Details

Hits: 3221

Vocations and church attendance are down. Young people are leaving the church in droves. Why?

By Thomas Reese, May 10, 2022

(RNS) — There are numerous signs that the Catholic Church is failing in Western countries. There are few vocations, church attendance is down and young people are leaving the church in droves. There are as many theories explaining this decline as there are commentators, but the theories can be collected in two major baskets: those that blame culture and those that blame the church itself.

The Catholic hierarchy tends to blame contemporary culture for the church’s problems. Consumerism, individualism and secularism top their list of negative forces. The media bombards people with images and messages that are antithetical to Christianity: Happiness comes from sex, money and power. Life is too busy with work and leisure to have time for religion.

The social structures that supported religion have also weakened. Ethnic neighborhoods that once reinforced religious communities and values have seen a decline as their residents have been disbursed to the suburbs. As Catholics joined the mainstream, they lost their roots. Fewer children go to Catholic schools. Interfaith marriages have increased as young Catholics socialize with non-Catholics. As they got better educated, they were less likely to follow the clergy without questions.

There is a lot of truth in this cultural explanation for the church’s failings, but blaming the culture is like blaming the weather. That is the world we live in; learn to deal with it. Retreating to a Catholic ghetto is not an option.

The theory that the church itself is to blame for its decline features a conservative and a liberal version. Both blame the hierarchy for not dealing properly with the sex abuse crisis. Liberals stress the lack of accountability and lay involvement, while conservatives point their fingers at gay priests. Conservatives also blame the changes in the church ordered by the Second Vatican Council. Prior to the council, the church was a rock of stability and certainty in a stormy world. Change undermined the credibility of the church because change was an admission that the church was wrong in the past. One week you would go to hell for eating meat on Friday; the next week you were OK. One year you were told that the Mass would always be in Latin; the next year it would be in English.

Conservatives also blame theologians for confusing the people by publicly debating moral and doctrinal matters that the hierarchy says are definitive teaching. They also believe that the social justice message of the church distracts from its traditional dogmas. Some argue that ecumenical and interreligious dialogue has led to the belief that all religions are equally valid. Emphasizing the role of the laity in the church took the priest off his pedestal and made the priesthood less attractive.

Conservatives believe Pope Francis is going in the wrong direction and pray for a return to the policies of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The liberal version, meanwhile, points the finger at the hierarchy. Liberals believe Vatican II was just the beginning of reforms that were necessary for the church. They believe the hierarchy, especially John Paul II, feared chaos in the church and shut down any further reform. The documents of the council were interpreted through a conservative lens, and theologians were labeled dissidents and silenced if they did not toe the Vatican line.

Commentators such as the Rev. Andrew Greeley believed that the hierarchy lost the laity when Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the church’s prohibition against artificial birth control. The teaching was rejected by both moral theologians and the laity. Denying Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics has also been problematic for couples and their children. Liberals also blame the hierarchy for the vocation crisis because, they argue, there would be plenty of priests if they were allowed to marry, and even more if women were permitted ordination. Liberals also argue that the hierarchy’s opposition to abortion and gay rights has alienated many people, especially the young. People have also been alienated by bishops who deny Communion to certain Democratic politicians.

The liberals say that the hierarchy is following much the same path it took in Europe, where it alienated the working classes in the 19th century with its alliance with the upper classes. For much of the 20th century, anti-clericalism was nonexistent in America because the bishops sided with unions and the working classes. Anti-clericalism only blossomed when bishops aligned themselves with the Republican Party against abortion and gay rights.

As a social scientist, I believe that the preponderance of evidence supports the liberal explanation of the decline of the church, but I think that the conservatives make some good points. Certainly, the changes after Vatican II were not well explained or implemented. The clergy were as confused as the laity. And liberals need to explain why more Catholics are joining evangelical churches than liberal churches.

One of the problems with all these theories, however, is that they were developed by theologians who believe that ideas are what motivate humans. Ideas are important, but experience often matters more.

Lots of people stay in the church even though they disagree with some church teaching. But a bad experience in confession, at a wedding or at a funeral can turn people away for good. More people are driven away from the church by arrogant priests than by disagreements over theology. This is why Francis is so critical of clericalism.

And the fact is, we lose more people through boredom than because of theology. Now that people do not believe that they will go to hell for missing Mass on Sunday, they are not going to come unless they benefit from the experience.

If the preaching is dull, if the music does not move them, if they do not feel welcomed, then they are not going to come back. If the Mass is seen as something that the priest does, if the Scriptures are the domain of the clergy, if there is no sense of community, then why come?

This is why many Catholics are drawn to evangelical churches. Ideas are important, but Catholicism must also be a lived experience that is relevant to the lives of the faithful. The pre-Vatican II church provided such experiences in popular devotions. After Vatican II, the liturgy was supposed to provide this experience but too often it did not.

So the next time we have a discussion of why the church is failing, don’t invite the theologians; invite sociologists, psychologists, artists, musicians and the people who have left the church.

https://religionnews.com/2022/05/10/why-is-the-church-failing-in-the-west/

Details

Hits: 3043

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC’S ATTACK ON JESUS AND THE BIBLE
(Friday Church News Notes, May 6, 2022,
www.wayoflife.org, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., 866-295-4143)

Over the past century, mainstream media has launched a relentless attack on the deity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. The latest example is National Geographic’s special publication Jesus: An Illustrated Life. The false Christ presented herein did not come as the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, was not the eternal Son of God, was not infallible, did not die as the Lamb of God by a vicarious, substitutionary atonement, and might or might not have been born of a virgin and risen from the dead. According to this report, the Gospel of Luke was written in about 80 AD; Daniel was written in about BC 200 (after the fulfillment of many of his prophecies); Jesus learned His skill with the Scriptures from the rabbis; Jesus’ baptism was His anointing as the Christ; Jesus “may have been inspired by prophets such as Amos, Micah, and Hosea”; Jesus thought the kingdom of God “would come about as a grassroots movement”; Jesus’ healings “involved some exchange of energy” which is “a core concept of various schools of non-Western or holistic medicine”; the recording of the miracles in the Gospels might be the product of “oral transmission and redaction”; Jesus probably could not read Hebrew; the Pharisees “genuinely welcomed” Jesus’ opinions, ”believed his ideas had merit,” and “had considerable sympathy for what Jesus was trying to accomplish”; Jesus was “in many ways a man of His time”; Jesus “developed a quite different view of God” from the Old Testament view; there are “discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John” and “perhaps the most trustworthy account is that of Mark” which “may have been based on a separate Passion tradition known as the ‘Cross Gospel’”; Jesus “was not aware” that the money changers had been relocated from the Mt. of Olives to the temple; Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 are not Messianic prophecies but are “beautiful, rousing poetry”; Mark’s description of Christ’s trial “is probably more accurate than the fully developed trial described in the later Gospels”; Jesus “died of asphyxiation, compounded by shock and loss of blood.” These tired liberal views have been refuted, but the fundamental issue is not evidence, but unbelieving skepticism. In fact, the unyielding skepticism of this age is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and is therefore further evidence of the Bible’s supernatural inspiration. “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming...” (2 Peter 3:3-4).

https://www.wayoflife.org/friday_church_news/23-18.php

Details

Hits: 3187

Why Are The Planet's Most Dangerous Regimes All Making Nuclear Threats?

BY GORDAN CHANG/GATESTONE INSTITUTE MAY 10, 2022
Prophecy Newswatch

On May 1, on Russian TV, the media executive often called "Putin's mouthpiece" urged the Russian president to launch a Poseidon underwater drone with a "warhead of up to 100 megatons." The detonation, said Dmitry Kiselyov, would create a 1,640-foot tidal wave that would "plunge Britain to the depths of the ocean." The wave would reach halfway up England's tallest peak, Scafell Pike.

"This tidal wave is also a carrier of extremely high doses of radiation," Kiselyov pointed out. "Surging over Britain, it will turn whatever is left of them into radioactive desert, unusable for anything. How do you like this prospect?"

"A single launch, Boris, and there is no England anymore," said Kiselyov, addressing the British prime minister.

The threat followed one on April 28 made by Aleksey Zhuravlyov, chairman of Russia's pro-Kremlin Rodina Party. On the "60 Minutes" program carried on Channel One, Russian TV, he urged Putin to nuke Britain with a Sarmat, the world's largest and heaviest missile.

The program noted that a missile launched from Russia's Kaliningrad enclave would take 106 seconds to hit Berlin, 200 seconds to reach Paris, and 202 seconds to obliterate London.

The NATO designation of the Sarmat is "Satan II." Putin himself has gotten in on the fun. Just before sending his forces across Ukraine's border, he warned of "consequences you have never encountered in your history." On February 27, he put his nuclear forces on high alert.

On March 1, the Russian leader actually sortied his ballistic missile submarines and land-based mobile missile launchers in what was called a drill. On May 4, the Russian Defense Ministry announced "electronic launches" in Kaliningrad of its nuclear-capable Iskander mobile ballistic missile.

Russia has a nuclear doctrine known as "escalate to deescalate" or, more accurately, "escalate to win," which contemplates threatening or using nuclear weapons early in a conventional conflict.

China, which on February 4 issued a joint statement with Russia about their no-limits partnership, has this century been periodically making unprovoked threats to destroy the cities of states that have somehow offended it.

In July of last year, for instance, the Chinese regime threatened to nuke Japan over its support for Taiwan. In September, China issued a similar threat against Australia because it had joined with the U.S. and U.K. in the AUKUS pact, an arrangement to maintain stability in the region. This March, China's Ministry of Defense promised the "worst consequences" for countries helping Taiwan defend itself. The threat appeared especially directed against Australia.

This month, North Korea said that, in addition to using nuclear weapons to retaliate against an attack, it might launch nukes to attack others.

It cannot be a good sign that Russia, China, and North Korea at the same time are threatening to launch the world's most destructive weaponry.

Why are the planet's most dangerous regimes all making such threats? First, Putin showed the world these warnings in fact intimidate. As Hudson Institute senior fellow Peter Huessy told me in March, escalating to win assumes nuclear threats will "coerce an enemy to stand down and not fight." Because the Western democracies have largely stood down and are clearly not fighting in Ukraine, Beijing and Pyongyang want similar successes.

Second, Putin and Chinese ruler Xi Jinping could make such threats because they do not respect nations perceived as enemies. "The bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan and the unwillingness to effectively support Ukraine since our 1994 guarantee and especially over the past year have led nuclear-armed enemies to ratchet up threats to the U.S. and its allies," Huessy, also president of GeoStrategic Analysis, said to Gatestone at the beginning of this month. "They sense a growing American weakness."

"Like Vladimir Putin, the Communist Party of China has lost its fear of American power," Richard Fisher of the Virginia-based International Assessment and Strategy Center said to me shortly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "China's nuclear threats expose the Party's arrogance in the face of perceived American weakness, expose the risk of the lack of a U.S. regional nuclear deterrent, and expose the inadequacy of U.S. leadership."

Third, internal considerations may make such threats easy to make. Many say the most dangerous moment since World War II was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. Perhaps even more perilous was the Checkpoint Charlie standoff in Berlin the preceding October. Yet both Kennedy and Khrushchev knew there must never be a nuclear exchange. The issue today is whether Putin and Xi know that as well. Maybe they do not.

These threats may reveal that the leaders of these regimes share a last-days-in-the-bunker mentality. Both Russia and China, albeit in different ways, are ruled by regimes in distress, which means their leaders undoubtedly have low thresholds of risk.

Whatever the reason for the threats, Putin and Xi have told everyone what they intend to do. Unfortunately, Western leaders are determined not to believe them.

In response to Russian threats, President Joe Biden on February 28 said the American people should not worry about nuclear war. On the contrary, there is every reason to worry.

In line with Western thinking, presidents and prime ministers have almost always ignored nuclear threats, hoping not to dignify them. Unfortunately, this posture has only emboldened the threat-makers to make more threats. The later the international community confronts belligerent Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans, the more dangerous the confrontations will be.

The world, therefore, looks like it is fast approaching the worst moment in history. "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought," Biden stated in June of last year. Maybe. Putin, who jointly issued those words with the American president, may think he can wage one and even win.

Originally published at Gatestone Institute
https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=5349

Details

Hits: 3117

The Christian leader trying to break America’s link between faith and guns

Edward Helmore
Thu, May 19, 2022, 2:00 AM·5 min read

In the aftermath of the racist shooting that killed 10 on Saturday in Buffalo, the director of the New York State Council of Churches, the Rev Peter Cook, has been a constant presence at prayer gatherings and public memorials.

The organization he leads represents eight denominations to New York state government; and he has the ear of political leaders, including Governor Kathy Hochul, in shaping the political response to a massacre that targeted the Black community of East Buffalo – one that has been met with expressions of faith as well as anger and distress.

Cook’s message is that it’s the responsibility of white Christian denominations to challenge white America’s relationship with God and guns that is intertwined with white supremacy. According to online postings, the alleged shooter, Payton Gendron, wanted to fashion America as a white-dominated, Christian nation.

Such extreme conservative views developed over time from President Nixon’s “southern strategy” to increase political support among white voters in the south by appealing to racism against Black people, tough-on-crime policies and anti-abortion sentiments. According to Cook, guns became ensnared in the strategy.

“It really gave tacit cultural permission to people of faith to own guns, so they conveniently worked their way into this religious freedom argument and conflated it with Christianity itself,” Cook said on Wednesday. “It doesn’t have any theological integrity to it at all, but we use the language of faith to acquire power and to further white supremacist notions.”

Drawing attention to the marriage between faith and guns comes with political risk, as the then Democratic party presidential hopeful Barack Obama found in 2008 when, in an unscripted moment, he took aim at white working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses. “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said in remarks that his rivals pounced on.

How to detach gun ownership from being a marker of Christian faithfulness, and the accompanying politicization, concerns Cook. Without knowing Gendron’s faith background, he said the accused shooter “really stepped into that political slew of white nationalists, another derivation of the southern strategy, advanced also in … looking to preserve the sense of a white, Christian nation and of the original founders being white, Christian men, being representative of what America is”.

Some Black churches, Cook said, have had to accommodate the language of things like “tough on crime”, and the increase in mass incarceration under Bill Clinton, in order to maintain their own political influence and power.

East Buffalo has suffered from discriminatory lending practices, poor health outcomes, high rates of maternal death, lesser investment in schools, food deserts and highways driven through Black neighborhoods to connect white people from one place to another.

In the Buffalo massacre’s aftermath, most denominations have come out with strong statements against violence and are advocating for federal legislation to require a universal gun background check, prohibit buying firearms at gun shows and ban semi-automatic weapons. In New York, they are pushing for legislation to stop guns from being imported from states with laxer gun laws.

“I think for the church, with a number of exceptions because gun culture infuses Christianity, we need the strongest gun laws we can think of,” Cooks says. “We don’t think much of the second amendment.”

Attempts to forge stronger relationships between churches and gun control advocates have proceeded slowly. Two years ago, Everytown for Gun Safety began an interfaith effort with more than a dozen religious leaders to increase election turnout in support of candidates who support anti-gun violence measures. The group’s partners include representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh backgrounds.

“Churches, especially white evangelical churches, have largely ignored this question – I think, much to their own detriment and to the detriment of the people they’re called to serve,” said the Rev Rob Schenck at the time.

Schenck, a former evangelical anti-abortion activist who shifted to support abortion rights, described gun violence as a “life-or-death issue”, making it essential to include gun control in “pro-life” agendas.

Others who have taken up that call include the Rev Traci Blackmon, who became prominent after police fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Blackmon is expected in Buffalo this weekend as the funerals of the Tops Friendly Market shooting victims begin.

Cook said he was appalled when a church in his region held a fundraising raffle for an AK-47. 

The effort to detach guns from faith within church leadership and congregations may need an assertive voice that links pastoral care to larger structural questions while resisting the inevitable political pushback.

Cook alluded to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor and theologian who opposed the Nazis.

“It’s going to come from a lot of conversation and teaching within the church and really getting people within the faith to act on their faith and really weigh in on these policy questions,” Cook said. “That’s a really hard thing to do, but I think if there were more people within our congregations who paid attention to this stuff and really put the pressure on Congress and their legislators to pass tough gun laws, that could be really important.”

But Cook concedes that could be tough.

“It starts with straight-up, honest conversations within our churches and getting people to get out of their pews, get out here, and show up at rallies, be present and listen to people, listen to their pain,” Cook said. “A lot of times churches can be a little insular.

“We’re debating what color we should have for the carpet and what kind of coffee we’re going to serve at coffee hour. We’ll preach about loving thy neighbor and non-violence, but how that really translates to people’s personal and collective lives is complicated.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/christian-leader-trying-break-america-060012887.html

Details

Hits: 3949

Yep, trans men can get pregnant. Why Calvin Klein's ad depicting a trans family is causing a stir.

David Artavia
May 13, 2022, Yahoo News

An ad from Calvin Klein on Mother's Day featuring a pregnant transgender man and his trans partner has sparked a wave of backlash on social media.

“Today, in support of women and mothers all over the world, we’re spotlighting the realities of new families," the company wrote in the caption of a Sunday Instagram post highlighting the campaign, which features three nontraditional families — including Brazilian reality stars Erika Fernandes and Roberto Bete.

“Erika Fernandes and Roberto Bete are expecting parents from Brazil. Roberto is due to give birth to his and Erika's son Noah any day now,” the caption continued alongside images that show Bete visibly pregnant, in Calvin Klein underwear, as his wife, wearing a CK sports bra and bottoms, clings to his arms at their bedside.

“We can reproduce biologically or from the heart…our place is to love and be loved,” the couple is quoted as saying in the ad.

Below, click through to see the ad as posted by Calvin Klein, in position No. 4:

The post has since gone viral, and while several users have praised the fashion brand for its inclusive messaging, a slew of transphobic comments quickly drowned them out. Many of them threatened to boycott the brand, attacking the ad as a “woke
campaign.” One user even wrote, “Time to ditch you, Calvin Klein.”

Conservative talk show host Steven Crowder turned the ad into the butt of a joke, writing: "We have a huge baby formula shortage! The Left says men are the root of all problems, so it's only fair to blame pregnant men right? I wonder what Calvin Klein has to say about this. #calvinklein."

Calvin Klein has since released a statement defending its campaign, confirming that the company will always stand up against hate.

“We embrace this platform as an inclusive and respectful environment for individualism and self-expression,” the statement read. “At Calvin Klein, we tolerate everything except intolerance — any intolerant commentary will be removed, and any accounts issuing hateful statements may be blocked.”

While a number of online critics seem to find the idea of trans men having babies confusing, the truth is that trans and nonbinary people with uteruses can, and do, give birth.

Yes, trans men can have babies

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent survey, at least 20 millions adults in the United States could be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender — representing nearly 8% of the total adult population. Of that number, more than 1% (or over 2 million) identify as transgender. There is currently no data on how many transgender men give birth.

Dr. D Ojeda, senior national organizer at the National Center for Transgender Equality, which advocates to change policies and to increase acceptance of transgender people, says that trans men have an array of options when it comes to starting families, but due to their specific needs being vastly under-researched
and underreported, that message often doesn't translate to society at large.

"We assume that because you're on testosterone, you can't get pregnant, when in reality there's a good chance you can," Ojeda, who uses they/them pronouns, tells Yahoo Life. (It should be noted that not all transgender men use testosterone, just as not all keep their uteruses.) Furthermore, due to the lack of education, they say trans men often gather false information about their own bodies and reproductive health.

"There are a lot of trans men, transmasculine, nonbinary people who actually pause their hormones so they can get pregnant," Ojeda explains, adding that this step is sometimes unnecessary and suggesting that trans men seeking pregnancy should always speak to their doctor before pausing their hormones.

Dr. Maddie Deutsch, associate professor of Clinical Family & Community Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, and medical director for UCSF Transgender Care, elaborated on the topic further on UCSF's website in an overview about hormone therapy and the reproductive system.

"Testosterone may reduce your ability to become pregnant but it does not completely eliminate the risk of pregnancy," Deutsch wrote. "Transgender men can become pregnant while on testosterone, so if you remain sexually active with someone who is capable of producing sperm, you should always use a method of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy."

Adding to that point, Deutsch says that while on testosterone, a trans man's periods may change its normal cycle and that it may become difficult for ovaries to release eggs, depending on how long they have been on hormone therapy. In these cases, the piece points out, "you may need to consult with a fertility specialist and use special medications or techniques, such as in vitro fertilization, to become pregnant."

Of course, these treatments are not always covered by insurance, and can be expensive.

Why inclusivity matters

Ojeda, whose organization has placed pressure on health insurance companies to better cover the needs of trans folks through its latest campaign, Protect Trans Health, argues that when families like Fernandes and Bete are visible, it's an opportunity for trans people to know they're just as deserving to have a family as anyone else is.

"I applaud Calvin Klein for being that intentional because that language shift is so important," they say. "It could improve the way we view people, especially when it comes to access to health care and family planning."

Fernandes and Bete have since had their baby, documenting the birth and sharing the moment on their Instagrams. "There's a lot of stigma that comes with being trans," Ojeda says in regards to family planning.

"There's this assumption that we're anti-children or anti-family. I think that's part of the vitriol that has been perpetuated all the way from the attacks on gender affirming care … to abortion care."

Ojeda adds that the "urgency" for men in power to "control bodily autonomy," an idea that's been particularly present in recent days following the potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, doesn't just include women — but affects trans people and trans families as well.

"People see a family they've never met before, and never had an understanding of, and that makes them uncomfortable," they explain of the transphobia arising from the recent ad.

"What Calvin Klein is doing is amazing," they continue, explaining that a lot of trans people out there really do want to start a family but seldom feel empowered to do so — something they hope the ad can help change. "It's going to have a lot of positive impact, especially for health care and when it comes to reproductive services."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/yep-trans-men-can-get-pregnant-why-calvin-kleins-ad-depicting-a-trans-family-is-causing-a-stir-211546554.html

Details

Hits: 3337

8:00AM EDT 5/24/2022 DAVID LANE
CHARISMA NEWS

In April 2014, Jerry Falwell Jr. called me saying he was in a bind. Liberty University's graduation was scheduled for Saturday, May 10, and he needed a commencement speaker. "What about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal?" I asked.

"You think he'll do it?" Falwell asked in return. "I don't know his schedule, but if he's available, I expect that he will."

At the time, Jindal was considering running in the presidential election of 2016. The first four Republican presidential primary states then were Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. With religious leaders and the possibility of the national press being present, accepting the invitation to speak at Liberty was a no-brainer for him. Once he was confirmed as commencement speaker, we invited Iowa and South Carolina pastors to Lynchburg, Virginia, for a Friday evening dinner with him before graduation on Saturday.

On Friday evening in Lynchburg, Liberty University sent a bus to transport the 40 Iowa and South Carolina pastors to the Jindal dinner. The last person to board was Washington Post reporter Tom Hamburger. I introduced Hamburger as he stepped up on the bus: "This is Tom Hamburger; he's a friend of mine, and Jewish. Tom doesn't throw bouquets, that's not his job, but he's honorable and here to do a story on Gov. Jindal. He'll be with us the next day and a half, and if you don't want to be quoted simply say so, and you won't be quoted."

Seven years later, on Oct. 25, 2021, when we had just finished a Statesville, North Carolina, pastors luncheon featuring Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, that same Tom Hamburger called to say he was connecting me to Whitney Shefte, a reporter also with The Washington Post. He said, "The Washington Post is really interested in what's going on in North Carolina with the pastors events."

That evening I spoke with Shefte, arranging a conference call with her and our team to further discern if a story was something we needed. Having been run over by the mass
media before, I have learned that discretion is the better part of valor. Or as Frog Koger from West Texas once taught me, "There's no education in the second kick of a mule."

Our team decided we were dealing with people of character, so we went along with the plan. On Nov. 1, Shefte and Whitney Leaming filmed our Willow Springs, North Carolina, event, and on Nov. 29, they filmed our campaign school in Asheboro, North Carolina.

Last Tuesday, May 17, The Washington Post published Shefte and Leaming's report featuring the North Carolina Renewal Project's effort to move spiritual leaders into America's public square in obedience to Jesus' ekklesia kingdom assignment from Matthew 16:18.

Like Hamburger, the two Whitneys didn't throw bouquets in their reporting but rendered a piece similar to what a healthy, independent press once delivered to the American public for centuries: just the news, no more, no less.

Last Thursday, Charisma News reported on the North Carolina pastors moving into the public square with the headline "50 Pastors Run for Local Office in North Carolina to 'Restore Righteousness' in Public Square":

In 2020, Pastor Cameron McGill ran for Bladen County Commissioner and won. This year he's running again, unopposed.

Pastor McGill was recruited and trained by the American Renewal Project, a group that aims to "restore righteousness in the public square."

David Lane, the group's founder and president, says, "Our goal is really 20 pastors in 2022 running for local office. And we're going to prove the model in North Carolina. According to Lane, McGill is one of 50 North Carolina pastors running for local office in 2022.

"There's no such thing as the separation of church and state. The First Amendment is to keep the state out of the church," says Lane. "My goal is to restore America to our Judeo-Christian heritage and reestablish a biblically based culture."

To motivate pastors to run, Lane has enlisted North Carolina's Lieutenant Governor, Mark Robinson. Robinson is known for calling it "filth" to teach homosexuality and transsexuality in schools. Some lawmakers on the Left have even called for his resignation. He responded, "I feel compelled to say that word, 'filth,' because we have a filth problem in this country right now."

Lane believes the key to "restore righteousness in the public square" is winning local elections first. "We're interested in the local races because that's gonna be where the magic begins," says Lane. "They don't need to be running for Congress and governor and U.S. Senate. They need to start out [with] city council, county commissioner, school board if they're going to be effective." 

When Pastor McGill traveled to Israel with the American Renewal Project, he was inspired to run for office, especially when he witnessed COVID culture and "just how fragile our freedoms have become." Whenever he makes a decision, he says that he feels the weight of it. "I realize, boy, when I make this move, there's 30,000 people that are going to pay the consequences for a bad decision and reap the benefits of a good decision," says McGill.

When Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson addressed the pastors at a recent meeting, he said, "It's time for us to start standing up like John the Baptist, ready to give our heads for the causes of this glorious freedom that God has given us." Then he asked, "You gonna join in the fight? Or you gonna sit in the foxhole shaking in your shoes?"

Gideons and Rahabs are beginning to stand.

David Lane is the founder of the American Renewal Project.
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/renewing-america/89251-american-renewal-project-continues-battle-to-elect-faith-leaders-at-grass-roots-level

Details

Hits: 3456

Spanish edition of Roman Catholic Bible to change 'fishers of men' to 'fishers of persons'

Publisher reportedly denies move is tied to ‘inclusive’ language
By Ian M. Giatti, Christian Post Reporter

A new Spanish version of the Roman Catholic Bible is ditching the word "man" for "person."

The Jerusalem Bible from publishing house Desclée de Brouwer updated the word used for "man" ("hombre") to "person" ("persona") in its latest Spanish edition.

The move changes the iconic call of Jesus to His disciples to become "fishers of men" in Matthew 4:19 to the more gender-neutral "fishers of persons."

In Greek, the word for "man" is "anthropos," which is used more than 500 times in the New Testament, including multiple instances where Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of Man."

Published in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible is an English translation of the Catholic Bible. In addition to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, it includes seven additional books considered extra-biblical books outside of the Catholic Church.

Unlike the Latin Vulgate, the Jerusalem Bible was based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts when its first edition was published in French in 1956 and continues to do so.

Javier Gogeaskoetxea, the managing director of the Desclée De Brouwer publishing house, told Catholic News Agency the change was precipitated by "fidelity to the original text" and not by any social pressure or trend.

According to Gogeaskoetxea, the decision came from the Jerusalem Biblical and Archaeological School and not the publisher. The school is linked to the Dominicans, an order of the Catholic Church.

"If I were to put 'man,'" he said, "we would be lacking in fidelity to the original text because the Greek word is neither man nor woman.

"I understand that there is an attempt to 'polemicize' by attributing 'inclusive' language to the translation. But nothing is further from reality; the reason is fidelity to the original text," he added.

Gogeaskoetxea said the original Greek text does not include gender for "anthropos," so the translation should also reflect a lack of gender with either "person or human being."

One Spanish priest took to Twitter to refute the new translation.

Father Jesús Silva, whose bio reads "priest writer" and Patristic Theology grad, said the "translation as 'people' has its problems."

"What people was Jesus referring to: human, angelic or divine? Well, in the text, thus translated, it is not excluded that Jesus is calling the disciples to evangelize the angels or God himself," Silva wrote.

Silva said that since "human persons" is a relatively vague term. Thus, to "avoid misunderstandings that occur with words like 'person,' 'human being' or 'human earthling,' and adopting the principle of economy of language, we could translate the word 'anthropos' as 'man,' which includes all of the above."

Another priest, Fr. Antonio María Domenech Guillén with the Diocese of Cuenca, appeared to agree with Silva's assessment.

Cuenca wrote: "It doesn't seem right to me, but I think it has the importance that we give it. If we read Holy Scripture every day, we would have realized long ago that the Jerusalem Bible translation is not the best option."

After its English translation was completely updated in 1985, the Jerusalem Bible — now known as the New Jerusalem Bible — has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the U.S.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/spanish-edition-of-roman-catholic-bible-to-change-fishers-of-men.html

Details

Hits: 3646

Details

Hits: 3417

There’s No Separation of Church and State on the Supreme Court

Eleanor Clift
May 12, 2022·

There’s no more pretending that religion doesn’t play a role in the ruling that (at least) five conservative justices are readying to overturn Roe.

In a democracy founded on the separation of church and state, we’ve got a Supreme Court on the cusp of a decision that cements a theological view of abortion that even most Catholics don’t abide by.

All five of the justices who signed onto the draft opinion that would dump Roe (and any ruling associated with it)—plus Chief Justice John Roberts—are progeny of the Federalist Society. Over the past three decades, the legal group’s blessing has become a de facto requirement for Republican presidents who owed their election to white evangelical voters and ran on a promise to deliver an anti-Roe Supreme Court.

“Religion is the elephant in the room,” says Amanda Tyler, executive director of Baptist Joint Committee (BJC), a legal advocacy group for religious freedom that doesn't take a position on abortion. “We are all free to be religious or not, but we expect our government to be secular and to rule for all Americans and not for their religious views. And that principle is being threatened by at least the appearance of what’s going on in this case,” Tyler adds.

She points out that the words “religion” or “religious” do not once appear in Alito’s leaked draft opinion, yet he calls abortion “a profound moral issue”—phrasing that goes beyond the rule of law. “Many people read into the word ‘moral’ a religious objection, even though he’s going out of his way not to use religion,” says Tyler, which is why she calls it the elephant in the room.

Rachel Laser, the CEO for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is more direct. She calls the leaked draft “religiously based opinion” masking a conservative political agenda—or maybe it’s the other way around. Either way, she says, “It’s frightening that the Court is providing one narrow viewpoint” at a time when some “very Catholic countries have loosened their restrictions,” such as Ireland and Mexico.

She calls the looming decision by five Federalist Society alums “a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state…an assault on the core pillar of our democracy and the DNA of America.”

The ascendancy of conservative, anti-Roe Catholic jurists has been forty years in the making, dating back to the founding of the Federalist Society in 1982.

“The intersection of the religious right with conservative politics occurred with the anti-abortion agenda, and because evangelicals were lacking a bench of legal scholars, they had to turn to Catholics,” says Randall Balmer, a professor of religion at Dartmouth College. “Political conservatism is baked into Catholic legal scholarship.”

The Federalist Society had its first big wins during the George W. Bush administration when it successfully proposed and placed Justices Samuel Alito and Roberts—two conservative Catholics—on the Court. “Nobody owed their election more to the religious right than Bush,” Balmer told The Daily Beast, “And because evangelicals didn’t have a legal bench, for a long time they outsourced their ideas to conservative Catholics.”

Granted, Catholics are not monolithic on abortion.

“In public opinion, it’s white evangelicals who are far more adamant about abortion than Catholics,” says Jack Pitney, a professor of American government at Claremont-McKenna College. They’re the audience Republicans reach with their anti-Roe litmus test. Catholics line up as most voters do—with two-thirds saying Roe should not be overturned. Catholic Bishops are as out of touch with public opinion as the SCOTUS five.

When in doubt about a judicial nominee’s inclination on Roe, the Federalist Society could confidently vouch that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would be safe picks to deliver on the former president’s promise to overturn Roe. Kavanaugh became the vote that, with Roberts, provided the anti-Roe Five. Justice Barrett turned five into six, providing Roberts the room to dissent on “protecting the institution” grounds, knowing the conservative position would hold.

An anti-abortion Catholic and an incrementalist when it comes to the law, Roberts favors moving more slowly to restrict abortion rights. He’s the chief justice, and the certain turmoil that will come with overturning a law that’s been in place for almost fifty years will generate chaos and tarnish his legacy.

In a celebration of the Federalist Society’s 25th anniversary at Washington’s Union Station in 2007, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a founding member, told the crowd of almost 2,000: “We thought we had planted a wildflower in the weeds of academic liberalism…Instead, it was an oak.”

When Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016, Republicans blocked President Barack Obama from filling his seat, arguing that his successor be left to the next president.

That May, longshot candidate Donald Trump enlisted Leonard Leo, co-chair of the Federalist Society’s board, to give him a list of 11 judges (which soon grew to 21) that would give him the conservative bona fides. A-thrice married wealthy playboy and longtime pro-choice Democrat, Trump knew he needed to win over Republican voters that were skeptical he could be trusted as president to reflect their values.

“All picked by the Federalist Society,” Trump boasted. “All gold standard,” Trump declared as he rallied conservative voters with the promise of delivering the Court they wanted.

Leonard Leo is a devout Catholic who makes frequent trips to the Vatican, where he surely gets a hero’s welcome for facilitating the six-vote conservative and Catholic majority on the Court. Following Trump’s election in 2016, Leo became a regular visitor to the White House to help the 45th president fulfill his promise to the white evangelical base that turned out in droves to vote for him.

When Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame at the time, testified in 2017 before the Senate for a lower court position, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein voiced concern about her religious affiliation with an evangelical offshoot of the Catholic Church. “I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma,” Feinstein said. “In your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

Feinstein was castigated—and not just by Republicans—for straying into territory that felt uncomfortably close to a religious test. Three years later, Democrats questioning Barrett for the Supreme Court didn’t quiz her on her religious activism and what connection, if any, it might have to her views on Roe.

Barrett became the sixth conservative Catholic to sit on today’s Court. A seventh Catholic, Justice Sotomayor, was appointed by President Obama. Some dispute Justice Gorsuch’s religious identity, noting that he had a Catholic upbringing but as an adult, has mostly attended Episcopal churches.

Meet the GOP Governors Standing Up to GOP Anti-Trans Bills

Even so, it’s a stunning turnabout in religious affiliation, and not a coincidence that the main reason we’re about to lose Roe is the moral argument advanced by the Catholic church.

More fights lie ahead as the uneasy truce about viability and access to abortion collapses under the weight of five unelected justices. “This isn’t a religious freedom case. This is an abortion rights case,” Amanda Tyler of the BJC told The Daily Beast.

“If Roe is overturned, in a post-Roe world, religious freedom arguments will be made by abortion advocates. The religious objection is not only on one side.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-separation-church-state-supreme-012846058.html