Archives

(Image: “The Christian Martyrs’ Last Prayer” (1883) by Jean‑Léon Gérôme) By Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore www.virtueonline.org March 18, 2026 There comes a moment in every civilization when the tension between the world and the Church becomes impossible to ignore. For long periods the two coexist uneasily but peacefully. The Church worships, teaches, baptizes, buries, and quietly forms souls. The world conducts its business—commerce, politics, ambition, entertainment. The relationship is rarely harmonious, but it is usually manageable. Then something changes. The world begins to demand more. What once asked for tolerance begins to demand affirmation. What once allowed disagreement begins to require conformity. What once permitted the Church to exist now insists that the Church must change. When that moment arrives, Christians face a question that has appeared again and again throughout history: What does the Church do when the world pushes too far? The Church can live with disagreement. What she cannot survive is the demand to deny what she knows to be true. The Inevitability of Collision Christianity contains within itself a natural limit to cultural accommodation. The faith is not merely a set of evolving moral sentiments. It is rooted in revelation—truths believed to have been given by God rather than invented by man. Because of this, Christianity cannot endlessly reshape itself according to the preferences of each new generation. Modern culture struggles with this idea. Nearly every institution today is expected to adapt to the spirit of the age. Corporations revise their values statements. Universities reinvent their mission. Governments redefine their principles whenever political winds shift. Why should the Church be any different? The answer is simple. The Church does not belong to the age. She belongs to Christ. For centuries Western culture tolerated this distinction because it still retained the moral framework Christianity had helped create. But as that inheritance fades, the pressure increases. The world no longer asks the Church to cooperate; it demands that the Church conform. And when the Church refuses, the accusations begin. She is labeled outdated. Intolerant. Harmful. Obstructive to progress. None of this is new. A Pattern as Old as the Gospel The earliest Christians encountered precisely the same dynamic in the Roman Empire. Rome was generally tolerant of religious diversity. Temples to dozens of gods existed throughout the empire. New cults appeared regularly. The state rarely objected. But Rome demanded one thing above all else: loyalty expressed through ritual acknowledgment of the emperor’s divine authority. For most people this requirement was trivial. A pinch of incense, a brief prayer, and life continued normally. Christians could not do it. They would pray for the emperor, but they would not worship him. That refusal placed them outside the acceptable boundaries of Roman society. Periodic persecutions followed—not because Christians were violent or rebellious, but because they would not say what the empire required them to say. They would not burn the incense. The conflict did not arise because Christians sought power. It arose because they refused to surrender truth. The same pattern repeated itself in later centuries. During the English Reformation, believers were forced to navigate shifting political demands regarding the authority of the Church. Under Henry VIII, refusal to recognize the king as supreme head of the Church became a capital offense. Under later regimes, allegiance to Rome could carry similar consequences. Men like Thomas More and John Fisher died because there were certain words they would not say and certain truths they would not deny. In the twentieth century the pattern appeared again in totalitarian states. Under communist regimes across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the Church was expected to subordinate itself entirely to the ideology of the state. Faith that remained purely private might be tolerated; faith that claimed authority over human life could not be permitted. Again and again, Christians faced the same moment. The world had pushed too far. The Temptation to Compromise Whenever these pressures arise, the Church faces a powerful temptation. Perhaps the doctrine can be reinterpreted. Perhaps the language can be softened. Perhaps the Church must simply “update its understanding” to remain relevant. History is filled with such attempts. But compromise rarely satisfies the demands of the age. It only postpones them. The world does not seek partial surrender. It seeks total alignment. Once one concession is granted, another immediately follows. Every generation of Christians must therefore confront the same question: Will we remain faithful, or will we conform? The Christian Response What, then, should Christians do when the world pushes too far? The answer is not panic. The Church has lived as a minority before. Indeed, she was born in such circumstances. The answer is not rage. Anger may produce noise, but it rarely produces courage or clarity. And the answer is not despair. The Church has endured empires far more powerful than any modern institution. The Christian response is something quieter and far more formidable. It is fidelity. When the world demands that Christians lie, faithfulness becomes an act of quiet rebellion. Christians continue to believe what the Church has always believed, to worship as the Church has always worshiped, and to teach what the Gospel has always taught. No theatrics. No surrender. Just steadfastness. The Power of the Quiet Remnant History also reveals something else. When the world pushes too far, it often overreaches. A culture that demands universal conformity eventually reveals its own insecurity. The louder the demands become, the clearer it becomes that the system cannot tolerate dissent because it lacks the confidence of truth. At such moments a faithful remnant becomes extraordinarily powerful. Not because it controls institutions, but because it preserves reality. Christians who remain faithful serve as a living memory of sanity. They keep alive truths that others have abandoned, and in doing so they become a refuge for those who eventually realize that the cultural experiment has failed. This is why revivals so often arise after periods of moral and cultural excess. The world pushes beyond what the human soul can bear, and people begin searching again for something solid. They rediscover the Church. Standing Firm Without Fear Christians today increasingly sense that such a moment may be approaching once more. The pressure to redefine morality, identity, and even the nature of human existence grows stronger each year. What was once debated is now enforced. What was once tolerated is now demanded. But the Church must remember something essential. Our task is not to win the approval of the age. Our task is to remain faithful to Christ. Faithfulness may cost us influence, reputation, or comfort. Yet those things have never been the true strength of the Church. The world changes constantly. The Church endures because she is anchored to what does not change. The strength of the Church is truth. And truth, unlike power, does not need to shout. It only needs to endure.

By Bishop Felix Orji March 17, 2026 Lent- St Patrick’s Day. “The Global Anglican Communion is neither a breakaway Communion nor an alternative Communion. The Jerusalem Statement clearly says that "We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it". What has occurred instead is a shift of the stewardship of the Anglican Communion from the Canterbury Instruments to the Global Anglican Communion. We are returning the Anglican Communion to its roots. The Global Anglican Communion is not a new Communion, but the historic Anglican Communion reordered from within." -The Most Revd Dr Laurent Mbanda(Chairman of Global Anglican Communion). Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. Greetings to all the people and congregations of the Anglican Diocese of all Nations, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. As you know, I have just returned from the third mini-GAFCON meeting, this time gathering in Abuja, Nigeria from March 3-6, 2026. I was one of 347 Anglican bishops who joined other 121 lay and clergy leaders from twenty-seven provinces representing the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide. It was a great privilege to see God’s gracious hand directing our future for the church that we love. The Chairman of the Global Anglican Council, The Most Rev’d Dr. Lauret Mbanda, has issued a lengthy report, but I want to be as clear and succinct as I can to report to you what I understand the implications of this important gathering are for us in All Nations. First, I had hoped that GAFCON26 would elect a new Archbishop to lead GAFCON as well as establish a godly Anglican Communion outside the See of Canterbury so we can march forward with renewed energy and focus on preaching Christ to the nations without unnecessary internal bickering and confusion with the Canterbury Communion. But sadly that did not happen. Be that as it may our Anglican future is GAFCON which is now called the Global Anglican Communion (GAC). It has been for some time. We must trust our sovereign God for a better future that honors Him under the authority and primacy of his written Word. In recent history, the archbishops of Canterbury and, what the 2006 Windsor Report labeled “Instruments of Unity,” also known as instruments of communion, have increasingly chosen paths of accommodation with the world, and many times with unbiblical teachings and practices. In so doing they have rendered themselves redundant and irrelevant, and unwilling to lead our church in its historic Anglican way. At the same time Anglicans around the world have increasingly realized that the colonial aspects of the church that focused on Great Britain, though giving us a rich and glorious theological heritage, no longer serves the people of the Global Anglican Communion. Besides changing our name from GAFCON to the Global Anglican Communion (GAC), our meeting reaffirmed in the strongest way our commitment Holy Scripture as God’s inspired Word that leads us to the Word Made Flesh, as this is upheld and understood in the historic Anglican formularies: the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer (1662). This makes the GAC “confessional”; a church that is defined by what it believes, not by an invented, unholy ecclesiastical structure. This obviously means that we do not define ourselves by some contrived connection to Canterbury that has been expanding in self-importance in recent years, but to a theology that is grounded in the Edwardian and Elizabethan Settlements. This is what is clearly stated in the Jerusalem Declaration that came from the first GAFCON meeting in 2008, and reaffirmed in our meeting earlier this month. I commend to each member of our diocese a careful study of the Jerusalem Declaration(included in this email) as the summary of our confessional nature, and the statement around which the GAC finds its meaning, membership and future. Canterbury’s separation from the majority of Anglicans and traditional Anglican teaching will be jarring for some, but it is not surprising to anyone who has an eye on our history. With uncanny foresight, the 1948 Lambeth Conference declared: “Former Lambeth Conferences have wisely rejected proposals for a formal primacy of Canterbury... authority which binds the Anglican Communion together is therefore seen to be moral and spiritual, resting on the truth of the Gospel, and on a charity which is patient and willing to defer to the common mind.” The common mind of the bishops and leaders who recently met in Abuja was not focused on a person or a superimposed ecclesiastical structure (i.e., the Archbishop of Canterbury or the other Instruments), but instead on a theology that has and continues to bind Anglicans together in unity of purpose and worship. Trinity Anglican Seminary professor, Dr Bill Witt, in a essay on this topic, pointed out that there are no references to the See of Canterbury in any of the classical Anglican writings (including the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer). He concluded that, “If one actually reads Cranmer or Jewel or Hooker et al, it becomes quite clear that (as they broke