Biggest Church Split in America's history? ELCA break-up

The endorsement of homosexual behavior by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) which has been said is no longer evangelical nor Lutheran, has precipitated the biggest church split in the history of our nation.  At least that's what this author says.  I don't know if there were similar size splits over slavery or other issues.  But 500,000 is losing lots of people.  I'm sure going from a $88 million budget to $40 million at the national church headquarters has gotten their attention.  And here in Minnesota Luther Seminary had to lay off a third of their people.

• When the ELCA was formed in 1988 they had 5.2 million members, but they are now down to only 4 million members–a staggering loss of over 1.2 million members, or 23% of their membership.  They have also lost 1,500, or 13%, of their congregations, from approximately 11,000 to 9,500.  As they “celebrate” this year the 25th anniversary of the ELCA, the fact is that during that time they have lost more members and congregations than make up many entire denominations!
• Of these losses, over 500,000 members and 1,000 congregations have left the ELCA in just the last four years, triggered by their endorsement of homosexuality beginning in 2009.  This is actually the biggest denominational split in American church history, and is directly attributable to that decision.
• Another measure of the ELCA’s decline is that in 1988, 2.1% of all Americans were members of the ELCA, but by 2011 that figure had fallen to 1.3%.  The National Council of Churches reports that the ELCA has “the sharpest rate of membership decline” among all mainline Protestant denominations.  Like Avis car rental which used to advertise “We’re Number 2–But We Try Harder!” the LCMS has historically always been the second-largest American Lutheran church body.  However, at the ELCA’s current rate of losing members–nearly 6% in 2010–in just a decade the LCMS will surpass the ELCA as the largest American Lutheran church body, and a few decades after that the ELCA will cease to exist.
• Even among those congregations remaining in the ELCA average weekly worship attendance from 2003 to 2011 dropped 26%.  The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod has 2.3 million members and the similarly conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has 300,000 members, yet even with our smaller combined membership of 2.6 million the LCMS and WELS have more people actually sitting in the pews each Sunday than the ELCA with 4 million members.
• Donations to the ELCA on the national level were $88 million in 2008 but plunged to only $40 million in 2011.
• Luther Seminary, the ELCA’s largest seminary, located in St. Paul, Minnesota, announced that last year they had a $6 million operating deficit on a budget of $27 million.  This was due largely to a recent sharp decline in donations to the seminary, reportedly including a couple that for many years had given $1 million a year to the seminary but stopped their donations after the ELCA’s endorsement of homosexuality.  The seminary was forced to cancel many of its programs and lay off a third of the faculty and staff.
• Since the ELCA’s endorsement of homosexuality, many other Lutheran church bodies around the world have severed their historic ties with the ELCA, and are instead seeking new relationships with the LCMS.  This includes many of the largest and fastest-growing Lutheran church bodies in the world, such as the Lutherans in Ethiopia with over 6 million members–nearly as many as all American Lutheran church bodies combined.  The center of world Lutheranism is shifting from Europe and America to Africa, Asia, and South America, and the LCMS is becoming the theological leader of these growing Lutheran church bodies.  While the ELCA is becoming increasingly isolated in world Lutheranism, at our national convention this month the LCMS will enter into formal fellowship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Liberia, Siberian Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church of Togo.

Will the hemorrhaging soon end?  I don't know but I would doubt it.  When any organization jettisons its principles, people will leave simply because the organization doesn't stand for anything. I've always thought liberal church bodies tend to be parasitic in nature.  They can take over a living body but can't survive on their own.

The Pope and homosexuality. Is he now open to only gay priests? The mainstream media hopes so.

The mainstream media believes comments by Pope Francis suggests he's now open to gay priests.  Or they wish.  In fact, his comments in no way supports that observation.

Here's what Pope Francis said:

But returning to your question more concretely: in this case [Ricca] I did the required investigation and we found nothing.  That is the first question.  Then you spoke of the gay lobby.  Agh… so much is written about the gay lobby.  I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word gay.  They say there are some gay people here.  I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.  They are bad.  If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter.  There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies.  This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!

