I have split this post because few people read long postings.


By David W. Virtue

It is becoming clearer by the month that the great divide between the Anglican Global South and Western pan-Anglicanism has become unbridgeable and the divisions irreconcilable.

The new Anglican Reformation, begun more than a decade ago by the Anglican Mission in the Americas and, later, with the establishment of the Anglican Church in North America, is a fait accompli. There is no going back, no reversing and no stopping the train. It has left Kansas never to return.

The Episcopal Church continues to pay lip service to unity (along with the Archbishop of Canterbury), but the truth is that Global South archbishops and bishops move freely in and out of North America without so much as a phone call to 815 2nd street in New York, New York or 80 Hayden Street, Toronto, Ontario (the Anglican Church of Canada HQ). The final statement of disassociation was the empty Primatial chairs in Dublin, earlier this year.

The besetting sin that has riven the two sides is homosexuality, more specifically pansexuality in the form of LGBTQI (I – the latest letter in the pansexual alphabet -stands for something called Intersex – the abnormal condition of being intermediate between male and female; hermaphroditism.).

It is important, therefore, for our orthodox Anglican brothers and sisters in the Global South to have a clear fix on why a shrinking orthodox minority of us in the Global North and West still maintain clear Biblical standards on sexuality and why they should, too.

No. 1 The seven instances where homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the Old and New Testaments publicly eschew homosexual activity as ungodly and likely to bring down the judgment (wrath) of God on those who practice it. Rom. 1: 26-27.

No. 2 There is no gene that proves anyone was born a homosexual. Some scientists have searched for a direct genetic cause of same-sex attraction and found little evidence, and science has not shown that homosexuality is an inborn or biologically determined characteristic. Most scientists today give genetic theories little credibility.

No. 3 Same-sex attraction is a behavior that can be overcome, just as alcoholics can stop drinking. There is overwhelming evidence that tens of thousands of men and women have overcome their same-sex attractions, often through reparative therapy, and gone on to live normal lives as heterosexuals. You would never know this by reading the secular press.

No. 4 The acceptance of homosexuality in North America has been a huge public relations success going back to the normalization of homosexuality when it was deleted from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual. It was described as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.” It had nothing to do with science.

Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”

Until 1973, homosexuality was acknowledged by the DSM as a mental illness. That was changed in the interests of the still more severe form of mental illness known as political correctness. Now acceptance of homosexual depravity as normal is mandatory.

No. 5 On the causes of homosexuality. Dr. Irving Bieber, M.D., a psychoanalyst and professor found a close-binding, intimate mother who tended to interfere with her son’s assertiveness, and tended to dislocate his relationship with the father, siblings, and peers. However, Dr. Bieber also found that homosexuality can develop without the frequently occurring close-binding-intimate, mother-son bond. Fathers. The most significant finding was that of the detached father. “The father-son relationship was almost the diametrical opposite of that between mother and son. The paternal portrait was one of a father who was either (emotionally) detached or covertly or overtly hostile. The father-son relationship, however, revealed uniformly an absence of loving, warm, constructive paternal attitudes and behavior. “In my long experience, I have not found a single case where, in the developing years, a father had a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with the son who becomes homosexual. This has been an unvarying finding. It is my view, and I have so stated and written, that if a father has a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with his son, he will not produce a homosexual son, no matter what the mother is like.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.