Pastor Marvin Winans’ Judgment

 

Marvin Winans, pastor of Perfecting Church in Detroit, Michigan ruffled some religious feathers recently when he refused to publicly bless a child born out of wedlock.

Earlier this month his church planned a ceremony in which Pastor Winans would bless the children in his congregation that were two-years-old and younger.

Wanting to participate in this ceremony to have her son blessed by Pastor Winans, unwed mother Charity Grace called the church office to make the necessary arrangements.

When Grace revealed that she wasn’t married, the woman she was speaking to informed her of Winans’ policy of not publicly blessing the children of unwed mothers in front of his church.  Pastor Winans thinks that by blessing the children of unwed mothers before his congregation, he would be condoning the idea that having children out of wedlock- behavior that many Christians see as unbiblical and rightly frown upon- is acceptable.

Pastor Winans doesn’t exclude children of unwed mothers from being blessed whole cloth; they can be and still are blessed.  Unwed mothers can arrange for their children to be blessed by an elder of their choice during the week during a private ceremony.

As a result of the church’s policy, Grace was offended (of course) saying, “I’ve never felt so degraded and disrespected in my life,” and that she wouldn’t return to the church because she felt the church was wrongly judging her and other unwed mothers.  Grace also said that the church is the last place a person should be judged or denied.

Some think that Pastor Winans’ position puts him at odds with the traditional teachings of the church citing the Pope, who recently said that babies of unwed mothers should be blessed because their mothers “chose life over death.”  The Pope said in a private mass in Vatican City, “Look at this girl who had had the courage to carry her pregnancy to term” (and not to have an abortion). “What does she find? A closed door. This is not good pastoral zeal; it distances people from the Lord and does not open doors. So when we take this path…we are not doing good to people, the People of God.”

Does refusing to publicly bless children born out of wedlock convict Winans of being judgmental? Does enforcing this strict policy violate biblical teaching?  Is this policy at odds with the Pope?

The answer to the first question is yes- but in a righteous way.  The answer to the other two questions is no.

Let me say that I agree with Winans’ policy.  His principled position is a moral stance against an action that has become all too prevalent in the black community- out of wedlock births.  According to the Centers for Disease Control as of 2010, seventy-three percent of all black children are conceived outside the bounds of marriage.

Seventy-three percent.

That statistic should make anyone- Christian or not- shake their head in dismay.

Figures compiled by Kids Count Data Center, a project sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, showed that the 2011 Census Bureau reported sixty-seven percent of black children under the age of eighteen live in single-parent households (which include the parent cohabitating with another adult).

It is no secret that the destruction and dissolution of the black family from threats internal and external has been happening for decades. And very few people have had the courage to speak or act publicly to acknowledge this sad, embarrassing and unfortunate reality.

And I believe this is why Pastor Winans holds fast to his policy of not blessing children of unwed parents publicly.

Ms. Grace, Winans’ is judging alright, but he wasn’t judging just you (and for you to think so is a bit shortsighted and narcissistic).  His judgment was righteously against an action he sees as detrimental to families- particularly the black family.

And yes, Christians are supposed to judge, especially against words and deeds that are detrimental to the body of Christ.  Recall Paul’s instruction in I Cor. 5 as he warns the Christians in Corinth not to associate with the sexually immoral, the greedy, the idolater and such. Paul teaches that not only are we to judge those in the church, we’re to expunge the evil from among us (I Cor. 5:12-13). (And no I’m not suggesting that Ms. Grace is eligible for expulsion from the church.)

This point is buttressed by Jesus’ teaching in both Luke 6 and Matthew 7. These passages are generally appealed to as a warning against judging; it’s actually a warning against judging hypocritically or using differing standards when judging ourselves than when we judge others.  Jesus taught that we should first remove that which obstructs our view and informs our judgment in our own lives before we attempt to judge others.  In other words, we should be honest about our own shortcomings, faults, and sins which then allows us to judge our brother fairly and in love (loving our neighbor and treating them as ourselves).

Now- this is why I think Pastor Winans hasn’t run afoul of biblical teaching regarding children.  Matthew 19 (Mark 10 and Luke 18) describes children being brought to Jesus to be blessed.  The disciples tried to prevent as much and were admonished for it.  Jesus taught that children should not be hindered from coming to him precisely because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those such as these.

I don’t believe Winans was- or is- guilty of hindering the children of the unwed from coming to Jesus. If Winans’ policy held that children of the unwed couldn’t be blessed regardless of when or by whom, one would have a very strong argument that Winans and his church are in clear violation of Jesus’ directive.

But that isn’t his policy.  Winans’ policy is that he will not baptize children of the unwed publicly before his congregation yet these same children can be- and still are- blessed by an elder in a private ceremony. In my view, this is virtually Solomonic.  Winans will not condone or validate the sin of out-of-wedlock births by blessing these children publicly but he doesn’t prevent them from being blessed, from coming to God or from being members of his church.

In the same way, Winans’ position also doesn’t place him at odds with the Pope. Again, Winans isn’t standing at the entrance of the church doors waving a flaming sword back and forth[1] refusing admission of unwed parents and their children.  He’s simply not going to condone the fruit of immoral behavior.  Unwed parents and their children are still welcomed at Winans’ church (and the worldwide Church, for that matter) to commune with the saints, worship, study, and pray.

But as a pastor, Winans has the responsibility to teach and lead his congregation as best he can with the guidance and assistance of God’s Spirit.  Part of that involves making some difficult decisions and taking principled stands.

This happens to be one of them.

Rather than holding scorn and ridicule for Winans’ because of his position regarding the children of unwed mothers, he should be congratulated for the courage he’s shown.  It may not have been a popular decision, but it was the morally right one.  If more black pastors hadn’t confiscated their ability to shame self-destructive behavior and held their congregations and communities more accountable (like they once did in American history), maybe there would be fewer broken black families, fewer black children born outside of marriage, fewer blacks engaging in violent and criminal activity and there wouldn’t be such disparaging views of blacks and black families.

God bless Pastor Winans.

 


[1] Genesis 3: 24

Advertisements

Black Grievance Crowd Is Offended Again

The black grievance crowd made its appearance again this past weekend.

That’s right.  The black grievance crowd (BGC) was aghast when photos surfaced detailing Julianne Hough’s choice of costume for a Halloween party this past weekend.  She decided to impersonate the character “Crazy Eyes,” played by Uzo Aduba, from the Netflix series “Orange is the New Black.”

Blacks are also outraged regarding other photos that show white college students who decided to dress as Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman for their Halloween costumes. The picture has gone viral, detailing the costumes and those who donned them.

In any case, the overly-sensitive BGC is predictably “outraged” and “offended”. Their responses, of course, are saturated with claims of ‘racism’ against Hough while the college students are guilty of being “racially insensitive.”

Was Hough’s decision to dress as “Crazy Eyes” racist?  No.

Hell no.

Can she be labeled “insensitive?” No.

Hough didn’t decide to dress in blackface to be intentionally provocative; she wasn’t intending to reflect a Stepin’ Fetchit, minstrel-like character to denigrate blacks.  She’s not Ted Danson (who was demonized after the fact by self-righteous, racially-moral whites, by the way…).  She and a group of friends simply decided to dress up as characters from a hit TV show.

I mean, that is what Halloween is about, no?

And yet, the blacks who were “offended” by Hough immediately went and played the race card- of course.

Joan Duvall-Flynn, the president of the Media Area Unit of NAACP of Pennsylvania said “The current racial tensions in the United States require careful reflection as we relate to each other. If her behavior is a political statement, she should explain that,” she said. “If her behavior is an act of impulsive insensitivity, she needs, as a public figure, to be more responsible. And, an apology for such insensitivity is appropriate.”

Political statement? Impulsive insensitivity?

Again, Hough and her friends simply dressed as characters from a popular television show.  There is no political statement to be made!  The fact that she was part of an ensemble in costume to reflect the cast of a show indicates neither impulsivity nor insensitivity.

But none of that will impede black members of the racial grievance industry from playing the victim and bullying week-kneed whites into public submission using ‘white guilt’, emotionally-coerced apologies and the like.

And Hough did- because of the public pressure- apologize.  But she shouldn’t have.  She had absolutely no obligation to apologize to the BGC for their feigned outrage.  She’s not responsible for the lack of humor and overly-sensitive disposition of members of the BGC.

What about the college-aged kids dressed as Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman… was that racist?

Maybe a case can be made here.  But I think it can be qualified more as thoughtless, classless and in very bad taste; even insensitive.  But racist?  In my opinion, I don’t think so.

Dressing up as Martin and Zimmerman was in poor taste for two reasons.  The first reason is- regardless of how one feels about the verdict, a family lost their son. That sucks, period.

The second reason is that the trial was intentionally used by racial provocateurs to emotionally manipulate blacks and to deliberately divide the country along racial lines.  This was done in an attempt to give credibility to the played-out and false narrative that America continues to be an irredeemably racist country bent on racially assaulting blacks, preventing them from living lives based on equality and justice.

To don those costumes in light of the fact and so soon, isn’t very smart.

Interestingly enough, none of these offended members of the black grievance crowd had the same outrage when four “teens” (that euphemistic, non-descript word always used by “journalists” in reference to young, criminally-violent black suspects) robbed and killed 87-year-old WWII veteran Lawrence E. ‘Shine’ Thornton in his own driveway.

Aside from the senseless stupidity of the crime and the moral outrage that should necessarily flow from it, why was there no outrage from the grievance crowd toward the criminally-engaged element of black culture that continues to do their level best to saddle law-abiding, morally-upright blacks with destructive stereotypes?

Where was the outrage toward what happened in Brooklyn earlier this month when a group of ten black “youths” (another morally-neutral term used to white-wash [pun-intended] young black criminals) surrounded a white couple’s car in Brooklyn and viciously beat the husband while yanking the wife to the pavement by her hair?

Crickets.

And while committing their acts of criminality and terror, these “youths” referred to their victims as “crackers,” the husband as a “white motherf****r, and referred to the wife as a “white whore.”

“Youths.”

Believe me, example after example can be found where these so-called “teens” or “youths” inflict terror, pain, physical and emotional damage on innocent victims- particularly white- and there are no claims of “racial insensitivity” on the part of the offenders.

And as these numerous examples continue in repetition, no one from the black grievance crowd is “offended” by such immoral- and yes, racist– behavior; no calls for ‘careful reflection’; no moral indignation toward these black criminals for giving credibility to destructive stereotypes that afflict black America.

(As a side note, I loathe the BGC.  I also loathe the fact that these black criminals continue to give bad reputations and undeserved, negative attention to morally upright, law-abiding blacks.)

But when college kids do something tasteless and stupid, you can’t get the BGC (black grievance crowd) to shut up and go away.

The fact that there’s more attention given to the Halloween costumes of Hough and moronic college kids as opposed to the immoral behavior that has mastered, enslaved and plagued parts of black America is indicative of the morally-inverted priorities of the BGC (and their guilty white enablers).

This is precisely why black America is in both moral and socio-economic complacency and will continue to be, at least for the near future.  When condemning Halloween costumes are given more of a moral priority than redeeming generations of black Americans from criminality, racial hatred and self-destructive behavior, unfortunately, there’s no wonder why blacks are in the position they’re in.

Condemning blackface > than condemning those blacks who denigrate the black face.

The President’s Lack of Respect For Private Sector Employees

Since Obama has taken office, over ten million people have left the workforce. The labor force participation rate is at a 35-yr low (63.2%, August 2013) and over 90 million people are not in the labor force.

 

And yet, during and after the partial government shutdown, the president along with his accomplices in the media- who willingly and regularly disseminate information which is beneficial to the president’s agenda-driven narrative, have shown more sympathy for the 800,000 non-essential government employees who were temporarily furloughed than they have to the millions upon millions of Americans who wish they were furloughed but are instead either forcibly underemployed or, as of now, permanently unemployed.

 

The president went so far as to thank these non-essential government employees for their service as if they are the backbone of the country’s economic engine as opposed to the private sector. In a very real sense- and central to the president’s ideology, he believes this to be true.  Recall the “stimulus” bill and how the president promised that repairing roads, building and renovating bridges, and tending to infrastructure projects (all public sector, union represented jobs) would revitalize the American economy?

 

The president said, “I’ve got a simple message for all the dedicated and patriotic federal workers who’ve either worked without pay or have been forced off the job without pay these past few weeks, including most of my own staff: Thank you. Thanks for your service. Welcome back. What you do is important. It matters.”

 

It sure would have been nice if the president, sometime during the last five years, would have acknowledged the millions of Americans who can’t work for pay; to tell the millions of resilient and resourceful Americans that what they’re doing- or at least trying to do in his ‘recovery’- “matters” (as opposed to telling innovative and resourceful business owners “they didn’t build that”).

 

 

Why didn’t the president thank those ‘dedicated’ and ‘patriotic’ Americans who still appeal to- and rely on- the American ethos of hard work and determination- who refuse to be succumb to Obama-created economic apathy and government dependency- for their service?

 

It would’ve been nice had the president enacted policies to ‘welcome back’ the ten million people who’ve left the workforce- or in the president’s words, forced off their jobs- since he’s been president, rather than doing his level best to add to them.

 

Remember, these federal employees were temporarily furloughed (which means they were still employed) and will be compensated for their inconvenience.  In other words eight hundred thousand federal employees just received an unplanned but paid, two-week vacation.

 

If that weren’t good enough, they will also be receiving a pay raise.

 

Good God it must be nice to be a federal employee!

 

These goodies come at the expense of continually contracting, private sector-employment where more and more Americans are being forced into part-time employment.  Many of these very same people are unable to find second part-time jobs to supplement their lack of income because of this less-than-stellar economic “recovery” we’re stuck in.

 

So while the constantly-shrinking numbers of private sector employees continue their struggle to keep their heads above water- which includes trying to pay the “affordable” healthcare premiums they’re (for now) stuck with, the president gives thanks and preference to federal employees.

 

This is exactly what liberalism looks like.  And since Republican congressional leadership isn’t properly equipped with intestinal fortitude, legitimate and practical strategies for success, and a common sense plan to communicate to the American people precisely why liberal policies are so destructive, we’re going to see even more of the president’s big government ideology implemented.

 

John Boehner isn’t going to be the only one crying much longer.