“Marriage equality” and other wolf sayings

Here’s a recent example: Radical pro-abortionist and false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to use his church to mock God Romans 1-style (V. 32 – . . .they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.).

First, to state what will be obvious to people who don’t mock God and common sense, same-sex unions are not equal to real marriage.  By nature and design they can’t produce the next generation and they can’t provide a mother and a father to a child.  And they don’t meet the timeless definition of marriage: A union of a man and a woman.

I am not making this up: These pagans actually have a pre-LGBTQX pride parade “worship” service, where they are worshiping the god of this world and themselves.

Here are more examples of his blasphemy, via Marriage Equality Campaign In Oregon Kicks Off At Sunnyside Church.

Homosexuality is not a sin but bigotry and discrimination are.

Homosexual behavior is indeed a sin.  The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Chuck & Co. meet the definition of bigotry far better than any authentic Christian: big·ot – noun – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

And did you notice how Chuck must also consider Muslims to be bigots?  Hey, why doesn’t he call them out specifically?

Holy Scripture is used to deny gays and lesbians the most basic of civil rights protection in many communities, including employment protections, but such use of Scripture is theological malpractice.

How ironic to hear the judgmental term “theological malpractice” from a “reverend” who says Jesus is not the only way to salvation (he is so lacking in biblical knowledge that he didn’t know the Bible teaches that over 100 times — he thought it was just John 14:6 and he insisted that John didn’t belong in the Bible!).

Just a generation ago people used the Bible to oppose inter-racial marriages in the United States.

Those people got the Bible wrong, just like Chuck is doing today.  Skin color is morally neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.

Today the same theological arguments are employed to oppose marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

No, those aren’t the same arguments at all.

But Jesus never spoke of this issue.

The wolf tips his hand again.  Chuck doesn’t believe that Jesus is divine, so he thinks he can dismiss the entire Bible.  But it all turned out exactly as Jesus wanted it to, and even the “red letters” are on record with him approving of all the Old Testament.

And the “Jesus never said anything” argument fails on many, many levels.  Short version: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and homosexual behavior simply wasn’t a hot topic for 1st century Jews.  And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

What he did command was that we love our neighbor as we love God.  Legal discrimination against gays and lesbians is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

If you love God you won’t teach the opposite of what He commanded.  If you love your neighbors you won’t encourage them to participate in spiritually, emotionally and physically destructive behaviors.  Those advancing the concept of “marriage equality” love the world and themselves more than they love God and their neighbors.

It isn’t discrimination to point out that “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron that doesn’t require the government to sanction their relationships.

Run, don’t walk, from any false teachers playing the “marriage quality” card.  They are ravenous wolves.  And like Chuck, they don’t just mock God on this topic.  They deny the exclusivity and divinity of Jesus, they are radically pro-abortion, they deny the authority of scripture, and more.

Study the Bible and encourage others to do the same.  These fakes would have been run out of churches a long time ago if people actually read the Bible for themselves.  But they trust people like Chuck to tell them the truth!

* 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

The “social gospel” vs. the real Gospel

False teachers must not read the Bible, or they are so jaded that they pretend that they can be Leopard Theologians and just pick the spots they like.  Those who preach a “social gospel” should know that by definition they are now accursed:

Galatians 1:8–10 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

That seems pretty clear.  Preaching a gospel of one’s choosing isn’t just a little different, it is the opposite and a profoundly bad thing.  People like Jim Wallis who say that “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” are mocking this passage.

Yes, the real Gospel will lead to all sorts of good deeds.  But the good deeds aren’t the Gospel.  If you tell people that they must be good to be saved, that’s the bad news, not the good news, because we will always fail.  Without Christ, our good deeds are like polluted garments to God (Isaiah 64:6).

The real Gospel is Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead.  If we focus on sharing that, then transformed lives and cultures will follow and you’ll get all sorts of authentically good deeds.

1 Corinthians 15:1–11 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So if you really want to improve the world, share the real Gospel.

Should Christians seek to share the Gospel with Jewish people?

Of course they should, right?  What could be more obvious to believers?

Apparently it isn’t obvious to false teachers who write things like Can We Stop Trying To Evangelize Jews Now? (And make no mistake, most theological Liberals rationalize that we shouldn’t share the Good News with Jews.)

“I would argue that it inappropriate and deeply offensive for Christians to attempt to convert Jews or to misuse the Hebrew Scriptures and claim them as Christian writings.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

That’s odd, because Jesus tried to convert Jews, as did all the early Christians, including Paul. Should we listen to Chuck or to the early church and the Bible?

