By Tom Prichard
The large Lutheran church body, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth regarding homosexual behavior. The four and a half million member Evangelical Lutheran Church of America continues its debate about homosexuality and their clergy. The result is double talk and more confusion in a church body already adrift and losing members.
A study commissioned by the church on human sexuality in preparation for its next denominational meeting seeks to both placate those who hold to the biblical view that homosexual behavior is sin and incompatible with Scripture while at the same time seeking to please homosexual activists and their supporters in the denomination. The result: a church continuing its drift into heresy.
At their last national convention, delegates passed a resolution that gives bishops discretion on whether or not they enforce the policy prohibiting homosexual behavior among its clergy. In other words, individual bishops will determine what the ELCA’s position is in practice on the issue of homosexuality. These actions continue the liberal, unbiblical drift in the ELCA since it’s inception in the late 1980s.
The ELCA’s church leadership in its seminaries, bishops and bureaucracy is clearly very liberal while the average church member and many of its pastors would subscribe to a more biblical approach towards homosexual behavior.
It’s sad to see a church body with historic roots going back centuries repudiate a basic Christian belief. But that’s what the ELCA is looking to do. Our response whether you’re a member of an ELCA church or not? Pray for them and their leaders that they will not abandon the faith and there will be prophets raised up to speak boldly the truth in love.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Don't be bullied by hysterical accusations of hate
Who says I can’t love a homosexual while disagreeing with their sexual behavior?
A recent article in the Star Tribune quoted David McCaffrey, a board member of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities as saying, “This is ‘yet another volley of dehumanizing spiritual violence directed at GLBT persons and their families under Archbishop Nienstedt's reign of homophobic hatred.’"
At best, McCaffrey’s comment is ideological nonsense. For instance, I have friends that have sexually cheated on their now ex-wives – yet I still love them. I know young adults that have had sex outside of marriage – yet I still love them.
No, name-calling and accusations of “hate” and “homophobia” are deliberate attempts to bully and silence those with opposing views.
The next time you are called a "hater" etc., ask, “Are you telling me I can’t love someone just because I disagree their sexual behavior?”
Let’s stick with the basics, we oppose homosexual marriage, anti-bullying and sex education curricula that affirms homosexual behavior because the medical evidence proves it is a killer.
A recent article in the Star Tribune quoted David McCaffrey, a board member of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities as saying, “This is ‘yet another volley of dehumanizing spiritual violence directed at GLBT persons and their families under Archbishop Nienstedt's reign of homophobic hatred.’"
At best, McCaffrey’s comment is ideological nonsense. For instance, I have friends that have sexually cheated on their now ex-wives – yet I still love them. I know young adults that have had sex outside of marriage – yet I still love them.
No, name-calling and accusations of “hate” and “homophobia” are deliberate attempts to bully and silence those with opposing views.
The next time you are called a "hater" etc., ask, “Are you telling me I can’t love someone just because I disagree their sexual behavior?”
Let’s stick with the basics, we oppose homosexual marriage, anti-bullying and sex education curricula that affirms homosexual behavior because the medical evidence proves it is a killer.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Caution - separation anxiety ahead
Well, the news is finally out. According to the Jewish Daily, the Alliance Defense Fund has recruited 50 pastors to deliver sermons in September that will include direct endorsements of political candidates.
Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad, (Pastor Booth was our guest on a trip to David Barton’s Congressional Pastor’s Briefing last fall.) was the first shot across the bow.
Caution – separation anxiety ahead.
This bold move is sure to cause a severe case of separation anxiety for the IRS, the First Amendment and revisionist history. But let’s start with a short history lesson.
I want to encourage everyone that has a dog in this hunt to educate themselves regarding the origins of the IRS code. It's an historical fact that it was legal for pastors to endorse candidates and preach on the political issues of the day until then Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office.
“The history of Johnson’s IRS gag order is instructive,” writes Kasey Kelly. "It began with what some historians believe to be a fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been maintained by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as “Landslide Lyndon,” this aspiring politician was “elected” by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson, challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevenson’s effort by the clever use of “cooperative” court injunctions.”
Mean-spirited gag-order
“In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
Although the law has been tested, recent decisions have actually strengthened it by prohibiting political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad, (Pastor Booth was our guest on a trip to David Barton’s Congressional Pastor’s Briefing last fall.) was the first shot across the bow.
Caution – separation anxiety ahead.
This bold move is sure to cause a severe case of separation anxiety for the IRS, the First Amendment and revisionist history. But let’s start with a short history lesson.
I want to encourage everyone that has a dog in this hunt to educate themselves regarding the origins of the IRS code. It's an historical fact that it was legal for pastors to endorse candidates and preach on the political issues of the day until then Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office.
“The history of Johnson’s IRS gag order is instructive,” writes Kasey Kelly. "It began with what some historians believe to be a fraudulent election of Johnson to the Senate in 1948. It has been maintained by both conservative and liberal historians that Lyndon Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948 was won by massive voter fraud. Known as “Landslide Lyndon,” this aspiring politician was “elected” by only 87 votes. His challenger, Coke Stevenson, challenged his election and presented credible evidence that hundreds of votes for Johnson had been faked. Johnson, however, was successful in blocking Stevenson’s effort by the clever use of “cooperative” court injunctions.”
Mean-spirited gag-order
“In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
Although the law has been tested, recent decisions have actually strengthened it by prohibiting political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
Thursday, June 19, 2008
"I want all christians to DIE DIE DIE!!!"
In my previous post I wrote about a parent who is under threat of arrest if she visits Hale Elementary without permission, and another parent that was, in my opinion, verbally bullied by Principal Brancale because of her expression of faith at an informational meeting about Welcoming Schools.
Interesting that Brancale’s efforts were directed at women.
In general, the left has plenty of bullies and haters. A good example of lefties who hate is an email we received today which read, “I want all Christians to DIE DIE DIE!!!”
The person signed his name.
What is it about the ideology of the left that encourages people to make vicious death threats and arrogantly sign their name?
Interesting that Brancale’s efforts were directed at women.
In general, the left has plenty of bullies and haters. A good example of lefties who hate is an email we received today which read, “I want all Christians to DIE DIE DIE!!!”
The person signed his name.
What is it about the ideology of the left that encourages people to make vicious death threats and arrogantly sign their name?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Growing opposition to Welcoming Schools
Sources indicate that the growing group of parents opposed to Welcoming Schools are digging in for a couple of reasons including the alleged bullying of a Hale parent by Principal Bob Brancale at a school event in a public park. The parent, who is under threat of arrest if she sets foot on the Hale campus without permission, was told to leave the park as it was a school event. It is the opinion of our sources close to the issue, that the parent is being bullied by Hale officials for her vigorous opposition to Welcoming Schools.
I personally witnessed Principal Brancale verbally abuse a Muslim parent for her faith-based opposition to Welcoming Schools at an informational meeting in March. Allegedly, Brancale is under review by District officials for his remarks. Feel free to comment if you have more recent news.
The recent C&I recommendation has galvanized the group as it approved large portions of WS. One of the chief grievances is the belief that WS is unnecessary because the bullying statistics were compiled after the decision to implement WS was decided. There may be some merit to this as some Hale teachers have shared in confidence that they were pressed for bullying statistics to justify WS after the fact.
MFC has been told that many teachers are opposed to WS but are afraid to speak out for fear of loosing their jobs.
MFC understands that several families are working hard to share the eality of WS with Hale parents. One of the observations that causes parents to question WS is the push towards eliminating terms like boy and girl - or at least fostering the confusion between the two. Minimizing bulling is one thing, encouraging gender confusion amongst elementary children is unacceptable to many.
MFC agrees. Bullying is unacceptable. So is forcing an unnecessary pilot curriculum on elementary children to promote homosexual behavior.
I personally witnessed Principal Brancale verbally abuse a Muslim parent for her faith-based opposition to Welcoming Schools at an informational meeting in March. Allegedly, Brancale is under review by District officials for his remarks. Feel free to comment if you have more recent news.
The recent C&I recommendation has galvanized the group as it approved large portions of WS. One of the chief grievances is the belief that WS is unnecessary because the bullying statistics were compiled after the decision to implement WS was decided. There may be some merit to this as some Hale teachers have shared in confidence that they were pressed for bullying statistics to justify WS after the fact.
MFC has been told that many teachers are opposed to WS but are afraid to speak out for fear of loosing their jobs.
MFC understands that several families are working hard to share the eality of WS with Hale parents. One of the observations that causes parents to question WS is the push towards eliminating terms like boy and girl - or at least fostering the confusion between the two. Minimizing bulling is one thing, encouraging gender confusion amongst elementary children is unacceptable to many.
MFC agrees. Bullying is unacceptable. So is forcing an unnecessary pilot curriculum on elementary children to promote homosexual behavior.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Welcome "Stop Welcomings Schools" readers
Unfortunately the bullying, idle-threats and name-calling took their toll at "Stop Welcoming Schools." We look forward to "Stop Welcoming Schools" starting again in the near future.
I've noticed another trend - censorship. Seems that the tolerance gang doesn't like open minds or dialogue. MFC understands that posts have been removed from blogs, on-line magazines and forums. That won't happen here unless it contains attention-seeking foul language like Shannon Drury's posts.
I've noticed another trend - censorship. Seems that the tolerance gang doesn't like open minds or dialogue. MFC understands that posts have been removed from blogs, on-line magazines and forums. That won't happen here unless it contains attention-seeking foul language like Shannon Drury's posts.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Warroad pastor tells Amercians United he will not be intimidated
From Americans United for Separation of Church and State
IRS Should Investigate Minnesota Church For Electioneering, Says Americans United
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Warroad Community Church Pastor's Partisan Preaching Violates Federal Tax Law, Says AU's Lynn
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a Minnesota church whose pastor insisted that Christians cannot vote for presidential candidates Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in northern Minnesota delivered a sermon May 18 in which he said, “If you are a Christian, you cannot support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.…Both Hillary and Barack favor the shedding of innocent blood (abortion) and the legalization of the abomination of homosexual marriage.”
Booth’s sermon was profiled in the Warroad Pioneer, a weekly newspaper, under the headline, “Local pastor uses scripture to oppose presidential candidates Clinton and Obama.”
About two weeks after the sermon, Booth, who was a delegate to this year’s National Republican Convention, sent an e-mail message to Americans United, noting that he had used his pulpit for partisan purposes and attaching a copy of the newspaper article.
(emphasis MFC)
“I am writing you to let you know that I preached a sermon in my church on Sunday, May 18, 2008, that specifically addressed the current candidates for President in the light of the Bible,” Booth wrote. “As you can see from the attached newspaper article, I specifically made recommendations as to who a Christian should vote for.”
Booth continued, “I have read in the past about how you have a campaign to intimidate churches into silence when it comes to speaking about candidates for office. I am letting you know that I will not be intimidated into silence when I believe that God wants me to address the great moral issues of the day, including who will be our next national leader.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called Booth’s actions a flagrant violation of federal tax law. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are free to address moral issues but are not allowed to engage in campaign intervention.
“Booth is free to endorse anyone he wants to as a private citizen,” Lynn said. “But when he is standing in his tax-exempt pulpit as the top official of a tax-exempt religious organization, he must lay partisanship aside. The IRS needs to look into this apparent violation of federal tax law.”
In his letter to the IRS, Lynn noted that the federal tax agency has enhanced its enforcement of the “no-politicking” rule and urged the agency to make certain Booth follows the law.
Lynn told that IRS that Booth’s message to AU “is a clear indication that Booth is aware that his actions are legally problematic, yet he chose to proceed anyway.”
IRS Should Investigate Minnesota Church For Electioneering, Says Americans United
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Warroad Community Church Pastor's Partisan Preaching Violates Federal Tax Law, Says AU's Lynn
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the Internal Revenue Service to investigate a Minnesota church whose pastor insisted that Christians cannot vote for presidential candidates Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Pastor Gus Booth of Warroad Community Church in northern Minnesota delivered a sermon May 18 in which he said, “If you are a Christian, you cannot support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.…Both Hillary and Barack favor the shedding of innocent blood (abortion) and the legalization of the abomination of homosexual marriage.”
Booth’s sermon was profiled in the Warroad Pioneer, a weekly newspaper, under the headline, “Local pastor uses scripture to oppose presidential candidates Clinton and Obama.”
About two weeks after the sermon, Booth, who was a delegate to this year’s National Republican Convention, sent an e-mail message to Americans United, noting that he had used his pulpit for partisan purposes and attaching a copy of the newspaper article.
(emphasis MFC)
“I am writing you to let you know that I preached a sermon in my church on Sunday, May 18, 2008, that specifically addressed the current candidates for President in the light of the Bible,” Booth wrote. “As you can see from the attached newspaper article, I specifically made recommendations as to who a Christian should vote for.”
Booth continued, “I have read in the past about how you have a campaign to intimidate churches into silence when it comes to speaking about candidates for office. I am letting you know that I will not be intimidated into silence when I believe that God wants me to address the great moral issues of the day, including who will be our next national leader.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called Booth’s actions a flagrant violation of federal tax law. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are free to address moral issues but are not allowed to engage in campaign intervention.
“Booth is free to endorse anyone he wants to as a private citizen,” Lynn said. “But when he is standing in his tax-exempt pulpit as the top official of a tax-exempt religious organization, he must lay partisanship aside. The IRS needs to look into this apparent violation of federal tax law.”
In his letter to the IRS, Lynn noted that the federal tax agency has enhanced its enforcement of the “no-politicking” rule and urged the agency to make certain Booth follows the law.
Lynn told that IRS that Booth’s message to AU “is a clear indication that Booth is aware that his actions are legally problematic, yet he chose to proceed anyway.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)