December 2012: ‘Let us resist putting a stamp of approval on any sin’

LS010059‘Let us resist putting a stamp of approval on any sin’

In the referenced Scripture (Mark 10:1-12) as Janet explains, Jesus did respond to a question about divorce. In His response He specifically talked about a divorce between a man and a woman. But as Janet suggests, in His silence does or did He give His tacit approval then of same-sex unions? If so does that also mean in His silence, He also approves all unions including that of an adult/child; or, adults with more than one partner, etc.?

We are made in His image and we are to reflect His glory. When we do not, we engage in idolatry — plain and simple. He did not make us to be liars, thieves, adulterers nor homosexuals. We only become liars, thieves, etc. when we engage in those acts. If I am a thief or adulterer and attribute my sins to God “because He made me this way,” then I am also liar. We are however, called to love all sinners including homosexuals.

By His grace, by the power of His spirit, we do not have to sin. Accordingly, let us resist putting a stamp of approval on any sin, even if it is politically and culturally acceptable. Instead, let us be about praying for the redemption of all sinners versus indulging their behavior … including our own.

-Bill Cashdollar

Algonquin language different from the Wampanoag language

Posted Wednesday, December 5, 2012

I read your article with interest. I am not Indian but my wife is. I see many discrepancies between the truth she has spoken about the history of her people in Massachusetts and some of the comments I read here. I don’t think she would agree that the dialect of the Algonquin language was only spoken until the 17th century. Her great grandmother, who helped to raise her, spoke the language into the 20th century. The Indians like the Irish had to speak their language far from the public ear because it was proscribed by the government. From what I have learned about their history, the Christian natives worked on the translation and printing of the Bible. It was not a strictly English production. With the advent of Indian gaming there are a lot of people about the land weaving a false narrative about who the natives of Massachusetts are and were.

Good article none the less.

We are Christian, she is much more devout than I.

Paul Morceau

A subtle contradiction between Edwards’ interpretations of the various passages

Posted Wednesday, December 5, 2012

I would like to offer a critique of Edwards’ exegesis for seeing a blessing of same-sex marriage in Scripture (letters of September 19 and November 28). There is a subtle contradiction between her interpretations of the various passages.

The verses in Paul are assumed to be only directed toward “exploitation of others” and therefore do not apply to the loving, committed relationships we see today. This interpretation is based on the assumption that the only loving, committed relationships in the first century could have been traditional man-woman marriages, and that Paul could not have even imagined our situation today. Or as Edwards put it in her letter of September 19, “marriage between a man and a woman was simply all anyone knew at that time.”

But now we learn that David and Jonathan also had a loving, committed relationship (marriage?).

Rev. Edwards says as much:

“If you take the love story between David and Jonathan as a life-long covenant (as David takes it to be, caring for Jonathan’s son in accord with his promise), then there are, indeed, grounds for permission of same-sex marriage in Scripture.”

Here is the point of contradiction: Jesus and Paul would surely have read of the relationship of David and Jonathan in 1 and 2 Samuel. If they understood it as Edwards does, then marriage between a man and a woman was NOT “all anyone knew at that time.” Paul would have been aware of a Biblical loving, committed same-sex relationship and could have distinguished it from the exploitative relationships of his contemporary Greco-Roman culture.

If Edwards’ interpretation of 1 and 2 Samuel is correct, then her interpretation of Paul must be wrong.

David Clark

Are we trying to follow a script or formula, or trying to follow the Spirit?

Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2012

I appreciate the efforts of you-all to call Presbyterians back to the faith of their fathers and keep all (who care) informed about the tribulations being experienced by the faithful.  Your efforts give specifics to pray about.  Thank you.

I usually read only your paper’s news-reports.  However, this month, I also read your “Equipping…” column.  I was surprised to discover an Arminian statement in Week III, “A response is necessary” (in regard to the insufficiency of Christ’s atonement sacrifice).  Having grown-up in Methodist churches, this belief is very familiar to me.  However, it contradicts your introductory statement, “We have sinned and God alone can fix our sin problem”.  Moreover, some “Berean” investigation reveals it to contradict many Scriptures, including:

  1.  2 Th 2:13 … God chose you from the beginning for salvation…”
  2. Eph 1:4 “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…”
  3. Rom 11:7 …the chosen obtained [salvation], while the rest were hardened.”
  4. Rev 17:14 “…the [ones] with Him [are the] called and chosen and faithful.”
  5. Mk 13:27 “…He will gather together His chosen, from the four winds… earth… heaven”
  6. Rom 9:11 “… in order that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not from out of works, but from out of Him calling…”
  7. Rom 5:9  “….having now been justified in the blood of Him, we shall be saved… from the wrath.”
  8. Rom 5:10 “… we were reconciled to God by-means-of the death of His Son… having been reconciled, we shall be saved in the life of Him.
  9. Rom 8:30  “… Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called. Moreover, whom He called, these He also justified.  Moreover whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
  10. 1 Cor 6:11 “… but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of the God of us.
  11. Mt 1:21 “… He will save His people from their sins.”
  12. Jn 6:37 “All that the Father gives to Me will come towards Me…”
  13. Jn 6:39 “… all that He has given to Me, I should lose nothing from out of it, but will-re-stand-it-up in the last day.
  14. Jn 6:44 “No one is able to come toward me unless the Father… should draw (GRK: chose-to-drag) him,”.
  15. Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace you are having-been-saved-once, by-means-of faith ; and this, not from-out-of you, [it is] the gift of God; not from-out-of works, in-order-that not any should-boast.”
  16. 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable towards teaching, towards reproof, towards correction, towards training in righteousness.”

If every God-breathed declaration is true, and will never contradict itself, any theory, hypothesis, pronouncement, exhortation, doctrine, confession, interpretation or translation that seems to contradict any Scripture should be closely examined for errors. Two popular “Christian” doctrines appear to fall into this category:

  1. Christ died for everybody: If Christ died in order to justify and reconcile all sinners to God, and if all mankind are sinners, then all mankind has been justified and reconciled to God.  Accordingly, all enmity between God and all mankind has been erased; and there is no wrath to come against anyone.
  2. My salvation requires accepting the free gift of salvation and accepting Jesus into my life. If only those whom the Father has drawn/dragged and enabled can come to Jesus, and all that the Father has given to Jesus will come to Jesus…of whom He will not lose even one… then only those whom the Father has given, dragged and enabled will be saved.  This is all the work of God; nothing more is required from me… and nothing that I do will ever be a cause for any boasting.

The following seems closer to the truth

  1. Jesus died to save His people.
  2. His people are those chosen and given to Him by the Father.
  3. God does whatever is required to redeem, justify, reconcile, rebirth, save, and sanctify all whom He has chosen to so grace.
  4. Any acceptance, surrender, good works, right conduct, right belief or helpful association is the result of God’s work on my behalf (not a requirement for my salvation).

Lastly, your use of the term “post-modern person” sounds very seminarian.  However, I failed to see any definition.  Moreover, I doubt that any definition changes anything fundamental, since all people have been born into sin, are infected and enslaved in sin, are spiritually dead, with eyes that can’t see, ears that can’t hear and hearts that can’t understand… until God (miraculously) enables whatever is required, to occur… to rebirth them… according to His plan, His time, His way, sometimes assisted by His servants, chosen, called and equipped with whatever words and actions that He has given to them, in order to accomplish His will.

We all would be wise to ask, “Are we trying to follow a script or formula, or trying to follow the Spirit?”

Alan Lietzke

A clarification

Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Just wanted to make one clarification in your statement about the realignment of the Presbyterian, that is, its deviation from Biblical truth, which included “Anglicans and Lutherans.”   As a former Presbyterian and now a Missouri Synod Lutheran I can say that the difference between ELCA and MS Lutherans is as stark as night and day.  Please do not group MS Lutherans with the ELCA.

Sharon Kientz Carson City, NV

Traditional paradoxes are no longer allowed in an educated world.

Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2012

I think you are doing a great job, but there is a problem with today’s people that is going to require a little work to overcome.

The reason I am a Christian is that God spoke a few words to me when I was in my twenties. (Nothing since that time, and I am grateful for that.) No amount of proselytizing could have brought me into the fold because I come from a background of computer programming and logic is the basis of what I decide is true or false.

I had the false assumption that the Bible and logic were incompatible. It turns out that old school science and religion are incompatible.

My hobby is the study of reality. Not the far out stuff, but things that spring from quantum mechanics and university consciousness studies. Modern science has swung 180 degrees and is now totally compatible with the Bible. This includes Darwin’s evolution which has been debunked logically via the Cambrian explosion and philosophically via genetic programming. Adaptation still holds true, but that is not in conflict with Biblical thought. And, if you were wondering, there is not a problem with the Earth being millions of years old to science and thousands of years old to the Bible. If you view this world as a simulation with a history, like ‘Doom’ or ‘World of Warcraft’, you can understand how you don’t start the game at the beginning of its history. You start it where things get interesting. Anyway, I digress.

The problem is with religion, not the Bible. When you wrote, “God created humanity in perfection, but through our own will we have chosen to go our own way, and that is what led us into the mess we’re in,” the alarm bells go off. We have a choice alright. Either God knew what man was going to do or He didn’t. Thus, He either was oblivious to the future or He consciously created a creature destined to sin. Can you see the paradox here?

I choose to read the Bible at face value which includes tongue in cheek humor. He put the trees of knowledge and life in the middle of the garden. Now was that temptation or what? And, hey, Jesus was already there, right? The holes in His hands might be a hint as to what was going to happen. Come on! The Genesis story is the story of how God set it up so man’s soul could be forged into a brother of Christ. Of course man was going to fall. He had to fall in order for Christ to lift him to heights beyond imagination. And, regrettably, some of us aren’t going to make it. This is a high stakes game.

So, in conclusion, if we want to reach people, religion is going to have to change. Not toward the liberal death spiral, but toward reading and understanding the Bible within the boundaries of common sense.

Traditional paradoxes are no longer allowed in an educated world.

Marvin Daugherty


Pastor responds to Covenant Network article

Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Covenant Network ran an article describing the Synods ruling that our union presbytery was found illegal. My response to the Covenant Network:

As one of the authors of this union plan this decision of the PJC is disappointing. Our honest desire was to keep our presbytery together even as we acknowledged deep differences in our understanding of the gospel, Scripture, and ministry. St. Andrews Church and all who signed the complaint have successfully  killed  any attempt in our presbytery to work together and even remain together. We in the evangelical side grieve this even as we acknowledge its reality and turn to take another course. It has become radiantly clear to evangelicals that in spite of liberal claims of inclusivity we are welcome only when and if we submit to their values and rules. It is thus clear that the Presbyterian tent is not really as big or inclusive as some would like to believe. 

What is perhaps most frustrating is the inaccuracies found in both the complaint and judgement of the PJC. They ruled in article three that ECO requires members to agree with its list of essential tenets. The FACT is that ECO has no such requirement or rule. It is impossible at this point to determine if St. Andrews and the PJC are merely ignorant of this fact or chose instead to replace it with an untrue caricature. 

Just wanting to keep you all informed. Thanks!

Mark R. Patterson, pastor Community Presbyterian Church, Ventura, Calif


GA and many presbyteries effectively left the Presbyterian church years ago

Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2012

It is abundantly clear that congregations are not leaving the PCUSA … as The General Assembly and many presbyteries effectively left the Presbyterian Church years ago.

It’s the clear intent that PCUSA has one thing in mind to confiscate property as they continue with their actions to move away from Gods teachings!

Larry E. May Winston Salem N.C.


Those who disagree with you are equally followers of Jesus

Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the comments and questions in Joe Duffus’ letter posted on Oct. 24, 2012.

At the start it is important to me to clarify that Joe’s summary of what I was addressing is different from my intent. He describes the differences I was speaking to as “a disconnect over the understanding of Jesus’ word as law.” That is a very important topic in the church, of course. However, what I had in my mind and meant to talk about was the PCUSA Book of Order in its function as law in the church, not the much larger Law of God. I am sorry I was unclear.

My intent was to say that our Book of Order actually permits what it does not prohibit. I expect Joe Duffus and I agree that our church wants our Book of Order to be in accord with Scripture. In that sense, I acknowledge Joe’s point and assert that with Scripture, too, what is not prohibited is permitted since this is how there is space through history for the Holy Spirit to do God’s promised “new thing.”

This begins to explain how I can understand Scripture to permit same-sex marriage as there is simply no prohibition of faithful, covenantal loving relationships between two men or two women in the Bible. If you take the love story between David and Jonathan as a life-long covenant (as David takes it to be, caring for Jonathan’s son in accord with his promise), then there are, indeed, grounds for permission of same-sex marriage in Scripture.

There is, in the Bible, prohibition against rape (Genesis 19, Jude 1), of sexual acts in religious ritual (Leviticus 18, 20), sexual exploitation of others (Deuteronomy 23, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy), and debauchery (Romans 1). I trust your readers and I can agree that there are prohibitions in both Scripture and Presbyterian law against these sins. None of these prohibit the covenant of two men or two women before God and the church or to “love til death” that we all recognize as marriage.

Let me try to answer Joe’s crucial question concerning Mark 10:6-9 and Genesis 2:23-24: How can Jesus’ words in Mark 10:6-9 be consistent with an argument that gay marriage was part of God’s plan? Or, Joe puts it another way: Why would Jesus say, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,” if He meant only to address the Pharisees test question about divorce.

For me, what Jesus was doing by reminding His listeners, including us, of God’s pairing in Genesis is set up His punch line regarding divorce, the topic at hand: “What therefore God has joined, let no one put asunder.” When the context here is a question about divorce, then all Jesus says is meant to bolster His strong position against divorce—and it all does.

For Jesus, when a man takes a woman as wife, that’s it—they are together. Nothing there goes on to say, “And the only person a man can take is a woman and only a woman.” When we recognize that fidelity is central here and that good, faithful Christians testify to God calling them to marry a person of the same sex, then Jesus is saying to us, “What therefore God has joined, let no one put asunder.” There are simply no grounds in either Genesis or Mark to use these passages as a prohibition against same-sex marriage. To do so invites the charge of eisegesis. And if your readers want to turn the same charge on me, then perhaps we can declare together that Mark is about divorce and find our Biblical evidence for our views on same-sex marriage in other places.

Genesis is about origins. Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:18-25 are about the genesis of the human race. Marriage is not mentioned; it has to be read into it. This means that Genesis is consistent with arguments for same-sex marriage because it has nothing at all to do with either marriage or same-sex marriage.

I forgive Joe for presuming that what I believe is the “Italian” approach to the law (everything is permitted including that which is prohibited). I agree with him that this is what we are experiencing in the PCUSA right now, however, it is not what I like or believe to be good. I consider the “English” approach (everything is permitted except that which is prohibited) to be in accord with the way God desires the law to work among us.

I agree completely with Joe Duffus: “Legalistic shenanigans abound in the PCUSA polity and court system.” I am sure we disagree on perpetrators and desired outcomes. Perhaps we can agree that the “German” approach (everything is prohibited except that which is permitted) has failed, draining the church of precious time and treasure and threatening the cohesion of the PCUSA family.

