To deny the Jewish role in the crucifixion of Jesus is to deny the word of God

It's now fashionable in Christian circles to play down or virtually deny Jewish culpability in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to Aaron Fruh in Israel365 News, April 13, 2022:

Next week Christians around the globe will spend Good Friday in remembrance of the crucifixion of Jesus. As an Evangelical Christian it troubles me the lie the Jews killed Jesus is still believed by many Christians. Since the 2nd century when church father Justin Martyr proclaimed the Jews would collectively as a people bear the responsibility from generation to generation for killing Jesus, the charge of deicide (the murder of God) has been used by Christians to persecute Jews – think of the crusades, pogroms, expulsions, and ultimately the Holocaust. Though an attempt was made in Vatican II in the declaration of Nostra Aetate to put the lie to rest, it still festers like an infected sore. Bad habits are hard to break.

There are several factors in the gospel accounts and in the historical records that have been overlooked by Christians who still hold Jews responsible for killing Jesus. Here are three:

1. The Romans and only the Romans controlled capital punishment

During the time of Jesus, Israel was under the occupation of the Imperial Roman authority and was subjected to the policies of the Roman empire – including relinquishing the ability to pass down capital punishment upon criminals.

2. The Romans were brutal dictators

The Romans were swift and violent against any sign of Jewish uprising – including the hope of a Jewish messiah – and the reality of that threat was ever present. Jesus’ growing popularity among the Jewish people raised the possibility of Roman aggression to a critical level and the Jewish religious leaders were concerned that Rome – if threatened – might not only plunder the nation of Israel but also the holy temple (see John 11:47-48). This fear was realized in the coming years when Rome destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and drove most of the Jews out of Israel.

3. Pilate was not a saint

In some Christian traditions Pilate and his wife are both beautified as saints. Many Christians view Pilate as an innocent victim who was coerced by Jews into ordering the crucifixion of Jesus. By making Pilate a puppet of Jewish leaders, blaming Jews for the death of Jesus becomes more justifiable.

However, far from being a saint, Pilate was a ruthless barbarian who suppressed one Jewish uprising after another with reckless abandon. The Jewish philosopher Philo said this about Pilate’s reign of terror on the Jews: “…the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty” (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 10.302).

So, who killed Jesus? According to all gospel accounts, Jesus died on a Roman cross. The fact is that it was Pilate who passed down the sentence of death on Jesus (Luke 23:24) and it was the Roman soldiers who drove the nails in his hands and feet and thrust the spear into his side.

Furthermore, according to Jesus’ own testimony no one could take his life because he gave it willingly, “No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). Further still, the entire Christian story of redemption is based on the belief that Jesus’ journey to a Roman cross was in the mind of God before time began declaring that Jesus was, “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). As well, Christian doctrine teaches that God’s purpose in the death of Jesus was to atone for the sin of humanity, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (II Corinthians 5:21).

With these facts in mind, why does the lie the Jews killed Jesus still have life? The lie continues to be immortalized by many Christians in order to place Christianity on a higher moral level than Judaism. By blaming Jews for Jesus’ death, Jesus becomes a non-Jew – a Christian in solidarity with other Christians in opposition to Judaism and Jews. The reality is that Jesus was killed by the Roman’s because he was a Jew.

This Good Friday as Christians solemnly remember the canceling of their sins through Jesus’ willing sacrifice may those in Christendom who continue to falsely blame Jews for the death of Jesus make it a time of humble thanksgiving rather than arrogant blame.

For Mr. Fruh to say that "the Jews killed Jesus" is a lie is itself a lie, clearly contradicted by the New Testament. In rebuttal to Mr. Fruh, I cite a previous post of mine, and submit for your approval the following account from the gospel according to Matthew--the gospel account that's most directed toward a Jewish audience--as well as comments by three Jewish leaders of the early Christian church who were either on the scene or in the area at the time:

When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Matthew 27:1-25

Peter: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:...
...Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:...
...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ...
...But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses...
...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole...
...The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree...
...And we are witnesses of all things, whih he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree; Acts 2:14, 23, 36; 3:14-15; 4:11; 5:30; 10:39

Stephen: Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Acts 7:51-52

Paul: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. I Thessalonians 2:14-16

Of course, it's wrong to accuse the Jews of today of killing Christ, but the role of the Jews of Jesus' day in crucifying Him is a matter of historical record. If some people have a problem with that, then that's their problem. There's nothing in the Bible for which Christians have to apologize.

70 years ago: Church of England modernists deny the virgin birth of Christ

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. II Peter 2:1

On August 28, 1950, the Modern Churchmen's Union challenged the assertion of Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was "a fact of history." The Modern Churchmen's Union, founded in 1898 as the Churchmen's Union for the Advancement of Liberal Religious Thought, is now known as Modern Church, denying every scriptural truth and supporting every worthless, anti-Christian cause you can imagine. This organization and everyone in it should have been given the left boot of disfellowship from the beginning.

It comes as no surprise to this blogger that the Modern Churchmen's Union, as it was then known, denied the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, but it is surprising that as late as 1950 there was an Archbishop of Canterbury who believed the biblical account.

The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ is an essential Christian doctrine. I haven't the inclination to go into detail on the subject; I recommend Seven Reasons Why I Believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ by Ian Paisley, available for free download.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

150 years ago: First Vatican Council issues decree proclaiming papal infallibility

On July 18, 1870, the First Vatican Council, which had been convened by Pope Pius IX on June 29, 1868, issued Pastor aeternus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ). Pastor aeternus defined four Roman Catholic doctrines regarding the papacy: I. Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter; II. On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs; III. On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; IV. Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff. The doctrine that attracted the most controversy was Chapter IV, the text of which reads:

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ.

Published in the Fourth Session of the holy Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.

PIUS BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SACRED COUNCIL, FOR AN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE...

...Chapter IV.
Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church confirms, and œcumenical Councils also have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ can not be passed by, who said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'301 these things which have been said are approved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion and her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled. Desiring therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion.302

And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks professed that the holy Roman Church enjoys supreme and full primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the plenitude of power from our Lord himself in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also, if any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by its judgment.303

Finally, the Council of Florence defined:304 That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.305

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in Synod, following the long-established custom of churches,306 and the form of the ancient rule,307 sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith can not fail.308 And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling œcumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognized as conformable with the sacred Scriptures and Apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed, all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.'309

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.
But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable310 of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public Session solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontificate.

301 Matt. xvi. 18.

302 From the Formula of St. Hormisdas, subscribed by the Fathers of the Eighth General Council (Fourth of Constantinople), A.D. 869 (Labbe's Councils, Vol. V. pp. 583, 622).

303 From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second of Lyons), A.D. 1274 (Labbe, Vol. XIV. p. 512).

304 From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of Florence, A.D. 1438 (Labbe, Vol. XVIII. p. 526).

305 John xxi. 15-17.

306 From a letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope St. Celestine I., A.D. 422 (Vol. VI. Part II. p. 36, Paris edition of 1638).

307 From a Rescript of St. Innocent I. to the Council of Milevis, A.D. 402 (Labbe, Vol. III. p. 47).

308 From a letter of St. Bernard to Pope Innocent II. A.D. 1130 (Epist. 191, Vol. IV. p. 433, Paris edition of 1742).

309 Luke xxii. 32. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, A.D. 680 (Labbe, Vol. VII. p. 659).

310 That is, in the words used by Pope Nicholas I., note 13, and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, A.D. 1085, 'It is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged' (Labbe, Vol. XII. p. 679).

The way the doctrine is defined by the Roman Catholic Church, papal infallibility only once (so far): On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII exercised his official infallibility in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, which includes:

...3. Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has "when the fullness of time came"(2) put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gal 4:4.

This reiteration of the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was "from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin" is anything but infallible, as it contradicts the plain words of the Bible:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1:46-47

Mary wouldn't have rejoiced in God as her Saviour if she had been "free from the taint of original sin," because she wouldn't have needed a saviour. So much for papal infallibility.

Israeli communications minister promises investigation after GOD TV subsidiary begins broadcasting in Israel

As reported by Malkah Fleisher of Jewish News Syndicate, May 5, 2020:

A new evangelical Christian channel whose mission is to “take the message of Yeshua our Messiah to all of Israel 24/7, 365 days a year” began broadcasting in Israel in Hebrew last week, after signing a seven-year contract with Israeli cable provider HOT.

The Shelanu (Hebrew for “Ours”) TV channel is a branch of GOD TV, which broadcasts missionary programming in 200 countries around the world. The new deal will give the channel access to over 700,000 Israeli households.

GOD TV CEO Ward Simpson said in a video announcing the launch that his network had received permission from the Israeli government to “broadcast the gospel of Jesus Christ—Yeshua the Messiah—in Israel on cable TV in the Hebrew language. Never before, as far as we know in the history of the world, has this ever been done.”

Permission for the new station was granted by Israel’s Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Council, whose chairman, Asher Biton, told Israel’s Haaretz daily that his organization did not know the station would engage in missionary activity, which he said is prohibited under the terms of the license.

