It gets better and Mormonism

In dealing with the very high rates of homosexual suicide there is a movement called "It gets better" aimed at convincing kids not to take drastic action.  Generally the videos are aimed at middle to high school aged students.  This is a similar video aimed at BYU students.



 In 2007 BYU stopped expelling gay students and in 2010 they allowed the creation of a gay alliance movement on campus.  The results are, as is obvious from this video, obviously positive.  This is keeping with the broader direction of the church.  In 1998 many officials within the LDS church stopped using "so called gays and lesbians" effectively denying the existence of homosexuals. It appears that more officially the last few years the church has shifted position and no longer considers the homosexual inclination to be a result of sinful behavior, nor even sinful.  

They still encourage people with same sex attraction to enter into heterosexual marriages, with no acknowledgement of how devastating that can be for both parties.  They still, officially and culturally blame homosexuals for homophobia because of their political activities which to me is reminiscent of anti-Semites blaming anti-Semitism on Jewish obnoxiousness.   They support Evergreen International, a "pray away the gay" scam.

So certainly the LDS continues a shameful history of anti-gay activism, but the last decade shows hope are addressing it and making some rather dramatic progress.  Hopefully seeing their children not have to leave the church and instead make videos like the above, is a source of pride of their progress.  For me it is wonderful to see a conservative church, especially one that has consistently focused on encouraging homophobia and anti-gay activities moving in the right direction.

Trevor Project

So after Seth Walsh we just crossed over to 5 confirmed suicides in the USA this year as a result of homophobic bulling. 5 more people dead because "we don't hate the sinner just the sin" is nothing but a lie. We have no idea what the numbers are but even Christian conservatives put it at 7.5% of kids were bullied for sexual orientation. Yet they still oppose explicit mentions (see truetolerence.org) because they see homophobia as intrinsic to the faith. There is quite a few poor argument and justification for the gays are icky position, just the like girls are icky position that this blog often addresses. But I don't know any justification for the pro-harassment position. it is frankly amazing to me how successful the right has been in promoting bullying. You would think it would be hard to get millions to be in favor of teen suicide.

Anyway, if you are a gay kid going through this and stumble on this website. There is a group called the Trevor Project that is designed to help. 866-4-U-TREVOR (866-488-7386). If you are an adult

Pet Shop Boys, Its a Sin

I heard this on the radio it has been over 20 years. Now we have youtube. There are two videos out, The original (for those of you like me old enough to remember):

and the new version by famish:


Here are the lyrics:
"It's A Sin"

(Twenty seconds and counting...
T minus fifteen seconds, guidance is okay)
??
When I look back upon my life
It's always with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

At school they taught me how to be
So pure in thought and word and deed
They didn't quite succeed
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

Father, forgive me, I tried not to do it
Turned over a new leaf, then tore right through it
Whatever you taught me, I didn't believe it
Father, you fought me, 'cause I didn't care
And I still don't understand

So I look back upon my life
Forever with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to - it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin

(Confiteor Deo omnipotenti vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione,
verbo, opere et omissione, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)
[trans. "I confess to almighty god,
and to you my brothers,
that I have sinned exceedingly
in thought, word, act and omission,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault"]

(Zero!)

It is fascinating the particular choices of imagery. The original goes with a monastic theme with very obvious almost kitschy sorts of representation of sin. The new version simply presents a modern dance (most of the moves are yoga based) with a stark image of Catholicism. The lyrics themselves are about the impossibility of internal righteousness outwardly. In reality the lyrics are about the issue of homosexuality and how it pervades ones life and causes everything to become "sinful", the lyrics exaggerate to make a point about internal guilt.

But then the 80s video is quite conventional in its notion of sin. Totally divorced from the message. The modern video is in sync with the message about pervasive sin but here the sins themselves are abstract.

I'm not the best art critic. But I feel like there is something meaningful here I just can put into words. Any thoughts?

Why was Sodom destroyed?

