Things were different amongst Christians. The Early Church challenged the contemporary pagan culture by insisting on the same standard of sexual ethics for both men and woman. The first Christians believed, based on the teaching of Genesis 1 and 2, that marriage was to be between one man and one woman, that marriage was the only legitimate setting for sexual activity and that a single standard of sexual fidelity was required of both men and women.

That is why men are told to ‘abstain from unchastity’ (1 Thessalonians 4:4), why Paul forbids man having sex with prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:12-20) why a bishop has to be a ‘one woman man’ (1 Timothy 5:9) just as good wives were expected to be ‘a one man woman’ (1 Timothy 5:9).To quote Larry Hurtado:

‘The decisive step taken early Christian sexual teaching was to bring males under the same sort of behavioural requirements that in the larger cultural setting were expected of ‘honourable’ women. In the matter of marital fidelity in chastity, it seems that for early Christians what was good for the goose was also thought good for the gander!’[8]

In addition, the early Christians universally rejected abortion and infant exposure.

In the words of the second century Epistle to Diognetus, ‘They [Christians] marry like everyone else and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives.’[9]

Thus, far early Christianity was in line with Jewish tradition. However, it departed from the Jewish tradition by also holding that intentional singleness (known then as ‘virginity’), and the celibacy that went with it, was not only acceptable but, in fact, a more excellent form of Christian discipleship than being married….

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion https://t.co/F3so2u4TtA 'The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds… pic.twitter.com/LXTgMmiuOZ

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 16, 2026

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on assisted dying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambers.

Dr Hartley was on the House of Lords select committee that examined the Private Member’s Bill brought by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October 2024 (News, 18 October 2024), and spoke against it before it was defeated earlier this year in the Upper House (News, 1 May). She told the Church Times that the poll “confirms that the public does not support the suggestion of bypassing the House of Lords in order to force through an unsafe Bill”.

She said: “This would mean using a procedure never used for a Bill of this kind and acting against the advice of medical professionals, disability groups, and the concerns of all those who want to see legislation that is safe and workable.

“For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative.”

Read it all.

The Bishop of Newcastle has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on #assisteddying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambershttps://t.co/1fB16bi9sv

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 10, 2026

Social Security is expected to deplete the fund that helps pay out retirement benefits by late 2032, the program’s trustees said Tuesday.

That is earlier than their projection last year of 2033, partly because the fund expects to collect less revenue after President Trump’s new tax law. Passed last summer, the law gave senior citizens an extra deduction that reduced taxes on benefits for many Social Security recipients. . .

Unless Congress shores up the retirement program, the depletion of reserves would trigger a 22% reduction in benefits in late 2032. Because incoming payroll tax revenue doesn’t fully cover promised benefits, the program is forced to make up the difference by pulling money from its two Social Security trust funds—one for disability benefits and the other for the larger program for retirees…

Read it all.

"Social Security Will Start Running Out Earlier Than Expected" https://t.co/c9X74I9lvM pic.twitter.com/fvWj2vcW9O

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 9, 2026

The security situation in Mexico is “very difficult” as the World Cup approaches, the newly elected Anglican Archbishop of Mexico, the Most Revd Sally Sue Hernández, has warned, in a keynote speech at last week’s annual conference of the Anglican mission agency USPG. The theme was “For Christ is our peace”.

The tournament, hosted by Mexico, Canada, and the United States, begins on Thursday. “The situation is very difficult, with challenges including the presence of drug cartels, forced disappearances, violence against girls and women, the exclusion of indigenous communities, and armed attacks to seize territory from communities that have been displaced from their lands, among others,” said Archbishop Hernández.

“While the World Cup will generate passion, and some economic activity, there will be no profound changes or answers to the true needs of the Mexican people.”

Read it all.

The security situation in Mexico is “very difficult” as the World Cup approaches, the newly elected Anglican Archbishop of Mexico, the Most Revd Sally Sue Hernández, has warned, in a keynote speech at last week’s annual conference of USPG.https://t.co/C5yF8j9mpv

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 8, 2026

On June 3, a debate about the silent genocide of unborn children with Down syndrome exploded on social media. The unlikely catalyst was an X post by YouTube influencer Jesse “McJuggerNuggets” Ridgway. For months, the Ridgways had been producing and posting news of their pregnancy for a massive online audience, including their pregnancy announcement on March 29, a gender reveal (a boy), ultrasounds, and finally, a disturbingly personal video of the grief-stricken couple finding out their baby likely had Down syndrome. 

The journey culminated in Ridgway’s announcement that the couple had decided to abort the baby at twenty-one weeks. (Last year, a preemie born at twenty-one weeks in Iowa survived.) Ridgway listed the health problems his son might have suffered from—heart defects, hearing challenges, learning disabilities, decreased lifespan—and concluded: “Down syndrome isn’t a ‘blessing.’” He assured his “fans” with autism and Down syndrome that “we appreciate you,” but said that the abortion “will be beneficial for our family” and that “thankfully, we had a choice.”

The post has been viewed over 24 million times and has garnered 18,000 mostly negative comments. Many were livid at Ridgway’s openly eugenic justification for having his unborn son destroyed; hundreds posted stories, photos, and videos of their loved ones with Down syndrome, expressing their gratitude for their love, lives, and contributions. The photos put faces to society’s most endangered population—as Ridgway pointed out in his post, around 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.

Read it all.

This is unspeakably evil, but I give the guy credit for speaking about it directly in public. Most of our eugenic killing simply goes on on the down low, which is how throwaway culture flourishes. When brought to light, they can be named for what they are. https://t.co/CLhEitDBTu

— Charlie Camosy (@CCamosy) June 4, 2026

Nineteen-year-old Olivia’s profile picture shows a demure and innocent-looking young woman with long blonde hair styled in beachy waves. She’s wearing a short, cleavage-exposing nightdress and her biography says she’s “deeply caring, supportive and attentive” and “sleeps on the floor… until you call her. Then silence. Obedience”.

While Olivia may appear to be an online dater looking for love, she isn’t real – not in the conventional sense of the term. This prospective love match is actually one of a growing trend of “AI girlfriends”: realistic-looking artificial intelligence “bots” created by “companion apps” – services that are being advertised on online games played by children and on platforms they watch, such as YouTube.

New research has revealed that one in five boys aged 12-16 is either in or knows of a boy their age who is in a romantic relationship with an AI companion. A report carried out by men’s organisation Male Allies UK and published last month spoke with more than 1,000 boys aged 12-16 in focus groups in 37 schools – public and state, grammar and comprehensive, and across a range of Ofsted ratings – up and down the country. Peer-to-peer focus groups were set up where boys could speak freely, with the aim of diving into their behaviour and attitudes, and it was the boys who wanted to talk about AI technologies. The findings make stark reading: eight in 10 boys (85 per cent) have had a conversation with a chatbot, with 43 per cent saying they talk to bots so they can ask questions without feeling embarrassed. More than a quarter (26 per cent) say they like the attention and connection over real-life equivalents, and (36 per cent) admitted that they prefer speaking to AI chatbots rather than to their family and friends at times.

Read it all (subscription).

🦔One in five boys aged 12 to 16 is in or knows someone in a romantic relationship with an AI chatbot, according to a Male Allies UK study of over 1,000 boys across 37 UK schools. 85% have talked to chatbots and 26% prefer the attention to human connections.
The top companion…

— Hedgie (@HedgieMarkets) June 8, 2026

the regulation of new funerary methods — including “water cremations” and human composting — has been recommended by the Law Commission of England and Wales.

The independent statutory body, set up to keep the law under review and to make recommendations to the Government, published on Thursday a report on reforming new funerary methods. It was preceded by a consultation paper, published last June, which received 124 responses from faith communities, funeral directors, local authorities, industry bodies, and members of the public.

Currently, the law in England and Wales recognises only burial, cremation, and, though less common, burial at sea. New funerary methods are alternatives to these, such as alkaline hydrolysis (sometimes known as “water cremation”) and human composting, which are not currently covered by any specific legal framework, but which are available in certain other jurisdictions. In Scotland, for example, regulations have recently been made enabling the use of alkaline hydrolysis.

Read it all.

The regulation of new funerary methods — including “water cremations” and human composting — has been recommended by the #LawCommission of England and Wales#funerarymethods #watercremations #humancomposting #churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/nnqdTBvWWF

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 4, 2026

Something new is stirring on the left. A fresh crop of socialists want to remake the economy with price controls, hefty wealth taxes and a spree of nationalisations. Supercharged by fury over Gaza, they are winning voters at a formidable pace. Many rose to prominence only recently, like Zack Polanski, who leads the Green Party in Britain, or Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York. Others are long-standing political fixtures: the septuagenarian Jean-Luc Mélenchon is on his fourth swing at the French presidency, but thumping support from the 20-somethings of “Generation Z” has put the Elysée back in his sights again.

Call it Gen-Z socialism. Not because all its adherents are young—or because it is new for young people to lean leftward—but because it is the brand of leftism, made for the TikTok era, that today’s young revolutionaries support.

Forget weighty collectivist ideals or seizing the means of production. Gen-Z socialism is a me-first doctrine. Climate change and race, preoccupations of the 2010s and early 2020s, are now much more peripheral concerns. So are social issues, barring Gaza. Angst about inflation, housing and artificial intelligence have replaced all that with something cruder. “This country is awash in wealth,” says Avi Lewis, freshly elected leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada, a country where productivity has been all but flat for a decade. “We can have nice things.” Saying that prices should be capped to keep your bills down while someone else pays for your public services is a seductive, shareable message.

Read it all.

Gen-Z socialism is wrong about how to fix the problems of capitalism. It must be resisted, because it is a profound threat to prosperity https://t.co/6n1i5xrJV2

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 4, 2026

[Mr Funmi Ojetayo’s] professional experience includes senior legal positions with Florida A&M University, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Department of Management Services. As Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Management Services, he led the agency’s litigation function and provided counsel on significant legal matters. He currently serves as a Partner at Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A., in Tallahassee, Florida, where his practice focuses on labor and employment litigation and appellate advocacy.

In addition to his legal training, Mr. Ojetayo holds a Master of Divinity degree from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He completed his pastoral residency at Incarnation Anglican Church in Tallahassee in 2022 and currently serves as Discipleship Pastor at Four Oaks Church East.

While under consideration for the appointment, Mr. Ojetayo disclosed that he has a brother who serves as a rector within Bishop Julian Dobbs’ diocese. As Mr. Ojetayo has no personal involvement in the matters under review, and his appointment is based on his professional qualifications and experience, the province deemed this not to be a conflict of interest.  

Read it all.

https://t.co/NzE22DL2Qe

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) June 3, 2026

Just over thirty years ago, Oregon became the first state to allow physicians to intentionally seek death as part of healthcare. At the time, discussions of Jack Kevorkian were all the rage, along with his slogan, “dying is not a crime.” However, questions about expanding assisted suicide and euthanasia are not merely a thing of the past. Recently, The Economist and The New York Times have each run in-depth articles sympathetic to euthanasia, and the states of Illinois and New York have legalized assisted suicide. 

After Oregon’s 1994 “Death with Dignity” law took effect, the Jesuit moral theologian James Keenan published an important article, “The Case for Physician-Assisted Suicide?” in which he asked what the representative case would be for physician-assisted suicide (PAS)—or as it goes by now, “medical aid in dying” (MAiD). In the article, Keenan asked whether the standard rhetorical example is actually a representative case that reflects the typical MAiD patient, and if not, what that means. He presented the familiar case of “Uncle Louis,” which I might summarize as: Uncle Louis is very old and has lived a full life. He is dying of a debilitating, incurable cancer that has no good pain management. Uncle Louis has had a conversation about MAiD with his long-time physician with whom he has a good relationship. They have tried everything else and as a last resort Uncle Louis (autonomously and freely) decides that he would like “medical aid in dying.” Why should we not affirm Uncle Louis’s choice to die early and on his own terms in order to avoid pain and preserve his “sense of self?” Why should he be left to suffer? 

Keenan’s conclusion is clear: Uncle Louis is not the representative case. Rather, he argued thirty years ago, the more probable average case was that of Mary X—a woman who had a progressive chronic condition, who feared dependence on her family and others, and who was depressed. Mary probably did not have proper medical coverage or access to counseling and thought MAiD was her only option. Mary’s case, Keenan starkly observes, “demonstrates not the lack of autonomy (autonomy is, after all, only for those with power), but rather the inequities in our country … Proponents for the case of Uncle Louis … are only interested in the autonomous person … [Ultimately,] the law that Uncle Louis wants invalidated is the same law that keeps the more common Mary X from being marginalized to death.” 

Throughout the last thirty years, however, those who have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicide are always wrong and a public danger have been met with charges of being uncaring and promises that the implementation of such programs would be responsible, regulated, data-driven, and equitable. Indeed, after thirty years, we can ask whether Keenan was right when he argued that the more likely case once euthanasia is implemented would be a vulnerable Mary X rather than an autonomous Uncle Louis. Did the regulations bring about the intended results?  

Read it all.

A New Case for Medical-Aid-In-Dying? https://t.co/VIivnP9Qa0

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 26, 2026

The visitation recorded concerns about the spiritual life of the cathedral, noting that “the spiritual dimension of Chapter’s work appears less visible than might be expected.” It continued: “Theological reflection in decision-making is limited and shared prayer outside formal worship is infrequent.”

While the daily offices and Sunday services are “offered with dignity and care”, the cathedral has “limited awareness of the needs and well-being of its congregation”, the report says. Home communion reaches “only a small number of people”, and visiting “relies almost entirely on a few individuals”.

The cathedral’s relationship with the community “feels distant and strained” the report says. “Many residents perceive it as focused on tourists rather than locals. This disconnect has led to frustration, missed opportunities, and weakened trust.”

Among senior clergy, working relationships have become “strained, creating an environment that makes collaboration and effective decision-making difficult”. Stipendiary clergy must commit themselves to gathering daily for shared prayer.

Read it all.

Interesting that one of the recommendations here was that the clergy commit themselves to gathering daily for shared prayer – something that was infrequent outside formal worship. The spiritual dimension explored.https://t.co/wI26w8NIUW

— Madeleine Davies (@MadsDavies) May 28, 2026

Bishop Edgar described the complainants as “credible and trustworthy” and joined those urging the senior bishops to impose an inhibition, noting that “an inhibition makes no judgment as to guilt or innocence … Rather, it is an acknowledgement that continued ministry in the face of serious charges further damages the reputation of the Church.” The diocesan Standing Committee followed on 14 November with a letter of its own standing with the bishop and the complainants and urging the College to inhibit Wood.

The South Carolina position hardened with experience. On 24 March 2026, Bishop Edgar and the ADOSC Standing Committee wrote formally to the ACNA Executive Committee demanding transparency. The letter, occasioned by concerns arising from the December 2025 acquittal of Bishop Stewart Ruch (a separate ACNA trial in which the court found that the prosecution had not met its evidentiary burden, set out specific demands:

• That “the standard of avoiding any appearance of impropriety” be upheld among all provincial staff in pending and future proceedings;
• That those involved in allowing a court member in the Ruch trial to access prosecution files without the prosecutors’ knowledge or consent be recused from all future disciplinary proceedings, “particularly those involving Archbishop Wood”;
• That a complete transcript of trial and pretrial proceedings, including unedited video or audio, be released;
• That all motions, court rulings, and the three pretrial investigations be made public;
• That the identity and engagement letter of any investigator be disclosed, with appropriate confidentiality protections for victims.

“Those who would deny a public response to valid questions,” the diocese warned, “insisting the province is best served by withholding answers — do so at the risk of destabilizing the very foundation on which their authority rests.” Edgar added: “Lack of trust and mutual suspicion erode our communion and weaken our witness to a watching world. But our communion and witness are strengthened by a commitment to transparency and truth that is above reproach.”

That earlier framing places the present moment in unusually sharp relief. South Carolina has consistently asked for procedural rigour, transparency, and a posture of belief toward the complainants. Bishop Ashey’s lectures — delivered to a general audience the week before a dispositive motion was heard in the trial of his client-of-conscience — were perceived by some bishops as cutting in the opposite direction: prejudging the verdict, attributing improper motives to colleagues, and casting complainants as merely terminated employees.

Read as a whole, the 8 May letter is more than a routine clarification. It is a public acknowledgement, on the record, that:

• No bishops have signed the presentment, contrary to impressions Bishop Ashey himself helped create;
• The five senior diocesan bishops who joined Dean Dobbs’s inhibition did so on the merits, not under social-media pressure;
• The Title IV revisions now before the College are being deliberated on their substance, not from institutional self-protection;
• Predictions of “exoneration” have no proper place in public commentary about a pending bishop’s trial;
• The complainants were not, as Ashey had suggested, simply “terminated employees”;
• His role with Archbishop Wood is volunteer and personal, not provincial, and any judgment on the Archbishop’s compliance with the inhibition belongs to the Dean and the College.

Ashey’s renewed offer to recuse himself from the College of Bishops “until after all procedures with regards to Archbishop Wood are concluded” is significant. He had made the same offer earlier and was declined; the public revival of the offer effectively returns the question to Dean Dobbs and to a College that, in the weeks since the lectures, has had to navigate its own discomfort with the optics of one of its members serving as personal counsel to an accused archbishop while continuing to sit and vote among those who will, in due course, receive the Court’s verdict.

What the letter does not address is the substantive accusation, attributed to Bishop Ashey in The Living Church‘s reporting, that “the province did not forward all of the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the court.” If that claim is maintained, it sits uneasily alongside the seven items Bishop Ashey did withdraw. If it is not, it deserves its own clarification.

Read it all.

Bishop Ashey withdraws lecture claims about Wood Trial in letter to ACNA Collegehttps://t.co/3l3JWv1o0q pic.twitter.com/NPamXRmZSZ

— George Conger (@GeorgeConger8) May 27, 2026

Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence “threatens to normalize an anti-human vision” and said that the concentration of immense digital power in the hands of a few private actors must be countered.

The pontiff’s encyclical letter—a text that is poised to define Leo’s papacy—reads like a sharp warning to Silicon Valley executives and humanity more broadly about the future of civilization as new technologies rapidly advance.

The risk, he said, is that humans will be reduced “to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency.”

Leo used two biblical images to describe the choice humanity faces. 

“The primary choice is not between a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem,” he wrote.

Read it all.

ICYMI: Pope Leo Compares AI Threat to Biblical ‘Tower of Babel’: The head of the Catholic Church is adding his moral suasion to a growing backlash against the impact of artificial intelligence – WSJ https://t.co/7lfkPN4W0D

— Steve Williams (@HISteveWilliams) May 27, 2026

Many of the founders and important researchers at Anthropic and OpenAI joined the earliest gatherings at A.G.I. House. Mr. [Jeremy] Nixon is now founder and chief executive of a start-up called the Infinity Artificial Intelligence Institute, which is trying to automate the creation of A.I.

Mr. Nixon said he has met a generation of scientists who shunned traditional religion in favor of technology. After growing up with books like “The God Delusion” — in which the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins painted God as a false belief contradicted by empirical evidence — he and his peers saw A.I. as an alternative that was more real and far more powerful.

A.I. has started to crack math problems that humans struggled with for decades, he said, and it will soon cure diseases in the same way. “Practically speaking, it will achieve the outcomes that many religions claim their deities would be able to achieve,” he said.

This is an increasingly common belief among researchers in Silicon Valley. They insist they are on their way to building a more powerful species — or even a new God.

Read it all.

At the Epicenter of A.I., Pope Leo’s Warnings Are Dismissed
Pope Leo XIV’s spiritual message on artificial intelligence arrived as Silicon Valley’s A.I. enthusiasts pursue their own spirituality through technology.https://t.co/FLBlOaknrL

— Emily Turrettini (@textually) May 27, 2026

1. Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” [1] In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.

2. Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being. We wish to engage in dialogue with all men and women of our time, with whom we share in the events, questions and aspirations of humanity. [2] Together with them, we seek to identify new paths for the common good and for promoting a dignified life for all. Indeed, openness to dialogue is an integral part of the Church’s vocation because, constituted in Christ as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race,” [3] she recognizes history as the place where the Gospel challenges and directs human experience.

3. In this spirit, Pope Leo XIII published his Encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the 135 ^th anniversary of which we celebrate with deep gratitude this year. With that document, my beloved predecessor gave impetus to the reflection on society, the economy and politics, which is now known as the “Social Doctrine of the Church.” When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal life, Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people. [4] Many decades have passed since then, and the Magisterium, pastors, theologians and faithful have continued to reflect on social issues in the light of the Gospel. Today, the Social Doctrine of the Church is a legacy of wisdom, where we find principles for thought, criteria for discernment and judgment, and concrete guidelines for action. Founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and in engagement with the sciences, it helps us clearly interpret the challenges of the present and identify appropriate ways for living out a clear Christian witness, with joy and in service to the world. It is not an inert set of concepts, but a living corpus of truth that safeguards and interprets humanity’s vocation to a full and just life. I therefore wish to add my own voice to this living tradition, invoking the help of the Spirit of wisdom, who has dwelt in the world since its beginning (cf. Prov 8:22-31).

Read it all.

"building for the common good means accepting the limits & weakness of humanity without considering them an error ..the human desire for fullness of life is at risk of being misled by deceitful goals, such as the prospect of technology that promises to free us from all weakness"

— Jennifer A. Frey (@jennfrey) May 25, 2026

As the historian Leszek Kołakowski observed, Marxism functioned for many as “the greatest fantasy of our century”—a promise that history itself would bring final justice.

G.K. Chesterton captured the problem: Marx simply replaces one abstraction with another. But abstractions such as “historical inevitability” can’t produce justice on their own, because justice depends on the moral character of the persons who act within those systems.

The deep question for our own moment is whether modern politics can resist the temptation to which Marxists surrender. Every generation is drawn to the hope that history itself will resolve its deepest conflicts. Marx gave that hope its most powerful modern expression by translating theological categories into the language of political economy. But as Eric Voegelin once warned, attempts to “immanentize the eschaton”—to force heaven into history—have repeatedly produced political disasters.

Marx didn’t abolish the Christian structure of redemption. He relocated it within history—and that relocation continues to shape the political imagination of the modern world.

Read it all.

Very interesting article. The central claim is that Karl Marx did not actually deny the redemption promised by religion, but rather relocated it in time. https://t.co/5LjYMR5YiV

— BajaTed (@bajated) May 21, 2026

Going back to 2015 isn’t enough.  

The cultural revolution is on pause. Gender ideology, in particular, is in retreat. The fight isn’t over, but the momentum has shifted, especially when it comes to children. But to finish the fight, we must understand how things came to this—how did our society accept the sexual mutilation of children on the superstitious grounds that a boy can be born in a girl’s body or vice versa? 

This question draws out the divisions between opponents of gender ideology. A movement that has lesbian feminists alongside conservative Christians was always going to be fractious, but the divisions escalate as we argue over how to win, and what winning means. Liberal elements of the coalition are especially upset by conservatives’ continued opposition to same-sex marriage, rather than just trying to roll things back to around 2015—yes to same-sex marriage, yes to the Sexual Revolution, but no to transitioning kids and no to letting men into women’s spaces, sports, and so on. In other words, LGB without the T. 

But the LGB led to the T. After winning on same-sex marriage, the gay-rights movement immediately pivoted to transgenderism. Same-sex marriage enabled gender ideology’s sudden onset, for if male and female don’t matter in marriage, then they don’t matter anywhere. Conversely, if men and women are real, then this matters for sexuality and family beyond mere personal sexual preferences. We cannot get male and female right while pretending that sex (in every sense) doesn’t matter in marriage. 

This is why warnings about the slippery slope have been more prophecy than fallacy—for another example, note that liberals are now fighting for polygamy, with the New York Times reporting that, “From big cities like Seattle and Portland, Ore., to small ones like Astoria, Ore., proponents of ‘nontraditional’ romantic relationships are making headway in getting legal recognition.” Remember when conservative Christians were called alarmist bigots for predicting this? 

Read it all.

What Binds Marriage Forever? https://t.co/E9t7nygCQC

— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 6, 2026

The South Carolina standing committee also criticized Bishop Ashey for other comments he made during the lecture that “prognosticat[ed] about the outcome” of the pending case against Archbishop Steve Wood and “promoted falsehood” about its complainants. Ashey is advising Wood as he awaits trial on canonical charges of personal and sexual misconduct.

In a lengthy retraction sent to the church’s bishops a week later, Ashey apologized for his speculation that Wood would be exonerated and for his “inaccurate” portrayal of the complainants, some of whom now belong to the Diocese of South Carolina, as “aggrieved” terminated employees. Of the complainants formerly employed under Wood at St. Andrew’s Church, Mount Pleasant, none were terminated, and all resigned, though Wood asked most of them to stay, one complainant told TLC.

While the province contends that the Council is without authority to govern the court’s protocols with regard to the Ruch documents, the Council’s main item of business at its June meeting will be a vote on a comprehensive Title IV revision that fully restructures the church’s disciplinary bodies and their procedures.

If passed, the new canons will phase out the current seven-member Court for the Trial of a Bishop and replace it with a tribunal from which smaller panels are drawn, and will introduce norms of public trial procedure=—two features also found in Episcopal Church canons.

Read it all.

New for @Livng_Church: The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina calls for the release of documents related to the trial of ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch as the church's fraught process for revising Title IV comes to a vote.https://t.co/zzTJB5SM4h

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) May 20, 2026

The Anglican Church in North America’s Court for the Trial of a Bishop will hold hearings this week on the first pretrial motions filed in the disciplinary matter of the Most Rev. Steve Wood, according to a court announcement.

Archbishop Wood, the denomination’s primate, was indicted on ecclesiastical charges of personal and sexual misconduct last December. His trial is scheduled to begin July 20.

Four priests and seven laypeople filed a complaint against Wood last October, alleging that as bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas and rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, Wood plagiarized sermons, bullied staff, and made continual sexual advances toward a children’s ministry director. Wood has denied the allegations.

The ACNA’s disciplinary system sets a denominational prosecutor against an accused bishop, who is tried by a neutral court of three bishops, two priests, and two adult confirmed church members. Before trial, both sides may make requests of the court by motion.

Read it all.

There are four motions they must decide in total:
1) Abp Wood's motion to dismiss the case
2) His motion to hold the trial in private
3) The province's motion to "re-establish fairness"
4) Its motion to disqualify Cn Jeff Weber from defending Wood.https://t.co/HIjraTzJjo

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) May 8, 2026

President Trump sought to reassure skeptical Americans that the war in Iran is in the national interest, arguing that the operation was necessary to decimate a regime threatening the U.S. and insisting that economic pain would be short-lived.

In a 20-minute address from the White House, his most direct sales pitch to the nation since the war began a month ago, Trump said the U.S. had succeeded on the battlefield and declared that U.S. military objectives would be completed “very shortly.”

Trump said he still aims for a diplomatic agreement to end the war. But in the meantime, he vowed to hit Iran “extremely hard” in the coming weeks and pummel the country “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

Read it all.

President Trump sought to reassure skeptical Americans that the war in Iran is in the national interest, arguing that the operation was necessary to decimate a regime threatening the U.S. https://t.co/k1db0hosas

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 2, 2026

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, was among the speakers who last week expressed further doubts over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it was debated in the House of Lords.

Bishop Chessun raised the prospect of “pressure on all sorts of ancillary staff” who could be “co-opted, either directly or indirectly, into what becomes the final procedure, when the conscience of such an ancillary participant tells them that they should have nothing to do with such a procedure”.

The Bishop pointed out that, when it comes to assisted dying, “matters of acute conscience are not restricted to the immediate preparation of a lethal dosage or the medical oversight of the procedure.”

He went on to ask: “Is it right that they should face sanction or inhibition of their careers, or even dismissal? I suggest not.”

Read it all.

The Bishop of #Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, was among the speakers who last week expressed further doubts over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it was debated in the #HouseofLords ⚖️#Assisteddying #churchhouse #churchnews https://t.co/F3cCOzkoxB

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 31, 2026

But why does God care who we sleep with? Let me give you three reasons

1. He cares because he created us

To understand the purpose and limits of sex, we have to refer to the creator of sex: 

God himself. Yes, as one writer puts it, “sex was God’s idea, not ours. It’s not something we discovered behind God’s back…. His first command to humanity in the Bible involves and necessitates sex!” Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply!” So, if you are married, have sex and feel free to have it often!

2. He cares because he loves us

God is all about love. He love us, and he longs for us to love him too. We’re designed to live lives of love. Ultimate reality isn’t grounded in cold submission to an authoritarian deity but in heartfelt response to the God who wants his universe pulsating with love. God cares who we sleep with because he cares that we really do love each other well, and that might mean loving in a different way to how we feel. Christopher Yuan, author of the excellent,

“Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”, (and a man who wrestles with same-sex attraction but who’s chosen the biblical call to chastity), puts it this way,  “Human emotions can’t be the determining factor for any gift from God.” No,  Jeremiah 17:9 says: “the heart is deceitful above all things”. And as Ashley Null says, summarizing the theology of Anglican reformer Thomas Cranmer, “What the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” So be careful when people say “Listen to your heart.”

Yes, sex matters to God because people do. He cares because misusing sex can cause profound hurt and damage. He cares because He regards us as worthy of His care. 

And, in fact, that care is not only seen in telling us how we should use sex, but also in how He makes forgiveness and healing available to us when we mess this up.

3. He knows what’s best for us

This is a hard one for many of us to accept. But, Jesus is for you, and even his difficult directives are for your good….

Read it all.

A young Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross on the set of The Legacy in 1978, the film where they met and fell in love. They've been together ever since. pic.twitter.com/y84yc97LhM

— History Defined (@historydefined) September 21, 2025

In a statement suggesting the enormity of Canterbury’s failure to be a focus for unity, the former archbishop Rowan Williams recently admitted: “I honestly don’t know whether the communion will survive.” Such a statement from a former leader of the Church of England reflects the gravity of the current crisis. It is not merely a matter of internal disagreement but a question about the very future of Anglicanism.

A significant turning point came in 2023 when the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) issued what became known as the Ash Wednesday Statement. In this declaration, the GSFA announced that it would no longer recognize the archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares and the head of the Anglican Communion. This decision marked a historic shift: The symbolic center of Anglican unity was effectively withdrawn by churches representing the majority of Anglicans worldwide.

The roots of this shift are not only historical but also theological and structural. The traditional configuration of the Anglican Communion emerged during the era of the British Empire. During that time, the Church of England functioned naturally as a coordinating center for Anglican churches established through missionary and colonial expansion. However, the global context has changed dramatically. The demographic center of Anglicanism has moved decisively to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Today, the vast majority of Anglicans live in what is commonly called the Global South.

The departure of several western provinces from the traditional Anglican faith inevitably raises questions about unity, governance, and authority.

Read it all.

Canterbury and the Collapse of Anglican Unity
by Mouneer Anis @bishopmouneer https://t.co/5oNTQIwrz3 pic.twitter.com/LVjAFzbJjP

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) March 31, 2026

The Anglican Church in North America has chosen to retain Lathrop GPM to conduct a restricted and nontransparent review of the Title IV proceedings surrounding Bishop Stewart Ruch, and in that choice the truth of the matter is already disclosed, not at the end of the process but at its beginning. The terms will not be released. The findings are not promised to the light. The scope has been drawn with a care that ensures the most decisive questions will never quite arrive where they must be answered. One need not wait for conclusions. The arrangement itself speaks with sufficient clarity.

What presents itself as sober inquiry carries the unmistakable grammar of preemption. There will be interviews, reports, careful language, and the appearance of discipline, yet all of it unfolds within limits that have already been secured against the possibility that the truth might actually do what truth does, which is to judge, to expose, and to reorder. The structure is not neutral. It is already an answer. It ensures that whatever is said will be said in a way that does not require the institution to become something other than what it presently is.

The choice of Lathrop GPM makes this plain in a way that no further argument can improve. A firm known for defending institutions against claims of abuse has been entrusted with examining an institution under precisely such a shadow. One might search for a more transparent declaration of intent and fail to find it. This is not a tension to be resolved. It is a coherence to be recognized. The task is not to discover a truth that might unsettle the body under examination but to render events intelligible within a horizon that preserves that body’s continuity. While the conclusion has not been written in detail, its boundaries have been drawn with precision.

Even the most modest traditions of law would find this intolerable. The idea that judgment must be free from the control of those who stand to be implicated is not an advanced refinement. It is the bare minimum required for justice to exist at all. 

Read it all.

Re: Ruch trial aftermath: The Ex. Committee has appointed a subcommittee to "oversee a third-party review of the provincial administration" of the Ruch matter. They have not yet determined the scope of the review but will "retain a qualified firm or individual to complete it." pic.twitter.com/U1CXTUnENM

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) January 17, 2026

The province’s intent to exclude the trial court’s processes from the coming review represents a source of “deep concerns” for the Anglicans for Truth, Renewal, and Accountability (ATRA), a grassroots group formed in 2025. A December open letter issued by ATRA, which gathered over 200 clergy and lay signatures, called for an independent post-trial review with a clear scope and a promise of eventual publication.

In a March 25 statement, ATRA echoed the Diocese of South Carolina in calling for the Executive Committee to publish its contract with Lathrop GPM “to answer some important remaining questions.”

“Who will have control over the final report? Will the final report be made public? Does the firm hired have a fiduciary duty to the Province, meaning ‘a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests,’ which constrains the firm’s ability to pursue truth independently? Who will have access to and control over the information gathered by the firm?” the ATRA statement asked.

According to Harris, the province intends to publicize the findings of the report, though has not determined in what format. It does not intend to publish its contract with Lathrop.

ACNAtoo, the advocacy group formed in 2021 in response to allegations of abuse in Bishop Ruch’s diocese, criticized the denomination’s choice of Lathrop to conduct the review. The group called Lathrop’s participation “inappropriate” in light of the firm’s “deficiencies” in investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Mike Bickle, former leader of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City; its legal defense of Roman Catholic bishops and dioceses in civil sexual assault cases; and its use of “scorched earth” tactics against victims described by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Roes, VandeHei, and Price also stated concern to TLC regarding Lathrop’s “track record of defending religious institutions in sexual abuse lawsuits,” and expressed a desire for those overseeing the post-trial review to work to earn the confidence of the church’s members.

Read it all.

New for @Livng_Church: Lathrop will review the process that ended in a controversial acquittal of Bp Stewart Ruch, but the court record of the ACNA's chaotic trial will remain under wraps.https://t.co/kFRSWZZjbx

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) March 27, 2026

In a surprising move, the Scottish Parliament this week voted to reject assisted suicide. And it wasn’t even close – 57 for and 69 against, with every party except the Lib Dems and the Greens having a majority voting against. Why did this happen? Especially when at the first two stages of the bill it comfortably passed. 

And therein lies the answer. As MSPs got to look more closely at what was involved, they realised that the bill itself was badly worded and had insurmountable difficulties – like compelling staff and organisations who did not want to participate in ‘mercy killing’ to do so.  

Like the threat of people feeling coerced. The bill would have made the treatment available to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been given less than six months to live – but opponents said there were not enough protections against coercion.  

Like the government admitting that money would have to be taken from other frontline NHS services to provide for assisted suicide.  The irony of taking money from the sick in order to kill people was not lost on some MSPs. 

Read it all.

The Scottish parliament has rejected a bill that would have seen the country introduce assisted suicide, in what is the latest victory for the vulnerable the world over in recent weeks, writes JASON OSBORNEhttps://t.co/PdDInXhp1z

— gript (@griptmedia) March 19, 2026

Social media interactions are, by definition, public and social, and not private. Clergy are held to a
higher standard of responsibility in their use of these platforms. Being clergy is an honor, privilege,
and responsibility that comes with influence, but also requires discretion and often sacrifice of our
rights, obligating us to wise self-censorship and self-control. I expect all social media posts by our
clergy to adhere to the highest standard of Christian decorum. All that we do reflects on our Lord,
His Church, our Diocese, and our ministry.
To that end, I first offer five (edited) questions that Archbishop Emeritus Foley Beach requires his
diocese to ask before posting anything…

1. Is it the truth? Along with that, ask: Why is it my responsibility to speak this truth or address
   this situation?
2. Have I talked to the person before I post about the person?
3. Will it benefit all concerned?
4. Do my words reflect well on Jesus Christ and on His Church?
5. Will I someday need to apologize and confess what I have written as a sin?
   These helpful questions can serve as a beginning point and a filter for online interactions. From
   there, I offer a few wise policies, developed by my friend and fellow bishop, Alex Farmer, for the
   clergy of the Gulf Atlantic Diocese. (Again, I have edited these for our situation.)
6. Never post, repost, favorably comment on, or like content that reflects poorly on Christ
   Jesus and his Church, other clergy, or yourself.
7. Follow the same rules of courtesy and mature behavior you would observe in any face-toface interaction.
8. Think about consequences and how your message might be perceived before you post.

Read it all.

I used to think the main damage from social media was to youth mental health. Now I believe that the global destruction of the human ability to pay attention may be even larger.

A meta-analysis shows the damage, to adults as well as teens, from TikTok+https://t.co/YS0dkQTdj0 https://t.co/a8bSMQyW60

— Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) November 15, 2025

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country.

On Tuesday evening, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) rejected, by 69 votes to 57, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Bill sought to allow an assisted death for terminally ill adults who had decision-making capacity and had six months or less to live.

In a statement issued shortly after the vote, Ms Frew said: “I recognise that the outcome will be a disappointment to many, but it was clear that the safeguards included did not offer sufficient protection.

“We have been consistent in our position that we need to prioritise the development of excellent palliative care services that are universally available and fully funded. Without that, had the Bill passed, we would fear that many vulnerable people might have seen an assisted death as their only realistic option.”

Read it all.

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/NhNTeIZ6GR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 18, 2026

A senior adviser to the Nigerian president has rejected claims that Christians are being specifically targeted in violence across Nigeria, insisting the country is facing a broader security crisis rather than religious persecution.

Bayo Onanuga, special adviser for information and strategy to President Bola Tinubu, made the comments to Premier Christian News as he began a state visit to the UK, the first by a Nigerian leader in almost four decades.

The visit comes amid growing international scrutiny over attacks on Christians in Nigeria. More than 200 MPs have urged Keir Starmer to raise concerns about religious freedom when he meets President Tinubu in Downing Street on Thursday.

Last month, a US government report described Nigeria as the most dangerous place in the world to practise the Christian faith, warning that jihadist networks exploit weak enforcement and limited accountability to carry out sustained violence.

Meanwhile, the persecution watchdog Open Doors says nearly 3,500 Christians were killed in Nigeria last year, out of the 4,849 killed around the world.

However, Onanuga strongly rejected the idea that violence is targeted specifically at Christians.

Read it all.

When the former Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Revd Justin Welby spoke recently about his mental health (Quotes, 6 March), his honesty was striking.

Speaking to Gyles Brandreth on the podcast Rosebud, he reflected on the failures surrounding the Church of England’s handling of abuse allegations, and revealed that he had sought professional help. “I’ve been seeing a psychotherapist for a considerable period of time, and a psychiatrist: very helpful,” he said. He went on to say that therapy was not about excusing mistakes, but about confronting them honestly: “It’s not about saying, ‘Oh, it didn’t matter,’ . . . quite the reverse. How does one live with such a failure?”

That candour should have been welcomed. Instead, it prompted a deeply damaging column in The Daily Telegraph by Celia Walden, who asked: “What’s the point of God if even Justin Welby is seeing a therapist?”

Reading her article left me shocked, distressed, and very upset at such ignorance about mental health. I felt shamed and triggered. As a serving clergyman who has lived with serious mental-health challenges, I felt guilty and embarrassed simply for seeking help. Her column was extremely damaging, heartless, and cruel, and lacked any compassion for clergy and people of faith who live with mental illness. It implied that faith alone should replace therapy: a view that is both wrong and pastorally reckless.

Read it all.

"I have never told someone with cancer to refuse chemotherapy and to 'just pray'. I have never suggested that insulin betrays belief. So, why is mental health treated differently?" ✍️ Mark Edwards #mentalhealth #JustinWelby https://t.co/FTUYk6BqKd

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 13, 2026