A new lawsuit charges an Orthodox Jewish group, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), with state-level consumer fraud in New Jersey for "providing conversion therapy claiming to cure clients of being gay."

Meanwhile, practitioners of reparative therapy are challenging the state of California, claiming its recent ban of the treatment for gay minors violates their religious freedom.

Update (Jan. 24): Reuters reports that about one-third of Uruguay's doctors are refusing to perform abortions in accordance with the new law.

-----

(Editor's note: Time magazine has reported on the regional significance of Uruguay's new law.)

-----

In predominantly Catholic Latin America, laws permitting abortion are gaining ground.

Both Uruguay and Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires, recently voted to approve bills legalizing some forms of abortion. The bills passed legislatures by one-vote margins in each country.

Fallout from an Associated Press story has forced an Air Force chaplain to leave the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) after 30 years and affiliate instead with a more-moderate Baptist denomination.

The University of Texas is investigating allegations of “scientific misconduct” against sociology professor Mark Regnerus over his recent high-profile survey of children whose parents have had same-sex relationships.

A panel of UT professors will examine Regnerus’s methodology in response to a complaint by a blogger on LGBT issues that the study was “designed so as to be guaranteed to make gay people look bad” and was funded by conservative groups, according to the Austin American-Statesman. The Journal of Social Science Research, which published Regnerus’s study, has also received criticisms of the study’s methodology.

Regnerus, whose study found that young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships are more likely to experience emotional and social problems, told the American-Statesman that his methodology was developed by a team of leading family researchers and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

An influential group of social scientists--including Michael Emerson, Christian Smith, Rodney Stark, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Bradley Wright--issued a public statement defending Regnerus's study.

“We think that the Regnerus study, which is one of the first to rely on a large, random, and representative sample of children from parents who have experienced same-sex relationships, has helped to inform the ongoing scholarly and public conversation about same-sex families in America,” wrote the group. “"As social scientists, our hope is that more such studies will be forthcoming shortly, and that future journalistic coverage of such studies, and this contentious topic, will be more civil, thorough, and thoughtful than has been the coverage of the new study by Professor Mark Regnerus."

The review panel will release its conclusion within 60 days.

CT recently interviewed Regnerus on Sex Economics 101 -- his research into the sexual attitudes and behavior of young adults -- and published a cover story on his provocative argument for early marriage. He also participated in a Village Green panel on how best to encourage premarital abstinence. Meanwhile Regnerus is discussing his research on his blog and at Slate.

An influential group of social scientists -- including many who have appeared in CT's pages -- have issued a public statement defending Mark Regnerus's controversial study on same-sex parenting.

Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, published a paper in the July issue of Social Science Research that examined "how different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?" His findings, based on his New Family Structures Study, indicated that young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships are more likely to experience emotional and social problems.

His Slate article published in June drew more than 450 comments and set off a chorus of criticism.

In response, a group of 18 professors -- including Michael Emerson, Christian Smith, Rodney Stark, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Bradley Wright -- posted a defense on the website of Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion. They argue that rather then Regnerus' study being “anti-gay,” “breathtakingly sloppy,” and “gets everything wrong" (as many media outlets have alleged), such public criticism is unwarranted for three reasons:

1) Media outlets have not properly critiqued the "small, nonrepresentative samples" used by previous studies that showed equal or more positive outcomes for children of same-sex parents vs. heterosexual parents. "By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions," they wrote.

2) Those critical of Regnerus surveying children from same-sex relationships with high levels of instability "fail to appreciate ... that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin."

3) Another new study (published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family) -- also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey -- comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study.

"We do not think that these new studies settle the nation’s ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children. In fact, research on same-sex parenting based on nationally representative samples is still in its infancy," reads the statement. "But we think that the Regnerus study, which is one of the first to rely on a large, random, and representative sample of children from parents who have experienced same-sex relationships, has helped to inform the ongoing scholarly and public conversation about same-sex families in America.

"As social scientists, our hope is that more such studies will be forthcoming shortly," the statement continues, "and that future journalistic coverage of such studies, and this contentious topic, will be more civil, thorough, and thoughtful than has been the coverage of the new study by Professor Mark Regnerus."

Regnerus has responded to the criticism here and here.

CT recently interviewed Regnerus on Sex Economics 101 -- his research into the sexual attitudes and behavior of young adults -- and published a cover story on his provocative argument for early marriage. He also participated in a Village Green panel on how best to encourage premarital abstinence.

The chairman of the United Kingdom’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has stirred up some debate after stating that religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws should be limited to houses of worship.

Trevor Phillips, speaking during a debate organized by the Religion and Society Research Program, also compared Christian groups seeking exemptions from equality laws to Muslims who want to implement Shari‘ah law in parts of Britain.

"The law stops at the door of the temple as far as I'm concerned," he said. "Institutions have to make a decision whether they want to [provide public services under public rules] … but you can’t say 'because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws'."

Phillips referred to several cases where religious groups have protested requirements that they not discriminate on sexual grounds, including Catholic adoption agencies and the owners of a Christian bed and breakfast who were ordered to pay damages after turning away gay couples.

"To me there's nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn't apply to us," Phillips said. "Why not then say Shari'ah can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn't work."

The remarks drew almost instant criticism. George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, called the statement "ridiculous."

"We are a democracy in which Christianity is established in the Church of England and a nation profoundly influenced by this faith in its Catholic and Anglican heritage," he said. "We need lawmakers to respect this heritage and seek accommodation wherever a strongly held faith seems to clash with new legislation."

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Center, said Phillips’ assertion was "inflammatory" and "intolerant," adding that Phillips "fails to understand the nature of faith and what inspires faith and what makes agencies like Catholic adoption agencies so selfless."

However, the National Secular Society’s Keith Porteous Wood sided with Phillips. "There is no such thing as partial equality, and every time an exemption is made, someone else’s rights are compromised."

Phillips later dismissed the criticism and said his comments were not meant to be controversial. "You would have to really work hard to make what I said 'inflammatory."

In August, CT reported on Phillips’ assertion that though Christians face discrimination, politically motivated faith groups often blow it out of proportion.

Pat Robertson advised a viewer of yesterday's 700 Club to avoid putting a "guilt trip" on those who want to divorce a spouse with Alzheimer's. During the show's advice segment, a viewer asked Robertson how she should address a friend who was dating another woman "because his wife as he knows her is gone." Robertson said he would not fault anyone for doing this. He then went further by saying it would be understandable to divorce a spouse with the disease.

"That is a terribly hard thing," Robertson said. "I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things because here is a loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years. And suddenly that person is gone. They're gone. They are gone. So, what he says basically is correct. But I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her."

Co-host Terry Meeuwsen asked Pat, "But isn't that the vow that we take when we marry someone? That it’s For better or for worse. For richer or poorer?"

Robertson said that the viewer's friend could obey this vow of "death till you part" because the disease was a "kind of death." Robertson said he would understand if someone started another relationship out of a need for companionship.

Robertson gave the example of a friend who faithfully visited his wife every day even though she could not remember his visits to illustrate the difficulty of caring for someone with the disease.

"It's really hurtful because they say crazy things," Robertson said. "Nevertheless, it is a terribly difficult thing for somebody. I can't fault him for wanting some kind of companionship. And if he says in a sense she is gone, he's right. It's like a walking death. Get some ethicist besides me to give you an answer because I recognize the dilemma and the last thing I'd do is condemn you for taking that kind of action."

At the Willow Creek Association's Global Leadership Summit this afternoon, senior pastor Bill Hybels confirmed that Howard Schultz withdrew over an online petition calling the Illinois megachurch anti-gay and threatening a boycott. Hybels said the association let the Starbucks CEO out of his contract and he encouraged the summit's attendees (an estimated 165,000, between the main South Barrington campus and 450 other locations) to write encouraging notes to the company and to buy Starbucks coffee and Schultz's new book on leadership. Hybels said he is also trying to meet with the creators of the petition. The full text of his remarks after the video below.

In the last seven days an online petition was started to boycott Starbucks if Howard Schultz did not cancel his signed contract to this event. The issue driving this petition, which so far has been signed by 717 people, is homosexuality. The petition claims that Willow Creek Community Church is anti-gay. Therefore, if the president of Starbucks speaks here, then Starbucks should be boycotted, or so the thinking goes. Now, Howard and his leadership team had a tough decision to make. [Willow Creek Association president] Jim Mellado and I spent 45 minutes in a very constructive conversation with the leadership at Starbucks, explaining to them in no uncertain terms that Willow is not anti-gay. But at the end of the day, they decided that the downside business risk was just too high for them, so Howard and his team decided to cancel and we decided to let him out of his contract without any penalty.

Now, this whole thing is sad to me on a number of different levels. First, if the organizers of this petition had simply taken the time to call us, we would have explained to them (as we have to many others ) that not only is Willow not anti-gay, Willow not anti-anybody.

Our church was founded on the idea that people matter to God. All people. All people of all backgrounds, all colors, ethnicities, and sexual orientation. The mat at every door on this campus has always read “Welcome.” And for over 35 years we have flung the doors of this campus open to the widest array of humanity I have ever witnessed in the global church. And thousands--tens of thousands--have come to learn the teachings of Jesus. So to suggest that we check sexual orientation or any other kind of issue at our doors is simply not true. Just ask the hundreds of people with same-sex attraction who attend our church every week.

Now what is true is that we challenge homosexuals and heterosexuals to live out the sexual ethics taught in the Scriptures--which encourages full sexual expression between a man and a woman in the context of marriage and prescribes sexual abstinence and purity for everybody else.

But even as we challenge all of our people to these biblical standards, we do so with grace-filled spirits, knowing the confusion and brokenness that is rampant in our fallen world. And at Willow we honor the journey of everyone who is sincerely attempting to follow Christ. So it’s unfortunate that we could not have explained this to those called us anti-gay and started this petition.

