Presidential candidate Mrs. Bill Clinton (aka just-Hillary), our inevitable next president according to the mainstream news media, has said Christianity must change its teachings (doctrines), not based on some newly discovered ancient Biblical manuscript or other ancient writing, but based on abortion politics.
Don’t get too carried away on her massive ignorance on how Christianity (and other religions/religion substitutes) work. Obama made a similar ‘Christianity must change’ demand. And there was some British guy who demands that the Bible be re-written to make it gay-friendly. Poor man, he doesn’t know that the King James Version and the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible, among others, are in public domain and can be downloaded for free, gay-unfriendly verses and all.
The frightening thing is that skilled politicians don’t make such demands unless they are convinced that the majority of the population is now ignorant enough to not know that demanding that a religion change its doctrines is an assault on the religious freedoms of that religion. Remember the Puritans who came to America’s shores when they couldn’t have religious freedom in England. They could have stayed, if they were willing to change their doctrines to conform to those of the Anglican church. From the earliest days of America’s history, it was understood that freedom of religion didn’t mean just the freedom to keep the name of your religion (Puritan, Anglican, Catholic….) but to keep all of the teachings as well, without outside political forces demanding doctrinal change.
Is America that ignorant? It doesn’t have to be. Each person that reads my words can help by spreading some basic concepts about religious freedom. Share this blog post on Facebook or Twitter, for example. Or share one of the news stories on Mrs. Clinton’s speech. It will soon be forgotten unless some dedicated conservatives take it up like they did the Benghazi thing.
Is Mrs. Clinton a Christian?
Her attitude calls that into question. When she puts her abortion politics first and wants Christianity to conform to those politics, she is not following the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the Bible. Instead, she is insisting that Jesus and the Bible adapt their teachings to follow her politics? Now, is that the attitude that a humble follower of Christ would have? Or is it the attitude of the in-name-only Christian who wears the name of Christian for political advantage only?
I think we must ask ourselves if it is even possible to embrace abortion politics without at the same time turning your back on God and tacitly rejecting His mercy. When you condemn millions of children to death by abortion (1 in 4 children conceived dies by abortion), how can that not be what Luke 17:1, 2 is talking about?
We must pray for Mrs. Clinton’s repentance of her abortion-related sins and that she turn to Jesus Christ. We must also work for her defeat and the defeat of any other political candidate who believes that participating in the abortion holocaust is somehow OK with God.
Then said he [Jesus] unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke 17:1,2
To Think About
What will things be like if politicians and others feel free to insist that Christians change any Christian doctrine that gets in their way? We can imagine a vast, freedomless nation emerging like in a Daniella Bova book. Or we can imagine the story on a small scale. Say a small town newspaperman who finds a local pastor’s preaching on the sin of gossip is cutting into the sales of his gossipy paper, and he goes to offer the pastor a bribe to just not preach about it for a while. And if that didn’t work, a threat. Bad news is such a great story-starter for writers, isn’t it.