How should a free nation defend itself from foreign aggression? This question presupposes a prior question. Would a free nation need to defend itself from foreign aggression? Some would answer no. The rewards of cooperation outweigh the rewards of aggression, and so a nation will probably not be attacked unless it first acts aggressively itself. On the other hand, if this were true, conflicts would never occur since no one would make the first aggressive move. It's true that the rewards for cooperation are evident enough that most people do cooperate most of the time. That's what makes human society possible. If people weren't basically cooperative, no government could make them so, since the people in government would have as much difficulty working together as all the rest of us. Still, a small but troublesome minority obviously do believe they're better off not cooperating. We call them criminals. Maybe they do tend to lose out in the long run, but on the way to that long run they cause a heck of a lot of damage to the rest of us. More importantly, governments face different incentives from those faced by private individuals. Under a government, the people who make the decision to go to war are not the same people as those who bear the greatest burden of the costs of the war, and so governments are much more likely than private individuals to engage in aggression. Thus, it's a mistake to model a nation state as if it were a single individual weighing costs against benefits. It's more like a split personality, where the dominant personality reach the benefits, but somehow manages to make the repressed personality bear the costs. Hence the superiority of private protection agencies. A protection agency that chooses to resolve its disputes with other agencies through war, rather than arbitration, will have to charge constantly rising premiums, and so will lose customers to nicer agencies. That doesn't mean governments are completely isolated from the bad effects of war. Certainly the people in power will suffer if they lose the war, especially if their country is conquered by the enemy, and they can also share in the prosperity that peace and free trade bring. But the disincentives for war are much weaker for governments than for individuals, which means that it's a dangerous world out there, so a free nation needs a defence. Why Not a Government Military Most societies, at least in this century, handle the problem of national defence by having a large, well-armed, permanent military force, run by a centralised government, funded by taxation, and often, though not always, manned by conscription. Is this a solution that a free nation can or should follow? I don't think so. First of all, I don't think there should be a centralised government. My reasons for this position have been set out elsewhere, so I'll just summarise the main points briefly. First, government is unjust. Government, by definition, requires its citizens to delegate to the ruler all or part of their right to self-defence. An institution that does not require this is no government but something else. But to delegate a right involuntarily is no delegation at all. The right has simply been obliterated. And I do not see how this can be justified. By what right does one group of people, calling itself a government, arrogate to itself the right to take away the rights of others? As for taxation and conscription, I can't see that these are anything more than fancy words for theft and slavery. Second, government is impractical. Government is a monopoly. It prohibits competition and obtains its revenues by force. It thus faces far less market pressure, and its customers are not free to take their money elsewhere. As a result, governments have little incentive to cut costs or to satisfy their customers. Hence, governments are, unsurprisingly, notorious for inefficiency, wastefulness and abusive power. So, since I don't want a government, I obviously don't want a government military. However, even in societies that do have a government, I still think it's a good idea not to have a government military. A government which has an army that it can turn against its own citizens is a lot more dangerous than a government that doesn't. That's why so many of this country's founders were so adamantly opposed to a standing army, seeing it as a threat to domestic liberty. See, for example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason. A standing navy worried them less because it's harder to impose martial law on land by means of sea power. If the United States had been an archipelago of islands, they might have thought differently. In this country today, US soldiers are reportedly being asked whether they would be willing to shoot American citizens. A free nation needs to find a less dangerous way of protecting its citizens. The dangers of centralization. Centralized government poses yet another threat to a nation's liberty. The more that control over society is centralised in a single command centre, the easier it is for an invading enemy to conquer the entire nation, simply by conquering that command centre. Indeed, invaders have historically done just that, simply taking over the power structure that already existed.  For example, during the American Revolution, the British focused their energies on conquering Philadelphia, at that time the nominal capital of the United States, on the assumption that once the capital had fallen, the rest of the country would be theirs as well. What the British failed to realise was that the United States was a loose-knit confederation, not a centralised nation state, and the government in Philadelphia had almost no authority. When Philadelphia fell, the rest of the country went about its business as usual. Americans were not accustomed to living their lives according to directives from Philadelphia, and so the British troops ended up simply sitting uselessly in the occupied capital, achieving nothing. Hence, Benjamin Franklin, when he heard that the British Army had captured Philadelphia, is said to have replied, Nay, I think Philadelphia has captured the British Army. The dangers of decentralisation. Having pointed out how excessive centralisation can make a nation more vulnerable to foreign domination, let me also point out a respect in which extreme decentralisation might seem to pose a similar threat. In the 4th century BC, the mass murderer we fondly remember as Alexander the Great conquered nearly all of the area we know today as the Middle East. If you want to read a terrifying story, put down the latest Stephen King novel and pick up Aryan's campaigns of Alexander, which in dry and matter-of-fact style records how this erratic psychopath and his tired and ageing army somehow swept like lightning across the shattered remnants of the Persian Empire. Conquering city after city, after city, after city, after city, after city. Now, if the various cities had organised some sort of collective defence and attacked Alexander simultaneously, they would have destroyed his army. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, and hundreds of cities would have kept their freedom. Instead, the cities faced Alexander one by one, each confident of its own unassailability, and one by one, they fell. This might seem to show that some sort of centralised defence is needed in order to provide effective security. But I don't think it shows exactly that. It does show the need for organisation, for collective, concerted, cooperative action. But not all organisations should be viewed in terms of a top-down hierarchical model, in which a central authority issues directives and imposes order on the lower ranks. The key to defending a free nation is to have a system of security decentralised enough to lack a command centre the enemy can capture, but organised enough so that the invader must face a united collective defence, not a series of individual skirmishes. In other words, the key is organisation without centralisation. Organisation without centralisation, then, is the goal. How to realise that goal is, of course, another matter. An encouraging note. It is admittedly a difficult balance to strike. Before we despair, however, we should notice that the goal we are trying to achieve is relatively modest. The defence of a free nation will be limited to just that. Defence. No military interventions around the globe. No imperialism. No foreign adventuring. No gunboat diplomacy. Which means that a free nation's defence budget will be much cheaper than those of its potential enemies. If we put that fact together with the fact that a free nation is also likely to have a much more prosperous economy than its enemies have, we can see some reason for optimism. Let the market take care of it. Most libertarians have heard the joke, how many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? None. The market will take care of it. Perhaps we can give the same answer to worries about national defence. As students of Austrian economics, see, for example, the writings of F.A. Hayek, we know that the free market, by co-ordinating the dispersed knowledge of market actors, has the ability to come up with solutions that no individual could have devised. So why not let a solution to the problem of national defence emerge through the spontaneous order of the market, rather than trying to dictate ahead of time what the market's solution must be? In a sense, I think that is the answer, but it's incomplete. As students of Austrian economics, see, for example, the writings of Israel Kursner, we also know that the efficiency of markets depends in large part on the action of entrepreneurs, and on the Austrian theory, entrepreneurs do not passively react to market prices, as they do in neoclassical economics, but instead are actively alert to profit opportunities, and are constantly trying to invent and market new solutions. I see our role in the Free Nation Foundation as that of intellectual entrepreneurs. Our coming up with solutions is part of – though by no means the whole of – what it means for the market to come up with solutions. We are the market. The light bulb joke captures the Hayekian side of libertarian economics, and Hayek's insight is an important one. But before following Hayek in a tirade against the evils of constructive rationalism, we should remember to balance the Hayekian insight against the equally important Kursnerian insight that the working of the market depends on the creative ingenuity of individuals. I would thus suggest a different ending to the joke. How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb? I'll do it, for a dollar. The three economies. In short then, although we cannot hope to predict precisely what solutions the market will come up with, it's worth trying to figure out what could work, and indeed, like good entrepreneurs, try to influence the market process in the direction of the solutions we like. In any case, we'll have an easier time getting people to join the Free Nation movement, if we have something to tell them about how we propose to defend the nation we hope to found. In attempting to devise solutions to the problem of national defence, we need to make sure that we're not limiting our search to an excessively narrow range of options. In this context, I find extremely useful a distinction that was first explained to me by Phil Jacobson. Jacobson pointed out that one can distinguish three kinds of economy, the profit economy, the charity economy, and the labour economy. I'm not sure I'm using Jacobson's exact terminology, but never mind. In the profit economy, the people who want some good or service X can obtain X by paying someone else to provide it. In the charity economy, the people who want X can obtain it by finding someone who will give it to them for free. In the labour economy, the people who want X can obtain it by producing it themselves. As Jacobson notes, when free market anarchists start looking for voluntary private alternatives to government, they tend to think primarily in terms of the profit economy, while left-wing anarchists, on the other hand, tend to think primarily in terms of the labour economy. Yet in any real-world market system, all three economies coexist and interact in different combinations depending on culture and circumstances. Suppose, for example, that a family emergency arises, and I need more money than my regular income supplies. How can I get the extra money? I might take a second job, or get a loan. Both of these solutions are available through the profit economy. If I take the job, I am paying for the money with my labour. If I get a loan, I am paying for the loan through interest payments. In either case, I solve my problem by finding someone who will help me in exchange for some good or service I can offer. Or I might appeal to a private charity or to a government welfare programme, or obtain an interest-free loan from a friend. In this way, I will be getting my money through the charity economy. I find someone who will help me for free. Or I might cut down on expenses by growing my own food in my garden. Or perhaps I could draw on the pooled resources of a mutual aid organisation. This solution involves the labour economy. I find some way of helping myself, perhaps in concert with others who are helping themselves. In looking for free market approaches to national defence then, we should be sure to consider ways in which each of Jacobson's three economies might be able to help.


the name of the Father or the Son of the Holy Spirit. So, Team Grace, we enter the season of ordinary time, and this is the time particularly focusing on discipleship. We once again, during ordinary time, hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mother Church selects the various parts of our Lord's teachings. Do we might hear again what it means to be a Christian? Do we might have the opportunity to recommit ourselves to the Lord Jesus? Once again, to choose to follow His most excellent way, and we choose that. We have looked to Christ and said, I find in you the fulfillment of all my hopes and desires, and I will follow you. I will follow your way above all others. But choose to be told, Team Grace. There are a lot of people who are among us that in their understanding of what it means to be a Catholic or Christian, it's just about the sacraments. Ask them, what does it mean to be a Christian? What does it mean to be a Catholic? Well, I was baptized, I was confirmed, I received Holy Communion, I would go to confession, I made sure my kids received the sacraments, I made sure my grandchildren received the sacraments. And that's a good answer, but it's a grossly incomplete answer. Dear friends, realize that the sacraments have been given to us by the Lord Jesus in order for us to have the grace to live the Christian way of life. Being a disciple means being in a relationship with Jesus Christ, choosing Him above all others and seeking to follow His way, to allow His grace to transform us, change us. St. Paul tells us we don't think the way we ought and we desire the transformation of our minds, that we might know how God thinks. Being a disciple is more than simply the sacraments, they are essential, but it's from the grace that we understand how it is to live as a disciple, which means we cannot only be sacramentalized, we have to allow ourselves to be evangelized, constantly hearing the gospel, constantly seeking the graces of conversion, constantly seeking to draw closer and closer to Christ. And when we choose His most excellent way, it means we choose to die to ourselves. I choose the path of mercy, of selfless service, the path of prayer. These are very controversial and counterculture in our world today, but when we choose the most excellent way of the Lord Jesus, we choose to follow Him. That's what it means to be a Christian. To minimize the discipleship to just the sacraments is again a gross incompletion and it portrays the very purpose of the sacraments. Of course we have some social conservatism among us and social conservatism is great because oftentimes it will match our teachings, but then suddenly there's a conflict, especially in terms of our sexual teachings and those who have a social conservatism suddenly find themselves throwing Mother Church under the bus as fast as the liberals, right? Because Mother Church following Jesus is not about being conservative or liberal. Following the Lord Jesus is about being a Christian. That means we choose His teachings above all others and there was a time when our society matched our teachings as Christians. It was a blessed time. That time is over. As the West more and more slides back into barbarism, once again, we Christians are unique. Our way of life is unique. We are singled out because of our complete commitment that every human person has dignity, that we will serve the vulnerable, we will forgive and give second chances. We are once again peculiar in terms of the world scene, but that's how it's always been, predominantly. We've just been spoiled for the past couple of centuries, but again that's over. And so we have to ask ourselves, do we follow the Lord Jesus? Will we follow His way? Will we follow His way when it's in conflict with our culture? Are we willing to suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness? Are we willing to speak the truth, even when that means that our neighbors will mock us and call us terrible names? Have we chosen to follow the way of the Lord Jesus? Dear friends, ours is a Christian way. It is different than our fallen culture. It is a way given to us by the living God. It is a way that is open to every man and every woman and it is the best of ways for every man and every woman. But many choose to dismiss it. Many choose to decline the invitation to follow the Lord Jesus. But we, we who are here, we have freely chosen to follow the way of the Lord Jesus. And that is a way that cannot be compromised or overly accommodated to a fallen culture. We cannot betray what we claim to believe and then act as if we are truly believers. In the end, one of two paths will win. The path of integrity where we see grace in order to allow for the transformation of our minds and hearts, or open rebellion and compromise. We see that in the church today. We see so many who are unwilling to preach the gospel in its entirety. So many who have compromised the gospel. But if we are choosing to follow the Lord Jesus, then we must seek the graces of conversion and faithfulness. We have chosen this way. But you have heard me preach this before. And in fact, it can almost sound overly abstract. So perhaps it's helpful to us to take this path, this decision of ours, and apply it to something happening in our culture today. This will help us to understand, to get in the trenches, what does it mean to be that peculiar Christian to follow a way that is different than the way of our fallen culture? So let's apply our faith to an issue in our world today. We are told that this is Pride Month and this has overtaken our culture. It is being shoved down our throats and we are expected to comply. But as Christians, we cannot comply. We choose humility over pride. And humility is called to love. But love always respects the truth. It is precisely the love that we have for all men and women and the respect that we show to their God-given dignity that compels us to give witness to the truth and to seek the moral and spiritual health and wellbeing of our neighbors. In summary, we are called to be good Samaritans. We do not simply keep our faith or the way of the Lord Jesus to ourselves or trapped within our own house of worship. We go out and we seek to share and to convince others to follow the way of the Lord Jesus. But then how we to approach the LGBTQ plus movement was simply said with clarity and kindness. Well, how we to approach the members of this movement. Well, we approach them as we would approach any other person. We approach them with the same virtues and openness of heart that are our marks as Christian believers. We know everyone to be children of God and we see a person's humanity before we see their fallenness. As Christians, we cannot participate, however, in any action or event or conversation that will give or be perceived to give approval, acceptance or normalization to homosexuality or to transgenderism. Nevertheless, while remaining faithful to the tomorrow truth and speaking honestly at all times, we do care for all men and women and we welcome them and seek to accompany any person who desires true friendship and wholesome interaction.  Dear friends, we live in a fallen world and we possess a fallen human nature. As such, there are many numerous disorders that exist within the human family. Some of the disorders involve our behavior, such as someone who has a disordered appetite for food or for telling lies. Meanwhile, some of the other disorders are within our nature itself and they are allowed by God's permissive will. That means he allows them, although he does not actively desire them and he allows these, he permits certain disorders. These would include things such as diabetes or fetal alcohol syndrome or homosexual orientation. It is within this context that the church speaks of a disorder, especially the disorder of homosexual attraction, namely when someone has an exclusive or predominant desire for sexual acts with a person of their same sex. Since man and women were created with a deep and clearly observable complementarity, any interaction that would break such an ordered natural union is considered a disordered attraction. The church gives no opinion as to whether someone is born with this attraction or whether it's something that has developed in a person's history or state of affairs. The church has no opinion on that matter.  Simply because someone believes and or is adamant that they were born this way does not give them moral permission to act on such attractions. As explained, if people are born with same sex attractions, such attractions would still be disordered and would not be morally acceptable. God permits many disorders that require sacrifice and life changes so that a person can be healthy and virtuous. For example, a person born with diabetes has to change their diet and watch what they eat. Simply because they are born that way with this disorder does not mean that they can eat however they want. That would be irresponsible and dangerous to their body and their souls. The attraction, when we speak in terms of a homosexual attraction, the attraction is the disorder, not the person. And that's an important distinction we make as Christians.  The attraction is disordered.  We all bear the image of God within us and we all have dignity that must be respected.     While a homosexual orientation is a disorder in and of itself, it is not sinful. We need to understand this as Christians and the person who carries such attractions does not bear any moral guilt. That is so long as they do not intentionally nurture that orientation. It sometimes happens that a person, equally, especially one of sound faith and goodwill, does not even want the attraction and labors and suffers to direct and channel that attraction according to moral truth and goodness.  It offends God as creator, the goodness of creation and the complementarity between man and woman. Since homosexual acts are not within the realm of natural complementarity, and so do not come from a genuine male, female affectivity, they are by their very nature, hedonistic, self-focused and narcissistic. I think of the notorious homosexual and the bisexual Oscar Wilde, who wrote, I looked for love, but all I found were lovers.  Homosexual acts cause immense harm to the soul of the persons involved in them. Homosexual acts cannot be condoned nor normalized. In identifying the sinfulness of homosexual acts, one particular point must be emphasized. There is an attempt by some theologians to include homosexual acts along with fornication and adultery in some type of list, general list of sexual sins. From such a list, they argue that all of the respective sins are precisely sinful because they're outside the marital union. How such a presentation might sound good and even fair to some, the argument is wrong and the intention is deceptive, especially when it's given by a trained theologian.    It is for this reason that homosexual acts are included in a rare set of grave mortal sins known as the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, as described by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rather than minimize the sinfulness of homosexual acts, moral truth rightly identifies them as unrivaled in their depravity among sins against chastity since they waged war against nature itself. It is for this reason that homosexual acts are to be seen theologically as possessing their own province, their own wayward province among the sins against chastity. The person who has a homosexual orientation is called to a life of chastity. When I was a seminarian in Rome, the notorious author and homosexual Gore Vidal, some of you might recognize his name, was noted novelist. And he celebrated a predominant birthday, I can't remember which one it was. And the entire city of Rome was abuzz because he gave a rare interview and someone asked him, they said, you know, Gore Vidal, you have had men, multiple men every week, you bragged about for years. And then suddenly you disappeared and you're in this stable friendship. What happened? And he said, well, my current friendship, we don't have any sexual activity. And the reporter kind of mocked him and said, I'll come on, like, you know, he said, no. He said, after so much heartache and so much pain, he said, I found a friend that I could be with him. We don't have any sexual activity, right? He owned this large home, a mansion, and they lived on separate ends. And he said, no, we don't engage in any sexual activity. That's why this relationship has lasted, right? So in his own heartache, his own suffering, this notorious homosexual learned the wisdom of the church, that he was called to a life of chastity, to friendship, of course, but to chastity. Spiritually we see those persons with the homosexual orientation as being given a special mission from the Lord Jesus to labor, to order their sexual desires according to moral truth, and to seek the inner harmony and personal integration in their spiritual and bodily lives. Such a person is called to an abundant life by deepening their spirituality, nurturing healthy friendships, selflessly serving others, pursuing interests to help the common good and being an active member in society and in the church. The call to chastity is a summons to personal freedom and the truth and to a deeper and pure love for others.  They can allow any emotional heartache or relational difficulty to become a means by which they can more closely follow and serve the Lord Jesus. Such persons have a particular power in the realm of redemptive suffering, and such a power should not be underestimated by them or by anyone else. In covering the various aspects of the LGBTQ plus movement, we must also give some attention to transgenderism. Those who experience gender dysphoria, which is a feeling or experience of disassociation with a birth gender or physical characteristics relating to it are said to have this dysphoria. In general, this is a disassociative condition. Within the person, since they feel one way, but are in reality another. In a healthy society, people with such a disassociation within themselves would be treated for a mental or emotional disorder. Regrettably, we do not live in such an age. We live in a society where dualism is the rule of the day. Dualism is the belief that our bodies and souls are radically distinct. In one form of dualism, our bodies are seen as incidental, accidental to the real us who dwells somewhere in our interior lives. It approaches the body as raw material that can be manipulated according to our feelings or subjective experiences. This is the dualism that fuels transgenderism. Transgenderism is a grave disorder, is an offense to God, the natural order of creation and the proper male and female gender of the human family. Personal maturity has always been viewed as the ability to find harmony between our bodies and souls and to allow our intellect and will, which is our spiritual soul, to temper and order our feelings and experiences according to reality. Transgenderism denies all the above. It asserts that God, our Creator, has made a mistake in the most radical part of our personal identity and that we must fix it. It argues for the superiority of feelings and subjective experiences over reality. Our response to those who have such feelings who have undergone sex reassignment surgery is one of love and compassion. Regrettably, due to the state of affairs caused by transgenderism, it is more difficult at times to welcome and accompany such people. Nevertheless, we are called as Christians to do our best and to seek ways to manifest God's love and acceptance to those in the transgender movement. The rates of depression and suicide within the transgender movement have not been adequately reported by the various channels of our society and that is a great inservice. When addressed, it is oftentimes said that the reason why there are such high suicide rates and depression rates is because of the discrimination that is brought against transgender people by broader culture and that's not true because we see that even with those who have transitioned to their new gender, they're supposed to be gender and within a society that has given unbridled acceptance to transgenderism, we still see high rates of depression and suicide and that will not be brought up because it's not politically correct and it's a great disservice and injustice to those who struggle with this disorder.  That question will never be asked, sadly. As Christians, we know that gender dysphoria is a mental and emotional disorder that needs to be properly addressed so that people can find peace with themselves. It is charity that compels us to speak the truth and to seek authentic means that might help people with this dysphoria to order their feelings and experiences of reality. In reviewing our approach to the LGBTQ movement, we need to address the very difficult subjects of consent, compromise and accommodation. As Christians, we must not capitulate to our fallen culture. We must always speak the truth in love. By speaking the truth, it is our great hope that people in the LGBTQ plus movement might recognize the true disorder that is causing them harm and then pursue a way of life that will free them from further hurt or injury. Our fallen culture has succumbed to the pressure and vanity of the LGBTQ movement. As such, the vast majority of our social institutions have declared themselves advocates and have sought to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism. The landscape in these areas are extensive. On one extreme, we have the legalization of gay marriage. While on the other side, we have the cultural pressure of personal pronouns and access to restrooms. And there is so much in between that covers daily life, workplaces, neighborhoods and public spaces. As Christians, we know that God created us male and female and that the two genders have a beautiful complementarity. We are tasked to oppose these efforts at a normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism. But let's address some issues. Each of these are real, pastoral issues that have been brought to my attention, either here or at a previous pastoral assignment. And with the permission of those involved and changing details, I want us to go through a list of some things that some of our fellow believers have had to answer and endure. Should family members who are living a homosexual lifestyle or who are transgender be invited to holiday celebrations? Yes. Such members of the family should be invited, but not their gay partners, or only if they are addressed and dressed according to their proper gender. If Uncle Carl wants to be Aunt Carol, then they have to be passed up on the invitation. If cousin Larry wants to bring his husband, then he has to be passed up on the invitation. Can I attend a gay wedding of a family member?  Christians cannot involve themselves in anything that might publicly normalize such a way of life. If the family member is open to it, then there could be a respective and charitable conversation about why we cannot attend while also expressing our love for them. Can I participate in a workplace party or congratulations to a colleague who has entered into a gay marriage? We cannot participate in such things. While our absence might cause some misunderstanding and possible retribution, we cannot be involved in anything that would seek to normalize an active homosexual relationship. Should I use the new pronouns of a neighbor who has transitioned to a new gender? We cannot play along with such language games. If necessary, we can use purposeful, pluralized pronouns, but we should avoid anything that will publicly normalize transgenderism. Can my child participate in a slumber party hosted by a lesbian couple in my neighborhood? Christian parents must guard the moral formation of their children and they cannot allow for the normalization of sexual deviancy. As such, Christian children should not participate in any event hosted by a gay couple since such a relationship manipulates nature, redefines marriage, and does not model the natural understanding of family that we understand as Christians. It would cause immense confusion in the minds of children.   A homosexual couple is not the moral equivalent of a natural marriage of husband and wife. We know and strongly assert that every child deserves both a mother and a father and the complementarity of their relationship. And dear friends, the list goes on. Some years ago, I saw a young woman that I had trained in the Christian way of life. She was a convert, strong, strong woman of faith. And I met up with her and she was wearing a T-shirt and said, I'm gay and that's okay. I said, okay, are you a homosexual? No. Oh, well, what is with the shirt? And she said, father, she was in grad school at the time. She said, father, if I don't wear this shirt, like I am mocked. You cannot understand how I am treated on campus if I don't buy and wear this shirt. I said, I can understand that. But there are times in which we are called to suffer for the sake of righteousness. You can't wear that shirt, right? And of course, the tolerant people often find show themselves to be so intolerant. In holding the line of being true to what is right, we run the risk of receiving the full ire of so-called tolerant people who will call us terrible names and even seek social or legal action against us simply because we disagree with them. And yet we are summoned to hold the line, to speak the truth in love and to accept such offenses and persecutions as a love, acts of love for God and neighbor. In the early church, our forefathers and foremothers, they would not participate in the public orgies or the circus games, the violence or other public spectacles that offended our Christian faith. Their absence was noted and was one of the causes for the persecution against the early Christians. But they held the line. They understood we cannot portray the way of the Lord Jesus and today we are called to do the same. The approach of the LGBTQ plus movement is one example of what it means to be evangelized, to hear the gospel and to accept it as the rule of our lives. This is what it means to not only receive the sacraments, but to use their grace so that we might live according to the Christian way of life. As Christians, we hate no one. We have no axe to grind. We seek only to follow the way of the Lord Jesus and to share his life-giving message with every man and every woman so that all people might know the love of God and seek to follow him, that they might also know the peace of God. And all we ask of our society is the freedom to live by our beliefs, to share our beliefs, and we ask our tolerant society to let us do it.