Tuesday, May 14, 2013

How to share the gospel with homosexuals


How to share the gospel with homosexuals

Exclusive: Ray Comfort turns to couple on airplane and says …

Ray Comfort
I was flying from Los Angeles to Miami when I found myself sitting next to two women. Sarah was sitting closest to me. She was 29, inappropriately dressed, with a ring through her nose, and she wasn’t the friendliest person I have sat next to on a plane.
After we took off I couldn’t help but notice that her friend kept kissing her on the cheek, holding her hand and rubbing her shoulder. They were “gay,” and that little revelation lifted my planned witnessing encounter up a big notch on the awkward meter. I really didn’t want an angry homosexual couple complaining to the airline (and the media) that I was a homophobic fundamentalist, imposing my “hate speech” by saying that they were going to hell because they were gay.
I waited until she had eaten, finished her movie, and simply said, “Sarah. I have a question for you. Do you think there’s an afterlife?”
She wasn’t sure, so I asked, “If heaven exists, are you going there? Are you a good person?”
She predictably said she was, so I took her through three of the Ten Commandments – had she lied, stolen and taken God’s name in vain? She had broken all three, so we then looked at whether or not she would be guilty on Judgment Day and whether she would go to heaven or hell. I then shared the cross and the necessity for repentance and faith in Jesus.
I didn’t mention her sexual orientation; I didn’t need to, nor did I want to. I simply shared the moral law (the Ten Commandments), because the Bible says that the law was “made” for homosexuals – see 1 Timothy 1:8-10. She wasn’t offended, and I kept her friendship and stayed out of jail.
What about a woman planning an abortion?
Trying to witness to someone who is about to take the life of her child is also high on the awkward list. It’s awkward, mainly because the mind of this person is preoccupied with what she is about to do and therefore it’s difficult to get her attention.
However, if she would stop and talk, I would handle the situation similarly to my conversation with Sarah. The reason for that is that I don’t want to reform people. I didn’t want Sarah to stop being gay and end up in hell for her lying, theft and blasphemy. I don’t want to just stop a woman from killing her child and have her go to hell for her other sins. With God’s help I want to see more than a change of mind. I want to see a change of heart.
Contrary to popular opinion, most who take the life of their child through abortion believe in God. Even the staunchest fundamentalist atheist believes in God. I know because I have an inside source. I have a “whistleblower” – “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).
Those who abort the life of their children are “idolaters,” illustrated in the fact that their god condones the taking of a human life. They have no fear of God before their eyes. So your agenda, with the help of God, is to stir her God-given conscience to do its duty and put the fear of God within her, and you can do that as I did with Sarah and her homosexuality, without even mentioning the elephant in the room – the impending abortion.
To put the fear of God in someone means that you will have to stay with the biblical gospel. Do not use the “God has a wonderful plan” message, because it is both unbiblical and will do more damage than good. If you really believe that that message is biblical, think for a few moments about how the first eleven disciples were murdered for their faith. If you know Church history, you will know that the foundation of the church is founded in the blood of the saints. Jesus warned that people would kill Christians thinking that they are doing God a favor.
Imagine you have been asked to preach the gospel to 1,000 people on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center the night before 9/11. You know that within 24 hours every person looking at you will die a death so horrific it defies human imagination. Many will be burned alive. Others will jump 100 stories to their deaths on the unforgiving sidewalks of New York. Others will fall with the building and be so crushed that their bodies will never be recovered. What are you going to tell them – that God has a wonderful plan for their lives? You can’t say that to people who are about to die!
Instead you would soberly tell them that it’s appointed to man once to die and after this, the judgment. You would tell them that God is holy, that He will judge them by His perfect law, that hell is very real and that they desperately need a Savior. You would tell them that they could die within 24 hours, and plead with them to repent and trust alone in Jesus.
If you have to change the message you normally preach, then you are not preaching the biblical gospel. Why would you have a different message for people who are walking the streets of this world and are about to die? Every day 150,000 people throughout this world pass into death, many of whom will die in terrible ways – through horrific car accidents and through the suffering of cancer.
Think of David and Nathan the prophet. David had coveted his neighbor’s wife, stolen her, lived a lie, committed adultery and murdered her husband. He had violated the Ten Commandments, but he wasn’t too worried. His conscience wasn’t doing its duty.
God had commissioned Nathan to expose the king’s terrible sin. So what did Nathan say? Did he say, “David, God has a wonderful plan for your life”? What has that got to do with anything?
David was a criminal, and Nathan was there to expose his crimes, not speak of some wonderful plan. The faithful preacher began in the natural realm with a story about the theft and slaughter of a poor man’s lamb, and when David became indignant about that man’s sin, Nathan said, “YOU are that man. Why have you despised the Commandment of the Lord!”
And that’s when David cried, “I have sinned against God.”
Think for a moment as to whether or not the “wonderful plan” message could ever have elicited that response. Why should it? It doesn’t bring any knowledge of sin or the fear of God. It doesn’t stir the conscience. But the law does. It made David tremble. The Law stirred the king’s seared conscience so that it would do its God-given duty, and we can see its result in the penitent prayer of Psalm 51. And that’s what we must do with those who see nothing wrong with the taking of the life of their unborn child. Their terrible sin must be made personal, so that the fear of the Lord causes them to depart from it. The instant someone is converted to Jesus Christ, they know that means no more lying, stealing, lust, pornography, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, idolatry and no murdering of your own children.
In Mark 10:17 we are told of the story of the rich young ruler who ran to Jesus, kneeled down and said, “Good master. What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
He ran (was earnest), he kneeled down (he was humble), and he asked the question we so wish the world would ask, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
But instead of leading him in a sinner’s prayer, Jesus reproved him of his use of the word “good.” Proverbs 20:6 says, “Most men will proclaim each his own goodness,” and they certainly do. Ask anyone if they think they are a good person and most will say that they are. So Jesus used the Ten Commandments to bring the knowledge of sin to show him that he wasn’t good at all. He, like Nathan, made sin personal.
Paul did this in Romans 2 when he said, “You who say you shall not steal; do you steal? You who say you shall not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?”
Such faithful talk will cause the sinner to tremble as Felix trembled when Paul reasoned with him – not about some wonderful plan, but of “sin, temperance and judgment.”
The stirring of the dormant conscience coupled with a knowledge that a holy God will hold her accountable should be enough to put the fear of God within someone who is about to commit the murder of her own offspring. May God help us to be faithful, courageous and give us wisdom and help us to stop such slaughter.
Source: WND, via Last Days Watchman

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Liberation Theology and Neo-Pentecostalism: A Leading Challenge to the Evangelical Churches in Brazil


Liberation Theology and Neo-Pentecostalism: A Leading Challenge to the Evangelical Churches in Brazil

By Julio Severo
Traditionally, major theological trends — good or wicked — came from Europe and America.
The single major theological trend originating outside Europe and America is Liberation Theology, which is prevalent in Latin America, especially Brazil.
In this original and exclusive e-booklet, I trace this movement in Brazil and how its leaders recognized openly that the only force capable of challenging Liberation Theology was neo-Pentecostal churches.
In fact, the Brazilian Left admits today that neo-Pentecostal churches are the only hindrance to the advance of its leftist ideology.
My new e-booklet, “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity,” will help you understand the challenges of the Brazilian evangelical churches in their relation to Liberation Theology and neo-Pentecostalism.
Download right now — free of charge — my e-booklet, “Theology of Liberation versus Theology of Prosperity,” using this link: http://bit.ly/141Emfx
Please spread the word about this e-booklet.
Send it to your friends.
Publish and distribute it.
Source: Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com
Other article by Julio Severo

Children who carry guns in Brazil: Shocking images that show drug gangs’ brutal grip on Brazil streets where hundreds of thousands will travel for next year’s World Cup


Children who carry guns in Brazil: Shocking images that show drug gangs’ brutal grip on Brazil streets where hundreds of thousands will travel for next year’s World Cup

