Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Yet another denomination has voted to ordain openly homosexual candidates to its ministry. Yesterday, the Presbyterian Church (USA) presbytery of the Twin Cities in Minnesota voted to approve a change to the church's constitution that will allow the denomination's 173 presbyteries to ordain persons without regard to sexual orientation.

The Twin Cities presbytery cast the deciding vote in what is now a 33-year effort to remove all restrictions on homosexuals serving in the church's ordained ministry. It became the 87th presbytery to affirm the action of the church's 219th assembly last summer authorizing the constitutional change. The action not only concludes over three decades of controversy over the ordination standards; it also reverses actions taken in 1997, 2001, and 2008, when similar efforts failed.

In 1996, the denomination restated its ordination requirements to include "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That policy had also required that candidates "refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."

"Standards for ordained service reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life. The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation shall examine each candidate's calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate's ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation. Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates."

All references to marriage and chastity are gone, along with the language about refusal to repent of sin. The new language speaks instead of submission to the Lordship of Christ and being guided by Scripture and confessions. In any other context, that language might not seem revolutionary, but in this case, it means the denomination's surrender to those pushing for the normalization of homosexuality.

Put another way, this church has now decided that "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness" is just too restrictive.

Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, explained the meaning of the change: "Clearly what has changed is that persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination . . . .  The gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgments."

Why now? Parsons suggested that the victory by proponents of the ordination of homosexuals has come because of the exodus of larger conservative congregations from the denomination (approximately 100 over the last five years), the fact that many Presbyterians seemed "ready to get past this argument," the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the larger culture, and the less controversial wording of this revision. He, along with others, expressed some measure of surprise and relief that the decision was made.

He told The New York Times, "We've been having this conversation for 33 years, and some people are ready to get to the other side of this decision. . . . Some people are going to celebrate this day because they've worked for it for a long time, and some people will mourn this day because they think it's a totally different understanding of Scripture than they have."

The Presbyterian Church (USA) now joins the Episcopal Church (US), the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in ordaining openly homosexual candidates to the ministry.

Both sides in this controversy understand the meaning of the decision. While this action deals specifically with ordination standards, it is really about the larger issue of homosexuality. Most observers expect that the decision to allow same-sex marriages will follow closely.

But even beyond the specific issue of homosexuality, the church faced two of the most fundamental questions of Christian theology - the authority of the Bible and the Lordship of Christ. In making this change, the church clearly affirms that one may submit to the Lordship of Christ without submitting to the clear teachings of Scripture.

That is a fundamental error that leaves this denomination now in the implausible position of claiming to affirm the Lordship of Christ while subverting the authority of Scripture. The removal of the constitutional language about marriage and chastity, coupled with the removal of the language about repentance from what Scripture identifies as sin, effectively means that candidates and presbyteries may defy Scripture while claiming to follow Christ.

Clearly, this action could not have happened without this denomination having abandoned any required belief in the full authority, inspiration, and truthfulness of the Bible long ago. This most recent decision sets the stage for the total capitulation of this church to the normalization of homosexuality - an act of open defiance against the Scriptures.

In a "churchwide letter" to the denomination, PC(USA) leaders stated:

Reactions to this change will span a wide spectrum. Some will rejoice, while others will weep. Those who rejoice will see the change as an action, long in coming, that makes the PCUSA an inclusive church that recognizes and receives the gifts for ministry of all those who feel called to ordained office. Those who weep will consider this change one that compromises biblical authority and acquiesces to present culture. The feelings on both sides run deep.

Well, the feelings no doubt run deep, but the injury to this church runs far deeper than feelings. This is yet another tragedy in the sad history of mainline Protestantism's race toward total theological disaster.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

A recent photo of a young boy with pink toenails has caused no small controversy. An April advertisement for the mainstream retailer J.Crew features exec Jenna Lyons painting her 5-year-old son’s toenails with bright pink polish and the quote: “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

Moms came out of the woodwork to weigh in on the ad – was it just innocent play or was it instilling gender confusion? Jennifer Lopez claimed she paints her son’s toenails blue. Sherri Shepherd, co-host of The View said she wouldn’t have allowed it. Christianity Today Women’s Blog writer Ellen Painter Dollar wrote that she doesn’t see the problem in letting her son wear pink nail polish, especially since, “The association of pink with girls and blue with boys was not decreed by God at creation.” Countless moms commented on whether giving their little men a mani-pedi was harmless or hurtful to his self-identity.

And that’s just the moms! Psychologists and cultural organizations had their take on the nail polishing pic.  One group claimed the ad was targeting women with gender-confused boys and pushing a transgender message. Psychology Today’s Dr. Tyger Latham claimed “Gender identity comes from inside, not from something that you paint on your toenails. Nowhere in the scientific research is there any evidence that I am aware of that a child who engages in non-conventional gender activities predicts their eventual sexual orientation.” Another expert on child development said, “He looks happy! This has no bearing on gender identity.” And the scathing Fox News article by Dr. Keith Ablow advised the J.Crew mom that, “It may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid…These folks (J.Crew) are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race.”

Jenna Lyons isn’t the only mom to raise a few parental eyebrows this year. Cheryl Kilodavis’ son inspired her recent nonfiction children’s story, My Princess Boy, a book about a 4-year-old who “happily expresses his authentic self by enjoying ‘traditional girl’ things like jewelry, sparkles or anything pink.” Kilodavis’ pre-school aged son would rather play outside and go to school in a sparkly pink tutu or a red dress, a habit that both his parents allow (Dad’s totally fine with it, by the way). “Why does it have to be categorized as gender confusion?” she asks. “We just have to get to a place of acceptance.”

But in a gender-bending world, even these innocent habits don’t seem quite so disconnected from an androgyny-loving culture. We’ve all seen the female wrestlers, the unisex fashion trends, the male models who look like women, and the dainty-featured starlets who rock the boyish pixie cut. The trend toward aggressive girls and effeminate boys isn’t just encouraged, it’s celebrated!  No matter where you fall on the issue – moms like Jenna Lyons who paints her son’s toenails pink, psychologists like Keith Abelow who condemn it as damaging the moral fibers of society, or people like you and me who may be scratching our heads wondering why it’s just kinda “off” – we’re all trying to answer the same basic question:

Is there more to our gender differences than just biology?

It’s true that certain colors aren’t really gender-specific. As Dollar points out, up until 100 years ago, boys wore dresses, had long hair and pink was considered masculine. In other countries, like Indonesia, pink is for men and blue is for women. But to look at what certain colors or habits represent “over there or back in that time,” is asking the wrong question. The real issue is “What does it communicate here and now?” It’s not that trends, or habits like wearing nail polish mean something feminine, but it does communicate something feminine.

John Piper describes the mature man as being someone who recognizes and is sensitive to cultural expressions of what is considered masculine. And, mature masculinity adapts his behavior to fit what is culturally masculine. While it’s true that these gender expressions will change with cultures and eras, “Masculine leadership will…seek to use them to cultivate and communicate a healthy pattern of complementarity in the relationships between men and women.” Mature masculinity understands that these cultural messages matter. (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 43)

Can a man wear a pink dress shirt, and avoid confusion about his masculinity? Culturally – yes. But can a man wear pink nail polish with the same effect? Culturally – no. Can a woman have a chin-length hairstyle and avoid confusion about her femininity? Culturally – yes. But can a woman sport a full beard of facial hair with the same effect? Culturally – no. (And aren’t we all so thankful for products that keep us from having to!) Mature masculinity and femininity adapts to send a message within its culture. Perhaps this is precisely what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 11 when he said, “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? (vv.13-15) It isn’t that we’re called to be a bunch of Fashion-Pharisees but we are called to express our God-assigned genders in culturally appropriate ways.

Is there more to our gender differences than just biology? Is there a purpose to our creation as male and female that goes beyond cultural norms, traditional family values, or even “the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race?” (Ablow) According to Ephesians 5:22-33, yes! When you and I express our femininity within our culture, we’re actually expressing the gospel to our culture. When we mirror Christ’s relationship to His Church within our male-female relationships and interactions, it puts the gospel on display. As the Psalmist said, “For You formed my inward parts, You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (139:12) We were intentionally created to be male or female so that we would intentionally portray the gospel.

The current trend toward androgynous “gender-bending” isn’t a sign that we’re overcoming unfair stereotypes, creating a more tolerant society or becoming better human beings. It’s actually a judgment for suppressing the truth and denying what God has revealed about Himself in His creation (Rom. 1:18-27). When gender is reduced to reversible hormones and roles are reduced to changeable traditions, it’s the result of God permitting the fullest expression of self-loving idolatry. (Rom. 1:26-27). Gender-bending – and all of its cultural manifestations – are the subtle symptoms of an outright rebellion.

God gave us our genders to fulfill specific roles that bring glory to Jesus Christ.

As we become comfortable with terms such as “pre-assigned gender roles” and questions like “What gender were you at birth?” we’re hearing the false message that we are the gods of our sexuality. “It’s just a lifestyle. It’s just a trend. It’s just nail polish.”

Now, more than ever, today’s young men need to hear the words of King David to Solomon, “Be strong, and show yourself a man,” (1 Kings 2:2) and today’s young women need to learn from a woman who is clothed with strength and dignity, “and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.” (Prov. 31:25) Now more than ever, today’s children need to know that the way they identify themselves and relate to each other matters to their Creator. And now more than ever  - in a world of pink nails and princess boys – we need to know that there is far more to our gender differences than just biology.

(Katie McCoy is a regular contributor to Unlocking Femininity, where this article originally appeared)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Mother's Day was first initiated by a mother grieved over the carnage of war, after having visited a Union army camp during the "War Between the States." Her name was Julia Ward Howe. Howe was so struck by the incomprehensible contrast between the rightness of the cause: unity of the states and abolition of slavery and the unrighteousness of violence against those bearing the image of God, that she penned these lines:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the wine press, where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He hath loosed the fateful lightnings of his terrible swift sword,
His truth is marching on.

I have seen him in the watchfires of an hundred circling camps
They have builded him an altar in the evening dews and damps,
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps,
His day is marching on.

I have read a burning Gospel writ in fiery rows of steel,
As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal,
Let the hero born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Our God is marching on.

He has sounded out the trumpet that shall never call retreat,
He has waked the earth's dull sorrow with a high ecstatic beat,
Oh! be swift my soul to answer him, be jubilant my feet!
Our God is marching on.

In the whiteness of the lilies he was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that shines out on you and me,
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
Our God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, he is succour to the brave,
So the world shall be his footstool, and the soul of Time his slave,
Our God is marching on.

       (published as "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" in 1862 in the Atlantic Monthly).

Ward Howe, among others, some years later in 1870, called the nation to observe a day of peace and honor for mothers bereft by war of their sons and husbands. A tradition that continues today and many will observe this Sunday.

What struck me in the poem, was the interpretation of the carnage she witnessed in the war: it was the coming of the glory of the Lord, barefoot and trampling. Bodies are grapes. What stark and faithful terms to describe true reality behind a smokey, corpse-strewn battlefield.

Few believers take Howe as an exemplar. But no matter her divergencies theologically (Howe was a Unitarian), the poem attributed to her echoes the truth of Scripture as she raises her bereaved mother's voice with Naomi: "Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went away full, and the Lord has brought be back empty. Why call me Naomi, when the Lord has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?" (Ruth 1:20-21).

Naomi, and all mothers who follow in her footsteps, know well that God rules over war and peace, life and death and in it all, he pursues his own glory supremely (Isaiah 45:6-7). 

Once our nation did well to listen to the voice of such strong, God-saturated mothers with Naomi's character and faith. We would do well to hear the same God-enthralled mothers among us again. Far from mere nostalgia, godly mothers are a treasure always. Because God remains the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

(Brent Nelson serves as pastor of Five Points Community Church in Auburn Hills, Mich., and is a former CBMW staff member)

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

Last week, over 2 billion viewers-about a third of the world's population-watched the Royal Wedding. As is common in marriage ceremonies, the Officiate opened with:

"Dearly Beloved; we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the face of this congregation to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony-which is an honorable estate, instituted by God Himself, signifying to us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church . . ."

I wonder how many observers caught the depth of meaning in those opening words. That one sentence contains some profound, staggering truths about marriage and the meaning of manhood and womanhood and sex.

The traditional opening to the marriage ceremony acknowledges that marriage isn't a man-made institution. It was instituted by God Himself. He's the author of marriage, and therefore, He alone defines what marriage is all about.

The Reason God Created Marriage

The opening states that the reason God created male and female and marriage was to "signify" to us "the mystical union between Christ and His Church." When God described the work of His Son as the sacrifice of a husband for his bride, He was telling us the ultimate reason why He made us male and female, and why He created marriage and sex. Christ and His Bride is the reason.

