martes, 8 de abril de 2014

Could 'Captain America' Spark Political Change?

Could 'Captain America' Spark Political Change?

BEN KAYSER/MOVIEGUIDE
Charisma News

Captain America
Captain America (Marvel Studios)

As Captain America: The Winter Soldier storms into theaters, one can’t help but wonder what those in Washington, D.C., are thinking of the latest Marvel cinematic installment. With dialogue and themes that make it feel as if it’s been written by America’s Founding Fathers, it’s not too often we get to see a movie that so deeply exposes governmental overreach on such a large scale.

Could this movie bring a political shift or change? What kind of impact could this story have?

In the movie, a mysterious assassin called the Winter Soldier critically wounds Nick Fury, Captain America’s boss at SHIELD. Fury hands Captain America a flash drive showing SHIELD has been compromised. “Don’t trust anyone,” Fury tells Cap before lapsing into a coma.

Using the flash drive, Cap learns a secret cabal has infiltrated SHIELD. The cabal also controls the Winter Soldier. Ultimately, it plans to use newly developed SHIELD technology to rule the world. Now Captain America and the only two friends he trusts must avoid not only the Winter Soldier but all of SHIELD so they can stop this evil plot.

While the changes America needs to make are many, The Winter Soldier offers a few inspiring and crucial lessons for anyone who wants to make a difference.

Steve Rogers (Captain America) struggles with being a part of SHIELD, an agency that’s more than willing to sacrifice American liberty for power and control. More than once, he’s asked to get on board with what SHIELD is doing, but he refuses every time.

The difference between the America we have now and the America we’ve lost isn’t just one bad decision; it’s a multitude of small compromises, many of which were made with noble intentions. Cap is willing to make the hard choices, but never at the cost of compromising the very virtues he’s fighting to support. Guard your heart, guard your mind, and never compromise what is good and right.

Contrary to popular opinion, the enemy isn’t this president or the last. Neither is it your neighbor who votes differently from you. The enemy is the devil, who uses our own selfish desires to spread darkness.

Captain America and Nick Fury have very different opinions on what real freedom looks like, but neither Fury nor SHIELD is the enemy, even though their actions are horrendously misguided. The real enemy is a lie—a lie that says we needed to “take the world as it is,” rather than make it into a better one. A lie that compromises virtue and seeks power. The same lie that fed Hitler’s National Socialist hate and greed in Germany before and during World War II.

Some lies, like that of Nazi Germany, may require actual fighting to defeat them, but in most cases, the best weapon against a lie is the truth. The truth, if spoken in love, can open eyes and transform hearts.

As James writes in James 5:19-20, “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (ESV).

Captain America: The Winter Soldier may not start an ideological revolution sparking instant political change, but it will create discussion and shed light on aspects of our government that some would like to ignore or hide. It doesn’t take an army for change to happen. It just takes one person who’s willing to stand for virtue and fight for liberty.

So, whether you’re a schoolteacher, a politician, a sheriff or a superhero, we each have a responsibility to speak the truth wherever we happen to be in our lives. Who knows? Maybe this movie will spawn real-life Captain Americas—young men and women who’ll break free from the lies, humbly pursue the truth without compromise, and show the world once again what true freedom really looks like.

lunes, 7 de abril de 2014

Intolerance: Gay Rights Groups Force Mozilla CEO to Resign

Gay Rights Groups Force Mozilla CEO to Resign

Rachel Lynn Aldrich | WORLD News Service

Gay Rights Groups Force Mozilla CEO to Resign

Brendan Eich stepped down from his post as Mozilla's CEO after gay rights groups lambasted the company for promoting a leader who supports traditional marriage.

In a statement posted online, Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker said Eich was stepping down for the good of the company, which he co-founded. She also apologized for promoting him from his position as chief technology officer in the first place. “We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act,” she wrote. “We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

The company, which created the popular web browser Firefox, promoted Brendan Eich from chief technology officer to its top leadership position on March 24. He’s certainly qualified for the job. Eich co-founded Mozilla and invented JavaScript, one of the web’s most ubiquitous programming languages.