What did he say and mean?   I see nothing even inferring he supports gay priests, only homosexual men serving as priests.

I think somebody like Cardinal Dolan would have a better take on the Pope's thinking.

Pope Francis’ comments about gays may have signaled a change in tone within the Catholic Church, but they did not reflect a break in church policy, a leading American Catholic cleric said Tuesday.

The church teaches to treat everyone — including gays — with dignity, even if they do not approve of the relationships they have, said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“What the pope is saying is, don’t forget there’s another element to God’s teaching, namely that we treat everybody with dignity and respect, that we don’t judge their heart, that we love and respect them,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer.

On Monday, Pope Francis surprised church observers with his comments about homosexuality during a news conference.

“If a person is gay, and looks for the Lord and had goodwill, who am I to judge them?” he said.

Dolan said the pontiff’s comments didn’t surprise him, but everyone’s reaction did.

“This is no way could this be interpreted as a change in church doctrine or the church’s faith and morals. It is a change in tone," he said.

“It’s been a pretty clear teaching of the church based on the words of Jesus that we can’t judge people; we can judge actions,” he said.

 “Homosexual people deserve love respect and dignity, while homosexual acts are immoral,” Dolan said. 

“The church’s teaching, which is based on the Bible and God’s revelation, is that sexual love is reserved only between a man and woman in the life-long, life-giving relationship of marriage and any relations outside of that, hetero or homo, would be less than God’s intention," he said. "That hasn’t changed."

Identical twin studies point to homosexuality not being genetic.

Here's an interesting piece on twin studies and homosexuality.  According to a New Zealand researcher, who's reviewed twins studies done over the past 20 years, the results suggest that homosexuality is not genetically based.  This is of course significant because many people assume it is and use that as either an explicit or implicit basis for saying society should embrace homosexuality.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

 

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other.

“These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

 

Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

In many respects, the debate over genetics and homosexuality should be irrelevant regarding society's stance towards homosexual behavior.  That's because behavior is always a choice.  Sometimes a difficult choice but a choice nontheless.  I don't deny that many people experience same sex attractions which they didn't choose and can not remove, but that's different from acting on those attractions.  That's where choice comes into play.

Again, the genetic argument plays into public perceptions about homosexuality and many people assumes genetics is determinate on how society should respond.

Scalia upset with Scouting decision resigns as Scoutmaster.

Justice Antonin Scalia is upset with the recent Scouting decision on homosexuality according to this news story.  

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who for the past forty-seven years has served as a weekend scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts of America, angrily resigned from that position yesterday, effective immediately.

Justice Scalia quit his post in a terse resignation letter that read, in part:

“Some of the happiest memories of my adult life have been as a scoutmaster. Huddling under blankets around the campfire, and so forth. But now, all of that has been ruined. Ruined.”

Shortly after sending the letter, Justice Scalia destroyed his scoutmaster uniform in the blazing fireplace of his Supreme Court office.

Later, he went across the hall to share his decision with his close confidant on the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, telling him, “There’s nowhere I feel safe anymore, Clarence. The military? The N.B.A.? Nowhere. I guess the only place I still feel safe is the Supreme Court. This is still a safe place, isn’t it?” 

Was this a big decision?  Certainly if the goal of an organization is character and moral rectitude. One compromise will invariably lead to others.

SATIRICAL UPDATE:  For those who didn't know the above fictional comments by Scalia above were written in a satirical piece. 

Political correctness and homosexuality in a high school German class in Texas.

Here's an interesting example of the homosexual activism and intolerance of a German class teacher in Fort Worth, Texas. A 14 year old student was given an in school suspension for simply saying he believed homosexuality was wrong.

The teacher brought up the subject of homosexuality and the student commented to a fellow student that it's wrong. The result? The student, Dakota Ary, was given an in school suspension which the school quickly backed away from once the student's parent called an attorney.

Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.”

“It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox.

“I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

Dakota was sentenced to one day in-school suspension – and two days of full suspension. His mother was flabbergasted, noting that her son had a spotless record, was an honor student, volunteered at his church and played on the school football team.

Officials at the high school did not return calls for comment. However, the Fort Worth Independent School District issued a statement that read:

“As a matter of course, Fort Worth ISD does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues. Suffice it to say that we are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy.”

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game...

Krause called the incident “mind blowing” and said the teacher had frequently brought homosexuality into ninth grade classroom discussions.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topics,” Krause said. “The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

Krause said the picture was posted on the teacher’s “world wall.”

It looks like the teacher is the one with the ideological agenda. No wonder parents are concerned with homosexual activism in the classroom.

Homosexual parenting leads to more homosexual kids? Common sense and research suggests as much. Implications for gay adoption and gay "marriage".

The debate over homosexual "marriage" invariably implicates the impact of homosexual couples on the children they raise. While there's debate over the exact origins of homosexual attractions and orientations, it's generally viewed as resulting from a complex interaction of biological and environmental factors. Even gay researchers like Simon LaVay acknowledge as much.

It shouldn't be surprising then when kids raised by homosexual parents have a greater propensity for developing same sex inclinations. That's what Dr. Walter Schumm, professor of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University found in his research. Here's what he said in an interview on the topic.

For decades it was politically correct to argue that parental sexual orientation had nothing to do with a child's sexual orientation. However, about 1995 or so, a few scholars began to admit that, at least in theory, parental values would be expected to influence children's values, including sexual orientation preferences. Nevertheless, it was argued that even such an expected result had little empirical support. I decided to tackle this difficult problem from three perspectives, in a report in press with the
Cambridge journal, Journal of Biosocial Science.

First, I reviewed ten books concerning over 250 children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and evaluated the children's own stories about their sexual orientations. I used a 10% baseline for a simulated comparison group of heterosexual families. It was clear that the children of GLB parents were more likely to either have
identified as GLB or to have at least experimented with nonheterosexual behavior. The more I controlled for age (using older children) and availability of data (using only those children who specifically described their sexual orientations), the stronger the results became. Gender was an interesting and strong factor in that the daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely to reject a heterosexual orientation whereas sons of gay fathers were least likely to do so.

I then compiled data from 26 studies about GLB parenting and found that children of GLB parents were more likely to report a nonheterosexual orientation than were children of heterosexual parents in those studies, an effect that was strongest for mothers.

Third, I studied reports from a number of cultures from around the world and found that the less strongly those cultures condemned homosexuality, the less rare was its actual (open) practice.

Thus, all three sources of data indicate that sexual orientation, at least in terms of its open expression, is subject to the influence of social and cultural factors, including family background. While not surprising in terms of what social science theory might predict, the results differ greatly from the testimony of many experts at a host of previous court cases concerning gay or lesbian parenting.

Furthermore, my analysis of previous data, some of which has seldom been mentioned, showed that gay or lesbian parents were less likely to want their children to grow up to be heterosexual than were heterosexual parents. Gay and lesbian parents also seemed less likely to expect that their children would grow up to be heterosexual. Thus, both parental expectations and aspirations tend to pressure children to model their parent's own sexual orientation, providing a clear pathway for parental sexual orientation to influence a child's sexual orientation.

Some gay activists want to discredit Professor Schumm and his research though one has to ask why if there are no problems with homosexuality. The problem for gay activists is the public is uncomfortable with the promotion of homosexuality and the resulting behavior. And that uncomfortable is reasonable in light of the negative health consequences of the behavior.

Such research has significant implications for the gay adoption and homosexual "marriage" debates.

Proposed online homosexual high school uses students as "guinea pigs".

There was a story in the Pioneer Press today about the first proposed online homosexual high school, called "GLBTQ Online High School." It will be based in Maplewood, cost $5,900 a year. So far 24 kids have applied and 100 people have applied for staff positions.

What's one to make of it? First, it strikes me as a bit unusual, even bizarre that the school is organized around a person's sexual preferences, e.g. who one desires to have sex with. What would one think of a school which advertised itself as a "Heterosexual school catering to students who were sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex." Yet that's exactly what the proposed school is doing in terms of homosexuality.

Second, parents should be very leery of the school. It smacks of indoctrination rather than education. The curriculum of the school is supposed to differ from traditional school by being more "'GLBTQ-friendly.' That involves abolishing negative messages and highlighting gay, bisexual and transgender people in history." There's clearly a social agenda in place, promoting acceptance of homosexuality rather than educating which would supposedly include various perspectives on homosexuality.

One alleged "advantage" of the school is "It also removes gay students from potentially hostile school environments and places them in what he touts as a 'safe and welcoming educational community.' Instead of facing bullies every day, students would be learning with other students who understand their concerns." The question is why does it have to be an overtly homosexual environment? Can't avoidance of a "hostile school environment" be achieved through a non-homosexual online program. Again, more evidence that the goal is indoctrination and a social agenda rather than education.

Finally, the school will aggressively promote acceptance of unhealthy sexual behaviors and lifestyle among impressible and often confused adolescents . Homosexual behavior is demonstrably unhealthy yet in the school it will be actively affirmed throughout the curriculum. On top of the curriculum, the program does so by isolating kids so they won't be exposed anything but pro-homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender messages. This will certainly be detrimental to the kids involved with the school.

The organizer says no other school has done this. He says, "people ask us, what's the research behind this? We are the research." Sounds like an admission that the students are being used as guinea pigs.

The bottom line is more kids will be put at risk, emotionally and physically because of the school and it's aggressive promotion of homosexuality.

OutFront Minnesota's day at the Capitol

I had some interesting encounters at the legislature today. I was there lobbying on a wide variety issues which happened to be the same day OutFront Minnesota has their annual lobbying day.

I had some respectful, but passionate encounters with individuals who recognized me and came over to talk. (Someone even wanted their picture taken with me.) Which I'm fine with and all for. The public rhetoric by some homosexual activists is name calling and platitudinal statements not rational discourse.

A couple of grandparents came up to me and said how great their grandkids were doing with their two moms, one of whom is their daughter. I asked them if kids don't need a mom and dad. He said, no two parents of whatever sex is what's important. I said that's interesting. All one has to do is visit the state prison to find that 85% of the prisoners didn't have a father in their lives suggests other wise. Having a mom and a dad is essential for the existence of the child so to with their upbringing.

He also said that homosexuals are born that way. I said where is the evidence for that statement. After three or four repeated requests he couldn't cite the studies but he'd send it to me. (My view is there isn't a gay gene but that individuals may have a predisposition towards homosexuality which poor family or lack of an adequate relationship with a particular parent may trigger.) I noted that even if there's a biological basis, an individual always has a choice as to the behavior they engage in.

I also was engaged by a liberal baptist pastor and the parents with a homosexual son. The pastor of course couldn't find any example in the Bible for the endorsement of homosexual marriage though he did throw out the usual example of David and Jonathan and their relationship. I pointed out there's a difference between same sex love which is fine and a good thing and same sex sex which is not a good thing in addition to being unhealthy. People often confuse the two. So too with David and Jonathan's example.

The pastor also said it was wrong for me to attempt to impose my religious views on other people through the laws. It violated the separation of church and state. I responded that I thought it was hypocritical for him to say it was wrong for me to promote views consonant with my views in the legislature but not for him to promote his religious based views. I think he had one of those "ah ha" moments.

The mom told me it was hurtful when I opposed equality for her son regarding marriage. I said I find it hurtful to me when she attempts to redefine such an important institution in society which will harm so many people. (I think the appeal to personal hurtful is generally an emotional, manipulative technique.) I also said that the issue wasn't marriage equality, because nothing was preventing her son from getting married now. The difference was they were seeking to redefine the whole institution of marriage to something much different not just seek access to it. The father, though he didn't agree, said I made a fair argument.

I frankly enjoy interactions of people I disagree with when they seek to engage in a rational discussion of the issue. The more this can occur the better for all concerned.

Endorse homosexuality or lose your religious liberties.

I've always thought the biggest threat to religious liberties in the United States is the aggressive homosexual movement. They intend force people to accept or endorse homosexual behavior or else lose their businesses, churches, and/or free speech.

A recent Washington Post article gives a number of examples of homosexuality trumping religious freedom.

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

And let's be clear; this is about behavior not the individual. When persons identify themselves as gays and lesbians they are by definition identifying themselves by what they do -- same sex sexual behavior. It's not an immutable trait one can observe. It's a behavior which is demonstrably unhealthy.

Certainly, people who identify with homosexuality should have the same first amendment and legal protections under the law. But not special protections based on their behavior. And that's what they are now demanding of society and individuals.

McDonald's backs down on promoting homosexuality -- AFA boycott ends.

Back in July, I wrote about the comments of a McDonald's spokesman who associated people who opposed their promotion of homosexuality with being advocates of hatred.

At the time McDonald's was actively supporting a homosexual corporate group, which among other things, was advocating for homosexual marriage. They also sponsored homosexual events like the 2007 San Francisco Gay Pride parade with a television ad. The American Family Association objected but was rebuffed. At the time AFA said, "Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the cultural war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose the same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate." AFA then called for a boycott of McDonald's nationally.

Well, it seems McDonald's looked at their bottom line and their corporate image and decided they didn't want to pick sides in the culture war. According to AFA,

Great news! Because of AFA supporters like you, McDonald’s has told AFA it will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald’s. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald’s joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald’s said it’s Vice President, Richard Ellis, has resigned his position on the board of directors of NGLCC and his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew it’s membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.

In an e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners, the company said, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.”

We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager.

I appreciate McDonald's doing the right thing though I wish they would have done it for the right reasons. Not merely because they seem to be concerned about their bottom line.

Ideology ripe with denial and blame

Many recent comments reflect an ideology ripe with denial and blame. For instance, trying to deflect attention away from the gay community regarding AIDS/HIV. Below is an excerpt from a previous post quoting Matt Foreman.

"Recently, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task force said, 'Internally, when these numbers come out, the established gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.'”

Other comments seem to justify unhealthy sexual behavior because others are doing it. For the record, MFC is opposed to unhealthy sexual behavior gay or straight.

ELCA and homosexuality

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.

Hale teacher training may qualify for Welcoming Schools

Seems like Principal Brancale is getting ahead of himself. Although "Welcoming Schools" has yet to be approved by Curriculum and Instruction, Hale teachers are being trained to teach anti-bullying curriculum say sources inside Hale Elementary.

Last week, thirteen substitute teachers were paid to fill in for teachers attending a “bullying” training session. Sources say the training was not for "Welcoming Schools" but will “qualify them to teach Welcoming Schools” next Fall.

Brancale has said on several occasions that "Welcoming Schools" won't cost the taxpayer money. Did the substitutes work for free?

Jesse Teben from Out4Good facilitated the training.

Are Hale Elementary teachers being bullied into providing bullying incidences?

Sources inside Hale Elementary report that the justification for bringing Welcoming Schools into Hale is suspect. Apparently, the number of incidences of GLBT bullying is lower than reported by Principle Brancale at the Parent Information meeting in February and other occasions. Allegedly the cases he references lack the formal reporting practices of the district. Our sources report teachers feel pressured to supply bullying incidents and are under a gag order to not speak about Welcoming Schools to parents.


Stay tuned.

Welcoming Schools "anti-bullying" curriculum

Katherine Kersten's column regarding the Human Rights Campaign curriculum, "Welcoming Schools" is a warning for all Minneapolis Schools.

The real agenda behind schools' anti-bullying curriculum
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: May 11, 2008 - 10:14 PM

The bully is the scourge of the elementary school playground. So who could object to a new anti-bullying curriculum scheduled to be tested in three Minneapolis elementary schools -- Hale, Jefferson and Park View -- and adopted districtwide if successful?

But what if that curriculum is really a disguise for a very different agenda brought to Minneapolis by the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based gay and transgender advocacy group? What if its lessons have little to do with bullying, and much to do with ensuring that kids as young as age 5 submit to HRC's orthodoxy on family structure, even if it differs from their own parents' view?

