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.

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.

My suggested public school curriculum for California's newly-adopted Harvey Milk Day is over at The Opine Editorials.

There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".

As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.

Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.

Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.

Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.

Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.

And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.

He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.

There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.

In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."

This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.

The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.

Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?

On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.

Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?

Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.

I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.

Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...

The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.

This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.

And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.

They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.

I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?

A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."

Where in the union is being gay illegal?

A subsequent article by her added more coverage.

Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.

I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.

Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.

Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond

Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".

Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.

We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.

"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."

And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?

You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.

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.

When it comes to their fight to redefine marriage into meaningless, homosexuality advocates have met opposition from the people unlike anything they have encountered before. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

Sorry for the light blogging here today. Life happens. But I know as long as I write on this subject, I'll get links.

It's that time again - when GLAAD counts up the number of characters on primetime network television who are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes or who dress in such a way as to pretend to be the opposite sex, or who go so far as to get hormones and surgeries in an effort to pretend to be the opposite sex. GLAAD, of course, wants to make sure that all of this is shoved into our faces as much as possible, and they want to make sure the networks are giving overall positive portrayals that advance the advocacy of homosexuality and self-mutilation.

Jill Serjeant has the Reuters story:

Some 44 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters make regular appearances in scripted shows on network and mainstream cable TV in the new 2009-10 television season, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said in its annual "Where We Are on TV" report.

Not sure how this differs from their “Network Responsibility Index”, which I wrote about here.

The 18 LGBT characters on major U.S. networks account for 3 percent of all scripted series in the prime-time TV schedule, up from 2.6 percent a year ago, the report said.

According to their tally, the number is up slightly this season to 18 out of 600 roles, which would be in line with reality as far as percentages. However, this is only primetime network television, focusing on dramas and comedies. It doesn’t take into account daytime programming, movies, "reality" shows (many of which make a point of having openly homosexual contestants or have openly homosexual judges/hosts), news magazines, etc.

From the Associated Press article:

Using information provided by ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and CW, the group reviewed 79 scripted series announced to air this season.

So, no Bravo? MTV? Logo? So it is a little misleading. As my prior blog entry noted, "LGBT" characters/people are overrepresented on television. And while the GLAAD folks bemoan (mostly past) limits on what such characters do on-screen (for example -  shows that will show a both-sexes couples in bed together, starting activity under the sheets that makes it clear they are about to fornicate would only show two men hugging, not even kissing) – how many of those same shows will air the serious prayer of a character who is a sincere, level-headed, educated Christian, or show him serving others in the name of Christ? Most television tries to appeal to the widest audience, most of whom do not belong to the same religious denomination, and most of whom do not want to see two men making out. Television will push that, though, if the artists/producers are trying to push an agenda with the viewers.

The steady increase in gay characters is promising, as are story lines that are becoming "more reflective of current issues affecting our lives," GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said in a statement.

Fair, accurate images of gay couples marrying, raising families and contributing to their communities help fellow Americans "come to accept and better understand" their gay family members and neighbors, he said.

What, no same-sex pairings struggling with infertility or an unplanned pregnancy?

How about programming that shows the higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, substance abuse, and domestic violence? But I suppose that is entirely the fault of families, churches, and politicians who aren't enthusiastic supporters of homosexual behavior, especially among minors living at home?

(This post is most certainly to get a link from a certain website that sounds like a brand of cotton swab.)

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.

I'm generally in favor of that.  I'm also in favor of people keeping private consensual behavior... private.  I don't need to see it on parade.

J. Kelly Strader, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, has a commentary in today's Los Angeles Times discussing the impact – or the alleged lack thereof – of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision on laws and court rulings about sexual behavior. The piece starts out mentioning the effort to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, then quickly moves on to Lawrence, maintaining that that there is a "constant threat to our privacy rights."

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.


(Blogging note: I will likely not be blogging again for the rest of the day, or at least not until very late in the day.)

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.

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.

Homosexuality advocates are out with a report on representation on TV.  Associated Press television writer Frazier Moore has the story.

In its third annual Network Responsibility Index, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found that of HBO's 14 original prime-time series, 10 included content reflecting the lives of gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Remember, there is a reason "transgender" is included.

Transgender basically means dressing like the opposite sex, or even going so far as to have surgery, hormone treatments, a name change, etc. to pretend to be the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is about being attracted to people of the same sex.  Bisexuality is about being attracted to people of both sexes.  Transgendered people can, so we are told, be heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals.  We are also told that these people really are changing from male to female and female to male, and not simply males becoming mutilated, deluded males and females becoming mutilated, deluded females.  So why is sex (gender) lumped together with sexual orientation?  Well, because if "the community" activists are to be believed, a lesbian who has an addadictomy and becomes a "man", would, by definition, no longer be a homosexual, which means fewer homosexuals.  We can't have that, right?  That means a loss of power, doesn't it?  So "transgender" is a way to keep counting the person as part of the team.

That totaled 42 percent of the network's programming hours, in series such as "True Blood," "Entourage" and "The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency."

By contrast, on NBC and CBS only 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of prime-time hours included them, the report said.

Considering only three percent or less of the population is homosexual, then, if programming was truly going to be representative, only 3 out of 100 characters would be homosexual.

Yet, the percentage seems to be higher, probably a for a mix reasons: 1) To suck up to homosexuality advocates and get awards; 2) to push the personal political and social  agendas of the writers, directors, and producers; 3) because they think it provides interesting story material as it is yet another way to get sex onto the tube.

I stand by the right of broadcasters to do what they want with their own resources.  If they want to have nothing but flamboyant drag queens on their shows, that is up to them.  I also stand by the right of GLAAD to issue reports and bestow awards.

My only point is that homosexuality is overrepresented on television.

How many characters in the programming monitored are devout Christians who are not portrayed any more negatively, on average, than others?

(This entry guaranteed to be linked on that website that sounds like a cotton swab brand.)