The 10 Years Since Obergefell Have Proven Its Critics Right
Opposing same-sex marriage is essential to defending the truth about human nature and about how we flourish and are fulfilled.Opposing same-sex marriage is essential to defending the truth about human nature and about how we flourish and are fulfilled.'SNL' openly mocks gay surrogacy — what is happening?
Over the past decade, the once universally loved “Saturday Night Live” has become a clear propaganda tool of the left — consistently pushing left-wing issues while poking fun at the right.
However, that may be changing after one April 12 "SNL" skit shockingly mocked gay surrogacy.
The sketch took place at a chaotic dinner party where guests shared bizarre personal updates. One gay couple at the dinner party had a newborn baby, and the other guests then begin asking questions as to where and how they acquired a baby — even asking if they stole it.
The skit took it so far as to ask the gay couple how just the other night they were going to a gay rave called “Bulge Dungeon” when there was a baby on the way.
“There are two different ways to see this,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” says. “Either you can see it as using comedy to normalize two men purchasing a baby, or you can see it as a big vibe shift that we are actually starting to mock and deride something that deserves our mockery and derision.”
“Because it is a legitimate question. How could two men, who do not have the genetic material nor the wombs to create and bear children, have a child?” Stuckey asks.
While Stuckey is skeptical that the skit was pointing out the gay couple’s purchase of a baby as a bad thing, she did think one line from the skit was a home run.
“That line about ‘last night you were talking about going to Bulge Dungeon and now you have a baby and we’re just wondering how to square that circle,’ that was a good one. That was the best line, because if you see a lot of these men who are purchasing children, you do have some questions, like, ‘Do you know the first thing about raising a child?’” Stuckey says.
“And so I appreciate that whatever the motive is, that we are in the mode right now of mocking something that is absolutely depraved and destructive,” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion
Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.
But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.
If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.
If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:
The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.
To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”
I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.
When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
Trump broke the truce
I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.
After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.
In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?
Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.
Disagreeing isn’t a sin
On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.
Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.
In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:
It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.
That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”
But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.
Jesus didn’t flinch
A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”
But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”
Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.
Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.
Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.
Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.
Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”
He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”
Debate or dodge
One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.
A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.
If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.
Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?
But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”
Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.
When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.
You posted, didn’t you?
Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.
There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:
A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.
If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.
So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?
Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.
‘The darkness hates the light’: Why Christians must persevere in the public sphere
While a majority of Americans identify as Christians, many of them have been misled to believe in a version of Christianity that is not biblical — for fear of how they’d be treated in the public square.
“We are told over and over again that if you, as not just a Christian, but a conservative Christian, bring your worldview into the public square, into politics, if you allow what you believe about the Bible to influence your politics, you are a fascist, you are a dictator, you’re trying to bring in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ you are a Christian nationalist,” Allie Beth Stuckey tells author and apologist Natasha Crain on “Relatable.”
However, the opposite is true for progressives.
“If you’re a progressive that uses some decontextualized Bible verse to support your immigration policy or your abortion policy or your socialistic policy, that’s not Christian nationalism, that’s fine, that’s true, good Christianity,” Stuckey continues.
“It’s only when a Christian might say, ‘Well, you know, Psalm 139 makes it pretty clear that babies inside the womb are valuable or made by God, so I don’t think that it should be legal to murder them,’ all of a sudden that is prohibited in a form of tyranny,” she adds.
“I think Christians get very confused on this because we see that there’s so many different ideas out there of what is good. People start saying that what we believe is harmful and toxic and that we’re misogynous and we’re oppressors,” Crain says. “We have all these insults that are hurled at us because of our ideas about the common good.”
“What the world calls good may be evil, and what the world calls evil may be good,” she adds, noting that many Christians get dissuaded from preaching what they believe is good because others don’t like them for it.
“Jesus said, ‘If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own,’” Crain says. “So he was warning his disciples before they went out on mission. He didn’t give them warm and fuzzies and say, ‘Hey, this is going to be great.’”
“He actually gave an explanation for why they would be hated by saying, ‘If you were of the world,’ and to be ‘of the world’ literally means to be under the governing rule of Satan. Scripture is very clear that you are either of Satan or of God. You’re a child of Satan or a child of God,” she continues.
“Those who are children of Satan, they want to go their own way. It’s their own wills, their own desires. They are slaves to sin. And people who are slaves to sin are always going to hate those who are slaves to righteousness, who are children of God, because the darkness hates the light,” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
High-trust societies die when people don't trust their neighbors
In a better world, people would cultivate virtue and develop habits of right action, practicing them regardless of external pressures. But we don’t live in that world. For most, concepts like honor and morality emerge from community, not individual will. These vital, pro-social behaviors rely on constant reinforcement by others. When daily life consists of anonymous, disconnected interactions, it becomes easier to justify selfishness. But when people must live among and depend on those who observe and remember how they behave, accountability shapes conduct.
Social norms depend heavily on the expectation of repeated interactions — what game theorists call “iterated games.” A functioning society requires widespread cooperation. When people believe they benefit more by acting selfishly than by cooperating, social cohesion begins to unravel. In one-time interactions, the incentive to cheat or defect rises sharply. One can gain an immediate advantage with little risk of social or material consequences.
Many debate distant acquaintances online, try to enforce shared principles across cultural divides, and appeal to ‘common sense’ in a world where little remains common.
Carnival workers and traveling merchants were once known for scamming customers. Sailors and touring rock musicians were infamous for defiling the honor of the daughters of the town. These groups operated without accountability because they never had to face the communities they affected. Their minimal connection to others reduced the costs of antisocial behavior and encouraged defection.
Today, we see a broader breakdown of communal life. We’ve fragmented communities, commodified identity, and isolated individuals. In doing so, we’ve eroded shared moral standards and stripped away even the basic incentives to cultivate virtue.
As a colleague recently observed, communal gatherings used to serve as informal “wellness checks.” Church, for example, grounded both cultural norms and moral expectations. It also required people to present themselves before others. Even atheists or agnostics often showed up on Sunday mornings — not for faith but to signal solidarity and demonstrate their role as contributing members of the community.
Churches noticed what others missed. Underfed or unwashed children caught someone’s eye. A hungover woman felt the weight of disapproval. An unfaithful man encountered the quiet judgment of those around him. These small acts of social accountability reinforced a shared moral order.
For most of history, individual independence was difficult, if not impossible. People relied on their communities for safety, food, education, goods, and entertainment. In many ancient societies, exile was tantamount to a death sentence. Some preferred suicide to being cast out. Reputation and honor mattered more than money because survival depended on others’ trust. A man’s worth reflected the number of relationships he had managed honorably over time.
Today, people can meet most of their basic needs without relying on others. That shift creates the illusion of freedom, but in reality, it has replaced dependence on community with dependence on the state.
Now, instead of interacting face-to-face within tight-knit communities, we operate as isolated individuals within anonymous digital spaces. Functions once performed by churches and neighborhoods have shifted to malls and bureaucracies. But social correction — once a communal responsibility — has become taboo. Attempting to help or intervene risks public shaming as a so-called "Karen" on social media.
The best social worker, no matter how dedicated, cannot match the quiet authority of vigilant grandmothers. And as that kind of local, relational accountability fades, the consequences grow harder to ignore.
A shared religion and common cultural norms significantly increase the likelihood that people will cooperate and act ethically, even among strangers. This dynamic defines what we call a “high-trust” society — one where individuals expect cooperation and moral behavior from others, even without close, day-to-day interaction.
In such societies, cultural expectations and religious beliefs so deeply shape conduct that people often can’t imagine behaving any other way. Even when defection carries few immediate consequences, trust persists because moral behavior has been internalized through habit and community values.
This is why most successful civilizations develop around a unifying religion and dominant cultural framework. A shared moral and social code allows complex societies to function by making behavior more predictable. Without that foundation, everyday interactions become unreliable, and cooperation breaks down.
Still, this model has its limits. Problems arise when a society continues to assume widespread agreement on values long after the cultural or religious foundation has eroded. Without a clear basis for those norms — or mechanisms to enforce them — shared assumptions collapse. The result isn’t cohesion but confusion, fragmentation, and in many cases, failure.
Social norms draw their power from habit and community enforcement. Religious precepts gain strength by asserting transcendent truths. Strip away both, and the incentive to cooperate weakens dramatically.
This is why the popular secular call to “just be a good person” falls flat. What does it mean to be good, in what context, and to what end? Only deep-rooted moral traditions, developed over time within specific communities, can answer those questions with any clarity or authority. When pressure mounts, the only forces that reliably foster cooperation are interdependence, strong communal accountability, or a belief in higher truths — all of which arise from tight-knit communities. Attempts to universalize these concepts without those foundations always collapse in the end.
As Americans confront the consequences of open borders and increasing social isolation, questions of national identity have become more urgent. We’re told Americans value liberty and hard work — and while that’s true, it’s not enough. Many debate distant acquaintances online, try to enforce shared principles across cultural divides, and appeal to “common sense” in a world where little remains common.
To recover a meaningful national identity, we need to rebuild on the foundations of Christian faith and real, local community. Neighbors must be able to depend on one another and hold each other accountable. That’s a tall order in a digital age where every device offers an escape from responsibility. But those willing to embrace that challenge will be the ones most equipped to lead.
The Era Of Presuming Liberal Moral Superiority Is Over
Kids have figured out that America's failing liberal institutions have left them surrounded by a harmful cultural and political order that can't justify itself.Atheists talk tough, but even they can't deny this inconvenient truth
It is widely accepted in the Western world today that morality is relative.
People who say this usually mean that morality is a matter of personal or cultural sentiment that has no objective basis in reality. Many modern people tend to think of the physical world as consisting of matters of fact (it’s not relative whether water is H2O), but of morality as being a matter of subjective opinion.
If we accept the modern, secular story of the world, this is a natural belief. If there is no higher authority on moral issues than individual or group opinion, then moral judgments are indeed subjective. Further, if the naturalistic story is true, and all that exists are matter and energy governed by natural laws, then good and evil are illusory concepts with no basis in reality.
After all, no material thing has the property of being good or evil; there are no good or evil atoms or molecules. Thus, neither good nor evil exists. Yes, one could have ideas about good and evil on this view, but they wouldn’t be any different from ideas about unicorns or leprechauns — none of these, in reality, would exist.
Many nonbelievers, when presented with this observation, will typically say something like, “I don’t have to be religious to know right from wrong,” or “Lots of atheists are good people,” or “Christians do so many evil things.” We can agree with all of these statements, but they miss the point that naturalism undermines any basis for objective moral values and duties.
The key word here is objective, meaning something that exists or is true regardless of what any person or group of people believes about it. Even if every person in an ancient culture believed that human sacrifice was a good and necessary practice, they would still be objectively wrong — that is, if an objective standard of morality exists. And the only plausible candidate for such an objective standard is God, whose very nature determines what is good.
'The religious fundamentalists are correct: Without God, there is no morality.'
Many who hold to a naturalistic worldview have never thought through its logical implications, especially in relation to morality. A number of leading naturalistic thinkers, though, have recognized and acknowledged that morality and naturalism are incompatible. This doesn’t mean that they became outlaws in their personal lives, but they certainly had to confront the cognitive dissonance of having deep moral intuitions (as all humans do), while also believing those intuitions have no relation to reality (though most don’t admit to this inevitable struggle).
Well-known biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins declared in his book "River Out of Eden," “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Dawkins recognizes that good and evil have no place in a naturalistic universe.
Existentialist philosopher and atheist Jean-Paul Sartre acknowledged that it was “very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him. … As a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.”
Atheist philosopher Joel Marks recalled that he once believed in objective morality but was eventually driven to abandon that position. He experienced a “shocking epiphany” that “the religious fundamentalists are correct: Without God, there is no morality.” He was forced to conclude that “atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality.”
Atheist philosopher Julian Baggini confessed, “In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that’s exactly what will sometimes happen.”
In a debate with a Christian at Stanford University, the late Cornell biology professor William Provine stated, “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. … There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”
I belabor this point somewhat because it is difficult for most secular moderns to come to grips with. One can hardly blame them because the implications of naturalism are truly horrifying. It represents the complete dissolution of all objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality.
Thankfully, however, naturalism is not true, and there is an objective basis for right and wrong, which is God’s own supremely good nature. Because all human beings are made in God’s image, we have deep moral intuitions that help us discern right from wrong. This remains true even for those who reject belief in God, which is why many nonbelievers live basically moral lives, even while discounting the very foundation of right and wrong (Genesis 1:26-27; Romans 1:32; 2:14-15).
Due to the Edenic fall, our moral intuitions have been corrupted by sin, and we need the moral guidance God has provided in His Word. God’s commands in scripture represent our moral duties and obligations and provide a firm foundation for living a life that reflects God’s own wholly good nature.
This article is adapted from a post that originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Substack.
Why ‘neutral’ policies fuel the ever-growing power of the state
Many conservatives and libertarians say reducing the size of government is their top priority but rarely consider the factors that drive its growth in the first place. For most small-government champions, institutional neutrality and minimal state power are measures of success. Yet, they often overlook how these factors can make expansion of the state inevitable.
While libertarians hold varying views, many believe borders are an artificial state imposition and that individuals should move freely at will. This belief that government should not favor any particular culture or people leads to multiculturalism. Ironically, it also creates a need for a large state apparatus to mediate conflicts among diverse cultures.
In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions.
When America’s founders broke from Great Britain, they did not seek to abolish all governance or grant unfettered individual freedom. They acknowledged the necessity of government but believed it could remain limited if people shared moral principles and maintained personal virtue.
Early America included state churches, blasphemy laws, and strict standards for public conduct. Liberty, in their view, was not the absence of authority but governance aligned with the shared values and beliefs of the people.
The men who established the U.S. government recognized that it would only work for a moral and religious people, and they made that fact explicit. They believed that when people act virtuously and pursue the common good without state coercion, government can effectively govern less.
Every person who seeks the good does so by following what feels natural within their own culture and religion. Laws and restrictions that align with these beliefs do not feel burdensome — often, shared communal expectations alone can maintain order. In this sense, liberty and a shared moral vision are inseparable.
When the social forces of religion and culture remain strong, the state can uphold order with minimal interference. Robust families and communities with a common moral foundation mediate conflict and discourage antisocial behavior before it demands government involvement. But when these social forces weaken or fracture, the state must intervene to prevent disorder.
This dynamic explains why a government that does not favor a particular culture or its virtues will inevitably grow in both size and power.
By its nature, multiculturalism fractures a shared moral vision. Culture shapes us from birth, helping us understand the world and our place in it. Culture and religion define right and wrong, establish the social customs we consider natural, and inform our sense of the good life for both individuals and communities. While different cultures may overlap in some areas, this minimal shared morality is often not enough to foster harmony, because a multicultural society, by definition, embodies multiple competing visions of the good and how to pursue it.
When people shared a strong majority culture and moral vision, government could stay small. The state needed only to make laws consistent with that culture, so those laws did not feel like an imposition. Critics may label a government that favors and protects the majority culture as “illiberal,” yet it may be more likely to let citizens live according to their conscience. However, when a nation becomes multicultural and the state chooses to support that shift, the state must radically change its role.
In a multicultural society, organic dispute-resolution methods and communal expectations cannot reliably maintain order. Individuals hold differing views on public conduct, the values taught in public institutions, and which notion of the good should guide collective action. These disagreements are fundamental because they stem from the core assumptions of each competing culture. Without a common tradition, no organic communal structure exists to mediate such conflicts, so the state must step in.
In a multicultural country, the government must serve as a neutral arbiter among communities with different moral visions. Yet, no institution can remain truly neutral, because moral neutrality does not exist. Public schools, hospitals, libraries, and armed forces become cultural battlegrounds as a result. Every clash of culture provides the state an opportunity to expand its authority, imposing its ideology on fractured and atomized communities. Whenever people cannot agree or resolve disputes on their own, the government steps in, assumes that responsibility, and gains additional power.
It does not matter whether an arbitrary law comes from a despotic monarch, a technocracy, or a democracy — it will still feel oppressive. In a multicultural society with no unified tradition, all laws seem like artificial impositions by a state disconnected from any single culture. While it may run counter to modern small-government theories, vigorous government action that defends a unified culture is often more likely to protect liberty than open borders and neutral institutions.
Only a shared moral vision — rooted in our nation’s historic Christian faith — can halt the spread of tyranny and preserve the liberty our forefathers envisioned. “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain,” the Psalmist reminds us. “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.”
WATCH: Woke church celebrates queer youth — ‘You are queer enough as you are’ — and then invokes the ‘queer ancestors’?!
As the woke mob grows ever louder and crazier, some Western churches are bending the knee and embracing values contrary to biblical principles, especially when those values earn them the checkmark of approval from the LGBTQ+ community.
Pat Gray and the “Unleashed” team turn their gaze toward the Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad, California, where at a recent service, a “call to worship” involved rejecting all messages that spoke against the LGBTQ+ agenda.
WATCH: Woke Churches Abandon Faith for 'Pride' in BLASPHEMOUS Displayyoutu.be
Pat plays the clip of an adult church official and a child assistant standing in front of a rainbow Pride flag while reading the following blasphemous creed to the congregation:
Officiant: “In the image of God, You created everything and called it good.”
Child: “In abundant diversity, Your likeness is found in us.”
Officiant: “We reject all messages that belittle or degrade any among us.”
Child: “And so in faithfulness to God and one another we proclaim: Sacred are our bodies of every size and disability. Blessed are our sexualities, throwing us towards love of many kinds.”
Unsurprisingly, the creed also touched on gender and race.
“[God] created your body, so do whatever you want with it,” mocks Pat, who’s disgusted by the sacrilegious display.
In the same service, another pair got up on stage and proclaimed: “Help us mirror to one another that you are a God who makes no mistakes.”
Pat sees a glaring inconsistency.
“Right! He’s a God who makes no mistakes. ... If you’re a man, you’re a man; if you’re a woman, you’re a woman. He didn’t make a mistake, so what is the deal here?”
“For queer youth — you are beautiful and wonderfully made as you are. You are queer enough as you are. Your journey to discover who you are in your queerness is a gift to bear witness to and worthy of celebration. Keep going. Keep embracing yourself as you are in bloom. You are enough as you are, and you are a yes to God — always,” the duo continued.
If that wasn’t weird enough, the “queer ancestors” were addressed next.
“For queer ancestors — thank you for your relentless resistance so that advocacy, love, care, and justice could be manifested and continued in this moment.”
Unfortunately, this blasphemous madness isn’t isolated to the Pilgrim United Church. It’s something that is becoming quite common. To see what other woke churches are promoting, watch the clip above.
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com