Tag Archives: national council of churches

Christian worldview, Politics

False teachers want to control your guns

21 Comments

The National Council of Churches and other false teachers want to control your guns, and they do it under the guise of their religion.  See Want Guns In Your Church? The NRA And Their Allies Do for a recent example of their flawed thinking.

Like the National Council of Churches, I maintain that: “Present-day violence is made far worse than it otherwise would be by the prevalence of weapons on our streets.”  

That statement is true but meaningless: Yes, if all weapons were taken away, including knives, fists, etc. then there would be less violence.

But I’ve noticed that people who are willing to steal and kill don’t change their behavior because you tell them they aren’t allowed to have guns.  They get them anyway — sometimes straight from the U.S. Government!  (See the Fast and Furious scandal.)

We need sensible gun control measures in our nation to protect the American people from gun violence, a public health crisis.  

It is sadly ironic that they consider gun violence a health crisis but are pro-abortion, including pro-taxpayer-funded abortion.

The NRA and their politicans in Congress want to expand the “rights” of gun owners so that they can carry weapons into churches and school yards across the nation.

These false teachers are apparently too busy apologizing to Muslims to follow the news about how Christians are getting killed around the world, including violence in their own churches.  If someone wanted to kill Christians, what better place than a church on Sunday morning?  Are the killers going to care if there is a law against taking guns into churches?  I would be glad to have people armed and ready to defend the congregation.

Today The New York Times reports on the violence that has been caused by their victories at the state and local level.  People of faith and mayors are fighting back against the NRA.  As we approach the one year anniversary of the Tucson shootings it is time to double our efforts to stop gun violence in the United States.   

The NYT article was purely speculative and ignored how overturning gun control laws has reduced crime.

This is classically bad reasoning by the false teachers.  They claim to want to change people but consciously avoid sharing the real Gospel, which is the only biblical way to truly change hearts and minds.  Of course you can count the people who get hurt by guns, but what they fail to consider is the law of unintended consequences: What happens when criminals know the victims are unarmed?  Does that reduce or increase crime?  How about the lives saved because of people who could defend themselves?  And so on.

 

Christian - misc.

Good news about the National Council of (apostate) Churches

2 Comments

Time for some sweet, sweet schadenfreude: By good news about the NCC I mean bad news for them: NCC Nears Financial Collapse?

The once influential National Council of Churches (NCC) may again be approaching possible financial collapse.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Presiding Bishop told the NCC’s September board meeting: “We have 18 months sustainability.” All voting NCC board members were scrambling for “immediate sustainability,” mostly behind closed doors as they discussed the NCC’s audit and budget. Further highlighting the crisis was an interruption of the meeting by placard waving union employees distressed over benefit cuts to NCC staffers.

That is great: Union employees — which the NCC no doubt supports — are interrupting them when they are trying to survive.  Maybe the NCC will realize that the unions would rather the NCC fold than cut benefits to union employees, and that the union demands are part of the reason they are failing.  No, they probably won’t get it.

. . .

NCC member denominations, many of them losing members, like the United Methodists and Presbyterian Church (USA), continue to reduce their contributions. For instance, the UMC reduced from giving $543,265 last year to offering $ 442,404 this year. Some members like the Greek Orthodox Church and historic black denominations continue to give nothing or token amounts. The Orthodox Church in America, for example, contributed a mere $1,000 to the ECF Fund. Now, private donors are reducing contributions too.

Maybe it will occur to them that if their donors are having to make big cuts that perhaps they also don’t have more money to pay in taxes.  No, they probably won’t get that, either.  They’ll keep pushing Caesar to confiscate money from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B.

 . . . Trimming staff is proving to be one of the most painful experiences for the ecumenical movement.

Welcome to the real world, folks!  Businesses make tough decisions like that all the time.

Eventually, some important information rose to the surface as NCC President Rev. Peg Chemberlin and Women’s Ministry director Rev. Ann Tiemeyer both mentioned losing a million-dollar donor. Since last year’s budget was around $4 million, this cut is quite significant. Even the Aetna Corporation’s starter grant of $25,000 offered little encouragement.