But Eich also supports traditional marriage, and that, his detractors say, is unforgivable.

In 2008, Eich gave $1,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California. A lower court ruling struck down the amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court left that decision place last year. Eich’s contribution was publicly reported then and he faced some criticism for his stance. 

But his promotion to CEO last week whipped the old criticism into a firestorm. 

Half of Mozilla Foundation’s six board members quit in protest, according to The Wall Street Journal, and thousands have complained on Twitter, calling for Eich to step down.

But the real kicker came when New York-based dating service OkCupid.com replaced its usual home page for visitors using the Firefox browser. 

“Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user,” the new page read. “Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.” It then explained Eich’s views, as it understood them, and asked users to access OkCupid with a different browser. It also claimed that 8 percent of OkCupid’s users are homosexual: “We’ve devoted the last 10 years to bringing people—all people—together. … Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.”

OkCupid President Christian Rudder said he and the firm’s three other co-founders decided to post the message after discussing Eich’s appointment over the weekend. 

“We don’t think this was the right thing for people to donate money to, and this is someone we do business with, so we decided to take action,” Rudder said.

So far, Mozilla is standing by its new leader. Eich acknowledged the controversy in a blog post two days after his appointment was announced. He pledged his commitment to diversity and inclusion and promised to make Mozilla a welcoming place for all employees, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. “I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything,” he said. “I can only ask for your support to have the time to ‘show, not tell’; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.”

Mozilla responded with an emailed statement saying the company supports equality for all, including marriage equality for gay couples. It remains to be seen whether that support for equality extends to people who disagree.


Photographer Punished for Refusing Gay Marriage Gig Continues Paying the 'Price of Citizenship'

Photographer Punished for Refusing Gay Marriage Gig Continues Paying the 'Price of Citizenship'

Elaine Huguenin
Elaine Huguenin is co-owner of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M. (Bruce Ellefson, Alliance Defending Freedom)

(Charisma News). The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear Elane Photography v. Willock, the case of a photographer who was told by the New Mexico Supreme Court that she must, as “the price of citizenship,” use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagrees or suffer punishment.

Nonetheless, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing Elane Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, point out that the central concern in the case—government punishment of Americans for declining to create or promote messages with which they disagree—is alive in other ADF cases moving forward around the country.

“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” says ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence. “The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”

“Americans oppose unjust laws that strong-arm citizens to express ideas against their will,” adds senior counsel David Cortman. “Elaine and numerous others like her around the country have been more than willing to serve any and all customers, but they are not willing to promote any and all messages. A government that forces any American to create a message contrary to her own convictions is a government every American should fear.”

A July Rasmussen poll found that 85 percent of Americans believe a Christian photographer has the right to say no if asked to create pictures at a same-sex ceremony that conflicts with the photographer’s religious beliefs. The editorial boards of both the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times agree.

Other cases in the legal pipeline that could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court include the following:

Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers: A long-time customer and friend of florist Barronelle Stutzman sued her because she could not in good conscience use her creative skills to beautify his same-sex ceremony. Both he, through his American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys, and the Washington state attorney general have filed lawsuits against her in both her professional and personal capacities for unlawful discrimination, even though she has served and employed people who identify as homosexual and numerous other florists are willing to do the work.

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop: Two men filed a legal complaint against Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips after he declined to use his artistic talents to create and decorate a cake for a same-sex ceremony. Although many other cake artists are willing to do the work and Phillips told the men he would be willing to make them any other type of baked good, the men nonetheless filed discrimination complaints against him through their ACLU attorneys.

Baker v. Hands On Originals: The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) filed a legal complaint against a Kentucky T-shirt printer for declining to produce shirts that promote its pride festival. Managing owner Blaine Adamson of Hands On Originals told the GLSO he would gladly refer them to another shop that would do the work for the same price, and, in fact, the GLSO easily found someone to produce the shirts for free. In addition, Hands On Originals both serves and employs people who identify as homosexual. Nonetheless, the complaint alleges the printer is guilty of discrimination.

miércoles, 2 de abril de 2014

Starbucks Satanist Barista Reveals Demonic Double Standard Against Christians

Starbucks Satanist Barista Reveals Demonic Double Standard Against Christians

JENNIFER LECLAIRE, Charsma News

satanic starbucks
Megan K. Pinion, a practicing Catholic, was shocked and dismayed when she saw satanic symbols carefully crafted with caramel drizzle atop her foamy caffeinated beverage. (Facebook)

Satanists may not be getting a monument on Oklahoma state Capitol grounds, but the devil worshippers are tasting some success at Starbucks.

For years, Christians have complained about Starbucks’ so-called Jezebelic logo. But an artistic, devil-inspired barista took demonic to a whole new level with one lady’s latte.


Megan K. Pinion, a practicing Catholic, was shocked and dismayed when she saw satanic symbols carefully crafted with caramel drizzle atop her foamy caffeinated beverage. She logged on to Facebook to describe the horrifying experience of being served coffee with a pentagram and the numbers “666” confronting her faith.

“I just purchased two coffees at your Mall of Louisiana location,” she wrote on Facebook on Sunday. “This is how my coffee was served to me. ... I am a teacher in the public school system and if I were to present a child of atheist or pagan believers with a Christian art project I could be sued in a heartbeat. I am of Catholic faith and would love to share in my beliefs daily. Fortunately I have enough common sense to present myself with professionalism and follow an ethics code. Perhaps that could be suggested to that particular location.”

Starbucks has not indicated whether or not the employee will be disciplined for forcing his beliefs on a customer in such an offensive way. And there’s the double standard, which Pinion pointed out so articulately: If a Starbucks barista preached the gospel to a customer waiting in one of the coffeehouse’s notoriously long lines, I suspect that faithful servant would see himself suspended in a heartbeat.

Starbucks did apologize: “This obviously is not the type of experience we want to provide any of our customers, and is not representative of the customer service our partners provide to millions of customers every day.”

The way Starbucks is handling the satanic latte is at least somewhat representative of the direction the coffee chain is heading. Last March, at Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, CEO Howard Shultz blasted an investor who suggested the company’s support of gay marriage in Washington was the reason for the its less-than-stellar earnings reports. Schultz said some things are not a financial decision and then suggested Christians could take their money elsewhere.

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country," he said. "You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”

Starbucks has made its commitment to diversity and clearly has no qualms about offending Christians—or losing believers’ business. I’m frankly surprised Pinion received an apology for the satanic dribbles and sincerely wonder if Starbucks would have said sorry if the foam showcased a caramelized gay pride symbol instead of a pentagram.

Based on Shultz’ March 2013 quip, it’s clear where he stands and where the line is drawn. Starbucks' apology to Pinion is somewhat hypocritical, then, considering the CEO essentially invited her last year to go drink coffee somewhere else. Maybe now she will. I hear Dunkin' Donuts has a mean latte.



domingo, 30 de marzo de 2014

I’m a Christian and I think ‘Noah’ deserves a four star review

I’m a Christian and I think ‘Noah’ deserves a four star review

untitled (37)
(The Matt Walsh Blog)
On Friday, my wife and I had a very rare date night.
Naturally, we decided to spend it being pummeled by the blaring condescension of the most insipid, absurd, unimaginative, clumsily contrived piece of anti-Christian filmmaking to come along since, well, probably just last week.
In fact, if I learned anything from Noah, it’s this: despite popular perception, you can often judge a book by its cover. Also, giant deformed rock monsters make for awkward supporting characters.
We’ll meditate on that second item in a moment, but it’s the first point that should be especially emphasized.
Christians: you’ll hear people insist that you can’t criticize the movie until you’ve seen it. Noticeably, the loudest voices in this camp are the ones who will (rather coincidentally, I’m sure) profit immensely if you meet their challenge.
Don’t.
Don’t bother.
You can hate this film without watching it, for the same reason that you can assume Citizen Kane is slightly superior to Need For Speed, without having seen either of them.
Just use context clues. Use your judgment. Use your money on something else.
Noah is a major Hollywood blockbuster, made by an atheist director best known for his previous flick where a mentally disturbed lesbian ballerina goes insane and bleeds to death on stage. Already, a critical person might be slightly concerned about his handling of the Bible, considering what he just did to the ballet.
These concerns grew from suspicion to reality before it was even released, when the man himself came out publicly and professed Noah to be both an environmentalist propaganda piece, and the “least Biblical” Bible film ever made.
He wasn’t lying.
But he forgot to mention that it’s also a terrible film.
The way I figure it, I must now convince at least two people to skip this movie in order to cancel out the twenty dollars I just contributed to Darren Aronofosky’s and Russel Crowe’s coffers.
What better way to do that than by spoiling the entire thing?
So here goes a thorough synopsis and spoiler, which will hopefully quell your curiosity and alleviate any urge you might feel to go and experience this ridiculous train wreck for yourself:
We are first introduced to the Noah of Noah on a hill in the barren wasteland of the Fallen. In a captivating and subtle initial sequence, our protagonist castigates his son for pulling a flower out of the ground, right before rushing to the aid of an injured dog.
A scraggly band of Bad Guys soon show up with the wicked intentions of devouring the animal’s flesh, because, in this story, the Height of Evil is to stave off your imminent starvation by hunting wild game. (If only they’d developed Noah’s ability to be a strict vegetarian in an environment almost entirely devoid of vegetation.)
The Bad Guys attack Noah, not realizing that he’s a vegan Martial Arts master. Noah proceeds to kick some serious butt, leaving all of the Bad Guys bleeding on the ground.
One of them looks up at him in awe and terror. “What do you want?”
“Justice,” Noah growls with a determined gaze.
I was expecting him to then whisper, “I’m Batman,” and disappear, but I realized that superhero movies wouldn’t have dialogue nearly so clichéd as this embarrassing farce.
At any rate, Noah wants justice. Of course, this is coming from the same dude who will spend the rest of the movie contemplating murder-suicide and threatening to stab babies in the face.
But, hey, nobody’s perfect.
After a troubling nightmare, Noah, for unclear reasons, sets off to find his grandfather Methuselah, who, for unclear reasons, hangs out in a cave and drinks hallucinogenic tea all day.
On the way, our heroes encounter a group of the aforementioned Rock Monsters.
The Rock Monsters — a cross between the Ents from The Lord of the Rings, Transformers, and Muppets — are fallen angels who came down to Earth to help the humans after mean ol’ God cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. The ‘Creator’ was ticked at the angels for being big softies, so he cursed them and turned them into Giant Stone Gumbies.
Christian apologists for this movie have claimed that the Rock Monsters are, in fact, “Biblical” because Genesis does make vague mention of “giants.”
That’s like turning Jesus into an Olympic figure skater and calling it “theologically accurate” because the New Testament says he walked on water.
Still, the Rock Monsters are great unintentional comic relief, so I certainly wasn’t upset to have them along for the ride.
Skimming over a few parts: Methuselah gives a roofie to Noah, prompting a hallucination about the ark. Noah and the gang and the Rock Monsters then start building the ark. More Bad Guys arrive, intending to takeover, but they’re scared off by the Rock Monsters.
In this “version” of the story, only one of Noah’s sons, Shem, boards the ark with a wife. Ham, completely wife-less, is a tad displeased at the notion of default celibacy for the rest of his life.
Understandable, I suppose.
Eventually, he runs pouting into the woods, falls into a hole filled with corpses, and finds a girl sitting among all the dead people. They fall instantly in love — the classic “how we met” story — and the two of them head back to the ark. Unfortunately, Ham’s girlfriend gets caught in a bear trap and trampled by a human stampede along the way. Classic breakup story. Noah forces Ham to abandon her and leave her to die.
Ham is mad. He pouts some more.
untitled (38)
Here’s Ham, searching ditches and mass graves for a bride. The movie apparently takes place sometime before Match.com came into existence.

Noah also pouts. Everybody is pouting. And then it starts pouring.
As the rains begin, the Bad Guys make their climactic charge on the boat. We are then treated to an extended sequence of Rock Monsters swatting swarms of drowning people.
Interestingly, only the Main Bad Guy comes up with the clever idea to, you know, go around the Rock Monsters.
The Main Bad Guy’s genius maneuver pays off, and he successfully manages to sneak onto the ark.
Luckily, Noah and crew aren’t forced to make room on the ship for the Rock Monsters, because they’re all ascended into heaven as a reward for kicking a bunch of humans in the head for twenty minutes.
Sadly, all of the (unintended) levity and humor goes up right along with them.
The rest of the film will now be dedicated to a brooding Noah glumly obsessing over his belief that the Creator wants all human beings to perish — himself and his family included.
This forces him to have that difficult family meeting where he explains to his kids that humanity is wicked and they all must die.
But, as usual, it’s right when you plan the obliteration of mankind that your adopted daughter announces she’s pregnant. We’ve all been there. Am I right, parents?
Noah is less than happy about the news, and tells Shem and Ila that, if they have a girl, he will murder it the moment it is born.
Needless to say, Noah doesn’t attend the baby shower and things are generally pretty awkward for the next nine months.
lead_large
Meanwhile, as Noah plots to murder his grandkids, and Shem plots to kill Noah if he tries, the Bad Guy stowaway is also plotting with Ham to kill Noah. Ham is willing to cooperate with the homicidal plan because he’s still upset that his girlfriend of four minutes was trampled to death. Essentially, this has become a floating soap opera. Think Days of Our Lives meets Waterworld.
Side note: If you doubt the Bad Guy Credentials of the Bad Guy, the writers made sure to include a scene where he bites the head off an endangered lizard while sermonizing about the glories of being a carnivore (this is how vegetarians see the rest of us). His Bad Guy Monologue consists entirely of simply and accurately quoting Scripture (this is how you identify the bad guy in a Hollywood movie).
The next several minutes of emotional-manipulation-disguised-as-plot-development center around the drama inevitably created when a dad wants to kill his grandchildren, and all of his children want to kill him in return.
Finally, in the predictable climax, the Bad Guy tries to stab Noah, but Ham — getting cold feet over the whole patricide thing, I guess — ultimately decides to kill the Bad Guy instead. In the midst of the chaos — wouldn’t ya know it? — Ila goes into labor.
Shem makes a halfhearted attempt to stop Noah from becoming humanity’s first abortionist, but is easily tossed to the side.
Ila gives birth to twins — both girls. GASP. Noah charges at the infants with knife in hand, but has a sudden change of heart. Even though the Creator wants him to wipe out all of humanity, he refuses.
That’s when they hit land.
Next thing you know, Noah is drunk in a cave, depressed that he didn’t have the guts to murder his twin granddaughters. Ah, regrets. We all have ‘em.
Following a pep talk from Ila, Noah decides that maybe it’s OK if people repopulate the Earth. The Creator decides to go along with this new plan.
The end.
I’ve heard the movie compared to Titanic and Gladiator. Personally, I’d say it’s more of a cross between Mutiny on the Bounty and The Shining. Only far less coherent than any of them.
I’ve also heard some “Christian leaders” endorse this steaming pile of heretical horse manure. I’m tempted to accuse them of being cowardly, dumb, or dishonest, but I’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they slept through the most troubling parts — like the part at the beginning, and the end, and all of the parts in between.
It’s true that it might be a bit difficult to discern the “message” in a film so filled with explosions (the Bad Guys have bazookas, naturally), monsters, and infanticide, but any supposed Christian “leader” ought to try a little harder. Pay a little closer attention. If you do, you’ll see a tale that entirely perverts the nature of God, while flipping sin and immorality on its head.
Aside from a brief glimpse of something that appeared to be either rape or cannibalism, wickedness is portrayed as mostly a matter of eating meat and mining the earth for resources. Noah — a righteous man in the Bible — is stripped of his righteousness in favor of obsessiveness. God is stripped of any characteristics at all, apart from vindictiveness.
It’s not that ‘Noah’ strays from the text — of course it does, the actual text is only a few pages long — it’s that the movie completely and utterly distorts the message and meaning of the original story.
This movie is not an adaptation of anything at all. As far as I can tell, both Noah the Movie and Noah the Bible story have in common: a guy named Noah, a boat, some animals.
That’s it.
If you’re looking for a movie more obviously inspired by Biblical precepts, go see anything else. Go see The Lego Movie. I’m sure even that will bear a closer resemblance to Scripture than emo Noah and his gang of Boulder Creatures.
But what if you don’t care about the Bible and you just want to see a good movie? The critics seem to love this film, don’t they?
Yes, they do. They love it because they’re a herd of politically correct cattle and this is a movie that they’re ‘supposed’ to like. It’s made by an ‘important’ director. It’s ‘controversial.’ It’s upsetting a bunch of Tea Party types.
Plot and script be damned; it’s already got all the necessary ingredients for critical acclaim.
Remember, these are many of the same critics who panned The Passion of the Christ — a beautiful, bold, and mesmerizing retelling of the greatest story ever told.
Politics and theology aside, The Passion is art. Noah is a marketing strategy.
And, in fairness, maybe it ought to be reviewed on those terms.
You can’t condemn it for being a poor Biblical adaptation, because it isn’t a Biblical adaptation.
You can’t condemn it for being a bad movie, because it isn’t a movie.
It must be considered as it is: a gimmick. A brilliant gimmick, for sure.
If the movie studio wanted to spin a yarn about mythical beasts, epic battles, homicidal sea captains, and a pagan Earth god, they could have done so. They could have called it anything. They could have told their own story. But they called it Noah because they knew that the supposed connection to the Bible would garner immediate fascination. They knew there would be controversy, and controversy sells.
They padded it with enough action movie clichés to draw interest from secular crowds, they hid the outright blasphemy well enough to please gullible Christian crowds, and they mocked Biblical theology blatantly enough to delight the critics.
They came up with a way to make millions while exploiting the various sensibilities of different audience demographics.
That was their first and primary intention, and in it they succeeded wildly.
As an adaptation or retelling of Judeo-Christian theology, it’s a blatant mockery.
As a film, it’s like the script for a Syfy Network miniseries got shoved into a blender with the treatment for a Lifetime channel made-for-TV movie and then mixed with enough moping nihilism and environmentalist sermonizing to fool pretentious elitists into using words like ‘daring’ and ‘relevant’ when describing it. In other words, it’s aggressively abysmal.
But, as a money-making ploy, it’s a downright masterpiece.

