Chuck Currie claims to be a Christian Reverend but teaches the opposite of what Jesus did on virtually any spiritual topic. I’ve addressed his false teachings several times as well as documenting his status as an unrepentant serial liar and libeller. If he was just some lone heretic he wouldn’t be worth mentioning. But he is typical of liberal theologians and their bad reasoning.
But today he really went all out. This “Christian Reverend” was put off by Brit Hume’s simple premise that Tiger should turn to Christianity to be forgiven and changed. Chuck committed multiple fallacies in attacking Brit and abandoned any pretense of being a believer. Words like his mock the cross and the blood of the martyrs. Watch the video at the bottom then consider Chuck’s text:
FOX’s Brit Hume thinks that if Tiger Woods would become a Christian all would be ok for the disgraced golfer (whose hero image was destroyed by the uncovering of numerous affairs).
Hume simply stated that Buddhism doesn’t offer the forgiveness and redemption offered by the Christian faith. Hume thinks Christianity is true and recommends it. Chuck parades as a “Christian Reverend” but does not recommend Christianity. Think about that.
I’m not offended if leaders of other faiths think their religions are true. I think they are mistaken on the facts, but they don’t offend me. It would be bizarre if they didn’t think their beliefs were true. Why is Chuck offended by Christianity? He is truly ashamed of the Gospel (see Romans 1).
Kudos to Brit Hume for his witness. May all Christians be as clear and bold when given the opportunity to state the truth.
Woods, it seems, practices Buddhism. Why Hume thinks Christianity would make Woods a better person is a mystery to me.
Wow. Uh, maybe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Has Chuck ever read Romans, among other things? Oh, even if he has he wouldn’t believe it.
Just think of all the Christians we all know who have failed to live up to their martial vows (Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, etc.). Christians fail with the best of them.
1. Maybe they are fakes like Chuck. 2. If Chuck actually understood Christianity he’d know that we don’t claim to be sinless. We’re forgiven and then sanctified over time.
But Hume’s remarks also show a deep misunderstanding of Buddhism as a religion. His remarks were pretty darn offensive, in fact, and laced with ignorance. He asserts that Christianity is better than Buddhism but it is pretty clear he has no real understanding of this great world religion.
Only a false teacher could claim that it would be offensive to advance the religion he is paid to teach. Chuck, just be honest and switch to Buddhism if you think it is true. But Chuck doesn’t appear to understand Buddhism any better than he understands Christianity.
Jesus never referred to another religion as great. He said they were false. If a “Christian” states otherwise he is fake or ignorant.
But don’t just get irritated at Chuck. He’s fulfilling his job description:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Our real irritation should be aimed at the orthodox-but-wimpy Christian leaders who let people like Chuck in the pulpit.
P.S. The Christian faith is based on evidence and reason. The vast, vast majority of historical scholars, including skeptics, agree that a person named Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross, that his followers believed he rose from the dead, that Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer and that a man named Paul went from persecuting the faith to spreading it and that he wrote most of the letters attributed to him in the Bible. Based on those and other facts the physical resurrection is a logical conclusion. More here.
Given that these people build their houses out of bricks made of dichotomies, I honestly think that it would have been weirder if he’d praised Hume.
Pingback: What do left-wing Democrats think about Christianity? « Wintery Knight
As a born again believer since 1969, I’ve seen many people like the author of these posts who are so concerned with their version of Christian teaching that they miss the true essentials of faith, and particularly a godly humility. In all but one occasion, when Jesus lashed out angrily, it was at the religious establishment. You can imagine that with Chuck, but not in yourselves. You have erred from the great value in the Bible. You’ve stopped applying it to yourself and instead use it to point your finger at others. You see iniquity abounding and let your love grow cold because you aren’t heeding the instruction you read, because you are too busy pointing out the sins of others. You would rather throw the first stone. Rather, let it drop from your hand, pick up a mirror look in it carefully, and remember what you saw when you begin walking again. The writers and supporters of this web site are the ones in greatest need of repentence. I hope you have ears to hear.
Then why are you throwing stones at me? Do you not see your hypocrisy and inconsistency?
It is bizarre that you accuse me of missing he essentials of the faith when I’m the one defending them and Chuck et al are denying them.
Who says my love is cold? How is pointing out a false teacher unloving? Jesus and his followers did that a lot. Were they unloving?
Sent from my iPhone
Are you confusing humility with proper discernment and rebuke?
Not to be nit-picky, but is humility an “essential” of faith?
Are we to heed scriptures warnings of false teachers?
I for one, know I am raggedy and in need of repentence, pretty sure most of the posters here do as well. So justify how we have grown cold and are not applying scripture to our lives, when in fact, this site, IMHO, is devoted to upholding scripture and its teachings, part of which, is to be bold against false teachers.
This is funny. If you hadn’t made it clear that Neil was the object of your hatred (I’ll take the same licence you took in knowing the coldness of Neil’s heart, hope you don’t mind) I would have assumed that you were talking about Currie.
Check it out: I copied and pasted your comment and changed only five references, most pronouns for consistencies sake. How simply marvelous it must be to be your own reference point.
Similar story, just not as fallacy filled, making Chuck still number one on the illogical list:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-brown/2010/01/05/hypocrisy-preachy-pastor-tells-hume-not-be-preachy-wapo-piece
Dang those Christians who insist on witnessing:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2010/01/05/plans-tebow-pro-life-super-bowl-ad-may-irk-qb-s-critics
Chuck is a mess and a half, an enemy in the camp. What if a member of Obama’s cabinet went out and actively rallied against the president? What do you think would happen.
Chuck Currie=Benedict Arnold. Here’s an opportunity to exalt Christ and reccomend him to people riddled with sin and addiction (exactly what he died for) and you say its a “mystery”??? Stunning for a “Christian Reverend”.
The comment above by Christian believer makes me think of the blind leading the blind and indicating that it is good.
We were warned about flase teachers so that we might recognize them and avoid the traps they set.
Speaking against false teachers is not done from coldness of heart. For if the heart were cold, there would be no caring about them or their victims.
It is the love instilled by the Holy Spirit that makes us love our neighbors and want to see their eyes opened to the deceivers..
1 Corinthians 5:10-16 (New Living Translation)
10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer[a] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”[b]
flase teachers, I realy do proof read these things, I guess I am a little dislectic.
You, Neil, are one very patient man.
I’d have put Chuck in my rear-view mirror long ago and obscured him with a plume of dust.
Regarding the commentor “Christian believer”, I believe they felt it necessary to label themselves as such because they knew it wouldn’t be immediately obvious they considered themselves one based on the content of their comment.
As has been said many times before and much more eloquently too, a Christian is one who subscribes to the beliefs of Christianity, which are, for the most part, obvious and clear.
If one doesn’t want to subscribe to the views of Christianity, in this country particularly, they are more than free to subscribe to whichever beliefs they please and abide by the labels that would apply to them then.
Chuck is just such an easy example to demonstrate where Liberal theology takes you. Some theological Liberals aren’t so flamboyant and transparent with their false beliefs, but they hold the same heretical views. I consider it a public service to point them out so others don’t get sucked into fake churches like his.
I like this comment. Mr currie illustrates well how fluffy liberal christiaity is. The statements “I believe” and “I do not believe” are treated as identical statements because the content of liberal belief is entirely empty.
iPhone post.
Pingback: “The American idea of religious liberty does not forbid proselytization; it presupposes it” « Eternity Matters