I hear the pain in Joe Duffus’ cry, “Many here feel the pull of the same Holy Spirit to stand for Jesus’ words and ask why they are ignored.” Joe needs to explain to me how his understanding of Jesus is being ignored. Every Presbyterian has the responsibility to stand for what each understands to be “Jesus’ words” and to speak up for them so that they will not be ignored. My own sense is that insistence upon one’s own way—our read of Jesus’ words is the only possible read—is where our troubles begin.

As far as I know myself, I am not insisting that Joe or any other reader of The Presbyterian Layman adopt my understanding of how to follow Jesus. What I do want is for Layman readers to accept that those who disagree with them are equally followers of Jesus and to stop trying to make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Presbyterians and followers of Christ out to be the “other” that they can put down, ignore or push aside.

Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards


GAPJC decision is big, bad news

Posted Friday, November 2, 2012

The GAPJC decision in the Tom v. San Francisco Presbytery case is BIG (and BAD) news.

The GAPJC  has said that any presbytery dismissal policy that permits dismissal with property upon payment of certain continued per capita or mission giving and that does not ALSO require additional payment of a percentage of the value of the property, is null and void on its face, as written. Louisville’s perception of its own economic interests trump any presbytery-determined definition of “gracious”. So much for those (few) presbyteries that actually were willing to be gracious.

In addition, implicit in the GAPJC’s decision is another draconian holding. Essentially, the GAPJC has also ruled that even if a presbytery’s dismissal policy, as written, includes express mention of the value of the property as a factor to be considered, if an actual dismissal  happens not to include exacting a sum as a designated percentage of that value, the presbytery’s dismissal policy  will be held invalid  as applied.

Also, if the Book of Order is interpreted in the manner that the GAPJC has just ruled, and if presbyteries really don’t have authority under the BOO to craft their own dismissal policies as each presbytery perceives grace demands, then that means that it is ultimately within the power of the PJC to decide what the percentage of the value of the property is that will satisfy the presbytery’s fiduciary responsibility to the PCUSA.  5%? 10%? 25? 50%?

One final observation. The GAPJC’s ruling, that the  presbytery’s obligation of fiduciary to the PCUSA demands exacting  some percentage of the value of the property as the price for dismissal, stands in SHARP contrast to what had effectively been the PCUSA’s temporary national dismissal policy at the time of the 1983 reunion. Under the Articles of Agreement, if a church had a one-third quorum and a two-thirds vote, dismissal with property was automatic without any payment of any kind being required. If this was  deemed proper notwithstanding the existence of the trust clause, and it was, how then can dismissal with no payment of a percentage of the value ( but with  continued payment of graduated per capita and mission giving) now be deemed improper? Has the Book of Order changed? No. The only thing that has changed is the increasing financial needs of a dwindling PCUSA—hence the shift in the alleged fiduciary duty of presbyteries. Grace? No. In the eyes of the GAPJC, it’s all about the money. If anybody still had doubts about what is important to the PCUSA, the Tom v. San Francisco Presbytery decision  gives an answer. It might well be called the “Show Me the Money” case. Sola Moola.

I agree with Mary Naegeli’s observation that the GAPJC’s decision did not require presbyteries to exact a percentage of the value of the property as a price for dismissal. The GAPJC’s decision only mandates that a written dismissal policy should list the value of the property as something to be considered when the presbytery determines what its fiduciary duties are. This is a technically correct reading of the GAPJC opinion and merits pointing out.

However, the actual text of a judicial opinion and the message received downstream are often not the same. I think that as EPs and administrative commissions and presbyteries receive and “translate” this opinion in implementation in the real world, they will increasingly insist, “to be on the safe side”, that any dismissal be contingent on payment of a percentage of the value of the property—not merely that such be a factor listed in the written dismissal policy. I think this will be a likely effect of this GAPJC opinion—even though the opinion doesn’t technically require this.

In  the parsing of what this opinion says or stops short of saying, though, the big picture should stay in the forefront. The fiduciary duties of presbyteries to the PCUSA, on which this entire GAPJC opinion rests, is based on a false predicate — a valid trust to start with. By no stretch of anything remotely resembling basic legal principles or  fundamental  fairness can a non-owner create a trust  for their own benefit over property someone else owns without that  owner’s  clear consent. And if there is no trust to start with, only the aspirational assertion of a hoped-for trust by the would-be beneficiary,  there is no  presbytery-trustee. And if there is no legitimate trustee, one does not even reach consideration of what the trustees’ duties are.

Lloyd Lunceford Baton Rouge, La.


The PCUSA is using coercion to keep disgruntled churches in by holding on to their property

Posted Friday, November 2, 2012

I’ve just returned from a presbytery meeting of my denomination, which is a conservative one in the Presbyterian tradition. In the last four or five years, it has pretty much tripled in size and more churches are knocking on the gates asking to be let in. They are talking about the necessity of splitting the presbytery into at least into two segments because of the increased size. My part would be east of the Mississippi and would include both Tupelo and Memphis, so I suggested they call it the Elvis Presbytery. They didn’t think that was very funny.

Anyway, what I heard repeatedly was that more churches would bail out of the more liberal PCUSA and join us if it wasn’t for the property issue. The PCUSA is using coercion to keep disgruntled churches in by holding on to their property. They use other tactics like firing pastors, dissolving sessions (the elders), changing the locks on church doors, and finally, taking churches to court. Now, it would be helpful if the Lord repeated the Exodus thing and afflicted the PCUSA with 10 plagues – darkness, frogs, boils, etc. until they let His people go. But the Lord doesn’t seem to be into that, so here’s another strategy: passive resistance.

What if conservatives appeared at PCUSA presbytery meetings and General Assemblies and sessions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Council and sat in the doorway so no one could enter or leave? Then, they could sing “We Shall Overcome” as the police arrived and struck them with their billy clubs? Hey, it worked for India’s Mahatma Gandhi. His method of nonviolent passive resistance forced the British to give India its independence. Using the same tactics, Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement caused the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Wouldn’t it be supremely ironic if conservatives used such tactics to be freed from a liberal denomination that preaches so much about “justice?”

Larry Brown African Bible College, Currently on home assignment in the USA

My action of officiating same-sex weddings strengthens my Presbyterian identity, belief and actions

Posted Friday, November 2, 2012

In Mateen Elass’ letter on September 19, 2012, he moved through each vow of ordination that I took 8 years ago. I studied these vows before taking them, and have continued to study them ever since, reflecting on them as my relationship to the church grows and develops. I am grateful for these vows and the continual reminder that Jesus Christ is Head of the Church. Hanging from this notion I find the freedom to live into the rest of our vows as I work towards the Great Ends of the Church. I believe Mateen and I simply differ on what that means.

I believe that it continues to be proven, as evidenced in the stories of the people I work with, that my action of officiating same—sex weddings reinforces and strengthens my Presbyterian identity, belief and actions. Therefore, I have no interest in renouncing my ordination vows. This denomination baptized me, raised me, confirmed me, ordained me a Deacon in high school, a Ruling Elder in college and a Teaching Elder eight years ago. This denomination is my home and to leave it would be equivalent to trying to abandon the God who has created me into being. I am called to serve the Presbyterian Church (USA). And while Mateen may see my actions as pushing the boundaries of what the Church looks like, history has shown us that sometimes the Church needs a push to embrace Jesus’ call to inclusion.

Following this call is the path I choose. If Mateen truly believes that I am violating our polity then let him bring forth those charges—I am completely prepared to face him and them. I engage in my ministry for the sake and integrity of the gospel and I will continue to do so until the end.

Rev. Mieke Vandersall


The denomination’s actions are deliberate

Posted Friday, November 2, 2012

Bruce Johnson  suggests that Louisville should find out what the members of its congregations think and stop the far left propaganda being stated on their behalf. Johnson must be kidding as I can’t believe he doesn’t know that Louisville is well aware of what those in the pews think. The fact is Louisville could care less. The denomination’s actions are deliberate and those who disagree are expected to just shut up and pay the per capita. I decided 5 years ago to NOT pay for this insult to my Christian beliefs by terminating my membership. I still support my local church (for now).

Fred Edwards


PCUSA will pay a great price because of the BOP’s decision

Posted Friday, October 19, 2012

On January 1, 2013 the Board of Pensions (BOP) will begin to extend spousal and child benefits to same-gender domestic partners of benefits plan members. Before the benefits are distributed the member of the plan “must verify that he or she has a civil license or certificate evidencing a civil marriage, civil union or domestic partnership” in order to qualify.

I am very angry about this decision. The BOP’s decision is inexcusable revealing absolute disrespect for the Scriptures and our Reformed standards. For many churches across the Presbyterian landscape further participation in the BOP will be supporting and accepting what the Bible calls sin.

My guess is Andrew Browne and those who made this decision did not take into consideration the facts about homosexual relationships especially among men. The gay community preaches monogamous long-term relationships. However, this message is an illusion. The most significant work on this subject was written by a gay male couple: David McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew Mattison, Ph.D.  In their book, The Male Couple, they studied 156 couples whose relationships had lasted from one to 37 years. What did they find? The researchers reported that two-thirds of the couples began their relationship with the expectation of sexual exclusivity, but over time the partners became more permissive. They found that not one couple living together more than five years was able to sustain a monogamous relationship. Several years ago two homosexual men wrote a book, After the Ball, setting forth an aggressive blueprint to normalize homosexuality. Authors Kirk and Madsen acknowledge that “the cheating ratio of married gay males, given enough time, approaches 100 percent. Monogamy between two men is an illusion.

You may think that long-term monogamy will increase in those parts of the globe that accept homosexuality as a norm. The Netherlands is arguably the most gay-friendly country in the world. In 2005 a study was released that states that in the Netherlands the average duration of “steady” homosexual male partnerships was “0.75 – 2.25 years.” Those in the study who identified themselves as being in a “steady” relationship were also found to average eight casual partners a year in addition to their significant other.”

Evidence shows that open relationships are glorified and celebrated within pro-homosexual circles. Homosexual author Andrew Sullivan in his book Virtually Normal boasts that homosexual relationships might even be superior to heterosexual marriage because of the homosexuals’ capacity to understand the need for “outside relationships.”

Dan Savage is a gay journalist and often clashes with social conservatives. Savage writes “Gay male couples generally don’t view monogamy as the defining characteristic of a loving, committed relationship. Studies of male couples in long-term relationships have found that most gay male couples do allow for outside sexual contact, contacts that I wouldn’t characterize as affairs or cheating. If there are no lies, if there is no betrayal, if neither partner is doing anything that violates the commitment he made to the other, then no one cheated and no one was cheated on. ”

It is very clear that men who identify themselves as homosexuals are usually not monogamous. Did the board of the BOP take into consideration that they will be giving medical benefits to male homosexuals who will have multiple sexual excursions outside of their “marriage.” I doubt it. Look forward to BOP dues to continue to rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases) and the cost for fertility treatments for lesbian couples.

We will pay a great price both morally and financially because of the BOP’s decision to extend spousal and child benefits to same-gender domestic partners of benefits plan members. I don’t know about you but I can’t live with this decision.

Jeff Winter, head of staff FPC Haines City, Fla.


Do not to get mired down in the antics of the PCUSA

Posted Friday, October 19, 2012

We must be very careful not to get mired down in the antics of the PCUSA. Lest we forget, many courageous men and women are living out the Biblical narrative as we speak and this makes it an exciting time.

At a recent Presbytery meeting of the EPC several new congregations were received finding a new home in that denomination. Their joy was palpable. Their displayed courage was radiant.

You cannot stop a train barreling headlong towards perdition. You can only hope and pray that those aboard will summon the courage and the wisdom to jump off.

John Cowan Cartersville, Ga,