Sexuality

19 ARTICLES IN THIS TOPIC


March 10, 2015

Even in Addressing “Slippery Slope,” Gay Methodist Caucus Won’t Oppose Multiple Partners

The arguments in many Western churches today over whether or not to abandon very clear biblical and historic Christian teaching against homosexual practice have raised the question of what other biblical boundaries for sexual ethics might also become up for grabs, after Scripture is abandoned as authoritative for morality.

Within America’s second-largest Protestant denomination, the United Methodist Church, the main organization pushing the LGBTQ liberationist cause is the extraordinarily well-funded Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN).

In a recent article, RMN tackles the “slippery slope” argument, in its own way, in apparent hopes of refuting “a few anti-gay Christians [who] have liberally used fallacious logic and hateful rhetoric.”

From its opening by singling out an African-American pastor for ridicule through its rambling at length about “why we don’t marry mops” to its approvingly citing Karl Marx to its bizarre sci-fi digression of suggesting openness to “inter-species marriage relationships” between humans and extra-terrestrials, the essay makes clear that THE central, and perhaps only firm, sexual boundary for RMN’s rather secularized sexual ethics is consent.

Hence, traditional United Methodists are assured that because of this standard, RMN would agree with us in opposing rape and bestiality. RMN would also agree with us in opposing parent-child romance, although the article’s stance on other forms of incest is less clear.

But what about “polyamory” – the practice of having multiple sexual partners in overlapping periods of time – a term I first learned from monitoring RMN? And what about the reality of “monogamish” relationships – where two “committed partners” allow each other to cheat – being so widespread in the LGBTQ community that liberal Slate magazine reports the “dirty little secret about gay marriage” that “Most gay couples are not monogamous”?

Here RMN rather awkwardly tries to walk a fine line between strategically appealing to the sort of “respectable moderates” turned off by lewd “pride” parades while also avoiding calling its own community to too-firm moral boundaries of sexual self-control.

The author, Rev. Dr. Dave Barnhart of Birmingham, Alabama, briefly presents “reasonable arguments for monogamous exclusivity” and “against multiple-partner marriages,” arguments which are mainly sociological in nature.

But on the other hand, the RMN blogger rushes to makes clear: “I am not, by the way, ruling out multiple-partner marriages, but illustrating one way to think about it.” He goes on to admit that “it may be possible for more than two people to enter into” what would constitute a healthy marriage according to his criteria.

Then immediately after suggesting his “reasonable arguments for monogamous exclusivity,” Barnhart retreats into conceding that “this does not rule out the possibility of other marriage arrangements.”

Barnhart also makes some lazy references to biblical accounts of polygamy and to Old Testament rules we don’t follow today, apparently not caring how easily he could be answered by anyone with passing knowledge of Scriptural teaching about the monogamous ideal and relevant New Testament teaching about the new covenant. Once again, RMN seems to hold a very low view of its fan base’s biblical literacy, perhaps with good reason.

(We could see much less of such theologically and biblically sloppy thinking in our denomination’s public discourse if United Methodist leaders like the North Alabama Conference Board of Ordained Ministry would, before rushing to ordain painfully under-prepared people, first make sure that they actually understand the distinctions affirmed in our denomination’s Doctrinal Standards between the Old Testament’s still-binding moral law and its no-longer-binding ceremonial and civil law. Some day!)

In any case, from this outline of its vision of “Christian sexual ethics,” I guess RMN is willing to present “one way to think about this” that would support the ideal of monogamy, but also wants to make clear that RMN is totally cool with non-monogamous relationships if that floats your boat. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a single instance of RMN leaders publicly expressing the belief that multiple sexual partners, or sex before marriage or before a “holy union” commitment ceremony, are inherently sinful behaviors from which they wish people, particularly within the church, would refrain. (Seriously, if you can recall a single instance of this that I missed, please let me know in the comments!)

But if I summarize their sexual ethics as “anything goes, as long as it’s consensual,” they’ll still get mad.

Or respond with straw-men arguments about good reasons not to marry mops.


34 Responses to Even in Addressing “Slippery Slope,” Gay Methodist Caucus Won’t Oppose Multiple Partners

  1. Karen Booth says:

    I’ve also been thinking and writing about “consent” this week, John. So your post is much appreciated.

  2. Mark Brooks says:

    Quote:

    “Hence, traditional United Methodists are assured that because of this standard, RMN would agree with us in opposing rape and bestiality.”

    Not really. Consent is only relevant in human relationships, correct? And it wouldn’t be scientifically correct to suggest that an animal can’t consent, if consent is understood as sexual receptivity, because of course, that is precisely what happens with animals, they engage in displays and behaviors that demonstrate sexual receptivity, and therefore, consent. Consent exists in animal sexual relations.

    So a “consent” standard doesn’t actually preclude bestiality at all. Once such a standard is employed, it simply moves the goal posts to arguing over what constitutes consent. It doesn’t preclude adult-child relationships either; there is a difference between “legally valid consent” and “actual consent”, right? And the “legally valid” part might require only a single court decision to overturn age-of-consent laws.

    So to me, it looks like a dodge, an attempt to evade the real basis for discussion in any body claiming to be part of Christ’s Church, which should be, “What does God say?”. I suspect that you are aware of this, of course, I’m simply wanting to point it out explicitly.

  3. ed-words says:

    “I’m a Bible bigot – I follow it in all things.” – John Wesley

    The pompously named Reconciling Ministries Network knows neither the Bible nor John Wesley, but they do know (and use) the “bigot” label, since it’s their way of pushing through their agenda. They would love to see the Christians leave the UMC (many thousands already have) and thus leave a smaller but distinctively pro-sodomy social club. Whether it is Christian or not never crosses their minds. It’s all about invading and taking over an institution.

  4. Lynn Guss says:

    I wonder though, when did the church decide it was okay to have women be pastors? Because there are scriptures in the bible that state women should not teach men. Not trying to be mean, but just raising a question here. I wonder if there was the same controversy back then as there is now with the gay pastor issues.

    • Thelastdon says:

      In regards to “women pastors,” the test should be “did god really say? We know what Paul said, the question to be asked is if Paul had the authority from God to state women should not be pastors over men or was that his own opinion. I will agree that the question about women pastors is debatable. What isn’t debatable is the sin of homosexuality. God’s Word is clear regarding this issue from Genesis to Book of Revelations where he states it is an abomination.

      I have the highest regard for the Bible so I will follow Paul’s lead on the “women pastor” issue. However, a womean pastor isn’t a sin or an abomination so your question and comparison is weak.

  5. fredx2 says:

    The inevitable logic of gay marriage is that there are no limitations allowable whatsoever to “marital” relationships. If gays can be considered “married” then there are no logical reasons for any other combination to be denied this status.

    And since there are numerous articles out there demonstating that gay marriages very often are NOT monogamous, (just Google “gay marriage monogamy”) then we have fundamentally changed marriage from something about procreation and monogamy to something about very loose, short term associations of individuals who come and go, for any period of time, because they “consent”.

    Marriage is therefore effectively destroyed.

    • John Hutchinson says:

      Civic marriage is effectively destroyed; but not marriage itself. Civic marriage should never have come into being in the first place. It is an invention unfortunately of the Reformation. All attempts to place marriage under the aegis of the state in times prior always led to marriage’s denigration (e.g. SPARTA). And all manner of travesties have occurred to marriage since that sociopolitical ‘innovation’ (bans on intermarriage, marriages by those of faiths other than Anglican etc in Britain 1753, varying age restrictions).

      When Isaac took Rebecca into his Sarah’s tent, there was neither civic official nor priest/rabbi and yet Scriptures declared it marriage. In a God that changes not, why should that not be same today?

      Marriage is what it is in essence not in its legal constructs. And those principles, which constitute its true essence, will always have greater probability of survival and success than those which deviate from those principles. This is divine and universal law and justice built into the cosmological and social order, premised on our ontological and psychological realities.

      • Across the ocean(s) says:

        We know that Isaac took Rebecca as his wife … as they lived their covenants, even Rebecca veiled herself upon arriving..she being a virgin and unmarried..it is not a very educated assumption to regard these as signs of NO marriage ceremony taking place.. Abraham would have had the right to perform the ceremony, too.

      • John S. says:

        If Civic Marriage is an invention of the Reformation then how can Sparta be an example of its error?

  6. Kelly Knight says:

    Just my thoughts, but as long as religious organizations are seen as social gatherings rather than a Church led by God, these things will continue to be promoted, and sadly, embraced.

