Washington Post Book World fiction editor Ron Charles tweeted out this morning:
Changing times: Gay inaugural poet hailed; anti-gay inaugural preacher dismissed: ow.ly/gJopc, ow.ly/gJotK
And the links go to just that -- stories about the hailing of a gay poet and about a Christian pastor who taught traditional Christian doctrine on homosexuality twenty years ago being disinvited from the inauguration.
Yes, changing times.
These are times that have been advocated strenuously for by the mainstream media. Many journalists don't try to hide that fact and have been candid about this advocacy. We have covered their admissions here before. (See here, here, here, here)
And much of the current situation -- where teaching what Christians outside of the Episcopal Church (and other churches that have recently changed their doctrines) teach about human sexuality makes you a pariah to be shunned -- could have easily been predicted.
It was predicted, by many cultural observers (albeit the kind who don't get glowing profiles in the same mainstream media).
As I prepare to look through the various stories (and of those that I've read, many are just fine explanations of the situation while some are more like Orwellian defenses of the inaugural committee's understanding of tolerance), I have a simple question.
How well do you think the mainstream media explained the ramifications of their advocacy on this topic (and the advocacy of other elites on same) on Christians in the public square?
Medieval warrior, staring at you via Shutterstock.