Archives

(1816-1900) The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1859. "Give yourself wholly to them" (1 Timothy 4:15) I need hardly to remind you, that the Greek expression which we have translated, "give yourself wholly to them," is somewhat remarkable. It would be more literally rendered, "Be in these things." We have nothing exactly corresponding to the expression in our language, and the words which our translators have chosen are perhaps as well calculated as any to convey the idea which was put by the Holy Spirit in Paul's mind. When the Apostle says, "Give yourself wholly to these things," he seems to look at the "things" of which he had been speaking in the preceding verses, beginning with the words "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." We have here a target set before the ministers of the New Testament, at which we are all to aim, and of which we must all feel we fall short. Yet it is an old saying, "He that aims high is the most likely to strike high; and he that shoots at the moon will shoot further than the man who shoots at the bush." The Apostle appears to me to suggest that the minister must be a man of one thing: to use his own words, a "man of God." We hear of men of business, and men of pleasure, and men of science. The aim of the minister should be, to be "a man of God;" or to employ a phrase used in some heathen countries, to be "Jesus Christ's man." An expression is sometimes used with reference to the army, which we may apply to the soldiers of the Great Captain of our salvation. Some men are said to be "carpet knights." They are said to have entered the army for the sake of the uniform, and for no other cause. But there are many of whom public opinion says, such a man is "every inch a soldier." This should be the aim which we should place before us; we should seek to be "every inch the minister of Jesus Christ." We should aim to be the same men at all times, in all positions, and places; not on Sunday only, but on week days also; not merely in the pulpit, but everywhere--in our living rooms, and in the house of the poor man. There are those, of whom their congregations have said, that when they were in the pulpit they never wished them to come out, and when they went out they never wished them to go in. May God give us all grace to take that to heart! May we seek so to live, so to preach, so to work, so to give ourselves wholly to the business of our calling, that this bitter remark may never be made about us. Our profession is a very special one. Others have their seasons of relaxation, when they can completely lay aside their work. This can never be done by the faithful minister of Jesus Christ. Once put on, his office must never be put off. At home, abroad, relaxing, going to the sea side, he must always carry his business with him. A great lawyer could say of his official robes, "Lie there, Lord Chancellor." Such ought never to be the mind of the minister of Christ. There are some things which the high demand of this text suggests, as needful to be followed after and practiced. 1. First, it demands entire devotion to the great work to which we are ordained. When one was commanded by the Savior to follow Him, he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father;" but then there came that solemn saying, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family" and to him there came the remarkable sentence, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." "Do not greet anyone on the road," was Christ's charge to the seventy disciples. Surely these Scriptural expressions teach us, that in all our dealings in our ministry, we must have a high standard. We must strive to be men of one thing--that thing being the work of Jesus Christ. 2. Secondly, it demands a thorough separation from the things of the world. I hold it to be of the greatest importance to keep the ministerial office, so far as we can, distinct and separate from everything that is secular. I trust we shall hear every year of fewer and fewer ministers of the Gospel who are magistrates, and fewer and fewer ministers who take part in agricultural meetings, and win prizes for fat pigs, enormous bulls, and large crops of turnips. There is no apostolical succession in such occupations. Nor yet is this all. We should be separated from the pleasures of the world, as well as from its business. There are many innocent and indifferent amusements, for which the minister of Christ ought to have no time. He ought to say, "I have no time for these things. I am doing a great work, and I cannot come down." 3. Thirdly, it demands a jealous watchfulness over our own social conduct. We ought not to be always paying morning calls of courtesy and dining out, as others do. It will not do to say, that our Lord went to a marriage feast, and sat at supper in the Pharisee's house, and therefore we may do the same. I only reply, Let us go in His spirit, with His faithfulness and boldness, to say a word in season, and to give the conversation a profitable turn, and then we may go with safety. Unless we do this, we should be careful where we go, with whom we sit down, and where we spend our evenings. There was a quaint saying of John Wesley to his ministers, which Cecil quotes, as containing the germ of much truth. "Don't aim at being thought gentlemen; you have no more to do with being gentlemen than with being masters at dancing." Our aim should be not to be regarded as agreeable persons at the dinner table, but to be known everywhere as faithful, consistent ministers of Jesus Christ. 4. Fourthly, it demands a diligent redemption of time. We should give attention to reading, every day that we live. We should strive to bring all our reading to bear on our work. We ought to keep our eyes open continually, and be ever picking up ideas for our sermons--as we travel by the way, as we sit by the fireside, as we are standing on the platform at the railway station. We should be keeping in our mind's eye our Master's business--observing, noting, looking out, gathering up something that will throw fresh light on our work, and enable us to put the truth in a more striking way. He that looks out for something to learn will always be able to learn something. Having suggested these things, I will next proceed to ask, What will be the consequence of our giving ourselves wholly to these things? Remember, we shall not receive the praise of men. We shall be thought extreme, and ascetic, and righteous. Those who want to serve God and serve money at the same time, will think our standard too high, our practice too stringent. They will say, that we are going too far and too fast for a world such as that in which we live. May we never care what men say of us, so long as we walk in the light of God's Word! May we strive and pray to be wholly independent of, and indifferent to man's opinion, so long as we please God! May we remember the woe pronounced by our Master, when He said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you," and the words of Paul, "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But though "giving ourselves wholly to these things" we shall not win the praise of men, we shall attain the far more important end of usefulness to souls. I completely acknowledge the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. I acknowledge that those who preach best, and live nearest to God, have not always been honored in their lives to the saving of many souls. But still, the man who is most entirely and wholly Jesus Christ's man--a man of one thing, who lives Sunday and weekday, everywhere, at home and abroad, as a man whose single endeavor is to give himself to the work of Jesus Christ--this is the man, this is the minister, who will generally, in the long run, do the most good. The case of Mr. Simeon will apply here. You all know how he was persecuted when he began to testify for Christ, in Cambridge. You know how many there were who would not speak to him, how the finger of scorn was pointed at him continually. But we know how he went on persevering in the work, and how, when he died, all Cambridge came forth to give him honor, and how heads of houses, and fellows of colleges, and men who had scoffed at him while he lived, honored him at his death. They testified, that the life he had lived had had its effect, and that they had seen and known that God was with him. I once saw in Dundee one who had known much of that godly man, Robert Murray McCheyne. She told me that those who read his letters and sermons had a very faint idea of what he was. She said to me, "If you have read all his works, you just know nothing at all about him. You must have seen the man, and heard him, and known him, and have been in company with him, to know what a man of God he was." Furthermore, giving ourselves wholly to these things will bring happiness and peace to our consciences. I speak now among friends, and not among worldly people, where I should need to fence and guard and explain what I mean. I shall not be suspected of holding justification by works by those I see before me. I speak of such a clear conscience as the Apostle refers to: We trust we have a "clear conscience" (Hebrews 13:18). To have this clear conscience is clearly bound up with high aims, high motives, a high standard of ministerial life, and practice. I am quite sure, that the more we give ourselves wholly to the work of the ministry, the more inward happiness, the greater sense of the light of God's countenance, are we likely to enjoy. The subject is a deeply humbling one. Who does not feel, "My weakness, my weakness! my unprofitableness! How far short I come of this high standard?" What reason have we, having received mercy, not to faint! What reason have we, having been spared by God's great patience, to abound in the work of the Lord, and to give ourselves wholly to our business! The great secret is, to be always looking to Jesus, and living a life of close communion with Him. At Cambridge, the other day, I saw a picture of Henry Martyn, bequeathed by Mr. Simeon to the public library. A friend informed me that that picture used to hang in Mr. Simeon's room, and that when he was disposed to trifle in the work of the ministry, he used to stand before it and say, "It seems to say to me, Charles Simeon, don't trifle, don't trifle; Charles Simeon, remember whose you are, and whom you serve." And then the worthy man, in his own strange way, would bow respectfully, and say, "I will not trifle, I will not trifle; I will not forget." May we, in conclusion, look to a far higher pattern than any man--Martyn, McCheyne, or any other. May we look to the Great Chief Shepherd, the great pattern, in whose steps we are to walk! May we abide in Him, and never trifle! May we hold on our way, looking to Jesus, keeping clear of the world, its pleasures, and its follies--caring nothing for the world's frowns, and not much moved by the world's smiles--looking forward to that day when the Great Shepherd shall give to all who have done His work, and preached His Gospel, a crown of glory that does not fade away! The more we have the mind of Christ, the more we shall understand what it is to "give ourselves wholly to these things." END

