Hilary White

,

Leading UK Evangelical: Supporting 'gay marriage' like opposing slavery

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image
LONDON, January 18, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading Evangelical pastor has implied that Christian opposition to homosexual acts, and to same-sex “marriage,” is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Bible. Instead what is needed is a broad acceptance of homosexuality itself, but a rejection of promiscuity.
 
In an article published on his church’s website and in Christianity magazine, Rev. Steve Chalke has said the solution for the crisis is for Christians to “consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships.”
 
Christians who use the Bible to support opposition to homosexual acts are forgetting that the Bible accepts slavery and other practices and ideas that are universally condemned in our time, he said.
 
Chalke is a popular left-wing pastor who makes regular appearances in the media. In 2004 he was appointed a Member of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II for his “services to social inclusion.” He also serves as a Special Adviser to the UN on human trafficking.
 
“How has the whole Church found itself believing something about slavery which is so at odds with the Bible?” Chalke wrote. 

“William Wilberforce and friends were condemned by huge swathes of the Church as they fought for abolition. They were dismissed as liberal and unbiblical for their 'deliberate abandonment of the authority of Scripture'. But, on the basis of a straightforward biblical exegesis of the Bible's text, their critics were right,” he stated.
 
“Too often, those who seek to enter an exclusive, same-sex relationship have found themselves stigmatised and excluded by the Church,” Chalke said. He decried this situation as an “injustice” out of keeping with the will of God.
 
And he has put his money where his mouth is, saying that last year he “conducted a dedication and blessing service following the Civil Partnership of two wonderful gay Christians.”
 
“Promiscuity is always damaging and dehumanizing. Casual and self-centred expressions of sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual – never reflect God’s faithfulness, grace and self-giving love,” he wrote.
 
“Only a permanent and stable relationship, in which respect and faithfulness are given and received, can offer the security in which well-being and love can thrive.”
 
He described it as “tragic” that the Christian community had failed “to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality”.
 
“When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneliness, secrecy, fear and even of deceit.”
 
Chalke restates the common arguments of theological “liberals” who have reinterpreted the passages of the New and Old Testaments to justify homosexual activity. He cites “a growing number of evangelical scholars” who assert that the New Testament contains no genuine proscriptions of homosexual activity, and that it has all been merely a matter of cultural interpretation.
 
He admits that “nowhere does the Bible actually affirm same-sex relationships,” but says it is about“how to interpret it [the Bible] properly.”
 
Indeed, that is the crucial issue, agrees one member of the evangelical community who has worked to help homosexuals themselves to overcome same-sex attraction.
 
Lesley Pilkington is a psychotherapist who ran afoul of the UK’s professional regulatory agency in 2011 for her refusal to stop treating people who asked for help to overcome same-sex attraction. Pilkington told LifeSiteNews.com that despite the friendliness of Chalke’s message, and whatever his intentions might be, he is harming the people he claims to support.
 
Chalke, and Christian leaders who take a similar line, she said, are doing great harm to those who struggle to live with and control same-sex attraction.
 
Chalke’s problem, she said, comes from a fundamental theological error, namely that he rejects the Christian notion of sin and redemption. Chalke has in the past described the Christian doctrine of Christ’s redemption of sin on the Cross as “cosmic child abuse.”
 
Properly speaking, she said, this rejection of foundational Christian doctrine ultimately empties all of his ideas of any real meaning.
 
Rejection of the very notion of orthodoxy, she said, leads to incoherent theology. “His theology becomes liberal, even though he still calls himself an evangelical, and then the consequence is that he becomes a liberal in his views of homosexuality.”
 
Ultimately, his ideas are creating nothing but confusion and harm to some “very vulnerable people.”
 
While the secular media has presented Chalke as part of the mainstream of evangelical orthodoxy, and his ideas as a step forward, Pilkington clarified that this is a media-generated misdirection.
 
In Britain, she said, “there is a very broad spectrum” and the term “evangelical” is far from synonymous with Christian orthodoxy. Such distinctions within the Protestant community, she said, have in recent years become highly “nuanced” and are often difficult for outsiders to decipher.
 
“Steve Chalke,” she said, “would perhaps see himself as evangelical. But a lot of us would say he isn’t. A lot of us would say he’s just plain ‘liberal.’ Because he’s moved away from the doctrine of atonement for sin.”
 
Although the secular media will never admit it, Pilkington observed, denying so foundational a doctrine as the redemption of sin, means that Steve Chalke is not strictly speaking a Christian at all.

(Click "like" if you want to end abortion! )

“The correct term for those who deny the atonement for sin is ‘apostate,'” she said. “That is the perilous state we are in here in the UK in large measure and probably America."
 
“And it’s people like Steve Chalk who are in fact dangerous," she said. "He sounds so plausible and indeed likable and his motives are ‘good’ and he has done a lot of good ‘works’ but that is the deception.”
 
This deception is ultimately harmful, causing confusion among “very vulnerable people."
 
"He doesn’t love them. By leading them into this complete deception, he hates them,” she said. “He may have good intentions, but he’s leading them in the wrong direction.”
 
“Of course we have to include the LGBT community and love them,” Pilkington said, “but lead them away from sin.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook