PCUSA General Assembly Wrap-Up: At the Edge of the Cliff

The 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in the books, and I’ve got to say its been an eventful week. It started off looking like it was going to be a disaster for evangelicals, supporters of traditional marriage, and supporters of Israel, but in the end the lemmings managed for once to step away from the edge of the cliff.

First, on traditional marriage: the good news is that the Assembly refused, by a 52%-48% margin, to change the way marriage is defined and practiced in the PCUSA. “One man and one woman” remains the standard. It continues to be the case that those who perform ceremonies that are represented as solemnizing marriages will be in violation of their ordination vows and subject to presbyterial discipline (though the latter is very much a hit-or-miss proposition).

The bad news is that for the next couple of years, the denomination will engage in a “season of study and prayer,” which will essentially mean people continuing to shout at one another, the Louisville headquarters putting together propaganda for gay marriage, and more evangelicals leaving because they know the issue is going to come back at them relentlessly every other year. In addition, as more and more presbyteries decide that it goes against the local ideology, or because they can’t afford it, or simply because it’s too much trouble, there will be fewer and fewer judicatories that will take the prohibition on same-sex marriage rites seriously. That, in turn, will speed up the exit of evangelicals as they see the problem is no longer just with the national church, but with their next-town-over neighbors, and the refusal of their presbytery to do anything about it. I don’t know whether the tipping point will come in the next Assembly (I thought it would be this one, and was obviously wrong), but it will come. For now, the lemmings stand at the edge and look over, and contemplate what it would be like to take that last step.

On another homosexuality-related matter, the Assembly revisited the subject of ordination of sexually active gays, and refused to send to the presbyteries a constitutional amendment that would have restored the status quo ante that existed before the “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” requirement was deleted last year. In a discussion so ridiculous that one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry, a proposal to add the phrase “repentance of sin and diligent use of the means of grace” to the qualifications and manner of life expected of ordained persons turned out to be very controversial. James Berkley of the Layman Online reports on the discussion:

One teaching elder dramatically called the introduction of repentance “redundant, unnecessary, and possibly confusing.”

To that, teaching elder Pat Thompson from Central Washington Presbytery asked questions he had asked in committee. “Why wouldn’t we want the phrase ‘repentance of sin’ or the use of ‘means of grace’?” he asked incredulously. “What is wrong with the repentance of sin? If you are against the repentance of sin, then vote against it. If you’re against Jesus dying on the cross, then vote against it.”

In the end only 46% of the commissioners thought calling for a life of repentance on the part of the ordained was “redundant, unnecessary, and possibly confusing.” They did decide, however, to pass a resolution that declared, “We decline to take an action that would have the effect of imposing on the whole Presbyterian Church (USA) one interpretation of Scripture in this matter” of homosexual behavior. Berkley said that this amounted to “declar[ing] formally that Scripture is too confusing, too subject to varied interpretations to unite around to decide matters of same-sex sexual morality.”

The other matter that was especially controversial had to do with Israel. The Israel Palestine Mission Network and its various non-Presbyterian, non-Christian, and far-left allies sought to enlist the PCUSA in their single-minded crusade to boycott and divest from companies doing business in Israel, as a way of indicating their belief that Israel is the focus of evil in the world. (No similar efforts were made with regard to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, or any of the other murderous and totalitarian regimes that blight our planet. Israel alone is apparently worthy of being so condemned and treated.) After tortured debate that included a full-court press on the General Assembly Twitter feed (which got so bad that some pro-divestment commissioners were calling on the activists to knock it off), the Assembly finally decided by a 30 vote margin to not authorize divestment, but rather to support investment in the Palestinian territories. One commissioner memorably complained about “parliamentary sleight of hand,” simply because her side lost. As it turned out, she was engaged in a whopping piece of projection.

She and her allies tried every parliamentary trick in the book to bring divestment back for another vote. They tried to amend other resolutions to tack it on, they tried to claim they’d been denied a fair vote, one even claimed that she’d voted the wrong way in order to get the divestment resolution reconsidered (there was no way for her to prove this claim, since individual votes aren’t recorded, but the moderator allowed to to make the motion anyway–it lost, in part because of people getting frustrated with the tactics of the activists).

The activists also tried–again–to get the Assembly on record as believing that the Israeli occupation constitutes “apartheid.” This is a claim that has no relationship to reality–one commissioner, who described himself as a “fifth generation South African,” said so, not that it mattered to the True Believers–but is very important for those looking to demonize Israel, in the same way that certain segments of American society find that the most effective way to ostracize someone they don’t like is to call them a racist. Despite the fact that the Israel Palestine Mission Network and at least some of its allies have no problem associating with Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites, they are fanatical is trying to label Israel “racist.” They failed, badly.

