In the United Kingdom the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, is bringing to the attention of his fellow bishops the disturbing fact that today’s secular politically correct multi-culturalism is pushing for Christian buildings - yes, space consecrated for Christian worship - to be shared with other non-Christian faiths.

There are now pressing demands that dedicated, and sometimes consecrated, Christian chapels in prisons, hospitals and elsewhere be turned into multi-faith centres, often known as ‘the multi-faith', for undifferentiated use by people of all faiths.
………………
The 1996 Church of England Report Communities and Buildings recognised the importance of sacred space. The nature and needs of Christian worship are such that buildings used for it acquire a certain character and atmosphere. Respect for Christian sensitivities, as well as those of people of other faiths, demands that buildings used for Christian worship should not become places where ‘anything goes'. It may be that Chaplaincies have ancillary space which can be relinquished so that others can use it, but consecrated and dedicated space must be protected.

It is one thing to be forced to share a building, but I believe the far more serious thing is what Bishop Nazir-Ali has next to say:

There is increasing evidence, however, especially from prisons, that Christian chaplains are being constrained in their ministries by the generally prevailing ‘multi-faith' culture. This may also be true of people of other faiths. Courses, such as Alpha, that bring people to faith or to deepen it are being discouraged as this is seen as ‘proselytising' (in itself a hugely ‘loaded' word). Other programmes which seek to base changes in behaviour on a deeper transformation, based on faith, are threatened with closure, even though their intake is entirely voluntary and they have a track-record in reducing re-offending.

It is greatly to be welcomed that chaplains from different Churches increasingly work together. There is also scope for cooperation with those of other faiths in areas like the welfare of patients or prisoners, hospitality for families, matters of diet, educational materials and inter-faith discussion. This does not and cannot mean that the distinctive Christian character of chapels and chaplaincies should be lost or compromised in any way. There are legitimate requirements - of welcome, of hospitality and of enabling - which Christians need to exercise in relation to others but again this must be without obscuring their fundamental commitment to the Gospel and its place in public life in this country.

Source

Again in Britain, a group calling themselves The Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF) are bringing to the attention of Christian organizations the consequences of new proposed legislation due to be made law in October this year.

The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) would make it illegal for anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, or premises to someone to discriminate against that person on the grounds of their sexual orientation, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. This could create a problem for churches as it would mean in practice it would be illegal for a church to refuse to hire out their hall to a gay group promoting homosexual practices. The government hopes to bring the regulations into force by October 2006, and has launched a consultation to ask if there should be exceptions to the laws. In a letter to churches as part of their action pack on the issue, the LCF is urging churches to petition the government in opposing the law.

It says: “The overriding concern of Christians will be the earnest desire for all people to repent of their sins and to come to salvation by grace, through faith in Christ. “However, it is also essential that Christians continue to have the freedom to express the Biblical doctrinal view that whilst we should love the person irrespective of their sexual orientation, homosexual practise is sinful and wrong.

“We cannot emphasise enough that unless churches respond to the consultation, the law will be implemented with no exemptions to protect those churches who want the freedom to declare openly that practising homosexuality is wrong,” the letter declared.

Source

This week in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Rev Peter Jensen, has taken a stand and spoken out regarding another matter where the Christian faith is in opposition to the moral relativism of today, and where pressure from the secular non-Christian cultural ideology wants the Church to make unconscionable compromises. In this case, the Church is already teetering due to the betrayal of liberal theologians in the upper eschalons of leadership, and has partially succumbed to apostacy from Holy Scripture.

“The biblical ideal of sexual relationships specifically excludes same-sex relationships. The biblical teaching makes this a matter of spiritual life and death. That is crystal clear from both the Old and New Testaments.

“I say with all solemnity to those who say the blessing of same-sex unions is okay, and who will ordain clergy living in same-sex unions: how can you do this when the souls of those involved are in peril?

“This is an enormously serious matter. And in the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration or ordination of persons living in those relationships, we are saying to the community as a whole that these relationships have the blessing of God, when the scriptures say those who are in them are excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

“This lifestyle is spiritually perilous. Encouraging it is endangering the lives and eternal destiny of those involved, and it is inconsistent with the duties of a minister of God’s word.

“This lifestyle is also unhealthy. I am astonished that the medical profession has not risen to a person and told us the truth and opposed it. The dereliction of duty of the medical profession is one of the most shameful parts of this whole thing.”

“Defending such doctrines as the uniqueness of Christ will prove impossible - the culture will see to that, and the church has developed a habit of succumbing.”

“It is part of the propaganda war to label those who take my point of view as obsessed, homophobic, fanatical, negative, fundamentalist, divisive and puritan …

Source

Clearly, this is an age where it is becoming daring to declare oneself a Christian, not just a nominal Christian for the purposes of writing something on a Census form, but one who has recognized that Christ paid a price on the cross and the purchase was one’s own life and soul.

Christianity is a worldview based on historical evidence and rational arguments, and has an exclusivity clause that refutes so-called truth from any other belief system. There is no avoiding the statement that Jesus made (John 14:6) that excludes all other faiths, all other false gods. True Christians cannot accept moral relativism and thereby say that Jesus was wrong, that His exclusive claim is false. Neither can they condone homosexual unions and practices while their God calls such things sin.

This postmodern age is working to divide the sincere faithful from those who would desert and follow more worldly trends and fashions. While mauling to pieces everything that is Christian, postmodernism can certainly be seen to be destroying our cultural heritage. But is this not purifying the church in the process? Our churches were not built for the worship of any false gods, the deities of other non-Christian faiths, but neither were they for our own gods of money, pride, greed, meanness and self-serving egoism, the teaching of false doctrine and manufactured dogma. The true church is the body of believers - people, not buildings - the living body of Christ, the historical Jesus who told all to repent and invited them to follow Him. His teachings are found in the Bible, not in contradictory philosophies of mankind. Postmodernism is already claiming the minds and souls of those who would betray His Word and deny His claim to Lordship. The world will take what is it’s own, and Jesus will have those willing to be His.

Quoting from a comment to the previous Judah’s Journal entry, Erwin Raphael McManus wrote:

…the message of Jesus has been lost in the catacombs of thousands of years of empty religion. Jesus never intended his movement to be about cathedrals and robes and titles and power. He never intended to establish a religious version of the Roman Empire.

The secret message of the Bible is one of elegant simplicity:
• We are created in the image and likeness of God.
• We are the object of his passionate love and concern.
• We have potential beyond our wildest imagination.
• We were created to live in relationship with God.
• We are spiritual beings and need God to be fully alive.
• We are closer to God than we know.
• We have been lied to about what God demands of us.

The secret that must be exposed is that God has come into human history in the person of Jesus Christ so that all of us might become the sons and daughters of God.

Well, have you read it yet? Or are you off to see the movie first? Or does all the hype simply bore and put you off?

Having first read several rebuttals, I decided that I better read the book as well - Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, that is. I’m one of those people who like reading from back to front, reassuring myself that the end is worth the start and whatever goes on in between. So it was not out of character for me to read those rebuttals first. Then I would be more aware of the errors being put forward as facts and thus keep my head on my shoulders and my feet on the ground. With my orientation secured, I could then settle down to a good read knowing I have already seen through the final layer of whatever mystery there may be to figure throughout the story line. And despite a rather silly plot overall, it is a good read - along with John Grisham and Tom Clancy and similar.

The big thing to remember - this book is only a novel.

The novel features an opening page entitled “Fact,” which states: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This is the first piece of fiction. It is like that saying “all generalizations are false including this one” as the book is a novel and while some aspects of novels are factual, like people having arms and legs and driving cars on roads and so on, the whole thing didn’t actually in reality happen at all. For a real fact, consider this: despite it claiming that all descriptions of artwork in this novel are accurate, it says that Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Virgin of the Rocks” (which in the Louvre) is “a five-foot-tall canvas” yet it is actually six-and-a-half feet in height. So Dan Brown’s book does not pass the simple encyclopaedia test - or the Google test, if you like. But is this just a book writer’s version of poetic licence? I would be willing to make allowances except for that opening statement making claims of accuracy, and then he goes on to make even more serious errors - that prior to the Council of Nicaea no one believed that Jesus was divine, that the Catholic Church burned 5 million women at the stake in the medieval era and that all of Christianity’s major beliefs have been stolen from pagan religions. Well, that just goes to prove his work really is only fiction, including his statement of “fact” that begins the confusion right at the start.

The Catholic Church is upset with this book and with the movie, wanting it banned. Dan Brown certainly does show an anti-Catholic bias, and many Christians of all denominations are protesting about the vilification of Jesus and the representation as fact of a great many lies that contradict Christian truth. Even Muslims in India are offering to help their Christian “brothers” protest this attack on their “common religious belief”. Although this sudden affinity sounds wonderful, I strongly suspect ulterior motives as Muslims definitely do not consider Christians to be their “brothers” any more than they share the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah, nor many other things about Jesus. However, they certainly do have a loathing of prophets being maligned in any way - as witnessed by the furore over the Muhammad cartoons.

This brings up the whole freedom of speech issue again. If we want freedom of speech, then that includes the freedom to criticize personal belief systems - and if we allow criticism of one faith, then to be consistent we must be prepared to allow criticism of all faiths. Otherwise we allow criticism of no faiths, and that is our freedom fully curtailed in such matters. I personally do not want that to happen as it stops us being rational and sensible in seeking the truth. We must be able to critically examine all possible evidence and ask questions to verify facts. Not to do so puts ourselves at risk of confusing our entire reality.

So to ban the book or the movie is not the way I would want to go. As a Christian, I do not particularly like Jesus being subjected to such silly rumours, but then He is much bigger than rumours and they will eventually go the same way as all other deception - destroyed by the ultimate Truth (yep, a Christian belief). To ban the book or movie simply invites suspicion as though the Church really does have something to hide. And it treats us all paternalistically like children, not old enough to know things or think for ourselves, and keeps us at junior Sunday School level inhibiting intellectual and spiritual growth.

But I do have one message of warning. To read the book or see the movie, and not go on to examine the issues critically, but to believe as fact something without accurate reliable evidence, is plain foolish and silly. I am not one of those Christians who thinks that having faith means throwing intelligence and facts to the wind to believe just whatever. Having faith is far from contradictory to a critical examination of evidence with a rational mind. The only concern I have regarding this book or movie is that people are far too willing to believe something without checking it out, and in that way deceive themselves as to what is the truth.

Bart Ehrman, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC and author of “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scriptures and the Faiths We Never Knew” (which examines how and why certain texts did or didn’t make it into the New Testament) has written a rebuttal which is published as a book entitled “Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine“.

Here are some points that he makes in his book:

Some Factual Errors in The Da Vinci Code

1. Jesus’ life was decidedly not “recorded by thousands of followers across the land.” He didn’t even have thousands of followers, let alone literate ones (p. 231).

2. It’s not true that eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament” (p. 231). This makes it sound like there was a contest, entered by mail…

3. It’s absolutely not true that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as “a mortal prophet” (p. 233). The vast majority of Christians by the early fourth century acknowledged him as divine. (Some thought he was so divine he wasn’t even human!)

4. Constantine did not commission a “new Bible “that omitted references to Jesus’ human traits (p. 234). For one thing, he didn’t commission a new Bible at all. For another thing, the books that did get included are chock-full of references to his human traits (he gets hungry, tired, angry; he gets upset; he bleeds, he dies…).

5. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not “found in the 1950s” (p. 234). It was 1947. And the Nag Hammadi documents do not tell the Grail story at all, nor do they emphasize Jesus’ human traits. Quite the contrary.

6. “Jewish decorum” in no way forbade “a Jewish man to be unmarried” (p. 245). In fact, most of the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls were male unmarried celibates.

7. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not among “the earliest Christian records” (p. 245). They are Jewish, with nothing Christian in them.

8. We have no idea about the lineage of Mary Magdalene; nothing connects her with the “house of Benjamin.” And even if she were, this wouldn’t make her a descendant of David (p. 248).

9. Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion? That’s a good one (p. 255).

10. The Q document is not a surviving source hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It’s a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke, principally a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Roman Catholic scholars think the same of it as non-Catholics there’s nothing secretive about it (p. 256).

An excellent website with information to debunk the Da Vinci Code myths is James Holding’s Tektonics Apologetics Ministries, in particular his paper here.

J.P. Holding offers the following notes for a flyer:

What's wrong with The Da Vinci Code?

It's only fiction. What's the big deal?
The author (Dan Brown) does not think he is reporting fiction. On a June 9, 2003 interview on the Today show Brown said that it was his goal to “challenge certain long-held beliefs or truths about religion.” So he is obviously interested in persuading readers to a certain point of view.

Works of fiction are very capable of changing people's minds about facts. In the Civil War era, the book Uncle Tom's Cabin was instrumental in getting Americans to reject slavery, even though it was a work of fiction. The author of that book, Harriet Beecher Stowe, defended her book's accuracy when critics attacked it. Why won't Dan Brown defend his book from critics, if he really thinks it is worthy of challenging “long-held beliefs or truths”?

What's wrong with it? The Da Vinci Code is filled with errors of fact on nearly every subject it touches. Here are some samples:

Jesus:
The book says that Jesus had “thousands” of followers who recorded his life's story, and that more than eighty gospels were produced. This is a practically an impossibility to begin with, because some 90 to 95 percent of people who lived at the time of Jesus could not read or write. However, the number of Gospels written over time by various parties (80) is inflated. No more than 50 such documents are known, many of them just by a title, and those otherwise known as full documents are often not properly “gospels” in form (in other words, they are not in the format of biographies as they were written in the first century, which the Gospels of the New Testament are). They are also certifiably written much later than the canonical four Gospels, and are not regarded as credible sources for the life of Jesus.

Constantine:
The book says that Constantine “collated” the New Testament collection of books. Constantine in fact had nothing to do with the canon; the formal declaration of the canon occurred at a council that took place after Constantine's death, and prior to this, consensus among the leaders in the church was the determining factor in what books were considered authoritative.

Mithra:
The book claims that this ancient deity was a mirror image of the figure of Jesus: That he had been called the Son of God and the Light of the World — was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. All of these claims are false, and are unknown to scholars who study Mithra. Mithra never died himself but was acclaimed for killing a cosmic bull (of the constellation Taurus).

The Council of Nicea:
Contrary to the book, this Council did not decide that Jesus was divinity and not a mortal man. Both sides in this Council agreed that Jesus was divinity. The question at hand was whether Jesus was a created deity or an eternal deity.

Leonardo da Vinci:
There is no evidence that da Vinci was a “nature worshipper” as Brown claims; he did many sketches of nature, but none of them had religious elements. Brown depicts Leonardo as being into the “darker arts”; in fact Leonardo was severely critical of the occult and pseudo-sciences and only gave some respect to alchemy where it came closer to being chemistry. He did not, contrary to Brown, believe he could turn lead into gold. He did not design torture devices as Brown says, though he did design some weapons of war.

The Mona Lisa:
Brown claims that the painting was named by da Vinci to indicate a secret code made of an anagram for the Egyptian deities Amon and Isis. But the painting was not called “Mona Lisa” by da Vinci. In his time it was called “La Gioconda”. It is also not, as Brown indicates, a version of da Vinci dressed as a women, but the wife of a local merchant, as records of the time indicate.

Everything Else:
It would take several pages to list all of Brown's errors, but here are a few others:

Brown often refers to the “Vatican” as though it were synonymous with the Catholic Church. He refers to Constantine creating a “new Vatican power base.” The Vatican as such did not exist until the 14th century as the Pope's residence; in Constantine's time it was still a swamp.

Brown says that Pope Clement V burned Templar knights and threw their ashes into the Tiber River. It was King Philip who burned the knights, and Clement could not have had their ashes tossed in the Tiber River (in Rome) even if he had burned them, because the Popes resided in Avignon (France) at the time; either the Tiber was diverted hundreds of miles, or Clement had a good throwing arm.

Brown applies the “Divine Proportion” to the population of beehives. The author of this commentary spoke with several beekeepers, all of whom scoffed at this idea. The ratio of male to female bees in a hive is not 1.618 to 1. A hive is usually at least 95% female. One beekeeper said that a hive with the proportions Brown describes would be dead within a few days, since females do all the real hive work. Perhaps some species of bee comes close to having the proportions Brown describes at some time, but it is clearly not a bee universal.

I personally enjoyed Dan Brown’s book and I intend to see the movie as well. But I do recommend that folks also read a scholarly rebuttal or two - or else simply regard it as fiction and take nothing more out of it than they would any other cracking good novel.

Added 20 May…

Some more resources for those interested in facts more so than fiction:

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code by Sandra Miesel.

The Da Vinci crock by Laura Miller ~ “A fascinating conspiracy about Jesus transformed the cheesy thriller, “The Da Vinci Code,” into a phenomenal bestseller. Too bad it comes from “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” a masterpiece of bogus history”.

The Da Vinci Code: Of Magdalene, Gnostics, the Goddess and the Grail by Leadership University Editor/Webmaster, Byron Barlowe.

The Da Vinci Code: The facts behind the fiction by Amy Welborn.

The Da Vinci Code - Fiction Based On Fiction by Jennifer Rast of Contender Ministries.

THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable ~ Question: Which historical errors concern you the most?

The Da Vinci Code Cracks by Greg Koukl

Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity Was Not Invented Until the Fourth Century? by Rich Deem ~ “One of the most commonly held atheistic myths is that Christianity as we know it today was not invented until the fourth century, after the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The book, and soon to be released movie, The Da Vinci Code, makes this very claim (among other very bizarre assertions).”
This website provides authoritative information to debunk this myth and others.

The Da Vinci Dialogue ~ News Tracker
A chronological list of news links related to reactions regarding the book and movie.

The Apostle Paul gets such a rubbishing these days from the feminists that I think a few words from time to time do need to be said about that. Having read “women’s studies” as 200 level sociology papers, I am well aware of the various theoretical models applied by feminists to analyze the place of women in history and today’s society, and the arguments and conclusions that result from all the comparisons made concerning our standing in relation to the menfolk and their patriachial institutions. Paul comes out of it like someone dragged backwards through a gorse bush, a quite beleagured figure out of place in today’s philosophical scheme of things, and wearing a placard to advertise himself as the First Place-getting misogynist.

Poor politically incorrect Paul. But he is poorly understood by those who would criticize him quite so harshly. For the time in which he lived, he was actually most enlightened. He treated women well, with considerable regard for them. Gender roles were not so blurred back then as they are today, and it is not fair to pluck a body out of a 2000 year old environment, stand him in the glare of another world, and judge him by those ideas and attitudes of that other world. Or is it? If you say no, then we should probably leave him alone. But if you say yes, then I have something rather lovely to describe to you.

Many women immediately baulk at the Christian view of marriage where Paul tells women that they are to submit to their husbands. I have heard it said like this:

Well, you know what “submit” means, don’t you?
What does it mean then?
Well, the prefix sub means “under” and a mit can mean the hand - so submit means “underhand” - quite, quite, underhand!

But that is not how Paul meant for marriage to be at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Christian faith teaches that while the husband is the one to make the decisions and his wife is to submit to him, the part that gets lost in the instant uproar that follows is this - that in doing so he must love and put her ahead of his own self and sacrifice himself for her, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. And not only must he love her as himself, but that he must also submit himself to Christ - as each of them must do - whose love is in the best interests of the both of them. Paul also tells us, both husband and wife: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21). So what exactly, in a truly loving relationship where each partner considers the other first and foremost, and both are accountable to the Word of God, is so underhand about all that?

When a marriage is truly working according to the Christian principles set out by Paul, is there really any more beautiful relationship of selfless caring for each other? Each partner has a different but complimentary role where they come together as a united whole, and both are accountable to the One whose name is that of the greatest love of all. Compare that with all those many marriages that go wrong and fall apart, leaking all the pain, grief and ugliness of human degradation at their splitting seams, and then tell me that Paul must have got it wrong. What is more, Paul got it right symbolically as the reflection of God’s process of Creation as described in Scripture and understood by Christians - that God made man first, then woman to be with him as his companion. In this way Paul’s teaching is from God Himself, a mirror held to the way of being that God has ordained in the consistent pattern of godly relationships seen throughout all of Scripture.

Paul lived according to the Christian worldview and this will not sit comfortably with any theoretical models of feminism. He will always score badly by feminist standards - as does much of feminism by Christian standards. The worldviews are simply different. The best thing that feminism can offer is the accountablity that is thrust back upon men to take responsibility for their own sinful behaviour where they do not fulfil the divine command to love as did Christ, and yet that must apply to all of us - male and female also.

Some words from this same man, the Apostle Paul…

Romans 12: 9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is the church that John found out in the country on his travels one day, and I am glad he stopped to take a picture. There is a simple but gracious appeal of this little church that contrasts so sharply with all the current day happenings in the troubled Anglican communion. It represents to me how I would like my faith to be - simple and honest, clean and uncluttered, devoid of the complexities of theological debate fostered by heresies that ravage the pure Gospel message.

The essential message of the Gospel is indeed quite simple. It is such that even a child can recognize the truth of it, and understand what is required. That we have done wrong things at times, and failed to live up to the kind of life that God would have us live, is an honest appraisal of ourselves. The bad news is that we cannot be faultless by our own efforts, and that we will all die one day and cannot change that situation. That is not too hard to believe. The Good News is clear and simple. I would wish that all else was so clear and simple, but where you have people, there you have complexity - and within the Church is no exception.

Today in San Francisco the Episcopal Church is electing a bishop for California.

Lesbian priest who could split the Anglican Church

It is not an election that would normally attract world attention, but when a few hundred Christians gather to choose a new Episcopal Bishop of California today, millions around the globe will be watching.
The reason is simple. Three of the seven candidates are gay or lesbian, and live openly with their same-sex partners. If one of them wins, the victory could well fracture the Episcopal Church in America and trigger a schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion to which it belongs.

What a long way such events have come from the kind of faith that is represented by the image of John’s little church. The problem is largely one of apostacy to the secular values of today’s postmodern era, they being upheld by liberal theologians whose revisionist view of Scripture (and Church Tradition also) has permitted them to ignore the fact that sexual immorality is a sin and that authority is denied women to be ordained bishops. Yes, I hold to the conservative position which believes in moral absolutes and upholds objective Biblical truth. To me the notion of a lesbian bishop makes a total mockery of both God and the Christian faith. It is the way of those who have accepted the postmodern worldview over and above the Christian worldview that is based on God’s Word. It is sad to see this in the world, but even sadder to see it in the heart of the Church itself. I sincerely hope the San Francisco church remembers God’s Word in it’s simple and gracious, objective and pure truth, and votes accordingly.

Romans 12:

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.