Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Force Methodist Campground to Host Homosexual Union?

(Image from home.centurytel)

We have already learned that our Constitutional First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech can be threatened by laws protecting homosexual marriage, here,  homosexual adoption, here, and anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting homosexuals, here.

Now, the lastest example is a lesbian couple in New Jersey who have filed a civil rights complaint because a Methodist campground will not allow them to be united in a ceremony there.   New Jersey's laws prohibiting anti-homosexual discrimination on public property are the basis of their complaint.  Even though the campground is private property and used for religious purposes, the suit has still been filed.

The laws of the United Methodist Church forbid hosting such ceremonies.  Their church law also prohibits homosexual ordination or marriage. 

This latest legal action is another blatant attempt to take away religious freedoms not only from Methodists, but from all other churches and religions.  At issue is the freedom of religions and religious people to believe and practice what they choose. 

Obviously immigrants cannot expect to come into the U.S. and practice things that were already against U.S. law before they arrived, such as polgamy, ritually-sanctioned mutilations and murders, wife-beating, etc., because their religions sanction these.  They are expected to accept our laws as a condition of coming here.

What is at stake here, however, is taking away religious freedoms that American citizens already have.  There is a great difference.  Such efforts are increasing ever more rapidly.  Once our freedoms are lost, it would be much more difficult to get them back.  We need to make a stand, now and whenever attacked in the future.  If not, we could lose the constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion and speech that our ancestors sacrificed so much to establish and protect.

Update to "Hillary, George, Methodists and Homosexuality

(Image from home.centurytel)

James Taranto had this follow-up on Friday, June 8, 2007, at "Best of the Web Today," Opinion Journal, Wall Street Journal, to his article on Thursday, June 7, 2007 "What Would Methodists Do Without Experts?*

"Yesterday we noted that President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, James Holsinger, is under attack for a 1991 paper in which he observed that the sexes are 'fully complementary' and that some forms of male homosexual activity are considerably more dangerous than ordinary intercourse.

"The Associated Press reports that Holsinger's detractors are also complaining about his religious activities:

• -"Holsinger has come under fire from gay rights groups for voting to expel a lesbian pastor from the United Methodist Church.**
• -"Also, Holsinger helped found a Methodist congretation that, according to gay rights activists, believes homosexuality is a matter of choice and can be 'cured.'
• -"As president of the Methodist Church's national Judicial Council, Holsinger voted last year to support a pastor who blocked a gay man from joining the congregation.  In 2004, he voted to expel a lesbian from the clergy.  The majority of the panel voted to keep the lesbian associate pastor in place, citing questions about whether she had openly declared her homosexuality, but Holsinger dissented.
• -"As for the congregation Holsinger helped establish, Hope Springs Community Church, the Rev. David Calhoun told the Lexington Herald Leader last week that the Lexington church helps some gay members to 'walk out of that lifestyle.'
• -"The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is opposing the nomination along with the Human Rights Campaign and other local and national groups, calls such a practice 'nothing short of torture' for gays."

"This is an attack not only on Holsinger but also on the U.S. Constitution.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, which means that the government has no business dictating its moral preferences to the United Methodist Church.  That same First Amendmant protects all congregants who find the Hope Springs approach objectionable.  They are free to follow their conscience, or to find another congregation, denomination or religion.

"U.S. senators, however, are bound by the Constitution, which stipulates in Article VI that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'  Any senator who votes against Holsinger's confirmation because of his church activity is defying the Constitution (although there is probably no way to hold such a senator to account apart from the ballot box).

"Finally, take note of that quote, which comes from a statement by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, that so-called reparative therapy is 'nothing short of torture.'  This may shed ight on some of the hysterical claims about the treatment of terrorists at Guantanamo.  After all, if voluntery counseling is 'torture,' then pretty much everything is."

________

*Available free by email from the Wall Street Journal.

**Actually this pastor was expelled from the clergy, not from the United Methodist Church.

Hillary, George, Methodists and Homosexuality

(Image from home.centurytel)

This one can be a bit tricky to follow, but not really hard.  It is from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, Best of the Web Today, June 7, 2007, editor, James Taranto (available free by email.)  Here is the story:

"ABC News reports that in 1991, the United Methodist Church--Hillary Clinton's denomination--considered 'changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching.'

"During its deliberations, the church sought an expert opinion from a physician, James Holsinger, who produced an eight-page paper titled 'Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.'  Holsinger's paper did not address the question of whether 'homosexuality violates Christian teaching.'  Rather, it discussed reproductive anatomy and the medical risks of certain types of male homosexual activity.

