Categories
News

Andy Stanley Praises Being a ‘Fence Sitter’ in New CNN Interview

North Point Community Church “impastor” Andy Stanley continued his wretched job of smarmily assessing what’s wrong with Christendom and then explaining why he and his church are nailing it 24/7, this time in an interview he did with CNN about his new book Not in It to Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines The Church.

Stanley has been on our radar recently, after saying it doesn’t matter if the bible is true, so long as it’s ‘mostly reliable’, saying that the “foundation of our faith is not the whole bible, and opening up his church service with a Led Zeppelin concert

Stanely, who has mastered the art of clucking his tongue, shaking his head, and speaking in an exasperated tone like everyone should come to his conclusion, makes the case that choosing sides in the current political and social war only sidelines the church. Instead, he says churches should remain neutral so as not to alienate anyone, using his own church’s response to the pandemic, (he closed down for a year and lamented the fact that churches were fighting the government to stay open and have their church services, saying he was embarrassed by it.) the death of George Floyd ( who he called “this generation’s ‘Samson‘ in a since-deleted tweet) and the 2020 election, where he’s said Christians can vote Democrat and run as Democrats all the want, and that there’s nothing wrong with it, repeatedly claiming an absolute equivalence of the current political parties.

Thankfully, the interviewer pushes Stanley on the consistency of his position of not wanting to get involved in political or controversial issues (nowhere in his book does he mention abortion for example) but by and large, Stanley stumbles through the interview, getting caught multiple times in the inconsistency of his own passiveness.

Q- You said in the book that when churches take a political side, they’re already alienating half of the country. Are there political issues where a pastor shouldn’t be neutral even at the risk of being identified with a political party? The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. worked with the Democratic Party and a Democratic president to get the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed. Was he being too political? Was he wrong to align with the Democratic Party?

When a cultural issue intersects with the teachings of Jesus, we definitely should say something. The problem is when we do that — which we should — we do that knowing that … if I take a more left-leaning position on gun control — which I wouldn’t, because in my mind that’s a very complicated issue — but if I did, then I realize that the Republicans in my church are going to put me in the bucket of everything that the Democrats believe, because there’s no middle ground now. There’s no nuance. It’s tricky.

As a pastor I’m responsible for preaching the whole counsel of God. But talking about an issue is different than aligning with a party or aligning with a candidate. Even to say: ‘This is what Jesus teaches on this particular issue, this is what we should do, and that’s why I’m voting for…’ Nope. We should just stick with those specific issues without wholesale buying into a political party.

When pressed about whether he would have spoken out against Jim Crow segregation laws of the 1950s, Stanley is forced to acknowledge that given his ideology, he probably wouldn’t have done anything.

When I hear you talking about pastors being neutral on political issues, I think of history. There were a lot of White Southern Baptist pastors in the South who said they wanted to be neutral when civil rights leaders started holding protests in the 1950s. They didn’t speak out about Jim Crow segregation because they didn’t want to seem political, but it was really moral cowardice.

I understand that pressure. I’m not going to be arrogant enough to say If I’d been one of them, I tell you what I would have done — because I don’t know, and nobody does. But they were wrong. And many of them looked back later and were ashamed, as they should be. I would like to be better than that, but I don’t know.

Despite Stanley wanting to always ride the fence, the fact is that the devil owns the fence. Not all sides are equally righteous, as he seems to think, but one side must be unrighteous and should be avoided. Plus there are some areas where he has clearly chosen sides. Take the George Floyd situation he chided people on., Apart from saying this about the man:

He also went off haranguing and scolding people on the issue. He’s said before that everyone is a little racist, claimed that ‘you have to offend white people’ or else they’ll never repent of racism, said from the pulpit “here’s an uncomfortable fact: white people fear black men” and went on a woke Critical Race Theory tirade by arguing “it’s not enough to be ‘not racist,’ you must be ‘anti-racist,” before telling them that they’re all racists in their hearts.

Stanley chooses sides all the time, it’s just that he picks the wrong one while pretending he’s not at all.

Categories
Conspiracy Coronavirus Evangelical Stuff News

Greg Locke Appears on CNN, Struggles to Explain what a ‘Pandemic’ is


Pastor Greg Locke of Tennesse was featured in an interview with CNN for a segment regarding rural America’s disinclination towards wearings masks and taking the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. With Locke claiming he has never worn a mask (he’s lying, he has) he does represent a certain segment of the population that CNN would love to cover and show to their mocking viewers.

Locke (See more on him here) has been a vocal critic of mask-wearing, even going so far as to threaten to beat up a Dunkin Donut’s worker who asked him to wear one, telling him “I’m going to kick your teeth down your throat.”

His Church never stopped meeting during the lockdowns and the vast majority of his congregations do not wear masks. During the segment with reporter Elle Reeve, after Locke denied that we were in the middle of a pandemic, Reeve asked him to explain himself, resulting in a terse interaction where Locke was unable to explain or define what a pandemic is, prompting Locke’s publicist to step in and move Reeve on to a different question. H/T to TFA for the transcript.

LOCKE: I’m saying the sickness is real. I’m saying the pandemic is not.

REEVE: I don’t understand what you mean when you say “pandemic’s not real.”

LOCKE: … The pandemic is not real.

REEVE: But what do you think a pandemic is?

LOCKE: Not… Not COVID-19.

REEVE: But what do you think a pandemic is?

LOCKE: It is no pandemic.

PUBLICIST (offscreen): I think we’ve stuck on the pandemic question too many times.

REEVE: Well, why can’t you answer it?

LOCKE: It’s ridiculous… I did. There’s no pandemic! COVID-19 is not a pandemic.

REEVE: But what would a pandemic… But what is a pandemic then?

LOCKE: Not what we’re experiencing. I’m 44 years old. We’ve not had one in my lifetime, so I don’t know. And this is not it.

The classical definition of a pandemic may be defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people. ”

Pandemics can be either mild or severe, and issues of virology, immunity, and disease severity are irrelevant to its nature and classification.

Locke would have been better of saying “There’s a pandemic, but I don’t believe it’s that bad.” But getting got by CNN? That one will likely sting for a bit.


Categories
Featured News

CNN Roasted for Calling Women ‘Individuals with a Cervix’ – They Double Down

Proving that the once formerly serious news organization is truly beyond parody, CNN gave the public more ammunition in showing how much they have truly devolved when they released an article referring to women as “individuals with a cervix.”

The article, which details the latest guidance from the American Cancer Society about how women between the ages of 25 and 65 should take part in cervical cancer screening every 5 years, had its narrative co-opted when it was discovered that CNN is apparently now so woke that they can’t even say the word “women” anymore. This prompted a flurry of responses and mockery, with the tweet getting ratioed (“ratioed” is when replies to a tweet vastly outnumber likes or retweets, indicating that people are objecting to the tweet and considering its content bad). and the collective world accusing CNN of erasing women, being anti-science, not knowing what the word “women” is, and wondering whether or not the news organization would start referring to men as “individuals with penises.”

The universal scorn resulted in Matt Dornic, the Head of Strategic Communication for CNN Worldwide, doubling down on the terminology and then further arguing that anyone with a problem with describing women as “individuals with a cervix” is simply “threatened with inclusivity.”

And they wonder why people don’t trust the news media.