with Rome) they would have had no hesitation to break with Canterbury should Canterbury break with the doctrines and practices which encapsulate the gospel -- because the identity of Anglicanism does not lie in communion with an historic see, but in the doctrines and practices that adhere to the gospel.” Now that our leaders meeting in Abuja have determined “a full and public disengagement from these structures [Lambeth and the Instruments of Unity]” (Archbishop Mbanda’s statement), and now that the GAC has assumed leadership of the wider Communion that still acknowledges our biblical and reformational heritage as delineated in the Jerusalem Declaration, and now that we in the ACNA have determined our place in the GAC, how then shall this church be led? The determination of those gathered prayerfully in Abuja is that there will be a Global Anglican Council. Time will tell what role this council will have and how leadership will develop in the GAC, but for now Archbishop Laurent Mbanda (Rwanda) was elected Chair of the Council, Archbishop Miguel Uchoa (Brazil) was elected Deputy Chair, and Bishop Paul Donison (rector and dean of Christ Church, Plano, TX) was elected General Secretary. Please pray for these leaders in your private prayers and in your Sunday worship, that God will continue to guide the church that has brought new life to millions all over the world. In some ways the Anglican Communion has changed dramatically, first with the formation of GAFCON and now with the Global Anglican Communion. And yet, not much has changed in the ways faithful local congregations, the church’s main unit of ministry, continue to grow in love for the Lord. You continue to deliver the message of our Savior Jesus Christ who seeks and saves the lost. You continue to offer the grace of God duly administered in the sacraments. We must refuse to be discouraged or distracted by the antics of the Canterbury-led Anglican Communion so that we can focus our attention and energy on faithfully preaching the gospel, teaching the Word of God, administering the Sacraments, and pastoring the Church of God to the glory of God. I treasure my place among you as your bishop and I crave your prayers and support for our life together. The word “Lent” comes from the Old English word “lencten” which means spring, the time of year when azaleas bloom and buds burst from the ground in surprising ways and places. May God bless you, your families, and your church families with newness of life this Lent, that is the life that comes through knowing and following Jesus our Lord. The Jerusalem Declaration In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity. 1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things. 2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading. 3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. 4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today. 5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith. 6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture. 7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders. 8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married. 9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity. 10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy. 11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration. 12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us. 13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord. 14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.” The Collect For St Patrick’s Day(Bishop and Missionary of Ireland, 461 AD) Almighty God, in your providence you chose your servant Patrick to be the apostle of the Irish people, to bring those who were wandering in darkness and error to the true light and knowledge of you: Grant us so to walk in that light that we may come at last to the light of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. Warm regards, The Rt Rev’d Dr Felix Orji, OSB. Diocesan Bishop Anglican Diocese of All Nations Anglican Church in North America(ACNA) Houston, Texas. www.adoan.org

By Ted Schroder What do you do when you live day in and day out with the realization that your identity is in question, and your value is diminished by, what you consider, a great injustice? Your soul is embittered as you look at others around you who seem to have it much easier than you. There are some close to you who seem to enjoy reminding you of your inadequacy as a person. You are bitter because you have suffered abuse, you have been treated poorly, by people close to you. They may have been spouses who ill-treated you, or alcoholic parents, or mean siblings, or employers who exploited your faithful service. As a result you are sometimes confused about life, about God, about purpose, about your sexuality. You wonder whether you are a freak, or whether you have done something wrong for which you are being punished. You long to be normal, and to be able to accept yourself as you are, but you feel incomplete, and trapped. If you do not identify with such a person, you may know someone who does. Such a person was Hannah, the wife of Elkanah, whose story is told in 1 Samuel 1 and 2. Her husband loved her very much, but she was barren, unable to bear him any children. We are told that "the LORD had closed her womb." Because of her childlessness, Elkanah had taken a second wife, Peninnah who bore him children. Peninnah was mean to Hannah. "She kept provoking her to irritate her until Hannah wept and would not eat." What form this provocation took we do not know, but it must, at least, have been name-calling about her inadequacy as a woman, constant provocation about her failure to conceive, and her uselessness to her husband. In other words, she was being constantly put down, bullied, made the butt of jokes by a cruel woman with whom she had to share a house and a husband. This went on, we are told, year after year. What would you feel like and do if you had been in her place? Hannah probably withdrew emotionally, and socially, and nursed her wounds. Nothing could console her, not even her husband expressing his concern: "Hannah, why are you weeping? Why don't you eat? Why are you downhearted? Don't I mean more to you than ten sons." But not all such reassurance in the world could compensate for her pain. In this condition Hannah prayed to the Lord. "In bitterness of soul Hannah wept much and prayed to the Lord. And she made a vow, saying, 'O Lord Almighty, if you will only look upon your servant's misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life.'" We are told that she prayed in her heart, silently. She was accused by Eli the priest of being drunk, but defended herself by saying, "I am a woman who is deeply troubled, I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the Lord. Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and grief." Here is guidance for you. Whenever you are deeply troubled, you can pour out your soul to the Lord. Genuine prayer is borne out of great anguish and grief. In such times in our lives we are filled to overflowing with our suffering. Let it overflow. Let your soul be poured out to the Lord. It will not be wasted. The psalmist says of God, "You have noted my lamentation; put my tears in your bottle; are they not recorded in your book?" (Ps.56:8) God treasures our tears, and keeps them stored up. He knows what troubles us. What is in your soul that needs pouring out? What is troubling you that needs to be expressed? Note that Hannah did not blame either Peninnah or the Lord for her troubles. She does not turn her back upon the Lord who had closed her womb. Instead she exercised her faith in prayer, believing in the sovereignty and care of God. In the process of pouring out her soul she made a vow that she would dedicate her son to the service of the Lord. In a sense, this is what we are doing in infant dedication or baptism. We give back to the Lord what he has given to us. Children are a gift from the Lord. They are not ours by right. It is an act of faith that recognizes this by giving them back in service to the Giver. What vows can we make to the Lord when we are deeply troubled? Can we give ourselves and all that we are and have to Christ to be used in his service? Is what we pray for so important to us that we are willing to dedicate ourselves wholly to God. There is a prayer that I use which expresses this kind of vow. Almighty and eternal God, so draw our hearts to you, so guide our minds, so fill our imaginations, so control our wills, that we may be wholly yours, utterly dedicated to you, and then use us, we pray, as you will, and always to your glory and the good of your people; through Jesus Christ our Lord. It may be a test of how important and urgent our prayer is to see whether we are willing to make that kind of vow, and follow through on it. Hannah could easily have made the vow and then reneged on it when her son was born, but she didn't. After Samuel was weaned he was given to Eli to be raised in the house of the Lord. Hannah said to Eli, "As surely as you live, my lord, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD. I prayed for this child, and the LORD has granted me what I asked of him. So now I give him to the LORD. For his whole life he will be given over to the LORD." She was given a son, her reproach was taken away, and one of the great prophets of Israel was given to the service of the LORD. Her great anguish and grief led to the prayer of faith, which led in its turn to the life of the great and famous leader of Israel, the prophet Samuel. She had no idea when she prayed that she would be granted, not only to become a mother, but the mother of one of the leaders of her nation. We don't know, when we are deeply troubled, and pour out our souls before the Lord, what God can do with our requests, our desires, and our vows. James reminds us that "you do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with the wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:2,3) Our troubles should lead us to pray, not complain. Our motives should lead us to make our vows that our lives, and all that we pray for, will be dedicated to the service of the Lord. What we get, is to be spent, not on our pleasures, but in the service of the Lord and his kingdom. When Hannah fulfills her vow she prays again: "My heart rejoices in the LORD." Centuries later the virgin Mary would sing parts of the song of Hannah in response to the message of the angel bringing her news of the Holy Spirit's conception of Jesus. Hannah's song is a means of expressing her gratitude and praise to the Giver of life. "The psalm of praise which Hannah sings, reveals her understanding of divine things in an age when men had small understanding of their God. It recognizes the power of God and the certainty of ultimate justice. It expresses faith in God's power to keep, and joy at answered prayer. It vibrates with gratitude." (E.M.Blaiklock, Today's Handbook of Bible Characters, p.125) Just as her bitterness of soul led her to pray, so also her overflowing gratitude poured out in this prayer of thanksgiving. Gratitude leads, not to complacency, and self-satisfaction, but to praise and thanksgiving. Henry Ward Beecher wrote, "A humble mind is the soil out of which thanks naturally grow." Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote, "A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues." John Henry Jowett said, "Every virtue divorced from thankfulness is maimed and limps along the spiritual road." William Shakespeare prayed, "O Lord that lends me life, lend me a heart replete with thankfulness." Ten men prayed that Jesus would take pity on them and heal them of their leprosy. As they went to show themselves to the priest, they were cleansed. One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at the feet of Jesus and thanked him - and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, "Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" (Luke 17:17,18) The prayer of thanksgiving is the response to answered prayer. Praise is essential in Christian experience. We are made to praise and thank God who gives us so much. We are made to return thanks and to rejoice in God's goodness. Hannah praises God for his holiness. He alone is pure and righteous. He alone does what is right. He alone rescues his people. He is like a rock - dependable and strong - from which waters of blessing flow. Hannah praises God who provides for his people, who protects those who are his, and who knows our troubles. The more we know about God, the more we want to praise him. Tim Chester writes, "Does the story of Hannah teach us that God will provide children to childless women who earnestly pray to him? Does it suggest that if we make a vow to God he will be more likely to answer our prayers? The answer to these questions is no. Hannah's story is told not because it is typical but because it is untypical. There were no doubt many childless women in Israel who prayed to God and remained childless. Hannah's prayer is not granted because her prayer was more devout, or her anguish more acute, or her vow more sincere. Her prayer was answered because of God's grace. Eli says to Hannah, 'Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him.' (1:17) The answer to her prayer lies in the gift of God. Hannah herself replies, 'May your servant find favor in your eyes.' (18) The word favor or grace in Hebrew is hen, and so this is a play on Hannah's name. Hannah's name is a reminder that God acts in his grace,.. and through her in the life of the nation. Hannah's story is told because it is part of a bigger story - the story of the provision of a Saviour." (The Message of Prayer, p.131) God takes a troubled, childless woman, and through her prayers he advances his purposes of salvation. He takes someone who was reviled and ridiculed, and gives her joy. It is when we pray that God can use us. Prayer changes us and the world. God gives you the freedom to ask, so that you will receive what you, and the world, need, most of all. The Rev. Schroder is pastor of Amelia Island Plantation Chapel in Florida END

