Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”

Have you ever been in the position of trying to educate someone on what their particular religion believes and practices? As a teacher of comparative religions for over thirty years, I’ve been confronted with that situation many times. It happens often with Catholics, especially on the topic of Mary.
Today, Mary, the mother of Jesus , is increasingly being given a prominence in Roman Catholicism which finds little or no support in the Bible. When a contrast is made between the biblical Mary and the Mary of Roman Catholic tradition, the result is two very different portraits of Mary. The Roman Catholic portrayal quite often obscures Christ. In many respects, the Mary of Rome is portrayed as a female parallel to Jesus.
For example, consider the following Catholic teachings: Jesus was born without sin; Mary was conceived without original sin. Jesus was sinless; Mary lived a sinless life. Jesus ascended to heaven following His resurrection; Mary was bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life. Jesus is a Mediator; Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is a redeemer; Mary is co-redeemer. Jesus is the King; Mary is the queen of heaven.(1)
These things are true with regard to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about Mary. And while each one deserves much more space than is available in this article, we will concern ourselves here only with Catholicism’s teaching that Mary was sinless along with the practice of praying to her. See here for more information on other points about Mary: https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/(2)
MARY WAS A SINNER
It has been my experience over the years that some Catholics do not understand the “immaculate conception” of Mary. Some have believed that this refers to Mary being impregnated by the Holy Spirit without carnal sex so she could give birth to Jesus. Somehow they have missed that this doctrine is not referring to Jesus’ conception, but rather the conception of Mary herself. However, folk Catholicism is not official Catholicism. The official position is that Mary, in her immaculate conception, was preserved from original sin. As such, she was miraculously preserved from the pollution of sin inherited from Adam. In both body and soul, she is believed by Catholics to be holy, stainless, spotless, undefiled, pure and innocent in every way. In his papal Bull Ineffabilis of 1854, Pope Pius IX defined Mary’s immaculate conception as follows:
[A]ccordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (3)
This is not a suggestion by the Pope, rather an edict, something to be obeyed by all Catholics. How serious is it to reject this? The same Pope said, “Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid–to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”(4)
Virtually, all catechisms of the Catholic Church teach the sinless perfection of Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, affirms the same. On page 252, paragraph 966, it says,” Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory,…”(5) Not only does the Roman Catholic Church teach she was without sin, it teaches she never died.
TO PRAY OR NOT TO PRAY TO MARY
It is logical for Catholics to make a connection between Mary’s sinless human nature and praying to her. All Catholics are not necessarily in agreement on all things including praying to Mary. However, we should not kid ourselves about language. Some say they don’t pray to Mary, but they ask Mary to pray for them either to the Father or to the Son. Whether it is asking Mary or the saints in heaven to pray for them, it is still using words that are in fact the same as praying. Asking, beseeching, urging, appealing, petitioning, communing with, talking to, etc., are all used as synonyms for praying.
Although some do not want to admit they are praying to Mary, the Catholic Church openly endorses praying to Mary. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, says, “Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, …We can pray with her and to her. The Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.”(6)
Also, consider the following from the third novena of another Catholic source: “O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.”(7)
RESPONSE
The prayer above confirms what the Catholic Church teaches in regard Mary being sinless and the issue of praying to her. In reference to the latter, we encounter the issue of praying to the dead. There is no Old or New Testament approval of this. Instead, the Bible looks upon this as a pagan practice and equivalent to necromancy (conjuring of the spirits of the dead) which is condemned in Deuteronomy 18: 10-13.
Addressing Mary as ‘the dispenser of all gifts’ is to mean that no salvific benefit can come to us without her mediation. The St. Peter Catechism of the Catholic Church asks, “Did God will to make our redemption and all its consequences depend upon the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary?” The Catechism answers, “God willed that our redemption and all its consequences should depend on the free consent of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”(8)
Salvation through the Catholic faith is not possible without Mary. Mark Miraville, a leading advocate of Marian theology, states, “It is in the light of Mary’s unique and intimate cooperation with the Redeemer, both at the incarnation…and at the work of redemption at Calvary…that the Church has invoked Mary under the title “Coredemptrix.”(9) Also, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order: for by God, it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”(10)
Granting Mary or any of the saints such a prominent position in salvation means that our Lord has other competitors for His one and only advocacy for us. Having others mediating between Him and mankind is contrary to biblical theology. Scripture says, “There is only one mediator between God and man, and that is the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). It is so because He, not Mary, angels, or saints, is qualified as our only mediator and it is to Him and Him only that we have access to our heavenly Father for salvation.  As Luke says in Acts 4:12, “ And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men[a] by which we must be saved.”
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), 55.
Will the Real Mary Please Stand Up, Clete Hux, https://arcapologetics.org/will-the-real-mary-please-stand-up/
James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 37.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), 252.
, p. 644
https://sacredheartparish.net/novena-prayers-to-our-mother-of-perpetual-help/
Peter Catechism (Liverpool: Print Organization, 1972), question 319.
Mark Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1993), XV.
Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper (1894).

Related Posts:

In contradiction to what is being taught in the contemplative movement, the biblical worldview of God’s relationship to man and creation is clearly defined by separation, distinction, and duality. We see this from the start: “In the beginning God…”, not in the beginning all is one or all is divine, or all things (good or bad) fit together as one. Furthermore in scripture there is a clearly taught separation of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, the righteous from the unrighteous, and those saved and from those not saved.

To varying degrees, all human beings seek their own autonomy or independence. This is especially true when it comes to a relationship with God our Creator. Suffice it to say that when we come into this world, we don’t come in running toward God. On the contrary, we come in running away from the God in whose image we are made. Shall we call it escape from reason? Frances Schaeffer did when he talked about a “natural theology” defined as man going his own independent way, not seeking the God of the Bible, nor taking the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice.
What Schaeffer meant by this “natural theology” and independence of man forsaking God is different from the revelation of God in nature. One is man driven. The other is God given. We have the general revelation of God’s existence through creation and conscience which Paul speaks of in the first chapter of Romans. All men are consciously aware of our Creator’s existence. Yet, man’s fallen nature wants to suppress this knowledge. For example, a pickpocket picks pockets, but resents his own pocket being picked. The same suppression goes for the knowledge of God salvifically through the special revelation of His word and His Son. Instead, man would rather seek God on his own terms, making himself the point of reference for life’s interpretation and application.
With this independent bent often being described as a thirst for spirituality, some people will gravitate to occult mysticism in hopes of having an experience with God. What He has provided in His word through a relationship with His Son and the guidance of His Holy Spirit seem never to be enough when confined only to what can be found within the scriptural context of the Bible.
The writer of Proverbs 3:5, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart…” knew that our tendency is to “lean to our own understanding.” Because of the subjective nature of individual spiritual experiences, we are encouraged to trust in the unchanging God and the objectivity of His word. Church history is replete with people going after experiences outside biblical parameters and our day is no exception.
It has been said that the various charismatic movements over the years are attempts to experience God, and it could be argued that there is both legitimacy and illegitimacy to such. However, we would admit that a relationship with God through His Son’s intervention for us is experiential, yet, grounded in the proper bounds of His word. After all, is not the reason why the Father sent the Son…to pay our sin dept so that we can have an experiential relationship with Him? Of course, it is!
The problem is that mankind is forever devising ways to experience God unsanctioned by the one and only rule of faith and practice, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Instead, the idea of experiencing God has led to many subjective ways of being spiritual, which oftentimes has led to mysticism.
I mentioned occult mysticism, which can be defined as the attempt to obtain power through secret wisdom. This is the point where mysticism and gnosticism meet. This so-called secret occult knowledge has been around a long time through various forms such as Alice Bailey’s Esoteric Astrology (involving the horoscope), Madame Helen Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society, many forms of parapsychology and other secret societies too numerous to count.
In our day we have the whole gamut of the contemplative prayer movement and lately, the Enneagram is spreading into the church. Years ago, while in seminary training, I became curious about Christian mysticism. So, I decided to ask one of my favorite professors, Frank M. Barker, Jr., one of the PCA’s founding fathers. He told me that in his opinion mysticism was nothing more than mythism. I will never forget his statement. With this in mind, let’s look briefly at the worldview of the two topics I mentioned: Contemplative Prayer and Richard Rohr’s version of The Enneagram.
Contemplative Movement
One of the most popular names associated with the contemplative movement is Richard Foster. Although having Quaker roots, which is problematic because of Quakerism’s “inner light” leading some toward neo-orthodoxy believing the Bible becomes the word God when one has a spiritual experience, Foster’s contemplative practices are really indebted to Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk. Merton’s mysticism resources can be found in the Catholic Church, much of the Evangelical Church, the Emergent Church Movement, and the New Age Movement. Indeed, many interfaith dialogues not only are promoting religious pluralism, but using some contemplative practices to do so.
Beyond Foster and Merton, there is Henri Nouwen, a Dutch Catholic priest, touted by Tony Campolo as one of the great Christians of our time.1 Then there is Thomas Keating, another Catholic monk. And, while we’re at it, we need to mention Matthew Fox, former Catholic priest turned Episcopalian with his Creation Spirituality in which he teaches a panentheistic worldview. Panentheism is the belief that “all is in God/God is in all.” It is akin to what is known as Process Theology. A rudimentary illustration: God is in the world the way a soul is in the body and as the world processes, evolves and changes, so does God process, evolve and change. Obviously, this is not the God of Holy Scriptures who does not change regardless of what evolution-minded people might say.
The biggest danger to which one is exposed in the contemplative movement is a subtle erosion of the Creator/creature distinction toward a monistic or “synthesis of all things” understanding. This has much in common with Eastern mysticism that basically teaches all is one and all is divine by nature. Consider what Catholic monk Basil Penninton said in his book, Thomas Merton, My Brother: “The Spirit enlightened him [Merton] in the true synthesis [unity] of all and in the harmony of that huge chorus of living beings. In the midst of it he lived out a vision of the new world, where all divisions have fallen away and the divine goodness is perceived and enjoyed as present in all and through all.” 2
Merton, who is often quoted by Richard Foster, tells about a trip to Asia where he met Chatral [a Tibetan holy man] whom Merton regarded as the greatest Buddhist teacher he had met. In their conversations, Merton found that he agreed with this Buddhist regarding Dzogchen meditation, which promotes a non-dualistic worldview. This relates to the so-called “mindfulness meditation” curricula that exists in some public schools and other venues throughout the country. What I find interesting about Merton’s time with Chatral is that Merton records Chatral being surprised at getting on so well with a Christian, so much so, that Chatral said that something had to be wrong! Chatral was so surprised by their common meditation understanding that he called Merton a natural Buddha. In other words, there was harmonious agreement that their respective meditative practices were the same. Perhaps, this is the reason why Merton said that he would not be able to understand Christian teaching the way he did if it were not in the light of Buddhism.3
Another name is Brennan Manning, who in the past, endorsed Beatrice Bruteau as a “trustworthy guide to contemplative consciousness”. Bruteau founded two different schools of contemplative practices, both incorporating Hindu and Buddhist approaches to spirituality. This is understandable since Bruteau studied with the Ramakrishna order, named after famous Hindu swami Sri Ramakrishna.4
Richard Rohr’s Version of the Enneagram
For many in evangelicalism, the contemplative movement is enhanced by the growing practice of the Enneagram in the church. I know it sounds anti-Catholic, but it is from such background that the contemplative movement has come, and Richard Rohr with the Enneagram is no exception. Rohr has said that “Until someone has had some level of mystical inner spiritual experience, there is no point in asking them to follow in any life changing way the ethical ideas of Jesus or the mystery of the Christian doctrines like the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, Salvation, or Incarnation. We simply don’t have the power to really understand or follow any of Jesus’ ideals such as loving others, forgiving enemies, nonviolence or the humble use of power except in and through a mystical union with God.” 5
To many young evangelical Christians, Rohr has become the new Merton. One of his publishers told Rohr that his single biggest demographic is young evangelicals. Rohr himself was amazed because some of his books were philosophically heavier than that which is typical of young evangelicals! 6
As with other contemplatives, Rohr appears to embrace religious pluralism by championing the idea of a global religion that would unify the world. Basically calling for a religion that needs a new language, he would advocate a one-world religion of mysticism. Using some of the same verbiage of emergent leaders such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, Rohr stated “Right now is an emergence…it’s coming from so many different traditions and sources and parts of the world. Maybe it’s an example of the globalization of spirituality.”7
Rohr has promoted new agers such as Marianne Williamson who wrote the very well-known New Age text, A Course in Miracles. This is very understandable because the New Age Movement embraces the same non-dualistic worldview as Rohr. As is pointed out by Peter Jones, this is the same worldview that mystics of all religions embrace and is Eastern in origin, promoting a one is all/all is one worldview. Jones further points out that Rohr, in the fall of 2010, taught a course, “SP761: Action and Contemplation” in the D. Min program at Fuller Theological Seminary.8 Since that time, further penetration of Rohr’s teachings has flooded evangelicalism.
Last year Sean McDowell did an interview with Dr. Chris Berg, a graduate of the Biola/Talbot Apologetics program, who did his doctoral dissertation on the Enneagram. Berg dismissed the belief that the Enneagram came from Christian mystic sources. Instead, he, like others such as Marcia Montenegro, an expert on the occult, show its roots originate with early founders of the New Age Movement which is both pantheistic and panentheistic. In comparing it to the New Age, Berg told McDowell that the advice the Enneagram gives is virtually indistinguishable from advice given by horoscopes, astrology, and numerology. In addition, Berg also shared that Rohr denies a number of essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, and of Jesus as the unique Messiah, instead asserting that all people can attain Christ-consciousness (recognition of one’s own status as being a Christ).9
I mentioned earlier that the biggest danger one is exposed to in mysticism is the subtle erosion of the Creator/creature distinction. Consequently, God is viewed as the oneness of all things and synonymous with or dwelling in all things. This is pantheistic, panentheistic, and pagan, not Christian. Doug Groothuis points out Rohr’s panentheistic error as Rohr takes Col. 3:11 out of context as saying “There Is only Christ. He is everything and he is in everything.” Groothuis corrects Rohr’s error by sharing the biblical text in context saying, “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” As Groothuis points out, the text refers to the unity that all believers have in Christ, not their deity, because believers are not divine. To assert we are divine would mean that one does not need the wisdom of a transcendent Creator who exists apart from His creation, because you have all the divinity you will ever need already within you. 10
Rohr, like others promoting the Enneagram, presents that there are nine ways people get lost and nine ways back to God. However, in looking at Rohr’s theological and Christological views, one would have to say that Rohr’s view of God and his Cosmic Christ is not that of true Christianity. In her blog, Alisa Childers has recorded Rohr saying that the universe is the body of Christ, that it is the second person of the Trinity in material form.11 Rohr’s views about God and Christ are perhaps the reason he authored books such as Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer and Falling Upward.
Consistent with his panentheism, it would mean that everything exists in God and God exists in everything. As if discounting original sin, his book, Falling Upward, takes on new meaning because he seems to imply that we (humanity) are all an “immaculate conception”.12
What shall we say about all this/How shall we then Live?
If the teachers of the contemplative movement are consistent with their pantheistic/panentheistic worldview, then there is no need for God or Christ, because we’re all the manifestation of the same. Furthermore, the Enneagram, in being a “road back to God” would become a “road to yourself.” This is mysticism and nothing more than “do it yourself divinity.” It has been said that in the beginning God created man in His image and ever since the fall man has attempted to return the favor. Sometimes the hiss of the serpent from the garden, “thou shall be like God” is loud and becoming louder.
In contradiction to what is being taught in the contemplative movement, the biblical worldview of God’s relationship to man and creation is clearly defined by separation, distinction, and duality. We see this from the start: “In the beginning God…”, not in the beginning all is one or all is divine, or all things (good or bad) fit together as one. Furthermore in scripture there is a clearly taught separation of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, the righteous from the unrighteous, and those saved and from those not saved. This is so because of the separation of Creator and the creature. In the beginning God created us and yes, we’re made in His image. So, by His grace, let us run toward Him. Let us heed His admonition to come reason with Him!
Perhaps those who are drawn to the contemplative movement ought to listen to what A. W. Tozer, who has been looked at as a mystic, had to say: “Some of my friends good-humoredly–and some a little bit severely–have called me ‘mystic.’ Well I’d like to say this about any mysticism I may suppose to have. If an archangel from heaven were to come, and were to start giving me, telling me, teaching me, and giving instruction, I’d ask him for the text. I’d say, ‘Where’s it say that in the Bible? I want to know.’ And I would insist that it was according to the scriptures because I do not believe in any extra-scriptural teachings, nor any anti-scriptural teachings, or any sub-scriptural teachings”. 13
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

Tony Campolo, Speaking My Mind (Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, 2004), p. 72
M. Basil Pennington, Thomas Merton, My Brother (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1996), pp. 199-200
See: Thomas Merton, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton (New Directions Books, 1975), pp.234-236.
See: Contemplative Prayer or the Holy Spirit—It Can’t Be Both! – Lighthouse Trails Project
Cac.org/daily-meditations/incarnational-mysticism-2019-07-14/
Kristen Hobby, “What Happens When Religion isn’t Doing it’s Job: an interview with Richard Rohr, OFM” (Presence: An International Journal of Spiritual Directions, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014), pp. 6-11.
Ibid
(http://www.fulleredu/academics/school-of-theology/dmin/courseschedule.aspx)
See: “Christians and the Enneagram”(An Interview with Dr. Chris Berg) by Sean McDowell, 4/10/2021.
See: A Heretic’s Christ, a False Salvation: A Review of the Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See. By Doug Groothuis
See: alisachilders.com/blog/Richard-rohr-wise-sage-or-false-teacher-the-alisa-childers-podcast-90
Richard Rohr, Falling Upward (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2011), p.1x.
See: gotquestions.org/Christian-mystics.html.

Related Posts:

The LGBT culture is alive and flourishing within Disney. During a recent virtual meeting, a group of Disney filmmakers together with employees said they have been given the freedom to add “queerness” and LGBT characters to children’s programming, but they believe a lot more needs to be done. Such was expressed during an “all-hands” meeting following controversy regarding Florida’s parental rights bill that prohibits classroom teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

“M. I. C. K. E. Y, M. O. U. S. E!  Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck!  Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck! …”  Many of us remember this sing-along song that opened the Mickey Mouse Club program when as children we were enjoying the biggest name in entertainment. That, of course, was the wonderful world of DISNEY. At one time, Walt Disney’s family-oriented programming was enjoyed by almost everyone, adults and children alike. However, times have changed and so has Disney, so much so that ole Walt is probably “turning over in his grave”. Disney now promotes the progressive anti-family and anti-Christian LGBTQ woke culture that the founders of BLM intended for the destruction of the nuclear family.
Chances are that if you want to watch a good movie, sporting event, or have your child watch an animated cartoon program, more than likely it will be connected to the vast empire that Disney has become, owning a good portion of the television and entertainment world. Just three years ago Disney, for $73.1 billion, bought the film and TV assets that were held by 21st Century Fox, marking the transaction one of the largest media mergers in history.
The above is just for starters. Add to that the list of Disney-owned companies and you begin to get a sense of just how big Disney really is. That list includes ABC, ESPN, Touchstone Pictures, Marvel, Lucasfilm, A&E, The History Channel, Lifetime, Pixar, Hollywood Records, Vice Media, and Core Publishing among many others.
Included are recognizable brands and film franchises as the following: Star Wars, The Muppets, The Marvel Cinematic Universe (but not the X-Men – yet!), Disney Princesses/Princes (such as characters from Cinderella, Mulan, Frozen, Aladdin, and The Lion King), The Chronicles of Narnia Franchise, The Pirates of the Caribbean Franchise, Pixar Films, (such as Toy Story, The Incredibles, and Cars), The Winnie the Pooh Franchise, The Indiana Jones Franchise, Grey’s Anatomy and other popular ABC shows.
The LGBT culture is alive and flourishing within Disney. During a recent virtual meeting, a group of Disney filmmakers together with employees said they have been given the freedom to add “queerness” and LGBT characters to children’s programming, but they believe a lot more needs to be done. Such was expressed during an “all-hands” meeting following controversy regarding Florida’s parental rights bill that prohibits classroom teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis has signed the bill into law.
In a series of videos released by journalist Christopher F. Rufo, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Disney executive Karey Burke told attendees of the meeting that she is the “mother of two queer children – one transgender child, and one pangender child”. Wanting to see more LGBT characters in Disney programs, she states, “We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and yet we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters and not have to be about gay stories.” Rufo, in a tweet, said that Burke added in the video that she wanted a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.
Latoya Raveneau, directing two episodes of The Proud Family on Disney Plus, reports she previously had heard “whispers” – when she worked for other studios – that Disney does not allow LGBT characters in its programs. But she said that’s not the case. The Proud Family includes a same sex married couple. She says, “My experience was bafflingly the opposite of what I had heard, and the showrunners were super welcoming of LGBT characters.” She further states, “Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all secret gay agenda…I don’t have to be afraid to, like, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background. I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness [to projects].”
Another Disney production coordinator, Allen Martsch, discussed adding LGBT content to the upcoming Disney series, Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur. Martsch applauds Disney saying, “They’ve been really open to exploring queer stories, …we take place in modern-day New York – so making sure that that’s an accurate reflection of New York. So I put together a tracker of our background characters to make sure that we have like the full breadth of expression.”
He concludes by saying, “…It’s not just about a numbers game of how many LGBTQ-plus characters you have,…The more centered a story is on a character, the more nuanced you get to get into their story. And especially with trans characters, you can’t see if anyone is trans – there’s not one way to look trans. And so kind of the only way to have these canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters, is to give them stories where they can be their whole selves.”
Yes, Disney holds great power to persuade children and adults into believing it is kind and loving to accept this perverted worldview. Add to this the promotion of the LGBTQ lifestyles by politicians and lobbyists, then a sense of the battle takes on a greater sense of urgency. And it gets more complicated when the President of the United States aids and abets the issue. Just recently some observed a Transgender Day of Visibility and President Biden has declared his support of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria to undergo body mutilating surgeries or use puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to look more like the opposite sex despite unknowns about the long-term side effects.
Standing in opposition to the above procedures the American College of Pediatricians said, “There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender believing youth,”… ” This means that youth transition is experimental and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.”
Also, on their website, acpeds.org has a page stating that “Transgender Interventions Harm Children” and that puberty blockers may cause both mental illness and permanent physical harm adding that such is not only experimental but dangerous.
Besides Disney, now Apple is lending its strength to opposing gender legislation. That makes two very powerful entities. According to an article in Politico, Apple’s communications, government affairs and legal offices are working with policymakers and advocacy groups to plot out strategies in filing court briefs in cases involving LGBTQ “rights.”
Fred Sainz, their senior of corporate communications, recently pressed leaders of fellow Fortune 500 companies to denounce an order by the Texas governor that called for child abuse investigations of parents who provide transgender children with “gender-affirming” procedures despite opposition from doctors. Sainz asked these leaders to lend their company’s name to the issue because Apple will lend its name and logo to fight for LGBTQ rights. All Americans will be affected by decisions made by Disney and Apple.
Note:  I believe it is important to distinguish some terms.  The so-called “anti-LGBTQ” laws are not against the 1% of the population who identify as transgender or the 3% who identify as homosexual (percentages according to the YouGov poll released in March). Instead these laws should rightly be termed parental rights legislation or child protection laws to protect the vulnerable from possible lifelong harm.
What is a parent to do? What is a Christian to do? How are parents to handle the area of children’s programs and entertainment? How do we respond? Boycott Disney? Throw away your Apple phone? Good luck with that! Even if that were possible, the extensive effects of Disney influence are worldwide. I think it is safe to say that one thing Americans will not give up is their freedom to be entertained. I’m probably including myself. I love sports. Many people do and to give that up would be a challenge.  “Don’t mess with my entertainment” might be the prevailing attitude.
I remember reading about the contrast between Christians in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Christians in America during the same time period. The difference was Christians under Khrushchev were tested by persecution while Christians in America were tested by their freedoms. Can it be said that our freedoms have blinded us and are holding us hostage, preventing us from bringing every thought captive to the word of God and keeping us from seeing the threat at our doorsteps? Some say that only time will tell, but I believe time is already telling! Let’s open our eyes and be accountable to truth.  Let’s seek to be transformed by the renewing of our minds in the Word of God instead of being conformed to the world system and its culture.
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. A Teaching Elder in the PCA, he has pastored churches in Alabama and South Carolina.

I could not help but notice that the song is replete with the word “no”. No heaven…no hell…no countries…no religion…and no possessions. According to the lyrics, somehow or in some way, the “no” of these things is supposed to bring about “a brotherhood of man” where all share the world, and we live as one.

Efforts toward global unity have been arising since the Tower of Babel when humanity spoke a single common language and attempted to reach the heavens. With this in mind, a question needs to be asked: Does God care more about unity than diversity? It is obvious that He did not allow mankind to keep the unity of one tongue but separated the population by language for His purpose of diversification.
God’s actions in changing mankind from one tongue to many at Babel hint at the nature of truth. By nature, truth tends to separate and clarify rather than unify. It separates itself from non-truth and vice versa.
Yes, this theme of uniting humanity has been here a long time. In our day we are bombarded with socialistic propaganda that looks suspiciously like Marxism, and supposedly all for the sake of unity. Take for example John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” that was sung at this year’s Olympic opening ceremonies in Tokyo this summer. It was also sung at the opening of the 2012 Olympics. Evidently, it is a favorite of some though not all. One New York Post article referred to it as a “totalitarian anthem” ( nypost.com/2021/07/25/imagine-blared-at-the-olympics-is-a-totalitarians-anthem/). One reason for this label is that a totalitarian worldview rules out any Creator/creature distinction. So, it is atheistic with no need for such a distinction or for that matter, any distinctions.
With a little discernment, one picks up on this from the beginning of Lennon’s lyrics:
“Imagine there’s no heaven; it’s easy if you try; no hell below us; Above us only sky; Imagine all the people Living for today…Aha-ah…; Imagine there’s no countries; It isn’t hard to do; Nothing to kill or die for; and no religion, too; Imagine all the people Living life in peace… You…; You might say I’m a dreamer; But I’m not the only one; I hope someday you’ll join us; And the world will be as one; Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can; No need for greed or hunger; A brotherhood of man; Imagine all the people sharing all the world… You…; You might say I’m a dreamer; But I’m not the only one; I hope someday you’ll join us; and the world will live as one”.
I could not help but notice that the song is replete with the word “no”. No heaven…no hell…no countries…no religion…and no possessions. According to the lyrics, somehow or in some way, the “no” of these things is supposed to bring about “a brotherhood of man” where all share the world, and we live as one.
There are worldview implications from such a “no” lens view. First, there’s the idea of no moral absolutes. If there is no heaven or hell, then all things are relative and permissible because nothing will matter and it is left to the individual to decide what is good or evil, reward or punishment. The “no” takes care of it.
Second, no countries certainly sounds like the promotion of the global community. It is a vote for open borders.
Third, no possessions sounds like there is no such thing as private property. Instead, as Lennon says, the brotherhood of man will share all the world. In light of humanity’s sin nature, please don’t hold your breath on that one.
The negation of the very things that are real or the denial of distinctions is not a biblical worldview and certainly not one that is Creator/creature distinctive. Instead, it is monistic (all is one/one is all) as expressed in Lennon’s words expressing hope that the world “will live as one,”
Not only do the Olympic ceremonies appear to promote this humanistic monism, but it also seems to be a common theme of the Olympics. Back in 1996, when they were held in Atlanta, after watching the mixing and mingling of people representing the colors of the Olympic flag, sports commentator, Dick Enberg, said “As you can see, now, the people of the world are becoming a mixture of one family as they create a mountain of humanity. All the tribes are losing their identity and for this occasion, this Olympics, they become one!”(https://arcapologetics.org/olympics-homosexuality-and-the-pagan-worldview/). One can see the parallel in antiquity, where the people of the world, all one language and one mindset, sought to secure their own future by their own efforts on their own mountain, the tower of Babel.
The truth is Lennon’s “Imagine” is more about “Re-Imagining” truth and reality, which is so prevalent today in the burgeoning woke and cancel cultures that want to redefine everything. In essence, it is an attempt to return to the tower of Babel… trying to build a world without God. Like Lennon, many of us may wish for a utopian society. But, like Lennon, we too would be dreaming, and to wish for such is a vain imagination that denies the nature of God-given truth and the very nature of God Himself.
The real God created the universe and man, and these are distinct from God. Our destiny, our noblest aspirations, and our fulfillment of them will only be complete in worship of the one true God.
Clete Hux is Director of the Apologetics Resource Center.