miércoles, 26 de marzo de 2014

World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

(UPDATED) President Richard Stearns: 'Certain beliefs are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs.'

Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber/ Christianity Today

World Vision Reverses Decision To Hire Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

Only two days after announcing it would hire Christians in same-sex marriages, World Vision U.S. has reversed its ground-breaking decision after weathering intense criticism from evangelical leaders.

"The last couple of days have been painful," president Richard Stearns told reporters this evening. "We feel pain and a broken heart for the confusion we caused for many friends who saw this policy change as a strong reversal of World Vision's commitment to biblical authority, which it was not intended to be."

"Rather than creating more unity [among Christians], we created more division, and that was not the intent," said Stearns. "Our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake … and we believe that [World Vision supporters] helped us to see that with more clarity … and we're asking you to forgive us for that mistake."

"We listened to [our] friends, we listened to their counsel. They tried to point out in loving ways that the conduct policy change was simply not consistent … with the authority of Scripture and how we apply Scripture to our lives," said Stearns. "We did inadequate consultation with our supporters. If I could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders."

"What we are affirming today is there are certain beliefs that are so core to our Trinitarian faith that we must take a strong stand on those beliefs," said Stearns. "We cannot defer to a small minority of churches and denominations that have taken a different position."

"Yes, we will certainly defer on many issues that are not so central to our understanding of the Christian faith," he said. "But on the authority of Scripture in our organization's work [and employee conduct] ... and on marriage as an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman—those are age-old and fundamental Christian beliefs. We cannot defer on things that are that central to the faith."

Stearns expects the board to continue to deal with questions about employment and same-sex relationships. "I think every Christian organization will continue to deal with this sensitive issue," he said. "The board will continue to talk about this issue for many board meetings to come. ... We need to have a process to do further and wider consultation with key Christian leaders around the country, and we will be discussing how that can happen."

