Ravi Zacharias Guilty Of Sexual Misconduct! What Do We Do With His Books, Sermons, And Open Forums?

        On December 23, 2020, the RZIM Board deemed their founder Ravi Zacharias as guilty of sexual misconduct:¹

In August 2020, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against our Founder, Ravi Zacharias. Unfortunately, Ravi had died several months before we first learned of these allegations, so we were unable to explore them with him directly. We engaged Miller & Martin PLLC to investigate these allegations, while also giving them wide latitude to go wherever their investigation might lead them...

However, while the investigation remains ongoing and is not expected to be completed until January or February, yesterday we received a brief interim update on the investigation we felt we needed to share...Sadly, the interim investigation update indicates this assessment of Ravi’s behavior to be true—that he did indeed engage in sexual misconduct.

            Quite a few sincere Christians wonder what to do with the many books, sermons, and open forums of Ravi Zacharias? They wonder if they should follow (take seriously) what a deliberately-sinning-servant-of-God wrote and preached or discard his work altogether. Some may even wonder whether they should continue supporting RZIM or not.

            Quite a dilemma indeed!

            Personally, I have listened to and read much of Ravi’s work. I also believe that God used Ravi Zacharias as a very valuable means to my growth in Christ.

            Now that Ravi has been proved as sexually depraved, can I undo that which I have learned about God from Ravi?

            That’s quite impossible.

            Do I now feel guilty for reading and listening to Ravi’s work?

            Ravi preached about God. God’s the source of all Ravi’s work. Ravi was a conduit. The conduit may have been flawed, but the source (God) is pure and perfect.

            Let’s consider this from another vantage point.

            The Bible teaches that all of us, which includes all the great apologists, evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc, are sinners (1 John 1:8-10).

            Everybody is a sinner. If one is sexually immoral the other may be suffering from greed or lusting for wealth etc. If not for that there may be spiritual pride in them, which is also a serious sin. The Bible also teaches that lusting after a man or a woman (who is not the spouse) in one’s heart is also a sin (Matthew 5:28).

            So while Ravi possibly was guilty of sexual immorality, other apologists and evangelists cannot deem themselves as sinless.

            There is not even one person who is righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10)!

            So every apologist, every preacher, every teacher, every evangelist is a sinner before God. If we decide to not learn from a sinful preacher or a teacher or a pastor or an apologist, then we cannot learn from anyone.

            Significantly, let us not forget the fact that it was God who gave Ravi the gifts of preaching, teaching, and writing.

            Ravi was such a celebrated writer and speaker. Somewhere down the line, he sinned against God and probably continued sinning. But God did not take away the gifts from Ravi.

            HE allowed Ravi to serve HIM.

            If God allowed Ravi to serve HIM while he was deliberately sinning, why can’t you and I continue learning from the work of Ravi Zacharias?

            If God found Ravi worthy of these gifts knowing full well that this servant of God would grievously sin against HIM, then we should continue learning from Ravi’s ministry. 

            Does this mean that God’s servants can sin intentionally and get away with it?

            No, a servant of God must not sin intentionally. However, a servant of God cannot be sinless and perfect.

            Every human being is flawed. We know it and God knows it. We constantly strive to resist temptation, but when we sin, we confess and repent and strive earnestly to not sin again.

            Although we resonate with Apostle Paul’s thoughts in Romans 7: 14-25 our life is excellently summarized in Romans 8:13-14 that says, “(for if you live according to the flesh, you will die), but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.”

            Unfortunately, Ravi is being clobbered by quite a few Christian leaders. Should we also find fault with Ravi?

            Thank God, Ravi was not a false teacher. HE preached Christ-crucified. However, he sinned grievously.

            But that does not authorize anyone to slander Ravi.

            This is not an occasion to be angry. This is an occasion to feel sad for Ravi, his family, and his ministry. This is an occasion to pray for Ravi’s family and his victims.

            On a side note: I do not for a moment think Ravi is in hell. I am confident he would be in heaven because he would have confessed and repented of his sins and God would have forgiven him. (News snippets about Ravi in the social media during his last days indicate this.)

            To me, Ravi will always be the gifted servant of God – albeit flawed.

            The Bible teaches that all of us are flawed one way or another – from the great Billy Graham to everyone else.

            I will use Ravi’s life as an example to understand that even the so-called most gifted preachers, teachers, pastors, and apologists may not be as what they appear to be. While I will always thank and pray to God for all HIS servants – the preachers, teachers, pastors, and apologists, my loyalty and my worship will only be Godward.

            The pot should never call the kettle black!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.rzim.org/page/update-from-rzim-board-allegations-against-ravi-zacharias

Website last accessed on 29^th December 2020. 

This Christmas, When Suffering Overwhelms Joy….

            Christmas is a time of celebration. Colorful decorations, new accessories, gifts, good food are a part and parcel of the celebration. Online or physical attendance at Christmas Eve or Christmas day service at our local church is a mandatory aspect of the celebration.

            So we reckon our Christmas celebration is complete when we have decorated our homes, attended the church service, placed our offering, eaten good food, gifted ourselves and our friends and family good gifts, and invited carolers and/or our friends to our home to reminisce the birth of our good Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

            A joyful Christmas season is one marked by each of these activities being performed in the best manner possible.

            Some Christians would add a noble gesture during the Christmas season. They would visit and bless those in the orphanages, hospitals, old age homes, and institutions for special people. Indeed a noble and a gracious gesture admirably appropriate for the Christmas season.

            Joy, happiness, contentment, fun, frolic, merry making, and to an extent blessing those in need symbolizes our Christmas season. 

            Hundreds of years before Christ, the Bible prophesying about HIS birth mentions a gory detail about Christ’s imminent life, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer…” (Isaiah 53:10, NIV).

            Christ did not come to enjoy a luxurious life, HE came into this world to suffer and die. Gory suffering was the means to the salvation of mankind.

            Suffering is thus intrinsic to the Christmas season.

            As it is, the presence of evil in our world makes many lives wallow in pain and misery. If we are to add the consequences of Covid to this situation, many more households are likely to be in pain and misery.

            So during this Christmas season let us be alert to people around us.

            Some of them may be mourning or silently suffering. They may not even have a shoulder to cry on or someone to empathize with their sorrow. They may also be in financial crisis.

            These brothers and sisters are longing for deliverance or at least some encouragement and comfort from their pain and misery.

            Their homes are not decorated this Christmas. No one is there to give them gifts. There is no special meal for them on Christmas day.

            Christmas day is another routine day - another day managing their suffering by bearing pain; another day longing for someone to care for them.

            They do think of and count their blessings. They do have an undying faith in God.

            But their pain overwhelms their joys.

            Why should their Christmas be a day of suffering when there are so many Christians who can afford to make their lives at least a little bit better than the other days?

            Do not count on the local church to encourage and comfort these souls in pain. The church of Jesus Christ is hardwired to cater to a larger group. The church cares less about that one single family in pain or that one single brother or sister neck-deep in suffering.

            It is incumbent upon every Christian who has been blessed abundantly by the Triune God to bless those in [intense] pain and suffering.

            This Christmas, you and I can…

            “Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed…”” (Luke 14:12-14a, NIV).

            May this Christmas be merry even in those households burdened with sorrow.

To Celebrate Christmas Or Not To? (Is There A Pagan Origin To Christmas?)

 

          When I was a teen, I had no qualms about celebrating Christmas. There were no social media back then. It probably made the decision easier.

            Today, social media rules. So we hear that Christians should not celebrate Christmas because it was once a pagan holiday. Doubt then creeps into a sincere Christian mind.

            Should we celebrate Christmas or not?

            But first, let’s see if Christmas had pagan roots?

            Much unlike contemporary comprehension, there are two theories. One - a popular theory, and another not so popular.

            J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity highlights the claim that Christmas had pagan roots. This is the popular theory.

            In his article entitled, Enjoy Christmas, Even Though It’s Probably Not Jesus’ Birthday, J. Warner Wallace wrote:¹

For many centuries before the birth of Christ, December 25th was similarly non-Christian. The present date for Christmas traces back to the 4th Century. When Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, he introduced the faith to a culture already deeply committed to the pagan worship of Roman gods. Christian leaders were in for a real challenge as they wrestled with prior cultural commitments to these gods. Pagan festivals and celebrations abounded throughout the year, celebrating and honoring Roman gods of one variety or another.

One of Rome’s biggest religious festivals occurred in the winter. The festival was called “Saturnalia”, and it was a celebration coinciding with the winter solstice. It occurred over a period of time corresponding to December 17th – 24th, ending on December 25th. This date, declared by Emperor Aurelian in 274AD to be “Dies Natalis Invicti Solis” (“Day of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun”), was a celebration of the Roman god, Saturn. The winter solstice also occurred around this time, celebrated when the sun reached its most southerly declination (when the North Pole is tilted 23.5 degrees from the sun). This marked the beginning of a number of pre-Roman pagan festivals and Roman holidays.

It shouldn’t surprise us this important pre-Christian holiday season would eventually take a Christian form. As a strategic consequence of those who wished to advance the truth of the Gospel, or simply as a cultural inevitability, December 25th became a Christian celebration. St. Augustine of Hippo (the early church theologian of the 4th and 5th Century), wrote about the newly adopted celebration, and said:

“We hold this day (December 25th) holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it”

            Although this theory is a popular theory, there is another theory - more ancient in its origin.

            Andrew McGowan, the Dean and President of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale cites the other theory in his article entitled How December 25 Became Christmas. This theory accounts for the origin of Christmas without any association with pagan roots. He writes:²

There is another way to account for the origins of Christmas on December 25: Strange as it may seem, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover. This view was first suggested to the modern world by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and fully developed by American Thomas Talley in more recent years.⁸ But they were certainly not the first to note a connection between the traditional date of Jesus’ death and his birth.

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died^c was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar.⁹ March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.¹⁰ Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.^d

This idea appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled On Solstices and Equinoxes, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: “Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.”¹¹ Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice.

Augustine, too, was familiar with this association. In On the Trinity (c. 399–419) he writes: “For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”¹²

            So objective research to understand Christ’s birth on December 25^th yields two different results – a popular theory that suggests pagan roots into Christ’s birth and another theory – not popular but certainly doing its rounds in the academic circles, which does not involve any pagan association.

            This is not to claim that Christ most certainly was born on December 25^th. But this is an endeavor to enlighten you that the origin of Christmas has two very different theories. The pagan-association theory is not the only theory.

            Let’s now consider the popular theory that the Christmas celebration has pagan roots and ask the question, ‘So what if Christmas has pagan origins?’ Even if Christmas has pagan roots, should we not celebrate Christmas?

            J. Warner Wallace cites a classic example of the transformation in the message of the cross to claim that we can celebrate Christmas even if it had pagan origins.

            The message of the cross in the Roman period was a symbol of power and authority. But the very same cross is now our symbol of grace and mercy. He writes:³

When we co-opt an ancient celebration, symbol or word and give it a new meaning, we abandon the first meaning in favor of the second…

…consider the cross. In Roman times, the cross was an ugly, brutal instrument of death. The outskirts of large cities were often landscaped with crosses lining the roads to the city. Criminals were brutally executed on these crosses and displayed publicly. The message of the cross was clear. It was a symbol of the power, authority and bloody brutality of the Empire. The cross was filled with meaning in the days before Jesus. But that changed after the resurrection, as Christianity adopted the cross as a new kind of symbol. For Christians, the cross demonstrates the gift of Jesus who died to provide eternal life for all those who believe. For us, the cross symbolizes the sacrifice God made for our sin. The cross has a new meaning we ascribe as believers, superseding the old symbolism of the Roman Empire. The cross is now our symbol of the grace, mercy and gift of God.

That’s what Christmas is for my family. It’s our symbol of the grace, mercy and gift of God. The prior ancient meanings of the holiday don’t matter to me… So, if your family celebrates Christmas and a Christian holiday, enjoy it, even though it’s probably not Jesus’ real birthday.

.           So it does not matter whether Christmas had pagan origins or not. All that matters is the existence of the Historical Jesus is a proven fact. HE did exist, so HIS birth can be celebrated anytime, December 25^th is one such date when we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

            The Scripture prophesied Jesus' birth, “…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).” (Matthew 1:20-23, ESV).

            So let’s celebrate Christmas without any qualms. The Lord Jesus is with us.

            May this Christmas season enlighten us more about the living God and HIS Son our Lord Jesus Christ. May HIS power and wisdom be ours as we navigate through very turbulent times. May the Prince of Peace bring the peace of God into your life and mine.

            Merry Christmas!

Endnotes:

¹https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/enjoy-christmas-tomorrow-even-though-its-probably-not-jesus-birthday/

²https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/

³https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/enjoy-christmas-tomorrow-even-though-its-probably-not-jesus-birthday/

Websites last accessed on December 23^rd 2020.

What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.

Cult Watch: The Enemy Within – Progressive Christians!

            Your friendly neighborhood Christian may be friendly and even brotherly but may not be a Christian after all. He is a greater threat to the salvation of a sincere Christian.

            He is the Progressive Christian or a Liberal Christian – the cunning wolf in Christian spiritual attire.

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity cannot be ignored. We cannot label them as non-threatening. They are real and they pose a terrifying challenge to our spiritual wellness.

            Who are progressive Christians? A progressive Christian (or about to be one) would utter the following comments (thanks to Alisa Childers’ blog), which disagree with the core tenets of Historic Christianity:¹

1.      Sin doesn't separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good....

2.      God didn't actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms....

3.      We don't really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy...

4.      God wouldn't punish sinners—He is love....

5.      Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history...

6.      It's not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it's our job to just love them....

7.      The resurrection of Jesus doesn't have to be factual to speak truth....

8.  The church's historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework...

9.    The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted....

10.  That Bible verse doesn't resonate with me....

11.  I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people....

12.  I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell....

13.  I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue...

            Whenever we are in a discussion with our Christian friends, we should red-flag these comments if our friend utters one or more of them because that should remind us that he/she could be a progressive Christian.

            Another way to identify a liberal or a progressive Christian is by observing his loyalties, which would oppose the Historic Christian and align with the Progressive worldview. A progressive Christian would typically believe that:

            1. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

            2. Jesus will save all mankind (Universalism or Inclusivism).

            3. Jesus will not send people to hell or there is no hell or another variant of this.

            4. LGBTQ practices are legitimate. {They will subsequently approve ‘Polyamory’ (the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all the people involved.) and even Pedophilia!}

            5. Abortion is legit (pro-choice).  

            These are a few examples.

            In essence, the progressive or liberal Christians would hold to a lowered view of the Bible, which means: [Emphasis Mine].²

A. REINTERPRET THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY: Progressivism challenges core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. The Scriptures teach that Jesus was crucified to atone for our sins, but progressives tend to argue that Jesus’ death was merely a martyrdom. The Scriptures claim that Jesus is divine, but often progressives only emphasize the humanity of Jesus–unitarianism grew up with Western liberalism. The sinfulness of humanity is generally downplayed by progressives, who tend to think that all people are basically good and not really in need of salvation.

B. HISTORIC TERMS ARE REDEFINED: Progressives often are beholden to the ideology of science and to the most recent sentiments of the age, so they constantly reinterpret the Scriptures to keep up with Western sensibilities.

Often progressives use biblical language, but they shift its meaning: the resurrection becomes a metaphor instead of a historic fact, holiness becomes liturgy instead of sexual purity, and the like. Same language, but new meanings.

A big one is “love.” If we allow a 21st century definition of love to be imported back into historic, biblical Christianity, we may end up with something quite different from what the Scriptures mean. “Love” in the Bible means putting the needs of others first, but “love” in 21st century thought means accepting or embracing whatever a person wants you to accept and embrace.

That’s not biblical love.

C. THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE SHIFTS FROM SIN AND REDEMPTION TO SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice is a central concern of the Scriptures, and it should be a central concern for disciples of Jesus. But “social justice” is a relatively new term — one not found in the Bible. It’s a fine term if it means treating people fairly, fighting racism, standing for life, and the like.

But often the term “social justice” means little more than political ideology that is largely disconnected from biblical justice. Progressives tend to focus on social justice to the exclusion of the Gospel. The Gospel is not about God making paradise of this world, but God raising us into a new heaven and earth. When social justice replaces the Gospel, you won’t get the Gospel, but you also won’t get justice.

            How dangerous is Progressive Christianity? Would a progressive Christian go to hell? This is a significant question. (If progressive Christianity does not have any significant eternal ramifications, then why are we wasting our time striving to refute it?)

            Progressive Christianity believes that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. They do not believe that the Bible is the only book that Christians should believe and follow. They believe in the other religious books as if they are just as valid as the Bible. Sin and redemption are not the essential ingredients to the gospel. Social justice is the crux of their gospel. Progressive Christians believe that other religions are just as valid as Christianity is.

            This version of Christianity is diluted, warped, and distorted. It removes a Christian away from the Bible.

            This is not Christianity.

            Those who believe and subscribe to progressive Christianity may call themselves Christians, but they are not Christians in the biblical sense.

            The final argument for suggesting hell as an eternal destination for progressive Christians is this:

            Progressive or Liberal Christianity alludes to the notion that Christians can sin freely and without any guilt. They are not compelled to believe in Jesus or the Bible.

            Progressive Christianity espouses the notion that people can abuse God until their very last breath, yet not be hellbound. For instance, Richard Dawkins, in his book ‘God Delusion’ abused God as, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

            If Dawkins (if he is to be an Atheist or a Christian - hypothetically speaking) continues to abuse God until his very last breath, progressive Christians would believe that Dawkins will go to heaven or at the very minimum be annihilated (post his death), once and for all.

            A religion that teaches or even allude to the notion that one can abuse God, yet go to heaven, is a false religion that worships a mythical god!

            These beliefs of the progressives are against the core tenets of Historic Christianity.

            So sincere Christians, beware of the enemy within – the progressives!

Endnotes:

¹https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-signs-your-church-might-be-heading-toward-progressive-christianity

²https://christianchronicle.org/is-progressive-christianity-dangerous/

Websites last accessed on 11^th November 2020.

Pope Francis Approves Homosexual Marriages? (Can A Catholic Disagree With Pope Francis?)

             Recently, Pope Francis called for a civil union law that legally protects same-sex marriages. Pope Francis claimed that gay couples have an inherent right to this protection because they are God’s children, ““Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it...””¹

            In this context, two antecedent events are remarkable.

            First, in the past, Pope Francis did not approve of a civil union law for gay couples. He characterized the civil union law for gay couples, if implemented, as an anthropological regression, “In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”²

            Second, the official Catholic teaching opposes the practice of homosexuality and the implementation of a civil law for gay couples, “In 2003, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and at the direction of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions…” “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity…” “Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase,” the document said.”³ [Emphasis Mine].

            This then is the problem.

            Advocating for a civil union law to protect gay marriages is synonymous with endorsing the homosexual practice. Furthermore, this may sway young Catholics towards accepting and practicing homosexuality.

            The theological stumbling block is this: God, through the Bible, deemed homosexuality as a sin. But Pope Francis seems to have declassified homosexuality as an acceptable practice before God.

            Only God has the authority to classify a practice as a sin. So if a practice ought to be declassified from sin to an acceptable practice, then it is God who should exercise HIS authority to execute the declassification. 

            Essentially, Pope Francis has played God again.

            The temptation to play God could be a consequence of ‘Papal Infallibility.’

            Anything that the Pope says or does would have consequences to the Catholic community. In this context, would the radical shift in Pope Francis’ perception of gay marriages influence the Catholic Church to change its stance on gay marriages? Alternatively, should the Pope’s opinion change or detrimentally influence the doctrinal stand of a catholic?

            In order to arrive at an answer to these questions, we need to understand the concept of ‘Papal Infallibility.’ In other words, did the pope assume infallibility while making such comments?

            To understand Papal Infallibility, we need to understand a few technical terms:

            1. The Magisterium is the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian faith and life…⁴

            2. The Extraordinary Magisterium “is exercised when a doctrine pertaining to Faith and morals is proclaimed as definitive and infallible:

                      1. by the pope alone or

                      2. by the pope and an Ecumenical Council with him.

            The pope makes infallible pronouncements when he speaks “ex cáthedra” (Latin:    from the throne), i.e. with the full weight of his office.”⁵

            3. The Ordinary Magisterium “is exercised when the pope or the bishops in communion with him propose, without pronouncing in a definitive manner, a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of Faith and morals.” ⁶

            Ed Feser, one of the best contemporary writers in Philosophy, explains Papal Infallibility well. This, interestingly, is in response to a question if the pope, in theory, could reverse the Church’s teaching about homosexuality.

            Feser puts forth the following points in his blog entitled “Papal fallibility (Updated)” [Emphasis Mine]:⁷

A. “Some people think that Catholic teaching is that a pope is infallible not only when making ex cathedra declarations, but in everything he does and says.  That is also simply not the case.  Catholic doctrine allows that popes can make grave mistakes, even mistakes that touch on doctrinal matters in certain ways.”

B. “Some think that a Catholic is obliged to accept the teaching of a pope only when that teaching is put forward by him as infallible.  That too is not the case… Others think that a Catholic is obliged to agree more or less with every view or decision of a pope regarding matters of theology, philosophy, politics, etc. even when it is not put forward as infallible.  And that too is not the case.” 

C. There are “several conditions for the exercise of this extraordinary Magisterium.  First, the pope must appeal to his supreme teaching authority as the successor of Peter, as opposed to speaking merely as a private theologian, or making off-the-cuff remarks, or the like.  An exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium would, accordingly, typically involve some formal and solemn declaration.  Second, he must be addressing some matter of doctrine concerning faith or morals…Third, he must be “defining” some doctrine in the sense of putting it forward as official teaching that is binding on the entire Church.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to teaching that concerns merely local or contingent circumstances.”

D. The pope cannot contradict the Scripture.

E. Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept.  It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine.  Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine.  If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken.

F. Popes could err. In his blog, Feser mentions instances of errant popes, some in an extremely serious way. Feser writes, “if popes can err gravely even on matters touching on doctrine and the governance of the Church, it goes without saying that they can err gravely with respect to matters of politics, science, economics, and the like.”

G. Why do popes err? Feser predicates papal error upon free will, “The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely.  Why?  In part because popes, like all of us, have free will.  But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.”

            Thanks to Ed Feser, it’s quite obvious that Pope Francis did not exercise extraordinary magisterium when he spoke about the civil law for gay marriages. Moreover, since the Bible is extremely explicit about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis cannot, and is not authorized to, contradict the Bible to declassify homosexuality from being a sin to an acceptable practice. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that popes have erred and can err. So Pope Francis has indeed erred.

            So we infer that Pope Francis’ opinion about civil laws for gay couples cannot influence or change the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

            Therefore, a Catholic need not consider Pope Francis’ statement to be infallible. But can legitimately disagree with the pope and continue to do what the Bible says i.e. do not practice or endorse homosexuality because it is a sin (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/05/29/the-magisterium-defined/

⁵CCC 891;  http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁶CCC 892; http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁷http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Websites last accessed on 1^st November 2020.