Many still consider 2008 as the year that journalism died. The media had been sick for more than two decades, but it passed on with a terminal case of extreme liberal bias. More and more, people refer to it correctly as the “lamestream” media. Except for occasional anomalies, no signs of resurrection have been discovered. The three old networks and some of their spinoffs have lost vast audiences; one might say they have been outFOXed. Newspapers continue to lose circulation; Newsweek is for sale. The problem with all these media is that they are operated by elitists, who have, by and large, lost their common sense and have no idea what most people are thinking (and furthermore don’t care). After all, anyone who would disagree with them is obviously not very bright. Academia has the same problem. Professors often spout politically correct gobbledegook, which, fortunately, students usually ignore although many will not offer a refutation. Despite all the elitist propaganda that bombards us daily, most of us live in the real world.
One of the areas of prejudice the media has is with the Muslim religion. They fall all over themselves trying to make the Muslim religion look peaceful. Last week on television, it was pointed out that there might be as many as 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 Muslims that are fanatical terrorists. One would have expected that the guest would have challenged those figures; instead, he said that wasn’t many out of a billion Muslims. How comforting! When one abortion clinic is bombed or one abortion doctor killed, the media is ready to brand every pro-life person as a terrorist. But if a Muslim commits an act of terror, we are warned not to think ill of the Muslim religion. Verily, “the legs of the lame are not equal” (Pr. 26:7, KJV). Hmm. “Lamestream” media might be appropriate from a Biblical perspective. At least one broadcaster seemed almost sympathetic to the would-be Times Square bomber; his house had been foreclosed on. Perhaps if he had not made 13 trips to Pakistan, he could have made payments.
Political correctness may actually have cost lives. Warnings were abundant with the army psychologist who killed 13 and wounded more than 30 on the army base in Fort Hood, Texas. The man had made several inflammatory statements and should have been discharged from the service or, at the very least, kept under surveillance. Why are people so tolerant instead of cautious or suspicious when human lives are at stake? If a member of a private militia made strong anti-Muslim statements, he would rightly be questioned and perhaps watched. Why does not the reverse happen?
How many have heard the following news, which was published in The Wall Street Journal on March 9, 2010? This story actually made page one: “Massacres Shake Uneasy Nigeria” (Wow! This newspaper actually capitalizes the title words, unlike the lamestream!). The opening paragraph states:
The attackers came at night and surrounded this small farming village, firing shots in the air to scare residents from their homes. Men, women and children were hacked with machetes as they rushed out. Several houses were set on fire with the residents still inside (A1).
All in all, 378 bodies were found in four such villages in Central Nigeria. A predominantly Muslim group was behind these attacks in mostly Christian villages. One of the religious leaders of the church of Christ saw his wife and daughter murdered; another woman lost her husband and three children (A14). It was alleged that this assault was in response to Christians killing 300 in a nearby village attack in January, although this charge was not documented. It might have occurred, judging from the reaction to this brutal massacre. Some vowed to do worse to the Muslims. Perhaps these retaliatory remarks were spoken out of grief and anger. Certainly, Christians should not be taking up arms in order to slaughter others.
But where in the media is coverage of either event? For 378 (presumably) innocent people to be cruelly obliterated is not acceptable. If the American public is not aware of such atrocities, the question must be asked, “Why?” Is the reason that the media does not want Muslims to look worse than they really are?
Time and again, it has been pointed out that the entire Muslim religion was begun and built upon violence. Muhammad had few followers until they began attacking and looting and fighting. The first hundred years of its history is filled with savage behavior and conquest. Is anyone being taught the truth any more about the religion’s origin and what is actually in the Qur’an? If Muslims are a peace-loving people, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it.
South Park
In almost every nation in which they gain control or a majority, Muslims quickly become intolerant of other religions. They issue fatwas and seek to put certain people to death. A recent example of their threats surfaced with respect to an episode of the cartoon show, South Park, which is at times a vulgar program that ridicules Christianity. A recent episode made fun of Muhammad. After hearing the response (threats, actually) against those who work on the program, they decided not to air the offensive material. Hmph! They are more afraid of Muslim terrorists than the Lord Jesus Christ who shall actually serve as their judge (John 5:27). They ought to fear the true and living God.