Yes, even though the NCC is mainly politics disguised as religion so that false teachers like Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie can quote them as authorities, they get contributions from non-religious groups as well.  The NCC hides that information, of course.  That reminds me of how deceptive  Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis was in denying the large contributions to Sojourner made by atheist George Soros.  Why do these atheists care to prop up these leftist “religious” organizations?

At one point, the board broke up into small table groups to propose solutions to these besetting toils. One table, headed up by Bishop Mark Hanson and United Methodism’s Betty Gamble, even recommended the NCC take a “jubilee.” Under this plan, the NCC would withdraw from public activities and focus on fundraising. Many delegates pointed out that such a recess would negate any reasons for donors to contribute.

Please stop and  meditate on that.  These leaders, who probably have zero business experience, thought they should stop fulfilling their charter so they can spend a year asking for more money?!  Can you imagine a business doing that?  “Dear customer: I’ve run my organization into the ground, so please send me money for a year while I stop providing goods and services to you.”

Accentuating the tension was an interruption by the NCC staffers’ union, the Association of Ecumenical Employees, which marched into the board meeting waving placards. Ironically, the pro-union NCC has been trying to reduce retirees’ health benefits with its own union. It seems that contract negotiations have lasted nearly eight months, prompting distressed unionists to conduct their silent interruption, after which they quietly marched out.

I love it.

Amid the troubled finances, both Kinnamon and Hanson advocated the NCC rediscover its theological identity. As NCC President-elect Kathryn Lohre suggested, “It would be wise to see if we’re going through some kind of purification for the greater good.” But there were no talks about sin and salvation. Instead, most voices emphasized traditional NCC liberal political themes. Staffer Jordan Blevins, for instance, led a peace litany that read, “We pray our children pursue peace-vocations.” Also, a Children’s Defense Fund’s representative met agreement when she urged members to “make sure the rich and powerful contribute their fair share.”

It wouldn’t be an NCC meeting without a healthy dose of coveting and zero mention of sin and salvation!

In similar turn, female board members touted feminist activism while minority voices emphasized affirmative action.

Feminist activism = the right to destroy innocent yet unwanted human beings.  And this group claims to be Christian.

Kinnamon and Hanson want the NCC to focus on poverty issues (i.e. mostly touting government programs) for the moment. Hanson observed; “You can talk abstractly about ecumenism or you can join with those causes that are furthering the kingdom of God now” like Sojourners and the “Circle of Protection” protest against government welfare and entitlement spending limits. Kinnamon went on to say that the “Circle” is “not a matter on which we can be divided or silent.” At the conclusion of the frayed and frustrated gathering, a Quaker representative exclaimed: “Some new thing was trying to birth among us today…the new fire is not just for the young people. It’s among us and it just needs to be captured.”

They oppose corporate welfare?  Like what Obama gives GM, GE, Solyndra and so many others as political paybacks?

As senior NCC officials try to rally around traditional liberal political causes, many traditional Christians may ask what is so unique about such stances. If only offering a narrow set of political and economic policies, the NCC is merely slapping religious terms on liberal initiatives. Would the NCC’s removal from America’s religious landscape have any major consequence?

Short answer: No.

Christian worldview, Politics, Sexuality

What Jesus didn’t say?

14 Comments

I’ve been hearing the “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexual behavior, so it must be OK” argument a lot lately — and as usual, it is from people who should know better.  It is used to rationalize abortion to the child’s first breath as well.

Here’s an overview, though I encourage you to read it all.  Feel free to copy or link all you like.

  • Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy
  • Jesus is God, so He inspired all scripture — not just the “red letters” (the direct quotes of Jesus in the New Testament)
  • He supported the Old Testament 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 a devout Jew and upholder of the law, so the burden is on the pro-gay theology side: Where is that verse when Jesus condones homosexuality?
  • He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.)
  • Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews
  • He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah

For self-proclaimed Christians to (mis)quote the red letters and to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence is negligent and foolish.  They are distorting the Bible and hurting the church and its witness.

—–

cross3.jpgLifeSite News reported that Dr. Bob Edgar, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches, said “Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion.” He said this to CBS News at a gathering of liberal Christian leaders in Washington.

Sadly, this is a common sound bite from people who should know better. Their reasoning goes like this:

  • Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.
  • In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
  • Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.

There are many problems with this reasoning.

