In case you haven't heard yet, an eight-year-old boy was sent from school and ordered to undergo re-education - er, uh, a psychological evaluation - because he understands that Christmas is about Christ. He drew a stick figure of Jesus on a cross. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker has the story.

Chester Johnson told WBZ-TV that his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday.

The crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to Christianity, and why many Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. God came to this world as a boy, taking on a human nature, and ultimately, dying for our sins, offering us a gift beyond comparison.

Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross.

In a sense, we were all crucified with Jesus.

Johnson, who is black, told WBZ he suspects racism is involved.

I wonder why he suspects that? Sounds to me like Christophobia.

He said he thinks the school overreacted and wants an apology.

They did overreact.

An educational consultant working with the Johnson family said the teacher was also alarmed when the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes.

Was the teacher unaware that Jesus died on the cross?

The boy was cleared to return to school on Dec. 7 after the evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.

He may pose a threat to the sensitivities of the historically and religiously ignorant.

In June 2008, a Taunton fifth-grade student was suspended for a day for a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.

That is apples to oranges. The Christian boy was not implying a threat against against anyone.

I'm sure it is a mere coincidence that this happened in Massachusetts. I wonder if the great classical artists who depicted violence against Jesus would have been sent home as well?

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.

You may have heard of the Manhattan Declaration, which was recently unveiled. It has been signed and touted by people  identified as Christians, but from a wide variety of denominations and creeds, who find a common cause in standing up for:

1. The sanctity of human life.  
2. The sanctity of marriage.  
3. The protection of religious liberty.  
4. The rejection of unjust laws.  

There are always going to be people upset with Roman Catholics team up with Protestants, or some other combination of that sort happens, because these people are vehemently opposed to some of the doctrines, practices, and personalities of one or the other. But the Manhattan Declaration isn't a doctrinal creed, or a charter for a unified church. Nowhere in the document are Roman Catholics called to become Southern Baptists or vice-versa. There's nothing in the document that offends my faith, and I'm curious as to know what in the document offends the faith of any follower of Christ. Merely attracting the signature of someone with whom I have a strong theological disagreement does not make a document unworthy of my own support. Otherwise, there are a lot of good things I would have to avoid because they are also supported by those people.

This document is a call for anyone who calls themselves Christian to stand up for basic Christian principles in the most important cultural matters. Without religious liberty, squabbling between Roman Catholics and Lutherans is a luxury. We have let ideological minorities use ever increasing and centralized government power to try to compel us to support murder, the neutering of marriage, and the removal of theistic or Christian references from the public square. We need to resist this.

A clue that the document is a good thing is that the Los Angeles Times editorial board doesn't like it.

After starting out their editorial musing about civil disobedience and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., during which the editorial reveres King because he was standing up for things they like, they go on to write...

That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

The editorial doesn't explain how this is so. It is an assertion based on the board's disagreement on the issues.

They go on to quote the document, indicating they have read it...

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.

Dangerous? Perhaps to agendas that would be more easily accomplished with a passive Church standing on the sidelines.

The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

State marriage licenses reflect the official policy of the state. If they are neutered, coupled with other laws and court decisions, the state policy of neutered marriage would inevitably encroach upon religious freedom and devalue marriage. It also takes away the general liberty of self-government when it is imposed upon the people by the few.

This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey.

So if a radio talk show host discusses it, it can't be true? At least it is "sweeping", rather than "dangerous".

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous.

Again, "dangerous", and now "apocalyptic". Read it for yourself. Does it sound dangerous?

Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn?

Speaking out against abortion = murder, you see. Never mind the fact that abortion = murder. By this reasoning, the editorial board is inciting violence against Christians.

Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform?

This is so muddled. Of course we can resist laws we don't like (why would we resist laws we like?), and still participate in lawmaking. That's exactly what happened in the civil rights movement of the 1950s/1960s. The board has called for resistance of the California Marriage Amendment. So I guess this is a matter of, "Christians shouldn't stand up for what they believe. Only people who agree with us should."?

They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

You mean like where they write:

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral.

…like that?

Again - read the document yourself. You may want to sign it after you do.

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.

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.

In a recent blog entry, I looked at a media account of the APA's latest materials regarding people with unwanted homosexual feelings.

Here are a few recent items on the Stand to Reason blog that are of interest in this area:

Can Homosexuals Change?

Get to Know a Former Homosexual

Also: What is a general principle to determine what in the Old Law applies to Christians under the New Covenant?  

Again, this is in response to the idea that someone who wants to deal with homosexual feelings in a Biblically appropriate way shouldn’t be told that they can change.  This is not about forcing anyone to stop engaging in homosexual behavior.  If someone wants to live by the Biblical teachings that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes, then they should know that there is hope for them.

