Of Course She Does.

The Almighty High Priestess of the Episcopal Unitarian Universalist Socialist Muslim Buddhist "Church" of the USA has a few words to say.

| BY KATHERINE JEFFERTS SCHORI

Statement by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts on the 26 June 2013 U.S. Supreme Court marriage decision:

The Episcopal Church is presently engaged in a period of study and dialogue about the nature of Christian marriage.  This work is moving forward, with faithful people of many different perspectives seeking together to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit.  However, our Church has taken the position that neither federal nor state governments should create constitutional prohibitions that deny full civil rights and protections to gay and lesbian persons, including those available to different-sex couples through the civic institution of marriage.

Accordingly, I welcome today’s decision of the United States Supreme Court that strikes down the 17-year-old law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex civil marriages granted by the states.  The unmistakable movement toward civil marriage equality in the states over the past decade reflects the will of the people in those states to grant equal rights and dignity under the law to all married couples and families, and today’s decision will appropriately allow those families to be recognized under federal law as well.  At the same time, the Court’s withholding of judgment on the ultimate constitutional question of whether a state may ban same-sex marriage reflects the fact that this conversation will continue to evolve in coming years.  I trust that Episcopalians will contribute actively and faithfully to this conversation, particularly as our nation begins to discern the many practical implications of today’s decisions for areas of our shared life, ranging from immigration law to family rights.

I am deeply aware that faithful Americans find themselves on all sides of these issues, including those who have not yet clearly discerned an effective or appropriate response.  It is possible to disagree AND work together for the good of the larger community.  That is the bedrock of our democratic political system.  It is also the foundation of life in the Body of Christ.  Together we can help to build up the whole community, particularly if we have the courage to listen deeply to those who hold a different view.  The Episcopal Church has an ancient tradition of attempting to hold divergent views together for the sake of deeper truth.  All are beloved of God, and the flourishing of each is what we believe God intended from the beginning of creation.  May we help to build a beloved community in which each and every person is treated with dignity, knowing that each and every one reflects the image of God.

A Church That Embraces a False Understanding of Human Sexuality Inevitably Embraces a False View of God

I wonder from which denomination this "benediction" came?

from - CyberBrethren – A Lutheran Blog - by Pastor Paul T. McCain

When a church embraces a false view of human sexuality, this will and does, inevitably flow from, and leads back to, a false view of God. Witness the following “blessing” offered up by in a liberal protestant church body’s worship resources, and then ask yourself what the consequences are for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

BLESSING
God our Father bless you and shield you.
Christ our Mother shelter you and carry you.
God the Holy Spirit guide your journey
+ both now and forever.
Amen.

Yes, you read that right, “Christ, our Mother.” Folks, this is not simply a confusion of languages, this is an apostasy from orthodox, Christian Trinitarian theology and language.

As observed elsewhere about this blessing by Rev. Pastor Peter Speckhard, a LCMS pastor: “Aside from ludicrously and meaninglessly referring to Christ our Mother, a Trinitarian invocation or benediction does more than name the relationship between us and God, it speaks to the Triune nature of God. To refer to “God” as our Father and then go straight into calling Christ our Mother truly, thoroughly mangles the Trinitarian theology that is part and parcel of a Trinitarian benediction.” Precisely so!

Re: A Plea For Help, Prayers

Kevin,

Thank you for the response.

Things have been moving along and students have been rallying well. More things have come to the light about all of this that both softens the blow and further frustrates everybody.

It's been made clear that the only threat is Father Thorne's position. The school has no intentions of doing anything with the property nor of restricting services in any way however the proposed cuts to his funding would essentially mean the loss of a full time chaplain.

As it stands the President of the University is in favour of maintaining a full time chaplaincy and with the help of a small committee and the Board of Governors will look into the possibility of funding half of Father Thorne's budget through incorporating that cost into the general operating costs of the school. In a way, this would be ideal as it both maintains the chaplaincy and allows us more of a "stake" in the position, rather than being at the mercy of the Diocese. On the other hand, the very best solution is if either money could be raised or the BOG could find endowments which could be reallocated for this purpose. Both are possibilities at this point.

The response to this within the college and alumni community has been overwhelming and in some cases tempers have risen and inflammatory things have been said which I don't think will affect us in the long run, but from the outside make the advocates for the chapel seem less reasonable than we all are.

I think if you were to share or post anything on a blog, asking others to pray that the path to keeping a full time chaplain is made clear to us is all that needs be said. I do not wish to incite tempers, at this point any further than they may already be incited and simply want to let providence work. The lesson for many of us here in the coming weeks will be that we cannot wait until we are under great threat from without to start extolling the beauty within the chapel or praying that God's will be done through all of us, we have to live it continually.

Thank you for your prayers and thoughts. I will certainly continue to update you.

In Christ,

Colin

Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Today I am marking the occasion of my one thousandth post with something I have been sitting on for a while.

For some time the use of the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", by persons promoting an agenda or way of life outside of religion has really bothered me. And the people I often see using it fall into one of two groups.

Group A - The "I really hate religion, because the rest of the coffee house revolutionaries hate religion, but we will use religious words to shame those stupid superstitious believers to support our cause" (anti-capital punishment, animal rights and/or anti-military)

Group B - Members of religious communities, groups or organizations that have been duped by or sympathetic to Group A.

Now the problem really is not that they use the phrase per se, but that they use it out of context and out of time; for the phrase had a different understanding by people in the time which the phrase had been translated from the original text and in that texts original language. (btw, this is not relativism of the Bible, that will come in modern times)

The passage I am referring to is Exodus 20:13, in which we as lineal readers and the children of Israel in linear time are first made aware of the Commandment from God "Thou shalt not kill" and most people understood what it meant from the time of Moses leading his people out of Egypt to about the middle of the 20th century. Then comes modern and post-modern theological and linguistic relativism and people interpret this to mean what ever suits them; to someone who opposes capital punishment it means that criminals should not be executed for the most heinous crimes, to animal rights activists it means that people should not hunt or slaughter animals for food and to those who oppose the military or warfare it means that wars should never be fought, regardless of justification and in the most extreme cases those who mourn trees and plants that they claim humans have murdered.

This is where context and translation comes into play. The word for “kill” used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is ratsach (raw-tsakh') a primitive root that means to kill a human, murder or manslaughter. It does not translate into “Thou shalt not kill animals for their tasty meat or hides for your use”, for it was understood that we had been given dominion over animals by God (Genesis 1:26) and that the people of the Old Testament and Covenant sacrificed animals to J*****h in the temples. So PETA can stop with this non-sense straight away.

Those against capital punishment say “you can do as you please with animals, but you must leave these criminals be"; well, the problem with that is that God had also covered the whole capital punishment thing early on in the Old Testament – “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6) – “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35-33). In fact in the Old Testament there are sixteen offences that where capital crimes punishable by death, the catch is God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities, courts of law and governments and not by vigilantes or mobs.

There will be those who will say "capital punishment went out the window with Jesus and the New Testament"...ah not really. "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me." (St. Luke 19:27 - The Parable of the Pounds) and "Now what will the lord do to these workmen? He will come and put them to destruction and give the garden to others." (St. Luke 20:15-16 - The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). Saints Peter and Paul deferred to the right of Civil Government to promulgate law and order, even unto their own executions. For a more concise and compelling arguments on this subject may I suggest this article here…

And as to the argument that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, prohibits warfare and combat, I don’t believe that it prohibits either. Starting in Genesis 14, when the Patriarch Abraham arms his men (all 318 of them) and conducts a guerrilla war against Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; they having attacked other nations in the region, including Sodom and in those attacks had captured plunder and prisoners, among them Lot, Abraham's nephew. So, early on in the Bible we have our first case of a “Just War” in freeing innocent civilians taken as plunder. In Exodus 15, Moses and the people of Israel sing unto the Lord and praised Him for personally destroying Pharaoh and the army of Egypt as it gave pursuit to return Israel to bondage...so God does have a use for war in the defence and liberation of his people.

Many may accuse me of being bloodthirsty, conflicted or un-Christian, but nothing can be further from the truth. I see what has been written and see the turmoil that our civilization has thrown itself into by abandoning these laws and commandments for some ideal of humanity, and those who consider themselves great humanitarians support the execution the most innocent and defenceless people (without the benefit of trial or advocacy), all the while humiliating, dehumanizing and devaluing their victims. I will not call names or cast epithets at these people as they do so unto others, neither shall I hold my tongue when I see something wrong happening (it's the Yankee in me), nor will I pretend to judge anyone for that is not my place, I am just using my God given right to voice my opinion.


Reference and Resources:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07523&version=kjv
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2585
http://www.christendomisfightingback.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

†

Is a Liberal Super Denomination Coming?

In the prayer for Church unity, we petition : "O gracious Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic church; that thou wouldst be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen." and many of us feel that the unity of the Church would be a great accomplishment, but this seems to allude us. The whys and how's of missing the mark as numerous and for the most part "straw splitting", but many cling to them and make them a condition of any such unity.

There may be an exception to some form of unity and many of you may not like to hear this, but here it comes - The liberal revisionists are better suited and capable of unity into a super denomination than any traditional/orthodox Christian adherents are. Now, many of you may have noticed that I speak very little of what happens in other denominations or communions or church bodies and with good reason, C.S. Lewis advised that we should be kind to those who have "chosen other doors" or "remain in the hall" as long as they "follow the rules common to the whole house" well, I feel that these liberal revisionists are exiting the house and heading for the tree lawn.

This Summer we have read, heard and seen the news of some denominations accepting heterodox practices and doctrines always justifying the changes using ominous words like "inclusive" or "justice". It is this switch in priorities that may give them the common ground and vision to unite, under a banner of social justice, forgetting that social justice has always been a part of Christianity, though subordinate to the Churches primary functions of preaching the Gospel of Christ and the administration of the Sacraments.

Imagine if you will that two or three of these bodies that have embraced heterodoxy, find that since they no longer have roots in Scripture or Creeds or even confessional documents, they can unite under the idolatry of Humanism or Secularism or "Justice" and drag a Cross, some clerical vestments and even a (sometimes defective) line of apostolic succession with them, it would have all of the trappings of a liturgical Christian communion without all that messy stuff like sin and repentance. Now add to that lowering attendance, emptying coffers and the cost of maintaining property and the prospects of merger become more enticing.

This could happen right here in the USA and in the near future, The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, The United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church USA, most of which have some form of intercommunion, could find themselves aligned in a confederation. These denominations would share resources and clergy and may in time become one body with one polity. It is not likely that whole denominations may join this cluster, certainly many of the most liberal congregations or clergy would, which in turn could lead some denominations back to orthodoxy or cause them to fragment even more.

What if this super denomination where to grow and spread, even drawing the liberal fringe members of the Roman or Orthodox communions? This could cause further damage to the Body of Christ and usher in more heresies and further polarize it into a rival religion, drawing in the Unitarian-Universalists and the moral relevance crowd, further destroying any Christian identity that the member "Churches" had.

In a small twist this scenario could benefit many orthodox denominations or jurisdictions in that it may drive faithful people from the revisionist dominated bodies their way and bolster those Churches, but I am afraid that the trend to drift away from Christianity or I should say organized Christianity, is more likely the result. If orthodox Christians could drop their posturing and pretense and would work together to rescue those cast adrift or who do not want to be part of a political action committee disguised as a Church, than it is all to the good.

Let us pray that those who find themselves in such a predicament will not be lead further astray by false teachers (2 Peter 2:1) and they be no longer children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine made to deceive (Ephesians 4:14); and these faithful will find themselves in the arms of orthodox congregations ready continue in the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Amen.

+

Dr. James White on The Miss USA Dust-Up

Dr. James White's perspective on the Miss controversy.

Dr. White only miss is on the biographical data for Perez Hilton.

Part II




†

Greasing the Skids

I try to keep political commentary to a minimum on this blog, but when I saw it hit my skeptic button.


Kansas Governor Signs Bill Ensuring Those Seeking Abortions Can See Ultrasound First
-----------------------------------------AP

TOPEKA, Kan. — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signs a bill ensuring that women and girls seeking abortions can see ultrasound images before the procedure.

The legislation, signed Friday and taking effect July 1, also ensures that abortion patients can listen to the fetal heartbeat.

Sebelius signed the measure as she awaits U.S. Senate confirmation as federal Health and Human Services secretary. Anti-abortion groups in Washington have criticized her nomination because of her abortion rights stance.

The Kansas governor offered no explanation of why she signed the bill, though she's never targeted such provisions when she's vetoed past abortion measures.

The bill amends a state law requiring doctors to obtain a patient's informed consent before performing an abortion.

Now, maybe some prayers have been answered and Gov. Sebelius has had a change of heart about abortion, but the voice in the back of my head tells me that it is more likely that she is trying to do an image makeover as to appear moderate on the issue as to get through the confirmation process and that if confirmed she will return to her Herodian ways.

Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer?

-- Fox News --

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

"What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.

"President Obama's version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative," said Staver, who believes Obama has "a completely different view on faith" from what he said during his presidential campaign.

"He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be," Staver said.

Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill's provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities -- a provision it says violates the right to free speech.

"The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning," said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

"We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that -- not punishing a college for permitting it," she said.

According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.

"Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself," Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told FOXNews.com.

"It's not frivolous to say there's a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction," he said.

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.

The White House said Wednesday that it plans to keep in place the basic structure of the faith-based initiative office established by former President George W. Bush.

Administration officials said the office is a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government, which allows federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.

The Truth About Obama and Abortion

For those who may think that BHO, Jr. is moderate on abortion, get the wool off of your eyes.

Dr. Robert George of Princeton University will tell you more: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

and listen to an interview with Dr. George on the issue here: