Trditional Marriage News

Date:
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
December 9, 2014|4:40 pm | The Christian Post| 
 

A lawsuit is moving forward against a Washington State florist who refused to supply floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony based on her religious objection, which could put her at risk of serious financial loss and the loss of her business.

Baronelle Stutzman, who owns and operates Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, is being sued by the Washington State attorney general's office for refusing to supply flowers for a same-sex couple's wedding ceremony. Instead, she referred the couple to another nearby florist who could supply flowers for their wedding.

The attorney general's office filed its lawsuit against Stutzman in 2013, and after the judge who was presiding over the case joined the federal bench, another judge has been appointed to the case and began hearing arguments on the case last week. Judge Alex Ekstrom is expected to set the start of the trial for sometime in the Spring.

The attorney general's office is not just suing Stutzman, it's also suing her business, a statement from the Alliance Defending Freedom indicates.

Stutzman is being defended by ADF, which is an advocacy group defending the freedom of religion. Since Stutzman is being sued personally and her business is also being sued, the ADF statement says the lawsuit has put Stutzman at serious risk to lose the business as well as her personal assets.

Although Stutzman has supplied flowers to gay couples in the past, when Robert Ingersoll came to ask for her to supply the floral arrangements for his wedding ceremony, where he would marry his partner Curt Freed, Stutzman felt obligated to turn them down.

Stutzman, who has been a florist for over 40 years, based her reasoning off of her deeply held religious belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Washington law states that no business can discriminate against a customer based on his or her sexual orientation. However, ADF senior counsel Kristen Waggoner, the lawyer assigned to Stutzman's case, holds that since there are a number of other florists willing to provide flowers for same-sex weddings, the state's prosecution seems like an attempt to get Stutzman to surrender her "livelihood and liberty."

"Plenty of florists are willing to provide flowers for same-sex ceremonies, yet the state attorney general insists on going after not only her business, but her personal assets as well," ADF senior counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a press release. "It's nothing more than a blatant attempt to strong arm Barronelle into surrendering her freedom and livelihood."

Refusing to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies has cost many private business owners their business, as well as a great deal of financial grief in recent years.

In August, a Christian family was fined $13,000 by the state of New York for refusing to host a same-sex wedding ceremony at their farmhouse wedding venue because they felt it violated their religious beliefs.

In November, a California couple who ran a wedding photography business, announced that they will no longer provide wedding photography service after gay activists protested against the business when a gay man posted to Facebook about how the couple declined to shoot his wedding ceremony because of their beliefs.

Much like Stutzman referred the gay couple to another florist, the California photography couple referred the gay man to another photographer. Still, that did not prevent a social backlash from spawning in the wake of their decision.

Date:
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
December 8, 2014|4:10 pm | The Christian Post| 
 

The U.S. Census Bureau is considering a plan to eliminate questions about marriage from the American Community Survey. Researchers who use that data and recognize marriage as an important explanatory variable are dismayed by the proposal.

The ACS surveys about 3 million American households every year, making it the largest survey in America outside of the census conducted once every 10 years. The large sample provides researchers with a useful dataset about the U.S. population. The data is also used to determine the distribution of funds for some government programs.

The Census Bureau wants to eliminate some of the questions in order to reduce the amount of time required for each respondent to complete the survey. Among the seven questions on the chopping block, five of them are about marriage.

The proposal comes during a time of heightened interest in studying the role marriage plays in society. For instance, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has held events and published reports on the relationship between marriage and poverty.One of those recent reports found that married men and women raised by married parents enjoy incomes $42,000 higher than those raised in non-intact homes.

In an email to The Christian Post, professor W. Bradford Wilcox, one of the authors of that report and the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, expressed concern about the Census Bureau's plans.

The ACS marriage questions are "helpful in painting an accurate statistical portrait of American family life," he said, and "losing them would be a tragedy."

In an interview with Politifact, the head of the ACS, Jim Treat, denied that the Census Bureau has something against marriage. The marriage questions are being considered for elimination, he claimed, because when he asked government agencies which questions they use the most, the marriage questions ranked low.

In an interview with triblive.com, Steven Ruggles, professor of history and population studies at the University of Minnesota, called the proposal "just crazy."

"We are in a period where marriage is changing more rapidly than ever in our history," he said, and the ACS "gives us a tool" to understand those changes.

Other researchers have pointed out that the Social Security Administration is one of the agencies that relies upon the marriage data, and without that data it is impossible to get reliable estimates on when Social Security will go bankrupt.

"Without those questions, even actuaries and economists inside the Social Security Administration can only rely on speculation," Samir Soneji, assistant professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, told Politifact.

The five questions ask respondents if they (1) got married, (2) got divorced or (3) were widowed in the past 12 months, (4) how many times they have been married and (5) the year they last got married.

The other two questions being considered for elimination asks respondents about their major in college and whether there is a business on their property.

The Census Bureau is accepting public comments on the proposal until Dec. 30. Information on how to submit a comment can be found here.

Date:
Monday, December 8, 2014
December 6, 2014|11:17 am | The Christian Post| 
 

Two concerns were raised this week in the battle to allow religious groups to maintain their religious identity when partnering with government to provide social services.

The Department of Labor released the final regulations for President Barack Obama's nondiscrimination executive order for federal contractors, and a bill may soon be passed during the U.S. Senate's lame duck session that does not contain religious exemptions for faith-based groups that receive government grants to aid homeless and runaway youth.

Federal Contractors

Obama announced in July that there would be no exemption for religious groups in a new nondiscrimination rule for federal contractors, but he would leave in place a President George W. Bush executive order on religious hiring which says religious groups with federal contracts are allowed to only hire co-religionists.

Obama's position was seen as a compromise between LGBT groups that thought religious groups should not be able to discriminate in hiring based upon sexual behaviors and religious freedom advocates who wanted a blanket exemption for faith-based groups.

Obama's attempt at a middle position, however, also led to a lack of clarity. What happens when the religious hiring exemption conflicts with the nondiscrimination clause? For instance, what if a religious organization requires its employees to abide by sexual ethics consistent with its faith, and those sexual ethics include a ban on same gender sexual relations? The Labor Department did not clarify this question when it made public the final regulations on Wednesday.

The new regulation adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the categories but does not mention religious groups. There is a section on "religious entities" on the Labor Department's FAQ's page regarding the new rule, but that page also lacks clarity. The page notes that the Bush era religious hiring exemption is still in place and the U.S. Supreme Court requires a "ministerial exemption" from nondiscrimination laws. It does not answer, however, whether a religious organization that believes homosexual practice is a sin would be allowed to deny employment or fire someone in a same-gender sexual relationship.

The lack of clarity itself could influence the role of religious groups in providing important social services, noted the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance in a email to supporters.

"Many faith-based organizations may consider themselves no longer welcome in federal contracting, or will fear intrusive (and disruptive and expensive) inquiries by federal officials into their human resources policies and practices, even if in the end they are vindicated," IRFA wrote.

As The Christian Post reported in October, the rule was issued without public comment.

On the Q&A page, the Labor Department said it was allowed to issue the rule without prior notice or comment because, "President Obama's Executive Order was very clear about the steps the Department of Labor was required to take, and left no discretion regarding how to proceed. In such cases, principles of administrative law allow an agency to publish final rules without prior notice and comment when the agency only makes a required change to conform a regulation to the enabling authority, and does not have any discretion in doing so."

Runaway Youth Bill

The new LGBT rule came the same week that the U.S. Senate is poised to pass a funding bill that similarly contains a broad nondiscrimination clause with no religious exemption.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, S. 2646, reauthorizes funding for government programs to help young runaways, homeless and human trafficking victims.

The language of the nondiscrimination clause currently in that bill is the same language that was added by the U.S. Justice Department to the reauthorized Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act in June.

Like Obama's order for federal contractors, "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are added to the categories that may not be discriminated against. Religious groups are covered under the religious hiring exemption but there is no blanket exemption for religious groups.

An April 9 Justice Department memo about the new VAWA nondiscrimination language made clear that it applied to employees of grant recipients, not just beneficiaries, or those who are served by the grant recipients.

The memo stated that faith-based organizations "may prefer co-religionists," but, like the new rule for federal contractors, did not state what would happen if the faith-based organization's preference for co-religionists conflicts with the sexual orientation nondiscrimination rule.

Could a married gay man, for instance, sue if he were fired or not hired because his relationship is in violation of his faith-based employer's code of ethics? The Obama administration has consistently stated those situations would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Date:
Friday, December 5, 2014
By Stoyan Zaimov |December 4, 2014|2:08 pm |  The Christian Post| 

 

The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has warned that allowing gay and lesbian couples the same rights to marry as straight couple would be "a grave injustice," ahead of the country's upcoming referendum on marriage in 2015.

"To put any other view of unions on the same level as Christian marriage would be disservice to society rather than a service," Bishop Liam MacDaid said at a news conference, according to Reuters.

"In a same sex union, children would be deprived of what a man and woman can give to children in a stable marriage."

The Irish bishops' views mirror that of the Vatican's major synod on the family, which over two weeks of meetings in October affirmed the traditional definition of marriage.

Their remarks came out the same day as the release of an eight-page leaflet on marriage, which contends that "it is a grave injustice if the State ignores the uniqueness of the role of husbands and wives, and the importance of mothers and fathers in our society," The Irish Times noted.

The leaflet adds that "the union of marriage provides for the continuation of the human race and the development of human society," and that "marriage of a woman and a man is a fundamental building block of society which makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good and to society as well."

Ireland legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, but still defines marriage between one man and one woman. In May 2015, however, it will become the first country to hold a nationwide referendum on whether gay marriage should be legalized.

An Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll from October suggested that the majority of the Irish population would support such legalization. While 67 percent of those who responded to the survey said they would vote in favor of gay marriage, 20 percent said that they will not.

A previous poll from November 2012 saw 64 percent of responders indicate they would support such a change, while 36 percent said no.

Last week, Finland's parliament voted in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, joining another 11 European nations that have approved of the practice.

Nearly 8,000 members from the Lutheran Church in Finland announced that they will be resigning from the church after Kari Mäkinen, the Archbishop of Turku and Finland, revealed that he is "rejoicing" with the news.

Date:
Thursday, December 4, 2014
By Michael Gryboski |December 3, 2014|12:18 pm| The Christian Post| 
 

Washington, D.C. city council approved a bill that bans the practice of sexual orientation change therapy for minors.

Following similar legislation in California and New Jersey, the Council of the District of Columbia voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve a bill barring the practice for minors.

B20-0501 was passed by the Council in their legislative session and is expected to be signed into law by Mayor Vincent Gray.

"A provider shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a consumer who is a minor," reads the bill, which amends the Mental Health Service Delivery Reform Act of 2001.

"A violation … shall be considered a failure to conform to acceptable conduct within the mental health profession under section 514(a)(26) of the District of Columbia Health Occupation Revision Act of 1985, effective March 26, 1986 … and shall subject a provider to discipline and penalties under 514(c) of the District of Columbia Health Occupation Revision Act of 1985."

Known also as the "Conversion Therapy for Minors Prohibition Amendment Act of 2014", the bill was introduced by Councilmember Mary M. Cheh in October of last year.

In October 2013, B20-0501 was referred to the Committee on Health, but was not given a notice of public hearing until several months later in May.

In late June, the bill was given a public hearing where proponents and opponents of the SOCE therapy gave testimony to the Council.

The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council denounced the bill's passage, with FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg calling the vote "a shocking violation of the longstanding ethical principle of client autonomy."

"The D.C. City Council disregarded powerful testimony by therapists who debunked misconceptions about sexual reorientation therapy and by clients who had benefited from it," stated Sprigg.

"This new law is an outrageous assault upon the freedom of speech of therapists, the freedom of religion of clients who seek help in living lives consistent with their faith, and the privacy of the therapist-client relationship."

Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that supported B20-0501, said that more work needed to be more nationally.

"No child should be subjected to this extremely harmful and discredited so-called therapy," said Warbelow in a statement.

"While the LGBT youth in our nation's capital will soon be protected once this bill is signed into law, HRC is committed to making sure these kinds of protections are secured throughout the entire nation."

With the vote, the District of Columbia joins California and New Jersey as places in the United States that prohibit conversion therapy.

Many other states, however, including Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Virginia, have blocked or withdrawn similar proposed pieces of legislation.

Date:
Monday, December 1, 2014
By Alex Murashko |November 19, 2014|7:42 am| The Christian Post| 

 

Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore and megachurch pastor Rick Warren, both speaking at a Vatican conference Tuesday, warned that Christians should not succumb to the current sexual revolution or waver on the Biblical truth about sexuality and marriage.

"Western culture now celebrates casual sexuality, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, family redefinition, and abortion rights as parts of a sexual revolution that can tear down old patriarchal systems," said Moore in a prepared statement given during the "Complementarity of Man and Woman" colloquium convened by Pope Francis.

"The Sexual Revolution is not liberation at all, but simply the imposition of a different sort of patriarchy," he continued. "The Sexual Revolution empowers men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male, rooted in the values of power, prestige, and personal pleasure … We see the wreckage of sexuality as self-expression all around us, and we will see more yet. And the stakes are not merely social or cultural but profoundly spiritual."

Moore, who is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, argues that every culture has recognized that there is something about sexuality that is "more than merely the firing of nerve endings" and that there is "something mysterious here, the joining of selves."

"In the evangelical Christian perspective, this is because there is no such thing as a casual sexual encounter at all, when we are speaking in spiritual terms," he said.

Warren, who said he agreed with much of what was said from the many speakers before him during the three-day conference, focused his message on action steps for the church.

"In many ways, the debate over the definition of life, of sex, and of marriage is, in reality, a question of leadership," said Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life—What On Earth Am I Here For? He continued (in his notes forwarded to The Christian Post) by asking, "Who is going to lead? Will the church follow the crowd, or will the church lead the crowd?"

He explained, "The church cannot be salt and light in a crumbling culture if it caves in to the sexual revolution and fails to provide a counter-culture witness. It is a myth that we must give up Biblical truth on sexuality and marriage in order to evangelize."

Pope Francis declared during the conference on Monday that marriage is by definition a union of man and woman, defying past claims by some that the Church was considering a change in its views on same-sex unions and sexuality.

"It is fitting that you have gathered here in this international colloquium to explore the complementarity of man and woman," stated the pontiff. "This complementarity is at the root of marriage and family, which is the first school where we learn to appreciate our own and others' gifts, and where we begin to acquire the arts of living together."

Francis also stated in his remarks at the colloquium that "marriage and the family are in crisis."

Additional excerpts from speeches below.

Russell Moore: Many would tell us that contemporary people will not hear us if we contradict the assumptions of the sexual revolution. We ought to conceal, or at least avoid, the conversation of what we believe about the definition of marriage, about the limits of human sexuality, about the created and good nature of gender, and speak instead in more generic spiritual terms. We have heard this before, and indeed we hear it in every generation. Our ancestors were told that modern people could not accept the miraculous claims of the ancient church creeds, and that if we were to reach them "where they are," we should emphasize the ethical content of the Scriptures—the "golden rule"—and deemphasize the scandal of such things as virgin births and empty tombs and second comings. The churches that followed this path are now deader than Henry VIII.

It turns out that people who don't want Christianity don't want almost-Christianity. More importantly, those churches that altered their message adopted what Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen rightly identified as a different religion. The stakes are just as high now. To jettison or to minimize a Christian sexual ethic is to abandon the message Jesus handed to us, and we have no authority to do this. Moreover, to do so is to abandon our love for our neighbors. We cannot offer the world the half-gospel of a surgical-strike targeted universalism, which exempts from God's judgment those sins we fear are too fashionable to address.

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF RUSSELL MOORE'S ADDRESS

Rick Warren (Notes): Paul explained it this way: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her – to make her holy... and to present her as beautiful bride to himself, a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or blemish, but holy and pure.

"In this same way, husbands must love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds it, and cares for it, just as Christ does his church– for we are members of Christ's body! It is for this reason that man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and his church! So, each of you must also love your wife as your love himself, and you wife must respect your husband." Eph. 5:23-33 (NIV)

THIS is the deepest meaning of marriage! THIS is most profound purpose of marriage! THIS is the strongest reason marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

No other relationship, including the parent-child relationship, can picture this intimate union. To redefine marriage would destroy the picture that God intends for marriage to portray.

We CANNOT cave on this issue!

Date:
Monday, November 24, 2014
November 24, 2014|8:27 am | The Christian Post| 

 

The state Supreme Court in Mississippi, where same-sex marriage is not recognized, will hear arguments Jan. 21, 2015, from a woman who has asked the state to recognize her gay marriage so that she can be granted a divorce.

Lauren Czekala-Chatham and Dana Ann Melancon, who married in California in 2008, cannot be granted a divorce in Mississippi due to the state's constitution and statutes, DeSoto County Chancery Judge Mitchell Lundy Jr. ruled last year.

"All same sex Mississippi couples lack a right to have their marriage recognized by the state regardless of whether newly arrived here, having lived here all their life or anywhere in between," The Associated Press quoted Assistant Attorney General Harold E. Pizzetta III as saying in briefs.

"Valid federal law grants states the right to choose whether to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. States are not bound to import other states' laws or policy choices. They are, and forever have been, free to choose their own public policy, as Mississippi rightfully has done here."

Czekala-Chatham's attorney does not agree. "Lauren does not seek to be married — she seeks a divorce. Lauren does not complain of Mississippi's refusal to recognize her marriage to Dana on a going-forward basis. Her complaint is that Mississippi law relegates her to a declaration of voidness, when a party to an opposite-sex marriage in otherwise similar circumstances would be entitled to a divorce," the attorney was quoted as saying.

Federal judges started striking down state amendments and laws banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional after the Supreme Court last June squashed a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

Courts, legislatures and voters in 35 states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage or are about to do so, according to Pew Forum.

These states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is the only federal appeals court to uphold state same-sex marriage bans, a ruling that applies to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Due to this decision, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans soon.

Fifteen states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Date:
Friday, November 21, 2014
November 20, 2014|10:24 am | The Christian Post| 

A California photography company has announced that it will no longer shoot wedding photography after gay activists protested against the business claiming it "denied" service to a same-sex couple for their wedding.

Nang and Chris Mai, the operators of the Bay Area-based Urloved Photography, posted to the company's website earlier in November that they'll no longer photograph weddings after they were harassed by LGBT activists for referring a gay couple seeking their service to another photographer instead of shooting the wedding themselves.

The Mais, who specialize in weddings, events and family portraits, say they've had to do away with wedding photography because they don't want to sacrifice their personal beliefs against same-sex weddings in order to abide by California's buisness discrimination laws.

"We have come to a difficult decision that we will no longer be in the wedding photography business," the married couple posted on the company's website Nov. 4. "We are grateful for this experience as it has caused us to think about how our personal beliefs intersect with our business practices."

After T.J. Kelsall posted on Facebook about how Urloved Photography declined to photograph the wedding for him and his partner, Thai Lam, the Mais received a backlash in which they were "flooded with hate calls, emails and accusations that inaccurately depict [their] business."

"Great shots but this company denied me and my fiance, a same-sex couple, from their services," Kelsall's Facebook post states. "Stand up and say something about it."

Although the Mais didn't say it was due to their religious beliefs that they didn't want to shoot the same-sex wedding, they told the couple that "photographing a gay wedding is not the best match for us."

In response to the hateful criticism from LGBT activists, the Urloved Photograpy website statement explained that the Mais felt that referring the couple to another qualified photographer, who has no objection to same-sex weddings, would have resulted in the couple being happier with their photograpgy service.

"Unfortunately, our artistic passion for excellence and personal beliefs were misinterpreted. That was never our intent," the statement says. "It is not photographing a couple who have different personal beliefs that we have difficulty with. We genuinely felt referring this couple to a photographer who does share their personal beliefs would provide them with the best service for their special day. We wanted to connect them with someone who did share their personal beliefs so that they could give them the service quality they deserve."

While it's unclear as to whether Kelsall and Lam threatened a lawsuit, another post by Kelsall indicates that it was acknowledged that their denial of service could be pursued further. Under California law: "all persons are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, including both private and public entities."

The state of New York also has a similar law to California's. Earlier this year, a Christian couple was fined $13,000 for declining to host a same-sex wedding on their farmhouse wedding venue.

"They acknowledged that if this were pursued any further it wouldn't fair [sic] well for Urloved Photography," Kelsall wrote. "They understand the law and told us they have decided that in light of their personal beliefs they will be shutting down their business."

Although the gay couple was initially upset with the Mais' decision to not shoot their wedding, Kelsall also wrote on Facebook saying they respected their decision to stop doing wedding photography and asked gay activists and their supporters to stop posting to Urloved Photography social media and Internet accounts.

"[We] consider this issue resolved and would urge you to stop posting on their FB page, Yelp, and any other social media site," the Facebook post states. "Our friends, family, and the LGBT community/allies have all been amazingly supportive and active in helping to bring this matter to light. We must respect that Nang and Chris have decided to shut down their business because of their beliefs. I wish the outcome could have been different but it is what it is."

Date:
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
By Alex Murashko | November 19, 2014|7:42 am | The Christian Post| 

Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore and megachurch pastor Rick Warren, both speaking at a Vatican conference Tuesday, warned that Christians should not succumb to the current sexual revolution or waver on the Biblical truth about sexuality and marriage.

"Western culture now celebrates casual sexuality, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, family redefinition, and abortion rights as parts of a sexual revolution that can tear down old patriarchal systems," said Moore in a prepared statement given during the "Complementarity of Man and Woman" colloquium convened by Pope Francis.

"The Sexual Revolution is not liberation at all, but simply the imposition of a different sort of patriarchy," he continued. "The Sexual Revolution empowers men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male, rooted in the values of power, prestige, and personal pleasure … We see the wreckage of sexuality as self-expression all around us, and we will see more yet. And the stakes are not merely social or cultural but profoundly spiritual."

Moore, who is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, argues that every culture has recognized that there is something about sexuality that is "more than merely the firing of nerve endings" and that there is "something mysterious here, the joining of selves."

"In the evangelical Christian perspective, this is because there is no such thing as a casual sexual encounter at all, when we are speaking in spiritual terms," he said.

Warren, who said he agreed with much of what was said from the many speakers before him during the three-day conference, focused his message on action steps for the church.

"In many ways, the debate over the definition of life, of sex, and of marriage is, in reality, a question of leadership," said Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life—What On Earth Am I Here For? He continued (in his notes forwarded to The Christian Post) by asking, "Who is going to lead? Will the church follow the crowd, or will the church lead the crowd?"

He explained, "The church cannot be salt and light in a crumbling culture if it caves in to the sexual revolution and fails to provide a counter-culture witness. It is a myth that we must give up Biblical truth on sexuality and marriage in order to evangelize."

Pope Francis declared during the conference on Monday that marriage is by definition a union of man and woman, defying past claims by some that the Church was considering a change in its views on same-sex unions and sexuality.

"It is fitting that you have gathered here in this international colloquium to explore the complementarity of man and woman," stated the pontiff. "This complementarity is at the root of marriage and family, which is the first school where we learn to appreciate our own and others' gifts, and where we begin to acquire the arts of living together."

Francis also stated in his remarks at the colloquium that "marriage and the family are in crisis."

Additional excerpts from speeches below.

Russell Moore: Many would tell us that contemporary people will not hear us if we contradict the assumptions of the sexual revolution. We ought to conceal, or at least avoid, the conversation of what we believe about the definition of marriage, about the limits of human sexuality, about the created and good nature of gender, and speak instead in more generic spiritual terms. We have heard this before, and indeed we hear it in every generation. Our ancestors were told that modern people could not accept the miraculous claims of the ancient church creeds, and that if we were to reach them "where they are," we should emphasize the ethical content of the Scriptures—the "golden rule"—and deemphasize the scandal of such things as virgin births and empty tombs and second comings. The churches that followed this path are now deader than Henry VIII.

It turns out that people who don't want Christianity don't want almost-Christianity. More importantly, those churches that altered their message adopted what Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen rightly identified as a different religion. The stakes are just as high now. To jettison or to minimize a Christian sexual ethic is to abandon the message Jesus handed to us, and we have no authority to do this. Moreover, to do so is to abandon our love for our neighbors. We cannot offer the world the half-gospel of a surgical-strike targeted universalism, which exempts from God's judgment those sins we fear are too fashionable to address.

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF RUSSELL MOORE'S ADDRESS

Rick Warren (Notes): Paul explained it this way: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her – to make her holy... and to present her as beautiful bride to himself, a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or blemish, but holy and pure.

"In this same way, husbands must love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds it, and cares for it, just as Christ does his church– for we are members of Christ's body! It is for this reason that man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and his church! So, each of you must also love your wife as your love himself, and you wife must respect your husband." Eph. 5:23-33 (NIV)

THIS is the deepest meaning of marriage! THIS is most profound purpose of marriage! THIS is the strongest reason marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

No other relationship, including the parent-child relationship, can picture this intimate union. To redefine marriage would destroy the picture that God intends for marriage to portray.

We CANNOT cave on this issue!

Date:
Monday, November 17, 2014

Michael F. Haverluck   (OneNewsNow.com) Saturday, November 15, 2014

After President Barack Obama announced his plan to give additional job protections to homosexuals employed by federal contractors, many Christian organizations became wary of government encroachment when it came to who they can and can’t hire. They were concerned that they would no longer maintain the right to hire and fire based on their religious beliefs, as faith-based charities receiving federal grants feared losing funding for not complying with Obama’s LGBT-friendly policy.

As a means of protection, Gordon College President D. Michael Lindsay signed a letter along with 13 evangelical and Catholic leaders, who bombarded the White House with pleas urging the President to uphold or augment their religious exemption in lieu of the new homosexual protections. Even though Obama didn’t retract the religious exemption, life suddenly became more complicated for Christian leaders striving to uphold biblical morality within their organizations.

Not long after Lindsay’s written plea this summer to retain the moral code at his Christian higher education institution, his stand for biblical values ended up costing him dearly. Among the trials Lindsay and Gordon College would experience since the fateful letter include the pullout of a major federal grant supporter, a student protest over the ban on “homosexual practice” on campus behavior, a college accreditation review, alumni backlash on enforcing Christian standards over LGBT-friendly policies and severed ties with officials presiding over partnerships in neighboring cities.

On second thought …

Unaware of the backlash at the time of the signing, Lindsay says he might have done things differently if he had known how difficult the “gay-“ friendly policies and attitudes adopted under the Obama administration was going to make it for his college.

"I signed the letter as a way of trying to show my personal support," Lindsay reflected. "Obviously, if I had known the response that in particular Gordon College would receive, I wouldn't sign."

Before the signing, Lindsay had no idea how influential the LGBTQ community had been on his own campus, around town, across the state and throughout the nation. Never before had he witnessed such a polarizing issue that made it difficult to enforce policies that were previously unquestioned and readily followed because of their biblical authority.

Under the gun

Lindsay’s dilemma is not unique with the changing political and ethical climate found on college campuses, regardless of their public or private status. More and more, school officials taking a stand for traditional marriage and against same-sex “marriage” are chastised as bigoted, intolerant and oppressive. Even churches and Christian schools are becoming divided over the issue, and oftentimes, those sticking with biblical morality in regards to homosexuality are not only losing friendships, but partnerships with local businesses, agencies and organizations.

When the LGBT community put pressure on Eastern Mennonite University to reconsider its policy of not hiring faculty who are engaged in homosexual relationships, it succumbed to pressure to reconsider. Wheaton College, an evangelical school in Illinois, has allowed students to create homosexual advocacy groups, showing that LGBT activism is no longer just an issue at public universities. Even Christian humanitarian organizations have been caught on the fence over same-sex “marriage,” and when they adopt politically correct policies to accept homosexual behavior, there is often a backlash from supporters and conservative Christian leaders demanding a return to biblical standards.

After his earlier attempt to accommodate the LGBT community on campus and foster an antidiscrimination environment that promotes tolerance in the state (Massachusetts) that pioneered the legalization of same-sex marriage, Lindsay found himself in the middle of volatile tensions. The conflicts began soon after his request for a religious exemption from homosexual “civil rights” from the White House, as many saw this as a conflict of interest from Gordon College’s claim that it provided a safe setting for male and female homosexuals.

Surrender Christian ethics to become LGBT-friendly?

Because the college has had a longstanding code of behavior that singles out and bans immoral behavior, including all premarital sex and “homosexual practice,” it is now being pressed by a group of homosexual students and alumni called OneGordon, along with its supporters, to eradicate any exclusionary language that forbids their lifestyle.

“There should be the same sexual ethic for LGBT and heterosexual students," asserted OneGordon Co-founder Paul O. Miller, who is also a Gordon College alumnus.

Leaders in the local community voiced concern over what they consider Gordon’s inconsistent policies, which allow it to hire homosexuals, while banning them from “homosexual practice,” which, in essence, calls for them to be celibate — just like the rest of unmarried students. LGBT supporters contend that a further problem is posed when “married” homosexual couples want to express physical affection on campus.

Because of the tensions of trying to uphold a Christian campus that embraces the homosexual community, some local decision makers have blackballed Gordon College.

Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll ceased its contract with the college so that it no longer manages the Old Town Hall in the heart of the city. In addition, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem announced it will no longer back Gordon College’s grant request to the National Endowment for the Humanities because of the issue. The museum has also severed its academic relationship with the college. Because of the divide created over the “gay” debate, the New England Association of Schools will be reviewing the college over the next year.

Some of the confusion and retraction of ties by community leaders stems from many not knowing that Gordon is in fact an evangelical Christian academic institution.

"I had no idea that Gordon was even a Christian school," expressed School Committee member Rick Starbard, who has been a Lynn public school teacher for 14 years.

Even though Starbard voted to keep the partnership with Gordon College going, the committee voted to sever its 11-year relationship with the school in late August by a 4-3 vote. The decision came in spite of the fact that Gordon had sent thousands of volunteers to teach refugees English, given out Christmas toys and gift cards, assisted students with their homework and provided art for public elementary schools. Its community involvement didn’t end there, as it even had a downtown Wenham office focusing on community relations, where its director was a member of several boards of different service agencies throughout the area. 

Starbard believes that Christian organizations give up their right to be Christian whenever they come in contact with public education or other state-run institutions.

"Anybody can have the personal beliefs that they want, but it does become different when you play in a public school," Starbard contended, seeing his colleagues’ point of view. "I think there was a knee-jerk reaction to this and people didn't think out the long-term implications."

Not your typical Christian college

Even though Gordon College strives to maintain its traditional Christian values, it rests in the epicenter of this nation’s liberalism, just 25 miles north of the state capital of Boston, where same-sex marriage became a reality for the first time in any U.S. state back in 2003. Even though the college president at the time (Judson Carlberg) did not address how the decision would affect campus life at Gordon, the school has maintained an environment that is quite liberal by most Christian college standards.

Some evangelicals find it problematic that Gordon professes to keep the Bible as the authoritative Word of God while, at the same time, it affords students the “freedom to offer constructive criticism of this tradition.” Other academic policies and curricula also stand more on the left than the right, as many would be surprised to see draped nude models posing for art students drawing the human anatomy, or the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the school’s standard science curriculum. Many would also be surprised to find that Gordon does not enforce an all-out ban on alcohol, as it is only forbidden at campus and school events — adopting the policy for its 1,700 undergrads that they should respect divergent views of what it means to be a Christian.

"Unity does not mean sameness," declared Sharon Ketcham, a professor at Gordon College who expressed this view during a recent fall semester chapel service. "No one here is asking you to be the same."

Despite a prominently displayed placard emblazoned with the words “Christian character” as the cornerstone of Gordon’s mission, many are confused about Lindsay’s contention that the college is rooted in conservative Christian values, while at the same time seeking to embrace liberal governmental policies regarding the LGBT community that don’t necessarily coincide with biblical principles.

"I'm OK in civil society for there to be civil unions, insurance rights, domestic partnerships, all those kinds of things," Lindsay conceded. "But the difference here I think we need to pay attention to — this is a religious institution that presumably might be asked to betray one of its core convictions."

Going it alone

Instead of taking the legal route and accepting legal representation from a number of Christian legal groups pressing for Gordon’s free speech rights, Lindsay has decided to take the path of least resistance in an attempt to make the controversy subside without drawing any “us vs. them” battle lines. To bring all groups together, Lindsay brought homosexual students and alumni together with faculty and staff in order to come to a middle ground and appease all parties involved. He maintains that he will not resort to legal action to resolve the issue.

In an attempt at damage control, Lindsay even took things into his own hands and traveled to Georgetown, where he convinced a teachers’ union to not end hosting its student-teacher program for Gordon College. Intensifying his efforts to maintain local relationships, Lindsay also wrote letters to public school superintendents so that they would still agree to train Gordon students in their teacher education programs.

In the spirit of unity, Lindsay also personally visited Gordon’s dorms for two nights at the beginning of this fall semester and opened up for question and answer sessions. Saying he wanted to fully address all the issues and concerns homosexual students had on campus, Lindsay had administrators, faculty and trustees come together with students. The discussion groups will meet again in February to specifically discuss the “life and conduct statement” that is currently in place on campus.

Having had enough over the controversy, which has sapped much of his time and taken him away from other duties on campus, Lindsay says that this was the last time he will take a public stand on issues that can be political in nature.

Sitting down or standing up?

Eleven-year Gordon College sociology professor James Trent agrees with Lindsay that he made the wrong decision by signing the letter requesting religious exemptions; he also argues that the college’s ban on “homosexual practice” was a mistake.

"He made a mistake in signing it," Trent proclaimed. ''The middle ground begins to wear when you're oppressing people. How do you slightly oppress someone?"

But Line of Fire radio host Dr. Michael L. Brown does not see Gordon’s ban on “homosexual practice” as being oppressive — or even discriminatory. He believes that Christians should not come together with the secular world when it means leaving their faith and values at the door.

“I welcome the coming separation over this issue,” Brown declared. “And as painful as the division will be within churches, denominations, ministries, and even families, it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable.”

Brown believes that Christians on campuses across the nation should still be loving and respectful toward the LGBTQ community, but he stresses that this should not come at the expense of sacrificing one’s Christian convictions.

“That doesn't mean that we attack each other or speak and act in ways that would dishonor the Lord,” Brown concludes. “But it does mean that we hold firmly to our convictions before Him, regardless of cost or consequences, knowing that God's ways will be vindicated in the end.”

Pages