Click Here for link to column

Stay tuned

Because it's unhealthy stupid!

Two recent stories underscore the unhealthy ideology behind “gay rights” and comprehensive sex education that is endangering our children and our national health.

The first is the outbreak of a drug resistant, highly contagious staph infection in U.S. hospitals. A new study by the University of California, San Francisco reported that the strain has spread rapidly in the homosexual populations of San Francisco and Boston. They feared the “flesh eating” infection “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.

In a Reuter’s interview, Dr. Binh Diep, the researcher who led the study, said, “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable … ‘We think that it's spread through sexual activity.’”

Beware extremists claiming that anyone can catch the infection. Perhaps. However, before it spreads to the general population lets point out that those indulging in high-risk, anonymous sex with multiple partners aren’t just anyone.

In another story, San Jose University has banned blood drives from campus because homosexuals (a high risk category for HIV/AIDS) are not allowed to donate. According to Citizen Link, “San Jose State students and faculty donate about 300 units of blood a year, and, according to Michele Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center, any further losses could put local patients in jeopardy.”

“We’re not arguing anything about the science," said Larry Carr, university vice president. "We’re not in a position to argue the science. We have a conflict with a nondiscrimination policy on our campus.”

Parents should demand that Carr resign, as he is endangering the health of the students, the blood supply and the community at large. He is allowing political correctness to trump sound medical standards. In an era of rampant sexually transmitted diseases this is criminal.

In Minnesota Clamydia is up. STD’s are up. Unwanted pregnancies are up, and yet the cowardly and deceitful comprehensive sex ed ideologs - and their media shills - blame abstinence and demand condom/dental dam* based indoctrination for our innocent youth.

Has it occurred to these dangerous ideologs that all these precautions (condoms, dental dams, vaccines, pills, abortions) are proof that they are encouraging our children to play in a disease infested playground?

A healthy dose of science teaches us that unhealthy sex begets unhealthy consequences and teaching our children to practice unhealthy behavior - even with a dental dam or condom - is child abuse.

* A dental dam is a piece of latex used for oral sex. Even the CDC has stated "No barrier methods for use during oral sex have been evaluated as effective by the FDA."

What is truth? What is compassion and love?

The "What is truth?" line was made famous by Pontius Pilate in his confrontation with Jesus the day before His crucifixion. That continues to be the issue confronting all of us and particularly in present day America.

That comes to mind when I saw the protest by homosexuals against Catholic Co-Adjudicator Archbishop Nienstedt who is being castigated for simply restating the Catholic view of homosexual behavior.

So many in our post-modern society believe we decide what is true when in fact we have no such luxury. It's laughable really. Like saying we can legislate a change in the law of gravity.

The same thing applies to the issue of compassion and love. Nick Coleman doesn't see a lot of compassion in the Archbishop's comments. In fact the exact opposite is true. Compassion involves desiring the best for other people and if people are doing something which will harm them now and for eternity, it's the compassionate, loving thing to warn the people that what they are doing is putting their lives at risk. That's exactly what the Archbishop Nienstedt is doing as he states in his response to Coleman's column.

Here's the Archbishop's response to Coleman's charges:

In a Nov. 28 column, Nick Coleman accuses me of not being compassionate toward friends and relatives of persons with same-sex attractions. I vigorously deny the charge. For 13 years I prepared priesthood candidates for celebrating the Sacrament of Penance by counseling them to welcome persons with warmth, compassion and understanding. Anyone who has celebrated that same sacrament with me knows I follow my own advice.

What Coleman wants is for the church I represent to be accepting and compassionate toward homosexual acts and lifestyles. And that can never be.

Coleman further claims the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual acts are a "grave evil." What it does say is the following: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Genesis 19: 1-29, Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Corinthians 6: 10, 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' ... Under no circumstances can they be approved."

As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do.

JOHN C. NIENSTEDT, ST. PAUL;

COADJUTOR ARCHBISHOP,

ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS

Way to go, Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt.

Some upset with Archbishop Nienstedt for stating the obvious regarding Catholic Church's teaching on homosexual behavior

The Minneapolis/St. Paul Coadjuter Archbishop John C. Nienstedt has generated some controversy with his article in the diocesan newspaper, "The Catholic Spirit", on the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality.

The archbishop was writing a follow up column to an article written by the editor of "The Catholic Spirit", Joe Towalski.

The Archbishop made four points:

First, Catholic churches, colleges and other institutions shouldn't be inviting in speakers who oppose the church's teaching.

Second, those who engage in homosexual behavior and those who promote or encourage such behavior are guilty of a mortal sin and have broken communion with the church.

Third, a good explanation of the church's teaching on homosexuality is found in a document entitled, "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care."

Fourth, there are efforts and opportunities already in existence to help persons who struggle with same sex attractions to not act on them.

Those offended by the Archbishop's comments of course have an issue with not just the Archbishop but the Catholic Church's position which has been around for quite a while. (Nearly two millennium.)

I think the news here is the willingness of the new Archbishop Nienstedt to boldly, straightforwardly state the Church's position on one of the more contentious social issues of our day.

Frankly, there is a crisis of truth in our society and culture. I'm excited to see the Archbishop speak out. Ultimately, speaking the truth is an act of love. Just look at the life of the person who embodied love and the conflict His words and life generated -- Jesus Christ. Of course, we must speak the truth in a spirit of love and concern for those we're addressing. But to assume there's a problem merely because conflict or controversy are generated is the wrong conclusion to draw.

What can gay supporters do with ex-gays but attempt to marginalize and/or discredit them

Homosexual activists are always arguing that they have no choice in their lifestyle. But when a person who was in the homosexual lifestyle for many years leaves it, it’s hard for them to know how to respond. A case in point is Janet Boynes. Janet was in the lesbian lifestyle for over a dozen years. It wasn’t pretty. It was a life filled with drug abuse, depression, eating disorder and jealous relationships. She views herself driven into lesbian because of her horrible family upbringing and poor relationships with men.

Janet speaks nationally on the topic and recently gained the attention of Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Monitor, a liberal online newsletter. Andy seeks to marginalize her views.

Andy challenges for her assertion that lesbianism is marked by high levels of destructive behaviors. Andy writes that people know lesbians who grow up with stable, drug free and happy lives. Certainly there are homosexuals who aren’t involved in drugs and are content with their lives. However, when looking at the overall pattern of the lifestyle that isn’t the case. There are studies showing people who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately depressed, suicidal, abusing drugs, and have a shorter life expectancy.

It’s analogous to smoking. Are there smokers who live long, happy lives? Certainly. But on average smoking is bad for your health and we shouldn’t suggest it isn’t.

The same is true with homosexuality. On average it’s not a happy lifestyle. To suggest otherwise is not helpful to individual person or broader society. That’s why the message of Janet Boynes is so important to hear and why some strongly oppose it.

Lutherans Say 'Committed' Relationships OK for Gay Clergy

From Citizen Link

'This decision will be an excuse for bishops to disobey policy.'

The 4.8 million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) continues to loosen its standards on homosexuality and clergy celibacy.

During its weeklong assembly that ended Saturday, members voted to encourage church leaders to "refrain from or demonstrate restraint" in disciplining gay clergy who are in committed relationships. The thousand church members, meeting at Chicago's Navy Pier, voted down a measure that would have ended the church's celibacy requirement for gay clergy.

"To refrain from discipline in the home is bad parenting, but we're about to do so in Christ's Church," said Jaynan Clark Egland, president of WordAlone Network.

WordAlone is a Lutheran grassroots network concerned that the ELCA is losing its Christ-centered focus.
The Rev. Mark Chavez is director of WordAlone and Lutheran CORE, a coalition that includes WordAlone. "This decision will be an excuse for bishops to disobey ELCA policy," he said. "This decision does not reflect the will of the people, but of bishops and clergy who disregard God's word.

Chavez encourages Lutherans to get involved in the decision-making process of their denomination. "Take responsibility for the future of the denomination," he said. "We do not hope for further division. We are hoping for just the opposite."