Praise the Lord and pass the rattlesnakes

The Washington Post has a story creating more than a few ripples of derision.

Mack Wolford, a flamboyant Pentecostal pastor from West Virginia whose serpent-handling talents were profiled last November in The Washington Post Magazine, hoped the outdoor service he had planned for Sunday at an isolated state park would be a “homecoming like the old days,” full of folks speaking in tongues, handling snakes and having a “great time.” But it was not the sort of homecoming he foresaw. Instead, Wolford, who turned 44 the previous day, was bitten by a rattlesnake he owned for years. He died late Sunday.

When I ran across the story, I expected to read it with a mixture of bemusement and curiosity. Instead, I was shocked to find how oddly affected I was by this man.

At least some of the impact comes from my Appalachian hillbilly roots. I have heard a few stories about snake handlers, enough to know that they are still around but their numbers are dwindling. I also know that state park where he was holding services when the snake bit him.

I have always been curious about what appealed to these people about handling snakes. I suppose if you are able to handle these critters without getting hurt, it would probably be a spiritual high. Not to mention a huge adrenalin rush. But there has be more to it.

I love to skydive. It is an adrenalin kick, particularly during the minute or so of free-fall. There is also a big spiritual rush from awe over the spectacular scenery and sensory overload. You also do not expect to die even though you know it can happen. In fact, I have seen it happen. Still, you jump to feel alive, not cheat death. The in-flight prayers are overwhelming gratitude for the experience.

While there are some parallels with skydiving, I still cannot quite fathom handling rattlesnakes. Not for the excitement. Not from any validation of your faith that comes from not being bitten. It feels too much like tempting fate, but that is just me.

Whatever Pastor Wolford got out of handling snakes, it must have been very powerful. He witnessed his own father die after being bitten by a snake he was handling. A tragedy like than would certainly have discouraged me from maintaining the tradition. Then again, maybe he did it partly as a homage to his father.

And Wolford was not just handler. He was an evangelist for the practice.

I promised the Lord I’d do everything in my power to keep the faith going,” he said in October. “I spend a lot of time going a lot of places that handle serpents to keep them motivated. I’m trying to get anybody I can get involved.”

The other interesting element was how Wolford interacted with members of the press. He was profiled by the Washington Post and developed a close relationship with the freelance photographer hired for that story.

One of the people present was Lauren Pond, 26, a freelance photographer from the District. She had been photographing serpent handlers in the area for more than a year, including for The Post, and stayed at Wolford’s home in November. 

“He helped me to understand the faith instead of just documenting it,” she said Tuesday. 

“He was one of the most open pastors I’ve ever met. He was a friend and a teacher.”
The family allowed her to stay near Wolford’s side Sunday night, and she’s still recovering from having witnessed the pastor’s agonizing death. “I didn’t see the bite,” she said. “I saw the aftermath.”

The ability to connect with an outsider, much less a big city photographer, is remarkable. Most of the Pentecostals in the Appalachian hills I have come across are suspicious of strangers. I could not imagine them being as warm and open as Wolford and his family. That connection no doubt accounts for the very sympathetic portrayal by the Post in their original story and the tragic follow-up.

By the way, I borrowed the title from Wolford's Facebook post announcing the snake handling service and inviting people to join them. It seems like a fitting tribute to the man. My heart goes out to his family in their time of grief.

"Brutal" attack on the Pope

The Vatican is clearly annoyed at the negative press generated by recent leaks, arrests, resignations, and allegations.

On Tuesday, the Vatican undersecretary of state, Archbishop Angelo Becciu, called the reports a "brutal" attack on the Pope.

The trouble with the narrative in the media is that the focus is on who leaked Vatican documents and whether the leaks were orchestrated as part of a power struggle. In other words, it's juicy gossip that has captivated the public imagination. That is not the real story.

Yes, it is a betrayal of trust for the Pope's butler to steal documents and give or sell the material to a journalist. And it would be fascinating if the leaks turns out to be part of a larger plot to discredit the current regime and make it more difficult for the Pope to pick his successor. That sort of palace intrigue would be media gold.

Unfortunately, the real story is not being told. Or at least not being told effectively. Indignation over stolen papers needs to be placed in proper context. There have been embarrassing disclosures of incompetence and corruption in the management of the Vatican's finances.

The leaks began in January with the publication of letters written by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano when he was secretary-general of the Governor's Office of Vatican City State. The archbishop, who now is nuncio to the United States, warned of corruption, abuse of power, a lack of transparency in awarding Vatican contracts and opposition to financial reforms 

Later leaks included a letter from a Vatican official questioning the current reform of the Vatican's finance laws. 

Lombardi told journalists Monday the leaks' scandal and the recent dismissal of the president of the Vatican Bank were "distinct and separate" cases. Bank president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was fired Thursday by the bank's board of supervisors, who censured him for neglecting his duties amid worsening management problems.

I thought confession and repentance were required for sin. Instead, the Vatican's example is defensiveness and lashing out at critics. "Brutal" attack, indeed.

And let's not forget the carefully orchestrated attacks on women religious, homosexuals, contraception, and any regulation of Catholic institutions in America. Even the Girl Scouts have become a target for the inquisitive Bishops. The Bishops have been very, very busy, cracking the whip on the faithful and carpet bombing political targets in the culture war.

The best assessment of this mess I have seen comes from Fr. Doug Koesel:

The Vatican is hypocritical and duplicitous. Their belief is always that someone else needs to clean up their act; the divorced, the gays, the media, the US nuns, the Americans who were using the wrong words to pray, the seminaries, etc. It never occurs to the powers that be that the source of the problem is the structure itself. We can say that now with certainty as regards the sex abuse crisis. It was largely the structure of the church itself, the way men were trained and isolated, made loyal to the system at all costs and not to the person, that gave us the scandalous cover-up.

For those of us that want to repair the world and answer the prayers of the broken, the antics of sexual purity police and money changers has grown tiresome. The body of Christ has a yeast infection - the yeast of the Pharisees.

In remembrance

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9). At the other end of the spectrum are the political leaders that pursue wars based on greed and lies.

Lost in the fray and too easily forgotten are the men and women that serve their country in uniform. They are pawns in the game, but they sacrifice their lives, limbs, sanity, and marriages to combat. They deserve to be remembered with reverence regardless of how we feel about the conflicts that changed their lives forever.

A prayer for renewal on Pentecost

There were two miracles on Pentecost celebrated by the followers of Jesus. The first miracle was of communication, which allowed God's message of love to overcome the barriers of native language. "We hear them declare the wonders of God in our own tongues" (Acts 2:11).

Christians often forget that Pentecost was celebrated as part of the Jewish calender long before Christ. Fifty days after Passover marked the festival of Shavout, the celebration of the gift of Torah. It was God speaking to Moses.

Jews gathered in Jerusalem for Shavout after the death of Jesus witnessed another miracle. With the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the apostles of Christ became the conduit of God speaking directly to all those willing to listen.

The second miracle was fellowship. Those touched by the message of God's love came together on earth as it is in heaven.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common.They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47)

A community was born. God had touched their hearts and filled them with brotherly love.

Now look at us. We are divided by nationality, politics, wealth, and denomination. Religious leaders serve the interests of the powerful and placate the privileged. The lessons of history are forgotten. We embrace the yeast of the Pharisees. We bow down to the hypocrites and vipers. We lust for wealth and trample the poor. We have brought shame on the name of the Lord.

On this Pentecost may there be a renewal of the spirit that we may again hear the voice of God and heal the body of Christ that we may again be an effective witness for God's love.

Tim Tebow and cynical displays of religious piety

The Christian Post has an article that is embarrassing from start to finish ("Student Tebowed at Graduation, Diploma Withheld by Mother"). It in an embarrassment to our faith.

It starts with a misleading lede paragraph by reporter Daniel Distant.

A teen Tebowing during his graduation ceremony Saturday caused his diploma to be withheld by Florida school officials, who didn't want the high school senior's actions to be an "inspiration" for other antics.

That statement suggests that a young man broke into a spontaneous act of worship during his graduation ceremony and was punished by school officials for that expression of faith. That is not what happened.

The student was not engaged in prayer. He was mocking it.

Chuck Shriner, 17, of Bishop Verot's Catholic school, was bet $5 by his friends that he wouldn't go on stage and imitate the popular pose of the New York Jets' Christian quarterback. They underestimated him; he Tebowed on stage - dropping to one knee to pray - while parents and students erupted in laughter.

Here is a young man who mocked God by pretending to pray in public, took money to do it, disobeyed school rules, and disrupted the ceremony. The reality of the situation bears no resemblance to the implication that the young man was disciplined by the school for an expression of faith.

His mother, a teacher at the high school, was not amused by her son's stunt, and encouraged school officials to hold him accountable for his actions. In other words, she took her responsibilities as a parent seriously.

Far from being penitent, the kid was proud of his little stunt, posting his exploits on his Facebook page, and even pumping his fist during interviews.

"Moment in my life I'll never forget, getting my diploma taken away for doing the Tebow on stage in front of (Principal John) Cavell. So worth it," he wrote.

The comments to the story are also revealing.

About half the comments come are from people outraged that this event provides more proof that religious freedom is under attack in this country. You can really see the impact of the cynical claims by some religious authorities as they try to inflame passions. I cannot decide whether these commenters stopped reading after the first paragraph, read the whole article with no comprehension, or are just looking for excuse to bleat with indignation.

The other comments are from people telling the indignant to lighten up and recognize a good prank when they see it. They read the story and understood that kid was just punking the administration of his Catholic high school. They manage to overlook the fact that prank involving pretending to pray. In other words, it was a deliberately irreverent act.

And let's not forget the professional athlete whose name has become synonymous with ritualized "prayer" on the playing field. Tebow has become more famous for public prayer than his play. His gambit will even be "honored" by a place in the new edition of Madden's football video game. The people cheering him on for what they consider a "courageous" act of faith seem to have forgotten that Jesus condemned public prayer and displays of piety (Matthew 6:1-18). Suffice it to say that Tebow has served himself well with his public displays.

What we have here is cynicism writ large. From the religious authorities who have pushed the meme that religious freedom is under attack, which is magnified at every turn by publications like the Christian Post, to those among the faithful that see persecution at the drop of a hat. There is a remarkable absence of integrity. The moral of the story of Tebow is that his now signature ritual serves to denigrate the sacred. It is the perfect inspiration for Christians that want to be confrontational in their faith and for atheists spoiling for a fight in return. None of this spectacle respects the name of God and honors the teaching of Christ, yet too few of the faithful recognize the blasphemy.

Unholy Ghost

Take a look at this photograph. What do you "see" in your mind's eye?

 

A ghost, perhaps? It turns out that is a very apt description of the image.

Here is how the image was created:

This animation represents the entire data set (1,871 slices) of the male cadaver from the Visible Human Project. The animation was played fullscreen on a computer, which was moved around by an assistant while being photographed in a dark environment. The resulting images are long-exposure "light paintings" of the entire cadaver. Variations in the movement of the computer during each exposure created differences in the shape of the body throughout the series.

With a bit of photographic magic, Croix Gagnon and photographer Frank Schott created ghosts that waft in darkened real world backdrops. The effect is also psychologically unsettling because the fleshy core is visible. That effect is further magnified if you know that the cadaver in question is that of Joseph Paul Jemigan, a convicted murderer that was executed in 1993.

As I viewed the set of ghostly compositions, my first thought was of a lost soul destined to float aimlessly and imperceptibly through the land of the living until the end of time. The more I stared at the images, the more I envisioned the potential for redemption, imagining Jemigan's ghost searching for a way to repent and beg for forgiveness from his victim.

Gagnon and Schott call the collection 12:31, the official time of death for Jemigan. They also make an interesting spiritual statement by citing the following verse:

Mark 12:31, "The second most important commandment is this: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' No other commandment is greater than these."

Clearly Jemigan failed that commandment as did the larger society bent on taking a life for a life.

Ask the poor if we are a Christian nation

Some like to call us a Christian nation. That is a lie that disparages the name of Christ. As a nation, we have never behaved in a manner befitting the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus. We have engaged in wars, social injustices, and economic injustices since our founding as a nation. And we seem to become more mean-spirited and hard-hearted as time goes on.

Barbara Ehrenreich discusses our latest shame as a nation - fleecing the poor.

Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week helpfully pointed out in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.

Ehrenreich goes on to explain how employers, creditors, and government are deliberately taking what little the poor have and even going so far as to criminalize poverty. It is our national disgrace. Lately, local and state governments have doubled down on looting the poor in the name of fiscal austerity. Not to be outdone, Congress is looking to reduce the deficit by slashing what is left of the safety net while creating new tax breaks for the rich.

Let's face it. No person of conscience, let alone of faith, should be unmoved by things like this:

Local governments are discovering that they can partially make up for declining tax revenues through fines, fees, and other costs imposed on indigent defendants, often for crimes no more dastardly than driving with a suspended license. And if that seems like an inefficient way to make money, given the high cost of locking people up, a growing number of jurisdictions have taken to charging defendants for their court costs and even the price of occupying a jail cell.

Or this:

Being poor itself is not yet a crime, but in at least a third of the states, being in debt can now land you in jail. If a creditor like a landlord or credit card company has a court summons issued for you and you fail to show up on your appointed court date, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. And it is easy enough to miss a court summons, which may have been delivered to the wrong address or, in the case of some bottom-feeding bill collectors, simply tossed in the garbage -- a practice so common that the industry even has a term for it: “sewer service.” In a sequence that National Public Radio reports is “increasingly common,” a person is stopped for some minor traffic offense -- having a noisy muffler, say, or broken brake light -- at which point the officer discovers the warrant and the unwitting offender is whisked off to jail.

Many of the most abusive business and government practices have come at the hands of people calling themselves Christians, strong supporters of family values. These are not secularists and atheists run amok. These are the people that worship political ideation and money more than God. Their professions of faith are little more than a cloak for their cold heart and sallow soul.

How many good "Christians" do we hear running as pro-life candidates. Yet, all that means is they oppose abortion, but have no problem with treating the vulnerable and less fortunate with a savagery that borders on barbaric, if not outright evil. How many good "Christians" express outrage over what they call sexual immorality, while glorifying greed? And how many good "Christians" find ways to blame the poor as an excuse not to lift a finger.

And lest you think I am exaggerating, then consider this. How many laws have been passed to restrict access to abortion and even contraception in the last several years? How many laws and ballot measures have been passed to limit the rights of same sex couples? In short, there has been a tremendous amount of energy devoted to the culture wars. At the very same time, programs have been slashed, fees have raised, and new ordinances have written to kick the poor in the teeth by the very same self-righteous culture warriors. And how much energy has been devoted to culture wars by churches and the faithful while barely lifting a finger for those in need?

Not all Christians have fallen for the trick of public piety and obsession with purity while ignoring injustice. But too many have. If they think the Lord will be merciful for neglecting the poor while pretending to be righteous, they are mistaken. They are deceiving themselves but they will not fool the Lord.

Here is a little reminder from James 2:1-7:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

Yes, many can find a few passages in scripture as an excuse to ignore what the Lord taught about loving others. Yet, they ignore more than 2000 passages that demand protection of the poor and condemn greed and the rich. I am sure the Lord of Lords, King of Kings will be understanding when you explain your preoccupation with the purity of others while ignoring His teachings and too many scriptural references to be overlooked in good conscience.

James goes to highlight the dishonesty of speaking shallow words of comfort to the poor (James 2:14-17).

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “ Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

I love that passage because it cuts to the dishonesty that has plagued many so-called Christians. Some like to pound the pulpit and say we are justified by faith alone. While it is true that no amount of good works justify a place in the Kingdom of God, professions of faith that are not mirrored in action are nothing but hollow words. We demonstrate to the Lord by how we act whether our faith is real or just a stale intellectual exercise. You can lie to anyone and everyone about how much your faith means to you, but God is not fooled. Faith without works to match it is dead. Ignoring the poor while you pretend to care about morality and life is nothing but a lie.

Ehrenreich closes with a devilishly simple perscription:

Before we can “do something” for the poor, there are some things we need to stop doing to them.

I pray God shows us the same mercy as a nation as we shown the poor. Christian nation? As James put it, that blasphemes the name of the Lord.

False Witness: NC "pastor" preaches hate

Imagine if someone in a leadership position in our society suggested something like this:

I figured out a way to get rid of all the Christians. Build a great big fence, fifty or a hundred miles around. Put all the Christians in there. Fly over and drop some food. And have that fence electrified so they cannot get out. In a few years, they will die out because they will overpopulate and starve.

Is it safe to assume there would be outrage among Christians? Even if the person was being hyperbolic, there is nothing amusing, appropriate, or mature about calling for a group to be put in concentration camps.

"Pastor" Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in NC did just that. Substitute homosexuals for Christians in the passage above and you have part of a Worley's sermon last Sunday.



Jesus said what comes out of your mouth defiles you because it betrays the corruption in your heart. In this case, the corruption is a statement that makes a mockery of the idea that God so loved the world. It dishonors the very idea that we are to love others as we would wish to be loved. If someone suggested getting rid of Christians by putting them into concentration camps, "Pastor" Worley would be pounding his podium and demanding consequences for the offender.

The sad truth is that Worley knows he can say things like this without having to worry. Prominent Christians are not going to come forward and reprimand him for his hateful comments. There will be no calls for him to repent. He will not even have to issue the standard non-apology apology (i.e., I am sorry you were offended by something I said). He needs someone "preaching the hell out" of him.

Response to another question on homosexuality

I received a long comment in a previous post that deserves more space that I could provide in a comment field.  Here is the comment.

Thanks Dave, for taking my response seriously. I agree with the overall theme of your reply; love is key, and this means that the church must take a loving attitude towards homosexuals, within the parameters laid out by the Bible. 

Regarding your first point, yes you are right, all have sinned. And if all sin was banned from churches, they would all be empty. Of course those who are trying to avoid sin should be welcome in Christian congregations. When I wrote "open sin", I should have been clearer, and perhaps written "intentional, ongoing and unrepentant sin", as suggested in the video. Im sorry, I rushed what I wrote assuming that everyone would correctly grasp my intended meaning. Certainly celibate homosexual Christians should be embraced as entirely welcome in churches though.

You also write that you "guarantee those responsible for discouraging members of HIS flock will be called to account for it." I think you are right there too. But are you saying I was doing that? I was discouraging sin, as Jesus did, and I was wary that the video was encouraging sin for others - itself a grievous act (ref Mark 9:42). I guess discouragement and encouragement can be a delicate line to tread. But when Jesus told people to stop sinning (eg John 8:11), was he discouraging them? 

For your next point that Ill address, Im not sure that I understand you. You wrote "The homosexuals that you know about are the ones that want to be in a committed relationship. They do not want promiscuity." On what basis do you make that claim? Are you claiming to know the homosexuals that I know? How do you know them and what they want? Are they lying when they tell me they want promiscuity? Sorry, I dont understand how you could know who I know - I dont think we have met? 

You ask whether I want to turn away homosexuals from the congregation, while welcoming heterosexuals who secretly commit adultery. Well, lets consider that question. Firstly, no I dont want to welcome heterosexuals who secretly commit adultery. However, if Im not aware of what they are doing and they are lying about it, then I have little choice. The same would apply for a homosexual who engages in secret sin. Do I want to welcome those who sin openly? Well where do we set a limit on that? Do we welcome open polygamists, open adulterers, open pedophiles, open rapists ... do we welcome everybody and tell them all that their sin is fine? No, within reason, we dont welcome open ongoing unrepentant sin. 

Then you claim that Jesus is the judge rather than people being the judge. Well, you have a point to an extent, in that the Bible does exhort not to judge. But if churches are supposed to completely ignore or accept the sin of those in the congregation, how do you make sense of passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:11? 

Later in your reply you claim that loving homosexual relationships never happened in the ancient world. On what basis do you make this claim? Why do you feel, for example, that the relevant statements from Josephus in Against Apion, Book II, agree with your argument?

Thank you, Danny, for your response and opportunity to continue this dialogue. Let me preface my comments with some personal information that will help explain my biases. I have a number of close friends that are homosexual.

There is a lesbian couple that lives a few doors down. I have known them for over ten years. I have watched them raise two boys. They are great neighbors. Their sons are great kids, play sports, help around the house, and are friends with other kids their age in the area. The subject of religion has come up and they attend a local church. That is the extent of any theological discussion with them. Usually, we talk about gardening and chickens. One of the women knows organic gardening to the last detail and they have two hens. Me, I am a newbie doofus trying to get into growing more vegetables and thinking about chickens (which my wife has thus far vetoed as insane).

I have been friends with a fantastic artist and his partner for over twenty years. These gentlemen are around 70 years old and have been together for over thirty years. Both have battled cancer and financial setbacks together. My son has cancer and the artist (himself battling advanced prostate cancer) has taken great pains to encourage and lift the spirits of my son. I did not engineer it; he just did it because he is a very empathic person. He and his partner were both raised Catholic. They love the Lord and the Church, but have not been to services out of fear of rejection. While they know can attend services in church that welcomes same sex couples, but they are Catholics at heart and love the rituals. They have a wall of crosses and are very much red letter Catholics.

I also have homosexual friends in the congregation. One woman comes alone to services and frankly I have never asked her if she has a partner. She always offers a big hug after services. We chat during social hours and church dinners. I do not care who she is dating. Another woman has a partner who is not religious so she comes to services alone. The level of conversation about her partner amounts to comments where she will express gratitude for her partner to deal with some crisis. There is also a lesbian couple with a children that I know to say hello and that's about it.

I cannot conceive of doing anything or saying anything to these people that might hurt them. I see no reason not to accept them with open arms. They love the Lord and they follow His teachings. They radiate God' love for others. They are generous, compassionate, loving, gracious, honest, and open in their interactions with me and others. They are faithful to their partner. I do not see a reason to be disapproving of them in any way.

A pastor friend and I discussed a case in his congregation of a young man with parents that strongly disapproved of homosexuality and he was so conflicted about his attraction to other males that he attempted suicide. The pastor was seeking pastoral care advice in how to minister to this young man and his family. I have no idea how the pastor approached the situation or what the ultimate outcome was.

My other bias is this. I am going to always err on the side of listening to the Lord first. He said I have to love others without exception. He said I am not to focus on the sin of others, but rather clean up my own act. I am perfectly willing to stand before the Lord and say without reservation that I tried to love others and not stand judgment on the sin of others. I am not about to put something written by Moses or Paul above His teachings. Jesus was perfect; Moses and Paul were described as far from perfect. Jesus is God's only son. Moses and Paul were just dedicated servants.

If I take the words of the Lord to heart, then when in doubt, I will err on the side of love and acceptance rather than harm and judgment. If I try to massage something from Leviticus or Romans as an excuse to hurt or judge someone, I better be perfect in my application. Otherwise, the Lord will not be happy. Jesus said He would be the judge and my job is to love others and be a witness to God's love.

These are my biases. This is the prism through which I view the issue of homosexuality.

The first point you raise is about repentance. To your way of thinking, there is nothing wrong with being attracted to people of the same sex as long as they do not act on it. Is that the Lord's condition or yours? Leviticus states that homosexuality offends God. That means it is up to the person and the Lord to work out an accommodation of how they are to act to best satisfy and serve Him. I am not a party to that discussion. The Lord is not going to turn to me and say, "Dave, what do you think I should demand of this person?" They repent to the Lord, not to me.

You have set out a condition for them to be welcome in your congregation. That is, you expect them to be celibate rather than in a committed relationship. Paul practiced celibacy, but did not demand it of others. What is acceptable to the Lord is not clear to me. Having seen committed relationships between same sex partners for many years, the outward appearance of their love for each other and their children is not discernibly different than successful heterosexual couples that I know.

I know of homosexuals that decide to be celibate to honor God. You are saying these people would be welcome and feel comfortable worshiping with you.

Matthew Vines was saying that while he was celibate, he wanted to be in a loving relationship. He poured out his heart in making a very public case for the acceptance of homosexuals in committed relationships. Based on the same sex couples I know, I can understand fully why Matthew wants to be in a loving relationship. In other words, I felt great empathy for him. Empathy is key to loving others as you wish to be loved.

I can understand taking a more prohibitive stance toward adultery. Infidelity always hurts other people. Telling them to stop makes you an advocate for the people being hurt and less of a judge of their sin. Consensual sex between two adults of the same sex is not hurting anyone other than perhaps their relationship with God, but that is up to them to sort out with God.

A dishonest argument is often made that acceptance of same sex relationships would require similar consideration for incest, polygamy, and bestiality. No one is advocating that. Further, it is always dangerous to bring up incest and polygamy since you can find many examples of both in the Old Testament. Moreover, all of the kings of Israel had concubines (sex slaves). The one king held up as a sexual sinner was David. Not for his concubines, but because he lusted after another man's wife, had the man put in a position where he would be killed, and then took the woman as his wife. David spent the rest of his life begging God for forgiveness for his actions.

You are correct in saying that I do not know the homosexuals you know. Perhaps you have only come across people who are just interested in having casual sexual encounters. The only homosexuals I know that are just out for a good time are not drawn to Christ. We have clearly had very different experiences. However, you want to generalize your experience and attitudes toward homosexuals in advocating for celibacy but refuse to accept the witness of others about homosexuals in committed relationships with the Lord and a person of the same sex. Celibacy may be the best approach for the people you know. Of course, that should be for them to decide in prayerful reflection with the Lord, not required as a precondition for you loving and accepting them in the body of Christ.

We had very different reactions to Matthew Vines. I was moved by his love for Christ and desire for loving committed relationship. My reaction was shaped by the people in my life. You were moved to challenge him on theological grounds and were advocating celibacy based on your experiences. You challenged him in a a comment as well as challenged others that agreed with him. You also came here to challenge me because I supported him.

I concede that there are homosexuals for whom celibacy may be the best option. However, I disagree that it should be the only option. And we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I do feel led by the Holy Spirit to welcome all those desire to join the body of Christ and love them as the Lord instructed. I also feel blessed to have examples of same sex couples living in faith and personal commitment.

As for 1 Corinthians 5, Paul does advocate confronting sexual immorality among the believers. It is not clear exactly what he had in mind, but he does mention a man sleeping with his father's wife. Which I assume means the woman is not his mother but rather another of his father's wives. I can safely assume that homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity falls within the category of sexual immorality.

As I said before, I will always err on the side of obeying the Lord over trying to follow Paul. Paul was a genocidal maniac that was responsible for having followers of Christ arrested and put to death. The Scripture records his imperfection. If I cannot reconcile something Paul said with the teachings of the Lord, I will always to put love first. There is no parallel command from the Lord to judge the believers. Paul had a judgmental streak that lead him to great sin when he was known as Saul, even to the point of having believers in Christ executed. Unlike Paul, Jesus was perfect and told his followers to leave judgment to him.

You are correct that you can find a few examples in the historic record of homosexual relationships, but there are vaguely described and very few in number. It was hardly a prevalent or dominant expression. By contrast, there are many examples of homosexuality limited to acts of hedonism. Moses and Paul both told their followers to avoid homosexuality as commonly practiced in other cultures.

Finally, let me close with a final grave concern. Rachel Held Evans has an interesting discussion of a troubling pattern.

When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)

The opposite of evangelism is repulsing people from Christ.

Later research, documented in Kinnaman’s You Lost Me, reveals that one of the top reasons 59 percent of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends. Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and this is one reason why.

Evans goes on to describe how the culture wars, particularly the treatment of homosexuals, is driving younger generations from the church. The fruit of the culture war may be a few hollow political victories, but at the cost of failed witness for God's love, mercy, and grace. That should give us all pause.

Peace in the name of Christ

Dave

Should we unfriend Facebook?

Facebook is growing up. It has gone from a chic social networking site aimed at college students to a global behemoth. It used to be a cool tool to keep up with your friends. Now it is becoming a robot to mine your personal data so advertisers can bomb you with well-targeted ads. Ho hum.

There are many reasons to dislike Facebook. Prospective and current employers can use the information posted on your page against you. You can be bullied in cyberspace. Cyber-thieves and Big Brother love it.

Here is another reason. The company is run by people who have become obscenely rich but have no interest in contributing to the common good.

We face a crisis in this country. Poverty is rampant and growing as more and more wealth is concentrated at the very top of the economic ladder. Government programs to help the most vulnerable are on the chopping block because the rich do not want to pay taxes. When Greed is God, we are all going to Hell.

And Facebook is run by people with underdeveloped consciences. You have probably heard about Facebook's co-founder, Eduardo Saverin. He decided to give up his American citizenship to avoid a big capital gains tax bill. But Severin is the tip of the iceberg.

The me-first ethic is pervasive among everyone at the top of Facebook's food chain.

The biggest tax burden, unsurprisingly, falls to the senior-most Facebook employees and biggest shareholders who will be collectively saddled with a bill from Uncle Sam to the tune of about $200 million. However six of these folks -- Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker, Sheryl Sandberg, Reid Hoffman and his wife Michelle Yee -- will take advantage of a somewhat arcane and totally legal tax trick by putting large portions of their shares in grantor-retained annuity trusts (GRATs). According to The Wall Street Journal's Laura Saunders, "these trusts transfer asset appreciation from one taxpayer to others, virtually tax-free."

All of these people already have more money than they can spend and they are about to be showered with even more once the company goes public. Their first thought is how can I give back as little as possible to the society that made my success possible.

Zuckerberg is even considering another tax gambit popular among the internet billionaires.

But how much income tax will Mr. Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won’t immediately sell? He need not pay any. Instead, he can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That’s what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did. He reportedly borrowed more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares and bought one of the most expensive yachts in the world.

Isn't that special? All of this reveals the gigantic tax loopholes that have been created to serve the rich and leave the rest of us scrambling for crumbs. The temptation is certainly there, but no one is obligated to give in to it. The trouble is people like Mark Zuckerberg do not think twice about it.

And here is the real kicker. The tax rate applicable to these billions and billions is only 15%. Yes, thanks to the hard work of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the capital gains tax has been slashed and slashed. But even that is too high for these pigs. Every year we hear more cries to lower it further or eliminate it altogether, including calls from a vulture capitalist currently running for president.

And the icing on the cake is that tech companies like Facebook have corporate tax loopholes large enough to drive Larry Ellison's massive yacht through.

Tech firms have a few advantages that make them especially able to exploit loopholes in the U.S. corporate income tax. One is that a lot of their income comes from intellectual property. Firms can use strategies to shift the ownership of U.S.-developed IP into subsidiaries located abroad, thus treating the income it generates as foreign and not taxable in the U.S. Our corporate income tax also has generous credits for research and development; since a large share of tech firms’ expenditure is R&D, that preference benefits them.

If you are a retailer, manufacturer, or small business, you have a big tax bill. If you are a tech company or energy company, there is a veritable Garden of Eden filled with juicy loopholes to pick from so you give back nothing to our society.

I hear people ask what the Occupy movement is all about. Simple, it is about the rigged system that allows the rich to get richer at great cost and consequence to the rest of us. It is the financial bankruptcy of our nation driven by the moral bankruptcy of the rich.

The mark of a successful parasite is one that does not kill the host. Those are only tiny brain parasites. The truly dangerous ones are human with no ethics about how they treat their fellow humans. And isn't it funny that the founders of a social network site are among the most socially callous people you can imagine.

When you sit down at your computer, log into your Facebook account, and start friending this person, liking that company, and posting videos of dancing cats, understand that every click makes people without a conscience richer. Just remember that Mark Zuckerberg got his start by invading privacy to steal photographs and create a demeaning game known as Facemash.

It all gives me a greater appreciation of why Jesus said that it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. What I cannot understand is why Christians are so reluctant to make greed a moral issue. Could it be that money corrupts? Well, if you are going to go on Facebook, at least unfriend Judas and High Priests.

Fox News thinks hunger is humorous

Chef Mario Batali has become involved with Feeding America in raising awareness and money to help feed those in need. He and his family decided to see what it is like to survive on a food stamps budget. Apparently, if you dare suggest that government programs for the poor should not be cut so the wealthy can have bigger tax breaks, then Fox News sends out the attack dogs.



Why any compassionate human being would ever watch Fox News escapes me. They want to "slap around" (see the 0:25 mark in the video) someone who is empathetic and sympathetic to the less fortunate. Ah, the storm troopers of the Culture War.

I volunteer at a local food pantry that is part of the Feeding America network. Feeding America is the largest nongovernmental organization focusing on food insecurity and hunger in the country. To give you an idea of the scope of the problem and Feeding America's program, here are some fun facts:

Feeding America is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when we were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year. That means one in eight Americans now rely on Feeding America for food and groceries. 

Feeding America's nationwide network of food banks is feeding 1 million more Americans each week than we did in 2006. 

Thirty-six percent of the households we serve have at least one person working. 

More than one-third of client households report having to choose between food and other basic necessities, such as rent, utilities and medical care. 

The number of children the Feeding America network serves has increased by 50 percent since 2006.

The Great Recession has created the largest food security crisis since Depression, yet Paul Ryan and friends want to cut government assistance programs. If they succeed in reducing the deficit on the backs of the poor, Feeding America and other private organizations will not be able to pick up the slack.

The Feeding America food pantry in my area provides a shopping cart full of groceries to 1500 families every month. In other words, we provide supplementary food assistance to about 5000 people a month. To accomplish that feat, it takes a small army of volunteers and a handful of paid staff. Here are some of the things we do every week.

We collect perishable items from some area grocery stores, restaurants, and food coops that are nearing expiration, but still safe and in good condition. These are items that would probably wind up in dumpsters after the target "sell by" date is reached. These fresh fruits and vegetables are beyond the means of most living below the poverty line.

We process donations from local food drives.

We purchase 15 tons of canned food, meats, diary products, and grains from the Department of Agriculture and corporate wholesalers every month, using funds from donations and grants.

We distribute food twice a week. Each distribution requires set up, check in, manning stations where clients pick items from our stocks, clean-up, and inventory. Preparation for the next distribution begins the following day.

There are several factors that limit this food pantry's ability to feed the hungry. Our storage and distribution space is limited to 800 square feet in 3 rooms of a church basement. Donations and grants have declined during the recession even though the need has never been greater. Funding for Department of Agriculture programs has been cut, limiting access to low cost bulk foods. It all adds up to trying to feed more people with one hand tied behind our back.

If Ayn Rand Superstar Paul Ryan and company succeed in shredding the government safety net, Feeding America will not be able to pick up the pieces. Even under the best of circumstances, its network of regional food banks and local food pantries can only provide a backstop to government programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (a.k.a., food stamps). It will be a disaster deliberately engineered by people in government who want to spend money on war and welfare for the wealthy.

Feeding America is a private sector operation and Mario Batali has offered his time and money to help the organization. Fox News is attacking not only the government programs for the poor, but also private sector programs as well. One of their clever bobble-heads suggests the poor just get a job, which is a rather vicious statement in an economy where nearly one in six Americans is unemployed or underemployed. That says everything you need to know about Fox News.

There are some things you can to do help feed the hungry. A donation of time, money, or both to Feeding America can make a big difference.

Worth a look: Jonathan Haidt talks about poison politics

In an interview with the Christian Post, psychologist Jonathan Haidt discusses his new book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and Politics. The book synthesizes insights from his research on morality.

The interview and book touch on a critical point. Politics in America has become toxic. Instead of seeing each other as Americans first and foremost, there is a clear tendency to view politics in moral terms. My side is righteous; the other side is evil. The consequence of that in-group identification is that we are no longer able to work together to improve quality of life for all.

Much of what my book is about is how easily we fall into team versus team conflict. And while teams are often good -- teams help us cooperate and do things together that we can't do alone -- when inter-group conflict rises above a certain level of intensity, it becomes very disruptive. And that's where we are nationally in the battle between left and right.

One of the best indicators of our toxic political environment I can think of comes from a recent study on empathy. That study found that people were far less empathetic towards others that were labeled as different in political ideology. When we no longer see the common denominators in our shared existence, we are headed down a dark path. The tribal mentality that follows allows you to ignore the suffering of those in the other tribe and even relish bringing them harm.

Haidt highlights this tendency to demonize people on the other side of the political spectrum as responsible for our increasingly dysfunctional political system. Democracy is based on discourse, compromise, and participation. The discourse has become hateful. Compromise has been replaced by cut-throat competition and winning at all costs. Barriers to participation are being created to disenfranchise groups that do not tend to vote with our team. In the end, our democracy will be lost. We are repeating every mistake made by societies in decline.

On some level, the fact that people identify closely with a political ideation has become silly. We now have two political parties in America. There are the pigs that promise to help the rich and harm the poor. The pigs usually keep their promises. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Then we have the chickens who promise to help the poor, but rarely keep those promises. The bottom line is that no one should put an ounce of faith in either political party to do anything but help those at the top of the economic ladder because that is where political donations come from. Our democracy and economic system have been corrupted to the point that we are going to crash and burn.

Political divisiveness has also infected religion. There has been a cynical effort to conflate Christianity with political conservativism. It is a rather clever gambit because it allows a political ideology to be sold as endorsed by God. That is bullshit. It is yet another symptom of how toxic our political system has become when we want to believe that God smiles on a political party and you if you vote for it. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. The word for implying that God cares our political tribes is blasphemy. It shows contempt for the sacred by equating it with the profane. God does not serve politicians and the idea that any of our politicians serve God is laughable.

Ample proof of how much politics have contaminated religion can be frequently found on the pages of the Christian Post. While supposedly a publication for evangelical Christians, many articles and comments to those articles will make derogatory references to "lefties" and liberals even when talking about fellow Christians. Somehow or another, anyone that does not subscribe to the godliness of conservativism is a second class Christian or worse, not a genuine Christian at all. You cannot serve God and the things of this world, including politics.

Haidt suggests that both sides of the political spectrum are necessary for a healthy society.

My view is that left and right are like yin and yang. There's a quote I have in chapter 12 from John Stuart Mill, but this is really my credo: "A party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements for a healthy state of political life." The big breakthrough for me was, once I stopped disliking conservatives and could actually see what they were right about, they showed me a lot of things that liberals were wrong about. But at the same time, I think there are some things that liberals are right about that conservatives have trouble seeing. Social reality is so complicated that, once you join one team or the other, you become specialized in detecting certain patterns, but you become blind to other patterns.

In other words, both the traditionalists and reformers have a role to play, both in terms of politics and religion. When one tribe demonizes the member of the other tribe, all hell breaks lose.

Haidt also discusses the rise of what he calls the New Atheists. They believe that religion is the root of all evil and proselytize against those with religious belief. New Atheists inhabit both sides of the political spectrum and worship at the alter of Ayn Rand and other pseudo-objectivists. For all the talk of objectivism and innovation, they really worship wealth, privilege, and power. They are not interested in a separation of church and state; they want an end to church and state to focus on protecting them from the barbarian hordes at the gate.

Haidt overlooks the New Theocrats. They are the so-called Dominionists that believe God wants them to have dominion over society, wealth, power, media, and resources. In short, they are morally bankrupt and think you can serve God and Mammon. Their mantra is give them control over Mammon and they promise they will use it to serve God.

The only positive trend that I can see is the growing number of Christians that are disgusted with both political parties. For example, Scot McKnight discusses the trend among evangelical Christians in this post. That trend needs to continue so we can be a prophetic voice willing to speak truth to power.

I heart the nuns

Actions speak louder than words. Catholic sisters have long been selfless advocates for the less fortunate. Despite serving as role models for compassion, the largest organization of nuns in America has recently been publicly humiliated and reprimanded by the Vatican. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) had the audacity to question the value of culture wars and advocate ordination of women. In the eyes of the men at the top of the Vatican food chain, women are second class citizens and should gracefully accept the patronizing edicts of the patriarchs.

There are a number of things you can do to support the LCWR. The Nun Justice Project has a list of 6 items. At a minimum, consider signing the petition and passing it on via social media.

Let me share several eloquent statements by people of faith in support of our Catholic sisters. The first is from a letter of support to the sisters signed by a host of Catholic and Protestant groups.

Women in the churches have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of people in the world for centuries. Today, our Catholic sisters live in community and serve the church thoughtfully and creatively through countless acts of love, hospitality, and social advocacy. Our Catholic sisters are often strong advocates for people living in poverty, people who are in prison, people who lack access to affordable health care, people who are unable to access clean water, people who are sick, and people who have been victimized by the violence of others. Their service and advocacy is similar to that of so many of us who because of own experiences as women find it critical to place the needs of people who are impoverished, cast aside, and powerless at the focal point of our own ministries.

This from Fred Clark also rocks.

The LCWR — the nuns, the sisters, the largest umbrella group for women’s orders in the U.S. — are an impressive bunch. They’re some of the smartest, toughest and holiest Christians I’ve ever had the privilege of meeting. 

That these numerous orders of women religious exist at all is kind of inspiring. These are women called by God who had to build and sustain their own alternative structures, institutions and ministries just to be allowed to follow that calling. These are women who were called to ministry and called to leadership. When the Church decreed that men should enjoy a monopoly on ministry and leadership, these women went out and created a thriving black market of their own — an underground economy in which, for centuries, the hungry have been fed, the naked have been clothed, the sick have been tended and good news has been given to the poor.

And if you are still not convinced, check out this misogynistic missive from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.

With this new development, however, watch LCWR – a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns – try to spin their latest news as if they are being victimized by the holders of power in the very power structure they themselves would like to control.

Fortunately, there are many priests who welcome the nuns standing beside them rather than behind them.

Sign the petition at the Nun Justice Project and spread the word.

More evil in the love of money

Jesus said "woe to you rich for you have your consolation (Luke 6:24).  Paul said that "love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). It is kind of odd, perverse even, that so much attention is given to sexual ethics by some Christians while saying next to nothing about the ethics of wealth and power.

Here is a hint of just how perverse it is to neglect greed. Jesus followed his condemnation of the rich with a dire warning. If you are fat and happy now, you will be hungry and wallowing in despair for an eternity. And let's not forget those who lust for riches. Paul completes his "root of evil" statement by declaring,"some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." In other words, lust for wealth causes you to walk away from your faith. Remind me again why the faithful are condemning sexual behavior and all but ignoring the unequivocal threat from greed.

Let me connect a few dots for you. First, let's ask a basic question. Are there reasons to believe that pessimism about Mammon worship is justified? Here is one. Paul Piff and colleagues at the University Michigan just published a study of wealth and ethical behavior in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

The researchers used data from a national survey and a series of field studies. Each analysis yielded strong evidence that people higher up the socioeconomic status ladder are prone to all sorts of unethical behavior in business and social settings. Much of the effect was accounted for by their attitudes about greed. The more they valued money and the trappings of materialism, the more likely they were to behave unethically in their dealings with others. Love of Mammon carries with it a contempt for others.

Maybe the rich are possessed by demons. I am sure you know that greed and unethical behavior collapsed our economy and cost millions their jobs, houses and dreams in 2007. You no doubt remember this collapse came 6 years after tax rates were lowered on the rich. Despite all the promises that supply side economics would produce job creation and prosperity for everyone, unethical behavior in the financial and corporate worlds created the worst economic period since the Depression. That is a lot of suffering produced by a few thousand Mammonites.

Instead of having to fear for their freedom, the rich got richer. They made a few hollow promises to behave themselves if we give them another chance. The politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, "reluctantly" accepted those promises and even bailed them out. Meanwhile, all rules against the rich corrupting our democracy with money were thrown out by the US Supreme Court.

And what did the rich learn through all of this? Steal harder.

In the financial sector, JP Morgan Chase just lost 2 billion dollars in a flash (and the loss will be closer to 3 billion by the time the dust settles).

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said the firm suffered a $2 billion trading loss after an “egregious” failure in a unit managing risks, jeopardizing Wall Street banks’ efforts to loosen a federal ban on bets with their own money. The firm’s chief investment office, run by Ina Drew, 55, took flawed positions on synthetic credit securities that remain volatile and may cost an additional $1 billion this quarter or next, Dimon told analysts yesterday. Losses mounted as JPMorgan tried to mitigate transactions designed to hedge credit exposure.

Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase have been carpet-bombing Congress with lobbyists and cash to get rid of the few pathetic regulations that were put in place after the crash of 2007. So Mr. Dimon, how did this massive failure happen on your watch if regulations are not needed because the banks can police themselves. That sounds freaking stuppppiddddd!!! Let the foxes guard the hen houses because what could possibly go wrong. Really, trust us.

“There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment,” Dimon said as the company’s stock fell in extended trading. “These were egregious mistakes, they were self-inflicted.”

Oopsie. Tee hee hee. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. I am so sorry (we got caught).

The only mistakes were losing money and getting caught. Another elaborate check-kiting scheme known as derivatives trading blew up and billions disappeared in the blink of an eye. And these are not nickel and dime ethical misdemeanors. No, these were capital crime level felonies.

Bloomberg News first reported April 5 that London-based JPMorgan trader Bruno Iksil had amassed positions linked to the financial health of corporations that were so large he was driving price moves in the $10 trillion market.

Trades worth $10 trillion. In other words, we could pay off the federal debt with what these clowns were betting in the Wall Street Casino.

Or how about Chesapeake Energy. It is another warm and fuzzy story about unbridled greed.

Chesapeake Energy is the second largest gas producer in the US. Their CEO, Aubrey McClendon, was just ousted when some of his financial shenanigans came to light. Improper personal loans. A little hedge fund on the side. A wicked compensation deal that paid MeClendon a fat salary, fatter bonuses, hog-worthy stock options, and a piece of every single gas well operated by the company. Think about that for a second. McClendon received four sources of revenue for doing one job - serving himself.

Now comes word of another financial irregularity.

A US report contends that the embattled Chesapeake Energy has “previously unreported liabilities” summing to $1.4 billion resulting from a programme that allowed it to exchange future oil and gas production for cash up front.  

 The Wall Street Journal analysed 10 of the company’s Volumetric Production Payment agreements and projected that the costs associated with the arrangements was far higher than $600 million over 10 years previously estimated.  

The liabilities raise questions about the company’s ability to manage its cash flow, the newspaper said, among the concerns about the No. 2 US gas producer among investors and analysts.

Another oopsie. An $800 million accounting mistake. No worries, mate. Goldman Sachs to the rescue. A $3 billion unsecured handshake loan. Problem solved. Whew. That was close.

Here is a little icing for the cake in case you doubted the ethical bankruptcy of these titans of industry. The CEO of Yahoo just resigned after being exposed for padding his resume.

Good thing we Christians are preoccupied with sex. We do not want the faithful casting aspersion on the greed and corruption of the rich and powerful. That would spoil all the fun.

Mother's Day proclamation

Here is the original Mother's Day proclamation by Julia Ward Howe:

Arise, then, women of this day! 

Arise, all women who have hearts, Whether our baptism be of water or of tears! 

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. 

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice." Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war, Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. 

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means Whereby the great human family can live in peace, Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, But of God. 

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask That a general congress of women without limit of nationality May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient And at the earliest period consistent with its objects, To promote the alliance of the different nationalities, The amicable settlement of international questions, The great and general interests of peace.

In other words, blessed are the peacemakers. Mothers understand what it means to care for the children of God.

In response to a question about homosexuality

stasisonline was kind enough to comment on the post about Matthew Vines.

But he is asking for special status. Having now made & disseminated this video, he's asking the broad church to ignore the disingenuous nature of this one-sided account of a difficult issue that has already caused division. He's increasing the division by misleading people into thinking his video is balanced. He's also asking for special status in the sense that generally, open sin is not welcomed in churches. For those that think my comments make no sense, I recommend they research both sides of this issue, eg, after watching the video, review a critique of the video such as this one: http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/

Thank you for stopping by and leaving a comment.

Friend, let me challenge you on several points.

First, the reality is every congregation is filled with sinners. I am a sinner. You are a sinner. The person next to you in the pew is a sinner. Every member of the congregation is a sinner. The choir is filled with sinners. The person in the pulpit is a sinner. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of us. Not a single one deserves grace. Search your heart, friend. You know that to be true.

Homosexuals are part of the broken and come to church seeking God's glory. They are called by God to seek his company. Let me remind you that churches are merely the houses of God. If you think God will be pleased to see sinners humbly seeking his grace turned away, think again. I promise you that the Lord will be displeased to see those called by the Spirit to HIS body cast out. I guarantee those responsible for discouraging members of HIS flock will be called to account for it.

Most of the sinners in your congregation manage to keep their sins secret. They do not come to Bible study, worship services, or social hours and publicly announce that they cheated customers or committed adultery with a co-worker. They do not stand in front of the congregation and say they spent four hours this week watching porn. No one hears about the lies we tell, the greed we practice, or the harm we bring to others. Unlike homosexuals who announce their presence only when they bring someone they love to church, the other sinners get to keep their sins a secret. Now that is special status.

Understand this clearly. The homosexuals that you know about are the ones that want to be in a committed relationship. They do not want promiscuity. They want to be faithful to their partner. The sexual component of that relationship is confined to a single loving relationship rather than promiscuous or purely hedonic. Do you seriously want to turn away these people while those in your congregation that engage in sex outside of a committed relationship or worse, as a violation of trust of a committed relationship, hide their sexual misdeeds and are welcomed with open arms?

Here is another issue to be very, very, very careful of. Leviticus states homosexuality offends God. That makes the sin between them and God to work out the accommodation. Congregations and pastors are not God. Jesus makes it clear that HE is the judge of HIS flock. Remember that Jesus said he came for the sinners for the saints do not require his help. If He, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, loves these homosexual sinners, then rest assured that he expects the same from the other members of HIS flock. Churches that think they get to make choices about who deserves His grace are broken. Some are even filled with demons.

While homosexual acts were common in the ancient world during the time of the writing of the Old and New Testaments, homosexual relationships were never ever public. Homosexual acts were a common form of recreation, especially for men. Those were not controversial because the men were not viewed as being unfaithful to their heterosexual spouse. Now we have people who want to be a committed homosexual relationship rather than engage in meaningless sexual gratification. I can say with certainty that the scriptures tell me that God is not fond of sexual promiscuity, whether those acts are between members of the same sex or members of the opposite sex. I am far less certain of how God views homosexuality in the context of a loving relationship. That never happened in the ancient world for the Old and New Testament writers to comment on.

I am a sinner. While I try not to make the same mistakes, I find ways of making new ones. That means I have no authority to play judge or jury to the sins of others. I do not get to throw rocks if I truly believe in Jesus. He makes it clear that unless you are perfect, you too are neither judge nor jury. The church is HIS body. We are His eyes, ears, hands, feet, and mouth. We serve Him, not the other way around. We are part of a flock in which no sheep is more valuable than another. All are equal. All are sinners. All have fallen short of the glory of God. ALL. Each and everyone prized.

James 2:8 sums it nicely:

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

Yours in Christ

Republican circle of protection for the poor is a death panel

For months, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has been calling for a "circle of protection" for the poor, sick, aged, and disabled in the federal budget. And they have been repeatedly ignored. Well, actually, House budget chair Paul Ryan has all but given them a middle finger salute.

Monsters are nothing if not audacious and vicious. Last year, Ryan and his budget plans were criticized as not in keeping with Catholic social teachings as he called for deep cuts to the social safety net while protecting tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the most profitable corporations. This year, Ryan decided to double down on taking from the poor to pamper the rich by claiming it was guided by Catholic teachings. When that sparked a flurry of letters from the USCCB, Ryan dismissed their authority. And despite 5 letters to Ryan and company over the past two months, the budgetary bills put forth by Ryan's committee and passed by House Republicans can only be described as morally bankrupt. Instead of letting the poor eat cake, Ryan wants them to eat dust.

If this bill were enacted, estimates suggest that nearly two million Americans would lose food stamps and 44 million others would find them reduced. The bill would eliminate a program that allows disabled older people to live at home and out of institutions. It cuts money that helps low-income families buy health insurance. At the same time, the House bill actually adds more than $8 billion to the Pentagon budget.

All the pro-life, family values rhetoric coming out of these people is nothing but a lie. Half of all Americans live below the poverty line or within spitting distance above it. These budget initiatives will cause tens of millions to suffer or even die from hunger, homelessness, lack of heat or air conditioning, or disease. It will shackle more with fewer and fewer opportunities to escape poverty. All the while, it creates the largest military budget in human history. Here is a timely reminder from Ezekiel 16:49.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

At least we know who the real Sodomites are.

Southern Baptist's Richard Land does the right thing

From the Religion News Service:

Southern Baptist leader Richard Land has issued a lengthy public apology for his racially charged comments about the Trayvon Martin case, and said he has sent a personal letter to President Obama seeking forgiveness.

He goes on to say:

“It was unchristian and unwise for me to have done so,” he wrote, adding that he sent them letters of apology asking for forgiveness. “God alone is the searcher of men's hearts. I cannot know what motivated them in their comments in this case.”

Peace.

Thank God I am a heretic

For it has become heresy to love others as you would wish to be loved. To fulfill orthodoxy, I must despise and mistreat those out of favor with the orthodox. Only then will God love me more than others.

Did you hear the one about Bob Jones University?

Sounds like a setup for a joke. Actually, it is, in a sad and sick way.

What do you get when you mix a callous pastor, an abusive administration of a supposedly Christian college, and a young man who thirsts for justice and righteousness? Proof of why young people are walking away from church.

For those who have not heard this story, let me fill in a few details.

"Pastor" Chuck Phelps. Remember that name. He is a ravenous wolf pretending to be a shepherd.

Our story begins in 1997. A 14-year-old girl named Tina Anderson was hired as a baby-sitter by Ernie Willis, a deacon in the church she attended. That church was Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, New Hampshire, lead by "Pastor" Chuck Phelps. On two occasions, Willis managed to get the girl alone and raped her. One of those encounters got her pregnant. Already the story is sordid, but it gets worse.

Anderson told "20/20" that she confided her pregnancy to Willis. His reaction, she said, was to offer to pay for an abortion. When she rejected his offer, he presented another option, she said. 

"He asked me if I wanted him to punch me in the stomach as hard as he could to try to cause a miscarriage," she said. "I told him, 'No, leave me alone.'"

Tina Anderson then gets the courage to tell her mother what happened, who then consults "Pastor" Chuck Phelps. Phelps, ever the loving shepherd, demanded that the girl go before the congregation and confess her "sin."

Anderson said that after being sexually assaulted twice by Willis, she was forced to stand before her Baptist congregation and confess her "sin" -- that she had become pregnant. She said she wasn't allowed to tell the group that the pregnancy happened because she was raped by Willis, a man twice her age.

Phelps decided to emotionally abuse an already traumatized girl while protecting the church from scandal by hiding the fact that the predator was a respected member of the congregation. He then helped further hide the mess by sending the girl to live with another family in the same denomination and away from any potential investigation of the case.

The church's then-pastor, Chuck Phelps, helped arrange for Anderson to move thousands of miles away from home to live with an IFB family and give her child up for adoption. 

Concord police said they couldn't find Anderson to investigate the rape allegations in 1997, the Associated Press reported. Police reopened their investigation after a former member of Trinity Baptist Church posted a message about Anderson's case on Facebook.

Just in case you are tempted to give "Pastor" Phelps any benefit of the doubt, you need to know that Tina Anderson was sexually and physically abused by her stepfather as a young girl. Phelps was well aware this girl had been victimized as a child. According to Tina, Phelps even forced her to "forgive" her stepfather. Forgiveness is a vital part of our life in Christ, but is a difficult concept for a child to comprehend and employ, particularly one traumatized by physical and sexual abuse. Inducements to forgive can be interpreted by a child as meaning the adult has not done anything really bad.

Trinity Baptist Church is part of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement.           

The organization of a New Testament church is simple. Christ is the head of the church, (Eph. 5:23) and its Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). The local pastor is the under-shepherd (bishop), overseer, or leader of the congregation. (Heb. 13:17, Acts 20:28, Eph. 4:11) The Independent Baptist church has a congregational form of government with each member equally having the right of to vote on all the affairs of the church. The pastor and members of the New Testament church directs and rules its actions following the guidelines of the New Testament.

Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have fellowship one with the other and often cooperate in such endeavors as evangelism. They will not participate, as a church, in any outside function with churches which do not also strictly base their faith and practice on the New Testament. They will not engage in joint meetings, or evangelistic endeavors, with Protestants, Catholics, or other doctrinally unsound church groups, who do not hold to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. Fundamental Independent Baptists churches will remain separate from unsound churches, as well as other Baptists groups who join in with the unscriptural churches.

As you can see, IFB churches think highly of themselves. The Tina Anderson debacle shows they also know how to cover up a scandal. And she is not alone. Others have come forward with similar stories of sexual and psychological abuse, all carefully concealed behind a veil of secrecy.

Which brings us to Bob Jones University (BJU). Chuck Phelps was a member of the advisory board of the school until the Tina Anderson case attracted national attention. A number of BJU current and former students were outraged to learn that Phelps was on the Board.

One of those students was Chris Peterman. Peterman got into serious trouble with the BJU administration for publicizing the Chuck Phelps - Tina Anderson story on social media.

When Peterman heard news of the initial allegations against Chuck Phelps, he was outraged that Phelps was allowed to continue to hold his chair as a Board member, Peterman said. He posted links about the story on his personal Facebook account, and was called into a meeting with BJU's Dean of Men, Jon Daulton. The Deans of Men and Women are gender-specific assistants to the school's Dean of Students. 

"I was told that I'd have to stop posting that stuff, or I would be expelled," Peterman said in an interview with CNN. The Dean of Men "said that the administration was upset with what I was saying. He said that the public relations department was following everything because it was giving Bob Jones a bad name."

It is a testament to the perversion of the administration that they think it is acceptable to have Chuck Phelps on the advisory board, but it is unacceptable for anyone to call attention to his history.

Peterman has strong feelings about sexual abuse, in no small part because he witnessed an attempt to cover up abuse in his church while growing up. He created the Do Right BJU Facebook site and organized a protest to pressure the school to remove Phelps from the board. Peterman continued his efforts despite pressure from the administration. Phelps eventually resigned from the board in December 2011 after Ernie Willis was convicted of rape.

When Peterman returned from Christmas break in January, BJU amped up the pressure.

When Peterman returned to BJU in January 2012 for his final semester, he claims he was called in for special weekly counseling with the Dean of Men. "I had questioned the authority of the university, so by association, I had questioned the authority of God himself," he said. "Therefore, I had a deep spiritual problem he needed to fix."

"I would go into these meetings, two to three times a week, for an hour or more at a time, sometimes even at midnight. He would have a printout of my Facebook, and have things highlighted and starred. If anyone appeared in the picture with me, he would have their names highlighted and their faces circled," he said. 

"I felt like I was being harassed and followed. ... He would also call my friends in and question them about me, all in an effort to isolate me and shut me up."

The so-called Christian university demonstrated its fidelity to the teachings of the Lord by finding excuses to suspend and finally expel Peterman a week before he was supposed to graduate from BJU. Among his demerit-worthy offenses included watching Glee at a local Starbucks, posting the lyrics of a contemporary Christian song on his Facebook page, and tweeting a comment about the length of a required BJU prayer assembly before it began. After he appealed the demerits, the review board sided with him, and he was told he would be able to graduate.

The BJU administration was not finished with Peterman. Because he told his story to CNN before the review board hearing, they expelled him for attempting to "intimidate BJU."

"I wanted to cry," he said. "I thought that God had answered my prayers, everything's gonna be alright. So, everybody starts to leave the room, and it's just me, the Dean of Students, and the Dean of Men. Then the Dean of Men says that they're kicking me out because I tried to intimidate BJU."

Apparently intimidate means embarrass by telling the truth. What a stellar witness for Christ and God's love.

You can find more detail on the abusive treatment of Chris Peterman here.

You can read about Chuck Phelps being 'victimized' by Tina Anderson and Chris Peterman here.

And here is the reprimand from BJU of everyone that publicized this case:

“A biblical approach would be an attitude of forbearance toward a Christian brother – not recklessly making accusations of crime or cover up against a man of good reputation before gathering the facts. The biblical principle is to go to the person directly and get facts before reaching a judgment. Dr. Phelps has offered to talk to several of his critics and even shared his phone number, but not one has called to talk with him directly.”

The real "sin" is that people have dared question the authority of organizations like BJU and pastors like Chuck Phelps. They are supposedly our betters and anointed by God. If we do not submit to their dominion, we are violating biblical principles of discipline. Funny thing. Jesus did not model blind obedience to religious authorities. BJU unjustly denied a degree to Chris Peterman that he earned through four years of hard work. Chuck Phelps unjustly treated Tina Anderson, a girl that was twice sexually molested by members of his congregation. Respect needs to be earned and unjust authorities need to be mocked as hypocrites, vipers, and whitewashed tombs.