Sodomites vs. Street Preachers - Who Is Really Showing Intolerance?

     There is an interesting story in the NZ Herald today about a confrontation between a homosexual (or sodomite, to use the more Biblically accurate term) activist and some street preachers (and one young lady in particular). This confrontation occurred during a Pride Festival event on Saturday (27 February), when Auckland was still at Alert Level 1. (It went into a Level 3 lockdown the following day and is still at Level 3 as I write this, while the rest of the country is at Level 2.) The article (which includes a video of the confrontation) can be viewed here.

    The preachers belonged to a group called Heart of Christ Ministries. I had never heard of them before, so I did a little background research. They do not appear to have a Web site, but they do have pages on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. On their YouTube channel (which features two short videos), they describe themselves as a "Messianic Jewish & Christian Ministry. Helping the less fortunate and teaching the truth of God's Word to the world". (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvcl4whth253sAWwdxmjRyg/about) Hmm, that's pretty vague, frankly. On their Facebook page, they describe themselves in this way: "Group of believers based in NZ walking out the commandments of God through faith in helping vulnerable individuals, families, and the less fortunate. All for the furtherance of the gospel of our Lord and Messiah Yeshua! (Christ Jesus) #GodsHeart" (https://www.facebook.com/hocministries7/?ref=py_c) In the Herald article, the young lady who features in the video (being yelled at by the activist) describes the ministry as "a small outreach ministry that goes out weekly in the CBD to distribute food, water, clothes and blankets to those in need". Quoted directly, she adds, "We just go out and love".

    Based on this information, I have grave doubts that this ministry is preaching the true Gospel. When they say that they are "walking out the commandments of God", it sounds very suspiciously like that subscribe to a works gospel of some sort. However, their information is so vague that it's a bit hard to know exactly what they truly believe. In any case, they were engaged in some sort of preaching activity that involved calling sodomites to repentance. Let's delve into the article in a bit more detail now, and as we do so, I want to draw your attention to how the writer of this article (Chris Marriner) frames the narrative in ways designed to manipulate readers to interpret the events being reported in a certain way.

    The opening paragraph sets the tone:

    "A religious group's attempt to disrupt the recent Auckland Pride March with loud preaching and pamphlets urging marchers to "repent" was repelled by an activist's fierce takedown."

     Let's look up the definition of "disrupt":

    "to prevent something, especially a system, process, or event, from continuing as usual or as expected" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disrupt) 

    Does preaching the Gospel (or a gospel, because there are a lot of false gospels out there) prevent an event from continuing as usual or expected? As long as the preacher is not trying to physically stop anyone doing what they wish, how is mere preaching or handing out tracts being disruptive? In any case though, this opening paragraph is a clear example of subjective reporting. From the outset, the goal is to make the reader side with the activist against the preachers. By accusing the group of "attempting to disrupt" the Pride March, Mr Marriner is attempting to stir up his readers' anger against them. The phrase "fierce takedown" moreover makes the activist in this story appear somehow heroic. It is clear who the apparent "good guy" is and likewise who are the supposed "bad guys".

    If Mr Marriner wanted to be truly objective and not influence his readers' opinions from the outset, he could have written the opening paragraph along these lines:

    "There was an incident during the recent Auckland Pride March in which an activist confronted some members of a religious group who were preaching and handing out pamphlets to participants in the march."

    This would have been fair to both sides. It is a fact that the members of this group were preaching and handing out pamphlets, and also a fact that an activist confronted some of them, thereby creating a newsworthy incident. But nobody is made to look good or bad. It would simply introduce the story with a neutral summary of what occurred, then carry on with more details, as indeed this article then does.

     By the way, even the headline is designed to stir up anger in readers. It says "God will never forgive you". If you were reading that, you might think the preachers were the ones saying it. (As an aside, it sounds very much like something Steven Anderson - one of the most hate-filled "preachers" I've ever come across - would say.) In fact, it is the activist who says it during his rant.

    Here's the next paragraph:

    "The confrontation between the group from Heart of Christ Ministries and prominent Queer activist Shaneel Lal has been shared widely on social media, with many praising the staunch response to the street preachers."

     Now I have no issue with the first part of this, as it is factual. However, the phrase "staunch response" is once again intended to make the activist look "heroic". Hence, Mr Marriner is once more openly trying to influence his readers' views. To make the second part of that paragraph more objective, I would rewrite it this way: "... with many praising the manner of his response to the street preachers". So not a massive change this time. It still states that the video was praised by many because they liked how the activist responded, but removes the word "staunch" that unduly influences people's opinions in a certain direction.

    I'm not going to repost every paragraph in detail, but here's the third one:

    "The march, in its third year, saw thousands gather on Saturday to march from Albert Park to Aotea Square to promote inclusivity and protest on behalf of marginalised communities."

     This is more factual, although I would add something like "its stated aim" somewhere to make it clear that this was the viewpoint of the Pride organisers, and not the journalist's view. The way it's worded now, it sounds like the journalist agrees with them (which he most probably does).

    The article then goes on to give Shaneel Lal's version of events. He accuses the preachers of "shouting at the marchers" (if you're preaching to a large group of people though, it's rather difficult to do it quietly!). Another accusation he makes is that they were shouting at children. "Grown-as adults were going up to little children, antagonising them and telling them that God hates them". To his credit, Mr Marriner describes this accusation as a "claim" and doesn't simply accept it as fact. Let me just say at this point that if the claim about shouting at children etc. is true, they were wrong to do that. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for such behaviour.

    Next, the article describes much of what Shaneel Lal said in the confrontation with the young woman in the video (which you can also watch in the online version of the Herald article). However, one bit near the beginning, which is omitted in the article, is a little argument Lal has with the woman about sin. He asks, "What is sin?" and she replies, "Breaking God's commandments". This is basically correct. The Bible states: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) The law is made up of commandments, including ones that prohibit sexual relations between members of the same gender, and also one that prohibits men and women dressing like the opposite gender (see Deuteronomy 22:5). The Bible moreover says that we only need to break one commandment of the law, one time to become sinners. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10) If you think that seems harsh, well you only have to commit one crime to become a criminal. Likewise, all it takes to become a sinner is to commit just one sin. Just telling one little lie will do it. Even if you never committed another sin in your life, that one sin would be enough to make you guilty before God, just as you would be liable for a crime you commit even if you were completely law-abiding the rest of the time.

    About 90% of the video is a long solo rant by Lal. It should be noted here that the young woman does not shout (when she does manage to say anything, she's pretty quiet and also respectful). Nor does she chant slogans or wave banners in Lal's face. In fact, all she really does is smile, although she does remark at one point, "You're obviously triggered by me just being here". Frankly, she can't do much else other than listen because he is so aggressive in his manner. So when you look at her behaviour and compare it with the angry and aggressive ranting of Shaneel Lal, it does rather beg the question, which I asked in the post heading: who is really showing intolerance here? Watch the video though and see for yourself.

    Several things said by Lal in the video are then quoted in the article. I'd like to go over those and provide some Scriptural counters.

    Firstly, he says to the woman, "Do you realise that there are young people here that will be harmed by you, that will consider suicide and will be pushed to depression because of what you do?"

     Now, on the subject of "depression", the Bible makes an important distinction between two types of "sorrow" (it never uses the term "depression", which is an invention of modern psychology): "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death". (1 Corinthians 7:10) Godly sorrow is repentance towards God (see Acts 20:21). It is being sad and sorrowful over the sins you have committed against Him. (Psalm 51 provides a good example of godly sorrow, as does the prayer of Daniel in Daniel 9, and indeed the simple prayer of the publican in Luke 18:13, among others.) This kind of sorrow is an important step towards being born again (it is not what saves you in itself, but it prepares your heart for the decisive next step, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross in which He shed His own blood to provide remission for sins, then was buried and rose again after three days).

    Worldly sorrow, on the other hand, involves recognition of wrongdoing, but no repentance towards God. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, provides a good example of worldly sorrow:

    "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:3-5) 

     A person who repents towards God confesses his sin to God and seeks His mercy and forgiveness. But a person with worldly sorrow, like Judas, does not do this. Yes, he regrets what he's done and  confesses his sin, but who does he confess it to? MEN. He acknowledges his sin to MEN, but NEVER acknowledges it to God. (Catholics, take note - confessing sins to a priest does not constitute repentance towards God.) Overcome with guilt, he then goes and hangs himself. The sorrow of the world indeed worked death for Judas. And note that his feelings of guilt had nothing to do with any religious people preaching at him. In fact, the religious people he confessed to didn't care! It was Judas' own conscience that accused him (see Romans 2:15). A person who commits suicide because of guilt over sin has worldly sorrow, not Godly sorrow. True preachers of the Gospel desire to call sinners to repentance (of the Godly sort, i.e. Godly sorrow). A sodomite who has this kind of repentance will not commit suicide, but instead fall on their knees and cry out to God for forgiveness as they acknowledge their sin. But one who only has the sorrow of the world as Judas did may very well end up killing themselves. It is not God's will for anyone to commit suicide though. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (1 Peter 3:9) God does not want anyone to die in their sins (through suicide or any other means) and suffer eternal punishment for them (which is what perishing means here), but rather come to repentance, i.e. godly sorrow for their sins against Him, which in turn leads to belief on Christ for salvation. (Incidentally, if all preaching of the Gospel were to cease tomorrow, sodomites would continue to commit suicide because of the worldly sorrow produced by the accusation of their conscience.)

     Let's look now at something else Shaneel Lal said: "God doesn't care if we're gay or trans. Being a decent human being will suffice." This is patently untrue. Perhaps his statement is true as it pertains to the god of his imagination, but it is certainly not true when it comes to the God of the Bible. He certainly cares when people violate His holy law. And "being a decent human being" won't cut it when you have to give an account to the Lord Jesus Christ on the Day of Judgement. If you robbed a bank, would "being a decent human being" the rest of the time make you any less liable for your crime? So what makes you think that being a "decent human being" can absolve you of the transgressions that you have committed against God's law?

    When Jesus was on the earth, there was a prominent sect of Jews called the Pharisees who thought they were "decent human beings". (Lest anyone try to accuse me of anti-Semitism, it is simply a true fact that the Pharisees were Jews, just as it is a true fact that Christ and His apostles were Jews, and a true fact that the Old Testament prophets were Jews, and moreover we would not have the Bible were it not for the Jews - so mankind owes much indeed to the Jews.) On the outside, they seemed like pretty good people, but Jesus made it clear that God sees right into our hearts: "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15) "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (Matthew 23:25-28)

    To say "being a decent human being will suffice" is also to preach a kind of "works salvation". We cannot be saved by any good works we do, otherwise we would be able to boast in our own righteousness. The Bible is clear though that those who trust in their works are lost in their sins: "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18: 9-14) The Pharisee of this story, if asked if he thought himself a "decent human being", would have certainly answered "YES!" But he was proudly trusting in his own righteousness. He was very sadly deluded in that respect. The publican on the other hand had godly sorrow and grief over his sin. He knew he was a sinner and cried out to God for mercy, acknowledging his wickedness.

    Shaneel Lal next raves at the woman, "As for religious people like you, you have pushed queer people into lives of misery and hate and death and God will never forgive you for that".

     Again, the "God" of Shaneel Lal's imagination is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is willing to forgive anyone who comes to Him in true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. But misery, hate and death are the results of sin, not "religious people".

    There are some other things he says, but those were just a few key points I wanted to address. Chris Marriner then reports a claim by Shaneel Lal that the police "did nothing" to stop the preachers. He is somewhat more factual and neutral here. Then we read a statement by the police, which is worth a quick comment: "Police are aware there was a group preaching religious beliefs near the Pride Party at Aotea Square on Saturday night [...] Our role was to monitor the overall event in the public space, to ensure the safety of all and responding to any issues that may arise. In general, under law police need to be mindful around the rights of all parties around freedom of expression in a public place. On this occasion police were present and were monitoring the situation. There was no unlawful activity identified. However, we acknowledge in the setting it would have been frustrating for members of our Rainbow communities that were present on Saturday." I have no real issue with this statement. It is good the police understand they have a right to ensure everyone's safety and also to safeguard freedom of expression. Also, there was no unlawful activity. The preachers broke no laws, and Shaneel Lal, for all that angry ranting, broke no laws (NZ laws, that is) either.

    Lal then complains that the preachers were Polynesians like him (so?). He accuses them of "carrying on the work of the coloniser", thereby bizarrely associating religious preaching with political colonisation. However, this feeds in to cultural Marxist "oppressor vs. oppressed" narratives, something the mainstream media loves to push. Lal is not done yet either, noting praise from so-called "Queer Christians", "telling them how harmful the protesters' behaviour was". Hang on a minute. Someone preaching the Gospel (or a gospel) is not a protester. As far as I can gather, these people were not waving banners or trying to stop the Pride March. They were not expressing direct opposition to the march. And let's not forget that one of the purposes of the Pride March itself is to "protest on behalf of marginalised communities". So once again, we see the reporter's bias coming out.

    Another example of the reporter's very obvious bias is that Shaneel Lal's views take up about 90% of the article (just like he dominates the video), while the point of view of the woman in the video only gets three short paragraphs. This is one of the mainstream media's particularly devious tactics, which they use very commonly. They give heavy weight to one point of view (that fits their desired narrative), and very little weight to the other. Good and ethical journalism would give reasonably equal space to both sides. One important point the lady makes is that "some of the protesters at the march were not members of the ministry". The reporter is not directly quoting her though, so the word "protesters" is his, not hers (although she may have said it). So there may have been some other people there who were possibly involved in more obnoxious behaviour. Again though, there was nothing unlawful.

    After that brief interlude of presenting the Heart of Christ Ministries woman's side of the story, Mr Marriner returns to the person whose perspective he really wants us to read. The last five paragraphs of the article are devoted to more thoughts by Shaneel Lal. This post has gone on long enough, so I'll just highlight one point here: "I think that we need to acknowledge is that Pride may be a party for the most privileged and it may be a celebration for some but for the most marginalised, Pride still remains a protest that is about fighting for our basic human rights." So, umm, who were the protesters here again?

    Again, I am very dubious that this Heart of Christ Ministries is preaching the true Gospel. But the Herald article is instructive in how it shows media bias, the intolerance sodomites have for those who try to call them to repentance and the kind of excuses and strange reasoning they can come up with. As I said in my post about gay conversion therapy, Shaneel Lal needs to be born again. He needs someone to preach the true Gospel to him. Chris Marriner also needs to be born again, and quite probably, so does the woman Lal was railing at. Let us pray for God to soften the hearts of all three of these people (and others involved that day) to repentance.