“According to our regulations, it is fine to broadcast religious programming,” he said, “but it is forbidden to broadcast content that has the potential to influence viewers in an undue fashion, and most certainly young and impressionable viewers.”

Under Israeli law, it is forbidden to entice converts by means of material benefits, and also to attempt to convince minors to change their religion.

If Shelanu is permitted to continue broadcasting in Israel, it will not be the first channel to carry Christian content. Daystar and Middle East Television also provide Christian programming. However, Shelanu would be the first to do so in Hebrew, and to openly push a missionary agenda.

Kehila.org, an organization working to promote Christianity as “Messianic Judaism” in Israel, quoted Simpson praising the new network as a “historic and unprecedented media opportunity” enabling missionaries to “take the message of Yeshua our Messiah to all of Israel 24/7, 365 days a year.”

Quoted by GOD TV in an article posted to its website in January, Asher Intrater of Revive Israel Ministries—an organization which runs Christian activities geared toward Hebrew speakers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv—said, “As Messianic believers in the Land, we want to see all Israel saved. The media is one of the most powerful methods to achieve this. We’ve tried for years to make this happen. Now that a major media platform has opened to us, this is a special opportunity to reach our people.”

“When they realise Yeshua is one of us, that He is a native Israeli, all of a sudden the opposition goes away,” Intrater added. “Shelanu is not an import coming from outside. It’s us speaking from the inside, sharing to our people, heart to heart.”

On April 29, GOD TV posted an additional article to its website, quoting an unnamed station manager as saying, “We received the platform of HOT as a gift from GOD TV but now it is our obligation as believers to produce relevant and dynamic content that will grab the attention of the Israeli people and open their eyes to the truth of their Messiah, Yeshua.”

However, anti-missionary groups and government officials tracking the story have expressed outrage that the Israeli government allowed Shelanu to broadcast in the Jewish state, and have vowed to work to shut it down.

“It is the very nature of Christian missionaries to be deceptive in their tactics. I would assume this to be the case in their obtaining a license for such a channel,” said Shannon Nuszen, a former evangelical missionary who subsequently left the movement and converted to Judaism and pro-Israel work. “How this received government approval is beyond me, and hopefully [it was] a mistake that will be rectified immediately.”

Israeli Communications Minister David Amsalem issued a response and tweet in which he assured the public that “we will not allow any missionary channel to operate in Israel, at no time, and not under any circumstances.”

Though the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Council is under his ministry’s authority, he said that “from the moment that I learned about this case, I turned immediately to the director of the commission, requesting a thorough investigation of the issue, and asked to make sure that no channel will break the parameters of its license, and that if indeed this channel does missionary work, it be removed immediately.”

Amsalem vowed not to allow “unfair influence” on Israeli viewers.

“On the face of it, this is a bungle, and as communications minister of the State of Israel, I will not allow an unfair influence of religious broadcasting on viewers in Israel,” he said.

Attempts to visit the Shelanu website Tuesday afternoon appeared to indicate that the site had been taken down or hidden. Videos of Simpson discussing Shelanu which had been uploaded to YouTube had been set to private.

I'm not a fan of "Christian" television; it's dominated by charismaniacs, dominionists, heretics, and charlatans. I've never watched GOD TV, but it comes as no surprise to this blogger that a quick glance at their website shows me that I haven't missed anything worthwhile. The network's programming includes the usual suspects, such as ear-splitting noise masquerading as "worship"; promotion of New Apostolic Reformation "prophets"; Sid Roth; Hillsong Church; and "anointed" Bishop John Francis of Ruach City Church in England conducting a fawning interview with false teacher Bishop T.D. Jakes. As someone who wants true Christian doctrine to be proclaimed in Israel, I won't protest if Shelanu ends up being banned in that country.

May 31, 2020 update: Jewish leaders in Israel and leaders of "Christian" ministries have responded to the beginning of GOD TV's broadcasting in Israel; as reported by Rivkah Lambert Adler of Breaking Israel News, May 10, 2020 (bold, links in original):

In the midst of the controversy over God TV’s plan to broadcast evangelical messages in Hebrew on Israeli cable television, Breaking Israel News asked a number of Christian and Jewish leaders to weigh in.

Their comments have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Christian Leaders

Pastor Mark Biltz, El Shaddai Ministries

I am a firm believer in the Bible and in the God of Israel as revealed in the Scriptures. It was to the Jewish people that Hashem gave all the covenants.

Christianity is full of replacement theology – replacing the Biblical feasts and Sabbaths with pagan holidays, replacing the Levitical priesthood, replacing the seat of the throne of the Lord from Jerusalem to Rome, replacing the Biblical Hebrew names with English names, [thus] losing their meanings. It can’t get much more replacement than that.

Christianity has much to learn from the Jewish people about the God of Israel and the Biblical narrative. The agreement between God TV and whoever it was in Israel that made the contract, was that there would be no programming that would wield “undo influence” over the viewers. The sole purpose of the programming is to have a very strong influence over the viewers, to alter their belief system.

I can see how strong Jews who are strongly Zionist as well would be very upset by a TV station supported by Christion Zionists in order to proselytize the Jewish people who are less knowledgeable, or less religious, and how they would feel betrayed.

In every alliance, there are always boundaries or redlines that have to be drawn, and the depth of the relationship is based on the value placed on not crossing those boundaries. For Christianity to build a bridge requires great humility and a deep spirit of repentance and acknowledgement of the harm done. How much trust and value you place on those who are on the other side of the bridge will determine if the bridge is two-lane or a six-lane highway. Christianity, historically, has blown up every bridge built over the last 2,000 years and I hope that any bridge that is built between Christians and Jews will be built on baseless love.

Nathalie Blackham, Broadcaster, Israel First TV

The theology I was taught was that the Jews were wrong. See how God dealt harshly with them? We have Jesus now. We are the good guys. These are deep-seated views of many Christians, more or less.

Today I see things very differently.

Missionizing Jews is like replacing their Jewish belief with a Christian belief. It is saying that the covenant that God has with the Jewish people is not good enough. It is erasing their belief and saying that ours is better. It is degrading the Jews and taking away who they are.

So many Christians are totally ignorant. On my first trip to Israel, I realized that I thought I knew the Bible, but I knew nothing. We have the Bible in our hands because the Jews shared it with us. That’s why it’s so important for Christians to visit Israel.

The God TV move is detrimental for Jewish- Christian relationships. This is like the Crusaders, but with a smile!

We should build relationships between Christians and Jews based on the principles of mutual respect, learning from each other, leaving space for each other to grow and develop and sharing from the Torah.

John Enarson, Christian Relations Director Cry for Zion

Jewish-Christian relations should, above all, be based on mutual respect and openness.

My fellow Bible-believing Christian friends should know I am not speaking as a proponent of dual-covenant theology when I say: God TV’s new initiative is disrespectful, unwise, and I have strong disagreements with their theology and actions here. While folks at God TV might mean well, they are both harming the Jewish people as well as damaging Jewish-Christian relations. I honestly cringed when I first saw some adverts for the new channel, before it even made the news. God TV should reconsider their actions forthwith.

Lars Enarson, Author, Founder and President of The Watchman International

I came to Israel 23 years ago with a similar attitude. Thank God I have learned a few things since then.

I remember the very first week when I came here and I had taken my family for a vacation in Eilat to rest. A homeless person approached me on the beach. He was drunk and asked me very angrily, “What are you doing here?” I was surprised and answered him that I am a Christian who loves Israel and I have come here to pray for the country.

He said, “Do you think we Jews don’t know how to pray? We don’t need you here. Do you know the names of the first five books in the Bible in Hebrew?” I said, “No I don’t.” “You don’t even know this? We don’t want you here. Please go back where you came from!” No doubt this drunkard scored a point.

Since then I have learned so much from the Jewish people here in Israel that I am so extremely thankful for and I now try to educate Christians around the world about what I have learned. Today I read the Bible in a very different way.

My view is that people who do not speak with respect for Judaism have no business being on Israeli television.

Bob O’Dell, Co-founder of Root Source

I wonder how many donors consider that when they fund some of these Christian efforts towards Israel, they are unwittingly funding a combative posturing that disrespects millions of God-fearing Jews at the same time? This posturing, turning “the roots of our faith,” into “the enemies of our faith” is acceptable to some Christians, but not to me.

I thank God that there are many emerging efforts by Christians to turn the hearts of more Christians to Israel and the Jewish people with just respect, love and honor, and to experience the life and joy of sharing the passages Hebrew Bible together, only for the sake of learning, love and joy.

Never before have so many Christians interacted directly with Orthodox Jews in Israel to study the Bible, and never before have this many Christians, inside and outside of Israel, begun to speak out that they find the evangelistic posturing of some of their Christian brethren towards Israel distasteful.

Tommy Waller, Founder and President HaYovel

Missionizing or converting others to Christianity, whose majority identifies with a supersessionist [replacement theology] belief, has been historically devastating to one people – the Jews. The problem with replacement theology is that it empowered the Christian to “save the Jew from hell,” but then after Jewish rejection placed themselves as God and created a hell on earth. This disturbing history, unfortunately, is not taught in our churches today. As a Christian myself, the revelation of this treatment of Jews has brought great shame.

