue with him? I prayed that night that God would give me the willingness to obey before I understood. I prayed long into the unfolding of day. When I looked in the mirror, I looked the same. But when I looked into my heart through the lens of the Bible, I wondered, Am I a lesbian, or has this all been a case of mistaken identity? If Jesus could split the world asunder, divide marrow from soul, could he make my true identity prevail? Who am I? Who will God have me to be?
Then, one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked. In this war of worldviews, Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess. Conversion was a train wreck. I did not want to lose everything that I loved. But the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me "wife" and many call me "mother."
I have not forgotten the blood Jesus surrendered for this life.
And my former life lurks in the edges of my heart, shiny and still like a knife.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield is the author of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (Crown & Covenant). She lives with her family in Durham, North Carolina, where her husband pastors the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham.
Most Americans Don't Buy the Godless Big Bang Theory
Many Americans, particularly evangelicals, dispute science on the origin of the universe, the age of Earth and evolution. (NASA, Facebook)
Believers don’t buy the Big Bang theory, godless evolution or human responsibility for global warming. Actually, neither do many Americans.
But a new survey by The Associated Press found that religious identity—particularly evangelical Protestant—was one of the sharpest indicators of skepticism toward key issues in science.
The survey presented a series of statements that several prize-winning scientist say are facts. However, the research shows that confidence in their correctness varies sharply among U.S. adults. It found:
51 percent of U.S. adults overall (including 77 percent of people who say they are born-again or evangelical) have little or no confidence that “the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.”
42 percent overall (76 percent of evangelicals) doubt that “life on Earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.”
37 percent overall (58 percent of evangelicals) doubt that the Earth’s temperature is rising “mostly because of man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
36 percent overall (56 percent of evangelicals) doubt “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.”
On the flip side, most people are pretty sure the “universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation”—54 percent of all Americans, and 87 percent of evangelicals.
The survey of 1,012 adults, conducted March 20-24, has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.
“When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue against faith,” Duke University biochemist Robert Lefkowitz, who won a Nobel Prize in 2012, told The Associated Press. He called faith “untestable.”
And Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University and an evangelical Christian, said many biblical scholars do not see a conflict between religion and science. “The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1,” Falk said.
A recent survey on “religious understandings of science,” by Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund, found that the two worldviews are not always in opposition.
Ecklund’s study for the Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science compared views of 10,000 U.S. adults, including scientists, evangelicals and the general public.
She found that nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence and that they are about as likely as most Americans overall (about one in five) to attend weekly religious services.
However, there’s still significant distrust: 22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population say religious people are hostile to science. Most of those people (52 percent) sided with religion.
Copyright 2014 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” declared Sir John Dalberg-Acton, who made this remark after extensive studies of both secular and religious history. When James and John went to Jesus and requested the two most prominent seats in His kingdom, Jesus rebuked them for their preoccupation with power and told them they were thinking like Gentiles, i.e., like people who did not know God. He then presented to them a new and radical model of leadership that would be characterized, He said, not by power, but by humble service (Mark 10:35-45). They must have been shocked when He told them they were to function as diakonoi, a Greek word that referred to a lowly servant who waited on tables and with no connotations of status, importance or power.
During the first century, while apostolic ministry was characterized by service, women freely functioned in leadership, including apostolic ministry. It was only after the church institutionalized and began to think of the apostolic in terms of office and power that women began to be excluded from leadership by men who believed their gender gave them the sole right to lead and rule.
This ungodly association of the apostolic with maleness and power is still used today as a justification for excluding women from leadership in the church. The popularSpirit-Filled Life Bible, for example, without a shred of evidence, explains the prohibition toward women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as referring to “the authoritative office of apostolic teacher in the church.” The truth is that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 was written to address a particular situation concerning Timothy and the church in Ephesus and was never meant to be a universal rule for all churches everywhere.
The Choosing of 12 Was Never Meant to be a Pattern for Leadership in the Church
Nonetheless, the fact that Jesus chose 12 men as apostles has, throughout history, been used as the basis for excluding women from authoritative roles of leadership in the church. This line of reasoning, however, ends in absurdity if followed to its logical conclusion.
Consider the fact that the 12 whom Jesus chose were not only men; they were Jewish men. Should only Jewish men be leaders in the churches? Furthermore, these 12 Jewish men were instructed by Jesus to preach only to Jews. He instructed them, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). If we follow this line of reasoning, we must conclude that all church leaders must be Jewish men and that they can preach only to Jewish people.
The truth is that the calling of the Twelve was never meant to be a pattern for the calling and recognition of church leaders. In His approximately three years of earthly ministry, as outlined in the Gospels, the ministry of Jesus was clearly directed to the Jewish people. His purpose was to call God’s covenant people back into a relationship with Himself. To a Gentile woman who came seeking healing for her daughter, Jesus replied, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Even though the woman’s persistent faith resulted in the healing of her daughter, Jesus’ reply to her clearly reveals the limited scope of His earthy ministry.
This all changes, however, with the death and resurrection of Jesus. When He comes out of the tomb, the restrictions are no longer there. His disciples are now told to take the good news of what He has done to "Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and the end of the earth"(Acts 1:8). A new era has obviously dawned. Jesus' first action after His resurrection sends a clear message that any limitations concerning His female disciples have also been removed by His redemptive work.
Mary Magdalene Receives the First Apostolic Commission From the Risen Lord
During the 40 days between His resurrection and ascension, Jesus appeared to His disciples at various times and on one occasion appeared to over 500 of His followers. The Gospel writers, however, are very explicit in noting that it was Mary Magdalene to whom He appeared first after His resurrection. The importance the evangelists attach to this fact indicates that it was no accidental occurrence but that Jesus purposely appeared first to Mary Magdalene in order to make an important statement to His followers.
When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, He gave her certain, specific instructions. Matthew 28:10 records His words to Mary, "Go and tell my brethren." In other words, He sent her on a specific mission defined by the words go and tell. The Greek word apostolos, from which we get the English word apostle, simply means "one who is sent" or "one sent on assignment." It has nothing to do with office, government or power.
Mary was a "sent one," and as such received the first apostolic commission from the risen Lord. Because the male disciples were required to hear the initial news of the resurrection from a woman, Mary has, throughout history, often been referred to as “the apostle to the apostles.”
This commissioning of Mary by Jesus was revolutionary, since the Jewish male of this time normally began his day with a prayer that included thanks to God that he was not born a Gentile, a slave or a woman. Women were barred from studying Scripture, and a rabbi considered it beneath his dignity to speak to a woman in public. Neither Jewish nor Roman courts of law would allow the testimony of women. Jesus challenged this deeply ingrained religious and cultural bias by appearing first to Mary and sending her forth as the first apostolic witness of His resurrection.
By appearing first to Mary, Jesus was cutting through all the disdain and prejudice of His male disciples toward His female disciples. He thereby declared His equal acceptance of women and affirmed the value of their ministry in His name. By appearing first to Mary and giving her the first apostolic commission after His resurrection, Jesus made a clear statement that women would be included in apostolic ministry in His church. This was revolutionary in the first century and is still so today, for there are many who still see the apostolic as being associated with maleness and power.
Paul Recognizes a Female Apostle Named Junia
Paul continues this revolution begun by Jesus. In his letter to the church at Rome, Paul sends personal greetings to 24 people in the latter part of the letter. These individuals are friends and co-workers who are dear to his heart.
Of the 24 mentioned by name, 10 are women. Many of these obviously functioned in roles of leadership in the churches. One woman named Junia is specifically referred to as an apostle. In Romans 16:7 Paul says, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles who also were in Christ before me." Junia is a feminine name and was universally recognized as a female apostle for the first several centuries of the church’s existence. The famous church father of the fifth century, John Chrysostom, exclaimed, "Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle."
Concerned by the presence of a female apostle, some have attempted to argue that the name should be translated Junias, which is male. There are insurmountable facts, however, that militate against this argument. First of all, without exception, all ancient Greek manuscripts have the feminine form of Junia, not Junias. Secondly, the female name Junia was quite common in the first century, whereas the male name, Junias, is unknown. Junias, therefore, is a hypothetical name. Thirdly, as mentioned above, Junia was universally recognized as a female apostle for the first several centuries of the church’s existence.
Why then have some modern translations, such as the NIV, rendered the name Juniasinstead of Junia? Dr. N. Clayton Croy, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, says, “It is hard to see any reason other than the translators’ bias against the possibility that a woman could be an apostle.” Well-known New Testament scholar James G.D. Dunn says, “The assumption that the name must be male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity.”
The idea of a female apostle is obviously too revolutionary for some modern exegetes. Nonetheless, the evidence is conclusive that Junia was a female apostle and recognized as such by Paul himself. Her example clearly demonstrates that women exercised apostolic leadership in the New Testament churches. But she is not alone, for a careful perusal of Scripture reveals other women who functioned in leadership roles in the New Testament.
Paul Included Women in the Leadership Gifts of Ephesians 4:11
That women can serve as apostles is also made clear from Paul’s discussion of the leadership gifts (obviously not an exhaustive list) in Ephesians 4:7-12. The apostle heads this list of gifts followed by the prophet, the evangelist and the pastor and teacher (v. 11). He begins the discussion of these gifts by pointing to the risen Christ as the One who bestows these gifts.
In verse 8, he says, "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men." The Greek word translated men in this passage is the plural of anthropos, which is gender inclusive and refers to both men and women. If Paul had wanted to restrict these leadership gifts to men only, he could have used the gender specific andras, which is the plural Greek word for man as male. He purposely uses language that makes it clear that the risen Christ bestows these gifts on both men and women.
Apostolic Christianity Includes Women
Many other women in both the Old and New Testaments functioned in leadership roles. The list includes Deborah, Huldah and Miriam in the Old Testament. The list in the New Testament includes not only Mary Magdalene and Junia, but Phoebe, Priscilla and the women of Philippi who labored with Paul in the gospel (Phil. 4:3). Many commentators believe that Priscilla was actually the one with the leadership gift because Paul mentions her first, although it was customary to mention her husband, Aquila, first (Rom. 16:3-5).
It should be noted that all of these women are presented in Scripture in a positive light. Nowhere is there the slightest hint that they were somehow functioning outside their proper roles. The Assemblies of God is, therefore, correct when, in its official position paper on women, it says;
The instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with Scripturally commended leadership roles affirms that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.
The evidence is overwhelming that women functioned in leadership roles, including apostolic ministry, in the New Testament era. Since the New Testament church is the model, any church that limits the leadership gifts and callings of its female members cannot call itself apostolic or New Testament. It has veered from the norm of the New Testament. “But,” some will ask, “what about Paul’s call for female silence and submission in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?”
What About 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?
First of all, these passages should never be used, as they commonly are, as a canon within the canon concerning the status of women in the church. The many passages that show women functioning in leadership should be given equal status with these two passages.
Secondly, the evidence is overwhelming that in these two passages, Paul is addressing local, cultural situations that existed in Corinth and Ephesus. They are on the level of Paul’s admonition for believers to greet one another with a holy kiss and for women to wear a head covering when praying and prophesying. These passages were never meant to be guidelines for establishing a church order and excluding women from leadership roles in the church.
Concluding Thoughts
There is no question in my mind that this unholy marriage of the apostolic with maleness and power has weakened the church and damaged her influence in the modern world. This can be remedied, and we can recover our voice and influence if we will do two things.
Number one, we must give up the prideful pursuits of power and return to the model of service that Jesus so clearly presented to His followers. Second, we must fully and equally embrace the gifts and callings of the female members of Christ's body. Only then will the church be a fully functioning body through which the Spirit of the Lord will freely flow.
This article is derived from Eddie Hyatt’s latest book,Pursuing Power: How the Historic Quest for Apostolic Authority and Control Has Divided and Damaged the Church, available from Amazon, Kobo and from his website.