Catherine Lyons, over on the LATimes.com opinion blog, asks if the right to life stops when a child is born.  She is specifically is referring to a perceived lack of concern by pro-lifers when it comes to parents who pray for their children instead of seeking medical treatment for them.

Dale Neumann was convicted Saturday of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, because he prayed for her instead of taking her to a hospital when her undiagnosed diabetes got so bad that she couldn't eat, drink, walk or speak. She died on the floor of her rural Wisconsin home with her father, mother and a group of people praying for her healing. Neumann says he was simply putting his faith first and following the will of God, but a jury found him guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

If he believes the Bible is authoritative, then for what it is worth, the Bible does not advise believers to forgo medical treatment, nor promise the faithful healing and health in this lifetime.  See here for more info.  Christian parents should pray for their children and seek medical treatment for them.

This event raises serious questions about the conflict between individual rights and governmental power, just as abortion does. Both involve innocent and dependent lives with no real power to contest a parent's choices.

Actually, I think there is - it is called taking the child into protective custody.  If it can be demonstrated that a parent is abusing or neglecting a child, that is what should be done.  I believe in parental authority over minors and freedom of religion, but both have their limits.  For example, other than abortion, or the post-partum/hormonal defense by women, we do not allow people to get away with child sacrifice.

Isn't this a Right to Life issue? And if it is, where are the Right to Lifers?

Well, I think I qualify as a pro-lifer, as I believe in the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.  I support the prosecution and conviction of Dale Neumann.

I'd like to turn this question around, though.  What about someone who denies treatment, or even just hydration, to a comatose adult?  Why is that okay but denying treatment to a diabetic child is prosecutable as murder?

I also want to point out that the right to life means protection from someone else killing you - obviously, we all die one way or another.  It can be argued that Neumann contributed to the death of his child by refusing to get her readily available, established treatment.

God ordains the means and the ends.  If medical treatments can help, do not avoid them.  Prayer is great, but there is no reason why it can't be done in conjunction with medical treatment.  From everything I've read and experienced, prayer's primary function is to get is to focus on God (not to "change God's mind"), and you can do that while also using medicine.  Unless God has given you special, specific revelation, then refusing the medical abilities He has provided to people so as to demonstrate "faith" is mere superstition, akin to thinking your mother's spine will be damaged because you stepped on a crack on the sidewalk.

It's now considered a victory that the American Psychological Association isn't completely trashing religion while they tell people unhappy with homosexual feelings that they can't leave homosexuality uh, behind.  Associated Press writer David Crary has the story.

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Even though some some people have done just that.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options - that could range from celibacy to switching churches - for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

I see.  Ditch your faith like it is a scarf you just happened to pick out.  Put your sexual cravings before God.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

Even though it has worked for some.  Please note that they voted on this - all of you people who think we should not be able to vote on things.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

You mean more than homosexuality already does?

Judith Glassgold, a Highland Park, N.J., psychologist who chaired the task force, said she hoped the document could help calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option.

Don't forget the people who have actually done it.

"Both sides have to educate themselves better," Glassgold said in an interview. "The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian."

Such as?  I can't list them, or I will be charged with perpetuating stereotypes.

"Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality."

Like every man who keeps it in his pants when he feels like taking what is being shoved in his face by the "forward" modern gals.

"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.

So even if you want to change, they won't help you.  Nice.

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said.

How is this different from any other failure to change behavior one wishes to change?  Oh, that's right.  This one has a loud lobby.

Sexual feelings change all of the time.  Just ask any couple that once couldn't keep their hands off of each other, but now hardly ever even touch.

An evangelical psychologist, Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, praised the APA report for urging a creative approach to gay clients' religious beliefs but - like Chambers - disagreed with its skepticism about changing sexual orientation.

Yarhouse and a colleague, Professor Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, will be releasing findings at the APA meeting Friday from their six-year study of people who went through Exodus programs. More than half of 61 subjects either converted to heterosexuality or "disidentified" with homosexuality while embracing chastity, their study said.

No, no... let's pretend it never happens.

The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.

In the past, they considered it a disorder.  So either they were wrong then or they are wrong now.  But either way, we know they can be wrong.

The report said the subgroup of gays interested in changing their sexual orientation has evolved over the decades and now is comprised mostly of well-educated white men whose religion is an important part of their lives and who participate in conservative faiths that frown on homosexuality.

Well, of course.  So much of society now celebrates homosexual behavior and advocates it that it seems like the only bastions are religious ones.

Look, if you like engaging in homosexual behavior, I would never try to stop you (uh, except if you try it on me).  But for someone who doesn't want to engage in that behavior, it is wrong to tell them to embrace it when there are people who have changed.