    • Laurence Charles Ringo says:

      Thank you,Mr.Knight! Too many of our churches have been sliding towards the insipid”country club”mentality,all smiles,gladhanding,and consumerism.We so desperately need to fall to our knees in repentance,crying out for Our Saviour’s Prescence .The Church needs to return to its original calling and message–Preaching Christ,and Him Crucified.

  7. Jim says:

    If Jacob had not had four wives (simultaneously)–Leah and her sister Rachel (a marriage forbidden in Leviticus) and their handmaidens Bilhah and Zilpah–there would not have been the twelve tribes of Israel. Specifically there would not have existed the tribe of Benjamin, whose distant descendant was Jesus Christ. No Jesus Christ, no Christianity; no Christianity, no United Methodist Church; no United Methodist Church, no traditionalists to bellyache about a marriage variant to which they owe their very existence. That said, apropos polyamory, polygamy, and polyandry: these are merely proxies for gutless bigots to use when they are too quivering-lipped to attack gay Methodists and their supporters out in the open. The issue is justice for gay people; the bigots don’t want justice for gay people. It’s that simple. Everything else is blowing smoke, and your smokescreen is transparent. Trying to change the subject won’t work.

    • John S. says:

      The argument from Jacob makes little sense since an application of “but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” can easily step in as a quick answer. But then Bilhah and Zilpah were not wives. Of course the last I saw Jesus was of the tribe of Judah and not Benjamin but lets not quibble about what the Bible says. Its so limiting.

      • Jim says:

        Thanks for the correction. My argument stands nonetheless. My point about Jacob and his four wives makes little sense to you only because you want to dismiss it since both it and the Bible itself contradict your “traditionalist” view, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Biblical tradition or Biblical law. Monogamous marriage is a social convention inherited not from anything biblical but from the Greek and Roman social wold of the first century. Being themselves Greek and Roman, first century Christians retained the prevailing marriage convention of their time. It was not blessed by any deity but evolved as the most convenient social arrangement for passing property to heirs and for retaining property in families. As for “God intends it for good, ” that bromide answers nothing, and you offer it as no answer or argument but merely as a diversion from my argument about using irrelevant proxies as a surreptitious attack on gay people–an argument you can’t rebut. But, hey, let’s not quibble about evading arguments because that’s so limiting.

        • John S. says:

          What argument? That God uses the bad decisions of people to accomplish His purposes? Should I point out that most 1st Century Christians were Jews, not Roman or Greek? That most of those who were not were slaves of the Romans rather than Romans themselves? That your argument is an assertation that homosexual marriage is right and proper, that any contradiction of said stance is wrong with no proof needed? That Jacob’s nonLevitical marriage to Leah and Rachael predated Leviticus by 400 years? That a person in the Bible doing something makes it right and legitimate? As I remember Genesis on Jacob most of it revolves around-Don’t be like Jacob and God can, and usually does, accomplish his purposes despite the actions of the humans. I’m not the one ignoring the Bible. One can make a case for gay marriage, especially by leaving out the bible but you haven’t tried.

    • Namyriah says:

      You call it “bellyaching,” we call it orthodoxy. As for “gutless bigots,” the gutless ones are the left-wing ex-Christians who follow the crowd, as it’s easier to conform to the secular, immoral culture than to maintain a Christian ethic.

      If you support sodomy, that’s fine, but you can’t do that and be a Christian. Join the Unitarians, they don’t believe the Bible and they’re not really sure they even believe in God. For 2000 years Christianity said “No” to sexual perversion, so a pro-sodomy Christianity is an oxymoron. If 99.99 percent of Americans approve of sodomy, that should have zero effect on Christians. Christians follow Christ, non-Christians follow the crowd. It’s the difference between being a rational human individual and a bovine in a herd.

      • Jim says:

        Orthodoxy is just another name for some people telling other people what to believe and how to act and for simpletons doing what they’re told. There’s nothing holy about orthodoxy, and despite the name there’s nothing right about it. The crimes of Christians have been sanctified by the criminals themselves–people just like you who wear their bigotry as a holy talisman and wield their hate as holy judgment. That game is up. You don’t own the franchise rights on Christianity, and I don’t care about you or your opinions. A traitor to the gospel of Christ like yourself can’t read me out of Christianity: you don’t have the authority; you don’t have the qualifications; and you don’t the moral standing. A little puff of hot air won’t blow me away.