For the Jews, the Torah has marked and kept their identity for well over 3,000 years. It sets them apart from the other peoples and nations of the world. The idea of bringing the “Gospel to the Jews” in their own language is actually an all-out assault against the Jew’s God-given identity.

It will be difficult for most Christian organizations, especially in Israel, to stand against those who seek to steal Jewish identity, in this case, God TV. The fact that a Christian television network would actually try to prove Jewish persecution of Christians is deplorable. One visit to Yad Vashem should greatly offend any right-minded person.

Christianity needs to support the miracle God is doing with the people He chose in the land He chose. As a Christian, I believe strongly that the Apostles and Prophets and Jesus himself would be horrified at the actions done by those who claim to follow him. Honestly, I believe there should be a cable Christian channel in Israel with 24/7 programming where one Christian after another repents for all that has been done to the Jews over the last 2,000 years at the hands of Christians.

Steve Wearp, Founder Blessed Buy Israel

I’m really sorry that there’s a group out there that is trying to preach to the Jewish people with an agenda that was just exposed – the God TV channel. I’m just ashamed to have my name affiliated with that, or have any affiliation with it.

I wanted to say I’m really sorry there are people that are still out there that do not understand that coming to the Jewish people with hidden agendas and to try to tear them away from what God has set before them to accomplish. I want you to know that not all of us are like that.

I pray one day there will be a great distinction or a great awakening in the Christian community as to Israel’s place, and this anti-Semitic replacement theology will be destroyed once and for all. It’s a scourge and I will not stand for it. And I’m not going to let anything like this destroy what what Hashem is building between our two communities

I’m really proud of walking with you guys. And the offense, it just hurts us. It’s why we’re doing what we’re doing, why we’re trying to rebuild trust, honesty, integrity, and remove this scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic teachings, doctrines, philosophies in the church and expose it for what it is.

Jewish Leaders

Rabbi Ari Abramowitz Host The Land of Israel Network

Many Jews would understandably seek to dodge this issue altogether in order not to put our Christian friends in an uncomfortable position of needing to take a public stand on this, but this is when we find out who our friends really are.

This impulse to missionize, which may or may not be well-intentioned, is arrogance and an act of hostility. Watching that video, I felt a mixture of anger and compassion. Anger that this haughty man who is preying on Jewish souls believes that he knows more than generations of the sages of Israel who have dedicated their lives to immersing themselves in the words of the Bible in its original Hebrew, and compassion that he is depriving himself of the uniquely uplifting experience of growth and revelation because he is so focused on removing the scales over everyone else’s eyes, that he will be stuck with the veils over his own.

Countless Jews have been burned at the stake rather than accept missionizing for generations. And now he comes into our homes in our own land with the same sinister plot?

There is so much beauty and friendship being nurtured between the Jewish and Christian worlds. Why tear it all down by reverting to this toxic replacement theology?

Sondra Baras, Founder and Director Christian Friends of Israeli Communities

From the very beginning, when I first started Christian Friends of Israeli Communities, my relationships with Christians were based on mutual respect and on a clear understanding that we, as Jews, would not try to convert Christians to Judaism and our Christian friends would not evangelize Jews. My Christian colleagues in leadership at CFOIC Heartland are committed to this understanding as well. It is fundamental to our ability to work together.

One of the things we’ve been doing is trying to get Christians to understand how offensive evangelizing is to us, because many of them have been taught since childhood that Jews have just been waiting to be saved. They have no idea that we are very comfortable with who we are.

Unfortunately, there are still some people who don’t understand this or don’t want to understand this. I will have nothing to do with people or organizations who insist on evangelizing Jews. That is our red line.

Yishai Fleisher, International Spokesperson for The Jewish Community of Hebron

Yishai Fleisher 🕎 ישי פליישר
✔
@YishaiFleisher
The folks at @GODTV keep putting their foot in their mouth because they are simply say the truth - they want to convert Jews! (But the real question is why the Israeli regulator missed this effort to have a missionary channel, and why other ones already exist, on Israeli cable?) https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1259455913770889217 …

Haaretz.com
✔
@haaretzcom
God TV responds to critics: ‘We’re not trying to convert Jews; we just want them to accept Jesus as the messiah’ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-god-tv-to-critics-not-trying-to-convert-jews-just-want-them-to-accept-jesus-1.8834815?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …

31
7:31 AM - May 10, 2020
----
I believe in the Christian-Jewish alliance. I am grateful for friends who share a love of the Bible and allies who stand up for Israel from Balfour to Mike Pence. But alliances need clear boundaries. Missionizing Jews is wrong. God TV in Israel is wrong and will be stopped.

David Ha’Ivri, Religious Zionist leader, writer, and speaker

I don’t approve of proselytizing Jews. Christians who want to turn Jews into Christians are not, I repeat, are not friends of Israel.
-----
Convincing #Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah is the very core goal of missionary proselytizing. We strongly object to this type of activity, and that is how and why Jews have survived as a nation and preserved our ancient faith. https://twitter.com/FleurHassanN/status/1259456317997154305 …

פלר חסן נחום Fleur Hassan-Nahoum
@FleurHassanN
God TV responds to critics: We’re not trying to convert Jews; we just want them to accept Jesus as the messiah: reminds me of when people say we don’t hate Jews we just don’t believe they should have the right to self determination like everyone else https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-god-tv-to-critics-not-trying-to-convert-jews-just-want-them-to-accept-jesus-1.8834815 …

76
9:14 AM - May 10, 2020

Yisrael Medad, Author, Blogger and Activist

The point is that Jews, especially due to our history, view attempts at conversion as a total attempt to erase us, our history, our values, our teachings and our ethics as if they are worth literally nothing.

This station assumes, as its base, a Jews-for-Jesus type approach and we suspect it fooled the Cable Broadcast Council in its application for a license. Over-the-air programming allows them to circumvent the prohibition [against] proselytizing minors.

In relations between Jews and Christians, I would prefer it be based on simple mutual respect. ‘I like and appreciate you for who you are and you do the same.’

Rabbi Yehuda Glick, President Shalom Jerusalem Foundation

What God TV did is actually declaring war against the Jewish people – nothing less! We are different, we hold diverse perspectives and we have to respect this. Pulling the carpet from under our feet is something we cannot and will not accept and totally refuse to even consider.

At the same time we believe that working together is part of our faith as well as the faith of anyone faithful to the Bible.

As reported by Breaking Israel News, May 12, 2020 (links inserted by blogger):

TENNESSEE (5/11/2020) – Laurie Cardoza-Moore has called on the Israeli government to ban GOD TV from broadcasting programs focused on converting Jews to Christianity. Cardoza-Moore is the founder of Proclaiming Justice to The Nations and host of the award-winning Evangelical Christian television program Focus On Israel which formerly aired globally on GOD TV and is currently syndicated on tens of other Christian channels reaching a weekly audience of billions. The statement comes after GOD TV announced that they have received special permission from the Israeli government to proselytize Jews in Hebrew on Israeli cable TV.

“I have written to the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Communications Minister David Amsalem and the Director of the Government Press Office Nitzan Chen calling on them to ban GOD TV from airing missionary content focused at converting Jews to Christianity. At a time when global antisemitism is engulfing the world, GOD TV should be using its platform to teach Christians about their biblical responsibility to stand with our Jewish brethren and the State of Israel. Instead, they have chosen to stand on the wrong side of history, empowering the anti-Semites,” said Laurie Cardoza-Moore, founder of Proclaiming Justice to the Nations.

Cardoza-Moore continued: “Unfortunately, because of biblical illiteracy, we are seeing a rise of antisemitism again in Christianity. Christians have adopted false doctrines and traditions known as “Replacement Theology” and “Supersessionism” that has mobilized the Amaleks of history. These false doctrines are what fuel the desire to force unbiblical principles on our Jewish brethren. God TV should be encouraging Christians to repent of the history of Christian arrogance and ignorance that has incited some of the worst antisemitic incidents in history, including the pogroms, the Inquisition, and more recently, the Holocaust. Instead, they should ask their Jewish brethren to teach them the Torah as was stated by the prophets.”

Putting things into a historical perspective Cardoza-Moore said: “Unfortunately, Christian history is replete with examples of Christians forcing their doctrinal views on Jews; either through torture, or, with a disingenuous smile. As a descendant of Sephardic Jewish ancestry, I have studied the implications of where this type of ideology can lead. My ancestors were forced to convert to Catholicism during the period of the Spanish Inquisition. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella blamed corruption in the Catholic Church on the Jews. In order to survive that dark period in history, they were forced to convert. For 500 years since they hid their identity from generation to generation only to disclose the hidden truth upon the matriarch’s or the patriarch’s passing. They were known as Conversos. Conversos were blamed for plagues, accused of poisoning wells and kidnapping Christian boys for their blood. Many of the Conversos were tortured or burned at the stake to test the authenticity of their conversion.”

Cardoza-Moore concluded: “In recent decades, millions of Christians have felt the call to stand with the State of Israel and the Jewish people with no hidden agenda. Our only mandate to the Jewish people is to love and support them because they are God’s chosen people. Any attempts to convert Jews or downgrade their religion will only sow undue hatred at a time when we should unite in the face of darkness.”

The common thread running through these objections to GOD TV isn't so much that GOD TV is evangelizing with false teachings as that GOD TV seeks to evangelize Jews at all. I recommend that the reader click the links to the ministries mentioned above, especially those that claim to be Christian. They all advocate for the state of Israel--and I generally support their pro-Israel positions--but they don't advocate the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They're opposed to evangelizing Jews, but they seem to be in favour of Judaizing Gentile Christians.

It's heresy for "Christians" to talk about our "Jewish brethren" when they're talking about Jews who don't have saving faith in Jesus Christ. The only basis on which Gentiles and Jews can be brothers is that of faith in the work of Jesus on the cross to break down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles:

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:18-22

I take great offense at the idea that Gentiles who have a relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (see, e.g., Galatians 3:26) have to learn about God from Jews who don't know Jesus. Such a view contradicts the teaching of the apostle Paul, who had impeccable Jewish credentials at the time he was persecuting the early Christians:

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Acts 22:3

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Galatians 1:14

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Philippians 3:6

Here's what Paul, as an apostle, had to say to Gentile Christians about the religious attitude of his fellow Jews:

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Romans 10:1-2

They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. Galatians 4:17

Some of the leaders of these ministries have redefined "replacement theology," which is properly understood as the unbiblical teaching that the church has replaced the nation of Israel. Some of the ministry leaders quoted above now define "replacement theology" as the replacement of Judaism by Christianity. In fact, the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, and is better (see, e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Lars Enarson says that "people who do not speak with respect for Judaism have no business being on Israeli television." I don't know if the Lord Jesus Christ would want to appear on Israel television, but Mr. Enarson would bar him from Israeli television, because He had nothing good to say to or about the Jewish leaders and the Judaism that was practiced in His day. Among other negative comments, He quoted Isaiah 29:13 to them:

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7

Not only do I warn against GOD TV and its false teachers and doctrines, but I warn against "Christian" ministries that advocate for the state of Israel but don't proclaim Christ. If you support them, you're supporting organizations that are denying the divinely-inspired words of the apostle Paul:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

June 29, 2020 update: As reported by Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz of Breaking Israel News, June 30, 2020:

ShelanuTV is the branch of the global evangelical Christian media network GodTV focused on proselytizing to Jewish Israelis. It began broadcasting on the HOT cable network at the end of April after it received a license from the Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcasting earlier this year. This move was decried by many Israelis.

Proselytizing, seeking to convert people to another religion, is not illegal in Israel, although the law prevents proselytizing to minors without their parents’ presence or consent, and promising any monetary or material compensation for converting to another religion.

The Israeli broadcasting council informed HOT last week that the license had been suspended because GodTV’s programming targeted Jews and not Christians in Israel, as the license request had specified.

“A channel which seeks to address the Jewish people which dwell in Israel [and present it with] the gospels of Jesus will never be broadcast on Hot and this was known to the senior officials of the channel, as was stated in the hearing,” Council chairman Asher Biton wrote to HOT.

Proselytizing, seeking to convert people to another religion, is not illegal in Israel, although the law prevents proselytizing to minors without their parents’ presence or consent, and promising any monetary or material compensation for converting to another religion.

The Israeli broadcasting council informed HOT last week that the license had been suspended because GodTV’s programming targeted Jews and not Christians in Israel, as the license request had specified.

“A channel which seeks to address the Jewish people which dwell in Israel [and present it with] the gospels of Jesus will never be broadcast on Hot and this was known to the senior officials of the channel, as was stated in the hearing,” Council chairman Asher Biton wrote to HOT.

“The directors of the channel hope that the Council will approve the new request to broadcast the channel, and thereby avoid a severe diplomatic incident with hundreds of millions of Evangelical Christians who love and support Israel around the world,” Cantor said.

Mr. Berkowitz then offers his comments on the situation; it's interesting to note his shocked reaction to the opposition of professing Christians to evangelizing Jews:

I am very hesitant to comment on the GodTV issue. On one hand, I always advocate free speech. On the other hand, Christian proselytizing is one of the final, if not the final obstacle that stands between true brotherhood between Jews and Christians.

In the wake of GodTV beginning its broadcasts in Israel, I wrote an opinion article speaking out against Christian proselytizing Jews. The response shocked me. So many of my dear Christian friends came out against what GodTV is doing. I did not expect that at all. It represents the first time in the 2,000 year history of Jewish-Christian relations that Christians did not support efforts to convert Jews.

I did not ask how my friends were coping with the clear theological issues. My understanding is that Jesus told his followers to spread the word. When a Christian preaches to a Jew, it is an act of love (albeit an entirely unwanted and even harmful act of love). For Jews, preaching to non-Jews is essentially forbidden. Nonetheless, in the wake of GodTv’s efforts to target Israeli Jews, so many Christians rejected and even outrightly opposed this effort. I was stunned. Almost exclusively, my Christian friends have never proselytized to me even without my asking. When I was curious about a certain aspect of Christian theology, I have had to pressure them into providing information. The few who do proselytize, I have asked, though never demanded, to stop proselytizing to Jews. I compared it to offering candy to a diabetic: it is an unwanted act of love. Even if they persisted, I treasured their friendship.

I can only hope and pray that this is the beginning of a trend. It must come from inside Christianity and not as a demand by the Jews. It will require a paradigm shift and I hope that Jews can respond with a corresponding paradigm shift that will bring us to be a Light Unto the Nations and the caretakers of the House of Prayer for All Nations.

The true "final obstacle that stands between true brotherhood between Jews and Christians" is the refusal of most Jews, since the 1st century, to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; I Corinthians 1:23

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the only one who can break down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, and He has:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Ephesians 2:11-18

I pray that Mr. Berkowitz will put his trust in the One who has fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies.

Antichrist Ambrose University has theistic evolutionist as guest speaker for its Faith, Life and Learning Days

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,... Genesis 3:1

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-30

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: I Timothy 6:20

Ambrose University in Calgary, Alberta is the denominational school for both the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada and Church of the Nazarene Canada; it's been heading downward, leftward, and Romeward for years (see the links to my previous posts on Ambrose at the bottom of this post). A new adventure in apostasy for Ambrose is the 2020 edition of Faith, Life and Learning Days; according to their website (bold, links in original):

FAITH, LIFE AND LEARNING

Join us for our Faith, Life and Learning Days on February 12 & 13 as we welcome guest speaker Dr. Darrel Falk* and discuss the topic of faith and science.

Public Lecture: “Evolution, Creation, and the Breath of God" (Airhart Theatre): Wednesday, February 12, 7:30 p.m.

Chapel (Ambrose Gymnasium): Thursday, February 13, 11:15 a.m.

Open Lecture in Dr. Matthew Morris' class “Principles of Evolutionary Biology." (A2212): Thursday, February 13, 2:30 – 3:45 p.m.

*Darrel Falk is Emeritus Professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego where he has been based since 1988. In 2009, he, along with noted geneticist, Francis Collins and others, founded BioLogos, an organization dedicated to showing the compatibility between mainstream science and the Christian faith. Falk, who began his advanced education with one year at Canadian Nazarene College, a predecessor of Ambrose University, earned a doctorate in genetics from the University of Alberta and followed that with postdoctoral fellowships at the University of British Columbia (in the lab of David Suzuki) and the University of California, Irvine. Besides his extensive writing at the BioLogos website, he is the author of Coming to Peace with Science (InterVarsity Press) and, with Dr. Todd Wood, The Fool and the Heretic: How Two Scientists Moved beyond Labels to a Dialog about Creation and Evolution (Zondervan).

Since I'm suspicious of everything that Ambrose does, it came as no surprise to this blogger to see Dr. Falk's connection with BioLogos, which promotes theistic evolution, i.e., the idea that God created, but did so using evolution. By evolution, they mean macroevolution, the changing of one kind of creature into another kind of creature. I think theistic evolution is worse than "secular" evolution, because it tries to have a foot in both camps. The secular evolutionist believes that God isn't necessary at all in order for evolution to take place, while the believer in creation believes that macroevolution is supported by neither the evidence nor the Bible.

The BioLogos blog has a number of posts by Dr. Falk. I glanced at just one--written when he was president of BioLogos--and that was enough to convince me that he is not a sound teacher, and should not be invited to speak at a Christian school. An abridgement (bold, links in original):

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Cover Story

The cover story of the June issue of Christianity Today, entitled "The Search for the Historical Adam" (the full article can be viewed here), notes that our website The BioLogos Forum has played a prominent role in moving the discussion surrounding the historical Adam forward and cites various blogs and articles that appear on these pages. We are pleased that a matter deemed so important by us is beginning to play a prominent role in the discussion for the Church as a whole.

As detailed extensively on these pages over the past two years, there is now little doubt that God has created all life forms, including human beings, through an evolutionary process. God could have created in an instant. After all, in the supreme divine act of all time Jesus was raised from the dead—in an instant. However, it now seems certain that this is not the way He chose to create the human body. God’s process was gradual, not instantaneous...

...the data with regard to human creation has been accumulating for 150 years, and the conclusions have been substantiated through a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Astronomy shows that the universe is billions of years old. Geology independently shows that the earth, though a little younger, is also billions of years old. Paleontology poignantly lays out the parade of created life forms and graphically documents the species-changes over hundreds of millions of years. Comparative anatomy and developmental biology show feature after feature in living bodies, each with its distinctive trademark pointing to gradual alteration from that which came before. And, with the sequencing of the human genome, genetics provides the final confirmatory lynch pin. Creation through a gradual process is not a hypothesis that emerges from a peripheral scientific sub-discipline. To show it wrong would involve overturning principles that independently lie at the very core of the findings of most of the natural science disciplines. True, they all together cry out in unison with a loud voice—“Created!” However, they also, in a subtle, but persuasive whisper, add the all-important qualifying phrase—“…slowly and not in an instant!”

The Christianity Today cover story is important because it engages the Church in one of the most important questions of all: was there a historical Adam and Eve? There has been much discussion of this point on these pages and although we strongly encourage ongoing discussion, BioLogos does not take a position on the issue. Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute and a frequent contributor to the BioLogos conversation says ‘yes’ in this BioLogos article, and Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City affirms it in this one. Denis Lamoureux and Peter Enns believe otherwise and have expressed their views here and here, for example. The scientific data are silent on the possibility of a federal headship—two unique individuals singled out by God from all others to enter into relationship with him and to bear his image. Similarly, science is silent on the veracity of the alternative possibility— that the story of Adam and Eve is not a story of two unique individuals. According to this latter view, the story of Adam and Eve is in a very real sense the story of all humankind—we have all sinned and we are all in need of redemption.

These are theological questions, not scientific ones. Science makes it abundantly clear, we believe, that God has created through an evolutionary process and that there was never a time when there were just two individuals on earth. It goes no further though. Beyond that, we are in a different realm, one deeply steeped in the traditions and creeds of the church, and in theology, biblical scholarship, and philosophy...

...The “Federal Headship” model that accepts the scientific findings while at the same time holding to the historicity of a real first couple has not yet been carefully worked out by theologians...

...The purpose of BioLogos is to show that there can be harmony between mainstream science and evangelical Christianity. We are in complete agreement with Richard Ostling (the author of the aforementioned article) and the Editors of Christianity Today that working through the historicity question is of the utmost importance to the Evangelical Church. Within the framework outlined above, it boils down to theology not science, and we urge the Church to reserve judgment for a while. Let’s keep both possibilities before us. Here’s hoping that some of our greatest theological minds will work on the question of what a model based on “Federal Headship” would look like. Here’s also hoping that some of our finest theologians will continue to work on how the view of a non-historical Adam would address some of the issues that puzzle and concern most evangelicals...

...This is an exciting time for the Church because there is much interesting work to be done. Personally, I reserve judgment and I urge that all of us proceed with caution. Let’s see what emerges. Let’s see what our theologians and philosophers come up with, especially those who hold to a historical Adam and Eve...

One of the reasons I believe that the account of the serpent in Genesis 3 is true is because the lies spoken by the serpent are the very lies that are believed today. In the case of BioLogos, the relevant lie is the first one: "Yea, hath God said...?" Dr. Falk and the BioLogos crowd are trying to sow doubt and uncertainty where God's word isn't uncertain. Dr. Falk seems to be trying to have it both ways regarding creation (using words in a way that must please Gordon T. Smith, Ambrose's Jesuit-trained president), but it's apparent that whenever the Bible and "science" disagree, he comes down on the side of "science."

Dr. Falk denies that God created instantaneously. However, in Genesis 1 we repeatedly see the words, "And God said, Let...and it was so." He spoke, and it was. He formed the first man from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7), and the first woman from a rib of Adam (Genesis 2:21-22). There's no indication from the account in Genesis that this took a long time.

BioLogos itself is more than a little disingenuous when it "does not take a position" on a historical Adam and Eve. To "not take a position" on an issue on which God's word definitely does take a position is in fact to take a position--of unbelief. That Adam and Eve were the first two people and were actual historical figures is taught not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, and was believed and taught by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. To deny that there was a time when there were just two people on Earth is outright unbelief. Dr. Falk, like the organization he's affiliated with, isn't honest enough to come right out and say that he doesn't believe the Bible's account of creation.

The duplicity of the BioLogos crowd and institutions such as Ambrose University that give them a platform offer more evidence of why Christian parents should conduct a careful examination before sending their children to "Christian" colleges and universities. Ambrose should change the name of its event to "Doubt, Apostasy and Disinformation Days."

See my previous posts on Ambrose University:

Why is an Alliance-Nazarene college named after a Roman Catholic saint? (March 2, 2009)

The Ambrose-contemplative connection (March 4, 2009)

Ambrose University College trains Nazarene pastors using materials from a company with ties to Mormonism (March 6, 2009)

Ambrose University College and "Transformation" (March 6, 2009)

The Outhouse (aka The Shack) in God's house (May 5, 2009)

Ambrose Seminary teaches contemplative spirituality in 2009-2010 (February 24, 2010)

Ambrose University College hires Jesuit-educated contemplative spirituality proponent as its new president (May 30, 2012)

Ambrose University College's "Jazz Day" provides evidence of increasing worldliness in evangelical schools (March 5, 2014)

Antichrist Ambrose University College continues on its downward, leftward, and Romeward course (March 8, 2014)

Antichrist Ambrose University President Gordon T. Smith continues to promote ecumenism and Social Gospel (February 28, 2018)

600 years ago: The death of Antipope John XXIII

On December 22, 1419, Roman Catholic Antipope John XXIII died at the age of 49. John XXIII, born Baldassarre Cossa, obtained doctorates in civil and canon law, and entered the service of Pope Boniface IX during the Western Schism, when there were rival claimants to the papacy in Rome and Avignon. Dr. Cossa was one of seven cardinals who deserted Pope Gregory XII in 1408, and became the leader of the Council of Pisa, which was convened with followers of Antipope Benedict XIII. In an attempt to end the schism, the Council deposed both Gregory XII and Benedict XIII and elected Alexander V as antipope, resulting in three rival claimants to the papacy. Alexander V died soon thereafter, and Dr. Cossa became Antipope John XXIII on May 25, 1410, having been ordained a priest just the day before. John XXIII was recognized as pope by France, England, Bohemia, Portugal, parts of the Holy Roman Empire, and northern Italian city states including Florence and Venice.

The Council of Constance was convened in 1413 as another attempt to end the schism; Antipope John escaped down the Rhine River to Freiburg im Breisgau, but was returned to Constance, where he was tried for heresy, simony, schism, and immorality. According to British historian Edward Gibbon, "The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest."

Antipope John XXIII was imprisoned in Germany after being convicted. He was freed in 1418 after a heavy ransom was paid by the Medici Bank, and died in Florence, where he had been made Cardinal Bishop of Frascati by Pope Martin V. When Angelo Roncalli acceded to the papacy in 1958, there was some confusion concerning the numbering, but he took the name John XXIII.

Remember, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, we're supposed to regard the Bishop of Avignon Pisa Rome as the Vicar of Christ, i.e., a substitute Christ on Earth:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Catechism of the Catholic Church

Universalist Orthodox Church in Toledo certainly isn't biblically orthodox

The red flags that identify the church mentioned in the following article as being unbiblical are so glaring and numerous that I'll leave it to the reader to notice and count them. As reported by Nicki Gorny of the Toledo Blade, July 1, 2019:

With its chanted antiphons and sweet-smelling incense, a divine liturgy at Toledo’s Joy of All Who Sorrow Parish is in some ways like any other in Eastern Orthodoxy.

In other ways, it’s decidedly not.

A commitment to full social, structural and sacramental inclusion of all people – regardless of their gender and sexuality – positions the parish outside the mainstream church hierarchy. While they remain true to what their founding bishop sees as an authentic expression of Eastern Orthodoxy, they’re carving out their own space in the ancient faith tradition.

“What do you do when such an integral part of your identity is in direct conflict with your values?” the Rev. Mother Maeve Leroux asked in a recent interview. “I definitely think the only option for me was to make the space.”

Mother Maeve, who established Joy of All Who Sorrow Universalist Orthodox Church in 2016, celebrates the first anniversary of her consecration as a bishop on Sunday. She described a winding path to that moment, one that gives her great familiarity with the struggle of loving and identifying with a faith tradition that – in one way or another – is also a source of conflict.

She said she was never eager to pursue ordination in the way that she has, which runs against a restriction in her tradition that only men enter the priesthood. Mother Maeve is transgender; her ordination is not recognized by the mainstream church. She said she felt called to the role as a way to create the inclusive Orthodox space she and others did not find anywhere else.

“It became pressingly apparent to me that, unfortunately, if we wanted any kind of inclusive Orthodox space, I would kind of have to do it,” she said. “Which was not a comforting thought. I don’t particularly like talking publicly. I don’t particularly like being in the front of any room.”

“But that was kind of the only way forward,” she said.

Mother Maeve came to Eastern Orthodoxy as a child, recalling a wind-knocked-out-of-her moment during a liturgy at a local church when she first she first felt the presence of God. By the time she was 18, she was essentially set on becoming a priest or a monk, options that were open to her in the mainstream structure of the tradition because she had not yet come out as female.

Once she made it to the monastery, though, she described an increasing disillusionment, much of it related to the hypocrisy she saw in her church in regard to issues of inclusion. Some of it was related to sexuality, she said; Eastern Orthodoxy is theologically opposed to homosexual acts. She said she also struggled with the restriction on women serving in the altar.

Even with a thorough reading of church canon, it just didn’t make sense to her, she said. In her understanding of the tradition then and in the understanding that she brings to her ministry now, she looks to the inclusiveness that she sees in the early church, if not necessarily in some of its canons. Orthodoxy is not as unchanging as it’s perceived to be, she said, describing historical pushes for women in ministry, even an early rite believed to be for a same-sex marriage.

“Inclusion is not innovative within ancient Christianity,” she said. “Inclusion is usually more authentic.”

It wasn’t that she hadn’t thought about what would become these internal conflicts before she entered the monastery. But “it’s kind of like any relationship where you fall in love,” she explained. “You fall in love and you think, ‘There are some issues … but this is what I want. Maybe it’s not that big a deal. These people seem good. Maybe it’ll work out.’ And you kind of put it away from your mind for a while, because you’re enamored.”

When she finally reached the point where she couldn’t justify wearing the monastic robe anymore, she left the monastery. Adrift without the faith tradition that had been such a firm anchor for so long in her life, she said she spent some time looking for a spiritual fit in others, first in Christianity, then in other traditions altogether. None of them felt like hers.

Then came a turning point. At a local interfaith service, she came across the Rev. Beverly Bingle, a Roman Catholic Womanpriest who pastors Holy Spirit Catholic Community in Toledo.

Roman Catholicism, like Eastern Orthodoxy, does not allow for the ordination of women. The Rev. Bingle describes her ordination as “valid, but not legal,” meaning that she is ordained in a valid line of apostolic succession, but her ordination is not recognized by the Catholic Church.

For Mother Maeve, the encounter sparked an idea.

“It really kind of inspired me to think: Orthodoxy doesn’t have to be confined into the boxes that history has put it in over and over,” she said. “I had always assumed that I had to accept Orthodoxy on its own terms, and that’s it,” she continued. “So I started thinking about it. I started looking: If there’s a Roman Catholic Womanpriest movement in Catholicism, does Orthodoxy have something like this? Have people gotten fed up?”

“The answer is no,” she said with a laugh. “Not really.”

It would fall to her, then, she decided. She sought a bishop to ordain her in the Independent Sacramental Movement, a network of self-sustaining faith communities that operate outside the structures of mainstream churches, but that retain the same apostolic succession of these same mainstream churches. As with the Rev. Bingle, the mainstream church hierarchies generally do not recognize the ordinations of clergy in the Independent Sacramental Movement, even though the lineages of these clergy – who ordained whom ordained whom ordained whom – can be traced back to the same foundational ministers.

Mother Maeve admits she herself had initial qualms about tying herself to the Independent Sacramental Movement. But when individuals began reaching out after her ordination as a priest, sharing their own stories of excommunication or their denial of the priesthood – stories, like hers, of those who felt marginalized by their own faith tradition – she found herself leaning further into it.

She began to pursue ordination as a bishop, believing she would hold a greater capacity to address these types of situations in this role.

“You have people coming to you. You have people who want to learn the liturgy from you, learn the tradition from you, they just want to take communion again after a decade of not being able to take communion anywhere,” she said. “So you kind of say, Who cares what I think? Or who cares what other people think? If it’s needful, you should do it.”

A year into her consecration as a bishop and three into the establishment of her parish, she today ministers to a modest community at Joy of All Who Sorrow. She and her partner, Jess Bernal, who as an ordained priest is known as Presbyter Theophan, said they typically hold services for only a handful of parishioners on Sunday.

Some are local, some drive hours for a divine liturgy. Sometimes it’s just the two of them.

Presbyter Theophan typically leads the service, her voice blending with Mother Maeve’s in the litanies and antiphons. When it comes time to consecrate the Eucharist, it’s her at the altar, behind the icons that are a standard in any Orthodox worship space – even one that’s a temporary setup each Sunday. They meet in the chapel of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church.

Their reach and ministry stretches beyond Toledo, though, in several satellite parishes in other cities and in those with whom they connect through their website or social media. Their stories of feeling drawn to the faith tradition or desiring to remain in it despite the roadblocks they see in gender, sexuality and other issues keep coming.

“There are definitely out there,” Mother Maeve said. “And a lot of them experienced what I experienced, where you look and you look and you look [for an inclusive community] and there is nothing. Then suddenly, you look, and there is one thing that pops up. … So it’s been rewarding for people to kind of be for people what I had wanted in the first place.”

Survey reveals that belief in the existence of limbo is declining in Ireland

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; Hebrews 9:27

It seems that in Ireland, the Roman Catholic doctrine of limbo is itself in limbo, as reported by Gerry Moriarty of the Irish Times, November 9, 2018:

A new study from Queen’s University, Belfast has found that belief in limbo – a place for unbaptised babies – has declined throughout the decades in Ireland due to the changing beliefs and values of the country.

Limbo, in Catholic theology, was believed to be the border place between heaven and hell where those souls who died without being baptised, though not condemned to punishment, were deprived of eternal happiness with God in heaven.

The study was led by historian Professor Liam Kennedy in association with the Irish Countrywomen’s Association.

Twenty six women, including 23 from the ICA, took part in the survey which was carried out in 2017. The women varied in ages, with birth dates ranging from the 1930s to the 1960s and represented all four provinces in Ireland.

In the study, 75 per cent of respondents felt the decline of belief in limbo was due to the changing beliefs and values of the Catholic laity in Ireland, rather than change emanating from the Vatican in Rome.

However, 25 per cent of respondents believed that the decline was as a result of changes in church teaching.

Prof Kennedy cited some of the responses to the survey: “More people [were]less accepting of Church/Catholic myths”; “young people became more educated and began to question stuff that did not make sense to them. They were no longer afraid of the ‘fire and brimstone’ that our previous generations were afraid to question”; “people think limbo is a . . . cruel place and don’t think that children go there. They believe in a more merciful God and that children will go to heaven directly”; “because people didn’t buy it anymore”.

“The term limbo does not appear in the Bible or the New Testament,” said Prof Kennedy. “It seems the concept was developed over time by Christians to handle two problems: one was the fate of those who led just lives and who died before Christ came on earth to redeem humankind; the other was the fate of unbaptised babies in the event of death.”

“Children growing up in the Ireland of the 1950s will have a clear remembrance of a metaphysical space or place known as limbo,” he added.

“For Catholics, though not Irish Protestants, this formed part of a spiritual cosmos which viewed heaven and hell as opposite poles, with purgatory and limbo occupying rather vaguely defined intermediate positions. But limbo appears to have disappeared off the spiritual map.”

Prof Kennedy said in Ireland understandings of limbo, along with heaven, hell and purgatory, were handed down by parents, schoolteachers, priests and nuns, drawing on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“Catholics in Ireland, from the 1960s onwards, turned their backs on a religious belief they found not credible or even cruel and the institutional church itself placed less and less emphasis on the ‘doctrine’ of limbo,” he said.

Added Prof Kennedy, “A fear of limbo drove parents to have their new-born child baptised as soon as was practicable. Otherwise, the infant risked losing eternal happiness and going into a void called limbo. I have little doubt that mothers who had miscarriages or still-births suffered mental anguish as a result of the death of an unbaptised foetus or still-birth. Heaven was closed to the unbaptised, as indeed was consecrated Church ground.”

Prof Kennedy said that hardly any of those born in the new millennium will have the slightest notion of “what limbo was (or is), other than as a colloquial expression for being in some indeterminate mood or situation”.

“But it really did matter for the best part of a thousand years and gave rise to both fear and pain,” he concluded.

The best reason for rejecting the doctrine of limbo is that it's not taught in the Bible, as Prof. Kennedy correctly stated. The doctrine of limbo is the sort of thing that results when a church teaches the false doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation, and engages in the unscriptural practice of baptizing infants. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any example of anyone being baptized who wasn't old enough to place conscious faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism was always an act that was subsequent to receiving and believing in the salvation offered by the Lord Jesus Christ, and remains so today.

Atheist minister with United Church of Canada keeps her job after an agreement in lieu of a heresy trial

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...Psalms 14:1a (also Psalms 53:1a)

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. II Timothy 3:5

It comes as no surprise to this blogger that a hopelessly apostate church that long ago abandoned any objective, biblical standard of orthodoxy has no basis for properly pursuing a charge of heresy. The United Church of Canada is not only not in any biblical sense a Christian church, but is so far gone into apostasy that it's completely beyond the possibility of satire. As reported by Colin Perkel of Canadian Press, November 9, 2018:

A United Church minister who had faced an unprecedented ecclesiastical court hearing over her professed atheism is no longer in danger of a defrocking after the two sides reached an agreement in the long-running case.

In an unexpected development this week, Rev. Gretta Vosper and the church settled ahead of what some had dubbed a “heresy trial,” leaving her free to minister to her east-end Toronto congregation.

“It’s going to be wonderful,” Vosper said in an interview Friday. “We’ll be out from underneath that heavy cloud. Now we’ll be able to really fly.”

The settlement, the terms of which are confidential, came during what was supposed to be a week of routine preliminary motions ahead of the full hearing later in the month.

The church did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday but said in a statement that the formal hearing had been called off in light of the agreement, while the Right Rev. Richard Bott, who was elected in July to lead the United Church in Canada, said in a public message that he was pleased with the resolution.

At the same time, Bott acknowledged the controversy that has been swirling around Vosper and the church’s initiative to fire her. In a message to adherents, Bott referenced the church’s core values of faith in God and inclusiveness.

“The dance between these core values, how they interact with and inform each other, is one that we continue to explore as followers of Jesus and children of the creator,” he said. “As a Christian church, we continue to expect that ministers in the United Church of Canada will offer their leadership in accordance with our shared and agreed upon statements of faith.”

Vosper, 60, who was ordained in 1993 and had served as minister of West Hill United Church since 1997, has been upfront about her atheism and non-belief in the Bible for years.

Most of her current congregants are supportive of her views but some have been critical, saying her beliefs are at fundamental odds with the doctrine and values of the United Church, Canada’s second-largest religious denomination.

Things came to a head after she wrote an open letter to the church’s spiritual leader following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris in January 2015 in which she pointed out that belief in God can motivate bad things.

Following complaints, the Toronto Conference interview committee conducted a review that found in a split decision in 2016 that Vosper was unsuitable to continue in ordained ministry because “she does not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit.”

Vosper’s lawyer, Julian Falconer, called it an important day for the United Church that his client no longer was risk of sanction.

“Both parties took a long look at the cost-benefit at running a heresy trial and whether it was good for anyone (and) the results speak for themselves,” Falconer said. “They recognized there’s a place for Gretta, and that there is no reason to separate the minister and the congregation.”

Vosper, who was allowed to keep her position pending outcome of the aborted hearing, is free to continue her ministry without any restrictions. She calls herself an atheist to describe her non-belief in a theistic, interventionist, supernatural being called God.

Critics have called it appalling that the church would allow an atheist to stand in a pulpit and not proclaim the Gospel of Christ. Either way, Vosper said it’s been a long road to clearing her name.

“There have been times of elation when I have felt the incredible support and energy of that support and love and affirmation from my congregation and across the country and around the world,” she said. “And there have been moments of incredible despair.”

The chairman of the West Hill church board, Randy Bowes, expressed delight at the outcome, saying Vosper was a product of the church and that her ordeal had been challenging.

“West Hill’s non-exclusive language provides a church experience that draws participants across a wide spectrum of belief and unbelief,” Bowes said.

Even some secular journalists have noticed the connection between the United Church's increasing liberalism and its increasing irrelevance and declining membership, and in the case of Rosie Dimanno of the Toronto Star, referring to the support for Ms. Vosper as a cult. As reported by Ms. Dimanno on November 11, 2018:

They brought her flowers. They gave her a standing ovation. They repeatedly professed it “a great day.”

This is the cult of Gretta Vosper.

A United Church of Canada minister who doesn’t believe in God.

An atheist — outed herself before the congregation five years ago — rather than the less radical non-theist term, which is a person who doesn’t think of God as a being, thereby avoiding some of the more negative baggage associated with the A-word.

A heretic, frankly, as Vosper herself shorthands it on tweets with the hashtag #heresytrial.

There will be no trial, no formal ecclesiastical hearing, no defrocking. After three-and-a-half years of preparation and internal controversy, the United Church swallowed its theological opposition, last week announcing that Vosper is free to continue her ministry without any sanctions or restrictions, thus aborting a much-anticipated “trial” that had been scheduled to begin next Monday.

Carry on deleting all reference to God or a supernatural being in all sermons and rewritten hymns. Carry on expunging the Lord’s Prayer. Carry on with a fundamentally humanist dogma. Carry on conducting services as a community-centred attestation where everybody gets a shot at the microphone.

But what a cross to bear that gigantic wooden crucifix at the front of the Church of the Master must be, constant reminder of everything this parish rejects. Church of the Master in far-flung Scarborough is only a temporary landlord, of course, providing worshipping space for West Hill United because their building has a leaking roof and other structural issues.

It came as a shock to the wider United Church — Canada’s second-largest religious denomination (and dwindling fast) — when the “inquisition” (the General Council) halted in its tracks on Wednesday, declaring in a joint statement with Vosper and the Toronto Conference that they’d settled all outstanding issues between them.”

Immediately disappearing was the threat hanging over Vosper’s head that she, ordained minister, would be placed on the Discontinued Service List (Disciplinary).

Curiously, illogically, on the United Church of Canada website appeared a further statement, stressing that the decision “doesn’t alter in any way the belief of The United Church of Canada in God, a God most fully revealed to us as Christians in and through Jesus Christ.”

Except, you know, for the exceptional.

The heresy trial would have been the next big step following a 2016 report that found Vosper unsuitable for ministry because she was no longer in “essential agreement” with church doctrine; was “unwilling and unable” to reaffirm the vows she made when she was ordained in 1993.

I don’t know how big the congregation was when this scandal bubbled to the surface in 2015. Vosper, oft inclined to “pseudo-controversial pronouncements,” as described by one critic, had objected to a prayer published on the United Church website by then-moderator Gary Paterson, following the massacre by Islamist militants at the Charlie Hebdo magazine office in Paris. In an open letter, Vosper wrote that she was offended by a prayer that espoused belief in some sort of transcendent entity, pressing Paterson to denounce all religion and eradicate religiosity from the public sphere.

“I urge you to lead our church toward freedom from such idolatrous belief …”

But on Sunday morning, there were fewer than 100 congregants at interim West Hill United. All but a handful white, most of them grey, plus two children, one baby and one mutt. As 60-year-old Vosper noted regretfully in her sermon, the church needs to take risks to make it a more welcoming place to the non-traditional, the minorities and the marginalized. “That’s what the United Church right now is — it’s a great white wall of seniors.”

I would characterize their embrace of Vosper as idolatrous.

They may not believe in God — some still do — but they clearly believe in the virtue of Vosper. Those who don’t have already peeled away, distressed with where Vosper has taken the congregation.

As one introductory speaker reminded: They are “aggressively progressive” and their focus is not on theology.

If I understand correctly, Vosper promotes the rigidly secular, the gospel of get-God-out. Which is stunningly oxymoronic for a church. There are myriad ways to do good work — as this parish, like so many others, is in the process of sponsoring a refugee family. But to strip faith out of doctrine, to go God-less (or godless) is intrinsically, profanely sacrilegious and anti-spiritual. It is what Vosper exalts: Apostasy.

Which is fine. But how can an individual, a minister, wrap herself in the mantle of a formal church while simultaneously repudiating its ethos? Right Rev. Richard Bott, elected this past July to lead the United Church in Canada, hasn’t explained that. And there will likely never be any explanation because the agreement contains a confidentiality clause.

What Bott did say, in a message praising the resolution to church adherents, stressing core values and inclusivity: “The dance between these core values, how they interact with and inform each other, is one that we continue to explore as followers of Jesus and children of the creator. As a Christian church, we continue to expect that ministers in the United Church of Canada will offer their leadership in accordance with our shared and agreed upon statements of faith.”

How can anybody in the United Church take that contradictory statement, in its Vosper hands-off, on faith?

Christian religion, except in charismatic and evangelical interpretations, is losing traction globally, churches shuttered and sold off as attendance plunges. The United Church in Canada, perhaps the quintessential Protestant faith in this country, making a virtue out of easy-peasy belief — the church that stands for nothing which requires rigour or temperance — has tumbled more than most. From its founding in 1925 as a merger of Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, when it boasted 6.25 per cent of the Canadian population as members — peaking at 1.06 million in 1967 — its adherents have fallen to 1.5 per cent, according to its own published figures. Between 1968 and 2009, it lost more than half its membership.

Relevance is the matter. When you hold nothing sacred, then nothing is relevant.

When you take the God out of religion, as Vosper has done, then you are innately irreligious. Doesn’t make you a bad person but definitely makes you a subversive outlier within the hierarchy of church and theology. Or Vosper could have found a more amenable place in the Unitarian Church, which is post-theist and professes no creed.

“There’s no gloating in this,” Vosper told her congregants. “There’s no waking up in the morning and saying it should have been different, we shouldn’t have had to go through that three-and-a-half years. There’s only gratitude.’’

Swear it on a Bible? Probably not.

Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun seems a little more sympathetic to the United Church of Canada than Rosie Dimanno (and this blogger), but even Mr. Todd is critical of the United Church's constant self-abasement. As reported by Mr. Todd on November 15, 2018 (links in original):

“Worm theology” is used to describe people of faith who perceive themselves as fundamentally flawed, guilty and unworthy.

Based on Biblical references to humans having no more status than lowly “worms,” the term is relevant to last week’s long-awaited decision by the United Church of Canada’s large Toronto conference, which ruled that a high-profile atheist could remain as a clergywoman.

Rev. Gretta Vosper, who heads a small Toronto congregation within what has arguably been called Canada’s biggest Protestant denomination, has long accused her oppressive United Church of Canada employer of persecuting her for writing books that declare the superiority of atheism over belief in a God.

Skilled in marketing through social media, Vosper trotted out the Twitter hashtag #heresytrial to denounce the United Church investigation into a completely legitimate question: Should an avowed atheist be clergy in a Christian church? Vosper and her vociferous backers compared the review committee to the torture-mad 15th-century Spanish Inquisition.

With Vosper celebrating her victory, the decision fits a long-standing pattern in the denomination, which places supreme value on being “inclusive”. The downside is that the denomination increasingly lacks an identity and, judging in part from the United Church Observer magazine, has a relentless habit of lamenting what it perceives as its many moral failings.

It is unfortunate that Toronto conference is not stating the reasons for its ruling. Whether it is confidentiality concerns or something else, the silence means the denomination’s lack of clarity about what it stands for will insidiously drag on. Its 400,000 remaining active members, as well as the almost two million Canadians who tell the census they still identity with the church, will continue to be confused. Many will find the denomination’s leadership increasingly hard to fathom, and most likely irrelevant, in the way it so assiduously mirrors this secular age.

There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, as 4.5 million Canadians will attest. There is no doubt atheists can be highly ethical people. But is it wise to give a long-proud atheist a formal role as clergy in a Christian church, which has historically put theism, in its diverse forms, at its core? What’s next: Self-declared Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and neo-pagans as Christian clergy?

A disturbing thing about the Vosper case is that the denomination’s policy and leadership seem unable to actually spell out what it stands for. That is a sign of an institution without a definition, which lacks confidence, and may even believe, like the Biblical worms: “We’re not worthy.”

It’s good for people and institutions to be self-critical. But just as it’s hard to spend time with human beings who psychologically internalize external criticism and constantly belittle themselves, who wants to be part of a self-defeating organization that doesn’t seem to think much of itself?

To broaden the question for a moment, how much does the United Church, which in its much larger heyday in the 1960s was viewed as the culturally prototypical Canadian church, reflect what is happening to English-speaking Canada in general?

One just has to read The United Church Observer to see how often its editors and others beat up on themselves, or more precisely, the membership.

This year, The Observer has featured key articles about allegedly widespread intolerance, racism, sexism, hetero-normativism, ableism, colonialism and more that the editors seem to believe infects the church body.

Despite the United Church of Canada being arguably the most liberal, tolerant and “progressive” major Christian denomination in the world — it ordained women and homosexuals, for instance, decades before others — the denomination’s magazine continuously tries to expose how its members fall short, especially on identity politics (the key 21st-century source of “worm theology”).

The cover story of the November issue of The Observer maintains anti-black racism is pervasive in the church. June’s #MeToo cover gave prominence to nine cases of alleged sexual harassment within the church. The May cover story chastised United Church church members for supposedly marginalizing pregnant clergy. The magazine has prominently featured a disabled clergyman claiming members treat him as invisible. And the Observer’s readers are frequently taken to task for failing to properly reconcile with Indigenous people. The scolding goes on.

In regards to spiritual topics, readers of the magazine, which is devoted to “faith, justice and ethical living,” usually have to go to the back pages to find more than fleeting references to Jesus or Christian theology. At the same time, The Observer often sympathetically covered Vosper’s atheistic stance, letting her camp overwhelm its letters section. An ongoing series in the magazine supportively highlights the beliefs of non-Christians, especially the fashionable “spiritual but not religious”.

It’s worth noting the last two three-year-term national moderators of the United Church of Canada have been a gay and a lesbian. So, when the new moderator was elected in July, in the midst of repeated conference floor allegations that the church was racist and “exclusive,” The Observer approvingly reported on how the man who received the most ballots, Vancouver Rev. Richard Bott, immediately issued an apology for himself.

“I stand before you tonight as a person who has exactly one set of lenses,” Bott told the national delegates gathered in Oshawa, Ont. “I am a white, middle-class, university-educated, able-bodied, middle-aged, cis-male settler who grew up and lives on unceded territory of the people of this land. I am the epitome of privilege.”

Not to take the parallel too far, but I wonder how the United Church’s contrite approach to its own existence mirrors that of many other Canadians? Justin Trudeau says Canada is the world’s first “post-national country”. An Angus Reid Institute poll found one-quarter of Canadians think the country does not have a “unique culture”. The pollster has also found Canadians roughly splitting on whether our leaders apologize too often.

To be fair to Bott, it should be noted he at least didn’t apologize for being a Christian, that is, one who believes in God in some form. And after thanking the Toronto conference for its decision on Vosper, Bott explained its move comes out of ongoing tension between the church’s stated faith in God and its commitment to be “open and inclusive” and to show “all are welcome”.

While a psychologist might worry that, if the denomination was a person, it has loose boundaries that make it vulnerable to manipulation, and others might see signs of “worm theology” in its self-flagellation, Bott appears to recognize his exceedingly nice church has a possibly fatal weak identity. He has cautioned that he is “not sure that, as a denomination, we could articulate our communal purpose.”

Even though some individual United Church congregations around the country are managing to thrive, Bott, with that admission, seemed to capture the feeble larger reality of his denomination, which was once-inspiring, once-proud, once-healthy.

Will the United Church of Canada again find its reason for being, its soul?

The answer is no, since the United Church of Canada rejected the truth and authority of the Bible decades ago.

August 11, 2023 update: She's a speaker at a convention of atheists and agnostics; as reported by Protestia, August 11, 2023:

The United Church of Canada (UCC) is the spiritual sibling of the wretched PCUSA and ELCA, functioning less like churches and more like temporary pens to house hordes of goats and false converts. Pro-LGBTQ, Pro-choice, and pro-every theological perversion you can think of, they’re populated almost entirely of senior citizens and the occasional blue-haired queer 20-year-old, and their membership reflects this. Between 2011 and 2021, the denomination lost nearly 40% of its members, a trend that reveals no sign of slowing down.

With 2,711 congregations, they’re also the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, showing what sort of sick shape our neighbors to the north are in. (The second biggest, the Anglican Church of Canada, are hardly any different.)

This is why it should surprise no one that West Hill United Church Pastor Gretta Vosper is headlining a conference for atheists and skeptics.

Vosper is notorious within the UCC for being a vocal and outspoken atheist who is still allowed to remain an ordained minister. Six years ago, there was a half-heated attempt to defrock her via an ecclesiastical court. However, Vosper had too much denominational support, and devils and cowards populated the institutional leadership. Instead, she and the UCC settled.

They would allow her to continue preaching and retain her congregation and building, with the then-Moderator saying she could keep her job so long that she continues to offer her leadership “in accordance with our shared and agreed upon statements of faith.”

Upon hearing the news that the UCC was going to let her be, Vosper’s lawyer was ebullient, saying in a statement:

“Both parties took a long look at the cost-benefit of running a heresy trial and whether it was good for anyone (and) the results speak for themselves. They recognized there’s a place for Gretta and that there is no reason to separate the minister and the congregation.”

Vosper will be joined at the convention by the who’s who of pagans and atheists, including Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Seth Andrews of the Thinking Atheist, Hemant Mehta of “The Friendly Atheist” and Matt Dillahunty.

See also my posts:

Calgary Herald blasts United Church of Canada for advocating a boycott of Israel (May 15, 2012)

Canadian Senators warn United Church of Canada over proposed boycott of Israeli goods (July 6, 2012)

A secular columnist accurately assesses Canada's declining liberal churches (July 30, 2012)

United Church of Canada elects its first openly sodomite moderator (August 16, 2012)

50 years ago: United Church of Canada unveils Sunday School curriculum denying the truth of the Bible (August 1, 2014)

80 years ago: United Church of Canada ordains Canada's first female minister (November 7, 2016)

Amalgamation of congregations in Edmonton provides more evidence of the continuing decline of the United Church of Canada (January 31, 2017)

30 years ago: New Ager Matthew Fox delivers keynote lecture at Queen's Theological School (October 11, 2017)

50 years ago: United Church in Calgary experiments with modern music (June 15, 2018)

Mainline church leaders 50 years ago advocated methods used by "evangelical" churches today (November 6, 2018)