Normally I wouldn’t recommend this . . .

. . . but I encourage Bible-believing Christians to visit the Sojourners’ blog and comment there.   Yes, I know they are led by Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and they live a lie each day, pretending to be centrists — and Christians — when they are really to the left of the Huffington Post.

But oddly enough they are letting Bible-believers post comments now without moderation.  I’m not sure if it is because they moved to a Facebook comment format or if their moderators changed.  Either way, there are several solid commenters there and we often outnumber the Leftists!  So be sure to visit and comment or at least “like” the comments you agree with.  It is great to know that visitors who read the comments will see some balance and the truth.

The commenters are often used to an echo chamber (they know that Sojo is really a Leftist front) so they go into full freak-out mode when their assertions are politely but thoroughly debunked.  I have had multiple theological Liberals get so frustrated with having their arguments annihilated that they deleted entire threads that they started!  Think about that: If you were winning a debate would you delete the thread?  It just happened again on this post where a Leftist calling God a “she” was referring to Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, etc. as Christ-followers and great theologians.  I need to start copying those before they get deleted!  (Unfortunately, if the originator deletes a comment then the replies go with it.)

So be your usual polite, fact-based, Bible-based selves and weigh in when you have time, or at least “like” the comments you agree with.  It is a great opportunity to stand up for the truth and expose their dark, anti-biblical views.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners: Still a false teacher

When my youngest daughter was taking a Jr. College class on government during her last year of high school (home schooling), she asked if I had ever heard of Jim Wallis.  Apparently her textbook had an extended quote by him.  We are blessed with daughters that have outstanding discernment, so I was overjoyed but not surprised that even in a Liberal class and textbook she saw that he was a fake.

I’d say he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing but he’s so far gone that I think he took of the sheep’s clothing.  Must have gotten too warm.  In a move that should surprise no one, he just switched to supporting oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”  He, like Rob Bell and others, waited until the precise moment that it would profit him to “change his mind.”

Of course there was no substance to his change, just blather about strengthening marriage (another lie).

“We are losing marriage in this society. I’m worried about that – among low income people, but all people. How do we commit liberals and conservatives to re-covenanting marriage, reestablishing, renewing marriage?”

When The Huffington Post asked Wallis to clarify if that meant he specifically supports same-sex marriage, Wallis answered, “yes.”

Isn’t that special?  He has taken it upon himself to do the opposite of what God said and act like he’s just trying to help marriages.  It has nothing to do with maintaining his popularity!

More about Wallis:

From a January 13, 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices:

Host: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

Wallis: Absolutely, without any hesitation.  That’s what the Gospel is all about.

Run, don’t walk, from people like Jim Wallis.

This is what a fake church looks like

Short version: Fake churches don’t preach on Jesus, they glorify flawed humans.  They invite sexually perverse politicians to their pulpits to “preach.”  There is some good news here, though.  With churches like this you have absolutely no excuse about knowing whether they are legitimate or not.  If you follow people and churches like this then you get what you deserve.  I sometimes feel sorry for those taken in by wolves in sheep’s clothing, but not for wolves like this guy who got too warm and took the sheep’s clothing off.  It is like they aren’t even pretending to be Christian any longer.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to describe the upcoming “worship” services at the two denominations he serves (UCC and UMC).

The people of University Park Church and Sunnyside Church invite you to celebrate The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Sunday on January 20th at University Park United Methodist Church (worship begins at 9:30 am). Our special guest that morning will be new Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek. A reception in Speaker Kotek’s honor will be held following the service where she will make brief remarks about her agenda in the Legislature and will answer questions.

The regular worship service at Sunnyside Church will not be held on January 20th so that members can worship at University Park Church.

Speaker Kotek “will be the first openly lesbian lawmaker to lead a state legislative chamber in the U.S.,” notes The Huffington Post.

Got that?  Combo “worship” service led by a lesbian politician.

“We consider this a great victory for the civil rights of all Oregonians,” says Rev. Currie. “As we celebrate the work of Dr. King and reflect on his unfinished agenda for equality of all, regardless of race or creed, along with his work to fight poverty and end war, it is right and proper to honor Speaker Kotek’s accomplishment.”

First, sexual preferences are not civil rights.

Second, as flawed as King was, I am not aware of him being pro-LGBTQ.   Seems like more than just poetic license to claim that he was on your side of this issue.  Currie was caught before claiming King was pro-abortion because he spoke favorably of Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood was still anti-abortion at the time.  Just more revisionist history.  Seems to me that King might have been upset that abortions kill blacks at a rate 3x that of whites and that people like Currie and his denominations support the Democrats’ plan to take that even higher with taxpayer-funded abortions.

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.

Epic fail on ending homelessness

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie wrote an op-ed in The Onion (oops, I meant the Oregonian) about Ending Homelessness.  While I appreciated his concession in the title (“Plan after well-meaning plan in the region misses the mark, failing to address root causes”), the piece reads like a self-parody.  Here’s my paraphrase: “We’ve had several expensive, decade-long programs to end homelessness and the situation keeps getting worse, but the programs really helped a lot, and we just need to spend lots more and then everything will be fixed!  Oh, and we need to take other people’s money by force to make that happen, because Jesus said to!”

Read it yourself and see what I mean.

He appealed to our need to be our “brother’s keeper.” But does that apply here?  That term occurs in Genesis 4:9 (Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”).  Most people will note that Cain was referring to his literal brother, not all of humanity. Also, he didn’t say it in reference to being his brother’s caretaker. He had murdered Abel and was basically giving the original version of the smart-aleck response, “It wasn’t my day to watch him.”

So once again Chuck mangles the Bible to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion agenda.  He picks a verse that he thinks backs up his point, but he has already mocked the Bible in whole and in part, so why should we take him seriously when he takes a verse out of context to use as a trump card?

This comment seemed a bit hypocritical, considering how Chuck mocks the traditional (read: real and biblical) view of marriage and is pro-legalized abortion:

This rhetoric has found expression in the tea party movement, which rejects traditional religious understandings of justice and compassion and has left even progressive politicians timid.

Yeah, theological liberals are all about traditional religious understandings!  Didn’t the early church fathers take their 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades, just like Chuck describes on his blog?  Weren’t they pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer funded abortions, just like Chuck & Co.?

I’m all for helping widows and orphans and the truly needy, but I prefer to do it with my own money (We’ve supported the Star of Hope homeless ministry for years, among other things).  And if I cite Bible verses to support my views, I use them in context, and I don’t force them on non-believers. Chuck did the opposite of all of that.

Chuck’s version of Jesus has him telling us to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A by force (i.e., taxes) to “give” to neighbor B, even if it puts neighbor B and his descendants in semi-permanent bondage to the government.

One of the common sound bites pro-legalized abortionists like Chuck use against pro-lifers is this: “You shouldn’t complain about abortion if you aren’t going to adopt all the kids!” That argument fails on many levels, but it only seems fair to ask Chuck how many formerly homeless people he is currently housing.

I wonder why Chuck doesn’t apply the “brother’s keeper” line of thinking to the unborn?

If Chuck really wants to solve homelessness he needs to switch political parties. One example: We need to drill for more oil. That not only provides lots of high paying jobs but it lowers energy costs and the costs of nearly everything else people buy — thus helping them stay in their own homes!

Also, the increase in the minimum wage always reduces jobs for young black men, whose unemployment rate sits at 40%. Thanks, Chuck & Co.!

We also need to teach comprehensive sex education, but not in the way Chuck & Co. use that term. I mean telling kids that if they don’t have sex out of wedlock and get a high school degree, their chances of being poor or homeless are very, very low. But if they do the opposite their odds skyrocket. But the Left is too busy supporting Planned Parenthood’s failed program of encouraging kids to have allegedly consequence-free sex when they are “ready,” which, shockingly enough, is right about the time when they want to have sex!

Oh, and you could teach the Biblical model — again, the opposite of what Chuck teaches — and tell them that God designed sex for one man and one woman in a life-long commitment. The odds of that resulting in homelessness is also very, very low.

Side note: I like Oregon Live for allowing an actual discussion. Chuck also writes at the Huffington Post and they censor opposing views, regardless of how politely they are expressed.  I was very encouraged by how the other commenters took Chuck to task — there is hope for Oregon!

We’d all like to reduce homelessness.  The question is whether we’ll come up with adult solutions that actually improve the situation, or whether we’ll ignore those and just tell the government to fix it — with someone else’s money, of course.