RALEIGH, NC—After minutes of extensive research reading a couple of blogs and listening to a podcast or two, local man Chaz Prindle has discovered that Jesus would have all the same political positions he does if he were on Earth today.
“Honestly, I’m not surprised at all by this,” said Prindle. “The politicians and media figures I listen to have always told me that the political positions I hold are compassionate and loving, just like Jesus was. If only more Christians realized this and were more like me.”
Prindle then sauntered over to a street corner to thank the Lord that he was more enlightened than other Christians who disagreed with him on political issues.
According to the most reliable sources, Jesus is a highly-respected historical figure who can be repurposed to act as a figurehead for whatever social issues you care about. He also thinks you’re pretty great and wishes other people “just got it” the way you do.
Prindle says he looks forward to not changing anything about himself or his beliefs for the rest of his life so he can someday stand before Jesus and hear him say “thank you for being so awesome.”
“Jesus is honestly so lucky to have me,” he said.
“I’m a Christian But I’m Totally Not… (BuzzFeed Parody)”
This video parodies Leftist Christians who are aggressively intolerant of different opinions but say they advocate love.
The Babylon Bee satire is based on the fact that conservative Christians are often told by Leftists that it’s morally wrong to be a conservative and that their political views are inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings.
Progressive/liberal Christians and Leftists will often appropriate certain sayings from Jesus (usually out of context) while ignoring others to support their views.
To be fair, this kind of Biblically inaccurate cherry-picking of Scriptures has been done throughout Christianity’s 2,000 year history, but the reason I’m critical of the Leftist interpretation of Christianity in particular is because Leftism is now the world’s most dominant and powerful ‘religion’ — more so than any traditional faith.
Also, I used to be Leftist, so I feel it’s a moral duty to deconstruct it. I might be called a Leftist apostate or heretic now. Leftism is cultish in its unconditional demands on the individual to subordinate him or herself to its ideological vision.
It’s quite powerful, which explains why millions now adopt it as their worldview. It’s also syncretic, which means one can have another identity or belief system, as long as it’s subordinate to Leftism.
Leftism exerts such tremendous power over all our lives, due to its political power and its influence on our loved ones, that its inaccurate appropriation of Christianity ought to be addressed.
I myself used to interpret Christianity through a progressive lens before I became a Christian, at which time I learned I’d been wrong on several points.
My values shifted from progressivism (meaning an attempt to radically transform this world into something else) to actual Christian values on controversial ethical issues, due to a new perspective: the understanding that this world is not all there is, and that there is life after death. I cannot prove it, but I believe it is so. I take it on faith.
For example, this changed me from being pro-choice to pro-life, based on the realization that a soul enters the body at conception.
Also, St. Paul teaches that we’re all sinners (as per Romans 3:10). If that is so, then Leftism too can be sinful, even though it tends to view itself as morally superior.
But if we acknowledge the universality of sin, we are apt to be more forgiving of others — unlike Leftist “cancel culture” which is quite unforgiving and tries to destroy the lives of those who disagree with it.
They wouldn’t dare tell a Muslim what his faith should be, but they’re willing to tell dedicated Christians what to believe.
It’s arrogant to make such a claim a deep knowledge of the faith, but that doesn’t stop them, because Leftism is predicated on the assumption that all its adherents are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else in the world.
They do not actually have to be good individuals in their own lives, as long as they have the correct beliefs (ie., feminism, race ideology, socialism, climate change, and now more recently, faith in state-sanctioned medical tyranny).
It’s actually a form of fundamentalism, but one that denies God and makes the state and the collective into a god instead.
We’re told that “Jesus was a socialist” – but in fact individual charity – which traditional faith advocates – is not the same thing as the state “redistributing” wealth (and in the end, making everyone equally poor, except for the Party elite). See: https://fee.org/articles/no-jesus-wasnt-a-socialist/
The main distinction is that Leftism believes in transforming the world to fit a Utopian political ideal, whereas traditional Christianity believes in spiritual salvation in the world to come, by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice for us on the Cross.
Leftists are typically secular and don’t believe in Christ’s divinity. Most do not even believe in God, though many adopt a “spiritual” (or New Age) perspective.
The Utopian ideal pursued by socialists has, through its history, harmed more people than it helped, through collectivism and violence, sacrificing individuals to its vision — much like human sacrifices to the idol Baal (of the Old Testament).
Leftism also reminds me a lot of the Borg, from Star Trek, who tell those they encounter, “you will be assimilated into the hive mind. Resistance is futile.”
Ironically, its groupthink and cancel culture tactic are akin to the most intolerant and violent examples of Christian faith (e.g., the Spanish Inquisition, witch-burning).
In the last few decades, with the rise of Leftism, we’ve seen a split in Christian denominations, between those that adopted Leftism and those that opted for traditional faith — especially over the issue of gay marriage and abortion — and now transgender conversion of children.
These issues have been “weaponized” by the authoritarian Left in order to use them as a battering ram against society, in order to impose authoritarianism. The Left cares nothing for women or black people or transgender people. They’re just being used — later to be thrown under the bus.
An example of this is Trudeau’s recent scapegoating of Christians vis-à-vis residential schools in Canada, which was used by Leftist radicals as an excuse to burn down numerous churches.
But instead of condemning this domestic terrorism, Trudeau excused it by calling it “understandable.”
There is also a fair degree of virtue-signalling among Leftists, such as Trudeau and unfortunately to some degree, Pope Francis. This is a satire of the Pope as he tries to be a populist: “Frank the Hippie Pope” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEchg1KhmTY
Below is a good article on why Leftism is actually a religion of a kind (what it sometimes called a secular religion or a functional religion).
As such it can be distinguished from a traditional Christian perspective and could even be considered idolatrous because it puts the state and the collective above God. It tries to subordinate God and Christ to its political vision. To be fair, some Christian leaders also try to the do the same.
Leftism typically runs up against and tries to refute what’s been termed “Christian civil religion” – which is a combination of 18th century Enlightenment emphasis on freedom and reason (which animated the Founding Fathers) and Judeo-Christian (primarily Protestant) values.
Leftists paint an insulting caricature of tradtional Christians as ignorant and dangerous without realizing they may be unconsciously projecting that aspect of their own faith onto Christians and demonizing them unjustly.
“The Religion of Leftism”
by Allie Stuckey, Dec 30, 2018
In my opinion, this is a brilliant article, worth sharing in full (it’s not that long):
Over the last decade, America has moved drastically to the Left. Not only are more people on the Left than ever before, the Left is further left than it’s ever been
This radical brand of progressivism has come to be known as “Leftism”—an extreme yet increasingly dominant segment of the political spectrum.
At the same time, America has grown more secular. According to Pew, “religious nones” are rapidly growing in number. These “nones” are most concentrated among millennials: 36% of millennials are religiously unaffiliated. Millennials happen to also be America’s most politically progressive generation.
This probably isn’t a coincidence, especially since the same trends have occurred in a similar way in other parts of the world, such as Europe. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, politics and religion are so closely related that it’s hard to believe the simultaneous popularization of extreme Leftism and secularism is insignificant.
My theory is this: the country hasn’t actually become less religious. Many people have simply replaced traditional religion with Leftism. Rather than associating with Christianity, for example, which demands repentance and promises persecution, they have opted for a religion that conveniently offers a sense of righteousness but denies the need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Leftism provides many of the same comforts that religion does without the expectation of personal sacrifice. Its adherents can feel that they’re caring for the “least of these” because they vote for policies that empower the government to offer more welfare to the poor. It is a lazy form of compassion, and it is appealing to those who want to pat themselves on the back without having to voluntarily spend of their own time, energy or money.
On a personal level, unlike Christianity, Leftism doesn’t worry its adherents with sin and life-change. The only sin is to say there’s sin. The only wrong is to say there’s wrong. The highest virtue is one’s own happiness, and the only truth is that which one finds in themselves. This, of course, is antithetical to what the Bible teaches, which is part of why it is very difficult—if not altogether impossible—to be a Bible-believing Christian and a radical Leftist.
