ELCA embraces homosexual clergy and moral relativism

ELCA embraces homosexual clergy and moral relativism

Group says ELCA has embraced post modernism and rejected the clear teaching of Scripture and Christian practice for nearly 2000 years.

Minneapolis – Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, said today that the vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (ELCA) to allow congregations to hire clergy in homosexual relationships indicates that the ELCA has fully embraced moral relativism and abdicated it’s moral authority in the community.

"With this vote to affirm homosexual behavior and clergy, the ELCA has fully embraced moral relativism and jettisoned it's moral authority in the community. They've embraced post modernism and rejected the clear teaching of Scripture and Christian practice for nearly 2000 years,” said Prichard.

"Speaking as a Lutheran, with this vote the ELCA needs to change it's name. It's no longer 'Lutheran' or 'Evangelical.' They have turned their back on the authority of the bible, the foundation on which Martin Luther started the Reformation,” said Prichard.

"What's the outcome of this vote? To find the answer, all one has to do is look at the Episcopalians who embraced homosexual behavior a few years ago. They are hemorrhaging members, because they no longer take the Scripture seriously or stand for anything grounded in objective truth,”
"It would be interesting to hear what Martin Luther would say about this. Knowing how Martin Luther thought, it wouldn't be printable."

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if...

The only thing that stands in the way of the legalization of homosexual marriage are pastors who are faithful to God’s design for marriage and family. In Minnesota there are thousands of pastors who have remained faithful but many others have been taken captive by secular dogma.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe it’s “hateful” to disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe you can’t love someone if you disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe that homosexual sex is healthy.
You believe that scientific studies confirm that homosexual sex is healthy.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe “civil rights” trumps God’s design for marriage.
You believe God’s design for marriage should not influence our marriage laws.
You believe that God’s design for marriage is nothing more than a list of “benefits and legal rights.”
You believe that the definition of marriage is a secret plot to elect republicans.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe that God’s design for children to have a mother and a father is strictly a religious belief.
You believe that a child’s need for a mother and a father is not scientific.
You believe “two loving people in a committed relationship” are the same as a mother and a father.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe that God’s design for marriage is “intolerant” or “homophobic.”
You believe “all you need is love.”
You believe that God’s design for marriage is not scientific.
You believe that God’s design for man, woman and marriage is strictly a religious belief.
You believe God’s design for man and woman is not scientific.
You believe that legalizing homosexual marriage will improve God’s design for marriage.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You are afraid to speak the truth.

The people have spoken

We are a post-racial nation with a post-modern president.

Congratulations President-elect Obama.

Doug Kmiec on Obama: moral confusion or worse?

I mentioned earlier this week a LA Times column by law professor Douglas Kmiec who's Catholic and active supporter of Barack Obama. His endorsement has generated attention because he's a Catholic and been viewed as a conservative.

It was bad enough he would support the strongly pro-abortion Obama, but since then he's attempted to justify his support for Obama by attempting to reconcile his pro-life beliefs with Obama extremist views on abortion. His attempts at self justification have only resulted in him digging himself a bigger hole which only further diminishes his credibility.

His effort to justify supporting a stridently pro-abortion political candidate in the context of his Catholic beliefs puts him in the same company as VP candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who attempted to justify their pro-abortion views with their Catholic faith. Archbishop Chaput's recent comments on such efforts by Biden and Pelosi also apply to Kmiec. Chaput said, "To suggest--as some Catholics do--that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

Kmiec does seem hypnotized by Obama rhetoric. He points to Obama's comment in the last Presidential debate when he writes, quoting Obama, "Abortion is 'always a tragic situation,' he said, and we should 'try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances.'"

Obama's comments are merely the rephrasing of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra which merely served as a smoke screen for abortion on demand policies.

While paying lip service to the "tragic situation" of abortion, Obama remains radically pro-abortion. He opposes outlawing the partial birth abortion procedure unless it includes a "health exception" which everyone knows is a blank check for abortion for any reason any time.

And while an Illinois state senator he opposed the Illinois Infant's Born Alive Act which would have banned infanticide. I blogged on that early this summer.

And he certainly will appoint judges who will continue to uphold the current, judicially imposed "abortion on demand" regime.

Yet Kmiec is mesmerized by Obama. He asks the question: "So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes..."

What's the basis for this view? Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

In essence what Kmiec's saying is it's OK to support a person who actively supports policies which permit and encourage the unfettered killing of the unborn as long as the person also supports condom education ("Appropriate education" is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive education at the expense of abstinence education.) along with funding for adoption and government welfare programs.

The American Catholic bishops pointed out the inconsistency of this view in their 1998 "Living the Gospel of Life" statement which says,

Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Just because a politician may be right on other issues doesn't excuse their continued support for abortion. Kmiec totally ignores this reality.

Kmiec further seeks to justify his view by saying, the repeal of the judicial protection of abortion found in Roe v. Wade really isn't that important; it won't make any difference. Kmiec says, "Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion." That defies logic. The striking down of abortion laws by Roe v. Wade led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. It's repeal will no doubt change the public's understanding of the rightness of abortion and result in increased legal restrictions which will mean fewer abortions.

Of course, if Obama is elected president his commitment to appoint pro-abortion judges will only insure continuation of the current abortion on demand regime.

Kmiec then curiously suggests that pursuing a pro-life position will only cause division in our nation and will impose a religious view on the nation. "Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy."

Give me a break. He knows better than to suggest that protecting innocent human life is somehow the imposition of narrow religious tenet. If that's the case then our laws against murder are at risk because they're imposition of the one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus. And do we back away from issues simply because they will cause division? If that's the standard then slavery and racial segregation would never have been challenged.

I think this statement shows Kmiec's true colors. It's an argument, tactic of the Left used to marginalize religious conservative voices. It raises questions as to the sincerity of his espoused support for the pro-life position.

Then Kmiec injects a postmodernist argument that we need to let indivdiuals decide what's true.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Here Kmiec makes the pro-abortion argument that "this sensitive moral decision" depends on "religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths." So does that mean if you believe the voice of God is telling you to kill your unborn baby go ahead and do it? He certainly seems to be saying just that.

Kmiec needs to engage in some truth in advertising by no longer calling himself a pro-life Catholic. He's embraced the Joe Biden view of "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't want to impose that view on anybody else." That's moral relativism and fundamentally opposed to moral truth and the inalienable right to life.

There's therapy for everything, including "money disorders"

I was struck by a headline in the Pioneer Press this morning regarding the "money disorders" people are dealing with in light of the turbulence on Wall Street.

In our therapy driven culture, psychologists reign supreme in helping people deal with emotional problems in their lives. It's not surprising then that there would be talk about "money disorders" individuals are dealing with, resulting from bad behaviors or things beyond their control.

Certainly we all have struggles and difficulties in our lives. The problem with exclusively looking at things from a "disorder" standpoint is it tends to remove personal responsibility for one's actions. The moral dimension of right and wrong, good and bad actions are often ignored and along with it, the personal responsibility to change. If something is a disorder, it suggests being beyond one's control and hence responsibility.

Yet this is the dominant mindset in our modern/postmodern world. Morality, ethics, God and so forth are all passe.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

In six days of group therapy, they dug deep into the roots of what psychologists call "money disorders," the slew of unhealthy and self-destructive behaviors that are not as extreme as pathological gambling, kleptomania or compulsive shopping, but nevertheless afflict large numbers of people.

While it is difficult to pinpoint the number of patients or practitioners, experts in psychology and financial planning say the number of professionals offering to treat money disorders has multiplied in the past few years.

MONEY-EMOTION LINK

Although there are many self-help books on how to become rich, the fields of psychology and financial planning have been slow to link money and emotion. And money is still a great cultural taboo that is rarely discussed openly in this country, experts say.

"I'm still working on my money issues, and I will be for a long time," said Champeau, 57, who went to night school and eventually became a psychotherapist herself, allowing her to earn a living. But her fear of debt is still an issue: she buys much of her wardrobe at Goodwill. "I have always felt alone and a lot of shame around money," she said.

Among the problem financial behaviors identified by psychologists in recent years are overspending, underspending (aka "Depression mentality"), serial borrowing, financial infidelity ("cheating" on a spouse by spending and lying about it), workaholism, financial incest (lording money over relatives to control them), financial enabling (throwing large sums at, say, adult children who then are not motivated to support themselves), hoarding and plenty of guilt and shame around poverty and wealth.

The financial storm thundering from Wall Street is likely to force many people to examine their relationships with money well beyond their portfolios and bank accounts, some psychologists say. Even before this month's dire news, an online survey by the American Psychological Association in June found 75 percent of the more than 2,500 adults surveyed said money was the No. 1 source of stress in their lives.

"This is a dangerous time," said Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist who is one of the authors of a study published last month in the journal Psychological Services that examines the state and treatment of money disorders. "And when people come for help around money, it goes so much deeper than what is in their bank accounts. It's a portal into unresolved family histories and generational history patterns."

Klontz's study looked at various money disorders and at a treatment center, Onsite, in Nashville, which was owned until recently by his father, Ted Klontz, a psychologist and life coach who still leads the "healing money issues" program there, along with a financial planner.