Archive for July, 2012

The Dark Night in Denver — Groping for Answers

Monday, July 30th, 2012

Albert Mohler

The news hit the airwaves like a sudden onslaught, and the truth began to sink in. It has happened again. This time, 50 people shot while attending the midnight premier of the last in the Batman sequence, “The Dark Knight Rises.” According to press reports, a 24-year-old man burst into the crowded theater, wearing a gas mask and carrying an arsenal. After deploying what is believed to be tear gas, he opened fire with a shotgun, a rifle, and two handguns. At least 12 people are dead, and dozens are injured, many critically.

Over 100 police officers responded to the scene in Aurora, just a few miles from Columbine High School, where in 1999 two high school students killed 12 fellow students and one teacher in a rampage that also injured 21 other students. That school massacre became a milestone in the nation’s legacy of violence. Now, yet another Denver suburb joins that tragic list.

The inevitable media swarm focuses on the data first — the who, what, when, and where questions. Then they, along with the public at large, begin to ask the why question. That is always the hard one.

The same vexing but inescapable question comes every time a Columbine happens or an Anders Behring Breivik attempts to justify his mass homicide. How could such a thing happen? How could a human being do such a thing?

There is no easy answer to this question. The easy answers are never satisfying, and they are often based in the confused moral calculus of popular culture. We assume there must have been a political motivation, a psychiatric disturbance, a sociological pressure . . . anything that will offer a satisfying explanation that will assure us. Wave after wave of analysis is offered, and sometimes some horrifying clues emerge. But the moral madness of mass homicide can never be truly explained.

Christians are driven by instinct to think in biblical and theological terms. But, how should that instinct be guided?

The Reality of Human Evil

First, Christians know that the human heart is capable of great evil. Human history includes a catalog of human horrors. The twentieth century, described by historian Eric Hobsbawm as the century of “megadeath,” included a list of names such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Charles Manson. But those murderers did their killing from a distance, at least usually. Those who carry out the murders themselves are even more haunting to us. The young man arrested in this case, 24-year-old James Holmes, looks disarmingly normal.

The Fall released human moral evil into the cosmos, and every single human being is a sinner, tempted by a full range of sinfulness. When someone does something as seemingly unthinkable as this, we often question how anyone could do such a thing. The prophet Jeremiah spoke to this when he lamented, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick, who can understand it?” [Jeremiah 17:9]

Human beings are capable of unspeakable moral evil. We are shocked by such atrocities, but only because we have some distance from the last one. We cannot afford to be shocked when humans commit grotesque moral evil. It tells us the truth about unbridled human sin.

The Grace of Moral Restraint

Second, we must be thankful for restraints on moral evil. Christians must not underestimate the potential of any human being — ourselves included — to commit moral horror. We know ourselves to be sinners, and we know ourselves to be capable of sins we do not actually commit. Why do we not commit them?

God restrains human sinfulness. If the fullness of human sin was set loose, humanity would destroy itself. God restrains human evil by several means. First, he has created us in his image, and at least part of this image is what we call conscience. The moral conscience is a powerful restraint on human evil, and for this we must be exceedingly thankful. At the same time, the human conscience is also warped by the Fall and no longer fully trustworthy. We have developed the capacity to ignore the conscience, torture the conscience, and even misdirect the conscience by moral rationalization. Nevertheless, the restraint of the conscience is fundamental, and for that we must be very thankful.

God has also established institutions and orders that restrain human evil. As the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 13, God gave us the institution of government in order to restrain evil and to punish the evildoer. He has also given us the institution of marriage and the family and the larger order of society in order to restrain evil. We are surrounded by a complex of laws and statutes and social expectations and civic associations. All these function to restrain evil.

At the foundation of these restraints is the fear of God, which, even in an increasingly secular society, still retains a more powerful force than is often acknowledged.

Evil Answered at the Cross

Third, we must admit that there will be no fully satisfying answer to these questions in this life. Christians know that God is sovereign, and that nothing is outside of his control. We also know that he allows evil to exist, and human beings to commit moral atrocities. We cannot allow the sovereignty of God to be denied and evil allowed its independent existence. Nor can we deny the reality of evil and the horror of its threat to be lessened. We are reminded that evil can be answered only by a cross.

