Duke Helfand has today's Los Angeles Times story from the Episcopalian convention in Anaheim.

Bishops, clergy and lay leaders voted overwhelmingly at the denomination's General Convention in Anaheim to open "any ordained ministry" to gays and lesbians.

I don’t think this really gives the clear story on what is going on.  What the church is doing, unless I'm missing something, is refusing to hold leaders accountable for openly, actively, unrepentantly engaging homosexual behavior.

Meanwhile, the Bible makes it clear that sex is for marriage, and marriage unites the sexes.  As such, it is inescapable  that the Bible teaches homosexual behavior (like any sexual activity with someone who is not one's spouse) is sinful.  How can church leaders be supported in being unrepentantly sinful?

The liberalized policy represents a reversal from guidelines adopted by the church at its last convention in 2006 that effectively prohibited the consecration of bishops whose "manner of life" would strain relations with the 77-million member Anglican Communion.

They should have stuck with that.

"Being an Episcopalian means you can disagree and still worship together," said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles. "We're going to leave the door open for all those who disagree with us to find a place here and peace here."

"Hey, you’re still welcome to come here and pay your tithes and offerings, even though we mock your convictions as official policy."  Uh, yeah.

But the measure also affirms that "God has called" gays and lesbians in partnered relationships to "any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church," adding that the call "is a mystery which the church attempts to discern for all people."

Please show Biblical support for this claim.  Smells to me like a claim to revelation.  The Bible has very strict standards for prophets.  Lying in the name of God is not taken lightly.

There could still be more bad news from the convention.  It will be interesting to watch the denomination continue to shrink.

The Los Angeles Times had a few different items relating to the push to neuter marriage.

First up is this article by Molly Hennessy-Fiske about how the Southern Christian Leadership Conference may actually hold a local leader, Reverend Eric P. Lee, accountable.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group partly founded by Martin Luther King Jr., has threatened to fire the president of its Los Angeles chapter because he supports same-sex marriage.

Actually, he has supported court-imposed-against-the-vote-of-the-people neutered marriage licensing.

The SCLC national board notified Lee on May 27 that he would have to attend a hearing at its Atlanta headquarters on June 4 to explain his stance on same-sex marriage. If he did not show up, they said, they would suspend and fire him.

Good for the SCLC, but why is this news?  Really?  Aren't there cases every day of employees and members of organizations that are disciplined for going against the policy of the leadership?  What would happen to a local ACLU leader who was so outspoken that students should actually be able to organize prayer in a public school?

But Lee said he was driven to support same-sex marriage by the teachings of King, who helped found the SCLC to champion civil rights 50 years ago.

"Any time one group of people are denied the same rights as other people, it is unequivocally a denial of civil rights," Lee said.

Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the same rights.  This argument is a red herring.  I don't seem to remember King calling for the neutering of marriage.  What, was he a bigot?

Duke Helfand covered some of a convention of Episcopalians, who are having to waste precious time dealing with homosexuality advocates who are trying to reorder the entire Anglican communion for the sake of their sexual desires.

Despite warnings about the consequences, liberal Episcopalians at the meeting are championing a flurry of resolutions to expand participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in church life, with votes expected in coming days.

I can’t imagine some dude  reading from the Scriptures that say God made them male and female while standing there after hes had their genitalia removed by a surgeon so as to appear to be female.

Among resolutions attracting attention is one from the bishop of Maine that would give priests in states where gay marriage has been legalized "generous discretion," under the direction of bishops, to adapt marriage blessings for same-sex couples.

Yes, let's follow Caesar over the Jesus.  That's a good thing for a church to do.

Other proposals call for the church to develop and authorize blessing rites for such couples, and to amend church canons so that they use gender-neutral language in reference to marriage.

Based on what?  The only condoned same-sex relationships in the Bible are strictly friendships.

Finally, the paper's editorial board chimes in on the 2010 census.

The paper is essentially saying that same-sex couples should be recognized as married and thus counted that way, and, as a result, DOMA should be discarded... because the couples were counted... and therefore recognized as married!  Circular much?

Up to now, the census has simply asked an adult member of the household about the other members and their relationships. If a male said the other adult was his wife, the census would count them as a married couple. If a male said the other adult was his husband, the computer was directed to categorize them as "unmarried partners."

Under the new rules, the computer will stop doing that, though the census probably won't classify these couples as married but as something legally safe, such as "spousal-designated same-sex couple."

I thought the census was there to count the population for the purpose of allocating Representatives?  What does it matter to the federal government what relationships exist?  Just because two people are legally married does not mean that one of them ceases to exist.  I got one of the long census forms in 2000.  The only question I answered was how many people were in my household, and their ages.

The 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act has always been discriminatory,

All laws are discriminatory.

and now it is out of sync with the realities of a changing society.

Changing society?  Are there suddenly more homosexual people?  More homosexual couples?

With same-sex marriage legalized in six states, the District of Columbia recognizing such marriages performed elsewhere and an estimated 18,000 married gay couples living in California, what's needed aren't convoluted interpretations of the federal law but a push from President Obama for Congress to repeal it.

A handful of states recognize neutered "marriage" licensing.  However, the rest of the states and territories recognize only bride+groom unions as marriage – most of them reinforced in their stance by constitutional amendment – amendments that have passed since the 2000 census.  This claim of momentum by the marriage neutering crowd is wishful thinking.

Homosexuality advocates are causing schisms in churches.  But, hey, every person and organization must bow down at the altar of homosexual esteem, right?  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has another story about this issue.

One of the most visible denominational skirmishes will occur in July, when leaders of the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church consider proposals at their national convention in Anaheim to sanction a religious rite for blessing same-sex unions and ease restrictions on the ordination of gay and lesbian bishops.

Where is the basis for this, either in the Bible or tradition?

Even as they acknowledge deep divisions over homosexuality, members of the 4.7-million member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will decide at their meeting in Minneapolis whether they should enable local congregations to recognize same-sex unions and allow "practicing homosexuals" in committed relationships to serve in the ministry.

What about fornicating heterosexuals?

Other Protestant groups are embroiled in similar struggles, including the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church. Another, the American Baptist Churches USA, is scheduled to hold its biennial convention in Pasadena in June but is not expected to consider any action related to same-sex marriage, a spokeswoman said.

The Church is supposed to transform individuals and the culture, not be transformed by the culture.

"What has been emerging for the last several years is becoming even clearer now: We're on a trajectory toward the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said the Rev. Jay Johnson, a professor of theology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and director of academic research at its Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.

Really?  You expect people to sit in the pews and listen to someone talk about what we ought to be doing when that person is being shot up full of hormones and having healthy body parts lobbed off in an attempt to appear to be the opposite sex?

It's not enough for the homosexuality advocates to have the schools, the courts, the media, the workplace, professional associations, and their own churches – they want your church, too.

Churches are supposed to make disciples by being spiritual hospitals for sinners, not be mutual admiration societies where sinners get together and pretend God supports their sin.  That goes for heterosexual fornicators, too.

Have you heard that Americans are prone to change religions?  Well, it might not be what you think.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times reports on a Pew Forum survey.

Americans are fickle consumers of religion, with about half changing religious affiliations at least once in their lives as they drift away from childhood traditions or stop believing in the teachings of their faiths, according to a national survey released Monday.

By contrast, Iran doesn't have any converts, at least not away from Islam.  Just like it doesn't have any homosexuals.

Monday's survey, based on follow-up interviews with 2,800 people, delved more deeply into the reasons behind the religious churn among Roman Catholics, Protestants and the unaffiliated. Jews, Muslims and other groups were not included because their numbers were not large enough to produce reliable results, the researchers said.

Uh, so these were basically "Christians" going from one Christian church to another, or dropping out of churchgoing, or starting up churchgoing.  When most people hear "changing religions", they’re thinking of someone going from some form of Christianity to some form of Judaism, or vice-versa, or from Hinduism to Islam, or something like that.  Meanwhile, there are probably people saying that they haven't changed or dropped their religion, identifying with their family’s Christian denomination, even though they make to church twice a year, if at all.

Many without religious belief also said they found religious people to be hypocritical, judgmental or insincere.

Okay let’s take those one at a time.

Hypocritical – This is an often misused term.  People erroneously apply it to people who did something in the distant past, but now agree that doing such a thing is wrong.  It can even be misapplied when it is used of someone who has recently done someone even though they have agreed that such a thing is wrong.  A hypocrite is someone who publicly professes to believe one thing, but they actually believe something else that is contradictory.  Now, a person's behavior may be an indication of their beliefs, but sometimes people do act against their beliefs.  Are there traditionally religious people who do any of these things?  Yes.  But people do these sorts of things – across all religious identities.  Some people seem to be just fine with people doing sleazy things, as long as they have never spoken out against doing those things.

Judgmental – Sorry, but you can't go through life without making judgments.  We all do.  The important thing is to judge rightly.  "Judge not lest ye be judged", in context, isn't telling us not to make judgments.  It is letting us know that we are not above judgment.  Christians are to confess their sins.  None of us knows for sure the heart of anyone else, and it isn't our place to judge someone else's destiny.  But we can certainly judge their actions and their words.  Really, this reason for leaving a church or a religion smacks of "I want to live my way, without anyone expressing disapproval."  Being a part of a congregation includes peer pressure, and if you read the Bible, Jesus makes a lot of judgments and tells some people what they are doing is wrong.

Insincere – Yup, there sure are people in religious organizations that are insincere, just like there are insincere people everywhere.  If you believe the spiritual or organizational leader of your church is insincere (like, say, if you are a Roman Catholic and you believe the Pope is insincere), then I can understand leaving the church.  But I just don't see doing it if you think one of the ushers in insincere.

In most cases, former Catholics who are now unaffiliated said they were dissatisfied with the church's teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control or treatment of women.

Such people either don’t believe in the authority of the church, nor the Bible; or they are knowingly running away from something they believe to be true for the sake of comfort or convenience.  Although I'm not aware of what the RCC does to women that is so bad.  Maybe someone can enlighten me?

More than two-thirds of those Catholics who switched to Protestantism, meanwhile, said that their spiritual needs were not being met and that they found another religion they preferred.

Sadly, there are Protestant churches that refuse to recognize the sinfulness of abortion or sexual behavior outside of marriage.

The survey also showed that 80% of those raised as Protestants have remained so. But more than a quarter of them have switched to a different Protestant tradition -- for example, changing from Presbyterian to Episcopalian.

Is that really a big deal?

I'm thinking some of the people who have "dropped out" have done so for reasons they are not stressing to others – such as having a falling out with other congregants, not wanting to be asked to get involved (especially financially), not wanting to deal with the schedule (getting up on Sunday morning, etc.) – stuff like that.

That is not to say that there aren't people who have serious doubts or disillusionments that have cause them to leave the religion in which they were raised.  The Church should not be letting people fall out of the back door because they are concentrating too much on getting people in through the front door.

I wasn't really raised in a religious home.  There was mostly sporadic church attendance, and not by the whole family.  Since becoming an adult, I have attended churches other than that particular denomination.  I don't (and didn't) look for a church that is going to give its stamp of approval on my lifestyle.  In fact, there were times I was attending church  and listening to sermons against something I was doing - that helped me to move away from my sin.  I choose a church based first and foremost on how it teaches the Bible, then how it is making and treating disciples.  Is it a place where I can serve others?  It is healthy and well-balanced?  Is it a place where I can grow in my walk as a follower of Christ?  If not, I don't want to spend my time there, take others there, or give money to it.

Have you noticed that the way you get the MSM to cover church services (other than high-profile funerals) is to have a marriage-neutering advocate speaking there, or a Leftist politician?  I analyze an article covering V. Gene Robinson, Episcopalian bishop and unrepentant sin promoter, and his recent marriage neutering advocacy, over at The Opine Editorials.

Joanna Lin and Ari B. Bloomekatz of the Los Angeles Times check on how things went down yesterday in the local congregations of the Episcopalian Church, given a recent court decision that sides with the larger church against breakaway congregations.

Kowalewski read a letter from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, the bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, saying, "The Episcopal Church continues its long tradition of welcoming among its members a diversity of opinion, including loyal dissent. Our church remains a large tent expansive enough to include many views and voices while united in common prayer."

Everyone should just stick together and continue to give time and money to an organization that is going against their faith?  I don’t think so.  This isn't really about who gets appointed to what position.  It is about whether or not the Bible is the authority.

Another parishioner, Dan Justin, 36, said he recently finished seminary and is in the process of becoming a priest. But his path to the pulpit has not been easy. Years ago, he said, he was thrown out of religious training at a nondenominational church in St. Louis because he was gay.

Was it really because "he is gay", or was it because he rejected in his profession and his practice the Biblical teaching that sex is for marriage?  I don’t know the guy, so I don't know.  But there is a difference.  My church welcomes people who identify as homosexual, and even let's them teach, as long as they identify above all as followers of Christ and submit to His restrictions on human behavior.

If the Bible is our Scripture, we need a better reason to ignore a part of it than "this is what I want."  If you want to do whatever you want without confirming to and outside standard, perhaps you shouldn't bother even going to a church.  Christ calls us to follow Him, not to remain as we were.

The California Supreme Court ruled against a breakaway Episcopalian parish's claim to church property, siding with the denominational authorities.  Los Angeles Times staff writers Maura Dolan and Duke Helfand report.

Rebellious congregations that part ways with their denominations may lose their church buildings and property as a result, the California Supreme Court said Monday in a unanimous ruling.

The state high court decision came in a case involving the Episcopal Church, but lawyers said it would apply to other denominations as well.

Several Protestant denominations, including United Methodists and Presbyterians, have faced upheaval over gay rights issues. Monday's ruling, along with similar victories that the church leadership has won in other states, is expected to dampen enthusiasm for such separations.

Keep this in mind when you give of yourself, your time, and money to a local congregation that you like.  Be sure you like where the larger denomination is going, or that the local congregation has enough autonomy to keep your donations going to the causes you support should the larger denomination veer off-course.

The parish, founded in the 1940s, argued that it had title to the property and had purchased additional parcels in its own name over the years with funds donated by members. St. James contended that it would be unjust to strip the parish of property that it paid for and maintained simply because the parish changed its spiritual affiliation.

The state high court said it could resolve the St. James lawsuit by looking to property deeds, state law, the local church's articles of incorporation and the national church's canon and rules.

Although the deeds showed the local church owned the property, the parish had agreed to be part of the greater Episcopal Church of the United States and to be bound by that church's rules, the court said.

The church added a section to a canon in 1979 that said parishes held property in trust for the greater church.

That's when the local congregation should have demanded reimbursement.

There are a lot of divorced people out there who wish their pre-nups were given as much respect by the courts.  This line of thinking was noted:

Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote separately to say that no secular institution would be permitted to take someone's property that way.

"This result is constitutional, but only because the dispute involves religious bodies and then only because [legal doctrine,] permissible under the 1st Amendment, allows a state to give unbridled deference to the superior religious body or general church," Kennard wrote.

Notice – the article doesn't quote a single "separation of church and state" champion dismayed that the court got involved in a church matter.  I didn't know walls could work one way but not the other.

Over the last week, there have been three stories of note in the bankrupt Los Angeles Times - which is part of a company that may have been bullied by an allegedly corrupt Democrat Governor - that have covered conflicts in the Episcopal/Anglican church over church teaching and practice when it comes to homosexual behavior.

Once again, we see that everything has to suffer in deference to homosexuality advocacy.

Duke Helfand had the first story on the breakaways.

To gain official recognition, the new province must still get approval from two-thirds of the 38 provincial Anglican leaders who represent 77 million Christians worldwide. If approved, it would be the first such province based on theology, not geography, a dramatic departure from Anglican policy.

"This is a reformational movement," said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for the Common Cause Partnership, which is spearheading the effort. "We believe that Anglicanism is a beautiful thing. Here in America it got on a track that was taking it farther and farther away from its core beliefs. We're attempting to return to that."

Helfand had a story the next day as well.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church declared Thursday that church members who joined a newly formed conservative denomination "are no longer Episcopalians," even as she predicted that the exodus had largely run its course and would not trigger further large-scale defections.

Jessica Garrison had the third story.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles has announced that church leaders can bless the unions of same-sex couples as a matter of policy.

Oh yes.  I seem to recall that the Scriptural justification for this is found in 1st Illusions 4:69.

The rite endorsed by Bruno also allows the blessing of other relationships, such as those between two senior citizens who do not wish to legally marry because they might lose health insurance or Social Security benefits.

Stand up for your love!  Uh, unless it might cost you something.

The Bible and tradition both teach that 1) sex is for marriage, and; 2) marriage unites the sexes.  Believe me, I have tried to find a way around point one.  You will not find permission in the Bible to engage in sexual activity with someone other than your spouse.  It isn’t there.

So the larger issue here is, is the Bible authoritative or not?  I wouldn’t expect an unchurched person to say yes.  However, a church that has the Bible as Scripture can only deviate from Biblical teaching in this area by:

1. Claiming new divine revelation that supersedes the Bible.
2. Claiming that the portions of the Bible that teach sex is for marriage and that marriage is exclusively something that unites the sexes are not authoritative.  (In that case, what other Biblical teachings are not authoritative?  Love thy neighbor?)
3. Claiming that the Church (universal) and many unchurched people have been wrong for all of this time in concluding that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage and that marriage is exclusively something that unites the sexes.
4. Claiming that the Bible contains an expired time limit on limiting sex to marriage and limiting marriage to uniting the sexes.

Otherwise, they are simply not even trying to hide the fact that they are allowing the culture to change the church, instead of calling the culture to be changed by the church.  Instead of fighting sin, they are accommodating it for the sake of convenience.

Well guess what?  A lot of the culture is telling me to sleep in and do other things with my time and money instead of attending church and supporting church financially. That would certainly be convenient.

Is it always easy to live the Christian way?  Does God promise to cater to all of our desires?  No.  But part of being devoted to God is doing things His way instead of our own.

Presbyterian Church USA refuses to recognize counterfeits as marriage, but doesn't punish someone who performed otherwise.  Rebecca Trounson of the Los Angeles Times reports:

The highest court of the Presbyterian Church USA has found that a California minister did not violate the church's constitution when she officiated at the [“]weddings[“] of same-sex couples in 2004 and 2005.

The decision, announced Tuesday by the church's permanent judicial commission, cleared the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr of San Rafael of misconduct and lifted an earlier ruling of censure against her by a regional church court.

So it is just fine for her to participate in a mockery of a God-initiated institution?

In the decision, the Louisville, Ky.-based panel found that the ceremonies Spahr had performed for the two lesbian couples could not be considered marriages.

Look at that.  They got something right.

Spahr, 65, who has fought for many years for full inclusion of gay and lesbian Presbyterians in the national church, said she was grateful she had been cleared of the misconduct charge but disappointed by the finding on marriage.

Funny, my church has full inclusion of gay people.  It condemns, however, using your genitals in sinful ways and does not make a mockery of marriage.

"In not seeing same-gender marriages as marriages, the commission holds to the idea that we are separate and unequal," Spahr said in a telephone interview. "And that causes me great pain."

You know, you can always find another church instead of trying to impose your antibiblical ego stroke on an unwilling group.  And two men and two women do not equal the union of a man and a woman.  Men and women are different.  A representative of each sex must be present for a marriage to exist.  Only one kind of the three couples can ever produce children or unite the sexes.

Sara Taylor, Spahr's attorney, said she and her client also were troubled by parts of the ruling.

"It's worrying that the court seems to be attempting to legislate future marriages and restrict them," Taylor said.

Oh yes, worrisome.  Worrisome for a church to follow the Bible.  So no restrictions?  The church should recognize “marriage” between a member and an unbeliever?  Between a parent and a child?  Between siblings?  Between people already married to other people?  Of one person to himself?  Or only between people who have a vocal enough lobby?

"Can you imagine if I said no to these couples, after they come to me and want me to work with them?" Spahr said.

Responsible ministers say “no” all of the time.  It’s called being faithful and discouraging sin.

She said she was now counseling six couples, three gay and three straight, and said she expected to officiate at weddings for all of them.

I wouldn’t have wanted someone to perform my wedding if they couldn’t tell the difference and had so little regard for the Word of God.

In our country, you should have the freedom to commit to each other, live together, celebrate your love, or whatever.  It is ridiculous for anyone to try to stop you through the force of government.  But there are some things in the Bible and some things in natural law that there’s just no getting around.  Holy matrimony is something between a man and a woman, and churches that still recognize that should be able to operate by that conviction.  If you want to continue being a member or person of authority in that church, you should agree to follow their rules.  Otherwise, you can leave.  Church membership and employment are voluntary, and there are many other churches out there.

Christianity is supposed to change you.  It isn't supposed to be the other way around.

Someone attacked a church in Arleta, California.  You know that that means!  But for those of you with short memories...

If we were like Leftists, we'd hold news conferences denouncing this as a hate crime caused by hate speech, and try to quell any negative talk about churches or Christianity.  We'd make sad movies about this incident and give ourselves awards for doing so.  We'd insist on only positive portrayals of churches, Christians, and Christianity in the media.  We'd make sure all of the teaching materials in schools only had positive portrayals of churches and Christians.  We'd hold candlelight vigils and protests, and insist that we have a week called "Church Appreciation Week".

If we were like Leftists.