Sunday, May 24, 2015

Liberation Theology, a KGB Invention? That Is Way Too Simple...


Liberation Theology, a KGB Invention? That Is Way Too Simple...

By Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
Preface of Julio Severo: Recently, a former communist from Romania said that Liberation Theology, which is predominant in Latin America, was exclusively created by the KGB. I do not doubt the KGB’s malevolence, but other voices, especially from Latin America, can shed a better light on this issue. Luiz Sérgio Solimeo is a conservative Catholic Brazilian who has written an insightful article in Portuguese about Liberation Theology, and have asked him to translate it into English. To further help our understanding, I mention an interesting comment by John L. Allen, of Crux, who said:
Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara of Olinda and Recife in Brazil didn’t have to be ‘maneuvered.’ He was already on board with liberation theology before anyone in Moscow knew it was stirring. That’s not to say the KGB didn’t do whatever it could to support leftist movements in Latin America critical of capitalism and the United States. It would be surprising if they hadn’t, given the zero/sum Cold War logic that anything that seemed to hurt one side benefited the other. In that sense, Pacepa is likely correct about the KGB strategy, but may be giving the agency too much credit for its results.
This is true! Long before a supposed official launch of Liberation Theology by the KGB, Archbishop Hélder Câmara promoted this socialist theology, and now the Vatican is taking steps to canonize him. After Oscar Romero, Câmara will be the second official Liberation Theology “saint” in the Catholic Church.
Here is the article by Mr. Solimeo:
Ion Pacepa
Ion Pacepa, a former member of the Romanian secret service who fled to the West in the 70’s, recently gave an interview to the Catholic News Agency narrating how the KGB (Soviet secret service and political police) created Liberation Theology.
“The movement was born in the KGB and had a KGB-invented name: Liberation Theology,” Pacepa says. And he tells how Khrushchev and a Russian general had agents infiltrate the World Council of Churches and maneuvered with the same means a group of South American bishops gathered in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968.

Reality is More Complex

Although one cannot rule out Moscow’s hand in spreading this revolutionary movement, reality is much more complex: Liberation Theology was the fruit of a long process that took place inside Church sectors worked over by Modernism and imanentist modern philosophies, as well as by the influence of liberal Protestantism.
Its origins – not to go further back – can be traced to the pontificates of Popes Leo XIII (1878-1903) and Saint Pius X (1903-1914).

Modernist Heresy

Through various documents and disciplinary measures, Pope Saint Pius X condemned a whole set of philosophical, theological, moral and social errors that were brewing for some time in Church educational institutions. This ensemble which he calls the synthesis of all heresies he named Modernism. It is the Modernist heresy.
Modernism particularly described in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Greges, of 1907 is a more radical version of Catholic liberalism which strives to infiltrate the spirit and mentality of the world into the Church. Modernism is fundamentally naturalist and imanentist, denying the supernatural and divine transcendence and reducing religion to a mere feeling without dogmatic truths or immutable moral precepts.
Unfortunately, although St. Pius X condemned Modernism, its spirit and many of its doctrines and goals continued to meander in ecclesiastical and lay circles. In 1910, the holy Pontiff issued the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, which stated: “Modernists, even after the Encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis unmasked them, did not give up their designs to disturb the peace of the Church. Indeed, they continued to recruit and gather new adherents in a secret society ... [They] are injecting the virus of their doctrine into the veins of Christian society.” [1]

Nouvelle Théologie

Later, in 1950, the theological and philosophical errors disseminated by this modernist secret society were condemned by Pope Pius XII with the encyclical Humani Generis. Among the condemned errors are naturalism and Teilhard de Chardin’s “mystical evolutionism,” which identified Jesus Christ with evolution, making any dogmatic truth or morality taught by the Church meaningless. Thanks to its mentors (mostly French), this current became known as Nouvelle Théologie.

Socio-political and Economic Modernism

In the early 20th century the socio-economic aspect of modernist theological fermentation was represented by Marc Sangnier’s Le Sillon (“the furrow”). This lay movement preached a radical socio-economic egalitarianism and was also condemned by Saint Pius X in 1910 with his Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique.
This trend was later systematized in philosophical terms by Jacques Maritain, a French philosopher and convert to Catholicism, in his book Integral Humanism (1936) – which Fr. Antonio Messineo, S.J., qualified as “integral naturalism” in an article in the Civiltá Cattolica. [2]
In his book, although Maritain criticizes Communist atheism and totalitarianism, he praises the “profound intuition” of Marx--intuition that Maritain believes “to be the great flash of truth running trough his work.” This “flash of truth,” he explains, is Marx’s thesis of the “alienation imposed in the 'capitalist' world on the work-force, and of the dehumanization with which the owners and the proletariat are thereby simultaneously stricken." And he believes that the role of Catholics is to rescue this Marxist intuition from his atheistic philosophy. Because, he says, "whatever aversion Marx may personally have nourished against Christianity, this intuition itself is pregnant with Judaeo-Christian values.” []3
With his book, Maritain opened the way for collaboration between Catholics and Communists, since he accept not only as true, but even as Christian, the essence of Marxist’s social and economic theory. Most of all, he destroyed the foundations of the Catholic anticommunism and suggested a “third way” or “third position.”
Above all, Maritain’s book destroyed the vigor of Catholic anti-communists, increasingly leading Catholic Action and Christian Democrats toward the left.
Incidentally, during his stay in the United States, Maritain became a close friend and ally of the notorious communist agitator Saul Alinsky. [4]  
Especially in Latin America, this work became the “handbook” of the Catholic Action movement and its political arm, the Christian Democratic parties.

The “Third Position”: “No Enemies on the Left, No Friends on the Right”

The First Conference of Christian Democracy in America was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1947 with the aim of promoting Maritain’s “Third Position.” The gathering’s final statement said Christian Democracy was based on Church social doctrine and on Maritain’s “Integral Humanism.” The document criticized Fascism, communism and capitalism. But it showed distaste for anticommunism, seen as a “sower of discord.” In short, consistent with the formula “Pas d’ennemis à gauche, pas d’amis à droite” (no enemies on the left, no friends on the right), the “Third Position” (neither capitalist nor communist) turned out to be especially anti-anticommunist.

From Catholic Action to Communist Guerrilla Warfare

With the death of Pope Pius XII (October 1958), the Christian Democrats in Italy and elsewhere began the so-called “opening to the left,” allying with socialist parties and speaking about “Christian socialism.”
In Brazil, for example, the youth of Catholic Action (who were also the grassroots of Christian Democracy) went even further and in 1960 allied themselves with communists in the student movement. This alliance went so far that in 1962 they broke away from the Church and formed a socialist political movement, the People's Action. And by the end of that decade, this movement led formerly Catholic young people to join communist urban guerrillas.

Liberation Theology’s Culture Medium

Theories of Nouvelle Théologie and Maritain’s political philosophy also penetrated seminaries throughout the world, influencing young priests and religious. In Brazil in 1969, three Dominican novices, former members of the Youth of Catholic Action, were arrested by the police for links with communist guerrillas.
It was in this ambience of intensely modernist and leftist fermentation that theologians such as Uruguayan Juan Luis Segundo, SJ, Brazilians Hugo Assmann and Leonardo Boff, OFM, and Peruvian Gustavo Gutierrez laid the foundation of the Liberation Theology. Because of Peronist (Juan Domingos Peron, 1895-1974) influence, in Argentina this “theology” had a more populist character and was led by Frs. Juan Carlos Scannone, SJ, and Lucio Gera.

A Latin American “Theology”?

Although Liberation Theology is said to be a Latin American “theology,” in fact it is grounded in Catholic and Protestant European authors and in the communist theoreticians, Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci.
Deification of the “poor,” as Marx did with the “proletariat,” which he presented as the “redeemer” of humanity, is the central point of this “theology.”
Liberation theology is not meant to help the poor, as the great saints of the Church have always done, but only to use them. Consistent with the Marxist theory of class struggle the poor are but a weapon used against the “rich.”
Nor is Liberation Theology intended to improve the economic situation in countries where it operates. Rather, it leads to misery, which these pseudo-theologians identify with “evangelical perfection.” Their model is Cuba, idolized as a kind of “earthly paradise,” where misery takes on, as it were, a “sacred” character. It is clear from testimony by Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff that they follow “miserabilist” heresies from the decadent Middle Ages: “Also inspirational to liberation theology are the singular evangelical experiences of so many hereticized prophets ... without forgetting the precious contribution of medieval pauperist reform movements and the evangelical postulations of the great reformers.” [5]
From this quick historical overview one sees that, with or without the KGB, the internal crisis raging in the Church for so long would logically have led to liberation theology.

“Unperceived Ideological Transshipment”

The KGB has possibly contributed in spreading this political-religious ideology which is presented as Catholic theology because it is a very useful means of communist expansion, especially in Catholic circles, and for maintaining Communist regimes in the unfortunate countries that suffer under its rule.
However, the decisive factor in the emergence and proliferation of Liberation Theology, and its practical application in Latin America has been the real “unperceived ideological transshipment” to use the famous expression coined by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira [6]   suffered by young Catholic idealists who entered seminaries or joined Catholic Action and were gradually led away from religious fervor and Catholic orthodoxy toward affinity with the Marxist theories of egalitarianism and class struggle.
Therefore, communism and the KGB are not found in the beginning of the process that led to the emergence of Liberation Theology, but rather at its end, as a necessary consequence of adhering to egalitarian and evolutionary principles of heretical theoreticians from the early twentieth century.
Notes:
[1] http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-x_motu-proprio_19100901_sacrorum-antistitum.html.
[2] Antonio Messineo, S.J, “Umanesimo Integrale”, Civilta Cattolica, Sept. 1, 1956.
[3] Jacques Maritain, Integral Humanism, Freedom in the Modern World, and A Letter on Independence, University of Notre Dame press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1996, p. 181 and note 8.
[4] Cf. Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel – Saul Alinsky His Life and Legacy, Alfred A. Knopt, New Yor, 1989, pp. 167, 177, 191, 197, 369, and 484.
[5] Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Como Fazer Teologia da Libertação, Vozes, Petrópolis, 1986, p. 57.
[6] Cf. Unperceived Ideological Transshipment, at http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/books/unperceived-ideological-transshipment-and-dialogue.html.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Putin and the Neoconservatives