"Ultimately, the UMC did not change its position.  As noted here, Mrs. Clinton's church still adheres to the view that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.  Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church.'   

"The separation of church and state notwithstanding, the United Methodists' deliberations on homosexuality have suddenly become a subject of interest to the U.S. Senate, because the president has nominated Holsinger to be surgeon general.  According to ABC, 'Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic, if not downright bruising.'

"So what did the paper say?  ABC's Web site headlines the article '"Homosexuality Isn't Natural or Healthy."'  It puts these words in quotation marks even though they are not a direct quote.  We have read the paper and will link to it as soon as we get done warning you that it contains a lot of discussion (in clinical, not vulgar, terms) of the mechanics of sexual intercourse as well as other, less familiar sexual behavior.  OK, here's the link. 

"Here are Holsinger's two main claims:

  - The sexes are "fully complementary."

  - Compared with ordinary intercourse, erotic activity that involves the alimentary tract poses far greater risks   of injury and infection.

"The first of these is obvious to all human beings and probably most lower mammals as well.  The second is obvious to anyone who has occasion to think about the subject.  (To those readers who would rather not, our apologies.)

"At some level this is sort of funny:  Mrs. Clinton's church had to find itself a medical expert to explain the facts of life.  But what is chilling is that Holsinger now finds himself under political attack for stating the obvious.

"This column takes a live-and-let-live approach on this subject, pretty much across the board.  Mrs. Clinton's church's position on homosexuality is nobody's business but Mrs. Clinton and her coreligionists'.  What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business either.

"But when political activists try to render the complementarity of the sexes a taboo subject, and when one of the two major parties seems ready to accede to this Orwellian effort, something is seriously askew in our political culture." (Bolding added.)

(Interestingly, George and Laura Bush are also United Methodists, although that was not mentioned in this article.)

Methodists, Homosexuality and Africans

(Image by home.centurytel.net)

Why put these three words together in a title?  Because of the difference African Methodists have made in the long-running battles over homosexual issues in the American UMC for many years now.

Every four years, pro-homosexual activists have laid seige to the General Conference of the UMC, pushing harder each time to change church law to allow homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage.  Each time, the General Conference votes down their proposals by a large majority.  And each time, the votes of the delegates from Africa are what helps put that large majority over the top.

All that may be about to change.  In November a task force of four Bishops recommended to the full Council of Bishops drastic, enormous changes in the structure of the UMC.  Part of those changes would involve separating the UMC in Africa from the UMC in the U.S. in important ways.  Such changes may forever stop African delegates from voting against changes in church law to allow homosexual ordination in the UMC in the U.S. only.  The most-likely result - a major split in the American UMC if such changes in church law are enacted.

Was this the intent of the four-Bishop Task Force?  Clearly not on the part of Bishop Scott Jones of Kansas, an evangelical who has been a Bishop for only 2 years.  But Bishop Ann Sherer of Nebraska has already made newspaper headlines for her supportiveness for an episode in a church under her supervision, which made a farce of the UMC prohibition of homosexual marriage, here.

Bishop Sharon Rader, long-time Secretary of the Council of Bishops, and Bishop Ruediger Minor of Russia and Eastern Europe, also President of the Council of Bishops in 2003, are harder to guage.  Bishop Minor might not be as conversant with the politics of the U.S. church as the Americans.  But Bishop Rader could be expected to know every political nuance of the American UMC because of her long term as Secretary of the Council of Bishops.

Whatever intentions any of the four Bishops may or may not have had, what they proposed contains one possible way to enable the pro-homosexual activists to win.  Why would the activists not seize such an opening?  That might happen as early as the General Conference of 2012, when the recommended changes could start taking effect.

Do the pro-homosexual activists realize that if they should win, the UMC in America almost certainly will split?  Surely they do understand that.  But apparently they want to win badly enough to pay that price.  Besides, it could be a short-term financial boon to the liberal wing of the UMC, which is the part doing most of the dying in this declining denomination. 

If the more conservative churches leave - and they are usually the growing, more prosperous churches - the law requires them to give up their church buildings to the UMC.  The remaining UMC, suddenly more heavily liberal, could sell these church buildings and keep the money.  Such funds could help keep the remainder of the declining denomination going longer financially, even though the long-term, steady loss of members and income continued. 

That could contribute to a kind of extended "life after death" for the remainder of the denomination - for at least awhile.

GOD LOVES HOMOSEXUALS

God's love for all of us does not change.  God does not approve of everything we do.  In fact, He works at changing all of us, trying to help us be more like what He created us to be.  But He loves us, regardless.

Most of the rest of us love homosexuals too.  It just may not seem so sometimes, especially when anything critical is said.  But hate is not always the motive for criticism.  Criticism sometimes comes because of a conflict between concerns about two different groups.  That criticism does not mean that either group is not loved, or is hated.  It has to do with hard choices.

In my article below, my overriding concern was for the safety and well-being of children.  That usually takes precedence over concern for adults, since children are more defenseless.  So when there is a conflict, most of us will come down on the side of children.  That is the motive for my concern.

Those of us with experience in counseling are all too aware of the long-term, devastating damage inflicted on children who have been sexually molested.  Lives get shattered, more so than almost any other way.  Our concern to prevent such abuse is greater than our concern about whose feelings get hurt in the process.

Having also had gay men and lesbians in counseling, I am aware of their travails and sufferings.  They have my concern, and my sympathy.

For a straight person, I have known and been friends with an unusually large number of gays and lesbians over many years.  They have a hard road.  They also have my best wishes.  Many are regularly in my thoughts and prayers.

Those of my own gay and lesbian friends who may read this also have long known how deeply I love them.  I am for the welfare of all homosexuals, whether I do know them or not.  We may differ as to what that means.  But it is true.

(More of my writing on this can be found under Sexual Preferences in the column on the left.  I will be writing more, hopefully today, on some of the research problems involved.)

Gay Men Molest About 14 Times More Than Heteros

That's on the average, of course.  Apparently most men never molest anyone. But the math leaves no doubt that gays molest at a rate much higher than that of heterosexuals.. 

According to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, here, "...almost all child molesters are male and less than 3 percent of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys -- and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual..."  (Emphasis added.)

Here's the math, using those numbers.  About 3% of men are homosexual, and commit about 33% of all child molestations.  About 97% of men are heterosexual and account for some 67% of all child molestations.  That results in a ratio of 10 to 0.69.  That yields a rate for child molestations by gay males that is 14.49 times as frequent as that for heterosexual males.  (The Family Research Council is a large, respectable outfit and probably has the basic numbers about right.).

The scandal around Congressman Mark Foley triggered Perkin's remarks.  He said, "While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two." 

If the Congressional leadership was slow to discipline Foley, Perkins said it was probably for fear of appearing "homophobic."  He added, "The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children."

Homosexual advocacy groups, however, denied any possible connection between Foley's sexual orientation and his pursuit of under-age boys.  Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was quoted by the Miama Herald as saying, "It's irrelevant if (Foley) is gay or not."  Chuck Wolfe, President and CEO of The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said today that Foley's sexual orientation has no bearing on the scandal now unfolding in Washington.  He added, "Attempts by some on the extreme right to link the two constitute a transparent effort to scapegoat gays and lesbians.  The media and its political analysts should be careful not to defame hundreds of dedicated public servants and their families based on the improper conduct of one individual."

The "improper conduct of one individual"?  Much more than that is involved here!  When that one individual was known to be gay, when gays have a record of child molestation some 14 times higher than the rest of the population on average, it is inexcusabe not to protect our children much more strenuously when gays are around.  Then responsibility is to be suspicious and over-protective. 

Almost nothing else can cause such devastating, life-long damage to a child as sexual molestation.  Preventing that is tremendously more important than any possiblity whatsoever of hurting someone else's feelings.  "Political correctness" has outlived any usefulness.  It is long past time to bury it. 

Sexual Preferences and Christian Living

The final ruling upholding the defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud has come.  She is no longer allowed to be a minister of the United Methodist Church.  The controversy began about a year ago when she announced, to the church where she was serving as an associate pastor, that she was living in a committed homosexual relationship with another woman. 

Since the decision ending the case, however, the surrounding controversy has not cooled and is still raging, not only in the UMC but also in the blogosphere.  (See Shane Raynor’s excellent blog at www.wesleyblog.com for good background on this story.  Glance at the comments on his articles too, for an idea of the general debate.)

What about this issue?  Should openly practicing homosexuals be ordained in the UMC?  May they sometimes be excluded even from membership?  (The UMC also just upheld the right of a pastor, Ed Johnson, to deny membership in his church to an openly gay man.)

The arguments of the pro-gay side seem to focus on the harm done them by any exclusion or criticism and how much they suffer as a result.  They argue that such discrimination goes against important parts of scripture and the teachings of Christ and the church.  They also argue that any inclusion of gays in the church that falls short of full ordination, and of full assurance to gays that their lifestyle is fully Biblical, normal and accepted, is hateful and must be rejected as amounting to no acceptance at all, and no love at all.