Second, what’s further saddening to me is the growing trend, specifically in the United States culture, to throw stones first and ask questions later. We see this in our political system and it’s rapidly making our country ungovernable. Jesus taught and modeled a better way: to treat everybody with respect, to believe the best about others, to seek to understand other we might disagree and if we must disagree then attempt to do so respectfully.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will no longer be one of the key speakers at this week's Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit. He will be replaced by Pat Lencioni, author of The Five Disfunctions of a Team. Lencioni has spoken at the summit three previous times, and according to his published bio, was rated among the conference's "top 10 general sessions of all time. "

Schultz, who has not previously spoken at Willow Creek's leadership summit, recently published his second book on leadership, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul.

His appearance was the subject of an online campaign at Change.org, launched by political consultant Asher Huey.

"Schultz is speaking at a conference hosted at and sponsored by an anti-gay church. This is unacceptable," the petition said. "The church has long practiced dangerous conversion therapy to 'cure' people of their sexual orientation. … Not denouncing these practices is tacit approval."

It is not known at this time whether Schultz's withdrawal has anything to do with the campaign on homosexuality, and a staffer at Willow Creek Community Church said Schultz did not provide a statement regarding his withdrawal. Willow Creek senior pastor Bill Hybels will reportedly comment on the withdrawal at tomorrow's session.

Five days ago, Gina Woods, Starbucks director of executive communications for Starbucks, apparently left a message on the Change.org petition page: "I work for Starbucks in Communications. I wanted to let you all know that Howard is not speaking at Willow Creek. The conference web site has just not been updated."

(Update: In response to CT questions about why Schultz withdrew, Woods told CT in an e-mail, "I can only confirm that Howard Schultz will not be speaking at the Willow Creek Leadership Conference. Unfortunately, the event website was not updated to reflect this change.")

728 people signed the petition. This year's Willow Creek Leadership Summit is expected to draw 165,000 attendees at 450 locations (185 of those are live satellite locations in the U.S. The others are international locations that will watch a videocast in the fall.)

The petition references Willow Creek Community Church's longstanding relationship with Exodus International, as well as the ending of that relationship in 2009, which Christianity Today reported last month.

"Willow Creek has a whole host of ministries for people dealing with these issues, and we would never intend for them to feel sidelined," Susan DeLay, director of media relations at Willow Creek, told CT's reporter for that story. "All we've changed is how we've gone about inviting them into the church, which is the primary issue here."

Change.org petitions were recently credited with getting TOMS Shoes founder Blake Mycoskie (who spoke at last year's Willow Creek Leadership Summit) to cut ties with Focus on the Family, and with getting Apple to remove an iPhone app for the Manhattan Declaration and a business relationship with the Christian Values Network.

Update 8/11/11 9:45 a.m.: Andrew Marin, author of Love is an Orientation, said on Twitter that he was attending the summit "as [a] special guest of Willow Creek re: Starbucks CEO cancellation." Marin's eponymous foundation attempts to build bridges between evangelicals and the LBGT community.

Update 8/11/11 4:15 p.m.: We've posted Bill Hybels's remarks about Schultz's withdrawal.

Shopping for a flat screen TV typically isn't that controversial. Arguments may ensue over the best size, brand or price, but those quarrels are usually short-lived.

The Charity Give Back Group, or CGBG, is changing that.

CGBG, formerly known as the Christian Values Network, or CVN, is an online hub that allows consumers to shop for anything from golf shoes to airline tickets. Hundreds of stores--Best Buy, Sears, Target, Home Depot--are represented on the site. But what makes CGBG different from, say, Amazon.com, is that shopping through the network enables customers to make charitable contributions.

If, for example, a shopper buys a $3,000 flat screen TV from Best Buy, the profit is split between CGBG and a charity of the customer's choosing, though the percentage depends on the company behind the product and the specific purchase. Kevin McCullough, an adviser to the CGBG's site, says customers have nearly 200,000 charities to choose from.

But gay activists have begun petitioning companies to cut ties to CGBG because it allows customers to support organizations such as Family Research Council and Focus on the Family--Christian groups that oppose gay marriage.

Change.org, a website that provides tools for activists looking to start petitions, is at the center of the debate. The site is host to several petitions calling on major companies such as Target to sever ties with the network.

Ben Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition to Apple, propelling the company to remove iTunes from the CGBG's network, according to Change.org.

"From the beginning, I knew that once this issue was brought to Apple's attention, they would not want to be a part of CVN because it funds anti-gay hate groups," said Crowther. "Apple is a fair-minded business."

According to Change.org, a Seattle resident's petition convinced Microsoft last month to stop doing business with the website. Macy's and Wells Fargo have followed suit.

Not all companies, however, detached themselves from the network to back away from controversy or because they wish to take a stand.

Apple removed Exodus International's app after critics released a position calling the organization "hateful and bigoted." Exodus promotes "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

President of Exodus International Alan Chambers* tweeted, "It's official, the @ExodusInl App is no longer in the @AppStore. Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you. #freedom"

Chambers told CT that about 16,000 people had downloaded the app and it had about 500 negative reviews. He said that Exodus has counted 105 ipad apps and 135 mobile apps that support gay rights and homosexuality.

"It’s absolute assault on free expression and free ideas," Chambers told CT. "If you don’t agree with the loudest person in America, you’re going to be forced into conformity."

Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told CNET that Apple pulled the app because "it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

About 147,000 people have signed a petition addressed to Apple CEO Steve Jobs that stated: "Apple doesn't allow racist or anti-Semitic apps in its app store, yet it gives the green light to an app targeting vulnerable LGBT youth with the message that their sexual orientation is a 'sin that will make your heart sick' and a 'counterfeit'. This is a double standard that has the potential for devastating consequences."

Exodus announced the app's availability on March 8, and the petition has gained much media attention since Truth Wins Out spearheaded the "demand that the iTunes store stop supporting homophobia."

Chambers said that Exodus will consider other options, such as an Android app, but says he thinks there might be a double standard.

"If we got 150,000 signature to pull another app, it would be seen as intolerant and homophobic," Chambers said. "We wouldn’t do that because we believe of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the public sphere. As Christians, we bear the brunt of it because the other side sees it as an antiquated expression."

Truth Wins Out also spearheaded an effort to petition Oprah Winfrey to pull Lisa Ling's “Pray the Gay Away?” episode that features Exodus, though that petition has less than 1,000 signatures.

Other organizations and companies have been targeted because of issues related to sexuality. Equality Matters has targeted Chick-Fil-A for being connected to other ministries. "In fact, the company has strong, deep ties to anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and its charitable division has provided more than $1.1 million to organizations that deliver anti-LGBT messages and promote egregious practices like reparative therapy that seek to 'free' people of being gay."

Lady Gaga ended a deal with Target for exclusively selling a version of her new album, saying the corporation supported anti-gay rights groups.

Apple made a similar decision last year when it removed an app from the Manhattan Declaration. After a petition with about 7,000 signatures, Change.org, Apple removed it from the app store.

In October, Exodus dropped the "Day of Truth," intended as a response to Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network's (GLSEN) "Day of Silence." Earlier in 2010, Dawson McAllister Association dropped Exodus as partner under pressure from Clear Channel.

People who criticize gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council.

CT recently reported on how evangelical therapists have moved from focusing on changing orientation to embracing faith identity for gays. Previous stories on the ex-gay movement included Tim Stafford's look at Exodus.

*This post has been updated. Correction: The president of Exodus International is Alan Chambers.

Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, according to San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker.

Today's highly anticipated ruling overturns California's 2008 constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, narrowly approved by voters shortly after the state's Supreme Court legalized them (good refresher here). Both sides have pledged to appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court, though the Ninth Circuit will receive it next.

In an electronically-filed decision, Walker explained why he believes Prop. 8 violates the Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. He wrote:

"Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Walker later observed: "A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation." And concluded: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."

A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute suggested Californians today would narrowly repeal Prop. 8 if voting again, though GetReligion pointed out the possible biases in the poll.

It's been a busy summer for same-sex marriage in the legal world. In July, a federal judge in Boston declared unconstitutional the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which codifies marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The July ruling held that the federal law violates states’ rights to define marriage by blocking legally married gay couples from federal benefits and violating the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. Currently five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while 29 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit it.

Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in June that, because European Union members have not yet reached a consensus on the matter, same-sex marriage cannot be viewed as a human right. Portugal, Iceland and Argentina legalized the practice this summer.

Pew produced a research package on the U.S. debate here. Past CT articles on same-sex marriage can be found here.

Hours after voting in favor of permitting practicing homosexuals to serve in the clergy, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) decided to keep their definition of marriage "as being between a man and a woman," the Associated Press reports.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune wrote early this morning that the Assembly voted to allow the church two more years to study the proposal. (Corrected)

Had the proposal passed, the PCUSA could have become the largest US denomination to permit same-sex marriage, the Baptist Press reported earlier this week.

Update: James Berkley, designated pastor at Seattle's Bethel Presbyterian Church, explains the decision.

The business on marriage was byzantine and bizarre, but what happened is that both the majority and the minority reports of the special committee on same-sex unions will go out to the churches to study. None of the efforts to change constitutional language from “a man and a woman” to “two people” even got debated. They got “answered” as a batch by the actions on sending out the study. I wouldn’t have bet a plug nickel that that would have happened.

Update (9:15 a.m.): Carmen Fowler, the president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, spoke with CT this morning.

"I would say that I was surprised," Fowler said of the decision, "and I will just openly admit that. The assembly acted very faithfully in terms of what Scripture says and in terms of the heritage of the church...that's great. It was a wonderful way for the assembly to respond to very, very controversial business that certainly many in the church would have responded to disfavorably."

Fowler attributes the surprise decision to "a genuine movement of the Spirit."

"I don't know how else to account for it," she said. "There were some very compelling arguments made on the floor of the Assembly. I would say the most compelling ones came from racial/ethnic commissioners."

Several in the General Assembly noted yesterday that Presbyterians in the Global South have strongly conservative views on homosexual issues.

