The Los Angeles Times had a lot of coverage over the last several days about the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles selecting an unrepentant, openly practicing sinner to a bishop position.

The church I attend welcomes everyone. However, someone will not be placed (or allowed to remain) in a position of power or leadership if he or she continues to openly engage in the same sin, refusing to repent. This is about more than sexual behavior with someone other than your partner in holy matrimony. It is about Biblical authority. The church is not a social club. It is there to make disciples, draw them closer to the Lord, and to serve those in need.

How can a pastor counsel someone to turn from their sin when they are openly sinning themselves?

Duke Helfand had this blog entry.

"Dee" hit the nail on the head December 04, 2009 at 09:39 AM:

I'm confused...an organization whose purpose is to shepherd its followers in the way of the lord as revealed in the bible is choosing to elect "shepherds" who openly defy those teachings? Wouldn't that be like the democracy of the United States electing communists and fascists as its leaders? I have nothing against gays or even, in some cases, communists or fascists, but they should not seek to infiltrate and, eventually, pervert, the meaning of organizations whose beliefs are opposed to theirs. They could start their own religions, governments, etc. based on what they believe. That is, of course, what they would do if they were honest in their desire to worship God in their own way and not just activists trying to mess with the system. But what can you expect from a religion formed on a king's wish to divorce his wife?

Some people say that the Anglican Church’s split from the Roman Catholic Church was more complicated than that, but no doubt that simplistic perception assists all sorts of departures from tradition.

"Elizabeth" wrote December 04, 2009 at 10:47 AM:

I have nothing against intolerant so-called christians who prostrate themselves in idolatry before a BOOK written by men for men (Christ's message can be found therein but mostly in spite, rather than because, of its many writers and later-to-come manipulators/translators), but they should not have perverted the teachings of the original teacher: love one another.

Since the Bible is a "book written by men for men", I wonder how Elizabeth knows exactly what Christ's message is or isn't? Is she simply picking what she likes and calling that Christ's message?

"pasadena jag" wrote December 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM:

It amazes me how the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles can get so much media attention. They barely have 70,000 members - with probably close to 20,000 attending each Sunday.

Good point. I think we know why the Los Angeles Times gives them so much attention. Meanwhile, churches that teach the whole Bible, including the parts about sex being for marriage and the reality of Hell, are growing.

"Jack", referring to condemnations of nonmarital sexual or pseudosexual behavior, wrote December 04, 2009 at 12:59 PM:

I am so sick of this "pick and choose" christianity.

It's called systematic theology based on a study of the whole Bible. Elizabeth is the one who is "picking and choosing".

Duke Helfand and Larry B. Stammer had this article.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry.

This is not accurate. The problem isn't that someone has a certain "orientation". It is the practice of certain behaviors that is the issue. I dare say that many of the "conservative" congregants would be supportive of having a leader who refrains from acting on certain feelings. Who better to preach to us how to defeat temptation?

"Thomas Leavitt" wrote December 05, 2009 at 04:35 PM:

It appears that the Episcopal Church is capable of evaluating a person based on their qualifications, not their gender or sexual orientation.

Ah, yes, qualifications...

1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

1 Timothy 3:8-13: "Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Titus 1:5-9: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."

Let me know when you find the clear Biblical teachings that rescind those passages or the parts of the Bible that teach that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom.

Larry Stammer had this blog entry.

Larry B. Stammer and Paul Pringle had this article.

Duke Helfand had this blog entry, noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't supportive.

Duke Helfand and Carla Rivera have this article in today's edition, examining the Archbishop's statement.

It is good to see the paper is keeping those vast numbers of homosexual Episcopalians informed, and letting the rest of us know where not to attend church.

It's been a few months since we’ve had an update on ELCA Lutherans. Patrick Condon of the Associated Press reports the latest in respect to Lutherans who accept Biblical authority splitting off from the ELCA.

Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.

What was the tipping point? Here's a reminder...