But there’s another reason. While Leftism may not require personal responsibility, generosity or morality, it does demand everything of its devotees. It aims to conform the mind, the heart and the soul, fully to its agenda. There is no room in Leftism for disagreement on abortion, gender, sexuality, immigration, race, or economics. All reasoning must be guided by intersectionality. All thoughts must be centered on some vague notion of social justice. There is no tolerance for defection.
That’s a problem for religious people, who are bound to a higher calling than that of any political ideology, and whose values are often incongruent with the controlling ethics of Leftism. Many religious people are against abortion. Many religious people are for traditional marriage. Many religious people fear that too much government will mean less religious liberty. So, these religious people have a choice to make: allow their spiritual principles to submit to Leftism, or allow their politics to be guided by their spiritual principles, which, undoubtedly, disqualifies them from being a “good” Leftist.
Christianity, in particular, is incongruent with this brand of Leftism. Jesus asks his disciples to deny themselves, take up their crosses and follow Him (Luke 9:23). So does Leftism. Jesus asks for Christians’ whole hearts. So does Leftism. No person can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Those who identify as Christians and as Leftists have either not yet discovered the complete sacrifice that will eventually be asked of them by Leftism, or they’ve already abandoned their religious views in favor of their political ideology.
Leftism is not just against traditional religion; it has replaced it. It is its own religion. And, like all religions, it excludes adherence to any competing value system. It is its religious nature that has made its believers so fiercely defensive. It is why they cannot stand disagreement. Those who disagree are not just wrong, they’re blasphemers, heretics and apostates who must be dealt with accordingly.
Religious people can have legitimate differences on policy without forsaking their values. They can honestly disagree on taxation, immigration, guns, welfare and healthcare and still unite under the banner of their faith. Since God transcends political parties, and is therefore neither a “conservative” nor a “progressive,” there is room for debate between religious people of various political views. But it is very difficult for religious people to ascribe to any ideology that both opposes their beliefs and demands all-consuming worship the way Leftism does.
That is why so many, it seems, have abandoned the perceived strictness of religious institutions and opted instead for the religion of Leftism, which simply requires that you leave all moral, social and economic decisions up to the progressive powers-that-be. What they may soon realize, however, is that the government is not—and never has been—a merciful god.
The religion of Leftism and lockdowns
Note that this article above was was written in 2018, two years before the CCP and globalists launched the opening salvo in WWIII in the form of state-imposed medical tyranny.
Since then, we’ve witnessed numerous church leaders lend their moral and political authority to authoritarian lockdowns and a coercive vaccine push.
By doing this, they’ve significantly harmed society, perhaps unwittingly violated freedom of religion, and led to the permanent closing of untold numbers of churches — all in collusion with the state and for the sake of alleged “safety.”
By buying into and supporting the media scare tactics, these religious leaders have indirectly (and unwittingly) helped kill people through lockdowns – and deprived many others of their God-given autonomy.
Many of their own parishioners were denied access to needed medical care. In addition, many young people died from drug overdose, depression, and suicide as a result of lockdowns.
At least this Australian priest was not among them. He stood against the tyrannical lockdown there, to his credit:
The state deeming church services as “non-essential” was a violation of freedom of religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court case in Nevada underscored this fact when Chief Roberts inexplicably ruled that a casino could stay open but churches must close.
We also saw that secular bias on display with BLM rallies allowed but the church, weddings, and funerals were canceled for the better part of a year.
A few pastors, such as James Coates and Artur Pawlowski, in Canada, saw in the lockdowns a threat similar to the state’s ban on faith in China, so he kept church open and was arrested.
Those Christians who in this way ignored the state’s discriminatory ruling are to my mind reminiscent of early Christian who were arrested by Roman authorities, and also those Christian martyrs arrested by Communist authorities overseas, and persecuted by Islamists.
Some evangelical Christians view the rise of Leftism and globalism as signs of End Times, and as emblematic of the rise of “powers and principalities.” (Eph. 6:12) I don’t know if this is true, but it’s worth exploring.
Other pastors and priests wrote letters calling for an end to lockdowns and poting to the disparity between the harsh treatment of churches and so-called “essential” services (see letter below).
And finally, in Australia, the lockdown rules have become so draconian they almost appear to be written by satirists, including a warning not to talk to one another and against online shopping:
As conservative author and videographer Mark Dice often comments, it’s hard to distinguish between satire and what our leaders are doing, because their actions and statements are often so irrational and ideologically driven.
They are a parody of themselves – which would be funny if it were not so tragic and if what it portends were not so frightening: global medical tyranny.
From a letter from 16 Canadian clergymen to the government, arguing against the lockdown:
“. . . it is the Lord Christ who has given you the authority you have and we pray you serve him well using that authority . . . Most recently, before the shutdown, you permitted services at 25% of capacity while other events were not permitted at all (though this was soon overridden by a complete shutdown.)
“We have heard your recent statement asking people not to look for or ask for exceptions to the Public Health Order (PHO) but conscience compels us to write to you. During this shutdown, your statements as well as inconsistencies in the PHO concern us as they reveal a misunderstanding about the nature and necessity of public worship. It seems the decision to suspend faith services was made with the assumption that virtual services will just have to do.
“You stated in a recent press conference, “Together we recognize the importance of faith services, but we also recognize that right now there’s a need to do that in ways that don’t bring people together.” You cited your own meetings with faith leaders who agreed with you. We understand that for most people of faith there may not be a necessity to come together for public worship. But such a statement forces those of us who believe in the necessity of public worship into a conflict with the government. This is a conflict we do not want, but conscience compels us.
“Please understand: God’s people gathering together for public worship is not just a preferred way; it is the way appointed by God. It is a matter of conscience that cannot just be set aside lest we choose to obey man rather than God. We plead with you to understand this and to work with us to resolve this conflict before it worsens.
“Further, inconsistencies in the PHO demonstrate the government’s misunderstanding of the nature and necessity of worship. Section 15.4.1 permits an organization to host “mental health and addiction support group” meetings for 10 people. Yet 10 people cannot even gather for worship. How has the government determined one gathering to be more valuable than another? [My note: this is quite indicative of a secular bias]
“Similarly, the government has chosen to keep liquor and cannabis stores open out of concern for the well-being of those who have substance addictions and “need” what these stores provide. But churches are being told they cannot do what they have done for millennia – minister to these broken lives in the name of Christ.
“We have those in our congregations who are recovering from various brokenness including substance abuse. The Bible is clear that the primary way God works in the lives of people is in the gathering together of his people for public worship. God’s people know the difference this has made in their lives. They know this cannot be replaced by virtual meetings.
“Conscience is the biggest issue, but the cry of those who are vulnerable and dependent on religion for their recovery should not be overlooked. We are concerned by the inconsistencies in the PHO.
“We appeal to you to hear our concerns and respond with a constructive path forward. Under previous versions of the PHO, most churches have taken measures to comply willingly with government restrictions and regulations. For example, with small gathering limits, churches are willing to meet multiple times per Sunday to accommodate everyone while disinfecting in-between.
“However, dismissing or ignoring concerns of those constrained by Scripture to meet for worship will create a conflict that will only worsen as the shutdown persists. We have already seen actions taken against churches here in Nova Scotia like those taking place in other provinces. While we do not know the details of every situation, we want to work with you to avoid such conflict. We should all want to avoid such conflict.
“. . . we believe you desire to do what is best for those for whom you are responsible. And we sincerely hope that our writing to you helps you in this work. We appeal to you as a fellow servant of Christ that you would give us a fair hearing and work with us to remove this conflict between submission to Christ and submission to the civil government that he has given us. Thank you for considering our letter. We look forward to your response.
[Note: Unfortunately, the Health minister it was addressed to did not respond by providing an exemption, though he did write back to them]