This is a story that illuminates the critical importance of sound church leadership informed by unequivocal, courageous commitment to biblical truth.

No Protestant denomination will be spared attacks on theological orthodoxy by apostates and heretics who view Scripture as a means to their pernicious ends of normalizing sexual sin. The attacks will come in fits and starts, and the victories for wolves in sheep’s clothing will be incremental. True Christ-followers need to be steeped in Scripture, led by pastors who know and boldly teach truth, discerning, and committed to suffering for Christ and his kingdom.

The recent Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) annual meeting called the Gathering, at which delegates vote on leadership and doctrinal positions, serves as a sad example of what is going awry within Christendom.

IFI has a personal connection to the ECC Gathering—a connection that led to a deeply troubling revelation in the days preceding the late June event. Pastor Lance Davis, until recently an IFI board member, resigned on June 12, just nine days before the start of the ECC Gathering. In March, Davis had been nominated by the ECC Board of Ordered Ministry for the position of Executive Minister for Develop Leaders/Ordered Ministry. The vote for his nomination took place at the Gathering on Friday, June 22.

As mentioned, Davis resigned from the IFI Board on June 12, citing his desire to focus on the upcoming election, specifically emphasizing the critical importance of getting elected in order to retain the ECC’s theologically orthodox positions on matters related to homosexuality—positions that have been under sustained attack in the ECC for several years.

IFI learned that on June 19, the heretical ECC group called “Mission Friends for Inclusion” (MF4i), whose chief goal is to undermine theological orthodoxy on homosexuality, published a blog post that says this:

We did have some concerns about Rev. Davis’s history, including his involvement with the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), which has been categorized as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for the last nine years. He told us that he was involved with them during the same-sex marriage legislative debate in Illinois years ago, but disassociated himself from them after they published an “egregious” and “mean-spirited” blog about some Covenant clergy. He noted that he was “deeply offended” and reached out and apologized to the clergy for this blog.

We also asked Rev. Davis about the involvement of Illinois Family Action (the legislative arm of IFI) at an event at his church in March 2016.

…

Rev. Davis ended his email with the following message,

“My church hosted a town hall meeting during the last presidential campaign in response to my community’s displeasure with Ted and Raphael Cruz’s dismissive stance regarding the plight of the African American and Hispanic communities. IFI, Freedoms Journal and other conservative organizations ‘invited’ themselves to the meeting. This was the beginning of the end of my relationship with IFI.”

To say we at IFI were shocked would be an understatement. Here are the factual errors in Davis’ response to the MF4i—errors which IFI shared with Pastor Mark Pattie, head of the nominating committee, two days before the election:

1.) While Davis said the beginning of the end of his affiliation with IFI was March of 2016 after the Rafael Cruz event at his church, Davis did not end his affiliation with IFI until June 12, 2018—one week before the MF4i blog post was published and over two years after Davis told MF4i that his affiliation had begun to end (whatever that means). He was an active board member who consistently indicated he supported our mission—including our positions on matters related to homosexuality.

2.) While Davis claimed Illinois Family Action (IFA)—our 501(c)4 sister organization—invited itself to a townhall meeting at his church, the truth is IFA organized the event.

3.) While Davis said the Cruz event organized by IFA was “in response to” his community’s “displeasure with Ted and Raphael Cruz’s dismissive stance regarding the plight of the African American and Hispanic communities,” it was, in fact, organized to support the candidacy of Ted Cruz.

4.) While Davis said he disassociated himself from IFI after I wrote an article critical of some ECC leaders in January 2018, the truth is he was an active board member until June 12, 2018 and had consulted with us a number of times in the two weeks before the election on matters related to it.

Moreover, he had generously complimented me on and thanked me for the article he described to MF4i as “egregious” and “mean-spirited.”

Finally, how could Davis disassociate himself from IFI in Jan. 2018 when, according to him, he had begun ending his affiliation almost two years earlier in March of 2016? Oh, what a tangled web….

During the Q & A with Davis prior to the vote at the Gathering, a pastor expressed his appreciation that Davis had ended his relationship with the Illinois Family Institute, which he referred to as a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group. Davis—who sat on our board and asked for our help as recently as two weeks before this comment was made—spent not even 15 seconds to defend IFI against the false characterization. Following the Q & A, Davis was elected.

Although this experience was the most personally dispiriting incident at the Gathering, it wasn’t the only dispiriting one.

Once again, heretics within the ECC persisted in trying to change the ECC position on homosexuality, with Peter Hawkinson, pastor of Winnetka Covenant Church—about whom I have written—making yet another play for heresy. He’s nothing if not persistent in advocating for the enemy.

And then there was Mark Nilson, pastor of Salem Covenant Church in Worcester, Massachusetts, and until 2015 pastor of North Park Covenant Church in Chicago. Nilson, rather than appealing to Scripture in his comments, tugged on the unreliable heart strings of fallen people, telling them that one of his two sons affirms a homosexual identity and, therefore, Nilson can’t officiate at his wedding. Since Nilson can’t officiate at a faux-wedding between his son and another man, he refuses to officiate at a true wedding between his other son and a woman. That’ll teach the church a lesson it won’t soon forget.

At least as problematic is that Nilson’s wife Robin has a rainbow flag as her Facebook profile picture. A prior profile picture of hers was the symbol of the Human Rights Campaign—a deep-pocketed, homosexuality-affirming, anti-Christian hate group. It should be shocking to all ECC members and leaders that both a pastor and his wife who serve in this denomination that affirms theological orthodoxy on homosexuality publicly affirm heresy.

A denomination cannot rationally maintain both the position that God detests homosexual acts and relationships and that he approves of them. Former evangelical and current heretic David Gushee wrote this about the irreconcilable nature of those two theological positions:

I now believe that incommensurable differences in understanding the very meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of the Bible, and the sources and methods of moral discernment, separate many of us from our former brethren…. I also believe that attempting to keep the dialogue going is mainly fruitless. The differences are unbridgeable.

And despite what ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing say while they await their next tasty meal, unity never trumps truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Trouble-in-the-Evangelical-Covenant-Church.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

There’s something rotten in the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC). It’s rotting from the inside due to the presence of wolves in sheep’s clothing like Peter Hawkinson, pastor of Winnetka Covenant Church; Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, North Park Theological Seminary professor; and Judy Peterson, the recently removed chaplain of North Park University. Their theological drift away from orthodoxy is indicative of what is taking place in many denominations that are supplanting Scripture with personal experience and desire as the lens through which to read and interpret Scripture.

Hawkinson has been drifting in the direction of heresy for several years, but kinda, sorta started “coming out” in baby steps—always wearing sheep’s clothing—over the past two years beginning with the church leadership presenting to the congregation “a motion inviting the church leadership to propose to the congregation a specific program of purposeful discernment for addressing the issue of LGBTQ inclusion.” I kid you not. That’s what a December letter to the congregation said.

It’s a dense thicket of ambiguous, evasive double-talk rhetoric through which to wade in order to purposefully discern the heretical end game toward which Hawkinson has been leading his congregation, but I’ll give it the old college try.

Please note the use of distinctly unbiblical rhetoric. Rather than using biblical language to refer to erotic relations between two people of the same sex or to people who assume an opposite-sex persona, this statement uses Leftist jargon (i.e., “LGBTQ”) that embodies affirmation of these behaviors.

After the approved motion, came a 6-member task force to organize the “program of purposeful discernment,” a series of 7 meetings to which all church members were invited but only a minority attended. Then the task force organized a pack of 12* to write the “Welcome Statement” that Hawkinson all along desired. Here is that heretical statement, a statement that violates the ECC position, which calls homosexuality “sexual sin”:

We welcome you to Winnetka Covenant Church. We are a community of diverse history and ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation, status, ability, and challenges. We invite you to join us wherever you are on your spiritual journey and to participate fully in the life of the church.

So many things wrong, so little time.

First, please note again the secular “progressive” terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” These are devious rhetorical constructs intended to confuse, deceive, and muddy the theological waters.

“Gender identity” is intended to render equivalent the experience of men and women who accept their biological sex and those who reject their sex. The Bible is clear that men and women are not to adopt the cultural conventions of the opposite sex in order to pretend to be the sex they are not.

The term “sexual orientation” is similarly intended to confuse, deceive, and muddy ideological and theological waters. It is intended to suggest that heterosexuality and homosexuality are flipsides of the sexuality coin, whereas, in truth, homosexuality is a disordering of the sexual impulse resulting ultimately from the Fall. The Bible is clear that God abhors homosexual activity and relationships even as he loves those who experience disordered same-sex attraction.

Second, Hawkinson (et al.) includes the sins of sexual impersonation and homosexuality in a list of non-behavioral and, therefore, morally neutral conditions like history, ethnicity, and disability. In doing so,  he reveals his view that homoeroticism and sexual impersonation are morally neutral acts, whereas, according to Scripture, they are serious sins that if not repented of jeopardize one’s eternal life.

Third, churches should welcome all people, but welcoming people does not—indeed, must not—include affirming sin as good. Moreover, inviting people to “participate fully in the life of the church” must include calling them to repent of their sins.

Hawkinson has suggested in the past that these are issues on which Christians can disagree. Theologically orthodox religious leaders beg to differ—strenuously. The morality of sexual impersonation and homoerotic activity and an understanding of the nature of marriage are to theologically orthodox faith leaders theological deal breakers.

Sam Allberry, British theologian who works for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and the Gospel Coalition UK and who experiences same-sex attraction, writes this:

[Homosexuality] is a gospel issue. When so-called evangelical leaders argue for affirmation of gay relationships in the church, I’m not saying they’re not my kind of evangelical, I’m saying they are no kind of evangelical…. [W]e must never allow ourselves to think of this as just another issue Christians are free to differ over.

Theologian Denny Burke shares Allberry’s view:

A church either will or will not accept members who are practicing homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not discipline members for homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not ordain clergy who are practicing homosexuals. There is no middle ground between these practical polarities. If you are in a church that allows both points of view…, then functionally your church is no different from a fully “affirming” congregation.

Even former evangelical/current heretic David Gushee believes that churches cannot sensibly maintain mutually exclusive views on homosexuality:

I now believe that incommensurable differences in understanding the very meaning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the interpretation of the Bible, and the sources and methods of moral discernment, separate many of us from our former brethren…. I also believe that attempting to keep the dialogue going is mainly fruitless. The differences are unbridgeable.

Hawkinson isn’t the only heretical religious leader in the ECC. North Park Seminary, the seminary affiliated with the ECC, has professor Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, who teaches young seminarians that homoerotic activity and relationships please God. And at the end of April 2017, North Park University chaplain, Judy Nelson, officiated at a same-sex faux-wedding between two men in defiance of the ECC’s (and Jesus’) position that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

In my mind’s ear, I can hear the gasps of some who will find it unseemly that I would refer to people as “nice” and “kind” as Hawkinson, Clifton-Soderstrom, and Nelson as wolves. The real problem, however, is that too few Christians recognize that these faith leaders are wolves. It’s as if Christians who have read Scripture still do not recognize that ravenous wolves will look like sheep.

A ravenous wolf may be someone who knows that his or her teachings are false, or it may be someone who believes that what he or she is teaching is true. What distinguishes a wolf (or false prophet) is that he or she teaches lies. You can recognize them not by how they appear but by whether their teaching or preaching comports with Scripture.

If Christian leaders who affirm that which Scripture says is an abomination to God are not wolves and false prophets, who are? If Christian leaders who affirm a form of marriage that contradicts the very words of Jesus Christ are not wolves and false prophets, who are?

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” ~ (Col. 2:8)

*Pack of 12:

Karen Bowen
Peter Hawkinson (pastor)
Gary Isaacson
Nadia Jimenez
Gladys Johnson
Brian Madvig (church chair)
Mary Beth Molenaar
Maria Moreno
Arthur A.R. Nelson (pastor emeritus)
Mary Olson
LoAnn Peterson
Sue Samuelson

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Heresy-Infecting-the-Evangelical-Covenant-Church.mp3

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-

I received two thoughtful messages in response to an article I wrote about heresies related to homosexuality making inroads into churches. The men who wrote were concerned that the list of denominations I included could be misinterpreted as suggesting that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has adopted the unbiblical positions of the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA). Their concerns are justifiable, and I would like to offer both an apology and a clarification.

My intention was neither to criticize the PCA—a denomination which I deeply respect and appreciate—nor to mislead readers about the PCA’s positions on sexual morality and marriage. My goal was to warn readers that attacks on orthodoxy are coming to every denomination—including even the steadfastly orthodox.

I thought this statement made clear that I wasn’t accusing all the denominations mentioned of abandoning orthodoxy:

[S]ubversive heresies are dividing Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal, PCUSA, PCA, United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Evangelical Covenant denominations. In some cases, while the denomination still affirms orthodox theological positions, particular pastors ordained by these denominations have abandoned them…. 

Evidently I was wrong about clarity, and I want to humbly apologize for my carelessness.

I should have created two different lists: one that included denominations that have already embraced heresy and one that included denominations that remain orthodox but have experienced challenges from within to orthodoxy. In the latter category, I would place the PCA, Evangelical Covenant Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention.

Both the PCA and the Southern Baptist Convention have responded properly to these challenges. The PCA’s challenge came from former PCA pastor Fred Harrell who several years ago rejected the PCA position on women’s ordination, foreshadowing perhaps his more recent theological mischief. Because the PCA steadfastly maintains its biblical view regarding women’s ordination, it allowed Pastor Harrell’s church to leave the PCA and affiliate with the liberal RCA. More recently, Harrell announced the decision of his church to permit homosexual practice within homosexual faux-marriages.

Last year, then-Southern Baptist pastor Danny Cortez announced his rejection of orthodox views of homosexuality. He sought to remain affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, proposing a “third way,” which would allow members the freedom to embrace heresy. Wisely the governing board rejected such a proposal and voted against this church’s continued membership in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Another worrisome signal of potential challenges to PCA orthodoxy include the decision of a PCA-affiliated club to remain a Vanderbilt University-sanctioned student organization following the edict by Vanderbilt that no clubs may discriminate in membership or leadership based on “sexual orientation.” The vast majority of Christian ministries at Vanderbilt refused to sign the “anti-discrimination” agreement. The PCA-affiliated group was one of the two that did sign it.

Moreover, in the a September, 2014 issue of the PCA magazine, byFaith, Tim Geiger, executive director of Harvest USA, a ministry that works with “sexually broken people,” shared that “roughly 70 percent of young people in the PCA (under age 30) don’t have a biblical view of homosexuality.” Harvest’s founder and president John Freeman explained that “their sociology now interprets and defines their theology about homosexuality rather than the other way around.” This theological problem among so many millennials–and not just among PCA millennials–will necessarily result in challenges to orthodoxy.

The Evangelical Covenant Church seems to have a more troubling relationship with heresy. More than one pastor and at least one professor at North Park Theological Seminary embrace heresy on matters related to homosexuality, though many Covenant Church members have no knowledge of the division these leaders are fomenting.

Professor of Theology and Ethics at North Park College Seminary, Michelle Clifton-Soderstrom, advocates for the embrace of heresy in liberal Jim Wallis’ religion journal, Sojourners. Her articles are titled “In Over My Head: Freedom and LGBT Inclusion” and “In Over My Heart: Friendship and the LGBT Church.”

Clifton-Soderstrom’s ambiguous, oblique, heartstring-yanking rhetoric masks some deeply flawed arguments that are contributing to the dissension building within the Evangelical Covenant Church. This dissension remains concealed from many Covenant Church members but is evident at annual leadership conventions. There are now pastors who align theologically with Clifton-Soderstrom but are not sharing their revolutionary doctrinal evolution with their congregations.

Just two weeks ago, Clifton-Soderstrom spoke on “Faithful Dissent” at a conference sponsored by the pernicious Reformation Project founded by Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian. Here is the stated mission of the Reformation Project:

The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.

The keynote speaker was Dr. David Gushee, an Evangelical ethicist who created a teeny tiny splash last year after he fell into the rainbow-hued pool in which so many Americans are drowning. He had leaned leftward for so long, he could no longer hold himself upright. Kersplash he went.

Concerns about attacks on orthodoxy extend even to Evangelical bulwarks like Wheaton College (full disclosure, two of my children and their spouses graduated from Wheaton.) One Wheaton is a group of homosexual alumni and students who seek to undermine theological orthodoxy at Wheaton College. Yes, it’s a small group, but so too was the group of homosexual agitators who started the riots at Stonewall in 1969, and look at the harm they’ve wrought. A few foolish but impassioned subversives can grow in number and influence, leaving destruction and suffering in their wake.

Attacks on orthodoxy start in contexts that most church members rarely encounter or even hear about. The signs are first found at the fringes of culture or within our ivory towers. So, here are some tips to help you track the rise of heresy:

• Find and read articles written by theologians.

• Pay attention to the Fred Harrell/Danny Cortez stories.

• Ask your pastors if any debates or controversies are bubbling up in their assemblies, conventions, and conferences.

• Take note of shifts in rhetoric, including the use of “progressive” diction or arguments in favor of using only language that tickles the ears of secularists.

• Think critically about the embrace of the term “gay celibate Christian,” which both recent Wheaton College Ministry Associate for Pastoral Care Julie Rodgers and well-respected conservative theologian Wesley Hill use to identify themselves.

• Talk to others about whether this statement by Wheaton ministry associate Rodgers is theologically problematic: A “gay orientation” is “merely an expression of diversity, a unique way of experiencing art and beauty and community.”

• Ask your pastors and other church leaders direct questions about their theological beliefs.

Again, my sincere apologies to faithful, courageous, and wise leaders and members of the PCA for any confusion or offense I caused.

Please support IFI!

The New Rules of the Secular Left

The vast high-velocity moral revolution that is reshaping modern cultures at warp speed is leaving almost no aspect of the culture untouched and untransformed. The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that could not be true, and now the entire nation knows.

The latest Ground Zero for the moral revolution is the state of Indiana, where legislators passed a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence then signed into law. The controversy that followed was a free-for-all of misrepresentation and political posturing. Within days, the governor capitulated to the controversy by calling for a revision of the law — a revision that may well make the RFRA a force for weakening religious liberty in Indiana, rather than for strengthening it.

Business, political, and civic leaders piled on in a mass act of political posturing. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993 in a mass act of bipartisan cooperation. The Act passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 affirmative votes in the U.S. Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, celebrating the Act as a much needed protection of religious liberty. Clinton called religious liberty the nation’s “first freedom” and went on to state: “We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

But, that was then. Indiana is now.

Hillary Clinton, ready to launch her campaign for President, condemned the law as dangerous and discriminatory — even though the law in its federal form has not led to any such discrimination. Apple CEO Tim Cook took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare that the Indiana law “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.” For its part,The Washington Post published an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board condemned a proposed RFRA in the state of Georgia because the law would prevent the state government “from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so.”

So, The Washington Post believes that a state should be able to infringe on a citizen’s religious liberty without a compelling interest? That is the only conclusion a reader can draw from the editorial.

The piling on continued when the governor of Connecticut, Dannel Mulloy announced that he would even forbid travel to Indiana by state officials, conveniently forgetting to mention that his own state has a similar law, as does the federal government. The NCAA piled on, as did a host of sports figures from across the country. More than one pundit pointed to the irony of the NCAA trying to posture on a question of sexual morality, but the pile-on continued.

Law professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University stated the truth plainly when he said: “The reaction to this law is startling in terms of its breadth–and to my mind–the extent to which the reaction is uninformed by the actual content of the law.” Similarly, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a proponent of gay marriage, stated: “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified.” He continued: “It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board . . . it’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

Nevertheless, the real issue here is not the RFRA in Indiana, or Arkansas, or another state. The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.

The evidence for this massive and dangerous shift is mounting.

One key indicator is found in the editorial pages of The New York Times. That influential paper has appointed itself the guardian of civil liberties, and it has championed LGBT causes for decades now. But the paper’s editorial board condemned the Indiana law as “cover for bigotry.” The most chilling statement in the editorial, however, was this:

“The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.”

There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

That editorial represents religious liberty redefined before our eyes.

But the clearest evidence of the eagerness of the secular Left to reduce and redefine religious liberty comes in the form of two columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni. The first, published in January, included Bruni’s assurance that he affirmed “the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes, and hearts.” Religious liberty is now redefined so that it has no place outside pews, homes, and hearts. Religious liberty no longer has any public significance.

But Bruni does not really affirm religious liberty, even in churches and in the hiring of ministers. He wrote: “And churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The ability of churches to hire and fire ministers as they wish is “questionable.” Remember that line when you are told that your church is promised “freedom of worship.”

But Bruni’s January column was merely a prelude to what came in the aftermath of the Indiana controversy. Now, the openly-gay columnist demands that Christianity reform its doctrines as well.

He opened his column in the paper’s edition published Easter Sunday with this:

“The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision. They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.”

Bruni issued an open demand that evangelical Christians to get over believing that homosexuality is a sin, or suffer the consequences. His language could not be more chilling:

“So our debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

There you have it — a demand that religious liberty be debated (much less respected) only if conservative believers will get with the program and, mark his language, bow to the demands of the modern age.

Christianity and homosexuality “don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni declared.

He reduced religious conviction to a matter of choice:

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

So the only religion Bruni respects is one that capitulates to the modern age and is found “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

That means giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, for one thing. The Bible, according to Bruni, reflects the biases and blind spots of the human authors and their times. When it comes to homosexuality, he insists, we now know better.

This is the anthem of liberal Protestantism, and the so-called mainline Protestant churches have been devoted to this project for the better part of a century now. Bruni applauds the liberal churches for getting with the program and for revising the faith in light of the demands of the modern age — demands that started with the denial of truths such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and other vital doctrines. The liberal churches capitulated on the sexuality issues only after capitulating on a host of central Christian doctrines. Almost nothing is left for them to deny or reformulate.

It is interesting to see how quickly some can get with the program and earn the respect of the secular gatekeepers. Bruni cites David Gushee of Mercer University as an example of one who has seen the light. “Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” Bruni quotes Gushee. Bruni then stated that Gushee “openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.”

But David Gushee agreed with the church’s historic condemnation of same-sex relationships, even in a major work on Christian ethics he co-authored, until he released a book stating otherwise just months ago. Once a public figure gets with the program, whether that person is David Gushee or Barack Obama, all is quickly forgiven.

Bruni also notes that “Christians have moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.” He is right to understand that some Christians have indeed done so, and in so doing they have made it very difficult to stop with redefining the Bible on gender roles. Once that is done, there is every reason to expect that a revisionist reading of sexuality is close behind. Bruni knows this, and celebrates it.

Taken together, Frank Bruni’s two columns represent a full-throttle demand for theological capitulation and a fully developed reduction of religious liberty. In his view, stated now in full public view in the pages ofThe New York Times, the only faiths that deserve religious liberty are those that bow their knees to the ever most costly demands of the modern age.

It is incredibly revealing that the verb he chose was “bowing.” One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar and to Christ. We must choose one or the other. Frank Bruni, whether he intended to do so or not, helps us to see that truth with new clarity.

Sources:

Frank Bruni, “Your God and My Dignity,” The New York Times, Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html

Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times, Sunday, April 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com website.