It is often asserted that the defense that Sodom was destroyed for lack of hospitality is a modern interpretation part of the gay rights movement. I found the following little passage in the Zohar from many centuries ago:

As for S'dom, its people were punished because they refrained from giving charity. As it is written: "neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Yechezkel 16:49). And this is why the Judgment upon them came solely from heaven--because "charity" and "heaven" are one. As it is written: "For your kindness is great above the heavens," (Tehilim 108:5) INDICATING THAT "CHARITY" AND "KINDNESS" ARE BOTH DRAWN FROM THE HEAVENS ABOVE. Because charity depends on the heavens, their Judgment is also drawn down from the heavens, as it is written: "from Hashem out of heaven." (Zohar 3.20.285)

Is it a choice?

This is a rather informative 4 minute commercial on the homosexuality issue. It addresses:

• Is homosexuality natural
• Is it genetic
• Is it curable

While it is not terribly biblical it is a fast and entertaining way to address many of the scientific issues

For those disbelieving the claims of homosexual behavior in animals here is a link to a wikipedia article and the following video from National Geographic is rather striking:



The Wikipedia article on prenatal hormones and sexual orientation contains links to Bearman- Blanchard study in the video.

SDAKinship

SDAKinship is a an international group to help homosexual members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church stay in the church. It has no official relationship with the church Kinship believes that LGBT people are created as God intended and should not be subjected to mistreatment or discrimination. The affirm that the 6 verses frequently cited to claim homosexuality is a sin are incorrectly translated. Further they note that Ellen White refused to tie the destruction of Sodom to homosexual acts further weakening the claims that homosexuality is sinful.

From a more broad based persepctive SDAKinship won a california lawsuit affirming the rights of groups that claim to be within a religion to use the name. That is the Seventh Day Adventist church had sued SDAKinship and lost on first amendment grounds which sets a precedent for other groups which are outside the mainstream of their denomination.

Their outreach is quite beautiful:

We understand what it is like to be a Seventh-day Adventist struggling with issues of sexual orientation, because we each had similar experiences. And we also know that this struggle is often painful, frightening and discouraging. Kinship is here to help and to provide support.

If you are feeling lonely, depressed or suicidal, or if you need a professional counselor who is supportive of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender concerns, chances are we know someone in your area who may help. Be assured that we are sensitive to your need for confidentiality. If you wish, we can also refer you to an understanding SDA pastor, teacher or other professional we know who is sensitive and informed about sexual orientation issues.

Above all, please know we care. We understand that you need to think through what your sexuality means, what to do about it, what it may mean to your loved ones, and whether it is possible to be gay and a Seventh-day Adventist. We will not try to determine your conclusions if you reach out to us. We will endeavor to understand and help you while you make those important decisions about who you are and God's plan for your life.

We want to respond in the most helpful way. We are people of diverse ages and backgrounds, so please let us know the type of person to whom you feel most comfortable talking. For example, a woman rather than a man, someone who came out while being married, or someone with a similar background or profession. You may also be more comfortable talking to someone who speaks your native language.

If you are a pastor, teacher, counselor or parent, please know that we welcome all inquiries and that we also respect and honor your need for confidentiality.

The group maintains a myspace page. GLAadventist endorses SDAKinship. I'll close with something from GLAadventist:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3

What does it mean to be “poor in spirit”? Poor in spirit does not refer to nice, church-going people who realize they need “more of Jesus.” It describes people who are morally, spiritually, emotionally empty, people with zero spiritual assets, people who are spiritually bankrupt. Jesus announces the amazing news that these people are blessed. ...
Many homosexuals who’ve shared their stories with me have carried a profound sense of unworthiness. They are profoundly dissatisfied with themselves. They feel condemned and unwanted by God. Sometimes they are isolated from their parents and siblings. Frequently they are unwanted at church. They feel desperately poor in spirit. And Jesus’ first word to them is: You are blessed; the kingdom of heaven belongs to you.

Ed Johnson, can ministers deny membership

Ed Johnson's case was case as a gay rights case inside the United Methodist Church but it really isn't. Rather because the the nature of the ruling, it touches on a more core issue which is the relationship of the minister within the United Methodists to the church and whether statements of principle have any effect on the efficiency pastoral action.
Edward Johnson was the reverend for United Methodist Church in South Hill Virginia. He had an application for membership from a man who was an active homosexual. The man had been active in the church and sung in the choir. Ed Johnson refused him membership due to homosexual practice. His district superintendent Rev. W. Anthony Layman, argued that the church had a specific doctrine that allowed homosexuals to be members (even practicing homosexuals) and thus that Johnson's refusal was illicit. After an extended back and forth she suspend him, this suspension was upheld by the Virginia conference with a 581 to 20 vote and Johnson appealed to the national organization's judicial board.

The judicial board decided that ministers have the unlimited right to determine qualification for membership. That is that a minister may determine that a person who claims he wishes to be a member does not intend to fulfill their membership vows. Further the interpretation of those vows is up to the minister.

Since the pastor is not required by the Discipline to admit into membership all persons regardless of their willingness to affirm the vows of membership, and since the Discipline designates the pastor "to be the administrative officer of the local church" (¶ 340.3a) and to "administer the provisions of the Discipline” (¶ 340.3b(1)), a pastor-in-charge cannot be ordered by the district superintendent or bishop to admit into membership a person deemed not ready or able to meet the requirements of the vows of church membership of The United Methodist Church. The appointed pastor in charge has the duty and responsibility to exercise responsible pastoral judgment in determining who may be received into the membership of a local church.

This was immediately seen as judicial activism by its opponents. There are no guidelines at all for what constitutes "responsible pastoral judgment" and there was concern that given that homosexuality was not a basis for a ban for membership the council greatly increased the power of local ministers and moreover had allowed someone to be denied membership for any reason what so ever. That is they had converted local methodist churches into "clubs" whose club president (the pastor) had unlimited rights to determine membership policy without oversight:

According to Judical Board's thinking, if we ask somebody to make a commitment, then someone needs to judge whether that person's commitment is sincere and serious before we accept him or her into membership or partnership or whatever we want to call it. This is where I disagree. I am not sure any of us are qualified to make this kind of judgment about someone else.

Moreover as status grounds were included then on the pastor's description it would equally well allow exclusion based on race or handicap or any other area which is not scripturally supported. The Baltimore Washington Conference for example explicitly declared that in light of 1032 they continue to admit people without regard to race, sex, economic status and do not believe in discrimination on any basis. To quote the dissent

My greater concern is that its pronouncement may be a harbinger of things to come. Will we begin to see cases where membership has been denied based on economic status? Or educational status? Will pastors deny membership to those who do not support all of our Social Principles? Or those who fully support our Social Principles? We all aspire to break the bonds and reject the forces of sin. Nevertheless, we choose a perilous course when even “responsible pastoral judgment” is granted to allow pastors the “discretion” to select among a multitude of sins for which some persons will be refused membership. Jon R. Gray and Susan T. Henry-Crowe

The letter or reconsideration went even further. The Bishops of the UMC argued that it is Christ's invitation to the table and not the churches and the church has authority to administer the sacraments to those persons who affirm a desire for Christ's mercy but does not have the authority to deny them.

The Judicial board on the other hand has more "ground level support" than the bishops do. On the other hand its the Bishops that have the power of enforcement and they despised this ruling. Moreover many conservatives argued that the theoretical objections were nonsense. UMC pastors aren't casually excluding people from membership anywhere, that is there are no "abuses" and there are unlikely to be any abuses. Keith Boyette's writing for the majority and Edward Johnson himself did assert that homosexual practice as opposed to orientation was the issue and that specific guidelines of what constitutes failure to be taking the vo

In Febuary of 2007 the man who originally had requested membership was granted membership by Johnson's successor (site)

• Washington post article
• Article from UMC newsletter
• Discussion on Wesly Blog
• Johnson's response to the request for reconsideration
• Rejection of the motion for reconsideration
  
• Here we stand, an organization dedicated to covering 1032 as a threat to open membership
  

As for my opinion on the case, I think it really comes down to the attitude towards homosexuality. Consider these two pastors:

A -- Is a UMC pastor who believes that being Hispanic is an intrinsically sinful state. While we are all sinners persons who persistent eat of burritos and tacos unrepentantly are unsuited for church membership.

