The incredible shrinking church

Over at The Federalist Alexander Griswold has a good article about the decline of Christian denominations which have discarded the clear teaching of Scripture to embrace much of the homosexual agenda.

Opening part from the article:

By now, we’ve all heard the refrain that U.S. churches need liberalize their teachings on sexuality and homosexuality or rapidly decline. The logic behind the argument is simple: more and more Americans are embracing homosexuality and same-sex marriage, including growing numbers of religious Millennials. So long as churches remain the face of opposition to gay marriage, those churches will shrink into irrelevancy when gay marriage (inevitably, we are told) becomes a settled political issue.

These arguments often see church acceptance of homosexuality as a carrot as well as a stick. It isn’t so much that denouncing homosexuality will drive people away from church, but that embracing it will also lead people into church. LGBT individuals and their supporters, many of whom hold a dim view of religion after a decades-long culture war, will reconsider church if denominations remove their restrictions on gay marriage and ordination.

But a number of Christian denominations have already taken significant steps towards liberalizing their stances on homosexuality and marriage, and the evidence so far seems to indicate that affirming homosexuality is hardly a cure for membership woes. On the contrary, every major American church that has taken steps towards liberalization of sexual issues has seen a steep decline in membership.

Griswold goes on to describe the declining fortunes of the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). My wife and I are former members of the ELCA who chose to leave after the disastrous 2009 decision to ordain non-celibate homosexual clergy and to bless homosexual unions, so this news strikes home in a significant way. Griswold's article well worth reading, especially for its detailed information about the rate of decline of each denomination.

However, I have one problem with the article. Griswold seems to suggest that the effort to change the church's stance on homosexuality is primarily to recruit new members and arrest overall decline of Christianity. In fairness to those who succeeded in changing the ELCA's position in 2009, I do not think this is necessarily so. Increasing the ELCA's membership was one stated reason for pushing for the change, but in my opinion it was not the primary one.

Instead, the proponents of the 2009 changes seemed to make three basic arguments:

Scripture is not being properly translated/applied. Regarding homosexuality as a sin is nothing more than a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible really says.

Lack of proper scientific understanding. The Bible was written in an era before modern psychology, so the early writers lacked a true understanding of homosexuality.

Social justice. Any religion which regards homosexuality as a sin is false and must be changed. The old attitudes towards homosexuality are on the same moral level as racism and sexism, and need to be ended.

There was some inconsistency in the reasons that proponents gave for the 2009 changes. How (for example) is it possible for Scripture to be both misinterpreted and wrong? How can the Bible actually permit homosexual behavior and be the flawed product of writers who were ignorant of modern science and how it relates to homosexuality? The argument made by the proponents of the 2009 changes could be quite murky at times.

Of all the reasons used to support changing the ELCA's stance towards homosexuality in 2009, only one - the social justice argument - seemed to me to be the primary motivation. Even before the disastrous decision to discard Scripture in favor of secular wisdom the ELCA had shown an obsession with political activism masquerading as Christianity. The Gospel continually took a back seat to political pronouncements and lobbying elected leaders.

And here is where the seeds of destruction were sown. The Bible clearly regards the homosexual lifestyle as sinful and contrary to God's plan for His creation. But the powerful homosexual lobby decried this attitude as homophobic. So the false teachers and prophets of the ELCA rejected the Gospel in favor of secular political activism and goals. They have rejected the true God, and are working on making another god in their own politically correct image. It is no wonder the ELCA is hemorrhaging members.

But (the counter argument will go) what about gays and lesbians who felt alienated and unwelcome by the church's previous negative stance towards homosexuality? Should we not rejoice in the fact that at least some of them will now come to church and embrace Christ?

My response is this: are these new brothers and sisters in Christ being given the Bread of Life - or the spiritual junk food that the world offers and which can only harm them? All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and we need a Redeemer to save us from the consequences of our sins and reconcile us to God. By discarding the clear teaching of the Bible the ELCA is telling us a hellish lie: we get to decide what is sinful and what is not. Put another way: we get to veto God's commandments and replace them with ones we find more suitable. Two thousand years ago Jesus warned us about leaders who would do such a thing:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (Matthew 23:15 (NIV))

To my Christian brothers and sisters who are still in the ELCA, I beg you: do not let the false teachers and prophets of the ELCA succeed in dragging you into hell. I will not put myself in the place of God and tell you to leave your church - God will make it clear if He wants you to leave or not - but be aware that the false god the ELCA is creating for itself is a jealous god, and wants to separate you from the real God if it can. Your soul belongs to the One who loves you, and not the one who tells you to conform to the ways of the world.

Reading list

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield.

A&E ducks

A&E has backed down. Duck Dynasty will return next spring - with the cast intact.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have never seen the show. I will probably not watch it in the future. But at least extremist groups like GLAAD appear to have lost.

Christians should continue to love and pray for our enemies. But loving our enemies does not mean we lie on their behalf. We are all sinners - and I speak as an experienced sinner. At some point they need to hear the truth that homosexuality is wrong - even if it means they will hate us.

Don't duck the issue

OK - that's a bad pun. Pretty much everyone has heard about Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's comments about homosexuals not entering into the Kingdom of God, and the unhinged reaction to them from certain individuals and organizations that regard themselves as "tolerant". You can read the Robertson family's response here. (Disclaimer: I have never seen Duck Dynasty).

Frankly, this is just run-of-the-mill anti-Christian bigotry that is becoming more prevalent in the US secular media. As persecution goes, it does not match what many Christians face on a daily basis worldwide. However, I do have a few questions. I wonder how many of those who were angered by Robertson's comments believe in God, heaven and hell. If they do not, then why are they enraged that Robertson is saying that homosexuals will be condemned to a hell they do not think is real by a God they say is imaginary?

American Christian, be aware. Don't think the bigots won't come after you. Don't duck the issue. Pray without ceasing. Love those who hate you, but don't lie to them and say they are doing right when they are clearly not.

The war on science - Regnerus edition

The University of Texas finds no evidence of scientific misconduct against associate professor of sociology Mark Regnerus. I have written about this subject in the past.

Key quote:

"I think it's a just and wise decision, and I'm certainly pleased with it," Regnerus told the American-Statesman in an email. "It was a thorough and fair process, and conducted professionally."

Regnerus found that the adult children of gay parents reported significantly different, and often worse, life experiences than the children of married, heterosexual biological parents.

While it is good that Regnerus was cleared of wrongdoing, the damage has been done. The next time a university professor does something that annoys a homosexual activist, will he or she have to worry about having their name and reputation dragged through the mud?

Also, will there be any legal consequences for Scott Rosensweig, a "freelance writer" who leveled these false charges against Regnerus? Or is he free to re-group and try again? In the article quoted above Rosensweig didn't exactly sound contrite for his attempted smear of Regnerus.

Staring down the bullies - Part II

Yesterday's great counter-protest at Chick-fil-A apparently did not go very well. Judge for yourself at one such protest, where protestors berated and mocked a black man who was quietly reading the Bible (h/t: Anne Sorock at Legal Insurrection):

On Wednesday, there was this ugly incident by a same-sex marriage named Adam Smith who bullied a Chick-fil-A drive-through clerk:

I am trying to figure out when such blatant hatred, bigotry and intolerance became acceptable to so many. Or why so many in the secular media are either willing to ignore it or excuse it.

A note of thanks goes to Anne Sorock of Legal Insurrection, who showed great courage in the face of such ugly hate and bigotry.

Staring down the bullies

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit is a daily must-read for me. While I do not agree with everything he writes, I respect both his opinion and his blogging style.

Today he was up to his usual high standards concerning the nationwide Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Professor Reynolds is a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, so he is hardly a right-wing Christianist nut who cane be safely ignored by secular progressives. Reynolds pointed out that many who showed their support today for Chick-fil-A did not agree with the company president's stated opposition to same-sex marriage, but were angered by the bullying tactics and ugly threats from political leaders in Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago. I found that very encouraging.

Unlike some parts of the world, the USA is still a nation that (usually) protects religious freedom and the right to free speech. There are many in the secular media, entertainment industry, and academia who want to impost totalitarianism in the name of fighting "intolerance" (meaning banning any idea or opinion that disagrees with their own), but I believe they are at present a minority, albeit a powerful one. Whether the USA remains a free nation is very much in question, however.

I did not have the opportunity to participate in today’s “boycott”. I have heard that some supporters of same-sex marriage intend to stage their own demonstrations, presumably to intimidate employees and customers. If so, I plan to patronize Chick-fil-A on that day and enjoy crossing the picket lines. Bullying triumphs only by default. Stand up to the bullies and show them you are not afraid.

The war on science

The following article caught my eye this morning: Pakistan and the Higgs boson.

Key quote:

Have you heard about Pakistan’s contribution to last week’s discovery of the Higgs Boson? No, thought not. Remarkably, the reason you probably won’t have is because Pakistan doesn’t want you to.

Dr Abdus Salam, a theoretical physicist, carried out pioneering work in the 1960s to suggest the existence of a hypothetical particle after creating a grand unification theory for weak forces and electromagnetic fields. He won the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his efforts, the only Pakistani to have ever received the honour.

Yet, his name is largely airbrushed from textbooks in Pakistan and is rarely mentioned in public debate. The problem is that he belongs to the Ahmadi sect, a branch of Islam which is officially regarded as heretical by the Pakistani state and which is constitutionally discriminated against. Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslim or build mosques, and are frequently the victims of violent attack.

After Salam died and was buried in the Punjab his headstone recorded his legacy as: ‘the first Muslim Nobel Laureate’. The word ‘Muslim’ has since been forcibly scrubbed out.

Can't happen in the West, right? We are so much more tolerant and dedicated to the scientific method, yes? No religious or political bigotry to worry about in scientific research and institutes of higher learning, eh? Thank goodness (or Darwin) that can't happen here.

Think again.

Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas-Austin, recently published a study about the children of homosexual parents and the problems that they experience. The study has provoked a backlash against the professor, who is now the target of a fact-finding "inquiry".

Key quote from the Inside Higher-Ed article:

Regnerus disclosed the Bradley Foundation and Witherspoon Institute’s sponsorship of the study, acknowledging their conservative pedigrees and asserting that “the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.”

His disclosure squares with the code of ethics of the American Sociological Association, which does not prohibit sociologists from taking research funding from any particular funding source as long as the researcher discloses that relationship.

However, UT-Austin's standard appears to be stricter. “It is the policy of the University of Texas that research is conducted with integrity and free from any actual or apparent institutional or personal conflict of interest,” says the university’s Compliance and Ethics Guide. Texas researchers, the policy says, “must insure that there is no reasonable expectation that the design, conduct, and reporting of the research will be biased by any significant financial interest of an investigator responsible for the research or other educational activity.”

The university is currently conducting a pre-investigatory “inquiry” in response to a formal complaint lodged by Rosensweig. (The writer posted a copy of his complaint to his blog on The New Civil Rights Movement, a website dedicated to LGBT activism.) The difference between an inquiry and a full-blown investigation is that “the scope of the inquiry does not include exhaustive interviews or extensive analyses of research records,” according to the university’s Revised Handbook of Operating Procedures.

Aside from the ominous if vague terminology - just what the heck is a "pre-investigatory inquiry”, anyway? - the clumsy actions by the University of Texas have opened themselves up to the charge that the inquiry is political rather than scientific. The complaint against Regnerus was posted on a left-wing Web site, which appears to be an effort to undermine due process. Even more frightening, these "stricter" standards at UT seemed to have conveniently materialized out of nowhere.

As Glenn Reynolds, a law professor and supporter of gay/lesbians rights,wrote at his blog Instapundit:

I don’t know if the study’s any good or not — but I’m positive that if it had found that children of gay couples do better, there would be no such inquiry, regardless of who had funded it. And the point here is mostly to warn other researchers that it’s just better not to look into certain subjects, or to come up with the wrong conclusions if you do.

In many universities the so-called soft sciences (sociology, economics, psychology, etc.) have been largely ruined by political activism, and nowadays seem to do little more that ratify the prejudices of the majority of professors who make up those departments. But now there is a serious effort underway to break STEM (science, engineering, technology & mathematics) to the saddle of political correctness. Professor William Jacobson recently wrote about proposed efforts to apply Title IX to STEM enrollment. The underlying assumption is that the lower enrollment rates for women in STEM subjects represents discrimination, although proponents fail to explain why lower enrollments of men in (say) education do not also demonstrate anti-male prejudice.

For those who think this is no big deal, I would ask you the following: would you drive across a bridge or enter a skyscraper designed and built by someone who was enrolled because of Title IX and who graduated at the bottom of her class? Get ready, because you may have to face that situation some day! Mathematics and physics bow to no one, no matter how many lawsuits are threatened.

All of this is made much worse because of the fact that the secular media - whose scientific and engineering credentials are usually nonexistent - normally act as cheerleaders in the witch hunts against Professor Regnerus and others who reach the "wrong" conclusions. To be seen as even remotely critical of the homosexual lifestyle, global warming, or evolution is to invite personal attacks as a homophobe, a "denier", or a fundamentalist wacko. The self-described watchdogs of the press have become the attack dogs working for a narrow-minded few.

There is a war on science. The irony is that in true Orwellian fashion it is being waged by the very people who claim to represent scientific reason and progress.

The End?

Some Christians believe the end of the world is coming on May 21, 2011.

Harold Camping is the leader of Family Radio Worldwide, and is apparently the one behind this movement. Camping details his evidence for the impending end of the world at the link above.

Where to begin? For one thing, how did Camping arrive at the date May 21, 2011? His calculations (if I am understanding them correctly) run like this:

In Genesis 1, one day must be interpreted as a thousand years. This is crucial to Camping's date of 5/21/11.

The justification for one day being a thousand years comes from 2 Peter 3:8 ("But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (NIV)).

By this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8, Camping reasons that the world was created in 11,013 B.C. (and not 4004 B.C., as some Biblical scholars claim).

Following this reasoning, the Flood took place in 4990 B.C., which Camping regards as the crucial date for determining the date for the end of the world.

Using the formula 1 day = 1000 years, and starting with the 4990 B.C. date for the Flood, Camping comes up with the year 2011 (I have not been able to determine where May 21 came from).

I am not a Biblical scholar. My knowledge of Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek is equal to exactly zero, so I cannot get into an argument over whether "days" and "years" have interchangeable meanings.

But to me, there seems to be two serious problems with Camping's conclusions. For one, the link between the Flood story in Genesis and 2 Peter 3:8 seems extremely tenuous at best. Why (for example) does the "1 day = 1000 years" formula Camping relies on so heavily apply in this case and nowhere else in the Bible?

Worse still, there are statements like the following ones. In attempting to explain passages like Acts 1:7 and Matthew 24 (which tell us that we are not to know the exact time of the end of the world) Camping writes:

Therefore, regardless of how brilliant or how learned a theologian or Bible student might have been, or how diligently they studied the Bible or faithfully served Christ, it was impossible to learn from the Bible the timetable for the end of the world. Anyone who claimed he knew the time of the end was always wrong.

This is followed up almost immediately with:

In the Bible a wise man is a true believer, to whom God has given a profound trust in the authority of the Bible. True believers have been in existence since the beginning of time. But the timeline of history as it is revealed in the Bible was never revealed to the hearts of the true believers. For example, throughout most of the church age it was generally believed that Creation occurred in the year 4004 B.C.

However, about 35 years ago God began to open the true believers’ understanding of the timeline of history. Thus it was discovered that the Bible teaches that when the events of the past are coordinated with our modern calendar, we can learn dates of history such as Creation (11,013 B.C.), the flood of Noah’s day (4990 B.C.), the exodus of Israel from Egypt (1447 B.C.) and the death of Solomon (93l B.C.)*

However, it was not until a very few years ago that the accurate knowledge of the entire timeline of history was revealed to true believers by God from the Bible. This timeline extends all the way to the end of time. During these past several years God has been revealing a great many truths, which have been completely hidden in the Bible until this time when we are so near the end of the world.

Camping seems to be arguing that even true believers could not possibly know the exact time of the end of the world - until now. How convenient.

Camping's predictions are almost certainly incorrect, unless he has stumbled upon the actual time of the end of the world by blind luck. As to whether he is a crook or a sincere believer who has made a very embarrassing public error, only time will tell.

Reading Camping's rather bizarre claim about how modern-day believers now somehow have knowledge about the Bible not available to others in the past, I was struck at how similar his reasoning was to the ELCA's attempts to find Biblical justification for homosexual behavior. Like Camping, the leadership of the ELCA claims special knowledge unavailable to past Christians (modern-day understanding of homosexual behavior) validates their position. Like Camping, the ELCA uses numerous Biblical passages and Christian beliefs that usually have little or nothing to do with the issue at had. Like Camping, the ELCA skips over any evidence that contradict their claims. Like Camping, the ELCA's claims are well outside hundreds of years of Biblical scholarship (I am not a fan of "scholarship by consensus", but it does have some weight that cannot be casually cast aside).

And like Camping, even a layman can easily demolish the wishful think that makes up the ELCA's position by asking a few simple questions. Frankly, I find that more alarming than the end of the world.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Former Atheist Aims to Reverse Negative Christian Stereotypes.

The article is about the efforts of R. Brad White founder of Changing the Face of Christianity Inc. to overcome negative stereotype about Christianity among the young. A key quote from the article:

Dan Kimball opines in the beginning of his book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, that the emerging generation is spiritually open to talk about Jesus but are very disinterested in joining or being associated with church.

Kimball argues that pastors and ministers have lost touch with the younger generation by shutting out all other viewpoints and opinions but those of fellow Christians.

White has taken the argument a step further and states that church members and leaders have blatantly turned them off by "hating the sin and the sinner." He said this is most evident with homosexuality. Church leaders have mixed the Bible with politics to condemn homosexuals for their lifestyles, he lamented.

Though the sentiment may be based on the Bible, he noted, "The things we say and the way we say them turn them off."

The above quote from the Christian Post article reminded me of this skit from Monty Python:



I must confess (due to more than just a mortal fear of the soft cushions!) that I am not in sympathy with the goals of Mr. White and Mr. Kimball. For one thing, their approach has already been tried for decades in "mainline" denominations like the ELCA - and has been an unqualified disaster.

For another, trying to make the church more palatable to the world will never work. Jesus warned us about the conflict between the church and the world when He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." It is true that some Christians (including myself) have been guilty of hating both the sin and the sinner. But I do not think that is what is going on in this case. If anything, the church has been too timid in confronting the sin of homosexuality. Anyone who accepts the world's ground rules in any debate - rules which are stacked against Christianity - should be prepared to lose time after time. You cannot use the ways of the world to win converts to Christ.

But above all, young people need to hear the truth so they can make their own decision. We must tell young people the truth about homosexuality and many other things acceptable in popular culture, such as casual sex, pornography, disrespect of the elderly, contempt of tradition, etc. It is important that folks like Dan Kimball and Brad White realize that when the world (smug in its own self righteous cocoon and judgemental of all opposition) demands tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle, what it really wants is 100% acceptance with no dissent. In other words: total surrender.

Like the old women in the Monty Python skit: having the church confess to crimes it did not commit should be a cause for nothing except laughter.

Witness to the faith: Dale Mcalpine

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin. In the end the British police who arrested him had to pay a fine plus legal costs.

Freedom of speech seems to be safe for now in the UK.

Don't even think about leaving.....

A convention in Pennsylvania is drawing fire for its stance that homosexuals can turn from their lifestyle.

Future historians are going to write on the strange inconsistency of "tolerance" advocates who will defend to the death your right to agree with them. But if you are a homosexual and want to leave that behind and follow Christ ... well ... it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than it will be for you. Given the extreme intolerance of the homosexual movement towards those it regards as "traitors" one wonders: will former homosexuals wake up one morning to find a horse's head in their beds?

As a Christian with libertarian leanings I would be sympathetic to the calls for homosexuals to have the right to marry, so long as the Church is not forced to perform those marriages or recognize them. Homosexuality, prostitution, divorce, and pornography are all things that are bad for a society, but I do not believe that a government has the right to ban such things any more than a society should be forced to support the welfare state, "hate crime" laws, various "reform" proposals for immigration and campaign finance, or abortion. Each individual must choose whether to accept or reject Christ, and using the levers of government to force people to support some purely secular form of Christianity is evil.

But the ugly campaign of violence and intimidation that many homosexual advocates engaged in over California's Proposition 8, and the Big Brother monitoring of speech for "homophobia" has shaken many potential allies (including myself). The real issue, it seems, is the efforts of homosexuals to use government to force their belief on everyone else. Tammy Bruce, a lesbian who is also a libertarian, has commented on the cult-like aspects of what she terms the "gay elite". Here is an interesting quote from an interview:

I’ll give you an example when it comes to gay marriage. If Christians are against gay marriage, the gay elite don’t believe that’s because the Christian is concerned about tradition, concerned about the future of this nation, or has a series of issues (with it) surrounding their faith, instead, of course, the gay elite says, “Oh, they’re homophobes.”

They’ve made a decision because they hate me, that they’re thinking this way because of me, that they’re making that decision because they want to hurt me – as opposed to, that they may be against gay marriage because, again, of faith, because of the importance of the tradition of marriage. In fact, God forbid should they ever consider that it might not have anything to do with homosexuals at all, but it has everything to do with (people's) families, that kind of deeper thinking beyond one’s self, they’re incapable of.

That’s why on the abortion rights front there is no consideration that a pro-life individual is... really just a person of faith and really truly believes that (conception is) when life begins. Instead it’s about misogyny. It’s about hating women, it’s about controlling women, it’s about men’s jealousy of women, it’s all about us...

This captures perfectly not just the attitude of secular politicians who are pushing the homosexual agenda, but also the attitude of the ELCA and other post-Christian denominations who have rejected Christ in favor of secular politics. You are not merely wrong for opposing homosexual marriage and ordination of non-celibate homosexuals, you are some sort of sociopath or criminal for daring to question the prevailing beliefs of secular society. And if you are a person with homosexual tendencies who wants to reject that sin, then you are a self-hating gay or lesbian who is the Enemy (all of this is for your own good, of course).

Please pray for all who struggle with feelings of homosexuality.

Tell me what I want to hear - or I'll call you a bigot

Weekly Mass for gays ends in San Antonio.

Key quote:

"Our faith teaches us that the Church is a community of people, not a building," said local Dignity President Fred Anthony Garza. "So we will continue to meet in a more welcoming environment."

Aside from the Orwellian name - does anyone seriously believe that DignityUSA is doing this to promote "dignity"? - the fact that the Catholic Church was lax about enforcing its own beliefs is probably the most troubling part of this story.

One can only wonder what would happen if adulterers, racists, pedophiles, thieves, rapists and others decided to clamor for "dignity".

Witnesses to the faith: San Diego

A California appellate court has upheld a jury verdict which found that four San Diego firefighters should not have been forced to participate in the city’s “Gay Pride Parade."

Key quote:

During San Diego’s 2007 “Gay Pride Parade,” four firefighters from the SDFD were sexually harassed through lewd cat calls and obscene gestures at the event, which was replete with sexual displays and graphic images.

My own experience (as an instructor at a state community college) is that the homosexual movement's leadership is extremely vicious and intolerant of anyone who does not share their narrow-minded beliefs. In many ways they are much like the hardcore religious fundamentalists they profess to see lurking under ever bed.

It's not just government employees that will be forced into kneeling before powerful, politically-connected groups. As the ELCA delves more and more into the seedy world where politics is merged with religion Christians can expect the lines between extremist secular political organizations and the ELCA to become even more indistinct. Already there is talk of pressuring ELCA pastors to become active participants in "social justice" activities to promote gay/lesbian issues. The promises made by the ELCA's leadership to faithful Lutheran pastors to respect their views is already sliding down the memory hole. The ELCA's new god of secular political activism is a jealous god.

Please pray for government employees like the San Diego firefighters who are persecuted for their Christian beliefs. Please pray for faithful Lutherans who will be pressured to join in the ELCA's worship of secular political activism.

Declining membership

An interesting aricle at One News Now. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's decision of August 2009 to ordain non-celibate homosexuals and bless homosexual marriages has not yielded the fruits the leadership was hoping for. Membership is shrinking; not growing.

Key quote:

[Mark] Tooley, whose organization monitors mainline denominations in the U.S., contends there is a direct connection between membership loss and a denomination's position on same-sex "marriage."

"[That amounts to] direct rejection of biblical and historic Christian teachings," he explains. "And so theologically orthodox church members and theologically orthodox congregations have a hard time ignoring that new stance in the same way that they ignored for many decades a whole host of liberal political positions by their church hierarchy."

For many Lutherans, the ELCA's decisions about homosexuality was the final straw that broke the camel's back. But by no means was it the only one. The rejection of the Gospel in favor of radical secular politics has been causing the ELCA to hemorrhage members for years. The North American Lutheran Church (NALC) is an effort to give a home for faithful Lutherans who have been displaced by the ELCA's actions.

This is a terrible thing that the ELCA's leadership has done. All Christians should pray for the repentance of the ELCA and for it's return to the true Church.

And repentance is always possible. Even now there is still time to turn back. Please pray with me for a renewal of the Spirit with in the ELCA.

Formation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC)

The North American Lutheran Church has been established.

When the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted in August of 2009 to establish church ceremonies blessing homosexual marriage and to ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians, many Lutherans (including my wife and I) were upset. We had in effect been handed a unilateral divorce decree by the leadership of the ELCA. It is impossible to be faithful to the clear teachings of the Gospel against sexual immorality and remain in the ELCA.

But it was not just the ELCA's tragic decision of last August that prompted the formation of a new denomination. The NALC is a response to a wide variety of non-Christian practices and beliefs that are now the primary focus of the ELCA's leadership. As the ELCA drifted away from the God of Abraham in favor of a new god of secular political activism, there was a cry by Lutherans within the ELCA for a church that remained faithful. The NALC is an effort to be that church.

Please pray for the leadership of the NALC in their enormously difficult task. Please continue to pray for the repentance of the leadership of the ELCA, that they may come to reject their new false god of politics and rediscover the Gospel.

Disclaimer: my wife and I are presently attending a church that is associated with the Southern Baptists (how we ended up there is a long story). So in a sense we no longer have a dog in this fight. But any efforts by Christians to re-establish the supremacy of Scriptures in the face of falsehood needs our prayers and support.

It's not just about homosexuality...

......it's about the subordination of Biblical authority in the church to secular political pressure (hat-tip: Rev. Paul McCain at Cyberbrethren).



Some of the comments at Rev. McCain's site complained about the heavy-handed sarcasm employed in the video, and I agree with them. Nevertheless, the video is a good one since it reveals the incredibly weak reasoning that went into the ELCA radical decision of last August to bless gay/lesbian "marriages" and ordain non-celibate homosexuals.

Witness to the faith: Julea Ward

Julea Ward, a graduate student studying counseling at Eastern Michigan University, was dismissed from the program for refusing to renounce her Christian beliefs on homosexuality.

At public universities the US is slowly moving towards a religious litmus test for admission and graduation. Students like Julea who do not adhere to state-approved religious beliefs will be punished. It is ironic that many of the same individuls who denounce the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy are either silent in cases like this, or actively support this type of persecution.

Please pray for Christians everywhere who are the victims of state-sponsored persecution.

"How long, O' Lord....

...will this blog go on?"

This blog was meant to be an on-line diary in which I could express my grief and frustration with the apostasy of the ELCA. It was also a chance to write about spiritual issues that I found important and/or interesting.

But it will not go on forever. Like any diary, it will never be finished, only abandoned.

It is my prayer that other Lutherans who are distressed over the ELCA's destructive course and who have stumbled upon this blog will find comfort in the knowledge that they are not alone.

So how long will this blog go on?

It is clear that (barring complete black disaster) the ELCA prefers to glory in its error rather than be ashamed and repent. I and many others could write and plead and nag and beg forever, but until the leadership of the ELCA starts to feel shame and remorse they will not listen. So using this blog as a kind of conscience to prod the ELCA is not an option.

The answer is this: I will blog until I am tired of it, or until I see that it is causing more harm than good.