The largest city on Brazil’s north-east coast, Salvador is a major tourist destination and the site of a 56,500-seat stadium being readied for next year’s World Cup. It is also in the grip of an unprecedented wave of violence that has seen murder rates soar by more than 250 per cent.
The dense slums of the city, capital of Bahia state, are an impenetrable warren ruled by gangsters, who control the terrified and impoverished residents with intimidations, beatings and summary executions. Express kidnappings, where individuals are abducted and forced to withdraw funds from automated teller machines to secure their release, are common, as are muggings, robberies, pickpocketing, bag snatching and drug dealing.
Brazilian drug gangs regularly recruit minors to carry out their dirty work, because they go unpunished. They never get any prison sentences, meaning that the most innocent face can hide a deadly killer.
Underage rapists and killers get only “socio-educational” sentences and are freed after completing their 21-year-old birthday, with no criminal history, because Brazil is a signatory to the UN Children Rights Convention.
Compounding the problem, under aggressive anti-gun measures from the Brazilian government, most Brazilian citizens have no access to legal weapons to defend themselves, while their victimizers have plenty access to illegal heavy guns.
With just over 13 months until the start of the World Cup and an expected mass influx of football fans, police in Salvador face a battle to take control of their city. But in a force notorious for brutality and corruption, they face opposition not only from criminal gangs but also a skeptical populace. These pictures show the brutal reality of life in the streets of Salvador’s slums, which are not much different from Rio and other Brazilian cities.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, April 29, 2013

Americans Warned: Home-Schoolers Stripped of Rights


Americans Warned: Home-Schoolers Stripped of Rights

Dale Hurd/CBN News
Recently, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that homeschooling is not a parent's right. It is a statement some are saying should frighten American parents.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike (right) began home schooling in Germany because they didn't want their children exposed to things like witchcraft and graphic sex education, which are taught in German schools. (CBN News)
Nations like Germany and Sweden show that when governments take away homeschooling rights, it's a slippery slope to no parental rights.

America the Refuge or Not

The Romeike family came to the United States from Germany five years ago hoping to find refuge. They wanted to homeschool their children in freedom and a federal judge granted them asylum.
But now the Obama administration has been trying to deport them, arguing that homeschooling is not a right. The case is currently before a federal appeals court.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike began homeschooling in Germany because they didn't want their children exposed to things like witchcraft and graphic sex education that are taught in German schools. 
"There were stories where [school children] were encouraged to ask the devil for help instead of God and actually the devil would help (in the story)," Uwe said.
"When we found out what's in the textbooks, it's exactly the opposite from what the Bible tells us and teaches us, and we wanted to protect [our children]," his wife, Hannelore, added.
But homeschooling is illegal in Germany, except in rare cases. And many homeschooling parents are persecuted with fines, jail or the loss of their children.

Homeschoolers Going Into Exile?

Most homeschoolers in America are left alone. But what if state politicians and the federal government started to move against it?
Two of the worst nations for homeschoolers are Germany and Sweden. If you want to see what things might be like if homeschooling was banned in America, travel to Sweden, where the government controls education and the homeschooling movement has been crushed.
In fact, the head of the Swedish Homeschooling Association, Jonas Himmelstrand, had to take his family into exile. They fled to Finland.
"We're in exile. We were forced out of our country and that makes a stronger impact than I can imagine," he told CBN News. "This was our country. This was where we had our friends and business relationships and a whole lot of things and now we're pushed away from it."
Attorney Michael Donnelly, of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, called the situation "incredible for a nation like Sweden that calls itself a free nation, a democracy, so to speak."
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, went even further, branding Sweden a dictatorship where social workers tell parents what to do.
"Sweden claims to be a democracy but it's far from it. It's a dictatorship," he said. "You have the social workers dictating how people are to live. You're not supposed to be different. You're not supposed to be different from anyone else in Sweden. Everyone is supposed to be uniform. They want to have these cookie cutter children."
Claesson is also the lawyer representing Christer and Annie Johansson, who have lost custody of their son Domenic, because of homeschooling. After Domenic was abducted by Swedish officials, Annie's health began to fail.
Christer said the stress of the ordeal is killing his wife.
"If we cannot solve this issue soon, Domenic won't have a mother anymore," he said.

Russia, A Homeschooling Haven

Nations like Germany and Sweden could learn a thing or two about parent's rights from, of all places, Russia, which is one of the freest nations in which to homeschool.
"We have complete freedom of home education in Russia, in terms of legality," Pavel Parfentiev, a family rights advocate in Russia, said.
"The Russian Federation is sort of a champion of human rights in this particular area, so of course I think it is a good example for both Germany and Sweden where home educators are persecuted," he said.
Among the persecuted, German homeschooler Juergen Dudek has been taken to court every year for the past 10 years by the German Jugendamt, or Youth Office.
"The Youth Office, I used to call it the 'Gestapo for the Young.' As soon as they step in, as soon as they get hold of you, you've really got problems," Dudek said.
German homeschooler Dirk Wunderlich and his wife have lost custody of their children, although they are still allowed to live with them. He also told CBN News he expects to be sent to jail, but said he will never stop homeschooling.
"But I'm not afraid of this. I'm only sad for my family. I will go (to jail) laughing. You can do what you want but my children will not go to school," he said.

America Safe for Homeschoolers?

In America, a red flag went up earlier this year when the Justice Department argued in the Romeike case that homeschooling is not a fundamental human right.
A source close to the case said the White House cares more about relations with Germany than about a family seeking political asylum.
Asylum for the Romeikes might open a floodgate of refugees from Germany, further embarrassing the German government.
Uwe Roemike, who makes his living as a piano teacher, knows what to expect if they're deported.
"First they would fine us with increasingly higher fines and they would threaten to take away custody," he explained.
"There might be jail time, too, but the main threat is the aspect of custody because then, of course, the children are taken away from you completely and that's what no family wants," he said.
Uwe said the fact the White House would be willing to deny homeschooling freedom to his family, should make all American homeschoolers concerned.
Source: Charisma News, via Julio Severo in English: www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com
Recommended Reading:

Saturday, April 06, 2013

Brazilian Evangelical Caucus Condemns Venezuelan Dictator for “Homophobia”


Brazilian Evangelical Caucus Condemns Venezuelan Dictator for “Homophobia”

By Julio Severo
Rep. João Campos (PSDB-GO), who heads the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus in the Brazilian Congress, introduced a proposition against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
Nicolás Maduro
The proposition, which condemns the dictator for “homophobia,” was passed unanimously March 4 in the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the Brazilian House of Representatives, where Pentecostal minister Marco Feliciano is the president.
As reported by GospelPrime, Campos’ proposition came in answer to the recent demonstrations against the permanence of Feliciano in the HRC presidency. The demonstrations have been provoked by the ruling Workers’ Party and other socialist parties that are favorable to the Maduro dictatorship.
“I think that this committee has the duty of manifesting its view by rejecting this prejudiced and bigoted behavior,” João Campos said.
The proposition condemns declarations by Maduro which, if made by Feliciano or Pentecostal televangelist Silas Malafaia, would have been unceremoniously condemned by the Workers’ Party and by the mainstream liberal media as blatantly “homophobic.”

Opportunistic Communist “Homophobia”

In a speech against candidate Henrique Capriles, the dictator hinted that his political opponent in the elections for the Venezuelan presidency was a homosexual. Last March 12, Maduro said in Caracas: “Yes, I do have a woman, did you listen? I like women.” Next, Maduro kissed his wife. The intention was clearly to indispose the opponent with the more conservative feelings of the voters.
Capriles, 40, is single. At that time, he responded, “I want to send a message rejecting the homophobic declarations of Maduro. It is not the first time. I believe in a society without exclusion, in which nobody is excluded by his views, his beliefs, his sexual orientation.”
The Workers’ Party and its allies did nothing to condemn the “homophobia” of Maduro. The Dilma Rousseff administration didn’t send any protest memo to the Venezuelan government.
The situation of Capriles is very similar to what Gilberto Kassab suffered in the mayorship election of São Paulo in 2008. His political opponent was Marta Suplicy, a Workers’ Party member, whose electoral TV show asked: “Is Kassab married? Does he have children?” The man responsible for the question—aimed at neutralizing the chances of candidate Kassab—was Workers’ Party political advisor João Santana.
According to Reinaldo Azevedo (columnist of Veja, the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), Santana is now an advisor for Maduro in Venezuela.
Woe to Marco Feliciano, Silas Malafaia or Yours Truly if any of us say that a candidate is disqualified on the basis of sodomy.
But Nicolás Maduro and Marta Suplicy, with Santana’s assistance, get away with attacking their political opponents with insinuations of homosexuality. Of course, they wouldn't think of confronting gay activists’ demonstrations disturbing their meetings and accusing them of “homophobic,” “fundamentalist,” “bigoted,” etc.
The Workers’ Party friends have carte blanche to trample homosexuals who get in their way. But if a Christian opens his mouth to say that in the Bible God condemns homosexuality, they crush him.
The gay movement, behaving like a group of dim witted sheep, only bleats angrily at the victims pointed out by the Workers’ Party. No bleating at the Venezuelan dictator. No bleating at Suplicy.
The only public figure in Brazil denounced Suplicy for her inconsistences and opportunism was the late Clodovil Hernandes, the most visible homosexual in the country. But he was hated by the Workers’ Party and by the dim witted sheep, because he openly opposed hate crimes bills and gay “marriage.”

Good Intentions of the Evangelical Caucus Backfire

The intention behind the proposition of the Evangelical Caucus is to instigate the Brazilian Congress to counter the inconsistency of the Workers’ Party and other socialists, who condemn Pentecostal ministers like Feliciano for any view opposing to homosexuality, but they turn a blind eye to socialists’ attitudes that sully sacred homosexuality.
The intention is good and merits congratulations. But the implementation of it may backfire, because if Maduro can be condemned for “homophobia” for expressing rejection (or for outwitting) of the political opponent’s homosexuality, who can protect the Evangelical Caucus from propositions that likewise condemn what the Workers’ Party and other socialists see as “homophobia” in Marco Feliciano, Silas Malafaia and Julio Severo?
The Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus (EPC) proposition against Maduro can legitimate similar propositions against everyone in the front lines of the fight against gay agenda tyranny.
The ideal field for the EPC to show this Workers’ Party inconsistency—condemnation of Feliciano, but cover for dictator Maduro, is a denunciation from the floor of the Congress.

Showing solidarity to the communist tyranny or its victims?

Does Maduro deserve a negative proposition coming from the Brazilian Congress? Of course he does! A proposition condemning the Venezuelan dictator for his connections with the murderous communist government in Cuba and his tyrannical control over Venezuela would be most welcome.
Years ago, Brazilian Protestant leader Ariovaldo Ramos traveled in an entourage of allies of the socialist Brazilian president Lula to show solidarity to dictator Hugo Chávez. After the death of Chávez, Ramos thanked God “for the privilege of having lived together with this personality of my generation.”
Ramos, a former World Vision president in Brazil, also said: “The best thing one can say of a man is that, because he passed through here, the world is a better place! One can say this of Hugo Chávez!”
That is the same Ramos who represents the Brazilian evangelical left very well and who signed a public manifesto against Feliciano. With Gilberto Carvalho, a Workers’ Party strong man, he also recently formed a partnership with the Workers’ Party government on behalf of the evangelical population.
In Ramos, the people of Venezuela saw an evangelical leader who represented Brazilian evangelicals in the support of the communist tyranny that took hold in Venezuela.
Up to now the Venezuelan people have seen no sign from Brazil that Brazilian evangelical leaders disagree with Ramos and his deplorable support of the Venezuelan tyranny. No Brazilian evangelical representative traveled to the oppressed Venezuelan nation to show solidarity to the victims of communism.
I look forward for the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus, represented by its president Rep. João Campos, to launch a much needed, long-awaited campaign against this tyranny.
And I look forward for the Human Rights Committee under the presidency of Feliciano to do what it has never done when it was under the control of the Workers’ Party and accomplices: to condemn the systematic violations of human rights of Christians in Cuba, Iran and other nations ruled by tyrants friends of the Workers’ Party.
With information of Reinaldo Azevedo, UOL Notícias and GospelPrime.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Homeschooling Family Face Deportation by the US Government


Homeschooling Family Face Deportation by the US Government

By Julio Severo
The US government is contesting a court decision that had granted asylum to a homeschooling family from Germany. US officials argue that the German Christian family, who were suffering religious persecution from German officials, should be deported back to Germany.
The Romeikes
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled Germany in 2008 after authorities fined them thousands in euros and forcibly took their children because they homeschool. In 2010, a U.S. immigration judge granted the Romeikes political asylum — the first time this status was granted based on compulsory schooling laws. The judge found the family had legitimate fear of persecution in Germany, where a small group of Christian homeschooling families have already been jailed, fined, and stripped of their children. 
But the Department of Homeland Security immediately disputed the judge’s decision. Attorney General Eric Holder has also entered the dispute, arguing Germany’s ban on homeschooling fails to violate the family’s fundamental rights. 
Is religious freedom no longer important for America? Apparently not, especially if the victim is a follower of Jesus Christ.
Weeks ago Secretary of State John Kerry was barely off the plane in Germany before he embarrassed the Pilgrims and American founders with what is perhaps the worst statement on religious freedom ever offered. Kerry said the United States protects religious freedom because “In America, you have a right to be stupid.”
This is a very interesting statement coming from the US government. The US State Department has not only made homosexual rights its top priority, but it has also been advocating them around the world. And if Third World nations do not accept them, US aid is denied. America is determined to impose her homosexual imperialism on the world because she sees sexual perversion as more important than persecution of Christians. And if you do not see such interests as top priority, the US cultural warfare machine will label you “stupid.”
The problem is that the Romeikes did not flee Germany because of such interests. They fled because the German government is insistent on its defense of an old Third Reich law banning homeschooling. The Nazi law is being used now to persecute Christian families who homeschool their children.
If forced to return to their native Germany, the Christian family faces huge fines and criminal penalties, and could lose custody of their five school-age children.
Michael Farris, founding chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, is suing the US Department of Justice on behalf of the Romeikes. He said, “I really wonder what would’ve happened to the Pilgrims under this administration.”
The Pilgrims are very fortunate not to be alive today to apply for asylum in America. Fortunately for them, they arrived at America in a non-politically correct century.
They wanted America to be a safe harbor for persecuted Christians. Instead, America has increasingly become a safe harbor for homosexual activists from other nations. I have read about gay activists from Brazil who were granted asylum by asserting that there is persecution of gays in Brazil.
The Brazilian government bestows millions on gay groups and their political projects. They have government, media and other powerful institutions — even the United Nations — prostrated at their feet. In contrast, Christians preaching against their filthy behavior are threatened and persecuted by the Brazilian government and media.
Even so, Brazilian homosexuals are able to get asylum in America.
In today’s “free America” (free for sodomy), only gay Pilgrims would be welcome. Immigration officials would ask them, “Why are you coming to America?”
And they might respond, “Because the Brazilian government has refused to grant us billions of dollars for our comprehensive cause of societal change. We have received only a few millions. This is persecution! This is ‘homophobia!’”
Yet, the sheer stupidity is not Brazilian gays being granted asylum to join their American lovers in America and increase their power for ideological militancy. The right to be stupid, according to Kerry, belongs to people hungry for freedom to worship God and homeschool their children, not to depraved individuals hungry for filthy homosexual sex acts.
In this progressive view, the love of anal sex makes one a bright and intelligent individual, deserving a welcome in America to enjoy all her benefits.
In this view, the Pilgrims — and any Christian faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word — are just stupid.
Please pray for the Romeike family. They came to America in the wrong century!
With information from Daily Mail, World Magazine, Charisma and WND.
Portuguese version of this article: Governo dos EUA quer deportar família cristã
Recommended Reading:

Thursday, March 21, 2013

“What does ANAJURE exist for?” The Marco Feliciano case


“What does ANAJURE exist for?” The Marco Feliciano case

Is the defense of civil liberties above religious differences? Or is it not?

By Julio Severo
Rep. Marco Feliciano has been under heavy fire from gay supremacists in Brazil, because he was appointed in 5 March to head the Human Rights Congressional Committee (HRCC) in the Brazilian House of Representatives.
Marco Feliciano
They are furious not only at his stances on homosexuality and abortion, but also because HRCC had always been headed by the ruling socialist Workers’ Party and other socialists, who operated this congressional committee to approve the allocation of millions of taxpayer money to homosexualist projects.
Under this socialist leadership, HRCC also discussed ways to criminalize criticism of homosexuality. Abortion and homosexual sex were their top priority concern.
Gay supremacists were satisfied to see their demands served by hardline socialists.
Then came Marco Feliciano, an Assemblies of God minister. Feliciano has not been theologically trained and has a hard time to express his views in philosophical terms. Nevertheless, he has been clear about values. His simple Pentecostal background has led him to take a firm stand against abortion and homosexuality.
So he has been pressed by all sides to resign: gay supremacists, liberal politicians, abortion groups, liberal media and… liberal Protestants.
A massive group of these Protestants, comprised also by gay Protestant militants, is petitioning the Brazilian government and Congress to remove Feliciano from the HRCC presidency. The House of Representatives president officially wants Feliciano to step down. The president of his party, under such pressure, wants him to resign as well.

Silas Malafaia, renowned Brazilian Pentecostal Televangelist, Supports Feliciano

A number of pro-family Christians, including Catholics, are supporting Marco Feliciano.
The Portuguese version of The Christian Post reported yesterday Silas Malafaia and Julio Severo as the main evangelical voices in Brazil asking Feliciano not to resign. Malafaia is also an Assemblies of God minister and has a massive audience through his weekly religious TV shows.
Silas Malafaia
In the The Christian Post article, Malafaia said that the attacks against Feliciano are coming from leftists.
He has been outspoken about abortion and homosexuality. Like Feliciano, he is not afraid to call abortion a murder and homosexuality a sin. But unlike Feliciano, he is much more articulate.
Yet, both Malafaia and I understand that this is not the proper time for us to judge Feliciano for his lack of theological training and philosophical gifts. Therefore, on account of his like outspoken stance on defense of family values, Feliciano needs support, not criticism or condemnation.

ANAJURE

So it is a surprise that ANAJURE issued a public message, on March 20, saying the presence of Feliciano in HRCC “is going to divide, even more, the Evangelical Church” in Brazil.
ANAJURE is a recently born group of Brazilian Protestant attorneys whose purported mission is to defend fundamental civil liberties, especially of Christians.
But its public message, signed by its president, Uziel Santana, has no such defense for the fundamental civil liberties of Feliciano. On the contrary, it accuses the Assemblies of God minister of “fomenting a holy war for his intolerant actions against intolerant” individuals and groups.
The message also questions the personal motivations of the Pentecostal minister, by saying “All of this because personal projects are above the values of the Truth of the Gospel of Christ.”
Reportedly, ANAJURE has had its first defection yesterday, because one of its directors strongly disagreed with the message against Feliciano.
From a Christian group self-appointed to defend fundamental civil liberties, we Brazilians should expect such a defense, regardless the doctrinal differences of the Christian victim. But this is a very hard test for ANAJURE, whose Advisory Council is headed by Rev. Augustus Nicodemus Lopes.

A Gay Activist in a Presbyterian University

Lopes is the chancellor of the Mackenzie Presbyterian University in São Paulo. He has several theological essays against Pentecostal and charismatic movements. Some of his articles are available, in Portuguese, in the website of his university.
On February 28, his university hosted a debate with Jean Wyllys, a member of the Brazilian House of Representatives. Wyllys is also a radical gay militant, working very hard in HRCC to advance the gay agenda.
To debate the gay activist, Lopes invited one of his friends in ANAJURE. But the students in the Presbyterian university booed the representative of ANAJURE, and praised Wyllys.
In the end, Lopes denied that he had sponsored the event, but the official university paper confirms that the debate was held in partnership with the university chancellor office.
This is not the only strange case involving its chancellor. In 2010 he had removed from the university website a Presbyterian manifesto against the gay agenda, because gay activists demanded it. He gave way. But he has never removed his several articles and manifestos against Pentecostals and charismatics.
My exposé of the inconsistent partnership, and the shameful fact that a gay activist was given an opportunity to defend his perversions in a Protestant university, resounded throughout Brazil. Major Protestant news websites published or mentioned my article.

Censorship

GospelPrime, GospelMais, Portal Fé em Jesus (Faith in Jesus’ Portal) and other Brazilian websites were contacted by ANAJURE, which asked them to remove my article and, in its place, publish ANAJURE articles.
One of the editors, who was under ANAJURE pressure, told me, “Sincerely, I do not know what ANAJURE exists for.”
GospelPrime, GospelMais and others gave in. Yet, Portal Fé em Jesus scolded ANAJURE for its aggression against free speech — in this case, my free speech.
The fact is, if ANAJURE had scolded Lopes for allowing a gay activist in his university, it would not need to ask major Protestant websites in Brazil to censor my fundamental civil liberties to denounce Lopes’ behavior.
Yet, even under duress, my article has had a significant repercussion in Brazil. The Facebook page of Silas Malafaia has spread it to its 168,000 followers.
What about ANAJURE and its purported mission to defend fundamental civil liberties? It is facing a hard time to do it in the case of Marco Feliciano, because its president thinks it is necessary to judge his character and motivations, but it is unable to do it in the case of one of its own directors.
And if you expose him for allowing a gay activist in his Protestant university or for him giving way to gay militants demanding the removal from his university of a Christian manifesto against the gay agenda, ANAJURE shows its muscle to defend cowardice and censor a Christian message against it.
ANAJURE is free to defend and attack anyone it wishes.
Even disagreeing with him, I will support Marco Feliciano for his courage, and I pray that he may not give in to cowards who want him to copy their cowardice.
Recommended Reading: