On Easter Sunday, I awoke with the thought that I would go to church, something I seldom do. Not just any church but the one where I grew up. Where the pastor of my youth was an intellectual and spiritual giant, and a very nice guy. Where my parents were members and volunteers for half a century. Where they still reside – their ashes dwell in the adjacent glen.
So I looked up the church to find the time of Easter service. Their website was plastered graffiti-like with the phrase, “We are love” in translucent cursive so you could still see the words and pictures of the page. I wasn’t sure of the biblical source of that phrase, or exactly what it means, but it’s not a bad marketing slogan for a church.
On the other hand, it seemed a little cheesy and self-important. It reminded me of the virtue-signalling yard signs that sprouted like weeds a year or two ago, shouting that the inhabitants of the houses where they were planted were very, very good and smart people – much more smart and good than the reader of the sign.
I clicked into a page on the church’s website entitled “What We Believe.” I saw nothing there about Jesus or God. But I did see their boast that “We are extravagantly inclusive.” Of everybody except Jesus and God, apparently. At that point, I abandoned my Easter mission.
In the guise of “love” and “inclusiveness,” the leftists running many churches these days have sacrificed Christ on a cross of political correctness. Anything goes as long as it’s not traditional. Which is to say, Western. Which is to say, God-centered.
According to a recent guest essay in The New York Times, the God of Abraham is so judgmental, cruel, and phobic that He deserves to be hauled before The Hague and put on trial for crimes against humanity.
Good luck with serving the subpoena. And with finding the judge who, in the words of poet Alexander Pope, would “Rejudge his justice, be the god of God.”
On second thought, alas, there is actually no shortage of such judges, nor of legislators content with the manifest wisdom of those judges’ judgments.
But in view of the left’s hatred and rejection of God, why do they keep digging up Christian morality to justify their open borders policies and creation of lawless “sanctuary cities”? More specifically, how much longer are we going to have to hear that because Jesus was a “refugee,” “migrant,” and “vagrant,” we should therefore welcome every specimen of humanity who walks, crawls, swims, or suffocates in trucks to Del Rio?
What gives with this line of reasoning? In the comment section, if you can, please explain how the Nazarene who stayed at home for 30 years and then travelled purposefully around Judea for three more years — where he was never a stranger to the language, understandings, and values of the people who flocked around him — in any way conformed to the standard definitions of “migrant” and “vagrant.”
As for being a “refugee,” except for Matthew’s mention of The Holy Family’s flight to Egypt when he was an infant (a tale perhaps more literary than literal), when did Jesus ever flee from hostile actors? His style was to go straight at them. Damn the torpedoes.
Even if Jesus were any of these things, the left still must torture logic something like this: He was good and great simply because he was a transient – the Son of Man had no place to lay his head. Therefore, goes the reasoning, all transients are good and great. We need more of them! About 18,000 more every day, if possible.
Or maybe it’s rooted in Jesus’ warning that seeking treasure rather than seeking God is no path to paradise. Vagrants do neither and so they’re halfway to heaven, which is a lot further along than I am. How can professed Christians refuse these people the free treasure they ask for along their way?
It doesn’t matter apparently that Hollywood and corporate lefties accumulate treasure like nobody’s business. Nor that they mostly dislike Christians. Nor that all these migrants and vagrants aren’t filling up their back yards.
Well, which is it? Is God so evil that he should be put on trial at The Hague for war crimes, as the left says from one side of their mouth, or is he so good that we should base our criminal vagrancy and illegal immigration policies on Him, as they say from the other side of their mouth?
Their argument amounts to “God is immoral, and is the justification for our moral policies. So if you believe in God, and you shouldn’t, then you should support those policies.”
Even Karl Marx made more sense than this.
By Glenn K. Beaton and Chad (“Bitter”) Klinger