I welcome anyone who can deciper what the following means (full context included lest you think I am unfairly picking on the guy):
The Washington Post reported Friday that Richard Cizik resigned his position as spokesman and vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals after he declared he was "shifting" toward supporting civil unions for homosexual couples in a December 2 National Public Radio interview. Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon explained the remark was "anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman".
This is an example of a reporter avoiding the obvious on the Bible's contents, like saying the public "believes Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance opposes pollution."
Cizik’s become a darling of media liberals over the last few years for insisting that global warming is a bigger issue for religious people than sexual issues like abortion and homosexuality. But Cizik dropped a bunch of bombshells in that interview, declaring he voted for Barack Obama, despite his hard-left social positions; agreeing that younger evangelicals "know gay people" and aren't as "threatened" as their elders; and suggesting Sarah Palin's environmental positions were like burning the Bible.
I am starting to see where Tony Perkins gets his logic from.
BTW, here's the Cizik/NPR passage from which Newsbusters concludes that "Sarah Palin's environmental positions were like burning the Bible."
Look, strength is knowing what's happening to the world around us, and moreover, as a Christian, we can't claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays.
Somehow in that analogy of how we treat God's world, Cizik apparently equated Palin to a Bible burner. Next week on "Adventures in Missing the Point" . . . .
.
No comments:
Post a Comment