God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex because He wanted us to have symbols, images, and language powerful enough to convey the idea of who He is and what a relationship with Him is all about. Without manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex, we would have a tough time understanding concepts such as desire, love, commitment, fidelity, infidelity, loyalty, jealousy, unity, intimacy, marriage, oneness, covenant, and family. We would have a tough time understanding God and the gospel. God gave us these images so that we would have human thoughts, feelings, experiences and language adequate and powerful enough to understand and express deep spiritual truths. The visible symbols display and testify about what is unseen. That's why the symbols are so very important.

Marriage puts the Gospel on Display

Human sexuality is a parable -a testimony to the character of God and to His spectacular plan of redemption through Jesus. This spiritual truth is so magnificent that God chose to put it on display permanently. Everywhere. Men were created to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women were created to reflect the grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed. God created marriage and sex to display the joining of Christ and the church in an indivisible covenant. History started with the covenant wedding and sexual union of a man and woman because it will end with the covenant wedding and spiritual union of Christ and His Bride. Marriage was created to tell the cosmic love story of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Marriage is Holy and Honorable

Finally, the introduction to the ceremony identifies matrimony as "a holy and honorable estate." The Lord wants us to respect the deep, holy, sacred meaning of marriage, and uphold the sacredness of the sexual act. God intended that sex "seal the deal" of a marriage covenant. The physical union of a husband and wife illustrates-in the physical realm-that a permanent, legal, unbreakable covenant of love has been established in the spiritual realm.

The one-flesh union of husband and wife is to model and mimic cosmic truths about the mystical union between Christ and the Church. A covenant must be in place before any union can occur between God and man. The Lord wants us to tell this same story with our sexual conduct. Sex outside of a permanent, one-flesh, legal, heterosexual marriage covenant is a violation of God's design. Hebrews 13:4 says, "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."

The Royal Wedding

Last week's Royal Wedding was a joyous event. I was so glad to hear the Officiate acknowledge-right up front-that as splendid as the marriage of William and Kate was, it pales in comparison with that to which it points. The guests in Westminster Cathedral, the millions of spectators on the streets of London, and the billions crouched around TV screens in nations all around the world were all "gathered in the sight of God" to witness the joining of another man and woman in holy matrimony-which is an honorable estate, instituted by God Himself, signifying to us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and His Church.

I wonder how many got the real message.

Tools: Print E-mailPermalink

The defense of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] got a little more complicated yesterday as the law firm that the House of Representatives had hired to defend the law withdrew from the case. As The New York Times stated bluntly, the firm dropped the case "amid pressure from gay rights groups."

The Atlanta-based firm, King & Spalding, had agreed to take the case, and one of its lawyers, Paul D. Clement, was to lead the legal effort to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman in terms of federal recognition. The law also prevents any state from being forced to grant legal recognition to a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding, released a statement in which he said: "In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. ... Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."

Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States under President George W. Bush, immediately resigned from King & Spalding and will continue to represent the House of Representatives in the case.

As The New York Times reported, Clement said: "I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. ... Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it."

Gay rights groups hailed the law firm's decision. Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign had lobbied King & Spalding to drop the case. The Weekly Standard obtained copies of emails sent by the Human Rights Campaign to supporters that read, in part: "Later that day we announced the elements of our campaign to show King & Spalding' hypocrisy for taking on Defense of DOMA while touting their pro-gay policies - including their 95% score on HRC's Corporate Equality Index. ... In the meantime we also contacted many of the firm's clients, LGBT student groups at top law schools and used social media to inform the public about K&S's wrongheaded decision."

The success of the group's efforts to intimidate King & Spalding serves as a warning of things to come. This is the kind of intimidation that will be used against any organization or institution - or law firm - that takes a controversial case and opposes the agenda of the gay rights movement. Watch and be warned.

We should also take special note of the statement by Paul Clement. He defended his commitment to defend DOMA and the U.S. House of Representatives by stating, "Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do."

So, now DOMA and the House of Representatives fall under the category of "unpopular clients" despite the fact that DOMA was passed by the overwhelming vote of both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. That statement underlines the moral revolution happening in our midst and indicates what groups like the Human Rights Campaign are certain is the direction of history. Armed with that confidence, intimidation is now the order of their day.