Theologian Henri Blocher explains this truth vividly in these words:

“Evil is conquered as evil because God turns it back upon itself. He makes the supreme crime, the murder of the only righteous person, the very operation that abolishes sin. The maneuver is utterly unprecedented. No more complete victory could be imagined. God responds in the indirect way that is perfectly suited to the ambiguity of evil. He entraps the deceiver in his own wiles. Evil, like a judoist, takes advantage of the power of good, which it perverts; the Lord, like a supreme champion, replies by using the very grip of the opponent.”

We must grieve with those who grieve. We must pray for Gospel churches in the Denver area who will be called upon for urgent ministry. We must pray for our nation and communities. And we must pray that God will guard ourselves from evil — especially our own evil. And we must point to the cross. What other answer can we give?

The Truth Gap

Monday, July 30th, 2012

CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…

The longer I am involved in speaking around the country – and overseas – the greater one gap becomes: I keep getting older of course but I continue to speak to groups of young people. So one can certainly speak of a generation gap here.

But in reality there is a far more important gap developing. I refer to a truth gap. Whereas most people a generation or two ago believed that there was such a thing as truth – and absolute truth at that – increasingly today we are finding an entire generation which has been raised on the destructive pap of relativism.

Millions of young people in the West today have absolutely no conception of such a thing as truth, and are firmly convinced that everything is relative. They have been duped into believing that there are no universal truths and no absolute rights and wrongs.

An acknowledgment of the reality of black and white has been replaced by a commitment to 99 shades of grey. Adherence to objective truth is seen as intolerant, narrow-minded and bigoted. Instead most young folks today luxuriate in subjectivity, relativism and uncertainty.

Thus we have a whole generation who cannot bring itself to say that the Holocaust was wrong, or that destroying marriage is wrong, or that killing unborn babies is wrong, yet will quite readily assure us that what is wrong is to say these things are wrong!

They insist that there are no absolutes, thus relegating “tolerance” into a new absolute. That are absolutely certain that you are wrong when you insist that there are absolutes, and certain things are wrong. They detest with a passion anyone making sure and certain truth claims, themselves being sure and certain that there can be no such things.

They get livid when you say there are some things worth getting livid about. They will fight you to the death when you assert that there are certain things worth fighting to the death over. They will explode in moral indignation when you claim that some things are worth getting morally indignant about.

An entire generation seems to have lost the ability to think, to engage in moral clarity, and to utilise basic logic and rationality. And they celebrate this. They think it is a sign of progress that they have moved beyond mere logic, moral acuity, and mental soundness.

It really comes down to a clash of worldviews. The Judeo-Christian worldview is at complete odds with the secular humanist worldview which now reigns in the West. A generation has been steeped in the latter, and knows nothing about any other competing view of reality.

And as Francis Schaeffer wrote: “We must never forget that the humanist position is an exclusivist, closed system which shuts out all contending viewpoints – especially if these views teach anything other than relative values and standards. Anything which presents absolute truth, values, or standards is quite rightly seen by the humanists to be a total denial of the humanistic position.”

Quite so. For all of its lip service to diversity, acceptance, tolerance and openness, it is implacably opposed to any competing claims. It simply will not tolerate those who believe in absolute truth and universal morality. It will seek to shut down real debate and censor any contrary voices.

I document this on a regular basis. But those raised on this worldview cannot even see the utter double standards. I chat with young people all the time and it is quite amazing to see them get angry with me when I insist that there really is such a thing as truth.

As they seek to argue for their “tolerant” worldview, they quickly become exceedingly intolerant of me, yet see absolutely no incongruity in any of this. They will shout at me decrying my judgmentalism – little realising just how very judgmental they in fact are.

Indeed, as J. Budziszewski has written, “If you really believe that the meaning of tolerance is tolerating, then you ought to tolerate even intolerance. If you really believe that the best foundation for toleration is to avoid having strong convictions about good and evil, then you should not try to harbor the strong conviction that intolerance is bad.”

But all this would be totally lost on these folks. They have little or no ability to think logically or think critically, so they are quite happy to stumble through life in their mental fog, thinking they are somehow superior people because they refuse to judge anyone – except for those who happen to differ from them of course.

Now in the old days when reasoning and careful thinking were still in vogue, you could shame these people into silence by pointing out their obvious double standards, hypocrisy, and utter illogic. But today that does not work on most people.

Rational thought is sneezed at, logic is disdained, moral perception is dismissed, and intellectual coherence is yawned at. So it becomes almost impossible to argue with these people, to hold a proper debate, to engage in an intelligent conversation with them.

Any truth you speak, any facts you offer, or any evidence you present, means nothing to them. They will simply take any countervailing views as “hate” and “intolerance” and denounce you accordingly. They will then leave the room, pat themselves on the back, and think they have somehow won the argument.

Of course this happens all the time amongst today’s worldlings. But the really frightening thing is that perhaps most young people today who call themselves Christians also engage in the same mental mushiness, relativism, and moral myopia.

So many have lost altogether the ability to think, to discern, to critically analyse, to make moral differentiations. Thus they are Christian in name only. They may profess to be believers, but they live, think and act just like pagans. There is no difference at all between their worldview and that of the secular humanists.

That is because they have never learned to think biblically and they have never developed a biblical worldview. They have simply soaked up the prevailing secularism, relativism and sceptism of the surrounding culture. Instead of being transformed by the renewing of their minds, as Paul commands in Romans 12:2, they have allowed their minds to be turned into mush.

As such, they are breaking the greatest commandment which Jesus gave: to love God with all your heart, all your strength, and all your mind. This, as Francis Schaeffer said, is part of the “great evangelical disaster”. Those who should know better, who even come from Bible-believing churches, have simply stopped loving God with their minds. Indeed, they have simply stopped using their minds altogether.

But as C. S. Lewis warned, “God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than He is of any other slacker.” We have a generation of believers which needs to repent – repent of its worldliness, its anti-intellectualism, its compromise, and its indifference to truth and morality.

Fortunately there are many notable exceptions to what I have discussed above. There are many fine young believers who use their minds for the glory of God, who have a love of God’s word and a distrust of the world, and who are soldiering on for the Kingdom.

But they are too few and far between. We need an army of young believers to be raised up by God who will champion truth, affirm biblical absolutes, resist compromise, and fearlessly proclaim Christian principles. At the very least we all need to be praying for such an outcome.

If this does not occur, we will simply get much more of what G.K. Chesterton warned against: “a hardening of the heart with a sympathetic softening of the head”. And that is nothing to write home about.

Pope’s Appointment to Archdiocese of San Francisco is Strong Defender of Marriage

Monday, July 30th, 2012

From Whispers in the Loggia:

A “major announcement on the future of the archdiocese” already set for 10am local time at St Mary’s Cathedral, at Roman Noon the pontiff named Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, 56—the San Diego-born head of the neighboring Oakland church since 2009, and lead hand behind the US bishops’ national effort to defend the traditional definition of marriage—to succeed Archbishop George Niederauer, who reached the retirement age of 75 in June 2011.

After a half-century of occupants accused by conservatives of soft-pedaling church teaching in favor of a more conciliatory approach toward constituencies ranging from gays and lesbians to Nancy Pelosi—a group of prelates among which even the recently-retired lead guardian of church doctrine, Cardinal William Levada, was not exempt from stinging criticism—the move delivers the long-desired “Holy Grail” of the American Catholic Right firmly into the faction’s hands, in the form of a prelate already known widely both for his forcefulness and a stringent doctrinal cred almost unequaled among his confreres on the national bench.

For liberal Catholics, meanwhile, the appointment is likely to be received as something akin to the city’s Great Earthquake of 1906, or even more apocalyptic events. In a nutshell, an appointment of this dramatic, potentially explosive nature is enough to make even last year’s blockbuster move in the States—likewise a final US move of the Curia’s annual work-cycle—appear almost mild by comparison.

Meacham’s Madness: Of God and Gays and Humility

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

Jon Meacham, activist lay Episcopalian, Sewanee alumnus, executive vice president at Random House and a Pulitzer Prize winning bestselling author, has written a commentary piece in the July 30 issue of TIME magazine on what the Episcopal Church’s handling of same-sex unions can teach the rest of us.

Meacham is an outspoken Episcopal liberal who has publicly excoriated orthodox Anglicans for their narrowness. While he was editor of NEWSWEEK, he even blasted Archbishop Robert Duncan for leaving TEC and forming the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

In the TIME article, Meachem sets out to make the case for same sex liturgies and cites, as his opening gambit, the deal cut by Texas Bishop Andrew Doyle. He said he’d support congregations that choose to use same sex blessing liturgies in his diocese. (He made this pronouncement before GC2012 met.) Doyle clearly knew which way the wind was blowing and made a preemptive strike. Meacham said Doyle got the idea from former Secretary of State James Baker who has argued that “the most practical approach usually is to address those matters where progress is possible, postpone decisions on irresolvable issues, and mutually respect the differing opinions of each side.” However, what works for the state does not necessarily work for the church. The Church has a different play book it works from. Really.

Meacham writes that Anglicanism has always been about the attempt – sometimes successful, sometimes less so-to find a via media, or middle way between the stricter sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism and the stricter scriptural literalism of other Protestant denominations. The faith is driven in large measure by the same principle…the enduring effort to muddle through.

This is a misreading of Via Media. Hooker never used the phrase “via media” or the “middle way”, or indeed, “Anglican” in any of his works; the attribution of via media to him came much later. Via Media is the title of a series of tracts published by John Henry Newman of the Tractarian movement (1834), which became the Oxford Movement. This movement recast via media as a middle way, not within Protestantism but between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Although the Oxford Movement eventually faded away (and many of its leaders converted to Roman Catholicism), their idea of the via media has remained current in Anglican discourse.

Certainly, neither Anglo-Catholics then nor Roman Catholics now would have entertained the notion that there is a via media over sodomy or same-sex rites.

Meacham goes on to admit that TEC is in decline. He writes: “The question is whether the Episcopal Church can continue to muddle into a sixth century or whether falling membership suggests inevitable decline.”

Answer: Inevitable decline. No transcendent gospel, no salvation, no hope, no future.

He rips conservatives for having double standards berating those who believe homosexuality is not good and right in the eyes of God while refusing to face the fact of divorce and slavery. These are old saws. It was an evangelical Anglican, William Wilberforce, who got rid of slavery and divorce, for all its ugliness divorce does not forfeit one’s salvation; whereas Scripture is clear that “homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom” 1 Cor 6:9). The question is: What has God said about homosexual behavior? It is not what Meacham thinks God has said or would like Him to now affirm because we are in the 21st Century.

Meacham continues: “Given that sexual orientation is innate and that we are all, in theological terms, children of God, then to deny access to some sacraments based on sexuality is as wrong as to deny access to some sacraments based on race or gender.”

There are two fallacies here. Sexuality is not innate. The distinguished psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (whom I know personally) has written that the premise that homosexuals cannot change is “an obvious lie. Gossip is a far more serious problem from a moral standpoint. Misinformation about homosexuality is spread by homosexual activists and their allies in the psychiatric profession through ‘HIV’, Historical Information-deconstruction Virus, a blight that affects gays and straights, conservatives and liberals and blacks and whites.

“Today, it’s commonplace to insist that differences between men and women are environmentally constructed while those between homosexuals and heterosexuals are genetic,” he says.

“Homosexuals are not another species,” says Satinover, who treats homosexuals and who knows hundreds of homosexuals who have undergone profound changes. “Homosexual activists and their allies, however, won’t permit an open debate on the subject,” says the brilliant Jewish psychiatrist. (Satinover is considered an international expert in the field of homosexual behavior.)

The second inaccuracy of Meacham’s is the half truth that “theologically we are all God’s children.” We are God’s children by reason of birth, we are sons and daughters of God by reason of the New Birth. Meacham simply doesn’t get it or perhaps he doesn’t want to get it.

“The central tenet of Christianity as it has come down to us is that we are to reach out when our instinct is to pull inward, to give when we want to take, to love when we are inclined to hate, to include when we are tempted to exclude,” writes Meacham.

Ah, no Mr. Meacham, the central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again for our justification. The things you mention may or may not flow from that supreme act of a loving God for a fallen humanity.

“I respect that others have different views on the same-sex issue. Nothing should properly create more humility than discussion about detecting the will of God. The decision of the General Convention, which allows for diocesan discretion, is a sensible one, it implicitly acknowledges that there is room for disagreement,” writes Meacham. “A smoothly condescending right is no more attractive that a morally superior left.”

Meacham should practice what he preaches. While using his New York publishing platform when he was editor of NEWSWEEK, he did not hesitate to spew hateful and dangerous rhetoric aimed at orthodox Anglicans. At that time, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan became the scapegoat and brunt of Meacham’s northeastern elitist wrath for starting the ACNA and upholding marriage between one man and one woman. Meacham’s progressive and socially respectable views on sexuality are at odds with the ancient truth Duncan espouses, which the church has always upheld and which Meacham now disavows.

Doyle’s compromise is no compromise at all, any more than Meacham’s rant about what the Episcopal Church’s handling of same-sex unions teaches us. The Diocese of Texas has been, since the retirement of orthodox stalwart Bishop Ben Benitez, trending leftward. Now, under Bishop Doyle, the journey to the dark side is complete, wrote one conservative commentator.

Doyle is selling the Diocese of Texas down the spiritual road to death and destruction. There is no “question” at all because scripture contains not even a hint, shadow or shade of ambiguity (Leviticus 18:22, Rom 1:18-33; 1 Cor 6:9). Bishop Doyle has made a compromise with the Devil. It’s not a compromise between “liberals” and “conservatives”. His compromise is with the pit.

How many people will now be led away from Christ and into the darkness down the bishop’s middle road? How many indeed. This “middle road” is lined with barbed wire.

Meacham will live long enough to see the fruit of his words. TEC is hemorrhaging faster than a patient waiting on life support for a heart transplant. Within two decades TEC will be a handful of junctured dioceses with an ASA of less than 100,000, its millions of dollars spent (read wasted) on property litigation, its headquarters in New York City long sold and causes no one cares about over resolutions long since forgotten. TEC will reap what it is sowing.

If you want to read more about “Boy Wonder” Jon Meacham click here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12580#.UA2fXbRtq6M

America’s liberal Christians might be progressive and inclusive, but they are also dying out

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

By US politics Last updated: July 24th, 2012

The Episcopal Church suffers from a staggering fall in church attendance

The marketing mantra of liberal Christianity is “change or die.” Here’s the pitch: society has evolved since the 1960s, shedding its old prejudices and misunderstandings and replacing them with a new consensus based on reason and tolerance. Unless the mainstream churches embrace women priests, socialism and gay marriage, they will lose relevance and die out. Conservatives might protest that the beauty of God is rooted not in relevance but timelessness. But, like any other business, Christianity is a numbers game – so making that argument sounds like saying, “Yes the car might be popular, but the horse and cart is a design classic.” Intellectual momentum, liberals insist, is with love and diversity.

Not so, says Ross Douthat in a New York Times article that has caused quite a stir among the liberal faithful. Douthat charts the strange demise of the US Episcopal Church, which he describes as “flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.” And yet, against the predictions of liberal theologians, the result has been the evolution from a pseudo-national church to a hippie sect. “Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.”

This story is familiar across many mainline Protestant denominations. William Briggs’ work shows that the Methodists and Presbyterians have all but disappeared in the last twenty years. By contrast, the Catholics and Assemblies of God have slightly increased their numbers and the Southern Baptists are “treading water.” This map reveals an astonishing picture of faith in the 21st century. Thanks to immigration and a steady increase in priests and congregations, the closest thing the US has to a national church is now the Roman Catholics. The only bastions of Protestantism are the Baptist South and Methodist West Virginia. The Mormons have a strong presence out West, too.

What is going on? From the Right, Charles Coulombe has a typically witty article in which he notes that the Episcopalians are doing what they always do, which is to imitate the social values of the establishment. The problem is that the establishment no longer directs popular tastes in the way that it used to. Diana Butler Bass offers a more liberal response, writing that Christianity is declining in general, not just liberal Christianity in particular. The problem with Bass’ pessimistic argument is that Pentecostalism bucks the trend. Where it is ultra-orthodox, Christianity is actually flourishing.

The other problem is that Americas’ overall belief in God shows no great evidence of decline. What has really fallen isn’t faith but patterns of communal worship. For millions of folks, it is no longer the default to join a church. In fact, giving up your Sunday morning to sit in a cold temple listening to a kazoo band playing Nearer My God To Thee is, for most people, a perverse thing to choose to do. Ergo, it is not enough to get them into the pews by saying, “We’ve driven out the bigots!” – ministers now how to convince the public that church attendance is in their personal interest. And conservatives are better at doing this than liberals because the product they are selling makes a stronger claim for its value to the individual.

Think of faith as operating within a highly competitive marketplace of ideas. Faith is no longer a product that people presume they need and are looking to buy (soap or shoes). Instead it has become a luxury item, or something that they have to be convinced that they might want (a sports car or a puppy). What kind of luxury is more likely to sell? Liberal Christianity is wracked with doubt, ducks strong conclusions and often seems to apologise for its own existence. Its liturgy is a confusing blend of styles and belief systems – just take a look at this colourful consecration of an Episcopalian bishop in Los Angeles. What do these people believe, and how is it relevant to me?

By contrast, the conservative Christian product is a zinger. It screams loudly that it is the only way to Heaven, its Protestant services tend to be packed and charismatic, and its theology is straight-forward and uncompromising. In case you think all this business talk is crass, take a look at the way that evangelicalism skillfully pitches itself as a lifestyle. It has become a multi-million dollar industry that offers advice on everything from parenting to drug rehabilitation. Tithing is pushed by some preachers as if it was a pyramid scheme – “You gotta give to receive.” This is why conservative congregations grow while liberal ones dwindle. It pays to advertise.

Douthat ends his piece by making an historical case for the value of liberal Christianity through its centuries of good works. It’s a fair point, but it betrays a little of the establishment thinking that is destroying the Episcopal Church. Sadly, no one in the 21st century remembers or cares that the Episcopalians once helped feed the hungry or clothe the poor. What post-modern man is looking for is something that speaks to his desire to find clear, satisfying answers in a sick world of confusion and despair. Ironically, in its search for “social relevance,” liberal Christianity risks making itself irrelevant to many people’s lives.

Cleric attacks church over gay marriage

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

Don’t let Church of England’s reluctance to embrace reform put you off God, Dr Jeffrey John tells gay people

Dr Jeffrey John

Dr Jeffrey John says gay couples are ­evidently just as capable of the kind of love needed in marriage as heterosexuals. Photograph: PA

The most senior openly gay cleric in Britain has attacked the Church of England for failing to “speak with integrity” on the question of same sex marriage, telling gay people they should not let the institution’s reluctance to embrace reform put them off God.

In an outspoken video message recorded for the Out4Marriage campaign, the dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John, said he was “very glad” the government is proposing to legalise gay marriage by 2015. But, he said, he was sad the church has set itself against it, adding it “doesn’t deserve to be listened to” on the subject, which has caused much internal division.

“If you are gay, please don’t judge God by the church. The official church doesn’t speak with integrity on this issue and so, frankly, doesn’t deserve to be listened to,” he says.

“If you are gay, then please understand that God made you as you are, and loves you as you are, and if you invite Him into your relationship, then of course He will bless you and sustain your love just as much as He blesses and sustains any other marriage. I know that’s true from my own experience and that’s why I’m Out4Marriage, because I’m sure God is too.”

John, who is in a celibate civil partnership with his partner of decades, has had his path to the episcopate effectively blocked by conservatives in the church who object to his homosexuality. He became dean of St Albans in 2004 after an attempt to make him bishop of Reading fell through amid uproar from his critics.

In his video, he said gay couples are evidently just as capable of the kind of love needed in marriage as heterosexuals. He adds: “It’s true that a gay couple can’t have children together, but then again neither can a heterosexual couple if they are infertile or past the age of childbearing. The Church has never refused to marry a heterosexual couple that can’t have children, so why refuse gay couples?”

Last month, the archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the church needed to confront feelings of embarrassment, shame and disgust over homosexuality. He told an event at Lambeth Palace: “What’s frustrating is that we still have Christian people whose feelings about it are so strong, and sometimes so embarrassed and ashamed and disgusted, that that just sends out a message of unwelcome, of lack of understanding, of lack of patience.”

The government has consulted on proposals to legalise gay marriage, prompting the Church of England to deliver a stern warning that such plans would “alter the intrinsic nature” of marriage and could even endanger its status as the established Church. Supporters of reform accuse it of “scaremongering”.

J.C. Penney stock crashes with news of gay marriage support

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

From AFA

Stock rated “junk” status, loses 50% since February, 350 layoffs at home office

Simply put, people are not shopping at J.C. Penney. AFA and OneMillionMoms are showing success in the effort to educate people to Penney’s aggressive national campaign to promote “gay” marriage.

The company is going downhill fast. Since February, the company stock has lost more than half its value, and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its credit rating on J.C. Penney Co. further into “junk” status.

[…]  First-year CEO Ron Johnson’s decisions have led to disastrous results for the company. Rather than build on the faith-based traditions of founder James Cash Penney, Johnson has abandoned family values and taken the company into a financial tailspin by embracing social activism.

Families are the backbone of Penney’s existence. As long as it pushes homosexual marriage, families will go elsewhere.

Read here