First, a bit on Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Testament. The justifications I've heard about why people quote from the Old Testament when we live under the New Testament (note I'm using the archaic definition[1] of Testament) usually pertain to how Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. Note in Matthew 5:17-18 [2] 17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. From this passage I've seen a few things argued but it comes down to what exactly Jesus fulfilled; some say that he only fulfilled part of the law and the rest is still binding. An interesting thing to note is that how one interprets this passage can be dependent on how one views the end of time/the world. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of the rapture (which I'll note is one aspect of one view of end time theology, also known as eschatology) but the idea is that there is still work to be done on this earth before the ultimate judgment and the ultimate goal of all of creation being in a perfect relationship with God. So the problem is now, what exactly is still applicable and what was fulfilled? I glossed over a hell of a lot there, but I hope I you get the idea. Now as for how this is talked about, from what I've seen is that outside the colleges, it isn't. As this article suggests, positions such as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc, are assumed and not much is preached about them - at least directly - from the metaphorical pulpit. Worse, there is a growing trend of people simply leaving churches when the leadership indicates a leaning to anything other than the assumed positions. My Intro to Christian Theology teacher told us a story of how people in the church he goes to had left their former congregation because the pastor spoke of evolution in a non-negative way. Add to this that a lot of zealotry for these assumed positions will also push away moderates and more liberal Christians; this results in a very conservative tone from most church leadership. In my opinion, it also hurts the conversation of theology in a way similar to a filter bubble[3]. For an example of this in action we need only look at the St. John’s Vancouver Anglican Church. This church split from it's bishop over his support for same-sex marriage and as a result had to move to a different location for their services [4]. Knowing that, try and read this[5] article about the move. Except for once in the backgrounder, the issue of same-sex marriage is only alluded to and wrapped in a lot of spiritual purple prose. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testament [2] http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=196714694 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble [4] http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=079d4... [5] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2011/09/22/largest-anglic...