"We do try to listen in the Presbyterian Church to voices other than just an Anglo culture," Fowler said. "I think that moderates are not used to hearing those voices spoken in a conservative manner."

She also points to an "incredible" ecumenical greeting from the Orthodox Reverend Siarhei Hardun of Belarus.

"He just made all the right points," Fowler said. "If you're going to be instructed at a church gathering by a faithful witness from another part of the world, it does have the power to change minds and change hearts."

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted today in favor of changing ordination standards to remove language requiring ministers "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."

The question will now be sent to local presbyteries for further consideration. A majority of the 173 presbyteries must approve the constitutional amendment by July 10, 2011, in order for the new ordination standards to stick. (Corrected)

Efforts to remove chastity requirements from gay PCUSA clergy had met defeat last year during an eventful summer which saw the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America vote in August to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy, following the Episcopal Church's reaffirmation in July of its openness to noncelibate gay priests. Meanwhile, the United Methodist Church voted against structural changes that would have opened church membership to homosexuals.

Update (7:35 p.m.): An initial reaction from James Berkley, designated pastor at Seattle's Bethel Presbyterian Church, writing from the General Assembly in Minneapolis:

Today a slight majority of a skewed sample of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted by a narrow margin to overturn the enduring moral guidance Presbyterians have always upheld. Other than gaining attention, however, the vote changes nothing. A majority of 173 regional presbyteries must also approve the church constitutional amendment before it takes effect, and their votes will occur throughout the next twelve months.

The vote today was a disgrace, in that it drags Presbyterians away from the will of God for our sexual expression. We are to obey Scripture, not re-imagine God-defiling teachings.

The vote today was tragic, in that it offers cold comfort for those caught in sin. We are to proclaim Scripture's message of hope, not bend its message to prevailing error.

The vote today was divisive, in that once again, congregations and presbyteries, friendships and families will be strained by the process of defeating yet another General Assembly-produced error in doctrine and practice.

We profess in the Westminster Confession of Faith that "all synods or councils ... may err; and many have erred." The General Assembly erred today, but that will not be the final word. Faithful Presbyterians will not let this stand.

Update (8.54 a.m. Friday) The Presbyterian Coalition, a conservative organization within the PCUSA, released a statement in response to the decision.

We grieve the decision today by our General Assembly to recommend removing the moral standard for our ministers and officers that rightly requires fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. The action was adopted by a narrow margin. Nevertheless, it marks a separation from the teaching of the universal Church on holiness of life.

The decision is the first step toward removing this standard for ordination from our church's constitution. The action must be approved by a majority of our presbyteries to be enacted.

Our 173 presbyteries have voted four times in 15 years on this same section of our constitution. Presbyterians in our churches and presbyteries have repeatedly stood with the Church Universal in refusing to make any change in this moral standard that is rooted in the will of God expressed in Scripture.

The Church knows its mind on this matter. This General Assembly's action continues to roil the Presbyterian Church (USA). The effect of the Assembly's actions to require presbyteries to vote again and again on the same matter is to tire and frustrate Presbyterians.

We commend those commissioners who by their witness and by their votes upheld the Church's biblical and historical standard. We pray to God for mercy as we call on our churches and presbyteries to respond with renewed determination, to see this action as another opportunity to bring a witness to God's truth by your perseverance. Let us follow the Savior's call not to be weary in well doing.

Update (9:12 a.m. Friday): Carmen Fowler, the president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, spoke with CT this morning: "In my view, the strike-and-replace that's being proposed would eliminate, basically, the sexual standards that the church has expected of her leadership throughout all generations."

Fowler says that with a simple 53% majority, "it's not as if that's going to go to the church as a mandate from the General Assembly."

"The closer you get to the pews, the more conservative people get," Fowler said.

The Church of Uganda released its official position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that, if passed in its proposed version, would recommend the death penalty or life in prison for various homosexual acts.

The bill suggests the death penalty for people have homosexual sex with minors, the disabled, while being HIV-positive, serial offenders, or if the person is in authority over another. In its executive summary, the Church of Uganda addresses the proportionality in sentencing but does not offer specific recommendations for changes to the proposed sentences. In a statement provided to Christianity Today, the Church of Uganda expressed concerns with the bill, recommending that the bill be amended to reflect the following:

1. Ensure that the law protects the confidentiality of medical, pastoral and counseling relationships, including those that disclose homosexual practice in accordance with the relevant professional codes of ethics.
2. Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.
3. Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.
4. Existing and future Educational materials and programmes on gender identity and sex education are in compliance with the values and the laws of Uganda.
5. The involvement of additional stakeholders in the evaluation of the gaps in the existing legislation, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its Department of Immigration and other relevant departments.
6. The undertaking of a comprehensive legislative and literature review of all the laws and literature related to the subject at hand in order to identify the actual gaps in the existing legislations.

As expected, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same gender relationships."

The vote was 619-402.

Update: Late this afternoon, the assembly also voted 559-451 to allow "people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church."

Much of the debate was not over sexual orientation but rather on sexual relationships and activity.

Delegate Al Quie, the former governor of Minnesota, had offered a resolution earlier in the day: "Rostered leadership of this church who are homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relations and practicing homosexual persons are precluded from rostered leadership in this church." (That resolution was defeated.)

"We are today part of a church denomination that is changing, and it will make possible sexual moral standards that are contrary to the Bible — which is what brings Jesus closer to us," Quie said (he was quoted by the Associated Press).

There's another vote tonight on a resolution outlining some of the specifics in which the church will make allowances for members and clergy "in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship." But given the outcome of the other votes this week, it's sure to pass.

The American Psychological Association released a report yesterday saying that psychologists should not tell homosexuals that they can become straight through therapy.

The APA's general council adopted a resolution with a 125-to-4 vote citing research that suggests such therapy could be damaging, the Associated Press reports.

"Religious faith and psychology do not have to be seen as being opposed to each other," the report says. It encourages approaches "that integrate concepts from the psychology of religion and the modern psychology of sexual orientation."

One of the largest organizations promoting the possibility of changing sexual orientation is Exodus International, a network of ministries whose core message is "Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

Its president, Alan Chambers, describes himself as someone who "overcame unwanted same-sex attraction." He and other evangelicals met with APA representatives after the task force formed in 2007, and he expressed satisfaction with parts of the report that emerged.

"It's a positive step — simply respecting someone's faith is a huge leap in the right direction," Chambers said. "But I'd go further. Don't deny the possibility that someone's feelings might change."

Later this week, Mark Yarhouse of Regent University and Wheaton College Provost Stanton Jones will release findings from their six-year study the Exodus programs. (Christianity Today has reported on their earlier research here and here)

Grove City College has placed a student on a one-year suspension for appearing in gay porn after an e-mail with images of him spread across campus.

John Gechter, a senior majoring in molecular biology, earned as much as $11,000 per weekend to film more than a dozen videos in Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles, according to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Anya Sostek reports that Gechter was charged with sexual misconduct, participation in the public display of pornography and engaging in "conduct that is contrary to the mission and values of Grove City College and likely to bring dishonor to the College."

Grove City released a statement to the Post-Gazette yesterday about Gechter, who says he is bisexual.

"The student's suspension resulted from his involvement in the adult pornography industry. The student acknowledged that he was employed in the adult entertainment industry and that he knew that violated the student code of conduct. Throughout this process, his sexual orientation was not a factor in the decision."

Despite the Catholic Church's attempts to stop the procedure, a 9-year-old Brazilian girl whose stepfather allegedly sexually abused her had an abortion Wednesday after doctors warned that giving birth might result in death. Physicians at the hospital in the coastal town of Recife said the girl - 15 weeks pregnant with twins and weighing 80 pounds - could not give birth without putting her life at risk.

In response, on Thursday Jos? Cardoso Sobrinho, archbishop of Olinda and Recife, excommunicated the girl's mother, who authorized the abortion, and the doctors involved.

"The law of God is above any human law," the archbishop said in an interview with Globo television that aired Thursday. "So when a human law, i.e., a law enacted by legislators, is against the law of God, that human law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion, have incurred excommunication." Excommunication is the Catholic Church's severest censure for an individual, who can no longer participate in church of receive the sacraments, except that of Reconciliation.

California will become only the second U.S. state to allow gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot after the state's Supreme Court on Thursday (May 15) overturned a voter referendum that had banned same-sex marriages.

Twenty-three gay and lesbian couples had filed suit to challenge a 1977 law and the 2000 referendum that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that barring gay couples from marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship."

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald George said opening marriage to same-sex couples "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage."

Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be eligible for marriage licenses in 30 days, and the state will recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Currently only Massachusetts allows gay marriage, as do five other countries, including Canada.

April 25th marked the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's annual Day of Silence, described by the Network's website as a "student-led day of action when concerned students, from middle school to college, take some form of a vow of silence to bring attention to the name-calling, bullying and harassment--in effect, the silencing--experienced by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and their allies." Not surprisingly, the nationwide event elicited a range of responses from evangelical Christian groups at both the national and local level, and therefore offers promise as an occasion for further reflection about what form Christian witness should take in a pluralistic democratic society.

Note: CleanFlicks has disputed much of the initial media reports cited here. See our update.

The co-founder of CleanFlicks, a video editing service once used by many Christians, has been arrested in Utah for allegedly paying a 14-year-old girl for sex.

Daniel Thompson, who ran CleanFlicks till the courts shut it down in 2006, had more recently operated Flix Club, a family-friendly edited-movie video business in Orem, Utah. He was arrested last Thursday on two charges of forcible sexual abuse and two charges of forcible sexual activity with a 14-year-old. Thompson is out on bail.

From David Instone-Brewer:

While I am pleased that my article has provoked so much debate (for and against), it is unfortunate that much of this has centered on a particularly weak portion where, admittedly, it is possible to misunderstand my main message - that biblically, divorce is only allowed for serious and specific grounds. Unfortunately, some people have misunderstood the mention of emotional and physical neglect, believing that this refers to any minor infraction, which is utterly opposite to the conclusions I intended to convey.

John Piper (who is familiar with my work though he disagrees with the conclusions) has helpfully pointed out that this is a misunderstanding of my article, so I have written a blog thanking him for his input, as well as interacting with his interpretation. It is posted on my blog and after the jump.

Christianity Today has repeatedly discussed the problems generated by no-fault divorce in the United States and the problem of the church's therapeutic accommodation to it. Readers should see for example, "The Christian Divorce Culture," an editorial from the year 2000. We received a lot of negative mail from readers who felt we were insufficiently sensitive to the feelings of divorced Christians. Our concerns were also expressed in the 2006 interview with Elizabeth Marquardt, which examines the painful impact of divorce on children.

So we were surprised at the way a number of people interpreted David Instone-Brewer's recent CT cover story, "What God Has Joined." Despite what some readers thought, Instone-Brewer's article did not contradict CT's consistent message, nor did it give people carte blanche on divorce (though we admit, we could have made that point more strongly).

Instead, Instone-Brewer's article was designed to help us understand Jesus' own words in his own religious and cultural context. Jesus' words on divorce have admittedly been problematic, and scholars have wrestled for centuries trying to understand their precise meaning. Multiple New Testament scholars that we respect have said they think Instone-Brewer's book has the analysis right. (For CT, Instone-Brewer just sketched out the general shape of his analysis, and we pointed readers to his IVP book for the details.)

Instone-Brewer's argument does not give us an infinitely elastic set of reasons for divorce, but it does recognize that marriage is constituted by more than sex, so that marriage can be irreparably harmed by something other than adultery. If, for example, a husband consistently fails to provide material support to his wife, then surely the marriage is as broken as if the husband has committed adultery.

* * *

I suspect that most of my divorced friends are not divorced because a spouse failed to provide the biblical basics of marriage that Instone-Brewer identified. They divorced because they had trouble getting along or they had "fallen out of love" or they had "outgrown the relationship." None of those divorces are justified by Instone-Brewer's understanding of the text. Curiously, one blogger claimed that Instone-Brewer had said that if we are insufficiently "honored" by our spouses, we can legitimately divorce. I don't think so. As I carefully re-read Instone-Brewer's article, he said that our formal vows of "love, honor, and keep" reflect the Mosaic requirements of "food, clothing, and marital rights." (Instone-Brewer used the euphemistic "love" where most English translations of Exodus 21:10 use "marital rights" or "conjugal rights.") That is not creating an elastic "dishonoring" grounds for divorce, but it is defining "honor" in terms of its biblical roots. (Think of the old Prayer Book wedding service: "With my body I thee worship.")

But then I do know a few people who have been divorced following physical abuse or failure to provide. Those divorces, after one partner persisted in abuse or neglect after repeated attempts to restore the marriage, are indeed covered by Instone-Brewer. People who say they have been hurt by such a divorce should probably not blame the divorce, but the party who failed to live up to his promises.

* * *

Some have also complained that Instone-Brewer's reasoning involves using extra-biblical material to silence the plain meaning of Scripture. Extra-biblical material must be handled carefully, and yet it is something that pastors and Bible scholars do every day. In my own generation, we used Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament to get a sense for how the words the New Testament writers used would have been understood by their contemporaries. Without comparing the biblical books with similar extra-biblical material, we just cannot know what words or phrases would mean to their original readers.

Similarly, my generation of seminary students was urged to use Strack and Billerbeck's Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Midrash to tune in to the way in which rabbinic writers discussed issues similar to those tackled by Jesus and Paul. Indeed, without following the particular forms of those rabbinic arguments, we cannot appreciate the shape of Jesus' and Paul's arguments.

Scholarly investigation of the relationship between rabbinical discussion and the way the New Testament writers dealt with issue has moved way beyond Strack and Billerbeck. And David Instone-Brewer is one of those who has advanced it.

Curiously, the 16th-century Reformers were much closer to Instone-Brewer's conclusions than to many of our more conservative contemporary expositors. They didn't have Instone-Brewer's knowledge of rabbinic writing, but like him they came out with more grounds for divorce than many of our churches do. Zwingli and Bucer had the longest lists of grounds for divorce, but even they had clear reasons that could not be stretched to cover just any situation. Many of them were dealing with divorce in a social framework that was no longer dominated by the Roman church. At Trent, Rome stuck by its narrow allowances for divorce and condemned these "liberal" Protestants. If Instone-Brewer is in line with these Reformers, his conclusions are hardly radical.

I am sorry that this particular cover story in CT struck many readers the way it did. We are seriously concerned about the effects of no-fault divorce in our society and the devastating impact it has on the economic and emotional lives of children. We urge churches not to succumb to the therapeutic society's tendency to indulge divorce. Instead, the church must reconnect with a strong marital ideal taught by the Bible and the church. We can teach that ideal to our young people. But we need not punish those whose spouses persistently fail to live up to their vows.

National [insert your own cause] awareness days are popping up all over the country, and the Church is no exception.
One Indianapolis-area church Sunday sermon sparked interest from local media. "You heard him correctly: It's Porn Sunday" headlined the Indianapolis Star's article. The Crux Church joined hundreds of churches across the nation who observed National Porn Sunday yesterday, sponsored by Xxx.church.com, an online ministry aimed at Christians who are addicted to porn.

"I mean, how many times have you heard your pastor say ?porn' from the pulpit?" Crux's lead pastor, Daron Earlewin, tells the Star.

The Daily News in Florida reports that a 15-foot tall inflatable, blue elephant is mailed to participating churches across the country as mascot for National Porn Sunday.

"We are basically going to confront the big elephant in the pew," Robert Pooley, senior pastor of Coast Community Church told the newspaper.

But is the pulpit the place for the big blue elephant, or should it be addressed within individual counseling? What Bible verses do these preachers use?

These pastors desire to preach on issues that may have been overlooked in the past, but how do pastors make sure that they are not overlooking more traditional themes (pride, love, evangelism) that may not be as "sexy"?

"I think it may be one of the biggest problems that no one wants to talk about," the Crux pastor says.

These pastors aim bring the issue out into the open, but could normalizing pornography make it an issue for those who had never found it to be a problem in the first place?

An intriguing news item in this morning's New York Times reports on a University of Texas at Austin study of why people have sex. The researchers asked subjects why they had sex (or if they were inexperienced, why they would have sex if they could). They boiled down a longer list of 715 responses into a shorter list of 237 reasons, then analyzed and categorized them.

There are few surprises in the list of top responses. The researchers write: "An astonishing 123 items, or 52% of the items, showed significant gender differences." Duh!

Women tended toward more relational answers (??I wanted to express my love for the person''; ??I realized that I was in love.''). Men were more libidinous, more status oriented, and more utilitarian. Fortunately, relational factors still ranked high for men. Both "I wanted to please the person" and "I wanted to express my love for the person," were in the top ten reasons for men.

What was missing from the top 50 reasons for both sexes? Jon Tierney, writer of the Times article, noted wryly: "[The researchers] even found a few people who claimed to have been motivated by the desire to have a child." Shockingly, this item showed up in the bottom 50 for men. Maybe that's just the sample bias that comes from relying largely on university students as subjects.

Nevertheless, the rarity of procreation as a conscious reason for sex poses a challenge for Christian believers. One of the key reasons that God invented sex is procreation. And while I can relate to many of the other reasons given in the study ("I was horny"; "I desired emotional closeness"), I have clear memories of having intercourse with my wife at various times precisely because we wanted a child (or another child).

My wife and I came of age just about the time the Pill was widely introduced to American society. We still thought in terms of the nexus between sex and children. In our contraceptive society, however, that intuitive connection has been culturally severed. I believe in using birth control to plan our families, but this cultural disconnect is one of the unforeseen side effects of the Pill. It sometimes seems that only among countercultural minority groups (such as conservative Protestants and Catholics, the Mormons, and Orthodox Jews) do the blessings of family and the acts of sex retain their fundamental connection.

So, to my countercultural fellows, I say, go make babies; go make families.

Michael Glatze, former head of Young Gay America, says he's no longer interested in a "gay identity" and has been healed from homosexual desires. He also says he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) earlier this year.

The Christian Post, a website affiliated with the World Evangelical Alliance, this week published an editorial saying that its rejoicing over the former outweighs its concern over the latter.

"The story of change should be used by believers to open the eyes of others like him and to lead them out of the homosexual lifestyle into a more godly one. And doing so is not an endorsement of the Mormon church," the publication said. "Glatze should be accepted for who he is -- not the result of Mormon conversion, but one of the latest and most prominent examples of former homosexuals who came to acknowledge homosexuality as sin and made the decision to turn away from the sinful lifestyle. And because Glatze's conversion is more likely to pull people away from homosexuality than draw people towards the Mormon church, believers should be more concerned about Glatze returning to homosexuality than him joining the Mormon church."

Ex-Gay Watch's Eugene Wagner says the Christian Post is essentially telling its readers the ends justify the means. "One wonders if ex-gay Scientologists would receive a similarly warm welcome," he writes.

Hanna Rosin writes in Slate,

Teenagers who identify as "evangelical" or "born again" are highly likely to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age - 16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17.

In her review of Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers , Rosin writes about how evangelicals are more sexually active than any other religious group. But--surprise--it turns out that highly committed evangelicals are serious prudes. "Among the mass of typically promiscuous teenagers in the book, one group stands out: the 16 percent of American teens who describe religion as "extremely important" in their lives. When these guys pledge, they mean it."

So much for this stereotype overturning book.

Homosexuality. Polygamy. Nigeria. Islam. Church and state. Street violence. All this in a 430-word story. Here's how it begins:

Kano State government has ordered police to arrest five women, Aunty Maiduguri and her four women spouses whom she married with full celebration over the weekend, contrary to the Shari’a legal system being operated in the state.
Government has also ordered demolition of three theatres in farm centre, Kano including the theatre where the marriage ceremony took place. The theatre was host to the celerity marriage where an estimated 2,000 people attended.