CULTURAL MARXISM IN THE CHURCH
From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil
“A NEW CONVERSATION”
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.” Genesis 3:5
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, was able to commend himself to the Corinthian Church as one who had not handled the Word of God deceitfully. (2 Cor. 4:1-2) Rosaria Butterfield accuses Christians of being dishonest, ‘bad thinkers’ and ‘bad readers,’ however, she herself teaches ‘bad theology’ by handling the Word of God deceitfully. Examples follow:
“Everyone loses when we define ourselves using categories that God does not. People who identify as heterosexual and homosexual have much to lose. In 2014, Michael Hannon wrote an absorbing essay in the journal First Things entitled ‘Against Heterosexuality: The Idea of Sexual Orientation is Artificial and Inhibits Christian Witness.’ He begins his essay with Michel Foucault, the famous French historian of ideas who died of AIDS in 1980. Hannon writes:
“Michel Foucault…details the pedigree of sexual orientation in his History of Sexuality. Whereas ‘sodomy’ had long identified a class of actions, suddenly for the first time, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term ‘homosexual’ appeared alongside it. This European neologism was used in a way that would have struck previous generations as a plain category mistake, designating not actions, but people—and so also with its counterpart and foil ‘heterosexual’… with secular society rendering classical religious beliefs publicly illegitimate, pseudoscience stepped in and replaced religion as the moral foundation for venereal norms.
“Sexuality moved from verb (practice) to noun (people), and with this grammatical move, a new concept of humanity was born—the idea that we are oriented or framed by our sexual desires; that our differing sexual desires and different objects of desire made up separate species of people, and that self-representation and identity rooted now in sexual orientation, and not in the purposes of God for his image bearers. In Foucault’s words, ‘Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality…when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was a new species’ (emphasis mine). Prior to the nineteenth century category-invention of sexual orientation, no one’s sexual practice or sexual desire prescribed personhood or defined their personal identity. (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1718-1727)
“The category of sexual orientation was really invented in the 19th century. It’s not a biblical category. The Bible talks about homosexuality as a verb, what people do, not a noun, who people are. That’s really important.” (Rosaria Butterfield, Interview with Greg Koukl)
Really?? The Bible most certainly talks about homosexuals as the plural noun “sodomites” in the Hebrew and Greek Testaments:
“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” Deut. 23:7 (KJV)
“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.” 1 Kings 14:24 (KJV)
“And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” 1 Kings 15:12 (KJV)
“And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.” 1 Kings 22:46 (KJV)
“And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.” 2 Kings 23:7 (KJV)
”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for abusers of themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (KJV)
Note, the Hebrew word for sodomite is a noun meaning a male prostitute:
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
6945. קָדֵשׁ q
qadesh
from 6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:— sodomite, unclean.
1 Timothy 1:10 in the Greek uses the noun meaning sodomite:
Strong's Greek Dictionary
733. αρσενοκοιτης arsenokoites from 730 and 2845; a sodomite:—abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Gen. 19:4-5
Rosaria asserts that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, even though the Hebrew and Greek words for homosexual (above) are derived from the “sodomites” of Sodom.
“...what was the real sin of Sodom? I had always thought that God’s judgment upon Sodom (in Genesis 19) clearly singled-out and targeted homosexuality. I believed that God’s judgment against Sodom exemplified the fiercest of God’s judgments. But as I read more deeply in the Bible, I ran across a passage that made me stop and think. This passage in the book of Ezekiel revealed to me that Sodom was indicted for materialism and neglect of the poor and needy—
“As I live, says the Lord God, neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezek. 16: 48-50)
“You might notice that there is nothing inherently sexual about any of these sins: PRIDE, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, lack of modesty.” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 605)
In Ezekiel 16:50, God singled out a specific sin which was an abomination before Him as the sin for which He judged Sodom, and which other Scriptures identify as sodomy:
“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.” 1Kings 14:24 (KJV)
“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” Deut. 23:17-18
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
3611. כֶּלֶב
Keleb
from an unused root means. to yelp, or else to attack; a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute:—dog
Strangely, Rosaria’s husband, Pastor Kent Butterfield, recently preached two sermons on the sin of Sodom which he plainly identified as sodomy or homosexuality:
3/26/2017 | Bible: Genesis 19
Rosaria’s misinterpretation of Genesis 19 is not new, but has long been the interpretation of homosexuals to convince themselves and society that God approves of their sin.
Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth (2004)
by Michael Carden
“The book is a study of the reception of Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah, together with the parallel story in Judges 19-21, the outrage at Gibeah, in both Christian and Jewish traditions from antiquity through to the Reformation period. The book sets out to detoxify the dominant homophobic interpretation of Genesis 19, in which Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an archetypal story of divine antipathy towards same sex love and desire, by showing it to be a Christian invention, emerging in the first few centuries of the Christian era. The Jewish traditions concerning Genesis 19, in which Sodom and Gomorrah are associated primarily with inhospitality, xenophobia and abuse of the poor, provide an alternative perspective on the story and one from which Christianity diverged.”
“Michael Carden teaches biblical studies and comparative religion at the University of Queensland. He has published a number of essays on Bible, sexuality and religion, including contributions to the anthologies Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible (2001), Redirected Travel: Alternative Texts, Readings and Spaces in Biblical Studies (2003) and Popular Spiritualities: The Politics of Contemporary Enchantment (forthcoming 2004). Michael is also a contributor to the internationally collaborative queer Bible commentary project, The Bible in Translesbigay Perspective.”
Actually, this false interpretation can be traced to John Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 19:4:
“Some expound the word know in a carnal sense; and thus the Greek interpreters have translated it. But I think the word has here a different meaning; as if the men had said, We wish to know whom thou bringest, as guests, into our city. The Scripture truly is accustomed modestly to describe an act of shame by the word know; and therefore we may infer that the men of Sodom would have spoken, in coarser language, of such an act: but, for the sake of concealing their wicked design, they here imperiously expostulate with the holy man, for having dared to receive unknown persons into his house.”
Romans 1 is “Heavy-Handed Moralism”
Rosaria admonishes Christians not to bring up Romans 1 with homosexuals. That would be a ‘heavy-handed’ ‘moralistic argument’ from ‘natural law’ which is idiotic and ‘illiterate.’ Christians must learn how to “apply the Bible to our times—not sweeping generalizations of Christian morals”:
“I've read Romans 1. I understand Paul made a really good case for natural law. But I'm not him, and you probably aren’t either. And natural-law arguments very quickly derail into heavy-handed moralism, especially in a culture that says, ‘I create my reality.’ This is the wrong context in which to maintain a moralistic argument and think you’re going to win it. Fifteen years ago, the gay-rights movement moved from pathology to ontology, saying gay is good. That changed everything. So we need to be a literate, Bible-believing community that is fluent in how to apply the Bible to our times—not sweeping generalizations of Christian morals. One of my favorite poets, William Blake, said to generalize is to be an idiot. That’s not how Jesus treats people.” 1.
New Testament Professor Robert Gagnon warns that withholding Romans 1 from homosexuals is a tacit denial of God’s Word:
Is Homosexual Practice No Worse Than Any Other Sin?
“...the idea that, if the church had just delivered the message on homosexual practice as sin with more love and more balance, there wouldn’t be any expression of anger and bitterness from the gay-rights community is preposterous. Jesus was a loving guy and yet he was crucified for speaking the truth. Sin hates any restraint of its power and those under the controlling influence of same-sex attractions are no different. In addition, expressions of outrage and efforts at intimidation are an integral part of the homosexualist strategy for coercing societal approval of homosexual practice.
“Christians should take care that in their rush to appease homosexualist advocates they don’t end up denying Scripture itself, which does characterize homosexual practice in very negative terms, not as the only sin to be sure but nonetheless as a grave offense. One wonders whether Christians who denounce other Christians for saying that homosexual practice is a severe sin deep down think that the Apostle Paul is a bigot for giving special attention to homosexual practice in Romans 1:18-32 as a particularly self-degrading, shameful, and unnatural practice that is in part its own ‘payback’ for those who engage in it...
“In the Old Testament there is a clear ranking of sins. For instance, in Leviticus 20, which reorders the sexual offenses in ch. 18 according to severity of offense/penalty, the most severe sexual offenses are grouped first (20:10-16). Among the first-tier sexual offenses (along with adultery, the worst forms of incest, and bestiality) is same-sex intercourse.”
Rosaria quotes The Westminster Shorter Catechism liberally in both of her books, but she never mentions Question 83 which distinguishes between degrees of sin.
Q: Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
A: Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.1
1. Ezekiel 8:6. He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.
Ezekiel 8:13. He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
Ezekiel 8:15. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
1 John 5:16. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Psalm 78:17. And they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness.
Psalm 78:32. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Psalm 78:56. Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies.
Psalm 19:13. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
Rosaria also omitted to mention the Westminster Larger Catechism Question 28 which states that a “reprobate mind” is a curse of God:
Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections: or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.Scripture is clear that sodomy is a heinous sin, an abomination to God which brings a curse on those who violate the natural law regarding sexuality. Notwithstanding God’s singular condemnation of sexual perversion, Rosaria claims it is no different than heterosexual sin. The Christian “gag reflex” to homosexuality, says she, is due to the Christians’ impure thoughts rather than to the heinousness of homosexual sin.
Heterosexual Blindness and Comparative Sin
“I believe that sexual orientation is a lose-lose paradigm for everyone, but especially if you struggle with unwanted homosexual desires. Hannon, in contrast, thinks that self-described heterosexuals have the most to lose. He writes: ‘The most pernicious aspect of the orientation-identity system is that it tends to exempt heterosexuality from moral evaluation. If homosexuality binds us to sin, heterosexuality blinds us to sin.’ 8 This heterosexual blindness seems to have two forms: excuse-making for sexual sins of a heterosexual bent (pornography, incest, fornication, and adultery), and an excessive, scintillating focus on what gay men do in bed, known in evangelical circles as the ‘gag reflex.’9 Indeed, because of the unwitting deceitfulness of the sexual orientation paradigm, we are much more likely to be numb to heterosexual sin and excessively focused on homosexual sin than we would have been prior to the nineteenth century.
“Heterosexual blindness makes a Christian ignorant to the very sins that may destroy him; homosexual approval makes a person unable to enter into a gay neighbor’s life in a way that God may use to spare him from God’s wrath. Both take Christian witness out of the game. This might raise another question: does Paul’s observation in Romans 1:26 that homosexual sex is unnatural warrant the conclusion that heterosexual sexual sin (such as adultery or pornography) is a less heinous form of sin? John Murray’s commentary on the book of Romans has been used to defend this paradigm of comparative sin, as he says this on Romans 1:26: ‘The implication is that, however grievous is fornication or adultery, the desecration involved in homosexuality is on a lower plane of degeneracy; it is unnatural and therefore evinces a perversion more basic.’10.
“Does it necessarily follow that homosexual sexual sin is on a higher plane of evil? The question might be posed like this: is Murray endorsing the paradigm of comparative sin (i.e., comparing your sin to someone else’s in order to conclude that yours is not as bad)? Many Christians follow a line of reasoning like Murray’s and draw the conclusion that same-sex sin is somehow farther from the reach of God’s redemption than other expressions of sexual sin.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1759-2040)
The Christian “gag reflex” to the abomination of homosexuality is not excessive—it is given by God to discern that which is evil, in the Old and New Testaments.
“And they [Levite priests] shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.” Ezekiel 44:
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” Hebrews 5:12-14
Christians who have the “mind of Christ” naturally recoil from sins that God abhors and calls abominable. Moreover, Romans 1 informs us that homosexuals have, through progressive rebellion, distanced themselves from God who has given them up to vile affections and a reprobate mind:
Romans 1
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Romans 1:27 alludes to God’s physical judgment of homosexual men which would include the AIDS epidemic: “men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” In verse 28, the Greek word for “reprobate” is αδοκιμος after which a note in the Geneva Bible states: “To a corrupt and perverse mind, by which it comes to pass that the conscience, having been removed by them, and they having almost no more remorse for sin, run headlong into all types of evil.” αδοκιμος is translated elsewhere in the New Testament as reprobate, rejected, and the strong word, castaway:
Strong's Greek Dictionary
96. αδοκιμος adokimosfrom 1 (as a negative particle) and 1384; unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):—castaway, rejected, reprobate.
1Cor 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
2Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
2Cor 13:6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
2Cor 13:7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.
2Tim 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Such a progression in rebellion against God is also seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12, Revelation 9:20 and Rev. 16 where God’s forbearance ends and judgment begins: “The Strong Delusion and the Mark of the Beast.”
According to Rosaria, “homophobia” is a sin and an irrational fear. It seems that Christian homophobia is to blame for the sinful condition of homosexuals. Instead of calling homosexuals to repent, Rosaria says Christians must repent!
“Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is homophobia. Homophobia is the irrational fear of a whole people group, failing to see in that group God’s image diminished but not extinguished by sin, and that God’s elect people linger there, snared by their own sin and awaiting gospel grace.”
A powerful tactic of cultural Marxists has been to change the language for the “new conversation” which they have forced upon the Christian community. There should be no discussion whatsoever about the sin of homosexuality because “the Bible says”: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,...shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Notwithstanding the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, Marxist comrades in the leadership of certain denominations facilitate the Cultural Marxist cause by likewise substituting the politically correct “newspeak” (“new speak”) in the place of God’s Word. Newspeak is intended to render the words by which God speaks to His people obsolete—words such as “sodomite” and “reprobate” and “abomination” which are homophobic have become politically incorrect. By removing God’s words from the Christian vocabulary (and from new versions of the Bible), cultural Marxists can frame the discourse in their biased context and do battle on their own turf.
One minister exposed the term “homophobia” as a linguistic weapon to shame Christians who are merely upholding the Word of God and two millennia of Bible doctrine.
“Homophobia? Andrew Starkie on the misuse of language”
“LANGUAGE is a battleground because it is used to transmit ideas. The recent centenary of George Orwell’s death has brought before the public imagination again the spectre of the official language of Newspeak. The Nazis had to ‘purify’ the German language in order to impose their modem paganism upon the German people. Today the illiberal guardians of political correctness, especially in the secularist educational establishment, are similarly revising our own language.
The wrong neologism
“One of their most successful inventions of recent years is ‘homophobia’. It is a word which is used promiscuously to damn anyone who adheres to a traditional understanding of human nature and sexual morality, which in the West has been based on both Christian doctrine and natural law. The old orthodoxy is the new heresy.
“The Bishop of Oxford, defending his attempt to short-circuit the Church’s process of discernment about homosexuality, has also larded his pronouncements with the word, to great effect. The bishop’s deputy scribblers have, moreover, employed the word in an even more immoderate fashion. One hired clerical pen who writes for the Guardian abused the nine diocesan bishops who had had the insolence to write in defence of the traditional teaching of the Church, and accused the Church of England of being ‘institutionally homophobic.’…
“Despite the dodgy etymology, the word ‘homophobia’ remains a useful grenade in the armoury of those who wish to change what has been the consistent teaching of the Church for a couple of millennia. We should expect to hear it from the lips of the ‘usual suspects’ in the coming months. It should not go uncontested.”
About Newspeak:
“Newspeak is the ‘politically correct’ language of The Party in ‘1984.’ The Party is Big Brother. Society under Newspeak and the Party, is cultural Marxism. Newspeak supports an agenda…
“The Appendix to ‘1984” provides a lengthy explanation of the mechanics and a demonstration of the power of Newspeak. This fictional language of the future creates and allows discussion about essentially nothing significant.... It also, by its construction, eliminates any and all dissent. Orwell makes the specific point that or Declaration of Independence is rendered untranslatable. Do you get the point? Readers who wish to make sense of what is going on right now might want to acquire a gist of the mechanics of Newspeak…
“To understand what is going on in a country, one must understand the language, the borders and the culture of that nation. It is a construct of civilization, a three legged stool. To transform society one must knock out at least one leg of the stool. To fundamentally transform society one must knock out all three. The Revolutionary Marxist attempts to transform society in the 19th Century failed certainly in part, and usually in whole. The Russian Communist [Red] Revolution succeeded largely in changing borders, altering language use and eradicating all cultural Russian references to culture that could not further their Soviet aims. Yet, Soviet Society failed and the Soviet Union broke apart. Still the drive toward a Marxist Society continues…
“The fundamental transformation of the United States of America is the deliberate societal overlay of Multicultural Political Correctness and Progressive Socialism. I use the term ‘overlay’ to depict an exoskeleton. But, call it what it is: Cultural Marxism. They change culture first by changing the way we speak. They condition people to new ways of saying, or not saying things. Example: We are experiencing the slow steady erasure of our religious foundations from that of a Christian nation to that of a polyglot of beliefs, heresies, and unbelief... Any thinking to the contrary is heresy: Crimethink.”
Non-Evangelism, Neo-REFORMED Style
Rosaria Butterfield disapproves of evangelizing the lost by directly quoting Scripture to inform them of the wonderful gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
“At my first meal at their home, Ken and Floy omitted two important steps in the rulebook of how Christians should deal with a heathen like me: 1) they did not share the gospel with me, and 2) they did not invite me to church.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 326-328)
Scripture states that we were “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23), however, Rosaria refers to evangelical pastors who speak to sinners in this way as “sharks smelling fresh blood.” The only approved method of evangelism, according to Rosaria, is the more evasive approach of the Reformed pastor who was not so insensitive as to share with her the Word of God:
“When I confessed my spiritual struggle, struggle, he could have recited Acts 16:31, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.’ Most evangelical pastors would have acted like a shark in the water smelling fresh blood at the opportunity to quote this Bible verse to someone like me!” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 463-465)
Unless one’s conversion is arduous, like a train wreck or alien abduction, simply repenting and believing the Gospel is too easy.
“Because conversion, in scripture and in my personal experience, is arduous and transformative, I fear the consequence of the easy believism that typifies modern evangelical culture.” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 693-695)
It is also inadvisable to share the words of eternal life unless one has a relationship of solidarity with the unsaved.
“After ten years of coming out as a lesbian, you would think I would have gotten used to the feeling of peering over the edge of dignity and choosing instead solidarity with the outcasts. While the lecture itself was not bold, because my friendships were bold and intimate and risky, the lecture had impact. This experience taught me a powerful lesson about evangelism: the integrity of our relationships matters more than the boldness of our words. Because of who I was to the gay community, this lecture had made its mark.” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle Locations 931-933)
Looking to Scripture, relationship building is never stressed except within the Christian community. Jesus ate and drank with sinners but had no ‘solidarity’ with those who persisted in their sin. Moreover, He spoke quite boldly to the unsaved Jews and He built His Church through the apostles who also spoke the Word of God boldly:
(Jesus) “But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?” John 7:26
(Disciples) “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” Acts 4:29
(Paul) But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus: And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.” Acts 9:27-28
(Paul and Barnabas) “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” Acts 13:46
(Paul and Barnabas) “Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Acts 14:3
(Apollos) “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Acts 18:26
(Paul) “And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Acts 19:8
(Paul) “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.” Ephesians 6:18-20
“The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Prov. 28:1
It seems that Rosaria always puts the worst possible construction on the efforts of Christians to reach the lost, and everything they do for that matter:
“Here in Beaver Falls, 1945-style brick bungalows displayed scripture on placards. (I made a mental note to always keep my dog on leash around here.) The most popular verse was John 3:16, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.’ Other houses displayed verses about God’s judgment and about the separation of the saved from the lost…
“Bible verses that front salvation over Christian service, instead of being important interfaces between Christian homes and the watching world, seemed like sneaky little raids, quick and insulated targets into culture, with no sense that a worldview of care lay behind them. I had been the beneficiary of real Christian evangelism. Ken Smith spent time with me—and not just spare time. He spent pricey time—real time. He didn’t hide behind bumper stickers or slogans. He never let pride masquerade for principle. Perhaps I was being overly reactionary about the new landscape in Beaver Falls. Perhaps I or one of my drag queen friends would be welcome to have a cup of coffee at one of these Bible-loving houses, resting our cups between sips on vinyl tablecloths in country kitchens. Perhaps we would be talked with as people made in God’s image. But perhaps not. These placards made me wonder: Would I be welcome because I’m visibly saved? Which is the greater of God’s gifts, being made in God’s image or being saved, or both? Are we to rank-order these? Are we to treat the visibly saved with greater honor than all of humanity, made as it is in God’s image? Do these Bible verses that sit on placards take up the same cultural space as the rainbow flag that once resided on my flag-pole? Are these ‘Welcome’ signs or signs that read ‘Insiders Only’?” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 1233-1258)
Rosaria, unfortunately you have been living within the “narrowly circumscribed” confines of Reformed Calvinism. If you would only spend some time in Christian churches, you would find that many of the “churchy ladies” and pastors do “real Christian evangelism” and would be more than willing to have a cup of coffee with your drag queen friends and at some point share the Gospel with them, thoughtfully and compassionately as the Holy Spirit leads. In fact, many Christians do much more, as your mentors, Ken and Floy Smith, who befriended and discipled you. They make friends of the lost, pray for them, often minister to their needs, help them materially, share their burdens with compassion and give of their time in countless ways.
Those tacky placards with Bible verses are often sincere invitations to hear the good news of eternal life which Christians enjoy and love to share with those who are without Christ and without hope in this world. I should also mention the multitudes of Christian missionaries all over the world who sacrifice their lifetime on earth, and sometimes their lives, to reach the lost. Some of these Christians in my community share the Gospel in a free health clinic donated and staffed by Christian doctors and dentists who volunteer their time to give medical and dental care to the poor who have little money and no insurance.
As for the verses about God’s judgment, I guess you would also be critical of the prophets of old—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Obadiah, etc.—who warned of the judgment to come on Israel and Judah. Perhaps because you are expecting your Church to build the Kingdom of God, you don’t realize that God’s judgment is about to fall instead, not only on America but on the world which is rapidly becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah. Should Christians not care about the unsaved enough to warn them they will soon be judged, as Jesus prophesied?
“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” Luke 17:28-30
NOTES
1. William Blake was an English occultist who wrote the heretical poem on which the British national anthem “Jerusalem” is based. “Jerusalem” was derived from the British-Israel legend that Joseph of Arimathea carried the Holy Grail filled with Jesus blood to Great Britain where he deposited it in Glastonbury Abbey, whence Jesus taught the Druids during his “silent years” and the legendary King Arthur was laid to rest. (See: The British Druids.)
Does Rosaria also believe the Holy Grail heresy of William Blake and Great Britain? Is this why Rosaria prefers a heretical occultist to Bible-quoting Christians? Is this why she uses the term “Jesus’ spilled blood” in her books? Rosaria Champagne Butterfield’s maiden name ties her to Merovingian Jewish bloodline through the House of Champagne of French nobility:
“In The Second Messiah, Masonic authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas identify the Merovingian families which conspired with the Merovingian pope—truly a Jewish fifth column within the Catholic Church—to recapture the Holy Land:
“‘The picture that was emerging was of a group of European noble families, descended from the Jewish lines of David and Aaron, who had escaped from Jerusalem shortly before, or possible even just after, the fall of the Temple. They had passed down the knowledge of the artifacts concealed within the Temple to a chosen son...of each family. Some of the families involved were the Counts of Champagne, Lords of Gisors, Lords of Payen, Counts of Fontaine, Counts of Anjou, de Bouillon, St. Clairs of Roslin, Brienne, Joinville, Chaumont, St Clair de Gisor, St Clair de Neg and the Hapsburgs...’” (p. 79)