At its annual convention in Minneapolis in August, ELCA delegates voted to lift a ban that had prohibited sexually active gay and lesbian pastors from serving as clergy. The new policy, expected to take effect in April, will allow such individuals to lead ELCA churches as long as they can show that they are in committed, lifelong relationships.

And how is that to be determined, anyway? They live together? So what?

At a September convention, Lutheran CORE members voted to spend a year considering whether to form a new Lutheran denomination. However, its leaders said Wednesday that a heavy volume of requests for an alternative from disenfranchised congregations and churchgoers prompted them to hasten the process.

They can't get away fast enough. Some people will try to portray this as homophobia, but I doubt that most of these people are afraid of homosexual people. Instead, they submit to the teachings of the Bible.

John Brooks, spokesman at the ELCA's Chicago-based headquarters, said Lutheran CORE's move was not unexpected. He expressed hope that church members would ultimately opt to stay in the denomination as it strives to be "a place for all people despite any differences we might have on any issues."

Really? Any issues? How about authority of Jesus Christ? You’re supposed to be a church, not a social club. Churches have doctrines and standards.

I've already said plenty in previous blog entries on this issue.

Hey! Church leadership! The Los Angeles Times editorial board has some advice for you. And considering how newspapers are losing their subscribers, what better place to get your advice on how to run your church and what you should believe when it comes to God?

Last weekend, the paper ran this editorial regarding the outreach of the Roman Catholic Church to Anglicans who do not want to abandon the Bible or tradition when it comes to sexual behavior.

This week's announcement that the Roman Catholic Church will welcome disaffected Anglicans en masse is of primary interest to members of the two Christian communions.

But that won't stop the editorial board from butting in.

But this religious realignment is also a reminder to supporters of equality for women and gays and lesbians that they must literally preach to the converted if they are to win believers to their cause.

I'm not aware of any RCC teaching or policy that says women and those with homosexual feelings are somehow unequal to men or those without homosexual feelings.

But Benedict's action is part of a formidable religious backlash against gay rights that isn't confined to the pulpit; witness the lobbying by some religious leaders against same-sex civil marriages.

They think it is okay to actually believe and live out your convictions – as long as you stay within the walls of your church. Well, not really. They want to tell you how to do it inside your own church, too.

Marriage defense is about marriage, family, and society, not about denying any rights to anybody.

Under the 1st Amendment, churches in this country can't be forced to alter their doctrine or to stop preaching against the supposed immorality of homosexuality.

Too bad for you.

Even so, supporters of gay rights in particular -- many of them Christians -- should try to dispel the notion that belief in God is incompatible with full equality for gays and lesbians.

I believe in God, and I believe people who engage in homosexual behavior are doing something wrong. But that doesn’t make them inequal.

Now as before the pope's action, Christians can be reminded -- as they have been by both Anglican and Catholic theologians -- that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and that church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion to the desirability of religious tolerance.

I see. If the church teaching or approach on anything ever changed, that means everything must be changed?

As far as "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality” – that is an argument that has been shown to be a bad one in many ways, many, many, many, many times. And check out this for good measure.

Quickly, 1) Jesus is God, and thus Jesus affirmed what God taught, and that included things about sexual behavior and marriage - this was reaffirmed with Jesus also being a Jew who affirmed the teachings of the Scriptures - and unlike other established practices and traditions of those days, Jesus is never recorded as changing or ending or countering or clarifying the existing teachings about homosexual behavior; 2) Jesus chose and raised up Apostles and disciples who also wrote about sexual behavior and marriage under the inspiration of God (the Holy Spirit); 3) Jesus spoke about the two sexes and the practice of them cleaving to each other.

This editorial features "sleight of words". Disapproval - and therefore refusal to endorse and celebrate – homosexual behavior is presented as identical to denying the equality of people who identify as homosexuals. Guess what? My church removed someone from a teaching position because he was engaged in adultery (= who he chose to engage in sex with). This man was attracted to this other woman. Does that mean the church denies the equality of men?

The Los Angeles Times should stop treating churches like they are mere social clubs that would benefit from their hip advice. That may be the way the editorial board sees churches, and they are free to express their opinions, but they’re just being silly. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else how to make their gay pride parade better.

I caught this Associated Press story, reporting that a big time Oscar-winning Hollywood director has cut ties with the Church of Scientology after 35 years "in part" because of the organization's stand against marriage neutering. Checking around, I found a blog called "Moving on Up a Little Higher", which upon my cursory examination appears to be run by someone who believes somewhat in the precepts of Scientology, but not the current leadership of the organization.

The blog reprinted the director's letter, and it was clear that the director was angry about someone running a significant part of the organization not publicly condemning the San Diego chapter's support for the California Marriage Amendment. The director equates support of traditional marriage with "gay-bashing", and calls people like us "bigots, hypocrites, and homophobes". I don’t fall into any of those categories myself, though I can't vouch for everyone who understands the basic notions that marriage unites a bride and a groom and that we, the people, should have a say on state licensing.

The director intended the letter to remain private (which is why I am not repeating his name), but it is circulating online now, probably in a bid to support the marriage neutering cause. Privacy? What privacy? All must be sacrificed in the pursuit of homosexuality advocacy and esteem, which reaffirms what I wrote in my previous blog entry.

When I first caught the AP story, I thought it a bit strange that someone who supposedly thought this church as good enough to associate with for 35 years should be abandoned because of their stance on marriage - apparently making his personal feelings more authoritative than church doctrine and authority. But as I said, there is more to the story, and there is more beyond the fact that it was a San Diego chapter involved, not the whole organization.

The majority of the director's concern seems to be about the organization's culture and the actions of leadership, with the marriage issue simply being how his eyes were opened. He specifically refers to the organization's "disconnection”"practice, in which people are encouraged to shun family members who have left the organization. He also cites active human rights abuses by the organization, and publicizing of "private details from confessionals" to try to discredit former executives who criticized actions undertaken within the organization.

Yet it was the marriage issue that garnered attention.

I'm glad the director left the organization, even though he is wrong about people like me. Although I recognize that people should be free to join such an organization if they choose, and while I welcome support of traditional marriage and voter rights, I am no fan of the organization as I notice that some of its teachings are in direct contradiction to my own core beliefs. I'm also aware of the some of the tactics used by the organization that strike me as cultish behavior. That is something I believe goes back to the founding of the organization and is not something unique to current leadership.

Looks like Anglicans not happy with the direction of their denomination will find it easier to be accepted into the Roman Catholic Church. Associated Press writer Nicole Winfield has the story.

The Vatican announced a stunning decision Tuesday to make it easier for Anglicans to convert, reaching out to those who are disaffected by the election of women and gay bishops to join the Catholic Church's conservative ranks.

It is not simply "gay bishops". It is a matter of putting people in places of leadership who openly and unrepentantly violate Biblical morality in their behavior, the mocking of marriage, and the celebrating of those two things.

Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including having married priests.

I wonder what traditional Roman Catholics think about that?

The new Catholic church entities, called personal ordinariates, will be units of faithful established within local Catholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They would most closely resemble Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for the members of the armed forces and their dependents.

Interesting.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

I know that’s the standard, drive-by schoolbook portrayal of the situation, but would Anglicans describe it that way? I'm not an Anglican or a Roman Catholic, and I haven't really been keeping up on the finer points of the differences in their practice and doctrines. While my basic first impression is, "Hey, now that Henry is long dead, why can't they get back together?" But there's a lot more history than that.

The new canonical provision allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests - much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans couldn't become Catholic bishops.

In contrast, it is strongly expected in "evangelical" Protestant circles that the leaders and teachers be married.

Despite the "separation of church and state", a government court battle has resulted in breakaway "conservative" Episcopalian congregations having to hand over the property they’ve held for decades to the local diocese. The Los Angeles Times ran two stories in recent days on this happening with St. Luke’s Anglican Church in La Crescenta, in Los Angeles County. Duke Helfand had the "before" story, on the upcoming transfer of the property.

The diocese sued to retain St. Luke's property after the congregation voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to leave it and the national Episcopal Church over theological differences, including the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

It is more than that. It is the refusal to adhere to clear Biblical authority and teaching when it comes to sexual behavior. By placing those who unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior in power, and celebrating homosexual behavior with ceremonies, the denomination is going against what it has considered Scripture, as well as tradition. The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites a bride and a groom. That may be inconvenient for a lot of people, but convenience should not determine church teaching.

Oh, and if Scripture doesn't have authority, then why should I get up out of bed on a Sunday morning to make it to church? I should do what I feel like doing, right? And most of the time, I feel like sleeping in. This is exactly how a lot of denominations lose people.

The dispute at St. Luke's is part of a larger conflict in the national Episcopal Church that has pitted theological liberals and conservatives against one another over issues of biblical authority and the role of gays in the church.

Last year, four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes formed the rival Anglican Church in North America. St. Luke's joined the new church last summer.

The exodus of traditionalist congregations has produced similar property disputes around the country, among them one in Fallbrook in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

It is too bad that these congregations can't get some "alimony" in this "divorce", seeing as how they have contributed over the years.

Here is the "after" story, reporting on how it went on Sunday, by Ari B. Bloomekatz.

Holman told the congregation that fighting for their principles is more important than a building, and that God has greater plans in store for them.

Amen. Look, there are churches out there who start our meeting in the buildings of other churches, or in a local strip mall, or a home. And they grow and either buy a campus (usually from a shrinking "liberal" church), or build their own. This has happened over and over again, because they stick to their principles. So this congregation can definitely continue, and thrive, and the diocese can figure out what they're going to do with their empty buildings.

I do not belong to any Anglican organization. But I observe all of this with keen interest, as you can tell from some of my previous coverage.

Guess what? Some "religious leaders" want the law written to guarantee that your taxes will pay for the health "insurance" of illegal aliens. They recently had a press conference in Los Angeles calling for this, as reported by Teresa Watanabe in the Los Angeles Times. I won’t hold my breath waiting for those fixated on strict and total "separation of church and state" from denouncing this religious meddling in the legislative process.

Calling access to healthcare a moral and spiritual imperative, Los Angeles religious leaders and their flocks are urging congressional leaders to include illegal [aliens] in any healthcare reform plan.

I can’t speak for other religions, but any religion that follows/reveres Jesus should note that Jesus commanded the church (His followers) to care for the needy, not government. So these "leaders" as calling on government to act like a church and do their job for them. How about conducting a press conference by elected officials calling on religious groups to care for the needy?

The Roman Catholic Church, the nation's largest religious denomination, with 67 million members, considers healthcare a basic human right, a position articulated in a 1963 papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII. As a result, the church believes that illegal immigrants should be included in any health reform plan, according to Kathy Saile, director of domestic social development with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"If healthcare is a basic right, you can't start cutting people out," she said.

Yeah, well, it isn't a basic human right. Nothing that requires someone else to do something, unless a crime has been committed, is a basic human right. My right to free speech does not compel you to listen to me, or give me a billboard. And notice the subtle shift from "insurance" to "care". Illegal aliens already get health care.

But some religious conservatives disagree. Richard Land, who heads the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, said that biblical exhortations to care for the poor apply to people of faith, not to governments, and should inspire private charitable efforts but not taxpayer-funded plans for illegal [aliens].

"It's noble and commendable to be charitable with your own money, but it's something different to be charitable with other people's money," he said.

Exactly.

For Josephina Dedoy, a 58-year-old Mexico native and legal U.S. resident, the debate is intensely personal. She and her husband, a naturalized U.S. citizen, have a daughter who has epilepsy and is undocumented, having been born in Mexico before her parents earned legal status.

Say, isn’t Mexico a Catholic nation? What about Mexico taking care of this?

Church membership (and financially contributing to the church) is voluntary in this country. Taxes are not. It is immoral to force care of illegal aliens on other people.

You can find comments on a related blog posting at LATimes.com.

Check out this blog entry at Stand to Reason, including the comments.  And on the move by the ELCA Lutherans.  And here's Duke Helfand's Los Angeles Times article on the move by the ELCA Lutherans.

The national church's presiding bishop, Mark S. Hanson, acknowledged that the change in church policies has caused strains on both sides of the debate and on others who remain undecided.

Even as Hanson described the deliberations over the issue as heartfelt, he appealed directly to those on the losing end. All Lutherans, he said, share a common faith.

He still wants your contributions of money and time, of course.  But there is no common faith if they can't agree on whether or not the Bible is more authoritative than personal feelings.

"It would be tragic if we talked away from one another."

What's tragic is a church abdicating its role of calling sinners to repent.

I don’t maintain that it is easy for someone with homosexual feelings who wants to follow Christ. But this isn't the way to deal with the problems they face.  Ultimately, this isn't the loving thing to do. When I faced a conflict between the Bible and my own sexual desires (the desire to fornicate), the solution wasn't to start a movement to get my church to lie to me and say that fornication was okay.

If the denomination is willing to abandon Biblical authority in this area, will they abandon it in other areas as well? I would think that will be more likely now.

America's largest Lutheran denomination has decided to care to a whiny minority within their ranks, no doubt alienating even more followers of Christ.  Associated Press Writer Patrick Condon has the story.

Under the new policy, individual ELCA congregations will be allowed to hire [people who openly, unrepentantly practice homosexual behavior] as clergy as long as they are in a committed relationships. Until now, gays and lesbians had to remain celibate to serve as clergy.

Why the requirement of a committed relationship?  How is that defined, anyway?

Conservative congregations will not be forced to hire gay clergy.

...Yet.

Nevertheless, opponents of the shift decried what they saw as straying from clear Scriptural direction, and warned it could lead some congregations and individual churchgoers to split off from the ELCA.

Yes, but all that matters is that homosexual behavior is celebrated and esteemed, don't you see?

"This will cause an ever greater loss in members and finances. I can't believe the church I loved and served for 40 years can condone what God condemns," said the Rev. Richard Mahan, pastor at St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Charleston, W.Va. "Nowhere in Scripture does it say homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable to God. Instead, it says it is immoral and perverted."

The Bible, over and over again, teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes.  The implications are inescapable.

But ELCA supporters of its change said failure to ratify it ran just as great a risk of alienating large portions of the membership, particularly those from younger generations.

And so are they going to endorse heterosexual fornication for the same reason?  The church is supposed to call people towards godly living, not conform to the ungodly world.

Tim Mumm, a gay man and an assembly delegate from Whitewater, Wis., said the Scripture that guides opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now believe.

Why should anyone bother to show up are your church when you reject your own Scriptures?  Why not drop the pretense of being a Christian church?

"I believe for me to marry a woman would be wrong - even sinful," Mumm said.

Maybe it would be - but there aren't just two options.

Under the new policy, heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers will still have to abstain from sex outside marriage.

Why?  On what grounds???

I offer my condolences to followers of Christ in the ECLA.

Here's today's update on the Lutherans.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has the article.

Leaders of the 4.7-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are expected to decide during their weeklong Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis whether to alter existing policy, which requires gays and lesbians in ministry to remain celibate.

This can’t be right.  Surely they allow someone who has previously identified as homosexual to enter into holy matrinony, and thus not have to remain celibate?

The new policy would permit local congregations, if they wanted, to choose ministers or lay leaders who were in "lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

And how is anyone supposed to know if it is a lifelong, or monogamous relationships?  Even if they are, if there is pseudosexual behavior taking place, the church should not be condoning it in leadership.

