Governor Newsom Using Bible Verses To Promote California's Abortion Services

And this guy might run for President!

From the Christian Post,

A new billboard campaign promoting abortion services in conservative states cites a Bible verse with the words of Jesus as an apparent endorsement. 

Newsom's tweet read in part: "To any woman seeking an abortion in these anti-freedom states: CA will defend your right to make decisions about your health." 

... a billboard image that reads: "Need an abortion? California is ready to help."
The billboard partially quotes Mark 12:31: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these." 

Funded by Newsom's reelection campaign, the billboard omits the context of the exchange in the previous verse, in which Jesus is asked by a scribe, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"

 Abortion, and its worship is the greatest commandment to Gov. Newsom, and that certainly is the opposite of ,

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." - Matthew 22:36–40

Of course this is the Governor of the state of California, a state that is trying to become a "refuge" for transgender teens.

One of his billboards showed up in downtown Columbia, SC near the State House.

I think the old story rings true that when God created the U.S.A., he tilted it on its side so that all the nuts would roll to California.

Who Says, "There Ain't No Hell"?

There once was a new couple in town out house hunting with a realtor. After being shown around the town the realtor asked what they thought. They asked, "Why do you have two First Baptist churches right across the street from each other?" The realtor replied, "They had a theological split. One  said, 'There ain't no hell', and the other said, 'The hell there ain't!'"

Many churches avoid teaching about a literal hell and its perils. They tend to put it like this, "Hell is separation from God." Lord Jesus was not shy about describing the realities of hell as related in this Sunday's reading from Luke 16:19-31,

‘There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.” But Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.” He said, “Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment." Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” ’

According to Jesus, hell sounds like a very real place, with torments and fire, and there is no crossing between heaven and hell.

Why won't revisionists preach it as He saw it?

It all started when "Adultery" became an "Affair"

Thanks everyone for bearing with me while I was away.

Ian Paul over at Psephizo recently wrote a review of  a book titled, "The Case against the Sexual Revolution" by Louise Perry which I found interesting, but I am certain that the general population of Western civilization will not.

Peter Wyatt writes: According to Philip Larkin, ‘sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three’. Until today, this sexual revolution, brought about by more effective forms of contraception, has been hailed as an emancipation of human beings. No longer were we subject to the restraints of traditional morality as policed by religious faith, and family mores. Instead, they could act according to our desires, to find pleasure and happiness in any way they saw fit. Why should society have any opinion on what happened between the sheets, as Stephen Fry once said?

About that time they dropped the word "adultery" and started calling it an "affair".

In her provocative new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry argues that the picture is far from rosy. Instead of liberation, society has created new forms of oppression: rough sex, hook-up culture, and pornography to name a few. She argues that in all of these women have been the losers. In her view, the much-touted concept of “consent” as the answer to everything has failed and we have arrived at a situation that benefits a minority of men, at the expense of women...  

Consent hmmm... What ever happened to the good old days when the boss could chase the intern around the desk in the Oval Office and not get in trouble?

Skip to,

...Chapter 8 outlines Perry’s proposal for a corrective to the sexual revolution: marriage. Some feminists argue that marriage is the single biggest vehicle for the oppression of women, but Perry argues that marriage solves several extremely difficult problems in society, given that human beings are constrained by their biology. Firstly, it solves a problem she calls dependency. As she says, if you value freedom above all else, then you must reject motherhood, because motherhood creates dependency in the form of a child. Instead, marriage creates a solution and a rationale for dependency, where a father can provide support, resources, protection to the mother and child. Secondly, it provides encouragement for men to adopt the ‘dad’ mode of sexual behaviour as opposed to the ‘cad’ mode. As Perry discusses all the way through the book, the ‘cad’ mode of male sexuality is extremely detrimental to women and the source of many of the ills mentioned in previous chapters. According to anthropologists, monogamous marriage is successful in pushing men away from cad mode, and in providing a stable environment for child-rearing. Perry argues that marriage is not perfect but that there is no better system that has been tried in history.

The past sixty years proves her right on the value of marriage to society.

This should be what they are teaching in school instead of Critical Race Theory.

 

The Head of the Church... of England

 With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, heaven has gained another mere Christian, and we have lost a shining example of what the head of a Church should look like. A regular Sunday churchgoer, and friend of Billy Graham, she was "Defender of the Faith", but never struck down a Bishop's appointment as far as I know. 

Maybe she should have for progressive bishops are present and increasingly influential in the Church of England (CofE).

What will Charles III do when presented with the name of a candidate? Who will he dub as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

As an Anglican in America, I don't have any skin in the game, but it would be nice to see someone with a spine as Defender of the Faith in England. We shall have to see what Charles III does in this role.