By Ted Schroder In 701 BC Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. He invested Jerusalem with the mightiest army in the region. Thousands upon thousands of blood-thirsty troops surrounded the city in the attempt to starve it into submission. Archeological texts describe how he besieged 'Hezekiah the Jew. I shut him up like a caged bird within his royal capital, Jerusalem. I put watch-posts closely round the city and turned back to his fate anyone who came out of the city gate'. He sent messengers with a letter to King Hezekiah saying: "Do not let the god you depend on deceive you when he says, 'Jerusalem will not be handed over to the king of Assyria.' Surely you have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all the countries, destroying them completely. And will you be delivered? Did the gods of the nations that were destroyed by my forefathers deliver them - the gods of Gozan, Haran, Rezeph and the people of Eden who were in Tel Assar?" (Isaiah 37:10-12) Hezekiah took the letter into the temple of the LORD and spread it out before the LORD. He prayed: "O LORD almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Give ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see; listen to all the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God." (Isaiah 37:16,17) Hezekiah and his people are threatened by an enemy who denies the power of their God to save them by comparing him with the gods of other nations that likewise failed to deliver them. Perhaps one of the greatest attacks on the prayer of faith comes from the culture that surrounds us. The secular opinion-makers send us messages that our god is one among many who similarly lack power. What is the point of prayer if our god is simply a localized deity, a myth that we and our forefathers have preserved to give us comfort? Christians today can be like King Hezekiah - shut up in a cage besieged by skeptics who reduce Christianity to one among many faiths. They say that in this pluralistic world one faith is as good as another, or no good at all. They question the value of praying to God who is only the product of our national culture, when there is no guarantee that he can deliver? They argue that each person has his our own beliefs; that all religions are relative; that certainty about faith is impossible; and that no one has an exclusive claim to truth. Therefore they maintain that Christians should not try to change the beliefs of others or impose their beliefs on others. Some teach that all our knowledge is constructed by us to explain our world. In fact, they claim that our language is a cage in which we are forever locked that functions to describes reality as we experience it. "There is no true meaning, whether for life, religion, morality or even a text, since the way that a text is interpreted will depend upon the culture within which it is read.. There are no absolutes, no rocks of certainty on which one can stand firm outside the constant sea of change. We are embedded in these tossing and raging waters and reality is merely our own perspective.. The search for certainty or for any rock to cling to is folly. What is needed is. to stop closing [the] mind and to be open to new, and possibly threatening possibilities, to be able to live on a sea of uncertainty with no fixed marks and where nothing abides or endures." (Peter Vardy, What is Truth? pp.100,101) The only thing that mattered to Sennacherib is the power to dominate others. In a world in which there is no absolute truth, no one, true God to whom to pray, who can deliver, the only value is power. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized Christianity for sapping the energy of the Roman Empire by making people weak. He glorified the super-man, who had the will to power. The Church, he maintained left people as "a caricature of man, like an abortion: he had become a 'sinner', he was caged up, he had been imprisoned behind a host of appalling notions. full of hate for the instincts of life, full of suspicion in regard to all that is still strong and happy." (Twilight of the Idols) That is why he claimed that "If Islam despises Christianity, it is justified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men." (The Antichrist) The culture in which we live proclaims that power is the means to success, that power establishes what is true, and that nothing is sacred. How do you pray for deliverance when you are caged up in this world of change and uncertainty? Who can you depend upon? Hezekiah calls upon God to hear, see and listen to the words of Sennacherib which insult the living God. If you believe in Almighty God, and that God alone is over all the kingdoms of the earth, and that God made heaven and earth, then you are asserting your belief in an absolute truth. No matter that the enemy has laid waste other peoples and beliefs. No matter that their gods have been thrown into the fire and destroyed. No matter that religion has been discredited, for so many religions have been fashioned by human hands. Hezekiah calls upon God Almighty, his God, to deliver him and his people, "so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O LORD, are God." (Isaiah 37:20) This confidence in the power of God is echoed in the prayer of the early Christians. They acknowledged that the enemy had conspired against Jesus the anointed one. "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus." (Acts 4:27-30) The believer has confidence in the power of Almighty God to save them despite the threats of the enemy. The rulers of the nations may rage and the peoples plot in vain (Psalm 2:1,2) but we can be confident in the efficacy of our prayers. But how do we know that our God is the only God, and that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior? How do we know that the power of our God and Lord can prevail against all those who would devalue our beliefs by saying that we are but one belief among many choices? St. Paul discussed the claims of other gods in 1 Corinthians 8:4-7. "There is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this." In other words, there are many claims to divinity in the world, yet for us there is only one claim that is persuasive and compelling: that there is only one God the Father, the author of existence, and for whom we exist. He called us and the universe into being. We exist for him. That is basic to our belief. Included in this basic belief is that there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, who brought us into existence, and through whom we share in the life of God. He brought us life in all its fullness, eternal life. It is through him that the universe came into being. But not everyone knows this! That is why there is pluralism and uncertainty and confusion about what is true. That is why people find it difficult to pray. They are not confident that there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came, and through whom we live. The boldness of the prayers of Hezekiah and the early Christians depends upon the confidence they have on the God and Lord they are praying to. The LORD replied to the prayer of Hezekiah by saying, "I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant." (Isaiah 37:35) He answers prayer so that all may know that he alone is God, and that his servant is the anointed one. Hezekiah prayed that God would respond to Sennacherib's insults. Our motivation in prayer can arise out of our concern for the reputation of God. We pray that people will turn from insulting God and devaluing Christ, to believing and following him. What are your grounds for confidence in Christ? Mine are threefold: my personal need, my personal experience, and my personal desire. The Christian is confident in Christ because of his conviction of personal sin and experience of salvation in Jesus. The Christian is confident in Christ because of his experience of conversion by grace through faith in Jesus. The Christian is confident because of his experience of consecration to the life of the Spirit of Jesus in the world. How was Hezekiah's prayer answered? A plague struck the camp of the Assyrians, Sennacherib broke camp and withdrew. His sons eventually assassinated him. Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen: Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow laid withered and strown. For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and forever grew still. And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal; And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword, Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord! George Gordon, Lord Byron, The Destruction of Sennacherib Prayer for Christians is only possible if you have confidence in God the Father, and the lordship of Christ. How confident in God are you? What do you do when people insult God? Pray for them? What do you do when people deny the power of Christ to deliver from evil, to change behavior for good, to save people from destruction, to give meaning and hope to life? Pray for them. What do you do when people insinuate that the gospel of Christ is merely one option among many, and no more valid or valuable than any other? Pray for them. Place your entire confidence in Christ so that you can pray with boldness. END

By Ted Schroder It is 539 B.C., during the first year of the reign of Darius in Babylon, the fabulous capital city that was built astride the Euphrates River, where a four-horse chariot could turn around on top of the high wall of a hundred gates. Babylon boasted the famous Hanging Gardens, one of the seven wonders of the world, as well as a staged temple-tower 295 feet high, and according to Herodotus, several colossal gold statues weighing many tons. Daniel, with other members of the royal family and the nobility of Judah, was carried into exile by King Nebuchadnezzar, in 605 B.C., had risen to leading government posts on the basis of his intelligence and wisdom. In 586 B.C. Jerusalem was finally destroyed by the Babylonians, and Jeremiah had departed to Egypt with the remnant of the surviving leadership. His prophecies had been written down and somehow Daniel obtained a copy. Daniel must have been about 75 years old when he read these words from Jeremiah 29:10-14. "This is what the LORD says: 'When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,' declares the LORD, 'and I will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,' declares the LORD, 'and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.'" Reading that passage of Scripture caused Daniel to turn to the Lord God with fasting, dressed in sackcloth and ashes, and prayed an extraordinary prayer that is recorded for us in Daniel 9:4-19. His prayer is in response to learning the promises of God, his plans to prosper his people, to give them a hope and a future, and to restore them to their homeland. It is a prayer of confession and repentance on behalf of all his people, for their rebellion against God, for their not listening to the servants of the God, the prophets, for being unfaithful to God. They are covered with shame for their sin against God which has brought upon them their calamity. Despite all that had happened to Israel "we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." (Daniel 9:13) Daniel humbles himself before the Lord. He looks back over his long life, all the privileges he has enjoyed in the king's service, all the activities of state he has participated in, the power players who have come and gone, all the ceremonies and celebrations he has witnessed, and he realizes how little it matters unless he has learned that God is sovereign over all, that it is his plans that will eventually prevail, his word that will be fulfilled, that empires rise and fall, but it is the LORD who alone can be merciful and forgiving. It is the characteristic of wisdom to be able to learn from the past. Daniel learned that his people had made bad choices over the generations and had to suffer the consequences. He wanted to break that pattern through acknowledgement of their failings, and a total disclosure of the nature of their addiction to autonomy: of wanting to lead their own lives without reference to God. "The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does, yet we have not obeyed him." (Daniel 9:14) There is no indication that Daniel himself rebelled against the lordship of God in his life. He appears to have been a very godly man who endured much testing, yet remained faithful. He was thrown into the lion's den because he refused to give up his practice of praying to the Lord three times a day. Yet, in looking back over his life, and the history of his people, he learned that he was part of the problem, that he could not escape blame, and that he could not pass the buck to a previous generation for the disaster that had befallen them. Daniel's prayer of confession and repentance on behalf of his people teaches us that, whether we like it or not, we are all sinners. Yet, despite our rebellion against him, God wants nothing but the best for us. He is merciful and forgiving. He has come to us in Jesus, and suffered and died for us on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. He has plans to prosper us and not to harm us, plans to give us a hope and a future. But we must be prepared to seek him with our whole heart if we are to find the fulfillment he desires for us: the restoration and the resurrection to new life that is his gift in Jesus Christ. Daniel learned from the past and responded according to what he discovered. As you look back upon your life, what have you learned about yourself? Some people, like Israel of old, can go through life oblivious to what God has planned for them. They never seek him with their whole heart. They never find his plans to prosper them, to give them a hope and a future. God is not intimately involved in their lives. If you were to read their personal autobiographies it would be a succession of one activity after another, one trip after another, one story about friends or family after another, one diversion after another, but absolutely no reflection on what it all means, of what their life is meant to be about, or what God may be wanting to do in their lives. A person can go through one disaster after another, one illness after another, one broken relationship after another, one job disappointment after another, and never reflect on why they make bad decisions, why they never seek the guidance of God in their lives, why they don't humble themselves before the Lord. Daniel prayed: "all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." What is the truth we need to give attention to? It is the truth about the presence and the purpose of God in all of life which we are meant to seek. There is a form of practical atheism or agnosticism which, while giving lip service to a belief in God, denies that God has any daily relevance to one's life. An agnostic is a person who is neutral on the question of God's existence. The agnostic claims that God may exist but that it is impossible to truly know him, or for him to make a difference in your life. Therefore you should go about your life keeping busy, and filling up the hours to avoid thinking about what life is meant to be about. Luke Timothy Johnson, Robert Woodruff Professor of New Testament at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, has written, "Agnosticism is a contemptuous uninterest in the truth of the world. Because the question of God's existence affects the perception of absolutely everything else that exists and the way we deal with all that exists, agnosticism seems to the believer to be a form of atheism by default that pretends to be a refined and gentlemanly restraint on a difficult and unsolvable question." (The Creed, p.68) What would Daniel, the wise advisor to kings have to say to the contemporary agnostic who is indifferent to God's truth? The book that bears his name in the Bible emphasizes the absolute sovereignty of the Lord, and that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of human beings are subject to God's decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth. He begins his prayer by this acknowledgement: "O Lord, great and awesome God, who keeps covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong." (Daniel 9:4) Daniel would say with St. James: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will lift you up." (James 4:6,10) Jesus said, "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:12) Humility is the opposite of the reckless, arrogant indifference to God which characterizes the agnostic, who makes such friends with the world that he becomes an enemy of God. Humility is the acknowledgement that we need to learn from the past, that we need to face our failings; that we need to reflect upon what God is doing in our lives. It is seeking God with our whole heart. When we do that we will be given the grace we need, and God will lift us up to a new life. Daniel prays with passion: "We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name." (Daniel 9:18,19) When was the last time you prayed with passion? When was the last time prayer was that important? What resulted from it? While he was still speaking and praying, confessing his sin and the sin of his people Israel, and making his request, the angel Gabriel came to Daniel and said, "I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed." (Daniel 9:22,23) When we humble ourselves before the Lord in honest acknowledgement of what he has taught us about our past, we will receive insight and understanding. God promises that when we call upon him, and come and pray to him, he will listen to us. When we seek him with all our heart, we will find him. When we find the Lord Jesus, we will find ourselves, our true self, our authentic self, and God's plan for us, which will give us a hope and a future. Whatever the result of our prayers, we will find that prayer and reflection on God's Word will give us insight and understanding. We need to be encouraged that when we come to the Lord, and begin to pray, an answer is given. We may not know it, we may not be told by an angel immediately, but at the appropriate time, we will know it. In the mean time we must know that God esteems us, he loves us, he hears us and he will act. Jesus said, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to Him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Matthew 7:7,8) END

By Ted Schroder It is traditional that on the first Sunday of Lent the story of Jesus's temptation in the wilderness by the devil is read from one of the Gospels. We all have our conceptions of what happened in those temptations. Each of us brings to the account our own beliefs and prejudices. I want to explore with you what is meant by being tempted by the devil. Some theologians maintain that we do not have to believe in a world of angels and devils anymore. The devil has been caricatured as a cartoon figure with horns and cloven hooves. It is easy to dismiss the reality of the devil by lampooning those who are obsessed by the demonic, and see the devil under every bed. Heresy is a truth taken to the extreme. Just because some people give belief in the devil a bad name doesn't mean that we should dismiss it out of hand. What do we mean by being tempted by the devil? Michael Green in his classic work, I Believe in Satan's Downfall, says that the Scriptures seriously warn us of a malign power of evil standing behind the pressures of a worldly culture without and a sinful human nature within the Christian. This does not mean that we can excuse responsibility for bad human behavior by blaming it on the devil. The world, the flesh and the devil, as three separate sources of evil, have formed a crucial part of Christian teaching from the very beginning. Belief in the devil is very much part of the lifeblood of the Christian tradition. It is also very much part of non-Christian religions. The existence of the devil is tied to the problem of evil. What is the source of evil? Is it enough to say that all evil is the result of the free will of humans, or the fall of creation from original innocence and perfection? Without the existence of evil forces and personalities we would have to attribute evil directly to God. But James says, "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (James 1:13-15) Someone is doing the enticing, the tempting, to sin. Jesus believed in the reality of the devil or Satan. He has more to say about the devil than anyone else in the Bible. The devil is the one who tempted him so skillfully and fiercely, and who kept coming back at him with devious suggestions all through his ministry (Luke 4:1-13). It is the devil who snatches away the message of the good news from those who listen to it half-heartedly, or who sows weeds in the field of God's wheat (Mk.4:15; Matt.13:39). "Deliver us from the evil one" is thought to be the original petition he taught his disciples to pray (Matt.6:13). As the premonition of the cross grew upon Jesus on the last night of his life, his mind turned again to the devil. "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me - I do as the Father has commanded. Rise let's go and meet him!" (John 14:31). Now some claim that Jesus did not really mean to be taken literally. They say that he couched his teaching in poetic form. But Jesus saw the whole of his ministry as a conflict with the devil. He saw his death as the supreme battle with the evil one. If the devil is merely a metaphor for evil, is the teaching of Jesus about God the Father also merely a metaphor for goodness? Others suggest that Jesus was so much a child of his age that he took over uncritically all its presuppositions, in particular this belief in a personal devil. But one thing you can say with any consistency is that Jesus did not take over uncritically the views of his day. He challenged the traditions of his contemporaries and the presuppositions of the time. That is what got him into trouble with the religious authorities. Jesus emphasized the reality of the demonic in his healing ministry. At all points in his life and ministry the conflict with the devil is of cardinal importance. If Jesus was mistaken on these vital matters, why should we believe him on other matters? Perhaps his other teachings are equally culturally conditioned? But what do we mean by saying that Satan is a personal devil? What most people mean by that is to claim that the devil is an organizing intellect, a single focus and fount of evil inspiration. But it is doubtful if we can call him 'personal' in any other sense. Scripture depicts him as a spirit; as a fallen angel; as a ruler of this world; but not as 'personal' in any meaningful sense. Unlike Jesus, the devil has not become incarnate, though many people have so sold their souls to him that they have become living embodiments of his beastliness. The devil has never been one of us. He has not shared our human condition. The devil stands as the personification of God and man's spiritual adversary, utterly devoid of compassion, of caring, of all the qualities that make us personal. He is the personification of the implacable evil against which we are called to contend. We are to think of him as an intelligence, a power of concentrated and hateful wickedness. Does it matter whether or not we believe in the devil? If we reject the whole idea of the devil and the supernatural, we are reduced to explaining evil in terms of genetic disposition and environmental influences, and proposing that the only remedy is education and appealing to the goodness of human nature. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones remarks: "It is to me almost beyond understanding that anybody who looks at the modern world and reads a newspaper can still go on believing such theories. Indeed, if they never even read a newspaper how can anybody who has ever known an educated, cultured, reasonable man, who nevertheless fails drastically in his own personal life, possible believe such things? How can they believe that wisdom and knowledge and learning, and the ability to reason and to use logic, is the solution to the problem, when what is to be seen daily in the lives of men and women prove the exact opposite? It is amazing!" (The Christian Warfare, p.47) It is consistent for the atheist, who rejects God and the whole spiritual realm, to reject belief in the devil. What is totally inconsistent is to accept one part of the spiritual realm, God, and to reject the other. The existence of the devil is a necessary part of consistent theism. Can you continue to accept the idea of God revealing himself to us about the devil, while rejecting what he claims to say about the devil? Can you listen to Jesus Christ while rejecting the devil he speaks about? What satisfactory account can you give to the chaos in the world if there is not a destructive force of evil at work? How can you make any sense of atonement for sin on the Cross if there is no devil? C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, had this to say. "One of the things that surprised me when I first read the New Testament seriously was that it talked so much about a Dark Power in the universe - a mighty evil spirit who was held to be the Power behind death and disease, and sin. The difference [from Dualism] is that Christianity thinks that this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel. "Enemy-occupied territory - that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery. Christians, then, believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World." (p.47) If this is true then what the devil was doing in the wilderness was testing the strength of the rightful king. He flung at him one temptation after another. In each case Jesus answered with a word from Scripture: "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'" "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" The only way we can win against the devil is in the same power of Christ, our captain in the fight, using the same weapons: the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God, and prayer. That is why our lives need to be soaked in the Scriptures daily, and conditioned by prayer, so that we are impervious to the temptations of the devil. "When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time." (Luke 4:13) This was but the first of many skirmishes in the battle Jesus faced in his life. The devil seeks his opportunity when we least expect him. He lulls us into complacency. He would love for us not to believe that he exists. Evil in general is so much less threatening than evil in particular. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones again, "The modern world, and especially the history of the present century, can only be understood in terms of the unusual activity of the devil. In a world of collapsing institutions, moral chaos, and increasing violence, never was it more important to trace the hand of 'the prince of the power of the air.' If we cannot discern the chief cause of our ills, how can we hope to cure them? (ibid. p.6) Jesus shows us that the most powerful preparation for meeting temptation successfully is a life without sin. We cannot mirror that quality, but we can start each day cleansed by the Cross, with our conscience right with God. Jesus shows us that temptation can best be met in the power of the Holy Spirit. Only a greater power than ours can overcome the devil. Jesus shows us that trust and obedience are the twin pillars of a successful operation against the devil. Jesus never failed in his trust in the Father, and never swerved from obedience to him. Jesus shows us that unselfishness is decisive in warfare with the devil. Satan could not understand one whose ambition was not for himself but for Another. In a life where self-seeking, self-assertion, self-pity are predominant characteristics you cannot expect victory over the Tempter. He has too large a landing ground. Jesus shows us that the use of Scripture in temptation is a powerful weapon. The devil is not afraid of us. He is afraid of all that speaks of God. The scriptures do just that. Jesus shows us that we have no need to be afraid of the devil. Jesus went into battle with confidence of victory as long as he remained trusting, obedient and dependent on the Spirit. We can go in the same fearlessness. We need only fear the devil when we cease to fully oppose him. At heart he is a coward. At a firm rebuttal backed by the word of God, he flees. But he is always dogged, and soon there will be a new attack. Jesus shows us that we have to be decisive with the devil. No playing with the temptation. No parleying with the Tempter (that was where Eve made her mistake). Jesus' contact with him was reduced to the minimum. He did not ask him to go. He told him to go. There is an aggressiveness about Jesus' response to temptation which has a lot to teach us. It was the aggression of love in the face of hate and destruction. (Most of this sermon was taken from "I Believe in Satan's Downfall" by Michael Green, 1981) The Rev. Ted Schroder is an Episcopal priest. He is pastor of Amelia Island Plantation Chapel. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Christian church must shoulder much of the blame for stigmatizing those with HIV/Aids, says Southern Africa Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane.   "Christianity has too often espoused a destructive theology that links sex and sin and guilt and punishment," he wrote in a paper to be presented at a conference in Cape Town on Friday.   "The church must take much of the blame for the issue of stigmatization and its attendant problems of fear, denial and silence...We must take the lead in overturning these distortions," he says.   In the paper, extracts of which were released to media on Thursday, Ndungane, who is spiritual head of millions of Anglicans in southern Africa, called for an "exceptional response to an exceptional crisis".   He said HIV/AIDS hits the poor hardest, and is also a disease that too often marginalizes and excludes, "not least because of its associations with sex." He said stigma has become a silent killer, "decimating families who find it impossible to communicate with each other about the illness in their midst".   The African Archbishop has been listening too much to America's Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's agit-prop. Either that or he hasn't been reading his Bible lately.   First of all he says the church is to blame for "stigmatizing those with HIV/AIDS." Now I don't know where the bishop is coming from, but I can assure you that I have never heard a single orthodox priest or bishop in the ECUSA publicly condemn men or women with HIV/AIDS. I wish he would identify such persons.   Most orthodox folk I know have enormous compassion for such persons and some orthodox churches have public ministries to persons with HIV/AIDS. They are treated much like an alcoholic. If you need help all you have to do is ask for it.   He talks about "fear, denial and violence..." Again who is he talking about? His American-born assistant for HIV/AIDS the gay "missionary" from 815, namely Ted Karpf, publicly screams "the church has AIDS" whenever he gets an opportunity. It's a lie of course, but if you say it long enough and loud perhaps someone will believe it is true.   I know of no one who is afraid of people with HIV/AIDS, and only a fool lives in denial, and no one that I know has been "violent" towards gay persons, and those with AIDS. It's a fiction. (My brother-in-law died of AIDS. He was loved to the end even though this writer disagreed with his lifestyle that caused it.)   A personal note might be in order here, as I have been labeled homophobic often enough by revisionists. In the early 80's I shared a house with a Baptist minister in northern New Jersey whom I discovered was afflicted with HIV. I had just come off a three year stint working for American Leprosy Missions, so I neither feared the disease nor the man who had it. I nursed him as best I could, but as he got weaker I finally had to put him in hospital in NYC where he was promptly treated like a pariah and they put large red signs on his bedroom door and no one went in or out without being fully gowned and their faces covered. It was humiliating. I got him out of there and put him in an extended care unit in a hospital in Connecticut, where he died in peace. And for the record, he had been married, had two children, divorced, said he was gay and went out to Provincetown for a number of years where he contracted HIV among the vast gay community. He later repented, and an evangelical church in New York City invited him on staff - he held a PhD in psychology along with two theological degrees.   Ndungane: "Christianity has too often espoused a destructive theology that links sex and sin and guilt and punishment," said the archbishop in a paper to be presented at a conference in Cape Town on Friday.   Let's unpack that. First of all if sex is practiced within marriage between a man and a woman there is absolutely no link between sex, guilt and punishment. None. If you are married and feel guilty about sex see a psychiatrist or therapist quickly or you will destroy your marriage. If you are engaging in promiscuous behavior - fornication, adultery or homosexual activity then that is an entirely different matter. In that case there IS a link between sex, sin and guilt.   God has made it abundantly clear that sexual activity is a great gift to the world and for all married couples.   When the archbishop paints with a broad sweeping brush linking sex, sin, guilt and punishment, who and what is he talking about?   If a person indulges in sex outside of marriage he or she will or ought to KNOW that is sin and feel its attendant guilt and shame. Men and women who have experienced divorce because of adultery will tell you endless horror stories of guilt and shame. And well they might.   One of the devastating aspects of President Bill Clinton's sexual escapades is the complete absence of a culture of shame and guilt. His "sin" was being caught.   The archbishop is making linkages that are unbiblical. A quarter of the adult population in South Africa has HIV/AIDS. His country has the single largest AIDS population on the African continent and most, if not all of it, has to do with sex outside of marriage either heterosexual or homosexual (mostly heterosexual). So this begs the question.   The "destructive theology" Ndungane talks about is obviously aimed at orthodox folk who want to say that sex outside of marriage is a 'no no' and the empirical evidence is there for all to see.   The archbishop's bashing of unnamed persons smacks of a sort of ortho-phobism that he now condemns. But what he is displaying is a misplaced compassion.   No one is bashing those with HIV/AIDS, but what biblically-instructed Anglicans are saying or ought to say, is that the best and only means of sexual expression is in marriage and if you indulge yourself outside of that you will experience guilt and shame and you will have to repent. THAT is the message of Scripture and ought to be the message of the archbishop.   Whacking unnamed persons for their "destructive theology" is just as bad as certain American bishops calling the growth of the Christian Church in Africa like the growth of the Nazi party and calling African Anglicans pre-Copernican because of their simplistic theology.   The archbishop does the church and himself no good service blasting unnamed persons, and accusing and blaming the church for the AIDS crisis.   This is precisely what Griswold did after 9/11, he blamed American foreign policy and Islamophobia for what took place. It was an enormous fiction and a lie, especially as we are learning more each day about Islam, Al Qaeda and terrorism.   Ndungane: "Another tragic and shameful area of the church's spiritual blindness is in relation to women, and this too is having devastating consequences in relation to HIV/Aids."   The bishop is partly right. Women have become the victims of the AIDS crisis but not because of the church or its silence. African women (and some North American women) have become the victims of their husband's promiscuity. Their men have gone with prostitutes, picked up HIV and given it to their wives. Should THEY feel guilt and shame? Damn right they should. They have given their wives a death sentence. It is as if they had put a gun to their heads and blown their brains out. And yet God in his graciousness still offers forgiveness through repentance and faith. THAT is the good news. Why are we not hearing that from the archbishop?   The archbishop is doing and saying the very thing he accuses the orthodox of doing, playing the blame game himself...no names of course.   "Christianity has been complicit in sustaining the patriarchal dominance of men and the subjugation of women in... politics, economics, culture, society and the family as well as within the institutional church," says the bishop.   The archbishop should read the statistics of those coming into the ministry in the ECUSA. The Episcopal Church is littered with all manner of clergy. And if the Rev. Robbie Low is correct it is happening as well in the Church of England. Would the last "patriarchal" priest leaving ECUSA please turn out the lights.   If the Archbishop of Southern Africa wants to say something of lasting value he should stand up and say something like this:   "My dear friends, South Africa is in the midst of a sexual holocaust. One quarter of all adult persons has HIV/AIDS. We are the worst country in Africa and possibly the world for HIV statistics. It is a double tragedy because we have had Christianity on this part of the continent for over 300 years and clearly we have had little impact in the area of sexual ethics. If you think what happened in Rwanda with two million dead - a blood bath between the Hutus and Tutsis - was a holocaust, you ain't seen nothin' yet."   "The tragedy in South Africa is sexual promiscuity - men and women indulging themselves outside of marriage, and as a result we are killing ourselves and our economy. As a nation we need to repent, individually and collectively and agree that God is right and we are wrong. We have broken His most holy laws and we are paying a horrible and terrible price. Our people are going to be dying by the millions. I implore you to repent and change your ways. In a very short time we will have tens of thousands of children on the streets growing up without parents. Who will look after them? I call the nation to repentance..."

By Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer 8/10/2004 Colorado bishop weighs statement   Colorado Episcopal Bishop Rob O'Neill is expected to issue long-awaited policy statements this month on same-sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians, issues that have deeply divided the church nationwide and in Colorado.   O'Neill, who supports broader involvement of gays and lesbians in the church, said that "different understandings" exist about the diocese's existing policies and practices, and he is seeking a clearer stance.   O'Neill has taken a deliberate approach to issues of sexuality since becoming bishop of 35,000 Colorado Episcopalians in January, shortly after the elevation of the nation's first openly gay bishop in New Hampshire pushed the issue to the forefront.   One of O'Neill's first steps was to appoint a 10-member task force that recently completed a blueprint for how the diocese can stick together despite differences over sexuality. The report is to be made public near the end of August, and O'Neill plans to announce his positions on ordination and gay unions about the same time.   "The issue before us is not whether we agree or disagree about matters of sexuality and Christian faith," O'Neill said. "That we disagree is evident. The question that we must address is what are the consequences of our disagreement. How will we or will we not choose to live together?"   But conservative Episcopal leaders believe the diocese needs to fall in line with Anglican Church teaching that marriage should be between a man and woman, sexual activity outside of marriage is not condoned and ordination of practicing homosexuals is not legitimate. The 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church is the American arm of the worldwide Anglican Communion.   "Unless the central platform of this recommendation is an affirmation of the teaching of the Anglican Communion, I don't see how anything they say will draw alienated conservatives back to more full engagement," said the Rev. Ephraim Radner of Pueblo, the conservatives' choice for Colorado bishop last year.   Among O'Neill's challenges will be squaring diocesan policy on ordination with the fact that gay clergy in committed relationships already serve in the diocese.   A diocesan handbook published in 1999 states that clergy are to "exhibit a lifestyle consistent with the Episcopal Church's teaching regarding appropriate physical sexual expression, that is, married and faithful, or single and celibate."   Said O'Neill: "My goal is to establish consistent policy and practice."   He said he will seek to do the same with same-sex blessing ceremonies that fall short of marriage.   In 1994, Colorado Episcopal Bishop Jerry Winterrowd reached an agreement with some clergy allowing same-sex couples to receive prayers of thanksgiving during "the prayers of the people" portion of Sunday worship, O'Neill said. But interpretation of that agreement has varied, and some people didn't know it existed, he said.   One thing seems clear: The diocese is not likely to follow the lead of at least six other U.S. dioceses and develop a new rite for same-sex unions.   A year ago, the church's General Convention adopted a document that was interpreted by some as opening the door for development of such rites.   But O'Neill reaffirmed his belief that that was not the intent, and the national church must develop a same-sex liturgy before Colorado would follow suit. ---

Anglican Church of Brazil Comments on Homosexuality Recife, 6th July 2004 A Call for a consequential and responsible reflection on the issue of homo)sexuality in the Anglican Communion.   "Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit" Zech. 4:6.   Open letter to:   The Primate of the Brazilian Anglican Episcopal Church, (BAEC), the Rev. Dom Orlando Santos de Oliveira; The Diocesan bishop of the Recife Anglican Diocese, (RAD) the Rev. Dom Robinson Cavalcanti; The suffragan bishop of RAD, the Rev. Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto; The BAEC Special Commission; The clergy and laity of the RAD and the BAEC; and to all Christians.   Beloved brethren,   The debate on the understanding of (homo)sexuality and its implications has been dividing opinions within the Anglican community for some years now. Though there is a vast majority of people, dioceses and provinces that consider an erotic relationship between people of the same sex inappropriate from Christian standards, there has always been even within this majority a diversity of interpretations on the phenomenon and various ways of understanding its implications for the reality of the Church and Society in general.   The recent happenings of the Episcopal Church of the United States and of Canada, however, immediately led to such a polarisation of opinions and heightening of tensions that it is now almost impossible to conduct a calm reflection and mature discussion on an issue of the utmost importance for the contemporary Church. In this context, the alternatives are reduced to extreme caricatures of an unreasoning, almost homophobic rejection and a secularist and uncritical, almost festive acceptance.   Unfortunately, the international scenario has been transplanted to the reality of our Province and our dioceses without any mediation; reproducing the outside polarisation, leading to extreme and precipitated actions and manifestations, that have led to the rekindling of the historical tensions between the South and Northeast and between the traditional currents in Brazilian Anglicanism.   We, the undersigned, as clergy and laity of the Recife Anglican Diocese and of the Brazilian Anglican Episcopal Church, judge it our duty to come public, at this moment in time, to manifest our appeal for moderation, serenity and wisdom in the discussions regarding this issue. We emphatically affirm that the intransigence often shown in the debates and the extremism clothing the opinions are an obstacle to the cause of the Kingdom of God in our country and an affront to the Brazilian Church.   This letter is an attempt to make a contribution to a realistic and productive dialogue, taking up a position in favour of the construction of a Christian, mature, relevant and renewing alternative to the impasse that our Church and Society are experiencing at the moment. A debate of ideas, respect for different positions, peaceful argument, spiritual and intellectual humility, self-criticism, openness to criticism, an honest and profound analysis of opposing arguments, sobriety, generosity and other attitudes like these are the worthy resources of anyone proposing or even wishing to construct a consistent, responsible and historically relevant discourse on the issue.   In the face of growing speculation, and a climate of suspicion and hostility that has been placed in our context, we also judge it necessary to present some positions in relation to the present debate.   1. Regarding our Faith:   a. We believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit creator and sustainer of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible, who created the human being - man and woman to his image and likeness, with the capacity to co-operate in creation, to develop language, culture and to build on Nature;   b. We believe in the universality of human sin and the universal merit of the redeeming sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Calvary, as also the sovereignty of God in relation to the salvation of human beings.   c. We believe in the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments as the written Word of God, divinely inspired, ultimate authority in matters of theology, trustworthy in its integrity and infallible in all things necessary for salvation (Art. 6, XXXIX);   d. We acknowledge the Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church as an efficient synthesis and a sufficient summary of the basic points of our faith, and we respect the tradition of the Church as a source of inspiration and counsel on the Christian Faith and as a sign of the ongoing action of God as Lord and sustainer of History;   e. We consider ourselves to be heirs to the evangelical tradition of a living Protestantism, fulfilled in the day-to-day of the Church; representatives of an evangelicalism open to the work of the Holy Spirit in history, to the diversity of cultures and forms of contextualisation of the Faith, to the contributions from theological reflection and responsible biblical criticism, committed to personal and historical transformation and to the ethical and social implications of the Faith.   2. Regarding the question of (homo)sexuality:   a. We believe that the discussion on the issue of human sexuality and especially of homosexuality for the Church and for theology, today, must go beyond the question of defining what sin is, since, in accordance with our belief, sin has attained all areas of human life and permeates all our works and relationships (Rm. 3,23).   b. It is a fact that the erotic relationship between people of the same sex does not represent the divine ideal for the human creature, as expressed in the Scriptures and thus understood by the Church's tradition (Rm. 1, 18-32). It is also a fact that the questions relative to the discussion on (homo)sexuality comprise a great complexity of human factors that need to be deeply analysed and taken into account when honestly seeking a practical and historical understanding of tradition and the biblical texts.   