Dr. Michael Youssef

On June 26,  the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. was the latest church to be used for the promotion of syncretism—the attempted union of different religions. The idea was that “Christian” ministers, Jewish Rabbis, and Muslim Imams would co-lead a service in “Christian” churches around America using a multi-faith liturgy.

Sadly, 70 other churches across America signed on to do the same thing. The event was organized by a group called Faith Shared. It comes as no shock that the service was designed to promote “religious tolerance.” This is indeed a major step forward in promoting what I believe to be America’s new god of tolerance.

Previously, I talked about the Sojourners-sponsored ad headlined "What Would Jesus Cut?" The ad, signed by Jim Wallis and more than two dozen leaders of the Religious Left, urged our leaders to ask themselves what Jesus would cut from the federal budget.

Called "the leader of the religious left by The New York Times, Rev. Jim Wallis has a long history of denouncing his own country. In Agenda for Biblical People (1976), Jim Wallis refers to America as a "fallen nation." In an article in Mission Trends, Wallis approvingly predicted that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes" and that "so-called 'young evangelicals' . . . [will] see the impossibility of making capitalism work for justice and peace."

In part one of this series I made clear, from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, that ministering to the poor and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor."

Today's religious left wants to change that to, "He has anointed the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will   be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut?—A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor."

The ad was produced by Sojourners, a self-described "evangelical" organization whose slogan is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." The ad was signed by Sojourners President Jim Wallis and more than two dozen religious left pastors, theologians and activists. They urge our legislators to ask themselves, "What would Jesus cut?" from the federal budget.

 How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities." 

 Jesus had many opportunities to confront the Roman government about its spending priorities. It was, after all, one of the most brutal regimes in history. If the question "What would Jesus cut?" has any biblical relevance, we should be able to cite instances where Jesus lectured the Roman oppressors the same way the religious left lectures America. 

The headline on the Thursday edition of the British paper, The Telegraph, heralded some very bad news for British Anglicans. It declared, “Aging Church of England 'will be dead in 20 years.'” They buttressed their argument in two ways:

1. The average age of a Church of England attendee is 61 (you do the math).

2. In the last 40 years, church attendance has been cut in half.

You would think that the Archbishop of Canterbury would wake up and smell the coffee. Instead, a few weeks earlier he finally came clean. Well, he was forced to come clean. For years he acted as if he was an impartial arbitrator between the believing Anglicans [who make up the majority of Anglicans worldwide] and the apostate ones lead by the American and Canadian Anglicans/Episcopalians. He has always called for “unity,” a way of saying to the believing Anglicans, “just shut up and let the apostates have their way.”

Now, a document has leaked to the press affirming his quiet desire to ordain homosexual bishops all along, not only in the United States, but in his own backyard, in England. The document entitled Choosing Bishops—The Equality Act 2010 affirms that, “someone in a sexually active relationship outside of marriage is not eligible for the Episcopate.”

But, it contains legal advice that calls for celibate homosexuals to be eligible for ordination to the Episcopate. This is double talk.

That is right…profile me and all men who were born in the Middle East, have a Middle Eastern profile or have Middle Eastern names. Why you say?

  • To spare humiliating 90+-year-old women who are suffering from cancer. 

 • To spare the traumatizing of little children

  • To spare the dignity of millions of innocent Americans who have done nothing and most likely will do nothing to have them experience the shameful, mindless and cruel striptease acts at the airports

I know … I know there is going to be howling from the Islamists in America such as CAIR and their defenders in the ACLU … “Discrimination,” “Islamofacisim” … and all of the wailing of fear that the word “profiling” engenders.

CNN's Jack Cafferty has advice for the GOP: Park your morality at the door.

On June 14, Cafferty expressed surprise that, in the previous night's presidential debate, "social issues—like abortion, gay marriage, 'don't ask, don't tell'—still manage to work their way into the conversation. And that may prove to be a problem for Republicans. ... These are not the issues that middle America is worried about. They would like to be able to find a job."

I submit that these so-called "social issues" mean more to "middle America" than Cafferty realizes. We call them "moral issues." To us, abortion is the slaughter of innocent human life, on a moral level with genocide or the slave trade.

What Cafferty doesn't understand is that every issue is a moral issue. The current bad economy didn't just happen. It was the direct result of immoral choices made by our leaders.