What Constitutes a Controversial Minister?
In the August 3, 2017 Orlando Sentinel is an article about Ralph Drollinger, and the title of it is, "President's Cabinet's Bible Study Led by Controversial Minister." No, this is not a political article. Every president has had a spiritual advisor or an association with some spiritual leader in recent times hat excis unus. Nor do we ever expect that such a prominent religious figure will ever be anyone that we know presents the truth. Of course, Dr. Jeremiah Wright actually did make controversial statements—ones which incensed a number of Americans.
But now this new person of influence in D.C. is being termed controversial by Evan Halper of the Washington Bureau. According to Wikipedia, Ralph Drollinger has an interesting sports background. He played basketball for John Wooden at UCLA. He was the first player to play in four Final Four tournaments. He was the very first player chose for the Dallas Mavericks when the team came into existence.
After some injuries and retirement, Dr. James Dobson invited him to play a game with "Pistol" Pete Maravich. That was the morning that Maravich collapsed during the game with a massive heart attack. Dobson and Drollinger tried to save his life—but to no avail.
Of course, none of the sports' honors he has accumulated over the years give him any spiritual qualifications, but they do account, in part, for the reason that he has name recognition. According to Wikipedia:
In 1997, Drollinger founded Capitol Ministries, a ministry organization that provides Bible studies, evangelism and discipleship to political leaders. The organization has founded ministries in over 40 US State Capitols since then. Drollinger leads Capitol Ministries in Washington, D.C. and what is referred to internally as The Members Bible Study in the US Capitol.
So, why is he considered controversial? Not because he ever said, "God d___ America," as Wright did. Basically, he is controversial because he has made statements that take a Biblical stance—although it is undetectable from the writer's introduction. He slants the information as he introduces the topic, but then provides the actual words later in the column. Here are the two treatments of the subject back to back—the summary first and then the actual quote:
He is the evangelical spiritual leader who once counseled a group of Sacramento lawmakers that female politicians with young children have no business serving in the legislature. In fact, he called them sinners (A10).
"It is one thing for a mother to work out of her home while her children are in school. It is quite another matter to have children in the home and live away in Sacramento for four days a week. Whereas the former could be in keeping with the spirit of Proverbs 31, the latter is sinful" (A10).
The newspaperman's summation makes the guy look prejudiced, but when the context is provided, it is a different matter. Whereas most would not object to a woman working when she has a family, the element of being away from them four days a week adds an entirely different dimension. Even then, not all might define it as sinful, but certainly it is not an ideal situation. He might have avoided a blanket statement, but certainly most will agree that a mother needs to be with her young children. This is not all that controversial.
The Pope
Drollinger had the temerity to take issue with Roman Catholicism (something that might not be very wise to do). He said that Catholicism "is one of the primary false religions in the world." The statement is true but hardly calculated to win friends and influence people. Is this a surprise, however? How do we explain the fact that not all religious people are Catholics? Would the reason be they believe the religion is false? Most people do not believe the pope is the head of the church on earth, or they would be Catholics. We don't usually say so because we don't want to offend others, but Drollinger's statements reflect our thinking.
Either the concept of a pope is something taught in the Bible, or it is not. The fact is that no such office is mentioned in the Scriptures. Peter is never called by that title, neither is Paul nor any of the apostles. History tells us the idea gradually evolved and then became a reality in 606 A.D. Catholics choose to subscribe to the teaching despite the evidence against it, but the rest of us choose to reject the idea since it is not authorized in the New Testament (Col. 3:17).
But the thinking of the world is: "Nobody is wrong; everyone is right." The prevailing philosophy is inclusiveness. It stems from postmodern thinking, which dominates college campuses, as well as Washington, D.C. Nobody abides by that teaching in the real world, but in artificial societies, such as universities and the "establishment" in the nation's capital, it thrives. And, of course, it is bolstered by the news and entertainment media who have yet to figure out what makes an average citizen tick. None of these have a sense of right and wrong—except that everyone who agrees with them (the erudite elite) is right, and everyone else is wrong. So it is a giant NO NO to say something that is not politically correct. To reject Catholicism as a false religion is just not done. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger invited Drollinger's group to move out of a suite controlled by him, since he had picked on his religion. One wonders what Drollinger has said about Islam.
Another Taboo Subject
Well, of all the nerve! Back in 2005, according to the Internet, Drollinger said, "Homosexuality is a sin." He also called it an "abomination in the eyes of God." Actually, this is accurate, but someone who speaks the truth is considered "controversial." If more people read the Bible than People magazine or USA Today, they would not be shocked. Perhaps turning off Entertainment Tonight and reading instead might prove profitable. What do the Scriptures teach on this subject?
Its first mention can be found in Genesis 18:20, where God says that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great" and that "their sin is very grievous." That sin is identified as homosexuality in Genesis 19:4-5, and it had permeated the entire city. It could well have been one of the sins before the Flood as well, but none of them is enumerated—except violence (Gen. 6:5, 11). Since God utterly destroyed those two cities, along with Admah and Zeboiim, He must have considered the sin an abomination.
In fact, at the other end of the Bible (Jude 7), Jude refers to the punishment of those cities, commenting that they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality, and gone after strange flesh" (which meant the men choosing men as sexual partners instead of women). Then the Lord's brother added that those people "are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." God "rained down brimstone and fire" upon those cities (Gen. 19:24), but that was only a brief judgment compared to what will happen to unrepentant homosexuals in eternity. The judgment on the cities affected their physical bodies only for a short time (although thoroughly deadly); the punishment for the sin itself is spiritual and eternal.
Under the Law of Moses, one finds the precise word used by Drollinger: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). Paul, in the New Testament, added that it was a vile passion and "against nature," which nearly anyone should be able to figure out (Rom. 1:26). But homosexuals and sodomites did repent and become Christians just as fornicators and adulterers did (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Although calling this sin a sin is (most of the time) controversial, for some reason it was not mentioned in the article, which is surprising. Most of the time, the news media will point out such a person and call them a homophobe. It's interesting that nothing was said.
Most Christians will not find any of these quotes of Drollinger wrong though they are blunt. No one knows what he will teach in his Bible study. It will probably not be the truth regarding salvation, but perhaps morally he will do well. Washington could use a dose of morality and ethics, but probably those attending the class already have some; those who neglect or reject the Scriptures are the ones to be concerned about.