From The Lutheran:
WordAlone is also concerned about “a decline of the proper mission” within the ELCA and reduced numbers of missionaries, “compromise on fundamental Lutheran doctrine in ecumenical agreements,” “avoiding masculine pronouns for God,” and “[ELCA] leaders who say Lutherans can agree to disagree on sexual morality and ethics,” Chavez said, adding: “Both the Old and New Testament prohibit [homosexuality].”
Jane Ralph and 100 other protesters from Goodsoil faced the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando, Fla., in a silent protest after the assembly voted not to allow pastors in same-sex relationships. Ralph left the ELCA clergy roster in 1998, and is now rostered with the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, an independent Lutheran ministry roster formed in 1993 for gays and lesbians.
Selectively literal?
More to the point, said Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned/North America, a movement with 330 “Reconciling in Christ” congregations (welcoming of lesbians and gays), is that “Jesus says nothing about same-gender relationships but espouses a continuous ethic of love.”
“When we interpret Scripture from the Old Testament and the epistles we use the lens of the gospel and the witness of Jesus to assist our interpretation,” she said. “Our experience with those who claim a literal interpretation of Scripture is that they are selectively literal, picking and choosing which Scriptures will be interpreted literally.”
Eastwood said everyone interprets Scripture through tradition, what they’re taught and life experience. “The question becomes whether God still speaks to us about issues of justice and morality when our experience and engagement of [gay-
lesbian-bisexual-transgendered] believers would stand in contrast to some biblical passages,” she said.
“[LC/NA] isn’t afraid of dissent to the point of ecclesial disobedience. We see policies of exclusion as being inconsistent with the witness of Jesus,” she said. “The purpose of ecclesial disobedience is to shine a light on the injustice of discrimination ... knowing full well that censure or sanction may follow.”
Erik Christensen sees himself as both a dissenter and more than that. He’s a candidate for the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, an independent Lutheran ministry roster formed in 1993 for gays and lesbians that isn’t recognized by the ELCA. Denominational policy requires clergy to remain celibate outside of heterosexual marriage. The project’s roster has 34 clergy, five approved ordination candidates and six seminarians. Some of its clergy were once ELCA pastors before being removed for noncompliance with policy.
“ECP’s candidacy panels are made up of pastors, seminary professors and other leaders,” Christensen said, adding that its standards are as strict as the ELCA candidacy
process—except for the requirement for gays and lesbians to stay unpartnered and celibate. “It’s done as a way to stay in community with the ELCA, not [as] a process for congregations no longer interested in being part of the ELCA,” he said.
Selectively literal? My sweet tailfin! What the gay agenda idealogues have done, which is not that different from all revisionists and appears to be running rampant through the ranks of clergy, is make one way of reading law and gospel a selective hermeneutic so that they can find gospel in the doing of whatever it is that they think would be a good thing to do. They are turning gospel into law.
I have come to believe that what these folks are doing is a greater theological problem than Luther's concerns about salvation through faith and works.
Read it all here.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Final Report At The Episcopal Church: Mother Jesus? Interviews With Church Liberals, Conservatives & Bloggers.
Final Report At The Episcopal Church: Mother Jesus? Interviews With Church Liberals, Conservatives & Bloggers. Finally, How Did The Catholic Church Avoid The Dire Situation That Looms For The Episcopal Church? By Dave Hartline
Rarely does one witness a major historical event in Church History. In my first report last week, I spoke of my perceptions along with some interviews. Now I am confident in saying that the Episcopal Convention, which is concluding in Columbus, Ohio, is not only a major event for the Episcopal Church but the Catholic Church as well. The leaders at the Convention passed a different version of the Windsor Report, some would say a watered down version. This Anglican report had asked that the American (Episcopal) Church apologize and repent for allowing the blessing same sex unions and ordaining an openly gay bishop. The odd thing about this convention is both the liberal side and the conservative side seems to think they lost. The moderates think they won. However, the energy is not on their side, it is on the side of conservatives and liberals, with the liberals, although smaller in numbers, having more of the momentum. Perhaps the new head of US Episcopal Bishops, Katherine Jefferts Shori, sent a message in her first homily by saying, “Mother Jesus.”
The Catholic Church will be greatly affected by this convention. The Catholic Church will receive many converts and none of them will be liberal. The orthodox faithful of the Episcopal Church who are considering coming our way have made it very clear to me that if they come they will preach, from the rooftops if necessary, the evils of liberalism, relativism etc. One person said to me, “If I do cross the Tiber, I will preach from the rooftops about the wickedness I have seen envelope my church. I cannot stand to see this happen to anyone else.”
One of the main voices of the traditional side is the Reverend Canon Kendall Harmon. He runs the very influential Titusonenine.com website. He is Oxford educated and is from South Carolina. The following is his assessment of the Episcopal Convention.
Dave Hartline Where is the Episcopal Church right now?
Read the whole thing here (please, read to end, Susan Russell and VGR).
Rarely does one witness a major historical event in Church History. In my first report last week, I spoke of my perceptions along with some interviews. Now I am confident in saying that the Episcopal Convention, which is concluding in Columbus, Ohio, is not only a major event for the Episcopal Church but the Catholic Church as well. The leaders at the Convention passed a different version of the Windsor Report, some would say a watered down version. This Anglican report had asked that the American (Episcopal) Church apologize and repent for allowing the blessing same sex unions and ordaining an openly gay bishop. The odd thing about this convention is both the liberal side and the conservative side seems to think they lost. The moderates think they won. However, the energy is not on their side, it is on the side of conservatives and liberals, with the liberals, although smaller in numbers, having more of the momentum. Perhaps the new head of US Episcopal Bishops, Katherine Jefferts Shori, sent a message in her first homily by saying, “Mother Jesus.”
The Catholic Church will be greatly affected by this convention. The Catholic Church will receive many converts and none of them will be liberal. The orthodox faithful of the Episcopal Church who are considering coming our way have made it very clear to me that if they come they will preach, from the rooftops if necessary, the evils of liberalism, relativism etc. One person said to me, “If I do cross the Tiber, I will preach from the rooftops about the wickedness I have seen envelope my church. I cannot stand to see this happen to anyone else.”
One of the main voices of the traditional side is the Reverend Canon Kendall Harmon. He runs the very influential Titusonenine.com website. He is Oxford educated and is from South Carolina. The following is his assessment of the Episcopal Convention.
Dave Hartline Where is the Episcopal Church right now?
Read the whole thing here (please, read to end, Susan Russell and VGR).
Same-Sex Marriage Flounders
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, JUNE 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- After the clamor to legalize same-sex marriage, it turns out that not many homosexuals really want it. Following a bitter battle last year, the Spanish government gave homosexuals the right to marry. Since the law took effect last July 3, until May 31, only 1,275 same-sex marriages took place, reported the Madrid daily newspaper ABC last Saturday.
Comparatively, that would add up to a mere 0.6% of the 209,125 marriages contracted in Spain during 2005. Of the total number of same-sex marriages, 923 were between males and 352 among females.
A recent study by the Virginia-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy did a roundup of same-sex marriage trends. The study, "Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada and Europe," was published April 26.
So far the highest estimate of the proportion of homosexuals who have used the new laws to marry is in the American state of Massachusetts, with 16.7% tying the knot. But this seems to be an exception. In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been established the longest, the percentage was far lower.
The authors of the study, Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, warn that it is often difficult to obtain precise data, either on the number of same-sex marriages, or on the number of homosexuals in a given geographical area.
The Dutch experience
In April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legally recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. From this date till the end of last year, 8,127 same-sex couples married in the Netherlands. Dutch survey data suggest that 2.8% of Dutch men and 1.4% of Dutch women are homosexuals. Assuming all same-sex partners who wedded in the Netherlands were residents, roughly 6.3% of homosexuals married by year-end 2005. The percentage, both here and in the following countries, includes all who were ever married, not necessarily the number of current marriages.
Belgium, in June 2003, followed the Netherlands. During the rest of that year, 1,708 same-sex couples married in Belgium. By year-end 2004 this increased to 2,204 couples. The authors did not find official estimates of the numbers of homosexuals in Belgium. If it were the same percentage as in the Netherlands, then roughly 4.7% of Belgian homosexuals had married by year-end 2004.
In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeals led the way for same-sex marriages in June 2003. Eventually, courts in various provinces followed suit. Same-sex marriage was legalized at the national level last summer.
The law allows couples to marry without either of them being resident in Canada. After checking newspaper reports and contacting statistics offices, Gallagher and Baker confirmed that many of the same-sex marriages are between non-Canadian couples, mostly from the United States.
Gallagher and Baker were able to obtain data on same-sex marriage from nine of Canada's 13 provinces. In British Columbia, 2,531 same-sex marriages were contracted from July 2003 through year-end 2005. In Quebec, same-sex marriages have been available since March 2004. Between then and last September, 574 homosexual couples married.
The Canadian Community Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada first asked about sexual orientation in 2003. This resulted in 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women aged 18 to 59 identifying themselves as homosexuals. Of the seven provinces that have had same-sex marriage for at least one year, between 0.15% and 14% of Canadian homosexuals entered such marriages.
South of the border, in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage was introduced on May 17, 2004. That year, 5,994 same-sex couples married. Recent official data indicate that an additional 1,347 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts last year, for a total of 7,341 such unions between May 2004 and December 2005.
According to the study, there are not reliable estimates of the homosexual population in Massachusetts. Assuming the proportion is the same as the national average (2.3% of men and 1.3% of women), and assuming all the marriages are between local residents, 16.7% of homosexuals entered into same-sex marriages.
The future
Information from newspaper reports and data collected by Gallagher and Baker suggest that the number of same-sex marriages, after an initial burst, appears to be decreasing with each passing year.
This is clearest in the Netherlands. In 2001, from April to December, 2,414 couples entered into same-sex marriages. In 2002, the number of new same-sex marriages dropped to 1,838. By 2003 this decreased to 1,499. In 2004 there was a further fall, to 1,210. Recently released statistics put the number for 2005 at 1,166 couples.
The data contained in Gallagher and Baker's study was supported by Hudson Institute fellow Stanley Kurtz. Writing on June 5 in National Review Online, he argued that statistics from Northern Europe confirm the trend to low levels of same-sex unions.
Kurtz drew his information from a new study by a pair of Scandinavian demographers, Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack: "The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden."
Scandinavian countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for many years, and for all intents and purposes there is little to distinguish them from marriage. In Norway, from 1993 through 2001, only 1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted, compared with 196,000 heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered between 1995 and 2002, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages.
Papal defense
Meanwhile, Benedict XVI continues to defend the value of marriage between a man and woman as a vital social institution. On May 20, in his speech welcoming Spain's new ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope stated: "The Church proclaims wholeheartedly the fundamental right to life from conception to its natural end, the right to be born, to form and to live in a family, and not to let the family be supplanted by other institutions or different forms."
He added that during his July visit to the World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain, he is looking forward to being able to "celebrate the beauty and fruitfulness of the family founded on marriage, its exalted vocation and indispensable social value."
Just two days earlier, in his speech to Australia's new ambassador, the Pontiff noted that many young people are realizing "that it is the transcendent order that steers all life along the path of authentic freedom and happiness."
This respect for a transcendent order, he continued, enables Australians to recognize the fundamental importance of marriage and stable domestic life at the heart of society. "They appreciate that pseudo-forms of 'marriage' distort the Creator's design and undermine the truth of our human nature."
Shortly afterward, Australia's national government overruled an attempt by local authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, the relatively small area where Canberra is located, to introduce same-sex marriage, under the guise of civil unions.
The federal Cabinet decided to invalidate the new law introduced in mid-May, the Age newspaper reported June 7. Prime Minister John Howard branded the law "a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage -- and we don't agree with that." The federal Parliament voted in 2004 to explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The numbers elsewhere indicate that traditional marriage remains far more popular too.
Comparatively, that would add up to a mere 0.6% of the 209,125 marriages contracted in Spain during 2005. Of the total number of same-sex marriages, 923 were between males and 352 among females.
A recent study by the Virginia-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy did a roundup of same-sex marriage trends. The study, "Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada and Europe," was published April 26.
So far the highest estimate of the proportion of homosexuals who have used the new laws to marry is in the American state of Massachusetts, with 16.7% tying the knot. But this seems to be an exception. In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been established the longest, the percentage was far lower.
The authors of the study, Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, warn that it is often difficult to obtain precise data, either on the number of same-sex marriages, or on the number of homosexuals in a given geographical area.
The Dutch experience
In April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legally recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. From this date till the end of last year, 8,127 same-sex couples married in the Netherlands. Dutch survey data suggest that 2.8% of Dutch men and 1.4% of Dutch women are homosexuals. Assuming all same-sex partners who wedded in the Netherlands were residents, roughly 6.3% of homosexuals married by year-end 2005. The percentage, both here and in the following countries, includes all who were ever married, not necessarily the number of current marriages.
Belgium, in June 2003, followed the Netherlands. During the rest of that year, 1,708 same-sex couples married in Belgium. By year-end 2004 this increased to 2,204 couples. The authors did not find official estimates of the numbers of homosexuals in Belgium. If it were the same percentage as in the Netherlands, then roughly 4.7% of Belgian homosexuals had married by year-end 2004.
In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeals led the way for same-sex marriages in June 2003. Eventually, courts in various provinces followed suit. Same-sex marriage was legalized at the national level last summer.
The law allows couples to marry without either of them being resident in Canada. After checking newspaper reports and contacting statistics offices, Gallagher and Baker confirmed that many of the same-sex marriages are between non-Canadian couples, mostly from the United States.
Gallagher and Baker were able to obtain data on same-sex marriage from nine of Canada's 13 provinces. In British Columbia, 2,531 same-sex marriages were contracted from July 2003 through year-end 2005. In Quebec, same-sex marriages have been available since March 2004. Between then and last September, 574 homosexual couples married.
The Canadian Community Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada first asked about sexual orientation in 2003. This resulted in 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women aged 18 to 59 identifying themselves as homosexuals. Of the seven provinces that have had same-sex marriage for at least one year, between 0.15% and 14% of Canadian homosexuals entered such marriages.
South of the border, in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage was introduced on May 17, 2004. That year, 5,994 same-sex couples married. Recent official data indicate that an additional 1,347 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts last year, for a total of 7,341 such unions between May 2004 and December 2005.
According to the study, there are not reliable estimates of the homosexual population in Massachusetts. Assuming the proportion is the same as the national average (2.3% of men and 1.3% of women), and assuming all the marriages are between local residents, 16.7% of homosexuals entered into same-sex marriages.
The future
Information from newspaper reports and data collected by Gallagher and Baker suggest that the number of same-sex marriages, after an initial burst, appears to be decreasing with each passing year.
This is clearest in the Netherlands. In 2001, from April to December, 2,414 couples entered into same-sex marriages. In 2002, the number of new same-sex marriages dropped to 1,838. By 2003 this decreased to 1,499. In 2004 there was a further fall, to 1,210. Recently released statistics put the number for 2005 at 1,166 couples.
The data contained in Gallagher and Baker's study was supported by Hudson Institute fellow Stanley Kurtz. Writing on June 5 in National Review Online, he argued that statistics from Northern Europe confirm the trend to low levels of same-sex unions.
Kurtz drew his information from a new study by a pair of Scandinavian demographers, Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack: "The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden."
Scandinavian countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for many years, and for all intents and purposes there is little to distinguish them from marriage. In Norway, from 1993 through 2001, only 1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted, compared with 196,000 heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered between 1995 and 2002, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages.
Papal defense
Meanwhile, Benedict XVI continues to defend the value of marriage between a man and woman as a vital social institution. On May 20, in his speech welcoming Spain's new ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope stated: "The Church proclaims wholeheartedly the fundamental right to life from conception to its natural end, the right to be born, to form and to live in a family, and not to let the family be supplanted by other institutions or different forms."
He added that during his July visit to the World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain, he is looking forward to being able to "celebrate the beauty and fruitfulness of the family founded on marriage, its exalted vocation and indispensable social value."
Just two days earlier, in his speech to Australia's new ambassador, the Pontiff noted that many young people are realizing "that it is the transcendent order that steers all life along the path of authentic freedom and happiness."
This respect for a transcendent order, he continued, enables Australians to recognize the fundamental importance of marriage and stable domestic life at the heart of society. "They appreciate that pseudo-forms of 'marriage' distort the Creator's design and undermine the truth of our human nature."
Shortly afterward, Australia's national government overruled an attempt by local authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, the relatively small area where Canberra is located, to introduce same-sex marriage, under the guise of civil unions.
The federal Cabinet decided to invalidate the new law introduced in mid-May, the Age newspaper reported June 7. Prime Minister John Howard branded the law "a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage -- and we don't agree with that." The federal Parliament voted in 2004 to explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The numbers elsewhere indicate that traditional marriage remains far more popular too.
Friday, June 23, 2006
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OFFICIALLY OPPOSES ANY LIMITATION TO SAME SEX CIVIL UNIONS
Matt Kennedy
June 23, 10:57 am
For two weeks now, we’ve been focused rather myopically on B033 and the other Windsor related resolutions.
In fact, after the final vote on B033 Wednesday afternoon, most press organizations, Stand Firm included, packed up and headed home.
But there were several hours of legislative action still to go. During that time a number of resolutions were passed through the HOD without attention or debate.
One of those resolutions was resolution A095, which reads in its final form:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention’s action calling upon “municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples”; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.
In an interesting exchange that took place during the debate on this resolution in the Social and Urban Affairs Committee, a committee member asked Elizabeth Keaton (also a committee member):
“Has the Episcopal Church ever voted to support same sex civil marriage?”
Ms. Keaton replied: “This is it.”*
Logically speaking the language does not, in fact, commit the Episcopal Church to actively support civil unions.
It does, however, commit the Church to actively oppose any move to limit or stop them.
Now you know.
*The dialogue above is based on the signed and written testimony of two sources."
So, don't you love it when people who think they are claiming the high moral ground in a civil rights promotion pull stunts like this...Griswold even told the press "We never.." while he knew this was 24 hours down the pike.
The above is found on Stand Firm. If you missed it, read Matt's reporting, watch the videos of Kendall Harmon and the recent essays of Sarah Hey.
June 23, 10:57 am
For two weeks now, we’ve been focused rather myopically on B033 and the other Windsor related resolutions.
In fact, after the final vote on B033 Wednesday afternoon, most press organizations, Stand Firm included, packed up and headed home.
But there were several hours of legislative action still to go. During that time a number of resolutions were passed through the HOD without attention or debate.
One of those resolutions was resolution A095, which reads in its final form:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church’s historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention’s action calling upon “municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples”; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.
In an interesting exchange that took place during the debate on this resolution in the Social and Urban Affairs Committee, a committee member asked Elizabeth Keaton (also a committee member):
“Has the Episcopal Church ever voted to support same sex civil marriage?”
Ms. Keaton replied: “This is it.”*
Logically speaking the language does not, in fact, commit the Episcopal Church to actively support civil unions.
It does, however, commit the Church to actively oppose any move to limit or stop them.
Now you know.
*The dialogue above is based on the signed and written testimony of two sources."
So, don't you love it when people who think they are claiming the high moral ground in a civil rights promotion pull stunts like this...Griswold even told the press "We never.." while he knew this was 24 hours down the pike.
The above is found on Stand Firm. If you missed it, read Matt's reporting, watch the videos of Kendall Harmon and the recent essays of Sarah Hey.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Fetus Saves
From WSJ ONline's "Best of the Web" (Mnpls Star-Tribune)
"Delegates of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are to tackle whether to adopt gender-inclusive language for worship of the divine Trinity along with the traditional 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' " the Associated Press reports from Birmingham, Ala.:
The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit''--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb'' or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend'' at some Presbyterian . . . services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
"Mother, Child and Womb"? That's even more sexist than the old patriarchal Trinity. We suspect God will be quite angry at the suggestion that she is no more than an Incubator. It ought to be "Woman, Fetus and Body."
"Rock, Redeemer, Friend" is much better, and it's easy to remember. Rock crushes Redeemer, Redeemer cuts Friend, Friend covers Rock.
"Delegates of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are to tackle whether to adopt gender-inclusive language for worship of the divine Trinity along with the traditional 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' " the Associated Press reports from Birmingham, Ala.:
The divine Trinity--"Father, Son and Holy Spirit''--could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb'' or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend'' at some Presbyterian . . . services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
"Mother, Child and Womb"? That's even more sexist than the old patriarchal Trinity. We suspect God will be quite angry at the suggestion that she is no more than an Incubator. It ought to be "Woman, Fetus and Body."
"Rock, Redeemer, Friend" is much better, and it's easy to remember. Rock crushes Redeemer, Redeemer cuts Friend, Friend covers Rock.
Homosexuals Targeting Military, Churches
Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan (D) is criticizing a Pentagon document that lists homosexuality among a list of mental disorders. Meehan says, "[It's] more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake." The American Psychiatric Association was forced to re-classify in the face of threats by militant homosexuals in 1973. Our military, however, should not back down under threat. The U.S. military does not march to the beat of the politically correct drummers. Some church leaders, unfortunately, do. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A has just voted to continue to name homosexual bishops and affirm same-sex unions. The Episcopalians' House of Deputies defeated a compromise resolution that would have halted for three years any more such actions. Canon David Anderson of the American Anglican Council said the convention action will lead the U.S. Episcopal Church out of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) also dealt with this topic in a resolution. Delegates meeting in Birmingham, Alabama voted to keep regulations against homosexual relations on the books but to allow local option for enforcement. This renders the restriction meaningless. Robert Gagnon, a New Testament professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, said the PCUSA had just reached a "transition point" that breaks from Jesus' teaching on the sanctity of marriage. We can only deplore these developments in the churches and offer our sincere prayers for those in these embattled denominations who are fighting a noble fight to defend the consistent teachings of biblical Christianity.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Where’s The Outrage Over The Beating Of David Parker’s Son?
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!
In April, 2005, Parker met with the Estabrook principal and the director of education over the promotion of homosexuality in the classroom. He asked to be notified in advanced about any pro-homosexual teachings so he could pull his child out of the class. He then refused to leave the office until they agreed to his request. They called the police and had him arrested for “trespassing” instead. He was handcuffed and spent a night in jail before facing a judge.
Ever since his arrest for trespassing, he and his family have been the victims of a pro-homosexual smear campaign in Lexington. In this latest attack, Parker’s first grader was assaulted on the playground by eight to ten children on the second anniversary of the imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by the Supreme Judicial Court.
These young hoodlums surrounded Parker’s son on the playground, threw him against a wall and began punching him in the chest, stomach, and genital area. As he fell to the ground, one of the thugs said, “Now you can finish him off.” Fortunately, one girl ran to get a playground aide to stop the beating.
My good friend Brian Camenker, who heads MassResistance, is one of the few individuals to report on this hateful assault on David Parker’s son. Where are the outcries against “hate crimes” by liberal journalists? Where are the candlelight vigils on behalf of his son? Has Parker been invited to tell his story on Good Morning, America? Of course, not. Liberal hatred directed against a first grader isn’t apparently considered “hate,” but justice directed at the son of a “homophobic” parent.
Estabrook Elementary School’s leadership is apparently captive to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which sets up programs to make schools “safe” for students who think they are homosexuals. While GLSEN may make schools “safe” for homosexual recruitment programs, it obviously does not make schools safe for children who do not wish to be indoctrinated into thinking that homosexual conduct is normal or healthy. David Parker’s son is a chilling example of what may happen to other children whose parents oppose the normalization of homosexual sex among kids. Are schools to become unsafe places for these children?
It is time for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to step up and be counted. He has expressed support for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman union as the best protector of children. He should also put his convictions on the line by launching a thorough investigation into this hate-filled assault on David Parker’s son.
Gov. Romney should find out if pro-homosexual parents encouraged their children to beat up Parker’s son, to make sure the hoodlums who assaulted this child are punished, and to assure that all schools in Massachusetts are “safe” places for children who think homosexual behaviors are abnormal and physically dangerous. If parents encouraged this beating, they should be prosecuted as accessories to a crime.
In my view, David Parker is one of the most courageous individuals in America. He has had the courage to take on the homosexual activist movement and to protest against the recruitment of children into life-threatening homosexual behaviors. He should be honored, not vilified—and his son should not fear being beaten up on the playground.
What has happened to David Parker and his son is a frightening example of what will occur to anyone who openly opposes the homosexualization of our nation’s children. This injustice against Parker and his family must be corrected—and Governor Mitt Romney should take a leadership role in seeing that justice is done—and making certain that all children are safe in Massachusetts schools – not just sexually confused children who are being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle.
###
This Editorial can be viewd online at:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2755
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Sheldon is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, an ordained minister, and the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington, DC. His new book, The Agenda -- The Homosexual Plan to Change America, was recently released by FrontLine Publishers, a Strang Communications company.
Traditional Values Coalition is an inter-denominational public
policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please call
(202) 547-8570.
TVC
139 C. Street SE,
Washington, DC 20003.
Web site address: http://www.traditionalvalues.org
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
The mainstream media has ignored a major news story out of Massachusetts involving a first grader who was dragged and beaten on the playground at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington. His crime? He is the son of David Parker, a concerned parent who objects to his son being taught about homosexuality. School officials have admitted that the attack on his son was planned and premeditated!
In April, 2005, Parker met with the Estabrook principal and the director of education over the promotion of homosexuality in the classroom. He asked to be notified in advanced about any pro-homosexual teachings so he could pull his child out of the class. He then refused to leave the office until they agreed to his request. They called the police and had him arrested for “trespassing” instead. He was handcuffed and spent a night in jail before facing a judge.
Ever since his arrest for trespassing, he and his family have been the victims of a pro-homosexual smear campaign in Lexington. In this latest attack, Parker’s first grader was assaulted on the playground by eight to ten children on the second anniversary of the imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by the Supreme Judicial Court.
These young hoodlums surrounded Parker’s son on the playground, threw him against a wall and began punching him in the chest, stomach, and genital area. As he fell to the ground, one of the thugs said, “Now you can finish him off.” Fortunately, one girl ran to get a playground aide to stop the beating.
My good friend Brian Camenker, who heads MassResistance, is one of the few individuals to report on this hateful assault on David Parker’s son. Where are the outcries against “hate crimes” by liberal journalists? Where are the candlelight vigils on behalf of his son? Has Parker been invited to tell his story on Good Morning, America? Of course, not. Liberal hatred directed against a first grader isn’t apparently considered “hate,” but justice directed at the son of a “homophobic” parent.
Estabrook Elementary School’s leadership is apparently captive to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which sets up programs to make schools “safe” for students who think they are homosexuals. While GLSEN may make schools “safe” for homosexual recruitment programs, it obviously does not make schools safe for children who do not wish to be indoctrinated into thinking that homosexual conduct is normal or healthy. David Parker’s son is a chilling example of what may happen to other children whose parents oppose the normalization of homosexual sex among kids. Are schools to become unsafe places for these children?
It is time for Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to step up and be counted. He has expressed support for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman union as the best protector of children. He should also put his convictions on the line by launching a thorough investigation into this hate-filled assault on David Parker’s son.
Gov. Romney should find out if pro-homosexual parents encouraged their children to beat up Parker’s son, to make sure the hoodlums who assaulted this child are punished, and to assure that all schools in Massachusetts are “safe” places for children who think homosexual behaviors are abnormal and physically dangerous. If parents encouraged this beating, they should be prosecuted as accessories to a crime.
In my view, David Parker is one of the most courageous individuals in America. He has had the courage to take on the homosexual activist movement and to protest against the recruitment of children into life-threatening homosexual behaviors. He should be honored, not vilified—and his son should not fear being beaten up on the playground.
What has happened to David Parker and his son is a frightening example of what will occur to anyone who openly opposes the homosexualization of our nation’s children. This injustice against Parker and his family must be corrected—and Governor Mitt Romney should take a leadership role in seeing that justice is done—and making certain that all children are safe in Massachusetts schools – not just sexually confused children who are being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle.
###
This Editorial can be viewd online at:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2755
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Sheldon is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, an ordained minister, and the founder of the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington, DC. His new book, The Agenda -- The Homosexual Plan to Change America, was recently released by FrontLine Publishers, a Strang Communications company.
Traditional Values Coalition is an inter-denominational public
policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please call
(202) 547-8570.
TVC
139 C. Street SE,
Washington, DC 20003.
Web site address: http://www.traditionalvalues.org
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
US Church defiant on gay bishops
BBC NEWS / AMERICAS
US Church defiant on gay bishops
Members of the US Episcopal Church have rejected a demand from the worldwide Anglican Church that they stop appointing gay bishops.
Correspondents say the decision by the Church's House of Deputies could lead to a permanent split within the world Anglican communion.
The US Church attracted the ire of conservative Anglicans by appointing gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.
The issue may still be revived before the end of the conference on Wednesday.
The House of Bishops may try to return to the question of a ban but the House of Deputies - which voted against the move by nearly a two-thirds majority - would have to go back on its decision for it to pass.
Two days ago the conference took a further radical step by electing a female leader.
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made clear on Monday that she believes homosexuality is not a sin.
A majority of the Church's House of Deputies - comprising clergy and lay members - on Tuesday rejected a resolution to "refrain from" nominating gay bishops or developing rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
'Difficult choices'
International church leaders warned before the vote that the main body of the 77-million member Anglican communion could part from the US Church if it did not impose a moratorium until Anglicans worldwide could agree a consensus on the issue.
Earlier on Tuesday the Episcopal convention passed an apology for the ordination of Gene Robinson, as requested by Anglican counterparts, but watered down its reference to "breaching the proper constraints" to "straining the bonds of affection".
Many conservative Anglican churches, especially in Africa and Asia, have already broken ties with the US Church over Gene Robinson's elevation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the religious head of the Anglican Church, warned that the communion was now facing "exceptionally difficult choices" and has said he fears a permanent rift.
US Church defiant on gay bishops
Members of the US Episcopal Church have rejected a demand from the worldwide Anglican Church that they stop appointing gay bishops.
Correspondents say the decision by the Church's House of Deputies could lead to a permanent split within the world Anglican communion.
The US Church attracted the ire of conservative Anglicans by appointing gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.
The issue may still be revived before the end of the conference on Wednesday.
The House of Bishops may try to return to the question of a ban but the House of Deputies - which voted against the move by nearly a two-thirds majority - would have to go back on its decision for it to pass.
Two days ago the conference took a further radical step by electing a female leader.
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made clear on Monday that she believes homosexuality is not a sin.
A majority of the Church's House of Deputies - comprising clergy and lay members - on Tuesday rejected a resolution to "refrain from" nominating gay bishops or developing rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
'Difficult choices'
International church leaders warned before the vote that the main body of the 77-million member Anglican communion could part from the US Church if it did not impose a moratorium until Anglicans worldwide could agree a consensus on the issue.
Earlier on Tuesday the Episcopal convention passed an apology for the ordination of Gene Robinson, as requested by Anglican counterparts, but watered down its reference to "breaching the proper constraints" to "straining the bonds of affection".
Many conservative Anglican churches, especially in Africa and Asia, have already broken ties with the US Church over Gene Robinson's elevation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the religious head of the Anglican Church, warned that the communion was now facing "exceptionally difficult choices" and has said he fears a permanent rift.
Government Promotion of Homosexuality
Government Promotion of Homosexuality
Most Americans identify the month of June with graduations and weddings, but a number of federal agencies have given in to pressures from the homosexual lobby to proclaim and celebrate "gay pride" month. Among those bowing to the pressure of homosexuals; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of the Census, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and even the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, State, and Transportation. All of these agencies are in the executive branch and report to the President. Closer to home, the National Education Association (NEA) is trying to advance the homosexual agenda in your child's classroom. The NEA, at it annual convention this week in Orlando, FL, is poised to approve resolutions that call for recognition and promotion of "civil unions and/or marriage" for all the diverse groups it generally panders to. This means more King and King books in second grade classrooms. Please contact your NEA state affiliate and register your opposition to sexual radicals taking over the nation's schools.
Additional Resources
Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org unsubscribe
Most Americans identify the month of June with graduations and weddings, but a number of federal agencies have given in to pressures from the homosexual lobby to proclaim and celebrate "gay pride" month. Among those bowing to the pressure of homosexuals; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of the Census, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and even the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, State, and Transportation. All of these agencies are in the executive branch and report to the President. Closer to home, the National Education Association (NEA) is trying to advance the homosexual agenda in your child's classroom. The NEA, at it annual convention this week in Orlando, FL, is poised to approve resolutions that call for recognition and promotion of "civil unions and/or marriage" for all the diverse groups it generally panders to. This means more King and King books in second grade classrooms. Please contact your NEA state affiliate and register your opposition to sexual radicals taking over the nation's schools.
Additional Resources
Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org unsubscribe
Resources
Look it over, also take note especially of the KFUO link and go to Issues Etc., scroll down on it and listen to the series of interviews with Robert Benne (on our mailing list) in discussing issues related to his latest book which is the Book of the month.
http://www.lss-elca.org-Our Synod’s excellent website with links to other ELCA sites also
http://www.alpb.org -ALPB (American Lutheran Publicity Bureau) website-especially helpful link to Forum Online-with selected articles and online discussion. Also link to Pro Ecclesia, is a journal of theology published by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology.
http://www.firstthings.com- First Things- A thoughtful Journal of “Religion, Culture and Public Life”
http://www.kfuo.org- The radio station of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod- especially helpful The Bible Study and Issues. Etc., which can be played over the internet.
http://www.lhm.org/international-Lutheran Hour Ministries-a great resource for inspirational stories, confessional sermons, and a host of other things
http://www.modernreformation.org- Modern Reformation, a timely journal of traditional Protestant thought.
http://www.touchstonemag.com-A thoughtful journal of “mere Christianity”
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/-Augsburg Fortress (our denomination’s Publishing Company)
http://www.cph.org-Website of Concordia Publishing House-an excellent Lutheran publisher
http://www.wmpl.org-World Mission Prayer League a pan-Lutheran Community in prayer and mission
http://www.societyholytrinity.org-Society of the Holy Trinity: A Lutheran Ministerium dedicated to the renewal of the Ministry and the Church.
http://www.wordalone.org- a grassroots organization concerned with issues in the ELCA
http://www.commonconfession.net-Imagine Lutheran churches, one by one, recommitting themselves to the mission and ministry of the Gospel, and working together to bring the Word of Christ to a new generation. The Lutheran Churches of the Common Confession (LC3) is an association of congregations from across the country which is lifting up such a vision
http://www.lutheransreform.org-the website of this Group
http://www.youthencounter.orgIncorporated in 1965, Youth Encounter is an evangelical and confessional Christian organization that began by sending a music ministry team to Scandinavia. Rooted in the Christian Scriptures and shaped by the Lutheran tradition, Youth Encounter has now grown into a global ministry serving churches of many denominations in the United States and over 40 other countries.
http://www.lss-elca.org-Our Synod’s excellent website with links to other ELCA sites also
http://www.alpb.org -ALPB (American Lutheran Publicity Bureau) website-especially helpful link to Forum Online-with selected articles and online discussion. Also link to Pro Ecclesia, is a journal of theology published by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology.
http://www.firstthings.com- First Things- A thoughtful Journal of “Religion, Culture and Public Life”
http://www.kfuo.org- The radio station of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod- especially helpful The Bible Study and Issues. Etc., which can be played over the internet.
http://www.lhm.org/international-Lutheran Hour Ministries-a great resource for inspirational stories, confessional sermons, and a host of other things
http://www.modernreformation.org- Modern Reformation, a timely journal of traditional Protestant thought.
http://www.touchstonemag.com-A thoughtful journal of “mere Christianity”
http://www.augsburgfortress.org/-Augsburg Fortress (our denomination’s Publishing Company)
http://www.cph.org-Website of Concordia Publishing House-an excellent Lutheran publisher
http://www.wmpl.org-World Mission Prayer League a pan-Lutheran Community in prayer and mission
http://www.societyholytrinity.org-Society of the Holy Trinity: A Lutheran Ministerium dedicated to the renewal of the Ministry and the Church.
http://www.wordalone.org- a grassroots organization concerned with issues in the ELCA
http://www.commonconfession.net-Imagine Lutheran churches, one by one, recommitting themselves to the mission and ministry of the Gospel, and working together to bring the Word of Christ to a new generation. The Lutheran Churches of the Common Confession (LC3) is an association of congregations from across the country which is lifting up such a vision
http://www.lutheransreform.org-the website of this Group
http://www.youthencounter.orgIncorporated in 1965, Youth Encounter is an evangelical and confessional Christian organization that began by sending a music ministry team to Scandinavia. Rooted in the Christian Scriptures and shaped by the Lutheran tradition, Youth Encounter has now grown into a global ministry serving churches of many denominations in the United States and over 40 other countries.
Monday, June 19, 2006
"Mother, Child and Womb" [no, please, make them stop!!!]
Presbyterians 'receive' policy on worship By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer
Mon Jun 19, 3:42 PM ET
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love"
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
__
On the Net:
Presbyterian assembly: http://www.pcusa.org/ga217
Mon Jun 19, 3:42 PM ET
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus' most famous prayer was addressed to "Our Father."
Besides "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
• "Lover, Beloved, Love"
• "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
• "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."
Early in Monday's business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional "presbyteries" some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call "local option" would "promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture."
__
On the Net:
Presbyterian assembly: http://www.pcusa.org/ga217
New US church leader says homosexuality no sin
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.
Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.
"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.
"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.
It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops.
In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand. The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.
Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.
The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.
Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.
"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.
"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.
Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.
"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.
"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."
Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.
It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops.
In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand. The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.
Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.
The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.
Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.
"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.
"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Courage and Compassion on Homosexuality
Courage and Compassion on Homosexuality
Friday, June 16, 2006
The church's engagement with the culture involves a host of issues, controversies, and decisions--but no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle. Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns.
Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident--with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other.
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality--and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.
Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of so many denominations, seminaries, and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined.
And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.
Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.
In far too many cases, the options seem reduced to these--liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love. Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 5:11].
I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.
If we are really a Gospel people; if we really love homosexuals as other sinners; then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, "We want you to know the fullness of God's plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together."
Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.
We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
This article originally appeared on July 23, 2004. It is reprinted today in light of Dr. Mohler's appearance last night on CNN's Larry King Live.
Friday, June 16, 2006
The church's engagement with the culture involves a host of issues, controversies, and decisions--but no issue defines our current cultural crisis as clearly as homosexuality. Some churches and denominations have capitulated to the demands of the homosexual rights movement, and now accept homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle. Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns.
Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident--with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other.
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
Our churches must teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality--and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.
Courage is far too rare in many Christian circles. This explains the surrender of so many denominations, seminaries, and churches to the homosexual agenda. But no surrender on this issue would have been possible, if the authority of Scripture had not already been undermined.
And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands. They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction.
Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.
In far too many cases, the options seem reduced to these--liberal churches preaching love without truth, and conservative churches preaching truth without love. Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 5:11].
I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.
If we are really a Gospel people; if we really love homosexuals as other sinners; then we must reach out to them with a sincerity that makes that love tangible. We have not even approached that requirement until we are ready to say to homosexuals, "We want you to know the fullness of God's plan for you, to know the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, to receive the salvation that comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to know the healing God works in sinners saved by grace, and to join us as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, living out our obedience and growing in grace together."
Such were some of you . . . The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.
We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
This article originally appeared on July 23, 2004. It is reprinted today in light of Dr. Mohler's appearance last night on CNN's Larry King Live.
Voting with Their Feet
Matt Kennedy
AAC Press Conference: Voting with Their Feet
Canon Anderson: On average 700 people have left the Episcopal Church every week since 1965
It's 1:22 and I'm at the Nationwide Arena for the AAC daily briefing. I just met Kevin Kalleson from CT6. He's going to video today's briefing so I'll be sure and link his stuff.
E Brust+ is at the podium to open the events. He launches into his devotion. Dt 10
Since it is posted on the AAC General Convention website, I'll simply link it. Today's devotion is very good, as usual, and its better to listen to these sorts of things than to blog them....
Ugh...I’m having computer problems and I’ve had to miss a significant portion of the briefing getting unfrozen. I’ve missed report…so I’ll just make sure I get it tomorrow.
I did, however get Canon Anderson’s speech and it was awesome:
Canon Anderson:
One of the things that winds up being a point of tension are numbers and what they mean. It’s been 144 weeks since GC2003. In that time, something like 140 congregations have popped up out of ECUSA. When I talked to 815, they said their records did not show that big of a loss.
When a congregation decides they want to leave or don’t want to believe, there is always a small group who do not want to leave.
He gives an example of a congregation that experienced a split in which 80% of the congregation left the building and 20% stayed. The diocese counts this as a church that did not leave. The AAC considers it a church that has left. Both are right. There is not necessarily any malice here.
So that is why I say “Popped up out of ECUSA”. Some have not necessarily left, but popped out joined other parts of the Anglican Communion, some have joined the continuum.
Since 1965 about 35,000 a year Net, have departed. People in my own family have done this.
What to make of it?
People vote three times.
1. They vote with their lips: They say, we don’t agree. If they are not listened to..
2. They vote with their Wallet: They say we won't support you.
3. Finally they vote with their Shoes: they vote as they walk out the door.
This 35,000 a year is about 700 per week or three or so congregations.
Three lights going out every week since 1965.
And you wonder why we are in trouble?
What is the root?
WE have to go back to +Pike, someone who was willing to deny the core doctrine of the Christian faith.
We failed to discipline him.
Since then, the attitude of “make your own theology” has grown as the Church has shrunk.
The best prediction of what a person will do si what they have done. What has the other side done in the past? They have tried to silence us and keep us out of orders.
I sent 8 people through the ordination process in LA.
I sent a Hispanic woman through and she was not accepted because she believed the bible was true. They told her you are not our kind of people. So I stopped sending candidates. I won’t subject godly people to that kind of abuse.
They do not intend to let us reproduce.
It is like what the Pharaoh told the Hebrew Midwives.
The trajectory of where things are going is where our problem lies. Whether you take ECUSA’s numbers or ours, both show a trajectory of systematic decline
Will we be honest?
Will we accept WR in full, in spirit and in the letter?
Will we cooperate with the Communion?
Or will we continue to do it as we have in the past?
God only requires a moment in time to work a miracle, but as the clock runs and resolutions fall, the time is running out
You as a deputy have the opportunity to stand up for the truth of the gospel, to turn this around; to let your voice be heard.
The other side speaks of a listening process but the process they advocate is only a one way process. We must listen to them.
Why is it that Gay people who live celibate lives are never accepted and their stories are never heard?
Why is it that those who have been healed of their homosexual desires, why is it that they are not allowed to speak.
IF there is to be a listening process then all should speak and all should listen.
End
AAC Press Conference: Voting with Their Feet
Canon Anderson: On average 700 people have left the Episcopal Church every week since 1965
It's 1:22 and I'm at the Nationwide Arena for the AAC daily briefing. I just met Kevin Kalleson from CT6. He's going to video today's briefing so I'll be sure and link his stuff.
E Brust+ is at the podium to open the events. He launches into his devotion. Dt 10
Since it is posted on the AAC General Convention website, I'll simply link it. Today's devotion is very good, as usual, and its better to listen to these sorts of things than to blog them....
Ugh...I’m having computer problems and I’ve had to miss a significant portion of the briefing getting unfrozen. I’ve missed report…so I’ll just make sure I get it tomorrow.
I did, however get Canon Anderson’s speech and it was awesome:
Canon Anderson:
One of the things that winds up being a point of tension are numbers and what they mean. It’s been 144 weeks since GC2003. In that time, something like 140 congregations have popped up out of ECUSA. When I talked to 815, they said their records did not show that big of a loss.
When a congregation decides they want to leave or don’t want to believe, there is always a small group who do not want to leave.
He gives an example of a congregation that experienced a split in which 80% of the congregation left the building and 20% stayed. The diocese counts this as a church that did not leave. The AAC considers it a church that has left. Both are right. There is not necessarily any malice here.
So that is why I say “Popped up out of ECUSA”. Some have not necessarily left, but popped out joined other parts of the Anglican Communion, some have joined the continuum.
Since 1965 about 35,000 a year Net, have departed. People in my own family have done this.
What to make of it?
People vote three times.
1. They vote with their lips: They say, we don’t agree. If they are not listened to..
2. They vote with their Wallet: They say we won't support you.
3. Finally they vote with their Shoes: they vote as they walk out the door.
This 35,000 a year is about 700 per week or three or so congregations.
Three lights going out every week since 1965.
And you wonder why we are in trouble?
What is the root?
WE have to go back to +Pike, someone who was willing to deny the core doctrine of the Christian faith.
We failed to discipline him.
Since then, the attitude of “make your own theology” has grown as the Church has shrunk.
The best prediction of what a person will do si what they have done. What has the other side done in the past? They have tried to silence us and keep us out of orders.
I sent 8 people through the ordination process in LA.
I sent a Hispanic woman through and she was not accepted because she believed the bible was true. They told her you are not our kind of people. So I stopped sending candidates. I won’t subject godly people to that kind of abuse.
They do not intend to let us reproduce.
It is like what the Pharaoh told the Hebrew Midwives.
The trajectory of where things are going is where our problem lies. Whether you take ECUSA’s numbers or ours, both show a trajectory of systematic decline
Will we be honest?
Will we accept WR in full, in spirit and in the letter?
Will we cooperate with the Communion?
Or will we continue to do it as we have in the past?
God only requires a moment in time to work a miracle, but as the clock runs and resolutions fall, the time is running out
You as a deputy have the opportunity to stand up for the truth of the gospel, to turn this around; to let your voice be heard.
The other side speaks of a listening process but the process they advocate is only a one way process. We must listen to them.
Why is it that Gay people who live celibate lives are never accepted and their stories are never heard?
Why is it that those who have been healed of their homosexual desires, why is it that they are not allowed to speak.
IF there is to be a listening process then all should speak and all should listen.
End
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Episcopal convention to debate gay clergy
Here's a typical story. The "debate" is not about "gay clergy" but antinomianism.
Episcopal convention to debate gay clergy
BY MICHAEL GARTLAND
The Post and Courier
In what could lead to a split in the worldwide Anglican Communion, Episcopal Church leaders will continue the debate on gay clergy Tuesday when they meet in Columbus, Ohio, for the denomination's 75th triennial convention.
Most leaders from the South Carolina Diocese do not expect a resolution. Many conservatives, such as diocesan canon theologian Kendall Harmon, predict 'obfuscation' at the eight-day gathering.
'The Episcopal Church is saying we really care about the communion, but we want to continue what we're doing,' Harmon said of ordaining openly gay clergy. 'What they're going to try to do is fudge.'
His concerns revolve around the very definite possibility that a failure to denounce the elevation of gay clergy could eventually cause a split between the Anglican Communion and its American member, the Episcopal Church USA. Many rectors in the South Carolina Diocese share his feelings, but not all.
Moderates and liberals, who number few in the S.C. Diocese, believe the only way to avoid an immediate schism is to delay definitive resolutions on homosexuality. Supporting the ordination of openly gay clergy, they say, will alienate conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans in Africa and Latin America, but failing to support gay rights will cause a split within the mostly liberal Episcopal Church.
Rev. David Williams is the rector at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Ansonborough and described the decision to appoint a gay bishop as a 'prophetic' step that was not consecrated in a vacuum.
'We spoke for ourselves,' he said of the denomination's 2003 vote to elevate the Rev. Gene Robinson to Bishop of New Hampshire. 'The church has no business monkeying around in people's bedrooms and private relationships.'
Upcoming convention resolutions reflect the denomination's split over gay rights and the interpretation of Scripture.
One (Resolution A095) calls for the church to oppose any laws banning same-sex marriage, while another (A160) resolves to express regret over the denomination's failure to communicate with the Anglican Communion before elevating a gay bishop.
How to frame the debate, in many ways, has become the crux of the debate.
Moderates, who would like to see a decision delayed, typically favor a bureaucratic framework, one that places emphasis on the Episcopal Church's failure to consult with the Anglican Communion before elevating Robinson. The sword rattlers on both sides - liberal and conservative alike - want something more definitive. Williams favors the more ambiguous approach, and says it's much more in line with the inclusive 'big tent' traditions of the Episcopal Church. Williams might be in the denominationwide majority on this, but in the South Carolina Diocese, he has few ideological allies in leadership positions.
The conflict within the denomination goes back to when debates over Darwin and creationism first started to heat up in the mid-1920s. Clergy in the Episcopal Church were becoming more progressive in their approach and scholarship, while the laity remained conservative. Both pastors and laypeople left the church as a result. Others attended conservative seminaries and tried to counter the rise of liberalism from within.
In the years since then, the tension within the denomination has been palpable but manageable. The elevation of Robinson changed that. Part of the reason is because pastors such as the Rev. Greg Snyder see no room for compromise when it comes to interpreting what Scripture says about homosexuality.
'What I'm hearing from the international community is they want to hear we're sorry for what we did, and that's not going to happen,' he said. 'I don't think the general convention is going to resolve any of these issues.'
He does believe that eventually the issue will come to a head. Snyder is a pastor at St. John's Episcopal Church on Johns Island who opposes the ordination of openly gay clergy. He has heard rumblings that the Anglican Communion intends to require members to sign a covenant that would clearly delineate the church's attitudes on homosexuality.
'There's a whole lot of talk about the possibility of an Anglican covenant,' Snyder said. 'That's the only way out of this mess.'
In case you don't know, Kendall Harmon has the blog to watch, titusonenine. Another good one is Stand Firm. for the other side you can go to An Inch at a Time, the blog of the president of the ECUSA GLBT group, Integrity, Susan Russell.
Our ELCA GLBT is worth watching as, of course, it will be interesting to see what the Good Soil people have to say about all this and their recent defeat in Metro New York (they don't have resolution results up yet, but the Assembly rescinded Resolution C from Oct 29, turned down a resolution commending Craig Nessan's "contextual theology," approved a resolution encouraging traditional Lutheran theology on Confessions and Scripture, and the makers of two additional resolutions promoting pro GLBT issues withdrew them on the last day.
This Shellfish is wondering if the tide is turning?
Episcopal convention to debate gay clergy
BY MICHAEL GARTLAND
The Post and Courier
In what could lead to a split in the worldwide Anglican Communion, Episcopal Church leaders will continue the debate on gay clergy Tuesday when they meet in Columbus, Ohio, for the denomination's 75th triennial convention.
Most leaders from the South Carolina Diocese do not expect a resolution. Many conservatives, such as diocesan canon theologian Kendall Harmon, predict 'obfuscation' at the eight-day gathering.
'The Episcopal Church is saying we really care about the communion, but we want to continue what we're doing,' Harmon said of ordaining openly gay clergy. 'What they're going to try to do is fudge.'
His concerns revolve around the very definite possibility that a failure to denounce the elevation of gay clergy could eventually cause a split between the Anglican Communion and its American member, the Episcopal Church USA. Many rectors in the South Carolina Diocese share his feelings, but not all.
Moderates and liberals, who number few in the S.C. Diocese, believe the only way to avoid an immediate schism is to delay definitive resolutions on homosexuality. Supporting the ordination of openly gay clergy, they say, will alienate conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans in Africa and Latin America, but failing to support gay rights will cause a split within the mostly liberal Episcopal Church.
Rev. David Williams is the rector at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Ansonborough and described the decision to appoint a gay bishop as a 'prophetic' step that was not consecrated in a vacuum.
'We spoke for ourselves,' he said of the denomination's 2003 vote to elevate the Rev. Gene Robinson to Bishop of New Hampshire. 'The church has no business monkeying around in people's bedrooms and private relationships.'
Upcoming convention resolutions reflect the denomination's split over gay rights and the interpretation of Scripture.
One (Resolution A095) calls for the church to oppose any laws banning same-sex marriage, while another (A160) resolves to express regret over the denomination's failure to communicate with the Anglican Communion before elevating a gay bishop.
How to frame the debate, in many ways, has become the crux of the debate.
Moderates, who would like to see a decision delayed, typically favor a bureaucratic framework, one that places emphasis on the Episcopal Church's failure to consult with the Anglican Communion before elevating Robinson. The sword rattlers on both sides - liberal and conservative alike - want something more definitive. Williams favors the more ambiguous approach, and says it's much more in line with the inclusive 'big tent' traditions of the Episcopal Church. Williams might be in the denominationwide majority on this, but in the South Carolina Diocese, he has few ideological allies in leadership positions.
The conflict within the denomination goes back to when debates over Darwin and creationism first started to heat up in the mid-1920s. Clergy in the Episcopal Church were becoming more progressive in their approach and scholarship, while the laity remained conservative. Both pastors and laypeople left the church as a result. Others attended conservative seminaries and tried to counter the rise of liberalism from within.
In the years since then, the tension within the denomination has been palpable but manageable. The elevation of Robinson changed that. Part of the reason is because pastors such as the Rev. Greg Snyder see no room for compromise when it comes to interpreting what Scripture says about homosexuality.
'What I'm hearing from the international community is they want to hear we're sorry for what we did, and that's not going to happen,' he said. 'I don't think the general convention is going to resolve any of these issues.'
He does believe that eventually the issue will come to a head. Snyder is a pastor at St. John's Episcopal Church on Johns Island who opposes the ordination of openly gay clergy. He has heard rumblings that the Anglican Communion intends to require members to sign a covenant that would clearly delineate the church's attitudes on homosexuality.
'There's a whole lot of talk about the possibility of an Anglican covenant,' Snyder said. 'That's the only way out of this mess.'
In case you don't know, Kendall Harmon has the blog to watch, titusonenine. Another good one is Stand Firm. for the other side you can go to An Inch at a Time, the blog of the president of the ECUSA GLBT group, Integrity, Susan Russell.
Our ELCA GLBT is worth watching as, of course, it will be interesting to see what the Good Soil people have to say about all this and their recent defeat in Metro New York (they don't have resolution results up yet, but the Assembly rescinded Resolution C from Oct 29, turned down a resolution commending Craig Nessan's "contextual theology," approved a resolution encouraging traditional Lutheran theology on Confessions and Scripture, and the makers of two additional resolutions promoting pro GLBT issues withdrew them on the last day.
This Shellfish is wondering if the tide is turning?
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Get your tickets to ECUSA wrestling here...
Integrity is the GLBT player. Their fearless leader is Rev Susan. She posted their 'agenda' on her blog:
The Integrity Agenda
(Finally ... for those who've asked about it, speculated about it, even fantasized about it ... it's the Integrity Agenda for General Convention 2006: courtesy Integrity Board member Elizabeth Kaeton.)
Watching Integrity work at General Convention is analogous to watching open heart surgery on a dinosaur. Part of it requires muscle and stamina: cracking open the chest of this ancient relic requires nothing less than brute strength.
Another part is delicate, intricate work, requiring all the fine-motor skills of a surgeon in the tiny, thin places of the heart and soul of this still-living and breathing organism.
Much of it is like the work of the larger team members: the surgical assistants and anesthesiologist -- long, tiresome, weary moments strung out over minutes, hours, days and weeks of watching and waiting, monitoring and evaluating, ready to move on the advanced notice that is sometimes less than a heartbeat.
It's all about the 'holy' spirit which people bring from their own 'holy places' and the Holy Spirit who shows up at the oddest times and in the oddest places, but is always firmly in control. That being said, I think that we do a disservice if we do not communicate the contextual setting of General Convention to our constituents before telling them that the strategy going into General Convention is pretty much the same every time: Be awake. Be alert.
Above all, be as gracious and as generous as we can possibly be, aiming always to follow the Via Media without compromising the dignity -- ours or anyone else's -- to which we are called to respect in our baptismal covenant.
Like open heart surgeons and all other physicians, we pledge to do no harm. As Christians, this means, additionally, even when harm is being done unto us.
This year, I anticipate higher drama from the right side of the church than most Queers on the left can muster up on a good day at Gay Central. I expect some of them to come prepared to leave this church and all of them well prepared to do as much collateral damage as they can before they do.
We on the left -- not just Integrity but the constituent members of the Consultation -- have to be ready to be part swat-team, part rescue-unit. And, we need to come to General Convention absolutely crystal clear about what it is we believe and what it is we want -- and be equally clear that people may not want/be able to hear our statements of belief or give us what we want -- even our allies on the Left.
The Integrity Agenda
(Finally ... for those who've asked about it, speculated about it, even fantasized about it ... it's the Integrity Agenda for General Convention 2006: courtesy Integrity Board member Elizabeth Kaeton.)
Watching Integrity work at General Convention is analogous to watching open heart surgery on a dinosaur. Part of it requires muscle and stamina: cracking open the chest of this ancient relic requires nothing less than brute strength.
Another part is delicate, intricate work, requiring all the fine-motor skills of a surgeon in the tiny, thin places of the heart and soul of this still-living and breathing organism.
Much of it is like the work of the larger team members: the surgical assistants and anesthesiologist -- long, tiresome, weary moments strung out over minutes, hours, days and weeks of watching and waiting, monitoring and evaluating, ready to move on the advanced notice that is sometimes less than a heartbeat.
It's all about the 'holy' spirit which people bring from their own 'holy places' and the Holy Spirit who shows up at the oddest times and in the oddest places, but is always firmly in control. That being said, I think that we do a disservice if we do not communicate the contextual setting of General Convention to our constituents before telling them that the strategy going into General Convention is pretty much the same every time: Be awake. Be alert.
Above all, be as gracious and as generous as we can possibly be, aiming always to follow the Via Media without compromising the dignity -- ours or anyone else's -- to which we are called to respect in our baptismal covenant.
Like open heart surgeons and all other physicians, we pledge to do no harm. As Christians, this means, additionally, even when harm is being done unto us.
This year, I anticipate higher drama from the right side of the church than most Queers on the left can muster up on a good day at Gay Central. I expect some of them to come prepared to leave this church and all of them well prepared to do as much collateral damage as they can before they do.
We on the left -- not just Integrity but the constituent members of the Consultation -- have to be ready to be part swat-team, part rescue-unit. And, we need to come to General Convention absolutely crystal clear about what it is we believe and what it is we want -- and be equally clear that people may not want/be able to hear our statements of belief or give us what we want -- even our allies on the Left.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A Communion In Crisis–A reflection offered by Lord Carey
"Allow me to offer my perspective on the issues that the General Convention’s decision of August 5th 2003 has opened up theologically.
It represents
i. A Departure from the Ordinal and theology of Ministry. The Anglican tradition has inherited from the undivided Church an understanding of ministry that those ordained must be either celibate or married. The fact that our Ordinals never mention the possibility of practising homosexuals being ordained is that such an option was considered inconceivable by previous generations– indeed, reprehensible. That homosexuals in same sex partnerships, which effectively replace marriage should be ordained, would have been seen as a serious and extraordinary departure from the Church’s practice.
ii. A departure from orthodox interpretation and the teaching of the Bible. The bible is unequivocal in its condemnation of practising homosexuality. It cannot be dismissed as having no consequence for us today. The matter is far more than the interpretation of a few Old Testament verses but includes significant Pauline texts that are central to the classical interpretation of sin and redemption. I cannot see any justification for bypassing Paul’s teaching in Romans I, concerning homosexuality physical relationships, as irrelevant to our times, or as a cultural equivalent to women wearing hats in church. It is a timeless commentary on the power of sin when people turn away from God.
iii. It is a departure from our understanding of the sacramentality of marriage. We know how central to message of Jesus is his understanding of marriage. The way that apostolic writers build on this in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy and elsewhere show their continuity with our Lord’s teaching concerning the creational significance of marriage between a man and woman, that is lifelong, faithful and tender. The parallel of marriage to the union of Christ to his church in Ephesians V shows the error of identifying any other relationship as comparable with marriage. Paralleling any other relationship with marriage, however close the friendship it is, is a dangerous error and it is difficult to see how such alternative relationships may be blessed by the Church or considered ‘holy’.
Read all of former Abp's recent address on importance of ECUSA convention (less than a week away)
It represents
i. A Departure from the Ordinal and theology of Ministry. The Anglican tradition has inherited from the undivided Church an understanding of ministry that those ordained must be either celibate or married. The fact that our Ordinals never mention the possibility of practising homosexuals being ordained is that such an option was considered inconceivable by previous generations– indeed, reprehensible. That homosexuals in same sex partnerships, which effectively replace marriage should be ordained, would have been seen as a serious and extraordinary departure from the Church’s practice.
ii. A departure from orthodox interpretation and the teaching of the Bible. The bible is unequivocal in its condemnation of practising homosexuality. It cannot be dismissed as having no consequence for us today. The matter is far more than the interpretation of a few Old Testament verses but includes significant Pauline texts that are central to the classical interpretation of sin and redemption. I cannot see any justification for bypassing Paul’s teaching in Romans I, concerning homosexuality physical relationships, as irrelevant to our times, or as a cultural equivalent to women wearing hats in church. It is a timeless commentary on the power of sin when people turn away from God.
iii. It is a departure from our understanding of the sacramentality of marriage. We know how central to message of Jesus is his understanding of marriage. The way that apostolic writers build on this in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy and elsewhere show their continuity with our Lord’s teaching concerning the creational significance of marriage between a man and woman, that is lifelong, faithful and tender. The parallel of marriage to the union of Christ to his church in Ephesians V shows the error of identifying any other relationship as comparable with marriage. Paralleling any other relationship with marriage, however close the friendship it is, is a dangerous error and it is difficult to see how such alternative relationships may be blessed by the Church or considered ‘holy’.
Read all of former Abp's recent address on importance of ECUSA convention (less than a week away)
Well Said, Mr. President!
From Family Research Council (I thought it was well said, also).
"Well Said, Mr. President!
"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." This is just a portion of the President's weekly radio address. You can access the entire address on the White House website. As the Senate debates the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) today and tomorrow, we appeal to all to call their two U.S. Senators' offices (202.224.3121) and continue to press for this crucial measure. The President's leadership on this issue is most welcome. He has carefully avoided making this a partisan issue. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Biden says the issue is "silly" and that it is not needed because the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 has not been challenged. That's simply not true. It is currently being challenged in two states and activist judges have increasingly threatened to overturn the act and the institution of marriage. Biden and his fellow Democrats can avoid the partisanship he deplores by voting for the constitutional amendment we need to protect marriage. FRC Action has an MPA ad in today's USA Today. I had a chance to promote MPA on CNN at length this morning. You can access my remarks on our website."
More Marriage Protection Amendment facts here.
"Well Said, Mr. President!
"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." This is just a portion of the President's weekly radio address. You can access the entire address on the White House website. As the Senate debates the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) today and tomorrow, we appeal to all to call their two U.S. Senators' offices (202.224.3121) and continue to press for this crucial measure. The President's leadership on this issue is most welcome. He has carefully avoided making this a partisan issue. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Biden says the issue is "silly" and that it is not needed because the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 has not been challenged. That's simply not true. It is currently being challenged in two states and activist judges have increasingly threatened to overturn the act and the institution of marriage. Biden and his fellow Democrats can avoid the partisanship he deplores by voting for the constitutional amendment we need to protect marriage. FRC Action has an MPA ad in today's USA Today. I had a chance to promote MPA on CNN at length this morning. You can access my remarks on our website."
More Marriage Protection Amendment facts here.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Divorce, Single Parenting and Kids' Well-being
NEW YORK, JUNE 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Changes in family structures have placed many children in difficulties. In a nutshell this is the argument of two studies released March 30 by the Institute for American Values. The studies, both authored by Norval Glenn and Thomas Sylvester, are based on an examination of articles published in the Journal of Marriage and Family from 1977 to 2002.
Introducing the first study, "The Shift: Scholarly Views of Family Structure Effects on Children, 1977-2002," the authors comment that academic opinions can be broadly divided into two camps. The first can be termed pro-marriage, and argues that the decline in marriage has been a troubling trend, especially for children.
The second, labeled "pro-family diversity," maintains that families haven't been weakened by divorce and unwed childbearing, but have just changed in form. The changes in family structures, this opinion holds, have not had such a negative effect on children after all.
In the 1970s, right after divorce laws were liberalized, the more optimistic view prevailed. By the end of the 1980s, concerns increased and many commentators worried about increases in divorce and single parenting.
Research and debate on family structure effects continued in academic journals in the following years. More recently, the debate over divorce and unwed mothers has taken a back seat to conflicts over the issue of same-sex unions and their possible legalization.
Better with both
Glenn and Sylvester contend that the research over the effects of the shifts in family structure that started several decades ago is now clearer. "Most family scholars," they comment, "apparently now agree that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that children tend to do best when they grow up with their own two married parents, so long as the marriage is not marred by violence or serious conflict."
In many cases the divergences of opinion now center more on whether society can somehow compensate for the changes in family structures, so as to reduce the negative effects on children.
To provide a clearer opinion of research into family issues, Glenn and Sylvester examined all the relevant articles -- 266 in all -- published in the Journal of Marriage and Family over a 26-year period. This publication, they noted, is the most influential journal in family social science in the United States.
Glenn and Sylvester looked at three main family structures: children living with married biological or adoptive parents; children living with only one parent; and stepfamilies.
They found there was a substantial change in the studies, in the direction of expressing concern over changes in family structures, in the periods 1977-1982, and again in 1983-1987. Thus, concerned views became more prevalent, but it was not a steady change.
One important study they cite is a 1991 meta-analysis by Paul Amato and Bruce Keith, who pointed out that a host of negative outcomes are associated with parental divorce. Amato and Keith wrote: "The results lead to a pessimistic conclusion: the argument that parental divorce presents few problems for children's long-term development � is simply inconsistent with the literature on the topic."
Contrasting (and rosier) views were not absent, however. Glenn and Sylvester cited examples of some studies that denied any significant problems related to divorce.
Hard data
There is, nonetheless, an important factor to consider. The more-concerned views tended to be based on quantitative research, while the sanguine approach tended to be expressed in theoretical articles. "A major reason for this difference," Glenn and Sylvester conclude, "is probably, though not certainly, that the views of the authors of the quantitative pieces were more constrained by 'hard data' than those of the other authors and thus were less affected by preconceptions and ideological biases."
They do, however, add a note of caution regarding the quantitative studies. The evidence for negative effects on children resulting from changes in family structures is not conclusive. This is so because, ideally, evidence would have to be based on random studies; these cannot be done since it is impossible to divide families into groups and artificially impose divorce on the couples in one group and use the other as a control group.
Thus, Glenn and Sylvester caution that the statistical methods used are fallible. Nor is it possible to statistically prove a strict cause-effect relationship between divorce and negative consequences for children, they maintain. Still, the preponderance of the evidence "indicates that family structure matters, and matters to an important degree, for children," they conclude.
Debunked
The second paper by Glenn and Sylvester is titled: "The Denial: Downplaying the Consequences of Family Structure for Children." It looks at some of the arguments used by the authors of articles published in the Journal of Marriage and Family to justify a more optimistic view of the consequences of family changes.
In the early period, some academics argued that the increase in absences by fathers was not new, as in the past parental death used to be quite frequent. This thesis was debunked, however, in later years as subsequent research showed that parental death and divorce have different consequences for children. Outcomes for children who lose a parent to death, in fact, are substantially better than for children whose parents divorce.
Other earlier studies maintained that, in the case of a father's absence, other male figures (such as grandfathers, stepfathers and boyfriends) could serve as alternative male models or substitute for the missing parental role. Evidence to support this view is, however, scarce. "The hope that other men can easily substitute for absent biological fathers has received little or no empirical support," according to Glenn and Sylvester.
A more recent trend is to simply argue that divorce does not of itself necessarily doom children to suffer. But this approach is simply exaggerated, as serious family scholars never held that each and every child touched by divorce would be negatively affected.
A more serious argument made by some scholars who are relatively sanguine regarding divorce is that many problems assumed to be the result of the divorce actually stem from pre-divorce parental conflict.
A review of the evidence examined by Glenn and Sylvester reveals that some studies do, in fact, indicate that a portion of the alleged effects of divorce were present before the divorce occurred. There is not, however, agreement about the size of those effects.
Research leads to the conclusion that the end of a highly conflicted marriage seems to normally improve outcomes for children, freeing them as it does from an angry and unstable home life. But divorces that dissolve low-conflict marriages appear to have a strong negative influence on children. Importantly, the paper observes, one nationally representative study estimates that around two-thirds of divorces stem from low-conflict marriages.
An authentic good
Benedict XVI, in a May 11 address to members of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, observed: "Marriage and the family are rooted in the inmost nucleus of the truth about man and his destiny."
He continued: "The communion of life and love which is marriage thus emerges as an authentic good for society." Moreover, the Pope insisted that we must avoid confusing marriage with other types of unions, which are based on a weaker type of love.
"It is only the rock of total, irrevocable love between a man and a woman that can serve as the foundation on which to build a society that will become a home for all mankind," the Holy Father concluded. Secular academic research amply backs up that conclusion.
ZE06060302
Introducing the first study, "The Shift: Scholarly Views of Family Structure Effects on Children, 1977-2002," the authors comment that academic opinions can be broadly divided into two camps. The first can be termed pro-marriage, and argues that the decline in marriage has been a troubling trend, especially for children.
The second, labeled "pro-family diversity," maintains that families haven't been weakened by divorce and unwed childbearing, but have just changed in form. The changes in family structures, this opinion holds, have not had such a negative effect on children after all.
In the 1970s, right after divorce laws were liberalized, the more optimistic view prevailed. By the end of the 1980s, concerns increased and many commentators worried about increases in divorce and single parenting.
Research and debate on family structure effects continued in academic journals in the following years. More recently, the debate over divorce and unwed mothers has taken a back seat to conflicts over the issue of same-sex unions and their possible legalization.
Better with both
Glenn and Sylvester contend that the research over the effects of the shifts in family structure that started several decades ago is now clearer. "Most family scholars," they comment, "apparently now agree that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that children tend to do best when they grow up with their own two married parents, so long as the marriage is not marred by violence or serious conflict."
In many cases the divergences of opinion now center more on whether society can somehow compensate for the changes in family structures, so as to reduce the negative effects on children.
To provide a clearer opinion of research into family issues, Glenn and Sylvester examined all the relevant articles -- 266 in all -- published in the Journal of Marriage and Family over a 26-year period. This publication, they noted, is the most influential journal in family social science in the United States.
Glenn and Sylvester looked at three main family structures: children living with married biological or adoptive parents; children living with only one parent; and stepfamilies.
They found there was a substantial change in the studies, in the direction of expressing concern over changes in family structures, in the periods 1977-1982, and again in 1983-1987. Thus, concerned views became more prevalent, but it was not a steady change.
One important study they cite is a 1991 meta-analysis by Paul Amato and Bruce Keith, who pointed out that a host of negative outcomes are associated with parental divorce. Amato and Keith wrote: "The results lead to a pessimistic conclusion: the argument that parental divorce presents few problems for children's long-term development � is simply inconsistent with the literature on the topic."
Contrasting (and rosier) views were not absent, however. Glenn and Sylvester cited examples of some studies that denied any significant problems related to divorce.
Hard data
There is, nonetheless, an important factor to consider. The more-concerned views tended to be based on quantitative research, while the sanguine approach tended to be expressed in theoretical articles. "A major reason for this difference," Glenn and Sylvester conclude, "is probably, though not certainly, that the views of the authors of the quantitative pieces were more constrained by 'hard data' than those of the other authors and thus were less affected by preconceptions and ideological biases."
They do, however, add a note of caution regarding the quantitative studies. The evidence for negative effects on children resulting from changes in family structures is not conclusive. This is so because, ideally, evidence would have to be based on random studies; these cannot be done since it is impossible to divide families into groups and artificially impose divorce on the couples in one group and use the other as a control group.
Thus, Glenn and Sylvester caution that the statistical methods used are fallible. Nor is it possible to statistically prove a strict cause-effect relationship between divorce and negative consequences for children, they maintain. Still, the preponderance of the evidence "indicates that family structure matters, and matters to an important degree, for children," they conclude.
Debunked
The second paper by Glenn and Sylvester is titled: "The Denial: Downplaying the Consequences of Family Structure for Children." It looks at some of the arguments used by the authors of articles published in the Journal of Marriage and Family to justify a more optimistic view of the consequences of family changes.
In the early period, some academics argued that the increase in absences by fathers was not new, as in the past parental death used to be quite frequent. This thesis was debunked, however, in later years as subsequent research showed that parental death and divorce have different consequences for children. Outcomes for children who lose a parent to death, in fact, are substantially better than for children whose parents divorce.
Other earlier studies maintained that, in the case of a father's absence, other male figures (such as grandfathers, stepfathers and boyfriends) could serve as alternative male models or substitute for the missing parental role. Evidence to support this view is, however, scarce. "The hope that other men can easily substitute for absent biological fathers has received little or no empirical support," according to Glenn and Sylvester.
A more recent trend is to simply argue that divorce does not of itself necessarily doom children to suffer. But this approach is simply exaggerated, as serious family scholars never held that each and every child touched by divorce would be negatively affected.
A more serious argument made by some scholars who are relatively sanguine regarding divorce is that many problems assumed to be the result of the divorce actually stem from pre-divorce parental conflict.
A review of the evidence examined by Glenn and Sylvester reveals that some studies do, in fact, indicate that a portion of the alleged effects of divorce were present before the divorce occurred. There is not, however, agreement about the size of those effects.
Research leads to the conclusion that the end of a highly conflicted marriage seems to normally improve outcomes for children, freeing them as it does from an angry and unstable home life. But divorces that dissolve low-conflict marriages appear to have a strong negative influence on children. Importantly, the paper observes, one nationally representative study estimates that around two-thirds of divorces stem from low-conflict marriages.
An authentic good
Benedict XVI, in a May 11 address to members of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, observed: "Marriage and the family are rooted in the inmost nucleus of the truth about man and his destiny."
He continued: "The communion of life and love which is marriage thus emerges as an authentic good for society." Moreover, the Pope insisted that we must avoid confusing marriage with other types of unions, which are based on a weaker type of love.
"It is only the rock of total, irrevocable love between a man and a woman that can serve as the foundation on which to build a society that will become a home for all mankind," the Holy Father concluded. Secular academic research amply backs up that conclusion.
ZE06060302
Friday, June 02, 2006
File under "Told You So!"
The Advocate bills itself as "the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine." Its June 6 cover story certainly should make news. The magazine depicts three identical male dolls wearing tuxes over the caption "Polygamy & Gay Men." The story features oh-so-sympathetic portraits of several groups of men who are living in arrangements it calls polyamorous. "We're as married as we could be," says one homosexual member of a San Diego trio, "we all have rings and have a day we celebrate [as] our anniversary." The challenge could not be more "in your face." Every argument, every emotional appeal for same-sex "marriage" is recapped in this air-brushed version of marital bliss for what the magazine editors call "Big Gay Love." This is what those senators who vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) next week will be voting for. Serious legal scholars like Jonathan Turley agree. Thoughtful columnists like Charles Krauthammer find it undeniable. Same-sex "marriage" means polygamy. So why not polyamory, too? This weekend is our last chance to share vital information with friends, family and members of your church. You can click on the link below and download our latest FRC fact sheet on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Please copy and distribute this vital material as widely as possible. June 6 is the day of the vote on the MPA in the Senate. Will marriage survive or will America move in the direction of "Big Gay Love?"
Any questions about the Marriage Amendment just a pandering to the Republican base?
YOu know what is next, right? "I have three daddies."
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Worth reading if your missed it: Banned In Boston
Catholic Charities Gets Out Of Adoption Business
(Weekly Standard) This column was written by Maggie Gallagher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Charities of Boston made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. … The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard-to-place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."
How did this tragedy happen?
It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.
Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.
Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith."
But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination — including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.
Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.
To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important."
From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
The rest is here.
(Weekly Standard) This column was written by Maggie Gallagher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Charities of Boston made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. … The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard-to-place kids. "Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list," Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. "It's a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes." Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, "This is a tragedy for kids."
How did this tragedy happen?
It's a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.
Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O'Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that the agency would no longer do so.
Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith."
But getting square with the church didn't end Catholic Charities' woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination — including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.
Cardinal O'Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.
To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall's election, refused to budge: "I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state," Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, "and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important."
From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
The rest is here.
Same-Sex Marriage: Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
The indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry.
by Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson
THE MOVEMENT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE to include same-sex unions has packaged its demands in the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement. This strategy, though cynical, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellows campaigners for racial justice facing down dogs and fire hoses? Who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage?
As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.
But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of
the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born.
The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.
It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."
It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?
Read the rest here.
by Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson
THE MOVEMENT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE to include same-sex unions has packaged its demands in the rhetoric and images of the civil rights movement. This strategy, though cynical, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable, fair-minded American could object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellows campaigners for racial justice facing down dogs and fire hoses? Who is prepared to risk being labeled a bigot for opposing same-sex marriage?
As an exercise in marketing and merchandising, this strategy is the most brilliant playing of the race card in recent memory. Not since the "poverty pimps" of 35 years ago, who leveraged the guilt and sense of fair play of the American public to hustle affirmative action set-asides, have we witnessed so brazen a misuse of African-American history for partisan purposes.
But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of
the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born.
The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.
It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."
It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?
Read the rest here.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Pedophiles to launch political party
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.
The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.
An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.
"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.
Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.
Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."
The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.
Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.
The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.
The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.
An opinion poll published Tuesday showed that 82 percent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 percent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.
"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.
Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.
Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."
The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.
Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.
The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Homosexuality and Hope
No issue has raised more concern in the past decade than that of homosexuality and therefore the CMA offers the following summary and review of the status of the question. This summary relies extensively on the conclusions of various studies and points out the consistency of the teachings of the Church with these studies. It is hoped that this review will also serve as an educational and reference tool for Catholic clergy, physicians, mental health professionals, educators, parents and the general public.
CMA supports the teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: "All the baptized are called to chastity" (CCC, n.2348); "Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence" (CCC, n.2349); "... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstance can they be approved" (CCC, n.2333);
It is possible, with God's grace, for everyone to live a chaste life including persons experiencing same-sex attraction, as Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, so powerfully stated in his address to the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian & Gay Ministries: "To deny that the power of God's grace enables those with homosexual attractions to live chastely is to deny, effectively, that Jesus has risen from the dead." (George 1999)
There are certainly circumstances, such as psychological disorders and traumatic experiences, which can, at times, render this chastity more difficult and there are conditions which can seriously diminish an individual's responsibility for lapses in chastity. These circumstances and conditions, however, do not negate free will or eliminate the power of grace. While many men and women who experience same-sex attractions say that their sexual desire for those of their own sex was experienced as a "given" (Chapman 1987[1]) this in no way implies a genetic predetermination or an unchangeable condition. Some surrendered to same-sex attractions because they were told that they were born with this inclination and that it was impossible to change the pattern of one's sexual attraction. Such persons may feel it is futile and hopeless to resist same-sex desires and embrace a "gay identity". These same persons may then feel oppressed by the fact that society and religion, in particular the Catholic Church, do not accept the expression of these desires in homosexual acts. (Schreier 1998[2])
The research referenced in this report counters the myth that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined and unchangeable and offers hope for prevention and treatment.
1) NOT BORN THAT WAY
A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a "gay gene" has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10])
If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12])
There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975[13]) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Ernulf 1989[14]; Piskur 1992[15]) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the "immutability". (Green 1988[16])
Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.E(CCC, n.2360) Healthy psycho-sexual development leads naturally to attraction in persons of each sex for the other sex. Trauma, erroneous education, and sin can cause a deviation from this pattern. Persons should not be identified with their emotional or developmental conflicts as though this were the essence of their identity. In the debate between essentialism and social constructionism, the believer in natural law would hold that human beings have an essential nature -- either male or female -- and that sinful inclinations (such as the desire to engage in homosexual acts) are constructed and can, therefore, be deconstructed.
It is, therefore, probably wise to avoid wherever possible using the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" as nouns since such usage implies a fixed state and an equivalence between the natural state of man and woman as created by God and persons experiencing same sex attractions or behaviors.
Read the whole thing by clicking on the title...
CMA supports the teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: "All the baptized are called to chastity" (CCC, n.2348); "Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence" (CCC, n.2349); "... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstance can they be approved" (CCC, n.2333);
It is possible, with God's grace, for everyone to live a chaste life including persons experiencing same-sex attraction, as Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, so powerfully stated in his address to the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian & Gay Ministries: "To deny that the power of God's grace enables those with homosexual attractions to live chastely is to deny, effectively, that Jesus has risen from the dead." (George 1999)
There are certainly circumstances, such as psychological disorders and traumatic experiences, which can, at times, render this chastity more difficult and there are conditions which can seriously diminish an individual's responsibility for lapses in chastity. These circumstances and conditions, however, do not negate free will or eliminate the power of grace. While many men and women who experience same-sex attractions say that their sexual desire for those of their own sex was experienced as a "given" (Chapman 1987[1]) this in no way implies a genetic predetermination or an unchangeable condition. Some surrendered to same-sex attractions because they were told that they were born with this inclination and that it was impossible to change the pattern of one's sexual attraction. Such persons may feel it is futile and hopeless to resist same-sex desires and embrace a "gay identity". These same persons may then feel oppressed by the fact that society and religion, in particular the Catholic Church, do not accept the expression of these desires in homosexual acts. (Schreier 1998[2])
The research referenced in this report counters the myth that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined and unchangeable and offers hope for prevention and treatment.
1) NOT BORN THAT WAY
A number of researchers have sought to find a biological cause for same-sexual attraction. The media have promoted the idea that a "gay gene" has already been discovered (Burr 1996[3]), but in spite of several attempts, none of the much publicized studies (Hamer 1993[4]; LeVay 1991[5]) has been scientifically replicated. (Gadd 1998) A number of authors have carefully reviewed these studies and found that not only do the studies not prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction; the reports do not even contain such claims. (Byne 1963[6]; Crewdson 1995[7]; Goldberg1992; Horgan 1995[8]; McGuire 1995[9]; Porter 1996; Rice 1999[10])
If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions. (Bailey 1991[11]; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974; Heston 1968; McConaghy 1980; Rainer 1960; Zuger 1976) Case histories frequently reveal environmental factors which account for the development of different sexual attraction patterns in genetically identical children, supporting the theory that same-sex attraction is a product of the interplay of a variety of environmental factors. (Parker 1964[12])
There are, however, ongoing attempts to convince the public that same-sex attraction is genetically based. (Marmor 1975[13]) Such attempts may be politically motivated because people are more likely to respond positively to demands for changes in laws and religious teaching when they believe sexual attraction to be genetically determined and unchangeable. (Ernulf 1989[14]; Piskur 1992[15]) Others have sought to prove a genetic basis for same-sex attraction so that they could appeal to the courts for rights based on the "immutability". (Green 1988[16])
Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.E(CCC, n.2360) Healthy psycho-sexual development leads naturally to attraction in persons of each sex for the other sex. Trauma, erroneous education, and sin can cause a deviation from this pattern. Persons should not be identified with their emotional or developmental conflicts as though this were the essence of their identity. In the debate between essentialism and social constructionism, the believer in natural law would hold that human beings have an essential nature -- either male or female -- and that sinful inclinations (such as the desire to engage in homosexual acts) are constructed and can, therefore, be deconstructed.
It is, therefore, probably wise to avoid wherever possible using the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" as nouns since such usage implies a fixed state and an equivalence between the natural state of man and woman as created by God and persons experiencing same sex attractions or behaviors.
Read the whole thing by clicking on the title...
Andrew Goddard in Fulcrum Newsletter on Homophobia
The horrific effects of homophobia were once again demonstrated this month when two men pleaded guilty to the brutal murder of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in October of last year. Faced with such violence all Christians must clearly take a stand against homophobia and yet this is particularly challenging for those of us who uphold traditional Christian teaching that homosexual acts are contrary to Scripture and sins. As is evident from the stance of the pressure group IDAHO (International Day Against Homophobia), many of those in the forefront of challenging homophobia would include as examples of the problem the views of the Church of England, the Anglican Communion and Fulcrum ('the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage'). It is, however important to realise that those who uphold these views have also been quite clear in their opposition to homophobia. Strong statements against it can be found in the writings of leading evangelicals (John Stott, Thomas Schmidt, Stanley Grenz and the Evangelical Alliance) as well as from the Church of England House of Bishops, Lambeth Conferences and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why then are evangelical Anglicans often reticent about clearly opposing homophobia? There are, I think, a number of reasons, some more commendable than others:
* The ambiguity of the term 'homophobia' and its polemical use by some against any who hold orthodox Christian views
* The capturing of the term by those with a particular interpretation of 'rights' and 'equality' who then use it to condemn those who oppose social and legislative changes sought by some homosexual people.
* The possible complications and confusions in using the language of 'homosexual persons' which may lead to those using such a phrase being understood to hold a particular understanding of the nature of homosexuality.
* The concern that criticising homophobic elements among supporters of traditional teaching is to attack 'allies' and assist 'opponents' in the church debate.
* The awareness of our own sinful attitudes and responses that need to be critiqued and turned from in repentance.
Given that a major problem is being clear what exactly terms means and what behaviour is wrong, can we begin to move towards some definition of the 'homophobia' that we must all oppose? The communiqué from the 2005 Primates' Meeting is helpful here when it speaks strongly against 'the victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex' and offers as its theological rationale that 'homosexual people...are children of God, loved and valued by him...'. This clearly means opposing all and any attitudes and behaviours that represent a denial of the humanity of certain people because of their imagined or actual sexual attractions, orientation, relationships or identity. It does not, however, mean we cannot maintain a negative moral evaluation of homosexual behaviour and relationships (although certain ways of expressing those views and certain attitudes underlying them may need to be challenged). Nor does it mean one necessarily must accept social and legal changes which give greater status and recognition to homosexual relationships or treat homosexual and heterosexual activity and love as equivalent.
But does challenging 'homophobia' defined in these terms mean any more in practice than opposing physical violence and verbal abuse? There can, hopefully, be at least three further areas where Christians who disagree on sexual ethics can agree that distinctions and discrimination are theologically indefensible (because different treatment reflects unacceptable prejudice) and so may, by extension, by classed as a form of 'homophobia'. At the very least, those Christians who disagree and claim such practices are acceptable need to present a persuasive theological rationale for such views.
* It is never justifiable to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their homosexual 'affections' or 'orientation'.
* In many areas of social life, a person's pattern of intimate relationships and/or sexual behaviour is not a ground for judging them ineligible for particular tasks, privileges and position. Discrimination on these grounds (eg in certain areas of secular employment or provision of housing) is also therefore unjustifiable.
* Christians who justify discriminating between two different forms of sexual relationship in any sphere of society or church must do so on the basis that one is a marriage (and so chaste) and the other is a non-marital relationship. A focus on homosexual relationships is therefore not defensible.
With such an understanding of 'homophobia' in place (although an alternative term would probably be preferable) it is possible to be clearer as to the character of this phenomenon as another outworking of our fallen state as sinners. It is a refusal to love our neighbours as ourselves and, as sin, it has deadly effects, fuels hatred and often resorts to deceit and bearing false witness. Such characteristics can even sometimes be discerned in the way people appeal to biblical language and teaching or how they argue in defence of 'orthodoxy'.
If we can gain some theoretical consensus on what is unacceptable 'homophobia' we might also be able to build greater common ground in our assessments of which concrete situations are evidence of its presence. In my experience I have been most aware of and disturbed by this problem in cases such as whispering campaigns against gay Christians, suspicions and concerns about close same-sex friendships in congregations, over-reactions to even a single case of sexual sin in this area, the use of derogatory language about homosexual people, and the assumption gay and lesbian people are a threat to young children. Most recently there was the sad fact that the authors of the recent excellent Grove pastoral booklet on a gay-straight dialogue had to write under pseudonyms because of concerns about being public and open. All of these, and numerous other, some seemingly minor, instances provide evidence of a mix of ignorance, fear, suspicion, anger and antipathy towards homosexual people that must be acknowledged and repented.
More complex but not to be avoided are social and ecclesial situations in which political and institutional forces also come into play. As someone who was actively involved in raising concerns about the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading and urging him to step down I am painfully aware that in the eyes of many people I had, as it was recently put to me in conversation, participated in a 'witch-hunt' which was inherently homophobic. A similar challenge is now being raised within the Communion in relation to Nigeria where there are the added complexities of evaluating at a great distance a particular church's response to secular legislation being proposed in a cultural, legal-political and religious context unfamiliar to us. Nevertheless, if we are serious about being a Communion then there must be mutual accountability and a willingness to challenge actions that appear to be un-Christian in their response to homosexual people as well as actions that commend homosexual relationships. Some of the criticism of the Nigerian church's support for recently proposed state legislation is unfounded because there is no human right to same-sex marriage but there are other concerns that must be respectfully raised:
* Given that homosexual acts are already criminalised (with strong penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment) why is legislation specifically prohibiting same-sex marriages in Nigeria a pressing need especially when such legislation is experienced by homosexual people in Nigeria as intimidating and hostile?
* Is it not unjust and a form of persecution to seek to limit what are generally accepted human rights of assembly and would the new law not potentially limit the capacity of Nigerian Anglicans to adhere to Lambeth I.10 and listen to the experience of lesbian and gay Christians?
* Do the responses of some in the Nigerian hierarchy to the founding of Changing Attitude Nigeria and, in particular, the personal attacks on that group's leader Davis MacIyalla, suggest their stand for biblical sexual ethics is in danger of being seriously compromised and undermined by the presence of unbiblical 'homophobia'?
To address this issue is never going to be comfortable, particularly for those of us committed to the belief that the church is faithful to Scripture in holding to a traditional sexual ethic and viewing homosexuality not as a created good but as one mark of our fallen condition. We must, however, resist the temptation to sidestep or downplay it for at least the following five reasons:
* If we are serious that in both church and wider society there are widespread views about homosexual people, and patterns of behaviour in relation to them, that are wrong and in error then it is a Christian duty to make a stand against these and to witness for righteousness and truth.
* If we are committed to the teaching of the Anglican Communion then we must take this subject with the utmost seriousness.
* If we are genuine about the desire to offer godly, biblical pastoral care and support to those who experience homosexual attraction and also to their families then we must speak up on their behalf when they are victimised, slandered and abused.
* If we are serious about persuading people that the church's traditional teaching is good and true then we need to be willing to assess ourselves and also at times to critique our 'allies' in relation to homophobia.
* If we are concerned to bring the gospel to lesbian and gay people and have a Christ-like mission to gay communities then it is absolutely imperative that we address the issue of 'homophobia'.
The challenge for Fulcrum, wider evangelicalism, and indeed the whole Christian church is to be clearer in taking a stand on this issue and putting into practice the good, and often strong, words opposing 'homophobia' from evangelicals and Anglicans. One example of how this could be done is the excellent web resource Justice and Respect which grew out of the important Bridges Across the Divide internet community. Such resources are a start but ultimately this cannot be kept at an intellectual level of newsletters and in the realm of 'virtual reality'. The problem with 'homophobia' is that it damages real people in 'lived reality' and so challenging it must bring healing to real people and change 'lived reality'.
As evangelical Anglicans we need honestly to examine ourselves individually and as Christian communities. We need to ask whether at times, in removing specks from the eyes of gay and lesbian Christians, we may be missing the beam in our own eye. Any recognition of where we are guilty of 'homophobia' is most likely to come in dialogue and putting into practice that part of Lambeth I.10 which calls on us all to listen to the experience of homosexual people. Only by doing that will we hear from those who suffer the effects most directly about how elements of what we say and what we do prevent us from being able to fulfil our desire to assure them that they are loved by God. But doing that will mean being willing to be corrected and rebuked, hopefully in love, by gay and lesbian fellow-Christians, including those we disagree with over sexual ethics.
As the Anglican Communion and Church of England continues to teeter on the brink of division over issues of sexuality we face a situation in which there are already developing two increasingly distinct groups who may be heading towards becoming two distinct churches. Some Anglicans, often under the tag of 'inclusivity', are already welcoming and engaging with openly gay and lesbian people but failing to uphold biblical and church teaching and so not supporting people in the disciplines of Christian discipleship entailed by that teaching. They are usually strong in their opposition to 'homophobia' but can risk making it primarily an insult to hurl at those with whom they theologically disagree. Others - and here is where most evangelicals are found - are clearly presenting and defending biblical and church teaching. They are, however, often part of worshipping communities where openly homosexual people do not feel welcomed and valued. As churches they are not known for engaging respectfully with the real experience of gay and lesbian people and their struggles. As a result, they often fail to provide the context of unconditional love, acceptance and mutual learning in which homosexual people can become Christians and be supported as they seek to be faithful disciples of Christ. The root spiritual problem for those in this second group may turn out to be one of many strains of that dis-ease which, for want of a better word, can be called 'homophobia'. If that diagnosis has any truth in it then it is absolutely vital for our health and unity and mission as the body of Christ that we recognise that painful reality. And, having confessed the reality, the only ethical response is repentance and a genuine commitment to learn how to give ourselves and our Christian communities a regular health-check in order that we may become genuinely 'welcoming' to all homosexual people even when we cannot in conscience 'affirm' any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman.
Yours in Christ,
Andrew Goddard
for the extended article edition of this newsletter, click here
Why then are evangelical Anglicans often reticent about clearly opposing homophobia? There are, I think, a number of reasons, some more commendable than others:
* The ambiguity of the term 'homophobia' and its polemical use by some against any who hold orthodox Christian views
* The capturing of the term by those with a particular interpretation of 'rights' and 'equality' who then use it to condemn those who oppose social and legislative changes sought by some homosexual people.
* The possible complications and confusions in using the language of 'homosexual persons' which may lead to those using such a phrase being understood to hold a particular understanding of the nature of homosexuality.
* The concern that criticising homophobic elements among supporters of traditional teaching is to attack 'allies' and assist 'opponents' in the church debate.
* The awareness of our own sinful attitudes and responses that need to be critiqued and turned from in repentance.
Given that a major problem is being clear what exactly terms means and what behaviour is wrong, can we begin to move towards some definition of the 'homophobia' that we must all oppose? The communiqué from the 2005 Primates' Meeting is helpful here when it speaks strongly against 'the victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex' and offers as its theological rationale that 'homosexual people...are children of God, loved and valued by him...'. This clearly means opposing all and any attitudes and behaviours that represent a denial of the humanity of certain people because of their imagined or actual sexual attractions, orientation, relationships or identity. It does not, however, mean we cannot maintain a negative moral evaluation of homosexual behaviour and relationships (although certain ways of expressing those views and certain attitudes underlying them may need to be challenged). Nor does it mean one necessarily must accept social and legal changes which give greater status and recognition to homosexual relationships or treat homosexual and heterosexual activity and love as equivalent.
But does challenging 'homophobia' defined in these terms mean any more in practice than opposing physical violence and verbal abuse? There can, hopefully, be at least three further areas where Christians who disagree on sexual ethics can agree that distinctions and discrimination are theologically indefensible (because different treatment reflects unacceptable prejudice) and so may, by extension, by classed as a form of 'homophobia'. At the very least, those Christians who disagree and claim such practices are acceptable need to present a persuasive theological rationale for such views.
* It is never justifiable to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their homosexual 'affections' or 'orientation'.
* In many areas of social life, a person's pattern of intimate relationships and/or sexual behaviour is not a ground for judging them ineligible for particular tasks, privileges and position. Discrimination on these grounds (eg in certain areas of secular employment or provision of housing) is also therefore unjustifiable.
* Christians who justify discriminating between two different forms of sexual relationship in any sphere of society or church must do so on the basis that one is a marriage (and so chaste) and the other is a non-marital relationship. A focus on homosexual relationships is therefore not defensible.
With such an understanding of 'homophobia' in place (although an alternative term would probably be preferable) it is possible to be clearer as to the character of this phenomenon as another outworking of our fallen state as sinners. It is a refusal to love our neighbours as ourselves and, as sin, it has deadly effects, fuels hatred and often resorts to deceit and bearing false witness. Such characteristics can even sometimes be discerned in the way people appeal to biblical language and teaching or how they argue in defence of 'orthodoxy'.
If we can gain some theoretical consensus on what is unacceptable 'homophobia' we might also be able to build greater common ground in our assessments of which concrete situations are evidence of its presence. In my experience I have been most aware of and disturbed by this problem in cases such as whispering campaigns against gay Christians, suspicions and concerns about close same-sex friendships in congregations, over-reactions to even a single case of sexual sin in this area, the use of derogatory language about homosexual people, and the assumption gay and lesbian people are a threat to young children. Most recently there was the sad fact that the authors of the recent excellent Grove pastoral booklet on a gay-straight dialogue had to write under pseudonyms because of concerns about being public and open. All of these, and numerous other, some seemingly minor, instances provide evidence of a mix of ignorance, fear, suspicion, anger and antipathy towards homosexual people that must be acknowledged and repented.
More complex but not to be avoided are social and ecclesial situations in which political and institutional forces also come into play. As someone who was actively involved in raising concerns about the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading and urging him to step down I am painfully aware that in the eyes of many people I had, as it was recently put to me in conversation, participated in a 'witch-hunt' which was inherently homophobic. A similar challenge is now being raised within the Communion in relation to Nigeria where there are the added complexities of evaluating at a great distance a particular church's response to secular legislation being proposed in a cultural, legal-political and religious context unfamiliar to us. Nevertheless, if we are serious about being a Communion then there must be mutual accountability and a willingness to challenge actions that appear to be un-Christian in their response to homosexual people as well as actions that commend homosexual relationships. Some of the criticism of the Nigerian church's support for recently proposed state legislation is unfounded because there is no human right to same-sex marriage but there are other concerns that must be respectfully raised:
* Given that homosexual acts are already criminalised (with strong penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment) why is legislation specifically prohibiting same-sex marriages in Nigeria a pressing need especially when such legislation is experienced by homosexual people in Nigeria as intimidating and hostile?
* Is it not unjust and a form of persecution to seek to limit what are generally accepted human rights of assembly and would the new law not potentially limit the capacity of Nigerian Anglicans to adhere to Lambeth I.10 and listen to the experience of lesbian and gay Christians?
* Do the responses of some in the Nigerian hierarchy to the founding of Changing Attitude Nigeria and, in particular, the personal attacks on that group's leader Davis MacIyalla, suggest their stand for biblical sexual ethics is in danger of being seriously compromised and undermined by the presence of unbiblical 'homophobia'?
To address this issue is never going to be comfortable, particularly for those of us committed to the belief that the church is faithful to Scripture in holding to a traditional sexual ethic and viewing homosexuality not as a created good but as one mark of our fallen condition. We must, however, resist the temptation to sidestep or downplay it for at least the following five reasons:
* If we are serious that in both church and wider society there are widespread views about homosexual people, and patterns of behaviour in relation to them, that are wrong and in error then it is a Christian duty to make a stand against these and to witness for righteousness and truth.
* If we are committed to the teaching of the Anglican Communion then we must take this subject with the utmost seriousness.
* If we are genuine about the desire to offer godly, biblical pastoral care and support to those who experience homosexual attraction and also to their families then we must speak up on their behalf when they are victimised, slandered and abused.
* If we are serious about persuading people that the church's traditional teaching is good and true then we need to be willing to assess ourselves and also at times to critique our 'allies' in relation to homophobia.
* If we are concerned to bring the gospel to lesbian and gay people and have a Christ-like mission to gay communities then it is absolutely imperative that we address the issue of 'homophobia'.
The challenge for Fulcrum, wider evangelicalism, and indeed the whole Christian church is to be clearer in taking a stand on this issue and putting into practice the good, and often strong, words opposing 'homophobia' from evangelicals and Anglicans. One example of how this could be done is the excellent web resource Justice and Respect which grew out of the important Bridges Across the Divide internet community. Such resources are a start but ultimately this cannot be kept at an intellectual level of newsletters and in the realm of 'virtual reality'. The problem with 'homophobia' is that it damages real people in 'lived reality' and so challenging it must bring healing to real people and change 'lived reality'.
As evangelical Anglicans we need honestly to examine ourselves individually and as Christian communities. We need to ask whether at times, in removing specks from the eyes of gay and lesbian Christians, we may be missing the beam in our own eye. Any recognition of where we are guilty of 'homophobia' is most likely to come in dialogue and putting into practice that part of Lambeth I.10 which calls on us all to listen to the experience of homosexual people. Only by doing that will we hear from those who suffer the effects most directly about how elements of what we say and what we do prevent us from being able to fulfil our desire to assure them that they are loved by God. But doing that will mean being willing to be corrected and rebuked, hopefully in love, by gay and lesbian fellow-Christians, including those we disagree with over sexual ethics.
As the Anglican Communion and Church of England continues to teeter on the brink of division over issues of sexuality we face a situation in which there are already developing two increasingly distinct groups who may be heading towards becoming two distinct churches. Some Anglicans, often under the tag of 'inclusivity', are already welcoming and engaging with openly gay and lesbian people but failing to uphold biblical and church teaching and so not supporting people in the disciplines of Christian discipleship entailed by that teaching. They are usually strong in their opposition to 'homophobia' but can risk making it primarily an insult to hurl at those with whom they theologically disagree. Others - and here is where most evangelicals are found - are clearly presenting and defending biblical and church teaching. They are, however, often part of worshipping communities where openly homosexual people do not feel welcomed and valued. As churches they are not known for engaging respectfully with the real experience of gay and lesbian people and their struggles. As a result, they often fail to provide the context of unconditional love, acceptance and mutual learning in which homosexual people can become Christians and be supported as they seek to be faithful disciples of Christ. The root spiritual problem for those in this second group may turn out to be one of many strains of that dis-ease which, for want of a better word, can be called 'homophobia'. If that diagnosis has any truth in it then it is absolutely vital for our health and unity and mission as the body of Christ that we recognise that painful reality. And, having confessed the reality, the only ethical response is repentance and a genuine commitment to learn how to give ourselves and our Christian communities a regular health-check in order that we may become genuinely 'welcoming' to all homosexual people even when we cannot in conscience 'affirm' any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman.
Yours in Christ,
Andrew Goddard
for the extended article edition of this newsletter, click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...