Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Ruling Elder in the conservative Presbyterian Church in America Believes in Pre-Born Baby Murder

Published

on

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is the second largest Presbyterian denomination of the United States of America. It is supposed to be the largest conservative Presbyterian and/or Reformed body in the country with a focus on what the Scriptures of the Holy Bible says and commands. In fact, the PCA came into existence because of the progressivism that the Presbyterian Church in the United States was embracing back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

The corruption did its damage in the PCUS and the true Bible believers could no longer stay in the PCUS, so enter the PCA. In 1983 the PCUS would merge with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) becoming the Presbyterian Church (USA), and with the merger progressive thought continued to move forward in spite of a recent split in 2012 which created ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians. For the record the UPCUSA dealt with their own split in 1981 prior to their merger with PCUS. That split created the Evangelical Presbyterian Church or EPC which still exists to this day.

Now that I have given a quick history lesson on the PCA and the other major Presbyterian dominations, we need to focus on one PCA church leader, his run for the governorship of Texas, his pro-abortion baby murder stance, and the need for the PCA truly push back if not run the man out of the church body should it come to that.

This PCA leader is an elder at Christ the King Presbyterian Church in Houston, Texas. His name is Andrew White and his family is no stranger to politics. His late father Mark White was governor of Texas for a single term from 1983 till 1987. He failed to win a second term in which Bill Clements was able to win back the governorship which he lost to Mark in 1982. Clements decided to retire after that second nonconsecutive term. Both father and son were and are committed to the Democratic party, and while we have to be careful about mixing political parties with the faith of Christian church (i.e. PCA or any other Bible believing church body does not equal Republican party nor Democratic party), there are certain things that those who call themselves Christians should be holding up; in spite of the arguments of church-state separation.

As I stated in a previous piece and based on the history of the founders of Freedom From Religion Foundation I feel the real purpose of FFRF is to cleanse the culture of the Christian faith because it will make it easier for the Pro Abortion/Baby Murder cause to advance with little resistance.

Secularists might praise the likes of Andrew White who will separate themselves from their faith more/less. White claims to be a “common sense conservative” Democrat but when it comes to abortion/murder of the preborn, he said in an interview with Texas Public Radio’s KSTX in San Antonio. “I support Roe v. Wade 100 percent. It’s the law of the land. We just celebrated the 45-year anniversary of that…I’ll go one step further and say that when I’m governor, I will veto any of this legislation coming out that limits a woman’s right to choose.”

I would personally would disagree with him on his support of Medicaid expansion and what the role of government in our lives should be. I would find the term conservative Democrat very misleading not just on abortion but in many other areas. I find him to be another shill and cog in the Democrat party machine based on the way he talks in the KSTX interview. Looking at a piece on White in the Houston Chronicle he seems to have no problem with same sex marriage and the LGBTQ agenda being taught to children, not to mention that he does not care about keeping transgenders out of the restrooms based on the gender they were naturally born into. This tells me that White is a very dangerous person and actually would hinder the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a Christian while advancing a more pagan culture that will only cause more damage to our society.

Should we uphold slavery if that is the law of the land, and should Christians in political office just say, well the Bible says its wrong but hey it’s the law of the land. No, you try to fight to change that someway and somehow. Our elected officials, judges and bureaucrats can get things wrong and usually they do. The same should go for abortion and contrary to White’s convictions and his live and let live mentality, more government funding in sex education is not going to reduce the need for abortion. Planned Parenthood’s bread and butter is pre-born baby murder…pure and simple, and their sex education propaganda will also encourage young people to engage in sexual activity in hopes that they can get many abortions out of them. The only way to curb abortion/pre-born baby murder is to grant personhood to the unborn child and make abortion a crime once more with severe penalties for those who attempt preborn baby murder.

Proverbs 24:11-12 commands God’s people (Jews and Christians alike) to rescue those who are being taken away to death. Exodus 23:7, Deuteronomy 27:25 and Proverbs 17:15 makes it quite clear that God forbids the killing of innocent people.

Thank goodness for pastor Todd Pruitt of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia; and his open letter to Andrew White and pointing key Scriptures about how the human race especially those in the womb of the mother are created in the image of God. Psalm 17:14 and 139:13-16; Isaiah 44:2; Jeremiah 1:5; and Luke 1:41-45. Looking at church history in which they actually stepped in to save babies who were abandoned and left to die, and even the reminder of upholding the sixth commandment of God to “not murder” as pointed out in the Westminster Larger Catechism.

To top it off, Pruitt reminds White of the 1978 ad interim committee on abortion which makes it clear that the PCA is opposed to abortion all the way. To date since Roe vs. Wade over 60 million preborn were killed by abortion and that is a much greater statistic than the six million killed by Nazi Germany.

Pastor Pruitt must do more than just pray. He needs to call upon Christ the King Presbyterian Church and see to it that White repents and actually uphold God’s commands not to murder the innocent and also rescue them from unnecessary death. Forget about what the Democrats support (or even what President Donald Trump and the Republicans support), but rather what God supports when it comes to life and death issues and even marriage. If White does not repent, then his local church MUST excommunicate him. If White’s church fails at any of this, then the greater PCA church body must step in and bring Christ the King Presbyterian Church to account and if necessary disfellowship the church. It will be churches like White’s that will only corrupt the PCA and cause yet another denomination split in the much-fractured Presbyterian/Reformed churches in America.

Also remember these words of Jesus from his Sermon on the Mount; “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -” Matthew 5:17, 19 ESV


The article was first published in The Christian Post

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Paige Rogers

    February 27, 2018 at 12:53 am

    You’re right. He is dangerous. I pray that members will clip away this fallen branch before the entire plant begins to decay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages is what every part is entitled to and ought to enjoy.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.