The national elections, just completed, added five states that will be completely controlled by Democrats next year, i.e., legislature and governor. They are, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Every one of these is ripe for legalizing assisted suicide, as that policy is now part of the liberal/progressive issue agenda. Most have already seen serious efforts to legalize doctor-prescribed death — even when Republicans held some power. Indeed, the electorally late (defeated for reelection) Governor Joe Lombardo of Nevada vetoed a legalization bill a few years ago.

Every one of these is ripe for legalizing assisted suicide, as that policy is now part of the liberal/progressive issue agenda. Most have already seen serious efforts to legalize doctor-prescribed death — even when Republicans held some power. Indeed, the electorally late (defeated for reelection) Governor Joe Lombardo of Nevada vetoed a legalization bill a few years ago.

Other states that are already governed by a so-called Democratic trifecta, but which have not yet legalized assisted suicide, are Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Efforts have been made to legalize assisted suicide in all of these as well, with Massachusetts voters rejecting assisted suicide in 2012 — thanks in large part to the opposition by Ted Kennedy’s widow.

I think all of these states will see renewed legalization attempts in the next two years. 

Read it all.

The other Democratic trifecta states have already legalized assisted suicide. But that is never the end of it. The first laws passed are not meant to be ceilings but launching pads. https://t.co/w842Yov8xR

— Wesley J. Smith (@theWesleyJSmith) November 5, 2026

Reparations for slavery would amount to a “vast fine on the entire British people for a crime they did not commit”, the former Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Revd Justin Welby said this week.

“You may be able to fine individual people for their conduct, but not everyone for their nationality,” he wrote in The Independent on Tuesday. “Group punishment is a moral evil. It mixes up the guilty and the innocent even when it is about contemporary times, let alone two centuries past.”

The article was published on the same day as a speech made by the King at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in St John’s, Antigua. The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons was a “shameful chapter of history” that “fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow”, the King said.

The UK Government has so far resisted calls for reparations, although the Prime Minister has indicated that a formal apology may be forthcoming.

Read it all.

💷 Reparations for slavery ⛓️‍💥 would amount to a “vast fine on the entire British people for a crime they did not commit”, the former Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Revd Justin Welby said this week. #ChurchTimes #ChurchNews https://t.co/BeWPsnLZMk

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) November 4, 2026

Professors John Craven and Robin Gill are to be thanked for bringing to our attention in their report, Wasted Money in a Diminishing Church (News, 23 October), the serious financial issues that will face the Church of England over the next few years, and the unsustainable deficits faced by many diocesan boards of finance (DBFs). This is why the church economy will be the subject of a major debate early in the new General Synod.

So much of their report is inaccurate or unrealistic, however, that I fear that it will skew that debate in unhelpful directions. I, therefore, want to push back in three areas.

First, the report reaches a strange conclusion. The authors decide that the way to address what they diagnose as fundamentally a financial problem is to make the deanery the heart of the Church’s administrative life.

Most area deans, however, want to be pastors, not middle managers, and I can readily see why. With an eviscerated diocesan structure, area deans would have to take on, alongside their parochial responsibilities, duties now fulfilled by archdeacons and bishops.

Read it all.

📉 Philip North takes issue with three aspects of a new report that warns that the C of E is heading for financial disaster #ChurchTimes #Comment #Opinion https://t.co/gdFJMCZqAD

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 30, 2026

American spy agencies had gathered striking intelligence.

A top executive at a Singapore-based data center company was under scrutiny for possibly steering advanced Nvidia A.I. chips to China. And now American officials had concluded that she was a Chinese intelligence asset, funneling information to Beijing.

But what came next was even more alarming. Surveillance of the executive, Alice Huang or Huang Le, a Chinese citizen, revealed that she had developed a close relationship with Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive.

For years, Washington has worked to deny China the technology needed to match or surpass the United States in the intense global competition for superiority in artificial intelligence. The discovery that Beijing was getting reports from someone with direct access to Mr. Huang, one of the most powerful figures in the A.I. revolution as well as an influential ally of President Trump’s, set off alarms at the White House.

Read it all.

Wow.https://t.co/ovzrTKn4CR https://t.co/VlJTst2k4X

— Ryan Mac 🙃 (@RMac18) October 29, 2026

Demands for a redirection of the Church Commissioners’ largesse to parish ministry will be widely and strongly voiced in the next quinquennium of the General Synod, election statements from successful candidates suggest.

Save the Parish (STP) reported this week that 77 candidates who had signed up to its manifesto had been elected, and about 20 others had told the group that they supported it. In addition to those advertising STP support, election statements calling for reform of church finances in support of parishes, read by the Church Times, transcended churchmanship, age, geography, and support for other causes and campaigns.

“We do not need any more top-down vision statements and shiny new diocesan led projects,” Paul Ronson (Blackburn), the treasurer of Together For the Church of England, wrote. “What we need is more full-time, parish-based clergy and staff to serve as the core critical resources in the local communities in which they are physically present.”

“I share much of the frustration of the Save the Parish movement with the frontline cuts, the creation of mega-parishes and the abandonment of the poor,” the Revd Jago Wynne (Southwark), one of the five directors of The Alliance elected, wrote. “There needs to be a reduction in centralised costs to allow for a focus on frontline ministry in parishes up and down the country.”

Read it all.

➡️ Demands for a redirection of the Church Commissioners’ largesse to parish ministry will be widely and strongly voiced in the next quinquennium of the General Synod, election statements from successful candidates suggest #GeneralSynod #ChurchNews https://t.co/zj9qvoEsJ5

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 23, 2026

I have witnessed – and, sadly, continue to witness – that every time a serious case of sexual immorality or abuse committed by a Christian leader comes to light, a familiar scene seems to repeat itself.

First comes the scandal. Then come the explanations, the statements and the requests for forgiveness. After a while, a question begins to be heard: when will he be able to return to ministry?

But whilst we discuss his future, there is another question that is asked far less frequently:

Who is restoring the victims? Who has listened to them? Who has protected their dignity? Who has taken an interest in the emotional, family and spiritual consequences that may accompany them for years to come?

I am concerned that, at times, we are extraordinarily quick to proclaim the restoration of the leader and extraordinarily slow to care for the people who were hurt.

Read it all.

First comes the scandal. Then come the explanations, the statements and the requests for forgiveness. After a while, a question begins to be heard: when will he be able to return to ministry? By Marcos Zapata in Spain: https://t.co/kzVflvk4ZS

— Evangelical Focus (@Evan_Focus) October 26, 2026

The Church of England’s Deputy Lead Bishop for Housing has spoken of the ‘ambition and determination’ needed to break the cycle of homelessness as she attended a special summit on tackling rough sleeping.

The Bishop of Hull, Eleanor Sanderson, joined the Chief Executive of Church Urban Fund, the Rt Rev Rob Wickham, (pictured with Bishop Eleanor, above) and other faith representatives at the Rough Sleeping Summit hosted in Downing Street.

The event brought together businesses, charities, civil society organisations and local leaders, to commit to local and national action to end rough sleeping through the provision of homes, jobs and practical support. 

Ending rough sleeping was the Prime Minister’s first pledge when he entered Downing Street, and he announced a further £432 million yesterday to be set out in the Budget later this week, towards this goal.

Read it all.

“This ministry fosters hope, dignity and a sense of belonging for everyone in our communities.”The Bishop of Hull joined the Chief Executive of Church Urban Fund, the Rt Rev Rob Wickham, at the Rough Sleeping Summit hosted in Downing Street.📰 https://t.co/GxBdeVapv5. https://t.co/k7LUiBns29

— The Church of England (@churchofengland) October 27, 2026

For Christianity Today to publish such a speculative piece, boosting material that was initially made public with a clear political agenda, seems in tension with the magazine’s own editorial philosophy as of 1970 that it is wrong “to gossip about things of which we are not certain.” According to a new report from Ruth Graham at the New York Times, the erstwhile flagship journal of American evangelicalism has been declining in more ways than one. To its critics, “Elliotgate” is one more sign that the magazine has lost its way, against the chaotic backdrop of mass layoffs and a waning subscriber base. But former deputy editor Bonnie Kristian, who edited Austen’s piece, has defended it as important and conversation-driving. Whatever the article’s merits, the magazine handled the backlash unprofessionally, leaving Austen unaware of the temporary choice to pull it.

Some of that backlash has itself been less than helpful. In a column for WORLD, Denny Burk, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, rightly noted how thin Austen’s evidence is. But he has treated her claim that same-sex attraction isn’t itself a sin as an endorsement of “Side B,” the view that gay Christians should embrace their orientation in various problematic ways while remaining celibate. The two ideas are not the same. One can grant that same-sex attraction is itself not a sin while holding that it is “objectively disordered”: something to be resisted, not adopted as a public “identity” in the manner of modern sexual politics. This conflation has been a persistent blind spot in the evangelical approach to the issue, missing areas of concern for evangelicals and Catholics alike.

Still, Burk’s instinct is not entirely misplaced. Austen says plainly that Elliot’s story “should inform the church’s treatment of Christians who experience same-sex attraction,” and Side B proponent Wesley Hill’s praise for the piece suggests how it is likely to be read. Austen’s remarks seem to gesture beyond simply separating temptation and sin, implying that double standards toward opposite-sex and same-sex attraction are automatically bigoted and normalizing a broader church culture of “coming out of the closet” beyond a close circle of friends and counselors. This is not an especially helpful word for evangelicals, who if anything could benefit from more discretion and less “tell-all” culture when it comes to sexual temptations of any variety.

Read it all.

In The Trouble with Elliotgate, Bethel McGrew examines the controversy surrounding claims about Elisabeth Elliot’s sexuality and Christianity Today’s handling of the resulting article.McGrew critiques the evidence behind the speculation, considers the broader tensions within evangelical debates over same-sex attraction and sexual identity, and questions whether publicizing such uncertain personal claims serves the Church or its readers.To read the piece, visit https://t.co/R5binXKe9Y

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) October 25, 2026

Christian charities and campaigners have condemned the Government’s approval of the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea. Tearfund and the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) have called for the decision to be reversed.

They emphasised the consequences for communities already suffering from climate change, and urged government ministers to refuse permission for the much larger Rosebank oilfield.

The Government announced on Wednesday that the Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, had agreed that the regulator could grant consent for gas to be produced at the Jackdaw field. The Labour Party promised in its election manifesto not to issue any licences to explore new oilfields and gas fields, but Jackdaw already held a licence.

Ms Fahnbulleh said on Wednesday: “This decision will support the country’s energy security with home-grown gas this winter and help minimise the UK’s use of imported higher-emission fuels as we continue our transition to renewables and nuclear. The decision is compatible with our legally binding climate commitments, and we remain resolute in ending new licences for oil and gas and achieving net zero by 2050.”

Read it all.

Christian charities and campaigners have condemned the Government’s approval of the Jackdaw gas field 🌊 in the North Sea #ChurchTimes #ChurchNews https://t.co/mcw9bY1Jnn

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 23, 2026

The Bishop of Leicester is seeking to ban election materials containing a picture of a religious building that “suggests a close connection” between a candidate and the place of worship or the religion associated with it. 

Rt Rev Martyn Snow has tabled the amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, which refers to the use of churches or other religious buildings to imply endorsement. The proposals and briefing documents do not single out a particular party.

On the Faith in the Public Square Substack, the bishop and social policy advisor Florence Gildea said in recent years there had been “more leaflets – of all colours: red, yellow, blue and turquoise – with candidates posing in front of church buildings”.

They set out concerns about compliance with charity law, of churches being seen to endorse parties or candidates, as well as how church leaders or congregations will often only know images had been used “when a leaflet drops on the floor, leaving no means of recourse”.

The article highlighted the principle of elected politicians representing all their constituents, akin to the parish priest having a duty of spiritual care to all parishioners; not giving “the impression that they are aligned with a particular religion and that followers of that faith could expect to receive preferential treatment if the candidate were elected”.

Read it all.

An amendment banning the publication of election material containing a picture of a religious building that “suggests a close connection” between the candidate and the building — or the religion associated with it — has been tabled by Bishop of Leicesterhttps://t.co/KXQlWrGsRP

— Madeleine Davies (@MadsDavies) October 19, 2026

Last year, leaders of the evangelical publication Christianity Today summoned the entire staff to a hotel ballroom in the Chicago suburbs for a meeting about their future.

The publication’s chief operating officer, Nicole Massie Martin, opened her presentation with a Bible verse from the Old Testament about rejoicing even in dark times, “though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food.” Then Thomas Addington, the interim president, delivered a blunt message: Christianity Today’s reputation as a staid voice of intellectual centrist evangelicalism — embodied by its proximity to Wheaton College in Illinois — had to change.

Christianity Today needed to be less like Wheaton and more like TikTok, Mr. Addington told his staff, according to several people who attended the meeting. Warning that layoffs were coming, he ended his presentation with a prayer. A senior editor left the room in tears.

Fourteen months later, more than half of the 79 employees at that time have either been laid off or resigned, including an editor in chief and four of the company’s longest-tenured journalists.

Read it all.

Christianity Today has seen about half its staff quit or laid off in the last 14 mos. Former employees told me that new business leaders have intervened in editorial decisions & are effectively abandoning the outlet’s commitment to independent journalism. https://t.co/Q4Iy7v5mQB

— Ruth Graham (@publicroad) October 21, 2026

A new anthology of essays, After DEI? A Theological Exploration, has just appeared. It is a slim volume comprising a dozen readable chapters. Contributors include Erik Varden and Mark Lilla. Our goal in this essay is simply to pique readers’ interest in the collection. 

For a few years, the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) were a source of explicit partisan division in the United States. Then, the DEI label fell out of favor in light of concerns about the fairness of programs and policies being advanced under it. Some institutions gutted DEI programs and personnel. Others rebranded DEI programs without changing their substance. But most institutions are navigating a middle course, seeking to replace DEI—and what it represents—with a fairer, less divisive, and more effective set of values. 

That is where this volume comes in. Instead of merely defending or attacking DEI, the volume pursues the more difficult, but ultimately more fruitful, tasks of reconciliation and moral reconstruction. Siding with neither “camp,” it asks why DEI proved divisive and what a better framework might look like. Along the way, it engages irenically with DEI supporters and critics, presenting their views fairly and addressing them substantively.  

The volume’s most important and unique feature is its Christian theological lens. The book assumes little, save that truth is real and coherent, and that the Christian intellectual tradition offers underutilized resources for thinking about diversity, equality, inclusion, belonging, and related values such as justice, charity, and friendship. Its goal is not to argue for Christianity or belief in God, but to show how religious perspectives can provide valuable insights, point toward shared commitments and common objectives, and help to break the partisan impasse that burdens American politics.  

Read it all.

After DEI: A Theological Exploration(Grows out of the "Beyond the Impasse" conference of the Aquinas Institute at Princeton in October 2024) https://t.co/ciP2G63Osz

— Josh Hochschild (@JoshHochschild) October 3, 2026

In Britain, students are being urged to walk out of lessons on November 20 as part of a strike across Europe. The Socialist Students group says it’s to protest against capitalism, climate chaos, the housing crisis, the “genocidal war against the Palestinians” and unemployment. This is what’s been termed “the omnicause”. And it’s being synchronised across western Europe.

In other words, we’re witnessing a much broader and deeper challenge than merely a crisis for France. It’s a war on the West being waged by groups with disparate agendas taking advantage of a civilisation in deep trouble. Those involved are leftists, anarchists, Islamists, assorted grievance artists and useful idiots imagining they’re marching for the “oppressed” of the earth — and with malevolent outside actors stirring the pot. Thus Vladimir Putin’s economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, said of the French riots: “Left-wing globalists are sowing migration-driven chaos.”

Fox News reported this month that of 50 groups involved in the month-long French “student” protests, only 15 were actually student groups. The other 35 were a transnational network that included labour unions, communist or socialist organisations and a Palestinian advocacy group.
These groups were advancing political agendas involving capitalism, “austerity”, policing, military spending and Israel. One far-left environmental group declared in the midst of the riots, “Glory to the rebellious high school students … for an antifascist uprising.”

These insurrectionists are seizing their moment in a society that’s become demoralised in every sense. It’s lost both knowledge of and respect for its own historic identity and culture. 

Read it all (subscription).

Absolutely stunning essay by @DouglasKMurray about the crisis in France. It includes this quote. https://t.co/XBw5Xr5lTp https://t.co/rW0GFvDAvj

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) October 20, 2026

The benefits and risk cloak more central driving factors among AI titans: the will to power, the desire for wealth, the hunger to be in charge. The sheer technological sweetness, too—the hard problem followed by the elegant answer. Scientists involved in technological breakthroughs always have a sweet spot.

But about four years ago, when reports of AI’s advancement began to break through to people paying attention, there was no declared objective: “We’ll split the atom, win the war, put man on the moon.” There was no clear product or labor-saving device. AI simply promised to change everything. It would create intelligence itself, an artificial but superior version of human intelligence. Then we’d figure out what to do with it, and what it will do to us. It will transform the human condition. For better or worse? Let’s strap in and find out.

Our society, our country, never decided to “do” AI. History will be perplexed by this. Something so big, so epochal, and people had no say? There was no vote, no debate. Some people started to do it and raise capital, and we shrugged. “It’s the next step.” As Sam Altman said early on, electricity, computers, the internet—now this. Americans always take the next step.

The creators and owners of AI might be pressed to answer the question: Exactly what purpose were you pursuing, and how, with a sense of the downsides, did you expect us to like it?

Read it all.

From @WSJopinion: History Raises Its Eyebrows at the Week in AI by @Peggynoonannyc https://t.co/diQJHPj1c5

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 18, 2026

The Rev. Dr. Sarah Coakley is one of the most original and consequential theologians in the world. An Anglican priest and philosopher of religion, she was the first woman elected the Norris-Hulse professor of divinity at Cambridge, a chair she held until 2018, and before that she was the Mallinckrodt professor of divinity at Harvard. She is the author of eight books, including “God, Sexuality and the Self,” the first volume of her projected four-part systematic theology.

I spoke to Dr. Coakley about why she decided, at a young age, that she wanted to be a theologian; the times she has wanted to disbelieve in God but never quite could; and her attempt to reunite academic theology with the life of the church and the practice of prayer. Contemplative prayer, Dr. Coakley said, is a “crucible of purification.”

My editor, Aaron Retica, joined me for the conversation, which has been lightly edited for clarity. It is the eighth in a series of interviews I am doing that explores the world of Christian faith.

Read it all.

Sarah Coakley: "I’m trying to overcome a chasm that has opened up in theological training and thinking, especially in the post-World War II period. Academic theology in university settings and seminary settings has become more and more esoteric. This is partly the influence of postmodern speak, which has done a very great disservice to the church and to theology. If most high-level theology is written incomprehensibly to the person in the pew, then a real disjunction has opened up between a set of conversations that are happening in the university for the purposes of the egos of the people taking part versus the people who are actually holding the faith." https://t.co/iKCsxpJcRm

— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) October 18, 2026

Polygamy is back on the menu, boys.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. During the debates over same-sex marriage we were assured that the slope wasn’t slippery and that suggestions that polygamy might be next were a form of ridiculous alarmism propagated by homophobic bigots and repressed religious weirdos.

Once again, the people dismissed as prejudiced prudes are being proven right. With the help of a rebrand to polyamory (which sounds less patriarchal), polygamy is having a moment. As Glenn Stanton recently explained for the Federalist, polyamory advocates are running the same playbook that same-sex marriage advocates did—and it’s working. As he noted, “Eleven U.S. cities now proudly offer the poly-minded various bundles of legal protections. Seattle’s clownish city council was the latest to do so, giving the movement its first truly landmark development.”

The legacy media has been leading the charge. Stanton highlighted a New York Times article from earlier this year, but there have been many pro-poly pieces in recent years, especially in the sort of old-guard prestige outlets that have New York in their names. And public support for polygamy has significantly increased in recent years, from single digits to 20-25 percent. Though still far from a majority, this rise resembles that seen in the early stages of the push for same-sex marriage.

Read it all.

Once marriage is about adult feelings instead of the union of a man and a woman, what’s the principled reason to stop at two?There isn’t one. That’s why polyamory is having a moment. https://t.co/UCMx8Uvq0h

— Ruth Institute (@RuthInstitute) October 19, 2026

Evangelical and Inclusive is a very important resource for anyone wanting to think about the present and possible future of the Church of England because it sets out the stall of the Inclusive Evangelicals group in a very clear fashion. If you want to know what Inclusive Evangelicals stands for, read this book.

However, for the reasons set out above, Evangelical and Inclusive is not a book that makes a persuasive case for conservative evangelicals (or anyone else) abandoning the Church of England’ s traditional position regarding marriage and human sexuality. Furthermore, for a book of essays by network of people who think of themselves as ‘inclusive,’ the collection is surprisingly exclusive as far as conservative evangelicals are concerned (hence the title of my review).

The big issue facing the Church of England in the five years of the next General Synod will be how those with conservative and inclusive  views regarding marriage and human sexuality can co-exist within the Church of England in a way that enables both sides to remain true to their convictions.

No one in this collection addresses this issue.  In so far as they touch on the future of the Church of England, they seem to see it in exclusively inclusivist terms. By contrast, the proposal for a provincial level settlement made by CEEC and the Alliance acknowledges that provision will need to be made within the Church of England for those taking an inclusive position and proposes a way for this to happen that would enable both conservative and inclusive Anglicans to teach and practice their own beliefs about marriage and human sexuality within their own provinces while still recognising each other as Christians and still being part of a single, albeit internally differentiated, Church of England.

This is a truly inclusive proposal, in the sense that it makes proper provision for everyone, so why aren’t inclusive evangelicals prepared to discuss it?

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Exclusively inclusive? – A review of David Runcorn (ed) Evangelical and Inclusive https://t.co/dUqs0RK3KZ ‘Evangelical and Inclusive is not a book that makes a persuasive case for conservative evangelicals (or anyone else) abandoning the Church of England’ s traditional position regarding marriage and human sexuality. Furthermore, for a book of essays by network of people who think of themselves as ‘inclusive,’ the collection is surprisingly exclusive as far as conservative evangelicals are concerned’ [book cover $AMZN] #theology #books #anthropology #sex #ethics #21stc #anglican

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) October 16, 2026

Although we differ on the specifics, both of us believe in hell. This makes us part of a shrinking majority. Only 59 percent of Americans today believe in hell. That’s down from 71 percent in 2001. But these figures, while striking, fail to capture the remarkable shift currently underway in the United States. No one talks about hell much anymore, at least not publicly—not even religious people. We’ve both attended weekly religious services for most of our adult lives, and there’s just no other way to put it: Hell comes up less.

Hannah Arendt was one of the few modern philosophers who grasped the political consequences of losing belief in hell, writing, “The most significant consequence of the secularization of the modern age may well be the elimination from public life, along with religion, of the only political element in traditional religion, the fear of hell.” The contemporary retreat from hell has any number of causes, many of them understandable. As pastor Robert Golding notes, modern people find the concept of hell “illogical, unnecessary, and cruel.” Innovations in criminal justice now emphasize rehabilitation over mere punishment and bristle at the thought that anyone—even hardened criminals—deserves endless punishment or, worse, death.

Many readers will, no doubt, scoff at this idea. They might protest, “I could never believe in hell!” That’s okay. We’re not going to try to convince you to believe in it. One need not believe in hell to grasp its importance or its utility.

For the good of our democracy, you should want your religious neighbours to take their belief in hell more seriously—not less. And even if you don’t believe in hell, you should take some time to ponder its political utility and ask yourself how you intend to make up for its absence in your own life.

Read it all.

Hell can be good for democracy because it helps us delay judgment until some unspecified point in the future, allowing us to "chill."My essay in @commentmag with @matthewkaemingk adapted from our new book CAN RELIGION SAVE DEMOCRACY? 🧵https://t.co/6cqdSCgRvE

— Shadi Hamid (@shadihamid) October 13, 2026

The dangers of conflating God’s voice with a human one and letting prayer ministry turn into a form of control, even unintentionally, are among the issues explored in a new guide to prayer from Church House.

The guide, Lord, Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in pastoral settings and guidelines for good practice (Church House Publishing), was developed in partnership with specialists from the Faith and Public Life team, with advice and input from others, including victims and survivors of abuse.

The background to its production is “the realisation that churches have not always got it right when it comes to prayer and pastoral care”, the introduction says. “At the extreme end, practices like conversion therapy have deeply damaged and wounded people struggling to understand themselves and their identity before God.

“But there have been other questions asked, about safeguarding and how victims of abuse might be treated, and more generally about the ways in which prayer may be used to push certain agendas and beliefs, in ways that can be experienced as harmful and distressing.”

Read it all.

The dangers of conflating God’s voice 💬 with a human one and letting prayer ministry 🙏 turn into a form of control, even unintentionally, are among the issues explored in a new guide to prayer from the C of E’s Faith and Order Commission. #ChurchTimes https://t.co/W4RiuHaRlo

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 14, 2026

ESPN wanted nothing to do with sports gambling. That stance had softened a bit as of 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on bookmaking, but the following year, Bob Iger, who was then the CEO of ESPN’s parent, Disney, told investors: “I don’t see the Walt Disney Company, certainly in the near term, getting involved in the business of gambling, in effect, by facilitating gambling in any way.”

So it came as a shock to many people, including Nicole Noren, a longtime ESPN producer, when ESPN licensed its name to a gambling app in 2023. By then, ESPN, like so many sports outlets, was promoting betting at virtually every opportunity; now it would encourage fans to use ESPN Bet. The app, which stood to generate a billion and a half dollars for the network over ten years, proved to be an embarrassing flop. But it was promptly replaced by a partnership with DraftKings, the sports gambling giant. These days, DraftKings ads blanket ESPN coverage, and this past March the companies enabled customers to link their ESPN and DraftKings accounts. It’s a partnership, a press release explained, “that goes beyond a traditional marketing arrangement, redefining how fans engage with sports.”

For Noren, ESPN Bet was the last straw. “I was out,” she told me. “I’m not going to work for a gambling company and have blood on my hands.” ESPN wasn’t an easy place to leave. Noren had worked there for twenty-four years, winning Emmy, Murrow, and Peabody awards, mainly for her work on Outside the Lines, the investigative newsmagazine. She was entrusted with some of the network’s most serious and sensitive reporting, involving topics such as gender-based violence, the mental health of college students, and concussions. With the NFL back in full swing—and ESPN preparing to carry its first-ever Super Bowl, in February—Noren spoke publicly for the first time about her own family’s experience with compulsive gambling. “Addiction dictated every part of our life,” she said. “It’s very, very personal to me.” Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Read it all.

An award-winning ESPN producer resigned after 24 years over the network’s embrace of sports betting: “I’m not going to work for a gambling company and have blood on my hands.” https://t.co/LWbFKC6Vp6

— McKay Coppins (@mckaycoppins) October 14, 2026

Top executives at Anthropic, OpenAI and other AI companies are privately gaming out scenarios for a public and political revolt after a catastrophic AI event. These officials anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water.

The first example of significant real-world harm caused by unsafe AI would turn an already wary public further against the technology and its leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as President Trump for his reluctance to regulate it.

While scenario planning is common within many companies and national security settings — the Pentagon has been running war games for decades — the difference is that many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable.

Read it all.

⚠️ 🤖AI companies plot "the day after"Top executives at Anthropic, OpenAI and other AI companies are privately gaming out scenarios for a public and political revolt after a catastrophic AI event. Why it matters: These officials anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water. The first example of significant real-world harm caused by unsafe AI would turn an already wary public further against the technology and its leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, as well as President Trump for his reluctance to regulate it. Threat level: While scenario planning is common within many companies and national security settings — the Pentagon has been running war games for decades — the difference is that many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable. "OpenAI conducts preparedness exercises where teams discuss and work through a range of potential scenarios," a company spokesperson said. "These scenarios are not treated as inevitable, but are meant to help us prepare for a variety of circumstances." Anthropic declined to comment. Zoom in: The blame game will start whether a rogue-agent swarm breaks containment from an internal testing environment or a bad actor finds unexpected ways to use available models. A recent campaign targeting South Korean financial organizations — including reported breaches at two banks — shows the damage one person can do. A hacker from China allegedly used AI tools from China-developed models, including DeepSeek, to steal data from tens of thousands of bank customers. The attacker used Claude Code to ask for help finding places to sell the stolen data, according to cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. Top AI planners assume Democrats, ascendant after the midterms, will move fast to shut down AI but will face significant challenges. An aging Congress, out of touch with the AI revolution, could find itself out of its depth. The global economy is now heavily intertwined with an AI infrastructure buildout. Slowing it down could hit an already fragile economy hard. Too many open-weight models can already be freely downloaded and used to cause harm, a problem most cybersecurity pros see as solvable only by using AI to fight rogue AI. Between the lines: The planning involves red-teaming for worst-case scenarios. It focuses mainly on racing to educate members of Congress. Company executives know regulation has no chance of passing right now, but still want to shape the legislation and policies U.S. leaders will turn to after a first catastrophic event. What we’re watching: Many AI industry insiders told Axios they believe a major event will occur in the next six to 12 months. Even with Democrats in control of the House and Senate, the companies see fractured politics as the norm, including within the Democratic Party. Some of the most heavy-handed Democratic proposals include banning superintelligence or pausing advanced AI development. Others have bipartisan support and even some industry buy-in, including a required kill switch on advanced AI. But experts have questioned the viability of trying to turn off all AI systems. The bottom line: In a real crisis, Washington can set partisan differences aside. One Democratic aide pointed to cooperation during COVID and the 2008 financial crisis. AXIOS

— Ares, Information Service (@Aresinfoservice) October 10, 2026

It’s no secret that online sports gambling is a serious problem, draining the coffers and harming the prospects of young men. It’s also no secret that politicians are disinclined to crack down on it. No one wants to be a Puritan killjoy, and politicians are wary of antagonizing the millions of voters who engage in sports gambling. The result is a paralyzing stasis: the industry gets bigger and more harmful while our elected leaders seem helpless to do anything about it. 

But what if there was a popular, populist, light-touch solution to this problem—a solution that reined in sports gambling while also striking a note of freedom and non-discrimination? As it turns out, there is. The solution is this: Congress should mandate that sportsbooks not discriminate and treat all customers on equal terms. The dirty little secret of sportsbooks is that they radically limit bets from those whom they know to be savvy gamblers, because savvy gamblers can spot inefficient betting lines and take the sportsbooks for big money over time.  

The statistician Nate Silver, for example, has written about how he can’t place anywhere near as large a bet as the average Joe because the sportsbooks know that they could easily lose money to someone of his caliber. If Congress required sportsbooks to treat all customers equally, the sportsbooks would probably scale back or close shop entirely because they couldn’t afford a world where they suffer heavy losses from savvy gamblers like Silver. This could be an effective and politically feasible way to rein in sports gambling, because it would not rely on perceived nanny-state regulation, but rather, on a more crowd-pleasing view that customers should be treated equally.    

The rise of online sports gambling is a familiar story. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law that banned sports gambling in most states. In a world of ubiquitous smartphones, the Supreme Court’s decision set off a gold rush of online sports gambling. Online platforms like DraftKings and FanDuel became household names, offering a bewildering array of sports bets to consumers nationwide.  

Read it all.

Gambling disorder cases have started skyrocketing in states where sports betting is legal (this started ~May, 2018) following the end of COVID.They’ve remained flat from COVID to today in states where it has remained illegal. https://t.co/bA9TAIFO5p

— Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) June 26, 2026

The consecration of Canon Tim Lomax to be Suffragan Bishop of Warwick, in the diocese of Coventry, which was previously scheduled for 6 November, has been postponed after complaints.

A statement from the diocese, issued on Monday, said that the decision “follows advice that further enquiries should be undertaken following complaints which were received after the announcement.

“It should be stressed that at this early stage no findings have been made and no conclusions have been reached. Sufficient time will now be given for this assessment to be conducted. We are committed to taking seriously the experiences of all those involved, and I want to assure you that all concerned are receiving appropriate support…

Read it all.

NEW: The consecration of Canon Tim Lomax to be Suffragan Bishop of Warwick (previously scheduled for 6 November) has been postponed after complaints were received after the announcement of his appointment. No findings have been made. https://t.co/U0LPmwikWJ

— Madeleine Davies (@MadsDavies) October 12, 2026

Most adults worldwide use social media, and among younger adults, nearly everyone does. Across 97 countries surveyed by Gallup so far in 2026, a median of 81% of adults say they have used some type of social media in the past seven days, rising to 95% among those aged 15 to 29.

Findings from the latest State of the World’s Emotional Health report challenge some assumptions about what that widespread use means for wellbeing. The analysis reveals a modest, complicated relationship that varies by time spent using social media, age and where people live.

With social media so embedded in daily life, the findings are particularly relevant at a time when the world’s emotional health is under considerable strain. Worry, stress, sadness, anger and physical pain all remain well above the levels Gallup measured two decades ago. What is less understood is how much social media is associated with this rise in negative emotions.

For this study, Gallup classifies adults as low use (no use or less than 30 minutes a day), moderate use (30 minutes to less than two hours) or high use (two hours or more). After accounting for factors that can influence wellbeing metrics such as these, moderate use is associated with fewer negative emotions than high use and more positive experiences and higher life evaluations than low use. As with many things in life, moderation appears to yield more optimal wellbeing outcomes.

Read it all.

As part of the World Health Summit, Gallup has released new data from 97 countries on social media use and wellbeing.Globally, there is no substantial relationship between time spent using social media and wellbeing.This finding is remarkably robust. It is true for youth populations (N=26,700 youth 15-29) and for all ages pooled (94,460 adults 15+). It is true with or without extensive controls for internet use, employment status, physical health, age, gender, country effects, education, income, social support. It is true for linear and quadratic use effects. It is true for heavy use, defined several ways. In fact, in some models no use or light use predicts the worst outcomes, but the effects are always very small.However, associations vary widely across countries. In most countries, there is no effect. In Africa, associations between social media use and wellbeing are insignificant or even positive! In USA, CAN, AUS, ISR, & parts of Europe, social media use predicts negative wellbeing.Effects of social media among the youth are among the worst in the USA, raising interesting questions about differences in content and underlying mental health across youth populations.

— Jonathan T. Rothwell (@jtrothwell) October 12, 2026

During the summer murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, bettors wagered more than $100,000 on the verdict. Since a deadlocked jury forced a mistrial in early September, more than $500,000 in additional bets have been placed on whether the Massachusetts woman accused of killing her children will eventually be convicted.

In Utah, a trial date hasn’t been set yet for Tyler Robinson, who stands accused of killing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at a university event last year. But even before Robinson formally entered a not guilty plea last month, more than $300,000 had been wagered on the outcome. 

In both cases, the bets were available on an offshore platform run by Polymarket. The site also has hosted bets on the federal prosecution of Sean “Diddy” Combs and the government’s current case against ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Prediction markets are raising novel ethical concerns and insider-trading risks on everything from corporate auditing to U.S. military operations. Those headaches are now at the courthouse door, presenting particularly unusual challenges for the justice system.

“When the public treats a courtroom like a casino, due process is susceptible to corruption,” said C. Melissa Owen, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Read it all.

Prediction markets are raising insider-trading concerns about jury cases https://t.co/YF4hIoWmlc via @WSJ

— Peter Dugas (@regintel2000) October 12, 2026

Given the lack of evidence of any mass radical ideology of Christian nationalism, then, why does that narrative gain so much traction in today’s discourse? We can point to a few reasons. 

First, as the country has become more progressive in many ways, those who support the idea of a Christian nation are now further from the mainstream and thus look more extreme than they used to even if their views haven’t much changed. 

Second, there is a group of politicians, theologians, and right-wing influencers who really do advocate for radical ideologies that can be reasonably labeled “Christian nationalist” in the most alarming sense of the phrase. It’s easy to confuse those very visible cases with the more moderate expressions we find in population data. 

Third, it’s fair to say that the image of right-wing politics has gotten uglier over the past decade, meaning politically conservative Christianity suffers from guilt by association.

Read it all.

Racist theocrats do exist in America. But most conservative Christians—even those who want a “Christian nation”—don’t share their beliefs or goals.Sociologist of religion Jesse Smith examines 3 myths about Christian nationalism: https://t.co/xMKPQy6JJ4

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) October 12, 2026

Unity is a big thing for Anglicans – about a third of candidates in the current elections prioritising it in their addresses. The problem is there is no agreement as to where that unity is to be found – and thus any call for ‘unity’ ends up excluding those who take a different approach.

This was seen very clearly in a different vote – which took place this week at the North Lambeth Deanery Synod.

The North Lambeth Deanery is diverse, gentrified and home to the ‘nones’. Stretching south from the Thames, it includes Waterloo and parts of Lambeth, Kennington, Clapham and Brixton. It is made up of twenty churches and eighteen benefices, served by twenty-eight clergy. It is also where two key figures in the battle over the future of the Church of England reside. Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell, a trustee of the liberal grouping Together for the Church of England, is based at St John the Divine, Kennington and Revd Jago Wynne, a director of The Alliance, is the vicar of Holy Trinity, Clapham.

Not only that, neither man holds his theological position in isolation. The Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell is joined in the deanery by Revd Giles Goddard, Revd Sally Hitchiner and a number of others who serve in ‘Inclusive Churches’. While on the orthodox side, Holy Trinity alone has three curates and a self-supporting minister and there are at least two other churches in the deanery which would describe themselves as evangelical. This would suggest the make-up of the deanery synod offers an informed testing ground for controversial topics.

Turning to the events of this week, when [the] Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell placed a long and complicated motion before the deanery synod.

Read it all.

Nothing much ever changes with the revisionist approach in the @churchofengland- ‘unity’ means everyone accepting that truth is plural i.e. everyone being revisionist. Really good from @AnglicanFutures https://t.co/igRcXa1f7J

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) October 9, 2026

The independent Executive Chair of the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board, Dame Christine Ryan, is to step down after only a year in post, it was announced on Tuesday.

Dame Christine took up the post last October having been chair of Ofsted for five years (News, 3 October 2025). Her remit was to implement safeguarding reforms agreed by the General Synod last year (News, 14 February 2025).

A spokesperson for the Archbishops’ Council thanked Dame Christine “for her contribution to advancing our commitment to independent Church safeguarding”.

The spokesperson continued: “Under her direction as Executive Chair of the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board, we have established a clear vision and much of the detailed design for a new safeguarding structure built on greater independence, accountability, and consistency. This blueprint, subject to final approval, details how the organisation intends to operate in the future.

Read it all.

The independent Executive Chair of the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board, Dame Christine Ryan, is to step down after only a year in post, it was announced on Tuesday. #ChurchTimes #Safeguarding https://t.co/651CKmDVen

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) October 7, 2026

But after five years of research, I have come to believe that there is something else at play too: a form of social contagion. In a world that appears to treat parents with hostility, where the advantages of raising children are obscured, remaining childless is easier if the same decision is made by everyone around you. As a phenomenon, it can become self-perpetuating.

This extra factor — network effects — can explain the remarkable similarities between falling birth rates across very different places and cultures. It also offers humans a way to reverse the decline by making having children attractive again.

Falling birth rates are often presented as a simple matter of choice. But in research of 10 low-fertility countries by Ester Lazzari and Eva Beaujouan, up to half of men and women end their reproductive years wishing they had more children. While passing peak human will ease the burden on natural resources, the drop in global population is projected to be rapid, ushering in legions of elderly who will strain welfare states and economies. In China, where a one-child policy introduced in 1980 distorted family planning for 35 years, there is now the “4-2-1 problem”, with an only child supporting two parents and four grandparents.

Read it all.

Why people don’t want to have children any more — Camilla Cavendish https://t.co/HShecevPc1

— FT Opinion (@ftopinion) October 8, 2026

Martin Luther King said: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state”. What happens when religious conscience and the law collide? In a socially diverse Britain, how should we understand peoples faith and religiosity in public life – as exceptionalism, privilege or as a human right?

This discussion includes faith based case law; the purpose of the Lords Spiritual; the assisted dying debate; plans to reform marriage law; and examples of religious dress in legal settings.

Listen to it all (28 minutes).

I’m delighted to be one of the panelists on the ‘Beyond Belief’ episode dedicated to religion and the law. It’s on @BBCRadio4 today at 3.30pm and available on @BBCSounds afterwards. I’m looking forward to hearing what made the edit!#BeyondBelief #Radio4 #Religion #Law https://t.co/cKduskItWS

— Russell Sandberg (@sandbergrlaw) October 6, 2026