Est. May 2008

22 November, 2014

The Barn Door

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - Two homosexual men in North Carolina have filed a complaint against their United Methodist minister for refusing to “marry” them, stating that he has failed “to  perform the work of the ministry”.
Now, at first glance, this article might have you thinking, ‘Here we go – they said they wouldn’t force churches to perform homosexual marriages, and now we see they were lying’.

And the phrase ‘work of the ministry’ brings to mind that the United Methodist Church has some sort of mandate within their constitution which orders their ministers to perform such things.

Well, the UMC’s Book of Discipline is pretty clear on the subject:
The United Methodist Book of Discipline outlines that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” may not be ordained as ministers in the denomination.*It also forbids ministers from hosting or participating in “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions.”
If this is the case, the couple has no leg to stand on: the church makes it clear there will be no homosexual ‘marriage’ celebrated within the church.

There’s just one problem: the pastor has violated these rules before; the question is, why is he so concerned about following them now?

How’d he break the rules?  Well, by allowing one of the men of the couple to occupy ‘“the current chair of the Leadership Council”’; by allowing that same man to lead their ‘praise and worship portion of the service’, and by allowing the couple to become ‘engaged’ before the congregation ‘during a Sunday service’.

At least three times this pastor has flouted the rules.  At least three times he has celebrated homosexuality –and make no mistake, allowing an openly-active homosexual (read that as an openly unrepentant and unregenerate sinner) positions of power, influence, and importance within the church hierarchy is celebration.  It is also ‘incompatible with Christian teaching’.

So, why is he balking now?  I mean, he admits that ‘If there was any way for me to be a co-signer with the complaint, [I would]’.  But he ‘declined to officiate the ceremony because he feared the consequences’.

What consequences?  He’s broken the rules at least three times now, and in my opinion, it strains credulity that the United Methodist home-office is unaware of this.  If they haven’t punished him yet, why in the world would he think they’d punish him now?  That horse is our of the barn; it’s too late the close the doors now.

Preachers and pastors, it seems, have strayed from the idea that they do not get to pick and choose which rules out of their denominational or individual church’s Rule Books they will and won’t obey.  And this makes perfect sense, because Christians on the whole have strayed far from the idea that our Rule Book – the Bible – is also not up for picking and choosing.  If you’re a pastor or preacher, you follow the rules; if you’re a Christian, you follow the rules.  Of course, there will be times we louse that up, but thank God we’ve got a God who is longsuffering.

20 November, 2014

Five Words

People are already pontificating as to how Mr. Obama’s executive order granting amnesty to five million illegal aliens will impact the 2016 elections.

Let me save them the trouble.

In five words.


16 November, 2014

Imam In Da House

Bad enough that the Episcopalians allowed  this travesty; now we have this:
Islamic Imam Leads U.S. House of Representatives in Prayer ‘in the Name of Allah’
And of all those ostensibly-Christian members of the House, not one of them walked out.

Why would that have been important, you ask?  Quite simple:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (2 Corinthians 6:14-15, ESV)
Let me remind you of something else:
Legend has it that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the year 637, Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, invited the caliph Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Umar declined, explaining that if he did, the Muslims would convert the church into a mosque, as Muslim prayers had been uttered there.
Question: does this only apply to Muslim prayers in a church, or does it apply to any location where Muslim prayers are uttered?

If so, guess what?  The chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives, in the eyes of Muslims everywhere, is now a mosque.

Nice going, Mr. Boehner.

15 November, 2014

Conquering And To Conquer

In my previous post I mentioned, among all the other problems allowing an Islamic worship service to occur in the National Cathedral, this:
If that wasn’t bad enough, Robert Spencer, writing over at Jihad Watch, tells us:

Legend has it that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the year 637, Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, invited the caliph Umar to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Umar declined, explaining that if he did, the Muslims would convert the church into a mosque, as Muslim prayers had been uttered there.
And as much as I value and believe the writings of Mr. Spencer, et. al. regarding Islam, I know others do not; therefore I was looking for either a Muslim or an ex-Muslim to verify this claim.

I didn’t have to wait long: yesterday, Leo Hohman had an article at WND, in which he quotes Mark Christian, former Muslim, ‘whose father and uncle are Muslim Brotherhood members and whose great-uncle was one of its co-founders in Egypt during the 1960s’, who ‘cited a “conquering mentality” that is dominant among Muslim Brotherhood organizations.’
He said Islam has a “supremacy problem” based upon the idea that Islam has perfected the religions practiced by Jews and Christians.

“In Islamic tradition, supremacy is demonstrated to all by practicing Islam where Christianity or Judaism once reigned,” he said. “This is what animates the building of mosques on the holy sites of other religions. It is a conqueror’s philosophy.”

The decision to allow a Muslim imam to conduct an Islamic service from the altar of the National Cathedral in Washington is to Muslims the functional equivalent of Islam standing supreme atop Christianity in America “in our own house,” said Christian, who founded the Global Faith Institute in Nebraska and has been confronting an interfaith project in that city. (emphasis mine)
This brought to mind the information I read from Mr. Spencer, Ms Geller, and others regarding the Park 51 ‘victory’ mosque when it was in the planning and early stages of construction in the footprint of the Twin Towers; in an article dated 18 August 2010, Islamic expert Tawfik Hamid said ‘that many Muslims will view the construction of a mosque near ground zero as symbolizing a “triumph over America.”

Once again, it seems the Black Flag of Islam now flies – if only metaphorically – over what was once called the symbol of American Christianity.

And they didn't even have to use planes to do it this time.

12 November, 2014

Episcopalian Blasphemy

There was once a time when churches and the land they occupied was considered consecrated ground, holy to God.  This meant that no unGodly, un-Christian activities could occur there, on pain of condemnation, excommunication (should the actor be a fellow Christian) and, in some cases, death.  If something such as this occurred, there followed rituals (some elaborate) to cleanse the area of defilement and a re-consecration of the area to God.

Oh, how times have changed.