c. We acknowledge that there exist different forms of interpretation and hermeneutic treatment of the texts that deal with the phenomena of homosexuality, and that it is extremely necessary to deepen and broaden the studies as well as the understanding of this issue.   d. We affirm that a large part of the Church has already become aware of its duty to acknowledge and respect the intrinsic dignity of every human being. Many Christian ministers have been pioneers in dealing with the issue of (homo)sexuality in a respectful, humble and humane manner. Not all the Church, however, has followed this example of evangelical fidelity. It is necessary that work and reflection be stimulated in the sense of producing a Christian mentality and practice, as free as possible from prejudice, hatred and arrogance, regarding these issues.   e. We believe that it is necessary to try to understand in a profound manner the cultures of our time, as a way to identify the renovating work of the Holy Spirit and the aspects of the multiform grace of God in each moment and context, and also, as a way of identifying the presence and mechanisms of the works of sin and death in our generation. It is impossible to understand the issue of homosexuality in a coherent manner today, outside the context of a broader debate on the notion of sexuality for contemporary cultures.   f. We believe that a deepened analysis should seek to be faithful to Biblical revelation and to Christian tradition, while taking into account the biological, psychological, anthropological, philosophical and social aspects that differentiate the understanding of the present phenomenon from the understanding of other similar phenomena contained in the history of Christianity.   g. We believe that both the discourses of the "conservatives" as well as of the "liberals" presented up to now, have failed in the task of presenting a sufficiently deep and comprehensive reading of the phenomenon under discussion. The great majority of the discourses of the "conservatives" have been based on what seems to be prejudice, ignorance and a superficial reading of the Bible, while the "liberals" seem to have limited themselves to revering and ratifying the agenda, labelling belief in the Bible and Church tradition as anachronisms.   h. We believe that the plurality of theological currents and positionings regarding the issue within Anglicanism do not necessarily represent a weakness in our Church, but rather should be considered as a positive though annoying quality, since it endows us all with the privilege of being constantly questioned and confronted, and of contributing to the growth of the Church through the multiform grace of God. The plurality and inclusion can and should lead us to humility, humanness, maturity, and often, to face up to difficult issues that have as yet not been faced up to by the majority of the Church, but only if we are capable of respecting, listening to and dialoguing with one another, and continually growing together.   i. Finally, we affirm that though plurality of opinions and openness to debate are licit, desirable and extremely necessary, the hegemonic position of the majority of the Anglican Communion and of the tradition of the Church, in as much as we claim to be a protestant and catholic Church, should be respected and maintained by all the institutions linked to her, until there is a minimum consensus regarding the way to deal with the issues raised by our tempo. The ministerial ordination and episcopal consecration of people who publicly profess a conscious and voluntary option for living in a homosexual union is unacceptable in this context, as is the holding of rites and ceremonies for blessing unions between couples of the same sex.   3. Regarding the crisis in the Anglican Communion:   a. We believe that the decisions and the consequent actions of the episcopal Churches in the United States and Canada have publicly and deliberately offended the conscience of the majority of the Church and the international agreements that have been gone into over recent years within the Anglican Communion.   b. We believe, however, that these provinces and dioceses as well as others that may come to adopt the same line of action should be urged to renounce their works and decisions, so as not to be an obstacle to their participation in the Anglican Communion, as well as suffering the lamentable and inevitable institutional isolation that could be imposed by the other provinces and the risk of provoking an irreversible schism.   c. We uphold, as an alternative to a "curialisation" or "federalisation" of the Anglican Communion, that the instruments of Communion should be strengthened, where there will be a greater participation of the clergy and laity the Anglican Consultative Council in such a manner that important decisions can be analysed and ratified in distinct courts.   d. We uphold that, in the case of the dioceses and parishes in the United States and Canada that did not concord with the decisions and actions of their provinces, a norm should be urgently drawn up for the alternative episcopal supervision, so as to avoid greater conflicts and misunderstandings.   e. We uphold that the financial dependence of the Anglican Communion on the Episcopal Church of the United States be urgently reduced, through, if necessary, a reduction of the administrative machine and the cutting down on and sharing of expenses, to such an extent that the "economic weight" does not upset the relations of authority between the various provinces.   f. We call attention to the immense profusion of manifestations of sin that we are witnessing in the contemporary context such as hunger and consumerism/waste, environmental crimes, sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, child labour and slavery, forms of torture, imperialist wars, international economic exploitation - those that have been and should not be forgotten, neglected and relegated to a second plan in virtue of an internal struggle in the body of the Church.   4. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis within the BAEC:   a. Reaffirming our feeling of belonging to the BAEC and our regard for the brethren in the other dioceses, we believe there is no reason for any discussion on, or speculation about a possible schism here in the Province, since unlike the United States and Canada no decision nor action has been taken or even insinuated that could justify such an extreme action;   b. We recommend Christian wisdom, patience, moderation, serenity and humility as necessary attributes for all those involved in the debate. We appeal that there not be any untimely and indiscreet actions or manifestations from any party and we suggest that, at a propitious moment, more profound and specific questions and topics be proposed for discussion.   c. We also recommend that there be greater respect and a searching for greater mutual understanding among the various dioceses of the Province, and that plurality be respected not only while they exist as isolated and parallel currents, but that we be ready to interact, listen to and learn from one another.   d. We support the proposal for the creation of internal provinces in the BAEC, an issue that was discussed a few years ago, not as a way to promote isolation among the regions, but, as a strategy for driving away the "ghosts" and lessening the tensions, and to stimulate growth in the Church.   e. We also support the three-chamber proposal in the synods of the BAEC as a way of promoting greater participation of the laity in the life of the Church.   5. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis in the RAD:   a. We reaffirm our personal respect and affection for Dom Robinson Cavalcanti and Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto, as well as our institutional submission to them as diocesan bishop and suffragan of the RAD. We deny and repudiate any accusation of disloyalty, betrayal or disregard. We believe, however, that our loyalty, friendship and submission does not prevent us from disagreeing, duly, from ideas, actions, proposals or from presenting positions contrary to them at some moments.   b. We manifest our concern with the growing canonical restrictions on theological/ideological norms for ordination and participation in our diocese, as well as with the growing climate of ideological and behavioural patrolling that has arisen. The attempt to put Truth within strict boundaries is always risky.   c. We reaffirm our willingness and desire to give of our best, in working together with all the clergy and laity of the RAD, for the growth of our Church and for the construction of a diocese that is Anglican, missionary, mature, relevant, inculturated, inclusive, alive and fraternal.   We do not know the how or the when regarding the outcome of the crisis within the Anglican Communion, nor the manner that this will be reflected in the BAEC, but we do know that the problem of human sexuality and especially homosexuality, is and will continue to be a fundamental question to be understood and worked on by our generation. When "the dust settles" from the battles and the "war drums" have been silenced, there will still be people with their pains and problems, and the Church, with its mission to preach and live the Gospel in an integral manner. Then there will be noticed the lack of an honest, mature, sensitive and serene reflection on the reality of (homo)sexuality, on the Gospel message and on the Mission of the Church in our context. It will be imperative that both the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals" be open to review their histories and positions and be ready to listen and learn under the influence of the Holy Spirit.   In Christ, Lord of History,   Rev. Gustavo Gilson S. de Oliveira, OSE, Rector of the Anglican Seminary for Theological Studies-Recife Most Rev. Sergio F. Lomeu de Andrade Dean of the Anglican Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity Rev. Fabio S. Vasconcelos, Rector of the Parish of The Mediator and Chaplain to the Anglican Seminary of Theology Studies Rev. Manoel S. Moraes de Almeida, OSE, Rector of the Parish of The Good Samaritan Rev. Joao Cancio Peixoto Filho Rev. Elias Leoncio de B. Filho, OSE Friar Quintino Geraldo Diniz Melo, OSF Mauricio Amazonas, OSE, Lay Minister Prof. Fernando Antonio Goncalves, Seminarian Rodrigo Espiuca, Seminarian Senomar Teixeira Junior, Seminarian Silvio de Freitas Barbosa, Seminarian

From Traditional Values Coalition Washington, DC In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).   This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.   This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.   What Really Happened?   Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association---and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.   Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (1981)   In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."   Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.   Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud, and Healthy."   Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.   Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from the DSM-II.   The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.   After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.   According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how that after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man--suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."   Dr. Socarides Speaks Out   Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.   Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years..."   Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status."   "To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost--a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences." Dr. Socarides' report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com .   The Importance of the DSM   The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.   It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot recommend a treatment for these individuals.   Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts...performed under bizarre circumstances...Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.   *American Medical Association statistic, 2002.