Two notes:

1. I do not have comments on this blog, and probably never will. Part of this is because I do not have time to properly moderate comments, but also because I have seen other blogs overrun with comments like "Why do you hate gays and lesbians so much?" or "Hate is not a family value" or other passive-aggressive nonsense. Gays and lesbians are like adulterers, alcoholics (I am one), drug addicts, prostitutes, tax collectors, the rich, the poor, the old, the young, Republicans and Democrats, men and women - sinners in need of a Savior, not magistrates empowered by secular politics or popular culture to judge God and run His Church for Him.



2. I am experimenting with the design of this blog, and have not found one that I like yet. So if things change suddenly and without warning, do not be surprised.

Pray for the whole Body of Christ. Pray for the leadership of the ELCA, that they repent. Pray for faithful Christians who have chosen to remain in the ELCA. Pray for faithful Christians who have chosen to leave the ELCA. Pray for the efforts to form a new confessional Lutheran denomination that will serve as a refuge for Christians fleeing the apostasy of the ELCA and its obsession with secular politics.

Stay or go?

Over at Cyberbrethren LCMS pastor Paul McCain has a post concerning the ELCA's move to place gay/lesbian clergy on its roster.

One of the comments on that post was from a Lutheran who was a member of a faithful confessional ELCA congregation. He was distressed at the thought of possibly having to leave when his pastor and congregation were still faithful to the Gospel, and I cannot say that I blame him.

But there are several problems for any faithful Christian who is contemplating staying in an ELCA congregation:

1. The ELCA is desperate to prevent a mass exodus of members and congregations. Any Christian who is faithful to the Gospel and stays in the ELCA will be cynically used by the ELCA's leadership as "proof" that what they did was not so bad. Be advised that if you stay in the ELCA your continued presence will be used to advance a lie.

2. Some faithful Christians are deeply distressed by the ELCA's apostasy, but feel that they should stay and continue to bear witness to the Truth. The problem with such witnessing is that likely it will be ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive. It would like going to a bar on Saturday night to speak out against the horrors of alcoholism. In one sense a bar is the perfect location to do this, since the place is probably hip-deep in people who need to hear the message. But a bar is the wrong venue for such an undertaking, since peer pressure is very tough to overcome in a crowd. More likely is that you will be mocked and ridiculed (if anyone pays attention to you), and in the heat of the witnessing you will be provoked into doing something foolish that undermines your case.

Just as a drunk has to hit bottom before he will listen to a cure, the apostasy of the ELCA's has to produce disaster before the leadership will repent. Like the patrons of a bar the ELCA's leadership is drunk on their own arrogance. They are in no mood to listen to the party-poopers and squares who are led by the pesky carpenter from Nazareth. To the extent they will listen to you, their attitude will be, "We have the power and credentials, and you do not." Meanwhile, your presence will give them what they do not deserve: the illusion that the decision of last August was no cause for concern, or else you would have left.

3. There is a belief among some confessional Christians in the ELCA that whatever happens, their own congregation will be untouched. This is probably the most dangerous illusion of all. The ELCA controls the call process, and when your confessional Lutheran pastor leaves he or she can be replaced with someone more willing to parrot the ELCA's line. In terms of earthly power the ELCA's leadership holds all the cards, and can shape any congregation they choose. As tempting as it may be, the apostasy of the ELCA is not a problem that can be booted down the road in hopes that it will somehow go away. The evil that is now consuming the ELCA will reach the doorsteps of your church - and probably sooner than you think.

4. There is one more problem to consider. While you may be witnessing to the ELCA's leadership they will be witnessing to you on behalf of their new god of secular politics. There is the danger that peer pressure can bring you to reject the Gospel in favor of what the ELCA is now offering. Remember that the devil does the most damage when he can wear you down. In an ELCA increasingly empty of Christians you will find yourself more and more isolated and vulnerable to temptation. Believe it, brothers and sisters in Christ!

If you do decide to stay, surround yourself with other Christians and resist calls to "go along to get along". Looking the other way is an engraved invitation to disaster and the last thing you should do. If you choose to stay and continue the fight, make sure that you actually fight. And pray without ceasing! Remember the words of 1 Peter 5:8 : Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

These are my views. My wife and I left the ELCA because we did not want to lend any support to the ELCA's rejection of the Gospel. We now pray for repentance by the ELCA's leadership, and we also pray for any Christians still in the ELCA. We urge everyone else to do the same.