Putin and the Neoconservatives

By William Pfaff
Comment by Julio Severo: This article was kindly sent and recommended to me by a Pentecostal minister in the U.S. Its author, William Pfaff, said, “The resemblance of President Putin’s ambitions for his Russia to those of the neoconservatives in the contemporary United States bear a striking formal resemblance in the wish of both to recall a romanticized past.” For pro-family Christians, the important point is whether a president supports a pro-family agenda or anti-family agenda. We supported George W. Bush because of his generally pro-life stances, even though his neocon decision of invading Iraq, not Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 terrorists came from), resulted in complete disaster for Christians. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today they number less than 300,000. Could not Bush have been concerned about the Christian fate over his invasion? Could not he have intervened to help them? Politicians will always have political interests. But our interests are very different. We much prefer pro-life and pro-family neocons than pro-abortion and pro-sodomy neocons. Likewise, we much prefer a pro-life and pro-family Putin than a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy Putin. The problem is, while Russia under Putin has consistently opposed abortion and sodomy in the United Nations, there is no similar example of American neocons opposing abortion and sodomy in the United Nations. In fact, in spite of the massive power of American neocons, the U.S. has become the main exporter of abortion and sodomy around the world. Putin and U.S. neocons are free to build their “romanticized pasts.” But they should remember to oppose abortion and sodomy in the United Nations and around the world. And they should denounce and take measures against Christian genocide by Muslims. Here is Pfaff’s article:
Russia and the United States are engaged in a profound ideological confrontation—one that isn’t widely understood in Western Europe or even at the White House.
It began in February a year ago. President Vladimir Putin of Russia found himself engaged in what seemed a simple defensive battle against American intervention in Ukraine. He is now under siege by the U.S. and NATO. The Western powers promoted the advancing “color revolutions” in states neighboring Russia, culminating in the coup in Ukraine and the small war that followed. Events did not go as the State Department and NATO planned, and now they are looking for revenge.
Germany and France intervened at Minsk to block a further American intervention with new arms for Kiev. A truce prevails for the moment. However, NATO has launched an exceedingly imprudent program to encircle Russia with demonstrations of force.
This includes shows of military power in recent days in Poland and the Baltic states, continued last week in Romania, and scheduled to be staged in the near future in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. Washington has also been reaching out to Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan with political and economic inducements meant to block Russia’s Eurasian trading and development ambitions.
The Russian president claims that his real political ambition is to restore to Russia the culture, religion and historical mission of its past. Reunion with Crimea was a prize offered him by a clumsy American intervention in Ukraine. It was not an invitation to aggression but rather an opportunity for Putin to advance his mission at Washington’s expense. He wishes to remake the “New Russia” that existed at the end of the Romanoff era.
He has restored the Orthodox Church to the primacy it then occupied, and interestingly enough has distributed among his senior officials the works of Christian philosophers of the pre-revolutionary period (and later, of those in exile), including Nicholas Berdyaev, Vladimir Solovyov and Ivan Ilyin, and has promoted philosophical-historical reflection among these officials, summoning them to a major conference last year in the period following the seizure of Crimea. The subject of the conference was the destiny of Russia.
Putin has denied that he wishes to impose a religio-ideological state doctrine in the place of Marxism, but he does wish to sponsor the reintroduction of Russian elites to the national past and its historical culture. He wishes to see a sovereign democracy that is “qualitative” rather than arithmetical or quantitative. This is not likely to find willing listeners in the West today.
The French writer Michel Eltchaninoff suggests a comparison with the “new state” created by Antonio Salazar in Portugal between 1933 and 1974, usually called fascist but, while authoritarian, should more accurately be described as conservative, religious and nationalist. It is a response to what Putin views as the decadent and “anthropocentric,” or egoistic and materialistic, modern West.
Politically, Putin is moved by pan-Slavism and the Eurasian attachments of historical Russia, and seeks alliances and support from West Europeans of the politically incorrect persuasion, which to some extent he is finding. All this has nothing to do with the “Hitlerian” comparisons and accusations of aggressive war and expansionist intentions toward the West of which he was accused by Western governments and press during and after the Ukrainian crisis.
Against him stands the American foe. The energy behind the coup in Ukraine and the proposals to deploy Western arms there and relaunch the crisis is generally, and I think correctly, recognized as the work of the neoconservative alliance in Washington to which President Obama seems to have sub-leased his European policy.
This group includes the European affairs office in the State Department, senior Defense Department and NATO officials, certain Washington think tanks and elements in the national press.
The nature and aims of their program are fairly well known in American political circles, but not in Europe. Anne Norton’s 2004 book, “Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire,” provides a splendid introduction.
Intellectually, neoconservatism has been a movement that embodies, among other influences, ideas of two German philosophers, Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt. Strauss, born in Germany, a classicist, migrated to America and taught at the University of Chicago in the 1950s and 1960s, having a great influence upon students who were to become important enemies of the prevailing secular liberalism in American intellectual and political life.
Schmitt was an influential political scholar who defended the concept of the unlimited power of the state. He became a Nazi Party member in January 1933 and held important academic posts in Germany during the Second World War. His work enjoyed a revival in America during the George W. Bush administration and after. It influenced that administration’s controversial concepts of “unlawful combatants” exempt from international legal rights, the practice of “enhanced interrogations,” among others.
The foreign policy ambitions of the movement have been expressed in various efforts to build a political movement to create “a new American century.” Although this no longer is made explicit, the programs of the neoconservatives in Washington envisage the United States becoming a “New Rome,” exercising its unmatched military power “against civilization’s opponents” in order to revive classical values and eventually establish a universal American dominion—a New Rome.
The resemblance of President Putin’s ambitions for his Russia to those of the neoconservatives in the contemporary United States bear a striking formal resemblance in the wish of both to recall a romanticized past. The means they are willing to use resemble one another as well. That is a troubling conclusion.
Visit William Pfaff’s Web site for more on his latest book, “The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy” (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Fundamental Evangelical Testimony Against Socialism, Part 1


Fundamental Evangelical Testimony Against Socialism, Part 1

By Julio Severo
“Fundamentalism” today is a dirty word, and the reason is socialist hatred against conservative Christians.
The original term “fundamentalism” was used for evangelical Christians who developed and followed “The Fundamentals,” a massive theological book, edited by R. A. Torrey and published between 1910 and 1915, to confront liberalism, ecumenism, Catholicism, socialism and heresies among Protestant churches in the early 20th century.
Because socialists did not like “The Fundamentals” and its conservative Christian stances, they worked for many decades to transform “fundamentalism” in a dirty word. They were successful.
“The Fundamentals” reveals that, even before the birth of the Soviet Union, socialism was a strong influence in the U.S. society and churches.
The chapter on socialism in “The Fundamentals” was written by Rev. Charles R. Erdman (1866-1960), professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. Erdman was a Presbyterian minister, and he could not have visualized his seminary sending socialists to form socialists in other nations.
In 1952, the ecumenical Presbyterian missionary Richard Shaull (1919 -2002) was sent to the Southern Presbyterian Seminar, in Campinas, Brazil, where he taught until 1959. Shaull was a doctor in theology through Princeton Theological Seminar. The birth of the Theology of Integral Mission (TIM) in Brazil is traced and credited to him.
Even though TIM is labeled as the Protestant version of Liberation Theology, TIM was born before Liberation Theology. For more information, download my free e-book here: http://bit.ly/15AJmMC
TIM is the most widespread theological liberalism in Protestant churches in Latin America, especially in Brazil, in our days.
The fundamental evangelical testimony by Rev. Charles R. Erdman against socialism 100 years ago denounces the powerful inroads of socialism in the U.S. society and churches when there were no Soviet Union and KGB. I am publishing his testimony to help evangelicals in Brazil to avoid TIM and its socialist pitfalls.
His denunciation against socialism will be published by me in 4 parts, and this is the first:

The Church and Socialism

By Professor Charles R. Erdman, D. D., Princeton Theological Seminary
The sudden rise of Socialism is the most surprising and significant movement of the age. A few years ago the term suggested a dream of fanatics; today it embodies the creed and the hope of intelligent millions. For example, in America the Socialistic vote increased from 20,000, in 1892, to 900,000 in 1912. In France this vote numbers 1,104,000, and in Germany more than 3,000,000; and in these and other lands multitudes who are not openly allied with political Socialism are imbued with Socialistic principles and are advocates of Socialistic theories.
With this great movement the Christian Church is deeply concerned; first, because of the endeavor which many are making to identify Socialism with Christianity; and, secondly, because, on the other extreme, popular Socialism is suggested as a substitute for religion and is antagonistic to Christianity; and, thirdly, because the strength of Socialism consists largely in its protest against existing social wrongs to which the Church is likewise opposed but which can be finally righted only by the universal rule of Christ.
I. Socialism, strictly defined, is an economic theory which proposes the abolition of private capital and the substitution of collective ownership in carrying on the industrial work of the world. This collective ownership is to extend to all the material instruments of production; these are to be publicly operated, and the products to be equitably distributed. The government is to be wholly in the hands of the people, and it is to assign to each individual his task and to determine his wage. Every citizen is to be actually a government employee.
It is evident that Socialism is to be distinguished from Communism with which it is often confused. The latter advocates a collective ownership of all wealth. Socialism does not deny the right of private property, but of private capital. In a Socialistic state one might own a house, but he could not rent it to increase his income. He might own a yacht, but he could not use it to carry passengers for pay. Under Communism there would be no private ownership, but it would be literally true that "no man could call aught that he possessed his own."
Socialism is still more easily distinguished from Anarchism. The latter seeks the abolition of all government; but Socialism advocates the extension of the functions of government to regulate the life and labor of every individual and even in the most minute details. Anarchy means no government; Socialism proposes more government than any nation has ever known.
Quite as obviously Socialism should never be confused with that extreme form of Anarchy known as Nihilism. The latter advocates the violent abolition of all existing institutions, social and political. It is true that Socialists often propose revolution and violence; but an ever increasing number believe their ends will be attained by a gradual process of social evolution moving toward the goal of a collective ownership of capital. It is not right therefore to identify Socialism with assassination, lawlessness and outrage.
Published originally in 1910.
To be continued, in part 2.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Liberation theology founder praises Vatican's 'new climate'


Liberation theology founder praises Vatican's 'new climate'

By Nicole Winfield
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The father of liberation theology, once criticized by the Vatican for its Marxist undercurrents, praised the "new climate" at the Vatican under Pope Francis that has focused the church's attention on social justice and serving the poor.
Gustavo Gutierrez no Vaticano
Peruvian theologian the Rev. Gustavo Gutierrez made his first appearance at an official Vatican press conference Tuesday. It was a historic moment given that the Vatican spent much of the past few decades cracking down on the Marxist excesses of liberation theology, a Latin American-inspired theology advocating for the poor, and disciplining some of its most vocal supporters.
Gutierrez, who himself was never disciplined, said the upcoming beatification of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, a hero to the movement, signaled that "the wall has fallen."
Some versions of liberation theology are at variance with church teachings because they view Christ as a mere social liberator. The Vatican objected to liberation theology's basis in Marxist analysis of society - particularly the idea of class struggle in the promotion of social, political and economic justice for the poor.
In remarks to journalists, Gutierrez stressed that the liberation theology as a whole was never condemned. But he acknowledged that the Holy See had engaged in "very critical dialogue" with its proponents and that there were "difficult moments."
"I'm happy to be here," he said wryly.
Even before the appearance, liberation theology was undergoing something of a rehabilitation under the first Latin American pope, with Gutierrez appearing at a book launch at a Vatican auditorium last year.
"I think in this moment, the climate surrounding this theology is different. That is true," Gutierrez said. But he said the rehabilitation of the theology wasn't as important as Francis' call to put the Gospel into action showing a preferential option for the poor.
"Talking about the poor, talking about the peripheries, saying we have to go forward: This is what's important," he said.
Divulgation: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Vatican Conference Criticized for Backing Abortion and Population Control Politics


Vatican Conference Criticized for Backing Abortion and Population Control Politics

Wendy Wright
Comment by Julio Severo: According to the Brazilian press, Leonardo Boff, the main Liberation Theology advocate in Brazil, has been one of pope’s advisors for global warming issues, including his upcoming encyclical on the environment.
NEW YORK, May (C-Fam) A Vatican conference to promote Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical on the environment spotlighted abortion and population control proponents. At the same time critics warn that climate change alarmism ultimately harms the poor.
“The world’s poor desperately need abundant, affordable, reliable energy, and Sachs and Ban would deprive them of it,” said Calvin Beisner, referring to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, both of whom met with the Pope and his advisers this past week.
The presence of both men as guests of the Pope raised eyebrows. Ban Ki-moon has been a proponent of abortion at the UN, going so far as promoting it in conflict areas where abortion is illegal. Sachs is a proponent of population control and fought to get “reproductive health” — used to promote abortion — included in the Millennium Development Goals.
“Policies to fight alarmist global warming will condemn the world’s poor to more generations of misery and early death,” said Beisner.
Beisner was in Rome to provide an alternative view to those invited to the Vatican conference. The author of “Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future” delivered an Open Letter signed by nearly 150 scientists, religious and policy leaders.
Fossil fuels “generate energy to lift billions of God’s precious children out of poverty” and “liberate[s] from the tomb of the earth the carbon dioxide on which plants and therefore all the rest of life depend,” the letter states. “This beautifully reveals the Creator’s wisdom and care for all of His creation—people, animals, plants, and the earth itself.”
Scientists and religious leaders at the Vatican conference agreed to a Declaration that took an alarmist tone. One attendee writing in Slate called the event a “Sermon on the Mount moment.”
“Human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity,” it states.
Ban Ki-moon plugged the Pope’s encyclical to be released in June. “It will convey to the world that protecting our environment is an urgent moral imperative and a sacred duty for all people of faith and people of conscience,” he said.
He urged religious leaders to do more to secure success for a highly anticipated UN conference on climate change this December – a process that has failed to reach agreement thus far.
“It is critically important that people and their leaders hear your strong moral voice in the coming months,” he said.
The Vatican declaration warns the UN conference “may be the last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2 degrees C” and calls for a “rapid world transformation to a world powered by renewable and other low-carbon energy.”
At a press conference Ban Ki-moon called on countries to raise $100 billion per year to help developing countries transition to a green economy.
“We have only a handful of years before the window of opportunity closes forever,” he said.
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition said, “Pope Francis must have the courage to ignore the politically correct but irresponsible advice of his advisors and simply tell the truth.”
“Climate will continue to change no matter what we do. So let’s help the world’s poor to the degree we can afford by providing them with reliable, inexpensive electricity and stop pretending we have a crystal ball to future climate states.”
Source: Friday Fax
Divulgation: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
End of communism not good for Catholicism?

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Amazon hinders customers from choosing toys based on sex differences between girls and boys


Amazon hinders customers from choosing toys based on sex differences between girls and boys

By Julio Severo
Before social engineers had begun to turn children into amorphous little beings, little girls played with dolls, little houses and kitchen kits, and little boys played with guns, construction kits and action heroes.
Amazon has taken a stand for social engineers and against sexual differences between children.
In a move sure to electrify homosexualists, feminists and socialists, the online retail giant has deleted the “boy” and “girl” buttons from its online menu, hindering customers from searching and choosing toys based on sex differences between girls and boys.
“Amazon has been pushed about by the politically correct brigade,” said Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education lobby group.
“This is another example of feminism getting a grip on how we think. In the real world, it is females who tend to have mothering instincts, so it makes sense for dolls to be recommended as suitable toys for girls.
“There is a biological difference. We should stop trying to blur the gap between sexes. If you want boys to be girls, and girls to be boys, this is how to do it.”
He added: “I’m afraid that rampant feminism has not done a lot for our society.”
The controversial move by Amazon follows complaints by feminists that toys are supposedly “sexist” because they encourage young girls to aspire to be mothers, to play with make-up or make-believe that they are performing domestic chores.
Feminist psychologists claim that to prepare a girl to be a wife and mother limits her vast career horizon.
Meanwhile, they say that boy’s toys — such as guns, action heroes and construction kits — train boys to become “male chauvinist.”
They propose inversion: boys playing with girl’s toys and girls playing with boy’s toys.
Amazon’s decision has been welcomed by feminist and homosexualist campaigners and educationalists, who said all children should be free to play with toys aimed at both sexes.
This is not the first controversial move against children. Amazon has been notoriously supportive of homosexual “marriage,” which usually includes adoption rights and is fundamentally detrimental for the normal and healthy upbringing of children.
Amazon has become a capitalist giant in the service of homosexual, feminist and socialist perversions.
With information from DailyMail.

Sunday, May 03, 2015

Theological Faggoting: Liberation Theology and Theology of Integral Mission Environment Producing Gay Theology in Brazil


Theological Faggoting: Liberation Theology and Theology of Integral Mission Environment Producing Gay Theology in Brazil

How to understand the development of the most advanced homosexual theology in Brazil

By Julio Severo

Introduction

When I had already finished this report, a bombshell came: Toni Reis, the founder of ABGLT, gave a speech in a sex education class in the Evangelical College of Paraná, Brazil, in late April 2015. ABGLT, the largest homosexual organization in Brazil, has today consultative status in the United Nations system. Reis filed complaints in 2013 against Rev. Silas Malafaia, the most prominent Assemblies of God minister in Brazil, and against Julio Severo in 2007. Both complaints were about “homophobia” and were filed with federal prosecutors. Reis has been active in pressing the Brazilian government to support his efforts to impose homosexual indoctrination on Brazilian children. The Evangelical College of Paraná, which hosted Reis as a speaker, is supported by several Protestant churches. His presence in an evangelical institution shows that the Evangelical Church in Brazil needs urgently to know the dangers of gay theology, ideology and activism. With this report, I want to help churches to refrain from inviting to their institutions radical ideological militants intent on homosexualizing children and persecuting Christians.

Gay Theology and Its Liberal Roots

Homosexual theology? In Brazil it exists only in non-recognized “churches,” founded by individuals who apostatized from the Gospel and left recognized churches (Assemblies of God, Baptist Church, etc.). Those individuals were not, in their activism, accepted in recognized churches and so they had to establish their own independent theologies and churches.
Only in the U.S. there is the phenomena of a homosexual theology advancing in recognized churches, as the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. and other major mainline Protestant denominations. All of these churches have an old common problem: the Social Gospel, a liberal and leftist theology that began to affect them in the 1870s.
The homosexual theology only became reality among these recognized churches after theological liberalism spread and became solid for over 100 years.
So liberalism and leftism eventually become father and mother of the homosexual theology.

Gay Theology in a Non-Recognized “Protestant” Church

In Brazil, the most important homosexual theological paper of a non-recognized Protestant church comes from the Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro. This non-recognized church was born from the Metropolitan Community Church in the United States, the first and largest homosexual denomination in the U.S., which spread to 37 nations.
In its paper “Algumas verdades que os gays precisam saber sobre a Bíblia” (Some truths gays need to know about the Bible), made available in the early 2000s, the Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro destroys the main Bible passages that clearly condemn homosexual sin, saying that the condemnations are not by God or the Bible, but by alleged theological misinterpretations.
Among its many endorsements of the homosexual behavior, the paper says:
“Sexual orientation is part of you as the color of your skin or the spots in a leopard. You cannot change or renounce what you were created by God to be.”
“Sexual orientation, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals, is not something chosen by an individual. Some recent studies suggest that sexual orientation has a major genetic or biological influence. So probably it is determined before or immediately after the birth.”
“Because homosexuality is not a disease or deviation, there is nothing to be healed.”
Yet, I cannot make these quotations without respecting the explicit warning in the document, which says: “In the total or partial copy or reproduction of this material credits to the authors should be mentioned.” So, respecting the warning, I reproduce the authorship recorded in the document: “Escrito por Pastor Marcos Gladstone e Ciro D’Araujo” (written by Pastor Marcos Gladstone and Ciro D’Araujo).
Gladstone was the “minister” of the Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro. Ciro is the son of Caio Fábio, formerly the most renowned leader in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil. Caio was also the most prominent and shrewd Theology of Integral Mission (TIM) proponent in the Evangelical Church in Brazil. A father in TIM eventually produced a son in gay theology.
TIM was inspired in Brazil by Rev. Richard Schaull, an American Presbyterian missionary who was a professor, in the 1950s, at the largest theological seminary in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil. Schaull was a Social Gospel adherent and advocate.

Gay Theology in a Recognized Protestant Church

Even though TIM is common among Presbyterians, its brazen official acceptance is much more common in the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession in Brazil (ECLCB), which has prominent Liberation Theology leaders and prominent Theology of Integral Mission leaders.
Any minimally intelligent individual should conclude that if the Social Gospel (which is TIM’s mother) eventually produced a pro-sodomy theology in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., what would this “gospel” produce in Brazil?
In 2006, HTS (Higher Theology School), the largest ECLCB theology seminary in Brazil, hosted guest speaker Luiz Mott, the Brazilian homosexual movement’s patron.
But HTS’s homosexualist slides did not stop here.
HTS professor André Sidnei Musskopf presented in 2008 his dissertation at HTS on Systematic Theology. His dissertation, for theology graduation, is explicitly entitled “Theological Faggoting: itineraries for a queer theology in Brazil.”
The dissertation says, “The main argument of this Dissertation is that theology needs to walk other paths. Although this calling is directed to all theologies which are based on a heterocentric matrix for the construction of theological knowledge, it is especially directed to Latin-American Liberation Theology, which the reflections of this Dissertation are understood to be in continuation with.”

Brazilian Lutheran Theologian Learning Gay Theology in the U.S.

Musskopf claims that what was critical for him to have an encounter with homosexual theology was his experience with liberation theology and with a feminist theology present at HTS in the 1990s. His direct encounter with the homosexual theology happened in the United States, where he was an exchange student in liberal Lutheran churches in several U.S. states. There, he knew the book “A Gay Liberation Theology” by Richard Cleaver. Musskopf admits that Cleaver’s book “was the first writing he found” which perfectly answered his longings nourished by Liberation Theology. The American experience introduced him to a radical theological homosexual activism.
He says about “A gay liberation theology”: “To know that there was something called ‘gay theology’ was comforting and, and at the same time, promising, since, in my country [Brazil], I had never heard about it.”
His interest then is that the U.S.-born gay theology may spread in Brazil and throughout Latin America. He says, “If the starting point is the homosexual-gay-queer theology produced in the United States, the question containing the (re)building of this found and inhabited panorama is about the existence of such theology in Brazil and Latin America.”
He adds, “My discovery of a Gay Theology in the United States is also helpful as a way to share a knowledge produced in other settings, but important for establishing itineraries for a queer theology in Brazil or in another setting.”
Because gay theology in America is the most advanced and powerful in the world, it is a homosexualist threat to Christian churches in the whole world. In fact, America is in the forefront of the global homosexualist infection, spreading and imposing the gay agenda virus around the world.
When the U.S. had an advanced gay theology, Brazil and many other nations had no such theology. My book “O Movimento Homossexual” (The Homosexual Movement), originally published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers in 1998, warned that the spread of gay theology, ideology and activism in the U.S. would eventually reach Brazil. Yet, the predictions of my book, based in the U.S. reality, were often rejected or even mocked in the late 1990s. Many readers thought that it was crazy to suppose that Brazil could become like America in homosexual activism. Today, Brazil and its socialist government are consistently following the U.S. reality.

The Most Important Gay Theology in Brazil

Musskopf makes a journey describing the birth and expansion of Gay Theology in Brazil, even revealing, “In 1998 Pastor Orellana was ordained as the ‘first openly gay minister’ in Brazil by Rev. Nehemias Marien of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church.”
Coincidently, with his dissertation, André Sidnei Musskopf has become the most important theologian of the Gay Theology in Brazil.
The gay theology of Marcos Gladstone and Ciro D’Araújo is short and simple, but the gay theology of Musskopf is comprehensive, profound and detailed.
“Theological Faggoting,” by André Sidnei Musskopf, is a work with an extensive bibliography of American books, making evident that without American sources, it would have been nearly impossible for André Sidnei Musskopf to have written a work that, looking like a serious research, destroys everything God speaks in the Bible against homosexuality and builds a homosexuality allegedly accepted by God.
The ideal environment for the birth, development and expansion of the Gay Theology is the environment where Liberation Theology and the Theology of Integral Mission proliferate. In fact, Musskopf explains, “The LGBT groups and churches resemble to the Base Ecclesial Communities where Liberation Theology appeared in the 1970s.”
In his dissertation, he explains also that other Latin American theologians opening themselves to the homosexual theology had first had an experience with Liberation Theology, whose Protestant version is, according to Protestant socialists Robinson Cavalcanti and Ariovaldo Ramos, the Theology of Integral Mission.

Homsexualist Infection in Theological Institutions

He says, “Even so, siding with active leaders in LGBT Christian groups and churches, there is an increasing number of theologians developing academic studies and who are major voices for the development of a Brazilian and Latin American homosexual-gay-queer theology. Several master’s and doctor’s degree dissertations have been made in the recent years focusing on these issues. In 2001, Mário Ferreira Ribas presented his master’s degree dissertation at the Methodist University of São Paulo with the title ‘Scripture, tradition and reason in the homosexual debate in Anglicanism.’”
Musskopf stresses the importance of the “increasing contact with U.S. gay theologians, a life experience in LGBT Christian groups, the contact with homocultural studies, a greater immersion in the LGBT movement and a search for recognition in the Brazilian theological academic institutions.”
He tells how he helped organize the Gay Parade in São Leopoldo, city of the HTS headquarters, in 2006. He reveals also that there is a group of militant homosexualists within HTS.
Because ECLCB and HTS are recognized evangelical institutions, other evangelical institutions in Brazil also keep a relationship with HTS. In September 2014, HTS held its 2nd International Congress of HTS Colleges, where the opening speech was delivered by a Mackenzie Presbyterian University professor. This professor lectures also at the Methodist University of São Paulo, one of the most leftist evangelical institutions in Brazil, along with HTS.
Mackenzie Presbyterian University in São Paulo, Brazil, is not homosexualist, but in 2013 it invited Congressman Jean Wyllys, one of the most prominent gay activists in Brazil, for a debate with an evangelical lawyer. The students of this Protestant university booed the evangelical and cheered the gay activist.
This Mackenzie professor would never deliver a lecture in the Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro. But he delivered a speech at HTS.
The Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro, “Rev.” Marcos Gladstone and Ciro D’Araújo are free to defend a homosexual theology and any other perverse theology. Their church and works, even though D’Araújo’s father was formerly the greatest Presbyterian star in Brazil, do not enjoy any recognition in the evangelical world. So they have no legitimacy.
Yet, whether you like it or not, HTS has official recognition in the Brazilian evangelical world.
The recognition by a large historic Protestant denomination as the Lutheran church gives Musskopf many opportunities, including in the Brazilian Congress. He is the author of several books and takes part in national and international events to share his militant theological view in defense of the gay agenda.
Musskopf is the author of “Talar Rosa: Homossexuais e o ministério na igreja” (Pink Cassock: Homosexuals and Church Ministry), a book advocating the gay ideology from a Bible misinterpretation. He is the author also of the chapter “Queer Theology and Bible Hermeneutics” in the book “Imagem & diversidade sexual: Estudos da Homocultura” (Image and Sexual Diversity: Homocultural Studies [2004]), organized by Denilson Lopes, a homosexual activist who wrote the pro-pedophilia article “Amando Garotos: Pedofilia e a Intolerância Contemporânea” (Loving Boy and Contemporary Intolerance), denounced by me in 2007.
His influence is not limited to HTS. Musskopt was a speaker at the 10th LGBT Seminary, held in the Brazilian Congress in 2013. The big homosexual seminary was sponsored by the ruling socialist Workers’ Party.
When all the Brazilian leftist groups signed, aided by Ultimato magazine, a manifesto against the appointment of Congressman Marco Feliciano for the House Human Rights Committee presidency, Musskopf was a signatory. Nothing more natural than “Christian” gay activists and leftist evangelicals working together.
Feliciano is an Assemblies of God minister and most “Christians” opposed to him were traditional Protestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.) adherents of TIM.
As a Lutheran, Musskopf spent years in the church being influenced by the Theology of Integral Mission and Liberation Theology. The result? Theological faggoting. If he had lived in an evangelical environment open to the deliverance offered by Jesus Christ — and there are many charismatic churches in Brazil that give freedom for Jesus to deliver and save people enslaved to the homosexual sin —, Musskopf would hopefully have been delivered from his faggoting and, instead of praising it, he would be praising Jesus Christ the Savior.
However, instead of Jesus, his denomination prioritizes TIM’s theological liberalism, and the result is members, ministers and theologians who have not been set free.
The theological faggoting of the Metropolitan Community Church in Rio de Janeiro, “Rev.” Marcos Gladstone and Ciro D’Araújo has never been accepted in the Brazilian evangelical world, because their church and theology have no recognition among evangelicals. In short, they are not evangelicals.

Lutheran Church: In the Forefront of Liberation Theology, TIM and Gay Theology

Yet, HTS and ECLCB, along with their love for TIM, Liberation Theology, feminist theology and homosexual theology, are traditional Protestant and are a part of the traditional Protestant world. Thanks to HTS and ECLCB, Musskopf and his theological faggoting are a part of the Lutheran world and can, sooner or later, corrupt the Brazilian evangelical world, beginning in the academic world of theology professors.
ECLCB has international liberal leaders. Rev. Walter Altmann, a former ECLCB president, is the moderator of the World Council of Churches and he is an international theologian renowned for defending Liberation Theology (LT).
Another prominent ECLCB leader is Rev. Valdir Steuernagel, known in Brazil as a TIM activist and internationally known for his leadership roles in the Lausanne Movement and in the World Evangelical Alliance.
From this pro-LT and pro-TIM liberal environment, what can result? A homosexualist theologian called Musskopf.
With Altmann, ECLCB is in the Liberation Theology forefront.
With Steuernagel, ECLCB is in the Theology of Integral Mission forefront.
With Musskopf, ECLCB is in the Gay Theology forefront.
Of course, Steuernagel is not more prominent in TIM advocacy than Calvinist Ariovaldo Ramos and Caio Fábio.
Notwithstanding the serious threat of theological liberalism, from TIM to homosexual theology, the bigger worry of traditional Protestant churches in Brazil as ECLCB has been the “theology” (or its lack!) of charismatic churches that, with all their flaws, are not open to theological liberalism or to homosexual theology.
In those churches, a homosexual militant has no room and has to leave them if he wants to get involved in homosexual activism.
In contrast, in ECLCB a homosexual militant can write theological books and much more. André Sidnei Musskopf, who is a HTS theology professor, is a testimony of the liberal spaces that the Theology of Integral Mission eventually opened for homosexual activism in one of the largest traditional Protestant denominations in Brazil.
They began at TIM and Liberation Theology and today they are in the black hole of theological faggoting.
Musskopf’s language is filled with jargons of ideological professionals, in contrast with Jesus’ language, who used the most basic examples to show that he was near people. He talked about breads and other everyday things, while TIM theologians have a language so high that reach just theologians and activists.
If you have time to waste in gay philosophy and theology babbles, the reading of Musskopf’s “Theological Faggoting” is indispensable.

Witchcraft and Homosexuality

In his dissertation, Musskopf recognizes that witchcraft and spiritualism are more open to homosexuality and its adherents.
His dissertation has 36 positive mentions of Umbanda, 19 positive mentions of Candomblé and no condemnation. Candomblé, which is a Brazilian form of Santeria, is not much different of Umbanda. His dissertation says, “God is in the church, but also in the terreiro [place where Afro-Brazilian witchcraft is practiced, such as Macumba and Candomblé].”
Brazil is the most spiritualist nation in the world. Musskopf explains that as the Brazilian gay theology had its origin in the U.S., so the Brazilian spiritualism (which is favorable to homosexuality) also had its origin in the U.S. He says:
“In the Brazilian context ‘spiritualism’ appeared in the 19th century. Born in the United States in the late 1840s and developed as ‘science’ especially in Europe in the 1850s, the first séance in Brazil happened in 1865 and in 1884 was founded the Brazilian Spiritualist Federation. From this time spiritualism quickly spread throughout Brazil and got huge publicity in the 1950s through the ‘spiritual healings’ of Dr. Fritz and, chiefly, through Chico Xavier because of his hundreds of writings and because he became an example of sainthood.”
Musskopf says that even though in its origin spiritualism was a “science,” in Brazil it became a religion.
The spiritualist spark in the U.S. became an uncontrollable fire in Brazil.
What is worrying is that if a spark can provoke so much havoc in other nations, what will happen to other nations now with the U.S. exporting the homosexual theology and other theological fires?
In a general way, Brazilian spiritualism is open to the homosexual agenda. It can explain the reason not only for the homosexualist policies of the Brazilian government, but also the support that the Brazilian government has given the U.S government in its efforts, including in the U.N, to impose homosexuality around the world.
Spiritualism and witchcraft walk together with homosexuality.
Luiz Mott, whose homosexual activism criticizes conservative Christianity and praises Umbanda and Candomblé, is mentioned 41 times favorably in Musskopf’s dissertation.
Denilson Lopes is quoted 15 times in an equally favorable way. Both Mott and Lopes are homosexual activists accused of defending pedophilia. Lopes is the author of the article Amando Garotos: Pedofilia e a Intolerância Contemporânea” (Loving Boy and Contemporary Intolerance).
Musskopf stresses that the Catholic Church and the historic Protestant churches have traditions against homosexuality. But you can understand in his work that both churches did not know how to deal with spiritualism and witchcraft, which have much room for homosexuality. Even though both Liberation Theology and the Theology of Integral Mission are hostile to neo-Pentecostalism, Musskopf says: “But who did this articulation in a perfect way was neo-Pentecostalism, because, in addition of being more accepted among the poor, it ‘represents a theological movement in contact with worldviews never touched before: the worldview of the European Reformed Protestantism and the worldview of the new world with the Catholic Brazil anchored in African and native traditions.’”

Presbyterian Liberalism

In fact, there are examples of historic churches that do not know how to deal with spiritualism. Rev. Marcos Amaral, of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (PCB), has become famous for joining Afro-Brazilian religious leaders to fight “discrimination” against witchcraft.
Another PCB leader, Rev. Marcos Botelho, wrote an article entitled “LGBTT Rights and Christian Faith,” in the Presbyterian magazine Ultimato, where he said that the “blame” for gay activists wanting to impose a homosexual tyranny on the Brazilian population is “because we Christians are not doing our part and fighting for everybody’s right: the right to choose freely their sexual option.”
Botelho is one of the directors of Jovens da Verdade (Youth for Truth), a group that has a theological college (FLAM), headed by TIM advocate Ariovaldo Ramos, exclusively for TIM engagement. Youth for Truth sponsors TIM events.
As an example that Christians should fight to advocate the homosexual cause, in his Ultimato piece Botelho had mentioned that divorce in the Catholic Brazil was legalized by a Presbyterian congressman. Botelho, a TIM advocate, has never been rebuked for his theological liberalism. Another PCB leader, Rev. Luiz Longuini, has been divorced four times and he has a book, published by Ultimato, advocating TIM.
If Botelho were an Assemblies of God minister, he would be unlikely to escape discipline or expelling for his pro-homosexuality words.
The Catholic Church in Brazil, which is the largest Catholic nation in the world, is almost completely dominated by Liberation Theology. And the historic Protestant churches (where Musskopf’s ECLCB ranks high) are increasingly dominated by the Theology of Integral Mission. No one of those churches expels demons or considers demonic components in homosexuality or other perversions.

What If Musskopf Attended a Charismatic Church?

In comparison, as admitted by Musskopf, Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal churches reach people directly, know how to use what is useful in the Reformation traditions and know how to deal with traditions of spiritualism, Umbanda and Candomblé and their connections with homosexuality. In short, those churches, which usually are not open to Liberation Theology and the Theology of Integral Mission, understand homosexuality as a sin and, where necessary, expel the appropriate demons.
Musskopf would be unlikely to be able to attend a neo-Pentecostal church as Igreja da Graça (Grace Church) the way he does in ECLCB: a Protestant homosexual activist.
Musskopf would be unlikely to do in a neo-Pentecostal church as Igreja Bola de Neve (Bola de Neve Church) what he does in ECLCB: to promote a gay theology.
A neo-Pentecostal church would be unlikely to fail to give him what ECLCB and other historic Protestant churches do not give: ministrations under the power of the Holy Spirit and even expelling of demons.
In a big neo-Pentecostal church as Igreja da Graça or Igreja Bola de Neve, Musskopf would have to leave the church to profess openly his “Christian” homosexual militancy and his gay theology. In ECLCB, which is the largest Lutheran denomination in Brazil, he can occupy spaces, resist what is left of conservatism and “produce”: gay militancy, activism and theology.

Theological “Wisdom” in the Service of Homosexual Sin

In fact, Musskopf said his dissertation “is organized in three moments — ‘occupy, resist, produce’ — one of the most well known slogans of the Landless Workers Movement (MST).”
He and his group are already “occupying, resisting, producing” in HTS and in the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession in Brazil.
As usual among liberal Protestants, Musskopf does not like conservative environments. He likes environments of Liberation Theology and of the Theology of Integral Mission. It is only in this kind of progressive environment he and his theology have room to grow and blossom.
Aided by Liberation Theology and the Theology of Integral Mission, he expects his theology eventually to “occupy, resist, produce” in many theological centers in Brazil.
Where these liberal theologies have room (especially traditional Protestant churches), there will be a cursed “hope” for the gay theology to be accepted. Where these liberal theologies have no room (especially charismatic churches), gay theology will have a very hard time to be accepted.
“Theological Faggoting,” by André Musskopf, exhales theological, philosophical and sociological depth, but with no commitment to God’s truth. It is a work of human wisdom in the service of gay theology, crazily twisting God’s Word to satisfy a depraved sexual vice. By reading it, I was reminded:
“Scripture says, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will reject the intelligence of intelligent people.’ Where is the wise person? Where is the scholar? Where is the persuasive speaker of our time? Hasn’t God turned the wisdom of the world into nonsense?” (1 Corinthians 1:19-20 GWV)
In contrast, God’s Word is perfect for the simple, not for those who consider themselves theologically “wise”:
“The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.” (Psalms 119:130 NKJV)
“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalms 19:7 NKJV)
What God’s Word says about man having sex with man?
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22 NKJV)
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV)
Of course, Jesus can save simple sinners who want to be set free from their sins. But he cannot save theologically “wise” sinners who love to justify theologically their sins.
Gay theology is just a way to hinder homosexual sinners from accepting Jesus’ redemption.
Those who love the kingdom of theological Sodom will not enter the Kingdom of God.
Recommended Reading: