Archives

By Ronald Moore THEOPOLIS INSTITUTE February 17, 2026   When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that Gentile believers were “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11), he was not announcing the birth of a new religion but the restoration of God’s ancient purpose. The covenant was not discarded but fulfilled; the tree was not uprooted but renewed. In Christ, the promises to Abraham reach their intended harvest: the nations brought in, Israel restored, creation reconciled. The covenant is not a coalition of moral traditions; it is the resurrection of a people in the Messiah. The fiction of the “Judeo-Christian” West The modern phrase  Judeo-Christian civilization  emerged not from the prophets or apostles but from mid-twentieth-century political discourse, particularly during World War II and the early Cold War, when writers such as Will Herberg employed it to describe a shared religious identity standing against both fascist and secular totalitarianism. In that context it functioned as a rhetorical alliance, a way for Jews and Christians to affirm common moral concerns in the face of ideological threats. As a cultural project it had a certain usefulness; as a theological category, however, it remains inadequate. God’s covenant cannot be reduced to a shared moral consensus. By joining “Judeo” to “Christian,” the hyphen performs sleight-of-hand by turning redemptive history into sociology. It imagines the West as a child of a moral consensus rather than of the Cross. Yet the moral architecture of the West—its concern for conscience, justice, and human dignity—arose not from a broad Abrahamic compact but from the Incarnation itself. The light that illumined the Gentiles did not come from shared law but from shared life in the risen Lord. From continuity to fulfillment Paul’s olive-tree imagery corrects both triumphalism and nostalgia. The Gentiles who are grafted in do not form a second people beside Israel, nor do they replace her. They become part of the same covenantal organism now sustained by the life of the Messiah. As Jason Staples argues in  Paul and the Resurrection of Israel , Paul’s gospel announces Israel’s restoration through the death and resurrection of Christ, bringing to completion the story begun with Abraham. The covenant’s boundaries expand, but its root remains holy. Israel’s vocation to bear God’s name among the nations is not cancelled but completed as Gentiles enter through faith. The Church, therefore, is not “post-Israel” but Israel renewed: the people of God now defined not by genealogy alone but by participation in the Spirit. The Cross, then, does not divide history into competing religions. It unveils what the Law and the Prophets had long foretold. As Augustine said, “In the Old Testament the New is concealed; in the New the Old is revealed.” The hyphen between “Judeo” and “Christian” conceals this revelation, suggesting continuity without fulfillment and unity without conversion. By framing Christianity as merely the moral heir of Judaism rather than the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant in Christ, the hyphen shifts attention from redemption to heritage and from conversion to cultural continuity. Our covenant with God is not a coalition with him or with the Jews. The confusion arises when covenantal grace is mistaken for cultural partnership. The Kingdom of God is not an alliance of the pious; it is a new creation. A covenant binds by divine promise, while a coalition binds by mutual interest. Shared virtues, public prayers, and moral declarations may indeed grow from covenant life, but they are its fruit, not its foundation; in a coalition they become the basis of unity precisely because they demand no common root. But the gospel’s claim is far more radical: through the crucified and risen Christ, God has made one new humanity, not by negotiation but by regeneration. To call the West “Judeo-Christian” is to soften revelation into cultural respectability, recasting the scandal of Christ’s particular claims as a broadly shared religious heritage. It replaces Pentecost with parliament, baptismal incorporation into Christ with the looser language of cultural belonging. The Church does not exist to preserve civilization’s moral order; she exists to embody a redeemed one. The olive tree flourishes only where the sap of the Spirit flows. Without that life, even the most venerable branches become dry wood fit for the fire. The Law fulfilled in the Spirit The Law given at Sinai is not abolished but fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:3–4). What was once written on tablets of stone is now written on human hearts. The covenant’s continuity is not institutional but incarnational. The same God who called Abraham now calls the nations; the same righteousness once revealed in the Law is now revealed in Christ. Here is the true unity of the Testaments: promise kept, not partnership maintained. The God of Israel has not changed his mind, but he has kept his word in ways that only grace could imagine. Every moral vision worthy of the name “Christian” must arise from this miracle of fulfillment, not from nostalgia for a cultural synthesis that never existed. The Church is the fulfilled people of God. When the Church forgets her identity as grafted Israel—incorporated into the covenant promises first given to Abraham—she begins to speak the language of coalition rather than covenant. The olive tree into which Gentiles are grafted is not a new organism but the living root of Israel’s calling, now sustained by the Messiah. The distinction between natural and grafted branches remains historically real, yet both draw life from the same root and share the same covenantal hope. Paul’s gospel leaves no room for confusion: “You were once far off, but now you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13). The nearness of the Gentiles does not dilute Israel’s election; it manifests its purpose: that through Abraham’s seed all nations should be blessed. This is why the Church cannot adopt the idiom of “Judeo-Christian civilization” without losing her own tongue. The phrase points not to covenant fulfillment but to an imagined moral consensus drawn from a shared religious past, while the gospel points forward to new creation. Civil religion seeks agreement; covenant faith seeks transformation. The one preserves, and the other resurrects. The cross fulfills the Old Testament promises. Between synagogue and Church stands not a wall of enmity but the open tomb. The difference is real and decisive, yet it is the difference between promise and fulfillment, not between error and replacement. The Cross unites by fulfilling; it reconciles by judging; it brings peace by passing through death. Therefore the Church does not boast against the branches but remembers her dependence on the root. She confesses that her very existence is the fruit of Israel’s faithfulness and God’s mercy. The covenant has no hyphen because it has a heart of flesh, animated by the Spirit poured out on all who believe. The covenant has a Savior The moral order of the West, such as it remains, is a fragile afterglow of the light of Christ’s revelation. To rebuild on any foundation other than Christ is to return to Babel with better manners. The Church’s calling is not to preserve a mythic “Judeo-Christian” civilization but to proclaim the crucified and risen Lord through whom Israel’s promises live. The covenant fulfilled in Christ is not a hyphenated civilizational project but the living promise of God made flesh. Its center is not a shared ethic but a Savior—Jesus Christ himself. And in him the nations find not merely a moral code to admire but a life into which they are grafted, a single tree whose root is holy and whose branches reach to the ends of the earth.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD VirtueOnline.org March 7, 2026 G26 in Abuja: High Expectations, Muted Results   A UK Anglican blog known for its orthodoxy observed that what emerged from GAFCON’s mini-conference (G26) in Abuja, Nigeria was a “terribly British” way of doing business. The Anglican Futures writer noted that many had expected a rival to the newly appointed Archbishop Sarah Mullally—a pro-pansexual, progressive woman bishop and former head nurse—to emerge, along with a rival communion. Anticipation was high. Instead, a triumvirate was announced—with no primus inter pares to compete with the occupant of Lambeth Palace. As the writer observed, “The initial response was muted. Many feared that once again orthodox Anglicans had been marched to the top of the hill, only to be marched back down again”—a reference to the “Grand Old Duke of York” nursery rhyme. It seemed GAFCON’s bark was worse than its bite, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had little to fear. The result is rule by committee. Three men will now lead the newly formed communion: a Rwandan archbishop, a Brazilian archbishop, and an American bishop. The latter, Paul Donison, is essentially a public relations operative—all flare, little substance. GAFCON is clear that it is “reordering” the Anglican Communion—not breaking away, nor executing a takeover, since there is nothing to take over. The Anglican Communion is, at heart, merely a set of relationships between provinces and between dioceses within provinces. It is at the diocesan and provincial level that episcopal and archepiscopal jurisdiction plays out, not at the level of the broader communion. The Problem with Conciliarism The approach taken by GAFCON is a conciliar one that has little basis in Anglican ecclesiology. Anglicanism is confessional, acknowledging Scripture as primary, alongside the Thirty-Nine Articles and the two sacraments. A number of scholars have challenged this direction, including Dean Chuck Collins, who has spent over 40 years in Episcopal and Anglican circles, and the distinguished Anglican scholar Dr. Gillis Harp. Anglican theologian Philip Edgecombe Hughes (1915–1990) also weighed in on the matter. Hughes was an Anglican theologian and patristics scholar best known for his work in Reformed Anglican theology. He consistently subordinated conciliar authority to Scripture. Drawing on the Reformed Anglican tradition—particularly the Thirty-Nine Articles—he maintained that general councils “may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God” (Article XXI). For Hughes, no council, however authoritative, could claim infallibility, because infallibility belongs to Scripture alone. Conciliarism—rule by rotating committee—will only work if all parties remain on the same page. That is not guaranteed. While there is consensus that homosexual marriage (per Lambeth Resolution 1:10) and the failed Windsor Report are off the table, the issue of women’s ordination remains very much alive. Anglo-Catholics sit uneasily in the Anglican Church in North America, as they do in the Church of England—further complicated by active homosexuals drawn to the liturgical tradition who remain uncommitted to justification by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner argues that the conciliar tradition developed because the Church is wounded, not because it is inherently democratic. Councils emerged to maintain communion, address crises, and preserve doctrinal unity. He emphasizes that conciliarism is a practice of bearing wounds, not simply a method of governance. Radner is also critical of modern attempts at conciliar structures, arguing that they try to solve problems structurally rather than penitentially. In Roman Catholicism, conciliarism does not override the magisterium. Indeed, the official Catholic position since the nineteenth century holds the opposite: the magisterium—especially the papal magisterium—has final interpretive authority, and councils function only with and under the pope. Recovering the Reformation Heritage Dr. Gillis J. Harp, a retired history professor at Grove City College, argues that the path forward for orthodox Anglicans lies in recovering their Reformation heritage, not in building new institutional frameworks. Harp traces the current doctrinal drift in part to a decision made at the founding of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1780s, when American Anglicans chose not to require clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles. By the late 1970s, those Articles had been relegated to a “Historical Documents” appendix at the back of the American prayer book. “The Articles will help reinvigorate Anglican theology because they reflect the core teaching of the Protestant Reformation,” Harp writes. He identifies key doctrines—including the supremacy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the proper administration of the sacraments—as non-negotiable for any genuine Anglican recovery. The Three Streams Problem Both Archbishop Bob Duncan (ACNA emeritus) and Bishop Phil Ashey (Diocese of Western Anglicans) have championed the Three Streams model, but it has been roundly criticized by reform theologian Dean Chuck Collins as insufficient Anglican ecclesiology. Collins writes: “‘Three Streams’ threatens our Anglican identity. An idea that was hatched in 1954—in Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Household of God—cannot possibly describe what the Church of England was founded on or what Anglicans believe today. Three-streams not only explains why there is wild diversity and sometimes no continuity from Anglican church to Anglican church, but the idea that equal respect be given to Catholic, Evangelical, and Pentecostal streams is nowhere in the historic Anglican formularies or hinted at in Anglican teaching until modern times. It is the latest in a long line of conciliar attempts to reach consensus apart from confessional Anglicanism. Each ‘stream’ holds contradictory views on primary issues of faith, including authority in the church and the place of the Reformation in determining belief and practice. The notion of three streams does violence to the founding conviction that Holy Scripture—the Bible alone—is the primary authority of the Church of England, as understood and explained in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the two Books of Homilies.” The Jerusalem Declaration and the G26 Communiqué Since GAFCON’s inception in 2008 and its founding document—the Jerusalem Declaration—its leaders have sought to cement the differences between Canterbury and GAFCON. It is a remarkable document; membership requires signing the Declaration. Its five core commitments are: 1.        The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, containing all that is necessary for salvation. 2.        The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught, and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respecting the Church’s historic and consensual reading. 3.        The Anglican Communion will be guided by the Jerusalem Declaration, with its second clause emphasizing the centrality of the Bible in the Church’s identity and authority. 4.        The Declaration calls for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married. 5.        The Anglican Communion will be reordered with one foundation of communion: the Holy Bible. The recent G26 Communiqué is equally unambiguous. The Abuja Affirmation represents GAFCON’s formal declaration of a new Global Anglican Communion, rooted in biblical authority, orthodox doctrine, and separation from Canterbury’s structures—framed not as schism but as a claim to continuity with historic Anglican faith. Conclusion: From Conciliar to Confessional The only remaining hurdle is whether GAFCON can move beyond conciliarism to a genuinely confessional Anglicanism. That shift would go a long way toward establishing an authentically Anglican witness capable of standing the test of time—and of replacing the morally and theologically compromised Canterbury-driven communion.   END

End Times Speculation Unleashes “Prophecy” Nutters //Gen Z least Religious in US History QUOTES OF THE DAY: "The early Church converted the Roman world without altar calls, stage lighting, or seeker-sensitive liturgies. She did it by forming disciples, baptizing converts, and worshiping God with seriousness and awe." — Rev. Dr. Donald H. Moore "The souls who don't know Christ need us to be clear in articulating the faith and faithful in presenting it with our words and our deeds. Our children do not need us to leave a legacy, but a field bearing fruit. GSFA and GAFCON, put your hands together on the Gospel plow and get to work." — Andrew Brashier "Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully." — GAFCON Communiqué "God intends us to penetrate the world. Christian salt has no business remaining snugly in elegant little ecclesiastical salt cellars; our place is to be rubbed into the secular community, as salt is rubbed into meat, to stop it going bad. And when society does go bad, we Christians tend to throw up our hands in pious horror and reproach the non-Christian world; but should we not rather reproach ourselves? One can hardly blame unsalted meat for going bad. It cannot do anything else. The real question to ask is: Where is the salt?" — John Stott Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org March 6, 2026 THE Anglican Communion has been reset — but not, as anticipated, with a rival to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even so, the Anglican Communion as we have known it is seriously, perhaps fatally, wounded by the heresies emanating from the West. As a result, the Global South has set the stage for a major change in how the Communion will function going forward. Leaders representing 80 million Anglicans met this past week in Abuja, Nigeria — the largest province in the Communion — and declared that the marker for orthodoxy is Holy Scripture, not culture, and that the Jerusalem Declaration is the new "Nicene" creed of Anglican orthodoxy. Some 400 bishops, clergy, and laity, meeting in Abuja under the banner of GAFCON — the Global Anglican Future Conference — said they would now determine the future for orthodox Anglicans in more strategic ways than when GAFCON first reorganized the Communion in 2008. GAFCON declared that the Anglican Communion will be reordered with its sole foundation in Holy Scripture, rejecting the previous instruments of communion such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). The conference emphasized the need for a conciliar structure to lead the Communion, moving away from traditional Anglican leadership — though not necessarily toward a confessional model. GAFCON continued to uphold the Jerusalem Declaration, which articulates the Communion's commitment to the authority of Scripture. These developments represent a significant shift in the Anglican Communion's governance and theological outlook. The full communiqué can be read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/communique-the-abuja-affirmation What GAFCON did was declare a new council to lead its churches, accusing the Church of England of straying from biblical faithfulness. Rebranded as the Global Anglican Communion, the group appointed Rwandan Archbishop Laurent Mbanda as its chairman — replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury in that role. The council also elected Brazilian Archbishop Miguel Uchoa and Bishop Paul Donison (USA) to serve alongside him. Mbanda will not hold the title of "first among equals," a designation the Archbishop of Canterbury traditionally holds. One speaker, the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Rt. Rev. Richard Condie, took the gloves off when he declared that antichrists had entered the Church. Speaking to conferees at GAFCON's G26 mini-conference, he said the challenges facing the Church today should come as no surprise. The Apostle John described false believers as a sign of "the last days," referring to them as the spirit of antichrist. "We are here because of the antichrists among us," Condie said, emphasizing that false teachers and false believers have always been a feature of Christian discipleship. He cautioned that the danger is not limited to those outside the orthodox faith — church leaders themselves must guard their hearts against denying Christ. "We deny him when we expect deference and walk in pride as leaders," he said. "We deny him when we are taken in by money given to us by heretical teachers." You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/abuja-tasmanian-bishop-says-anti-christ-s-are-among-us I have written at length about this gathering, with other reliable sources also adding to the mix: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/gafcon-overhauls-leadership-structure-stops-short-of-formal-schism https://www.virtueonline.org/post/abuja-competing-communions-to-emerge-from-g26 https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/gafcon-denies-schism-insists-continuity ***** One criticism of GAFCON is its embrace of conciliarism, which critics argue is inconsistent with Anglicanism's confessional tradition. Dr. Gillis J. Harp, a retired history professor at Grove City College, argues that the path forward for orthodox Anglicans lies in recovering their Reformation heritage, not in building new institutional frameworks. Harp traces the current doctrinal drift in part to a decision made at the founding of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1780s, when American Anglicans chose not to require clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles. By the late 1970s, those Articles had been relegated to a "Historical Documents" appendix at the back of the American prayer book. "The Articles will help reinvigorate Anglican theology because they reflect the core teaching of the Protestant Reformation," Harp writes. He identifies key doctrines — including the supremacy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the proper administration of the sacraments — as non-negotiables for any genuine Anglican recovery. Both Archbishop Bob Duncan (ACNA emeritus) and Bishop Phil Ashey (Diocese of Western Anglicans) have championed the Three Streams model, but it has been roundly criticized by Reformed theologian Dean Chuck Collins as insufficient Anglican ecclesiology. Collins writes: "'Three Streams' threatens our Anglican identity. An idea hatched in 1954 (in Lesslie Newbigin's book The Household of God) cannot possibly describe what the Church of England was founded on or what Anglicans believe today. Three Streams not only explains the wild diversity — and sometimes complete discontinuity — from one Anglican church to another, but the notion that equal respect be given to Catholic, Evangelical, and Pentecostal streams appears nowhere in the historic Anglican formularies or in Anglican teaching until modern times. It is the latest in a long line of conciliar attempts to reach consensus apart from confessional Anglicanism." Interestingly, the Continuing Anglicans — a splinter group of orthodox Anglicans — also weighed in on this week's GAFCON meeting. Bishop Chandler Holder Jones said: "The Continuing Anglican Churches have a different, distinctive, more robust, precise, perspicuous, and well-defined dogmatic foundation rooted in the First Millennium Consensus of the Undivided Church — the fullness of the Catholic Faith. GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration suffer from major lacunae in the matrix of Catholic orthodoxy. Most seriously, and an insuperable barrier to communion, GAFCON as an organization or network permits the purported ordination of women to the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate. The same innovation that splintered the Canterbury Communion persists in GAFCON." Whether he is right or wrong, time will tell. For the moment, the future has arrived. As the Jerusalem Communiqué states: "For more than two decades, we have in prayerful humility called for the repentance of those senior leaders of the Anglican Communion who have denied the orthodox faith in word and deed. Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully. While matters of human sexuality are one expression of this, they are merely symptomatic of deeper doctrinal and moral departures from the teaching of Scripture. The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion has failed to exercise discipline, maintain the biblical witness, and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of 'walking together' with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus." There you have it — schism in all but name. If you do not recognize the titular head (Archbishop Mullally), you have for all intents and purposes cut yourself off from the Communion as it now stands. There will be no more journeys to Lambeth Palace, no more Eucharists in Canterbury Cathedral (now overseen by a dean in a same-sex partnership), and fewer ordinands from the Global South pursuing theological education at English universities. A new day has dawned. Now we await to see how far and wide the light will shine. For an excellent commentary on the GAFCON communiqué, see theologian Michael Bird's analysis here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-jerusalem-statement-a-commentary-part-one-the-gospel-of-grace-and-biblical-authority ***** An Honorary Canon at Chelmsford Cathedral has resigned over its use of the controversial Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF). The Rev. John Dunnett said it was "impossible" to fulfill his role while maintaining his integrity when the Cathedral is using prayers that bless the relationships of same-sex couples — contrary to the teachings of Scripture. The cathedral first used the PLF in November 2025. The Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Network (CDEN) wrote to the Bishop and Dean expressing "profound concern" and asking them to reconsider. In January, the Dean responded confirming they would continue to use the prayers. You can read more here: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/cofe-canon-quits-over-cathedrals-use-of-same-sex-blessing-prayers/ ***** What exactly is wrong with the Church of England? Bijan Omrani, author of God is an Englishman: Christianity and the Creation of England, argues that the Church simply isn't doing enough. It is underpowered in spreading public knowledge of the faith. Instead of properly investing in its workhorses — the parish clergy — it funds ever-ballooning diocesan bureaucracies and squanders capital on unjustifiable initiatives such as Project Spire, the £100 million "reparations" payment for historic slavery. One might also add the grossly mishandled safeguarding failures that have seen countless children sexually abused while church leaders closed ranks and gave abusive priests and bishops a pass. "This is not the behavior of a church that is taking its problems seriously. Just as Jerusalem should have listened to Jeremiah before the Babylonians destroyed it, so too should the church now heed the warnings of the Humanists, before it is too late," Omrani writes. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/if-the-church-of-england-were-serious-about-revival-this-is-what-they-would-be-doing ***** A serious power struggle involving a well-respected aid organization ministering to the persecuted church has gone public, causing immense grief to those it serves and to its donors. Barnabas Aid, founded in 1993 by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, has become embroiled in legal disputes resulting in what some describe as an illegitimate seizure of the organization, amid cries of mismanagement and a string of resignations. You can read the full story here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/serious-doubt-cast-on-veracity-of-accusations-against-barnabas-aid-founders-accusers-now-under-inve and here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/barnabas-aid-was-an-illegal-takeover-say-solicitors END-TIMES SPECULATION is multiplying rapidly. It has become fashionable to forecast the apocalypse as war heats up in the Middle East, and self-styled prophets entertain the credulous with predictions drawn from the books of Daniel and Revelation. There is no "battle of Armageddon" in the Book of Revelation, says theologian David MacInnes. Given recent news that more than a hundred service members have filed complaints alleging that a commander told them war with Iran is part of "God's divine plan" — and that a sitting president is "anointed by Jesus" to ignite Armageddon — it is important to be clear about how unbiblical these claims are, MacInnes writes. "This claim has more to do with the fiction of the Left Behind series and dispensational theology than it does with the Book of Revelation." Revelation was composed in the late first century, most likely during the reign of Domitian, when the Roman Empire demanded not only political loyalty but religious reverence. Rome ruled through claiming divine sanction. Emperors were hailed as "Lord" and "Savior," and participation in imperial cults was a sign of allegiance. Refusal could mean marginalization, economic exclusion, or worse. Revelation is not a coded forecast of 21st-century geopolitics. As John states in the opening verse, the entire letter is the revelation of Jesus Christ — the way of God through Jesus Christ being revealed in the world. It is written in the prophetic genre of apocalyptic resistance literature, pulling back the curtain on earthly empires and naming them for what they are: beastly. You can read more here: https://www.facebook.com/david.macinnes.92 The basic narrative goes something like this: modern Israel is the same Israel described in the Bible. God made eternal promises to that nation. And before Jesus returns, certain prophecies must be fulfilled in the Middle East. The more of those prophecies get fulfilled, the closer we are to the end of the world. This means that in the minds of the doomsday cult adherents, wars are never just wars. They’re signs. They’re signals. They’re proof that the end of the world is getting closer. Be excited, not sad. You can see this mindset every time a major event happens involving Israel. When Donald Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem in 2018, many conservative Christians celebrated it not primarily as a diplomatic decision but as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Fox News host Jeanine Pirro even wrote that Trump had acted like the ancient Persian king Cyrus, fulfilling prophecy by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This kind of thinking isn’t fringe inside white evangelicalism. It’s mainstream. And because white evangelicals wield enormous political power in the United States, their theology often spills over into foreign policy. ***** Gen Z is the least religious cohort in American history. 43% of this generation born roughly between 1996 and 2012 identify as religious “nones.” While there have been many reports since Charlie Kirk’s assassination indicating increased interest in religion and increased church attendance, according to statistician Ryan Burge, there is not yet statistical evidence of religious revival among young people. There is, however, ample evidence that these Zoomers are looking for meaning and willing to reconsider religion. Specifically, though these trends may not be large enough to be captured in statistics, there seems to be a growing interest in more rigorous forms of faith. John Stonestreet and Glenn Sunshine of Breakpoint. You can read their full take here: https://breakpoint.org/why-gen-z-nones-are-reconsidering-religion-2/ ***** SUPPORT VOL VOL has brought on new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. We have no mega-donors and no grants — just faithful readers like you who believe in what we do and write. Tens of thousands of enthusiastic VOL readers trust us to cover the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today, yet only a small percentage contribute. We have proven ourselves over more than 35 years and remain committed to this mission. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to keep the news coming. How to Give: Online: PayPal donation link at https://www.virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE, P.O. Box 111, Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your support, David

By Kevin Martin 7/22/2004 What has been the consequence of last year's controversial decision to consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire? As I travel about the Episcopal Church — my most frequently asked question these days is, "What do you think will happen next in the Episcopal Church?" As we approach the first-year anniversary of the consent to Gene Robinson's election, I would like to address some of the issues related to this question. This decision has badly fractured and divided the Episcopal Church. Further, it has provoked a crisis throughout the whole Anglican Communion. Locally, many congregations and dioceses have experienced a drop in financial support. They have had to cut staff and program and make serious adjustments. Many congregations have lost significant families. Many congregations have redirected funding. Some congregations have removed themselves from ECUSA. A series of spin-off congregations have formed that are looking to the Network or AMIA for affiliation and support. Of course, we also have become inwardly focused as a denomination and less concerned about the great commission or the great commandment and more concerned with who will be in control. Meanwhile, our national leadership seems to be largely in denial over the negative effects of this decision. Our own Presiding Bishop and many others try to spin present events in a positive light. In fact, we seem to be following the culture in its political life in two ways. First, spin has become the name of the game for both liberals and conservatives. Second, there is a great deal of demonization and lack of tolerance and understanding toward those on the other side of issues. We show all the signs of a growing polarization. Most of our present leaders seem to be fueling this polarization and few seem to be addressing it. Many people on the pro side of this issue claim that this decision has opened the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people. Some have pointed out the threats of a major split have not played out. On the other hand, many people on the conservative side have claimed that large numbers of people are leaving. What is really happening regarding membership and numbers? As I said, many of these comments are just spin. What we mostly hear are anecdotal stories. For example, from the liberal side, we hear of people joining the church because of our decision. I think this has minimal statistical effect. We have been a declining denomination and we will continue to be so. The current crisis is predictably accelerating this decline. It is true that even a declining church brings in new people and it is probably true that our front door is more open right now to those on the political left of the current culture wars in America. In addition, The Episcopal Church, which has had a very low public profile, is now unfortunately seen as a divided church. Most un-churched people don't look for a polarized community when seeking a spiritual home. Some conservative people are attempting to spin events too, but it is clear that the Church has clearly taken a hit. We saw this first in 2004 financially and will see this further in 2005. We will not see the total effect upon our attendance until the 2005 parochial reports are out. When they are out, we will see a decline in average Sunday attendance. There will also be a turn down in membership. While the financial turn down is of significance, the more important issue for the long run will be average Sunday attendance. I believe we will see a 5-to-10-percent decrease over the next four years. What will be the next steps in this crisis? Right now we are living in a transitional moment. Things are on hold. I know personally that many people are waiting to hear from the wider communion and are being very patient, surprisingly so. We have reached a point where there seems to be little that the Episcopal Church can do to resolve this polarization. Essentially, we are waiting on three predictable next steps. First will be the report of the Eames Commission in October. I believe this commission will make some effort to distance the whole communion from the American and Canadian Church. It will be impossible to hold the worldwide communion together without some strong language directed at North America. I predict the report will contain both strong language and typical Anglican ambiguity when it comes to actions. In the long run, the Commission will attempt to hold the Communion together by affirming all sides. Second will be the reaction of the Primates to the report. If the report is not strong enough, the global south may very well threaten alternative action. A key player in this is, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. While I believe he will want a more moderated response, he may be forced to choose between the global South and North America. Given that choice he must choose the vast majority. Third will be the first House of Bishops meeting following these two events. This will be a sort of last chance for the American Church to moderate its strident and self-righteous tone and take a more reconciling position toward the wider communion. This will be a most critical moment for ECUSA. Personally, I don't believe the present House of Bishops is up to the challenge. I believe they will attempt to defend their decisions and hold the line affirming their autonomy as a province. If they do this, they will hasten the realignment of Anglicanism both here and on the international level. The Rev. Kevin Martin heads Vital Church Ministries based in Plano, Texas.

By Kathy Routliffe Staff Writer, GLENCOE NEWS 7/22/2004   A group of North Shore area Episcopalians who say they don't like the "liberalization" of their church have formed an Evanston congregation dedicated to what their spokesman called orthodox values.   Those include rejection of last year's decision by the Episcopal Church USA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a publicly gay Episcopal minister, as a bishop in New Hampshire.   Members of the new Church of Christ the King held their first service June 6 in rented chapel space at the Levere Memorial Temple, 1856 Sheridan Road, spokesman Wes Schneider said last week. They hold both high and low rite services at 9 a.m. each Sunday and plan to expand the service schedule when the fledgling congregation's two rectors are able to do so, he said.   Schneider, a Kenilworth resident who once attended the Church of the Holy Comforter, is one of the founders of Christ the King. He said Friday that he and a small number of Kenilworth congregation members began last fall, after Robinson's consecration, to discuss the possibility of forming "an orthodox classic Anglican parish" in the Chicago area.   "I believe a number of our parishioners believed that the Episcopal Church and its teachers have become much more liberalized than what we were taught," Schneider said. The new church is keeping to faith "as found in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Faith, and that which is espoused in the Nicene Creed," he said. Robinson's consecration was inconsistent with those, he said.   Prospective congregation members heard about the new church through word of mouth and now hail from as far south as Chicago, as far west as Arlington Heights and as far north as Lake Zurich. Members include non-Episcopalians, such as Lutherans concerned about their own church's increasingly liberal policies, and Roman Catholics who are concerned about issues in that church, Schneider said.   The chapel is at Sheridan Road and Chicago Avenue in the building commonly known as Sigma Alpha Epsilon men's fraternity headquarters. Congregation organizers heard last fall that it might be available and negotiated with the fraternity to rent it.   The congregation's acting rector is Rev. Joseph Murphy, an ordained Anglican and Episcopal priest from Virginia. It will also have another minister when the Rev. Robert Barasa returns from a trip to Kenya. Barasa will provide Saturday night services, Schneider said.   The group is now establishing a Sunday school curriculum and intends to have a fall fellowship dinner in October, inviting prospective members. It also plans to reach out to young people through the Saturday services.   It has organized itself as a not-for-profit group and those who wish to support Christ the King can write checks to the attention of the treasurer of the church, at 1856 Sheridan Road in Evanston, Schneider said. Founders of Christ the King not only oppose the consecration of Robinson, but believe the American church is moving "further away from scripture and further and further towards reason, and interpretation and change and revisionism," Schneider said.   Schneider said the decision to leave his Kenilworth congregation was personally difficult "because I'm a cradle Episcopalian" confirmed by the 9th bishop of Chicago, James Winchester Montgomery and involved in his former parish for seven years. A spokesman for the Chicago Episcopal Diocese said the formation of the church was disappointing to Bishop William Persell, head of the diocese.   "It's distressing that people feel they have to leave their parish. The bishop is firmly behind the idea that we can grow in mutual fellowship," said David Skidmore, communications director for the diocese. "He would prefer people to work together even though they disagree, and to have mutual respect, to work through disagreements."   Schneider said he and others who shared his belief in the Kenilworth congregation tried to bridge the differences between them and the rest of the congregation but were unable to do so.   Schneider said Christ the King has been approached by representatives of the Anglican Communion Network to become an affiliate. That group comprises a conservative group of American Episcopal dioceses and parishes. Schneider said Christ the King members have not yet decided whether to affiliate with the ACN.   "Our desire is not to be divisive," Schneider said. "It's to be positive, to say that the message we bring forward is that the faith in its historic teachings is being maintained at the Church of Christ the King."

By The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland In recent years, more and more congregations have declared "open Communion", that is, any baptized Christian may receive Communion at our altars. Some have even advocated Communion for the unbaptized. Never mind that baptism has always been seen as a prerequisite to receiving the Sacrament. Canon I. 17. 7 specifically states that no unbaptized person shall receive Holy Communion in this Church. In 1979, General Convention adopted Resolution A-43, which provides: Resolved, . . . that the following standard be adopted for those of other Churches who on occasion desire to receive the Holy Communion within the Episcopal Church: a. They shall have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and shall have previously been admitted to the Holy Communion within the Church to which they belong. b. They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love and charity with all people, as this Church in its Catechism (PBCP, p. 860) says is required of all those who come to the Eucharist. c. They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice once upon the cross was sufficient for all mankind. d. They shall find in this Communion the means to strengthen their life within the Christian family "through the forgiveness of (their) sins, the strengthening of (their) union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet . . ." (PBCP, p. 859-60). e. Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of their own Church membership to determine the sacramental discipline of those who, by their own choice, make that their spiritual home. The Resolution also provided that the Commentary on Eucharistic Sharing prepared by the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations be used as a pastoral context for the interpretation of these standards. The Commentary declares: "If local circumstances present a pastoral need for a public invitation, it should not in any way be coercive, nor should it be in terms of an 'open Communion' applied indiscriminately to anyone desiring to receive Communion." The Commentary goes on to state: "What about those times when Christians cannot communicate at the same altar because of church doctrine, discipline or reasons of conscience? One of the realities of life within a divided Church is this very brokenness at the Table of the Lord. There is a great temptation to pretend that this is not true or to believe that we as individuals can do what denominations still feel should not be done. This is an experience of the Cross in a sinful world. Often it is more appropriate to bear the pain and give testimony to the integrity of faith and discipline in one's church than to act as though full unity existed where it does not." Neither the Resolution nor the Commentary has ever been amended or repealed by General Convention. It appears that too many in the Episcopal Church are either ignorant of the teaching of the Church, or simply don't care. Bishop Wantland is the retired Bishop of Eau Claire.

Special Report By David W. Virtue KAMPALA, (7/22/2004) -- A missionary couple appointed by the American Episcopal Church have been told by the Primate of Uganda that they can no longer minister to his people because his province is in a state of broken communion with the ECUSA. In a letter to the couple, The Most Rev. Henry Orombi wrote to Phil and Jennifer Leber praising them for their work and ministry, but said that in light of the state of broken communion with ECUSA, and the deadlines established by CAPA and the Lambeth Commission, "I am compelled to advise you to explore alternative oversight and funding for your missionary work in Uganda. Consider transferring your affiliation to another mission agency as soon as possible." "We feel very strongly that God intends for us to remain in Uganda to continue the work we have been doing since 1998. It is clear that we can no longer serve as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA, but we are assured that the Lord will faithfully provide for our ministry through other means," said Leber in a personal note to Virtuosity. Said Orombi: "The Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), on 19 April 2004, issued a very strong statement regarding the position of ECUSA in violation of Lambeth resolution 1.10 of 1998. The Church of Uganda endorses the CAPA statement in its call for discipline of ECUSA in the event ECUSA refuses within three months to repent of its decision to permit the consecration of a non-celibate, openly homosexual priest as Bishop." "I am committed to prayerful support for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Commission set by him to report, by September, 2004, on the appropriate action recommended to be taken against ECUSA by the Anglican Communion as a whole." "As you know, the Church of Uganda has previously communicated that it is in a state of broken communion with ECUSA over this issue, and that we will no longer accept funds or missionaries from ECUSA. You are currently assigned as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA to the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism. The Church of Uganda recognizes your unwavering commitment to the Word of God, and we greatly appreciate your years of service to the people of Uganda. We strongly desire that you will continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." In a subsequent letter the Archbishop strongly endorsed the ministry and mission of the Lebers and urged faithful Episcopalians to provide the financial support for the missionary couple to carry on saying, "We need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." "The Church in Africa has boldly proclaimed the authenticity of Scripture and we stand firm in guarding our faith. We are determined to be a steadfast voice of Truth and righteousness, and we will not compromise the integrity of the Gospel. In fact, the Church of Uganda has severed its relationship with the Episcopal Church of America (ECUSA) due to its actions at General Convention last summer." The archbishop went on to express his deep appreciation for Phil and Jennifer Leber, who are mission partners with the Church of Uganda. "The Lebers have a firm commitment to the orthodoxy of Scripture, and we need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." The Primate said he first met the Lebers in 1995, when Phil accompanied him as he ministered in the U.S. Since that time, their families have developed a strong friendship. In 1998, they joined the staff of the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism as mission partners. The focus of Phil's ministry is to encourage the renewal of worship that is Biblically rooted, culturally relevant and energized by the power and presence of God. Jennifer has a heart for discipling young women who will be future leaders of Uganda, and she has a vital ministry to orphans and street girls, said Orombi. "Phil and Jennifer have my full support and blessing in their ministry. Their lives exhibit a deep love for the Lord, and they share a passion to teach the Word. We are very blessed by their unwavering commitment to the Word of God and their love for the people of Uganda." "I am aware that the position of ECUSA will have significant financial impact on the Lebers' mission, as they will no longer be associated with ECUSA as Appointed Missionaries. They are seeking a replacement sending agency, and I am asking that faithful churches continue to support their work here. If you are not a part of their network of prayer and financial supporters, please consider joining their team. Support for the Lebers is support for Uganda." For those interested in supporting the Lebers they can be reached at: leber@ugandamission.org. Their website can be accessed at www.ugandamission.org.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Utah, Carolyn Tanner Irish, recovering alcoholic and an ex-Mormon who never got baptized as a Christian, says that from a biblical perspective there is very little to support current views of marriage and family. "Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) tradition is a prime example of that." The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is, she writes in an Op-Ed article for the Salt Lake Tribune. "Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called 'family values.' I know of no consistently good 'family values' stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Support for marriage as we define it hard to find in Scripture," she says. The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries, says the bishop. "Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day." Tanner said that some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation. "This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, 'undeserving' of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that 'these people would be better if they were more like me [us].' Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear?" Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances, said the bishop. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm - or their opposites - can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible, she said. Ms. Tanner is clearly not familiar with the theology of marriage as it is given to us in Holy Scripture. The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger — or, in Scripture's understanding, re-merger — of essential maleness and femaleness, says Dr. Robert Gagnon, a prominent Presbyterian theologian. "The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam ('earthling') is split down the 'side' (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than 'rib') to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or 'other halves,' man and woman." "This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements." If Ms. Tanner still believes that any alternative to heterosexual marriage is biblically permissible then she ought to resign her office. To go against 2,000 years of historical biblical and theological teaching is to violate her teaching and pastoral office.

Says Lambeth Report May Bring Structural Change or Division in Its Wake By Jim Brown AgapePress July 21, 2004 A conservative Anglican theologian is lamenting the latest fallout from the Episcopal Church's approval of an openly homosexual bishop and so-called 'same-sex blessing' ceremonies. North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry recently told churches in his diocese they were authorized to bless homosexual unions. His announcement follows similar moves by Episcopal leaders in Nevada, Utah, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Vermont. American Anglican Council member Dr. Kendall Harmon, who serves as Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, says Curry is the first southeastern bishop to okay same-sex blessings since the denomination's General Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. "It's discouraging," Harmon says, "because a lot of his diocese is opposed to his vote, and now he's not simply voted for the New Hampshire election, but he's going further than that. And it's going to further divide the diocese." The Anglican leader advises conservatives in Curry's diocese to network among themselves and "prayerfully prepare" for the October Lambeth Commission report, which will address the rift in Anglicanism over homosexuality. He says Anglican conservatives need to be ready to move into a realigned future, the exact shape of which may not be clear until the Lambeth report is released. Harmon feels too many church-going Episcopalians are being passive in what he calls "the American sense," which he describes as "basically sitting in the chair and pressing the remote." What they should be doing, he says, is actively waiting, according to the biblical understanding of what it means to wait. He points out, "Isaiah 40 says, 'They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings like eagles.' And biblical waiting is strategic networking, prayerful thoughtfulness -- you know, serious preparation." The Anglican Council spokesman sees two possibilities for the future of the Anglican Communion. Either a major structural response can be expected, internationally, to the Anglican crisis in America, or a "sad bifurcation," Harmon says.

By Carolyn Tanner Irish The Salt Lake Tribune 7/20/2004   "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, And respect the dignity of every human being?" - from the Baptismal Covenant, Episcopal Book of Common Prayer   Recent statements of Utah leaders in both the dominant church and the dominant political party supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage prompt me to respond publicly. I do so as a leader in the Episcopal Church but I do not speak for this church or its members.   My intent is to broaden the religious and civil context of this debate.   Many contend religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact is they do mix and always have. Nothing could more clearly illustrate such a "mix" than marriage customs, especially in eras and cultures where property is the primary "stake" in both marriage and governing systems.   Then, too, the value of justice is integral to both religious and political traditions.   For Utah, the separation of church and state is something of a facade. Even so, it is helpful to acknowledge these do represent different perspectives - and yes, power bases - between both such institutions, whether or not they "mix."   Some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation.   This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, "undeserving" of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that "these people would be better if they were more like me [us]."   Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear?   Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm - or their opposites - can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible.   The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries. Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day.   In the West, the Renaissance gave rise to romantic, courtly love and some sense of romance still abides. Yet arranged marriages persisted through the 18th and 19th centuries with extended family groups then becoming the norm. Our present notion of "the nuclear family" is a very new (post-World War II) development, as the metaphor "nuclear" itself suggests.   Now, excessive individualism and the equality of women have radically reshaped our contemporary understandings of marriage and family, which are of course more independent of each other than ever before.   From a biblical perspective there is very little to support our current views of marriage and family. Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view, and the LDS tradition is a prime example of that. The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is.   Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called "family values." I know of no consistently good "family values" stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures.   Instead, such narratives tell of disobedience, jealousy and murder; rape, incest and infidelity. Nor was Jesus promoting "family values" in such a statement as, "Whoever loves father or mother . . . son or daughter . . . more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37).   What Jesus did do was redefine the nature of "family" - beyond blood or tribal loyalties. He said, rather, "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). What a radical shift from his religious culture!   Thus, from a practical perspective, I have to wonder if this whole debate isn't mere election strategy playing on fear and prejudice. Do we think that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really going to defeat love? Home? Family? A desire to share life together?   Election politics - perhaps - or, more seriously, a giant distraction, so that we won't get down to dealing with the real issues and genuine needs of our society. They are many.   The Right Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah.

By Michael J. McManus 7/22/2004 After a very heated debate, the House of Representatives overwhelming voted on Thursday to strip all federal courts - including the Supreme Court - of their power to make one state recognize another state's same-sex marriage. It is the most important victory of the marriage movement, and came only a week after the Senate voted 50-48 to defeat consideration of a Federal Marriage Amendment that needed 60 votes to close debate and 67 to pass it. The House vote was 231 to 194, with 25 Democrats joining 204 Republicans to pass the bill while 15 Republicans voted with 176 Democrats in opposition. Conservatives only needed a majority vote on this measure, with a similar vote in the Senate. There passion on each side was partisan. "This is an extraordinary piece of arrogance to strip the right of Americans to go into court to have their concerns addressed," said John Dingell, D-MI. "Shame! Shame! Shame! It is a precedent we which we will live to regret." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI, replied, "The framers of our government provided in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, a check by the legislative branch on the judicial branch....The judicial power is not unlimited." That section states the Supreme Court "shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the provision had ever been used. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, said "You have to go back to 1803 in the case of Marbury vs. Madison" to see that the Supreme Court has the right to overrule Congress. Sensenbrenner cited 11 recent cases, such as the Patriot Act, in which Congress said the provisions could not be reviewed by the federal courts. Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, who was beaten up during Civil Rights marches, was angry: "For me this is unreal. It is unbelievable. Those of us who came through the Civil Rights Movement found federal courts sympathetic to our pleas for justice. If I had not been able to go to federal courts, we would be legally segregated in America. I would not be standing here today." Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-AL, argued "This decision defines us as Americans. It is about who we are. It is about who should make the decision about what marriage is." Should it be the courts, who voted 4-3 in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gay marriage is legal. "Or should the people make the law through their elected representatives? This court decision could lead to a man marrying three women, or a man who chooses to marry his daughter." Normally, one state will recognize another state's granting of a marriage or driver's licence as required by the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution. The Hostetler bill would forbid any federal court challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, stated that marriage is defined as one man marrying one woman. Social Security benefits, for example, could not be paid to a lesbian survivor of a lesbian couple who had a marriage license. DOMA also stated that no state has to recognize a same sex marriage of another state, despite the "full faith and credit" clause. However, a Florida lesbian couple who was "married" in Massachusetts recently filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA, demanding that Florida recognize their marriage. They are likely to cite last year's landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which says: "...liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Many similar cases are likely since gay couples from 40 states have trekked to Massachusetts to get "married." Even if a federal judge rejected the Florida couple's case, due to DOMA, it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to declare DOMA unconstitutional, given its ruling in the Lawrence case. That would lead to the forced recognition of "same-sex marriage" in all 50 states, even though Congress and 44 states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Marriage Protection Act provides a remedy. It was introduced by Rep. John Hostettler who argues, "The nation's founders never intended for the judiciary to be the most powerful branch of government." That will be debated in the weeks ahead. At present, the bill has no chance in the Senate, where court-stripping is seen as a radical step. But it requires only 51 Senators to pass it. This column put a spotlight on the Hostettler bill as an alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment last November.

Diocesan Budget Challenges Continue By David Catron Most people know, only if anecdotally, that, with the sale of St. Mark's Hospital in 1987, the Diocese of Utah went from penury to affluence almost overnight. Logically, then, many want to know, "Why has the diocesan budget been cut? Where has all the money gone?" The proceeds from the sale of the hospital were placed in several trusts, the largest of which, the Perpetual Trust of St. Peter and St. Paul, had $102,367,112 in assets as of December 31, 2003, up 2% from $100,348,226 at the end of 2002, but still more than 8% below assets of $111,461,790 at the end of 2001. Under the somewhat complicated terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is able to distribute about 5% of its assets to the diocese in any one calendar year. In 2003, this distribution amounted to $5,521,603. In 2004, the budgeted distribution is $5,267,655, a drop of just under five percent. Combined with other revenue shortfalls, total diocesan income in 2004 is projected to decline six percent from 2003. (Currently we project a Trust distribution between $5.0 and 5.1 million for 2005, a drop of 3-5% from 2004.) Why a 5% decline in trust revenue if trust assets rose 2%? Because the allowable distribution percent is calculated on a rolling 48-month average. This means a big drop in Trust assets in one year, say 10% from 2001 to 2002, is softened by gains in previous years. That's the good news. The bad news is if the assets grow with improved market performance, say 2% from 2002 to 2003, the allowable distribution is dragged down by the underperformance of preceding years. This system is designed to avoid abrupt changes, and it is working well. Trouble is, if markets go up, people want distributions to keep pace, and they don't. The budgeted $5.3 million distribution for 2004 from the Perpetual Trust constitutes 94% of the operating income of the diocese. By any measure, both of these are big numbers. They attest to the incredible abundance we have to support the work of the diocese and its congregations, work that would be impossible under any other conditions. In addition, a significant portion of the annual distribution from the Trust is restricted for parish support and community outreach. Of the $5,267,655 coming from the Trust in 2004, $2,338,317 is restricted and "passes through" the diocesan budget specifically for parishes and outreach. About $1.5 million of diocesan revenue in 2004 will go directly to congregations in the form of diocesan grants. This amount represents an increase of 3% in budgeted congregational support from 2003, so we have found a way to absorb the revenue decline in other areas. For example, personnel expense (largely diocesan staff) has been cut by 10%, and Communications (which produces this newspaper) by 9%. Other cuts have occurred in much-needed ministries: Camp Tuttle has been cut by 6%, Latino ministries by 12%, and Episcopal Community Services by 15%. Still, given the millions in the Trust, people want to know: Why, if we have a budget shortfall, can't we just make it up from the Trust? Well, we actually do. As stated above, trust assets declined by 10%, but the distribution declined by only 5%. Why can't we take more? Because the framers of the Trust envisioned it as a perpetual trust, to be forever available to the people of the Diocese of Utah. They feared if we started down the slippery slope of spending what we wanted, the Trust would eventually disappear. A decent compromise allows us to take more in distributions than the trust has gained in assets in bad times, but only up to a point. Also, Trust framers operated from a theology of stewardship. Not only was the diocese to be a responsible steward, but congregations were to be encouraged to provide a measure of support as well — currently about 4% of the diocesan budget. This seems modest enough when compared with other dioceses. Congregations are welcome to become more self-sufficient if they like. Using the oft-cited number of 6,000 communicants, someone observed that if each were to contribute an additional $5 per week, total congregational revenue would increase by $1.5 million! Coincidentally, that is the same amount given this year in parish grants. When I became a candidate for this office, I stated in my profile that my goal was to see congregations as owners, willing to share out of abundance. I cited an example from The Active Life by Parker Palmer in which the author imagines the miracle of the loaves and fishes came about because people were willing to share in community. I believe we are on the verge of seeing this happen in the Diocese of Utah with our new governance and emphasis on improved communication. There is new energy, renewed commitment to ministry, heartfelt willingness to share. For example, two congregations gave up any claim to diocesan support this year. And congregations have repaid a remarkable $260,800 to the diocese for Project Jubilee grants since 1999! David Catron is Diocesan Treasurer for the Diocese of Utah.