B -- Is a UMC pastor who believes that being a thief is an intrinsically sinful state. While we are all sinners persons who persistent steal unrepentantly are unsuited for church membership.

I agree with the people affirming this choice that the debate is really about whether Johnson is more like pastor A or pastor B. They are correct that there is simply no evidence that the broad powers granted to pastors under 1032 are going to be abused in the near future. On the other hand I agree with the dissenting opinion that 1032 was a grant of tremendous authority to pastors. In trying to uphold the right for pastor B it legitimized pastor A. This was a very poorly reasoned choice which undermines the whole rule of law inside the UMC.

Heartstrong, for GLBT students

HeartStrong is a non sectarian organization established to provide outreach to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and other persons adversely affected by the influence of all denominations of religious educational institutions.

HeartStrong is also committed to educating the public about the persecution of GLBT’s and others at religious educational institutions.

Bravo! Anyway there are about 7.5m students in religious schools in the United States and in most of them suspicion of homosexuality is sufficient to get you expelled. Homosexual students are harassed, persecuted, bullied, often sent off mental institutions, etc... If you are a GLBT student in a religious institution they have an ambassador program to get someone local to help in any sort of crisis. I'd recommend going to their site and contacting them.

Irene Elizabeth Stroud

Elizabeth Stroud was the assistant pastor for First United Methodist Church of Germantown. Germantown is a neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On April 23rd, 2003 she gave a coming out sermon. This sermon is truly touching, and I'm hard pressed to see how anyone reading this sermon can believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving and serving God. She uses this sermon to explain how anti-homosexual beliefs drive people out of the church, and how she was called to the church despite her lesbianism. There are places the sentiments go a bit over the top like when she mentions now defunct The Other Side magazine whose slogan was: "Where justice and peace embrace, where faith and love join hands". A delightful woman if a bit sappy.

Her timing may not have been accidental. At the time she came out PBS was filing a documentary about the changes going on at First United Methodist. More interesting she gives an impassioned defense of not leaving, that is non schismatic views (which in today's protestantism are sorely needed):

When I came out to my parents in 1990, I did not expect them to understand right away. There were tears. There was pain. It was hard. We needed therapy. But I never considered applying for a transfer to another family.

The Stroud trial was a much more clear cut case than the Dammann trial for the United Methodists. Dammann had attempted (and was successful) by winning on technicalities. Dammann combined two of the defenses mentioned earlier:

• Dammann attacked certain aspects of the polity that was charging her, essentially a contest jurisdiction defense
• Dammann refused to self incriminate on the issue of genital sexual content with her partner and the prosecution had no evidence that Dammann was actually having lesbian sex. This is a picture perfect example of the force a more specific charge defense
  

Stroud's was much more of a classic minister trial. Stroud was not just a minister who happened to be a lesbian but rather a very intelligent writer on homosexuality within religious organizations. She freely admitted to engaging in genital sexual acts with her partner and refused to contest the jurisdiction of the prosecuting bishop. She wanted to force a straight up or down trial on homosexual rights. As usually happens with minister trials: Beth Stroud was convicted of violating church law by a 12-1 margin, the church voted 7-6 to terminate her ministerial credentials.

Another thing I have found unique about her is that she (though I imagine she's reject this term) an active apologist (in the sense of apologetics) for the Methodist denomination and Wesleyan thinking in particular. If you read Irene's personal information page what you find is classic defense that Prima scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura is what creates the particular appeal to United Methods for Homosexuals. That is because of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral Methodists are able to have a more nuanced view.

As background Sola Scriptura was Luther's view. It is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

Conversely Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral asserts that a believer should be guided by 4 factors

1. Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
2. Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
3. Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
4. Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Stroud continues to speak and her: Loving a broken church addresses the issue of membership for those people hurt by her conviction. (United Methods are willing to support homosexuals as members).

Stroud says on her website, I wish the General Conference would realize that Christ came for all people.

Additional links

• Albert Mohler commentery


• Jamie Stroud (not Irene) runs a website for Gay United Methodists You can find a particularly funny piece by Jamie Stroud on the UMC and the homosexuality issue
  

United Church of Christ

For people reading this blog who have been excommunicated you may want to consider Barak Obama's denomination. They focus very heavily on being inclusive. They have commercials like the 4 below, and slogans like

• We don't sing "come some ye faithful"
• "If Jesus embraced Lepers, Prostitutes, & Convicts, shouldn't we?"
• "Our faith is over 2000 years old. Our thinking is not."

Tim Bayly on homosexuality vs. feminism

A little background. The PCUSA is a liberal presbyterian church. The PCA is a conservative church that broke off in the 1970s (actually its a merger of others, but close enough for our purposes). Tim Bayly makes a call for church discipline to be applied to feminists within the PCA and explicitly makes the analogy with the debate on homosexuality within the PCUSA. What's unusual is that he aggressively makes the argument against friendly debate. Pastors who disagree with his view of god/scripture are simply criminals and should be excommunicated not people of different opinions.

I'm curious as to whether this attitude applies to membership and I intend to ask.

7/3/07 As a follow up I did ask. Bayly indicated (see bottom of the comments on link post) that yes the membership can be disciplined for holding this opinion. This is actually one of the most aggressive doctrines of heresy I've encountered. In general if something is disputed you would generally need a church council to rule against it before it became a heresy. Otherwise you would have people excommunicating one another during disputes about things being actively disputed. A process that would throw church discipline into disrepute.

How to Survive Discipline: Force a more specific charge (Part 10)

This is a complex defense that will work on most vague charges (particularly lifestyle ones). The idea is to force the church to

1. Argue that a "lifestyle" or inclination even if the specific acts have not occurred is sinful or
   
2. Prove that specific acts occurred

The idea is to essentially defeat common sense. That is raise the standard of proof so that the prosecution needs to show a specific act in fact occurred. For example assume an unmarried couple live together. The church wants to discipline them for fornication. Force them to prove that fornication is in fact occurring. I mean obviously there is good reason to suspect that the unmarried couple is having sex, but most likely they can't actually prove it.

The key to this defense is that you are not obligated to make "statements against interest". You never lie, you simple indicate the prosecution is obligated to prove grounds for their case. In are fornication example, a specific act of fornication at a specific time not a general suspicion of fornication. Churches with a strong judicial history will not excommunicate for refusing to make statement against interest, and if you come from a catholic or presbyterian tradition make sure to quote these references. Those with a weak one may consider it, but this is America people are going to be mighty reluctant to convict just because you "plead the 5th". If you are to be excommunicated make sure its for refusing to make statements against interest not for the specific charge. You should understand however that you will be under intense pressure to make such statements; the philosophy of most churches is masochistic arguing you should welcome their authority. Expect arguments like: "You aren't submitting to biblical authority", "this isn't a court you can't refuse to confirm or deny facts"... the point is to make your stand here not on the issue. Ultimately this defense is going to hinge on the fact that the bible supports a despotic form of government while Americans tend to believe in a democratic form. You are unlikely to be excommunicated for things that most people believe are your within your rights (like refusing to plead).

A more complex example of this working is homosexuality. In general churches that excommunicate homosexuals have one of two beliefs. The first view is that homosexuality is a sin in and of itself. That is it is a perversion born of sin, like drug addition alcoholism or a gambling addiction. A person is a homosexual because they have cultivated a taste for perversion. The second view is that homosexuality itself is not sinful. Specific sex acts (like "topping" during anal sex) are sinful.

1. Force the church to come down clearly on one side or the other. In general most churches in today's world will be very reluctant to openly take the first position. They by in large believe it, but they won't admit to believing it as it so politically incorrect.
   
2. If they argue the first case make them prove the process of cultivation and perversion. That is make them prove the pattern of acts leading to the inclination
3. If they argue the second case force them to prove a specific act with a specific person at a specific time.
   

Larry is a 17 year old boy whose mother caught him with gay porn. Larry is brought before the pastor who argues that Larry needs to undergo transitioning to deal with sinful, homosexual impulses. Larry has no desire to undergo a brainwashing procedure with a one of three chance of success and a virtual certainty of serious psychological damage and harm. On the other hand he doesn't want to lie. He also doesn't want to be excommunicated.
So the first step for Larry is to declare that while he is sexual excited by men he is not a homosexual. He is in fact still a virgin, has never engaged in any sort of extreme sexual behavior and believes himself to simply be sexual immature perhaps developing a bit late. He won't know for a few more years. He also repents for masturbation.
The pastor now is on the spot. If he declares that a sexual taste for men can develop in the absence of sin then the homosexual inclination is in itself not sinful and thus Larry can't be excommunicated for it. Larry doesn't have a positive obligation to go to Exodus, he's not required to change. The pastor can't prove sex acts (because there aren't any serious ones) and Larry is willing to repent of any petting or whatever he's engaged in.
If on the other hand the pastor isn't willing to agree, he's going to need to prove how Larry cultivated a taste for perversion. That is is the pastor will need to show how Larry choose to develop these abnormal tastes. That's an impossible task.
Either way Larry doesn't get excommunicated while refusing to go to Exodus.

Karen Dammann

Rev. Karen Dammann is an out of the closet lesbian in the United Methodist Church. She came out and was immediately suspended under section 304.3 which conservatives viewed as banning self-avowed practicing homosexuals. "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

UMC juries however were being extremely strict in their interpretation. Arguing that the prosecution had not proven practice, she was in a committed relationship with a "partner" but there was no evidence presented of sexual activity, the jury found not guilty. An example of a successful force a more specific charge defense. Other juries had similarly taken strict lines on ministers which had performed gay marriages arguing that the rules only prohibited performing civil unions. Many insiders, as well as some outsiders held this was essentially jury nullification. Conservatives responed by changing the wording slightly. To some extent making homosexuality (itself not the practice) incompatible with Christian teaching (ref1 ref2). That is the rules were actually strengthened. Further this dissension led to discussion of splitting the denomination.

additional links:

• Soulforce (Gay Christian liberation site) coverage of Dammann
• Damman Q&A by WFN
• UMC site on Dammann
• Timeline for Karen Dammann
• Methodist Laity Reform Movement letters

Obligation to assume

Challies tries to directly address the issue of how to determine if an orthodox evangelical should treat someone as a Christian, "a brother in Christ". Essentially he cites an interesting criteria,

1) He used Belgic confession to define a true church as "The marks by with the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preaching therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church."

2) He defines a profession of faith as going through the entire process, "How we define a credible profession of faith may vary slightly from church to church, but it should definitely contain an affirmation that the person is saved by grace through faith, should affirm many of the doctrines concerning the nature of God and the person should have been identified with the church through baptism or other forms of membership. If a person has professed faith, been baptized and been received into membership his claim to be a believer has a certain level of credibility. Conversely, if he has refused to be baptized and to be received into membership we would have a good reason to be concerned about his profession."

A person then is not assumed to be a Christian then if any of the following:

1. They have not professed faith
2. Their profession has been incomplete
   
3. They have professed faith within a true church and would be expelled from a true church if they had (see #1)
   

The Obligation To Assume
Obligation To Assume: Church Discipline .
an earlier piece where he disagrees with the harder fundamentalist line (a single error):
The Ultimate Human Judgment.


While I think Charllies provides a good right wing evangelical definition I'm a bit
concerned. There is an expression in driving, everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac and everyone who drives slower than me is a asshole. I suspect Charllies is falling into the same trap: everyone to the right of me is too strict and everyone too0 the left not strict enough. On the other hand I give him a great deal of credit for laying out objective criteria. Few other writers have been willing to do that. All, told well done!

Charismatic defense, Ted Haggerd and Chalcdeon

Chalcedon takes a hard line.

Nov 3: They attack the Charismatic right for being too soft on homosexual leaders. They list: Paul Cain, Roberts Liardon, Paul Crouch, and Ted Haggard. Arguing (in essence) the problem is systematic to the movement.

Nov 10: An explicit call for immediate excommunication.

"I have no compassion for Haggard. I have no compassion for the delusional church members either who cannot discern between good and evil. I do not have a compassion for his wife who should have clearly known her husband was "up to something." Believe me, wives know.

The only party deserving compassion are Haggard's children....

Haggard did not "fall" into immorality. He jumped with both feet. Using such descriptives as "fall" and "struggle" are heinous attempts at whitewashing this grotesque offense against God. The woman who wrote me is part of the problem as she is prepared to coddle a man who must be turned over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5).... put him out of the church lest a worse thing fall upon both him and you." Your coddling of his wickedness is causing the heathen to blaspheme the name of our Lord even more...Haggard didn't want restoration. He wanted anal sex along with crystal meth to enhance the experience"

Nov 15: Defends the position for judgment and continues

"Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:5). You see, this is restoration. The only type of restoration for such extreme criminality.'

Nov 16: Greg Bahson continues the theme:

We are without chastisement, and therefore, we are an assembly of bastards. We act as if we have no father because we live like those without discipline. We are unruly, disobedient children that do not share in His holiness. We sleep soundly in a bed of transgression and welcome sodomites as our bedmates.

America is a nation under judgment, and rightfully so. The insanity of the Religious Right, the corporatism and homosexuality of the GOP, and the added perversions of Christian leaders are all clear indicators that mainstream evangelicals are identified with the wrong groups. Granted, a whole host of them have not bowed their knees to Baal, but their silence is deafening.

Nov 21: Chris Ortiz states he believes the evangelical movement itself is becoming apostate because of their liberalism:

For a number of years now I've been persuaded that without restraint the modern evangelical/charismatic church is in danger of eventual apostasy within its multiple factions. After reading Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, I saw disturbing parallels:
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God;
It does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;
It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word;
It rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;
It bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;
It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

__________________________________________________________

OK so this is an attack on the hard right from the harder right. However, what this presents for defendants is an interesting list of people.

1. Everyone in the list is a minister
2. Everyone in the list is an important minister and a leader of tens of thousands
   
3. Everyone was married with children at the time of their sins
4. None of these people were excommunicated

I think this list might be a good one for a fairness defense for people from Charismatic groups. None of the kids that are getting excommunicated rise to this level. Either homosexuality is a serious sin and Chalcedon is right or the churches by excommunicating kids while doing nothing to leaders is proving that their interests are not in bringing sinners to repentance but rather in proving their righteousness by condemning the helpless. Of course they also mention Jimmy Swaggart who had 2 separate major sex scandals (as well as wrongful termination issues).

How to Survive Discipline -- Contest Jurisdiction (part 8)

We are moving out of methods designed to keep you in the church and into methods designed to let you leave on your own terms. Contesting jurisdiction is a classic here. Its also one of the most effective. Everything is lined up in your corner. The whole design of the excommunication process is try and get an unrepentant members of the church to either repent or be cast out. The church is ready to fight a battle on whether you are repentant or not. They aren't prepared for a battle on whether you are a member or not.

First off, most churches are perfectly happy to have you leave gracefully. The have no intention of disciplining or continuing the discipline process on someone who wants to leave. Particularly if you agree to coordinate their leaving with the elders and pastor and clean up any other unfinished business they are often quite anxious to make it amicable. Understand in advance if it is possible for you to leave gracefully. If it is and you like this method you are done. Unless you have reason to believe otherwise this is an area worth exploring. The big issue you are likely to encounter is that are going to feel they are leading you into sin by giving you permission to leave. Make it clear you intend to leave and that the only question is over terms. For most churches that's the end of it.

However some churches have very strong rules about fleeing while under discipline. Others consider leaving to be a serious offense anyway. For example many churches have explicit statements to that effect regarding terminating membership can not be done while under discipline. Others like the OPC assert that only the session can release you a member cannot quit. These sorts of churches will either convict you in your absence (for failure to appear) or even try you in absentia and you end up being excommunicated and they will sully you name.

OK so what to do. First off understand that they are absolutely in the wrong. 2000 years of church history teach that apostates can be punished for apostasy, they cannot be tried by a church court. A church court is something that is voluntary. You have an absolute right to flee. Moreover US law is clear here. Church discipline is legally protected under the free exercise clause because churches are voluntary associations. When they cease to be voluntery their rules become subject to secular court review. The Jehovah's witnesses used to consider anyone who quit the witnesses "disfellowshipped". They got their head handed legally for excommunicating non members. So they've invented another term for people who leave called "disassociated". Many conservative protestant churches don't have national organizations or if they do they haven't done enough volume of member discipline and don't quite understood the complications here. But they moment they consult with an attorney they will.

The next thing to understand is that the prosecution is going try and get you off message and address your "sin". Do not let them. There is one issue under discussion are you a member and subject to their authority

E - Joey I know that Sam has talked to you about this. Mixed dancing is a sin, if you don't stop going to mixed dances were are going to excommunicate you
J - Mr. Brown, I'm not a member here, I just started attending during college
E - You've been going here every Sunday for 3 years you are a member.
J - No I'm a member of Sun Valley Baptist back at home. I never agreed to membership here, I never signed the card or met with the session. I just show up regularly.
E - Joey you need to be under someone's oversight
J - I'm under the oversight of Sun Valley Baptist I just regularly attend here. I can stop attending if you want.
E - No we want to help you realize your errors and bring you to repentance, you are sinning.
J - That would be a good thing for one of my elders to do, but since you aren't one of my elders I don't think its appropriate to discuss my spiritual state in an atmosphere of authority with you.
E - Joey are you saved?
J - Yes. I have a covenanting relationship with Jesus just not with this church.

Joey never ever starts discussing the issue. He keeps the focus on membership. The moment he starts treating Brown like an elder his legal protection is gone until he explicitly quits. If you waver you lose, you must be sure before you go down this road. If you are going to use this method make it absolutely explicit your just some guy showing up at the church. If you can stomach it even better would be saying you are showing up because you had nothing better to do on a Sunday. The final question is a good one. It shows the Elder no longer is sure that he has authority. Joey's answer is also good.

So how do you contest jurisdiction? This is the possibilities in order of preference.

1. You were never a member
2. You were a member but you resigned some time in the past
3. You thought you were a member but were mistaken
   
4. You were a member and are now resigning in spite of the "no resigning rules".
   

#1 is far and away the easiest.

• At least legally the burden of proof will be on them. Moreover most religious organizations believe in voluntary membership and so their own organizations will place the burden of proof will be on them that they need to prove membership before discipline can occur.
  
• The minister is going to have to vindicative jerk to spend hours developing a chain of evidence that you a member just so that he can excommunicate you.
  

Understand though that once you agree you aren't a member the pastor or an elder can eliminate your right to attend ("toss you out") fairly freely. You avoid the actual act of excommunication but you might not be able to attend services or participate in activities. To pull #1 you'll need some reason to assert you were never a member. For example if you were child raised in the church and never made a profession of faith (or it was ambigious). If your wife or husbands signed the membership card and you didn't. If your never validly transferred (for example you were an associate member and then just started attending regularly). You can often assert that you were a regular attendy and not a member.

#2 is good one for churches that are going after college age kids. One of the really nasty things that has been going on is for churches to excommunicate kids who have moved away, and haven't gotten involved in an approved faith. However many of these churches have rules regarding transfer for moving and time limits that are in effect. Arguing that a transfer occurred was not properly documented is an excellent way to contest jurisdiction. Quite simply the church would then have to argue that it is capable of providing oversight to someone living hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
For Presbyterians we can be more specific. They have a notion of "associate member", and the assumption would be that a kid in college is an associate member of his college congregation unless he transfers. However if he were to claim that he transfered but failed to do so properly and then repents for failure to transfer properly the old congregation is going to have jurisdiction problems in trying the case. Even better if had made statements to people about "his church" meaning his college church thus proving he identified himself as having transfered.

#3 Trying someone who has renounced their baptism has been a sin so serious that it was grounds for excommunication. The inquisition wouldn't even do it. A protestant renunciation of baptism would be something of the form "I don't think I'm saved", or "I'm not a Christian" or "I don't believe I was born again". If a statement doesn't end the trial ask the minister point black if he intends try someone who had denied/renounced their baptism in a church court.

#4 This is often quite complicated. Essentially you are creating a gap between what a church is allowed to do based on tradition and law and what they want to do. I've addressed the process in a later post.






homosexual example