"What did you do in 2020 - when the churches were told they were 'inessential', ordered to close their doors without stated end-point, ceased to offer the sacraments, and forbade all gatherings of Christians - even outdoors?"
"What did you do when people were imprisoned wherever they happened to be, were forbidden to meet, were prevented from touching, and were compelled to hide their faces?"
"How did you then explain and justify your capitulation-to and embrace-of the globalist, totalitarian, Satanic agenda?"
"And do you now explicitly repent what you thought, said and did in relation to the birdemic-peck?"
These are the kinds of question that real-Christians need to ask of their denomination, their specific church, and their pastor/ priest.
(...Unless, of course, they already know the answers full-well; because, for so many self-identified Christians; 2020 is, was, and always will be.)
5 comments:
The Romantic Christians say that in the birdemic, church leaders endorsed the Lockdown and shut their doors in the faces of their flocks for months or years on end.
Not all church leaders did this. John Macarthur’s Grace Community Church closed for a few weeks, decided it was wrong, and reopened and remained open in the face of many threats from the civil authorities. https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B200723
And MacArthur has massive influence worldwide.
To his credit, my priest once told me, "We need an Orthodox country. Then we need a King."
@Alan - This is splitting non-existent hairs! - since what I said was that the leadership of *major* Christian churches followed the totalitarian-demonic line wrt the birdemic (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist etc).
I have always been aware of local scale exceptions and individual rebellions against the leadership.
The main denominational institutions have been supporting "The Current Thing" to a greater or lesser extent for decades. They have plenty of form. Perhaps most interesting to me is to look at the reasons they are prepared to state for public consumption (determining the real reasons is on the other hand a matter of inferential detective work).
An example: the Old Catholics of Utrecht, who once claimed to preserve the true Catholic Faith and rejected the First Vatican Council. About five years ago I wondered how the Old Catholics were doing these days. Their then-website stated, to my initial surprise, that they had started ordaining women as priests several years before, simply because of "equal opportunities."
Two observations to do with the quality of argument (1) they didn't feel any need to refute the contrary point of view, which they themselves had always fervently espoused prior to that (2) they didn't feel any need to justify the contention that a secular, workplace-equity based rationale could override what had previously been offered as a theologically-grounded restriction to male priesthood.
Two corollaries: they must think (1) we all have short memories (2) they can get away with mixing up arguments in different genres in such a way that a secular, possibly utilitarian, argument is assumed to beat a theological argument on the same 'topic'.
We are very much in Litmus Tests terrain here -- points of view can change at a moment's notice; and; arguments can be mixed-up, with stacks of suppressed premises that are important and yet unexamined. The substance of the arguments don't really matter, I am simply using this as an example: it is the style of argument that I am highlighting. Once analysed, you can see it everywhere.
@wa - Good points.
You are right that the process has been going for decades; but it has accelerated recently with the 'convergence' of several groups that had remained staunch. The Mormons (membership 16 million) had been strong in resistance to most leftist issues, except for the wedge of antraciss mass immigration business - this has later reached the extreme of giving large amounts of money and endorsement to the NAACP.
Since 2020 the CJCLDS have been backing the birdemic-peck agenda 111% to the extent of saying (without qualification, and repeatedly) that 'health' (ie compliance with the WHO demons) is their Number One priority.
Naturally, they are now making concessions on the feminism and QWERTYtrans issues - concessions that are (i.e. ought to be) absolutely ruled-out by the very fundamentals of Mormon theology; but "it turns out" that the major churches don't really mean what they say about anything, after all - not whenever it conflicts with whatever The Matrix currently demands.
Post a Comment