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org October 28, 2025   ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood, 62, has come out fighting. Following fulsome disclosure of his alleged misdeeds in the Washington Post, that includes sexual misconduct, plagiarism, abuse of power and more, the staunchly orthodox leader said in a letter to his parish, that “I unequivocally, categorically, and emphatically deny in their entirety the accusations made against me by Ms. Claire Buxton, who was employed at St. Andrew’s,” Wood said in an Oct. 24 letter to St. Andrew’s congregants.   Them’s fightin’ words.   In June 2024, two months after Buxton alleged that Wood tried to kiss her, the College of Bishops met in conclave and elected him as the Anglican Church in North America’s third archbishop.   Archbishop Wood is either calling her bluff, has giant sized cajónes, or genuinely believes he is innocent and can explain it away to his and everyone’s satisfaction. We shall see.   A formal presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality, and bringing "scandal and offense" upon his office. Additionally, Wood faces separate complaints from priests alleging that he plagiarized sermons and bullied church staff members in the years preceding his election as archbishop. The presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality and bringing “scandal and offense” upon his office.   That’s a lot to explain away. Even if he is cleared of the ‘he said/she said’ Buxton charges, there are other charges to explain or explain away.   Anglican Blogger David Roseberry had this to say: if an archbishop or any pastor has acted in a way that crosses moral or physical boundaries with another person, he should step down. Period. The Church must be a place of integrity and safety. He is right.   Accountability is the word for this moment. Wood must be held to the highest standard. He is the leader of a church, albeit small, but he must be fully accountable not just to his House of Bishops but to his clergy and laity.   There are some serious questions that must be asked and answered which looked at in the cold light of day raise issues of how he got so far into the process of being elected when so much about his past that should have given the House of Bishops pause.   According to the Post story a lot was known about Wood before he got the nod to be the next archbishop but swept under the table.   The issue of Ms. Buxton’s charges of putting his hand against the back of her head and trying to kiss her occurred two months before he was elected to the helm, according to the presentment. Why was this not a red flag to the bishops? The Post, also accused Wood of giving her thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church coffers before the alleged advance. Why was this not challenged at the time?   Wood also faced complaints from priests that he plagiarized sermons and bullied and disparaged church staffers in the years before he became archbishop. Why were these charges not raised by the examining bishops?   In September 2019, seven years into his tenure running both St. Andrew’s and the Diocese of the Carolinas, Wood confronted pushback. In a letter to Wood, which was private until now, the Rev. Hamilton Smith, the rector of St. Thomas’ Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, wrote: “I do not feel you have moral authority required to hold the office of Bishop.”   Wood preached sermons he did not write and tried to pass them off as his own work, Smith alleged. During staff meetings, Wood publicly shamed and cursed at colleagues, the letter said. Smith also questioned a $60,000 truck provided by the diocese for Wood’s church visits, noting that Wood mentioned the vehicle to him only in the context of Wood’s hunting trips.   “Is a $60,000 truck the most cost-efficient vehicle to accomplish this task?” Smith asked in the letter. “There are clergy in the Diocese that do not have any or have poor health insurance or retirement plans. … You have told me numerous times that you are a sinner who had ‘a really bad year’/‘a horrible season’ in which you did things you now regret. While I rejoice in this self-understanding, grace and forgiveness have limits.”   The next day, Wood offered a short reply, according to correspondence Smith shared with The Post. But Smith could not overcome his frustrations with Wood, and soon led his parishioners to leave Wood’s diocese. “This was the most difficult decision of my ministry,” Smith told his church at the time.   Did the bishops ask any questions about Wood’s behavior?   Wood has declined to answer specific questions about the accusations in the presentment.   In South Carolina, Wood’s elevation rattled a group of his former colleagues, most of them now priests. For years, they said in interviews, they privately shared stories that Wood demeaned them or others when they worked at St. Andrew’s. But it was Claire Buxton’s fresh accusations that spurred them to action. By early 2025, the group drafted formal church charges based on six affidavits that accuse Wood of abusive behavior. In September, the group quietly secured the support of at least 10 Anglican priests and parishioners to sign and swear to the presentment, a prerequisite for its submission.   Why was this not raised by the presenting bishops?  Did they ask any questions? Did they challenge any of this? Did they confront Wood?   The day after the presentment was submitted, the denomination threw up what its authors regard as a roadblock: The denomination asked that all 11 endorsers re-sign the presentment under a statement attesting to the allegations’ truth “under penalties of perjury.” In an email to the lead signatory, a denomination official said this was “common practice” noting that prior presentments have been resubmitted for the same reason.   The Rev. Rob Sturdy, an Anglican priest who wrote one of the presentment’s affidavits, said in an interview that his group will not comply. He said they followed the denomination’s canons, which do not contain a “perjury” standard.   An affidavit alleges, among other things, that Wood frequently bragged about a woman from another church whom he said “he could have … anytime he wanted.”   This was not a red flag?   One wonders who was really pulling the strings that they wanted Wood so badly to be the next archbishop that other names were barely considered. There were other names in the ring including Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word and Bishop Clark Lowenfield, of the Anglican Diocese of The Western Gulf Coast who had his eye on the job. Wood beat them all. One thing this reporter learned is that no one wanted someone as reformed as the former Archbishop Foley Beach. The mood was and is to push the ACNA in a more catholic direction, the position of the former archbishop of ACNA Robert Duncan. The issue of the ordination of women however, remains a sticking point to whatever the future holds for the ACNA. If the presentment triggers an ecclesiastical trial, Wood could be defrocked and forced to step down.   An Anglican priest, the Rev Dr. Ronald Moore had this to say; The test of a church is how the ACNA handles its own judgment will define its future. Will this Church handle its own judgment better than the institutions it left behind, he asks? That clearly remains to be seen.   END

Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM) Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM). A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child." McLanahan and family scholars like her are not arguing that parents in other family forms are necessarily bad. But she is making the point, backed up by countless studies, that the ideal place for children to grow up—on average—is in a married, intact family where children have access to a mother and a father who share a biological tie (and, hence, a deep sense of kinship) to them. This empirical reality lends support to the idea that our society should do more to reinforce the norm that every child should have the opportunity to grow up in an intact, married family and, failing that, an adoptive family headed by a married couple that offers a child the benefit of a mother and a father (see below). Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press. p. 38. 1. CHILDREN HUNGER FOR THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS SS couples using IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: "Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father. The work of these scholars suggest that children hunger for their biological parents and that we should not deliberately create a class of children, through IVF or surrogacy, who live apart from their mother or father. (Adoption is a different matter insofar as adoptive children have already come into the world and need to live apart from their biological parents, usually because they are unable to care for them or because they are no longer living.) Kyle Pruett. 2000. Fatherneed. Broadway. p. 204. Elizabeth Marquardt. 2004. The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming. 2. CHILDREN NEED FATHERS If SSM becomes common, the majority of SS couples with children would probably be lesbians. This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. Ellis, Bruce J., Bates, John E., Dodge, Kenneth A., Fergusson, David M., Horwood, L. John, Pettit, Gregory S., & Woodward, Lianne. Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821. David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard. 3. CHILDREN NEED MOTHERS Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby summarizes much of this literature in her book The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, which comes out in the fall. Eleanor Maccoby. 1998. The Two Sexes. Harvard. Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter. 4. INADEQUATE EVIDENCE ON SS COUPLE PARENTING A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no effects" of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on SSM, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian Court considering SSM: "Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research." This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment. *Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department. 5. CHILDREN RAISED IN SS HOMES EXPERIENCE GENDER AND SEXUAL DISORDERS Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy (see above), what evidence is available does raise two red flags. Specifically, a number of studies suggest children raised in lesbian homes are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers…reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, these studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting. *Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp. 168-171. 