Monthly Archives: January 2013

QOTD – 01/29/13

Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around — nobody big, I mean — except me. And I standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff — I mean if they’re running and the don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be. I know it’s crazy.

~J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye

Today, a lady that I go to church with sent me a message. In it she mentioned a conversation she had with her son this past weekend while he was home from college in which he told her that he had recently changed his position on abortion. His lack of personal knowledge on the topic had led him to take a neutral approach. But then something I had posted on my Facebook page made him research this issue a bit. He now finds abortion appalling and heartbreaking and came to the disturbing realization that, had his mom not been pro-life, he could have been aborted.

I read Catcher in the Rye 13 years ago, but only now do I truly understand what Holden Caulfield meant in the above quote.


Pro-Choicers Know They Are Killing Babies

Aborted Baby at 10 Weeks. Picture courtesy of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (

Yesterday, the good people over at Abolish Human Abortion posted a video on their YouTube channel from their recent experience at the Walk for Life in San Francisco, CA:

(Caution: Contains Fowl Language)

In the video, there is a woman that is very disgusted at the Pro-Life group because they are showing pictures of what she initially refers to as “bloody fetuses” and states that doing so is “irresponsible”. The speaker responds by asking her if showing the images is such an irresponsible thing to do, how irresponsible is it for the abortionists to kill the babies. She states that her concern is for the children that might be passing by and then she proceeds to tell the Abolitionists to “get the F*&% out!” Apparently she’s not too concerned about them hearing expletive language as they pass by, but I digress.

As the scene progresses, she accuses the group of not being very Christ-like and claims that Jesus would not show pictures of “dead babies” to make his point. No longer are the subject of the pictures she was so disgusted by merely fetuses, but babies. She also readily admits that the babies are dead, implying that they were at one point alive.

Granted, the woman from San Francisco may not have realized what she was really saying, but in an article at last week, Mary Elizabeth Williams states, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.”

Yeah, I couldn’t believe it either. In fact, you might want to go back and read it again.

Williams makes a case that sounds like it came out of a Randy Alcorn or Scott Klusendorf book that defends the pro-life position:

I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born. When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

She continues:

It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina. That distinction may apply neatly legally, but philosophically, surely we can do better.

I have to say, I couldn’t agree more! In fact, I’ve said very similar things in discussions with pro-aborts on Twitter and Facebook. She does a great job of defending the life-at-conception position. And yet she still believes that it is okay to terminate those human lives and kill babies. She even goes so far as to assert that doing so is the greater moral good because “all life is not equal.”

She claims that:

…a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

This article makes me feel bi-polar. I want to clap in approval at one paragraph and slap her in disgust the next. Williams is absolutely right when highlighting the logically fallacious philosophy behind the pro-choice position. But she could not be more wrong when justifying the murder of innocent human beings by putting “the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time”. How can she so clearly deconstruct the illogical positions of the pro-choice side, and yet not see her own failing logic?

Williams summarizes her position of justifying the murder of innocents by stating that the fetus is “a life worth sacrificing.”

I wonder upon what standard Ms. Williams would base her conclusion. How does one decide whose lives are more valuable in any given circumstance? If a single mother has already birthed a child, but can no longer afford to feed both her and the baby, is that baby a life worth sacrificing? How about a mom that decides that she wants to pursue a career or a college education and her toddler is getting in the way of her life goals. Is that toddler a life worth sacrificing? Where does this logic end? How do we determine the value of one life against another?

Have this culture become so selfish and pagan that people can boldly admit that they know they are killing human lives and are okay with it? The answer: yes.

Obama’s 2nd Inauguration: Calling Evil Good and Good Evil, Part 1

Obama Inauguration Word CloudYesterday was the 2nd inauguration of President Barack H. Obama. I listened to it on the radio and watched a few parts that were of particular interest. One of the most interesting parts of the inauguration for me was the President’s speech.

The theme of Obama’s speech was that of a journey. A journey that he referred to as, “never-ending”. A journey that began with the founding of these United States and continues today. And, in playing on his most recent campaign slogan, a journey that we must move forward.

The President made mention of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet his ideology completely contradicts those unalienable rights. With his words, he exalts the founding principles of this country as good, but his actions seem to imply that he actually views them as evil.

Life or Death?

Obama claims that “We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.” Really, Mr. President? What about the baby in the womb of the woman at the abortion clinic? Where is that citizen’s basic measure of security and dignity? One of the least secure places in this country for a child today is in the womb of its mother. Where is the dignity for the child that dies at the hands of an abortionist or that is burned to death by a chemical abortion? Mr. President, if it is so good for us to provide security and dignity to every American, why do you enable the evil of abortion to continue?

While he does not believe in protecting the rights of the unborn, Obama did assert his firm belief in protecting the environment, vowing to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”  Is this really a country that values the environment more than the lives of the innocent unborn? How is killing 1.5 millions children every year not the most betraying action we could take on our future generation? Mr. President, if you really think it is so good to protect the planet for our children, abolish the evil of abortion now!

Obama then added a classic non-sequitur. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.” But who is the real science denier? The medical and biological case against abortion is clear. Every new human life begins at conception. None can avoid the devastating impact of raging forceps and crippling saline abortions. Glossing over homicide and calling it “choice” and therefore good does not make it any less evil.

Obama even went so far as to invoke God as the one that commanded us to care for and preserve our planet. What about the innocent unborn? Does God not command us to care for them? Is mother nature more important than the unborn child? If God’s commands are so good, let’s follow all of them, shall we?

As he continued on his “journey” theme he declared that “our journey is not complete until all our children, rom the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.” What about the unwanted children of unplanned pregnancies. Do we care about them? Will we cherish them? With abortion, the ultimate harm is their ultimate end. Mr. President, you seek to deny the basic right of self-defense by voicing your concern for children, and you call that good, but you continue to deny the basic right of life to the defenseless, and those that would extend charity and security to the unborn, you call evil.

Until the words of this president line up with his actions, he is merely “call[ing] evil good, and good evil . . . put[ting] darkness for light, and light for darkness . . .” (Isaiah 5:20), and to that, God says, “Woe!” Or, as another translation puts it, you are “as good as dead” (New English Translation).

QOTD – 01/21/13


‎”I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.” ~Martin Luther King Jr.

In other words, speak now or forever hold your peace. And “forever” includes the day when we stand before the Supreme Judge of the world.

QOTD – 01/18/13

It must be admitted that [the 2nd century Greek Apologists] represented Christianity largely in terms of philosophy, that they did not clearly discriminate between philosophy and theology, and their representation of the truths of revelation, and particularly of the Logos doctrine, suffered from an admixture of Greek philosophical thought.

“Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine”

As Christianity began to spread, the influence of Greek philosophical and theological thought began to increase. This seems to fly in the face of the warning issued by Paul in Colossians 2:8-9:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:8-9, KJV).


Blank Inside?

Valentine’s Day is less than a month away. Don’t worry, if you forget, your local stores will be sure to remind you. It is very likely that in the next few weeks many of us will be visiting our local Hallmark store to purchase a nice card for that special someone in an effort to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Walking into a Hallmark store reminds me of a bit by my favorite comedian, Brian Regan:

In the clip, Regan talks about the “Blank Inside” section of Hallmark. These are cards that must be filled in with a personal note from the buyer to the receiver. Regan jokingly says that he writes, “Sorry you feel so blank inside” on the cards. Sometimes, people need a blank-inside card. Their lives are empty. They are lacking. They need something to fill the void.

In Col 2:8-10, Paul addresses this problem:

Beware lest anyone spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power.

In verse 8, Paul warns against being spoiled. The word in the Greek literally means “carry you off as a captive”. The implication here is that we can become a spoil of war through false teachings. How is it possible for false teachers to capture people?  The “captives” are ignorant of the truths of the Word of God.  They become fascinated by the philosophy and empty delusion of the false teachers. Not all philosophy is bad, however. Philosophy means the love of wisdom (Philo = love, sophy = wisdom). When a person does not know the doctrines of the Christ he can easily be captured by false religions. The NIV states that the philosophy of false teachers is “hollow and deceptive”.

Tradition is that which is handed down.  Traditions aren’t all bad either. Traditions from God are good, but traditions from men are not all good. We need to make sure that any traditions that we might follow are godly traditions.

The phrase “rudiments of the world” meant the elementary spirits of the universe, or the angels that influenced the heavenly bodies.”  It was an idea of the religious astrologers of the day (Col 2:16).  Horoscopes, astrological charts, ouija boards the zodiac system and other spiritual practices are contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. We need to avoid these things at all costs.

In Verse 9, Paul presents the doctrine of Jesus Christ in contrast to false teachings. It is a magnificent description of the Incarnation, for it emphasizes both the true deity and true humanity of Jesus Christ. Let us examine each major word of the verse.

  • “Him.” The antecedent is “Christ” (verse 8), or more fully, “Christ Jesus the Lord” (verse 6).
  • “Dwelleth,” or lives. The word is in the present tense, meaning that the fullness of God continues to dwell in Jesus Christ. The union of deity and humanity in Christ is permanent.
  • “Godhead” (theotes): the Deity. This Greek word appears only here in the New Testament. It is “the abstract noun for God . . . and includes not only the divine attributes but also the divine nature.” The word refers to the state of being God, to the sum total of God’s nature. The identity of Jesus as God would be established if verse 9 simply said, “In Him dwells the Godhead,” for by definition “Godhead” is the fullness of absolute deity.
  • “Fulness” (pleroma): plenitude, totality. The same word appears in Colossians 1:19. To be as clear as possible, the verse says “the fulness” of the Godhead dwells in Jesus, although the Godhead can never be less than complete and absolute.
  • “All.” To underscore the deity of Christ even further, the verse says “all” the fullness, although by definition anything less than all would not be fullness. Lightfoot explained that “all the fulness” means “the totality of the divine powers and attributes.” Thus verse 9 uses three words to declare the absolute deity of Jesus in the strongest of terms, although one would have been sufficient to express the point.

“In him” is emphatic. It is in Christ, and nowhere else, that one is to find “the fulness of the Godhead.” In him the fullness “dwelleth,” that is, has its permanent abode. This “fulness” means the unbounded powers and attributes of God. The word “Godhead” denotes the essence or content of divine being, that indeed which constitutes God. Here in most absolute terms Paul states not merely the divinity but the deity of Christ. The word deity, and its corresponding word in the Greek, denotes the “being God.” Christ is not only Godlike; he is God.

John 1:1, 14 is a parallel passage: “The Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

All the roles, titles, and attributes of God are invested in Jesus. Whatever God is, Jesus is. He is the incarnate God, Father, Word, Spirit, Lord, and Jehovah. Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the one God, and this truth is foundational to our faith.

Now, we get to my favorite part of this passage, verse 10, the practical application of verse 9. The deity of Jesus Christ is not merely an abstract theological concept; it has profound implications for our daily lives. Just as Jesus is the fullness or completeness of God in flesh, we are “complete” in Him. “Complete” here comes from the same Greek root word as “fulness” in verse 9. Some translations use the same English word in both verses to make the connection clear: “And you have been given fullness in Christ” (NIV). “And you are in Him, made full and have come to fullness of life—in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead” (Amplified Bible).

Greek scholar, Kenneth Wuest put it like this, “And you are in Him, having been completely filled full with the present result that you are in a state of fullness.”

When a person is born again into the family of God, he is born complete in Christ.  Our growth does not come by addition, but by nutrition.  We grow from the inside out.  Nothing needs to be added to Christ because He already is the very fullness of God.

In short, we have everything we need in Jesus. If all we know is Jesus, we know enough to be saved, healed, delivered, protected, and preserved, for when we have Him we have everything that God is. Even if someone does not understand the doctrine of God or has never heard of the Holy Spirit, he can repent of his sins by confessing to Jesus, have his sins washed away in the name of Jesus, and receive the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Jesus) by calling upon Jesus in faith. For example, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit when they repented and believed the simple message about Jesus, and then they were baptized in Jesus’ name (Acts 10:36-48). Repentance, the remission of sins at water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit all come through the name of Jesus (Luke 24:47; John 14:26; Acts 2:38).

Just as John 1:1, 14 parallels Colossians 2:9, so John 1:16 parallels Colossians 2:10: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.” Ephesians 3:17, 19 is

also a parallel: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith . . . that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.”

So as we open a new year, if you are feeling “blank inside”, perhaps you should examine yourself and find out if you are in Christ, and Christ is in you.

Dead Baby Jokes: Roe’s Logical Next Step

Remember dead baby jokes? Well, unfortunately, this is no joke.

Q: What’s more disgusting than a dead baby?

A: The mom that kills the baby and the judge and the “law” that lets her walk.

That’s right, no joke. This really happened. According to CBC news:

The Wetaskiwin, Alberta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…

Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In her ruling, the “honourable” (now that is a joke!) Joanne B. Veit stated:

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

So, if the “onerous demands” of child rearing are too much to handle, move to Canada where the legal system has apparently provided an opt-out by legalizing post-fetal, 4th-trimester abortion. Yes, that’s right! You too can rid yourself of that unwanted pregnancy even after your pregnancy is over!

4th Trimester? AHAAnd why stop at the 4th-trimester?! I hear the terrible-twos provide quite the “onerous demands.” And what about the “onerous demands” of a special needs child? Not to mention those onerously demanding teenagers! Furthermore, what about the “mother without support” that also has to take care of an elderly relatives with an incurable illness? Surely the “onerous demands” of these situations justify and legitimize a post-fetal abortion.

Veit also stated: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

That may seem absurd, but Judge Veit’s statement actually lines up with Canadian laws on infanticide. According to the Criminal Code of Canada a woman who kills her child can claim mental illness and be charged with “infanticide” which has a maximum sentence of five years. Infanticide is defined as:

A female person commits infanticide when by a willful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

Two previous juries had found Effert guilty of murder in the 2nd degree, but an appeals court reduced the conviction to infanticide and Judge Veit suspended the suspension.

This two-and-two-make-five kind of logic is actually quite consistent with the current thinking among pro-abortion baby killers. In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer argued that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons” (emphasis mine). That is exactly what “Roe” said in 1973 regarding the unborn baby, they are not persons. Singer is just following the logic of Roe v. Wade to its ultimate end. Singer went on to say that “the life of a newborn is of less value that they life of a pig, or a dog, or a chimpanzee.” And if you think Peter Singer is someone of little consequence, think again. He currently holds an honored chair inethics at Princeton University. No joke!

Singer is not alone in his position. Michael Tooley and Jeffery Reiman, also “ethical” philosophers, have stated similar positions. Tooley posits that human infants do not qualify for personhood status and Reiman believes that infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”

Many of your run-of-the-(baby killing)-mill pro-aborts believe that a baby in the womb is nothing more than a parasite that is draining the life from the mother…er…host, which is a direct infringement upon the host’s “right to life.” Extending that reasoning out to its logical conclusion and a new born baby also infringes upon that “right.” They will also argue that an unborn child cannot live outside of the womb and is therefore not a viable human being. Based on that most toddlers are fair game for abortion.

What’s quite funny about all of this is that Effert will spend some time behind bars. Up to 16 days for throwing the body of the dead baby over the a fence into a neighbor’s yard. That’s right, the neglectful treatment of the body of the dead baby is a more serious crime than is the actually killing of said baby.

Are you laughing? Yeah…me neither.

The Naked Reality #QOTD

“Error never shows itself in its naked reality, in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself.”  ~Irenaeus of Lyons

ImageThe main struggle of the early church was trying to find a consensus of absolute truth. With the revelation of the Logos in the flesh, and the advent of Christianity, the church had a need of organization and unity in order to stop confusion. However, in that pursuit, believers lost sight of the truth they were so desperately trying to preserve.

Error occurs when ones attention is consumed by anything else other than Jesus… the giver of wisdom and truth.  

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

James 1:5-8

The Unpardonable Sin?

Mark 3:28-30 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”


This verse has struck fear in the hearts and minds of young Bible readers everywhere. The Unforgivable Sin, just the sound of such an act is simply horrifying. It could be the title to some horror movie.

Could there indeed be a sin so terrible that God could not, or would not forgive? I’ve heard elementary teachers at Christian schools use such guilt tactics in order to develop better behavior out of us students. However, Jesus is on the record for this idea of the “unforgivable sin.” The problem: what was Jesus referencing when speaking of Blasphemy.

What happens to a grace of God, and the blood of Christ that “can’t” cover all sin? One commentator wrote,

“…The unpardonable nature of the sin must be related to the hopeless warping and perversion of the moral nature, which would make one capable of such blindness to the truth as to attribute works of mercy having their origin in the power of God’s Spirit to a diabolic source, a malignity so deep-seated as to make one insusceptible of redeeming grace.”[1]

I believe Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees’ disbelief in Him and His work as the Messiah. Because of that disbelief, their actions lead them to blasphemy.  In this case the Pharisees were so blinded by their hatred for Jesus that it seemed there was no way their sins could ever be forgiven. Although, Jesus never says that the Pharisees sins were “unforgivable” it is strongly implied. Another author agreed with this concept,

“In such a frame of mind repentance is not possible to the hardened heart because the recognition of sin is no longer possible, and God’s offer of mercy is in effect peremptorily refused.[2]

The same concept is seen when Paul is speaking of the fate of the apostate brothers.

Paul says that their “consciences have been seared with a hot iron” implying that their thinking is numbed to truth. He “delivers them over to Satan” in order that they would learn from their mistakes. Paul uses the term “shipwrecked,” implying that they are hopeless. However, these attributes are not because God’s grace can’t reach them, but it is because they themselves do not want, or feel they do not need to be reached.

The mind has been warped and deceived to think that their path is true and all others are false. They are hopeless without a total paradigm shift. Like the “shipwrecked,” it would take a miracle for them to turn to God in repentance. To say that God can’t forgive their sin is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is talking about certain individuals that have reached the point of no return in regards to their faith. Furthermore, The church, nor anyone in the church, is qualified to make predictions on who is in such sin. The apostate heart can only be known by God, thus every person is worth our time and effort.

One thing we can be sure, is that if a person is struggling with whether or not they have committed such a sin, than there worry is proof of innocence. The nature of the sin is a person who vehemently rejects the teachings, work, and person of Christ, and even goes as far as to believe it is false and demonically influenced. One author said,

“It is a desperate condition that is beyond the situation of forgiveness because one is not able to recognize and repent of sin. Thus one wanting to repent of blasphemy against the Spirit cannot have committed the sin.[3]

What do you think??? do you think there is a sin that the Blood of Christ can’t cover??? 

Share your thoughts!

[1] Merrill C. Tenney G. Ed. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 201 (Grand Rapids, MI,: Zondervan, 2009).

[2] D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., 142 (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

[3] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 223 (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003).

Gay Churches, Like Gay Marriages, Don’t Produce Children

A news article from The Huffington Post Religion section caught my eye today. The headline of the Facebook post reads, “National Cathedral To Perform Same-Sex Weddings”. That is the subtitle for the headline on the Huffington Post site which reads, “Gay Marriage Victory”, but a victory for gay marriage might be a devastating blow to one liberal Christian denomination.


As I began to read the article I was reminded that the National Cathedral in Washington DC is part of the Episcopal Church which approved “same-sex blessing” services last summer, but stopped short of defining these unions as marriages. The decision by the Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, to allow for gays to marry at the National Cathedral is based on the legality of gay marriage in DC and the state of Maryland.

The cathedral dean, Rev. Gary Hall said that another consideration for allowing same-sex marriages at the cathedral is the opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community “that reflects the diversity of God’s world.” Hall also stated that his reading of the Bible leads him to want to perform gay marriages because he things “it’s being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be.”

Perhaps Rev. Hall missed Jesus’ exclusive statement regarding marriage in Matthew 19:

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no lover two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate (Matt 19:4-6, NASB).

I wonder which Jesus Rev. Hall and the leaders of the National Cathedral are talking about, because it sure isn’t the Jesus that Matthew wrote about.

Coincidentally, the Episcopal Church is one of the fastest declining churches in America. A July 2012 New York Times article asked the question, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved”. In the last decade (2000-2010) the Episcopal Church has dropped 23% in attendance nationally, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw an increase in church attendance.

In order for a church to grow there must be retention and addition. Churches must be birthing new believers as well as continually meeting the spiritual needs of the seasoned believer. A rate of decline that large is only possible through a failure in both of those areas. And it appears that this union of liberal Christianity with liberal secularism is producing this failure instead of the desired production newly-converted spiritual babies.

We can’t be sure of whether Episcopalians are leaving Christianity altogether or making an exodus to churches with a more conservative, fundamental view of the Bible. Either way, the future looks quite bleak for the Episcopal Church.

Could there be a correlation between liberal churches and church attendance? The trend in the Episcopal Church seems to suggest that very thing.