Archives

By Ted Schroder January 4, 2004 Last week I received a letter addressed to the churches of Amelia Island Ministerial Association from Claudia Sovilla, of the Amelia Island Genealogical Society. She was extending an invitation to the members of the churches, who are interested in genealogy and history to attend the Genealogy Course and Mary Fears program in January. She wrote, "The Churches have great resources for information and members with stories of their ancestors. This area is rich in history. Tracing roots has transformed genealogy from a methodical past-time to a raging passion for millions of Americans. Wondering who am I, where I came from, and a missing link to the past and heritage." Joan Hackett and Mary Nelson will be instructors. My parents were not much interested in their antecedents. When I asked them questions about the family they gave vague answers that obscured rather than illuminated. It made me wonder whether I was descended from a long line of undesirables! But I doubt whether they were that interesting. I have cousins on both sides of my family who are the keepers of the family histories. They supply me with information when I need it. I am gathering material to write a fictionalized account of four generations of my family. In discovering what might have happened to them I understand better what formed my parents and grandparents, and influenced me. Some years ago I participated in a continuing education program on Family Systems Theory, which explored how the dynamics of family histories can repeat themselves in the lives of each generation. The exercise of drawing up a genogram of your family history, which identifies the patterns of marriage, children, divorce, births and deaths, can throw considerable light on your own experience. None of us is self-made. None of us is a stand alone. Each of us comes from somewhere. We have continuity to the past. We are the product of generations and our own choices. Erik Erikson describes the stage of Integrity in the Life Cycle as "the acceptance of one's own and only life cycle and of the people who have become significant to it as something that had to be and that, by necessity, permitted of no substitutions. It thus means a new different love of one's parents, free of the wish that they should have been different, and an acceptance of the fact that one's own life is one's own responsibility. It is a sense of comradeship with men and women of distant times and of different pursuits, who have created orders and objects and sayings conveying human dignity and love." (Identity and the life Cycle, p.104) Erikson placed Integrity as the last stage in the life cycle. I am presently reading The Hornet's Nest, a novel of the American revolutionary war in Georgia and the Carolinas, by Jimmy Carter. In writing about those times former President Carter is also trying to understand his continuity with his family members who settled in Georgia. By writing about that period he is getting in touch with what it must have been like for his ancestors. Some of the characters are based on them. He said that he began to study his family history in 1998. It was the 100th birthday of his ancestor who moved to southwest Georgia. As he started study the history he got interested in the period. In Matthew's account of the early childhood of Jesus (Matt.2:13-23) we find that Jesus experienced this continuity with the past. Like his ancestor Joseph he was taken to Egypt. Jesus recapitulated the history of Israel by his sojourn in Egypt. Like Moses he was saved from certain death at the hand of the king of his day. When the time was come to return, the holy family left Egypt and traveled to Nazareth. Israel discovered its identity in Egypt, and the exodus from Egypt was the central point in the history of the nation. Pharoah tried to destroy the people in Egypt, but Moses brought them out into the land of promise. Just as Pharoah failed to kill Moses, Herod, the new Pharoah, failed to kill the Savior. Eventually, Moses brought the children of Israel out of the land of bondage and death, and Moses' successor was to bring the people out of a worse bondage and a worse death, the death of sin. Jesus is seen as the successor of Moses: he came to save his people from their sins. Jesus is going to rescue us. He is going to usher in the new exodus. Matthew sees Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament's predictions. The history of God's children is recapitulated in the history of God's Son. As Israel of long ago was led down to Egypt, so was Jesus. As Israel came out, so did Jesus. He embodies and fulfils the history of the people of God in his own person. Michael Green, in writing about these stories about Jesus' childhood, concludes: "Matthew makes it plain that God works through both surprise and continuity to bring about his purposes. The story of Jesus is utterly continuous with Abraham, with David and with the whole history of the chosen people. But it also bristles with surprises. Perhaps this is to encourage us to expect God to be working in our lives steadily and continuously, making sense of our past history, but also to be on the lookout for God's surprises in our lives, ready to grasp them and follow through their implications when they come." (The Message of Matthew, p.74) Joseph was surprised by the angel of the Lord appearing to him in a dream and directing him to escape to Egypt. Yet in so doing he fulfilled the prophecies, and repeated the history of his family. When Herod ordered the massacre of the boys under two years old he didn't realize that he was repeating the sin of the Pharoah who opposed Moses. At the right time the angel directed Joseph and Mary back to the land of Israel. There they were warned in a dream not to settle in Judaea but to go to Galilee. How often do we repeat the history of our ancestors? Sometimes we slip into committing the same sins as they did. Joseph was enabled to survive and flourish, to take care of his family, and to move on toward fulfilling divine destiny because he obeyed the guidance that was given him. God is working in our lives steadily and continuously. He encourages us to make sense of our family histories, to discover patterns of behavior that are to be either avoided or embraced. We are also meant to be on the lookout for God's surprises in our lives, and be willing to grasp them and follow through on their implications when they come. What surprises will God have in store for you this coming year? Whatever they are, they are meant to be for your good. When you respond to them positively you will find that you will be fulfilling your divine destiny. The Rev. Schroder is the rector of the chapel on Amelia Island Plantation. He is an Episcopal priest.