Does the apostate UCC and UMC, both served by Chuck, not include the Old Testament in their Bible? That’s what Chuck appears to be saying, but it is news to me. And I’ve seen Chuck (mis)quote the OT many times. I’m not sure why he is abandoning it now.

Paul was even willing to sacrifice his own salvation if it would save all the Jews:

Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ–I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit– 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Romans 10: 1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Chuck and other false teachers go wrong when they let fallacious illustrations like this trump the Bible:

Could you honestly tell a Jewish child being forced into the fires of a concentration camp that they are doomed to the fires of hell because they don’t accept Jesus as their savior?

They stack the deck by using the vague term child.  If we take that out so that we don’t muddy the waters with age-of-accountability questions, the answer is simple: Yes, I could honestly tell a Jew that they are doomed to Hell if they don’t repent and believe.  What was so hard about that? That is what the Bible teaches over and over, such as John 8:24 (“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”).  I realize that Chuck and the other false teachers sit in judgment of God and don’t like that truth, but it is still the truth.  Just because you die a tragic and unjust death doesn’t mean you weren’t a sinner in need of a Savior.  Only a non-believer could think that (allegedly) sparing someone a little angst about Hell right before they go there for eternity is some kind of good deed.

It is only in the perverse, God-hating world of theological Liberals that it is unkind to tell people how to avoid an eternity in Hell.

It is only the truly hateful, self-loving false teachers who would consciously deny the truth to people who desperately need it — Jews included.

False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  “Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

False teacher follow up

As I noted in The Westar Wolves broke my irony meter, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie used the Huffington Post to market the false teachers at the Jesus Seminar in The Bible Seminar: Rescuing the Text.  I made a comment that actually got through the far-Left leaning editors there.  I was merely pointing out that Chuck’s group believes the opposite of what authentic Christians do:

Just check out what Wikipedia says about these “Christian­” Jesus Seminar scholars: They deny the resurrecti­on, the deity of Christ, the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation (even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation)­, the inspiratio­n of the Bible (they claim it is just written by men, though it claims to speak for God over 3,000 times), and more.

They are welcome to their views, of course. I respect religious freedom and wouldn’t want anyone to stifle that. But I find it completely dishonest for Chuck and the Jesus Seminar to claim to be Christian when they disagree with so many essentials of the faith.

And then there is the hypocrisy: Their politics-d­isguised-a­s-religion is the same thing they claim to oppose. They twist the Bible to say that Jesus is fine with abortion, same-sex marriage, having the government take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B and calling it charity on your part, etc.

Usually Chuck knows enough to ignore me, because he can never back up his points and can only resort to personal attacks.  But he slipped and actually responded to me.

Note how he completely ignored my assertions and just resorted to personal attacks.  (BTW, I know that he probably thinks I attack him, but if you read carefully you’ll see that I always point to his content and errors and I back up my claims.  I don’t just say, “Chuck is ignorant.”  If I say he lied, I show where and how he lied.  If I say he got a Bible verse wrong again, I show what he got wrong.)

Perhaps the biggest symbol of ignorance is using Wikipedia as a source of informatio­n on theology. There is a reason middle school and high school teachers won’t let students use it as a source for papers.

But I’m not surprised this reference showed up here. It happens all the time. We need more than a third grade theologica­l education to debate these important issues and that is what is clearly missing in theologica­l debates over the meaning of the Bible.

You’ve illustrate­d the point that Biblical literacy is important.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

That was sweet of him.  Note how he implied that Wikipedia was wrong and used the entire comment to just attack me.  Here’s my response:

Chuck,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’m puzzled by the content.  I’m familiar with the limitations of Wikipedia, as most people are (including the fact that it leans Left), but I wouldn’t personally attack someone who referred to it as being the “biggest symbol of ignorance” and implying that he is biblically illiterate.  I would tend to dig deeper before making such claims.

Since you are an Associate Director at Westar, I figured you would be interested in what Wikipedia said about your organization and would want it to be accurate.

I think most readers will see that you implied that the Wikipedia information was incorrect.  Therefore, perhaps you can clarify a few things for us:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation?   (Note: It is public record that Chuck directly denies it.  He did a whole sermon on why Jesus is not the only way to salvation, even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation­.  I’m sure he’d be glad to link to the sermon here.)

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the writers claim?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentation of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia.

