The United Methodist Church's Judicial Council reversed the decision of an appelate court and defrocked Beth Stroud for being in a commited lesbian relationship. The decision affirms resolutions passed at the most recent General Conference (2004) that strengthen the church's position that homosexual practice (and not merely same-sex attraction) disqualifies one from eligibility for ordination within the United Methodist Church.
Related links:
Institute for Religion & Democracy link
Looks like the National Council of Churches is finally being recognized for what it truly is, a political lobbying machine. The Antiochian Orthodox Church has just elected to get out.
IRD link
Antiochian Orthodox link (last item)
The following fundraising letter is similar in tone to letters sent out by Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way. A lot of politics, very little of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (is Jesus even mentioned in it - let's check...no). Seems like Robin Edgar believes that Christians cannot be Republicans.
NCC Fundraising Letter
Mark Tooley writes in The American Spectator, Exploiting the Right
S.M. Hutchens, writing in Touchstone magazine has an excellent online article, The Pope is Catholic! regarding Pope Benedict XVI and his detractors. Why do efforts to transform the Catholic Church into a liberal institution fail? Because they aren't just fighting orthodoxy within the Catholic church, they are fighting against orthodoxy in the Protestant realm as well.
Shane Raynor comments on the Beth Stroud verdict being overturned on appeal.
Don't see anything on Christianity Today's website, but here's a link to them which will show it when they do.
The Reconciling Congregations reaction. (posted 4/29/2005 and I don't see a permalink so you may have to scroll or search for it later)
Reaction from The Institute on Religion & Democracy.
My reaction? I like what Shayne Raynor said. I'm beginning to wonder about all that talk about schism last year. Not that the person who proposed it desired that it happen, but rather that he was describing what was in effect already reality. This is probably a good time to go back and reread 1 Corinthians 12-14.
From the Institute on Religion & Democracy:
Religious Left Celebrates Roe vs. Wade.
I find it pretty hard to see that Jesus would have been a Roe vs. Wade supporter, given His words about the sanctity of marriage and His compassion for children.
United Methodist Bishop Denounces Abortion.
Bishop Timothy Whitaker has made a strong statement denouncing the "moral horror" of abortion, and decries the involvement of the United Methodist Church in the RCRC.
Michael Spencer, The Internet Monk, is calling on the blogosphere to expose Joel Osteen.
I am not familiar with Joel Osteen, except for the Beliefnet and FaithfulReader interviews I just read before starting this post, so I don't feel like I should critique the Rev. Osteen specifically. Shayne Radnor, at Wesley Blog, has a good post with which I agree.
I do want to critique a certain mindset however - the mindset that Christians should be happy and prosperous all the time. Looking at Psalm 1, we read, in a verse describing a godly person,
"He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.
Ps 1:3 NKJV
Now for the prosperity part. I don't for a minute believe that just because I'm a Christian that I can drive a Lexus, have a nice big home, and buy lots of toys for my family to play with, though I do believe that God does take care of us, Cast your burden on the Lord, And He shall sustain you; He shall never permit the righteous to be moved. (Ps 55:22 NKJV) (and God has answered a big prayer of mine this last month having to do with paying the bills). The way I view that verse (from Ps 1) is that God grants us prosperity in doing His will. I believe that God never asks anything of us unless He will also provide the means to do it. If that means leading a church with a multi-million dollar budget and saving thousands of people, He will do that in a prominent display of evangelistic prosperity. If it means going into a foreign mission and doing without creature comforts in order to preach the gospel who would never hear it otherwise, a less prominent but no-less real prosperity there as well, the prosperity of God's harvest. So instead of interpreting that verse from Psalm 1 as describing material wealth, I believe we're better looking at it with a spiritual viewpoint. What's my spiritual balance?
Bill Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, details the Unitarian Universalist Association agenda, in a press conference sponsored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Mark Tooley, UM Action Director for the Institute on Religion and Democracy, writes on the same press conference, describing the involvment of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society and other groups.
Credit where credit is due department: From a letter received by the Institute for Religion and Democracy from The Reverend William Melnyk, who "had been involved in work with Druid organizations."
"I was wrong. I repent of and recant without qualification anything and everything I may have said or done which is found to be in conflict with the Baptismal Covenant, and the historical Creeds of the Church."
God bless you, Reverend Melnyk.
Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,Psalm 51:12-13 NKJV
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.
UPDATE: Just read today, Tuesday, that the Reverend Melnyk and his wife, also a member of the Episcopal clergy, have resigned. I am sorry to hear this report.
Jeff Jacoby is skeptical of John Kerry's claim to religious belief.
Each of us can do more to love our neighbor and to live up to the Judeo-Christian values that American history so strongly affirms. But promiscuous God-talk in presidential campaigns doesn't elevate our spiritual profile. It feeds the suspicion that religion is being invoked for cynical political reasons. Is Kerry right with his God? I certainly hope so. But for nearly 22 years he managed to keep that part of his life extremely private. I wish he would have kept it that way.
A little more than a year ago, I wrote these words, about the Episcopal Church, which had just ordained Gene Robinson as a bishop.
I don't think this is the point where the ship has hit the iceberg. I think the iceberg was hit many years ago when bishops like John Shelby Spong were allowed to become spokesmen for the Episcopal church, men who do not believe in Christ's divinity, nor the Resurrection, nor the Atonement, and who find no relevance in the Bible. So the church hit the iceberg a long time ago. In my view, it's probably at the point where the ship is just about vertical and about to snap in two. People are jumping ship, and the ship will sink. The Episcopal Church will soon no longer be recognizable as a Christian Church, as heterodox as the Unitarian Universalist Association, which took action similar to this way back in 1984.
The Episcopal Church is now promoting a ritual honoring "The Queen of Heaven". As heterodox as the UUs? You bet. The Unitarian Universalist Association has had a Cakes for the Queen of Heaven Religious Education program for a long time (my former UU congregation does it). In fact, the book by that title was written by a UU minister, Shirley Ranck, back in 1986. About the only difference I can find between the Episcopalians and the UUs is that the UUs are much bolder in admitting that this is a spit in the eye to orthodox Christian faith.
Hat tips to Jason Steffens (Antioch Road) and Amy Welborn (Open Book)
Abortion providers are supporting John Kerry, and for good reason. His administration, if he is elected, will be better for their business.
And just this little note: anytime someone suggests a common-sense restriction on abortion, such as stopping late-term abortions, groups like Planned Parenthood responsd to the effect that there are hardly any late term abortions done. But this statement hides an important viewpoint, to groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), late-term abortion providers like George Tiller are heroes, and they are dedicated to continuing their work.
An excerpt from a prayer by Unitarian Universalist minister Deborah Mero at the 30th anniversary service of Roe vs. Wade cited in link above:
We honor those who brought us choice, Sarah Weddington, Fay Wattleton, Justice Harry Blackmun and all of this generation, Kate Michelman, Gloria Feldt, Dr. George Tiller, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, and Frances Kissling who have worked tirelessly to affirm women's right to choose abortion and provide safe and legal reproductive health options. And we vow to carry on their work.
Now before anyone attacks me for justifying the violence done to Tiller or his clinic, let me just say this right now: I do not support violence against any person or their property, and I support the prosecution of people who conduct such violence. However, being a victim of violence is not a virtue. Tiller is no hero.
Two Unitarian-Universalist ministers are riding on the "Marriage Equality" Caravan, whose goals are "to focus attention on proposed amendments to write discrimination into both state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, and 'to demand a repeal of anti-gay measures like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' "
Bear in mind that these ministers are reprensentatives of a liberal denomination that believes in the separation of church and state so much that some of its members are trying to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches trying to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now of course, the participation of two ministers is not exactly an explicit endorsement by the denomination, but on the other hand, the link is from the UUA website which implies that the denomination is promoting their cause. Here's another link showing that UUA support for gay marriage goes as far as explicit and extensive political lobbying.
If a Democrat gives a political talk in a church, he or she is a concerned American citizen wanting to preserve American Values. If a Republican does it, he's a fascist Taliban out to destroy America by usurping the "separation of church and state".
Two links on a political speech by President Clinton in Riverside Church in NYC. Replace President Clinton's name with President Bush's or John Ashcroft's, and you would have the ACLU, AUSCA, and Unitarians taking this to the courts to have the church's tax-exempt status stripped.
Undivine Double Standard, by Paul Kengor, in National Review Online. Kengor argues that Clinton invoked God much more often than President Bush in his speech.
All the Bias That Fits, by Michelle Malkin, commenting in the Washington Times.
From Christianity Today, Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage.
The other shoe has dropped. Conservative activists are monitoring Unitarian Universalist congregations and other liberal churches for endorsements of Democrats or Democrat "code-words"
Also, in the Demopolis Times, Gary Palmer writes that all this demagogery amounts to an intimidation campaign. He's right. (links via Christianity Today's weblog)
This is getting rather shrill and ridiculous, though I think that The Mainstream Coalition, the UUA, and their allies were asking for this response with their virulently anti-religious behaviour.
The bottom line is that if a preacher doesn't endorse a candidate by name, he's legal. Code words are protected free speech. The Catholic church is free to tell its members to vote pro-life, just as my former UUA congregation was free to tell its members to vote pro-abortion (which was real close to the time I renounced it and moved on).
(8/20) UPDATE: Joel Thomas directs me to this post by Donald Sensing One Hand Clapping, which discusses the rules regarding political activity by churches. The amount of political involvement by a church seems to be a key factor (and this is an arbitrary measure). I've been a member of Methodist, Baptist, and Unitarian churches during my lifetime. I have never been in a more politically active "church" than the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many congregations have forsaken all aspects of worship altogether, replacing it almost completely with social activism, including political lobbying. I am surprised that UUA congregations are not losing their tax-exempt status in droves.
Also: from the Unitarian Universalist Washington Office for Advocacy, the Unitarian Universalist lobbying organization, The Real Rules: Congregations and IRS Guidelines On Advocacy, Lobbying, and Elections. Just a reminder, guys: the rules apply to both sides.
from South Jersey; actually came back Monday. Didn't want to write too quickly about this, but feel I have to finally.
Missed some news while away, or just heard about it about twelve hours after it was announced. Governor McGreevey is resigning!! What? No, he's not? Oh, he's resigning in November. Just our luck. He's messed this state up real good, and won't let go until a special election can be thwarted. Well, the Democrats won the last election I suppose, so I guess there's a point to keeping them there (but this comes from a state where political parties appoint their nominees after the primaries, so I guess it stands to reason that a resigning governor can effectively appoint his successor), but we don't have a good track record with acting governors either. I don't appreciate what President Bush did to us by taking Governor Whitman away from us. Her replacement (a Republican btw) did a rather poor job too, and Whitman did a poor job at the EPA as well.
So Jim McGreevey claims to be a "gay" American. No, Governor, the proper antonym of straight you're looking for is crooked.
And on the whole subject of gay confessions. If McGreevey had confessed to committing adultery with a woman, he would have been viciously attacked in the press, but he confesses to committing adultery with another man, and his poll numbers go up! So the new "wag the dog" strategy, at least here in New Jersey, is confess that you're gay, and suddenly you gain all kinds of respect. As Mark Shea has said, and it describes the NJ mentality pretty well "Could there possibly be anything more incredibly glorious and splendid than homosexuality?"
Matt Kaufman, in a new column at Boundless, discusses secularism, the worldview that religion deserves no place in public life or expression. He models the discussion on Robert Reich, who Joe Carter and I have both discussed recently.
Does secularism imply godlessness? Many seem to think that religious views are all fine and good but should be held privately. Problem is that Reich's depiction of secularism would have the religious viewpoint shut out completely, just because of different beliefs (and this coming from the political party claiming unity, no less). If you believe Man writes the rules, you're a player, if you believe God's rules are the foundation, then your viewpoint is invalid and will not be considered, and it's not a stretch to say it would be censored as well.
Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, opines that faith belongs in politics.
An excerpt (but read the whole thing):
The Left and Right have both followed the advice of the Founding Fathers at different points in history. Abolitionism and the civil-rights movement — two moral highpoints of our history — were driven by people attempting to impose their religious views on others. So is the right-to-life movement.
And some advice for those who speak out on issues of faith and morality:
There is, however, a problem with the way some religious conservatives approach the political sphere. The problem is not dogmatism, but laziness. Someone who rests the argument for a certain position entirely on the fact that his religion told him to is not really attempting to persuade. Even if one is motivated by faith, one still has to convince others using secular, or at least broad-gauge, moral arguments.
Earlier this week, in a Beliefnet article, Breakthrough for Nonbelievers, discussing Ron Reagan's speech at the DNC, Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State says, "The polls continue to show that a lot of Americans are uncomfortable electing a non-believer, It's almost a de facto religious test,..." referring to the Constitutional prohibition of a religious test. Trouble is, he is wrong in his understanding of the Constitution. The Constitutional reference is a restriction of government power, not a restriction of individual liberty. No person can be considered ineligible to run for office because of their religion, but people are free to vote for whatever reasons they wish, including their religion and faith beliefs.
Susan b. Lilac Rose points me to this news story in the Washington Post, describing how a liberal religious[,lack of] group, The Mainstream Coalition is visiting evangelical and fundamentalist churches to monitor their political activity.
Tina Kohn, a member from the Unitarian Universalist Association, said "keeping church and state separate is important to her. She doesn't want a few religious denominations defining marriage - or setting other social policy - for everyone."
So is it really that important to the Unitarian Universalist Association, that religious denominations not define marriage? Let's do a little monitoring of the "Religious Left".
Here's a UUA 2004 Action of Immediate Witness, passed at the recent UUA General Assembly, opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Also from the 2004 GA, a panel on Same-Sex Marriage: Finding Our Public Voice.
So, if the UUA is a religious organization, it really ought to reconsider what religious organizations can talk about regarding public policy. For all the ranting and raving about the nefarious tactics of the "religious right", the bottom line is that their opponents on the "religious left" do the exact same things, with one exception. Only one side, represented by The Mainstream Coalition, is telling the other to shut up.
Following up on a post, The Secularist's Vision, citing Robert Reich and his belief that religious people should not have any say in the conduct of our country, it turns out that Ron Reagan Jr., who spoke at the DNC last night on the subject of embryonic stem cell research, claims to be an atheist.
Ramesh Ponnuru, at National Review Online, criticizes on Reagan's speech.
My former congregation, the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Princeton, is hosting a viewing of the movie Outfoxed, which argues for the censorship is extremely critical of Fox News. Looks like they've joined the MoveOn crowd. Of course, this doesn't prevent them from criticizing politically-active Christians of blurring the distinction between church and state.
UPDATE: A review of Outfoxed from OpinionJournal.com.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I haven't seen the movie, nor will I do so, so I don't know firsthand that it argues for the censorship of Fox News. I thought I read that somewhere, but I can't find the link, so I've changed the wording of one of the sentences in the original post. The original is still there, just struck out so you can see what I originally said.
Last week, Joe Carter The Evangelical Outpost linked to an NRO article by Ramesh Ponnuru, Robert Reich's Religion Problem. Robert Reich is quoted as saying,
"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."
This is similar to what many Unitarian Universalists and Humanists believe: that Christians are out to destroy America, to take us back to the dark ages, take away womens' rights. I've even heard some of them blame Christianity for the Holocaust, rhetoric very similar to that heard this year during the discussion of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
Since Robert Reich's views are so similar to those of the Unitarian Universalists, he was featured as a guest speaker at their recent General Assembly. Here's his presentation, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America, which is actually a plug for his latest book by the same title. It's sort of interesting that he is so critical of Christians for promoting their values, and yet here he is promoting his own. Of course he is free to do so, and his ideas deserve consideration. But what he denies in his TAP piece is a place at the political table for people of faith. And that is an unconstitutional religious test, and not an American value at all.
Jay Ambrose on why religious conservatives shouldn't be caricatured as extremists.
Some quotes, including the final paragraph, from the editorial:
It is always a mistake, in my view, for people of faith to think their religious and moral insights necessarily give them policy insights. Those on the religious left - and some secularists - are at least as unlikely in their socialist urgings to recognize this fact as the religious right.News accounts tell us that people who go to religious services regularly, no matter what the faith, are more likely to vote for Bush than John Kerry, and that those who see themselves as not religious are more likely to vote for Kerry. Some of this has to do with stances on specific issues, obviously, but I think it also has to do with people seeking out sensibilities they think are akin to their own. Those among the religious who find Bush a kindred spirit are not thereby fools who will wreck the country.
(Link via Christianity Today's Weblog)
Five discussions from UUA GC2004, all on a similar theme - Secularism is a religion too. Which of course makes it impossible to eliminate religion from public life - since worshipping nothing is just making "Nothing" an object of worship.
What's Intelligent About Intelligent Design?
The UU Answer to Vacation Bible School
Science and the Search for God
A Discussion on Science and Unitarian Universalism
Toward a Humanist Language of Reverence
John Kerry's advisers tell him to keep quiet on subject of religion after questions are asked about his new directory of religious outreach, Mara Vanderslice, a former Unitarian who has a background of involvement in left-wing causes. It seems to me that her appointment is intended to use religion as a stalking horse for leftist political causes.
A few days ago, I noted Tom Teepen's observation that the Bush administration's policies "do not reflect the broad practice and values of most mainstream Christians but rather the dogmas of conservative faiths." He may be right on the conservative part, but wrong on the broad practice and values. Left-wing political activism is a lot more divisive than promoting traditional values. Kerry's advisers are wising up to that fact and telling him to keep mum on it.
Liberal Activists Launch Initiative for “Progressive” Religious Leaders.
Tom Teepen applies a religious test to the Bush administration. His verdict: it's ok for one's religious values to influence their actions in politics if they are a liberal, but if one is a conservative evangelical, then it's just wrong. Why? Bush policies do not "do not reflect the broad practice and values of most mainstream Christians but rather the dogmas of conservative faiths." I don't know why that's a defining measure for why it's right or wrong though - if you consider abortion to be a human rights issue, as I do, then religious doctrine is just an aside. Today's religious conservatives have as much right to speak up on right-to-life issues as nineteenth-century abolitionists (also a minority) did to speak out against slavery.
And just another little fact: if abortion is an unalienable right due to the words of a Supreme Court decision, by that standard, ownership of slaves is also an unalienable right - another decision by our Supreme Court from our past. Of course the latter proposition is ridiculous. What isn't said very much nowadays, but should be, is that the first propostion is ridiculous also, for the same reason.
but it was about as easy as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Pro-life bishop threatened with IRS probe.
Barry Lynn says,
"Bishop Sheridan's letter is code language that says, 'Re-elect Bush and vote Republican,'" charged the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Everyone knows Bush and Kerry differ on the issue of abortion. Sheridan is using a form of religious blackmail to steer votes toward the GOP. The IRS should look into this immediately."
Back in 2000, I heard a Unitarian Universalist sermon where the pastor exhorted his congregation to vote to preserve abortion rights. That seems like code language just as sure as the Catholic bishop's words, except with one major difference: the bishop is just clarifying who may receive communion, while the UU minister was literally telling people how to vote. Of course, Barry Lynn will never criticize the UUA for its abortion code-language, but he should. His silence just proves that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is just another brownshirt, pro-abortion outfit.
Of course any time a Christian opens his or her mouth to suggest anything pertaining to religion or morality in the public square, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (and people like Michael Newdow) will be there to suppress them. They seem to think the First Amendment is a statement limiting the rights of citizens rather than the powers of the state. They're wrong -- the First Amendment is a limitation of the powers of the state, as shown by its opening "Congress shall make no law..." The First Amendment does not take away the rights of Christians, or anyone else for that matter, to speak their views.
The Unitarian Universalist Association, which is a tax-exempt religious organization which believes very strongly in the separation of church and state, recently conducted a three-day workshop on political lobbying. Here's a link to a description of the event by the Minister of Religious Education at my former congregation.
I love the irony of these two consecutive paragraphs (emphasis added):
But the highlight of the three days was attending an event for religious leaders that Rush Holt had set up in Washington so that we could start talking our values and faiths across, rather than against, our different traditions. It was an excellent program that addressed the need to keep working to not let the blur between church and state grow more than it has. People spoke out against programs such as Bush's faith-based initiatives and some of the discrimination that these initiatives allow.
One of the highlights of the day was listening to Representative John Lewis talk about how faith and politics are connected, and his experience in the civil rights movement. Legislators, as much as anyone else, need to have their work and their deliberation process grounded in their faith, in their sense of the goodness of people and their sense of what is possible in becoming a more just and compassionate world.
The UUA professes belief in "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large", however, by speaking out for the liberal agenda while stating that their conservative opponents cannot speak out for theirs is a violation of that principle.
I'm disappointed in this decision, though I have to read more about the reasoning. I think it is dishonest of the pro-abortion side to ignore the issue of pain, however. I know some people who are adamantly pro-abortion, yet think that fishing, hunting, and factory farming should be banned because they cause pain to animals. They actually have more sympathy for animals than for unborn human beings.
Joe Carter (The Evangelical Outpost) and Jeffrey Collins (Joyful Christian) discuss a case where a Unitarian Universalist Church was denied tax-exempt status since they, by not requiring belief in a deity, cannot legitimately claim to be a religion.
I used to be a UU myself, and I find myself disagreeing with Joe Carter. In my experience, with no theological foundation on which to base doctrine, the Unitarian Universalist Association has become primarily a political advocacy organization, not much different in fact from Planned Parenthood (as you can tell from looking at the UUAWO website for the March for Womens' Lives). So in my opinion, the UUA is no more deserving of a tax exemption than is Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, Planned Parenthood is tax-exempt, even though they are pumping out extremely partisan advertisements trying to put John Kerry in the White House. I thought tax-exempt meant they weren't allowed to do that.
In Breakpoint, Fr. Hans Jacobse argues that the linkage between the homosexual marriage movement and the civil rights movement is illegitimate.
Today, I read that some Catholic bishops plan to deny communion to people who vote for politicians who support abortion.
I've been following the Catholic communion controversy, and while I support the Catholic church's upholding of its standards, I don't see how they will be able to do this without becoming very intrusive on its parishioners. Maybe I'm wrong -- I'm a United Methodist and have never been a member of the Catholic church, though my wife was a very long time ago.
