Evangelical and orthodox Anglicans continue to hold up Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the agreed teaching on homosexuality for the Anglican Communion.  They use this to push back revisionists who have no concern for the resolution, let alone Scripture, to achieve their agenda of inclusion in the Church of persons flaunting their internal disorders and sinful actions.  This brief post is a comment on this, not about how unorthodox and post-Christian Anglicans ignore the resolution and press ahead with Western culture's values, but about Resolution 1.10 itself. Of concern is the second part of resolution 1.10 that states that the Church assures 'homosexual persons that they are loved by God and ... that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.' The wording is too open-ended and permits various, heretical interpretations.  We know that orthodox Christians voicing these words mean something like, 

  One of the children's fairy stories that left me, as a child, quite disturbed was that of the Pied Piper.  I once read an interpretation of this that had to do with German immigration to Transylvania--maybe so--but to me it was about a man all dressed up in fancy clothes and with a magical pipe marching through the streets of Hamelin and stealing children.  What a fitting image for Western society in the 21st century.  Satan has revealed their (pronoun choice!) political platform, and it is to steal our children in heart, mind, and soul. On my mind are issues such as: Abortion, genetic engineering, transsexual sports, drag queen story hours, gay marches, enforced learning about gender and sexuality in schools, sexually perverted book in the libraries, pornography, puberty blockers, sex change operations, making counselling sexually troubled youth identifying as the wrong gender illegal (outlawing 'conversion therapy'), making prayer near abortion clinics (in England) ille

  A California court has ruled in favour of a Christian baker, Ms. Cathy Miller, who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding on the grounds that this involved compelled, tacit approval against her religious beliefs. [1]   The present reflection on this matter is intended to highlight several issues in this case, including but not limited to issues about the free exercise of religion. The problems with the plaintiff’s case are several and significant, and they need to be identified rather than rest on only one of the issues. The court’s decision turned on reckoning that the baker’s right to practice her religion was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.   This is, indeed, a point that needs to be and has often been asserted, thanks to the American protection of speech and the free exercise of religion.   The First Amendment protects both, stating: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abr

Though I have not yet sight, O My God, Look Thou upon my sorrowful estate and bring me Thy help! For I am vulnerable, oh so vulnerable. More than the orphan or widow in the grasp of the unrighteous, I can do nothing to save myself. I hear others plotting to end my life, Readying their instruments of death To destroy me for their own gain. Though I have not yet my own voice, O My God, Raise up a cry for me, I pray, From the lips of the righteous before a just judge. For my enemies speak evil against my life, Though I am innocent of wrongdoing; Even my mother, who might tenderly nurture me, Has determined to destroy me, As though her choice to kill, not my very life, Were a human right! I know not my father, but I would know Thee, O Father God. My mother in her brokenness and pain, Would break me, hurt me, and put me to death. O LORD, make haste to help me! O LORD, make speed to save me! Let those be put to shame and disappointed altogether W

Identity choice is nothing new.  Nor is the awkward insistence that others play along with the little game.  As Plutarch records about a 4th c. BC incident in Greece, Damis [a Spartan], with reference to the instructions sent from Alexander [the Great] that they should pass a formal vote deifying him, said, ‘We concede to Alexander that, if he so wishes, he may be called a god' ( Apophthegmata Laconica  25.1). One can imagine Alexander insisting, 'You must call me by my divine pronouns: 'Thou, Thee, and Thy.' Damis's reply is priceless, rejecting any idea that Alexander really was a god and treating Alexander as the pretender he was.

In a brief article written in 1905, Broughton Brandenburg reported his investigative findings on immigration at the beginning of the 20 th century.  His reason for writing was that, amidst legitimate immigration to the United States, there were many issues of concern that needed to be identified and not ignored.  A  person concerned with ethics and immigration needs to understand the issues.  We might find the following twelve points from over one hundred years ago still helpful in a discussion of the ‘root causes’ and moral issues of immigration, not only in the USA but elsewhere as well. First, Brandenburg notes that ethnic immigrant groups among the Jews, Italians, Slavs, French, Hungarians, and so forth, viewed other groups as undesirable.  Consequently, they excused undesirable and illegal immigrants from their own ethnic group and opposed the same from other ethnic groups.  Second, undesirable immigrants—thieves, murderers, etc.—tended to strike first among their own ethnic grou