God warned us not to raise up a king,

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.  According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.  Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” 1 Samuel 8:4-9

God save the King!

God save the CofE

God save us all! 

Nobody else can.

The Meaning of "A Welcoming Church"

How many times have you seen a church's web page, literature, or even street sign proclaim that they are a "Welcoming Church"? We all know what that means to the modern ear. It means that the LGBTQrs+ are welcome to come in, their identities and behaviors are accepted and even celebrated, and that you can come to Jesus and not expect Him to change you. This is called "radical inclusion, inclusivity, or inclusiveness".

Well, in today's reading from Luke 15:1-10, the first two verses of which are commonly used as an argument for radical inclusion, lays that argument to rest in the parable of the lost sheep and lost coins.

 

Now all the tax-collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’

So he told them this parable: ‘Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbours, saying to them, “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.” Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.

‘Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours, saying, “Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.” Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.’

Indeed, Jesus welcomes all, sinners included, to come to the table with him, but repentance is key, not pride. 

Churches that advertise that "all are welcome" are usually not going to preach about sin and repentance. Instead, they rejoice in the unrepentant sinner. 

So all that talk about being a "welcoming church" is so much modern day virtue signaling which makes those congregations oh so proud of their heretical teaching.

Disturbing Survey of American Pastor's Beliefs

A few months ago I hesitated and did not post the results of a Barna study that found just 37% of 1000 Christian pastors surveyed held a biblical worldview because I wanted to see a breakdown of more of the data. 

The Christian Post provided an update this week with the following findings (my bullet points)

1.)  At least a third of senior pastors in the United States believe one can earn a place in Heaven by simply being a good person, according to a nationwide survey.

2.) one-third or more of senior pastors surveyed also believe the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather “a symbol of God’s power." 

3.) Others said that moral truth is subjective; sexual relations between two unmarried people who love each other is “morally acceptable" and biblical teaching on abortion is “ambiguous.”

4.) At least a third of those surveyed also said they believe “socialism is preferable to capitalism and that allowing property ownership facilitates economic injustice,”...

5.)...39% of Evangelical pastors surveyed said there is no absolute moral truth and that “each individual must determine their own truth.” 

6.) Roughly the same percentage (38%) said human life is sacred, while 37% said having faith, in general, is more important than in what — or more specifically, Whom — one has faith.

7.) three in 10 Evangelical pastors (30%) do not believe that their salvation is based on having confessed their sins and accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.

How is this possible? 

George Barna, CRC's director of research, said the results could be linked to another trend he observed in the data.

“While studying the spiritual behavioral patterns of pastors, it became evident that a large share of them do not have a regular spiritual routine,” Barna said. “There was a correlation between possessing biblical beliefs and a consistent regimen of Bible reading, prayer, worship and confession.

“In some of the denominational groupings, a majority of pastors do not engage in those foundational spiritual practices on a regular basis,” he added. “Yet, among the pastors who have the most consistently biblical beliefs, there is also a daily routine that incorporates all of those disciplines.”

While my first reaction to this information is anger directed at those errant pastors, the data indirectly shows that pewsitters are not keeping up their daily foundational spiritual routines, otherwise they would be forcing those false teachers out.

 

 

Give it up for Jesus

This week's reading is from Luke 14:25-33 in which tells his followers to give up all of their possesions,

Now large crowds were travelling with him; and he turned and said to them, ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, “This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.” Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace. So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

Is Jesus acting like a cult leader here? So are we all to give away everything and become communists?  How has that worked out in countries that have tried it? 

 Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714) in his Concise Commentary on Luke 14:25-35 puts it this way, 

Though the disciples of Christ are not all crucified, yet they all bear their cross, and must bear it in the way of duty. Jesus bids them count upon it, and then consider of it. Our Saviour explains this by two similitudes; the former showing that we must consider the expenses of our religion; the latter, that we must consider the perils of it. Sit down and count the cost; consider it will cost the mortifying of sin, even the most beloved lusts. The proudest and most daring sinner cannot stand against God, for who knows the power of his anger? It is our interest to seek peace with him, and we need not send to ask conditions of peace, they are offered to us, and are highly to our advantage. In some way a disciple of Christ will be put to the trial. May we seek to be disciples indeed, and be careful not to grow slack in our profession, or afraid of the cross; that we may be the good salt of the earth, to season those around us with the savour of Christ.

Monastics who take the vow of poverty try to follow this teaching to the letter, and in small communities like that this mostly works out. 

Once Christianity became the religion of the rich, people wanted to hear that the possessions we needed to give up were our sinful desires, and that indeed is true, but don't forget to not let your other possessions possess you.