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor PARIS, Aug. 10 (UPI) Editor's note: This coming weekend, Pope John Paul II will be in Lourdes, the world's most important site of pilgrimage. His journey to this Marian shrine comes at a time of a new Vatican letter written by Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's highest-ranking cardinal, and seen as a condemnation of the excesses of modern feminism. Lourdes, in the French Pyrenees, says perhaps more about the relationship between Roman Catholicism and women than any other Christian site in the world. Its central figure is the Virgin Mary, who is said to have appeared to a peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirou, in 1858 introducing herself with the words, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Women make up a majority of the six million pilgrims who pour into Lourdes from all continents every year to pay homage to Mary: nuns, desperately ill patients hoping for a miracle, housewives, but also young nobles prepared to serve the poor and the sick, cheerful Irish and German singles, all game for a flirt and a tipple in between the prayers. There are plenty of Protestants, too, and why not? Did not Martin Luther praise the Blessed Virgin as the Spiritual Mother of all Christians? Did not Huldreich Zwingli, the Zurich reformer, rate her above all creatures, "including the saints and angels"? Did not John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, affirm her continuing purity (after Christ's birth, that is)? It is hard to conceive of a more feminine, loving atmosphere than that of Lourdes (this writer, by the way, is a Protestant). It is much in keeping with the attributes of the woman "who in her deepest and original being exists 'for the other' (cf., 1 Corinthians 11:9)," as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger phrased it in his recent controversial Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This "being there for the other" is of course what Luther, too, saw manifest in Mary; this is why he called her "blessed above all nobility, wisdom and sanctity." This is why his exegesis of the "Magnificat" (Luke 1:46-55) -- "My soul magnifies the Lord" - is arguably one of most spectacular theological commentaries, so much so that it is taught in most Catholic seminaries. And yet while Cardinal Ratzinger's letter "On the collaboration of men and women in the Church and World," which the pope had approved, made essentially the same point as Luther, Zwingli or Wesley, it became the object of worldwide controversy. Why? Because even before its publication, the letter was purported to be an attack against worldwide feminism. And so Margot Kaessmann, Lutheran bishop of Hanover in Germany, bemoaned the paper's "clichés." Ekin Delgoez, a spokeswoman for Germany's Green Party, accused the church of remaining stuck between the Middle Ages and modernity. Christel Hildebrand, chairwoman of a Conference of European (female) theologians, called Ratzinger's reflection anathema. Emma Bonino, an Italian politician, opined that the paper might just as well have been written by an imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque. Danièle Hervieu-Léger, France's leading sociologist of religion, warned that the church was about to lose the women - at least in Western Europe and in North America - just as in the past it had lost the working class. Yet, as Eberhard von Gemmingen of Radio Vatican pointed out, Ratzinger's observations are much more about women's rights and equality than about feminism. True, Ratzinger does chastise the feminist tendency making "women ... adversaries of men." But he emphasizes clearly that women, like men, are equally created in the image of God, and that this constitutes "the immutable basis of all Christian anthropology." Ratzinger reminds his readers of a previous statement by the pope declaring women as "another 'I' in common humanity." He links the warped bond between men and women to the Fall: "When humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between men and women becomes distorted. When this relationship is damaged, their access to the face of God risks being compromised in turn." This is part of a basic Christian theology most denominations share, based on the apostle Paul's powerful statement to which Ratzinger also referred: "For all of you who have been baptized into Christ ... there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:27-28). In the face of all the criticism, the Vatican takes comfort from the ancient verity that the "dernier cri (latest fashion) of reason expires more rapidly than sound Christian doctrine." Ratzinger's paper goes out of his way to stress the woman's right to equal pay and career chances in the secular world and to an even fuller recognition of her role in the family. In the still more earth-bound opinions of his critics, this seems to take second place to Rome's insistence that women cannot be priests because, as one senior prelate put it, "for a woman to take Christ's place at the altar in an ontological absurdity." Rome is not alone in making this point. Eastern Orthodoxy and some major Protestant denominations do the same, but they are spared reproach. It may not be politically correct to say (as did Ratzinger) that "man and woman are different from the time of creation and will remain so for all eternity." But that is what at heart most people realize and are grateful for - be they Catholic or not. And this is what, in a sense, gives women the edge in the biblical narrative: Women, not men, courageously stood by Christ's cross. Women, not men, discovered his resurrection and revealed it to the world. As Luther observed about Mary: "Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as leaves on the trees."

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor GENEVA, Switzerland, Aug. 3 (UPI) The lethal attacks on five churches in Iraq violated the stated will of the prophet Mohammed, who in the 7th century issued a "Firman" - or letter of protection -- for Assyrian Christians.   Assyrians make up the majority of the 700,000 Christians in present-day Iraq. Mohammed was so impressed with their ancestors' knowledge of medicine and the sciences that he decreed for them to be left in peace, according to Albert Yelda, formerly the Christian representative in the leadership of the London-based Iraqi National Congress.   The Firman disappeared without trace in 1847, Yelda told United Press International. Assyrians believe that the then-Turkish rulers destroyed this document before setting out to kill 30,000 Christians.   Joseph Yacoub, a political science professor at the Catholic University of Lyon, France, fears that the coordinated car bombings of churches may accomplish what Mohammed had tried to prevent. "There exists a definite risk that the Christian presence will be reduced to a level of insignificance," he told the French newspaper, Le Figaro.   "So far there had just been attacks on Christian individuals," this leading expert on Middle Eastern Christianity continued. "But now the bombers have taken on the entire community. Their message is clear: This is Muslim territory; it does not belong to you."   Thus one of the most remarkable set of Christians is once again threatened with extinction. The Assyrians, of whom there are 1.5 million worldwide, are descendants of one of the oldest civilizations - Mesopotamia. Almost three millennia ago, they excelled in astronomy, jurisprudence, the arts, architecture, medicine and the natural sciences.   Assyrians were the first nation to adopt Christianity as their state religion in 179 A.D., more than a century before Armenia. They claim to have been the first to build churches and to translate the New Testament from Greek into their vernacular - Aramaic, the language of Christ.   In the 8th century, not long after Mohammed's death, Assyrians were the first to send missionaries to China, Mongolia and even Japan. They were Nestorians, heretics in the eyes of the rest of the church because they followed the teachings of Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop of Constantinople who taught that the Virgin Mary was not the "theodokos," or mother of God, but simply the mother of Jesus Christ.   This fine point of theology has long ceased to stand in the way of Christian unity in Iraq. In the 16th century, a major segment of the Nestorian church united with Rome while retaining its ancient liturgy. They are now called the Chaldean Church to which most Assyrian Christians belong.   The remaining Nestorians are on excellent of terms with the Chaldeans, while maintaining different traditions. Their liturgy is extremely "high;" yet their incense-filled sanctuaries appear as stark as synagogues or Reformed churches.   There is no iconostasis - a partition or screen decorated with icons separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church. There are no graven images. A simple cross above the altar is the only adornment of a Nestorian church. Nestorians call their priests "rabi;" like orthodox Jews they eschew mixed marriages.   While the Assyrians lived in peace for much of the first 11 centuries since the Muslim conquest of their homeland, martyrdom has been their fate for the past 150 years.   The massacre of 30,000 Christians in 1847 was succeeded by another in 1896. In 1915 the Turks slaughtered not only over one million Armenians but also 250,000 Assyrians, a fact seldom mentioned when the first holocaust of the 20th century is being discussed.   There are still some old men alive in Iraq who were forcibly converted to Islam in their childhood but remained Christians in their hearts, fasting during Lent and making merry at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost.   During Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the Assyrians' persecution was in a sense more of a cultural than a religious nature. "Tyrants hate minorities," said Yelda. Hence Saddam had hundreds of Assyrian villages razed, including one 2nd-century church. He also banned the Assyrians' cultural clubs where they had kept their literary language alive.   But in Saddam's days, too, Muslim mobs terrorized Iraqi Christians, beheading on Aug. 15, 2002 a Chaldean nun, Sister Cecilia Hanna, whose monastery they had stormed.   Like their cousins, the Jews, Assyrians are now scattered around the world. Almost 300,000 went to America, primarily the Chicago area. Others live in Jordan, Australia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.   It is with a heavy heart that Pope John Paul II reacted to the news of the murderous attacks on Iraq's churches by stressing his closeness to the marvelous and venerable Christian culture, which is at the point of oblivion.   The pontiff appealed to those believing in one God to show mercy. Instead, Iraq's Christians are being murdered -- in the name of that merciful God. ---