6. VIVE LA DIFFERENCE If SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and—more importantly—more social/cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits. E. Mavis Hetherington & John Kelly. 2002. For Better of For Worse. Norton. p. 31. Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter. 7. SEXUAL FIDELITY One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." This line of thinking, of course, were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media, would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity. Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. 1984. The Male Couple. Prentice Hall. p. 252. 8. MARRIAGE, PROCREATION, AND THE FERTILITY IMPLOSION Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. SSM would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage. This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing SSM have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman—well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html For the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf 9. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion. It is plausible to suspect that SSM would have similar consequences for marriage, that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? SSM would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. SSM would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children. James Q. Wilson. 2002. The Marriage Problem. Basic. pp. 175-177. George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz. 1996. "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317. 10. WOMEN & MARRIAGE DOMESTICATE MEN Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay men are—in all likelihood—clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage. Steve Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men's Lives. Oxford. Institute for American Values. 2003. Hardwired to Connect. p. 17. http://www.winst.org/toptenlists.htm

NPR - ALL THINGS CONSIDERED: Conservatives and Liberals duke it out on national radio MELISSA BLOCK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. MICHELE NORRIS, host: And I'm Michele Norris. It's been six months since Gene Robinson was confirmed as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. Since then, conservatives have threatened to punish the national church by withholding their money. Today, the treasurer of the church told officials that was an empty threat. Pledges for next year are only slightly down from last year, yet conservatives say the church has no idea of the problems that it may face. NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports. BARBARA BRADLEY HAGERTY reporting: Kurt Barnes, the treasurer of the Episcopal Church, describes himself as a conservative man, not one prone to, quote, "gilding the lily." He's keenly aware of the controversy that's been roiling the church since it recognized gay unions and consecrated Gene Robinson, a gay priest, to be bishop of New Hampshire. Given all this, Barnes says he's pleased that he's received commitments from more than three-quarters of the bishops, and so far, their pledges to the national church are down only 7 percent. Mr. KURT BARNES (Treasurer, Episcopal Church): The impact is what I would describe as insignificant. HAGERTY: Barnes is recommending that the dioceses cut their spending by 5 to 10 percent. Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Diocese of Washington, DC, says this isn't cause for rejoicing, but it's not the predicted apocalypse, either. Mr. JIM NAUGHTON (Spokesman, Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC): The narrative line since General Convention has been, Oh, watch out. The Episcopal Church is taking in water. The Episcopal Church is going down.' And that's definitely not happening. So it's hard to disentangle an intelligent analysis of where we stand now from the sort of what amounts to the kind of ecclesiastical version of trash talking that's coming from the other side, you know, this sort of, You're going down. You're going down.' Reverend DON ARMSTRONG (Rector, Grace Episcopal Church, Colorado Springs): I think what you're getting from the national church is a spin. HAGERTY: Don Armstrong is rector of the 2,400-member Grace Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs. He says the bishops, most of whom voted for gay unions and Gene Robinson, have an interest in creating the impression that there has been no financial impact. And, he says, they'll go to great lengths to do so. For example, angry conservative parishioners in Colorado have withheld some $350,000 from their diocese, he says, but the bishop is eating that loss locally and giving the same amount as last year to the national church. Armstrong says the bishops can't do that for long. Rev. ARMSTRONG: As we move into 2004 and their monthly income decreases, they're going to be faced with the reality that they don't have the money in the bank to write the checks. HAGERTY: Kendall Harmon, an official of the Diocese of South Carolina, says the situation will only grow more acute with time. Parishioners, entire churches and even two dioceses, Pittsburgh and Dallas, are directing their money away from the national church toward other ministries. A new network of conservative churches is being formed, and Harmon says that will no doubt attract money that would otherwise go to the national church. People are leaving the Episcopal Church altogether and taking their money with them. In fact, Harmon says, entire churches are leaving the denomination to join a conservative offshoot of Anglicanism. Mr. KENDALL HARMON (Diocese of South Carolina): Basically, the vast majority of a parish just left from St. John's, Melbourne, and went to the Anglican Mission in America. So in that diocese, most of the pledge from that parish to the Diocese of Central Florida is going to go down. So as the year progresses, you're going to start to see these figures work themselves through the system more. HAGERTY: Jim Naughton in Washington, DC, notes that a couple of conservative churches in the DC area have decided to withhold their money from the diocese. But others who are happy about recognizing gay unions and a gay bishop are making up the shortfall. Mr. NAUGHTON: Many people in those parishes have said, `Fine. If you're not going to give to the diocese, we're going to give directly to the diocese.' So this idea that people are voting with their pocketbooks, that goes both ways. HAGERTY: And so in this war of words and finances, when there's way too much smoke to figure out who's left standing, both sides are claiming victory. Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR News, Washington. Copyright (c)1990-2003 National Public Radio(r). All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue VANCOUVER, BC-- The revisionist Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, faces a triple crisis that could derail his plans to depose, at the minimum put on hold, his desire to toss 11 biblically orthodox priests out of their parishes and seize their properties. He faces a legal ultimatum with the leaders of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver who argue that unless the parish is allowed to control its own finances and staffing, it will ask the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the firing of two church wardens last year. In a letter delivered to Bishop Michael Ingham on Friday, former Trustee and spokesperson Linda Taunton said, "we want our church and we want to be able to control our own destiny. Ingham has until Feb. 23 to respond," she told Virtuosity. Last September, Ingham invoked an obscure piece of church law to remove the wardens, St. Martin's parishioners say. The parishioners maintain that as a legally incorporated organization, they have the right to make decisions for themselves. They contend Ingham's actions violate the provincial Societies Act. The parish has voted twice to seek alternative episcopal oversight. Late last year, Ingham closed one church. The second crisis the bishop faces is that four parishes have now obtained Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from four international Anglican primates with immediate oversight of the Canadian parishes by a US-based AMiA bishop. The offer is temporary measure until a more permanent solution can be found. Seven of the parishes have not signed as yet, but sources tell Virtuosity that they are weighing their options. They are not ready to jump ship but all 11 of them still support the Anglican Churches in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition, with none having fled. "Those parishes who have not immediately accepted TAEO want to continue the Canadian process set up by the House of Bishops to look for a way to provide alternative episcopal oversight." All the conservative Canadian bishops have been informed of the TAEO offer as well as Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle who had offered alternative Episcopal oversight and then withdrew it. "Everybody is acting in good faith, some parishes just felt they could not wait any longer," said the source. We should not view this as a break-up of the ACiNW coalition. It isn't." Ingham faces a third crisis with the Canadian House of Bishops Task Force that could recommend some sort of oversight for the beleaguered 11, which, if he doesn't accept, will put him at odds not only with the Anglican Church in Canada but with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion. To date Ingham has not responded to either crisis. But those close to Ingham say he will never accept a recommendation from the Canadian House of Bishops to grant alternative oversight, because basically he believes he is the bishop and that is the end of the story. "He will never go for it. He will never accept AEO because it would be a diminishing of his ecclesiastical authority, and he is a power driven person, not gospel driven," said the source. The following Anglican clergy have already accepted the four Primates' offer of TAEO: The Revd Charles Alexander, Timothy Institute of Ministry, Calgary, Alberta; Dr David Bowler, Comox, Vancouver Island, a Church Plant; Revd Paul Carter, Immanuel Church, Westside; Revd Ron Gibbs, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Ed Hird, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd David Hollebone, Living Waters Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island; Revd John Lombard, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Barclay Mayo, St Andrews, Pender Harbour; Revd Silas Ng, Emmanuel Church, Richmond. These clergy come from two Canadian dioceses. St. Martin's, North Vancouver, St. Matthias & St Luke, Vancouver, St. Matthew's, Abbotsford,Church of the Good Shepherd, St Andrew's, Pender Harbour, St Simon's, North Vancouver, St. John's, Shaughnessy, Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, Holy Cross, Vancouver, Immanuel Church, Westside, and Vancouver Holy Cross, Abbotsford, still have not agreed to outside Primatial oversight. END

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, February 12, 2004 Miller Delivers Floor Speech on 'Deficit of Decency' in America WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing several social issues facing the country: "The Old Testament prophet Amos was a sheep herder who lived back in the Judean hills, away from the larger cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Compared to the intellectual urbanites like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he was just an unsophisticated country hick. "Amos had a unique grasp of political and social issues and his poetic literary skill was among the best of all the prophets. That familiar quote of Martin Luther King, Jr. about 'Justice will rush down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream' are Amos's words. "Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal God and not just some tribal deity. He also wrote that God demanded moral purity, not rituals and sacrifices. This blunt speaking moral conscience of his time warns in Chapter 8, verse 11 of The Book of Amos, as if he were speaking to us today: That 'the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. 'And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.' A famine in the land'. Has anyone more accurately described the situation we face in America today? 'A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.' "But some will say, Amos was just an Old Testament prophet – a minor one at that – who lived 700 years before Christ. That is true, so how about one of the most influential historians of modern times? "Arnold Toynbee who wrote the acclaimed 12 volume A Study of History, once declared, 'Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today.' "Toynbee died in 1975, before seeing the worst that was yet to come. Yes, Arnold Toynbee saw the famine. The 'famine of hearing the words of the Lord.' Whether it is removing a display of the Ten Commandments from a Courthouse or the Nativity Scene from a city square. Whether it is eliminating prayer in schools or eliminating 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether it is making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage between a man and woman or, yes, telecasting around the world made-in-the-USA filth masquerading as entertainment. "The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon. "I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America. "I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm going to get you naked' to end that way. "Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I'd quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there's a crotch grabbing culture I've unaware of. "But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having 'a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.' Think about that. "This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while protecting Kid Crock's bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show, there's one for you. "The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about any of these so-called social issues is non existent and embarrassingly disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with us. They want something done. "I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways. "In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in. "Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them will say 'Well, sure.' And some will point out, 'it's in the First Amendment.' "Wrong! Read it! It says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Where is the word 'separate'? Where are the words 'church' or 'state.' "They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other. "I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton. It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it. "It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that 'judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty.' Bound down! That is exactly what is needed to be done. There was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in 1962. "These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush. "When Rush was elected to that First Continental Congress, his close friend Benjamin Franklin told him 'We need you. . . we have a great task before us, assigned to us by Providence.' Today, 228 years later there is still a great task before us assigned to us by Providence. Our Founding Fathers did not shirk their duty and we can do no less. "By the way, Benjamin Rush was once asked a question that has long interested this Senator from Georgia in particular. Dr. Rush was asked, are you a democrat or an aristocrat? And the good doctor answered, 'I am neither'. 'I am a Christocrat. I believe He, alone, who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.' That reply of Benjamin Rush is just as true today in the year of our Lord 2004 as it was in the year of our Lord 1776. "So, if I am asked why – with all the pressing problems this nation faces today – why am I pushing these social issues and taking the Senate's valuable time? I will answer: Because, it is of the highest importance. Yes, there's a deficit to be concerned about in this country, a deficit of decency. "So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed – and with my time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not golden. It is yellow."

FOUR PRIMATES STATEMENT: An Offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight WHEREAS, a crisis of faith and leadership has been created in the Diocese of New Westminster by the passing of a motion to bless same-sex unions, and the actual performance of the same in a church with the authorization of Bishop Michael Ingham; and WHEREAS, a special October 2003 meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion called upon the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to provide "temporary adequate episcopal oversight" to those churches and clergy who, because of their refusal to accept the revisionist direction of the diocese, are now in a state of broken communion; and WHEREAS, said episcopal oversight was to have been offered in consultation with the global Primates through the Archbishop of Canterbury; and WHEREAS, to date no such episcopal oversight has been offered, but instead church members have been lost, leadership has been threatened, and churches have been closed and their standing threatened; and WHEREAS, the clergy and congregations of New Westminster cannot be left to fend for themselves while the task force of the Canadian House of Bishops and the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury are doing their work. BE IT RESOLVED, that the undersigned Primates of the Provinces of Congo, Central Africa, Rwanda and South East Asia hereby jointly offer temporary adequate episcopal oversight to the clergy and congregations of New Westminster, and to other Canadian clergy and congregations who seek such covering, on the following basis: 1 The temporary adequate episcopal oversight, as contemplated by the Primates Meeting of October 2003, will be offered in consultation with the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev. Datuk Yong Ping Chung has been requested and will serve as Chairman of the sponsoring group of Primates. 3 The Rt. Rev. Thomas Johnston, with the support of the administrative resources of the Anglican Mission in America, will coordinate the provision of this oversight on behalf of the undersigned. 4 Representatives of the Canadian clergy and congregations seeking oversight will meet with Archbishop Yong and/or Bishop Johnston to work out the administrative details of this offer. TRUSTING IN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, the undersigned present this offer of temporary adequate episcopal oversight to the faithful Canadian Anglican clergy and congregations. Signed by the Primates END

Sydney extremism may lead to split, says archbishop Carnley By Malcolm Brown February 14, 2004 The Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley, has made a stinging attack on the leadership of the Sydney diocese. In a new book, Reflections in Glass, Dr Carnley warns the diocese itself might split because of the extremism of the ruling group. The archbishop, who is to retire next February, said that while the leadership of the diocese resisted most of his ideas, they were not universally rejected. "The diocese of Sydney contains as much diversity of thought as most of the other Anglican dioceses, even if is to be frankly admitted that a distinct and characteristic kind of evangelicalism predominates," he said. "It is reported that up to 50 Sydney parishes might consider approaching the college of Australian bishops to seek a form of 'alternative episcopal over sight'." If Australian Anglicanism split, the "first divide" might be "within the diocese itself". Dr Carnley writes that given Australia's diversity, "inter-faith dialogue seems inevitable". But the Sydney diocese was quite cold on recognition of other faiths. The Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, had denounced other faiths as false. "This is certainly not the most helpful approach," Dr Carnley said. END

CofE Vicars will Exercise Local Option to Bless SS Marriage   At every step of our Christian development and in every sphere of our Christian discipleship, pride is the greatest enemy and humility our greatest friend. --- John Stott   Why is so much modern discipleship so shallow. It emphasizes “growth” without repentance, “authenticity” without holiness, “belonging” without sacrifice. The call of Jesus — “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23) — has been reduced to a suggestion rather than a summons. Cross-bearing is too costly, so we offer comfort instead. – Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore   Wars rage across the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Yet, these violent conflicts, as horrific as they are, only mirror the silent wars raging within many of our own hearts — wars of despair, doubt, and desperation. -- Vijay Jayaraj   And yet, the true Church still stands. Bruised, yes—but not broken. Smaller, perhaps—but purer for the fire. The faithful remain, and the Spirit still moves among them. The Church Militant, long accustomed to cultural privilege, now discovers that she has become the Church Remnant—a scattered host gathered in the strength of her King.  – Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore   Christianity in the 21 st century is more consumerist. We pick and choose our churches and move from church to church based on whether it meets our needs. No one is going to stick around for any potential disapproval, much less any disciplinary process — Mark Tooley   Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org October 31, 2025   TO experience rapid growth of the Church and fulfill the Great Commission, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback fame said there are three options to model. The first is the model of Jesus; the other two models are the first church in Acts and the model of the Apostle Paul. He then listed five things Christian leaders must do to win the world for Christ. Jesus' method can work anywhere, Warren said. “I've seen the Jesus model of ministry work in the desert, in very small villages and in giant megacities. It is transcultural.”  He summarized the steps in the acronym PEACE: pass on the good news; equip disciples; alleviate suffering — preaching, teaching and healing; continually pray and lastly, establish new churches. Highlighting 10 ways Christians can emulate the first-century church and its exponential growth to finish the task, Warren noted that the fastest period of growth for Christianity was the first 330 years of the Church. "We went from 120 people in the upper room to, by [the year] 360 A.D., half of the Roman Empire had been saved — 30 million out of 60 million people." Looking at Acts 1 and 2, Warren listed the 10 action steps churches can implement today: pray for God's power; translate God's Word in every language; celebrate the diversity of believers; train every believer to preach the Good News; teach believers to do the Word of God; model love to the world; return to using homes for worship and Bible study; use worship as a joyful witness to non-believers; share resources and make financial sacrifices.   *****   To nobody's surprise, The Episcopal Church continues its Gadarene decline, unfettered from moral and theological boundaries that have plagued the church for decades.   Episcopalians recite the creeds with their fingers crossed behind their backs as do a host of clergy and most of the bishops. Episcopalians don’t believe much of anything in the Bible, preferring the culture dictate their preferences and beliefs about sexual morality, abortion, divorce, Middle East politics, DEI and much more. Racism and gay marriage consume most of the debate even though the latest figures reveal that TEC is 95% white with most parishes never seeing anybody of color let alone someone with homoerotic tendencies. Bishop Sean Rowe continues to rail on white churches and communities needing to repent of the sin of racism and work toward reconciliation. The truth is the vast majority of his own church of 6,500 churches has never seen a black person pass through the red doors, and with the average age of an Episcopalian now over 60, whatever racists ever existed are long since dead or departed. The 100,000 who fled TEC after the Robinson consecration were not racists and have given only a tepid nod in the direction of racism in America. Racism like any other sin needs to be repented of.   The same thing for homosexual priests. Most of the churches have never seen nor have sought out a homosexual or lesbian priest. Just a handful of elite churches and their homoerotic bishops get media attention. The following conversation might well have taken place between two geriatric Episcopalians. Mildred: Are you gay George? George: Well, I am happy most of the time Mildred. Mildred: The priest said we had to be nice to gays or we would get chucked out of the church. George: He did? Mildred: He said we had to wear rainbow hats or colorful scarves on Sunday to show we were not homophobic. George: What the hell is homophobic? Mildred: I haven’t a clue. We need to google it. George: What’s a google?   Bishop Rowe would do well to listen to Pastor Rick Warren for clues on how to grow his church, before TEC sinks into the sunset. On the other it is probably too late.   The church revealed its latest figures this week and they are anything but encouraging.   Mary Anne Mueller, VOL’s earnest researcher analyzed the church’s recent findings and concluded The Episcopal Church was being cagey when it comes to the transparency of its 2024 statistics.   “Under the new Presiding Bishop’s watch the number of Episcopal churches dropped from 6,754 to 6,707 a 7% loss of 47 worshipping congregations.   The 2024 Episcopal Church’s Baptismal number is 19,624 down from 20,247 in 2023. Resulting in a -3.1% drop of 623.   “The Episcopal Church has many members. In most years, it can provide a specific count of its baptized members – 1.5 million in 2023 — based on data compiled from its congregations’ parochial reports,” he writes.   “Not for 2024.”   “The slick 26-page document is not detailed enough to actually get a clear look into the spiritual life of the church. Even coupling it with the previous year's Analysis of the 2023 Parochial Report Data, doesn't give a complete picture. As a result, the Episcopal Church has only offered up a superficial glance into the sliding statistical numbers of the church. “   Ironically the Episcopal News Service , the official voice of the church noted the absence of figures with a headline that ran; Episcopal Church omits membership total in annual report; baptisms fell considerably in the past decade.   Anglican Watch ran a headline; Episcopal Church releases preliminary 2024 parochial report data. The results are not pretty.   You can read all the stories here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/episcopal-church-releases-in-house-analysis-of-2024-statistics   And here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/tec-s-baptismal-numbers-hidden-in-plain-sight-the-actual-number-of-baptisms-got-lost-in-the-weeds   https://www.anglicanwatch.com/episcopal-church-releases-preliminary-2024-parochial-report-data-the-results-are-not-pretty/   Anglican Watch then ripped into the Episcopal Church with this story: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/its-official-the-episcopal-annual-parochial-report-is-broken-heads-should-roll/   Epic fail: The Episcopal Church is now so broken it doesn’t even know how many members it has, ran the headline. “The Episcopal Annual Parochial Report is broken. Heads should roll. After numerous committee meetings, discussions, surveys, and revisions, we have a new Episcopal parochial report format and the data that results from the report. And while we now have a wealth of narrative data about racial reconciliation and energy efficiency (neither of which the church excels in), we no longer know the exact number of church members! That’s right—the Episcopal Church cannot tell you how many members it has.”   Was that intentional? We don’t know, but it’s hard not to suspect that this is the case.   One thing the church is trying to do is add pew warmers with online watchers. But online watching defies community and any semblance of what it means to be the church. It would not be going out on a limb to say the Episcopal Church is in decline with little prospect of it ever recovering. Poor, near non-existent theology, bad morals, a focus on woke issues, an aging demographic and failing seminaries, the gig is up. It is no longer if but when the church will close. With millions of dollars in its coffers the church can keep going for some time, but at the end of the day with fewer bodies and columbaria filling up weekly, the church cannot hope to survive.   *****   But the news that startled orthodox Anglicans which broke open this week was a lead story in the Washington Post that ran a headline: U.S. ANGLICAN CHURCH ARCHBISHOP ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ABUSE OF POWER. You can read it here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/u-s-anglican-church-archbishop-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-abuse-of-power   It shook up the church both nationally and globally, causing many orthodox to take stock of the church and all it claimed to be; especially after its Archbishop Steve Wood said he would make safeguarding an issue for the church.   The lurid details included a ‘he said/she said’ relationship with a woman that while it did not include sexual intercourse, allegedly involved inappropriate touching and payments made to the woman. There were other charges of plagiarism and abuse of power that were both shocking and revealing.   I have documented it all here: Three crises that have engulfed the ACNA. I outline the three cases, including Archbishop Wood, The Bishop Ruch Trial and the Bishop Derek Jones controversy.   The Wood scandal represents the latest in a series of crises for ACNA. An ecclesiastical trial is currently underway against Bishop Stewart Ruch III with parishioners and clergy accusing Ruch, 58, of allowing individuals with histories of violence or sexual misconduct to worship or hold staff and leadership positions within his diocese.  Bishop Derek Jones faces abuse of power charges and was forced to step down as bishop of the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces. The story is still playing out.   https://www.virtueonline.org/post/three-crises-engulf-anglican-church-in-north-america   But the most egregious issue are the questions that were not asked about the bishop’s behavior before he was elected. A lot of the charges were known to the House of Bishops and they apparently said and did nothing.   Following disclosure of his alleged misdeeds in the Washington Post, that includes sexual misconduct, plagiarism, abuse of power and more, the staunchly orthodox leader said in a letter to his parish, that “I unequivocally, categorically, and emphatically deny in their entirety the accusations made against me by Ms. Claire Buxton, who was employed at St. Andrew’s,” Wood said in an Oct. 24 letter to St. Andrew’s congregants. He will fight the presentment charges.   https://www.virtueonline.org/post/archbishop-wood-and-the-future-of-acna-why-were-questions-never-asked-about-his-behavior-before-he   *****   Episcopal Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe took a swipe at Israel in remarks to executive council this past week. He urged the US Government to end weapons sales to Israel while making no mention of Hamas.   Rowe sharply criticized Israel describing the situation in Gaza as a "moral travesty" blaming Israeli forces for human rights abuses, violence, and the destruction of Gaza.   Notably absent from his remarks was any mention of Hamas's role in starting the war in the first place. The terrorist organization's continued resistance to peace efforts and appeals from fellow Arab nations to cease hostilities has fallen on deaf ears.   "The situation in Gaza and the West Bank is dire," Rowe told the council. "We hear sometimes that we must issue more frequent and stronger statements about the Israeli war on Gaza and the catastrophic effect it has had on the Palestinian people—that if the church does not issue statements, then we believe that the church does not care about this moral travesty unfolding before us or the people in our own church most affected by it."   You can the full story here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/episcopal-presiding-bishop-blasts-israel-urges-us-government-to-end-weapons-sales-to-democratic-nat   *****   SURPRISE! Church of England clergy have vowed to offer same-sex blessing services despite bishops’ decision. We have seen this before. The Episcopal Church called it exercising ‘local option’ to do exactly the same thing, and revisionists in the Church of England are repeating it.   A number of clergy in the Church of England are resisting a decision by the House of Bishops which put the brakes on moves to allow stand-alone services for same-sex blessings and to allow clergy to be in same-sex marriages.   Canon Simon Butler, an influential vicar in “Inclusive Evangelicals”, says the Canons of the Church of England do, in fact, permit stand-alone services. He has officiated at two in his church, Holy Trinity & St Mary’s, Guildford, and has used Prayers of Love and Faith, saying “They have been simple occasions of quiet joy”.   Writing for the organisation’s website, he says that in granting his licence, the bishop gave him “the liberty to exercise my ministry within the bounds of the doctrine and Canons of the Church of England”, and he quotes Canon B5 saying ministers have discretion to use forms of service for occasions “for which no provision is made”. Separately, the Rev Dr Charlie Bavzyk-Bell and Canon Giles Fraser also said they would perform stand-alone services of blessing.   You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/cofe-clergy-vow-to-offer-same-sex-blessing-services-despite-bishops-decision   Meantime EFAC issued a press release calling on bishops to restore confidence in their leadership following a House of Bishops' residential meeting the previous week. “Recent failures to heed warnings as to the consequences of these actions have already generated too much pain, confusion, cost and uncertainty across the Church of England and the whole Anglican Communion, particularly among those who identify as gay, lesbian or same-sex attracted. We call on the bishops to accept that the process has gone on for far too long. In order to restore confidence in their leadership, and to maintain unity, it must come to an end.”  You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/efac-calls-on-bishops-to-restore-confidence-in-their-leadership   *****   Please consider a tax-deductible donation to VOL’s vital ministry. VOL reaches readers in 55 countries with hundreds visiting our new website daily. I take no salary, but employ staff and maintain our online presence. Online: A PayPal donation link can be found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html   If you are more inclined with checks, you can send your tax-deductible donation to: VIRTUEONLINE                                                              P.O. BOX 111                      Shohola, PA 18458   Thank you for your support, Yours in Christ, David   My Substack on the Middle East continues to grow. It is drawing a lot of interest and attention from across the globe. You can access it here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/   I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel’s right to exist and prosper while confronting her enemies both foreign and domestic. My latest report can be seen here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/p/ceasefire-what-ceasefire

By Sean Frankling ANGLICAN JOURNAL October 31, 2025   In the wake of the declaration by a coalition of conservative Anglican provinces of its intention to reorder the Anglican Communion around itself rather than Canterbury, two Canadian scholars with years of experience in the global South take different views on how much the apparent schism will divide the denomination in theory and in practice.    What both agree on is that it is not yet clear how many of the provinces within the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) will go through with GAFCON chairman and Primate of Rwanda Laurent Mbanda’s call to sever all ties with the Church of England and its communion. GAFCON’s split comes after the election of Bishop Sarah Mullally, whom it considers too theologically liberal, as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.   The Anglican Communion Office announced Oct. 3 that King Charles III had approved the nomination of Mullally—who has served as bishop of London since 2018 and previously served as bishop of Crediton in the diocese of Exeter—as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. She is the first woman to be elected to the office, and served as leader of the Living in Love and Faith consultation—the Church of England’s consultative process on human sexuality that approved prayers and blessings for same-sex couples, though it did not approve same-sex marriage—from 2020 to 2023. Mullally will be installed as the Church of England’s senior bishop in March 2026 in a service at Canterbury Cathedral.   GAFCON was formed in 2008 in protest of the growing acceptance of same-sex relationships, blessings and marriages among some member provinces of the Anglican Communion, which GAFCON leaders consider unbiblical. Many bishops in GAFCON have boycotted the Lambeth Conferences and other communion meetings for years. Some had already stripped references to communion with Canterbury or the Church of England from their constitutions. In 2023, the organization announced it no longer recognized then-Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, over his support of a Church of England vote in favour of same-sex blessings.    Mbanda released a statement Oct. 3 accusing the Church of England of abandoning “global Anglicans” by announcing Mullally as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. GAFCON provinces could not accept her because most of them supported a male-only episcopacy and strongly disagreed with her endorsement of blessing same-sex couples, he said.    On Oct. 16, Mbanda declared GAFCON the new centre of the Anglican Communion. GAFCON had resolved to “reorder the Anglican Communion,” reject the instruments of communion, end all participation in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury and encourage its members to remove any remaining references to communion with Canterbury or the Church of England, he said. It would also form a council of primates, he wrote, which would elect a chairman to be considered “first amongst equals,” the traditional role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mbanda’s communique does not call this move a schism. Rather, it says, “As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion [emphasis his]; we are the Anglican Communion.”   Announcement makes it ‘that much harder to come back’: Radner   The Rev. Ephraim Radner is a retired professor of theology at the University of Toronto’s Wycliffe College and a former missionary with experience in Burundi and Haiti. He says the new declaration changes little when it comes to the regular practice of GAFCON’s member bishops and provinces. For decades now, its member churches, including those of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda have already boycotted meetings of the communion. It’s not yet clear what, if anything, the new statement changes about that practise, says Radner.   But he says Mbanda’s message does make an important change by effectively formalizing a separate set of leadership structures. Formalizing that difference adds new barriers to any future effort to reconcile the split in the global Anglican community, he says. It makes it more difficult for Anglicans who have been participants in GAFCON but have maintained some ties to the original Communion to keep their lines of engagement open, he says.    GAFCON did not organize itself in a vacuum, Radner says, and it is not the only party involved in widening the gulf between conservative and progressive Anglican provinces, says Radner. The provinces of the progressive Western church have also scaled back their efforts to reach out to GAFCON in practice over time, he says. They have also done a poor job of addressing the concerns of conservative provinces even as leaders at recent communion meetings have championed the call to boost the voices of the historically colonized people who often raise those concerns, he says. Western churches have made a priority off dealing with social change in their own home countries, Radner says, and this goes some way to explaining why many GAFCON provinces feel alienated from others in the communion. He sympathizes with some of GAFCON’s concerns about the theological issues in progressive provinces’ approach to sexuality—but not what he calls the attitude of self-righteousness shown in breaking communion over them.    The creation of official alternative structures to the instruments of communion makes GAFCON’s move an official schism, in Radner’s opinion.   “To set up a separate church structure with the claim, ‘we are the real Anglicans,’” he says, “makes it that much harder to come back. We have 2000 years of track record of formal church divisions and none of them get resolved or reconciled quickly. They take hundreds of years … You would have thought people would learn from this, and they don’t seem to have. Ultimately, division weakens the church. It always has. It has never strengthened it.”   Structures don’t provide a basis for reconciliation, he adds—only human charity, prayer, listening and arguing can do that.   Radner questions Mbanda’s willingness to meet with Mullally to discuss their differences before declaring he and his organization could not recognize her. “Have they ever sat down and tried to think about it together: What are we going to do? How can we move forward given that we disagree so deeply about these matters?” he asks. “This does not strike me as a mature way of responding to this kind of crisis of leadership as it’s felt and perceived by folks in GAFCON.”   GAFCON synods and individuals may feel—and vote—differently from bishops: Zink   The Rev. Jesse Zink is the principal of Montreal Diocesan Theological College and has travelled, worshiped and liaised widely among provinces of the Anglican Communion including Nigeria, Rwanda, South Sudan, South Africa and England. Zink says this experience has shown him there is a difference between what bishops and primates proclaim and what ordinary Anglicans believe when it comes to communion abroad. The Anglican Communion is a wide and deep network of relationships among Christians, he says, not just a set of documents or leadership structures. It is more than the typical voices that get reported, which tend to be male, English-speaking bishops, he adds.   “Of course the Anglican Church is an episcopal-led tradition, but in none of our churches can bishops just sit around and decide whether or not they want to be in the Anglican Communion,” he says. They can offer guidance, but in GAFCON provinces just as in Canada, both synods and individuals may feel and vote differently. His own school has just admitted several students from Rwanda, he says, which illustrates that at least some people remain willing to form ties across the divide.   The question, he says is not only what Anglicans’ opinions are on same-sex blessings, but whether the ties of Anglican community must depend on agreement on issues like it.   “What the Archbishop of Rwanda seems to suggest is that your opinion about who you should be in relationship with turns on whether or not you agree on a relatively narrow set of issues,” Zink says. “[But] it has often been my experience that there are people who say, ‘look, we might disagree on topic X, but that’s not going to stand in the way of us having some form of Christian relationship.’”   The leaders of the Anglican Communion have often described their intentions as “walking together … despite our deep disagreement” on issues of human sexuality, such as in 2022’s Lambeth Call on Human Dignity. Zink says he’s observed that some in more conservative provinces tend to see “even the act of being in relationship with someone who holds such ‘wrongheaded’ beliefs as itself sinful.” Sometimes, that comes down to the question of who it is and isn’t appropriate to take communion with. This attitude showed itself at the 2022 Lambeth Conference when members of GAFCON announced they would refuse the sacrament of the Eucharist at worship services that included gay and lesbian bishops. In I Corinthians, Zink says, St. Paul writes that Christians should examine themselves before taking communion, but with the goal being not to take it if something is wrong in themselves—not as a way to show judgement on others.   That approach is symptomatic of a broader climate of political and social media discourse today in which people frequently deal with disagreement by cutting others off entirely, says Zink.   The other piece of important context Zink says he learned in his time visiting African provinces—which make up a significant part of both GAFCON’s membership and of the global population of Anglicans—is how competitive churches there are to attract members. “African Christians are concerned that if for whatever reason their church is perceived as inferior, imperfect, less than orthodox, other churches will point that out,” he says, and draw members away from Anglican ones.    It can be difficult to convey this to people living in Canada who are used to churches being ignored in the public sphere, he adds, but the competition is real. In many ways membership in the Anglican Communion is an attractive feature in that “marketplace,” he adds, noting the Nigerian branch is officially called the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) as a point of proud association. It shows the church is connected to a group with international credentials. “But then when the Anglican Communion does things like apparently allowing gay people to get married, it’s like, ‘Wait a second, maybe that’s not so great.’” He says. “So there’s a way in which the leaders of the church need to express rather publicly and vociferously their opposition because of the context in which they’re ministering.”   Both Zink and Radner say much depends on how many provinces, bishops and individuals choose to go along with this new vision for GAFCON.   “There are individual bishops all over the place in these provinces related to GAFCON that have varying degrees of desire to be formally separate,” says Radner. “I’ve met them.” This is one thing that may cause tension in GAFCON in years to come, he says. Often branches of the church that split once continue to split again.   “It’s the Protestant dynamic of vociferousness. When you’re always protesting, it’s in your blood,” he says. “It’s hard to stop it.”   In response to Mbanda’s declaration, Archbishop Shane Parker, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, released a statement reaffirming the Canadian church’s communion with the Church of England and its commitment to the four Instruments of Communion: the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), the Primates’ Meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury.    Bishop Anthony Poggo, secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council, released a statement of his own, acknowledging the divisions within the Anglican Communion. The church is ever-reforming through an ongoing process of dialogue, he wrote, expressing hope that the church could find some hope of greater unity in the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals.    Drafted in 2024 by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order, the proposals call for the church to de-emphasize the centrality of the Archbishop of Canterbury, distributing instead some of that role’s importance among other primates of the communion. Specifically, the proposals recommend the Archbishop of Canterbury’s role as the president of the ACC be shifted to a member of the Primates’ Meeting elected from each of the five regions of the communion on a rotating basis, and the Primate’s Standing Committee, a group of five primates who are part of the communion’s executive leadership, to play a greater role in calling the Primate’s Meetings and Lambeth Conferences.    Poggo encouraged all Anglicans, including GAFCON members, to participate in the process of refining the instruments of communion into a version they could endorse at 2026’s ACC meeting.   “Those who are present are the ones who shape the outcomes and resolutions of meetings,” he wrote.   —with files from Matthew Puddister

By Mark D. Thompson The Gospel Coalition October 31, 2025 On All Saints’ Eve 1517, Martin Luther changed the shape of Europe and the world forever. However it was done—and I don’t think Luther was beyond the theatrical flourish of nailing his famous Ninety-five Theses to the church door himself—when Luther’s arguments against indulgences were released on the world, the Protestant Reformation began. Luther remains a controversial figure today, and with good reason. Yet it’s still worth celebrating the monumental things God accomplished through him and the gospel truths Luther uncovered. Luther’s 1517 stand against the abuse of indulgences (he wasn’t yet at the point of condemning them altogether) rested on a series of discoveries he’d made over the five years since he’d joined the University of Wittenberg faculty. Luther had come to understand the Christian life differently—as all about grace, not moral performance or law. He’d come to understand penitence, or repentance, differently—not as a sacramental act but as the whole of the Christian life. Looming as large as any of these changes was Luther’s new understanding of the Bible. He came to see that the Scriptures stand over the church and all other writings as the final arbiter in matters of faith and Christian living. Scripture Is God’s Word Luther didn’t speak of the Bible’s authority in ways it hadn’t been spoken of before. Even if we leave alone Scripture’s own witness to its authority, the church fathers and the vast majority of medieval theologians repeatedly affirmed Scripture’s qualitative difference from all other writings. Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were explicit about this. And men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus had made biblical authority part of their reforming platforms a century and more before Luther. Luther’s recognition that Scripture is the one true and living God’s written Word wasn’t new. Luther came to see that the Scriptures stand over the church and all other writings as the final arbiter in matters of faith and Christian living. What Luther did differently was explore from various angles what it meant to speak of Scripture as God’s Word. Scattered through his writings from 1512 until his death in 1546 are comments on Scripture’s nature and use that have proven extremely influential since. In different contexts, and against different opponents, Luther was resolute. Despite attempts by some historians and theologians to deny it, Luther understood Scripture to be God’s Word. In a handwritten inscription in a Bible he gave to a friend in 1541, and now housed in the City Museum in Worms, Luther quoted John 5:39, then wrote, “This is because we ourselves hold that the Holy Scripture is God’s saving Word which can make us eternally blessed. Therefore, we should read it and study it so that we find the testimony about Christ within.” Other writings may be helpful and edifying, but Luther was convinced that the Bible is uniquely God’s written Word. This truth generated his three highly influential convictions about the Bible. 1. Only God’s Word can bind the conscience. At the Diet of Worms in April 1521, Luther courageously stood before an assembly that concentrated Europe’s political and religious authority. There before the Holy Roman emperor and the pope’s representatives, Luther boldly refused to recant what he’d said and written: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. (LW 32:112) Scholars have pored over Luther’s words in the centuries since. Most significant is the final clause: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Scripture determined not only what Luther believed but how he’d act. His conscience was bound to it. No one has a right to bind the conscience of the Christian more tightly than or in a different direction from Scripture. All else sits underneath God’s Word, whether it be creeds, confessions, or conciliar statements. It’s not that such statements have no authority, but their authority is derivative and subject to the highest authority, the living God’s written Word. 2. The Bible is its own interpreter. Just prior to Worms, Luther had responded to the pope’s denunciation of him and his teaching. In that context, he made another highly significant statement about the Bible, this time about how it’s understood. Luther wrote against the pope’s claim that the sole authoritative interpretation of the Bible comes from the church. Luther had earlier argued in his Appeal to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation that this was one of the three walls built by the papacy to protect itself from criticism. So in response to the pope’s attack, Luther wrote, Or tell me, if you can, who finally decides when two statements of the fathers contradict themselves? Scripture ought to provide this judgment, which cannot be delivered unless we give to Scripture the chief place in everything, that which was acknowledged by the fathers: that it is in and of itself the most certain, the most accessible, the most clear of all, interpreting itself, approving, judging, and illuminating all things. (WA 7:97, author’s free translation) The insistence that Scripture is its own interpreter doesn’t mean we read Scripture in isolation, or without any attention to those who have read this text before us or are reading it alongside us. Luther certainly didn’t do that. We can gain many insights from those who have brought their gifts and experience to reading the Bible. They can be a check on idiosyncratic interpretations. But a true understanding of Scripture doesn’t depend on the imprimatur of a religious institution or even the academic guild. This conviction fuels the discipline of biblical theology. The whole of Scripture is God’s Word, and by reading it as a whole, comparing one part with another, and immersing ourselves in its language, we more consistently honor Scripture’s authority than we do if we wait on the church or scholarly authorities to tell us what it means. The risen Christ gives the gift of teachers to the churches, but they walk alongside us; they don’t stand over us. 3. The Bible is a means to an end, and that end is Christ. Luther loved the Bible. He spent his life in it. But he loved the Bible preeminently because it pointed him to Jesus. He was convinced this is the most important thing to grasp about the Scriptures. They don’t reinforce the power of institutions, nor do they merely confirm choices we’ve already made for ourselves. Rather, they present us with Jesus, our Savior and Lord. As Luther wrote, Now the gospels and epistles of the apostles were written for this very purpose. They want themselves to be our guides, to direct us to the writings of the prophets and of Moses in the Old Testament so that we might there read and see for ourselves how Christ is wrapped in the swaddling cloths and laid in the manger, that is, how he is comprehended in the writings of the prophets. It is there that people like us should read and study, drill ourselves, and see what Christ is, for what purpose he has been given, how he was promised, and how all Scripture tends toward him. (LW 35:122) Luther’s supreme principle for understanding and using the Bible was discovering how the particular passage under consideration might “promote,” “inculcate,” or “drive home” Christ. Biblical scholarship is good and vital for the church’s health, but if it stops short of that end, it’s worse than inadequate. Scholarship that misses Christ distorts and misuses the Scriptures. “All the genuine sacred books agree in this”, Luther wrote in 1522, “that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ” (LW 35:396). The Bible isn’t an end in itself. It’s not a book studied to build our self-esteem or to use as a weapon to put down others. It’s first and foremost the testimony to God’s astonishing grace in sending his Son to save sinners like us. We fail to understand the Scriptures if we don’t follow them to the Christ of whom they testify. Flawed Hero, Faithful Testimony Luther said many other things about Scripture. He challenged the undisciplined use of allegory, he made a careful distinction between law and gospel, and he stimulated a whole new industry of Bible translation with his concern that every believer have access to the Word that God wrote to us. Luther’s consistent teaching on the Bible’s nature, place, and use has strengthened Christian faith right across the centuries, and across denominations. But the above three convictions—only God’s Word can bind the human conscience, the Bible is its own interpreter, and the whole purpose of the Bible (Old Testament and New) is to drive us to Christ—shaped everything else. Luther was a flawed hero. His anger and frustration with whatever he saw as an impediment to the gospel mission often boiled over into ugly and ungodly invective. What he wrote against the Jews was unconscionable. And he didn’t always listen carefully to faithful Christian brothers and sisters (I think particularly of Zwingli and Bullinger) who thought a little differently from him. He too quickly concluded that every debate was a rerun of his fight to protect the gospel against the Devil’s assaults. Yet Luther’s consistent teaching on the Bible’s nature, place, and use has strengthened Christian faith right across the centuries, and across denominations. This contribution is certainly worth remembering and celebrating. Mark D. Thompson (DPhil, University of Oxford) serves in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Australia, as the principal of Moore Theological College and as chair of the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission.

Defending Moral Principles Is Getting Riskier LONDON, FEB. 14, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Christians defending moral teachings on homosexuality are increasingly running foul of laws that ban any negative statements about the subject. A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation, the Telegraph newspaper reported Nov. 10. Bishop Peter Forster of Chester told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject -- that's in the area of psychiatric health." Police investigated the statements and a spokesman said a copy of the article would be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Subsequently, the police dropped the case, the Independent newspaper reported Nov. 11. The matter raised fears about restrictions on defending Christian morality, the British-based Christian Institute explained in its January newsletter. It added that the bishop's position was backed up by a lot of academic research. Even a longtime supporter of homosexual rights, Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer, recently published a study finding that homosexuals could become predominantly heterosexual through psychotherapy, the newsletter observed. Debate also flared last year in the United Kingdom over whether churches should be allowed to refuse employment to homosexuals. The government finally agreed to add a clause to anti-discrimination legislation giving religious organizations the right to exclude a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, the Sunday Times reported June 1. Still, the Christian Institute warned in its January newsletter that employers must be prepared to argue their case in court. In Ireland, meanwhile, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned the Catholic Church that distributing the Vatican guidelines on same-sex unions could bring prosecution. The document published last July by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith falls foul of the Incitement to Hatred Act, according to sources quoted in the Irish Times on Aug. 2. "The document itself may not violate the act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the act," said Aisling Reidy, director of the civil- liberties council. Those convicted under the act could face six-month jail terms. Of the Vatican document Reidy said: "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation." The limits of diversity On the other side of the Atlantic, December saw a victory for Christians. In Michigan, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposing homosexuality, reported a Dec. 5 press release by the Thomas More Law Center. The law center had filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Betsy Hansen as a result of a dispute over the 2002 Diversity Week program held at the Ann Arbor Pioneer High School. School authorities censored the speech to be given by Hansen, a Catholic, as part of the activities of the "Homosexuality and Religion" panel. Officials claimed that her religious view toward homosexuality was a "negative" message and would "water down" the "positive" religious message that they wanted to convey -- that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials also only allowed clergy who espoused a pro-homosexual position to take part in the panel, denying Hansen's request to have a panel member who would express the Catholic position on homosexuality. "This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating 'diversity' by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view," observed Judge Rosen in his decision. Another case, still to be finalized, involves a Colorado mother who left a lesbian relationship after converting to Christianity in 2000. Cheryl Clark is appealing a ruling by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic," the Washington Times reported Nov. 5. Her former partner, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl. Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Florida, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. He commented that the judge gave no similar orders to McLeod regarding remarks or teaching about Christianity or Christians. "It's a real one-way street on this," Staver said. Vancouver bishop targeted Controversy regarding criticism of homosexuals has been increasingly common in Canada. A recent case involves the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The Vancouver Sun reported Sept. 24 that the archdiocese canceled a long- standing partnership with VanCity Credit Union, owing to the fact that the institution actively supports the local gay and lesbian community. The turning point for Archbishop Adam Exner was an ad campaign by the credit union, featuring a homosexual couple. Consequently the archbishop put an end to a VanCity program operating in four Catholic schools. Under the program, students learned out to save and invest their money and opened savings accounts with the credit union. A document posted on the archdiocese Web site explained the reasons for the decision. "VanCity in its advertising and by its sponsorship has publicly manifested its support for agendas which are worrisome and harmful to the Church and to society," said the statement signed by Archbishop Exner. "Any cooperation with an organization that publicly supports such agendas appears unacceptable." The decision drew strong criticism, as Archbishop Exner noted in a letter published Oct. 1 by the Vancouver Sun. When news of the move became public, it "opened the floodgates to letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes, alleging everything from bigotry to fascism," he said. "I found myself accused of teaching intolerance and hatred of homosexuals -- something contrary to Catholic teaching and my own convictions." Not-so-free speech David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University School of Law, addressed the topic of how antidiscrimination laws are creating problems for free speech in his recent book, "You Can't Say That!" Fear of litigation, he observed, "is having a profound chilling effect on the exercise of civil liberties in workplaces, universities, membership organizations, and churches." Bernstein related how one U.S. Catholic university was beaten down by legal actions into giving full recognition to student homosexual groups. And citing several recent legal cases in Canada, he commented: "Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." On the question of how homosexuals are to be treated, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is careful to point out: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (No. 2358). Nevertheless, the Catechism is no less clear when it deals with the morality of homosexual acts: "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (No. 2357). Defending this teaching, in a charitable way, is no easy task. And in the current legal climate, it could get a lot harder. END