Similar efforts to change the policy have failed five times over the last 12 years, according to church analysts.

But they'll keep trying.  Let’s face it - most of us get married at some point in life, and most of us have children.  These things take a lot of time, money, and energy.  We can't devote as much time to getting churches to endorse our sins.

The governing body's 1,045 voting members also will consider a long-anticipated social statement on human sexuality that, among various things, identifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Such statements are intended to guide church policy. Heterosexual clergy are allowed to have sex only within marriage.

Interesting.  What would that all mean, exactly?  That a man and woman couldn't claim to be in "lifelong, monogamous" relationships and thus get these positions, without being married?

Advocates of change in the Lutheran denomination argue that their church has a responsibility to accept all its members equally.

Since when does accepting all members equally mean condoning open, ongoing sin?  My church accepts all people equally - and calls all of us to repent of our sins, whatever they may be.  If a leader messes around with someone other than his wife, church leadership doesn't say, "Hey, it is time to get with it and accept that people have these feelings."  It boots him until he repents and is restored.

"We fully believe the church will be a better place and a better student for its mission if it is fully inclusive," said Phil Soucy, a spokesman for Goodsoil, a coalition of gay rights groups in the church. "Christ did not discriminate."

Christ certainly discriminated, rightly and justly.  He still does.

But those who favor traditional Lutheran positions on marriage believe the proposed policy reflects cultural norms rather than the word of God.

Exactly.  What is the point of having a church that mirrors the culture? You can join clubs and charities instead.  The church is there to worship God, make disciples, and serve the needy, thus transforming culture as He transforms the believer.

Related is my analysis of today's news on Obama's take on DOMA, over at The Opine Editorials.

What should determine a church’s stance?  The Bible, or a whiny minority of malcontents who want their sin celebrated by the church?  Associated Press writer Patrick Condon reports.

Leaders of the country's largest Lutheran denomination began discussing Monday whether or not to allow people in same-sex relationships to serve as clergy.

Let’s be clear here. I have plenty of same-sex relationships.  They are called... friendships.  What we're really talking about here is homosexual sodomy – psuedosexual activity with someone other than your spouse, as recognized by the Bible and church tradition.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is meeting this week in Minneapolis, plans to decide whether to approve a proposal that would allow individual congregations to let gay and lesbian people in committed relationships serve as clergy.

What constitutes "commitment", and why is that a criterion?

In other news, those brilliant military strategists at the Los Angeles Times had an editorial complaining again about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Nearly 13,000 servicemen and servicewomen have been discharged under the policy -- 287 since President Obama took office.

And how many were discharged for homosexual behavior (or not even allowed to enlist) in similar time frames before this policy was adopted?

Finally, check out my analysis of the latest California Marriage Amendment coverage over at The Opine Editorials.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has said that recent moves by the Episcopalians towards celebrating unrepentant sin might necessitate changes the role of the Episcopalians.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has the story.

Williams, spiritual leader of the communion, spoke of a "two-tier" or "two-track" model -- one path for those who remain part of the communion's "covenantal structure," and another with "fewer formal expectations" for those who value autonomy.

Uh, I know I'm probably oversimplifying here, but aware Roman Catholics are probably getting a chuckle out of all of this, seeing as how the Anglican Church got to be a separate deal from the RCC.

Episcopalians greeted Williams' letter with a range of emotions. Some criticized him, saying his proposals would relegate their church to second-class status.

Maybe they’re right.  Maybe he should try to get the Episcopalians kicked out entirely.

If the Anglican Church is going to be serious about making Christian disciples, it can't have entire branches celebrating what is clearly sinful behavior (according to the Bible) as a matter of policy.

There has been so much coverage of these issues in the MSM over the last several days, and some of it I just can't let go by without some analysis.  I hate to sound like a broken record, but my analysis of this is over at The Opine Editorials.

I'd rather be writing about some other issues, but I'm reacting to what is being thrown in our face like a bad MTV Awards show sketch.  Speaking of that - did you know that Tom O'Neil of the "Gold Derby" LATimes.com blog says a guy comes across as a homophobe if he objects to having a strange man's nearly naked rear-end suddenly dropped into his face?

None of the above is shocking, of course, but what is: Why did Eminem play along? The stunt only fuels old fears that he's a secret homophobe. The rapper has lots of gay fans. It's foolish to alienate them three weeks after releasing a new CD, "Relapse."

Fortunately, a lot of the comments on the blog entry express some common sense.

Lisa Larges is trying to gain ordination as a priest within the Presbyterian Church (USA), and a commission ruled against granting her ordination.  She identifies as a lesbian.  This story is from the Los Angeles Times.

She heads the group That All May Freely Serve, which advocates for gay equality in the church.

I have not checked out the group’s materials, so I don’t know their positions, but if by "equality" they mean for the church to affirm homosexual behavior (with or without a state marriage license) as equivalent to married heterosexual behavior, then they are asking the church go against what it considers Scripture.  Not only can a Bible-believing church not affirm homosexual behavior as equal, but it must consider such behavior sinful.  Sex is for marriage, according to the Bible.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) does not allow gays or lesbians to become priests, but last week's ruling sidestepped Larges' sexual orientation. In a highly technical ruling, the commission rejected the process used by the Presbytery of San Francisco to approve Larges' candidacy for ordination.

So it wasn't really a ruling on whether those engaging in homosexual behavior or unrepentant of such behavior can be ordained as priests in the church.  The existing rules stand.

The commission's ruling came less than a year after leaders of the Presbyterian Church overturned a long-standing ban on the ordination of gays and lesbians. The General Assembly, meeting in San Jose last June, voted in favor of the ordination measure 54% to 46%, but its decision must still be approved by a majority of the nation's 173 regional presbyteries.

So far, the measure to allow gay and lesbian priests is trailing, according to a tally kept by the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, a national group of clergy and lay church members.

Let's hope that Biblical teachings will be affirmed.

Asked why she didn't join a denomination that does allow gay clergy, Larges explained that she was raised and baptized in the Presbyterian Church.

She was probably raised in mother-father family, too.  Didn't stop her from choosing another life.

"I still feel called to stay here," she said. "If ever I feel I'm called to be somewhere else, I'll go there." But she will stay with her church, she said, "as long as I feel I have work to do."

Emphasis mine.  So much emphasis on feelings, so little quoted about Biblical teachings and truth.  I felt like going through life engaging in hookups and other forms of casual sex commonly available with many different women today, but I wanted to follow Christ more than my own feelings.  So I married and I stay faithful.

The church is not a government institution.  It should adhere to Biblical standards, and not ordain someone who engages in homosexual behavior any more than it should ordain a fornicating or adulterating heterosexual person.

Another day, another obituary for "evangelical Christianity" and our influence in politics.  This time, Michael Spencer, who blogs at InternetMonk.com and describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality", makes Yahoo News.

We are on the verge - within 10 years - of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity.

His Church will always exist.  What it looks like may change.  But the existence of His Church depends on Him, and although we may stumble and make all sorts of mistakes, He remains a rock.

This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Depends on what you mean by "mainline".  From what I understand, Christ-centered, Bible teaching churches are growing.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants.

It is quite possible, if we fail to make disciples, including not having enough children to replace ourselves plus keep up with the pace of population growth.

In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

Really?  You mean Marx, Darwin, Huxley, Freud, Kinsey, Sanger, and the rest didn’t peak in the 20th century?

Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Again, quite possible.

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism.

Really, what were the alternatives?  1. Sit by as people a) worked to expel anything Christian from the public square, b) undermined parental authority and family, c) devalued human life at both ends, d) promoted destructive sexual behaviors including the sexualization of children, e) denigrated marriage, and f) promoted dependence on government instead of self, family, and church. 2. Actively work to empower the people who were doing these thing?

Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress.

Well this is a given, because "progressives" hate authentic Christianity.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses.

If we just stick to running churches and their picnics, and leave participation in politics, academia, media, and the arts to others, we're not helping the situation.  Are our resources depleted?  We have less money, to be sure.  But everyone does.

Being against [marriage neutering] and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence.

And it isn’t meant to.  But I think Jesus would be okay if we paused in the middle of a sermon to save an innocent person from being murdered.

We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

Didn't Cal Thomas already write this book years ago?

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.

We could definitely do this better.

Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

Some denominations may not be worth saving.  But again, evangelical churches seem to be doing well.

Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

So you are saying that Christian universities should have more students and should be sending more grads into secular arenas to be salt and light?

The money will dry up.

If will if we raise people to be ineffective at earning and managing their money.

Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success.

There is nothing wrong with being a megachurch, per se, as long as the whole Bible is being taught, disciples are being made, and people are making connections.  Church is not supposed to be, first and foremost, a social club.

Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

A very real problem.

Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

Probably not.  This prediction has been made over and over again for decades.

Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa.

I've said that before.  We could stand to learn some things from thriving Christians who have grown in different cultures than ours.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ?

I sure hope so.

But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

I agree.  Has it ever been any different.

Something he neglected to mention that I think is a problem is that too much of the Church has adopted some the larger culture's disdain for men, boys, and masculinity and tendency to arrange things according to feminine sensitivities.  There are some fellowships that are trying to address that.  But if men are going to be driven away from churches, it is going to be more difficult for Christian women to find churchgoing men with whom to marry and perpetuate the Church by raising children in a strong Christian home.

Okay, here comes my tangent, comprised mainly of phrases stolen from others.

We do need more healthy, well-balanced churches.  Churches are supposed to first and foremost make disciples, then equip those disciples to serve the needs of people.  That we look good, have fun, and make friends and new business connections while doing that is great, but that shouldn't by the primary focus.  Stop buying high and selling low.  Transform the culture instead of letting the culture transform us.  Contemporary-style worship music is fine, but the lyrics should not be about how we feel.  Maybe we don't all feel that way.  The lyrics should be about who God is and what He has done.

Disciples should demonstrate a Christian lifestyle, including in their charity and their work ethic and their spending/finances – as in, we should constantly proclaim the Gospel, sometimes using words.  We should be able to explain the reason for the hope that is within us with gentleness and respect.  We should be able to explain and defend the core teachings of Christianity.  We should know the Bible.  And while doing all of this, we should not cast pearls before swine.

Churches should stop eating their own.  When someone sins, work to bring them to repentance and restoration.  If they refuse, then send them on their way.

Churches should work to strengthen marriage without alienating the unmarried.  I could write a book on this, and I'm sure plenty of others have.  Don't encourage people to get married if they are not ready to be a spouse and if they have not found a compatible spouse.  Counsel couples planning to marry about marriage (putting them in touch with older couples who have been married well and long is a good idea).  Refuse to host and perform the ceremonies unless this couple is fit to be married and is willing to submit to accountability in their vows.  If they either or both spouses breaks their vows without repentance, hold them accountable.  Refuse to marry someone who is divorced unless reconciliation with the previous spouse is not possible.  If they go off to another church that refuses to cooperate in enforcing this, let them go.  If you are a good church, it is more their loss than yours.

We must reject unsound doctrines and practices, but have liberty in the nonessentials.

Engage the community, including the neighborhood physically surrounding the church.  Who around there needs help?  How about walking the neighborhood to prevent crime and remove blight?  Expand the area as you master it until you bump into another church's territorty.

Keep the family together for at least the main church service.  If people can't handle kids being in the room because they sometimes get noisy, have a second service for them, before or after the main service.

Finally, avoid the cheese.  Yes, Christian media and entertainment can be good.  But it can be done poorly or it can be done well.  Cheesy stuff presented to the mainstream culture results in so much ridicule I doubt it does much good at all.