Bible Prophecy, Signs of the Times and Gog and Magog Updates with Articles in the News
A “Third Testament”? The Alarming Rise Of Pastors Who Reject God’s Word
When Yvette Flunder stood before an audience connected to the Center for Public Theology & Public Policy, she didn’t hedge, soften, or qualify her words. She leaned into them. “This is a very dangerous thing that I’m about to say,” she admitted–before saying it anyway.
In her view, the Bible has become “problematic.” The New Testament is not the Word of God. And if certain passages offend? “We need to pull that page out.” Her conclusion: perhaps Christianity now needs a “Third Testament.”
Those statements weren’t abstract theology. They were direct, unambiguous, and rooted in a broader worldview she has long embraced.
Flunder is the senior pastor of the City of Refuge United Church of Christ (UCC) in Oakland, California and the presiding bishop of The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries. She of course identifies as a lesbian and is married to another female. She openly identifies with womanist and liberation theology frameworks–approaches that prioritize lived experience, social justice, and marginalized perspectives as interpretive lenses for faith.
In her remarks, that framework was unmistakable. Scripture, she argued, is not the Word of God itself, but merely “words about God”–and therefore open to revision.
That distinction may sound subtle. It is anything but.
Because once Scripture is reduced to human reflection rather than divine revelation, its authority collapses. It becomes negotiable–subject to editing, deletion, and reconstruction based on cultural or personal preference. In that framework, “pulling pages out” is not shocking. It is logical.
And that’s precisely what makes her comments so consequential.
For two millennia, Christianity has rested on a fundamentally different claim: that the Bible–Old and New Testaments alike–is inspired, authoritative, and binding, even when it confronts human desires or cultural norms. From the early church through the upheaval of the Protestant Reformation, debates over interpretation have been fierce. But the authority of Scripture itself was the common ground.
Flunder’s position removes that ground entirely.
If the Bible is not the Word of God, but merely human commentary, then it carries no inherent authority. It becomes one voice among many–useful when it affirms, disposable when it challenges. The result is not a reinterpreted Christianity. It is a reinvented one.
And this is not happening in isolation.
Across segments of the United Church of Christ and similar progressive spaces, there has been a growing willingness to move beyond reinterpretation into outright revision. Some clergy have described biblical teachings on gender and sexuality as outdated constructs rather than enduring truths.
Others have reframed sin as a social category rather than a spiritual reality, or elevated personal identity above scriptural instruction. In certain sermons and public statements, the Bible is treated less as a foundation and more as a flexible resource–one that can be reshaped to align with contemporary values.
That trajectory leads somewhere.
Because if Scripture can be rewritten, then doctrine has no fixed form. If doctrine has no fixed form, then truth itself becomes fluid. And if truth becomes fluid, the church loses its ability to speak with clarity, authority, or conviction.
What remains is not historic Christianity–it is something else entirely.
To be clear, Christians have always wrestled with difficult passages. The tension between faith and culture is not new. Early believers faced persecution for refusing to conform to Roman norms. Reformers challenged corruption within the church at great cost. Every generation has had to decide whether to conform Scripture to the culture–or allow Scripture to confront the culture.
What feels different now is the openness with which some leaders are choosing the former.
Flunder didn’t present her view as a struggle. She presented it as a solution. If the text is difficult, change the text. If the doctrine is offensive, rewrite the doctrine. If the Bible no longer fits the moment, create a new one.
But that solution comes at a price.
It removes any stable foundation for belief. It fractures unity within the broader church. And perhaps most significantly, it leaves those listening–especially younger believers–with a faith that feels endlessly adjustable and ultimately uncertain.
There is, however, a kind of clarity in what she said.
Because it forces a question that many churches have tried to avoid: Is Christianity something we receive–or something we revise according to our own standards?
Those are not two paths to the same destination. They are entirely different roads.
One begins with the assumption that God has spoken, even when His words challenge us. The other begins with the assumption that we must speak for God, correcting what no longer aligns with our understanding.
Flunder chose her path–and stated it plainly.
The question now is whether the church is willing to recognize just how far that path leads.
Iran can’t make its own gasoline — A US naval blockade exploits that and will be painful
With every year, it gets harder for Iranian engineers to extract oil from their fields and mismanagement has only accelerated the process.
A U.S. Blockade of Iran Is the Right Move
Forty-seven years of mismanagement have left Iran a paradox. On paper, it should be one of the world’s wealthiest states.
It is not only the world’s third-largest holder of proven crude oil reserves but is also the second-largest holder of natural gas reserves.
At a minimum, its development should be on par with, if not far superior to, Dubai and Doha.
Both were dusty backwaters at the time of the Islamic Revolution.
Beyond oil, Iran had human capital that the Gulf Arab states could only salivate over. Iranians were the region’s engineers and scientists. Universities excelled across disciplines.
Whether for manual labor, management, or innovation, Iran had all the building blocks to be a first-world country.
Why Iran Isn’t Rich Like Dubai…or Better
Instead, the clerical regime squandered Iranian wealth.
Blaming sanctions is naïve. Foreign investors steered clear of Iran due to its corruption and lack of both commercial law and an independent judiciary.
Export of revolution and subsidies for proxy groups trumped basic infrastructure investment.
Netanyahu pressing Mossad over Iranian uprising: report
Sanctions did matter, of course.
In 2025, Saeed-Reza Ameli, former secretary of Iran’s Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, estimated sanctions had cost the Iranian economy $1.2 trillion since 2013.
Given that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program extended back four decades, and factoring in the real cost is likely upwards of $2 trillion.
Iran Has An Oil Problem…As In Old Oil Fields
Both American and Iranian pundits and politicians can spin and ascribe blame, but certain facts remain indisputable.
First, Iran’s oil fields are in decline. Many are now more than half a century old, and some more than a century.
With every year, it gets harder for Iranian engineers to extract oil from the same fields. Mismanagement has only accelerated the process.
To compensate, the Islamic Republic injects gasoline into the fields to increase oil production.
This leads to the second problem: Even before the current war, the Islamic Republic lacked sufficient refining capacity to meet its own refined gasoline needs.
Accordingly, it has imported gasoline from China, the Netherlands, and Venezuela. Venezuela, of course, is no longer an option, and Operation Epic Fury has set the regime back further, especially after Israel’s bombing of Asaluyeh.
While Iran’s blanket infringement on freedom of navigation for non-combatants and its efforts to charge tolls for transiting ships are illegal, blockades during military campaigns are not. Seizing Iranian ships and blockading ports is legal.
1,500 missiles, drones fired at Israel; 6,000 IRGC troops killed
Why A Blockage Will Hurt Iran
Blockading Iranian vessels and ships destined for Iran would have several immediate military benefits.
First, seizing Iranian crude would deny the regime the ability to pay its salaries and those of its proxies.
Second, blockading Iranian ports would prevent the regime from importing gasoline.
This would both temporarily impede Iranian oil extraction and would also reduce the amount of fuel available to the Islamic Republic to move its military, the security forces, and proxies it uses to massacre civilians.
Blockading Iranian ports would also prevent the shipment of Chinese or Russian missiles, especially since the United States and Israel now control Iran’s airspace.
The U.S. Navy, however, could ensure the Strait remains open for everyone but Iran and its Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Spanish patrons.
What History Teaches
In 1999, President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia to compel it to cease its operations in Kosovo.
Even though many Americans demanded regime change, Clinton left Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević in power when he ended the campaign.
With many of his supporters dead and his economy in tatters, Milošević fell from power in a popular uprising the following year.
The key to replicating the Serbian precedent is to ensure Iran cannot rebuild in the interim.
Iran peace talks unlikely to succeed, Israel estimates
Many within Congress and the media today allow their hatred for President Donald Trump to outweigh their desire for the United States to achieve its war aims.
Iranian leaders may posture as strong for issuing maximalist demands, but the world should see them for what they are: Buffoons who missed an opportunity to spare their regime more pain.
Time For Iran to Feel the Pain
The negotiation was not one between equals, but rather between a giant about to stomp and the mouse underfoot.
While the media frames the survival of a few top leaders as a defeat for Trump, the reality is different:
The United States has decimated most of Iran’s military infrastructure. The United States and Israel control Iran’s airspace.
The regime has little ability to recover economically, absent external investment. The mouse may now be crushed.
Cutting off strategic imports and lucrative exports will be essential, however, to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Frankly, the real question now is why the Pentagon has been so reticent to do what was so obviously necessary on the first day of the war.