This is a great opportunity for you to clear up some confusion.  After all, if all the Wikipedia claims are in error, as you implied, and if Westar is all about increasing biblical literacy, wouldn’t you relish the opportunity to set the record straight about Jesus being divine, the only way to salvation, etc.?  I know the Bible teaches those things to be true.  I’m encouraged that your response implies that you do as well.

After a day he hadn’t responded, even though he was very active on an Oregon Live thread (so I know he was at his PC).  So I left this comment:

Chuck, are you going to respond? As a Westar Associate Director on a mission to “rescue the text” of the Bible I figured you’d welcome the opportunity to clear things up.

To recap, you implied that Wikipedia was incorrect about the Jesus Seminar beliefs. Wouldn’t this be a great place to clarify those?

You ignored my comment and insisted that I was ignorant for daring to refer to Wikipedia. Of course, I just used that reference out of convenience, because it mirrored everything I have ever heard from the Jesus Seminar.

So I ask again:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­­y of Christ for salvation, even though you preach the opposite?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the Bible writers claimed?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentat­ion of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia. You’ll want to set them straight as well. That’s how Wikipedia works.

Three days and still no reply from Chuck.

Kudos to HuffPo for not censoring my comments.  Yet.

Free birth control in schools? What could go wrong?!

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie uses his usual trick of telling you something is a moral obligation, even though he has no grounding for that — as if the Bible was full of advice on how to get sinners to (allegedly) sin more safely.  See Birth Control In The Schools? Providing Contraceptives Is A Moral Obligation:

The Oregonian tonight has posted a story about two Canby High School seniors, Hunter Mead and Peter Schultz, who are pushing a proposal to allow their school based health care clinic to provide “birth control in the form of pills, patches, rings or the Depo-Provera shot.”

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I want to applaud this proposal and thank the students who have put it forward.

Then he tries the “abstinence doesn’t work” canard, ignoring that the advent of Planned Parenthood philosophies overlaps the exponential rise in out-of-wedlock sex, STDs, poverty and abortions.

The thing that false teachers and other liberals like Chuck miss is simple human nature: Giving taxpayer-funded birth control to teens is an implicit and explicit message that you expect them to have sex. And guess what?  They’ll listen to the “we expect you to have sex” part and ignore the “but you must use protection” part.

And of course, these methods won’t protect children from many STDs and the emotional damage they’ll get.  But Chuck & Co. will be too busy releasing endorphins over how “loving” they are to care about that.

Does Chuck favor passing out clean needles because it is important to be safe when using drugs?  Is he one of those moronic parents that gives alcohol to kids and lets them  get drunk in his house because “they’ll do it anyway?”

Do these people think the parents have any right to know that their children are being given powerful drugs?  Would these schools let the children bring even an Advil with them to take on their own?

Also see “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”

Chuck Currie of Westar Institute breaks irony meter

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie was correct in pointing out the wrongs of those protesting Mars Hill church in Portland, but he misses the irony. See via The Mars Hill Church Portland Protest UnChristian:

About 20 protesters lined Southeast Taylor Street carrying banners and shouting obscenities as church-goers left when the service ended.

That’s business as usual for the pro-gay groups.  Emboldened by false teachers like Chuck, gay domestic terrorist groups are getting violent.  They know that politicians and police fear doing anything in response because they’ll be called “homophobes” and possibly lose their jobs.  Many gay pride parades — and presumably those that Chuck took his 6 yr. old daughters to — exhibit behavior that should result in arrests, but police look the other way.

And that:

The protesters, some of whom wore kerchiefs to cover their faces, shouted profanities at adults and children.

There could not have been a more ugly and inappropriate display.

Mars Hills Church preaches a messed up and warped version of the Gospel, no question.

LOL at false teacher Chuck calling Mars Hill’s Gospel warped just because they believe, correctly, that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Remember, Chuck is the guy who says Jesus is not the only way to salvation (despite the 100+ verses that disagree with him), the Bible is hopelessly full of errors, that Jesus is pro-abortion, etc. — and we’re supposed to care about his definition of the “real” Gospel?  (He’s part of the non-Christian Westar Institute that represents the “Jesus Seminar.”)

A quote from the newspaper:

“Shame on you bigots,” one woman yelled at worshippers as they left. “Shame on you homophobes. You’re not welcome here. You’re going to burn in hell.”

Sounds like Fred Phelps to me!  I wonder if the woman is a Democrat like Fred and Chuck?