1. As you may have noticed, their logic goes off track in the first bullet.  Direct quotes of Jesus also didn’t specifically mention gay-bashing, slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, and many other sins, but they are still sins.  They are arguing from silence, and that is a logical fallacy.

Some insist that since Jesus didn’t specifically condemn oxymoronic “same sex marriages” that they must be permissible.  Jesus also never talked about square circles, partly because they don’t exist either.

2. Jesus is God (and anyone such as Edgar should know that), so He authored all the moral laws in the Bible – including the crystal-clear ones against homosexual behavior and murder. And He created the institution of marriage and desribed what parents should do, of which 100% of the verses refer to the ideal as a one man/one woman union.

3. Many of the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) referred to the “black letters” (the rest of the Bible).  Jesus noted in Matthew 5:17-19 that He supported all the law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

4. He may not have specifically mentioned abortion and homosexual behavior because they weren’t hot topics for his primarily Jewish audience.  Homosexuals were a tiny minority then just as they are now (less than 3% of the U.S. population) and the Jews had strict laws against such behavior.  Regarding abortion, Jews actually saw children as a blessing and not a curse, so they had no desire to destroy them.  I am not aware of any Jewish movements at the time advancing these behaviors as not being sinful.  Under no circumstances were these issues dividing the followers as they are today.

Having said that, Jesus was not silent on oxymoronic “same sex marriage.” He clearly stated what marriage was in Mark 10:6-9 and elsewhere, to the exclusion of other scenarios:

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

He describes exactly what the plan was, and doesn’t even hint at other possibilities. He didn’t say you couldn’t marry animals either, but I don’t see anyone saying bestiality must be acceptable because He didn’t specifically prohibit it.  So there was no silence.

Regarding abortion, He reiterated that we shouldn’t murder and noted that the real meaning of the command was deeper than the physical act.

Think about this: It took almost 2,000 years and a several decades long perverted sexual revolution that repeatedly denies and mocks the Biblical worldview of human sexuality plus a massive, well funded pro-gay public relations campaign to convince some liberals that oxymoronic “same sex marriages” should have government recognition and that abortion should be legal.  Yet liberal theologians think that it is something Jesus should have addressed in more detail back then?  Even the pagan Hippocratic oath had prohibitions against abortions until just recently.

Most people would concede that U.S.-style slavery was a moral evil, but since it is now illegal you won’t hear about it as a campaign issue in the presidential election.  But does that mean it isn’t important?  Does that mean the candidates wouldn’t address it if large parts of the population were seeking to legalize it?  Of course not.

Simply put, they were non-issues for the Jews.

5. If these liberal theologians are so keen on the direct quotes of Jesus and assume that they trump the rest of the Bible, why don’t they take them all as seriously as they do their pet verses or arguments from silence?

Jesus claimed to be the only way to salvation, but they not only ignore that but they teach the opposite.  He claimed to be God, but they tend to ignore that.  He spoke with a physically resurrected body but they often deny that.  He said his primary purpose was to save lost sinners and He taught about Hell a lot.  When was the last time you heard them preach on that truth?  And so on.

6. Those who use these arguments from silence don’t apply them to the rest of their pet topics.  Jesus said nothing about universal health care, for example.  Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus’ alleged silence only counts when it comes to abortion and homosexuality.  Jesus also never said not to stone gays.  Of course, those who know the Bible realize that was a law just for the Israelites, but if you want to use the argument from silence rationale, you’d have to support that for this culture.

7. He was a devout Jew and upholder of the law, so the burden is on the pro-gay theology side: Where is that verse when Jesus condones homosexuality?

—

So to summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus 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, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, He was a devout Jew who upheld the Law so the pro-gay theology people have the burden to show where he condones homosexual behavior and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.  Oh, and Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

For leaders like this to (mis)quote the red letters and to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence is negligent and foolish.  They are distorting the Bible and hurting the church and its witness.

Free jpg to use as you like!

silence

Uncategorized

Pro-abortion false teachers politicize tragedy by trying to restrict freedoms

Leave a comment

Never ones to miss an opportunity to profit from tragedy, the NCC and false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie are trying to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights.  The thing is, though that they are pro-abortion.  Over 3,000 innocent human beings were destroyed today and Chuck and the NCC are fine with that.

“Death and suffering from guns — legally and illegally attained — is virtually a daily occurrence in the cities and villages of this country,” Kinnamon said. “This latest tragedy in Tucson is just the latest reason we should reexamine how guns are so easily attained

“Ending Gun Violence: A Resolution and Call to Action by the National Council of Churches,” by is asking its members to add to note the number of rounds this weapon could hold. The organization has added to its Prevent Gun Violence Resolution a call for action to “decrease the firepower available to civilians by prohibiting high capacity ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.”

via National Council of Churches Renews Its Call For Control Of Guns and For Non Violent Discourse.

But why are the NCC and UCC mouthpiece Chuck Currie pretending to care about violence?  Abortion is far more violent than gunfire.  The victims died much more peacefully than the unborn who literally have their skulls crushed and limbs ripped off, all with the blessing of Chuck and the NCC.

The pro-aborts at Sojourner’s missed the point as well.

Uncategorized

Another NCC self-parody

Leave a comment

See Fighting Poverty With Faith Mobilization Concludes with Capitol Hill Briefing by false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.

The National Council of Churches (NCC) calls this “Fighting Poverty with Faith,” but virtually all their actions are political.  It is like saying, “I’m going to show my faith in God by appealing to Caesar.”

This effort is too large for any single church or religion, which is why the member communions of the National Council of Churches are so pleased to join with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and Catholic Charities in Fighting Poverty with Faith.

Note how weak their faith is: Their “god” (apparently not the one of the Bible) is so impotent that they need other religions to help out.

If they really wanted to help, they’d go teach Junior Achievement classes.

Or they’d just encourage kids to finish high school and not have sex before marriage.  If you do that you are very, very unlikely to end up poor.  But the fakes are too busy pushing Planned Parenthood-style “have sex whenever you are ready — and you get to decide when you are ready!” programs.

Does anyone know where the NCC funding breakout is?  My understanding is that as churches give less they have turned to Liberal political groups for funding, sort of like pro-abortion atheist George Soros helps fund false teacher Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis.

Uncategorized

False teachers unite with Communists for “One Nation Working Together” Rally

1 Comment

False teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and the UCC, which embraces spokesman like race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, united with a “Who’s who” of extremist organizations for the “One Nation Working Together” rally.  (See See Thousands Gather at One Nation Working Together Rally, Including Communist Party USA | The Weekly Standard.)

AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Planned Parenthood, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Council for La Raza, National Education Association, Sierra Club, Human Rights Campaign, People for the American Way, Americans for Democratic Action, Democratic Socialists of America, Institute for Policy Studies, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Win Without War, the American Muslim Association of North America, and Code Pink.

What a horrible collection of anti-God and/or anti-U.S. organizations.

If Jim Wallis was honest he’d quit pretending to be a centrist.

Mercifully, the United Methodist Church withdrew, but you get the feeling that the leaders didn’t really want to.  They just caved based on complaints from their members.

From the Religious left, Jim Wallis’s Sojourners was an endorser, despite Wallis’s relatively recently crafted image as a centrist, post ideological evangelical.  Predictably, Michael Lerner’s more unvarnished Tikkun/Network of Spiritual Progressives also endorsed the rally.  So too did the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ, made up of 1.1 million members.  Curiously, almost all the other liberal mainline denominations were missing, as was the National Council of Churches.

The 7.8 million member United Methodist Church’s lobby office was, until October 1, a prominent endorser.  “As people of faith, we deeply care about the issues of justice, education and jobs, and we feel those are issues facing society we have to address,” one Capitol Hill based United Methodist official earlier explained to the New York Times before the withdrawal of endorsement. “A march like this is something that hasn’t been accomplished since Dr. King brought people together in 1963 around issues of race, war, class and the right to decent pay and good jobs.”

Another official from the United Methodist lobby office, when the endorsement was still operative, told Religion News Service:  “All of these core principles [of the One Nation Working Together rally] are consistent with the core principles of the United Methodist Church.”  But publicity about endorsing a pre-election rally with groups like the Communist Party USA evidently did not excite enthusiasm from church members in middle America.

On Friday, the chief of the United Methodist office announced that his agency was “rescinding its endorsement” of the rally. Jim Winkler explained that his Board of Church and Society was “disturbed by some of the overtly political and partisan statements issued by organizers of the march.”

