Episcopal Church moves toward blessing gay unions

Yahoo News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The U.S. Episcopal Church gave its clergy the go-ahead on Friday to bless some same-sex unions, such as civil partnerships in states that legally recognize them, setting the stage for further conflict with the wider Anglican world.

The resolution, passed on the final day of the church's triennial national convention, also directs church leaders to develop official rites, or liturgies, for the blessing of same-sex unions -- a move that could see the church eventually change its definition of marriage.

For now, the church's official definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The same-sex rites called for on Friday will be discussed and voted on at the next general church conference in three years.

The 2 million-member Episcopal Church earlier this week approved a resolution opening the doors to ordain gay men and women as clergy.

Both resolutions are sure to further strain U.S. Episcopal Church relations with its conservative parishes and the global Anglican Communion, whose 80 million members belong to congregations that are offshoots of the Church of England.

Church unity has been strained since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first bishop in Anglican history known to be in an openly gay relationship.

The ordaining of gay clergy and related issues have already prompted some congregations to leave the Episcopal fold and form a rival North American church that claims 100,000 believers. Anglican churches in regions like Africa have broken ties with their more liberal U.S. brethren.

"We're doing our best to make room for everybody. We have gay and lesbian members, and gay and lesbian clergy, and we are trying to honor the diversity of belief and theology in the church," Stephen Lane, the bishop of Maine, told Reuters before the resolution's final passage.

The drama is unfolding against the backdrop of America's wider debate over sexual orientation issues, such as gay marriage, child adoption by same-sex parents and the status of homosexuals in the military.

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the United Church of Christ is alone among major U.S. Christian denominations in officially recognizing gay marriage. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America may decide in August to sanction same-sex marriage as well.

Polls consistently show gays and lesbians enjoying growing acceptance in American society. But fast-growing faiths in the United States such as many evangelical Protestant churches and the Mormon church regard homosexual relations as sinful and proscribed by scripture.

CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE

The resolution on Friday was couched in cautious language.

It called for "an open procession for the consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships." That job is assigned to various church bodies that will report to the next convention in 2012.

In the meantime, the resolution directs "that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church."

That is not an official sanction of gay marriage, but gives bishops the discretion to permit their clergy to bless same-sex civil unions, for example, where they are legal. Gay marriage is now legal in six U.S. states.

"The church has not changed its definition of marriage. It's still male and female. But in six states, the state has changed its definition," Lane said.

Some commentators believe the Episcopal Church may eventually leave the Anglican Communion, which, like more conservative denominations in the United States, is enjoying its greatest growth in countries where same-sex relations are frowned upon.

Pope Endorses "World Political Authority"

By Cliff Kincaid | July 7, 2009

The controversial Papal statement comes just before a meeting of the G-8 nations and a scheduled meeting between the Pope and President Obama at the Vatican on July 10.

Some in the media are calling it just a statement about "economic justice." But Pope Benedict XVI's "Charity in Truth" statement, also known as an encyclical, is a radical document that puts the Roman Catholic Church firmly on the side of an emerging world government.

In explicit and direct language, the Pope calls for a "true world political authority" to manage the affairs of the world. At the same time, however, the Pope also warns that such an international order could "produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature" and must be guarded against somehow.

The New York Times got it right this time, noting the Pope's call for a world political authority amounted to endorsement of a New World Economic Order, a long-time goal of the old Soviet-sponsored international communist movement. Bloomberg.com highlighted the Pope's call for a new world order with "teeth."

The Pope's shocking endorsement of a "World Political Authority," which has prophetic implications for some Christians who fear that a global dictatorship will take power in the "last days" of man's reign on earth, comes shortly after the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis issued a call for global taxes and more powerful global institutions. U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto, a Communist Catholic Priest, gave a speech at the event calling on the nations of the world to revere "Mother Earth" but concluded with words from the Pope blessing the conference participants.

The controversial Papal statement comes just before a meeting of the G-8 nations and a scheduled meeting between the Pope and President Obama at the Vatican on July 10.

Sounding like Obama himself, Pope Benedict says this new international order can be accomplished through "reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."

The "teeth" may come in adopting the global environmental agenda, which the Pope warmly embraces.

Sounding like Al Gore, the Pope said that one pressing need is "a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them." He adds that "This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources."

"The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere," he explains.

In a statement that sounds like an endorsement of a new global warming treaty, which will be negotiated at a U.N. conference in December, the Pope says, "The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future."

"The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens." he declares.

In terms of how this new "world political authority" should look, the Pope says that it, too, should have "teeth" in the form of "the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums." Pope Benedict declares that "such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

But the document, which is more than 30,000 words long, is contradictory in that it pretends that a world government can co-exist with freedom and democracy. For example, the statement calls for "a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization." The term "subsidiarity" is usually defined as having matters handled by local authorities, not international bureaucrats.

In another example of double-speak, the Pope declares that "Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."

He doesn't explain how it will be possible for citizens to influence or control this "world political authority" when they are under its bureaucratic control.

In the statement about how the New World Order could turn into a tyranny, the Pope is also contradictory, declaring that "...the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together."

Against, he doesn't explain how people on the local or even national levels will be able to resist this tyranny.

In a strong endorsement of foreign aid, the Pope says that "In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all."

But there must be more. He says that "...more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard."

This statement seems to be an urgent call for fulfilment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which involve an estimated $845 billion from the U.S. over a ten-year period.

The Pope goes on to say that the social order should conform to the moral order, but the fact is that on moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality, the agenda of the United Nations is opposed to that of the Catholic Church. Even on capital punishment, there is disagreement. The U.N. opposes it while traditional church teaching (Section 2267 of the Catholic Catechism) allows it in certain cases.

In his statement, the Pope declares that "Some non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion, at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned. Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition."

What he doesn't mention is that some of these groups operate through and with the support of the United Nations.

from:

http://worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5128/Brannon-Howse/Cliff-Kincaid

The time is now.

Few Christians would deny that our country is in moral decline. As the nation has moved away from biblical principles, we have seen an increase in divorce, drug abuse, suicide, depression, teen pregnancy, and selfishness. Ethical compromise and greed have resulted in financial instability. The right to share our faith, speak out on moral issues, and attend church freely could one day be threatened.

Do you love this country and the independence it provides for us? Then I challenge you to kneel before the Lord and cry out to Him on behalf of the United States. Ask the Lord to awaken American spiritually and call her to repentance. If we do that, He has promised to hear from heaven and heal our land
(2 Chron. 7:14).

What should motivate us to pray?

The condition of our nation is evidence that we need to pray for God’s intervention. No one will argue that many families are struggling economically right now. Our mortgage and banking industries are in crisis. Politicians make decisions based on what is best for themselves or what is popular—not what is best for the country. Families are weakened by divorce, abortion, and promiscuity. Terrorism and natural disasters threaten our security. Many people and even some churches are redefining morality based on what is popular or convenient.

Biblical warnings should also motivate us to pray. Moses warned the Israelites, “It shall come about if you ever forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you will surely perish” (Deut. 8:19). In 2 Chronicles 7, the Lord told His people, “If you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot you from My land which I have given you, and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples” . This passage clearly indicates that God will send adversity to get the attention of His people.

How does this apply to us as believers? The United States has enjoyed prosperity­­––more than almost any other nation—as a result of God’s favor upon our country. We have experienced spiritual abundance too: Churches preach the Word of God, Bibles and other resources are readily available, and numerous ministries broadcast the gospel across our land. However, as a whole, we have forsaken the Lord and His commandments. Instead of basing decisions on God’s principles, Americans tend to act according to personal preference or popular opinion. There can be little doubt that our nation is in spiritual rebellion.

A Biblical View of Government

What perspective should Christians have towards human authority? Should believers pay taxes? The followers of Jesus wondered these very things in the first century. Let’s look at what the Bible says about officials and other leaders.

A. The Lord ordains all authority.

Leaders rise to power only through the will of God. Daniel 2:21 says that the Lord “changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings.” Read Daniel 5:1-31.

• What did both Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar have in common before God punished them?

• How did king Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude change after his mind was restored to him?

• Why do you think God’s judgment was more severe on Belshazzar than on his father?

We frequently attribute a political candidate’s success to his or her ambition, education, campaign strategy, popularity, or financial backing. But no one is placed in public office apart from the will of God. Sometimes the Lord deliberately selects a person to accomplish His purposes. Other times, His permissive will grants people the leader they demand.

Israel insisted on having an earthly king. Read the story in 1 Samuel 8:4-20.

• What were some of the burdens a king would place on the people?

There will always be a cost associated with demanding the leader of our choice.

B. What respect is due to human authority?

Given that leaders don’t always honor God with their choices, should Christians still respect their position of authority? In general, yes. Jesus Himself indicated that believers should be subject to secular authorities.

• Read Matthew 22:17-22. When the Jewish leaders tried to trick Jesus into sounding as if He was rebelling against Rome, how did He answer them?

• What does this indicate about whether or not believers should pay taxes?

The apostle Paul also affirmed the authority of the Roman government—a totalitarian dictatorship that often persecuted Christians and Jews.

• Read Romans 13:1-7. For what reasons are we to be in subjection to secular authorities (vv. 1-5)?

• According to verses 5-7, why should we pay taxes?

This passage includes more than just the governmental authorities; it can be expanded to include all those in leadership over us.

• List a few of the authorities over you, whether at home, work, or school.

• According to Romans 13:7, what do you owe these people?

However, there are times when believers must disobey human authority. If the law of the land contradicts clear biblical teaching, we are to obey God’s Word instead.

• Explain why the apostles chose not to follow the instructions of the Jewish religious leaders in Acts 5:27-29.

• List a few circumstances under which you would be justified in choosing to disobey governmental or other human authority in order to obey God.
  
  

C. Leaders are accountable to God.

When you find yourselves subject to ungodly leaders, remember that everyone—including those in positions of authority—will one day answer to God (Rom 14:11-12).

• What are some reasons why we should we submit to leadership within the body of Christ
  (Heb. 13:17)?

• When anyone—including a leader––becomes prideful and arrogant, what does the Bible predict will result (Prov. 29:23)?

God rewards authority figures who humbly look to Him for strength, guidance, and wisdom. Those who are overconfident He will eventually humble and punish––if not in this life, then at the judgment.

D. We are called to pray for leaders.

Read 1 Timothy 2:1-3.

• How does Paul instruct Timothy to speak to God about authorities?

• What will be the result?

Here are some suggestions on how to intercede for elected officials. You can pray that they would:

1. Recognize their personal sinfulness and need for the cleansing power of Jesus Christ, if they aren’t already saved.
2. Become aware of their inadequacy for the tasks before them, and pray for God’s wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and courage.
3. Reject all counsel that violates the spiritual principles of Scripture, and be willing to trust divine guidance.
4. Resist the pressure of those who would mislead them or tempt them to violate their consciences and the will of God.
5. Work to reverse the cultural trends of humanism, which deifies man and dethrones God.
6. Ready themselves to abandon their political careers and personal ambitions if this is in the best interest of our country.
7. Rely upon the Word of God and prayer as their primary sources of strength and success.
8. Maintain dignity, honor, trustworthiness, and righteousness in their offices.
9. Strive to be good examples to the people of this land.
10. Remember that while they are in office, they are accountable to God for their attitudes, actions, and motives.

For a printable version of these prayer points, click here.

• Do you faithfully pray for government officials and others in leadership? If not, what hinders you?

Closing: Whether we approve of their decisions or not, the authorities in our lives have been appointed by God. As long as their commands do not violate scriptural principles or our conscience, we have a responsibility to obey them. And no matter what, we are always called to honor and pray for our leaders.

Prayer: Heavenly Father, thank You for the privilege of lifting up those in authority over me. Convict me when I criticize and complain instead of taking my concerns to You in prayer. Make me into a prayer warrior for this nation, so that believers may practice their faith peacefully. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

A California mom says her public school administrators violated her daughter's First Amendment rights when they ordered the seventh-grader to take off

foxnews...

Anna Amador has gone to court on behalf of her daughter, who she says was ordered by her principal to change her shirt on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day." The shirt the girl was wearing displays two graphic pictures of a fetus growing in the womb.

The incident occurred in April 2008 at McSwain Elementary School, a K-8 school in Merced, Calif. Amador alleges in her legal complaint that school Principal Terrie Rohrer, Assistant Principal C.W. Smith and office clerk Martha Hernandez mistreated her daughter and denied the girl her First Amendment rights when they ordered her to leave the cafeteria and change her shirt.

"Before Plaintiff could eat [breakfast] she was ordered by a school staff member to throw her food out and report immediately to Defendant Smith's office, located in the main office of McSwain Elementary School," the complaint reads.

"Upon arriving at the main office, Defendant Hernandez, intentionally and without Plaintiff's consent, grabbed Plaintiff's arm and forcibly escorted her toward Smith's office, at all times maintaining a vice-like grip on Plaintiff's arm. Hernandez only released Plaintiff's arm after physically locating her in front of Smith and Defendant Rohrer...

"Smith and Rohrer ordered Plaintiff to remove her pro-life T-shirt and instructed Plaintiff to never wear her pro-life T-shirt at McSwain Elementary School ever again...

"Completely humiliated and held out for ridicule, Plaintiff complied with Defendants' directives and removed her pro-life T-shirt, whereupon, Defendants seized and confiscated it. Defendants did not return Plaintiff's property until the end of the school day."

The school administrators dispute some of the allegations, said Anthony N. DeMaria, attorney for the McSwain Union Elementary School District.

"I think the school district has a very strong defense," DeMaria said. "The complaint does not properly characterize the events that happened. Certainly we dispute some of the events."

He said he was unable to reach the administrators to determine which parts they say are incorrect, because school is out for the summer. Rohrer, the principal, told FOXNews.com on Monday that she could not issue a statement without consulting with the school superintendent and their attorney. The other defendants and school district employees did not respond to calls and e-mails from FOXNews.com.

The school district sought to get the case thrown out due to "failure to state a cognizable claim," but a U.S. Eastern District Court judge ruled last month that all but one of Amador's claims could go forward.

The complaint quotes school district officials saying that they ordered Amador's daughter to remove the shirt because it constituted "inappropriate subject matter" in violation of the school's dress code, which bans clothing with "suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter."

Amador claims in the legal complaint that other students at the school have been allowed to wear expressive shirts, and she blames the school for “inconsistently applying their Dress Code based upon subjective determinations as to which messages are acceptable and which messages are not.”

One of the girl's lawyers, Mark A. Thiel, said that the images on her shirt of a fetus in the womb were same as those in her science textbooks. He said no student had complained about the shirt, and he said the girl's parents were not called when the incident took place.

"This was a young girl, not even in high school. But they didn't call," he said.

A spokeswoman for the local Planned Parenthood chapter declined to take sides in the case.

"Even offensive speech is protected as long as it doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others," said Deborah Ortiz, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.

"School administrators have a mission to educate, and the student’s right to political speech should be protected in balance with this education mission."

UCLA law professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh said Supreme Court precedent appears to support the girl's case.

"During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled that wearing black arm bands [at school, to protest the war] was OK,” Volokh said. “If students can wear armbands in protest, why can't they wear a pro-life shirt?"

He said the case would be different if there was evidence that the shirt could have led to disruption or fighting.

"Schools have a lot more authority than the government does in regulating speech,” he said. “If someone is speaking on a street corner and it looks like other people are going to start a fight over it, the government's job is to protect the speaker. That is not the case in schools. We need to make sure students learn. So if speech is highly disruptive, well … in that case we can suppress it.

"But the school's position that they can restrict speech just because they find it inappropriate is not correct."

But the fact that it's a K-8 school with very young children could change things, said Brooklyn Law School professor William Araiza. He pointed to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick, where the court allowed a high school to suspend students in Juneau, Alaska, who waved a banner that read “Bong hits 4 Jesus” from across the street during an Olympic torch relay, because it was seen as promoting illegal drug use.

“[The school] could almost use a “bong hits” kind of rationale about protecting students from inappropriate messages,” Araiza said. “For instance, would you allow a 4th grader to wear a gruesome picture of a bomb scene? You probably wouldn't.”

First Amendment attorney William Becker, who represents Amador, disagreed that the shirt could be seen as containing inappropriate messages.

"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," he said. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message.”