In the end, the anti-Israel forces had to settle for a meaningless boycott of Israeli companies using products made in the settlements or using resources found on Palestinian lands (even when willingly sold to those companies by Palestinians themselves). It’s meaningless because 1) a year from now fewer than 1 in 100 Presbyterians will know anything about it; 2) many who do know will not participate; and 3) many don’t even have access to the products in question. So what it amounts to is that the activists, who are already boycotting, will continue to do so, and a handful of others may join them. The practical effect: zero. But that’s not what this is about, of course. It’s being able to say, “see, even the PCUSA thinks the Israelis are evil, rotten, racist no-goodniks!” I’ll let you judge whether they succeeded in that or not.

So there you have it: the PCUSA stays on the edge of the cliff, small pieces of it continuing to break off underneath its feet. It will have another opportunity, two years from now, to decide whether to step back from the crumbling precipice, or to boldly jump over the side. I know what my money will be on, even if I hope I’ll be wrong again.

 

Gay Marriage Debate Begins at PCUSA GA (UPDATED)

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly has just begun the debate over gay marriage. I’ll be live blogging the debate (which you can watch for yourself here), and let you know whether PCUSA is ready to head over the cliff.

UPDATE: The moderator is extolling the Civil Union and Marriage Committee’s ability to “be divided without being divisive.” Whoopee.

UPDATE: First recommendation is to call denomination to “a season of prayer and study” on Christian marriage. The second recommendation is to go ahead and change the Directory on Worship to essentially approve of the use of same sex blessings and marriage liturgies in the PCUSA. Lord save us from irrational compromisers.

UPDATE: First item to be dealt with is Resolution 13-04, which would change PCUSA worship to allow same sex marriage. That, of course, is the primary action. The other item is a sop to evangelicals, and essentially meaningless, except as a way of facilitating denominational propaganda.

UPDATE: Another member of the committee is presenting the minority report, which is to leave things as they are. He makes the point that study and listening is what are needed, not legislation that will do nothing but explode infighting.

UPDATE: A commissioner is asking for a point of order that contends that Res. 13-04 conflicts with the current PCUSA Constitution, and specifically its confessions. Advisory Committee on Constitution responds by separating Book of Confessions from PCUSA government, meaning confessions can be ignored in order to force change through. In other words, PCUSA can ignore its statements of belief at will. ACA guy ends by tossing it back to the leadership, which rules against point of order. The ruling is then appealed to the full GA. Debate follows. So essentially here’s what the Assembly is voting on: to uphold the moderator’s ruling that the Book of Confessions can be ignored as the Assembly desires in order to change polity, even if such changes conflict with the uniform teaching of the Confessions. The vote is to uphold moderator’s ruling by 70-30%.

UPDATE: There’s now a move to limit debate. I don’t know what the motives of the commissioners are, but this is a standard mainline leadership procedure–wait until late in the week of a denominational meeting, in order to limit debate on the most important issues before the body, rather than dealing with the most important or controversial ones first. They get away with it time after time. They did so again, by 344-300.

UPDATE: They have now moved on to main debate, which begins with the question of whether to substitute the minority report that leaves the status quo in place. The debate is about what you’d expect: advocates of the minority report offering dire predictions about the future of the denomination, as well as opposition to same sex marriage; opponents asking that proponents of same sex marriage be allowed to “live into their calling,” and citing individual situations that are supposed to justify institutional change. Director of World Mission offered information to the effect that of almost 100 “mission partners,” 40 said OK, 35 indicated that changes in definition of Christian marriage would damage relationships, 6 would make public statements against such a move, while 17 said they would have to break relationships. (If I were guessing, I’d say that most of the “yeas” were in Europe and North America.)  A Korean pastor in California sought to reinforce this message. And then the feed from Pittsburgh cut out. More shortly.

UPDATE: Feed back. Apparently while I was away, a lesbian Young Adult Advisory Delegate emoted. Twitter feed goes wild. Yawn. A teaching elder from New York, an “out lesbian,” essentially says it doesn’t matter what the GA does; she has done and will continue to do it anyway.

UPDATE: After a minute of silence in which commissioners were invited to listen to see if the Holy Spirit will contradict Himself regarding the nature of Christian marriage revealed in Scripture, they are now going into small groups to share what they “heard.” We will soon find out if God has indeed changed His mind because some judges and state legislatures in the United States have persuaded Him to Do The Right Thing. I appreciate the desire to be prayerful in business sessions, but there is no point to praying for discernment about this–the truth is already out there, and does not have to be sought, as if God has been trying make up His mind about this since the Stonewall Riots made Him notice that maybe He’s been wrong all these years.

UPDATE: Debate has ended on whether to substitute the minority report. Young Adult Advisory Delegates (whose votes are only “advisory,” and thus don’t count for the actual action) voted 28-105 no, Theological Students Advisory Delegates voted 1-17 no. Tells you a lot about the future leadership of the denomination, no? Anyway, here’s the vote that counts:  Anyway, here’s the vote that counts: 323-346-3. The minority report is defeated.

UPDATE: There is a second minority report. This one reaffirms the current definition, and does so via what’s called an “Authoritative Interpretation” of the <i>Book of Order</i>, which would state in unambiguous language exactly what the definition of marriage is. Given the vote on the previous item, I don’t see this one passes, but they’ll debate it nonetheless. At this point, my suspicion is that the PCUSA is about to throw itself headlong over a cliff. They’re in recess for five minutes. Back shortly.

UPDATE: Debate now on substituting second minority report. Began with the Ecumenical Advisory Delegate from the Presbyterian Church of Guatemala, who suggested that if the Assembly cares about its ecumenical partners, it will actually listen to them and consider their opposition to re-defining Christian marriage. A later commissioner basically told the Guatemalan delegate to pound salt, since other partners think same-sex marriage is hunky-dory. Commissioner says adoption of minority report will “only continue intimidation and bullying” of homosexuals in the PCUSA. Thanks for that. A theological student from South Louisiana claims that he’s a “conservative,” but that he stands for “social justice,” and redefining marriage. Right. So here’s the vote on this possible substitution: 266-397-2, the substitution being defeated.

UPDATE: So now they go to the original motion from the committee, which will change the understanding of marriage embodied in the Directory of Worship. This debate also went essentially the way you would expect–lots of “shellfish” arguments, lots of Scripture quoted, not all of it helpfully, worries about the future of the church, recitations of personal anecdotes, etc. To cut to the chase, here’s the vote: 308-338-2. They backed away from the cliff!

 

PCUSA to Vote on Changing Marriage Definition

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly will soon consider the following amendments to its Book of Order, passed last night by the Committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues, which will change the definition of marriage:

1. Amend W-4.9001 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract covenant between a woman and a man two people, and according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman two people are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage, two people make a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.”

2. Amend W-4.9002 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“a. In preparation for the marriage service, the teaching elder shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman two people to be married concerning” [The remainder of this section remains the same.]

3. Amend W-4.9004 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“The service begins with scriptural sentences and a brief statement of purpose. The man and the woman two people to be married shall declare their intention to enter into Christian marriage and shall exchange vows of love and faithfulness. The service includes appropriate passages of Scripture, which may be interpreted in various forms of proclamation. Prayers shall be offered for the couple, for the communities which support them in this new dimension of discipleship, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness. In the name of the triune God the teaching elder shall declare publicly that the woman and the man they are now joined in marriage.” [The remainder of this paragraph remains the same.]

4. Amend W-4.9006 as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

“A service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith may be appropriate when requested by the couple. The service will be similar to the marriage service except that the opening statement, the declaration of intention, the exchange of vows by the husband and wife two people,and the public declaration by the teaching elder† reflect the fact that the woman and man they are already married to one another according to the laws of the state.”

Translation: The PCUSA will, if this amendment is passed by the General Assembly and approved by the presbyteries, will no longer hold to a Christian definition of marriage, and will instead adopt that of a minority of state governments. Way to speak truth to power, folks.

 

Shut Up, He Explained

The FBI famously has a “Ten Most Wanted List.” Ten is apparently not god enough for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination (GLAAD), which has launched something called the “Commentator Accountability Project,” aimed at indoctrinating educating journalists about the “extreme rhetoric” supposedly used by those on its “36 Most Wanted List.” According to the press release:

The GLAAD Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) aims to put critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters. Journalists or producers who are on deadline often don’t have the time to dig into the histories of a commentator. Audiences need to be aware that when they’re not talking to the mainstream media, these voices are comparing LGBT people to Nazi Germany, predicting that equal treatment of LGBT people will lead to the total collapse of society, and even making accusations of satanic influence.

The Commentator Accountability Project is bringing all of these statements to light, while calling attention to the sentiments behind them. We will show that the commentators who are most often asked to opine on issues like marriage equality or non-discrimination protections do not accurately represent the “other side” of those issues. They represent nothing but extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.

Says you. I find it interesting that GLAAD thinks it gets to decide who “accurately represents” those who oppose their agenda. Presumably it would be those whose opposition is, shall we say, nuanced (i.e., more apparent than real, e.g., someone like Tony Campolo, Richard Cizik, or Jim Wallis from the religious left).

That’s not to say there hasn’t been inflammatory, outrageous, and unChristian language on the part of some opponents of various aspects of the gay rights agenda. When that language is heard, it should immediately be denounced, and not by GLAAD, but by Christians. It is vitally important that, if we’re to make the case for biblical morality, we stick to language that is clear, rational, well-reasoned, backed by evidence, and untainted by personal animus. We must also remember that we are speaking in the public square, and that part of our task is to convince a public that no longer holds biblical morality as normative, meaning that simply quoting Scripture or the like is not going to get it done.

Anyway, there is a definite suggestion here that GLAAD is seeking to shut down some of the movement’s most persistent and effective critics. Rich Ferraro, communications director for GLAAD, told the Politico:

These anti-LGBT voices are being booked in local and national news as “experts” on the lives of LGBT people, however many reporters, bookers and producers do not realize that these aren’t experts, but people who have dedicated their careers to making life more difficult for LGBT people. Being anti-LGBT should not be a qualification for speaking about LGBT people and issues.

Translated, what he sounds like he’s saying is that unless one is gay, one cannot presume to address public policy issues that have an impact on gay people, issues like same-sex marriage, gay adoption, etc. I come to that conclusion when I take a look at their list, which includes people such as Robert George of Princeton, Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary, Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship, Alan Chambers of Exodus International, and various people associated with the National Organization for Marriage, including Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family. These are not no-name pastors or talk radio hosts.

GLAAD’s technique for discrediting these individuals is to cherry-picks quotes, Tweets, and activities, take them out of context, portray them in the worst light possible, and then allow the journalists they present the misinformation to to draw them own conclusions. For example, here’s what they have to say about Robert George, one of the intellectual leaders of the opposition to the gay policy agenda:

-Described being gay as “beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.”

This is from an interreview at National Review Online, and is actually about the effects of the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s.

- Argued that gay relationships have “no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence.”

This is from the same interview, and is actually in reference to domestic partnerships: “Rather, it takes away the legal recognition of marriage — a comprehensive union of persons ordered to having and rearing a family (on procreation’s intrinsic link to marriage, see here and here) — and offers in its place legal recognition of a form of domestic partnership for romantic-sexual partners (in pairs for now, but that will not hold), be they same-sex or opposite-sex. Because these domestic partnerships are not actually marriages, despite the appropriation of the label; there is no intelligible basis in them for the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence that structure and help to define marriage as historically understood in our law and culture.”

- Suggested that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo shouldn’t be considered a Catholic because by signing marriage equality into law, “he has made it clear that he simply does not believe what Catholicism teaches about sexual morality and marriage.”

Again from the same interview, and this is about Gov. Cuomo’s personal life and commitment to Catholic teaching. George says nothing about the marriage bill in this passage.

- Said marriage equality is “about sex,” not about love, commitment, and responsibility.

This is from an interview with The Witherspoon Society’s Public Discourse, and only the full quote will do:

PD: What is the struggle over the legal recognition of same-sex unions a struggle about? Is it about legal benefits? Or is it about something else?

George: It’s about sex. Those seeking to redefine marriage began by insisting that what they were fundamentally interested in was gaining needed benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was necessary, they said, so that partners could visit each other in hospitals, extend employer-provided health insurance and other benefits to each other, and so forth. Some people who said this were, I’m sure, being sincere. Most, however, were not telling the truth. Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. The clear evidence for this is the refusal of most same-sex “marriage” activists to accept civil unions and domestic partnership programs under which the benefits of marriage are extended, but which do not use the label “marriage” or (and this is very important) predicate these benefits on the existence or presumption of a sexual relationship between the partners. So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

You be the judge about whether he is right or wrong.

- Sits on the Board of an organization that supports and funds anti-Islam extremists.

This is irrelevant, as well being left-wing nonsense. George sits on the board of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has given grants to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, and David Pipes’s Middle East Forum, all of which have been accused of being “anti-Islamic extremists” by people who are incapable of answering their arguments and evidence with regard to the threat Islamic extremism poses to the West both from without and within. What this has to do with George’s work on behalf of traditional marriage is anybody’s guess.

