On the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America's decision to allow homosexual pastors, I fully agree that Christians are not to violently or otherwise coerce homosexuals. Jesus said let the blind follow the blind. Warm them, but do not call down the wrath against them. Some might turn. Some have turned. However, there is a huge difference between not being coercive in the worldly world (secular world outside the Church) and welcoming and affirming homosexuality in the Churches. Welcoming a sinner with an eye to his or her turning and repenting is perfectly right. Affirming a sinner in his or her sin is perfectly wrong.

There is absolutely no doubt that homosexuality is a choice, harmful, and a sin in Jesus's eyes. Jesus was very critical of all sexual wrongdoing as understood at the time. He certainly never said anything remotely like something is sin inside the temple but isn't outside. He called for consistency. The excuse homosexuals and their supporters use by suggesting the prohibition on male temple prostitution was what was meant by Jesus is a lame excuse. Jesus never authorized prostitution. He spoke of prostitution not as something righteous. It didn't matter whether it was in the temple or not. It was still unrighteous. The only thing Jesus did vis-a-vis the Mosaic Law was enhance it by removing hypocrisy. He would never have sanctioned the hypocrisy that what is not acceptable in the temple is nevertheless acceptable to God outside the temple building of the Pharisees. Jesus was the temple. The kingdom of God is within. Where is sin not okay but okay elsewhere in Jesus's view? It's ridiculous on its face.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Episcopal Church are dead of the Holy Spirit of truth. They are making a huge error and will regret it. Mark my words.

I don't say that everyone who is anti-homosexuality is right in all other matters. In fact, many are war-mongers and rabid capitalists, but that doesn't make homosexuality right. What a mess!


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Some clergy focus in on certain errors while deliberately ignoring others. Just to be clear, my "crusade" about the homosexual issue concerns so many people now saying that homosexuality is actually good.

      I've seen society in the main move from being adamantly against it (1950's); to tolerating it (1960-70's and as Jesus did, albeit in a highly qualified way that others did not also adopt else they wouldn't have moved beyond the position); to condoning it (perhaps over the last 10 or so years); and now really to pushing it, vigorously promoting it, even down at the kindergarten level (a very, very evil thing to do and now a primary reason for the home-schooling movement).

      So, I will continue to say that it is a flat out lie that homosexuality is not a choice and not harmful while I also do my best to tell the truth concerning other issues such as war and greed, etc.

      By the way, concerning the public-healthcare issue/debate, I am not for secular coercion concerning that either. I'm just for people caring about and for each other across-the-board.