Archives

High Church Day’ Eucharist at Trinity’s New Good Shepherd Chapel | Trinity Anglican Seminary   By Jeff Walton JUICY ECUMENISM July 8, 2025   Fifty years after its founding as an institution seeking to renew the Episcopal Church,  Trinity Anglican Seminary  now seeks to establish itself as a central hub within the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and broaden beyond its history of low churchmanship.   Inaugurated in 1975 as Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, the school in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, restyled itself as Trinity Anglican Seminary in 2024. The change to incorporate  Anglican  in the institution’s name was noteworthy as an increasing number of Protestant institutions eschewed denominational labels, perceiving them as less marketable as nondenominational Christianity grew. But Trinity’s new name signaled a change in more than just branding. “We seek to educate ‘the whole candlestick,’” said the Rev. Alex Banfield Hicks, Trinity’s director of leadership development. Hicks led a campus tour for delegates to the ACNA Provincial Council, which met June 18-20 at the school’s newly consecrated  Trophimus Center , which is named for the companion of St. Paul mentioned in Acts and 2 Timothy.   Formerly Union Presbyterian Church, the center and its Good Shepherd Chapel were  consecrated  on May 16 by ACNA Archbishop Emeritus Robert Duncan, opening the space as a conference and events facility. Expansion of Trinity’s campus has come as a number of other seminaries have either liquidated properties to free up cash and reduce debt or have concluded residential programs and shifted to online and hybrid models of education. Most recently, Luther Seminary has  announced  plans to move from its historic campus in St. Paul, Minnesota. Provincial Council served as something of a “coming out party” for Trinity as a school specifically aiming to form seminarians for ministry within ACNA. While the school is not unfamiliar to most ACNA clergy and bishops (several ACNA diocesan bishops are graduates) it has expanded its reach and in May of 2024 reported an 89 percent increase in applications over the previous year. In the autumn of 2024, Trinity  counted  132 students and eight faculty, according to data provided by the Association for Theological Schools, the accrediting body for North American seminaries. While small compared to many Southern Baptist or evangelical seminaries, that is larger than the enrollment of most Episcopal seminaries, a number of which have consolidated in recent years.   Trinity continues to offer the option of a fully residential program, something that at least half of the remaining Episcopal schools no longer offer. Church Divinity School of the Pacific  concluded residential study  in 2023. General Theological Seminary  announced  in 2022 that it would no longer admit new residential students.   Trinity quietly disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church in January 2022. Trinity’s dean, the Very Rev. Canon Bryan C. Hollon explained it had become difficult to continue presenting both denominations as equally valid ministry options when Episcopal officials held different theological commitments than Trinity’s leaders. It was also noteworthy that fewer and fewer postulants for ordination within the Episcopal Church were coming to Trinity, and those who were attending were doing so without the support and direction of their diocesan bishops. Concurrently, more ACNA bishops directed their future clergy to Trinity, as did a number of overseas Anglican provinces, especially in the Global South, where the Anglican Communion is consistently growing. Trinity counts several Global South bishops among its alumni, including those  serving dioceses  in Chile, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Tanzania. While most of Trinity’s students are Anglican, the school has ecumenical aspects: Presbyterian and Lutheran students study alongside their Anglican colleagues in programs overseen by the  North American Lutheran Church  and the  Evangelical Presbyterian Church . These are evangelical denominations that share some of the “mainline-adjacent” attributes of the ACNA, with a significant number of their local churches formerly connected with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), just as many ACNA parishes were part of or planted by those who once were laity and clergy within the Episcopal Church.   Trinity’s “whole candlestick” commitment, a reference to high church and low church traditions, is an effort to differentiate it from some of its peer institutions.  Nashotah House Theological Seminary  in Wisconsin historically educates students seeking to minister within the high church or Anglo-Catholic traditions, while receiving recognition by both the Episcopal Church and the ACNA.   Meanwhile, a number of evangelical seminaries have initiated ACNA-recognized Anglican tracks of study, including  Asbury Theological Seminary ,  Beeson Divinity School ,  Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary , and  Regent College . Hicks and Hollon speak positively of these institutions as connecting evangelicals “on the Canterbury Trail” with Anglicanism, but emphasize Trinity’s 50-year role as being a distinctly Anglican institution.   In this regard, Trinity has at least one parallel with Virginia Theological Seminary, the largest seminary training clergy for ministry within the Episcopal Church. Established in 1823, VTS was a place of education within the low-church, reformed expressions of Anglicanism. With the diminishment of General Theological Seminary, a “broad church” school, VTS similarly widened its churchmanship in order to step into the role General once occupied.   Now, aspects of sacramental, Anglo-Catholic worship such as  chasubles  are seen there, which was not the case less than 100 years ago. VTS, which similarly educates in a residential model, now shares the same institutional leadership with the much smaller General Seminary. General now exclusively offers a hybrid model of remote learning and on-campus intensives at a few points in the academic school year. For its part, Trinity now introduces its students to a range of Anglican liturgical practices, including a “high church” day with an Eastern-facing Eucharist. “We really did it up for annual ‘high church’ day this year,” said the Rev. Canon Wes Jagoe, Trinity’s chaplain and director of the Trophimus Center. Jagoe listed  Ad Orientem  worship, incense, sung liturgy and prayers of the people, oblations, ablutions, eucharistic vestments, appareled [decorative] albs, tunicled crucifer, sung Gospel responses, verger, and bells as among the aspects included in high-church worship. “It is great to demonstrate for students the full spectrum of Anglican practices.”   END

by David G. Duggan ©  Special to Virtueonline www.virtueonline.org July 7, 2025     Sadly, an Episcopal prelate wades again into waters he has no business testing. The Most Rev. Sean Rowe has used his shrinking platform and diminishing parishioner throw-weight to condemn the current administration’s policies, be they immigration enforcement, travel bans or refugee resettlement. Does he even know of this administration’s initiatives in Gaza, Ukraine and Central Africa, areas largely abandoned by its predecessor? Or does the Episcopal Church not care about peace.    I won’t engage Mr. Rowe on his mea culpa about the Episcopal Church’s legacy of benign neglect toward slavery, indoctrinating schools for the indigenous, and (evidently) missionary activity masquerading as American foreign policy (what?). As Henry Ford said: “History is bunk,” and as William Faulkner (raised an Episcopalian) said: “The past is never dead; it is not even past.” No institution composed of mortals can claim moral superiority, so get over it.    But where Mr. Rowe’s 4th of July message borders on idolatry, not to mention historical inaccuracy is when he extols the “Confessing Church” during the Nazi regime, as an example of religious opposition to the civil state. What Mr. Rowe does not explain is that for 200 years, German ministers–both Catholic and Protestant–have been civil servants, drawing their salaries from the government. Of course, the church is going to kowtow to the piper’s paymaster. But the Confessing Church did nothing to stop the mass deportations, the concentration camps, the gas chambers which that vile regime used to fuel its claim of Aryan superiority. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who became a member of Hitler’s military intelligence unit, was executed just days before his prison camp was liberated not because of his involvement in the Confessing Church. He was executed because he had been involved in–or at least had foreknowledge of–the von Stauffenberg plot to kill Hitler.      I have been a lifelong Episcopalian, but I could care less whether a majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or 20% of our presidents have professed that faith. Nobody should choose his faith because George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt or George H.W. Bush worshiped at a particular church. Fortunately, those presidents knew that the civil state faces dangers which cannot be measured in plate collections or Sunday attendance. Significant, however, is that they didn’t let a cleric, who has never had to explain to a mother why her son or daughter died in a conflict under his authority, dictate foreign or domestic policy.    Mr. Rowe may view the administration’s policies as reckless and he is entitled to his opinion. But to clothe that opinion in the wrap of First Amendment protection afforded all churches is to exalt one view of the Gospel over another. He doesn’t get that job. He is not the United States theologian-in-chief or its scolder-in-chief. Leave that to the misguided moralists who are trying to burn down government buildings, stop government processes, and impose their narrow vision of the public welfare on this great nation now in its 250th year of existence under the God who is Sovereign over all.    David Duggan is a retired attorney living in Chicago. He is an occasional contributor to Virtueonline.

By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org July 7, 2025     Anglicans understand that church is God’s idea and his special way of reaching his people. It’s his appointed meeting-place. As the Old Testament tabernacle and temple were glimpses back to Eden before the fall, and looked forward to paradise restored in the New Jerusalem when Jesus returns, so today’s church is God’s instrument by which he delivers his grace.   He does this specifically in the reading and preaching of the Bible, and in the word eaten (the sacrament). The English reformers understood and respected the supernatural power of the Bible to turn people’s hearts and affections to God where Christians re-union with their Redeemer. And it is in this reunion by which the Lord reorients the hearts and affections of Christians. Thomas Cranmer, the chief architect of our Anglican heritage, knew this: “For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread, and wine, joined to God’s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.”   The people who gather expecting to meet God in word and sacrament is the bridge between heaven and earth. One aspect of this is what Anglicans call: the communion of the saints. Before Holy Communion, the congregation is invited to join angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, who are in eternity forever acknowledging God’s holiness - to “lift up your hearts!”   When Anglicans sing and when they pray, they are not just coming up with something on their own to offer God. No, it’s far bigger and more important than that! Worshipping Anglicans join the ongoing heavenly choir who are continually, day and night, acknowledging God’s beauty and his worthiness: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5).     Anglicans say in the creed recited each week that the church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” but have you noticed that the word “holy” is missing from the Nicene Creed in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer? This is curious, but it is not accidental. This is a loud and important statement of reformational understanding.   The rejection of this word by Cranmer shows how the English reformers viewed the institutional church as essentially a human institution, a larger body that includes Christians and non-Christians. Anglican formularies make the distinction between the visible and invisible church. The visible church is the human institution rooted in human society that is populated with believers and unbelievers.   The invisible church is the mystical body of the elect within the visible church who are chosen from eternity for eternal life. Because no one knows who really belongs to God, the church of which Christ is the head can only be invisible. This distinction between the visible and invisible church explains how King Henry VIII could be the head of the institutional Church of England, while Christ is the only head of his mystical body, the church invisible, which will be revealed on the day Jesus comes back to bring heaven to earth.   The Thirty-nine Articles spell this out for us: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith” (Article XIX). The reformers wanted to make sure the English church distanced itself from any ideas that the church and tradition (i.e. the pope) is infallible, or in some way equal in authority with Holy Scripture.   There is an ongoing debate in the church today as to whether or not the Bible is the “product” of the apostolic and catholic church. To the extent that this is true, the church that wrote the Bible can then modify it or add teachings that do not necessarily stand the test of Holy Scripture. This makes the Bible subject to the church, and it makes some amorphous undefined “great tradition” the guiding rule of faith and worship above the Bible. Cranmer, once again, saw this coming and he declared, “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another” (Article XX). Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired authority by which all other authorities are to be judged, including creeds, councils of the church, traditions, human reason and experience. This is why the first Homily is the first: “The Reading of Holy Scripture.”   In this sermon, that was appointed to be read in every church in England and Ireland sequentially along with the other homilies, Christians are reminded that, “As drink is pleasant to those who are dry, and meat to those who are hungry, so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of holy scripture, to those who desire to know God, or themselves, and to do his will” (Gatiss version).     So, the church is a gathering in which the word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly ministered specifically for the reunion and refreshment of God’s people. Neglecting the gathering, the fellowship, and the worship is to say, “No thank you” to the God who has made his plan and grace available to us in this way. When someone is born again, it is never in isolation to be lone-ranger Christians, but rather into the family of believers who want to be together where God said he will meet and bless his children.   END

Episcopal Church’s Rump Dioceses Limp Along Following Realignment  ACNA dioceses outpace TEC    By Mary Ann Mueller  VOL Special Correspondent  www.virtueonline.org   July 7, 2025    Starting in 2007 five Episcopal dioceses — San Joaquin (2007); Pittsburgh & Quincy (2008); Fort Worth (2009); and South Carolina (2012) – left the Episcopal Church. The first pulling at the seams came with the election of an openly homosexual (Vicky Gene Robinson) as the IX Bishop of New Hampshire.    In 2007 the Diocese of Pittsburgh, led by Bishop Robert Duncan (VII Pittsburgh), started to put into place diocesan canons which would allow it to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with another Anglican Communion entity – the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America. The process was completed in 2008.   However, the major breaking point, and the complete tearing of the Anglican fabric came for those diocesan bishops who absolutely refused to accept women's ordination (San Joaquin, Quincy and Fort Worth. With the enthronement of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the Episcopal Presiding Bishop bishops John-David Schofield (IV San Joaquin); Keith Ackerman (VII Quincy); and Jack Iker (III Fort Worth) found that was a theological bridge too far.    Eventually Bishop Mark Lawrence (XIV South Carolina) was pushed over the edge in 2012 when he and his South Carolina delegation walked out of the Episcopal General Convention as it became clear that Convention had departed from historic Anglican faith and practice and embraced a radical fringe interpretation of Holy Writ.   All five separating Episcopal dioceses eventually found themselves in the Anglican Church in North America. The dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Quincy and Fort Worth are founding ACNA dioceses. The historic Diocese of South Carolina joined later. Although it is not a founding ACNA diocese, South Carolina was an original founding diocese of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA) in 1785 along with the dioceses of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware.   What has happened to the various Episcopal rump dioceses?   Two dioceses have been relegated to an historical footnote. In 2013 the remaining Episcopal Diocese of Quincy was reunified with the larger Diocese of Chicago to become the Peoria Deanery. Initially, in 1877, both the Diocese of Chicago and the Diocese of Quincy were carved out of the existing Diocese of Illinois as was the Diocese of Springfield. At that point the Diocese of Illinois itself became an historical footnote.   In 2022 the TEC Diocese of Fort Worth, renamed The Episcopal Church in North Texas (TECinNTX), was dissolved and folded into the Diocese of Texas, thus becoming the “North Region” of the larger Texas diocese. And so, the Episcopal Church’s Diocese of Fort Worth became just another footnote in church history.    Most recently (2024) the Wisconsin Episcopal dioceses of Eau Claire, Fond du Lac and Milwaukee also faded into history as the three separate Badger State dioceses merged to reconstitute the original Diocese of Wisconsin pulling the historic diocese from the dust bin.   That leaves the rump dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and South Carolina limping along while their ACNA counterparts flourish.   Full 2024 stats are not yet compiled. ACNA stats are expected later this summer while TEC stats should be released this fall.     ✓SAN JOAQUIN  The TEC diocese is looking for its next bishop to become the VI Bishop of San Joaquin. A four candidate slate has been released including two Canons to the Ordinary (Anna Carmichael from the Diocese of San Joaquin; and Shawn Wamsley from the Diocese of Pennsylvania); and two non-Diocese of San Joaquin priests but who are from California (Rob Keim, a partnered gay priest in a same-sex marriage, is from the Diocese of El Camino Real; and Greg Kimura, a Yonsei (fourth generation Japanese/American) is from the Diocese of Los Angeles).    After the 2007 fracture the rump diocese of San Joaquin functioned with provisional bishops for nine years.   Bishop Jerry Lamb (VI Northern California) was the first provisional bishop from 2008-2011. He was followed by Bishop Chester Talton (Los Angeles suffragan) from 2011-2014.   Bishop David Rice took up the reins as the third provisional bishop from 2014-2017. However, in 2017 he was elected as the V Bishop of TEC San Joaquin.  He has announced that he plans on entering retirement next spring (2026).    The retiring American-born bishop came to San Joaquin after serving as the 15 th Bishop of Waiapu in New Zealand from 2008-2014.   ~~~~~~~~~~    *SAN JOAQUIN comparative 2023 stats  CONGREGATIONS  TEC: 19  ACNA: 30    MEMBERSHIP  TEC: 1,958  ACNA: 2,390    AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE  TEC: 633  ACNA: 1,303    PERCENTAGE ATTENDANCE  TEC: 32.3%  ACNA: 52.4%    <•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•>      ✓SOUTH CAROLINA  Following the breakup of the historic South  Carolina diocese TEC’s diocese was forced to call itself The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECinSC) since Bishop Mark Lawrence (XIV South Carolina) had use of the corporate name of The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina while it was tied up in court litigation.   The rump diocese was under the administration of two provisional bishops  Charles vonRosenberg (III East Tennessee) from 2013-2016, and Skip Adams (X New York) from 2016–2019.   Ruth Woodliff-Stanley was elected the XV Bishop of TEC South Carolina in 2021.    ~~~~~~~~~   *SOUTH CAROLINA comparative 2023 stats  CONGREGATIONS  TEC: 31  ACNA: 52    MEMBERSHIP  TEC: 7,995  ACNA: 17,440    AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE  TEC: 2,352  ACNA: 7,888    PERCENTAGE ATTENDANCE  TEC: 29.4%  ACNA: 45.2%    <•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•>      ✓PITTSBURGH  The rump Diocese of Pittsburgh only had one provisional bishop, Kenneth Price (Ohio suffragan) from 2009-2012.   Dorsey McConnell was elected the VIII Bishop of TEC Pittsburgh in 2012. He remained at post until his retirement when Ketlen Solak became the IX Bishop of TEC Pittsburgh in 2021.   She was born in Haiti and came to the United States to pursue her education at the Catholic University of America.   However, she converted to the Episcopal Church to seek the priesthood when she found that the Episcopal Church had a place for women in the ministry.   