Excerpted from DePaul U. Blasted for Scheduling Pro-Homosexual Conference, by Jim Brown, published Nov 14, 2006, by Agape Press:

The nation’s largest Catholic university is under fire over its plan to host a conference aimed at expanding homosexuality-affirming teaching and curriculum on Catholic university campuses.

Next October DePaul University in Chicago will be hosting a two-day conference for professors and staff who are involved with “lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer” issues on Catholic campuses. The first “Out There” conference was held at Santa Clara University in 2005 and reportedly attracted 150 participants from more than 40 colleges and universities.

Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society (CNS), a Catholic renewal group, says he is very troubled by the event and its location.

“The approach that these people are taking is to accept — and in some cases even endorse — the homosexual lifestyle and build an academic curriculum around the homosexual culture as if it’s a distinctive and worthy culture to be studied,” notes Reilly. “And that’s obviously a serious concern for Catholics.”

TAKE ACTION – The Cardinal Newman Society is calling on DePaul president Thomas Holtschneider to drop the plan to host the pro-homosexual conference in October 2007.

DePaul University
1 E. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-362-8000
1-800-4DEPAUL

Excerpted from March Divides Followers of Martin Luther King, published Dec 11, 2004, by Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

…Saturday’s march [led by New Birth Missionary Church] advocated “a constitutional amendment to fully protect marriage between one man and one woman.”

…Bernice King, the Kings’ youngest daughter, expressed how she felt her father would have responded while speaking at a church in Auckland, New Zealand, in October:

“I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.”

Dr. Rob Gagnon has posted a new article enlightening the reader on four points:

1. Did the debate over homosexuality trigger divisions over Scriptural authority among mainline Protestants or did those differences already exist when discussion about ordaining gays started?
2. Why is it that Protestants with different understandings about Scripture seemed to peacefully co-exist at one time, but appear unable to do so now?
3. Why has this debate gone on for so long?
4. Is there any way to reconcile differing views over homosexuality and interpreting Scripture?

He concludes that the decision which must be faced by each mainline denomination regarding the homosexuality issue is this:

They will operate either under the motto that innate biological urges are Lord, and we their slaves, or under the motto that Jesus is Lord even of such urges.

From his interview with Jake Shears:

“Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.”

“From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it… But the reality is that organised religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate…”

I am reminded of a phrase from II Peter 2:12: “blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant.”

It is not enough to “love the idea of” the teachings of Jesus; we must actually love and delight in the teachings themselves (Psalm 1), which include the command to evangelize and to respect the church, the bride of Christ:

“Go and *make disciples* of all nations, *baptizing them* in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.*” – Matthew 28:19-20

Jesus said, “If you love me, you will *keep* my commandments” (John 14:15). – Sonja Dalton

From the Task Force’s 2005 Creating Change conference:

Creating Change closed with a thunderous speech by Bishop Yvette Flunder, founder and senior pastor of City of Refuge United Church of Christ in San Francisco, who spoke to the separation many LGBT activists feel from spiritual traditions, saying,

“Somebody stole God from some of us. Somebody reached down inside you and stole your spirit from you.”

But she encouraged activists not to abandon the spiritual dimension of the work they do for justice, saying,

“Activism that is rooted in spirituality can bust Hell wide open.”

The audience wildly applauded Flunder’s speech and left the conference with her words resonating as a spiritual call to all justice-seeking people:

“I challenge you, prophets, to stand up!”

From Gay Culture and the Riddle of Andrew Sullivan, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 27, 2006:

Andrew Sullivan is a man of ideas. In recent years, Sullivan has emerged as one of the most influential intellectuals in American public life. Furthermore, he has been identified with some of the most controversial issues of our times–a fact that is hardly surprising given his libertarian view of morality, conservative views of politics, Roman Catholic views of Christianity, and the fact that he is a prominent homosexual advocate…

In the October 24, 2005 issue of The New Republic, Sullivan writes about “The End of Gay Culture.” Of course, Sullivan’s perspective on homosexuality and gay culture is deeply rooted in his own homosexuality and his ardent embrace of his own homosexual lifestyle. He is anything but a dispassionate observer…

As he reviews the impact of the HIV crisis, Sullivan points to some patterns that emerged in its aftermath–patterns that would likely be missed by those outside the gay subculture. The emergence of lesbians as leaders of the major gay rights organizations was, Sullivan suggests, largely due to the fact that the gay male leaders were largely dead…

“Gay marriage is not a radical step,” Sullivan insisted…

But, even as Sullivan argued for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriage, more radical homosexual theorists were dismissing marriage altogether. As Sullivan explained,

“Marriage of all institutions is to liberationists a form of imprisonment; it reeks of a discourse that has bought and sold property, that has denigrated and subjected women, that has constructed human relationships into a crude and suffocating form. Why on earth should it be supported for homosexuals?”

Sullivan’s 1995 book, and his most recent article, must be read in light of his 1998 testimonial, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. This book was written after Sullivan had been diagnosed as HIV-positive. As he recalled:

“I contracted the disease in full knowledge of how it is transmitted, and without any illusions about how debilitating and terrifying a diagnosis it could be. I have witnessed first-hand a man dying of AIDS; I have seen the ravages of its impact and the harrowing humiliation it meant. I had written about it, volunteered to combat it, and tried to understand it. But I still risked getting it, and the memories of that risk and the ramifications of it for myself, my family, and my friends still forced me into questions I would rather not confront, and have expended a great deal of effort avoiding.”

When a high school friend asked Sullivan how he had contracted the virus, Sullivan informed him that he had no idea which sex partner had been the source of the viral transmission. “How many people did you sleep with, for God’s sake?,” his friend asked. Note Sullivan’s answer carefully:

“Too many, God knows. Too many for meaning and dignity to be given to every one; too many for love to be present at each; too many for sex to be very often more than a temporary but powerful release from debilitating fear and loneliness.”

In other words, the public Andrew Sullivan emerged as a major proponent of responsibility, stability, and self-control, while the private Andrew Sullivan was deeply involved in homosexual promiscuity.

All this broke into public view in 2001, when a homosexual columnist discovered that Sullivan had been posting advertisements for unprotected homosexual sex at internet web sites. The ensuing controversy within the gay community was vitriolic, even as it was revealing.

“The End of Gay Culture” is an eye-opening essay. As an exercise in cultural analysis, it demonstrates genuine insight and an insider’s perspective. More than anything else, Sullivan’s article should awaken thinking Christians to the fact that homosexuality is being normalized in the larger culture. This surely represents a matter of urgent missiological concern, for the normalization of sin represents a progressive hardening of the nation’s heart against the Gospel.

At a more personal level, this article reminds me to pray for Andrew Sullivan. I say this even as I realize that he may be more offended by my prayer than by anything else. In most of his writings, Mr. Sullivan demonstrates a consistent and ardent determination to celebrate homosexuality as central to his own self-discovery and personhood. Yet, he also reveals significant doubts. When he explains that he “never publicly defended promiscuity” nor publicly attacked it because “I felt, and often still feel, unable to live up to the ideals I really hold,” I detect a glimmer of doubt. I have faced Mr. Sullivan in public debate on issues related to homosexuality. I consider him to be among the most gifted, thoughtful, and unpredictable intellectuals on the current scene. More than anything else, I want Mr. Sullivan to find his self-identity and deepest passions in the transforming power of Christ–the power to see all things made new. Without apology, I pray that one day he will see all that he has written in defense of homosexuality, and all that he has known in terms of his homosexual identity, as loss, and to find in Christ the only resolution of our sexuality and the only solution to the problem we all share–the problem of sin.

Andrew Sullivan has been a focus of my prayer since I first learned of his HIV-positive status. I do pray that God will give him strengthened health and the gift of time. After all, our Christian concern should be focused not only on the challenge of homosexuality in the culture, but the challenge of reaching homosexuals with the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel.

Continue reading at Albert Mohler…

From NAE and All Evangelicals Must Seek The Lord — Haggard Failure May Explain Liberal Drift of NAE, a press release from Rob Schenk, president of the Evangelical-dominated National Clergy Council in Washington, DC, and chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance:

The moral failure of recently resigned president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Ted Haggard, may explain in part the leftward drift of the organization over the last several years. It has been a mystery to many of us who watched this venerable institution shake lose of its once secure foundation and slide onto the shifting sands of political correctness, postmodern jargon and social trends. Whether its immediate past president’s troubles came before or after this slide is not as important as what its board of directors does next. The NAE has an opportunity to make a critically important course correction.

I recommend NAE leadership call all of us who label ourselves Evangelicals to a time of humble repentance, contrition and seeking the Lord and His will. Instead of concerning ourselves with what rock superstar Bono thinks we ought to do, let’s instead inquire of the Lord and His Word. Let’s repair the Temple, as King Josiah did, and bring out the Book instead of the polls. Let’s read God’s Holy Law and forget the New York Times.

The NAE will need a leader who holds God’s Word above all else, who is keenly aware of our human predilection toward rebellion against God and His moral will and who sets the organization’s agenda only by the time-tested dictates of the Book. Being a Christian has never been a popularity contest. Jesus said, “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

We are all deeply saddened to see a brother fall, a family suffer, a church injured and reproach of the ministry of the Gospel. We must pray for the repair of the Haggard family, for the accuser to find salvation and deliverance, for the New Life Church to be restored and the NAE to find solid biblical direction. As we do, we must look inward to see our own failings and bring to the Lord the fruit of repentance.

As Evangelicals are once again put in the spotlight this Tuesday, Election Day, let’s tell the reporters at the voting stations, “I don’t take my cues from Ted Haggard, or party leaders or pollsters and pundits. I prayed today, read my Bible and asked the Lord alone to help me. Then, I cast my vote. Now, I pray, ‘thy will be done.’”

Let’s see this episode as a gift from our Heavenly Father who chastens those He loves.

“And now for a little while grace has been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and give us a measure of revival in our bondage.” (Ezra 9:8)

Be sure to read The Confession (Part I) posted below…

“Many if not most of the major gay and lesbian organizations who have signed on to the fight for same-sex marriage would instantly sign off at any suggestion that they were actually encouraging gay men and lesbians to marry.” – Gabriel Rotello, in his 1997 book on the AIDS crisis, Sexual Ecology

Excerpted from The Confession, Part II, by Stanley Kurtz, published Nov 1, 2006, by National Review:

…Around the time the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement was released, a controversy broke out over news that the Boston Globe had told its gay employees to marry their partners or face losing their domestic-partnership benefits…

According to [Globe journalist Zak] Szymanski, “Many national LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] groups, despite their large investment in securing gay marriage, agree that there is a problem with a society that values marriage over all other family forms.”

For example, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and a major spokesman in the battle for same-sex marriage, said, “We’re deeply disappointed by the Globe’s decision, and >we do not feel that benefits should flow only from marriage, because a married couple does not reflect the reality of the American family, gay or straight.”

Michelle Granda, of GLAD, which Szymanski calls “the group that is widely credited with winning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts,” said, “We have always believed families are configured in many ways and that marriage is not the answer for all families.”

…Here we have a clear indication of the family radicalism that hides beneath the only apparent conservatism of same-sex marriage advocacy groups…

A Striking Development
In late 2005, I published a piece entitled “Here Come the Brides,” about the role of bisexuality in the drive for legalized multiple-partner marriage. It’s notable that the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto justified its radical platform, in part, by lamenting the short shrift historically given to bisexuals by the broader LGBT movement. Among the signers of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto were a number of bisexual activists. In “Here Come the Brides,” I also noted the role of Unitarian polyamory activists, and the potential role of arguments made by Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino in a pro-polyamory movement. Sure enough, the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was signed by a number of Unitarian ministers and by professor Yoshino…

A Political Future
…Jonathan Rauch offered some remarkably frank concessions: “I had originally hoped that the [same-sex marriage] debate would not be followed by a polygamy debate, but clearly it has been. Some [same-sex marriage] advocates maintained that there was no significant constituency for polygamy, but that’s proving to be wrong as well.”

…This all means that in a post-gay-marriage world, the political organization of the gay community will shift. For now, “conservative” proponents of same-sex marriage are out in front, supported by a vast array of considerably less conservative activists and lobby groups. Meanwhile, the radicals are marginalized and/or intentionally keeping a low profile. In a post-gay-marriage world, this situation will flip. The radicals will step out in front, supported by largely the same coalition of activists and lobby groups who currently support same-sex marriage. At that point, the conservatives, no longer needed to run interference for the larger movement, will be quietly put out to pasture. By then we shall be well beyond same-sex marriage. Listen carefully to the words of same-sex marriage supporters, and they confess as much themselves.

Continue reading at National Review…