Today's letter explaining the reversal (posted in full below) was approved by the entire board, Stearns said. [Editor's note: All references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

The initial decision faced heavy backlash from the evangelical community with only some voicing support for the decision. The day after the announcement was made, the Assemblies of God, one of America's largest and fastest-growing denominations, urged its members to consider dropping their financial support from World Vision and instead "gradually shifting" it to "Pentecostal and evangelical charities that maintain biblical standards of sexual morality."

"The U.S. branch of World Vision has placed Pentecostal and evangelical churches in a difficult position," said George O. Wood, general superintendent of the 3-million-member AG. "On the one hand, we applaud the work they do among the poor in America and around the world, and many churches have supported that work financially for some time. On the other hand, World Vision's policy change now puts them at odds with our beliefs regarding sexual morality."

On Wednesday night, Wood encouraged "Pentecostals and evangelicals who hastily canceled their sponsorship of children in World Vision programs to immediately reinstate that support in order to ensure continuity of care for the poor children whom Christ loves."

Stearns acknowledged Wednesday [March 26] that "a number" of child sponsors canceled their sponsorship in the past 48 hours in protest of the change to World Vision's conduct policy.

"That grieves us, because the children we serve will suffer because of that," he told reporters. "But our choice is not about money or income. It's a sincere desire for us to do the right thing. To be consistent with our core values, and to respond to the legitimate feedback and counsel we have received from supporters and friends of World Vision."

World Vision had hoped to take what it described as a neutral position in the gay marriage debate by deferring it to the local church. The changed policy still required singles to remain abstinent and married couples to maintain fidelity, but no longer limited marriage to heterosexuals.

"They were not taking a position," said Tim Dearborn, who previously oversaw how World Vision's Christian commitments were implemented across its international partners. "They weren't intending to take a position supporting same-sex marriage or homosexuality."

More than 2,000 of the 1.2 million children sponsored by World Vision U.S. had been dropped between CT's first reporting of the decision and Tuesday afternoon, according to a tweet by Ryan Reed (he credited his wife, who works at World Vision, with the information; the tweet has since been deleted). But it was not clear whether those numbers were a net loss or had been offset by new donors, said former World Vision staffer Ben Irwin.

"Assuming the '2,000' figure is accurate, that amounts to just under two-tenths of one percent of all kids sponsored through World Vision U.S.," Irwin wrote. "But this was never about percentages. This is about real lives. It's about kids in impoverished communities who just became pawns in our culture war."

Approximately $567 million of World Vision's more than $1 billion budget comes from private contributions, according to its 2012 annual report.

Some supporters took on additional sponsorships in support of the decision. Kristen Howerton, a professor of psychology for Vanguard University and popular blogger, organized a fundraiser with the goal of getting 100 children supported to help make up the difference. She accomplished her goal in a day.

She said she made the decision after seeing hundreds of comments on social media from people vowing to drop their support. "I think people's reactions have been pretty swift in condemning World Vision in placing them outside the fold of evangelical Christianity," she said.

John Huffman, who was a World Vision board member for 26 years, is a fervent supporter of the work Stearns has done. He told CT his "high point" on the board was hiring Stearns, and this was the first time the two men had disagreed. But Huffman called the previous decision to change the employment policy "unwise" on every front. "It lacks of wisdom in terms of biblical, theological, moral, cultural, and strategic implications to the organization," he said.

Strategically, it would have alienated many evangelicals, which make up the majority of World Vision supporters. Given that World Vision has kept such a strong evangelical identity, it's unlikely to attract people from the other side of the fence, said Huffman, who is [full disclosure] board chair for Christianity Today as well as Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

"I don't think it's going to help the institution," he told CT before today's reversal announcement. "I don't think there are going to be other people on this organization that are going to be attracted." (After today's announcement, Huffman told CT, "I'm very relieved and very grateful for the decision of the board to reverse their position.")

Dearborn said that World Vision U.S.'s relationship with its partner organizations also played a role in today's decision. "There's an effort on the part of World Vision U.S. not only to be subject to the authority of Scripture, but also to be sensitive to being a member of an international partnership," he said. "There are 50-some World Visions in the world. Especially in Africa and Asia, the position World Vision just rescinded would have been troublesome."

Stearns reached out to those partners in World Vision's announcement of the reversal, asking for forgiveness:

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

To Stanley Carlson-Thies, president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, World Vision's controversial decision is a good opportunity for similar organizations to consider their own stances.

"I think it's probably good that other organizations have to face that decision, because it's all around us," he told CT before the reversal. "I would hope that organizations use this as an opportunity to think about their own policy, not just follow the leader."

Here is the full text of World Vision's announcement today:



lunes, 24 de marzo de 2014

Does Mormonism Really Teach That Faithful Mormons Receive Their Own Planets?

Does Mormonism Really Teach That Faithful Mormons Receive Their Own Planets?

By Keith Walker , Christian Post Guest ColumnistMarch 18, 2014|4:54 pm


Keith Walker

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently published an article on its web site titled, "Becoming Like God." This is the latest of a series of articles meant to explain some of the more controversial doctrinal and historical problems faced by the Mormon Church today. This article has created a great deal of interest in the media. A good number of well known papers have posted articles regarding this matter, most of them giving the impression that the LDS Church really does not teach this doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I was researching this topic I happened to see a comment of one of my former Mormon friends on Facebook. He quoted an official Mormon Church Teaching manual which states, "President Spencer W. Kimball said in a general priesthood meeting: 'Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.'" (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, 2001 p.358)

This is hardly an isolated quotation as this doctrine is taught in numerous Mormon Church teaching manuals at every level. Mormon children as young as four years old are taught;

"'Each one of you has it within the realm of his possibility to develop a kingdom over which you will preside as its king and god. You will need to develop yourself and grow in ability and power and worthiness, to govern such a world with all of its people." (A Parent's Guide Chapter 4: Teaching Children: from Four to Eleven Years)

Gospel Fundamentals is a teaching manual designed in part for family study. This manual teaches the same doctrine when it says;

"To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done." (Gospel Fundamentals, 2002, p. 201)

This same idea is taught in a revised edition of a manual designed for Mormons in the military.

"An essential requirement for exaltation is celestial marriage, for exaltation depends upon the continuation of the family in eternity and the power to populate other worlds as our Father did this one." (Principles of the Gospel, 1990, p.161)

The current manual for College aged adults is called "Presidents of the Church." There is both a Student and Teacher's manual. The teacher's manual on page 82 instructs teachers to write down a couplet authored by fifth president of the LDS Church, Lorenzo Snow. That couplet reads, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Teachers are also instructed to have students read a portion of the Student manual titled, "They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them" which begins on page 90.

This section states;

"Only a short time before his death, President Snow visited the Brigham Young University [then Brigham Young Academy], at Provo. President Brimhall escorted the party through one of the buildings; he wanted to reach the assembly room as soon as possible, as the students had already gathered. They were going through one of the kindergarten rooms; President Brimhall had reached the door and was about to open it and go on when President Snow said: 'Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?' Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. 'That is very interesting,' the President said. 'I want to watch them.' He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said:

"'President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods.' " (Presidents of the Church Student Manual: Religion 345, 2013, p.90-91)

The Teachers manual then instructs teachers to ask students two questions, "How does this doctrine help you understand the purpose of your life?" and "Why do you think this doctrine is sometimes difficult for people to accept?"

What is interesting is that the Teacher's Manual makes it clear that this portion of the student manual is to be emphasized. In both questions the teacher is instructed to ask students about this doctrine.

While it is clear that Mormons are taught this doctrine privately, it is also equally apparent that they deny it publicly. The LDS Church has a web site designed to answer Frequently Asked Questions. One question is, "Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will "get their own planet"? It answers in part, "No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine."

How can they say these are speculative comments unreflective of doctrine when we have just examined numerous official Mormon teaching manuals which state the opposite? The answer to that question is implied in the second question in the Teacher's manual quoted above. They realize that this doctrine is difficult for people to accept so rather than explain it, they simply deny it. At least publicly.