Category Archives: inclusion doctrine
All the evidence proves the case over and over. Every single time a denomination, church or religious group has allowed the existence of a “gay christian” entity within its spheres of influence division, rebellions, chaos and war ensues. It should be a stark warning to those organizations and church leaders observing the current hostile takeover of those carrying this spiritual virus to protect themselves, but it continues. Too bad we don’t have the spiritual equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control to warn churches of the high risk of accepting gay theology, but I digress. The only good thing that has come out of it is that the mainline denominations who are turning are also in the process losing much more than they gain. See here, here and here. For the sake of a few homosexual religion-mongers, the churches are losing millions of members, influential congregations, prolific speakers and leaders.
The latest announcement comes from well known pastor and author Kevin DeYoung who writes that his church University Reformed Church had voted almost unanimously to leave its parent organization over its acceptance of homosexuality among other equally serious issues.
On April 27, 2014, University Reformed Church (URC) voted 282-9 in favor of leaving the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and affiliating with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
The following Wednesday, the consistory of URC voted unanimously (14-0) to file a petition with the Classis of South Grand Rapids that we might leave the RCA with all our real and personal property and join the Presbytery of the Great Lakes in the PCA.
For the past three years, our church has wrestled with our place in the Reformed Church in America. We have prayed, studied, strategized, spoke, listened, prayed, asked questions, explored options, tried to discern what is in the best interest of the Kingdom, and prayed some more. We did not come to this decision lightly.
And this decision on our part does not mean that we have already left the RCA. Now that our petition has been filed, we will enter into a formal process with the classis—a series of meetings and reports which will take place over the next 6-8 months, as spelled out in detail by our Book of Church Order. We anticipate a final vote on our petition sometime in the first part of 2015.
This painful revelation comes on the heels of another announcement in April. The mortally wounded United Methodist church is facing an imminent major division over the bull headed desires of its leadership to sell the denomination out to a few religious homosexual activists. The same brutal struggles follow until there is no choice left but to leave these people to wallow in the mud they have created.
That decision didnt come after a long period where Methodist leaders despite, strong words on paper, didn’t follow their OWN laws when it came to homosexuality. The results were quite predictable. Amy Frykholm writes in the Christian Century:
A similar legislative move transpired in 1984. This time, the General Conference was considering qualifications for ordained ministry. A proposal from the floor led to the adoption of this statement: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed, practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.”
These two changes ushered in an era of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for United Methodist clergy. Many gay and lesbian clergy were, in fact, ordained over the next 20 years. As long as they were not vocal about their sexual orientation and no problems emerged in congregations, many bishops and district superintendents chose to ignore the language in the Book of Discipline. According to Scott Campbell, a pastor in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “The preferred style of bishops and district superintendents was: if you don’t embarrass me publicly, I won’t embarrass you.”
Activism on the issue did not cease. Some clergy announced their sexual orientation or performed same-sex ceremonies, and some were dismissed from ministry. In 1996, 1,300 United Methodist clergy signed a letter urging the General Conference to grant full acceptance to gays and lesbians. “We believe it is time to break the silence and state where we are on this issue that is hurting and silencing countless faithful Christians. We will continue our responsibility to order and discipline of the church but urge our United Methodist churches to open the doors in gracious hospitality to all our brothers and sisters in the faith.”
Unless church leaders hold fast to scripture‘s admonition to put out individuals who continue to undermine the unity of our faith, they might as well expect the same. Their churches and organizations will be torn asunder by those who come in the name of “love and acceptance.”
A very good read and alternative perspective on Rev. Samuel Rodriguez’ Imago Dei campaign. The religious PR effort was launched to widespread fanfare, but all is not what it seems according to Dr. Robert Gagnon, a top Christian theologian. Rodriguez said his intent was only to end the “rhetorical bullying” and facilitate “redemptive and reconciliatory” interactions — not to “condone any behavior” or “endorse anything that runs counter to a biblical worldview.”
Although he drops a new social buzzword, Rodriguez doesn’t provide any examples of “rhetorical bullying”. For instance is it “rhetorical bullying” to say publicly that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Or is he referring to the Westboro Baptist Church?
The ID campaign’s ideology also includes a fair measure of diaprax. Diaprax is an emergent church concept which attempts to forge unity between believers and nonbelievers under a false banner.
Writing in the Christian Post, Gagnon acknowledges the campaign as “well meaning, but flawed”. In particular the ID tries to hard to diminish the severity of homosexuality by couching it as some benign social disparity like the homeless. The problem is that ID is more about —as a previous article stated— converting Christians on the issue of homosexuality than it is about converting homosexuals by the gospel of Christ.
The ID seems to be a religious version of the famous Rodney King line “Cant we all just get along?”
I appreciate the fact that this “campaign” apparently continues to view homosexual practice as sin (though in extremely muted tones) and that it wants to promote love for those who engage in it. However, its half-orbed message that “the image of God exists in all human beings: black and white; rich and poor; straight and gay; conservative and liberal; victim and perpetrator; citizen and undocumented; believer and unbeliever” is flawed.
It lumps together very different categories. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about ethnicity, social status, party affiliation, citizen status, or even the mere experience of sexual attractions to do what God forbids.
I have a suggestion: In order to make clearer the message that affirmation of one’s creation in the image of God does not lead to support for all behaviors, the organizers of the campaign should add something more explicit like: “serial pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and the people they victimize.
The framers of the document probably won’t be amending anything they wrote but in case they are interested in comprehensive critique, here it is:
(1) It appears to regard a strong expression of disapproval of homosexual practice as equally at fault with a strong expression of its approval.
(2) It fails to address the crucial point that homosexual activity, like egregious immorality generally, threatens to mar the image of God stamped on people, dishonoring and degrading what God created in his image by treating another’s gender as only half intact in relation to its own sex.
The theme of marring the image of God is clear enough from Genesis 1:27 where the proclamation of the Imago Dei is immediately followed by an implicit affirmation of a male-female requirement for sexual relations: “In the image of God he created [the human] / male and female he created them.” It is clear too from Romans 1:24-27 where Paul speaks of the “dishonoring” or “degrading” effect of males having sex with males and females with females, with Gen 1:27 echoed in the background.
(3) This “campaign” will do nothing to stifle the advance of coercive and abusive homosexualism in this country but may deceive many faithful Christians into silencing their own resistance to this advance as incompatible both with a positive proclamation of “a relationship with God … through Christ” and with “loving actions,” as mere “rhetorical bullying” and “polarizing rhetoric” toward the “marginalized” and the “oppressed.”
As Gagnon pointed out the false unity espoused by the ID is a sad reality of the contemporary church’s lust to hold hands with sinners in an attempt to make them comfortable and less resistant to the church’s “love is all we need” message. It is an epic failure. Offering sinners love and friendship while treating truth like a red-haired stepchild, is a grave disservice to their souls.
The Imago Dei hasn’t moved any mountains. Homosexuals and liberals have had a blase reaction to it. The only ones who seemed to be celebrating its release are Christians who desperately want the homosexual community to accept them. Like its predecessors, the Covenant of Civility , the Manhattan Declaration and the abominable Affirmation Declaration, the Imago Dei campaign will become another sad example of failed religion attempting to circumvent the Great Commission.
The religious left’s invitation to “dialogue” is more than enough reason to refuse it. The religious left is made of a compendium of deceptive movements that have no intention of acknowledging the truth and authority of scripture. So what’s there to talk about?
In a prelude to his visit to Africa, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby issued a statement reminding Anglicans of the commitment the Church of England made eight years ago to the pastoral care and support of everyone, including homosexuals. But African Anglican leaders made no such covenant. Providing “pastoral care and support” is deceptive. What Justin Welby means is that they want homosexuals to be accepted as equal members of the communion WITHOUT having to repent of their sins like everyone else who desires the fellowship of the saints.
Its pastoral to tell homosexuals the truth and not lie to them about the eternal state of their souls should they reject God’s call to repentance. God loves everyone, but has been clear about his kingdom. Those who refuse to repent will not have part in it. 1 Cor 6:9-11. It is a pastor’s sacred duty to firmly convey this in love to all sinners, including homosexuals. That’s the real gospel of inclusion.
Kenya’s Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, chairman of the Global African Future Conference Primates’ Council, said the move would project the Church of England’s problems onto the communion as a whole.
“Without clear understanding of biblical authority and interpretation, such dialogue will spread confusion and open doors for false interpretation of the gospel,” said Wabukala in a pastoral letter. “I cannot commend the proposal.”
Wabukala termed the College of Bishops’ proposal deeply disturbing, given the intensive debate within the communion on the subject.
“The underlying problem is whether or not there is a willingness to accept the Bible for what it is, the word of God,” said Wabukala.
In Uganda, Anglican Archbishop Stanley Ntagali said in a statement that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture.
Archbishop Wabukala takes the same wise reasoning stance as Nehemiah. When there is no admission of submission to biblical authority on the part of the religious leftists, there is no basis for dialogue.
In the video clip, the demonic voice of archenemy Michael Bussee, his eyes almost glowing with anger, demands: ” The organization needs to shut down. Shut down! Dont tweak it. Shut it down!”