Baalism: (FOX) Bill O'Reilly & Valerie Jarrett

Baalism, deification of the sex deities, deification of nature? Anyone talk about Law and Gospel? The 7th commandment of the 10 commandments? Fornication, adultery, bestiality, sodomy and more? Bill O'Reilly and Valerie Jarrett? Anyone hear anything on Law and Gospel from Osteen, TBN, or modern pulpits? Rick Warren? The PCUSA? The TEC bishops?  For so-called Anglicans, when's the last time the Ten Commandments were used in Holy Communion?  I haven't heard them in years.  Washington National Cathedral? Sin, judgment, original sin and actual sins that flow from it? Total depravity? Anyone think the stats are good on who can even recite the Ten Commandments?  Let alone, something from the old catechisms. (Except for Confessional Reformed and Lutheran Churchmen...they would get it, keep catechetizing the kids.)


What's the relationship between ancient Baalism and the modern deities worshipped everywhere?  Who's asking these questions?


Of course, the Gospel answers the thunderings of Sinai, but today, there is no Sinai.  And the Gospel is a moral therapeutic "pick me up."  Thank God for double imputation; pity, we'd need to explain that one too, but for another time.


Of course, Bill and Valerie don't address it.  The deity addressed by them is another American idol, economic success and avoidance of inconveniences...the common good, but not His Sovereign Majesty, His glory, His Law and His Gospel. 


Fear of the LORD, what's that?

Update: Anglican Church of Ireland Reaffirms Traditional Marriage

The Latest on the Anglican Church of Ireland’s Recent Synod:  Reaffirms Traditional Marriage

          The Rev. Alan McCann, a Rector in the Anglican Church of Ireland (CoI), has written an interesting update on the recent vote in CoI upholding traditional teachings on marriage.

          The Rev. Alan McCann is Rector of Holy Trinity Woodburn, Diocese of Connor. He is a founding member of Reform Ireland. Holy Trinity is the youngest parish in the Church of Ireland, being a church plant from St Nicholas' Carrickfergus. Membership is now 300. McCann received his B.A.(Hons) in Business Studies at the University Ulster, Jordanstown, before doing his B.Th. at Trinity College Dublin. He completed his M.Phil. at The Queens University, Belfast, and wrote his thesis on the  “The Charismatic Movement in the Church of Ireland, a Historical and Theological Introduction.” 

          Here are some earlier stories from Rev. McCann that we covered as the recent CoI Synod was approaching. 

Dr. Alan McCann: Review of Church of Ireland & Conference on Gay Issues” at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/03/dr-alan-mccann-review-of-church-of.html

Rev.Dr. Alan McCann: Calls for Repentance by Irish Dean and Bishops in Church of Ireland” at:

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/03/revdr-alan-mccann-calls-for-repentance.html

Dr. McCann: "Oh Ireland, `Division is Inevitable'" at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/03/dr-mccann-oh-ireland-division-is.html

Here’s Rev. McCann’s latest on the recent Irish Synod.  See: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=15984

IRELAND: Synod in conflict for soul of the Church of Ireland
By Alan McCann in Dublin
Special to virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
May 14, 2012

Just to let you know that the motion was passed today. All of the amendments, four in total, were defeated by a 2:1 ratio in the house of laity and house of clergy.e motion itself was passed 3:1 in the house of laity and 80 in favour, 60 against in the house of clergy.

When the Bishops voted it was 10:2 in favour of the motion, with the Bishop of Cork and Bishop of Cashel and Ossory voting against the motion.
On the whole the debate was respectful, courteous and not without some humour on occasions.

Personally, the most powerful speech of the day came from one of our ecumenical guests, Father Ireanaeus du Plessiis.

He spoke from a deep personal faith and conviction, with great courage warned the General Synod against acting unilateral and changing the doctrine of marriage which the church catholic has held to for nearly 2000 years.

He gently but firmly spoke about his own Antiochian Church and how for them the matter of human sexuality was settled nearly 2000 years ago by the Church catholic - that marriage is between one man and one woman and outside of this all were to remain celibate.

He lovingly spoke of 'holy space' and not just the 'safe place' that the motion mentioned. He also reminded those present, and especially the clergy, that we were to be holy because God is Holy.

In my heart I wished we had such leadership speaking with such conviction, clarity and courage before a general synod. God used this man in a powerful way today.

The passing of the motion was received in respectful silence, as requested by the Archbishop if Armagh. He had chaired this part of synod with fairness and allowed a long time for people to put their viewpoints.

It was disappointing and to be honest hurtful to then read what can only be described as a vitriolic diatribe on certain liberal and pro-gay blogs immediately the vote was announced.

However, that came as no surprise as members of Changing Attitude Ireland, who attended as visitors, stood at the back of the synod hall during the vote.

Personally it did not intimidate or annoy me to have to walk past these individuals to go into the voting lobby but I know some synod members did feel it was intimidating to have to do so.

Thankfully, the Church of Ireland synod has restated this is what the Church teaches concerning marriage and the 'only normative place for sexual intercourse.'

Thankfully it has also condemned language and actions that bring hurt, shame and fear into the lives of others (irrespective of sexuality).

It has committed the Standing Committee of the General Synod to bring before Synod next year proposals for a Select Committee and its terms of reference.

I for one am not gloating over the passing of this motion. It pains me to belong to a Church which at one point appeared to be unclear as to what it actually has taught and does teach about marriage.

It pains me that some people would want to move away from God's revealed will for mankind in the area of human sexuality but I am encouraged by the actions of General Synod today.

The result of the vote has been a tirade of negative comments from the pro-gay lobby both inside the Church of Ireland and further afield.

On BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday Sequence the chairwoman of Changing Attitudes Ireland, Canon Ginnie Kennerly, even complained that members of synod stayed on the third day of synod to vote.

Imagine, complaining that people actually turned up, as they were elected to do, for the last day of synod and exercised their democratic right to vote. It would appear you are only allowed to turn up on the last day if you vote in a certain way.

This motion doesn't actually change anything in the Church of Ireland as it simply restates the teaching of the Church. However, it does restate the standard against which teaching and practice is to be measured. The liberal revisionist pro-gay lobby are already seeking to demonise those who voted for this motion and who adhere to the teaching of canon 31, and the prayer book on marriage, as those determined to go on a 'witch hunt' for gays within the Church of Ireland.

Such propagating of untruth has come as no surprise to many who have had to live with this for years from the pro-gay lobby. It falls into line with the pre-synod lied that no gay people were invited to the Cavan Conference.

Changing Attitude Ireland were invited to put forward a speaker for the conference and they (the seemingly inclusive group) put forward their chairperson, Cannon Kennerly, and then complained that no gay people were speaking - despite the fact that two of the keynote speakers identified themselves as homosexuals.

It would be good if in the listening process that the truth was actually spoken and half-truths and outright lies were not pedalled. It would appear that certain members of the pro-gay lobby believe spin = truth.

END

Sex Sells: Driscolls on "The View" with Barbara Waters Re: Mark's New Book "Real Marriage"

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/03/08/the-driscolls-share-their-views-on-sex-in-marriage-on-the-view/

The Driscolls Share Their Views on SEX in Marriage on “The View”

Thu, Mar 08 2012

By deb

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:8 (NIV)

 

In case you haven't noticed, Mark and Grace Driscoll are taking their Sex Gospel to the ends of the earth as they wander around peddling their HOT off the press book – REAL MARRIAGE: THE TRUTH ABOUT SEX, FRIENDSHIP & LIFE TOGETHER. It is this blogger's staunch opinion that their efforts are not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yesterday the Driscolls pitched their provocative sex manual on The View.

Barbara Walters begins the interview with this introduction:

"It is a gospel you probably never thought you'd hear from a man of the church, but the Lord wants married couples to have great sex to have it often and even experiment in the bedroom, and that's what the pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill megachurch Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace claim in a book that's being called the most provocative work ever written by an evangelical. It is called Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friends and so forth, and you may, if you have young kids, you may want them to go into the other room now, we'll give you a second or two. Bye kids!"

Barbara, your opening statement is exactly right, and we call it the Sex Gospel, not to be confused with the "Gender Gospel". Tragically, both are twisted views of Scripture.

By divine providence my younger daughter (who turns 20 this summer) is on Spring Break, and we watched The View together. I am so honored that she wants to spend her free time chillin' at home this week with her mom and dad. After the short interview concluded, we had an interesting conversation about the Driscolls. My daughter was NOT impressed! While I plan to keep the details of our discussion private, I will tell you that her take away from the interview was this – there is just ONE REASON why guys would be motivated to get hitched. If she's right that this is the message guys in her generation are getting from Real Marriage, then expect tremendous problems down the road with some of these young couples who are buying the Driscoll phony boloney hook, line, and sinker.

Now let's take a closer look at the interview…

Barbara Walters shares with the audience (both in the studio and on television) that the Driscolls have been married for twenty years and that according to their book they had sexual problems and learned how to correct them. She inquires about those problems and how the Driscolls fixed them.


Grace Driscoll explains: "Well, we started out with a lot of things wrong in our marriage, and so we needed to discuss more honestly the things from our past, and I had suffered from sexual assault and various issues in my past and because we weren't aware of those in our marriage it made it very difficult to have an honest marriage."


Did you catch what Grace said? "We weren't aware of those in our marriage…" Who wasn't aware of those issues? Who is "we"? Does anyone else find that statement extremely odd?


Barbara then asks: "Did you agree about sex?"


Mark jumps in and quickly answers her question by saying: "Yeah, we did when we got married, and I think we started as close friends and then as the work and the duties of life come in, the friendship started to wane and I think that affects all levels of intimacy."


Barbara then responds: "But I read the book and one of the things you say is that you thought of sex as god, and Grace you thought of sex as gross."


Mark deflects from Barbara's analysis by stating: "Yeah, we talk in the book that some people see sex as god – it's way too important to them, almost obsessive. For those that are overly religious or perhaps come from an abusive background, they tend to see it as very gross. Our view is that it's a gift. It's a gift that God gives us to enjoy and to steward well, and so it took some time for us to come to mutual agreement on that and to work that out."
Here's my question. Why does Mark believe he's qualified to coach others about sexual obsessions? Talk about someone being sex-obsessed!


When Joy Behar chimes in and asks what Mark has against homosexuals having fun, he retorts: 


"Yeah, well we are Bible-believing Christians and so we do hold to the teaching of scripture and that is that sex is reserved for a married couple, a heterosexual married couple, so even when we were dating and we were sexually active, we were wrong. And so we don't want to say that we're better or holier than anyone, but we were wrong as well and had to make some changes." 

 
What a feeble attempt at sharing the Gospel message with those who were watching. That's why I don't believe the Holy Spirit is empowering Mark Driscoll. As a pastor, he should have used the opportunity to talk about salvation, not sex – marital or not!


Next, Raven-Simone, who was filling in for Elisabeth Hasselbeck, timidly asks: "What does the Bible say about sex?"


Mark answers: "Yeah, the first half of the book is really about friendship, and we think that friendship is the foundation to marriage, and then the second half of the book is about sex in the context of a loving friendship. And the Bible does have quite a bit to say about sex, especially a whole book called the Song of Songs, and so I'm a Bible teacher, but it's in there. Most people haven't read it or they missed that part."


Now Mark Driscoll is onto the Bible topic that inspires him the most. David Kupelian of World Net Daily just wrote an article – The Church of Sex – that includes an excerpt from Driscoll's 2007 sermon called Sex, a Study of the Good Bits from Song of Solomon which drew the ire of John MacArthur and others. The way Driscoll suggested that a wife win her husband to Christ is so graphic that we decided not to include it here; however, Kupelian reveals Driscoll's suggested technique.


Sherri Shepard keeps Mark Driscoll on topic with her remark: "Well, let's get to the sex O.K. because I just got married." She brings up the most controversial chapter in the Real Marriage book, which is "Can We _______?" By this point, Mark is salivating as he addresses whether certain sex practices are biblical or not.


"We talk about the things that couples may do but not things they must do," Mark says. He likens this part of Real Marriage to a menu from which you can decide what suits your taste. I wouldn't be surprised if Mark has devised his own sex menu. Maybe he has a __ beside each items so he can check his preference(s). Since Mark "sees things", I can see him placing his instructions on Grace's pillow so she will know what he has ordered for their next romp in the sack. If Mark's list is alphabetized, we all know what tops the list, followed by a "job" that rhymes with snow. I'm sorry – but this is all just too much! My husband would appropriately label it TMI (too much information)!


As the interview comes to a close, Barbara Walters says: "O.K. pornography, which you also deal with. You say that pornography is sometimes in women's romance novels, even mainstream women's magazines, and they're sinful." Whoopi Goldberg adds: "Does that go for television as well?"
Grace responds: "Any form of lust that is not toward your affection toward your married marital spouse is a sin."


In the Brierley interview (which lasted the better part of an hour), Grace was only "allowed" to speak ONCE. On The View, she actually got to speak TWICE over the course of five minutes, so things are definitely improving…


For another review of the Driscolls' interview, we recommend The Christian Post.


After appearing on The View, Mark Driscoll posted this comment on his Facebook account:


"Grace and I really enjoyed being on The View and sharing God’s truth about sex & relationships and how God forgives and helps us in this area that we all deal with every day. If you want to learn more, we will be live in these cities talking more about marriage and relationships: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Anderson, SC (sold out), Lynchburg, VA and St. Louis, MO. Sign up now…"

As you might imagine, the affirming responses poured in from Driscoll sycophants. However one negative response got through on Facebook which received these prompt responses:
Abraham Robledo "Hey Amber, chill out!!"
Justin Mohney ‎@Amber Womack-Kitavi, "if your statment above is implying that you in fact do know "about" God's love (or more than Mark and Grace) – you have a very ironic and oxymoronic way of stating such…interesting 'comment'…"
Jake Lynch "Hey how about instead of tearing into Amber for her remarks, we just allow her to have an opinion & pray for her?"

Here's the dilemma – I can't find Amber's comment
ANYWHERE! It was obviously deleted. I saved the three comments listed above, and just before publishing this post, I have scrolled through the comments one more time, and the three cited above are GONE! Isn't it incredible that someone is scrubbing Mark Driscoll's Facebook account? Why in the world would you trust someone who deletes any and all negative reactions?


Driscoll obviously believes his own press because only affirming commentary gets through; however, Driscoll and his Fan Boys have no control over the reviews posted on the Amazon website. In an effort to provide a public service announcement regarding what Mark Driscoll advocates, here is an important One Star comment left under the Driscoll's book Real Marriage.


Anal Sex, Cancer and You. A Guide for the Hipster Christian Community, January 26, 2012
"According to Mayo Clinic (and hundreds of other medical sites), anal sex dramatically increases the risk for anal cancer. Just because the bible doesn't spell out for the reader "Hey McFly, don't do that" doesn't mean the behavior is wise or permissible. No, you will not go to hell just because you have anal sex with your spouse. But you might get cancer. Oh, but wait! Silly me….I failed to take into account the porn-saturated culture we live in. And since that is the case, I guess I should just let the porn industry dictate my sex practices, right? Because after all, I reaalllyyz wanna be a cool christian. Never mind the fact that we're talking about a practice that might involve poo."
travel lover added a comment under this one-star review which states: ( Feb 2, 2012 4:31:16 PM PST)
"In addition to expressing my whole hearted agreement to your comments I would only like to add that there is apparently growing concerns that oral sex can contribute to a type of throat cancer. As for anal sex, what part of the verses condemning those who have abandoned the "natural" use of the woman does Driscoll and the MHC leadership not get?! Are we to believe that God only applies this standard to homosexual sex? I think not! Such practices are not only unnatural and questionably safe and sanitary but they are demonstratably demeaning to women. God help the young wives out there who now hope that their husbands also get Driscoll's admonition that such things are permissible if consensual and when they say "no" it is the end of discussion!"


Driscoll is escalating, and incredibly his buddies are just sitting by tight-lipped watching it happen… What will Mark Driscoll do for an encore? We cringe at the thought…


In the meantime, we believe countless young people (who are around the ages of our own children) are being hurt by Driscoll's cavalier attitude toward sex. Please, for the sake of your own health, listen to us! We have nothing to gain because we're not selling anything. The same cannot be said of the Driscolls. They know sex sells, and they are laughing all the way to the bank!

Cranmer's Curate: Bp. of London Must Over-rule Dean of St. Paul's, London

BISHOP OF LONDON MUST OVER-RULE DEAN OF ST PAUL'S

The Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, has a canonical responsibility to rule that the declared intention of the new Dean of St Paul's to conduct services of same-sex blessing runs contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England.

In a national press interview this week, Dr David Ison also declared that he conducted services of prayer and affirmation for couples in civil partnerships whilst he was Dean of Bradford.

The definitive liturgical expression of the doctrine of the Church of England, the Book of Common Prayer, is clear that sexual love is to be reserved exclusively for the God-created institution of heterosexual marriage, as blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

For more from Cranmer's Curate, see: 

http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com/2012/03/bishop-of-london-must-over-rule-dean-of.html

Thank God for the codified, registered and legal benchmark--that old, godly Prayer Book--"in writing"--that serves to illustrate the apostasy, heterodoxy, sin, wickedness and disorderliness of some modern clerics, e.g. Dr. Ison.

D.C. archdiocese: Denying Communion to lesbian at funeral was against ‘policy’/Tosses Priest Under the Bus

Michelle Boorstein offers the following at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html

Deep in grief, Barbara Johnson stood first in the line for Communion at her mother’s funeral Saturday morning. But the priest in front of her immediately made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine.

Johnson, an art-studio owner from the District, had come to St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg with her lesbian partner. The Rev. Marcel Guarnizo had learned of their relationship just before the service. 

 

“He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.

She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.

Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.

“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”

Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”

“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”

Johnson called the letter “comforting” and said she greatly appreciates the apology. But, she added, “I will not be satisfied” until Guarnizo is removed.

The priest’s action has also triggered an uproar among gay rights activists and enlivened some religious conservatives. It came just days after the Maryland Senate approved legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state; Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is expected to sign it this week.


“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has been thrown under the bus for following Canon Law 915!” wrote one Catholic blogger in the archdiocese. “The issue here is not the priest but Barbara Johnson.”

Archdiocese officials at first issued a short statement saying that the priest’s actions were against “policy” and that they would look into it as a personnel issue.


“When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person,” the statement said. “Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

For more, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html

Gender-based Abortion by Rev. John Richardson

Gender-based abortion — no shock, no horror

I don’t know whether it is still the case, but I seem to remember that Private Eye used to make much of the ‘shock horror!’ approach to investigative reporting: ‘Takeaway Kebab Content Shock Horror!’ — that sort of thing.

 

The point being made was that some things are neither shocking, nor horrible, but a weak story benefits from a few exclamation marks in the same way that a bad film can have a good trailer.

 

The sad truth, however, is that the story in today’s Daily Telegraph, which suggests that doctors will abort babies of the ‘wrong gender’ on demand (no questions asked) will probably not evoke the shock and horror it ought to require.

 

Certainly there will be a frisson of protest. It is said that Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, will mount an investigation.

 

But I doubt there will be a nationwide outbreak of penitence and grief over what we have become as a society. Abortion is too much part of what we do to risk asking tough questions about how we do it.

 

The reason I say this is that back in 1967 when the Abortion Act was passed, the reason for its introduction was the elimination of the scourge of ‘back street’ abortions. Better, it was said, to do this unfortunate procedure safely and openly, than see the deaths of some women and the blighting of the lives of others.

 

For more, see:

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2012/02/gender-based-abortion-no-shock-no.html