On the other hand, I expect any minute now to hear of the Religious Left calling for the Catholic church's tax-exempt status to be taken away. They will say that it's a violation of "separation of church and state" (ignoring their own pro-abortion resolutions, like this one and this one). I also remember the last Unitarian Universalist sermon I heard before the 2000 elections where the parish minister preached a blatantly pro-abortion sermon and exhorted the Unitarian Universalist faithful to go out there and vote to save abortion rights, and later a very emotional woman got into a shouting match with me, telling me I was "destroying the country", when I told her I was going to vote for W. Who's kidding who that the religious left is any different than the religious right when it comes to "separating church and state"?
Now, is it appropriate for the bishops to deny communion to anyone? In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says:
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
The Dunker Journal has a good comment on how liberals and conservatives are differentiated in the media, and I've noted it too, in all I've read about the Episcopal and Methodist dealings with the homosexuality issue.
Funny, isn't it, how when liberals take control, it is "the wind of the Spirit" making the church "progressive;" yet when conservatives/evangelicals even move a denomination toward a more Biblical stance, it is a "right wing takeover," and "oh, how low we have sunk."
In a previous post, Joel Thomas, in the comments, referred me to an article in the New York Times that covers a memo detailing private thoughts of Bill Hinson, president of the Confessing Movement, on "an amicable and just separation".
I cannot find a link to the May 7 NYTimes article but I remember it quoting Mark Tooley, president of UM Action, part of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, as saying that conservatives were seeking a split for a long time. This quotation seemed to be very much out of character for anything I had read coming from Mr. Tooley. I subscribe to UM Action, and all of their exhortations to dissatisfied Methodists are to stay in the church and work for reform from within. I cannot help but think that Mr. Tooley was misquoted by the Times.
Here's another news article from another paper with a different quotation from Mark Tooley:
Church organizer calls for Methodist split
Anyhow, getting back to Rev. Bill Hinson, while he is the president of an organization with much influence, he also stated that the views expressed in this paper, An Amicable and Just Separation, are his own and have not been officially approved, nor submitted to the UMC General Conference. I am a supporter of the Confessing Movement, but I am not happy to hear these ideas expressed. I think they do a disservice to the United Methodist Church, especially given the goals achieved by the Confessing Movement at the General Convention. The public expression of these views only supports those who claim that conservatives are to blame whenever churches divide over conflicts involving Biblical authority and orthodoxy.
UPDATE: Another article from Christianity Today has further quotations and viewpoints from Rev. Bill Hinson, James Heidinger, President of Good News, and Mark Tooley of UM Action.
The United Methodist Church stood its ground. On the Karen Dammann controversy, the Judicial Council made it explicitly clear that the Book of Discipline was misinterpreted by the jury which acquited Ms. Dammann. It also ruled that self-confessed active homosexuals are not to be appointed by bishops.
The delegates went on to adopt the following language by a 579-376 vote:
"The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community."
Another statement, which would have acknowledged disagreement between faithful Christians on the issue of homosexuality, was rejected.
There were the usual protests from the pro-homosexuality activists, saying that this vote has divided the church, completely ignoring the experience of the Episcopal church last year, which suffered quite a bit more division by voting the opposite direction from the Methodists. Anyway, all the talk about division is a red herring. Any organization is divided when there are members with contrary views. The activists only seem to acknowledge unity when the votes go their way.
Dunker Journal and Midwest Conservative Journal also have posts on this subject.
Michelle Malkin mentions some people who think that abortion is murder, including a few who changed their minds when they saw what it was.
Kathleen Parker takes the position that she doesn't want to see abortion outlawed, but wishes that people would be allowed to see the truth about what it is.
Which brings me to these two...
LifeNews article on an altercation at a John Kerry rally. (Hat tip to NRO's The Corner)
Annie, at afterabortion.com, blogs on her experience of abuse and harassment at the march on Sunday.
What gets me really riled up about this is that many of these marchers are also criticizing the government (or just conservatives in general) of censorship when they criticize anti-war attitudes. Their idealism vanishes when their point of view is being defended. I agree with part of what Kathleen Parker says, let's see and hear the truth about abortion and stop censoring the sonograms, let women hear about the alternative of adoption, and stop putting them on a one-way track to abortion. And one more thing, I'm tired of hearing the cliche that pro-life people are uncompassionate and uncaring. One thing this march showed me is that that description is more descriptive of the abortion lobby.
Susanna Cornett talks about PETA in a recent post, citing the offensive depiction of a bovine Pope.
I find the "cow-Pope" offensive too, but I find another thing about them obnoxious as well - their casual flaunting of Judeo-Christian beliefs to prop up their cause.
Let's look at their treatment of Passover. They ask the questions, "What better time than Passover to extend our compassion to every living being? And what better way to celebrate the spirit of the holiday than by practicing vegetarianism?"
Looks like they haven't read the original instructions for Passover, which quite blatantly contradict their claims: "and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it."
Looks like they've fallen victim to the same style of thought that afflicts the entire "religious left" these days: a sacrifice-free, God is love and vice-versa, type mentality. Since the Passover is supposed to celebrate victory over all forms of oppression (we all know that, don't we?), it certainly should be a cause for relieving the suffering of animals, right? No. It is a day for celebrating the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. A deliverance from oppression? Yes, but a specific case, and I don't appreciate it when others piggy-back their own personal causes on it, even when it's a cause I'm in sympathy with.
Texas Conference Protests GBCS Support of Pro-Abortion Rally
Press Release: Methodist Pastor Gets "Married" Just Before her Church Trial
Also regarding the UMC trial of Rev. Karen Dammann:
from Christianity Today:Methodist Trial Opens With Arrests, Comparison to Crucifixion
from Comcast News: Congregation Hails Decision on Gay Pastor notes that Rev. Karen Dammann was acquitted.
The editorial written by Robert Rhodes and Paul Schrag for the December 8th issue of the Mennonite Weekly Review -- an inter-Mennonite newspaper -- is entitled “Church should stand firm on marriage.” (The article is not yet archived.) This provides an interesting note on the conflict now raging in American culture.
This message of opposition to gay marriage is not addressed to the wider society, but only to the church: “Though much sound and fury will be expended, we must remember that the courts can define marriage only in a secular sense. They cannot change how churches define it. And though many Christians disagree with the Massachusetts ruling, we would do well simply to stand on our own teaching instead of asserting that the law must conform to our beliefs.”
How distinctly and uniquely Mennonite!
As one who grew up in a rural Mennonite congregation and community -- though I’m now a member of the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood -- I can tell you that though many Mennonites around the country are quite conservative in their personal cultural and religious views: the editorials in the Review have for some time now been quite leftist in their politics -- sometimes even to the extreme. The views have been so radical in recent years that they cannot be considered representative of normal Mennonite practice. But apparently many Mennonite individuals and congregations today -- especially those in the Baby-Boom generation and those within the intellectual leadership of Mennonite publications -- are moving in the direction of the liberalism of the “mainstream” Protestant churches.
But it’s interesting to see that on this issue of gay marriage -- Mennonite thought is still traditional.
Here’s some more from this uncommonly perceptive editorial:
“Despite the churches’ witness, it seems likely that people of the same gender eventually will gain the legal right to enter a covenant that mirrors the bond of traditional marriage. If for no other reason, this will happen because the American public simply will have grown tolerant of such unions and tired of denying them to the very vocal groups who espouse them. In essence, the matter will be reduced to granting a civil privilege, without approving of a lifestyle or sexual practice.
“Loud and vigorous disputes will arise, partly because the issue doubles as a handy political grenade, one often wielded by those who purport to speak for conservative Christianity. Yet Christians who hold a conservative theology of marriage need not join the chorus heralding civilization’s downfall. No court ruling or legislative action can ‘undermine traditional marriage.’ Traditional marriage, defined by Scripture and the church, will continue to be as strong, or as weak, as traditional married couples make it.”
Without, myself, taking a stand, here -- on the issue of gay marriage for American society as a whole -- I would say this editorial makes some unusually wise and nuanced observations.
Up to now, pundits have been skeptical about the possibility of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. I think that may have just changed today. When people realize that this means same-sex couples will be visiting their churches demanding equal treatment as heterosexual couples, and same-sex couples attending their office "holiday" parties, and seeing same-sex couples in the mall, all flaunting their sexuality in front of their children, anyone who thinks this is not a good thing is going to think that it is time to stop it via action that tells the judges where they can put their activism. Let's face it - we're not Scandinavia, and people who know Scandinavia know that same-sex marriage is not marriage, and will indeed destroy the institution, which is another thing that would probably make the Unitarian Universalists happy, a religious institution which seems to be unable to admit that adultery and promiscuity are bad things.
Of course, this is from religious liberals, so there's no bigotry, or pushing values down other peoples' throats.
Donna M. Hughes reports that members of the Moscow (Russia) city duma are upset with American NGOs, claiming that they are undermining efforts to combat sex trafficking. Seems that NGOs are overlooking the exploitation inherent in the system, and are painting an alternate picture of anti-prostitution efforts, portraying such efforts as hurting women who want to work, arguing that if prostitution is legalized, then it could then be treated as a bona fide workplace, with benefits and all. When it is disclosed that the people making the most money are male pimps who abuse their 'workers', will American campus groups sprout up overnight to combat the new scourge of sexual sweatshops? No, I don't think so; Fallen Man will not stop a mad rush to Gomorrah.
Mother Jones has an article from their latest issue up on the web, Thailand's Brothel Busters. They claim that efforts to shut down brothels are hurting working women.
Let's compare sex trafficking and the textile business:
Seems that when a legitimate business, such as a clothing manufacturer, gives people a chance to work at a legitimate job and earn a decent wage (by that country's standards), then it must be labeled by American leftists and labor unions as a sweatshop. The Wall Street Journal had a good editorial in defense of P. Diddy's textile factory in Honduras, which lets its employees work in air-conditioned comfort, and earn enough money to attain a middle class standard of living in that country to boot. I'd think that in most countries, most workers would rather work, even for a low wage, than not work and starve to death. Isn't shutting down these factories hurting people even more than clamping down on sex trafficking?
Now let's look closer at sex trafficking: Girls (not even old enough to have undergone puberty) abducted and taken across international borders against their will, forced to have sex with complete strangers against their will, and given little or no control over where they live or what they do - literally forced slavery. Even if some are inured to the experience, and thus reluctant to leave because of not having anything else available, isn't it absolutely unjust to allow this situation to exist as long as long as it takes new victims every day?
He has said in his heart, "I shall not be moved; I shall never be in adversity." His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and oppression; Under his tongue is trouble and iniquity. He sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the secret places he murders the innocent; His eyes are secretly fixed on the helpless. He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his den; He lies in wait to catch the poor; He catches the poor when he draws him into his net. So he crouches, he lies low, That the helpless may fall by his strength. He has said in his heart, "God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see." Psalm 10:6-11 NKJV
It is difficult for me to believe that anyone alive on earth could be defending the sex trafficking business, but apparently the people who put out Mother Jones are wicked enough to do just that.
Saw this outrageous quote from IRD's website:
"Sexual conduct is surely on the same level of seriousness as eating a bacon sandwich, and we might have hoped that nowadays, given the diversity of human life, the Church would have chosen to shut up about sex.”- Quote from Commentary by A. N. Wilson in 10/19 Telegraph (London)
Wasn't sure I was getting it all in context, so I found another link from Christianity Today's website. Here's the original article. While the context of the quote makes it a little more reasonable than how IRD makes it sound, it's not much better. A.N. Wilson is comparing Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality to laws against eating unclean food, saying that perhaps we shouldn't take the Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality so seriously.
This gets into that awful play I saw last week. I was thinking about it, why I hated it so much, and I remember a couple of lines, and some text from the playbill. It was about the so-called human condition (and I will never again see a play or movie that mentions the phrase human condition in its advertising, it's just a code word for sin acted out in plain view). Love is viewed as something one desires, obtains, and then loses. Love is viewed as solely a sexual experience. Love is viewed as something one can satisfy with anyone they wish. The idea of love being rooted in a total giving of oneself to another person, and letting that love grow through the commitment of each person in that relationship is just not considered, but that's what marriage is based on, not a casual answer to the question, "who will I sleep with tonight?".
Now, is all this talk about sex mere folderol? Considering the impact on godly teaching and godly living, I'd say not. As a future new parent, for example, I want to have my church's support when I teach my child what's right and wrong. I don't want my church to be saying that sex outside of marriage is alright when I'm telling her it's not. And regarding how I'm expected to behave, I consider it important to emphasize everything God wants me to do, what I call a balanced Christian, or godly, life. The line "It's ok, I'm doing fine with A" doesn't work with God when He also wants me to be doing fine with B-Z - He wants obedience in all areas of my life: compassion, integrity, humility, faith, and sexual purity. For any new Christian coming into the faith from a life of sexual immorality, it is important to tell the truth of 1 Corinthians 6. Anything less is denying them the truth about what discipleship entails.
New Jersey's same-sex marriage suit is tossed out.
Finally, a judge speaks truth in New Jersey regarding the role of the judiciary!
"Social change of the type sought ... is properly accomplished in the legislative arena," Feinberg said, who added that she was sympathetic to the interests of the couples. "(They) must take their request for an alteration in the definition of marriage to the elected officials responsible for drafting the marriage statutes."
The ACLU disagrees, saying that rights should not be legislated:
But Edward Barocas, legal director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the courts are the proper forum for this debate. "It is totally inappropriate to have constitutional rights of any particular group put up for a vote," he said.
I disagree with the ACLU. Rights are what each of us human beings have because of our existence. They are not dependent upon other people. We don't have a right to marry anyone we wish, or even to have sex with anyone we wish. Regarding parenting (one of the so-called "rights" desired by the homosexual couples in this case), I'd say that if anyone has rights in this area, children do, and have the right to not be subject to the ill effects of homosexual parenting.
Over on the left, I have a link to the Vatican's position on homosexual unions. I endorse it, and especially think that their description of the ill effects of homosexual unions on the upbringing of children are spot-on. I used to be tolerant of the idea of homosexual unions until I spent some time thinking about what it would be like growing up in such a home. No more. Here's the Vatican link.
Diane Knippers, President of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, responds to the Statement of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.
In today's National Review Online, John Derbyshire laments the Age of No Consequences. I lament it too, John.
His article reminds me of a post that's been brewing in my head over the last few days, one I'd like to commit to writing before I let it go - the idea of inconsistencies in thought from Religious Left types.
I know people who hate the Religious Right because they say radical-right-types are just out to tell everyone how to live. One of them is a member of PETA, which is just as actively trying to get people to commit to vegetarian diets, even going as far as picketing seafood restaurants near the Jersey shore (they consider cooking lobsters in boiling water to be inhumane-apparently there is a fundamental right of all animals, with the exception of certain classes of human beings, to be free from pain). So coercion is a tactic employed by both right and left, and there must be another reason for their disrespect for the Religious Right: namely, different values, though some values are just too flaky to state explicitly I guess.
