A senior rabbi from the Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando, Steven W. Engel, takes issue with those who are saying that Christianity is “under attack” in the United States (Orlando Sentinel). He apparently thinks that two pieces of upcoming legislation aimed at protecting “pastors” are superfluous. One is the “Pastor Protection Act,” and the other is the “Right of Refusal Act” (Jan. 17, 2016). Why are they, in fact, necessary? The answer lies in last year’s Supreme Court cultural decision to legalize homosexual “marriage,” which was not based on anything reasonable such as the definition of marriage or the example of it provided by God, the author of the institution (Gen. 2:18-24).
Many, such as the rabbi (A21), think that bills such as these are totally unnecessary because the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The fact that we have the 14th Amendment has not prevented dozens of additional laws concerning discrimination from being passed. Were those unnecessary, also? Consider the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Despite the first amendment, laws have been passed concerning “hate speech.” Few oppose such legislation if it is precisely defined, but how much wiggle-room is there in those laws to establish political correctness rather than legitimate “hate speech”? On the very night of the Supreme Court’s decision, several people were interviewed; some of them said that now it was time to go after those who refused to perform the ceremonies. What? Yes, Christianity is under attack.
“Oh, no,” someone protests. “The Supreme Court made it clear that religious freedom would remain intact, and no one would have to perform ceremonies against their conscience.” Yes, they said that, and those assurances are good until another case comes to the Supreme Court with even more liberals on it in 5 or 10 years, and what was said in the last court case will soon be forgotten as the new decision is heralded as a great day for civil liberties. Never mind that men will be put in jail for practicing New Testament Christianity and that few will care.
Saying that Christianity is not under attack is a myopic view that ignores the past half century as secular humanism has won round after round. Engel v. Vitale restricted using prayers in public schools (1962); Murray v. Curlett resulted in Bible study being taken out of public schools (1963). Roe v. Wade (1973), without any legal precedent, made abortion legal, and those who would have been born were denied all freedoms.
The rabbi seems to indicate that only certain types of attacks are valid. He says that his people know what it means to be “under attack.” Jews were wrongfully blamed for the world’s problems, dehumanized, tattooed with numbers, burned, gassed, and otherwise put to death. Therefore, he takes umbrage that Christians would say they are under attack. But not all assaults are frontal and immediate. When Israel marched around Jericho for six days, not an arrow was fired. Was the city under siege? Yes. God had made that marching a condition of the city’s destruction. Not one resident of the city was harmed until the 7th day, but then all was lost.
A house destroyed by termites does not fall on day one, but over a period of time it is weakened, and then it collapses. It was under attack the whole time; the homeowner was not wise enough to perceive it. The enemies of Christianity have been nibbling away for a long time. How much more time will pass by until more overt persecution comes to the forefront?
A certain segment of our society has already lost all of their rights—those living in the wombs of their “mothers.” Were 6 million Jews annihilated by Hitler? Ten times that many infants have been killed since the Roe v. Wade decision! Has Mr. Engel shed any tears for them? Does he consider them to be under attack? That decision obliterated the laws of 46 states. So how did it happen? It did not come about overnight. The enemies of Christianity paved the way by exalting humanistic philosophy and denigrating Christian principles. After the decision was rendered, the attack on Christianity was stepped up.
And where does Steven W. Engel stand on that subject? Has he not read about the conflict that occurred in the womb of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife? Since there were two nations in her womb, God could not have approved of abortion for her. Surely it is not necessary to instruct a rabbi on the teaching in the Book of Genesis, is it (25:22-26)? But, according to a Reform Judaism website, they have “demonstrated a liberal approach to abortion.”
And where does the rabbi stand on homosexuality? One Reform Judaism website says: “Reform Jews are also committed to the full participation of gays and lesbians in synagogue life as well as society at large.” No. Really? Has the rabbi not read Genesis 18:20-21, where God says: “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see…”? Is he not aware that God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim because of their homosexuality (Gen. 19: 4-5, 13)? Apparently, we Christians believe more of the Old Testament than some Jews do.
“How can they be Jews but deny what their book teaches?” one wonders. According to Wikipedia, the explanation is that Reformed Judaism regards “Jewish Law as of basically non-binding nature.” So does that mean the Ten Commandments really are, for them, the Ten Suggestions? They exhibit “great openness to external influences and progressive values.” A good translation of those words would be that they cave in to culture, much like the Sadducees of Jesus’ time. Those “modernists,” however, at least upheld the Pentateuch (although they did not regard other Old Testament books as authoritative). This rabbi and his compadres do not even respect the first five books. They apparently deny even Genesis.
Engel says that most of his Christian friends don’t believe the Bible is under attack. Could it be that his Christian friends are as liberal as he is? Are they dominated as well by the culture? Do they support abortion? Are they fine with homosexuality? If they are, it explains why they are all in agreement.
Rabbi Engel’s rationale for “going with the flow” of current culture is stated thus:
I suppose the religious leaders who used religion to oppose a woman’s right to vote, or opposed abolition, or who spoke out against integration also incorrectly thought they were under attack. Just because your ideas don’t jibe with some of the changes in society does not mean you are under attack.
First of all, the rabbi tries to equate homosexuality with a civil rights issue, which he surely knows is a false analogy, but using logical fallacies characterize those who oppose the Scriptures. Second, how many misused religion to prevent women’s and minorities’ rights? Some did, to be sure, but were they in the majority? The arguments advanced in favor of segregation, when based on Scripture, were pathetic and resoundingly refuted. If Jews and Gentiles were to be one in Christ, then so are all others. Jesus came to make all one in Him, and to argue otherwise is to miss one of the key reasons for the church to exist.
Women are also one in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29), but the right to vote is a Constitutional issue pertaining to the government of this nation; it is not a Biblical issue per se, although one might correctly cite the principle of equality. Since the rabbi believes in these principles, does he see the value of Jesus and the New Testament? One wonders on what Scriptural grounds he favors the position he holds. While he merely assumes that women voting and integration are proper, we demonstrate that such is the case by New Testament teaching. In fact, what basis does he have for anything he believes? Does he just check with his Christian friends? Is abortion acceptable if the majority approves of it? Does it become wrong if society disapproves? Are “changes in society” infallible?
It almost sounds as though the assumption is that any standards or practices from the past are wrong and that anything that changes is right. Obviously, only old fogies, traditionalists, and conservatives would fight change. Anything that wears the label progressive must be good for culture, right?
So let’s take a situation. Israel, under the faithful leadership of Joshua and the support of the nation, conquers the land that God gave to them. The people remained faithful during his days and those of his generation, but as they began to die off, the new generation “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served the Baals” (Judges 2:11). Is this news to the rabbi? Israel actually
forsook the Lord God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; and they followed other gods from among the gods of the people who were all around them, and they bowed down to them, and they provoked the Lord to anger (2:12).
Is all progress good? The people were not averse to treating God’s law “as of basically a non-binding nature.” Maybe they consulted with their Philistine “friends” and determined that their new morality and worship was all right. Just because older Jewish ideas didn’t jibe with newer cultural norms didn’t prove the old ways were under attack. The truth is that because they turned away from God, He quit protecting them, and they came under physical attack.
Later, after the kingdom split, Jeroboam introduced some innovations in the northern kingdom. He set up two golden calves as a symbol of the God who delivered them from Egypt. He also grew tired of only the Levites being priests; so he allowed those of any tribe to be priests. Would the rabbi have approved of this enlightened way of thinking or stood with those who didn’t think such changes jibed with what he had been taught? Even though God did not authorize men from any of the other tribes to be priests, He didn’t say they couldn’t be. Truly, having Jeroboam as king was a liberating experience; now all men could be equal (sorry, ladies, that he excluded you). He also changed the place and time of worship. While many may have thought Jeroboam a progressive, God did not. As the northern kingdom is taken into captivity two centuries later, God lays the blame thusly: “Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21b). No one can assume that, when society changes, it is for the better—particularly when the will of God has been violated. The southern kingdom was also taken captive for their refusal to repent and live godly.
America has been departing from God, taking Him out of the public forum. Prayer and Bible study in schools must be prohibited. Abortion and homosexuality must be allowed, along with easy divorce, excessive emphasis on alcohol, and now legalization of other harmful drugs. “Oh,” says the rabbi, “but Christianity is not under assault.” If he missed it when it happened in the Old Testament, he is not likely to see it now, either.