The opposing arguments come mostly from those who believe scripture is true and is inspired by God.  They point out that everywhere homosexuality is mentioned in scripture, it is strongly condemned, even called an “abomination” in places.  They believe scripture leaves no room whatsoever for accepting homosexual practice. 

Most of these, however, also argue for loving homosexuals (“loving the sinner but not the sin.”)  They also admit we are all sinners, and that there are many scriptural sins – even those designated as “abominations” – besides homosexuality.

At base, the argument about homosexuality is an argument about the scriptures.  Are they true?  Are they the word of God?  The standard beside which all other claims are to be judged?  Or are they only partly true, only possibly the word of God and may we appeal to other, more current standards when scripture seems too harsh?

My response is two-fold.  First, homosexuals are not the only ones called upon by scripture not to do what they desire to do sexually.  Homosexuality – sex between persons of the same gender - is not the only sexual practice forbidden in scripture.  Other forbidden sexual practices include all fornication (sex outside marriage), all adultery (sex with anyone other than one’s spouse), sex between various relatives, sex with animals, sex with dead people and rape – which is sex imposed on someone who is unwilling.

The gay camp will speedily cry that this is an attempt to equate homosexuals with those who practice any of the above.  But no equality or similarity between any of the above is suggested in scripture, except the equality of being forbidden sins. 

Does the fact that someone has an exclusive sexual preference for any of these scripturally forbidden practices make a difference?  Does that provide an excuse, an exclusion from being wrong, when they follow such preferences into the practice of them?

The scriptural answer is that we are to refrain from any such practices, regardless of what our desires might be.  What if that means that we then have no sex lives at all?  Currently, that would be thought of as an unacceptable, impossible standard.  But we expect it every day.

If someone’s sexual preference is for rape, for instance, we expect them to deny themselves what they desire.  If their only alternative choice is to have no sex at all, we still expect them to deny themselves what they desire, notwithstanding.

If someone wants to be married, for instance, but does not find anyone to marry, must they then live without having sex with anyone?  The scripture says so. 

Is living without sexual relations acceptable?  Probably a majority would not think so.  Yet there are many who do so in fact, whether or not by choice.  Are their lives always twisted as a result?  Can celibacy ever be healthy, mentally, emotionally or physically?  Some of us have known celibate people who have been remarkably healthy, mentally, emotionally and physically, so it must be possible.

But are these even the right questions?  If God commands something, are those of us who belong to him not expected to do it, whatever we think about it?  In fact, we are, whether we think it will make us happy or not.

All this brings us bang up against the paradox of the Christian life.  Christ said we must “lose our lives to save them.”  We are to obey God, even at the cost of torture or death.  Yet it is also true that doing what we want instead of what God wants, in pursuit of our own happiness, does not make us happy – at least, not for long.  And also true that doing what God wants, even against our own desires, sexual or otherwise, is the only way to real contentment in this life.

Practicing homosexuals make a basic mistake.  They suffer, and blame it on any lack of acceptance by other people.  Other people see their suffering, have pity on them, and try to comfort them by accepting them.  But their happiness does not really depend on other people, or on being accepted by other people.  It depends upon God.  Ultimately, it depends on God alone.

It is not possible to be truly, lastingly happy or contented apart from God and doing God’s will.  Making the attempt only prolongs our suffering.  As C.S. Lewis said, when we finally surrender our will to God’s will, it is “as if a bone had been set in the universe.”  Things finally begin to fit together as they were designed to fit.  Healing from spiritual suffering (which is the most awful of all kinds) begins.  We find strength to do what we once thought impossible, not to mention repulsive.  And we find the contentment that comes only from living inside the will of God, to the best of our ability.

What is needed is not to focus so much on trying to soften the emotional suffering of a group of people, but to stick to the basic plan: point them to the one and only way out of their sufferings.  It does not lie in trying to change or counter the commandments of God.  Rather, it lies in ending our rebellion against them, laying down the flag and handing over the sword. The unexpected, beyond-belief result of such surrender to God is always profound contentment, far above and beyond anything we gave up. 

God is faithful.  We can count on that.   Anyplace inside his will is better than anyplace outside it, no matter how terrible it may seem at first; and anyplace outside his will is worse than anyplace inside it, no matter how attractive it may seem at first.  We can count on that too.  That is how he designed us, how we fit into the universe he made.