- Drafted the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto signed by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical leaders that “promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.”

Readers of this blog know that I think the Manhattan Declaration is brilliant in its defense of Christian morality. It is also erudite, well-reasoned, and a powerful demonstration of just the kind of “expertise” that GLAAD supposedly wants to see out of the other side.

You get the point. GLAAD is going to smear these individuals to the press, in the hopes of getting the press to stop speaking to them or citing them as spokespersons for conservative values. And why not? In the gay rights movement, the right to society’s approval of your sexual behavior trumps even the right of others to engage in civil discourse about the issues of the day, much less their good reputations.

 

Sex Education for Pre-Schoolers (UPDATED)

Remember those questions your children asked when they were little? “Mommy, where do babies come from?” Remember how hard it was to formulate an answer to questions like that that were both truthful and yet didn’t get into details that the average pre-school rug rat really doesn’t need to know? Well, it seems that one intrepid author has solved your problem. According to The Blaze:

It’s inevitable that parents will someday be asked “Where do babies come from?” and/or “Where did I come from?” by their children. And now, there‘s a children’s book to help answer the question. But the book isn’t that simple — and not everyone is applauding it. Why? Because, as the the book’s author Cory Silverberg describes, not everyone has a “nice story” of “mommy + daddy + intercourse = you!”

With that in mind, Silverberg is creating a new book – “What Makes a Baby?” – for parents to “[acknowledge] the help we get to bring children into our lives.” The book will include information about the help parents can get to make a baby: “a doctor, fertility clinic, adoption or foster agency; it might be a turkey baster and a friend; it might be a sperm donor or a surrogate.”

Silverberg states that the 32-page, hard cover book will be geared toward children of pre-school age up to 8 years old. Here’s more information about the book, which will be illustrated by Canadian artist Fiona Smyth:

“What Makes a Baby is written and illustrated to include all kinds of kids, all kinds of adults, and all kinds of families — regardless of how many people were involved, what the orientation, gender identity, or other make up of the family is, or how it came to be that way. It’s a social justice approach to sex education. Like all picture books, it’s meant to be read to a child and gives the adult reader the opportunity to fill in as much detail as they would like….

“All children deserve stories that teach them not only about how they are unique, but also about what connects them to all other humans.  What Makes a Baby tells that story without leaving some people out because of their gender, orientation, or family make up.”

Of course. What would a book about making babies be without including those who can’t? If pre-schoolers aren’t made aware of in vitro fertilization, surrogate gay motherhood, fertility drugs, and the whole panoply of modern scientific and sociological options, they might grow up stunted and homophobic. And if a child really is the product of the intersection of a “turkey baster and a friend,” wouldn’t he or she want to know about that?

This graphic contribution to the decline of Western civilization is a product of something called Kickstarter:

Financing for this book came through a non-traditional but increasingly popular means of funding. A site called Kickstarter, which has been used to fund endeavors such as “99% — The Occupy Wall Street Collaborative Film” and “FrackNation” – both of which the Blaze has reported on — funds projects through donations by setting a dollar amount goal and a deadline. If that amount is reached through donations, the project moves forward. If the goal is not met within the proposed timeframe, all the donations are returned.

Now, in the interest of insuring that our children are fully informed on the whole baby thing, I think Kickstarter’s Silverberg’s next project needs to be What Unmakes a Baby, about the wonders of abortion. First graders can learn all about the various reasons mommies kill their kids before they’re born, and about the marvelous advances in modern science–menstrual extraction, suction aspiration, dilation and curettage, dilation and evacuation, etc.–that make it all possible.

(Via Stand Firm.)

UPDATE: Jason Huff has let me know in the comments that Kickstarter is not the problem, but rather that it is just a good fund-raising conduit that Silverberg used. My apologies to anyone associated with Kickstarter for suggesting that they are the problem here.

 

Ban the Heretic! (UPDATED)

Faithful America, a creation of the National Council of Churches  that lobbies for liberal political causes (but I repeat myself), has joined forces with inveterate publicity hound gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to try to get MSNBC to purify its precious bodily fluids airwaves by petitioning the Democratic Party propaganda outlet cable news network to stop having Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on its programs. According to FA:

On February 14, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson personally delivered our petition to MSNBC studios calling on the network to stop giving airtime to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — a hate group that accuses gays and lesbians of child molestation.

The Family Research Council is so extreme that they’ve been officially listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. But MSNBC has continued to invite their president, Tony Perkins, and other organizational spokespeople on air to comment on behalf of Christian voters. In fact, since FRC was designated a hate group in November 2010, Tony Perkins has appeared on MSNBC more often than any other network.

The complaint against FRC–that the SPLC has designated it a “hate group”–would mean more if the designation didn’t translate to “disagrees with us about the morality of homosexual behavior.” The SPLC has also designated the American Family Association, Mass Resistance, and the Traditional Values Coalition (groups that I don’t always agree with on a range of issues, and which sometimes say stupid things, but which are hardly “hate groups”) that way, as well as lumping them and the National Organization for Marriage and other legitimate conservative Christian groups in with crazies such as Westboor Baptist Church and Dove World Outreach Center (Rev. Terry Jones’ pathetic outfit). Once the FRC got the SLPC’s scarlet AG (“anti-gay”), Faithful America swung into action.

This is not a First Amendment issue, because MSNBC is under no obligation to give anyone time on its network. Nor is there anything wrong with FA and Gene Robinson expressing their distaste for Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. What’s galling is that once again, we have liberals who pose as apostles of tolerance and diversity demanding that a voice that disagrees with them be shut down. While they delivered their petition only to MSNBC, I imagine that it will eventually be going to any media outlet that dares to talk to a certified “hate group.” like the FRC. It is already rare to see a traditional Christian viewpoint on sexual morality in the mainstream media, and I have no doubt that FA’s intention is to ultimately have all such viewpoints banned. Of course, FA and its allies don’t actually recognize such views as being Christian, as their petition demonstrates:

The Family Research Council is a hate group, and journalists ought to treat it as such. MSNBC must stop inviting Family Research Council spokespeople on the air to represent the views of Christians and other people of faith.

Can’t have the audience of MSNBC thinking that there might actually be Christians who think that what Gene Robinson does and advocates might be, you know, sin. Of course, it may be that Tony Perkins would consider getting banned from MSNBC sort of an honor…

UPDATE: Forget to mention that I saw this item at Sojourners. Apparently inveterate publicity hound Jim Wallis and his colleagues agree with banning those who disagree with a position that Sojourners used to, at least in theory, adhere to.

 

Mainstream Media, Just Doing What They Do (UPDATED)

When the Komen Foundation-Planned Parenthood controversy broke out last week, the mainstream media was all over the situation, manning the ramparts of objectivity, giving us the straight scoop, presenting both sides of the story. You know: death culture cheerleaders. According to LifeNews.com:

Over the course of about 60 hours, ABC, CBS, and NBC emphasized the controversy with a whopping 13 morning and evening news stories. The soundbite count was loaded: 76 percent of the quotes came from supporters of Planned Parenthood (35 in total). Only 11 clips or statements came from Komen representatives or new allies.

On February 3, ABC’s Claire Shipman trumpeted the negative responses to the breast cancer charity’s decision: “This morning, outrage and disappointment engulfing the Internet. ‘All lies.’ ‘You have lost my support.’ ‘Playing politics with the lives of women.’ ‘I’ll never buy pink again.’” ABC showed the strongest tilt towards Planned Parenthood, with 10 sound bites or statements in favor of the organization, versus only two supporting Komen, a five-to-one margin.

The day before, both CBS and NBC highlighted a talking point from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who hyped that a “right-wing political campaign [was] bullying” the breast cancer foundation. NBC trailed not far behind ABC in terms of slant towards the abortion giant, with 15 clips in favor of the liberal darling, and four supporting Komen, a nearly four-to-one imbalance.

CBS displayed the least amount of tilt in the area of soundbites/statements, with 10 in favor of Planned Parenthood and five in favor of the pink ribbon foundation, or an overall two-to-one ratio. However, one report from correspondent Nancy Cordes on the February 2 edition of CBS Evening News had five in favor of the abortion leviathan, versus just two soundbites from Komen president Nancy Brinker.

Matthew Balan of the Media Research Center notes a contrast between the white-hot hysteria that could be found on the Big Three compared to their coverage of the Obamacare contraception mandate/First Amendment controversy:

By contrast to those 13 reports on the feminist “firestorm,” when the Obama administration announced on January 20 that it was giving religious institutions one year to comply with a mandate for coverage of sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception in their health plans without a co-pay, these same networks all but ignored the face-off with angry Catholic bishops and their flocks. It took CBS 10 days to air one news brief about the controversy on CBS This Morning on January 30. Neither ABC nor NBC have aired anything on their morning and evening newscasts over the past two weeks, and CBS hasn’t done anything since giving that one brief.

I’m so glad there’s no such thing as a bias toward political and moral liberalism in the mainstream media. Otherwise, these figures might look suspicious.

UPDATE: Just a reminder, these are the same people who ignored the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Right-to-Life marchers in numerous cities in January of 2012. And 2011. And 2010…

 

Wave of the Future

LifeSiteNews reports on a legal case from New Jersey that is of a type that we’re going to be seeing more and more of in the future unless the U.S. Supreme Court puts a halt to it. A judge has ruled that a United Methodist retreat house has to open its facility to same-sex union ceremonies because non-discrimination is a more important value that religious freedom:

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

On Thursday, administrative judge Solomon A. Metzger ruled that religious liberty did not exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral beliefs.

In March 2007, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster’s request to rent its Boardwalk Pavilion for the ceremony. The couple sued, claiming they had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. In December 2008, the state Division on Civil Rights found the Christian campground had likely violated the state Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and joined the case.

Judge Metzger said church doctrine was irrelevant. “As to ‘free exercise’ [of religion], the LAD is a neutral law of general application designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or hostile to religion,” he wrote. The free exercise clause did not factor into his ruling, he stated, but “a much lower standard that tolerates some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” He believed the “arm’s-length nature of the transactions” gave Ocean Grove “comfortable distance from notions incompatible with its own beliefs.”

Metzger agreed in his ruling that Ocean Grove “is fundamentally a religious organization, free to form its mission without government oversight or intrusion” and that its owners had not “acted with ill-motive.” The facility “opposes same-sex unions as a matter of religious belief, and in 2007 found itself on the wrong side of recent changes in the law.”

Metzger ruled that, since the facility allowed non-Christians to use its facility for [weddings], it had no doctrinal limitations. But Methodists do not limit their sacramental ministry to Christians and historically do not recognize marriage as a sacrament.

The judge in this case had no business basing any of his decision on his understanding of Methodist doctrine. The only relevant religious issue is whether the Camp Ground Association was using the teaching of its parent denomination in making its decision, and the answer to that is unequivocally yes. At that point, the issue becomes whether to prefer the non-discrimination rights of gays to the religious freedom of practitioners. The place of religious freedom in the First Amendment, and the fact that sexual orientation does not (yet, at least) have protected class status under the SCOTUS doctrine of “strict scrutiny” means that this should have been an easy decision to make in favor of the CGA. That it went the other way is an indication that personal and political preference was at work.

Given the culture of the bench, I predict you’ll see more and more judges making the same choice to prefer gay rights over religious freedom until such time as the SCOTUS makes a definitive ruling in favor of the First Amendment. And if the latter should ever decide the other way, that’s when it’s going to be time to head underground, or give up our consciences and faith altogether.

 

Methodist Bishops: We’ll “Uphold the Discipline”

The bishops of the United Methodist Church have sent out a letter to the denomination in which they pledge to uphold the Book of Discipline. One would think that such a letter would be unnecessary, but the recent challenge to the prohibition on clergy presiding at same sex weddings or union ceremonies required a response. The bishops write:

In a time when the world seems to be torn apart with division, inequality, injustice, hatred and violence, as Christians we bear responsibility to give witness to “a more excellent way” (1Corinthians 12:31). The church is not exempt from struggles. We are not the first to experience upheaval in culture and church and we are not the first to have serious and deep disagreements about issues of great importance.

One of the deep disagreements and divisions within the church is over the practice of homosexuality, recently heightened by a group of clergy who have declared that they will perform holy unions in opposition to the Book of Discipline. This has caused different experiences of deep pain throughout the church. As the bishops of the church, we commit ourselves to be in prayer for the whole church and for the brokenness our communities experience. Furthermore, we “implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons” (par. 161F). We will continue to offer grace upon grace to all in the name of Christ.

At times like these we call upon each other to remember and renew our covenant with God and with one another as United Methodist Christians. As bishops chosen, consecrated and assigned by the Church, we declare once again our commitment to be faithful to this covenant we have made. As the Council of Bishops we will uphold the Book of Discipline as established by General Conference.

That’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. It doesn’t indicate whether the bishops will actually warn clergy not to take part in prohibited ceremonies, whether those clergy who do will face any sanction, or whether the bishops will do anything in particular to try to stem the revolt against the denomination’s standards that is growing among its liberal ministers.

It’s also the case that some bishops have more of a problem than others. For instance, the Board of Ordained Ministry in the Northern Illinois Conference has signed on to this Discipline defying movement. Does Bishop Hee-Soo Jung have any plans to deal with this? How about in the New York Conference: does Bishop Jeremiah Park plan to address the over 150 clergy who have declared their disdain for the rest the church? Back in June, when 70 clergy in the Minnesota Conference said they would do union ceremonies, Bishop Sally Dyck said that while making statements supporting gay marriage was OK, conducting them was a chargeable offense. Will any currently serving clergy dare to challenge her?

The United Methodist News Service quoted Bishop Dyck as indicating that the letter means that the Discipline will be enforced, though given the ridiculous slap on the wrist that the Rev. Amy DeLong got back in June, I’m not sure what the word “enforced” might mean:

Under church law, performing such ceremonies is a chargeable offense. A church jury, called a trial court, can choose a range of penalties if there is a conviction including defrocking, suspension or a lesser penalty.

“To uphold the Discipline means that we will pursue the complaint process.” Dyck said. “The desired outcome of the complaint process is always a just resolution, and only as a last resort would there be a church trial as the (Book of Discipline) clearly states.”

This sounds good, but it strikes me as obfuscatory doubletalk. As with DeLong, there’s no question about whether a minister breaks the rules or not if he or she performs a same sex union ceremony. The only question is how the church will respond. If the response is endless talk, or even a trial that imposes something like DeLong’s 20-day “suspension,” the result will be that in short order, the Discipline will be a dead letter. Hopefully Bishop Dyck, as well as the other purple shirts who are faced with this kind of internal rebellion, will take more serious action if they are confronted by the next Amy DeLong than did the Wisconsin Conference.

 

 

Bullies Comes in Many Guises

If you’ve ever wondered whether the “anti-bullying” campaign aimed at protecting gay youth is at least in part a cover to shut up those who have moral qualms about homosexuality, you can look to a column in the Huffington Post today for confirmation. Paul Rauschenbusch, great-grandson of Social Gospeler Walter Rauschenbusch, denounces a provision in a Michigan anti-bullying law designed to prevent bullying of those who dissent from sexual orthodoxy:

Michigan’s recent anti-bullying bill debate has moved one step forward and two steps back for actual protection against bullying in the state’s schools. The anti-bullying bill, is named “Matt’s Safe School Law” for Matt Epling of East Lansing, Michigan who committed suicide after being bullied. Like all anti-bullying efforts, the goal of the bill is to protect those who are vulnerable to attack and create a safer and more humane environment for all children in schools.

That is a laudable and worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, for Rauschenbusch, some kids are more worthy of protection than others:

Unfortunately, the state’s Senate Republicans added language to the bill to establish that schools could not prohibit “a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.”

Think homosexuality is wrong? Sorry, no protection for you. Teachers, administrators, and even the members of the local Gay-Straight Alliance should do pretty much anything they can to shut you down–and they sometimes do, as examples such as this, this, and this illustrate. Let’s get serious: there are a small and shrinking numbers of school districts in this country where you cannot say, “homosexual behavior is perfectly legitimate, and it is wrong to say or imply otherwise,” while there is a growing number of districts where you cannot say, “I believe homosexuality is wrong.” Is it of the magnitude that the problem of genuine bullying of LGBT students is? I’m sure it’s not. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong, and should be stopped, if necessary legislatively.

Rauschenbusch goes on to say:

What kind of ‘sincerely held belief’ would lead someone to bully? The clause added by the Republican Senators is none-too-subtly coded language specifically aimed at protecting anti-LGBT intimidation and hostility; cloaked in the rhetoric of freedom of religion.

The idea that religious beliefs require special provision within a law meant to protect the most vulnerable should be an affront to all religious people. It is an affront to me as a Baptist minister. The bill intimates that we people of faith require special loopholes for our irresistible urges to bully people based on our very, very sincerely held beliefs.

And this is why the protection is necessary. For people such as Rauschenbusch, any opposition to homosexual behavior, no matter how principled, is per se either bullying or an incitement to bullying. Saying in a private conversation overheard by a teacher, as 14-year-old Dakota Ary did, that “I think being a homosexual is wrong,” is the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Even uttering such words will inevitably result in some Christian thug acting on his “irresistible urges” to slug gays, after which he’ll hide behind this law and claim he was only acting on the basis of his “very, very sincerely held beliefs” (I guess the “very, very” is another way for Rauschenbusch to say he can’t believe anyone in this day and age could possibly be so barbaric as to actually believe that Bible thingy–it must be homophobia instead).

There are anti-gay bullies out there, and they should be stopped from hurting others. Political bullies such as Paul Rauschenbusch, on the other hand, should be stopped from beating up on the First Amendment.