Our Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, noting that the existence of well-regulated militias is an important component of maintaining a free state. Our Constitution does not mention abortion, or even reproduction. So what's a Constitutional right: the so-called "right to choose" or the right to buy a handgun? You can tell a lot about someone's political views just by noting their answer to this one question.
Speaking of abortion; abortion is considered to be a fundamental human (or women's) right because of a single judicial decree: Roe vs. Wade. The institution of slavery is justly considered to be a great evil in spite of a similar nineteenth-century judicial decree protecting it, the Dredd Scott case. It is just not true that past Supreme Court decisions define fundamental human rights.
After 9-11, Unitarian Universalists and other liberal religious groups, such as The Interfaith Alliance, who usually decry mixing church and state, fell over themselves in supporting the Islamist cause, choosing to overlook the fact that in countries implementing sharia law, there is no freedom from a state-imposed religion (and it isn't Unitarian-Universalism either - UUA churches would be banned along with all those with plus-signs on them)
Another aspect of sharia law, is the practice of dhimmitude (discussed here by Batt Yeor in National Review Online), where Christians and Jews are forced to live in conditions worse than what existed here in the USA under Jim Crow. Almost all Americans rightly consider the Jim Crow period of our history to be a grave injustice, but liberals seem to think that dhimmitude doesn't exist, or if it does, is just a neutral aspect of Muslim culture, for all practical concerns, none of our business. Who are we to judge?
I'm sure that I could think of many more examples of inconsistent thinking; indeed I could come up with some from the right: (Why in the world did President Bush ever sign the Campaign Finance Reform bill for starters? He believes in free speech!) If you want to add some via comments, I'd sure appreciate seeing them.
Had another thought regarding my last post after I shutdown the blog last night. I was wondering how I could have recognized John Shelby Spong's theology for the rubbish it is even when I was pretty firmly entrenched in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. I said in yesterday's post that I had started to read the New Testament again, and even believe it. Coming from a liberal background, why didn't Spong's work as a member of the Jesus Seminar have any influence on me?
The choice is black and white if you consider that the authors of the New Testament, even disregarding who they are, claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and Resurrection. When looked at this way, the authors are either telling the truth or they are lying.
If they were telling the truth, then the Gospel is the greatest news known to man, and is of utmost importance to everyone.
If they were lying, then Christianity is just an elaborate con game worthy of scorn and disrespect. Embrace any of the world's other religions, even atheism, and shun the Christians for their dishonest ways, and say all manner of ill-things about them, but by no means say you are a Christian while believing a made-up reinterpretation of that Gospel message. The apostles did not leave that option to us.
Earl T. Wilson writes this viewpoint, At the Crux of the Matter, God's Truth Wins, at PresbyWeb (thanks to Dunker Journal for the link).
Are Christians listening to the same God when one perceives God's will as ordaining a homosexual bishop and another doesn't? That's either a contradiction or a description of an inconsistent God, an unscriptural description of Him. I don't buy it -- someone is doing what is "right in his own eyes".
Back in October 2001, I was at a special meeting of the Institute for Religion and Democracy to hear Dr. Tom Oden speak on The New Ecumenism. I had just made a decision to follow Jesus -- my commitment was about four months old at the time. For some reason, I found myself drawn to reading about the early Church Fathers, and Dr. Oden is knowledgable of their work. I bring this all up because Dr. Oden's speech was responded to by Dr. Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Dr. George recognizes an ecumenism which transcends Catholic-Protestant boundaries but which definitely respects a certain boundary.
From Dr. George's response:
As the Catholic panelist, I suppose that I am expected to say something critical from a Catholic perspective of the work of a Methodist theologian. I’m afraid that I must disappoint this expectation. It is not that I consider the theological issues that continue to divide Catholics and Protestants to be unimportant. I long to share in a common eucharistic meal with my Protestant friends, yet I know that this must await a more perfect communion of faith. But this longing itself is a manifestation of the work of the Spirit towards its object. Indeed, when I think in terms of “them” and “us,” I simply find it impossible to divide the world into Catholics and Protestants or even Catholics and non-Catholics. I am a Catholic; Dr. Oden is a Protestant. But when I think in terms of “us,” I cannot imagine “us” not including Dr. Oden or Diane Knippers, or James Nuechterlein, or Gilbert Meilaender, or Charles Colson, or Bill Bright, or James Dobson or countless other Protestant believers whose fidelity to the ancient creeds and moral principles of Christian faith has been proven on the battlefields of the culture war. There is a profound unity among us, manifested in common effort and common struggle and animated by what is undeniably a common faith—a unity that that is, I believe, precisely the work of the Holy Spirit to which Dr. Oden referred.So who is the “them”? I wish I could say that there is no “them.” But that isn’t true. The fact is that in the struggles for the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage and the family, the integrity of Christian doctrine, many Christians—Catholics as well as Protestants—are on the other side. Though I may find myself approaching the Lord’s table at mass alongside Catholics who support abortion, or reject the Biblical and natural law understanding of marriage as a one-flesh union of a man and a woman, or deny Christ’s incarnation, bodily resurrection, and ascension, there is between us a fundamental moral and spiritual divide. Ours is not the same faith. Nor is the object of our worship the same. The scandal of the affectation of unity among those who believe the doctrines of Christian faith and those who do not believe them is as deep and damaging as the scandal of division among Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox believers.
In the great struggles over life and death, marriage and the family, right and wrong, there is, I’m afraid, an “us” and a “them.” Of course, we are strictly enjoined by Christ himself to love our enemies—and we must not fail in this duty. At the same time, we must not pretend that we have no enemies. In the midst of a conflict in which lives and souls are at stake, love of God and neighbor forbids our indulging such pretense.
John Derbyshire's view, from The Corner
Note this:
"all my life I have supported tolerance towards homosexuals as a harmless minority who are just as entitled to pursue their private inclinations as the rest of us. I have always thought that the criminalization of homosexual acts was both foolish, and inhumane, and un-Christian. I am no longer so sure."
Wonder how many people out there are wondering if we have gone too far. I've held similar views; in the secular world, let gays make their own lifestyle choices. In the spiritual world, which includes the family, and what goes on in churches, make God's standards hold. Now it looks like gay issues have forced themselves into the spiritual world, and since so many have made the spiritual secular, there is nothing to do but give in.
About Bishop Robinson leaving his marriage: It has been pointed out by some that he did not actually leave his marriage for his partner (they met several years later), and that those who are saying that are smearing him.
The fact that he may have had no relationship with this man when he divorced his wife is irrelevant. He divorced her so that he would be available for him. Would anybody think that someone who divorces his wife so he could look for a new girlfriend or "trophy wife" was in the right? Of course not, and neither is Bishop Robinson.
This whole issue of people discovering they are gay, and using that to justify a divorce is so bogus, especially after establishing families. He deserves as much ridicule as he is getting for this, it is all justified. Lileks was right, Robinson's motives are egotistical and selfish.
One thing that bothers me about all this discussion about gay issues is those people who would try to stifle the dialog by saying "Why can't we just get along?" This is similar to the way late-1990's Democrats were criticizing the Republicans for being partisan. Excuse me? By those standards, who is being partisan now? And since when is it partisan to make a stand for what one thinks is the right thing to do?
If the Episcopal church splits off from the Anglican Communion, as I think it will do, the conservative are not to blame for tearing it apart, just as Jeroboam was not to blame for breaking Israel away from Judah after the death of Solomon, an act willed by God as punishment for Solomon's idolatry. Fault the conservatives for walking out? Not without faulting the liberals for forcing a heterodox position upon the conservatives.
I haven't said anything about the selection of Rev. Robinson, mainly because I've been out of the house so much this week -- I've wanted to add something, now everything has been said (and the Lileks Bleat is wonderful! "Hitler's dog went to his funeral"-- I love it!)
I will add this though; I don't think this is the point where the ship has hit the iceberg. I think the iceberg was hit many years ago when bishops like John Shelby Spong were allowed to become spokesmen for the Episcopal church, men who do not believe in Christ's divinity, nor the Resurrection, nor the Atonement, and who find no relevance in the Bible. So the church hit the iceberg a long time ago. In my view, it's probably at the point where the ship is just about vertical and about to snap in two. People are jumping ship, and the ship will sink. The Episcopal Church will soon no longer be recognizable as a Christian Church, as heterodox as the Unitarian Universalist Association, which took action similar to this way back in 1984.
I can't say what those who stay behind will find -- well, maybe I can. I was in a Unitarian Universalist congregation which went though an indoctrination program for becoming more welcoming to gays (confession: that was when I jumped ship, though my real reason for leaving was that they sponsored a fundraiser for my sworn enemy, the Million Mom March). What do they do now with respect to homosexuality in their congregations? Well, ministers are now declining to sign marriage certificates as a protest against the lack of gay marriage. That means if you are a UU and want to get married, your minister will not honor your marriage with his signature, which seems to be rather cruel to me - a good reason to look elsewhere for your wedding ceremony. Another thing is, they insist on "inclusive language", which means you can't call your husband or wife your "husband" or "wife" anymore as those are heterosexist terms. You have to call them "spouse" or "partner". When talking to a newcomer or visitor, you have to avoid asking them about family in such a way that you assume whether they are gay or not. It is a very awkward and unnatural arrangement. Of course, this has probably been going on in the Episcopal church for years as well, at least in some congregations, as was described in a very moving post yesterday by Huw Raphael.
Now I am a Methodist, and Methodists are also struggling with homosexuality. A bishop in Illinois, Joseph Sprague, is involved in the Soul Force movement, which is attempting to get the United Methodist church to recognize homosexuals as equal members, including access to same-sex union ceremonies and ordination. They have gone beyond diplomacy, their tactics are forceful and disruptive.
I see some long-term good coming out of the Episcopal's actions this week. For instance, I don't think there is any way the United Methodist Church will take similar action after seeing what happens to the Episcopal church in the following year. There is a strong renewal movement in the United Methodist Church and there is evidence that the denomination is warming up to evangelical trends, though it is meeting resistance from the Religious Left, those who think the church should compromise orthodoxy for social activism.
But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Rev 2:14 NKJV
Byron York nails it on the head in discussing the accusations that Senate Democrats are exhibiting an anti-Catholic bias.
People for the American Way President Ralph Neas thinks it's a low blow. He spouts opinions without supporting evidence when he says things like, "Objections to Bill Pryor’s confirmation are broad and deep and grounded in his legal philosophy and his record as a public official." He betrays his own prejudice, and the premise of his press release, with this line: “Americans cannot afford to have someone of Pryor’s extreme ideology given a lifetime position on the federal bench." That is a clear admission of a religious test for this nomination.
Democrats defend themselves by saying that our country is not a theocracy, that religious people should not use their beliefs to dictate how others live. Fine for them, that's a good argument, but it also applies both ways. Non-religious people should not be arguing that life is a non-important worthless thing that we should consider inconsequential in our respect for human rights, such as the most important right, that listed first by Jefferson: the right to life.
The Democrats argument is a ruse however, not a true argument at all. I came from a liberal religion a while back, and I've heard it all -- Christians who have deeply held beliefs should not participate in government. And yes, I heard that statement quite literally where I used to go to church, and one reason my attendance there is past tense is that I got tired of hearing them preach tolerance while vilifying legitimate Christian opinion.
It seems pretty blatant to me that Senate Democrats are not going to consider this in their judicial deliberations,
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (from Article VI of the United States Constitution)
Senate Democrats have admitted they will only approve nominees who support Roe v. Wade to the federal judiciary. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be wrong, therefore serious Catholics are ineligible, by Democrats' standards, to serve as judges.
Senators may disagree with William Pryor on his interpretation of the law, but unless they find that he does not believe in upholding the Constitution (which is not the same thing as supporting Roe v. Wade), their vote against his nomination is an unconstitutional vote. Special interest groups like People for the American Way and the ACLU would be well-served by taking off their ideological blinders when they read the Constitution.
(link via locdog's blog. Joshua Claybourn has similar comments as mine too)
A long time ago, in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, I heard a sermon about one of Unitarianism's heroes, the Rev. Theodore Parker. Rev. Parker was an active abolitionist in the mid-nineteenth century, and was fiercely opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act. He was know to have tracked bounty hunters to their local accomodations, and, accompanied by large crowds of abolitionist sympathizers, knock on their doors, and say that their safety in that location could not be assured. In affect, the bounty hunters were run out of town. Rev. Parker was also a financial supporter of John Brown, who led the attack on Harper's Ferry, which resulted in the loss of innocent life (and several guilty ones as well).
Now, the abolitionists considered slavery to be a violation of human rights, even though that right was not recognized by our country at the time, at least not by the decisions of our Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act, and our Supreme Court with its Dredd Scott decision.
Now, lets go to the present time. A large number of people believe that abortion is also a violation of human rights in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has said that it recognizes such a right. If a modern-day pro-lifer were to undertake actions similar to the Rev. Parker's would the UUA be sympathetic to their plight? No, they would be a religious extremist. What's the difference, I wonder. Now, don't get me wrong here. I do not endorse violence against abortionists or the property in which they practice their trade. But let's look at the inconsistencies here. A nineteenth-century Unitarian preacher, acting for human rights, threatened bounty hunters looking for slaves. Today, if anyone were to take similar action, they would be branded as a religious extremist.
Whatever direction the American Unitarian Association's moral compass pointed to on the issue of slavery in the nineteenth century, it most certainly points in the opposite direction on the issue of abortion today.
Oops, one more entry. How could I neglect to mention their 2003 Actions of Immediate Witness?
AIW 1 AmeriCorps
AIW 2 Depleted Uranium Munitions
AIW 3 Global HIV/AIDS
AIW 4 Public Hearings on Iraq
AIW 6 Women's Rights
My comments:
AmeriCorps: a failed program from the start. It doesn't seem to me that it would work for a lot of people. Getting people to volunteer for the same activities that others are sentenced to do involuntarily is kindof self-defeating. Save the money, lower peoples' taxes, and a lot of this stuff would happen anyway without liberals using the taxpayers' wallets to fund their pet projects.
Depleted Uranium Munitions (no comment)
Global HIV/AIDS: a better approach would be programs like Uganda's ABC program, which stresses abstinence, instead of the Planned Parenthood / SIECUS program of making sex as easy and widespread as possible by thrusting condoms into everyone's face and telling them to go out and use them.
Public Hearings on Iraq: the UUA was opposed to the Iraq war, and I bet they already know the results of the public hearing they're looking for. They don't want objective hearings. They want a witch-hunt, just like their spiritual forebears did in Salem so long ago. They're still Puritans at heart, even if the theology has changed.
Women's Rights: drop the belief that the partial-birth-abortion ban is a violation of womens' rights already, it's not true. Anyone who talks about a right to abortion doesn't know what human rights are. I'd also like to know how they come up with the idea that encouraging marriage is a violation of womens' rights, as marriage benefits women and children. Also Title IX is just a quota program which has had its own negative consequences (and I'm sorry to hear that the Bush administration is giving in on this issue)
Congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says my Congressional representative, Chris Smith, will throw women in jail for having abortions. Boo! Well, he did apologize later, but the Democrat attacks on those holding pro-life views are getting rather shrill. Let me just get this off my chest: There is no such thing as a right to abortion, the very concept contradicts the notion of a right to life. Anyone who says that abortion is a right which must be defended has a similar mindset of those who in the nineteenth century defended the right to own slaves based on another egregious Supreme Court decision.
Back in my agnostic days, there was a philosophical idea I bandied about, along with my UU comrades, that religion was basically superstition, but that it may have had some credible contribution to society in contributing moral order. The beliefs were relatively unimportant (reinforcing the UU tradition of letting everybody create their own theology) - it was the rituals that bound people together.
"Not so!" says Rodney Stark, author of For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery, reviewed in Christianity Today by David Neff.
From the review:
"So, then," Stark concludes, "let us finally be done with the claim that religion is all about ritual. Gods are the fundamental feature of religions." This is a sociology of religion that takes seriously what people believe. Stark knows that beliefs have consequences. They can even change the course of history. And in the book's final sentence, Stark claims that in the ways he describes, "Western civilization really was God-given."
Kim I. Robbins, writing for Breakpoint, reviews Legally Blonde 2
Last post on the UUA General Assembly.
The UUA is firmly on the side of same-sex marriage.
Human Rights and Peace The UUA wants the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the basis for building peaceful relations among nations. This sounds good on the surface, except for one thing: the United Nations cannot enforce them, nor is it even trying to. The United Nations, by trying to avoid war at all costs, is actually supporting tyrannical regimes which have no intention of abiding by this Declaration.
One other thing about rights: the Declaration includes several items, such as Social Security, health care, and education, which involve economic transactions between individuals. This is a radical departure from the view of rights held by our American founders, who believed that rights were what you were given by your Creator, and did not depend in any way on the taxation of other people.
Also, the UUA has come out with a Statement of Conscience on Economic Globalization
Here's the summary:
Economic globalization has helped countless people attain higher standards of living. It has also marginalized and impoverished innumerable others and has resulted in environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources. Economic globalization brings many benefits, but its benefits have been inequitably distributed and have not reached many ordinary people around the world. Seeing the world as an interconnected web challenges us to turn from self-serving individualism toward a relational sense of ourselves in a global community of all living things, and toward practices that help create economic structures designed to serve the common good. We are called to bring our Unitarian Universalist principles to our understanding of economic globalization and to help mitigate its adverse effects.
This is a much less liberal statement than the one they were throwing around last year, apparently there are still some moderates hanging around in the UUA. However there are a few myths repeated in this summary which deserve fisking.
It has also marginalized and impoverished innumerable others and has resulted in environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources.
The claims of environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources are not true. In fact, environmental degradation and natural resource depletion are greatest in those countries which do not have free economies.
Seeing the world as an interconnected web challenges us to turn from self-serving individualism toward a relational sense of ourselves in a global community of all living things, and toward practices that help create economic structures designed to serve the common good.
Yeah, grand goals these UUs claim, as did every socialist tyrant of the last hundred years, from Lenin and Hitler to Castro and Mugabe. Grand goals to create a utopian society, serving the common good, and killing about a hundred million people in the process, and quashing the hopes and dreams of innumerable others. The best way to serve the common good is to let each individual determine for themselves how to do so.
The Institute for Religion and Democracy notes that the National Council of Churches is urging the US to accomodate the North Korean regime
So my understanding is, this regime is threatening its neighbors with war, and we're supposed to help them? And we're supposed to give them more foreign aid so they'll have more money for their weapons programs while their citizens are starving to death? (Don't think that any of that foreign aid will reduce any suffering over there - it won't)
Mark Byron and Ben Domenech both have blog entries discussing Julian Bond and the NAACP convention (and Ben provides a link to the Washington Times news coverage).
Here is the text of the Ware Lecture, delivered by Julian Bond at the Unitarian Universalist Association's 2003 General Assembly last month.
Professor Bond is very angry, and he lets loose with a lot of unchecked, emotional rhetoric. Much of this lecture fisks itself. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this statement:
Senator Trent Lott uncovered a running sore, that not coincidentally is also almost 50 years old, that if allowed to fester, threatens to imperil our very democracy.It is the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power. By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality.
Julian bond accuses Republicans of playing The Race Card! And this comes from the chairman of the organization that accused Presidential-candidate Bush of complicity in the murder of James Byrd because Texas didn't have hate crime laws. And the hate-crime mentality would have you believe that the lack of hate crime laws constitutes evidence of inequality, even though James Byrd's murderers were convicted and given death sentences or life (and they were white too-so there is no racism in that sentencing). Julian Bond is too blind with rage to speak compentently here.
I think I know what Bond is speaking of in his criticism of those "who reject democracy and equality". He is criticizing those who think that convicted felons should not be allowed to vote because that would undermine respect for the rule of law. He is criticizing those who respect equality under the law and equality of opportunity, but also respect freedom, individual rights, and the right of individuals to pursue their goals, and realize that government programs that assure things like equality of paycheck and equality of standard of life will compromise those values.
The Unitarian Universalist Association recently held its 2003 General Assembly. Here are some highlights:
Family Values – Law and Marriage in the 21st Century. UU ministers talk about how the denial of marriage to gays constitutes a denial of their human rights. An actual enumeration of rights denied is never given, though hurt feelings are discussed. Maybe UUs consider hurt feelings to be a violation of their rights. That case has been made successfully before, literally, right here in New Jersey, in a case of racial speech.
New Congregations: New Definitions of Christianity. An organization called The Magi Network has taken on the mission of planting new UU Christian churches. They don't believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God, and they believe in Universalism, but they are critical of the coolness toward Christianity exhibited in most congregations of the UUA. The Magi Network has much in common with another UUA-spinoff called the American Unitarian Conference.
Abolition Today: Ending Modern Slavery. I am actually pretty impressed by this presentation. The UUA recognizes slavery outside of America - finally! A couple of years ago, while researching slavery and racism (in the context of the Durban anti-racism conference held in September 2001, the week before 9/11 - anyone remember that?), I did a Google search for Sudan on the UUA's website and got 0 hits. It's not like the issue didn't exist. The Institute for Religion and Democracy had a program Church Alliance for a New Sudan, dedicated to the issue. It is good to see that the UUA is finally cognizant that all is not well in the Third World.
These are Friday's (June 27) highlights, more to come later.
Methodist Women's Magazine Chides Religious Conservatives. I saw this issue of Response magazine, and was disappointed that it was so critical of Christian conservatives. Not that it is wrong to disagree, but I didn't see any mention of the name of Jesus in the magazine. The UMW is apparently advocating a pro-abortion and anti-family liberal 'gospel', aligning itself with the leftist feminist agenda, much like the YWCA has done (as evidenced by the hiring of Patricia Ireland as their president). There is a different vision of what Christianity is among political groups of the left, a vision of social salvation through political transformation, a social gospel that has no need for Jesus or His Resurrection.