In 2022, after retiring from Pittsburgh, Bishop McConnell became the assisting bishop for the Diocese of Aberdeen & Orkney in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Then in 2023 he became the Acting (provisional) Bishop of the Scottish diocese because the diocesan bishop ordinary, Anne Dyers, was suspended for her heavy-handed ways and bullying tactics.   Bishop McConnell stepped back into his assisting bishop’s role in 2024. A position he still holds.    ~~~~~~~~~~    *PITTSBURGH comparative 2023 stats  CONGREGATIONS  TEC: 33  ACNA: 47    MEMBERSHIP  TEC: 8,538  ACNA: 5,840    AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE  TEC: 1,746  ACNA: 3,646    PERCENTAGE ATTENDANCE  TEC: 20.4%  ACNA: 60.5%    <•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•>     ✓FORT WORTH  TEC’s Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth went through four bishops provisional from the time Katharine Jefferts Schori reconstituted the rump diocese in 2009 until it folded into the Diocese of Texas in 2022.   The long list of bishops provisional include: Ted Gulick (VII Kentucky) 2009; Wallis Ohl (IV Northwest Texas) 2009-2012; Rayford High (Texas suffragan) 2012-2015; and James Scott Mayer (V Northwest Texas) 2015–2022.   ~~~~~~~~~~    *FORT WORTH comparative 2023 stats  CONGREGATIONS  TEC: Defunct since 2022  ACNA: 56    MEMBERSHIP  TEC: Defunct since 2022  ACNA: 8,649    AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE  TEC: Defunct since 2022  ACNA: 4,273    PERCENTAGE ATTENDANCE  TEC: Defunct since 2022  ACNA: 49.4%    <•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•><•>     ✓QUINCY  The rump Diocese of Quincy was overseen by a single bishop provisional John Buchanan (VI West Missouri) from 2009 before the diocese became the Peoria Deanery within the Diocese of Chicago in 2013.   ~~~~~~~~~~    *QUINCY comparative 2023 stats  CONGREGATIONS  TEC: Defunct since 2013  ACNA: 33    MEMBERSHIP  TEC: Defunct since 2013  ACNA: 2,587    AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE  TEC: Defunct since 2013  ACNA: 1,468    PERCENTAGE ATTENDANCE  TEC: Defunct since 2013  ACNA: 56.7%      Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org July 5, 2025   Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury is never far from the news cycle. He is willing to expound on everything from urging cathedrals to ditch banks funding fossil fuels; climate change; gay marriage; including trans people in a ban on conversion therapy, and much more. In June he appeared at the Vatican where he greeted Pope Leo XIV at the end of a general audience gathering. He received a small gift from the Pope. There were smiles all around, a grand public relations moment for Williams. (There was no sign of former Archbishop Justin Welby in the queue to meet the new Pope.)   Clearly Williams has no interest in fading to black even though he is no longer the occupant of Lambeth Palace. He is not out of mind and he won’t be forgotten.   His words and thinking must still be scrutinized even if the doors of Lambeth Palace are closed to him.  He remains under ecclesiastical surveillance and scrutiny; a bit like former U.S. presidents who still get protection even though they are out of office.   One person who recently took on the former 104 th Archbishop was Catholic writer John Mac Ghlionn who headlined a story; Rowan Williams wants a softer Christianity – but the Gospel isn’t a metaphor.   Writing for the Catholic Herald, Mac Ghlionn said Williams wants to make Christianity safe for modern ears. “That’s the real story behind his long, meandering interviews, such as the recent extensive interview he did with the New York Times, and poetic turns of phrase.”   Mac Ghlionn tore into the former archbishop. “He tells us that suffering doesn’t need an answer. That faith is elusive, mysterious, like a cloud of incense swirling around a flame we’ll never quite touch. But in trying to make Christianity palatable to doubters, Williams strips it of its essence. In place of the Gospel, we’re left with a mood.”   “He’s good at riddles and metaphors. But Christianity is not a metaphor. It’s not a feeling or a sensibility or a literary style. It’s a faith rooted in the Incarnation – God made flesh. Not God as fog. Not God as idea. But a man who walked, bled, died and rose again. Jesus Christ not as a metaphor for love, but as love with a pulse and a name.”   Should Williams be feeling the pain of such a blast? I suppose if you are some sort of mystic, you can pass it off as a fundamentalist retort. But Mac Ghlionn doesn’t let Williams off the hook. He accuses him of a faux humility before the New Atheists who aim directly at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Williams says the New Atheists attack a God he doesn’t believe in either. But that’s a dodge – a clever one, dressed in academic humility. Because the New Atheists aren’t swinging at vague deities or cartoonish caricatures. They’re aiming directly at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the one who split seas, raised the dead, and etched moral law into stone.   “[This is] the God who commands, convicts, forgives and reigns. Not a therapist in the sky. A sovereign. A judge. Christianity doesn’t need to soften that truth. It needs to speak it – clearly, unapologetically and without flinching.”   He also accuses Williams’ picture of suffering as “theologically thin.” He leans heavily on Dostoyevsky, letting his character Ivan Karamazov set the emotional tone, but shrinks back from the full power of the Cross. He invites us to sit with the sorrow, to feel the weight of existence and the silence of God. And that’s real – but it’s not the whole story. Christianity doesn’t leave you staring into the abyss. It doesn’t end in Ivan’s tortured syllogisms or spiritual stalemates. It ends with an empty tomb, a pierced side and a rolled-away stone.   The pain for Williams now gets real.    “Christianity doesn’t run from suffering – it confronts it. Yes, we ask why children are born with illnesses no doctor can cure. The question isn’t new, and the ache doesn’t go away. But the Church never pretended to have neat answers. It never tried to talk the agony away. Instead, it pointed to a God who didn’t stay above it all. Who didn’t send down advice or distant comfort, but came in person – right into the mess. Beaten, mocked and nailed to a cross. Not as a symbol, but as a sacrifice. Not to explain the pain – but to carry it. Every last drop.”   Mac Ghlionn accuses Williams of circling truth. “He performs reverence without clarity. His God is oceanic, not authoritative. He’s generous but not jealous. He’s present but never personal enough to interfere. That may sound spiritual. It may even feel humane. But it isn’t Christian.”   There you have it.   “The God of Christianity is not a gentle whisper lost in the static of doubt. He is the Lion of Judah. The Alpha and the Omega. He speaks in commandments and covenants. He calls sinners to repent. He casts out demons. He separates light from darkness and truth from lies.”   Williams doesn’t like that kind of God, any more than the late Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold couldn’t stand the movie The Passion of the Christ because it was not the gentler Christ of Francis of Assisi.  He could not deal with the blood and gore of the cross it offended his sensibilities. Williams’ too, wants a God of unknowability, a distant cloudlike figure, not the God who wrestles with Jacob.   “Christianity is not about being endlessly “open to something”. It’s about being reshaped, rewritten, remade by Someone. It’s not about keeping your options open. It’s about commitment. Williams offers a gentle Christianity, but not a true Christianity,” said Mac Ghlionn.   A book on Williams by Charles F. Raven, aptly titled Shadow Gospel; Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis, accuses Williams of perpetrating “another gospel” as St. Paul states in Gal. 1:7 and Raven calls a “shadow Gospel;” a theological project which can speak the language of orthodox faith, yet subverts the supremacy of Scripture and the essential nature of Christian truth itself.”   He accuses Williams of laying the groundwork for gay Christian activists, an issue that finally tore (forever) the fabric of the Anglican Communion. As archbishop he drew a distinction between his personal views on homosexuality, which he has not renounced, and the teaching of the Communion.   Can you imagine the Apostle Paul speaking in his role as an apostle with full apostolic authority, obtaining his words from God himself, announcing that while he upheld Genesis and Jesus on human sexuality, he personally digressed because he knew a number of committed gay couples who exemplified stability and faithfulness and they could not be summarily consigned into outer darkness.   Raven accuses William’s theology of collapsing into a form of pragmatic liberalism with a Catholic tinge, conditioned by circumstances rather than having the resources to change circumstances.   Raven cites Dr. Garry Williams’ conclusion that the theology of Rowan Williams puts souls at risk of perishing.   In chapter after chapter, Raven accuses Williams of “eclipsing Scripture,” of playing “language games”, of standing in “Hegel’s shade”; of “taking sides”, of “the wages of synthesis” and much more.   Mac Ghlionn concluded of Williams; “The early martyrs didn’t die for a perspective that “enlarges”. They died for Christ the King, for the Logos who became flesh, for the Judge who will come again in glory. That’s the faith that endures. That’s the faith the world still needs.”   It is not the faith of Rowan Williams.   END

Staff writer CHRISTIAN TODAY July 5, 2025   The Christian Institute has urged believers and supporters not to give up in the campaigns against unrestricted abortion and assisted suicide.   While the House of Commons voted in favour of both measures last month, they must still receive approval from the House of Lords in order to finally become law. The Christian Institute said that despite the setbacks, there was still all to play for, especially on the issue of assisted suicide.   The group noted that support for assisted suicide fell significantly among MPs between its second and final vote in the commons, dropping from a 55 vote majority to one of just 23.   The House of Lords is expected to begin its deliberations on assisted suicide at some point in September. The Christian Institute has urged supporters to contact peers in order to make their views known and urge them to block the bill.   Parliamentary convention dictates that the unelected House of Lords generally does not block government legislation that was promised in an election manifesto.   However such convention does not apply in the case of assisted suicide as it was not promised by the governing Labour party at the last election and is technically a private member's bill, rather than government legislation.   Indeed, Labour is split on the issue, with the Prime Minister Keir Starmer voting in favour of assisted suicide, but his deputy, Angela Rayner, and his health minister, Wes Streeting, both voting against the measure.   The plan to allow medically assisted suicide has also been opposed by various professional bodies.   The Royal College of Pathologists said it was against the bill on purely practical rather than moral grounds, noting that its members were not qualified to review the processes leading up to an assisted suicide.   The Royal College of Psychiatrists took a slightly firmer stance, noting that the law could lead to the suicide of people with treatable mental illnesses.   Ahead of the vote a over 1,000 doctors signed an open letter saying the bill was “deeply flawed” and “not safe” and put vulnerable people, including victims of domestic violence, at risk of being coerced into committing suicide with state approval and assistance.

Anglicanism and the vices that have emerged over time. The author argues that a return to these foundational values may offer guidance for navigating contemporary challenges within the church. BY GRAHAM TOMLIN July 5, 2025 In the light of the changing face of Anglicanism and disputes as to what it means to be Anglican, Graham Tomlin here goes back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to find the central concerns of the Reformers that may still guide us today. By doing so he provides us with six Anglican values or commitments – Scripture, culture, modesty, accountability, politics and community – which he discusses in order to highlight both some of the virtues and some of the besetting vices of Anglicanism. An email recently arrived in my inbox that read thus: The ANGLICAN VIRUS: This has no effect whatsoever. It just sits on your computer talking to lots of other computers. By the time it gets round to changing anything, you’ve upgraded your machine and rendered the virus obsolete. Jokes like this demonstrate that Anglicans don’t have a great reputation for change. However, the world is changing fast around us and, in fact, if we look carefully, the church is changing too – Anglicanism is fast becoming much more varied than it has ever been. The Anglican churches in most British cities display a huge variety in their ways of worshipping and ordering church, and that’s not just to point up the differences between Anglo-Catholics, Liberals and Evangelicals. Evangelical churches, despite an underlying similarity of doctrine, actually express their faith in very different ways: conservative, charismatic, contemporary or traditional. Around the world too, many Anglican churches who don’t have the characteristics we English think of as typically Anglican (for example establishment and a parish system) are also asking what it really means to be Anglican. Again with new ways of being church emerging around us all the time, from cell church to youth services, from the Minster model to seeker-driven church, there’s a need in assessing all of these to ask the question whether they are compatible with Anglicanism or should be avoided as unAnglican. This article seeks to answer this question by going back to a seminal period in Anglican history – the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – when the church was reformed (not formed!). It tries to ask what were the central concerns of the Reformers as they re-shaped the church, in a process which has left an indelible mark on Anglicanism ever since. This exercise might in turn help us to identify the particular Anglican ‘style’ of doing church, worship, mission and everything else a church does. What follows is not an exhaustive list, but identifies six Anglican commitments which at the same time might help us avoid some of our characteristic and besetting sins. It also suggests that there are some tendencies in Anglican history which have contributed to its decline in western societies, and that some of the answers to our predicament may also be found within that very history, especially in these years when the identity of Anglicanism took decisive shape. Perhaps if we had kept more true to our heritage, we might have avoided some of the sins which have sometimes led us into trouble. SCRIPTURE The Anglican church has always been a biblical Church. It has always made an explicit appeal to Scripture, and its laity and clergy are encouraged to read Scripture regularly. If they said morning and evening prayer daily, as they are encouraged to do, then they would probably read more Scripture than that required by almost any other church. It’s worth remembering that one of the first acts of the English Reformation was the placing of an English Bible in every parish church in the land. Throughout the troubled sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although deeply divided over many issues, mainly about church order and ceremonial, the surprising thing is that, even into the nineteenth century, the Church of England experienced a basic unity over the supreme authority of Scripture. Whether you turn to the seventeenth-century Puritans, the ‘High Church’ party of Archbishop Laud and Henry Hammond, or the Latitudinarians such as Edward Stillingfleet and William Chillingworth, all were committed to the principle of the authority of Scripture. Now, of course, they disagreed on the nature of that authority. Some, following Luther and, later, Hooker, took the position that Scripture taught all things necessary for salvation, but where Scripture was silent, there was liberty of practice. Hence, ceremonial actions, and liturgical nuances not explicit in Scripture could still be permitted. Others at the more Calvinist end of the spectrum such as Thomas Cartwright, the leader of the Elizabethan Puritans, claimed that what was not in Scripture should not be allowed in the church. It is of course the former of these positions that is enshrined in the 39 Articles. Yet the point is that the dispute was over the extent and nature of that authority, not the authority itself. Now this is not just an abstract point about dogmatic authority. It is at heart an essentially pastoral assertion. It refers to the question of what Anglicans choose to shape their lives, and on what they will feed their hearts, minds and souls. The Anglican belief in the authority of Scripture asserts that Scripture is good for us – it breeds good healthy Christians. As Cranmer put it in his Preface to the Great Bible of 1540: ‘In the Scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul; therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing, they be the very dainty and pure feeding’. As a result, the Anglican church places a great stress upon the private and public reading of Scripture, even before it is preached on. Before we speak about Scripture, we must first listen attentively to it. Bishop Jewel, in his Apology of 1562 boasted: ‘There is nothing read in our churches but the canonical Scriptures, which is done in such order that the Psalter is read every month, the New Testament four times in a year, and the Old Testament once in a year.’ How many of us do anything near that today? Being gradually imbued with Scripture, steadily absorbing its mindset and its spirit (of course canticles and Psalms are Scripture just as much as the readings from the New and Old Testaments), the aim is familiarity with Scripture and basic Christian doctrine. It aims at slowly cultivated holiness of life, rather than dramatic but short-term spiritual special effects. The Book of Common Prayer commends the patristic idea of reading through the Scriptures every year, so that ‘the clergy… should by often reading and meditation in God’s Word be stirred up to godliness themselves, and be more able to exhort others by wholesome doctrine… and that the people, by daily hearing of Holy Scripture read in the church, might continually profit more and more in the knowledge of God.’ Here is a church that sees the reverent, expectant and attentive daily listening to Scripture as the key to holiness. Perhaps the decline of personal daily Bible reading among Anglicans is both a sign and cause of our plight. Besides its pastoral function, this Anglican insistence on the authority of Scripture is also a polemical assertion. Scripture is the text that is final and constitutive for Anglicans, not papal decretals, canon law, unwritten traditions, nor even psychological theory, sociology, opinion polls or the voice of the media, however important it may be to listen and learn from them. This is an important assertion of the distinctiveness of Christianity as opposed to any other way of life on offer in our culture. Too often in the past, Anglicans have been seen as lukewarm, conformist, socially conservative. Now, along with so many other institutions in the west, we are disdained as part of an old passing established order. If we were more true to our heritage and identity, we might realise that our appeal to biblical authority is a call to live by the story of the Bible, and no other story. It is a call to be different, to live by a different set of rules, to march to a different drumbeat, to avoid the social conformity which has been one of Anglicanism’s besetting sins. CULTURE One of Anglicanism’s more regrettable characteristics is a form of cultural imperialism which has insisted on imposing forms of worship, architecture and language on alien cultures. Sitting in nineteenth-century Anglican churches in Jerusalem or Lahore can feel little different from sitting in an Anglican church in Surrey (though it’s usually a littler warmer in Jerusalem or Lahore). In the arena of worship, we have often clung to forms of liturgical rigidity and correctness which don’t always take into account changing patterns of life or culture. The early sixteenth century in particular was a time of great cultural change. As the Renaissance re-introduced the virtues of classical culture into European minds and burgeoning urban life, and as new worlds and continents were being discovered through the explosion of travel and exploration, this was a period in which those at the cutting edge of developing thought, including the reformers, were very aware of the shifting sands of culture. As a result, we find in the writings of those very reformers, a refusal to prescribe too closely forms of worship and order for everyone. There is a recognition that the form in which the gospel is expressed, both liturgically and ecclesiastically, is not fixed and must change with changing culture. They tend to see in the silence of Scripture on these kinds of questions, a mandate for flexibility and adaptation. John Calvin had some important things to say on this, for example, in book four of his Institutes: But because (God) did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. The same principle is present among Anglican reformers as well. Article 34 of the 39 Articles (which was present in Cranmer’s original articles as well) reads: It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. This is all down to two particular aspects of Anglican theology. One is the Anglican view of authority: that Scripture alone has authority, not any particular interpretation of Scripture, or cultural reading of it, however compelling or contemporary that reading may be. Such a view of authority is very liberating. As a result, Anglicanism has an inbuilt flexibility to respond to different cultures and people, as long as this does not run counter to Scripture. The other aspect is the Reformation doctrine of adiaphora, the belief that although there are central gospel issues which are not negotiable, others are secondary and changeable. Of course it is not always easy to discern which category some doctrines or practices fall into, yet, as Oliver O’Donovan points out, ‘the point of a good theory is not to save us the task of thinking, but to organise our thoughts fruitfully’. In the 1960s, it was common amongst Anglicans (as well as others) to hear the opinion that, in response to a changing culture, we need to change the gospel message yet leave the rest of the church intact. Now perhaps we can recognise that this approach has not worked. Instead perhaps we are rediscovering that there is little wrong with the gospel. Instead it is the forms in which the gospel is presented, lived and expressed which need to change. Anglicanism is in fact entirely happy with this approach – from its (re)formation, it has always believed that, in changing cultures, our customs and habits need to change. It therefore has an ability to create new forms of Christian living and belonging and worshipping. If innovation and Anglicanism have often seemed unlikely bedfellows, then perhaps it’s because we have been untrue to our roots. New emerging forms of church and evangelism such as Alpha, Cell Church, Café church, Alternative Worship, so long as they are within the boundaries and under the authority of the Scriptures and relevant church authorities (see the fourth value below!), must not necessarily be assumed too quickly to be unAnglican. Instead, they must be tested. Then, if they meet with the deeper essences of Anglican faith and practice, they should be welcomed and embraced. Again Calvin gives us good advice: ‘love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe’. MODESTY Another of Anglicanism’s besetting sins has been arrogance. Ecclesiastically, we have often been condescending to other churches, especially those who have seceded at different times from the established church. We have disparaged, or even created, other churches by our casting out of different groups, such as the Puritans, Wesley’s Methodists or the non-Jurors. Yet again this assumption of superiority is outlawed by the reformers. For example, consider the position taken up by Anglicans over episcopacy. After the Reformation, all churches in Europe faced a choice over what to do about bishops. Some (for example the Roman Catholics and conservative Anglicans such as William Laud) retained the idea that bishops were of the esse of the church, guaranteeing continuity from age to age. Others (‘free’ churches and Presbyterian puritans within the Church of England) argued that they were unnecessary. The position taken up by the mainline Anglican reformers was different from both of these. It was that bishops were not essential to the being of the church, but useful for guaranteeing good order. They were not of the esse but they were of the bene esse of the church. Most Anglicans (even Laud himself!) didn’t argue that the three-fold order of bishops, priests and deacons was the only possible pattern for church leadership. They simply argued for it on the basis of long custom in the church and its provision of a good workable system of government. What they refused to do was to 9 O’Donovan, Thirty-Nine Articles, p 110. 10 McNeill, Calvin’s Institutes. 4.10., p 1208 Graham Tomlin Anglican Values: The Virtues and Vices of a Christian Church unchurch non-episcopalian Christians. Whereas the Roman church effectively decreed that in the absence of bishops there was no real church at all, most Anglicans held back from this stance. They saw episcopacy as a matter of pragmatism, not dogma, a matter of external government, not necessary for salvation. Continuity of the identity of a church depends not on the presence of an office or person, but on the presence of Jesus Christ through the Spirit and the good news of his grace, expressed in word and sacrament. If that is lost, then there is no church, no matter how many bishops it has! The result of this attitude and perspective is a church which acknowledges the right of other churches to exist. Perhaps the fruit of this came in 1689 with the Act of Toleration, at the time of the ‘Glorious Revolution’. This Act, which allowed dissenting congregations to meet, and took away the right of clergy to compel attendance at Anglican churches, was on the one hand the surrender of the Church of England’s claim to be the only legitimate form of Christianity in England, but on the other, a right and proper act of humility and modesty, true to its reformed and catholic identity. Here, Anglicans ate a good slice of humble pie, and rightly so. The particular decisions taken about episcopacy in the sixteenth century are an illustration and indication of the principle of Christian modesty which lies at the heart of Anglicanism. Since then we have hopefully learnt from, rather than disparaged, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists. Maybe today we can learn much from Vineyard churches, Korean Pentecostals and home churches. In particular, western Anglican churches must adopt the same modesty, humility and willingness to learn towards their younger and more vigorous sister churches in Southeast Asia and Africa, rather than feeling superior to them, insisting they fall into line with western (and often failing) ways of doing things. ACCOUNTABILITY Having said all this, the Reformation in England did insist on keeping hold of bishops. Apart from the brief and chaotic period of the Commonwealth in the mid seventeenth century, the Anglican church which emerged from the Reformation retained the medieval threefold order of ministry - bishops, priests and deacons - rather than move over to a Presbyterian system as many Elizabethan Puritans would have preferred. One of the ongoing tendencies, particularly true perhaps of evangelical Anglicans, has been a tendency to go it alone. John Berridge in the nineteenth century, for example, argued that he was quite entitled to cross parish boundaries without permission, on the grounds that his neighbouring clergy were not preaching the gospel: ‘if they would preach the gospel themselves, there would be no need of my preaching it to their people; but as they do not, I cannot desist’. Charles Simeon on the other hand held the more mainstream evangelical Anglican view that it was right and proper to keep to one’s own patch: ‘a Preacher has enough to do in his own parish’. Sometimes evangelical impatience with the rest of the Church of England has led to a spirit of independence, autonomy and, dare we say it, spiritual pride, claiming that God speaks to us alone, and no-one can argue with that. The Anglican commitment to episcopacy in this context is not a claim that only episcopal churches are real churches. Instead it is a commitment to right and proper accountability within the church. It derives from a healthy theology and spirituality that knows that, left to ourselves, we are quite capable of getting it wrong, reading the signs badly, and mistaking God’s will. We need other Christians, older, wiser and more experienced than us, to check our bold ideas, discern whether they are of the Lord, and to ensure our vision and passion does not trample on the ideals and godly plans of others. And so, while Anglicans can dream up new ways of being church, new styles of worship, new approaches to ministry, we try to do this with right and proper consultation, and submitting ourselves duly to authority - the authority of those God has placed over us, just as the Scripture says (1 Cor. 16:15-16). Of course, this sometimes feels uncomfortable. We may often feel that bishops get it wrong (and being human they sometimes will). However, this is, at least so Anglicans tend to think, far better than the alternative that is sometimes glimpsed in the more radical wing of the Reformation (and in some forms of popular American Christianity) where everyone who wants to plant a church does so, regardless of the needs of the wider church, ending up with a different kind of church on every street corner, and the Christian witness broken into a thousand tiny fragments. Accountability is a sign of health and not inertia. It connects us to others, and prevents a damaging spiritual independence that ignores the whole body of Christ in favour of the particular part of the body which may be my responsibility. And that is what episcopacy preserves. It connects the local church with the regional, national and global church. It maintains the Christian virtue of humility and correctibility. It is, in other words, a response to the biblical doctrine of sin – my tendency to see and do things my way. Yes there are limits – bishops themselves need to be held accountable to the will of God revealed in Scripture and due processes must be in place to ensure that happens. Yet that does not take away this precious and vital Anglican value – the discipline of accountability. POLITICS The churches of the Reformation related to their respective state powers in a bewildering variety of ways. Calvin’s Geneva was a city state, independent of wider regional powers, and it established a delicate balance between the roles of minister and magistrate in the order of a Christian society. Zwingli saw state and church in Zürich as two sides of the same coin so that, as a pastor, he could play both a political and a pastoral role at the same time. Lutheran churches often saw religion imposed and protected by state authorities. Calvinist churches in France operated under suspicion and distrust from the state, having to function largely as underground movements. In England, the Church that emerged from the Reformation was tied closely to the realm, with the monarch as supreme governor of both church and state – a unique arrangement among Reformation churches. Clergy were both pastors of the church, yet also servants of the monarch, taking a strict oath of allegiance to the Crown, a position which has not been without its tensions then and ever since. Naturally not all Anglican churches remain established in this same way, but this historical fact still has important implications for Anglicans today. As a result of this history, the Anglican church has always been a political church. Not in the narrow sense of being allied to any particular political party, but in being concerned for the polis, the city, the public life of the wider society and community. We have never been keen on the gathered church model of a pure group, separate from public life. Instead we have wanted to be involved in and committed to society, even if that sometimes is a difficult place to be. This has imposed upon Anglican churches a prophetic role. We may prefer to avoid this - our leaders will get criticised for poking their noses into ‘political’ matters – but, to be true to our identity, we must not run away from this responsibility. Whether at a national or local level our history of intimate relationships with government means that we must take an interest in issues which affect all the people in our parishes, not just the Christians. We must articulate with boldness the principles and vision which should shape public life. It is part of our care for whole people, not just disembodied souls. This is in a sense a central part of a distinctive Anglican missiology. How do Anglican churches relate to the wider society? Yes, by evangelism, but also by taking a keen interest in the whole of life, not just the religious aspects of it. Since the Enlightenment, the temptation for all religion in the west has been to buy into what Lesslie Newbigin calls the split between private values and public facts. Thus Christianity (and Anglicanism) can be tolerated as a spiritualizing force, speaking only about the inner life, a retreat into the private sphere of beliefs, not addressing the public world of facts. There is a real temptation to build separatist church communities which glory in their vertical privileges but shun their horizontal responsibilities. Our identity-forming history denies us that option. By sticking close to our heritage we can avoid the temptation to pietistic withdrawal and public irrelevance. COMMUNITY The English Reformation was, among many other things, a reassertion of the importance of the laity in church life. The reformers insisted worship must be done in the vernacular – an end to Latin, the private language of priests and theologians. Clergy were to be like other Christians, married, bringing up children, no longer the only ones allowed access to the cup in the Christian family meal. Holy Communion was just that – communion both with the Lord at his Supper, and with each other. The distinction between clergy and laity was primarily to be one of function not status. Children were seen as included within the covenant, belonging to the family, still baptised and welcomed. Luther’s belief that the rite which confers the right and responsibility to engage in Christian ministry was baptism, not ordination, also finds an echo in our Anglican formularies. Printing made Bibles available to all, so that Cranmer’s preface to the Great Bible of 1540 could urge lay people to take responsibility for their own reading of the Scriptures: ‘for the Holy Ghost hath so ordered and attempered the Scriptures, that in them, as well publicans, fishers and shepherds may find their edification, as great doctors their erudition’. Not put off by the possibility that they might not understand the Bible, Cranmer urges them to read it for themselves, due to the great benefit they will derive from it. At least this was the theory. The practice was a bit different. The laity were in fact only partly ‘released’ by the Reformation. Clericalism soon raised its head again and catholic priests were often replaced by protestant preachers, every bit as authoritarian as their forebears! One only needs to read the novels of Jane Austen or Anthony Trollope to get a sense of the way in which Anglican churches soon developed a clerical monopoly that effectively distanced lay people from true Christian liberty and responsibility. At least the idea was there. That ideal - of a church as a community of people ministering to one another, of every believer as a priest, standing in the place of Christ to offer counsel, encouragement, even absolution to Christian brothers and sisters - remains. This was a distinct move away from the medieval notion of church as a place where the laity were largely passive recipients of grace dispensed by the clergy in the form of sacraments. This was a vision of church as community rather than institution. Lay people were intended to be active ministers, not passive observers, taking responsibility for their own & each other’s growth in faith, understanding and holiness, even taking responsibility for the church itself. If we had remained a little more true to the vision of church laid out in the time of the Reformation, perhaps we might have avoided clerical domination, another besetting Anglican sin. CONCLUSION The past often contains the secrets of the future. As we search for a way forward for the Anglican churches into the twenty-first century, these commitments made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may help point a way ahead. If we can rediscover a church shaped by Scripture, quick to respond to cultural change, humbly willing to learn from others, properly accountable, committed to the public life of society and with a strong sense of mutual life and community, then perhaps God may be able to use us as he has done in the past. The Revd Dr Graham Tomlin is Principal of St. Paul’s Theological Centre, based at Holy Trinity, Brompton, London.

Anglican Watch July 2, 2025   Anglican Watch  has filed a Title IV clergy disciplinary complaint against the Rev. Canon Carl Turner, rector of St. Thomas, Fifth Avenue. We did so on behalf of a male victim of sexual assault at the church, whom we referred to by the pseudonym “Michael” in order to protect his privacy and to avoid causing additional trauma. This morning, we filed an updated complaint to address four minor errata in the original. (One of the bad things about being volunteers is that folks here sometimes stay up way too late working on things of this sort!) The complaint centers on claims that Turner (“respondent”), acting directly or through others, attempted in violation of the Title IV church disciplinary canons to interfere with the ongoing criminal and Title IV investigations into the matter, which address two alleged sexual assaults against the victim, by publishing various false and defamatory per se statements about the victim in the St. Thomas church newsletter. Specific allegations we believe to be false include claims that the victim: 1.     Threatened one or more persons connected with St. Thomas. 2.     Harassed one or more persons with St. Thomas. 3.     Made false accusations, apparently about being sexually assaulted. 4.     Damaged church property. 5.     Had been arrested due to his conduct at St. Thomas. Here is a screen cap: Possibly defamatory communications from St. Thomas Fifth Avenue Our investigation, which included multiple in-person interviews, a background check on the victim, contacts with the district attorney and the NYPD, all provided zero evidence to support Turner’s claims. Moreover, we went the direct route, which was to ask the St. Thomas wardens for the information on the alleged arrest, and the names of folks at the DA’s and the police department handling these matters. Pretty simple request, right? After all, if Turner is okay putting those claims out there, a case number, along with a couple of contacts, would shut the matter down in record time. Indeed, we would happily publish a retraction were Turner in possession of supporting evidence. And these are items of public record, and all the more so because Turner chose to publish them in the St. Thomas newsletter. (While he did not expressly name the victim, almost everyone at the parish knows the identity of target of Turner’s smear campaign.) But, in true Episcopal fashion, our request was met with silence. Meanwhile, two St. Thomas’ employees are facing criminal charges, even as the Diocese of New York sits on its hands in splendidly stupid silence. We need to be clear: The new Title IV protocols are intended to facilitate transparency, healing, and resolution, but so far, the Diocese of New York has bollixed all of these goals. And while one of the employees in question has been fired, we’re still left wondering: Why is the church allowing clergy with criminal sexual assault charges anywhere near the place? Especially at a church with a choir school — and a  documented history of child sexual abuse . We also want to be crystal clear:  Intentionally interfering with a criminal investigation is, itself, the crime of obstruction of justice.  And while New York does not have a standalone obstruction of justice statute, such crimes typically are prosecuted under the Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree statute (NY Penal Law § 195.05), which provides for up to a year in prison. Additionally, the victim almost certainly has a case for defamation, defamation per se (which doesn’t require proof of actual damages). Further, while the state does not recognize civil conspiracy as a standalone tort, it does recognize it when various persons band together to engage in a primary, actionable tort. Sexual assault and battery almost certainly is one such primary tort. We’re posting our amended complaint below, which was edited to address four minor errata. We raised the issue of retaliation, expressly forbidden under the Title IV canons, separately. An important point: Turner’s apparent efforts to engage in obstruction of justice warrant his immediate suspension as rector, and we specifically ask the Diocese of New York in our complaint to do just that. Moreover, we have grave concerns about the suitability for ministry of anyone who engages in such alleged behavior, including whether Turner may have one or more personality disorders that should disqualify him from ministry. Even if,  arguendo,  someone else, perhaps one of the two employees arrested for sexual assault, provided the fabricated information to Turner, anyone with half the sense God gave a goat knows you don’t publish content of this sort about a parishioner. Indeed, even were the facts alleged true, anyone with a even a tiny amount of common sense would run the matter past the bishop, the canon to the ordinary, the chancellor, and ideally outside counsel. (Attorneys within the church, in our experience, often lack sufficient objectivity to make rational decisions on behalf of the church. Even worse, they invariably don’t have the backbone required to apologize when the screw things up on behalf of the church. So much for transparency and accountability.) Further, as is often the case when  Anglican Watch  covers a case, we’ve developed a friendly relationship with the parishioner affected by misconduct. We like “Michael” tremendously, and have zero doubt as to his personal and professional integrity. Thus, we are shocked and appalled that, even in a denomination with a flawed theology of forgiveness, this situation has been allowed to unfold as it has. Indeed, if the episcopacy cannot address issues such as this — and promptly, with integrity — why bother? Finally, we remind all involved that Title IV expressly applies only to clergy. Thus, the confidentiality provisions in Title IV only apply to clergy, and we reserve the right to publish information about misconduct at St. Thomas’ and the Diocese of New York in our sole and absolute discretion. In the meantime, our advice to the Diocese is to act fast, and do right. The longer you muck around with this, the worse the outcome will be for all involved. And as things stand, there’s already substantial irreparable harm due to the Diocese’s appalling handling of this case. END

By Stephen Noll https://stephenswitness.org/ July 14, 2025   NOTE: I preached this meditation on Sunday, July 4, 2021 at my local church in Pittsburgh. It is now available in my recent book:  Millennial People, Boomer Priest: My Year Eldering a Young Congregation .  It seems appropriate to our present situation in 2024, which resembles, eerily, the year 1968. LESSONS: Psalm 67; Deuteronomy 32:1-9; Ephesians 4:15-27 This morning, I put out the flag on our porch, which I do on national holidays. But before I did, I paused. Why? First, because showing the flag seems a provocative act at present, and second, because this year Independence Day falls on Sunday, the Lord’s Day. But I went ahead and thought this coincidence in the secular and sacred calendars might be an opportunity to say why. Let me take you back to 1968, long before most of you were born. My wife Peggy and I graduated from Cornell University on June 1, 1968. The commencement speaker was John W. Gardner. Gardner was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and had helped implement much of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society agenda. He went on to found “Common Cause,” an advocacy group for citizen participation in government, for which he was attacked from both the Right and the Left. Gardner’s speech at Cornell was widely reported at the time, particularly for his warning against “uncritical lovers and unloving critics” of America. Gardner imagined 23 rd  century historians looking back from two hundred years on this time:  They pointed out that twentieth century institutions were caught in savage crossfire between uncritical lovers and unloving critics. On the one side, those who loved their institutions tended to smother them in an embrace of death, loving their rigidities more than their promise, shielding them from life-giving criticism. On the other side, there arose a breed of critics without love, skilled in demolition but untutored in the arts by which human institutions are nurtured and strengthened and made to flourish. Between the two, the institutions perished.   The twenty third century scholars understood that where human institutions were concerned, love without criticism brings stagnation, and criticism without love brings destruction. And they emphasized that the swifter the pace of change, the more lovingly men had to care for and criticize their institutions to keep them intact through the turbulent passages. 1968 was indeed a turbulent year. Vietnam protests had come to a head, with the burning of flags and draft cards, which led to the withdrawal of Lyndon Johnson from the Presidential race on March 31 st . Five days later, on April 4 th , Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, followed by destructive riots in many American cities, including Pittsburgh. Whole blocks in Washington, DC came to look like a bombed-out war zone and remained so for years. On June 5, four days after Gardner’s speech at Cornell, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Kennedy was a frontrunner in the Presidential race and considered a champion of human rights. In August, violent clashes of protesters and police broke out at the Democratic Convention, which led in November to the election of Richard Nixon, who ran on a platform of law and order and patriotism. In 1968, there was demonstrably a shortage of critical lovers and loving critics. I fear the same is true today. So let me add a small ounce of critical love for America on this Independence Day. I do so as a biblical Christian. As Moses prepares to send the people of Israel into the Promised Land, he puts the moment in this perspective: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage” (Deut 32:8). God’s people have a dual loyalty:  to their land and to their God . The land of Canaan comes with a promise and a warning: settle down in the land of milk and honey, but do not forget God, or you will lose it. When one thinks of our native land, the first thing that comes to mind is its beauty. Take the  popular national hymns like this one , with a verse added by Ray Charles: Oh beautiful, for spacious skiesFor amber waves of grainFor purple mountain majestiesAbove the fruited plain… But now wait a minute, I’m talking aboutAmerica, sweet AmericaYou know, God done shed his grace on theeHe crowned thy good, yes he did, in brotherhoodFrom sea to shining sea. To my mind, one of the great loving critics of our day is Ken Burns, who has produced films about Americans and American culture, from Mark Twain to the Wright Brothers, from baseball and Jackie Robinson and to jazz and Louis Armstrong. Most recently, Peggy and I watched a film on “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea.” What an awesome inheritance of natural and human beauty and resources we have access to as Americans! Secondly, nations have a history. The entire Book of Deuteronomy recounts Israel’s past with a warning about its future. It is not an idyllic past: the entire generation that left Egypt had rebelled and was consigned to forty years of wandering in the desert; nor did it have an idyllic ending: destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple and exile to Babylon. Nevertheless, the people of Israel owned this history as their history, accepting God’s judgment along with His mercy. Likewise, we loving critics must own our history with the good and the bad. One of our great celebratory historians is David McCullough, a Pittsburgher for whom a bridge over the Allegheny River was recently named, who has like Ken Burns documented many historical figures and events, from John Adams to the Johnstown Flood, from Harry Truman to the Panama Canal. There is much we can take pride in as Americans this July Fourth. But, we must also confess, there are dark, damning clouds overhanging our country. One of them is the scourge of abortion on demand. Conceived in the ’Sixties, legalized in 1973, abortion violates the most basic human right and instinct.  “Can a woman forget her nursing child,” Isaiah asks, “that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?” (Isa 49:15). I will not pursue this matter further except to quote the author of the Declaration of Independence, who said: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever”; and to note that this evil has called forth many acts of compassion and generosity.   There is another dark cloud which hovers over our national identity and destiny: the legacy of slavery and racism, which was sparked anew by the death of George Floyd and led to upheavals like those in 1968 and which will follow us long after the coronavirus pandemic has faded in memory. During the lockdown, I turned back to history for perspective. I was taken by Frederick Douglass’ address: “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” Written in 1852, not long after his escape and emancipation from slavery, Douglass begins: “The Fourth of July is the birthday of your National Independence and of your political freedom.” But, he goes on, “the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is  yours , not  mine .  You  may rejoice,  I  must mourn. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery – the great sin and shame of America! That, I would say, is about as critical as one can be, addressing an assembly of white abolitionists. He proceeds to knock down one by one the slaveholders’ attempts to “slander” the Constitution, which, he says is “a Glorious Liberty Document.” He ends on a note of hope: “I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery” – forces which ten years later led to the Civil War and hundreds of thousands of white and black soldiers who died for the cause of freedom. Slavery died, racism did not, in both South and North. It took another great man to move the country forward a century later.  I was privileged to attend the March on Washington in August 1963  and hear Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. If you have not heard it, let me urge you to listen to the  audio version online . King begins with an indictment of white America: Five-score years ago a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation…. But one hundred years later, the Negro is still not free; one hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. He proceeds with a litany of present injustices and warns in the words of the prophet Amos: “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” But like Frederick Douglass, King ends on a note of hope: I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. It is a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed – we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. In his peroration, King summons the deepest chords of our national memory and love of country, recalling the patriotic hymn “My country, ’tis of Thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims’ pride, from every mountain side, let freedom ring”: So let freedom ring [he continues] from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that. Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain in Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain in Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.   And when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and hamlet, from every state and city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children- black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Protestants – will be able to join hands and to sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.” Brothers and sisters, we are a tiny molehill in the American landscape. Some say our country is moving backward, some say forward. But whatever your judgment, I would appeal to you to hold out hope for our deeply flawed nation. As Christians, let us speak the truth in love with our neighbors. As citizens, let us be critical lovers and loving critics. That’s why I put out my flag today – with a trembling hand.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org July 2, 2025   Speaking to the Cambridge Union recently, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said he was “thick” not to recognize that faithful and committed same sex relationships are a “huge blessing”.   The archbishop doesn’t get it. His tenure was marked by one disastrous decision after another, forcing him, in the end to resign over his failure to investigate abuse allegations against lay leader John Smyth when Welby became archbishop in 2013.   On same sex relationships he has proven to be equally disastrous and theologically illiterate.   Welby said, “When they fall in love, and when they live out that love faithfully and with stability and caring for others, it is a huge blessing for them and for society; and I have seen that in so many places that, in the end, even I began to realise that I was being thick.”   The archbishop’s capitulation to the culture over same sex relationships can only be described as naive at best and eternally dangerous at worst to the souls of those who engage in such behaviors.   Scripture is abundantly clear that “from the beginning of creation, ‘male and female He made them’ [Gen 1:27] and ‘for this reason a man … will be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]” (Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9). In other words, the fact that God had designed two (and only two) primary sexes for complementary sexual pairing was Jesus’ basis for a rigorous monogamy position.   To bless something God has never blessed is to go against God. That thought had apparently not crossed Welby’s mind, or if it had, that he, Justin Welby knew better, and that God had changed His mind in light of today’s open-minded progressive culture.   Welby, in a podcast, had come to the conclusion that all sexual activity, whether straight or gay, should be within a committed relationship.   The Church’s process around matters of sexuality, relationships and marriage known as ‘Living in Love and Faith’ is still discerning a way forward. Earlier this month, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Snow, the conservative Bishop of Leicester announced he was stepping down from his role as lead bishop for the process saying he no longer believed agreement could be reached under his leadership.   Now that should tip your hand that all is not well, and that the CofE is deeply conflicted over the issue, with no resolution anywhere near in sight. One wonders if that message has reached the ears of the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, the de facto leader of the CofE, in the absence of the ABC.   Distinguished theologian Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon whose magisterial work, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, begs to disagree.   In an article Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, Gagnon, argues that advocates of homosexual practice believe that “gay marriage,” or at least homosexual civil unions, will reduce promiscuity and promote fidelity among homosexual persons. Such an argument overlooks two key points.   “First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions.   “Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.   Scripture, Creation, and a Two-Sexes Prerequisite   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, says Gagnon.   “By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self-shared in common with one’s partner.”   “It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.”   Addressing the argument that because Jesus said nothing about the matter that it was not an important issue for him, Gagnon said there is no historical basis for arguing that Jesus might have been neutral or even favorable toward same-sex intercourse.   “All the evidence we have points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that Jesus would have strongly opposed same-sex intercourse had such behavior been a serious problem among first-century Jews. It simply was not a problem in Israel.    “First, Jesus' "silence" has to be set against the backdrop of unequivocal and strong opposition to same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible and throughout early Judaism. It is not historically likely that Jesus overturned any prohibition of the Mosaic law, let alone on a strongly held moral matter such as this. And Jesus was not shy about disagreeing with prevailing viewpoints. Had he wanted his disciples to take a different viewpoint he would have had to say so.   “Second, the notion of Jesus' "silence" has to be qualified. According to Mark, Jesus spoke out against porneia, "sexual immorality" -- see Mark 7:21-23 -- and accepted the Decalogue commandment against adultery -- see Mark 10:19. In Jesus' day, and for many centuries thereafter, porneia was universally understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse. Moreover, the Decalogue commandment against adultery was treated as a broad rubric prohibiting all forms of sexual practice that deviated from the creation model in Genesis 1-2, including homoerotic intercourse.   “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.      “It is a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity, the only form of “consensual” sexual behavior regarded as a more severe infraction than homosexual practice was bestiality. The historical evidence indicates that every author of Scripture, as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by homosexual relationships, committed or otherwise.”   The view of Scripture against same-sex intercourse is pervasive, absolute and strong, and was all those things in relation to the broader cultural contexts from which Scripture emerged. It was then, and remains today, a core countercultural vision for human sexuality.   “Ancient Israel, early Judaism and early Christianity never adopted the position that they should alter their ethical standards simply because the broader cultural milieu took a more accepting view of some practices.”   In ignoring the biblical evidence against homosexual behavior and that committed same-sex relationships are a fallacy, Justin Welby demonstrates that he is still thick. The entire weight of Scripture and history is against him.   END

For too long senior clerics lacked the confidence of their religious convictions and thus drove away their congregations   By Joanna Williams THE TIMES  June 30 2025   As global conflicts intensify, the Church of England has begun preparing for a “serious” war involving the UK. Proposals before the church’s General Synod in York next month will make it simpler to appoint military chaplains and provide support for parishes to operate as “a church in a time of conflict” through the creation of “reflection and prayer spaces”. No doubt this will provide reassurance to regular churchgoers and troubled members of the armed forces.   Yet for all the earnest preparedness, the church is overlooking one crucial point. Many among the British public would not notice if their local vicar swapped cassock for fatigues and, broomstick over shoulder, re-formed the Home Guard. Offering succour amid conflict is all well and good but it helps if there is a flock in need of ministry.   Attendance at Church of England services is in long-term decline. Although there has been a slight rise over the past four years, congregations remain markedly smaller than before the Covid pandemic. Yet this decline comes against what the Bible Society has labelled a “quiet revival”. Young men in particular seem to be showing more interest in Christianity: 21 per cent of men aged 18-24 now claim to attend church at least monthly, compared with just 4 per cent in 2018. But the Anglican church is not benefiting from this revival; it is Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches that have gained new members.   Time and again, the Church of England misjudges the moment. Take the pandemic. At a time when people wanted the comfort and security of religion, churches locked their doors. It was impossible to enter a place of worship even for private, silent reflection. Although the announcement that churches were to close was made by the prime minister, archbishops and bishops urged clergy to comply. Not even funerals took place in church buildings.   The church was then assailed by a child abuse scandal. Senior figures, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, were accused of showing a “distinct lack of curiosity” in their handling of the case of John Smyth, a Christian barrister who brutally beat some 130 boys over several decades. It appeared to many as if the reputation of the church had been placed above safeguarding children, a view only reinforced by Welby’s tone deaf final speech in the House of Lords.   Since Welby’s resignation, the church has shown an inability to separate worldly problems from spiritual concerns. I took my family to midnight mass at Canterbury Cathedral on Christmas Eve in the hope of a morally uplifting message amid the sloth and gluttony. What we got was a sermon on the evils of child abuse and the need for the church to repent and change. Few would disagree. But surely Christmas Eve could have been left to the baby Jesus rather than the church’s internal struggles.   Perhaps more than anything, it’s the failure of the church to stick to its core purpose — to put God and Christianity front and centre of all it does — that consigns the institution to irrelevance. Senior figures within the church have not only appeared to grapple openly with the physical resurrection of Jesus but also with a belief in God. From Welby down, bishops seem more comfortable discussing opposition to immigration controls, Brexit and welfare reform than scriptural matters.    Support for Black Lives Matter, the establishment of an antiracism “task force”’ and a commitment to donate £100 million to slavery reparations all add to a sense that the Bible has been dumped for more fashionable causes. In adopting a pick ’n’ mix selection of woke values, the church, like many universities, museums and art galleries, becomes just another institution in search of a purpose.   Bureaucracy fills the moral vacuum. News that disgraced former Post Office boss Paula Vennells was shortlisted to become the Bishop of London came as little surprise.   The interminable process of recruiting a new Archbishop of Canterbury crawls ever onwards. Anglicans can only look on with envy at Catholics who had a new pope in place within days.   The empty chair at Lambeth Palace appears all too symbolic: no one seems to know what the Church of England is for any more, let alone who should lead it. Sadly, as pews empty, the church compounds problems by showing a disregard for the religious and historical significance of its buildings. A recent report from the think tank Civitas highlights the crumbling state of many ancient churches as funding to parishes has been cut and resources directed to the institution’s central bureaucracy. Overly ambitious, centrally imposed net-zero targets are another headache for rural churches.   Living in Canterbury, I get to admire the stunning 16th-century Christ Church Gate, the entrance to the city’s cathedral precincts, daily. But news comes of plans to transform the gate into a one-bedroom apartment that could be let out, Airbnb style, to holidaymakers. Last summer, the cathedral hosted a silent disco, a money-making event which looks set to return this August.   It would be easy to blame both the church’s moral woes and financial troubles on shrinking congregations. But the next archbishop needs to confront the fact that the precise opposite might be true: attendance is falling and budgets are in crisis because, for far too long, high-ups in the Church of England have lacked confidence in their religious conviction. Sadly, it seems to have taken the extreme threat of global conflict to prompt the search for a long-lost sense of purpose.   ENDsection

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org June 30, 2025   As the culture descends further into the abyss and secularism takes hold of younger generations, the question must be asked what kind of Christianity will emerge from the secular swamp.   The rise of cultural Christianity looks appealing on the surface, atheists seem to like the veneer of Christianity that keeps society stable, but full commitment to Christ is not on their agenda. Nones are still on the rise. They number in the millions. Nearly 30% of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular”.   Furthermore, when the sinister forces of Islam raise their head above the Christian ramparts, everybody gets decidedly jittery.   Churchianity is in decline across the West. Denominations are emptying faster than garbage cans on pick up days. According to missiologist Carey Nieuwhof, there’s a church building closing once every hour in the U.S. That should be a wakeup call. Ya think.   Furthermore, American churches are increasingly refraining from including denominational affiliation in their name. This trend seems to be most prevalent amongst Baptist churches and less common in historically liturgical denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican or Presbyterian churches, writes Isaac Collum in a column for IRD. “Rather than include denominational affiliation in their name, many local churches instead opt for generic, one-word names such as Life, Grace or Crossroads. Others use location in their name to build the identity of the church such as Chapel Hill Church, West Hills Church, or Wesley Chapel Church. Notable examples of churches hiding affiliation include Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, and Woodlands Church near Houston.”   Still and all it compels the question what sort of Christianity is being proposed by the stayers?   Excising the cults and “Christian” sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons et al, that have weird views of Jesus, the Bible and the Trinity, we are still left with two basic views. One is Catholic, the other is Protestant meaning reformed.   With a new Pope, many hope for a revived traditional Catholicism complete with the Latin Mass; a clear post Vatican II church that they can fully identify with as Catholic. They may get it. Time will tell. Meantime the Pope must deal with rampant homosexuality in his priestly ranks along with thousands of cases of sexual abuse resulting in numerous diocesan bankruptcies. The jury is still out for the RCC with this new Pope. Right noises don’t necessarily equate to right action.   From the Protestant side, the picture is really quite clear. Whether you are Pentecostal, Baptist, orthodox Anglican, orthodox Presbyterian or orthodox Methodist, to name just a few denominations, the picture has not changed in 500 years.   Luther’s ‘Here I stand I can do no other’ and his five Solas have stood the test of time.   Sola Scriptura – Theology must be scripturally grounded. Sola Christus – Theology must be Christ focused. Sola Gratia -- Theology must be grace-saturated. Sola Fide - Theology must be faith-driven. Soli Deo Gloria – Theology must be God-dominated.   Now most denominational preachers will not preach the Solas in sermons but they are assumed when the word is preached.   A pastor or priest who exegetes the text of Scripture is obeying the first Sola. When he focuses on Christ alone for salvation, he is obeying the second Sola. If he preaches by faith alone in the finished work of Christ at the cross, he is obedient to Sola Fide, and so on.   Rome will never understand this, nor apparently will they be persuaded despite all the talk of Evangelicals and Catholics together.   Thomas Cranmer, and the other English reformers began as devout Roman Catholics, but their context exposed them to the “new learning” of Renaissance humanism. This led them directly to the Bible and the early church fathers, where they caught the Reformation bug, writes Dean Chuck Collins.   Protestants consider many Catholic teachings unbiblical, like their understanding of the Pope’s authority, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the extraordinary place of Mary alongside Jesus as a co-redeemer.   But when we speak of the gospel that the wonderful peculiarities of what it means to be protestant Christian are seen.   The Reformation’s biggest discovery, after the Bible, was finding and experiencing a way of righteousness and justification that was all but forgotten in the Middle Ages.   Imputed verses infused righteousness delineated Protestant and Catholic teaching. Catholics understand it as a “process” to make them holy enough for the Day of Judgement. The sixteenth century reformers began at a totally different place. They believe (and we still do) that no one is ever righteous enough and that all fall short of the glory of God. Protestants understand that that their only hope is outside of themselves – another righteousness – a perfect righteousness that can somehow relate unholy men and women to a wholly righteous God. It is the righteousness of God himself which he credits to our account by faith. Protestants believe that God credits to them Christ’s own perfect righteousness.   These two views have not changed in 500 years and probably never will.  Can we be reformational without being denominational? The answer of course is yes. When God’s Spirit moves across the land as it did with the Wesley’s and other revivalists, denominationalism played little part. God seemed not to care who belonged to whom.   America today is in an advanced state of moral, spiritual and political decay; we are polarized as we have never been with hushed talk of civil war.   God’s Spirit may not appear like Belshazzar’s ‘mene, mene, tekel upharson,’ but perhaps in His mercy God will have a Daniel waiting to reveal himself. Time will tell.   END