By Ted Schroder What do you do when you are confronted with a life-threatening crisis, when all that you have worked for, labored over, and loved, is jeopardized, when you are at the mercy of something other than yourself over which you have no control? Anxiety grips you. Sleep eludes you. You toss and turn as you replay possible scenarios in your mind, and contemplate the worst that could happen, and how you could have handled things differently and possibly have prevented this happening to you. What can you do? You pray, "Lord, help me." Jacob is returning home after twenty years in Mesopotamia. He left in a hurry after stealing his brother Esau's birthright and his father Isaac's blessing. He fled from his father-in-law Laban, whom he has deceived. He arrives on the borders of his family's land, and sent messengers to Esau to announce his arrival. He hears that Esau is coming to meet him with 400 men. Jacob is in great fear of his brother. He divides his people into two groups, so that if one is attacked the other can escape. He prays: "Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children. But you have said, 'I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.'" (Genesis 32:11,12) He sent ahead of him a generous gift of several hundred goats, camels and donkeys to be presented to Esau. He thought, "I will pacify him with these gifts I am sending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me." (Genesis 32:) Then he sent his wives, his eleven sons and all his possessions ahead of him, and stayed behind alone all night. He was seriously anxious about what would happen the next day. He gave himself to prayer. All night Jacob wrestled with an angel of the LORD until his hip was displaced. But still Jacob continued to wrestle. He would not let go even when the angel asked him to. Jacob said, "I will not let you go until you bless me." (Genesis 32:26) Then the angel named him Israel, and gave him a new identity: Israel means 'he struggles with God.' The angel blesses him. "So Jacob called the place Peniel (which means 'face of God'), saying, 'It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life is spared.'" (Genesis 32:30) "The conflict brought to a head the battling and groping of a lifetime, and Jacob's desperate embrace vividly expressed his ambivalent attitude to God, of love and enmity, defiance and dependence. It was against God, not Esau and Laban, that he had been pitting his strength, as he now discovered; yet the initiative had been God's, as it was this night, to chasten his pride and challenge his tenacity. The crippling and the naming show that God's ends were still the same: He would have all of Jacob's will to win, to attain and obtain, yet purged of self-sufficiency and re-directed to the proper object of man's love, God Himself. After the maiming, combativeness had turned to dogged dependence, and Jacob emerged broken, named and blessed. His limping would be a lasting proof of the reality of the struggle: it had been no dream, and there was sharp judgment in it. The new name would attest his new standing: it was both a mark of grace, wiping out an old reproach (27:36), and an accolade to live up to." (Derek Kidner, Genesis, p.169) Jacob represents all of us who have struggled for God's blessing all our lives. We have hung on, even when we have been wounded. We have faced anxiety, and having done all we humanly can to escape disaster, we go to prayer. We recognize that there is something greater going on in our lives over which we have no control. All our human ingenuity will not get us out of this one. Walter Brueggemann says that Jacob, or Israel "is not formed by success or shrewdness, but by an assault from God." (Genesis, p.269) The prophet Hosea calls upon all God's people to strive with God as Jacob did. "In the womb he grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God. He struggled with the angel and overcame him; he wept and begged for his favor." (Hosea 12:3,4) Have you ever been there? We are reduced to weeping and begging for God's favor. This describes a condition of human extremity when we are at the end of our resources. Jesus in his humanity, in the garden of Gethsemane, spent the night wrestling with his Father in prayer, trying to find a way out of having to face the suffering of the day ahead, the brutality of the Passion, his public humiliation and the terrors of the Cross. But that was not the only time in his life that he wrestled with the Father in prayer. Scripture records that, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." (Hebrews 5:7) We find our identity, our strength, not from our human endeavors, but through struggling with God in prayer. James writes, "the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (1:3,4) Peterson puts it this way, "You know that under pressure, your faith-life is forced into the open and shows its true colors. So don't try to get out of anything prematurely. Let it do its work so you become mature and well-developed, not deficient in any way." (The Message) Tim Chester (The Message of Prayer p.97) comments, "The story reveals an important dimension to our relationship with God that our sentimental age often fails to see: God is dangerous. He is the aggressor in the narrative. He is not comfortable to have around. Yet in the struggle with God our relationship with him grows and our faith is immeasurably deepened. Calvin says we should think of 'all the servants of God in this world as wrestlers.' He continues: 'God himself, as an antagonist descends into the arena to try our strength. This, though at first sight it seems absurd, experience and reason teaches us to be true. For as all prosperity flows from his goodness, so adversity is either the rod with which he corrects our sins, or the test of our faith and patience. What was once exhibited under a visible form to our father Jacob, is daily fulfilled in the individual members of the Church.' (Genesis, vol.2, pp.195, 196)" God tries our strength as we wrestle together over the issues of our lives. Why does he not just reassure us that he will be with us to take care of the problems we take to him? Why do we have to go through all this pain, and come out limping like Jacob? We are never the same again. Why do we have to go through all this struggle? P.T. Forsyth wrote, "We shall come one day to a heaven where we shall gratefully know that God's great refusals were sometimes the true answers to our truest prayer. Our soul is fulfilled even when our petition is not." (Soul of Prayer, p.14) If God were to grant us answers to our prayers too quickly and easily we would not develop into healthy and strong disciples of Christ. No matter how we might want it to be different real life is struggle and conflict, not superficial peace and premature reassurance. Jim Packer writes, "Biblical Christian experience, whatever else it is, is active battling throughout, inwardly against the flesh, outwardly against the world, and in both against the devil. Awareness and acceptance of the fight is itself gauge of spiritual authenticity and vitality. God may actually resist us when we pray in order that we in turn may resist and overcome his resistance, and so be led into deeper dependence on him and greater enrichment from him at the end of the day." (David Hanes (ed.), My Path of Prayer, p.59) Paul describes Epaphras as "always wrestling in prayer" for the Colossians, that they may "stand firm in the will of God, mature and fully assured." (Col.4:12) "Our relationship with God often involves struggle. Sometimes it is a struggle with temptation. Sometimes it is a struggle with the circumstances of life. Often it is a struggle with ourselves. But sometimes it is a struggle with God himself. God gives us this struggle to refine our faith and to deepen our relationship with him. He wants us to cling to him, like Jacob did - holding out for blessing. As Forsyth says, 'too ready acceptance of a situation as His will often means feebleness or sloth.'" (Chester, p.98) The life Jesus modeled for us, and urged upon us, is not a passive acceptance of life's circumstances, a resignation or fatalism, but the strengthening of the will to "wrestle, and fight, and pray." Sometimes we have to hang on, not let go of God, until we are sure that we have divine blessing. We are not to give up or give in prematurely. Surrender is not always the right thing to do. There is another element to this struggle with God. That is the anxiety of the human struggle with Esau. Jacob carries this anxiety, this threat, into his tossing and turning with the angel of the Lord in prayer. What we struggle with in our daily life is taken into our wrestling with God in the night. When we are faced with a life-threatening crisis in our lives, we find that it controls our prayers for a long time: days, months, even years, before we win through to a blessing. On the way we may be disabled or wounded in our emotions, but eventually the light dawns and we find that we have been given a new identity in Christ, a new maturity, where we can "stand firm in the will of God, mature and fully assured." Isn't this what parenting can do to us, or battling cancer, or other debilitating diseases? Can we not win through to the blessing of becoming a better person, a more mature believer, because of our struggles? "In the National Gallery of Scotland hangs a painting by Paul Gauguin called The Vision of the Sermon. Gauguin believed that art should represent not only what was there but the way it made you feel. In The Vision of the Sermon a group of devout Breton women have heard a sermon on Jacob wrestling with God. It is so real to them that they see it before their eyes. Gauguin distinguishes between the literal reality of the women and the reality of their vision. The grass is red and they are separated from the struggle by the line of a tree. Yet the struggle is real. Indeed one of their cows has strayed into the fray. The reality of wrestling with God is as real as their cow." (Tim Chester, p.101) Wrestling with God is not some myth or some far-fetched idea reserved only for mystics. It is part of everyday life. It can happen to any of us at any time we are face with a crisis. When you are in the midst of it, and are tempted to give up, or think that God wants to destroy you, that life is against you, and that there is no hope, remember that God wants to bless you. "If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things." (Romans 8:31,32) The Rev. Ted Schroder is the rector of Amelia Island Plantation Church in Florida DEVOTIONAL - BEING ON THE WAY: THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE By Alan Medinger Regeneration News, December 2003 This article was inspired by the book On Hope by Josef Pieper, published by Ignatius Press, 1986; translated from the German. A number of times in these articles I have addressed the question as to how we can live with relative peace within the context of two truths that seem to crash headlong into each other—the truth that God calls us to live a holy life and the truth that we keep on sinning. Most recently I touched on this in the article "Who Is I? And Who Is Me?" (October 2003). This is a critical issue for most of us because if we find ourselves accepting too easily that we are sinners, we risk falling into complacency or worse yet, we abuse God's grace. On the other side, if we go too far berating ourselves for our sinfulness, we risk not experiencing the joy and freedom that is rightfully ours in Jesus Christ. You probably know people who live at either of the extremes; those who with an attitude of, "Well, we all sin," seem to live in a permanent state of cheap grace, and those who seem to live in a state of perpetual self-condemnation show little of the joy of knowing Jesus. I suspect most of us don't dwell constantly at one extreme or the other, but rather, we bounce back and forth between the two. In this article I am going to approach the problem from a different direction—from the perspective that we are all becoming, we are all a work in process, we are all on the way. Accepting this truth can bring both stability and hope into our lives, and both stability and hope inspire victory in our Christian walk. Being a Person Still on the Way In seeking to overcome sexual sins, we can only be in one of four states: • moving forward • moving backward • standing still • arrived My belief is—and I am going to build a case for it—that if we are leading "the normal Christian life," then we are moving forward. I am going to describe what I mean by the normal Christian life, but first let me eliminate one of the four states—having arrived. I am not ready to state this unequivocally, but I believe quite strongly that as long as we possess the capacity to imagine, we will not be totally free from lust, at least not in this life. Using concepts from the writing of Thomas Aquinas, Josef Pieper refers to living in either status viatoris or status comprehensoris. Status viatoris means "being on the way" while status comprehensoris means "having arrived", no longer being a viator, having achieved perfect union with Christ. While status comprehensoris is our ultimate hope and destination, certainly none of us will be there until the moment of death. Even the Apostle Paul was quite clear that he was a viator, a person still on the way: Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make [knowing Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection] my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Philippians 3:12-16) Part of the good news of Jesus Christ is that being a viator is the natural state for all believers. In the born-again believer the indwelling Holy Spirit is constantly drawing us towards status comprehensoris, the state of perfect union with Jesus, the state of perfect happiness. We do not reach it in this life, but being drawn towards it is at the center of Christian life. Being drawn is certain to occur because it is what the Holy Spirit does. Now it is true that we can resist being drawn, and with our abiding free will, resist it so successfully that we find ourselves stuck or falling backward. But this is analogous to my using an umbrella to shade myself from the sun. Even if I do this, the sun is still shining. The Normal Christian Life It is not any extraordinary effort on our part, any sort of heroic Christianity that causes us to be drawn forward towards completeness in Jesus Christ. We simply need to be ordinary Christians leading the normal Christian life. What is this normal Christian life? I believe it is marked by the following conditions: We agree with basic Biblical truths as historically interpreted by the church and as expressed in the ancient creeds of the church. We hold to those beliefs that are universal in time and place. These are the fundamental Christian beliefs about God and man, about sin and redemption. There is a matter of choice here. Christians who take hold of "new truths" (such as those recently put forth at the Episcopal Church's national convention in Minneapolis) are quite likely in rebellion, a rebellion that is, at least in its early stages, freely chosen. They have chosen to adopt beliefs that will justify their behavior, rather than trying to change their behavior to be in accord with the beliefs expressed in Scripture and taught by the church. To a far greater extent than most people imagine, people believe what they want to believe. What have you chosen to believe, especially about sexual sin and sexual purity? We spend significant personal time with the Lord in prayer, meditation and the study of Scripture. This is how we grow in knowing Jesus and the power of His resurrection (Philippians 12:10). If we are growing in Him, we cannot help but be on the way. We are an active part of a community of believers. We are called to be a part of His Body. This is not an option. It is in interacting with other believers that we are challenged, convicted, encouraged, comforted, inspired; we experience all of the elements that provide growth. If you are in a large church where you are not known, join a small home group. If you are in a church where there is no body life, you may need to change churches. If you are in a church where body life is present, and you choose not to be involved, don't look for growth and healing. We are trying to be obedient to God. We try to do those things we should do, and we try not to do those things we should not do. Don't berate yourself with, "If I only tried harder..." I have never found that such self-talk helped anyone. Ultimately, it will be God's power that enables us to become obedient. Our role is to cooperate by never giving up trying. We confess when we sin. As people on the way, those who haven't arrived, we will sin. We have the answer to sin—repentance and confession. This seems so simple, and it is. But over and over again in our ministry we see confusion enter right here. We encounter many Christians who in broad terms want to live a life of obedience to the Lord, but who have consciously decided to go on with their lust, their fantasy, their masturbation. They see overcoming homosexuality or lust as a step by step process, and they imagine—or tell themselves—that they know just what the steps are. Usually they hide behind something like, "Later, I am not at a place to stop yet." The truth is, they are choosing to go on with their sin. When this is the case, I believe that confession of that particular sin is inappropriate. However, there are other things that such people can do. They can confess the sin of rebellion, asking God to change their wills. If this is where you are, right now, go back and re-read the previous four elements of the normal Christian life. What do you really believe about lust and about your sexuality? What are you choosing to believe? Take time to pray about this, to talk to Jesus about it, to study God's word with respect to sexual sins. Share with mature Christians in your fellowship where you are. And try, even if you feel like trying is futile. As a "sacramental believer", I would add a sixth element to the normal Christian life, the regular participation in the Eucharist. I believe that receiving the Lord's Body and Blood has a life changing effect on us, but I realize that this is not where many of our readers are, and I do believe that the five elements described do comprise a life in which change will occur. Part of Your Life Now Here's a key point in all of this. There is not one of these five (or six) elements of the normal Christian life that cannot be a part of your life. And if they are present, you are on the way, and a part of this being on the way will be your growth in sexual purity. There will surely be times when you feel you are stuck, times even when you sense that you are falling back. That too is "normal." The road toward completion is never a straight line. God may have you on hold until he gets your attention in some other area of your life. Most of us have found times when we had to sink deeply into the muck and mire of our own sins before we would find ourselves at a place where we were ready to truly die to something. If you are leading the normal Christian life, you are on the way to true and lasting change because it is not your power that is going to change you. It is His power. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 1:11-12) It is His power. And for this reason, you have every reason for hope.

Anglican Church of Brazil Comments on Homosexuality A Call for a Consequential and Responsible Reflection on the Issue of Homosexuality in the Anglican Communion "Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit" — Zechariah 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 All Christians Beloved brethren, The debate on the understanding of homosexuality 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 in the Episcopal Church of the United States and of Canada, however, immediately led to such a polarization 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: 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 polarization, leading to extreme and precipitated actions and manifestations that have rekindled 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 forward publicly at this moment 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 favor 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, in His image and likeness, with the capacity to cooperate in creation, to develop language and culture, and to build upon Nature. b. We believe in the universality of human sin and the universal merit of the redeeming sacrifice of Christ on the cross at 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 New Testaments as the written Word of God, divinely inspired, the ultimate authority in matters of theology, trustworthy in its integrity and infallible in all things necessary for salvation (Article 6, XXXIX Articles of Religion). 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 life 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 contextualization 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 Homosexuality: 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 (Romans 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 (Romans 1:18-32). It is also a fact that the questions relative to the discussion on homosexuality comprise a great complexity of human factors that need to be deeply analyzed 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 homosexuality 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. Such an analysis should help in outlining ethical strategies for institutional organization and works, as also forms of individual and collective pastoral works, and the taking of a stand before society and other emerging disputes. 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 secular agenda, bringing up the centuries-old discourse, labeling 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—inasmuch 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 time. 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 entered 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 "curialization" or "federalization" of the Anglican Communion, that the instruments of Communion should be strengthened, where there will be a greater participation of the clergy and laity in the Anglican Consultative Council, in such a manner that important decisions can be analyzed 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 concur with the decisions and actions of their provinces, a norm should be urgently drawn up for 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 labor 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 be no 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 do not prevent us from disagreeing, duly, with 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 behavioral 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 homosexuality, 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, Recife, July 6, 2004 Feast of St. Thomas More, Martyr, 1535 Signatories: Rev. Gustavo Gilson S. de Oliveira, OSE, Rector of the Anglican Seminary for Theological Studies–Recife Most Rev. Sérgio F. Lomeu de Andrade, Dean of the Anglican Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity Rev. Fábio S. Vasconcelos, Rector of the Parish of The Mediator and Chaplain to the Anglican Seminary of Theological Studies Rev. Manoel S. Moraes de Almeida, OSE, Rector of the Parish of The Good Samaritan Rev. João Câncio Peixoto Filho Rev. Elias Leôncio de B. Filho, OSE Friar Quintino Geraldo Diniz Melo, OSF Maurício Amazonas, OSE, Lay Minister Prof. Fernando Antônio Gonçalves, Seminarian Rodrigo Espiúca, Seminarian Senomar Teixeira Junior, Seminarian Sílvio 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 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, 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 Diagnosis (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 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 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, 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 is 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 Soubirous, 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 the 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 Kässmann, Lutheran bishop of Hanover in Germany, bemoaned the paper's "clichés." Ekin Delgöz, 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 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 of 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 women'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 is 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."

News Analysis 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 they 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 communities 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, considered 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 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 discussed. There are still some elderly men alive in Iraq who were forcibly converted to Islam in their childhood but remained Christians in their hearts, fasting during Lent and celebrating Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. During Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the Assyrians' persecution was in a sense more cultural than religious. "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 August 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, 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.

Bishop Edgar blasts Ruch decision, demands openness in upcoming trials By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 24, 2026   The Rt. Rev. Chip Edgar, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina (ADOSC), has announced that he will not participate in private discussions about the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) without his own representatives present. The ACNA is navigating multiple crises simultaneously: active lawsuits between The Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, (JAFC) and Bishop Julian Dobbs, the interim ecclesiastical authority, and an impending ecclesiastical trial of its archbishop. The cumulative effect has left the province appearing increasingly adrift. ADOSC Demands In a formal letter from Bishop Edgar and the ADOSC Standing Committee to the ACNA Executive Committee, the diocese set out several specific demands: That the standard of avoiding any appearance of impropriety be upheld among all provincial staff in pending and future proceedings. That those involved in allowing a court member in the Ruch trial to access prosecution files without the prosecutors' knowledge or consent be recused from all future disciplinary proceedings — particularly those involving Archbishop Wood. That a complete transcript of both trial and pretrial proceedings be released, including unedited video or audio. That all motions, court rulings (including pretrial rulings), and all three pretrial investigations be made public. That the identity of any investigator or firm retained, together with the engagement letter defining the investigation's scope, be disclosed — and that results be made public with appropriate confidentiality protections for victims. "Those who would deny a public response to valid questions — insisting the province is best served by withholding answers — do so at the risk of destabilizing the very foundation on which their authority rests," the letter states. The Standing Committee further argued that a lack of trust and mutual suspicion erode communion and weaken the church's witness, while transparency and truth strengthen both. The Exchange The ADOSC initially proposed sending three Standing Committee members and the Dean of the Province (also serving as Chancellor) to meet with three ACNA representatives. The diocese subsequently clarified, however, that it would meet only with its full Standing Committee present and with no promise of confidentiality, given that its sole purpose is to bring transparency to the province's process of justice. The ACNA Executive Committee responded by proposing that a delegation visit the ADOSC instead. Bishop Edgar and the Standing Committee declined that offer. The Executive Committee then invited Bishop Edgar to attend their next regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Tuesday, April 21. The Executive Committee further stated that it would not revisit the outcome of the Ruch trial, re-examine the merits of the charges, or assess the internal processes or rulings of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop or any other judicial body. In his response, Edgar wrote: "Lack of trust and mutual suspicion erode our communion and weaken our witness to a watching world. But our communion and witness are strengthened by a commitment to transparency and truth that is above reproach. "We therefore urge you to join us in seeking clarity and truth in these matters, and to work diligently alongside us so that, together, we may pursue reconciliation, restore confidence, and ensure that God is glorified in all we say and do as a Province."   END

(Image: The Good Samaritan Tending the Traveller's Wounds with Oil and Wine, from The Parable of the Good Samaritan, Heinrich Aldegrever) By Rev Dr. Ronald Moore March 24, 2026 There is a category of sin that receives far less attention than it deserves—not because it is rare, but because it is subtle. It does not shout. It does not scandalize. It does not always leave visible wreckage in its wake. Yet it is pervasive, corrosive, and deeply indicting. It is the sin of omission. The Apostle James states it with remarkable clarity: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17, NKJV) This is not a difficult verse to understand. It is difficult to accept. Beyond the Obvious Sins Most Christians are well-trained in recognizing sins of commission. We know what it means to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, to harbor hatred, to blaspheme. These are the sins we warn against, preach against, and confess with some regularity. But James expands the moral horizon. Sin is not merely doing what is wrong—it is also failing to do what is right. This is a more uncomfortable category. It is one thing to refrain from evil. It is another to actively pursue good. The former can be achieved through restraint. The latter requires obedience, courage, and often sacrifice. A man may pride himself on the fact that he has never stolen. Yet if he withholds generosity when he knows it is needed, he stands condemned by James’ standard. A Christian may avoid false doctrine, yet remain silent when truth must be spoken. That silence is not neutrality. It is sin. Knowledge and Accountability Notice the condition James places upon this principle: “to him who knows to do good…” This is not a condemnation of ignorance, but of willful neglect. Knowledge carries weight. It creates obligation. The more clearly one understands what is right, the less room there is for excuse. A man who does not know is one thing. A man who knows and refuses is another entirely. This aligns with the broader teaching of Scripture. Our Lord Himself says: “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required…” (Luke 12:48, NKJV) In an age of unprecedented access to Scripture, teaching, and theological resources, this should give us pause. We are not a people lacking knowledge. We are a people often lacking obedience. The problem is not that we do not know what is good. It is that we do not do it. The Quiet Nature of Omission Sins of omission are particularly dangerous because they often go unnoticed—both by others and by ourselves. There is no immediate scandal in failing to speak a needed word. There is no public outrage when compassion is withheld. There is no visible alarm when duty is quietly neglected. And yet, these omissions accumulate. They form a pattern. They shape the soul. A man who repeatedly fails to act when he should act becomes a man who no longer even recognizes the call to act. This is how conscience dulls—not through dramatic rebellion, but through repeated inaction. Christ’s Judgment on Omission Our Lord addresses this with sobering clarity in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats: “For I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink… Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” (Matthew 25:42–45, NKJV) Notice what is condemned. Not theft. Not violence. Not overt wickedness. But failure. Failure to feed. Failure to clothe. Failure to visit. Failure to act. The judgment is not merely against evil deeds, but against neglected good. Likewise, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite are not condemned for attacking the wounded man. They are condemned by implication for passing him by. They knew what should be done. They did not do it. The Comfortable Christian This is where the modern Church must take heed. We have, in many places, cultivated a Christianity that is defined more by what it avoids than by what it accomplishes. A quiet, respectable faith that commits no obvious wrongs, yet often fails to do the very good that God has plainly set before it. We avoid controversy when truth demands clarity. We withhold correction when error spreads. We delay generosity when need is present. We excuse silence under the guise of prudence. And all the while, we reassure ourselves that we have done no harm. But James does not allow such comfort. To know and not to do is not harmless. It is sinful. The Cost of Obedience If omission is so serious, why is it so common? Because doing good is costly. It requires: · Time, when we are busy · Courage, when we are hesitant · Sacrifice, when we are comfortable · Clarity, when ambiguity would be easier It is often far easier to do nothing than to do what is right. To speak the truth may risk relationship. To give generously may strain finances. To intervene may invite conflict. And so, we remain still. But the call of Christ has never been to comfort. It has always been to obedience. A Call to Active Faithfulness James, more than any other New Testament writer, refuses to separate faith from action. His epistle presses relentlessly toward lived obedience: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” (James 1:22, NKJV) The deception he warns against is precisely this—the belief that knowing is enough. It is not enough to understand the good. It is not enough to affirm the good. It is not enough to agree with the good. The good must be done. This is where faith becomes visible, where belief becomes embodied, where the Christian life moves from abstraction into reality. The Examination of Conscience If we take James seriously, our examination of conscience must expand. Not only: · What have I done that I should not have done? But also: · What have I left undone that I should have done? Where did I remain silent when I should have spoken? Where did I withhold when I should have given? Where did I delay when I should have acted? These are not secondary questions. They are central to the moral life. The Weight of the Good There is a quiet but profound truth at the heart of James 4:17: The greatest sins are often not the evils we commit, but the goods we refuse. The Christian life is not merely the avoidance of wrongdoing. It is the active pursuit of righteousness. It is not enough to stand apart from darkness. We are called to walk in the light. And the light is not passive. It shines.

By David Straw www.virtueonline.org March 24, 2026   There is a profound irony at the heart of traditional Roman Catholic apologetics. Once you see it, it is hard to miss. This is not an academic paper. I am not offering footnotes or exhaustive history. What follows is a pastoral observation based on conversations I have had over the years with a few who have converted to Roman Catholicism and on stories I have heard from parishioners. Rome has spent decades investing in ecumenism. Not casually, but very seriously and deliberately. From the Second Vatican Council through the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church has put real time, money, and serious theological energy into building bridges with other Christians. And to be fair, that commitment on their part is very real. But here is the problem. The very approach some Roman Catholic apologists use to defend Rome works against that goal. Not indirectly. Directly. It does not build bridges. It ends up burning them. You walk away from certain conversations and you do not feel sharpened. You do not even feel disagreed with. You feel like nothing you said actually mattered. Rome’s leadership says we need real dialogue. But the way these individuals’ arguments are constructed makes that almost impossible. That tension needs to be named. A certain kind of Roman Catholic convert keeps showing up in these conversations. You have met them. Especially online. In parish life. Sometimes they are former Anglicans you know. They are usually young. Very sharp and quick-witted. Sincere. All of the ones I have met in person really do want holiness. This is not about bad motives. Although, I will say that interacting with these individuals on the internet tends to leave you less inclined toward Rome than when you started. And to be clear, not every traditional Catholic argues this way. Some do not. Some are thoughtful, open, willing to wrestle. But there is a pattern. Once you have seen it a few times, you recognize it right away. People describe it almost the same way every time. “He is smart, but it is like talking to a wall.” “He has an answer for everything.” “It feels like you are arguing with a computer program and not a person.” Honestly, even those examples do not quite capture it. The computer program comes close. In fact, it sounds a little too much like that line from The Terminator. “It can’t be reasoned with. It can’t be bargained with. It feels no pity, remorse, or fear. And it will not stop until you are dead.” Not you, of course. Just your theology. That is what it feels like. Until you realize it is not mainly a failure of charity or intelligence. It is the system itself. 1. The Mind Palace The “mind palace” idea became popular through the BBC’s Sherlock. Holmes builds this structure in his head where everything has a place. Every fact. Every memory. He does not search. He simply walks to the right room. That is not a bad picture of what is going on here. Over time, a theological world gets built. And it really is impressive. Everything fits somewhere. ·        Every doctrine has its place. ·        Every Father gets a category. ·        Every historical problem already has a file waiting for it. Nothing is left loose. From the inside, it feels like clarity. Like finally everything makes sense. But listen to how the conversations actually go. You raise a historical problem. The answer comes back immediately. ·        Jerome submitted to the Church. So the argument is settled. ·        The German bishops are being handled carefully. ·        The SSPX situation is political, not doctrinal. ·        When Rome appears to change, continuity is invoked. It was always doctrine. When that fails, discontinuity is invoked. It was only discipline. The escape hatch is always there. ·        The Magisterium defines the faith, interprets Scripture, interprets Tradition, and interprets its own past decisions. The circle closes perfectly. ·        Corruption does not touch indefectibility. Contradictory papal statements do not count. Liturgical chaos does not count. Only a formal ex cathedra definition could count, and those are exceedingly rare. ·        Bishop Strickland is removed. Father James Martin keeps his platform. But the judgment of the Magisterium stands. Notice what is happening. Every difficulty is categorized. Every tension is managed. Every apparent rupture is explained. Nothing is allowed to stand outside the system and press on it. The framework they are working in does not have a category for “we might be wrong.” It is not just answering objections. It is absorbing them. The palace itself cannot be proven wrong. I realize I am repeating myself. That is deliberate. Every objection you raise gets repeated, absorbed, and folded back into the system again and again. I am simply modeling what these types of Roman Catholic apologists are doing. 2. The Kobayashi Maru If the mind palace explains how it feels from the inside, the Kobayashi Maru explains how it feels from the outside. The Kobayashi Maru is a training scenario from Star Trek that is intentionally unwinnable. No strategy works. No choice succeeds. The outcome is fixed before you begin. The only way anyone has ever “won” it is by changing the rules of the simulation itself. That is what these conversations can feel like. Every objection you raise has already been accounted for. Even the strong ones. You bring up historical messiness. It becomes development. You point to contradiction. It becomes clarification. You raise serious discontinuity. It gets reframed as organic growth. Even the most sophisticated versions of the argument follow this pattern. You see it clearly in John Henry Newman’s account of doctrinal development. What looks like rupture is said to be continuity, rightly understood through the living authority of the Church. And so everything fits. Everything gets pulled back in. Everything is explained. So the system never loses. It cannot. And after a while, you start to realize something. You are not just talking to a person. You are talking to a closed loop that has already processed what you are about to say. The answers come fast. Clean. Almost automatic. And yet something is missing. Because it feels convincing. It feels inevitable. But that is not the same thing as being true. 3. Speaking to the Person, Not the Palace This is where the Anglican instinct matters. Anglicanism has always made a basic distinction. Coherence is not the same thing as truth. A system can fit together beautifully and still rest on something unstable. You can build a perfect palace and still have it sitting on a slope. So the goal is not to argue room by room inside that system. That only strengthens it. The goal is to step outside it, even briefly. Look at the ground. Because once you step outside, things are not so tidy anymore. History does not behave. The Fathers do not all say the same thing. Scripture does not sit still and act like a set of proof texts. And that is not a weakness. That is reality. Now, Anglicanism is not groundless. Anglicanism has always insisted that the Church’s authority is real, but it is not self-referential. It is accountable to something outside itself. Scripture is final. The Creeds draw the boundaries. The early Church shows us how the faith was actually received and practiced before the medieval developments that the Reformation came to correct. And the formularies matter. The Thirty-Nine Articles are not decorations. They summarize what the English Reformation recovered from that ancient faith. These are the foundations we test against. We are not open to anything. We are open to what these foundations actually say, even when that is inconvenient. We are willing to ask questions that do not always resolve cleanly. ·        Is it true? ·        Is it necessary? ·        Is it apostolic? ·        Is this actually what the Church did? ·        Is this what Christ gave us? Sometimes those questions do not fit neatly inside a closed system. And right there, when the tension cannot immediately be explained away, something honest happens. Not a win. Not a clever argument. Just reality. And often, that is where grace shows up. 4. The Slope Beneath the Palace Some systems feel solid the moment you step into them. Everything connects. Everything supports everything else. It is clean. It is reassuring. And it is impressive. But coherence is not the same as truth. I have talked with people who have moved from Anglicanism into very tight, highly systematized forms of Roman Catholicism. You can feel it right away. Every objection has an answer. Every answer fits. Nothing is allowed to remain open. It is strong. But it is also closed. Because when everything gets pulled back in and explained, one question never quite gets asked. What if the foundation itself needs to be examined? That is the question Anglicanism keeps coming back to. Not because it enjoys uncertainty. But because it refuses to confuse a well-built system with the truth of the Gospel. Scripture, the Creeds, the early Church. That is the ground. And if the ground shifts, it matters. Closed systems struggle there. They need everything to stay level. They need the past to line up cleanly with the present. But history is not that tidy. And deep down, people know it. That is why these conversations matter. Not to win. To reach the person still inside. The palace may be impressive. But the ground tells the truth.   The Rev. David Straw is Rector of Trinity Anglican Church and a lifelong Anglican, ordained in 2007. He graduated cum laude from the University of Southern Indiana and completed graduate work for ministry at Wesley Seminary in Marion, Indiana.

Over 380 million Christians face severe persecution globally, and the numbers are growing.   By Eric Metaxas                                                                SAVE THE PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS  March 21, 2026 Imagine this: A man steps outside his own home in a quiet neighborhood.   Suddenly, violence erupts, his kneecap shattered in a brutal attack. His car torched. His family terrorized for years, children taunted with slurs in the streets, living under police protection for nearly a decade.   This isn't a scene from some distant war zone.   This happened in Bradford, England – to Nissar Hussain.   His only "crime"? Leaving Islam and embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.   For 17 years, Nissar endured relentless persecution from his former community. The Church of England? SILENT. Not one bishop stood with him or his family.   But Save the Persecuted Christians, where I’m proud to serve as a board member, refused to stand by. We brought Nissar here to the U.S. to help him share his story, and he is now fighting back boldly – in part by pursuing a groundbreaking legal case against 11 countries that still mandate death for apostasy.   Your support has amplified his voice and his mission to expose this evil.   Nissar's story is heartbreaking, but it's not isolated. Over 380 million Christians face severe persecution globally, and the numbers are growing.   In Iran, 254 believers were arrested in 2025 alone for simply practicing their faith, escalating further amid the regime's war on Christians.   In Nigeria, thousands have been slaughtered by Islamist militants: entire villages massacred, girls held captive for years, all because they refused to deny Christ.   In Pakistan, blasphemy laws are twisted to destroy Christian lives.   In North Korea, owning a Bible can mean a lifetime in a labor camp.   It is for all of these reasons that Save the Persecuted Christians is relentlessly educating Americans and rallying the faithful to recognize the threat before it takes deeper root here.   A powerful example: Our ongoing education and advocacy efforts helped fuel the overwhelming success on March 3, when 95% of Texas Republican primary voters stood up and voted to ban Sharia law – sending a clear, faithful message: We will not let this ideology gain a foothold in America and threaten our freedoms or our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ.   The threat is real. Persecution that starts overseas doesn't always stay there. We must be extra vigilant, and we need your help right now to keep pushing back.   From media campaigns to conferences and everything in between, I’ve seen firsthand how effectively and tirelessly Save the Persecuted Christians guides a coalition of 200+ leaders in order to expose evil and rally the Church – and any support you can offer is well-placed.   Paul wrote in Galatians 6:2, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”   That is our mandate as the Body of Christ.   The Church must rise in one spirit, refusing silence in the face of darkness. Thank you for your faithfulness and courage in this hour.   END

By Ted Schroder, Amelia Plantation Chapel The reason the first Christians changed their day of worship from the seventh day of the week (the Sabbath), to the first day, was because of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection was so important to them that it even changed the way they worshipped. The Sabbath, which was so holy to the Jews, became the Lord's Day. For it was on that first day, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in the Upper Room. He came and stood among them, spoke with them, and showed them his wounds. John's Gospel tells us that the disciples were overjoyed when they saw him. He commissioned them in his service of preaching the Gospel of forgiveness of sins in the power of the Holy Spirit. But Thomas was not there. He missed church that Sunday! The other disciples told him what had happened. They gave their first hand testimony: "We have seen the Lord!" But Thomas was not easily persuaded. He wanted proof. "Unless I see with my own eyes the nail marks in his hand and put my own finger where the nails were, and put my own hand into his side, I will not believe it." Have you had the experience with someone who does not share your faith? They want first hand proof that your experience is valid. Or perhaps you have had difficulties believing yourself that the Gospel record is true, and want to see everything tested before you will receive it as valid? Why did St. Thomas doubt? Why do many people find it difficult to believe the testimony of others, the witness of history, the record of his post-resurrection appearances, the claims of Christ to be God in the flesh, the Lord of all, the conqueror of death and Hades, the authority of Holy Scripture? What causes some people to be congenital doubters? Did Thomas suffer from existential angst? Philosophers explore the problem of having a fundamental sense of uncertainty about the reality of existence. Doubt and despair can be the result of a basic pessimism about the human condition. Modern atheistic philosophy, that denies any divine purpose, and defines life in terms of a biological determinism, breeds cynicism. Life that is lived on the surface, that seeks to escape boredom and emptiness through material acquisition and pleasure, is prone to perennial doubt. Doubt cannot be always kept at bay by distraction from anxiety. Perhaps Thomas was plagued with troubling questions that he couldn't ignore. Doubts are often rooted deep in the personality. Did Thomas suffer from emotional mood swings: a manic period when faith was strong, and a depressive period when faith was absent? When we feel good, and life is going well, faith is easy. But when we pass through periods of discouragement, doubts resurface. It is important to distinguish mood swings from genuine doubt. Our feelings have to be offered up to God, to be purified, so that we can experience peace. We can choose to be governed by our feelings or by our daily commitment to follow Jesus. Jesus said, "Come to me all you who weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke (i.e. my teaching) upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30) Was Thomas at a turning point in his development and personal history? Different seasons of our lives affect our faith and our doubts. Changes in life lead to vulnerability which leaves us open to doubt. Transitions, a sense of danger, insecurity, loneliness, which Thomas must have been experiencing, can cause doubt and fear. Adolescence, mid-life crises, menopause, empty nests, illnesses and retirement bring stresses that cause us to doubt. As we age we ask, "Is there nothing more?" and we face the three big D's: decline, depression and death. Did the death of Jesus trigger some emotional connection in Thomas's life? The loss of Jesus may have led him to contemplate other losses in his life, which he interpreted as abandonment by significant people, and consequent feeling of anger, or lack of value. Some doubts can be traced to painful chapters in our emotional history. Deaths of parents, siblings, or close friends in tragic circumstances, may have left unfinished business. The fact that Jesus had appeared to the other disciples and not him may have upset him. Was Jesus avoiding him? Was he not important? Why was he being put on the spot and expected to believe when the others had it easy? It could have looked to him as favoritism. Pressure points and crisis events can shape our doubts. Job losses, illness, bereavements, tragedy of one kind or another, may push us to doubt. Loss of children or other people we love, often cause us to doubt that there is a God of love. Perhaps this is what led to Thomas's doubting. He had undergone the stunning shock and stress of Jesus' arrest, trial, torture and execution. This was a major life crisis for Thomas. All his hopes and dreams had crashed and burned. Parental abuse causes distrust and doubt of any authority figures. New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz, in his book Faith of the Fatherless , studied the childhood of several well-known atheists and saw strong evidence that their rejection of God is directly related to father pain: the death of a father or abuse or abandonment by their fathers. Vitz points out that Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher who declared that 'God is dead,' lost his father at age four. Samuel Butler, skeptical British novelist, was often brutally beaten by his 'pious' father. Sigmund Freud said his father was a 'pervert' and built much of his psychological theory around father hatred. Joseph Stalin's father beat him unmercifully. Madelyn Murray O'Hair once tried to kill her father with a butcher knife. Vitz suggests that after studying these and other 'major historical rejecters of God .... We find a weak, dead or abusive father in every case." Consequently Vitz urges great compassion for atheists, because behind their unbelief, in all likelihood lies some painful memory. So as you examine your doubts, you may want to honestly confront the possibility that one of your roadblocks to faith may be some pain from the past. Lynn Anderson in "If I Really Believe, Why Do I Have These Doubts?" claims that the pace of our lives breeds doubts. He calls it cognitive overload. The impact of the media upon us transforms every day into a crisis as we absorb the tragic events in the world through our television screens. We are overstimulated by our environment and overcommitted in our schedule. We keep ourselves busy so that we do not have to find time for reflecting and listening. Activism, no matter how well-intentioned, leaves life shallow. It can also leave us with faith that may appear to be a mile wide but may not be an inch deep. Cynicism and skepticism pours over us from the talking heads, and the experts. As in the garden of Eden, the tempter can stimulate these roots of doubt and encourage their growth so that we question the presence of God. The influence of evil seems more pervasive than the power of the goodness of God when we see innocent civilians and children killed or maimed by terrorists. "Where is God in all of that carnage?" we ask. Henri Nouwen refers to this experience as 'the absence of God'. But some of the times when God seems to be absent may actually be fulfilling his purpose. "His absence... is often so deeply felt that it leads to a new sense of His presence." ( Reaching Out , p.127) When we feel that God is absent, he may be more completely and sharply focused in our conscious thoughts, more so than when we take for granted that he is very near. Henri Nouwen writes, "The mystery of God's presence, therefore, can be touched only by a deep awareness of his absence. It is in the center of our longing for the absent God that we discover his footprints... In the patient waiting for the loved one, we discover how much he has filled our lives already. Just as the love of a mother for her son can grow deeper when he is far away, just as children can learn to appreciate their parents more when they have left the home, just as lovers can rediscover each other during long periods of absence, so our intimate relationship with God can become deeper and more mature by the purifying experience of his absence." (p.128) When you consider your doubts, look for its roots in your basic temperament, or your particular stage in life, or to a negative experience either long past or recent. Doubt may have more to do with your personality or your personal history than it does with the facts, with the issue of truth, or the conflict between faith and knowledge. Who knows what were the roots of Thomas's doubts about the resurrection? Eventually he came to believe. Some of us take longer to process the information we need in order to experience the presence of Christ. That does not mean that we should give up or summarily reject the evidence we have in hand. It means that we need to be patient and humble enough to be open to what God might want to teach us. A week later, the next Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord's day, when the disciples were gathered together again (the second Sunday in the Christian era), Jesus came and stood among them, as he does whenever his church gathers. He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." When Thomas saw Jesus he acknowledged him with words of personal faith, "My Lord and my God." Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:24-29) Jesus says to every one of us, "Stop doubting and believe." That means making a choice. Will I consciously believe, or will I choose to continue to doubt? Doubt is a decision, just as much as faith. Feelings of uncertainty or doubt, should not prevent us from making the decision to believe in Jesus and to follow him. Sometimes we have to act on our choices before the feelings will follow. The habit of keeping company with Jesus, will result in a secure relationship of love, which fosters faith. Walking in the way of Christ each day, gradually dispels doubt, until it withers away through lack of attention. Faith needs to be fed, and doubt needs to be starved through prayer, study, service, witness, and worship. In that way the past can be put behind us, and the future becomes an adventure of faith with all the possibilities the kingdom of God promises. It is the only way to live. END

By Ted Schroder "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30) Sheep are helpless creatures. They are not able to protect themselves. They have no weapons, no protective armor, no ability to strategize or to outwit their enemies, no speed to outrun them. Predators have a field day with sheep. Evolution doesn't work for sheep. It is not a question of the survival of the fittest. Having been bred for human convenience the wooly animals are completely dependent on their shepherd. This is the analogy Jesus uses to remind us that we are helpless in the face of those things that prey upon us, those things which threaten our security, those things which frighten us and destroy our peace, those things that seek to snatch us out of the hand of God and destroy our faith, hope and love. Our natural predators are doubt and despair, anxiety and fear, bitterness and resentment. We are vulnerable to financial setbacks, to unexpected health problems, to relationships that disappoint us, to accidents and tragedies. It is possible for us to do something about protecting ourselves from known dangers. We try to secure ourselves against disaster—we would be irresponsible and shortsighted if we didn't. But no one can completely control all the circumstances surrounding them. We cannot dictate the conditions of the economy, or the actions of other people. We cannot force other people to fulfill our expectations. We are interdependent. If we place our total and complete trust in what other people may or may not do, in the reliability of companies or politicians, and they prove unable to protect us, we panic. We can't altogether trust in continued, increasing prosperity, in continued good health, in continued peace in the world. Faith in God cannot prevent bad things happening to us. "God causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45) Life can be full of suffering. How we handle it is the test of our faith. Lil Holley was a short, buxom lady who reigned over our kitchen. As a child I spent a great deal of my time in that kitchen with the staff. They were part of my extended family. Lil was given to strong language at times when she was exasperated. One lunch-time, I was home from high school, when, with her head in the oven, she started cussing me out for no apparent reason. I was standing on the other side of the kitchen, minding my own business, and could not understand why she should light into me in such a fashion. She thought I was standing behind her and pushing her into the oven! When she realized that I was on the other side of the room, she started to wonder whether she had suffered a fainting spell. Then we all felt it. It was an earthquake tremor. My mother was sick in her bedroom upstairs at the time. I thought she might be frightened, so I ran out the door and up the back staircase, which kept moving on me, in a strange way. When I arrived at the bedroom I found my mother half out of the bed to unplug an electric heater so that a fire might not be caused. We had all heard about fires following earthquakes and devastating badly damaged towns. I went back down the front staircase, and saw the unmistakable sign of an earthquake—the light fixtures were swaying to and fro. Bottles had crashed down from the shelves, making an awful mess on the floors. Then the quake stopped, to be succeeded by a quiet, as everyone caught their breath, and wondered what damage had been caused. For several days aftershocks would occur, but none as violent as the first. The chief question on people's minds was, "Where was the epicenter?" for we knew that the damage would be greatest there. On this occasion the epicenter was found to be offshore in the Tasman Sea. In Florida, a different kind of earthquake can happen. As underground streams dry up in droughts, the limestone aquifer will contract, and a sinkhole suddenly can form. The earth caves in, taking anything that sits upon the surface. Houses, roads, automobiles, can disappear into the sinkhole. Earthquakes are the result of the expansion and contraction of the earth, the shifting of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the earth. They are completely outside human control. No one can forecast when an earthquake or a sinkhole will happen. It could happen tomorrow, or not for ten years. It could happen where we live, or somewhere else. Jesus tells us that ultimate protection and peace of mind is to be found only in the Lord. We are truly helpless apart from Christ. It is he who gives us the security of eternal life, the guarantee that we will not be snatched from the protective power of God. When Jesus said, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand", he is telling us that he will give us a life that is full of the splendor and magnificence of the life of God. He is telling us that he will give us a life that none can ultimately destroy, or diminish, or degrade; a life that is everlasting, that endures into the glory that is heaven. He is telling us that he will give us a life that is secure, in which there is no deprivation of the presence and the power of God, a life that will know the serenity of God even if the world collapses around us. How can this be so? Jesus says: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." We can be confident in the power of God to protect us because he is greater than all the problems that could prey upon us, and that he has given us into the care of Christ, who is one with him in this care and concern. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? ... For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35,38,39) There are two errors we tend to fall into. First, we tend to over-estimate our own ability to protect ourselves. We think that we have the personal strength to be self-sufficient. There are many people who think that they can survive in their own strength, and beat the system by themselves. The image Jesus uses is telling—we are sheep, and ultimately, when trouble looms in our lives, we are helpless on our own. We just don't have the ability to fend off the predatory elements. We are fragile creatures, vulnerable to attack. We are not made to survive on our own. Secondly, we under-estimate the ability and desire of God to protect us. Jesus said, "I know my sheep." God knows everything about us, even to counting the numbers of hairs on our heads. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without him knowing it. Jesus promises us protection. We need not fear. Yet we are often unwilling to admit our need, and to acknowledge that God can take care of us and will if we let him. The message of the Scriptures is, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31) "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13) What is it that is preying upon you, upon your mind? What is it that seeks to snatch you out of the hand of God? What is it that seeks to destroy your peace and assurance of God's love? Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow me." Listen to the promises of Jesus rather than the voice of your fears. Follow him in faith to the way of safety.