By Ted Schroder | July 4, 2004 "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover up for evil; live as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16) John Witherspoon (1723-1794) was the sixth President of Princeton (the College of New Jersey), a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and from 1776 to 1782 a leading member of the Continental Congress. Garry Wills has called him "probably the most influential teacher in the history of America education," and Princeton under his tutelage produced a bumper crop of politician alumni: a U.S. president, twenty-one senators, twenty-nine congressmen, and twelve state governors. (Wills, Explaining America , 15) The following epitaph is inscribed on his grave: Beneath this marble lie interred the mortal remains of JOHN WITHERSPOON, D.D. LL.D. a venerable and beloved President of the College of New Jersey. He was born in the parish of Yester, in Scotland, on the 5th of February, 1722, O.S. And was liberally educated in the University of Edinburgh, invested with holy orders in the year 1743, he faithfully performed the duties of his pastoral charge during five and twenty years, first at Beith, and then at Paisley. Elected president of Nassau Hall, he assumed the duties of that office on the 13th of August, 1768, with the elevated expectations of the public. Excelling in every mental gift, he was a man of pre-eminent piety and virtue and deeply versed in the various branches of literature and the liberal arts. A grave and solemn preacher, his sermons abounded in the most excellent doctrines and precepts, and in lucid expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Affable, pleasant, and courteous in familiar conversation, he was eminently distinguished in concerns and deliberations of the church, and endowed with the greatest prudence in the management and instruction of youth. He exalted the reputation of the college amongst foreigners, and greatly promoted the advancement of its literary character and taste. He was, for a long time, conspicuous among the most brilliant luminaries of learning and of the Church. At length, universally venerated, beloved, and lamented, he departed this life on the fifteenth of November, 1794, aged 73 years. William Safire in his anthology Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History , includes Witherspoon's sermon: The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men , preached at Princeton on May 17, 1776. Witherspoon is famous for his response to a member of the Continental Congress who said that the colonies were not ripe for independence. "In my judgment, sir, we are not only ripe but rotting!" Witherspoon was reluctant to speak about politics from the pulpit. But by 1775 he was ready to speak out on the events at the start of the Revolutionary War, in terms of how he saw the hand of God directing current events. His sermon on May 17, 1776 was occasioned by the General Fast that was appointed by the Congress throughout the United colonies. His text was Psalm 76:10 "Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." "Hostilities had begun a year earlier, and a consensus for independence was mounting. Clearly it was time for a political sermon... Witherspoon's main point is a familiar one: God's power is absolute and human passions are ultimately under the control of divine providence. Witherspoon states his intention before developing the announced text: 'That all the disorderly passions of men whether exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are the arrows of divine judgment in public calamity, shall, in the end, be to the praise of God: Or, to apply it more particularly to the present state of the American Colonies, and the plague of war, - the ambition of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppressive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity of brutal soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the meantime, while the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury.'" ( The Piety of John Witherspoon , L. Gordon Tait, 156) Witherspoon spells out the many ways in which human wrath praises God. He gives thanks for the ways in which providence has intervened on behalf of the Colonies. He assures the patriots of a happy outcome as long as three conditions are met: "If your cause is just, - if your principles are pure, - and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts." Witherspoon felt that a sermon touching on political matters was only suitable for a national day of fasting or thanksgiving, not for regular Sunday worship. "You are my witnesses," he declared, "That this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature... The confederacy of the colonies, has not been the effect of pride, resentment, or sedition, but of deep and general conviction, that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely, confined to these parts of the earth, where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen... [In truth] there is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage." For Witherspoon, this is the real reason why Americans must take up arms and why their cause is just: if civil liberty is lost, religious liberty would follow. This is how he ends his sermon: "What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy to God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country. Do not suppose, my brethren, that I mean to recommend a furious and angry zeal for the circumstantials of religion, or the contentions of one sect with another about their peculiar distinctions. I do not wish to oppose anybody's religion, but everybody's wickedness. Perhaps there are few surer of the reality of religion than when a man feels himself more joined in spirit to a true holy person of a different denomination than to an irregular liver of his own. It is therefore your duty in this important and critical season to exert yourselves, everyone in his proper sphere, to stem the tide of prevailing vice, to promote the knowledge of God, the reverence of his name and worship, and obedience to his laws.... God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." Witherspoon's legacy to us is the reminder that civil liberty and personal virtue in the nation go together. A healthy and free society requires faith and virtue of its citizens. The Scriptures admonish us to "live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God." Followers of Christ know that in the world they are free from all forms of enslavement, even enslavement to one's passions. We are free to do our duty, free to work for a more virtuous society, and free to be political when we must. We are free to take history seriously, and to try to see our place in it. In times of peace, Witherspoon said, as well as in those difficulty and trial, "it is in the person of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen and the invincible soldier."

By Ted Schroder Many people have been affected in life by an erroneous diagnosis of their problems. Ailments that have been wrongly diagnosed and treated accordingly have produced more problems than they have solved. That is why getting a second opinion is almost standard before any drastic and irreversible procedures are authorized. While this is routine in the medical field it is not always customary in the spiritual realm. Too many sincere seekers are all too ready to accept diagnoses of their condition that are questionable. The devil uses gullibility and trust in popular preachers, church leaders and authors to sow discouragement and despair. This is often done by confusing the physical, psychological and the spiritual realms. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a medical doctor who, at one point was assistant to Lord Moran, the personal physician to Winston Churchill, became a celebrated preacher and was assistant to, and then succeeded, G. Campbell Morgan as Minister at the famous Westminster Chapel, next to Buckingham Palace in London from 1938-1968. He was especially skilled at distinguishing between the spiritual, the physical, and the psychological. He wrote: "We are strange creatures, made up of body, mind, and spirit; these are interrelated and react upon one another. Many of our troubles in life are due to this fact, and to our failure to realize the place, function, and sphere of each of these realms. The devil, of course, takes full advantage of this, and attacks us along this line." He once preached 52 sermons on Ephesians 6:10-20, which have been published in two volumes: The Christian Warfare and The Christian Soldier . He points out that when Paul tells us that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms," (Eph. 6:12) we must make sure of the correct spiritual diagnosis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones lists three incorrect diagnoses. Wrong Diagnosis #1: Confusing the Physical with the Spiritual We are sick, overworked, or simply aging, and the tempter suggests that we are slipping spiritually in our walk with God because we don't feel as good as we used to. We confuse our physical well-being with our spiritual relationship with God. The prescription is not more prayer or trust in God, but treatment for our physical condition. We need a proper medical diagnosis, adequate rest, and adjustment to our expectations rather than pressure to conform to increased spiritual exercises. As we age our abilities change. We may begin to feel guilty because we cannot do all that we used to do. That is a physical problem not a spiritual problem. Paul encouraged Timothy to look after his physical health by prescribing a physical remedy: "Stop drinking only water and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." (1 Tim. 5:23) The Bible takes sickness seriously and encourages caring for the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. That is one of the reasons why Christian Science is believed to deviate from orthodox Christianity. Mary Baker Eddy teaches, in her Science and Health, With a Key to the Scriptures , that sickness is an illusion, and to be ignored. Christian Science does not believe in medical science, and discourages its adherents from seeking medical help. The wife of my congressman in Texas, Mrs. Lamar Smith, a strict Christian Scientist, died unnecessarily because she would not take her illness seriously. That is an example of the forces of evil blinding the understanding and deceiving a gullible soul. Mary Baker Eddy has a lot to answer for in being such an ally of deception. Wrong Diagnosis #2: Confusing the Psychological with the Spiritual There is a popular conception that when a person becomes a Christian his personality changes. That is not so. Christians are not expected to become Brand X or Type B personalities through sanctification! How dull that would be! There is no one kind of personality that qualifies for a superior spiritual rating. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones again, "Certain people by birth, by nature, and by temperament, belong to a depressed type; some are mercurial; others are phlegmatic. Some people are lively and animated, some are very slow...It is simply a fact that some people are born with a depressed and melancholic temperament." There are also cultural temperaments. Scandinavians are different from Hispanics; Yankees are different from Southerners. The difference is psychological not spiritual. The condition of our soul is not subject to our biological or psychological inheritance. Saul of Tarsus did not become a different personality when he became Paul the Apostle. We have to get to know ourselves so that we do not get accused by the devil, or other spiritual people, who accuse us of not being what they want us to be. That does not mean that we should not attempt to control our temperament. But we must not allow the devil to come in and make us think that our psychological problems are always purely spiritual. Some people who suffer from psychological disorders benefit from medical treatment, but that does not mean that they are deficient spiritually. Mental illness is a disease that needs compassionate counseling and medication not criticism and intolerance. William Cowper, the poet and hymn writer, was subject to severe bouts of depression, and tried to take his own life several times. He asked in one of his hymns, "Where is the blessedness I knew when first I saw the Lord?" He thought his problem was spiritual. He was in agony of soul, and felt at times that God had deserted him. It was entirely due to the diseased condition of his mind. Another version of this wrong diagnosis is to attribute all problems to ourselves. We become so psychological in our thinking that we fail to remember that the devil tempts us to blame ourselves or someone else for our problems. The devil uses false guilt to distress us when we are simply being ourselves. We become depressed and discouraged because we feel that we are failures and we do not know what to do. We look for psychological answers when we need to recognize the temptations of the devil. Jesus himself was tempted. He did not go into an emotional funk and blame himself or his parents for the disturbance in his soul. The temptation came from the outside, not from his personality, or his upbringing. We must learn to draw a distinction between what we are in our personality and what the devil is doing to us. We must refuse to be condemned and resist the devil's insinuations about our character. We can become too introspective and depressed by comparing ourselves with other people and being anxious to be something we are not. We stand against this wrong diagnosis by saying: "I am myself, and I am meant to be myself; and all God asks of me is that I do my best as I am." A person who does not seek the help of God may be controlled by his temperament. That is why, so often, others find it difficult to live with him. He cannot control his temper. A believer in Christ has the same temperament, but he is given the power of the Spirit to control his temperament. He recognizes what his temptation is and is on guard against it. He does not allow the devil to come in and make him think that his problems are always purely spiritual. So you must not be a victim of your temperament, and must be careful of the wiles of the devil. I have had to learn the limits of my patience, and to recognize the danger signals before I give in to the temptation to unload on someone when the stress gets too much for me. I have also had to learn to value who I am and not beat up on myself for not being perfect, or not being someone else. Some people have tried to make me over into their image of what I should be, and it didn't work. They would have been better employed befriending me and affirming my strengths rather than alienating themselves by constant criticism. Paul writes, "think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." (Romans 12:3) Accept the personality and the gifts God has given you, and stand against the schemes of the devil to try to make you something different. Wrong Diagnosis #3: Confusing the Spiritual with the Physical and the Psychological This is the tendency to evade spiritual problems by explaining them away in terms of the physical or the psychological. This happens when we are out of the will of God in our lives and feel miserable. We seek help to relieve our distress. We end up seeking medication or psychological counseling to help us adjust to the guilt of our rebellion against God, our disobedience to his purpose for our lives. The devil is saying to us that our problem is not with God but with our coming to terms with our life style or our lack of self control. This is especially so with respect to relational sins, sexual sins, sins of anger or greed. What we need is to stand against the sin in our lives, not seek permission and support to make us feel good about our sin. Just because something may be legal does not make it moral. There is the tendency to explain away sin altogether by excusing immoral behavior as being due to diminished responsibility. Everything is explained away in terms of diseased conditions or psychological states. Immoral behavior is justified on the grounds that a person is biologically determined, and therefore made by God to live that way. What was previously considered sin is now considered to be natural, and therefore to be accepted by society. The forces of evil have confused young people growing up in this environment so that they believe that what they see on television, and in the movies, is acceptable behavior, despite it being condemned by Scripture and a recipe for an unhealthy and tragic lifestyle. Many conflicts and problems in life would be prevented by a more thorough understanding of the truth. Regular Bible reading and prayer, the reading of Christian books, and participation in worship and Christian community promote a healthy lifestyle that can prevent undue physical and psychological illness. Fears and phobias are not merely psychological problems. St. Paul talks about "conflicts on the outside, fears within", which he had to deal with in his life. (2 Cor. 7:5) The devil will try to get you to think that this is a purely psychological matter, and that you need psychological treatment. Instead learn to say, "I am a child of God, and whatever happens to me, I am in God's hands, and God will allow no harm to come to me ultimately. He has said, 'I will never leave you, nor forsake you', so I must not give way to these fears." We have to stand against fears by putting on the armor of God and not give way to them. We must apply our faith and see that fears are of the devil, and resist them, standing on the rock who is Christ. How do we make sure that we have the correct spiritual diagnosis of our condition? We are fortunate to have the Great Physician to help us. Read the Scriptures, seek counsel from godly people whom you respect, pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light rises up in the darkness for the godly: Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what you would have us to do, that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from false choices, and that in your light we may see light, and in your straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (BCP p.832)

By Ted Schroder "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power." (Ephesians 6:10) Why do we need divine strength? It was 104 years ago, in a hot September 1900, when a hurricane flattened Galveston, and washed 6,000 souls from this world. The study of weather was an inexact science in those days. In a Wall Street Journal review of a book on this tragedy, "Isaac's Storm" by Erik Larson, Hugh Willoughby writes that Cuban meteorologists tried to warn the heedless Americans as the storm blew along their island's northern coast. They were ignored. There were no satellites, airplanes or radio weather reports from ships to inform people as to its progress. The Weather Bureau in Washington thought it might curve north and then east back into the Atlantic. There was no evacuation warning. As the storm's center hit land south of Galveston, waves destroyed the first line of frame houses along the Gulf. Surf, armed with debris, smashed houses farther inland to form a glacier of wreckage that ground everything in its path to pieces as the waves pushed it across town. Isaac Cline was the chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau's Galveston office. Willoughby writes, "Cline is a tragic hero in our technological time, undone by miscalculation, overconfidence and the chaos of uncontrollable events. In the most important forecast of his career, Isaac Cline seems simply to have misjudged. Today we forecast hurricanes far more accurately than anyone could have dreamed in 1900. We plan carefully to safeguard property and protect lives. We hope that we have thought of all the possibilities, but we know that the atmosphere, as unutterably beautiful as it can be, is full of surprises." (Sept. 4, 1999) What is written about Cline and the weather can be repeated about ourselves and life. We can be undone by miscalculation, overconfidence and the chaos of uncontrollable events. We can misjudge our ability to be strong in the face of life's surprises. If we feel that we are strong enough to handle the challenges of life we must ask ourselves why is it that we find ourselves attacked with feelings of utter hopelessness and almost despair? To what is it due? It is all due to our weakness, because we are insufficient and fallible. We know so little about what it is to stand when the evil day comes, and to be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might, because we have never admitted our own need. That was the chief trouble with the Pharisees. They thought they were right with God; they did not need a physician; they thought there was nothing wrong with them. We do not go to the doctor as long as we feel that all is well; we have got to realize that we are sick. But that means self-examination. People die because they put off going to the doctor until it is too late. Their condition is too far advanced for the treatment to be effective. It is only through honestly admitting our inherent weaknesses that we will seek the divine strength we need. Human will-power alone will not be enough to enable us to stand in the evil day. A desire to live a good life is not enough. Principles of morality and ethics are not enough. All our best is totally inadequate when the hurricane of life hits us unexpectedly. We need divine strength because we face a powerful foe. We cannot face the forces of evil in our own strength alone. We need divine help. We need God's strength because all of us face evil days in our lives when crisis and tragedy occur. We need to be strong in the Lord because we want to avoid personal failure in our faith and we become miserable and unhappy because of personal weakness. We want to find strength in the Lord and in his mighty power because we want to triumph over evil and be more than conquerors in the battles and challenges that life brings. But all too often we are spiritually weak, and when the days of evil come into our lives, we are simply unprepared for them, and find ourselves overwhelmed. What is the divine strength? What is meant by the mighty power of God? Think of strong men or women. People are mighty because of their inherent strength and power. Power is the manifestation of might. The might is the potential, that which is inherent, which manifests itself when it is needed. It means this great reserve of strength and power actually in operation, doing something. When we read the Scriptures we are reminding ourselves of the mighty power of God seen in Jesus: his life, his temptations, his miracles, his power through suffering and death, the power of his resurrection, the mighty power of His Spirit, and the promise of his return in power and might. A prayer of St. Paul's gives you an indication of his belief in the power God makes available to help us. "I pray that you may know … his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come." (Ephesians 1:19-21) The power of the resurrection and the ascension is something we can draw on in our own lives if we are believing in Christ. To be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might is to know that this power is available to us who believe, so that when the day of crisis comes we may be able to draw on it. How Does God Strengthen Us? By reminding us that God is at work in the world. He is engaged in a great plan of salvation. We must be aware that we are not fighting our battles alone. We are individuals in a great army of believers. We do not decide the strategy or the tactics of the campaign. All that is in other hands. We are in it, we have been recruited by the Lord; but it is not our battle. This is not a private war. This is not a little battle which we are waging on our own. We do not have a personal quarrel with the forces of evil: "the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world, the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12) We are part of the Lord's army. There is a battle between good and evil in the universe. If we fight under the Lord of hosts we can benefit from the strength of our commander-in-chief. We may feel overwhelmed by the events of life and feel completely discouraged but we can draw strength from the experience of those who have gone before us. When a vast army came against King Jehoshaphat, he resolved to inquire of the Lord. He proclaimed a fast for all Judah. The people came together to seek help from the Lord. The prayer of the King is a model for us: "O Lord, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you... If calamity comes upon us, whether the sword of judgment, or plague or famine, we will stand in your presence before the temple that bears your Name and will cry out to you in our distress, and you will hear us and save us....For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you." (2 Chronicles 20:6-12) Can you imagine the scene, for we are told that all the men of Judah, with their wives and children and little ones, stood there before the Lord? Jahaziel, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said to King Jehoshaphat and his army as they faced battle, "This is what the Lord says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours but God's… You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you.. Do not be afraid, do not be discouraged. Go out and face them tomorrow, and the Lord will be with you.'" (2 Chronicles 20:15-17) When things get bad in our lives, we need to remember that the battle is not ours, but God's. We are called to let the Lord fight the battle for us, in his mighty power, rather than merely in our own strength. We can be assured that this campaign cannot fail, because God's honor is involved in it. It is the Lord who is leading us in our struggle with evil. The ultimate battle is the battle between God and the devil, between heaven and hell, between light and darkness. We are given the privilege of being in it, but Christ cannot be defeated. We are on the winning side. Knowledge of God's victory gives us strength. In the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was wrestling with having to face suffering and death we read that "an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him." (Luke 22:43) When we seek God's help he will send his angels to strengthen us. If Jesus needed strengthening in his time of trial, how much more do we need divine strength when we face suffering and death. When St. Paul was attacked by Alexander the metal-smith he found himself deserted, no one came to his support. "But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength... And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (2 Timothy 4:17-18) Spiritual strength comes from following the example and teaching of great Christian men and women, and being willing to adopt the habits of life that will make us strong. In the fifth set of a grand slam match the commentator said, "The fifth set is not about tennis, it is about mind and heart." The ability to endure in life depends on the holy habits of the mind and heart. That means learning the power of prayer, and using the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. No athlete can expect to win in their sport by just turning up for their match. In order to compete they have to put in a lot of training, a great deal of practice and exercise. We cannot wait for the crisis in our lives before we turn our attention to spiritual training. Every day we should be engaging in the spiritual exercise of private worship: prayer and bible reading, to be prepared to be good soldiers of Jesus Christ. The testimony of the saints throughout the centuries is that the Lord Jesus Christ reveals his presence to help us in moments of extreme agony and crisis. Many have testified to this immediately before their death—the greatest crisis of all. Suddenly the Lord has appeared to them, and the people standing by their bedside have seen a smile on their faces. This is something you will find frequently happening in the last moments of the children of God. The Lord has appeared to them, and they are enabled to go through death triumphantly and gloriously and happily. This is one of the ways in which we are enabled to be "strong in the Lord and in his mighty power." Moses, before his death, gave this blessing to Asher: "as your days, so shall your strength be." (Deuteronomy 33:25) We pray that we might enjoy that blessing in our own lives: that as long as we live, we will be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Material from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Christian Soldier, Baker Books, 1998

By Ted Schroder "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." (Ephesians 6:13) "When the evil day comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand!" The evil day is that day of challenge, the day of crisis, the day of temptation, the day of despair and discouragement. In that day, when you feel under spiritual attack, put on the full armor of God so that you can stand, and survive no matter what is thrown at you. Be ready for the battle; be alert; realize that you are on duty at all times. Do not let your guard down, or relax your vigilance; so that you can survive, and live to see another day. In writing to Timothy, Paul says: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.... Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer." (2 Timothy 2:4) Paul is writing to encourage Timothy to stand firm in his faith. Others around him are defecting when the going gets tough. People who were strong believers and followers of Christ in their younger days can gradually fall away until they question everything they believe. Children that you raised in the faith can surrender to evil influences, and abandon ship when they are tempted. Even ministers of the Gospel, friends and colleagues have become less convinced of the truths of the scriptures and have compromised their message. Some have even left the ministry in later life because they no longer believe in what they are doing. Someone the other day said to me that she was no longer participating in worship because she did not think she believed in it anymore. That is why Paul is telling Timothy that he needs to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. His strength has got to come from the Lord, not from his popularity, or personality, or his congenial environment. It is as if Paul says to him: "Never mind what other people may be thinking, or saying, or doing, or suggesting to you; never mind how weak and shy you yourself may feel; as for you, Timothy, be strong in Christ's grace!" Indeed, we have to be prepared to endure hardship, to be willing to suffer for the Gospel of Christ, in the normal run of things. Life will never be smooth. Events will occur that will shake your confidence in Christ and his Gospel. Jesus warned his disciples that they would have to face all kinds of trouble. Sickness and tragedy may strike. Friends may let you down. Enemies of your soul may attack. Therefore you have to stay focused in your faith. St. Paul uses the analogy of the soldier. Soldiers on active service do not expect a safe or easy time. They take hardship, risk, and suffering as a matter of course. These things are part and parcel of a soldier's calling. We have seen the danger that our troops have to face in Iraq. Yet all too often we civilian Christians expect our lives to go smoothly. When we hit a rough patch, and we experience hardship, we start complaining. The Christian who is engaged in a spiritual battle should not expect an easy time. Too many of us are afraid of conflict, and avoid the difficulties of fighting for what we believe, because we don't want to feel uncomfortable, or make others feel uncomfortable. Being a soldier demands the ability to face up to difficult and dangerous situations. Paul is reminding us that we are all soldiers of Christ. We have signed up for service in his army. If we are loyal to the Gospel we are sure to experience opposition and even face danger and injury. The soldier must be willing to concentrate as well as to suffer. If there is a war on, we must be prepared for inconveniences. We have to check in with the commanding officer, and get our orders for the day from him in our Bible Reading and prayer time so that we don't get confused or muddled in our priorities. If we are to be good soldiers of Jesus Christ, we must be dedicated to the battle, committing ourselves to a life of discipline, and be willing to endure suffering. We cannot afford to be distracted from our mission in life by other activities. Our mission is to follow the orders of Christ our commanding officer. Many a battle has been lost by indiscipline and dissipation in an army. [Historical account of the Battle of San Jacinto omitted for brevity] Many a life is lost by indiscipline, spiritual laziness, complacency and indifference. We can dissipate our spiritual energy in getting involved in activities that distract us from following our commander-in-chief's orders. They can cause us to lose our strength and be defeated in the battle of life. We can dissipate our energy by trying to do too much; taking on too many responsibilities, trying to please too many people, over-estimating our capacities, working too hard. Our strength needs to be conserved for the important things in life, our main task, what Christ is calling us to do. We must remain in charge of ourselves rather than giving control over our lives to others who will use us for their own purposes. We can lose our strength, and be distracted from our primary calling in life by wasting our time. The old adage that "the devil makes mischief with idle hands" contains a lot of truth. We can fill up our time on earth by one leisure activity after another: sports, hobbies, watching one television show after another, watching one video after another, surfing the Internet, and finding that our mind is being filled with someone else's values and vices. We can lose our strength in the Lord by spending too much time in company that is not positively healthy in the spiritual sense. "Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Corinthians 15:33) It is not a matter of cutting ourselves off from people whom we may be called upon to help; but there is the danger that we spend too much of our time talking about superficial things that do not matter very much. You can tell by examining yourself to see whether your spiritual strength is increasing or decreasing. If you find that you are lacking spiritually, that you have lost your edge, that you are not enjoying Christian things as you once did, you should ask where and with whom you are spending your time. We are to stand at our post; at the position in life that God has given us. We must not desert, or be half-hearted, or uncertain. We must remember why we are fighting—we believe in Christ and his cause of the kingdom of God. We hate evil, and all spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God. We fight against the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the people of God. We stand and fight against all sinful desires that draw us from the love of God. We cannot retreat from this stand. There are no backdoors in the spiritual life. We must not look back. We are facing an enemy. We can never entertain even the possible thought of failure. Defeat is not an option for us. We must be self-controlled and disciplined when under attack. We are to fight the good fight of the faith (1 Timothy 6:12). Jose Enrique de la Pena, who served under Santa Anna in Texas, wrote in his personal journal of the defeat of San Jacinto: He quoted the famous French General Turenne: "Beware of underestimating your adversary, for surely this is one of the greatest risks in war." He then went on to write: "But General Santa Anna greatly deprecated an enemy whom heretofore he had vanquished in every encounter when he had dared to show his face. He was over-confident and he communicated this feeling to those under him, giving the enemy an advantage that he could not have had otherwise." We cannot under-estimate our adversary and be over-confident if we are to stand our ground. "Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you." (Philippians 1:27-28) The Rev. Ted Schroder is pastor of the Interdenominational Amelia Island Plantation Chapel. He is an ordained Episcopal priest.

By Harold O. J. Brown | August 5, 2004 Has the nation finally abandoned its Judeo-Christian heritage, or is there still hope? Recent events have left Christians wondering how they stand in American society. In the last year, we at Christianity Today have received several manuscripts by prominent Christian intellectuals suggesting that the United States has become definitively and irreversibly anti-God. Other Christians continue to urge us to do good with the hope that we can make a difference. Each side can marshal compelling arguments and strong evidence. Yesterday and today we publish two views on the matter by two prominent evangelical leaders. Harold O. J. Brown has led a distinguished academic career, and now serves as a professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He is the author of many books, most recently The Sensate Culture (Word, 1996), and as the editor of The Religion and Society Report , Professor Brown has relentlessly exposed the folly of Western society's anti-life drift. Leith Anderson is pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Anderson is one of the most respected pastors and leaders in America, having also served as interim president of Denver Seminary and the National Association of Evangelicals. He is the author of many books, most recently Leadership That Works: Hope and Direction for Church and Parachurch Leaders in Today's Complex World (Bethany, 2002). These two articles came to us separately. The authors did not see each other's manuscripts ahead of time, and so are not debating one another. Nor are these essays intended to be finely reasoned theological or sociological arguments. While they offer arguments, they distill moods shaped by the authors' years of passionate involvement in trying to shape American culture for Christ. —The Editors From all that terror teaches, from lies of tongue and pen, From all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men, From sale and profanation of honor and the sword, From sleep and from damnation, deliver us, good Lord. —G. K. Chesterton Our nation has lived for three decades with what must be the greatest lie "of tongue and pen" of the 20th century, handed solemnly down by seven unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: "We do not know when human life begins." The conclusion that the justices drew in Roe v. Wade was unwarranted, namely, because if we say that we do not know whether human life has begun, we may allow its termination at any time up to the undeniable birth of a live baby. Now, three decades later, we have perhaps 42 million fewer Americans, of which perhaps 15 or 16 million would be between the ages of 18 and 30 today. The lie must comfort the cruel men—and the women too, now—who give us leave to terminate life prior to birth, at will. While our nation plans great things for the world—democracies in the Middle East, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, no more weapons of mass destruction (other than in our own hands or in the hands of those too powerful for us to oppose), prescription drugs for older people, no child left behind (of those who succeed in being born)—the number of us who will enjoy those great things is declining, thanks in large part to abortion, as European and American births drop below the replacement rate. What is going on here? In his 1978 Harvard Commencement address, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn uttered words that have made him forever politically incorrect: "Men have forgotten God." In the United States, a large majority of the population is associated with Christianity, and a substantial minority calls itself practicing, observant, "evangelical," "born again," or otherwise conservatively Christian. God is not forgotten on Sunday, not in the churches, great and small, that dot the landscape. But otherwise? What happened immediately after Roe v. Wade? Christians seemed to have fled to the catacombs, caves, or foxholes, for they were hardly in evidence. The anti-abortion efforts of the Roman Catholic laity put its episcopate to shame; Protestants, used to thinking of their nation as mildly Christian, did little, until the late Francis Schaeffer stirred evangelicals with his film series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? To be sure, the number of Christians now stirred up includes more than one in the high halls of power, and occasionally pious bleats are heard. But still at least one-quarter of those awaiting birth are destroyed, "safely and legally," during the nine months of pregnancy. The fact that Roe, a clear repudiation of the biblical Judeo-Christian teaching that each human is made in the image of God, did not lead to a massive rejection of the Court and its allies has shown our judges and justices that they may not only forget God, they may install idols in his place. Roe is now history. It is part of the furniture, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would put it. Now something far more important for the future of Christianity in the United States, and by implication for the future of the entire country and its people, has taken place. A Ruling for Paganism On July 8, 2003, the United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3 (in Lawrence v. Texas) did not merely forget God: It turned the nation into a pagan state—not the people, of course, not all the lesser structures and institutions such as churches, schools, and businesses great and small, but the nation. The Supreme Court, in declaring all sodomy laws unconstitutional, has in effect declared the nation pagan—not in so many words, of course, but in terms that explicitly repudiate historic Christianity, the Bible, the Torah, and the principles of natural law that guided us so long. The Court did not, of course, declare the legislature (i.e. Congress, the administration, the President, and his cabinet) pagan. It could not do so. Congress has Christian members, Catholics and Protestants, and Jewish members, some even observant and orthodox. The President and some members of his administration are Christians, some outspokenly so. But the nation, which has been slowly losing its Christianity, has now been in essence declared pagan, and all its institutions, agencies, and departments will follow, gradually or speedily. Lawrence passed by a two-thirds majority. What were those justices thinking? The man who wrote the majority opinion is a Roman Catholic. Does he not know that his church, his spiritual leader the pope, the Bible, and all of the church fathers up to the present, consider the behavior that he now protects an abominable sin, an act against nature? Was it a trivial matter to award the highest court's protection to activities against nature and the laws of God and the church? Do the two Jewish justices not know that their Torah rejects sodomy as an abomination? And the two women on the Court: By what perverted logic do they mock the role that God and nature have given to their sex in conjunction with the male—to bring children into the world in a matrimonial union—to support this perverse caricature of the purpose of sex and with it the negation of the irreplaceable role of their sex in the survival of our human race? The logic of Lawrence implicitly steers towards the dying off of the human race, or at least of such parts of it as are guided by our high court. By this tortured reasoning, if we can call it that, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, has been banned from the scene in the nation whose endeavors he has so often blessed. In his place we have, if anything, the gods of Sodom and Gomorrah. The justices, in their sovereign bliss, with the exception of the dissenters, do not seem to know what they have done. Or do they know and not care? Or know and want to do exactly what they have done? Those of us who do see and know what has been done must not wait until all of the organs of government are brought under the gods of Sodom: We must look, see, and speak. We cannot change the Court's decision, not now and perhaps not ever, but we can and must say with the Israelites of the past, regarding a crime they had not committed, "Our hands have not done this thing [orig. "shed this blood"], nor did our eyes see it . . . and do not place the guilt . . . in the midst of thy people Israel" (Deut. 21:7-8). Disaster in the Making These two Court decisions—Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas—are catastrophic symbols of what has been happening to the country at large. Much of the nation outside the government, and especially all that pertains to the elite or the establishment, has been or has recently become in essence anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-natural law, and implicitly or explicitly pagan. All of the nation's great secular universities, private and public, have turned pagan, with the exception of occasional faculty members, department heads, and other officials who have remained true to Christianity or observant Judaism. Even some confessionally bound universities, such as Baylor in Texas, are struggling to resist the trend. A few religiously affiliated colleges have remained loyal to their religious foundations. An even smaller number, such as Hillsdale College in Michigan, although not religiously affiliated, have managed to ignore the pressure to impose a totally naturalistic worldview on their students. Many churches have fallen far away from the faith of their founders, as most recently and spectacularly the Episcopal Church has done by appointing an actively homosexual bishop. Indeed, we shall see that several churches have slowly accepted beliefs and patterns of conduct that radically deny their heritage, although seldom do they do so explicitly. All this in itself is not yet a disaster, because as many rightly point out, there are many vestiges of authentic Christianity still to be found in our nation. But it would be a disaster for Christians and other God-fearers not to recognize that we've reached a turning point in our cultural history, and to go on dreaming that we can gradually change this formerly more or less Christian country for the better. Those of us who are Christians and take our commitment seriously are slow to recognize it, but ultimately it will be easier for Christians to live in a country that we know is pagan than to live in one that we think is still sufficiently Christian to listen to us and to change in accordance with Christian values. This article first appeared in August 2004, Vol. 48, No. 8, Page 38 issue of Christianity Today. Used by permission of Christianity Today International, Carol Stream, IL 60188. Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.

By Ted Schroder Ron Chernow, in his superb biography of Alexander Hamilton, recounts the final hours of the American founding father. After being fatally shot by vice president Aaron Burr in a duel, and transported back to Manhattan from Weehawken, N.J., he lay in an upstairs bedroom of William Bayard's mansion, slowly bleeding to death. When his wife and seven children (ranging in age from 2 to 20) had gathered around him, Chernow writes that Hamilton was preoccupied with spiritual matters in a way that eliminates all doubt about the sincerity of his late-flowering religious interests. No sooner was he brought to the Bayard house than he made it a matter of urgent concern to receive last rites from the Episcopal Church. He asked to see the Reverend Benjamin Moore, who was the rector of Trinity Church, the Episcopal bishop of New York, and the president of Columbia College. The eminent Moore balked at giving Hamilton holy communion as he wrestled with two nagging reservations. He thought duelling an impious practice and did not wish to sanction the confrontation with Burr. He also knew that Hamilton had not been a regular churchgoer. As a result, Bishop Moore could not, in good conscience, comply with Hamilton's wishes. Hamilton's wife, Eliza, was the member of Trinity Church and very devout. Hamilton himself read the daily service from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer to his family when they were at their country home on Sunday. He was a Christian believer but not a member of Trinity Church. Chernow continues his account: In desperation, Hamilton turned to a dear friend, the Reverend John M. Mason, the pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, which stood near the Hamilton home on Cedar Street. When Mason entered the chamber, he took Hamilton's hand, and the two men exchanged a melancholy salutation before they studied each other in mournful silence. Hamilton asked if Mason would administer communion to him. The abashed pastor said that it gave him unutterable pain to receive from Hamilton any request to which he could not accede, but in the present instance any compliance would be incompatible with his obligations. He explained that it is a principle in our churches never to administer the Lord's Supper privately to any person under any circumstances. Hamilton respected Mason's candor and prodded him no further. Mason tried to console Hamilton by saying that all men had sinned and were equal in God's sight. "I perceive it to be so," Hamilton said. "I am a sinner. I look to His mercy." As Mason told how Christ's blood would wash away his sins, Hamilton grasped his hand, rolled his eyes heavenward, and exclaimed with fervor, "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." Rebuffed by Mason, Hamilton redirected his hopes of communion to the skittish Benjamin Moore. The bishop now faced considerable pressure to appease Hamilton, whose friends thought it heartless to refuse a dying man's last wish. Willing to reconsider, the stern prelate returned to the scene at one o'clock that afternoon. Hamilton roused himself for one last burst of persuasion. "My dear Sir," he told Moore, "you perceive my unfortunate situation and no doubt have been made acquainted with the circumstances which led to it. It is my desire to receive communion at your hands. I hope you will not conceive there is any impropriety in my request." Then he added, "It has for some time past been the wish of my heart and it was my intention to take an early opportunity of uniting myself to the church by the reception of that holy ordinance." Hamilton expressed faith in God's mercy. After renouncing dueling, he said that he had no ill will against Burr and he meant him no harm, and he forgave all that had happened. At that point Moore relented and gave holy communion to Hamilton, who then lay back serenely and declared that he was happy. Why was receiving holy communion so important to Hamilton, and why should it be important to us? In Luke 22 the account of the Last Supper indicates that it took place within the context of the Passover meal, which commemorated the deliverance of the people of Israel from judgment and slavery. The Passover lamb was sacrificed and eaten, as a reminder of God's salvation through the Red Sea, and his gift of the Promised Land. Jesus takes this imagery and provides in himself the sacrifice on the Cross, so that we might travel safely through death and resurrection into the kingdom of God. He inaugurated a new covenant in his blood, which is poured out for us in his death. The bread broken and the wine poured, stands for his sacrifice for our salvation. The Bread and the cup is the outward part, or sign, eaten and drunk physically, that witnesses to us of the inward part, or thing signified, which is the body broken and the blood shed, taken spiritually by faith to remind us of the reality of our salvation. To a dying man it is the tangible witness that God loves him so much that he would give his only Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. I was taught in my Catechism that the benefits of receiving the elements of communion are the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine. What is required to receive this assurance of salvation and eternal life? To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men. Alexander Hamilton knew those words because they were part of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which was used at Trinity Church and he used at home to instruct his children. Therefore he prepared himself to receive holy communion with that in mind. After he had received communion he would have said with Benjamin Moore, what all who received communion would say, that they are assured of God's favor and goodness, that they are truly members incorporate in the mystical body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of God's everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of God's dear Son. Receiving holy communion provides assurance of the truths of the Gospel and acts to strengthen one's faith in time of need. This is why Jesus said to the disciples in the upper room: "Do this in remembrance of me." Jesus did this on the eve of his death. Alexander Hamilton did this on the eve of his death. This is why it is important to us. The Rev. Ted Schroder is pastor of the chapel on Amelia Island Plantation in Florida. He is an ordained Episcopal priest.

By Ted Schroder "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist." (NIV) "Stand, therefore, having girded your loins with truth..." (RSV) (Ephesians 6:14) The belt held together the loose tunic of the soldier. It gave him freedom and security to go into action. "Girded" is the same word as translated "buckled." Jesus said, "Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning..." (Luke 12:35) Jesus is saying, "Be ready for action. Be prepared for any eventuality that may come in life." A belt protects us from injuring ourselves. It gives us the support we need when we are bending over, or lifting heavy objects. It is worn by athletes in training, when they are lifting weights. A seat belt holds us within the zone of safety provided by the frame of our automobile. It prevents us from being thrown out of the vehicle and injured when we are involved in a collision or other kinds of accidents. Recently a woman driving on the Matthews Bridge in Jacksonville was not wearing a seat belt when she was involved in an accident. As a result she was thrown over the side of the bridge to her death. It was July 16, 1951 and I was 10 years old. That morning I woke to find my mother packing her suitcase. Normally a very self-possessed woman, that morning she was very emotionally distressed. She had reason to be. She had just received news that my father had been involved in an accident. With three of his best friends, he had driven to Christchurch, five hours away, to play in a golf tournament. Dad had just turned 40, the others were all in their thirties. One of them was our family attorney, Amos James, whose office was directly opposite the public library, and who let me read his National Geographic magazines when I went to return my books. After spending some time at the nineteenth hole, they returned in my father's car to the hotel. I was told by another friend that they were probably laughing at the jokes Ozzie Howat (34) was known to crack as they approached an unguarded railroad crossing. The driver was not paying attention and they were hit by a locomotive. My father's three closest friends were killed. He was found on the rear seat with the others on top of him. Despite it being his car, he had not been driving. The only survivor, he was to remain in hospital for many weeks recovering from his injuries. I will never forget the funeral of those three young men. The whole town turned out. There were truckloads of floral wreaths. It was an evil day. There were no seat belts. If they had been buckled up there is a possibility that my father's three friends would have survived. My contention is that we all need to be buckled up by the belt of truth if we are to survive when the locomotive of life comes barreling down on us and we are faced with the evil day of crisis. But what is this belt of truth? There are many who would say today that there is no truth, that we are surrounded by propaganda, with perception which distorts the truth, with facts which are seen from the viewers' perspective. Truth is increasingly seen as a dirty word, an attempt to manipulate and oppress others. There do not seem to be firm and reliable landmarks, no points that hold sure and unchanged in a sea of relativity. One person's view seems as good as any other, leaving the door open for people to believe in anything or nothing. But once truth is abandoned, the distinction between truth and falsity disappears. If we are tolerant of what anyone claims as truth we deny the possibility of contradiction. We wind up by saying that "all religions are the same," when they claim to be very different. Tolerance used to mean the respecting of real, hard differences. It has come to mean rejecting any claims to universal truth, and a belief in moral relativism - "you let me believe and behave what I think is true for me and I will not judge your beliefs and behavior." In other words tolerance has become a religious and moral libertarianism. We are all for openness, but when it is opposed to thinking that there is a right from wrong, it is hostile to being committed to any truth. The new dogmatism of the day teaches that a believer in compelling truth and who has convictions is dangerous and deluded. As a result life becomes a sea of meaninglessness where anything is morally permitted; where anyone's truth (opinion, belief) is as good as anyone else's, and there is no final word about who we are and what we are meant to become. All truth claims, including the denial that there is such a thing as truth, can be denied. There are no arguments that can prove one truth claim over another beyond any shadow of a doubt. All truth requires faith, the personal appropriation of the truth that is asserted. Each one of us has to buckle his own belt with the action of faith. Each of us has to commit ourselves to the truth of the claim that cannot be decisively proven, but to which we are willing to stake our lives on. We do it every day when we drive a car over a bridge, get on a plane or an elevator, write a check, deposit our money in a bank, buy something on the internet, sign a contract, take medication, undergo surgery, or marry someone. Each of us lives by the truth to which we have committed ourselves. Everyone is buckled up to one truth claim or another. The media bombards us with truth claims about the products and ideas it advertises. The entertainment industry promotes its own truth claims through stimulating excitement which usually comes through demeaning marriage in favor of extramarital sex, and portraying religion in critical ways. Family, tradition, church is seen to be repressive and individual amorality is championed. The central moral truth claim of Hollywood is to believe in yourself rather than anything outside of yourself. It is a belt of lies that leads to destructive lifestyles. We need a criterion of truth that will help us distinguish between truth and deceptive illusion. If we believe that all facts are subject to interpretation - which they are - how can we arrive at the truth that will guide us and be the rock on which we can build our lives? What is the belt of truth that gives us security and support in the evil day? We have to make a decision about the reality of God, about the existence of the spiritual, eternal world, and about the truth claims of the prophets, apostles, and, above all, Jesus. Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31,32) The belt of truth for the Christian believer is the teaching of Jesus. The Christian has committed himself to Jesus, and wants to live out the implications of that commitment in his life. We believe that the more the presence of Jesus lives in us, the more we will know true freedom. The more we experience the truth and wisdom of his teaching, the more we will be set free from bondage to sin to live life in all its fullness. When we are set free from self-centeredness, from self-absorption, the more we can discover the freedom of serving Christ and his kingdom of love and justice, and making a difference in the world. Instead of the truth of Jesus being seen to be oppressive and limiting, it is seen to be liberating and fulfilling. Many people will not marry because they don't want to be tied down, or committed, or have their options closed. They want their love to be "liquid" rather than solid as Zygmunt Bauman has described western lifestyles. As a result they are enslaved by their self-centeredness and never discover the joy of caring more for another than themselves. Many people do not want to commit themselves to Jesus as the truth, because it would close out other options. As a result they are left without a belt to hold them steady and protect them in their lives. To put on the belt of truth is to support yourself with a belief in, and a knowledge of, the truth as it is in Jesus. It is to be mastered by that truth. It is to be held together by that truth. It binds you and holds you together. It puts you on your feet and gives you the security and support you need to stand in the evil day. The truth of Christ is the first piece of God's armor we put on. Without it we are completely lost. A person needs a knowledge of who he is and what he is for to have meaning and purpose in his life. So we need a settled conviction with regard to the truth. We need the security of a certain faith. Unless we believe in the truth of the cause for which we are fighting, we will not fight very well, if at all. Morale is affected by the degree to which we believe in the truth of the cause. Conviction of the truth can affect whether a battle is won or lost. The battle of life, is a spiritual war between the truth of Christ, and the lies of the forces of evil. The truth liberates, lies enslave. We are engaged in a war in which lives are at risk. If people follow the lies that masquerade as truth they will be destroyed. Those lies promise happiness and freedom from pain, but instead they produce despair and terrible suffering. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) One of Satan's most effective lies is that people are at their most free when in pursuit of "free thought", "free expression" and "free love". In his book "The People of the Lie", Scott Peck gives case after case of people who have bought into the lies of the devil. These are people who attack others instead of facing their own failures. They construct layer upon layer of self-deception in order to avoid the pain of self-examination. They often succeed in deceiving others, and so are People of the Lie. When the day of evil comes in our lives we want to be sure and certain of what we believe. It is the truth that we have belted around our waists in better days that will hold us together and give us the support we need to get through the bad days. When we know the truth, and are sure and certain of what we believe, we experience the assurance of conviction. Confidence replaces anxiety, the security of faith drives out fear. This is what we see in Jesus. Before Pilate he says, "for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (John 19:37,38) Jesus gave no reply to Pontius Pilate. Jesus claimed, not that he knew the truth, but that he was the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6) Truth is not just a claim but a person who embodied those claims. He claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed to live the truth. Why did Jesus not reply to Pontius Pilate? If Jesus was the truth and Pilate standing before him, could not recognize it, then there was nothing Jesus could say that would persuade him of it. When we recognize that Jesus is the Truth and commit ourselves to follow him, and his teaching, we can be sure and secure. The powers of hell will not prevail against us. We will be able to stand firm against the devil's schemes. A postscript. Twenty years after my father's automobile accident, Antoinette and I were attending a function at the New Zealand High Commission (equivalent to embassy), in London. As we were circulating we met and introduced ourselves to another young couple. Immediately the wife heard my name she burst into tears and ran out of the room. Her husband explained. She was the daughter of Amos James, our family attorney who had been killed in the accident. She had learned that I and my parents, were in London, but couldn't get up the courage to meet us. Her brother had gone into the Catholic priesthood. Our lives had been impacted by that fatal accident so long ago. The three friends might have survived if they had been wearing seat belts. Life is fragile. When the evil day comes we need the belt of truth to hold us together. The Rev. Ted Schroder is pastor of the chapel on Amelia Island Plantation in Florida. He is an ordained Episcopal priest.

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue LONDON (8/6/2004) -- The widely read British broadsheet newspaper The Telegraph, has come out slamming the possible appointment of Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir Ali as a successor to Dr. David Hope who retires shortly as Archbishop of York. In a scathing editorial this week, the Telegraph said the Crown Appointments Commission and Downing Street must find one, and that convention suggests that the job should go to an evangelical, but that no suitable candidate was available. The Telegraph opined that Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, an Evangelical, was singularly unsuitable because he "made a fool of himself by pushing himself forward for Canterbury." This statement by the Telegraph is simply untrue. At the time of a successor being sought for Dr. George Carey, the name of Michael Nazir-Ali emerged as did many others, including other evangelicals, and the press, along with this writer speculated as to who might succeed the Evangelical Carey. One possibility was Bishop Nazir-Ali. During that period Dr. Nazir-Ali was hounded and accused of being both homophobic by the overtly loud-mouthed and ugly British gay community, with press reports accusing him of plagiarism in one of his several doctoral dissertations. These charges were unfounded and never proven to be true. But the accusations stuck and Bishop Nazir-Ali's chances of becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury were dead on arrival. Now this writer had the opportunity to spend several breakfasts with the Bishop of Rochester at a hotel in Minneapolis at the time of the ECUSA General Convention and he talked hesitantly but with a good deal of pain about the personal vilification he had suffered at the hands of the British Press and the Church of England's gay community. Dr. Nazir-Ali is a gentle soul and the personal attacks hurt him terribly, and he was still feeling the after affects as we talked about it over coffee, now many months later. The attacks were doubly strange to him because he was the one person who, having been born in a predominantly Islamic nation would have best understood how to speak to the growing Islamic threat in the world today, and he would have been far more outright in public declarations of the gospel and the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity. The present incumbent, Dr. Rowan Williams seems more bent on appeasing Islam and finding common ground between the Abrahamic religions, rather than facing head on the possibility that Islam, an evangelistic religion itself, is bent on either converting or destroying Christian believers. How much better to have had a Pakistani born bishop from the Global South who could talk to Primate Peter Akinola, than a wifty Affirming Catholic that no one seems to understand to lead the Anglican Communion! Hindsight tells us that Dr. Nazir-Ali might have been a far better choice as Archbishop of Canterbury. That, however, is history. The choice now is who would best succeed the High Churchman, Dr. David Hope as the next Archbishop of York. If no other candidate emerges who has the credentials that Dr. Nazir-Ali has, then thoughtful people might rightly assume that the growing, and increasingly angry British Evangelical Anglican community could best be suited by having an Evangelical like Nazir-Ali for all the reasons stated. Certainly some balance is needed to offset the Affirming Catholic Rowan Williams. An Anglo-Catholic replacement would not be suitable as one would not speak for the majority of British Anglicans, and they are busy looking for a Third Province to get out from under the liberalizing trends in the Church of England, especially, and because of, women's ordination. If Nazir-Ali is given the job, he might be the one person who could rescue the Anglican Communion as it heads towards the cliff edge. His evangelicalism and scholarship would be hailed in the Global South. Being a person of color would be a considerable plus as well. That he would have a strong voice in the corridors of ecclesiastical power and be close to Canterbury wouldn't hurt either. He could also keep the Anglican Communion Office in its place. They could not ignore him. He would balance them out on trips to Africa. The Telegraph editorial opined that The Church of England (COE) was "finished" as an "Anglican" entity during the tenure of Archbishop of Canterbury Carey; the final dissolution of the COE as an Anglican entity will be accomplished under Archbishop of Canterbury Williams. They may well be right. If a "new" Anglican Communion, centered in Africa, South East Asia and the Southern Cone emerges later this year or early next year (2005) then Nazir-Ali might well be the person that English Evangelicals could turn to as they watch the last remnants of the Church of England head with gadarene like swiftness over the cliff's edge. The Anglo-Catholics will head to Rome or demand a "His and Hers" church. But a new generation of ALPHA-driven English evangelical Anglicans will need a leader and there is, quite possibly, none better than the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali.

To all Virtuosity readers. Please read the following statement which came unsolicited from a long time Virtuosity subscriber. Fellow Virtuosity Readers around the World, How important is it to you to keep the lights on, the telephone service working, and your other household or church utilities in good working order? Such support services are essential, aren't they? When you think about your mission and ministry budget, support services don't generally inspire a lot of excitement for the spread of the Gospel. All too often we take them for granted, but as you well know, they're essential. So it is with the cyber journal Virtuosity. I for one think it's essential, especially in these days of great turmoil, reformation, and realignment in the Anglican Communion. I am guilty of taking Virtuosity for granted. I expect to receive the Virtuosity Digest in my inbox every few days now because David has been giving us increased coverage and analysis with so much happening in the Church on a daily basis. In fact I usually check the website daily to be sure I haven't missed something. Frankly, our impassioned cyber journalist has been working overtime to keep us informed. I e-mailed him yesterday telling him how critical I thought the upcoming African Bishops Conference in late October will be since it comes shortly after the release of the Lambeth (Eames) Report, and to a large degree the future of the Anglican Communion is in the hands of the Global South Primates. I asked David if he'd be there to cover it for us. I frankly expected him to be there since he's traveled to so many important events to give us reliable and timely coverage and analysis. Some have said David's a bit fiery, but, for my money, he's the most accurate and comprehensive reporter we have. I do believe that God has raised him up for a time such as this. David had to tell me that he doubted that he would be able to travel to the conference since, frankly, he is extremely short on the minimum funds needed to keep his service up and running. Friends, this is not just a "we're running a bit behind" message. This is a serious "not sure if I can continue" situation. I've supported David from time to time in the past, but not on a regular basis. My wife Ginny and I are going to dig into our reserves for now, and we're going to put him in our 2005 monthly budget. As Dean of the Network's Southeastern Convocation, I need current information and analysis on the Anglican Communion. Other than my weekly conversations with the Network leadership, I rely on David as my primary news source over all the other excellent websites, listservs, and blogs. I know that thousands of you rely on David as well. I encourage those of you who do to keep the lights on and the service working. Check your personal offerings budget and your discretionary funds to get Virtuosity through 2004, and when you're setting your parish and personal budgets this fall for 2005, prayerfully consider adding Virtuosity to your monthly giving. Your brother in Christ, Rev. James K. McCaslin, Jr.+ Dean, Southeastern Convocation Anglican Communion Network Rector, All Souls Church Jacksonville, FL 32257 You can send your tax deductible donation to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380 OR through PAYPAL at the Virtuosity website. www.virtuosityonline.org Your donation will be responded to promptly. Thank you David W. Virtue DD

LETTER: To The Clergy and Faithful Diocese of Ruvuma THE STATEMENT OF THE BISHOP OF RUVUMA CONFIRMING THE PLACE OF THE DIOCESE OF RUVUMA IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF TANZANIA IN THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION Friends of the Diocese of Ruvuma have drawn to the attention of the Bishop of Ruvuma during his stay abroad pursuing theological study, a newspaper report in which the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion is reported to have claimed that the Diocese of Ruvuma has entered into full communion with that Communion. While the Bishop of Ruvuma has already assured Friends of the Diocese who enquired about the matter, that nothing to that effect has taken place, this is his Official Statement confirming that, as it has always been, so the Diocese of Ruvuma remains a Diocese in the Anglican Church of Tanzania, in the Global Anglican Communion. At no time has the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma considered joining the Traditional Anglican Communion. Only the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma could decide to take such a step. The Bishop of Ruvuma, who is an Associate Bishop (Member) of Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) was encouraged by the faith he saw when at the FIFNA 2002 Annual Assembly. At that meeting FIFNA entered into full Sacramental Communion with the Traditional Anglican Communion. The Bishop witnessed the event at the Belleville, St Louis Assembly. Subsequently he initiated correspondence with the then TAC Primate, Archbishop Louis Falk exploring possibilities of a link with him and the TAC Bishops especially those who are in Africa cooperating in the ministry of the Church for the salvation of souls and to the glory of God. The Bishop of Ruvuma already maintains such links with FIFNA, a constituency of FIF/UK and FIF/Australia, which have recently initiated such a link with him. He also maintains such links with Bishops in the Anglican Continuum. It was at the June 2003 FIFNA Annual Assembly at Rosemont Pennsylvania, that the Bishop of Ruvuma met the new TAC Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth and continued exploring the possibilities of cooperation in the ministry of the Gospel. When asked, he told the Primate specifically that he was pursuing this as a Bishop of the Church and that it did not involve the status quo of his Diocese. It was at the Rosemont FIFNA Annual Assembly that the Bishop of Ruvuma calling for unity among orthodox Anglicans (and other orthodox Christians) proclaimed the axiom: "One Faith, One Team, One Game". When, in May 2004 the TAC Primate en route to his apostolate in Central Africa made a flying one-day visit to the Bishop of Ruvuma, he was made welcome. The Bishop introduced him to his Clergy and Faithful as a brother in the Faith, stating that his visit stemmed from the unity in the faith that we share, the unity in Our Lord and Saviour, the unity that we celebrate in the Eternal Sacrifice. It was during the celebration of the Eternal Sacrifice that the Clergy and Faithful presented him with a gift of the Ciborium and the Bishop presented him with a Kiswahili copy of the Bible challenging him to return to the Diocese in the future and to preach the Gospel in Kiswahili. The Bishop of Ruvuma reiterated his call for unity among orthodox Anglicans and orthodox Christians in the "One Faith, One Team, One Game" axiom. Never, during the TAC Primate's visit (or at any other time at all) was the idea of the Diocese of Ruvuma 'joining' the TAC ever thought of, let alone discussed. The Bishop of Ruvuma wishes to reiterate in this Statement, his commitment to continue defending the faith of the Church once delivered to the saints and the catholic order of the Church. He reiterates his commitment to the pursuit of unity among orthodox Christians as a divine mission to which he believes he has been called by Our Lord and Saviour. He blesses the Lord for the full support that the Clergy and Faithful of the Diocese of Ruvuma lend him in his apostolic labours both in the Diocese and in the wider Church. The Statement which the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter and the Committee of Rural Deans of the Diocese of Ruvuma issued on 09.06.2004, a copy of which is being sent to you, is a clear testimony to this support. As the Diocesan of that part of the Vineyard of the Lord which is the Diocese of Ruvuma, in the Anglican Church of Tanzania in the Global Anglican Communion, the Bishop of Ruvuma reiterates his commitment to carrying out those apostolic labours which the Lord of the Vineyard which is His Church will thrust on his shoulders for the Salvation of Souls et Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. He begs your prayers, that the Lord Our Merciful God, will remember his episcopate and his apostolic labours in His Kingdom-always. Sincerely In Him, His slave, Rt Rev Dr Maternus K Kapinga Bishop of ACT-Ruvuma

Special Report By David W. Virtue PONCE, PR (8/5/2004) -- An Anglo-Catholic priest and hospital chaplain in the Diocese of Puerto Rico of The Episcopal Church, has been fired by the bishop for holding to orthodox biblical views on the issue of homosexual practice. The Rev Luis Morales, 55, a Forward in Faith priest in the Diocese, has been terminated by revisionist Bishop David A. Alvarez and relieved of his job as a chaplain to St Luke's II Episcopal Hospital in the city of Ponce, Puerto Rico. He has not been immediately inhibited or deposed but expects the bishop to proceed in that direction. "I am not surprised at what this bishop has done. He is no lover of the gospel, and he hates people who are orthodox," he told Virtuosity. "I rejoice in my martyrdom." The priest said he was fired on July 23 and is now on vacation but will not return September 1. Fr. Morales said the problems began after the Minneapolis General Convention and later with the Robinson consecration. "I met with Bishop Alvarez in private and told him I was going to distance myself from his positions on sexuality. I held a press conference with the knowledge of the bishop to state my position. We corresponded back and forth." The priest was rector of Holy Trinity in Ponce, the island's first and oldest Episcopal Church. The parish church was built in 1869. "I, along with the vestry resigned after one year because the bishop made a decision regarding the parochial school contrary to what the parish and vestry agreed upon with him. The bishop then offered me a position as hospital chaplain at St. Luke's Memorial Hospital 2." Fr. Morales said that some 30 parishioners from Holy Trinity followed him and started attending the chapel at the hospital, but the bishop would not recognize them, so fearing they would have no spiritual oversight the priest decided to ask for spiritual help from the Anglican Mission in America. "I have not personally joined the AMIA but when Bishop Alvarez found out that the group wanted to become part of the Anglican Mission, he sent two letters telling them they could not worship in the chapel. When I shared that information with the people they stopped going to the chapel and came together as a more structured group. I saw it as my pastoral responsibility to turn them over to a priest who would take care of them," he told Virtuosity. Holy Trinity which once had about 100 members has since dropped to less than 35 active members, said Morales. "The bishop is painting it all as personal and wants to portray himself as the victim and we are persecuting him, but it is not true." Fr. Morales turned to his old friend the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris and Dean Humberto Nieves. Dr. Paris had already been stripped of his priesthood and deposed by Bishop Alvarez for writing a book condemning the revisionist arguments supporting the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The priest said that Dean Nieves had resigned to be part of the AMIA, but the bishop would not accept his resignation, but he decided to join and worship under the protection of the Anglican Mission anyway. "I wrote to the bishop and told him that I had turned the 30 worshippers over to the AMIA and if you want to get rid of me you can get rid of me from the hospital." "I had earlier asked the bishop for DEPO but he flatly refused and said these people could not apply because they were not an official congregation. He then said they could not use the Chapel anymore. I was devastated by the bishop's action. It was unnecessarily vindictive." Fr. Morales said the group decided to leave and join the AMIA and made a formal request to Bishop Alexander M. Greene, who oversees their mission which is run by the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dr Paris who was forcibly deposed is now with the Anglican Mission. Bishop Greene then delegated the pastoral oversight of the group in Ponce to the Rev Paris, who is now pastoring the new Anglican Mission of St Peter & St Paul, with the Deacon Humberto Nieves. "Bishop Alvarez has stated in meetings with his clergy that sexual intercourse between men and men and women with women must not be viewed as a sin. One of his more recent arguments for his revisionist positions is that no Ecumenical Council has ever censured homosexual practice." Bishop Alvarez has also been very vocal through the media in Puerto Rico, promoting support for homosexual practices and has lobbied the local legislature to promote laws that will favor gay couples and civil unions, Paris told Virtuosity. "To date he has deposed three priests, inhibited another, and will fire from work and pay any priest that does not bend to his 'hermeneutics'. In a nutshell his pastoral program can be described as promotion of the gay agenda and a heavy hand against the orthodox in his diocese," said Paris in a phone call to Virtuosity. Bishop Alvarez was the only bishop in ECUSA's Province IX that voted in favor of the V. Gene Robinson consecration and confirmation. Interviewed on the Morales firing, Dr. Paris, who is also a Psychologist and Professor at the University of Puerto Rico, told Virtuosity: "This is a clear picture of what is really going on in the ECUSA. On one side you have Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and his assistants working hard to project an image of the Church that is struggling to promote reconciliation and understanding amongst its different groups; on the other hand, revisionists in ECUSA are discreetly suffocating any and all dissident points of view that tries to promote orthodox positions or any type of faith founded on Scripture." Dr. Paris said there were many in the Anglican Communion, especially in Puerto Rico who are sincerely waiting on the Lambeth Commission to provide alternative communion structures to resolving their problem. "St. Paul addressed the issues when he talked about light and darkness not having fellowship with one other," said Paris. The situation in The Episcopal Church cannot go on forever, there will be a day of reckoning, he said. In October 2003, three priests including the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris, the Rev. Dr. Manuel A. Rivera assistant priest of the Spanish speaking congregation at the cathedral church of St. John Baptist and the Rev. Pedro Balleste, a senior cleric in the diocese were all inhibited by the bishop. Dr. Paris and Rev. Balleste were deposed. Fr. Balleste is currently assisting Dr. Paris with the two AMIA missions.

By Stanley Kurtz NRO Contributing Editor The Federal Marriage Amendment can win. Anyone who believes it can't simply hasn't thought through the complicated chess game that is the battle over gay marriage. I'm not saying the FMA is bound to pass. Marshaling the super majorities required to ratify a constitutional amendment is always an uphill battle. But the FMA has a vastly greater chance of passage than most folks realize. We're only past stage one of the process. And the overwhelming victory in Missouri this week of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman has ushered in stage two. A federal constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and must be ratified by three quarters of the states. Impossible? Well, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) received well over two thirds of the vote in both houses, and three quarters of the states now have DOMAs of their own. (The number of state DOMAs recently expanded from 37 to 38.) Some say the country is more liberal on gay marriage than it was in 1996. And the public is always reluctant to amend the federal constitution. Yet Americans oppose gay marriage by large margins, and that opposition is easily enlarged by events. Above all, much of the sentiment against an amendment rests on the conviction that federal and state DOMAs will hold. Once the DOMAs come under attack, everything is going to change. The gay-marriage contest is not like other political battles. It has its own rather peculiar political dynamic. Gay marriage is an issue most people prefer to avoid. The public may oppose gay marriage, but what it really wants is to avoid having to talk about it. This creates a false impression of apathy. Yet when court-imposed gay marriage looks inevitable, the public's stance flips. Once people decide that gay marriage is about to be forced on them against their will, they are galvanized into action. It's happened again and again. Back in 1998, Hawaiians amended their state constitution to prevent their supreme court from imposing gay marriage. In 2000, Vermont's formerly quiescent conservatives were pushed into full rebellion by civil unions. The Republicans managed to take back the lower house of the Vermont state legislature for the first time in 14 years - this in a state won in a walk by Gore (with a huge vote for Nader to boot). For those with eyes to see, it was clear in the last session of the Massachusetts state legislature that the state's Supreme Judicial Court was about to legalize gay marriage. Yet given public reluctance to deal with the issue, the Democratic leadership managed to squelch an effort to call a constitutional convention. After Goodridge, though, Massachusetts was turned upside down for months at a time, as session after deadlocked session of a constitutional convention bitterly debated gay marriage. There were angry public demonstrations, and the media was filled with the issue for weeks on end. Finally, a constitutional convention passed an amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman - and provided for civil unions. Delaying the Inevitable If all this can happen in one of the most liberal states in the union, we can expect an even greater battle once it becomes clear that gay marriage is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The public is reluctant to act on this issue until they absolutely have to, precisely because people fear the polarizing debate that inevitably follows. Yet time and again, when pushed to the wall by the courts, the public has been galvanized into action. Sometime between now and the moment the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take a gay-marriage case, the American public is going to experience its own galvanic moment. At that point, all illusions that federal or state DOMAs can hold will be swept aside, and the battle over the Federal Marriage Amendment will be well and truly joined. I can't tell you whether the FMA will pass at that moment, but I can tell you that it's going to get a whole lot more votes than it received in the Senate a few weeks ago. Right now, the national battle over gay marriage is at the stage the state battle was in when the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature squelched concerted calls for a constitutional convention. While plenty of people are girding for the inevitable showdown, many others are doing what they can to delay and deny. Yet the truth is, a major national showdown is inevitable. And when that moment comes, the FMA is going to get a whole lot closer to passage than anyone now realizes. A two-thirds vote in Congress is by no means out of the question. Looking at the recent Senate FMA debate, you can see the signs. It was next to impossible to find a Democrat willing to defend gay marriage. Instead, the Democrats claimed that DOMA would hold, and dismissed the drive for an amendment as a distraction. Most Republicans, on the other hand, argued vigorously in favor of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There were plenty of references to the critical importance of marriage for children, and to Europe's experience of gay marriage. There was a time when gay-marriage advocates claimed that Republicans were afraid of this issue, and bereft of substantive arguments. Yet in the Senate, it was the Democrats who awkwardly ran from substantive debate. When the progress of this issue through the courts makes it clear that an up or down vote on substance is required, what are the Democrats going to do? A couple of weeks ago, the House passed a bill that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over gay marriage. That vote was a shot across the bow of every court in the country. The House put the judiciary on notice that their usurpation of the legislative role puts their powers at risk. Still, the vote on court stripping was prelude to a later showdown over the Federal Marriage Amendment. Even stripping the federal courts of their authority to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA would not prevent them from imposing gay marriage on equal protection or due-process grounds. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. But the House vote was clearly a warning to the courts that a major battle looms. There is simply no issue on which media bias is greater than gay marriage. The New York Times buried news of the House's court-stripping vote on page 19. Yet after the Senate vote, the press played up the Republicans' failure to get close to a two-thirds vote, and touted the supposed split within Republican ranks. And of course, gay-marriage advocates did their best to portray the FMA campaign as nothing but an attempt to cater to religious conservatives. Democratic Indecision On just about every point, the truth is the reverse of the media's line. It's not just that the recent FMA vote was merely a prelude to what will surely be a more serious and closely fought showdown in the future. The truth is, it's the Democrats who are divided on gay marriage. Republicans oppose gay marriage by large margins. Democrats are almost evenly split. That's why some Senate Democrats support the amendment. And that's why virtually no Senate Democrats dare argue in favor of gay marriage. The truth is, there simply aren't enough religious conservatives in the country to account for substantial majority of the public that opposes gay marriage. It wasn't conservative Southern Baptists who prevented Senate Democrats from making an open defense of gay marriage. It was the many independents and moderate Democrats who think gay marriage is a bad idea. If you want to get a truer picture of what's happening in the gay-marriage battle, look at Oregon. Oregon is a battleground state that could easily be tipped into the president's column by the issue of gay marriage. Activist judges have been issuing marriage licenses in an Oregon county. And elected officials in Oregon have taken some truly outrageous actions to circumvent democratic procedures and impose gay marriage on the public. Outrage over all this has kicked off intense public debate. Petitions to place an amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot received more signatures than any other ballot measure in Oregon's history. Oregon senator Gordon Smith's speech on the Senate floor did not fit the stereotype purveyed by gay-marriage advocates of those who support FMA. Smith spoke eloquently for the many Americans who happily approve of greater social tolerance for gays, yet who also believe that gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage. But the big news this week was the runaway victory of a state marriage amendment in Missouri. The measure passed with 71 percent of the vote. That is a strikingly high number - substantially higher than pre-vote polling. A pre-election poll by the Kansas City Star had found that 62 percent would favor the amendment, with 20 percent opposed and 8 percent undecided. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll conducted a week before the vote had 56 percent of voters in support of the amendment, with 38 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided. While the final 71-percent margin might have indicated a last-minute surge, it's more likely that some voters were reluctant to tell pollsters that they favored the amendment. On this issue, polls often underplay voter support for one-man, one-woman marriage. This suggests that current polling substantially underestimates public support for a Federal Marriage Amendment as well. Ah, but perhaps recognizing the depth of public sentiment on this issue, gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges alike will hold off on further attempts to transform the meaning of marriage. Don't bet on it. Just yesterday, a judge in Washington state ruled to legalize gay marriage. (The decision has been stayed pending final resolution by the Washington state Supreme Court.) Since Washington is one of the 38 states with their own DOMA laws, explicitly defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it's evident that neither fear of, nor respect for, democratically expressed public opinion have called this process to a halt. In his decision (which never truly confronted the key arguments against same-sex marriage), Judge William Downing explicitly stated that he could not allow the political ramifications of the issue to stop him from rendering a decision. This, again, reflects the unique legal-political dynamic of the gay-marriage question. Although the analogy is seriously flawed, gay-marriage advocates see this issue as one of fundamental civil rights. They cannot and will not hold back from moving gay marriage through the courts. Once faced with the issue, liberal judges recoil in horror from the prospect of going down in history as an opponent of civil rights. So despite the political risks of pressing forward, the process moves on of its own ineluctable weight. This is truly a case where an irresistible force is hurtling swiftly toward an immovable object. And when the clash comes, the political calculations in this dispute are going to change. The media have continually stressed the supposed apathy of the American people on this issue. Yet the arousing of the public in Missouri, Oregon - and a series of other states - belies those claims. As soon as people believe that elites are about to impose gay marriage on them, they spring into action, however reluctantly. The electoral fate of senators who voted not to consider the FMA will give an early indication of how this campaign is going. But the recent votes in the House and Senate are just the beginning of the dawning realization that, in the end, this is a national issue that requires a national solution. Sooner or later, the inevitable raft of lawsuits, the chaos of marriages that fall apart on the Interstate, and the untiring efforts of gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges to circumvent the democratic process, will force the issue nationally. When the final showdown comes - and it will come - victory for the FMA is a very real possibility.