Apparently, those who produce South Park are not worried about Christians killing them. In fact, Comedy Central has a new series in the works, which they may call JC. The series will portray Jesus as a “regular guy” who moves to New York City to get out from under his father’s “enormous shadow.” His father seems disinterested in his son and would rather play video games. Say, isn’t this stuff hilarious?
Hey, “Comedy” Central, here’s a suggestion. Why not do a series called M? Yeah, you could set it in modern-day New York. Muhammad is somewhat antisocial; so he likes to spend time in the country—especially exploring caves. On one of his journeys, he runs into Joseph Smith, who also is exploring the Hill Cumorah. They both hear an angel speak to them, but they come up with two entirely different religions based on the same conversation. Won’t this be a blast?
No one should hold his breath, waiting for that series to air. Too much fear of how Muslim zealots would react will prevent that from becoming a reality. The news and entertainment media may not think that Islam is a problem, but the fact is that the religion will always be couched in violence. For our own safety all Americans must be alert and suspicious—not mean, cruel, or intolerant—but cautious. If Islam somehow came to power, those in the media would be the first to be controlled. If the news media values the freedoms in our Constitution, they need to wise up.
WHERE CHUCHES STAND
ON GAY ISSUES
Gary W. Summers
What’s wrong with the above title? The first thing one should notice is that the title appears to assume that Jesus established a number of churches when, in fact, He did not. Jesus promised to build one church—His (Matt. 16:18). He gave His blood for one—and only one—church (Acts 20:28). He is head over His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). There is one—and only one—body (church) (Eph. 4:5).
Many man-made religious groupss have sprung into existence during the past 500 years, but none of these were authorized by Jesus. “Well, then,” someone muses, “you must think the Roman Catholic Church is the only one.” No, although many congregations of the church that Christ established became the Roman Catholic Church by adding doctrines which Jesus never authorized, they became the apostate church and bear little resemblance to the church Jesus built, which is described in the New Testament.
One of the things that the Roman Catholic Church did, which lacked Biblical authority, was to pattern the church after the Roman government. Instead of having elders over each congregation, a structure was created so that there would be uniformity in the church (many heresies did exist at that time). Eventually a hierarchy resulted with five spiritual leaders in different major cities. The leader of Rome assumed the title of universal bishop (pope) in A.D. 606.
Why did not more Christians oppose this slowly-developing movement that took 300 years to reach the ultimate practice of control by a governing authority larger than the local congregation? But even more astounding is the imitation of most of the Protestant denominations. All of them likewise have a governing body or council instead of a pope. These groups elect delegates who meet periodically to presumptuously make policy where the Bible has already spoken.
That brings us to the second thing wrong in the title. No religious group needs to take a stand on “gay issues”; the New Testament has already spoken! But remember that denominationalism itself is unauthorized (1 Cor. 1:13); so one can scarcely be surprised that those who have scorned what the Bible teaches regarding their unscriptural organization would also scorn what the Bible teaches on any other subject, such as homosexuality.
Two articles appeared in the May 2, 2010 Orlando News Sentinel. The first of these appears on B-1 and discusses how the delegates to last summer’s biennial assembly (try finding this expression in the Scriptures) voted to allow churches “to hire non-celibate gay ministers.” This wonderful news ought to warm the hearts of the 4.7 million members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Division
The story continues on B4 by explaining that about 200 out of the 10,000 congregations making up this unauthorized religious denomination plan to leave, which is only about 2% who actually know what some of the Scriptures teach. One man reports that his own congregation is deeply divided. He said he accepts the decision but did not feel it was time yet. Really? When is the right time to defy the Scriptures and make a mockery of sin, one wonders? Shall we next have a minister who is shacking up with a woman (or two)? How about one who has been divorced numerous times? Let’s not be dogmatic against the one who robs banks as a hobby. One can almost see the new hit TV series, The Assassin Priest. Everyone needs a diversion from the ministry, right? “Oh, but that’s silly. We have laws against those things.” Why, yes, we do. Say, did we not once have laws against adultery and homosexuality and gambling and prostitution and abortion, not to mention the use of marijuana and alcohol? The point is that civil laws change from era to era.
The morality that God sets forth in the New Testament does not change. The things just listed were sins in the first century, and they remain sins today. No religious group has the authority to override the Word of God because they desire to be politically correct and think that modern man is wiser than the Creator.
The Lutheran minister being interviewed comment-ed that one group’s pain has been replaced by another group’s pain. “And it’s a tricky dance.” Ah, the old “tricky dance” problem! What Scripture does that come from? This guy does not care if the practice is right or wrong; he did not object because homosexuality is a sin; it just wasn’t the right time. And now it’s going to be a tricky dance to keep his flock together. It would be nice to hear about men who had some backbone, but then they probably would not be satisfied being in a religious, man-made denomination, either.
Furthermore, this dean of 17 ELCA churches in Central Florida went on to make another astute observation. He hopes that others see how they have tried to “wrestle” with the issue respectfully. Somehow, it is difficult to imagine Paul wrestling respectfully with it. It is vile and against nature (Rom. 1:26). Is that respectful enough? Aren’t people getting tired of namby-pamby spiritual wimps who are afraid of hurting the feelings of sinners? Consider the following comment of James D. Davis, who wrote this news story:
For conservatives, it’s the status of the Bible, which they say flatly forbids homosexual acts. For liberals, it’s social justice and human rights (B-4).
No, it’s not what conservatives say about the Bible; it’s what the Bible actually says. The Bible deals with truth, not opinion. Does anyone have difficulty understanding what the words vile and against nature mean? Is Jude 7 hard to comprehend?
God did not grant homosexuals the “right” to be a Christian, let alone a minister. The only “right” a homosexual has is the “right” to repent. Paul makes it clear that “gays” cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). No one can, by the authority of Christ, grant homosexuals “rights” that God does not give them!
The next quote is a good one: “Homosexuality is a lightning rod issue, but the basic issue is the authority of the Word of God,” which is absolutely true. The pro-homosexuality group does not respect the authority of the Scriptures. Before cheering too loudly, however, please note that this observation was made by Rev. Rebecca Heber, who is violating the authority of the Word of God given in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 regarding the leadership role of men in the church. Sigh.
Bill Knott wins the dunce of the day award for trying to compare homosexuality with eating shellfish. That prohibition was a dietary law of the Jews. People were allowed to eat shellfish both before and after the Law of Moses. Homosexuality has been pronounced evil under every covenant that God has ever made with men—including our current one. Anyone who cannot make that distinction does not need to be teaching anyone.
Another dunce award goes to the man who said, “This is an issue over which faithful Christians may disagree.” It may be one over which faithful Lutherans disagree, but a faithful Christian agrees with God, not Satan. Another “brilliant” comment tries to compare this issue to a married couple who does not agree on everything, but they sleep together. Yes, they do, but most of what they disagree over involves opinions. God’s Word is not opinion but the perfect law of liberty; no one has the right to disagree with it. When they do disagree with God, they are no longer faithful.
Another insipid comment was provided by the same person: “The gospel that unites us is greater than what divides us.” Wrong again! When someone tells a sinner that he may continue to sin, it is no longer the gospel. Perhaps this learned Lutheran might recall the message of John: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 2). John did not say, “Keep on sinning. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Likewise, Jesus taught, “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Continuing an unbroken string of ridiculous comments, the same man commented, “A generation down the road, this won’t be the divisive issue it is now.” Say, isn’t that what happened in Sodom, too? No one was divided there over the practice of homosexuality. They were all united—only God, Lot, and two angels strenuously objected. This article closes with all of these ludicrous and lame lessons lauding lasciviousness. Was this the writer’s design?
Other man-made groups (Episcopalians, Methodists, and the United Church of Christ) also accept homosexuality. Who would have thought that religious groups would be championing sin—one clearly defined in the New Testament? May God’s people never allow themselves to be so blinded as to look this foolish.