The Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious Freedom: Reaffirming A Shared Witness

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders to All in Positions of Public Service

Released April 23, 2015

Dear Friends:

At this significant time in our nation’s history with the institution of marriage before the United States Supreme Court, we reaffirm our commitment to promote and defend marriage—the union of one man and one woman. As religious leaders from various faith communities, we acknowledge that marriage is the foundation of the family where children are raised by a mother and a father together. Our commitment to marriage has been expressed on previous occasions, including the Letter of Shared Commitment and Letter on Marriage and Religious Liberty. This commitment is inseparable from affirming the equal dignity of all people and the necessity of protecting their basic rights.

The state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as it has been understood across faiths and cultures for millennia because it has a compelling interest in the well-being of children. Every child has a mother and a father, and every child deserves the opportunity, whenever possible, to be raised by his or her own married mother and father in a stable, loving home. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the only institution that encourages and safeguards the connection between children and their mother and father. Although this connection cannot always be realized and sustained—and many single parents, for example, are heroic in their efforts to raise their children—it is in the best interests of the state to encourage and uphold the family founded on marriage and to afford the union of husband and wife unique legal protection and reinforcement.

The redefinition of legal marriage to include any other type of relationship has serious consequences, especially for religious freedom. It changes every law involving marital status, requiring that other such relationships be treated as if they were the same as the marital relationship of a man and a woman. No person or community, including religious organizations and individuals of faith, should be forced to accept this redefinition. For many people, accepting a redefinition of marriage would be to act against their conscience and to deny their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Government should protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred of others.

In this and in all that we do, we are motivated by our duty to love God and neighbor. This love extends to all those who disagree with us on this issue. The well-being of men, women, and the children they conceive compels us to stand for marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We call for the preservation of the unique meaning of marriage in the law, and for renewed respect for religious freedom and for the conscience rights of all in accord with the common good.

Sincerely Yours:
 

The Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson
President
National Association of Evangelicals

The Most Rev. Dr. Foley Beach
Archbishop and Primate
Anglican Church in North America

Dr. A.D. Beacham, Jr.
Presiding Bishop
International Pentecostal Holiness Church

The Rev. John F. Bradosky
Bishop
North American Lutheran Church

Rev. Mark Chavez
General Secretary
North American Lutheran Church

Clint Cook
Executive Director
General Association of General Baptists

Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
Archbishop of San Francisco
Chairman
USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios
Archbishop of America
President of the Holy Eparchial Synod
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

The Most Rev. Robert Duncan
Archbishop Emeritus
Anglican Church in North America
Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton
Conference Minister
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference

Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison
President
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Rev. Bruce D. Hill
Bishop
Evangelical Congregational Church

John Hopler
Director
Great Commission Churches

Steven R. Jones
President
Missionary Church, Inc.

Imam Faizul Khan
Islamic Society of Washington Area

Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz
Archbishop of Louisville
President
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Most Rev. William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman
USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for
Religious Liberty

Dr. Jo Anne Lyon
General Superintendent
The Wesleyan Church

Most Rev. Richard J. Malone
Bishop of Buffalo
Chairman
USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth

Dr. Russell Moore
President
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Dr. Gus Reyes
Director
Christian Life Commission, Texas Baptists

Rev. Eugene F. Rivers, III
Founder and President
Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies

Jacqueline C. Rivers
Executive Director
Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies

Larry Roberts
Chief Operating Officer
The Free Methodist Church – USA

Rocky Rocholl
President
Fellowship of Evangelical Churches

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
President
National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference / Hispanic Evangelical Association

Bishop Gary E. Stevenson
Presiding Bishop
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Dr. L. Roy Taylor
Stated Clerk
Presbyterian Church in America

His Beatitude, The Most
Blessed Tikhon
Archbishop of Washington and Metropolitan of All America and Canada
Orthodox Church in America

Dr. Joseph Tkach
President
Grace Communion International

Rev. Dr. David Wendel
Assistant to the Bishop for
Ministry and Ecumenism
North American Lutheran Church

Rev. Phillip Whipple
Bishop
United Brethren in Christ Church, USA

David P. Wilson
General Secretary
Church of the Nazarene

Rev. Paul Winter
Elder
Bruderhof Communities

Dr. George O. Wood
General Superintendent
Assemblies of God

Neuhaus: Never weary, never rest

In one of his final public appearances, at the July 2008 convention of the National Right to Life Committee, the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus delivered what his First Things colleague Robert George quite correctly calls "the greatest pro-life speech ever given." It is inspiring, uplifting, at times even tear-inducing. Most of all, it is a clarion call to see the journey through to its destination, with the assured hope that the culture of life will, in the end, overcome the culture of death.

Once again this year, the National Right to Life convention is partly a reunion of veterans from battles past and partly a youth rally of those recruited for the battles to come. And that is just what it should be. The pro-life movement that began in the twentieth century laid the foundation for the pro-life movement of the twenty-first century. We have been at this a long time, and we are just getting started. All that has been and all that will be is prelude to, and anticipation of, an indomitable hope. All that has been and all that will be is premised upon the promise of Our Lord’s return in glory when, as we read in the Book of Revelation, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” And all things will be new.

That is the horizon of hope that, from generation to generation, sustains the great human rights cause of our time and all times—the cause of life. We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us.

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love.

It has been a long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go. Some say it started with the notorious Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 when, by what Justice Byron White called an act of raw judicial power, the Supreme Court wiped from the books of all fifty states every law protecting the unborn child. But it goes back long before that. Some say it started with the agitation for “liberalized abortion law” in the 1960s when the novel doctrine was proposed that a woman cannot be fulfilled unless she has the right to destroy her child. But it goes back long before that. It goes back to the movements for eugenics and racial and ideological cleansing of the last century.

Whether led by enlightened liberals, such as Margaret Sanger, or brutal totalitarians, whose names live in infamy, the doctrine and the practice was that some people stood in the way of progress and were therefore non-persons, living, as it was said, “lives unworthy of life.” But it goes back even before that. It goes back to the institution of slavery in which human beings were declared to be chattel property to be bought and sold and used and discarded at the whim of their masters. It goes way on back.

As Pope John Paul the Great wrote in his historic message Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) the culture of death goes all the way back to that fateful afternoon when Cain struck down his brother Abel, and the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And Cain answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” And the Lord said to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” The voice of the blood of brothers and sisters beyond numbering cry out from the slave ships and battlegrounds and concentration camps and torture chambers of the past and the present. The voice of the blood of the innocents cries out from the abortuaries and sophisticated biotech laboratories of this beloved country today. Contending for the culture of life has been a very long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go.

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life. To be recruited to the cause of the culture of life is to be recruited for the duration; and there is no end in sight, except to the eyes of faith.

Perhaps you, too, can specify such a moment when you knew you were recruited. At that moment you could have said, “Yes, it’s terrible that in this country alone 4,000 innocent children are killed every day, but then so many terrible things are happening in the world. Am I my infant brother’s keeper? Am I my infant sister’s keeper?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. You could have said, “Yes, the nation that I love is betraying its founding principles—that every human being is endowed by God with inalienable rights, including, and most foundationally, the right to life. But,” you could have said, “the Supreme Court has spoken and its word is the law of the land. What can I do about it?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. That horror, that betrayal, would not let you go. You knew, you knew there and then, that you were recruited to contend for the culture of life, and that you were recruited for the duration.

The contention between the culture of life and the culture of death is not a battle of our own choosing. We are not the ones who imposed upon the nation the lethal logic that human beings have no rights we are bound to respect if they are too small, too weak, too dependent, too burdensome. That lethal logic, backed by the force of law, was imposed by an arrogant elite that for almost forty years has been telling us to get over it, to get used to it.

But “We the People,” who are the political sovereign in this constitutional democracy, have not gotten over it, we have not gotten used to it, and we will never, we will never ever, agree that the culture of death is the unchangeable law of the land.

“We the People” have not and will not ratify the lethal logic of Roe v. Wade. That notorious decision of 1973 is the most consequential moral and political event of the last half century of our nation’s history. It has produced a dramatic realignment of moral and political forces, led by evangelicals and Catholics together, and joined by citizens beyond numbering who know that how we respond to this horror defines who we are as individuals and as a people. Our opponents, once so confident, are now on the defensive. Having lost the argument with the American people, they desperately cling to the dictates of the courts. No longer able to present themselves as the wave of the future, they watch in dismay as a younger generation recoils in horror from the bloodletting of an abortion industry so arrogantly imposed by judges beyond the rule of law.

We do not know, we do not need to know, how the battle for the dignity of the human person will be resolved. God knows, and that is enough. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta and saints beyond numbering have taught us, our task is not to be successful but to be faithful. Yet in that faithfulness is the lively hope of success. We are the stronger because we are unburdened by delusions. We know that in a sinful world, far short of the promised Kingdom of God, there will always be great evils. The principalities and powers will continue to rage, but they will not prevail.

In the midst of the encroaching darkness of the culture of death, we have heard the voice of him who said, “In the world you will have trouble. But fear not, I have overcome the world.” Because he has overcome, we shall overcome. We do not know when; we do not know how. God knows, and that is enough. We know the justice of our cause, we trust in the faithfulness of his promise, and therefore we shall not weary, we shall not rest.

Whether, in this great contest between the culture of life and the culture of death, we were recruited many years ago or whether we were recruited only yesterday, we have been recruited for the duration. We go from this convention refreshed in our resolve to fight the good fight. We go from this convention trusting in the words of the prophet Isaiah that “they who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength, they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not be weary, they will walk and not be faint.”

The journey has been long, and there are miles and miles to go. But from this convention the word is carried to every neighborhood, every house of worship, every congressional office, every state house, every precinct of this our beloved country—from this convention the word is carried that, until every human being created in the image and likeness of God—no matter how small or how weak, no matter how old or how burdensome—until every human being created in the image and likeness of God is protected in law and cared for in life, we shall not weary, we shall not rest. And, in this the great human rights struggle of our time and all times, we shall overcome.

Christmas is the birthday of peace -- St. Leo the Great

Although the state of infancy, which the majesty of the Son of God did not disdain to assume, developed with the passage of time into the maturity of manhood, and although after the triumph of the passion and the resurrection all his lowly acts undertaken on our behalf belong to the past, nevertheless today’s feast of Christmas renews for us the sacred beginning of Jesus’s life, his birth from the Virgin Mary. In the very act in which we are reverencing the birth of our Savior, we are also celebrating our own new birth. For the birth of Christ is the origin of the Christian people; and the birthday of the head is also the birthday of the body.

Though each and every individual occupies a definite place in this body to which he has been called, and though all the progeny of the church is differentiated and marked with the passage of time, nevertheless as the whole community of the faithful, once begotten in the baptismal font, was crucified with Christ in the passion, raised up with him in the resurrection and at the ascension placed at the right hand of the Father, so too it is born with him in this Nativity, which we are celebrating today.

For every believer regenerated in Christ, no matter in what part of the whole world he may be, breaks with that ancient way of life that derives from original sin, and by rebirth is transformed into a new man. Henceforth he is reckoned to be of the stock, not of his earthly father, but of Christ, who became Son of Man precisely that men could become sons of God; for unless in humility he had come down to us, none of us by our own merits could ever go up to him.

Therefore the greatness of the gift which he has bestowed o us demands an appreciation proportioned to its excellence; for blessed Paul the Apostle truly teaches: We have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. The only way that he can be worthily honored by us is by the presentation to him of that which he has already given to us.

But what can we find in the treasure of the Lord’s bounty more in keeping with the glory of this feast than that peace which was first announced by the angelic choir on the day of his birth? For that peace, from which the sons of God spring, sustains love and mothers unity; it refreshes the blessed and shelters eternity; its characteristic function and special blessing is to join to God those whom it separates from this world.

Therefore, may those who were born, not of blood nor of the will fo the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, offer to the Father their harmony as sons united in peace; and may all those whom he has adopted as his members meet in the firstborn of the new creation who came not to do him own will but the will of the one who sent him; for the grace of the Father has adopted as heirs neither the contentious nor the dissident, but those who are one in thought and love. The hearts and minds of those who have been reformed according to one and the same image should be in harmony with one another.

The birthday of the Lord is the birthday of peace, as Paul the Apostle says: For he is our peace, who has made us both one; for whether we be Jew or Gentile, through him we have access in one Spirit to the Father.

Anglican TV: Archbishop Duncan discusses visit to Vatican Colloquium

Archbishop Okoh's address to Humanum Colloquium

N.T. Wright's address to Humanum Colloquium

Justin Welby, eat your heart out! [UPDATED]

Photo Credit: Kevin Kallsen

George Conger, reporting for Anglican Ink from tonight's investiture service for Archbishop Foley Beach:

[Atlanta, GA] Pope Francis has communicated his personal greetings and blessings for the ministry of the Most Rev. Foley Beach, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA].

Speaking to the congregation of over 1500 gathered at the Church of the Apostles in Atlanta on 9 Oct 2014 for the installation of Archbishop Beach as leader of the ACNA, the Anglican Bishop of Argentina, the Rt. Rev. Gregory Venables stated that he had received a telephone call last week from "Fr Jorge", the former Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Bergoloio -- now Pope Francis. Bishop Venables noted that he had long had a warm personal relationship with Pope Francis from his days as leader of the Argentine Catholic Church, and added Anglicans should rejoice in the current occupant of the chair of St Peter as he was a "Bible-believing, born again Christian."

Pope Francis had telephoned Bishop Venables and asked him to convey his "personal greetings and congratulations as he leads his church in the very important job of revival ..." to Archbishop Beach.

Before the service, the Most Rev. Wilton Gregory, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Atlanta presented Archbishop Beach with a crozier as a mark of his esteem for the new Anglican archbishop.

The personal accolades of Pope Francis were greeted warmly by the congregation, and harkened to the words of support read out at the 2003 Plano Conference for conservative American Anglicans from the then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI.

It should be noted that Archbishop Beach also acknowledged personal greetings from the Archbishop of Canterbury but such a courtesy hardly covers for the damage done by Justin Welby's statements from last week.

UPDATE: More from George Conger on last night's service and a significant statement made by the Primates participating in the investiture.

The Anglican Church in North America is Anglican and its primate is an archbishop of the Anglican Communion, declared seven archbishops last night.

At the close of the prayer of investitute of the Most Rev. Foley Beach at the Church of the Apostles on 9 Oct 2014, the primates of Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Myanmar, Jerusalem and the Middle East and South America, and bishops representing the primates of the Congo, Sudan and South East Asia laid hands on Archbishop Beach. Giving him their primatial blessing, they also acknowledged him by word and through laying on of hands to be a fellow primate of the Anglican Communion.

The archbishops' act comes one week after the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby told the Church of Ireland Gazette the ACNA was an ecumenical partner of the Anglican Communion and was not Anglican.

In their formal statements of greeting delivered to the 1500 people attending the service at the Anglican megachurch led by Dr. Michael Youseff in suburban Atlanta, the primates offered greetings and congratulations to the new archbishop and expressed the fellowship of their churches with the ACNA, but declined to press home their statement that Archbishop Foley was a primate of the Anglican Communion.

After the service, those primates approached by Anglican Ink declined to be drawn on this issue. A leader of the ACNA familiar with the deliberations of the primates said the manner in which their endorsement of Archbishop Beach was given had been formulated to express their views on his status, while avoiding a direct confrontation with Archbishop Welby at this time.

Since 2008 the GAFCON primates have affirmed their fellowship with the ACNA. Last night saw primates of the Global South Coalition -- conservative church leaders outside the Gafcon movement and seen as closer to Canterbury -- join their African colleagues in validating publically the ACNA's Anglican credentials.

The signficance of the statement, said one highly placed source who asked not to be identified as he was not authorized to speak for his peers, was that the 10 churches had made their positions quite clear to Archbishop Welby. If, as he told the BBC last Sunday, he would be guided by the mind of the primates in deciding issues of Anglican ecclesiology (such as the time of the primates meeting and structure and timing of the Lambeth Conferences), then he must now know that archbishops representing the majority of Anglicans worshipping today were in solidarity with the ACNA -- and citing Daniel 6:15 said there was no turning back. (“Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”)

Ecumenical perspectives on SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision and continued struggle for religious freedom

Religious liberty won at the Supreme Court yesterday. One of the earlier victims of the Obama Administration's relentless assault on this fundamental freedom was the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), which sought and received relief from the nation's highest court over an employment dispute at one of its schools. Synod President Matthew Harrison offers his thoughts on yesterday's ruling, remembering his denomination's earlier battle.

Two years ago, I sat on a panel before Congress, testifying to the importance of religious liberty in America today.

It seems like a long time ago.

Since then, we have seen and heard a steady stream of news, from the church and the culture, about the Health and Human Services’ mandate and the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients and the conscience, religious freedoms and what this means for women.

Thankfully, the wait is over. The Supreme Court has ruled, and the verdict is in: In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty, specifically in regard to closely held corporations (those with a small number of shareholders and offering no public stock, such as corporations that are family-owned, not operated by boards).

While we rejoice in this strong upholding of religious freedom, this decision does not signal an end to this discussion. It simply emboldens us carry on, doing what we do best as Christians: praying, confessing the faith and living it out in our daily callings.

We pray that Americans, whose consciences are burdened because they have been forced to violate their religious beliefs, would know God’s comfort and forgiveness.

We confess that life, which begins at conception, is a gift from God and ought to be held in the highest regard in this country.

We live, knowing that the First Amendment guarantees us not only the right to worship, but also to practice our faith as Lutheran citizens of this great nation, serving our neighbor where the Lord has placed us.

We do all of this, even as we rejoice with the Greens of Hobby Lobby, with the Hahns of Conestoga Wood Specialties and with our millions of brothers and sisters in the United States who believe just as strongly in the religious liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.

Today we are thankful for this step toward maintaining the integrity of our religious freedoms inherent in the First Amendment, but we will also remain ever mindful. The issue is and will continue to be purely and simply about religious freedom.

And so we pray. We confess. We live.

“We fought for a free conscience in this country,” I told the committee two years ago, “and we won’t give it up without a fight.”

I meant that, and I pray you do too.

The Rev. Matthew C. Harrison
President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Robert George also reminds us that the fight is far from over.

What does today’s ruling portend for the other cases coming down the line concerning the mandates, including those for religious non-profit entities to whom the Obama administration has offered an “accommodation” that they, rightly in my view, regard as phony? Some language in Justice Alito’s opinion, and especially some language in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s short concurring opinion, is causing a bit of anxiety for religious freedom advocates. The Becket Fund explains the “accommodation” and what is fallacious about it:

Under this, an objecting organization will notify its insurer or plan administrator, which will make payments to employees for the mandated contraceptive services. The rule insists these payments are not “benefits” and are separate from the organization’s health plan. Nonetheless, the accommodation means that employees are guaranteed payments for objectionable services, specifically because they are covered under the organization’s plan. Furthermore, the accommodation requires a self-insured organization to “designate” its plan administrator as an agent who will make or arrange for payments for the mandated services. This “accommodation” fails to solve the moral problem created by the mandate for many religious organizations.

My own judgment is that Alito’s words needn’t and shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting that he thinks the “accommodation” satisfies RFRA concerns about the religious freedom of Catholic and Evangelical colleges and other institutions that have filed lawsuits to prevent imposition on them of the contraception and/or abortifacient mandates. As I said, Alito is a good judicial craftsman. He doesn’t address issues that needn’t be resolved in order to dispose of the case at hand. It is a mistake to read him as signaling a favorable attitude towards the “accommodation.”

Kennedy, not uncharacteristically, is harder to read. I can’t say with confidence that he is not signaling a friendly attitude towards the “accommodation.” At the same time, I cannot say that he seems to have settled his mind on the question. When one of the cases presenting the issue makes it to the Supreme Court, it will be incumbent on the lawyers challenging the imposition of the mandates to do a good job of explaining how, despite the “accommodation,” they implicate the religious employer in the provision of contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of their conscientious opposition to providing these products.

In the mean time, the cases filed by non-profit institutions like Colorado Christian College and the University of Notre Dame, and by the Catholic television network EWTN and the redoubtable Little Sisters of the Poor, will work their way through the system—mostly winning in the lower federal courts. Notre Dame Law School professor Gerard Bradley, one of our nation’s most astute commentators on religious liberty issues, has noted that these cases are of two kinds: (1) those involving claimants who self-insure; and (2) those involving claimants who purchase insurance from companies. Professor Bradley believes that today’s decision should inspire a great deal of confidence for claimants in the first category. The situation for those in the second, considered in light of what Justice Kennedy says in his concurring opinion, is more uncertain. What is certain is that Kennedy’s vote will decide the cases that consider the “accommodation.” Lawyers on the competing sides can each count on four votes being with them and four against. So lawyers on both sides will be directing their arguments to Kennedy. As is often the case, he is The Decider.

All the while, politics will happen. Hillary Clinton, Sandra Fluke, Nancy Pelosi, and others are already warning that the Supreme Court has joined the alleged “war on women.” Left-wing pressure groups will whip their base into a frenzy for electoral and fund-raising reasons. Brandishing Justice Ginsburg’s overwrought dissenting opinion, they will compare the justices in the Hobby Lobby majority to leaders of the Taliban. Democrats in Congress, egged on by the Daily Kos, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the rest, will propose reversing the Hobby Lobby decision by amending RFRA or repealing it altogether.

Friends of religious freedom must respond swiftly and strongly to the claims and political machinations of their adversaries. We must wield the sword of truth against the falsehoods and gross exaggerations that will become the currency of the other side’s attacks. Without resorting to their tactics, we must match their intensity and determination. Key elements of our religious freedom hang in the balance.

San Francisco Archbishop stands firm against Nancy Pelosi, will participate in marriage march

Despite having to endure the intimidating whines of Nancy Pelosi and other malcontents, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is not backing down from his commitment to the upcoming March for Marriage in Washington.

San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has responded to appeals from politicians and religious leaders that he back out of an appearance at a pro-marriage event in Washington, DC later this week, stating that the event “is not ‘anti-LGBT’”.

In a letter dated June 10, nearly 80 leaders, including California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee as well as representatives from various churches and religious organizations, called upon Archbishop Cordileone to reconsider participating in the National Organization for Marriage’s annual rally and march at the nation’s capital on June 19.

“[W]hile not all of us agree with official Catholic teaching on marriage and family,” the letter reads, “we appreciate the many statements from Catholic leaders defending the human dignity of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, especially the recent words of Pope Francis: ‘If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?’ … We respect freedom of religion and understand that you oppose civil marriage for same-sex couples. But the actions and rhetoric of NOM, and those of the event's speakers and co-sponsors, fundamentally contradict Christian belief in the fundamental human dignity of all people.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported over the weekend that US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a similar letter to Archbishop Cordileone asking him to cancel his appearance at the march. Pelosi also invoked the words of Pope Francis in her appeal.

The archbishop responded to the June 10 letter from Newson et al. with a letter of his own, in which he stated that his duty is “to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing.

I must do that in season and out of season, even when truths that it is my duty to uphold and teach are unpopular, including especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. That is what I will be doing on June 19th.

He also said that the March for Marriage is “not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March. … Rather, it affirms the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union.”

It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence. It is true that historically in our society violence has been perpetrated against persons who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and this is to be deplored and eradicated. Sadly, though, we are now beginning to see examples, although thankfully not widespread, of even physical violence against those who hold to the conjugal view of marriage…

Archbishop Cordileone’s letter concludes:

Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other. It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart. 

In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements. That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible. I know it is possible, I know this from personal experience. When we come together seeking to understand the other with good will, miracles can happen. 

When all is said and done, then, there is only one thing that I would ask of you more than anything else: before you judge us, get to know us.

The Future of Protestantism: Leithart, Sanders, and Trueman

In his First Things column today, Leithart offers a few post-mortem observations.

Inevitably, after an event like the Biola panel on the future of Protestantism, one wakes up thinking of the things one should have said. Here are a few.

1) One thing I did say that I need to reiterate: It seems that the three participants meant different things when we used the words “Protestant” and “Protestantism.” For Fred Sanders and Carl Trueman, Protestantism seems to be primarily about doctrinal affirmations – summarized by the solas. What I mean by “Protestantism” is more concretely sociological and historical. The Reformation was a revolution in doctrine, but it was equally, and for many lay people primarily, a revolution in liturgical practice and piety. It was, whether anyone intended it or not, also a revolution in the church’s relation to political powers and society. As the churches of the Reformation have developed historically, they haven’t simply been communities that hold to the solas, but have been communities with a range of different social and political locations, different attitudes and interactions with Roman Catholics and one another. Protestant churches are far from uniform in their sociological and political contours, but there are common features. I affirm the Reformation solas, but they don’t exist outside historical ecclesial and political configurations.

2) Fred Sanders characterized the Evangelical churches as bearers of a message, particularly of a Protestant message. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, the herald of the gospel. But to say that the church’s message is specifically Protestant is, in the actual circumstances of post-Reformation Christianity, to make the church a tribe. I believe that where Roman Catholics and Protestants differ on the message and the meaning of the message, the Reformers were right. But Protestant churches are called to proclaim Christ and the good news of the kingdom, not to perpetuate a particular Christian tradition. Insofar as we are part of a particular tradition, we hold the particulars of that tradition in order to serve the church as a whole and to proclaim the good news shared by all believers with clarity and power. Talking about a Protestant message also suggests a mis-centering of the gospel. The gospel is not, as NT Wright points out, justification by faith. It is: Jesus lived, died, and rose again to be the world’s Lord. That’s a Christian message, not a specifically Protestant one. Protestants and Catholics proclaim that message differently in important respects, but we should be searching, praying, arguing for ways to proclaim that message in full unity of mind.

More fundamentally, describing the church as a bearer of a message is ecclesiologically adequate. She is the bearer of a message, but she is also the body of Christ, a Eucharistic assembly, a communion in the good gifts of the Spirit, the Bride of the Father’s Son indwelt by the Spirit. I suspect Fred agrees with me about at least some of that, but his way of describing the church functionalizes the church; it is support for the gospel, rather than the goal and embodiment of the gospel.

3) I should have made clearer the force of my argument about what Protestant churches are to do. I gave examples in my talk of ways that the Protestant churches might converge toward a common confession, a common liturgical and sacramental life, a common discipline. That is, I’d like to see Protestant churches converging toward classical Protestantism, but – and the but is critical – without anxiety that this convergence might make Protestants too Catholic. I would like to see every Protestant church celebrating weekly Eucharist and baptizing babies, for instance, without fearing that they will be mistaken for Catholics.

4) Several times Carl Trueman expressed the worry that my agenda would make it impossible for him to give comfort to people with the Reformation teaching concerning justification and assurance. I’m not sure I see the connection. I don’t believe we should use the Reformation confessions as standards for fellowship, but that “relativization” doesn’t eliminate pastoral and governmental uses and applications of the Confessions.

In addition, it’s worth observing that Catholics and Lutherans have come to a joint understanding of justification (the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” the JDDJ) that affirms the importance of assurance of salvation. That document states in part:

“34.We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.

“35.This was emphasized in a particular way by the Reformers: in the midst of temptation, believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only him. In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.

“36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise, to look away from one’s own experience, and to trust in Christ’s forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God, who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life. In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.”

5) The JDDJ also addresses the expressed the skepticism and pessimism about the possibility of Christian unity: As the Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity pointed out, for all its flaws and limits, the ecumenical movement was able to make significant progress in coming to a common faith and common liturgical expression. A consensus emerged from the ecumenical movement that the Eucharist should be central to Christian worship, and there was progress in coming to common understanding of some of the doctrinal issues that have divided Protestants and Catholics, Orthodox and Catholics, Orthodox and Lutheran (in Finland at least).

6) Fred Sanders’s opening discussion of the “anchor” of the Trinity was left completely undiscussed. That was unfortunate. His suggestion not only provides a pathway for stabilizing Evangelicalism, but also, in my mind, provides potential avenues for cross-demonational unity. I wish Fred many more years of content-provision for the nascent Evangelical trinitarian community.

Saint Nicholas at Ground Zero to be rebuilt (finally!)

Wonderful news!

April 28, 2014


To give them glory instead of ashes (Isaiah 61:3)



To the Reverend Priests and Deacons
the Presidents and Members of the Parishes
of the Greek Orthodox Communities

Beloved Brothers and Sisters in the Lord,

Χριστός Ἀνέστη! Christ is Risen!

We, the Hierarchs who constitute the Holy Eparchial Synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, greet all the Parishes around our great Nation with love and joy, and with significant good news. The Saint Nicholas Church, destroyed in the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, is being resurrected at Ground Zero. A long and difficult journey is nearing its remarkable goal, as from the ashes of the destroyed church, a new church structure will soon rise as a manifestation of the glory of God and the victory of the human spirit.

The new Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero will be much more than a rebuilt parish. It will be a National Shrine of our Holy Archdiocese and a place of pilgrimage for our Nation and the whole world. As the Lord said, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations (Mark 11:17). In the next ten years, it is estimated that more than fifty million people will see this National Shrine of our Church, a living embodiment of our Greek Orthodox Christian faith at the epicenter of history that defines the Twenty-first Century.

We are calling upon every parish in our Holy Archdiocese to make a one or two year commitment to raise the necessary funds in order to assist with the rebuilding of this National Shrine by 2016, the one hundredth anniversary of the original Parish of Saint Nicholas. This is an extraordinary moment for the Greek Orthodox Faith, where a small parish church destroyed by an act of hatred and violence will rise again and give a visibility to our Faith and Heritage that has not been seen before.

We call upon every Parish in the land to voluntarily take up this cause and join in the resurrection of the Saint Nicholas Church. This National Institution of our Holy Archdiocese, inspired by Hagia Sophia, will be, by the grace of God, a monument of those who died on the fateful day of September 11, 2001, and of the spirit of sacrificial love of the first responders. It will be a perpetual Sacred Shrine to the never-ending glory of God as fulfilled in our Holy Orthodox Christian Faith.

Praying that the blessings, peace and joy of the Risen Lord be always with you, we remain

With deep paternal love in Him,



† DEMETRIOS
Archbishop of America

† IAKOVOS
Metropolitan of Chicago

 † METHODIOSMetropolitan of Boston

† ISAIAH
Metropolitan of Denver 

† ALEXIOS
Metropolitan of Atlanta

† NICHOLAS
Metropolitan of Detroit 

† SAVAS
Metropolitan of Pittsburgh 

† GERASIMOS
Metropolitan of San Francisco 

† EVANGELOS
Metropolitan of New Jersey

Mohler on World Vision: Pointing to disaster

Evangelical leaders continue to offer responses to World Vision's insane capitulation to the culture. Albert Mohler is not persuaded by World Vision president Richard Stearns' rationale for the decision, and sees nothing but disaster ahead for the once venerable relief agency.

Richard Stearns has every right to try to make his case, but these arguments are pathetically inadequate. Far more than that, his arguments reveal basic issues that every Christian ministry, organization, church, and denomination will have to face — and soon.

The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a “theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed. It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry.

Add to this the fact that World Vision claims not to have compromised the authority of Scripture, even as its U.S. president basically throws the Bible into a pit of confusion by suggesting that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the question of the morality of same-sex sexuality. Stearns insists that he is not compromising biblical authority even as he undermines confidence that the church can understand and trust what the Bible reveals about same-sex sexuality.

The policy shift points back to a basic problem with World Vision’s understanding of the church. No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to argue that World Vision is not taking sides on the issue. The objective fact is that World Vision will now employ openly-gay employees involved in openly homosexual relationships. There is no rational sense in claiming that this represents neutrality.

In his final comment included in Christianity Today‘s coverage of the issue, Richard Stearns stated: “I’m hoping this may inspire unity among others as well. To say how we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom.”

Note carefully that his language is deeply theological — not just “operational.” He speaks of being “brothers and sisters in Christ” and of “building the kingdom.” What kingdom? Whose kingdom?

Writing to the Corinthian Christians, the Apostle Paul stated: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

The leader of World Vision U.S. now claims that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality and relationships, but he also claims a “mission of building the kingdom.” The Apostle Paul makes homosexuality a kingdom issue, and he does so in the clearest of terms.

Of course, Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are uniquely sinful, but that all of us are sinners in need of the grace and mercy of God that come to us in the gift of salvation. Thanks be to God, Paul follows those words with these: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” [1 Corinthians 6:11]

The worst aspect of the World Vision U.S. policy shift is the fact that it will mislead the world about the reality of sin and the urgent need of salvation. Willingly recognizing same-sex marriage and validating openly homosexual employees in their homosexuality is a grave and tragic act that confirms sinners in their sin — and that is an act that violates the gospel of Christ.

World Vision has made a decisive difference in millions of lives around the world. Its humanitarian work is urgently important in a world of unspeakable need. Last year the organization had a total financial reach of almost $3 billion. Its scale and expertise are unprecedented in the Christian world. That is what makes this policy shift so ominous and threatening.

"Unity" at the expense of truth is a false unity built upon a false premise. World Vision, rather than holding fast to the truth of the Gospel, has allowed itself to become infected by the leaven of a handful of wayward mainline denominations which have abandoned that truth. It is a tragedy which will have devastating consequences for suffering children throughout the world.

Mohler: Fred Phelps preached a false gospel

Timely words from Albert Mohler, upon the death of cult leader Fred Phelps:

Fred Phelps became infamous due to one central fact — he was a world-class hater. He brought great discredit to the Gospel of Christ because his message was undiluted hatred packaged as the beliefs of a church. Even Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to Westboro Baptist Church as “this so-called church.” The damage was due to the fact that his platform for hatred was called a church. That provided the watching and listening world with a ready target and case study for the accusation that Christian conviction on questions of sexual morality is nothing more than disguised hatred for homosexuals. And, like radioactivity, Fred Phelps’ hatred will survive in lasting half-lives of animus.

The media made Fred Phelps into a public image, but they could hardly ignore a prophet of antipathy who showed up with his followers in public demonstrations and took his case for public protest all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. Phelps and the media needed each other and fed each other. The New York Times described Phelps as “a loathed figure at the fringe of the American religious scene,” but he was not a fringe figure in terms of media attention. I have done my best not to add to his publicity, but as calls from the media in recent days made clear, the time has come for a necessary word.

Fred Phelps claimed to preach against homosexuality, calling out sin as sin. “The way to prove you love your neighbor is to warn them that they’re committing sin,” he said in 2004. That is the full lie of a half truth. The way you prove you love your neighbor is to be honest about sin — including our own sin — in order to tell the good news of the forgiveness of sin and salvation in Christ.

Phelps knew exactly what he was doing. As The Washington Post reported yesterday: “He found comfort in being a pariah. ‘If I had nobody mad at me, what right would I have to claim that I was preaching the gospel?’”

But that raises the most emphatic point — it was not the gospel that Fred Phelps was preaching. The gospel is the declaration of the good news that God saves sinners. It is the declaration of the fact that there is forgiveness of sins and life everlasting to be found in Christ and in belief in Him, and that is not the message for which Fred Phelps was known and hated.

Major victory for religious liberty in New York

The train wreck that is Obamacare took another hit today as a federal judge in New York smacked down the administration for a gross violation of religious liberty.

A group of Catholic health and educational organizations don’t have to comply with a federal Affordable Care Act requirement to provide their employees with contraception coverage, a federal judge in New York ruled.

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn today barred the government from enforcing the mandate against Catholic Health Care System, Catholic Health Services of Long Island, Cardinal Spellman High School and Monsignor Farrell High School.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York and the health and educational groups challenged the mandate on religious freedom grounds. After the U.S. issued a rule exempting the archdiocese, schools and health-care affiliates were still subject to the law, which takes effect Jan. 1.

The groups “have demonstrated that the mandate, despite accommodation, compels them to perform acts that are contrary to their religion,” Cogan wrote. “And there can be no doubt that the coercive pressure here is substantial.”

Groups that don’t comply with the mandate are subject to fines of $100 a day per affected beneficiary, Cogan said.

Catholic Health Services of Long Island, the largest of the groups, oversees six hospitals, three nursing homes and a hospice service and has a health plan covering almost 25,000 people.

The case is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius, 12-cv-2542, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The Exodus from Egypt, Presbyterian edition Volume 2

The meltdown of the American Mainline continues, as yet another Presbyterian congregation votes to leave the PCUSA.

Members of Highland Park Presbyterian Church voted overwhelmingly Sunday to disassociate with its national body to join a more conservative denomination.

With a vote of 1,337 to 170, the church decided to leave Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country. Another vote cemented the church majority’s desire to join A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), which was formed by former PCUSA congregations in 2012 Other churches, including First Presbyterian Church in Amarillo, have also recently made the move.

“By joining ECO, we are not walking away from our Presbyterian values; we are restoring them,” the Rev. Joe Rightmyer, interim senior pastor of Highland Park Presbyterian, said in a statement on the church’s website. “With this vote to change, we will still be in the rich stream of Presbyterian theology, and we are ready to begin working with other churches in a growing denomination that is guided by the same beliefs and tenets that direct us.”

Those against the split believe the process was rushed and did not allow both sides a chance for equal representation or discussion.

Kent Krause, a church elder, said the debate about leaving PCUSA has been bubbling for decades.

Many members of the congregation disagree with the a la carte religious beliefs taken by the national body, he said.

Previously: Saxe-Gotha Presbyterian Church (Lexington, S.C.) leaves PCUSA.

Syria Update: Patriarch of Moscow believes kidnapped bishops still alive

Continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in Syria.

Patriarch Kirill

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes the Christian leaders from the Syrian city of Aleppo, who were abducted in spring 2013, could still be alive.

"There are indirect indications that they are alive, and we hope this is so. And until we get them back, all together, we won't give up and will be working," the patriarch said at a meeting with a number of Syrian Christian hierarchs at the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius.

Patriarch Kirill recalled that he had earlier appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Barack Obama, and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan to provide assistance in freeing the abducted metropolitans.

The media reported earlier that Syrian opposition fighters kidnapped Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo Youhanna Ibrahim and Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Paul (Yazigi) of Aleppo and Iskanderun, Patriarch John X's brother, on April. Their driver, also a priest, was killed. The archbishops were dealing with humanitarian problems of the local population in the village of Kfour Dael near the Syrian border with Turkey.

Patriarch Kirill said it was hard to imagine only recently that Syria, a peaceful and prospering country where people of various denominations were living in peace and where the economy was developing successfully, would be destroyed "before the entire world's eyes." "A disaster is happening momentarily at someone's ill will. On the pretext of promoting democracy, the people are being killed, peaceful homes blown up, and, what counts most, Christians exterminated. We know that those committing these heinous villainies receive weapons and money from abroad - perhaps from the people who are seeking to destroy Syria," he said.

The Russian Orthodox Church is doing what it can to stop the bloodshed, is working closely together with the Russian president and government, and providing humanitarian aid, including by mobilizing non-governmental organizations, he said.

"We are very glad that it is precisely Russia that is making proposals capable of stopping the bloodshed today," he said.

It is important to prevent the Syrian conflict from spreading to Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine, "because, if this happens, the most horrible result of this will be the elimination of Christians from the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity," he said.

Michael Hannon on the trouble with talking about "gayness"

File this one under, "It's about time somebody brought this up." In today's On the Square column at First Things, Michael Hannon challenges what has become the conventional wisdom that homosexuality, a.k.a. "gayness," is an "orientation" or "identity" rather than merely an act which, throughout recorded history up until very recently, was categorized as "forbidden" in civilized societies.

Hannon

In his Histoire de la Sexualité, Michel Foucault argues that homosexuality is a social construct, and one constructed terribly recently at that. “As defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes,” he writes, “sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them.” The late-nineteenth century saw this classical view displaced, however, when the sodomite was set up as the bearer of a distinct and pervasive psychological persuasion. “Homosexuality appears as one of the forms of sexuality,” Foucault writes, “when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul.”

Of course, that homosexuality is a social construct does not automatically render it evil or necessitate our rejection of it. Creative beings that we are, a great deal of our human condition is designed by man rather than merely discovered by him. As such, it can often be terribly difficult to tease out what is constructed from what is essential. Ergo MacIntyre’s quip: “Perceivers without concepts, as Kant almost said, are blind.”

Still, while social constructs may be often benign, and may be sometimes even beneficial or necessary, there is good reason to doubt that sexual orientation is such a constructive construct. First of all, the heterosexuality-homosexuality distinction is a construct that is dishonest about its identity as a construct, masquerading as it does as a natural categorization, applicable to all people in all times and places according to the typical objects of their sexual desires (albeit with perhaps a few more menu items on offer for the more politically correct categorizers). Claiming to be not simply an accidental nineteenth-century invention but a timeless truth about human sexual nature, this framework puts on airs, deceiving those who adopt its distinctions into believing that they are worth far more than they really are.

A second reason to doubt whether this concept is one that we Christians should readily employ is that its introduction into our sexual discourse has not noticeably increased the virtues—intellectual or moral—of those who utilize it. On the contrary, it has bred both intellectual obscurity and moral disarray. Our young people, for instance, now regularly find themselves agonizing over their sexual identity, navel-gazing in an attempt to discern their place in this allegedly natural framework of orientations. Such obsessions invite far more heat than light, and focus our already sexually excited adolescents on discerning extraneous dimensions of their own sexual makeup. This becomes thornier yet for those who discern in themselves a “homosexual orientation,” as they adopt an identity distinguished essentially by a set of genital sexual desires that cannot morally be fulfilled.

Many will object, and to an extent rightly so, that even if these worries are well founded, nevertheless it is not up to us whether sexual orientation—and sexuality more broadly—will put down roots in the mind of modern man. This is true up to a point, but to state it this way conceals the other side of the same coin. For while it is correct to say that our inherited traditions shape us, so also do we shape our traditions, growing them organically but critically from within. And if moral education is first and foremost an immersion in a particular comprehensive social tradition, then we ought to pay a great deal of attention to what concepts and practices we admit into our traditions, and which ones we deliberately weed out to the best of our ability.

Another objection will come from those who insist that we meet people where they are, and that we allow everyone to craft their own explanations of their experiences. Again, there is a half-truth here. Certainly we do not want to insist that people mutilate their experiences in order to fit them into our tidy little readymade categories, like the wicked stepsisters maiming their feet to fit into Cinderella’s glass slipper. But that complaint cuts both ways, because ultimately, the empirical problem with the sexual-orientation framework we have been handed is that it is too neat, that it works by oversimplifying an incredibly messy web of attractions and drives and temptations, and that it inhibits the taming of those desires by improperly amplifying their significance.

Our rational categories must do justice to the experience of those we hope will employ them, of course. But no one reasons in a vacuum, and part of the goal of a moral tradition—certainly a goal of the Christian moral tradition—is to order and elucidate people’s experiences towards understanding and flourishing. Sometimes, this must be done with help from those outside the phenomena to be explained, bringing a vantage point to the subject that those caught up in the occurrence do not have, and offering an explanation that they may not be able to craft for themselves. All this is simply to say that, while it is true that we must meet people where they are, it does not follow that we must begin by agreeing with their account of the location.

Of course, denying the natural existence and the social utility of sexual orientation should not be our final end-goal in the arena of sexual ethics. My contention is simply that it may prove a helpful starting point, clearing away some of the brush that currently lies in our way. And while we’re at it, another of modern culture’s formal determinations that would probably be worth discarding is its all-consuming obsession with all things sexual. Maybe baptizing this inordinate fascination is not the healthiest answer to what ails us after all. Perhaps at this stage the best solution lies in learning to think well of things other than sex.

Christian leaders speak on situation in Egypt

Evangelicals Now October 2013 by Chris Sugden

Reports in the western media on the overthrow of President Mursi in Egypt were coloured by outrage over the ejection of a democratically elected president. The United States curtailed its financial and military support to Egypt. But other voices, especially from Christian leaders have insisted on a different narrative.

The Coptic Archbishop

In July, Archbishop Angaelos of the Coptic Church in Egypt told the General Synod in York that since the election of President Mursi the stock market was at a 5 year low. There was 33% unemployment, there have been 5500 strikes/protests, and the debt ws 85% of GDP. Crime figures were up. Armed robberies rocketed, and car thefts tripled. There have been more attacks on Christian churches than in the last 20 years.

He concluded: ‘What has happened is not best described as a military coup. The people issued a vote of no confidence in the elected government. There have been attacks on all religious communities. Sufi Shrines have been attacked and Shiites have been killed in the streets. Egypt has been a polarised community and one section has taken over all.”

President Mursi did not govern for all the people, only for his faction. Once having gained power through democratic election, his Muslim Brotherhood followed a “winner takes all” policy.

The Anglican Archbishop

The action of the army in deposing President Mursi was, Archbishop Mouneer Anis of the Anglican Church in Egypt told me, a response to a popular uprising – he had never seen so many people out on the streets calling for the President to step down. Fifteen million people signed the petition to remove the Brotherhood from power, and many more were involved in demonstrations up and down the country. The army acted according to the constitution and installed the president of the constitutional court as interim president.

Following the deaths that followed the army’s dispersal of the pro-Mursi demonstrators Archbishop Mouneer told me “The demonstrators were armed and they killed 43 policemen. This was a battle. They burned 43 churches. Is this a peaceful reaction? The Muslim Brotherhood are not our enemies but they behaved in a terrible way and the vast majority of Egyptians are so angry at them and support the current administration. Before the dispersion of the demonstrations many police stations were attacked by machine guns. These are acts of terrorism. “

He continued “We witnessed bloodshed on our streets, vandalism and the deliberate destruction of churches and government buildings in lawless acts of revenge. One of our Anglican Churches was attacked, and other ministries received threats.’

Religious cleansing is at the heart of extremist movements. The Muslim Brotherhood is motivated by the notion of pure religion. This requires cleansing places of other religious expressions.

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali has written:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-led regime was headed inexorably towards a Sunni theocracy based on an unreconstructed imposition of Wahabbi-type Sharia which had led already, for example, to the harassment of women who would not abide by Islamist diktat over dress, freedom of movement and associating with unrelated males.”

“Islamists saw their chance of turning the largest Arab state into an Islamic one. Even after the intervention by the armed forces, offers were made to include Islamist representatives in the government, but they were rejected in favour of a "purist" rather than a "realist" solution.”

“The future must lie in a peaceful and negotiated transition to an Egypt that is not simply "majoritarian", but where democracy also means the rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms, including those of expression, belief, and movement, regardless of gender or religion.”

Appeal for help

The Anglican Church in Egypt serves all Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, especially the disadvantaged and marginalized, through educational, medical, and community development ministries. Unemployment is at a record high, there is a lack of security on the streets, the economy is in decline, and poverty is crushing for many people in Egypt. The Diocese hopes to help the poorest of the poor, helping young people to find jobs and providing spiritual ministry, teaching the Word of God and reaching the unreached.

Funds to support the Egyptian churches can be sent to Anglican Mainstream, 21 High Street, Eynsham, OX29 4HE

More good news from South Carolina, Presbyterian edition

Another South Carolina congregation has extricated itself from an apostate national denomination. Saxe Gotha Presbyterian Church in Lexington has voted, quite overwhelmingly, to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Pastor James D. Glatz posted the results of a recent congregational vote on the church's website.

September 22, 2013

Dear Fellow Servants,

Following a careful and prayerful process of discernment, the membership of Saxe Gotha Presbyterian Church in Lexington, SC voted on Sunday, September 22nd to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and join the ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO). Of the 851 members who voted, 793 voted for the motion and 58 voted against the motion.

The next step in the process is for Trinity Presbytery to vote on a recommendation to dismiss Saxe Gotha Presbyterian to the ECO (effective December 31, 2013) and for the ECO to act to receive the congregation into membership (effective January 1, 2014). Trinity Presbytery's next meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2013.

We realize that not all of our members are happy with the decision to move to the ECO. Please remember that we are God's family here at Saxe Gotha and we love each other despite our differences. Let us continue to journey together as one as we follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Please keep our congregation in prayer as we work to give God joy in all that we say and do.

In Christ's love,

Pastor Jim

Metropolitan Philip: Letter to President Obama on Syria