Uncategorized

Can Chuck Currie and the NCC get even one Bible passage right?

Leave a comment

As noted in False teacher Chuck Currie outdoes himself, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie got caught in his game of hypocritical race-baiting.  His premise was allegedly to call people to reason and discussion, but he tipped his hand when when accusing a pastor of being and anti-black racist.  It seems that Chuck couldn’t be bothered to check a pesky detail like the skin color of the person he sought to demonize (turns out the pastor was black).

As a bonus, Chuck parroted a wrong translation of a Bible passage by the National Council of Churches (NCC).  In fairness, fake Christians like Chuck and authentic Christians both take verses out of context at times.  We can all make mistakes and get a little sloppy.

But I’m trying to think of any that Chuck gets right.  He reads John 14:6 and preaches that Jesus is not the only way.  He uses the Matthew 25 “least of these” phrase in roughly every other post but doesn’t realize any of the following:

  1. That passage refers to Christian brothers, not just any poor people.
  2. Jesus wants you to help them with your own money as opposed to the Liberal tradition of taking the money of others by force to redistribute as you see fit and take credit for it.
  3. Chuck is wildly pro-abortion, which is irreconcilable with anyone caring about the “least of these.”

There are so many more.  His abuse of Isaiah 1:18 is just the latest.

The prophet Isaiah (1:18) declares God’s message to the people to “Come let us reason together”. This injunction might serve us well in the present moment.  Reason, (yakah), in this passage does not refer to a dispassionate meeting of the minds but, rather calls for convincing, persuading and presenting a case for a point of view. Vigorous, principled debate advances our thinking and clarifies the challenges before us. Respect for neighbor strengthens the fabric of our communities.

via Come, Let Us Reason Together: We Must Confront Racism With Directness & Reconciliation In Mind.

He pompously pretends to care about reason and problem-solving.  But let’s look at the context of this verse.  Even if you just look at all of verse 18 you’ll see that Chuck and the NCC have misapplied it.  Read the surrounding verses and their problem gets worse.

Isaiah 1:15–20 (ESV)

15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen;your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil,

17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;

20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

The verse and passage don’t give some generic advice for people to reason together.  God is telling sinful people to come to their senses and repent and believe.  Oh, if only Chuck and the NCC would preach that message!  But then, they’d have to believe it first, right?  And that is the problem: They are false teachers.  They pretend to be experts by quoting the Hebrew word for reason, but they miss the context of the word within the passage and even the verse.

What did they do here?  They just searched for the word “reason” and grabbed whatever verse popped up.  It makes them sound all “churchy,” I suppose, but it has nothing to do with the text.

What is worse is that Chuck uses it hypocritically.  He doesn’t want to reason with the other side.  He wants to be perceived as wanting to reason while continually playing the race card.  He is the one driving division.  If he told the truth then race-baiters like him would be out of a job.

Christian - misc.

Good and bad ecumenism

Leave a comment

cross1.jpgEcumenism is a movement promoting unity among Christians.  It is biblical in concept, given that Jesus prayed for believers:

John 17:20-23 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

But there is good and bad ecumenism.  If the unity is based on the essentials of the faith, that is to be encouraged.  But if it is gained by abandoning the essentials then it isn’t real or desirable unity.

Many times, such as with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the National Council of Churches (NCC), “unity” is achieved by watering down key doctrines.  Those organizations are virtually indistinguishable from radical left politics. 

But I’ve come across many excellent examples of ecumenism.  Interestingly, they were not founded on ecumenism but on a common desire for service, fellowship and worship.  When I step back and analyze them I can’t help but notice the diversity of denominations, ages, races, etc. of Christians united for good.  The following organizations come to mind:

  • Christians @ HP employee network group — we had lunch time Bible studies with a wide variety of people, yet denominational differences never got in the way.
  • Kairos Prison Ministry — people from many denominations unite behind the essentials and accomplish incredible things.
  • CareNet Pregnancy Center — you’ll find a variety of backgrounds helping to save lives now and for eternity.
  • World Vision and similar charities — millions are served by non-denominational, Bible-based organizations.

My advice is to focus on the essentials and living out authentic Christian lives, then ecumenism will follow.  But if you lead with ecumenism you’ll get weak, watered down organizations at best and may end up with something non-Christian.

Christian worldview, False teachers, Favorites, Politics

What Jesus didn’t say?

17 Comments

cross3.jpgLifeSite News reported that Dr. Bob Edgar, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches, said “Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion.” He said this to CBS News at a gathering of liberal Christian leaders in Washington.

Sadly, this is a common sound bite from people who should know better. Their reasoning goes like this:

  • Whatever Jesus did not specifically condemn in the Bible is morally permissible or unimportant.
  • In the Bible, Jesus did not specifically condemn abortion or homosexual behavior.
  • Therefore, abortion and homosexual behavior are morally permissible or unimportant.

There are many problems with this reasoning.

1. As you may have noticed, their logic goes off track in the first bullet.  Direct quotes of Jesus also didn’t specifically mention gay-bashing, slavery, drunk driving, child sacrifice, and many other sins, but they are still sins.  They are arguing from silence, and that is a logical fallacy.

Some insist that since Jesus didn’t specifically condemn oxymoronic “same sex marriages” that they must be permissible.  Jesus also never talked about square circles, partly because they don’t exist either.

2. Jesus is God (and anyone such as Edgar should know that), so He authored all the moral laws in the Bible – including the crystal-clear ones against homosexual behavior and murder. And He created the institution of marriage and desribed what parents should do, of which 100% of the verses refer to the ideal as a one man/one woman union.

3. Many of the “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) referred to the “black letters” (the rest of the Bible).  Jesus noted in Matthew 5:17-19 that He supported all the law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

4. He may not have specifically mentioned abortion and homosexual behavior because they weren’t hot topics for his primarily Jewish audience.  Homosexuals were a tiny minority then just as they are now (less than 3% of the U.S. population) and the Jews had strict laws against such behavior.  Regarding abortion, Jews actually saw children as a blessing and not a curse, so they had no desire to destroy them.  I am not aware of any Jewish movements at the time advancing these behaviors as not being sinful.  Under no circumstances were these issues dividing the followers as they are today.

Having said that, Jesus was not silent on oxymoronic “same sex marriage.” He clearly stated what marriage was in Mark 10:6-9 and elsewhere, to the exclusion of other scenarios:

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

He describes exactly what the plan was, and doesn’t even hint at other possibilities. He didn’t say you couldn’t marry animals either, but I don’t see anyone saying bestiality must be acceptable because He didn’t specifically prohibit it.  So there was no silence.

Regarding abortion, He reiterated that we shouldn’t murder and noted that the real meaning of the command was deeper than the physical act.

Think about this: It took almost 2,000 years and a several decades long perverted sexual revolution that repeatedly denies and mocks the Biblical worldview of human sexuality plus a massive, well funded pro-gay public relations campaign to convince some liberals that oxymoronic “same sex marriages” should have government recognition and that abortion should be legal.  Yet liberal theologians think that it is something Jesus should have addressed in more detail back then?  Even the pagan Hippocratic oath had prohibitions against abortions until just recently.

Most people would concede that U.S.-style slavery was a moral evil, but since it is now illegal you won’t hear about it as a campaign issue in the presidential election.  But does that mean it isn’t important?  Does that mean the candidates wouldn’t address it if large parts of the population were seeking to legalize it?  Of course not.

Simply put, they were non-issues for the Jews.

5. If these liberal theologians are so keen on the direct quotes of Jesus and assume that they trump the rest of the Bible, why don’t they take them all as seriously as they do their pet verses or arguments from silence?

Jesus claimed to be the only way to salvation, but they not only ignore that but they teach the opposite.  He claimed to be God, but they tend to ignore that.  He spoke with a physically resurrected body but they often deny that.  He said his primary purpose was to save lost sinners and He taught about Hell a lot.  When was the last time you heard them preach on that truth?  And so on.

6. Those who use these arguments from silence don’t apply them to the rest of their pet topics.  Jesus said nothing about universal health care, for example.

Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus’ silence only counts when it comes to abortion and (supposedly) homosexuality).

—

So to summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus 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, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.

For leaders like this to (mis)quote the red letters and to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from silence is negligent and foolish.  They are distorting the Bible and hurting the church and its witness.

Hat tip: RealChoice blog