        • Chris says:

          Someone who disagrees with you is a “traitor to the gospel”?

          So you have your own orthodoxy and anyone who does not subscribe to it is not a true Christian?

          You don’t object to orthodoxy, so long as you are the one imposing it.

          PS: Your left- wing churches are dying, so enjoy them while they still exists. The numbers don’t lie. Pro-sodomy churches are losing members by the thousands.

          • Jim says:

            Someone who refuses to treat other people with justice is a traitor to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ever hear of the Golden Rule? That’s the foundation ethical command: treat others exactly as you would have them treat you–with justice always. You’d never tolerate being on the receiving end of the bigotry you dish out to others, but that doesn’t inhibit you from expressing your bigotry one bit. Rejecting your Lord’s command to do justice is the epitome of being a traitor to His gospel.

          • Tiger says:

            The fact that you’re trolling a Christian website reveals your insecurity. People who are secure about themselves don’t care what other people think about them. People running around saying “We’re just as good as you are!” don’t really believe it. If you are insecure about who you are, bashing Christians isn’t going to change that.

          • Jim says:

            The facts that you feel the need to reply to a “troll” and that you evade my arguments with an absurd ad hominem attack indicate your guilty conscience and your recognition of the truth of my argument. See, two can play the let’s-play-armchair-psychological-analyst game. In your case, I’m right.

          • ken says:

            Homosexuals have no conscience, so it’s amusing to see your sort refer to a “guilty conscience.” People who use each other as semen receptacles have no business lecturing people on morality, since you have no morals at all. JoeMyGod attracts the scum of the earth, disease-spreaders and pedophiles.

          • Jim says:

            Troll, you have more disguises than Lon Chaney–the man of 1000 faces–ever thought of..

          • JustNTyme says:

            Another JoeMyGod loser, spewing her hate.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            “Homosexuals have no conscience”…? Really?!
            You know that’s a false statement meant to broad-brush an entire section of society.
            It’s extremely inaccurate as well as mean.

          • Elizabeth Levesque says:

            Dear wise Brother. The entire Gospel of Jesus Christ has been hijacked by Liberal speak. What you say when you speak of ” orthodoxy” or “right belief” is considered opposession and injustice by the Liberal Left who are now in charge of all mainline denominations. Don’t bother with them. They are unbelievers. Apostates. God bless.

  8. John S. says:

    Oh John, they are correct in their assumption of biblical illiteracy (which is matched by their own). Since the bible is not preached from the pulpit, taught in the classes nor lived in the streets in the average UMC church what would you expect? As for the LGBTQ community being against polyamory or for any limitations it will be another case of “I was against it until it was politically necessary to be for it” at best.

  9. Dave Barnhart says:

    Hi, John,
    Sometimes I let my brain run away with my mouth, and I fail to make the point I intended. This happens in sermons, too, unfortunately. Here is the point that I didn’t land in my blog . I’m using caps for clarification, not because I’m angry.:

    IF THERE ARE GOOD ETHICAL REASONS TO PREFER MONOGAMY FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLE…
    THOSE SAME REASONS APPLY TO GAY PEOPLE.
    Not “one man, one woman.” That slogan does not establish what good monogamy is.
    Not “the Bible says.” That does not describe what good monogamy is.
    The. Same. Reasons.
    Otherwise, you can’t rule out polygamy. In other words, the “slippery slope” is your own invention.

    My obscure speech was my own fault. Assuming you’d assume the best, instead of the worst, was my own fault. Not reading my blog from the perspective of a hostile reader was my own fault.But thanks, sincerely, for this lesson in humility. I should not assume people will read generously in such a way that they assume they know where I’m headed. In that sense, perhaps the “for dummies” in my title was for me. I was dumb for not writing more clearly, or assuming I could convince a hostile audience to follow my reasoning. I was dumb for assuming a condescending, humorous tone without a hostile audience in mind.

    Again. thanks for the lesson in humility, because I can’t walk those words back or explain myself adequately to people who assume that I’m advocating polygamy, because they won’t understand “don’t rule out” as part of a process of doing constructive ethics.

    If I hand you straw, I can’t blame you for making a straw man. If I hand you the ingredients, I will eat humble pie. And the ad hominem stuff and the guilt by association stuff? The contempt and anger? That’s all the colorful sprinkles on top that you added.

    • Thanks for your reply, Dave. I’ll try try to make this easy for you: Are you willing to simply say, without any dodges or word games, that you believe that “monogamish” relationships and all extra-marital sex is inherently sinful, and that RMN should not suggest otherwise?

      • Elizabeth Levesque says:

        It is just a matter before Methodist church goes full gay like PCUSA. Look at how Frank Scheffer was exonerated and then paraded out with rainbow stole. No pun intended but that guy is playing both sides. What happened in the Methodist church like all the mainline churches and the Catholic Church as well is that during the 60s and even before the communist radicals decided that taking a play from the Communist 101 manual you infiltrate to take down. Once inside you find useful idiots to help you. Gullible and weak people. Easy to manipulate. You use the language of the group you hope to take down against them. When they oppose someone’s immorality you say, ” don’t judge lest you be judged” or ” if you are without sin throw the first stone.” So what can they say back to you? It automatically silences them.

        T hen you talk incessantly about love, kindness, peace and the fruits of the spirit. Gentleness. Of course you talk about self control but only in the context of being accepting and not hateful. You teach that to oppose anyone’s sexual sin is hypocritical because most of the members drink too much or have had affairs so who are they to judge homosexuals? And you do this 24-7 until you have bullied and intimidated everyone and taken over.

        This is how communists and radicals took down the Methodist church and Methodist universities and academia. And this is how Communist Stalin and Nazi Hitler got the country. Propagandizing the youth and intimidating and bullying elders and everyone else. This is Communism 101. It’s a known strategy.

        Years ago, say fifteen years ago, a professor at Carey Theological named John Stackhouse went on Canadian Radio and debated a big bishop in the Anglican or United Church of Canada. The United Church in Canada is a mixture of Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans. So during this debate John Stockhouse added him if he believed in any of the doctrines or tenets of the Christian faith. Like virgin birth, deity of Christ, resurrection, etc. this bishop didn’t believe in any of it. Stackhouse, in brilliant fashion told the bishop he should leave the church. Of course he sputtered and stammered. And objected. Stackhouse told him he was no longer a Christian and had no right to lead other Christians or be in the church. He was categorically an unbeliever.

        Many of these mainline ministers are actually unbelievers. They no longer believe in Christ. Or any of the doctrines. Categorically they are either agnostics or atheists. They think Jesus is a groovy moral teacher only. Taught love and peace and being kind. Never said a hash word. Always wept. Never judged. Except those harsh religious right people. Didn’t die and rise in his body. Easter is more like a good feeling. And on and on it goes.

        They are radicals. They realized that there was plenty of money in these old mainline denominations and they could get their hands on it. They function as secular CEOs of endowment funds. Big buildings. They have coupled their big churches and money with the Democrat Party which is viewed as the party of the poor and down trodden and outcast, which of course, homosexuals are the most victimized. They have a social gospel seeing Jesus as someone who fed people loaves and fishes so many of their church programs are food banks or thrift store clothing outlets. All social and social justice for victimized minorities including gays which they don’t realize are rich and white and affluent. Doesn’t quite meet the criteria for the Mexican woman arriving with nothing and a bunch of sick kids does it? But they ignore that fact and a bunch of other stuff. They are masters at ignoring facts and inconsistencies with radical push backs of “racism” or “intolerant, right wing, extremist, haters”. They have all read and memorized Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” and know every verse of “kumbaya” and play the guitars and tambourines with gusto in their patchwork three tiered skirts and muslin pull over men’s shirts.

        They are Christianized Marxists. Liberation Theology disciples. Everything is about being unfair to minorities. They don’t care about anything but their own pitiful self pity. They confuse compassion with enabling others to abuse, use and sin. They no longer believe in Christ though they use him and misuse him and abuse him and his Word to fulfill their fleshly and insatiable lusts and egos and need to feel powerful and in control.

      • Dave Barnhart says:

        Hi, John,
        While you say you will make it “easy for me,” your question is a rhetorical trap. You start off with a fairly straightforward shibboleth, but you tag an additional clause which asks me to join your accusation of RMN, which I will not do.

        It’s a bit like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” That trap is called a “loaded question.” It makes it impossible to answer “yes” or “no.”

        In your post on the Facebook group “The New Methodists,” you introduced your article with admonishments that nobody should use straw man or ad hominem attacks against you. I take it you have some familiarity with these logical fallacies. Perhaps you have been accused of them before. Considering that your article that mentioned me was one long amalgamation of ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments and slippery slope logic, perhaps you felt that if you beat people to the punch, you could get away with what you forbade others to do.

        In the same way, you lead this question with admonishments not to play “language games.” In the very next sentence, you are playing language games. How should I take that?

        I don’t read enough of your stuff to know if this is an intentional strategy on your part or not. For my part, I’m willing to give you a charitable reading: Maybe you’ve made a mistake.

        Even so, considering this repeated rhetorical pattern in all two of our online interactions, I am not inclined to think of you as a trustworthy dialogue partner. I suspect you are more interested in scoring points than having a discussion, and are merely looking for more fuel to stoke a rage engine. So, as a preacher and educator, while I am always interested in having a discussion about the nature of sin, sexual ethics, and Methodist polity, I must decline to answer your question. You are welcome to read my follow-up, “What Good is Monogamy?” which is posted on my blog. There are several sentences there which I cannot prevent you from taking out of context and writing whole new pieces on, if you so desire. It is rather long, and there are a lot of words in it.

        I still think your question is interesting, and I’d love to have a conversation about what it means for something to be “inherently sinful.” Is war, lying, or contempt inherently sinful? Do these things alienate us from God? I’d love to hear what you think about Abraham and Sarah being half-siblings, and if their incest is inherently sinful or not. (I do, actually, think that their marriage was sinful in this and many other ways, but I think that’s much less interesting than God’s covenant relationship with them.)

        Anyway, sorry that I can’t answer your question without language games. But if you want a straight answer, you’ll need to ask a straight question. Thanks for trying to make it easy for me.

        I wish you the best.
        Dave

  10. ken says:

    Let’s be honest about gays and the doctrine of sin: gays (even those who attend church) do not believe they sin – period. They have convinced themselves, and a few heterosexuals, that they are a Victim group, and a member of a Victim group cannot sin, they can only be sinned against. So the basic teaching in Christianity – repent of your sins and be reconciled to God – is incomprehensible to them. They don’t “get it.” A hymn like “Amazing Grace” means nothing to them, because they cannot grasp matters like sin and salvation. They attend liberal churches to hear preaching against homophobia. They do not sin, nor are they encouraged to love and forgive “homophobes.” Their churches preach hate, not repentance. There are many homosexuals who attend church, of course, and there are many homosexual clergy. But to call them “Christian” would be very wrong, as the Bible’s teaching on sin, repentance, and divine forgiveness means nothing to them. They see the liberal churches as being useful in pushing their political agenda. They are good people because they are Victims. The only people they see as “sinners” are people who stand in the way of their agenda. To them, Christians are the scum of the earth. So there really can be no spiritual fellowship with them, for the simple reason that no gay man thinks of himself as a sinner in need of redemption, he is merely the Victim of evil people that he feels justified in hating. In gay theology, they are already “saved,” or more precisely, there is no sin they need to be saved from. Sin is what other people do to them. They are like children, they are not responsible for what happens. AIDS and other diseases are not their fault, they are the fault of evil forces that they have no control over.

  11. Byrom says:

    I will only note that while polygamy may have been acceptable in the Old Testament, having more than one wife plus making out with the servants was often a source of trouble. For example, consider the case of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Ishmael. The descendants of Ishmael are causing trouble all over the Middle East.

  12. dogged says:

    Your dispatch prods me to add my own testimony:
    Long before the hip leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) took upon themselves to redefine orthodox sexual mores, I departed the ELCA, the church body that had baptized, confirmed and frankly imparted me with a catholic understanding of the Christian faith. Since the swinging 60s the once Christ-centered ELCA marketed itself as a prophetic sounding board for the leftist policies of the Democrat Party. Nuclear disarmaments & freezes, women’s “reproductive health” issues, racial & ethnic quotas, race card-mania, a zealous LGBT advocacy, open borders, redistribution of wealth —-You name it and they were out there painting a pious veneer onto some very thorny secular movements. Jesus morphed into some sort of barefoot Marxist hawking “social justice”. But the membership of Liberal Protestant bodies is in a stampede—right out the door. Bad karma perhaps?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *