Archives

Allegations made after the publication of the Makin report, Church House says   By FRANCIS MARTIN THE TIMES February 2025   ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse and coercive behaviour were made against the Revd David Fletcher, a former Rector of St Ebbe’s, Oxford, after the publication of the Makin report, it was revealed on Thursday morning.   A statement from Church House said that the National Safeguarding Team and the diocese of Oxford had received “information of sexual abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour” concerning the late Mr Fletcher, who was Rector of St Ebbe’s from 1986 to 1998. He died three years ago (News, 11 February 2022).   The allegations concern women and girls, the statement says, and had been reported to the police.   The Rector, Parish Safeguarding Officer, and churchwardens of St Ebbe’s issued their own statement on Thursday, stating that “since 2017” two women had previously alleged that Mr Fletcher had been “inappropriately tactile with them”. By the time these reports were made, Mr Fletcher was “very unwell and had ceased doing any ministry”, the statement said, and the reports were referred to the Diocesan Safeguarding Team.   The Church Times understands that these allegations are separate to those made following the publication of the Makin report.   On Thursday evening, Channel 4 News is due to broadcast interviews with three women who have made complaints against Mr Fletcher, the journalist Cathy Newman said on social media.   Mr Fletcher was a leader at the Iwerne camps alongside John Smyth, who is known to have abused at least 30 young men and boys in the UK. Mr Fletcher was identified in the Makin review as being at the heart of the cover-up of Smyth’s abuse from 1981 until 2013, when a disclosure to the diocese of Ely led to Smyth’s being reported to the police.   Before he died, Mr Fletcher told the review: “I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public” (News, 7 November 2024).   Thursday’s statement thanked those who had “bravely come forward” with allegations against Mr Fletcher, and said that support had been offered to them.   “Revd Fletcher’s family have been informed and support has been offered,” the statement said.   Mr Fletcher’s brother, the Revd Jonathan Fletcher, is a former Minister of Emmanuel Proprietary Chapel, Ridgway, Wimbledon, in the diocese of Southwark, who is currently awaiting trial on charges of indecent assault and grievous bodily harm.   *****   ST EBBE’S STATEMENT ON DAVID FLETCHER   By Vaughan Roberts February 6, 2025   We were very shocked to hear of allegations concerning David Fletcher of sexual abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour towards women and girls (see the Oxford Diocese statement here). We hold all victims and survivors of abuse in our prayers, hoping profoundly for their healing and recovery, and are praying very much for those who have come forward and for all those who are most affected by this announcement.   David Fletcher was Rector of St Ebbe’s from 1986-1998 and remained a congregation member until he died three years ago. His death means we cannot ask him the questions we all seek answers to. We do not know the details of the allegations ourselves and are therefore unable to answer questions in relation to them.   Since 2017, by which time David Fletcher was very unwell and had ceased doing any ministry, St Ebbe’s received reports from two women about him having been inappropriately tactile with them. These were referred to the Diocesan Safeguarding Team. No other concerns have been reported to St Ebbe’s in relation to him.   In the light of the 31:8 review into the abuses of Jonathan Fletcher, the PCC conducted a review into our governance, including safeguarding procedures, and a culture review. This has led to an ongoing process of cultural reflection; we are also in the process of considering the lessons and recommendations of the Makin Review. We are committed to doing all we can to make St Ebbe’s a safe and healthy community.   If you have any questions or concerns in relation to safeguarding, or wish to make a disclosure, please contact one of our Safeguarding Team, the Diocese of Oxford Safeguarding Team, or, if you wish to remain anonymous, Safe Spaces.   Please send any questions or concerns in relation to governance or culture to the Churchwardens ( churchwardens@stebbes.org ).   We continue to depend on the Lord Jesus, who knows all things and is only ever good, faithful and loving, pleading for him to bring truth, justice and healing.   Vaughan Roberts, Rector Niki Ridgway, Parish Safeguarding Officer Greg Brisk, Churchwarden Suzanne Wilson-Higgins, Churchwarden

COMMENTARY  By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org February 17, 2025   The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe and a leading U.S. rabbi believe the U.S. government is overstepping its authority using ICE to find illegal immigrants and deport them.   “The Christian and Jewish faiths demand we welcome the stranger. DHS is not allowing us to do that, so we sued.”   They have filed a lawsuit against the Dept. of Homeland Security arguing that the government is subjecting places of worship to Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions without a judicial warrant which presents an intolerable burden on the free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The argument they present goes like this. We are all made in the image of God, we deserve respect and because this is so, state and federal authorities should not be permitted to enter “sacred spaces”, and arrest persons illegally here.   Being made in the image of God is not a sound argument. Mao, Adolph and Joe were also made in the image of God, and if they were hiding out in a church would anyone deny ICE the right to enter and arrest them?   Closer to home, if the illegals were criminals with records should not ICE be permitted to enter a church and take them out? How sacred is a space when it is occupied by criminals with records. Are they a special class needing protection?   The statement about the image of God being found in everyone is disingenuous and flatly denied by Rowe and the church’s stand on abortion. As a matter of law, the Episcopal Church has unambiguously supported a woman’s right to choose an abortion since before anyone had ever heard the term “Roe v. Wade.” The Episcopal Church allows for abortion right up to the time of birth. The image of God is found even in utero I am told.   Furthermore, TEC’s attitude towards people of orthodox persuasion hardly reflects the image of God the church so loudly proclaims. TEC made homosexual marriage the litmus test for staying in the church, forcing tens of thousands out. The bishops made their lives so miserable and unwelcoming that they fled and formed a new Anglican denomination.   It is an apples and oranges situation to say that America allowed Jews into the country, a people persecuted, killed, and hounded out of countries where they lived and then forced to settle here; a peaceful intelligent people who only wanted jobs, an opportunity to worship their God, and who desired better lives for their children.    Jews vs illegals, often violent immigrants from countries like Venezuela and Mexico is hardly moral equivalence. It’s not the same thing.   Trump has made it clear that it is criminals and illegals he wants gone, not those legally here. There are systems in place to apply for legal immigration. To go from undocumented to documented is a process, but it is possible.   Allow me to make this personal. I was living in western Canada. The newspaper I was writing for had gone on strike, and my wife and our son needed to find work. I was offered a job in New York City. I took it.   For me to get a green card I had to get police clearance from New Zealand, the country of my birth; the UK where I had lived and studied for a number of years and from Canada where I was now resident. They were concerned that I had no criminal record. It seemed fair though it was a lot of paperwork and waiting. In time I became a U.S. citizen.   Welcoming the stranger and sojourner is indeed the obligation of a nation, and America has welcomed millions of immigrants, including myself who have come here legally, to prove the point. The president and vice president have both married immigrants. There is no reason for that to change. FOOTNOTE. Episcopal Diocese of Washington Bishop Mariann Budde's Episcopal Migration Ministry (EMM) received $53 million in 2023 for its migrant resettlement program, much of it from USAID. The Trump administration has temporarily paused these programs for evaluation. According to records, EMM received the U.S. taxpayer funds from various government programs to resettle 3,600 individuals in 2023.

By Bruce Atkinson Special To Virtueonline www.virtueonline.org February 17, 2025    "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness." - 2 Corinthians 12:9   Stand up, stand up for Jesus, stand in His strength alone; the arm of flesh will fail you, ye dare not trust your own. -        George Duffield, Jr.   “Our weakness is a fundamental characteristic of our creature-hood. We delude ourselves, as did Peter, if we think that we have any strength of our own.  Even without reckoning with sin, the human constitution is frail by divine design.  We were always meant to be reliant on God and should have been content to remain so. ” – Roger Salter   “As we grow spiritually, our sense of unworthiness grows, not our sense of entitlement.  In other words, the closer we get to perfection, the more aware we become regarding how far away we are yet from that standard which is Christ.  Perfection, after all, requires the utmost in humility .” -        Bruce Atkinson     Preface:   I have just listened to an old video of the venerable J.I. Packer speak briefly on the value of weakness.  Packer was always inspiring.  In this case, his words inspired me to finish a teaching essay on this topic that I started many years ago.   It almost goes without saying that all kinds of weakness are found in Christians, no less than in any other person.  Being a Christian does not make us immune to weaknesses, illnesses, or to normal life difficulties.   In terms of our culture’s way of defining strength, it seems that our faith does not often yield benefits in this world.  We fail at tasks, we get sick, we have accidents, and we suffer in all the ways that human beings suffer.  In delving more deeply into this issue, beginning with Paul in 2nd Corinthians chapter 1, have discovered many spiritual positives embedded (and often hidden) in our weaknesses and difficulties.  In this teaching essay, I have outlined some of these spiritual benefits.   Principles :    I.   AWARENESS OF OUR OWN WEAKNESS ALLOWS US TO PERCEIVE  GOD’S POWER MORE CLEARLY.   "We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." - 2 Corinthians 4:7   God is sovereign and He is so great, powerful, wonderful, and loving that it cannot be otherwise that His choices and actions will result in His further glorification.   “For from Him, and through Him and to Him are all things.  To Him be glory forever.”   (Romans 11:36)   Therefore, an important purpose of human existence is to provide evidence of this truth, that is, evidence of God's glory.   “Whether therefore you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)   Before Jesus healed one particular blind man, He was asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”  Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”   (John 9:2-3)   When we succeed at any good work through our trusting in God , in spite of, or even because of our weaknesses and difficulties, God gets greater glory.   Our success-in-weakness reflects God's choosing and God's power.  If we succeeded on our own merits, because of our own strengths and abilities, then God would not be adequately credited— even though He created us and gave us our abilities in the first place ( "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven." - John 3:27).   But when we are in any way successful, we egotistical humans certainly do like to take the credit— far more than is appropriate.  And that is spiritual theft.   “ But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.   He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him .  It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.  Therefore, as it is written:  "Let him who boasts … boast only in the Lord." ( 1 Cor 1:27-29, Jer 9:24)   God has frequently used weak instruments to accomplish great results:  the jawbone of a donkey (Judges 15:15), five barley loaves and two fishes (John 6:9), a man who thought of himself as useless and no speaker (Moses), an impetuous man who denied Christ three times (Simon Peter), a self-righteous man who vigorously persecuted the early church (Saul of Tarsus, later to be named Paul).   God seems to prefer “lost causes.”  He also prefers to make great and wondrous things happen from small, apparently insignificant beginnings.   Remember the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31-32 and Jesus’ own humble birth in a stable.   In the famous Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 ( "Blessed are the…, for they shall …" ), notice that the meek inherit the earth and the poor-in-spirit receive the kingdom of heaven.  These are strange but powerful messages that do not fit the ways of this world.  Jesus seems to be saying this:  the strong of this world try to take the earth by force, but their power is nothing compared to God's omnipotence, and in God’s time He will take it from them and give it to whom He chooses, to those who trust in God rather than in themselves.   God's ultimate justice will be a great surprise to many.  Those in "high places" in this life will exchange position with those in "low places" (see Matthew 18:4, 19:30, 20:16, 25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 14:10, 18:14, 22:26; James 4:10).   Compared to the masters of this world, the faithful servants will receive the greater glory—eternally.   This world, seemingly based on "the survival of the fittest," will be turned upside-down.   The eternal value of humility can be expected to affect all the people who are intellectually and physically "challenged."  I expect that women, ethnic minorities, the poor, the homeless, the depressed, the addicted, the ugly, the rejected, and all the "have-nots" of this world are especially advantaged in the spiritual area.   These are the people who are more likely to perceive the truth of their sin, their powerlessness, and their need for God, and they are ones more likely to open the door wide when our Lord knocks!   Those who more aware of their inadequacies and sins are also more likely to appreciate forgiveness when they get it.  For whomever is forgiven much, loves much (Luke 7:36-50).   If you are on the bottom now, do not despair, it is an advantage in the Kingdom!   However, if you are proud of your abilities and if you insist on being successful according this world's standards, if you are self-promoting and seek to be a “big shot,” then you are forfeiting eternal treasures.   II.    AWARENESS OF OUR OWN WEAKNESS ALLOWS US TO ACCESS GOD’S POWER MORE EASILY.   “Without divine assistance, I cannot succeed.  With it, I cannot fail."  – attributed to Abraham Lincoln   Are you “with it”?  If you see yourself as weak, then you have made a good beginning!  Our frailty reminds us of our complete dependence on God.  We are most likely to look up when we have hit bottom.  When we see this truth (our total dependence on God), then it turns our hearts and minds toward Him.  And since anything that brings us closer to Him is to our ultimate and immediate benefit, then it follows that our frailty is a very good thing.  If each of us were strong and self-sufficient, who would turn to God at all?   There is a song by folk singer Jesse Winchester that I like (especially his duet with Claire Lynch on her 2009 album Whatcha Gonna Do ).   Here are the lyrics:    That's What Makes You Strong   If you love somebodyThen that means you need somebodyAnd if you need somebodyThat's what makes you weakBut if you know you're weakAnd you know you need someoneO it's a funny thingThat's what makes you strong   And to trust somebodyIs to be disappointedIt's never what you wantedAnd it happens every timeBut if you're the trusting kindThis don't even cross your mindO it's a funny thingThat's what makes you strong   Chorus: That's what makes you strongThat's what gives you powerThat's what lets the meek come sit beside the kingThat's what lets us smileIn our final hourThat's what moves our soulsAnd that's what makes us sing   © Jesse Winchester , 1977   There is a huge difference between self-reliance and trust in another.  And only God is truly trustworthy.  In 2nd Chronicles 14, king Asa of Judah was under attack from a huge Ethiopian army.  But instead of relying on military strategy or running and hiding, he turned to the Lord instead.  He confessed his weakness and dependence on God, and asked Him to protect His own good name (2 Chron 14:11): “ Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, “Lord, there is no one like you to help the powerless against the mighty.  Help us, Lord our God, for we rely on you, and in your name we have come against this vast army.  Lord, you are our God; do not let mere mortals prevail against you.”   And of course, the Lord responded to Asa’s prayer and God’s people easily prevailed.  Likewise, each of us at times face problems too great for us to handle, perhaps by divine design.  It tests our faith; do we trust our own resources, do we panic, or do we pray?   Often it is only when we are aware of the danger that faces us that we consciously seek the help we need.  And there is no other refuge from the danger than the Lord.  The One who loves us is omnipotent.  It is only His strength that gives us safety and that inner peace that worldly security cannot provide.   The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion. The Lord protects the simple-hearted; when I was in great need, He saved me. (Psalm 116:5-6)   “ Peace I leave with you:  MY peace I give you.  I do not give to you as the world gives.  Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”  (John 14:27)   Religious legalists and extreme Arminians tend to believe too much in their own power and their own ability to do right.  Such persons need to accept more fully the realities of human limitation and susceptibility to sin.  Humans only have power and freedom of choice to the extent that God allows it.  But we must admit, to this point, He seems to have chosen to give us quite a bit of "rope."   We do have choices.  God will not coerce anyone into heaven.  But are we strong enough to choose right?  Not necessarily: what a dilemma.  “ O wretched man that I am!  Who shall deliver me from this body of death?  I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!”   (Romans 7:24)     The good news is that there is a wonderful way out of our own powerlessness, and that is through Christ's forgiveness and His power to cause us to overcome our own sinful tendencies.  As we accept the truth of our own weakness, we are far more likely to look to God for His strength and salvation from whatever evil or difficult circumstances come against us.   “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.”   I do not know who first said this, but history has shown this saying to be true.  God is most obviously present and active in my life when I can no longer handle it all by myself.   The following was written by David C. McCasland (in Our Daily Bread ):       Douglas Burton-Christie decided to walk the last few miles to his spiritual retreat at an Egyptian monastery.  He stepped off the bus in a small village and confidently set out across the desert.  A few hours later, he realized that he was lost.   Instead of arriving at the monastery self-assured and proud, he eventually found his way there humbled and grateful to be alive.   He said, “I gradually came to understand one of the most important things the desert had to teach me:  to enter the desert is to relinquish the illusion of control. ”      Being in charge of our own destiny is a fantasy we cling to.  But when God takes us through a “desert experience,” we are reminded that our only hope rests in Him.      After 40 years in the wilderness, with the Promised Land finally in sight, Moses challenged God’s people to remember a lesson from those years:  “ He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna…,  that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone;  but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:3).   Again, the Apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians makes it clear that we should value our weaknesses:             But [Christ] said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness."  Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.  That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.  For when I am weak; then I am strong.    (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)   Although God is truly omnipotent, it amazes me that the Lord would say that His power is manifested more perfectly in weakness than in strength — not only despite weakness, but when it is embedded in weakness.   I think that part of our difficulty with this concept is associated with the human tendency to define power in terms of physical force (or political power backed by physical enforcement).   I recall the prophetic declaration of the Lord through Zechariah (4:6 ): “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel:  ‘ Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.”     It is a much greater thing when God’s power is manifested invisibly or in a totally different way than how human beings like to manifest power.  We like overwhelming force, but God operates with subtlety and wisdom.  He uses overwhelming force when He so desires, but it is not His normal modus operandi.   III.  “SON OF MAN”:   CHRIST’S HUMANITY, GOD’S ‘WEAKNESS’   The prime example of God’s deep wisdom is to be found in the simplicity of “Christ crucified.”  In Christ, God chose to experience human weakness, injustice, rejection, shame, pain and death, none of which He deserved.   “Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the philosopher of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe .  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified : a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.”    (1 Corinthians 1:20-25)   Even Jesus was tempted, even Jesus sweated blood while struggling with inner conflicts, even Jesus was rejected and betrayed by those he loved, and even Jesus could be killed, and was.  Yet He was perfect;  He was God in completely human manifestation;  He did not have to suffer and die,  but He allowed Himself to be weak like us so that He could represent us and thereby save all those who would follow Him.   By choosing to be made temporarily weak, fully identifying with us, He made it possible for humans to realize that our own weakness can be made likewise temporary, through our belief in Christ and our identification with Him.   “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.”   (Hebrews 2:10)   “ We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses... and because He himself has suffered and been tempted, He is able to help those who are likewise afflicted.”   (Hebrews 4:15, 2:18)     While the storm was fiercely blowing, While the sea was wildly flowing, Angry wind and angry billow Only rocked the Savior’s pillow; Jesus slept.   But when sudden grief was rending Human hearts in sorrow bending; When He saw the sisters weeping Where the brother’s form was sleeping, Jesus wept.   -author unknown (perhaps C. H. Fowler)   “… Christ Jesus:    Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!      Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”   ( Philippians 2:6-11)   IV.  “SON OF GOD”:  CHRIST’S DIVINITY, HUMANITY’S ‘STRENGTH’   Of course, along with his humanity , which allows him to fully identify with us, we also recognize and need Christ's divinity — His complete unity with God.   Together, the combined human and divine natures give Him the right to both judge and save us.  His divine nature— the sovereignty, holiness, omnipotence, authority, perfect righteousness, and ultimate wisdom— make it possible for us to rest in Him, to cease to worry and fret about our own weakness.  I CAN do all things required of me— through Christ, who is my strength (Phil 4:13).  And, surely, if Christ is the one who is really doing it, then all things will work for my ultimate good (Romans 8:28).   To the extent that we choose Christ in every aspect our lives, it enables Him to empower us— to provide inner peace and to allow us to do good deeds in His Name.   Then it becomes clear that the goodness and power is not really from us.   “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us [note the past tense] with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do . ”  (Ephesians 2:6-10)   Indeed, no one can boast!  The only real self-power we have is the negative power to slow down our own progress.  That is why self/flesh must be "reckoned dead," as Paul wrote, in order to minimize this negative power.   But we can choose to let God be in our lives daily, hourly, and moment-by-moment.  We can “pray without ceasing” and "take every thought captive to Christ ," checking to see if it is true or false (“ testing the spirits ”).  We must resist the old thinking that does not square with the truth, and resist all discouraging thoughts ( “resist the devil and he will flee from you”).    Then, increasingly, God’s strength will reign in us… rather than our weakness.          Almighty God, you know that we have no power in ourselves to help ourselves:  Keep us both outwardly in our bodies and inwardly in our souls, that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul;   through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.    Amen.      (Collect from the Book of Common Prayer)     REQUEST AND RESPONSE   I asked God for strength, that I might achieve, I was made weak, that I might learn humbly to obey.   I asked for health, that I might do greater things, I was given infirmity, that I might do better things.   I asked for riches, that I might be happy, I was given poverty, that I might be wise.   I asked for power, that I might have the praise of men, I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God.   I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life, I was given life, that I might enjoy all things.   I got nothing that I asked for, but everything I had hoped for, Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered, And I am among men, most richly blessed.      This is also known as The Prayer of an Unknown Confederate Soldier and A Creed for the Disabled .  It is exhibited on a bronze plaque found in the Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine.   Bruce Atkinson is a practicing psychologist and Christian counselor in the Atlanta area.  He earned a PhD in clinical psychology and MA in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary; he also received an MS in research psychology from Illinois State University and a BA from Beloit College, WI.  He is a USAF Veteran (medic) who served in Vietnam.  He is also a member of the Anglican Church in North America and is Moderator and a contributor to virtueonline.org .

By Madeleine Davies in London CHRISTIANITY TODAY February 13, 2025   The General Synod voted to transfer national staff overseeing abuse response to an external body but not parish and diocese officials.   At its General Synod this week, the Church of England faced what one member of Parliament had called “a watershed moment for the church to change its culture and its approach to safeguarding.”   Gathered in Westminster, a few minutes’ walk from the Houses of Parliament, the church’s governing body was given the option to outsource abuse response by dioceses and cathedrals to a new independent body.   Abuse survivors and several bishops supported the proposal and argued that new systems were necessary to restore trust in the wake of an onslaught of abuse revelations in the church.   Get the most recent headlines and stories from Christianity Today delivered to your inbox daily. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.   “We need to send a very clear signal to … Parliament and to the public that we are serious about change,” said Robert Thompson, a London priest.   In the end, though, members voted to delay the move, calling for more work to be done on the legal and practical requirements of shifting operations outside the church.   “Survivors are devastated,” Jane Chevous, the cofounder of advocacy organization Survivors Voices, wrote online. “We feel betrayed by the church, who again have not listened to us. Trust is not restored but further broken.”   Wednesday’s vote came as the Church of England has been engulfed in scandal and suspicion over its handling of abuse.   A bombshell November 2024 report detailed abuse perpetrated by an evangelical lay preacher, John Smyth, and cover-up dating back decades. It ultimately resulted in the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.   Members of Parliament were outraged; church leaders warned that the church was losing trust and confidence.   Other high-profile cases compounded the concerns: a BBC investigation into Blackburn Cathedral, where the church paid a six-figure sum to remove a member of the clergy assessed as a risk to children and young people, and reports of a vicar who continued to minister despite getting banned in the 1980s for sexual misconduct.   Channel 4, one of the UK’s main TV stations, has been broadcasting a series of exposés; last month, the Bishop of Liverpool stepped down after being the subject of sexual-assault and harassment allegations, which he strenuously denies.   In the UK, safeguarding has become an established term in the public, charitable, and faith sectors, legally defined as the protection and support of children and vulnerable adults who have been abused or are at risk of abuse.   The Church of England also uses safeguarding to refer to “acting in ways that mitigate any risk of harm” and has expanded its resources devoted to preventing abuse and responding to allegations.   The church expects each parish to have a safeguarding officer and every diocese to employ professional safeguarding staff, and the Church of England also has a National Safeguarding Team based in London. Safeguarding training is required not only for clergy but also for laypeople with certain roles in the church.   The proposal up for vote on Wednesday would have transferred the safeguarding staff from each cathedral and diocese—currently functioning as 85 separate charities—to be employed by a new independent safeguarding body.   This proposal followed a review of the Church of England’s safeguarding by professor Alexis Jay, the chair of the UK’s national Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.   Jay concluded that the church’s provision, with patchy practice across the country, fell below the standards found in secular organization. Moving oversight of abuse response to an external body was also expected to address real or perceived conflicts of interest since those reporting abuse may worry that the response from the church will be compromised by loyalty to the institution.   The vote failed, but members did agree to transfer the National Safeguarding Team to an external body. This team, employed at the church’s national headquarters, handles complex abuse cases or those involving senior leaders, including bishops. The national team also develops safeguarding policy and supports operations at the local level in dioceses and cathedrals.   Lesley-Anne Ryder, a leader from the health and charity sectors who cochaired the group that proposed the new model, told the church that it had “created structures which confuse people and cause suspicion.” She urged church leaders to draw on the expertise of those outside their walls.   Some fear that the decision to delay full independence for safeguarding officials will only deepen suspicion. Others believe that the structural changes of outsourcing—something believed to be untested in any other charitable organization—could hurt morale and processes.     Ahead of the vote, more than 100 safeguarding officers based in dioceses wrote a letter arguing that the model could be “inherently less safe” by creating “additional barriers to communication and cooperation.”   Legal advice published by the Diocese of Gloucester warned that outsourcing safeguarding raised difficult questions about where liability for failures would lie: What would happen if the new independent body failed to deliver?   During the debate this week, some of those speaking against outsourcing shared cautionary tales about outsourcing from their work in secular organizations.   The Church of England continues to work on further reform around safeguarding structures, policies, and practice—a complex undertaking likely to attract less media attention.   As the Church of England prepares to identify its next Archbishop of Canterbury, safeguarding remains at the center of the church’s deliberations, with many braced for further allegations of abuse to emerge. Speaking during another debate this week, one evangelical member of the synod, Ros Clarke, suggested that those who had “failed to uphold safeguarding protocols previously or are unable to articulate an appropriate response to questions on safeguarding matters” were “utterly unsuitable for senior appointments within our church.”   ***   For more on this read Dr. Ian Paul’s perspective here:   WHAT DID GENERAL SYNOD DECIDE ABOUT SAFEGUARDING?   Unless you have been living under a rock, you will be aware that safeguarding has been a deeply contentious issue in the Church of England for several years, and has come to a head over the last few months and weeks. Justin Welby resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury because of his failure to take action in relation to the past abuse of John Smyth, and Stephen Cottrell continues to face criticism in relation to his handling of David Tudor, who was banned from ministry because of past abuse.   This has created an atmosphere of intense pressure and scrutiny for any discussion about safeguarding, with different parties making strong and often conflicting demands, and that in turn has created a challenging context for fruitful discussion about the way forward for the Church. Nevertheless, much work has been done, and this week in Synod we have had several major discussions about safeguarding leading to key decisions—though I believe the main one has been badly misreported in the press and on social media.   On Monday afternoon, we had a debate about the response to the Makin report, which had documented the abuse of John Smyth mostly in the 1980s, and the failure of church leaders to deal with and prevent it. The complexity around Makin was that it was commissioned (by the Archbishops' Council) five years ago, and should have report after nine months. I think a major failure of us on the Council was not to ask more questions about progress—and the final report, whilst leading to action, also contained errors of fact. In the debate, we heard testimony from Smyth victims, read by Julie Conalty, the deputy lead bishop for safeguarding, and in this and other debates we also heard from abuse survivors who are members of Synod. There was little to decide, and the debate finished early.   The post What did General Synod decide about safeguarding? first appeared on Psephizo here: https://www.psephizo.com/

If the Church of England is to see real change, it needs leaders to be accountable for when things go wrong, says Rev Dr Ian Paul in an open letter to Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York   By Rev. Dr. Ian Paul 13 February 2025   Dear Stephen,   In our working relationship, I have always sought to be open and honest with you. I have also always sought to follow Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18: if you have an issue with a brother, go to him first privately, and only if he will not listen should you then go to others, and make it public.   That is why I wrote to you and spoke with you about why I could not share Communion with you in 2023. In February 2023, you stated on Radio 4 that ‘we’ now believed that sexual intimacy could take place in any relationship that was permanent, faithful, and stable, which is a clear contradiction of the doctrine of the Church of England, that ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ marriage is between one man and one woman, and that (in repeated statements from the House of Bishops and other bodies over many years) sexual intimacy outside that was sinful.   After a number of conversations, and repeated requests by email, you finally replied, but simply to insist that these two contradictory things were in fact not contradictory—that you did both believe your statement made on Radio 4, and that you also believed the doctrine of the Church.   It felt very much as though you had to say these two things to keep happy two different groups. It would not be acceptable to orthodox Anglicans to have an archbishop who did not believe the doctrine of the Church—but it would not be acceptable to those who want to see change in doctrine for you to withdraw your previous comment. I am not sure either group thinks this is an honest position to hold.   But I am writing this open letter in response to your interview in the Church Times last Friday, since this practice of saying contradictory things was very evident there, and it sets the backdrop against which we meet this week at General Synod. I found it curious that you quite quickly raised the question of David Tudor. You mention him as an example of the pain of living with a challenging safeguarding situations but being prevented from taking action because of inadequate processes and systems. You have said in public, and said to me in person, that you found the situation ‘intolerable’, and that ‘I did all that I could’.   But both of those are clearly not true. You say that you have ‘no recollection’ of calling him a ‘Rolls Royce priest’, but others recall this clearly. You say that you ‘did not hold him up an exemplar’, but you renewed him as Area Dean not once but twice. Diocesan documentation makes it clear that this was your own decision as bishop, and not something that was delegated. You claim that he was made a canon ‘because of a policy in the diocese’. But that was a policy you yourself introduced (and which your successor in the diocese reversed), and it would not be hard to understand the consequences of it.   Your claims that you ‘beat myself up’ and ‘deeply regret that’ are wholly unconvincing; the facts of what happened are incompatible with the claims you now make, which seem designed to protect your own reputation.   To now claim that this experience means you ‘know better than anyone’ that change is needed is quite incredible—and I suspect many would find it offensive. The idea that your failure to act in relation to David Tudor makes you uniquely qualified to lead change in the Church is extraordinary.   In relation to the bishop of Warrington, Bev Mason, you stated:   “Nobody asked or required the Bishop of Warrington, [and] ­certainly not me … to take some extended sabbatical leave”, adding that she said “what she needed was space”.   However, Bev herself has now made a public comment contradicting this:   I persistently sought due process to bring this matter to a conclusion. Extended study leave was suggested by the archbishop of York’s office on three occasions as a pastoral response to my formal safeguarding disclosure against the Bishop of Liverpool. At the third suggestion by the Archbishop of York, in mid August 2023, I agreed and commenced the study leave on 7th September 2023.   I understand that you have claimed that these two statements are not contradictory—which I don’t think any normal reader would accept. It seems as though one of you is not telling the truth.   In relation to the CNC process, your Times interview states:   Cottrell said he was “very aware of the power dynamics” of being an archbishop on the committee but said his role as its chairman was “to enable other voices to be heard”.   Yet three different members of that CNC have privately raised concerns that the dynamic was very different, that you used your position as chair and archbishop to push through the appointment of someone whom you had known for many years, whom you had sponsored in ministry, and whom you had appointed both as archdeacon and then as area bishop. One of them felt so strongly about it, that this person decided to share the concerns anonymously in public, believing (with the support of legal advice) that the confidentiality of the process should take second place to the very serious issues involved.   I felt I should come forward with my memories of Liverpool CNC, which has deeply disturbed me. I believe there was an abuse of process…I believe there was bullying of the elected members…[One female committee member] told us she had changed her mind during the rounds of voting. She had laid aside her concerns over safeguarding based on the guidance provided by Stephen Cottrell, and supported by Steven Croft. This appeared to me as evidence of coercion by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft…   It was suggested that the safeguarding issue identified regarding John Perumbalath was a basis to reject the candidate. But Stephen Cottrell urged members to keep him in the process. Steven Croft agreed … I was shocked by this attitude to safeguarding, effectively that a candidate identified as a safeguarding risk is acceptable because Stephen Cottrell says so.   Once again, your own account and the account of this whistleblower cannot both be true. One of you is not telling the truth. Actually, more than that—if what you say is true, than all three of the concerned members must, independently, not be telling the truth, despite the fact that each of them is a respected figure both within and beyond the Church. Others on other CNCs have made similar comments to me in private. Are they all lying?   I am glad that you mention the importance of transparency and accountability. But as archbishop, you have been instrumental in avoiding making the discussions of the House of Bishops over the last two years either transparent or accountable. The minutes of the last year’s meetings have just been made available—but only after repeated requests and huge pressure. And where, still, is the publication of the legal advice which you and others have claimed allows your proposals? ( I have been told that you did help the process of having minutes published—but why now, not two years ago? And why not the legal advice and other papers?)   I am glad, too, that you talk of all the good things that are happening on the ground. What you don’t mention is the extent to which local clergy and laity are discouraged, demoralised, and sometimes even in despair, at the headlines which have repeatedly mentioned both you and Justin.   The problem here is the issue of trust. We had a long, important, and challenging paper at July Synod, which seems to have disappeared from the radar, on the lack of trust there is in the Church—and in particular the lack of trust in senior leadership in the Church. The contradictions in your own statements, the lack of plausibility of your own claims, and the conflict between the claims you make and the claims of others who seem truthful all undermine that trust. How can someone whom people do not trust lead us through change?   This is most evident in your comments about the LLF process. You describe this process as if the outcome is pre-determined—that we will, in time have ‘what we now call a “bespoke service” in church, or a priest getting married to a same-sex partner’. In stating this, you are driving a coach and horses through due process; you are ignoring past legal assessments that either of these things would be ‘indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church’; and you are setting aside the statement made only last month from the episcopal reference group of the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that both context and content of services must be considered to ensure there is no departure from doctrine.   You say that you are committed to listening. Well, those of us who do actually believe the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of our Lord’ would like you to listen to this: we find your approach here both autocratic and patronising. Autocratic because you state you are committed to this goal regardless, and patronising because you pat us on the head with language of ‘provision for conscience’ (though I note you don’t make that allowance for future episcopal appointments). It is not our conscience that is the problem; it is yours. You seem determined to continue the splits in the Anglican Communion, and our movement away from the consensus view of the church catholic, whilst all the time talking of unity.   To push through divisive change in a dishonest way and then blame those who point this out as responsible for division is, I think, called ‘gaslighting’ (though the term is bandied about too much). But claiming that the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ is a place where we ‘live together with conscientious disagreement’ is quite disingenuous. You assume that this issue must be a ‘thing indifferent’ (something rejected by the Bishop in Europe as chair of FAOC)—as long as you get your way. This is all about power.   In amongst all this, the comment I found most staggering was this one:   What does accountability look like? “I don’t think any of us quite know.”   Actually, quite a few people think they do know—but they can see that you do not. Every time there is an issue raised where responsibility sits with you, and with other senior bishops, you deflect it, and say it is the ‘responsibility of the whole church’. No, it isn’t. When bishops misuse power, and hide in secret meetings, and deflect responsibility, then those responsible need to be held accountable.   Clergy stipends and pension dropped by 28% in real terms over the last ten years, contributing to rock-bottom morale as well as practical hardship. Are you responsible? You sat in meeting after meeting where this reduction was approved, and never once opposed it. When my PMM was passed on this issue was passed a year ago, you came up to me and said ‘You have persuaded me.’ Why did you need persuading when you are supposed to be a shepherd to the shepherds?   Confidence in ministry has plummeted, as shown by the catastrophic fall in vocations. Are you responsible? Should you be accountable for this? A large part of the reason for this is the LLF process which you have driven through despite the uncertainty this has created.   The recent survey of attitudes has shown that confidence in the Church of England as an institution has also collapsed.   The CoE’s favorability rating dropped to 25% in a Feb. 2–3 YouGov survey of adults in England, Scotland and Wales, compared to 32% in November last year. Unfavorable views rose from 39% in November to now 49%.   This has been driven by scandals in which you are often named. Are you responsible? Will you be held accountable? Of course, we will all face judgement before God one day. But isn’t this only made real when we are accountable to one another before God?   All through the interview, you appear to be claiming that you are committed to solving the problems that the Church faces. But all through, you miss two key facts.   The first is that we don’t actually need a particular archbishop to rescue us. The changes in safeguarding, financial restructuring, youth ministry, and so on are all being led by other people. I am sure they would be glad to have the support of an archbishop, but they don’t need it. We will actually manage fine.   The second thing you miss is that, far from solving the problems, you are the problem—at least when you speak and act the way you are doing. You have been at the heart of the secrecy of the House of Bishops. You have been central in pushing through the divisive and damaging proposals to change our understanding of marriage. You have featured at the centre of the recent scandals about safeguarding, clergy conduct, and the exercise of power. How can the one who has caused these problems be the one to solve them?   What we need as a Church is a fresh honesty, openness, and integrity. We need leaders who will not hold on to power, but will step aside when trust is lost, and when they are the centre of the stories that are causing so much offence.   In your Christmas sermon, you said that   God’s Church itself needs to come again to the manger and strip off her finery and kneel in penitence and adoration. And be changed.   Yes, God’s Church does need to do this. And as part of that, we need leaders who do this themselves. Don’t just talk about humility, show us.   Ian Paul blogs at Psephizo

By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org February 15, 2025   I'm ok with the third use of the law, but I am not thrilled with it. Those who emphasize the third too often fall into the pit of seeing it as the primary use. And doesn’t this make Christians boastful, rigid and judgmental? The idea of "uses" was Martin Luther's, but the third use of the law was slipped in by Philip Melanchthon (terius usus legis, 1535). The third use appears as the law's main use by John Calvin who saw it as a whip to the believer's backside to urge our fleshly selves towards godliness.   Luther started with the law's primary use: the command to do the humanly impossible (Be ye holy as I am holy!) which, by God's providence, drives us to the only solution to the law's demands: God's gracious love for sinners. The law commands, but it doesn’t have power to accomplish what it calls for. The law is the voice at the top of the ladder yelling for us to “just climb!” but the more we climb the higher the ladder gets until we realize that we can never do it - that all fall short - that we need a righteousness outside of ourselves - that we need God. The law shows us our true sinful condition; the gospel promises and brings rest and assurance in the One who answers the law's demands. The third use applies only to already-Christians, but it sometimes suggests that once we are saved by grace alone, then we rush to put ourselves back under the law's demand that never worked in the first place to bring us to holiness - that justification is by grace, but sanctification is by grace and works.   Is holy living the fruit of love or the way to God’s love? Won't the human will obey what the heart loves? Is my problem a love problem or an obedience problem? The third use suggests that sanctification is required to prove or complete our salvation (lordship salvation). Over-focusing on the third use sometimes demeans the power of God's grace to save and sanctify the believer. Doesn't it contradict St. Paul: "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3)?   Luther knew that the law is always God's plan for our lives, and the description of what our lives will look like when we are in a right relationship with God. He never softened the hammer of the law (Jer 23:29). But it's "knowing God" that matters to Luther, so that the law is written on our hearts (Jer 31:31). He is completely convinced that what the heart loves, the human will obeys - in that order! The law changes from "do this" for the unbeliever to "it is done" for the believer. And knowing God has done it all for us becomes the motivation to live pleasing to him. Luther assumes a third use of the law, but he doesn't mention it because he wants our focus on the accusatory function of the law that always brings us to our need for God, for the unbeliever and for the believer.   Our need for God never becomes less. The unbeliever hears the law, is crushed for the impossibility of its demand, and is sent running for the arms of a God who can and did fulfill the law for us. The believer hears and remembers that God’s Son came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it as our substitute because we couldn’t and can’t. The third use is great, but isn’t it really a restatement of the first use that is meant to help us to the gospel? The gospel is what justifies, sanctifies and glorifies.   Dean Chuck Collins is a reform theologian and historian. He resides in Texas.

Three Archbishops Go Down over failed Safeguarding Revelations * York Archbishop head is on Chopping Block * Anglican Communion’s Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order (IASCUFO) Tries to Breach Road Block * Two Notable Anglicans Died this Year * Syrian Christians Face an Uncertain future. Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org December 27, 2024   THE BATTLE is over for the Western provinces of the Anglican Communion, and for the Church of England in particular. As an Established Church, all the levers of power are tightly controlled by the two Archbishops and the House of Bishops. All the property and assets of the Church are vested in the Church of England as established by law by Henry VIII. No matter how many leave, they will not take any of those assets with them, and all will remain in the hands of the House of Bishops.   The House of Bishops has chosen to defy the Canon Law of the Church of England to impose prayers for the blessing of homosexual unions. No attempt appears to have been made to challenge this in the courts, the only redress available to the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). They will walk away with nothing.   The CEEC, an association of mainly conservative evangelical Anglican members of the Church of England describes itself as the collective voice of the "vast majority" of evangelicals within the Church of England, aiming "to promote and maintain orthodox evangelical theology and ethics at the heart of the Church of England". It was founded in 1960 by the evangelical Anglican clergyman John Stott, whose theological legacy continues to this day. The CEEC Alliance has declared a “parallel province” supported by more than 2,000 clergy, and they have cautioned the bishops against a departure from the Church of England’s historic and biblical doctrine of sex and marriage. But it has no teeth when it comes to property, purses and pensions.   This is exactly what happened in The Episcopal Church, except the courts did not favor the Episcopal Church in every property case. In some cases deals were cut that allowed the continuance of the newly formed Anglican Church in North America to stay in their properties. There were big wins for the ACNA in Ft. Worth, South Carolina, and Quincy   No orthodox province should continue any longer to maintain any relations with the See of Canterbury. It is firmly set on the trajectory imposed by Justin Welby of embracing the full agenda of The Episcopal Church. It will not change whoever is appointed as ABC in 2025, since there are 41 other diocesan bishops who have committed themselves to this.   The future for orthodox Anglicanism lies beyond English shores. VOL believes the time has come for a new international leader based elsewhere, perhaps in Alexandria and the See of St. Mark or a new bishop of North Africa!   Speaking of which, all bets are on the Iranian-born Bishop of Chelmsford Gulnar "Guli" Francis-Dehqani to replace Justin Welby, the first woman archbishop in the Church of England and the third global archbishop following in the footsteps of TEC Archbishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Linda Nicholls of the Anglican Church of Canada. There have been several women Metropolitan bishops or archbishops in charge of an internal ecclesiastical province but not primates.   But as the Guardian newspaper observed, “The Church of England is beset by financial troubles, heresy, and, worst of all, no particular sense of what the Church is for or why it exists at all.”  The charge is a terrible indictment of a state church by a leading newspaper. If she wins can Francis-Dehqani turn it around? Sadly the House of Bishops looks more like an elder care facility.     The final nail in the Welby coffin ere he leaves, came when a children's charity rejected a Christmas donation from the departing archbishop, saying that accepting it would not be consistent with its work in supporting victims of child sexual abuse. That must have been a real slap in the face as his wife had endorsed the idea.   ***   BUT THE NEWS that captured the headlines was the departure not only of Archbishop Justin Welby but former Archbishop George Carey as well with John Sentamu, former Archbishop of York already out the door, and Stephen Cottrell the present Archbishop of York waiting for the axe to fall. One can only imagine what William Shakespeare would have made of all this.   Welby’s departure may seem shocking, but on several occasions when he found himself in hot water he had asked “should I resign.” His self-answer was no.   This time with conservatives riding his case and liberals finally having had enough of his failure to deliver on the promise of full homosexual marriage recognition, Welby tossed in the towel and said he would go.   It was an ignominious end from a hopeful beginning.   Following the end of the reign of the Hegelian-driven Rowan Williams whose thoughts and pronouncements had the primates of the Global South shaking their heads in bewilderment, Welby seemed like a breath of fresh evangelical air coming out of Lambeth Palace. Sadly it was not to be.   He was brought down by a layman barrister whose sadistic behavior with young men went ignored for four decades, finally caught up with him and he was gone.   Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey also quit the Church of England after it emerged he 'let a child abuser return to priesthood'. Lord Carey penned a letter announcing his resignation earlier this month amid mounting pressure over a sexual abuse case in relation to ex-priest David Tudor.                       Tudor was banned from the ministry for life this year as he admitted what the church described as serious sexual abuse involving two girls aged 15 and 16.   Now the Archbishop of York faces even more charges, but steadfastly refuses to resign (at this time of publishing). Tudor, who was banned from ministry for life this year, was reinstated during the Archbishop of York's time as Bishop of Chelmsford and remained in post after Stephen Cottrell was first told of concerns about him, the BBC reported.   Cottrell admitted that things 'could have been handled differently' as he faced calls to resign over his handling of the case.   Earlier, The Daily Mail reported that the CofE’s second most senior figure, ‘ignored’ 11 separate complaints, some involving leading figures in the Church, including bishops.   Cottrell opined that the church must “kneel in penitence and adoration” this Christmas and “be changed”, adding that the needs of others, including victims of abuse and exploitation must be put first in a Christmas sermon he delivered.   Victims of the priest branded Cottrell’s response to the case “insulting and upsetting” and suggested his resignation or him being forced out of his leading role in the Church was “inevitable”.   Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley questioned how Cottrell could have any credibility, and Bishop of Gloucester Rachel Treweek declined to publicly back him.   Lord Sentamu, the former Archbishop of York, was forced to step down from his Church of England role in May 2023 after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation found that he failed to act on the claim and should have sought advice. The review also found that Sentamu's response to the findings was unacceptable. Smyth's Sadistic Behavior could claim 30 percent of the evangelical leadership in the CofE.   More and more it appears that Welby has become the fall guy for the presenting situation.   ***   Meanwhile the Church of England squirms as its role as leader of the Communion faces condemnation for its failure to adequately address the concerns of the communion especially over matters of human sexuality.   The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order (IASCUFO) a permanent commission that advises the Anglican Communion on matters of doctrine, liturgy, canon law, and ecumenical relations, recently issued a communique following weeklong pro forma meetings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, earlier in December.   The key phrase in the communique reads: “As we wrestled with our divisions, we sensed that the Communion may be moving from a season of raw and antagonistic division to one of reckoning with what will likely be a long process of resolution. We may now be able to face our theological differences and associated fractures more productively, as we seek responsible and creative ways to remain together, albeit to varying degrees. This will involve recognition of the hurt that has been caused, as well as concerted attempts to find healing for past and present wounds, and to rebuild trust.”   The IASCUFO praised the recent Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) new direction for the Anglican Communion, but will GAFCON Bishops buy it?   The proposals, which were endorsed by the Communion’s Standing Committee, call for a new description of the Anglican Communion that strikes  the phrase “communion with the See of Canterbury”. These proposals also call to elevate a senior primate to serve along with the ABC with responsibility for chairing the other Instruments of Communion."   But will GAFCON primates buy it? No mention was made of the Jerusalem Declaration which states that GAFCON bishops are out of communion with Western liberal Anglicans in the communion who preach and practice another ‘gospel’ that is no gospel at all.   One thing is clear; both GAFCON and the GSFA have demanded that repentance and repudiation of homosexuality and its attendant lifestyle must take place before any rapprochement can take place.  And that, it seems, it still a long way off. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-city-of-man-against-the-city-of-go   ***   10 notable Christian ministry leaders , influencers who died in 2024 included two Anglicans . Bishop Jack Iker , 75, Anglican Bishop of Ft. Worth. He saw the diocese through its tumultuous transition from Episcopal to Anglican and managed to keep the properties for future generations of Anglicans. Iker is credited with helping to found the ACNA, that became the home for many congregations that left The Episcopal Church over its theologically liberal direction.   The second notable Anglican was Timothy Dudley-Smith , a former bishop in the Church of England and the prolific hymn writer behind such songs as "Lord, Through the Years" and "Tell all, my Soul," died at age 97.   A native of Manchester, England, Dudley-Smith served as bishop of Thetford from 1981-1991, general secretary of the Church Pastoral Aid Society from 1965-1973, and director of the Evangelical Alliance from 1987-1992. He was a close associate of the late John R. W. Stott.   ***   We could not end today’s digest without a mention of the Christians in Syria who now find themselves in a perilous position, having gotten rid of Basha al-Assad now find they must contend with rebel groups who hate them even more. “Better Assad than ISIS” ran the old theme. Now they don’t know where they stand or fall. You can read Giles Fraser, an Anglican priest’s A fearful Christmas in Syria Christianity is threatened by Islamism here: https://unherd.com/2024/12/a-fearful-christmas-in-syria/   ***   We have begun the transition to a new website . It will take a while to place over 35,000 stories in the archives and reconfigure the front page. Please bear with us. A transition like this is time consuming and costly and we could use some financial assistance to make it happen. We need specialists and consultants who can help make the change and transition possible; meanwhile the writing goes on.       Please consider a tax-deductible donation. A PayPal donation link can be found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html   If you are more inclined with old fashioned checks, (as I am), you can send your donation to:   VIRTUEONLINE P.O. Box 111 Shohola, PA 18458   Warmly in Christ,   David   President, VIRTUEONLINE   VOL WISHES ALL ITS READERS A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSED AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR.

https://www.jmeca.org.uk/latest/news/new-bishop-north-africa February 5, 2025   The Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of North Africa is delighted to announce that The Revd Canon Dr Ashley Null has been elected as the next bishop of North Africa.  The Electoral Synod met on 4 February in N'Djamena, Chad, in the context of a Diocesan Synod that will continue until 6 February.    Dr Ashley NullIf the Synod of the Province of Alexandria confirms this election Dr Null will become the second, and first elected, bishop of the Diocese of North Africa, covering five countries (Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mauritania and Tunisia) and including the territory of the see of St Augustine of Hippo.   Dr Null holds research degrees from Yale and the University of Cambridge. He has received numerous awards for his work, including Fulbright, National Endowment for the Humanities and Guggenheim fellowships as well as being elected fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Society of Antiquaries in London. He currently holds a research post funded by the German Research Council at Humboldt University of Berlin and is a visiting fellow at the Divinity Faculty of Cambridge University and St. John’s College, Durham University. His project is editing the private theological notebooks of Thomas Cranmer,   Commenting on the election the current bishop, the Rt Revd Anthony Ball, said "I am delighted that Canon Ashley offered, and has been chosen to share, his varied experience and renowned gifts as a pastor and theologian in the service of this wonderful diocese.  As the Chair of the Board of The Alexandria School of Theology he is already familiar with the Diocese.  He will now have the chance to broaden and enhance the work he has done for many years to promote and encourage Christian witness in this cradle of Christianity. I look forward to working with him and wish him every blessing as he prepares to assume his new role."

Archbishop Welby is out, but who will replace him? 2024 was a bad year for religious news Nth. Africa to get new Bishop TEC embraces trans insanity but confronts US parental reality Nearly 50 Churches affected by California Fires The price of abuse My new substack on the Middle East   Placing the term “progressive” in front of “Christian” makes it seem like a “new and improved” version of Christianity. It acts as though it belongs in the same camp as biblical Christianity, but it does not embrace any of its fundamental beliefs. The truth is, progressive Christians not only sharply oppose biblical Christianity, but do not consider themselves to be biblical Christians.  Let me put it bluntly: Progressive Christians are “doctrine deniers.” – Jason Jimenez   The authority by which the Christian leader leads is not power but love, not force but example, not coercion but reasoned persuasion. Leaders have power, but power is safe only in the hands of those who humble themselves to serve. -- John Stott   The mainstream denominations have reduced the once omnipotent and compassionate Lord God Almighty of the Bible to the level of a political activist, moralising self-help guru, or doddering grandfather existing only to approve of whatever his grandchildren get up to. Is it any wonder that people refuse to listen to such churches. – Campbell Campbell-Jack   “Where there is grace, there will be conflict. The believer is a soldier. There is no holiness without a warfare.”  -- J.C. Ryle   The Enlightenment and its commitment to bare rationality which did so much to undermine Christianity is now being undermined by the deconstruction of post-modernism and its successors. As a consequence, the West is adrift without a coherent guiding principle. – Campbell Campbell-Jack   Christianity in the U.S. remains vastly diverse. However, as regular churchgoers’ numbers shrink, so does some of that diversity. And it is shrinking in a decided direction, toward conservative Protestantism.  – Michael Emerson   Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org January 17, 2025   THE departure of Justin Welby from his role as Archbishop of Canterbury and as titular head of the Anglican Communion brought sighs of relief from across the Anglican world; but none more so than from within the Church of England which has lived under his gross incompetence and tyranny for twelve years.   That a dozen or more global, mainly African archbishops who represent nearly 80 percent of the communion no longer recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares, or even as their spiritual leader, speaks volumes.   As former Anglican devotee Dr. Gavin Ashenden noted, Welby failed the parishes by demoralizing them, he failed the Anglican Communion by being unable to restrain his progressive partisanship, he failed the organization by 'doing management' badly, and he failed the country by offering it socialism instead of Christianity. He is probably the worst Archbishop of Canterbury in living memory. Only historians are equipped to judge whether he was the worst Archbishop of all time.   I have lived and worked under five archbishops beginning with Donald Coggan. I have spoken and interviewed most of them. I was a theological student in London in the 60s when Geoffrey Fisher was archbishop, but the ministry of John Stott was far more engaging than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.   The question now is who will replace Welby; but the deeper question is does it really matter?  Whoever it is, you can’t put the evangelical genie back in the bottle. That day is done. No Anglo-Catholic would even be considered. It will either be an Affirming Catholic or an out and out progressive.   Here are a few names, but the one to watch for is the Iranian-born Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, the most likely candidate with her background. Dame Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London; Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich, Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester; Rose Hudson-Wilkin, and Bishop of Dover, Helen-Ann Hartley, Bishop of Newcastle are among others to watch.   For the moment the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell is in charge, a man whom many believe should also step down for his safeguarding failures, but steadfastly refuses to do so. He believes that Welby took one for the team therefore he doesn’t need too. I wrote about why Archbishop Cottrell must go here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/why-the-archbishop-of-york-must-go   This week there were more calls for heads to roll following the Makin Report revelations of John Smyth’s sadistic sexual activities with young men.   One scholar, Christopher Brittain, dean of divinity and professor of Anglican studies at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College, says members of the Anglican Communion frustrated with the Church of England may feel emboldened in calling for change, and this may sway to some extent the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC), which is responsible for appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury.   “What could be part of the conversation is, ‘Yes, we can see the importance of signalling to the Communion and maybe even to the Church of England that we’re open to change,’” Brittain says. He says this could mean the nomination of someone with ethnic origins outside the U.K. or from outside the U.K. altogether!   Whoever wins will preside over a dying institution that is now almost impossible to revive.   ***   To no one’s surprise there was virtually no good religious news stories this past year. 2024 was mostly bad, even repellent.   Highlighting the year’s top Anglican news was the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby over the cover-up and concealment of an evangelical layman’s sadistic behavior with more than 100 young men across two continents. Welby took responsibility and exited himself from Lambeth Palace.   A former archbishop, George Carey also got caught in the safeguarding net and tossed in his Permission to Officiate (PTO) and exited the pulpit. Another archbishop, John Sentamu of York had already resigned over similar charges and the push is now on for Stephen Cottrell, the present Archbishop of York to step down over failed safeguarding issues.   As the Mother Church fades into the sunset, the good news is that the Global South continues to rise, and its leadership strengthens by the day, inevitably pushing the Church of England to the margins. The CofE is facing death by a thousand cuts, more spiritually devastating than a layman’s cane.   The worldwide persecution of Christians continues apace with no sign of it letting up any time soon. Islam remains the single most persecuting religion in the world, happy to kill Christians while screaming Islamophobia at anyone who dares accuse them of murder. Nigeria remains at the top of the nation's most Christians are murdered. It is also the largest Anglican province in the communion. *** The sun is setting on Western Anglicanism, with the Anglican Church of Canada , by its own admission, roiling in its death throes. The Episcopal Church is watching as dioceses are forced to merge just to stay afloat as congregations shrink, with aging Episcopalians and their checkbooks close as they head to columbariums. https://www.virtueonline.org/post/2024-top-religious-stories-contained-little-good-news   ***   THE DIOCESE OF NORTH AFRICA is seeking a new bishop. There are five candidates in the offing. They are; Emad Basillos, (Egypt) Frank Bernardi, (US) Yasir Kuku, (South Sudan), Ashley Null, (US) and Medhat Sabry (Egypt). The see of North Africa might not be large, but it has historic value and precedent. It also won’t go woke. Who after all could write in their memoir that they stood in the line of St. Augustine and embraced gay marriage!   *** WILDFIRES in southern California have captured national attention. The following is a breakdown of churches that have gone, damaged, threatened or been evacuated.   GONE!   St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Altadena — GONE! Altadena Community Church in Altadena — GONE! Altadena United Methodist Church in Altadena — GONE! Community United Methodist Church in Pacific Palisades — Gone! Pasadena Jewish Temple in Pasadena — GONE! Pacific Crossroads Church in Santa Monica — GONE! Corpus Christi Catholic Church in Pacific Palisades — GONE! Kinneloa Church of Christ in Pasadena — GONE! Altadena Baptist Church in Altadena — GONE! Masjid Al Taqwa Mosque in Altadena — GONE! St. Matthew’s Episcopal School in Pacific Palisades — GONE! Sahag-Mesrob Armenian Christian School in Altadena — GONE! Lifeline Fellowship in Altadena — GONE! Altadena Church of the Nazarene in Altadena — GONE! Pasadena Church of Christ — GONE! Fountain of Life Church in Altadena — GONE! Mater Dolorosa Hermitage in Sierra Madre — GONE! St. Mark's Episcopal School in Altadena — GONE! Pacific Palisades Presbyterian Church in Pacific Palisades — GONE! Jewish Chabad Center in Palisades Village — GONE! St. Elizabeth Catholic School in Altadena — Gone! St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church twin rectories in Pacific Palisades — GONE! Theosophical Society Library in Altadena — GONE! Altadena Baptist Church in Altadena — GONE! Scripps Home Gloria Cottage at the MonteCedro Episcopal Retirement Community in Altadena — GONE!   DAMAGED! St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Pacific Palisades — Damaged! Mater Dolorosa Passionist Retreat Center in Sierra Madre — Damaged! Calvary Chapel in Pacific Palisades — Damaged! Hillside Tabernacle Church of God in Christ in Altadena — Damaged! Corpus Christi Catholic School in Pacific Palisades — Damaged!   THREATENED! Thomas the Apostle Episcopal Church in  Hollywood — Threatened! St. Stephen’s Episcopal  Church in Hollywood — Threatened! St. Barnabas Episcopal Church in Pasadena — Threatened! Ascension Episcopal Church in Sierra Madre — Threatened!  St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church in Studio City — Threatened! Palisades Lutheran Church in Pacific Palisades — Threatened! Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Altadena — Threatened! St. Linus Catholic Church in Norwalk — Threatened! Ascension Catholic Church in Pasadena — Threatened! St. Andrew’s Catholic Church in Pasadena — Threatened! First Baptist Church in Pasadena — Threatened! Calvary School in Pacific Palisades — Threatened! First Christian Science Church in Altadena — Threatened! St. Monica's Catholic Church in Santa Monica — Threatened!   EVACUATED!   MonteCedro Episcopal Retirement Community in Altadena — Evacuated!   EVACUATION CENTERS!   All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena — Evacuation Center! St. Paul’s Commons Episcopal Retreat Center in Echo Park — Evacuation Center! The Covington Episcopal Retirement Community in Aliso Viejo — Evacuation Center!   No ACNA churches are in the fire zones that has seen 6,528 wildfires burning 1,001,993 acres in California. At least 24 people are believed to be dead in the California fires, with more than a dozen others remaining unaccounted for.   VOL’s own researcher Mary Ann Mueller has written an excellent story which you can read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/gone-gone-gone-california-wildfires-reduce-churches-to-smoldering-ashes   Niall McCrae believes the devastation symbolizes something much bigger: the fall of Western civilization. California would be a fitting site for such a human tragedy: it is home to the most affluent people in the world, from Hollywood celebrities to Big Tech innovators, who have emphatically supported the Democrat party. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/civilisation-collapses-as-la-burns   *** Three in four people in Britain polled support a national inquiry into the prolific and harrowing rape of the nation’s children by insatiate “grooming gangs.” Yet, contrary to public will, the UK Labour Government last week voted against commissioning an investigation into this enduring horror.   Public consciousness of child sexual exploitation in the United Kingdom reached an inflection point this winter after victims shared account after gut-churning account of sexual savagery and careless murder being perpetrated against underage white girls by Pakistani-Muslim men up and down the country. These brave survivors recount how police and social workers were complicit in their abuse, losing evidence, asserting that children could consent, and failing to investigate rapes for fear of being called racist. In one instance, a girl had a morning-after pill forced into her mouth by a police officer.   A senior Church of England official told VOL that he is not aware of any comment by anyone representing the Church of England, not even local clergy. Nobody wants to be seen as “Islamophobic”. These are the dark ages, he said.   ***   While antisemitism rages around the globe, one Anglican archbishop has stepped up to the plate and condemned it in his own backyard.   Sydney Archbishop Kanishka Raffel wrote saying, “I am taking the step of expressing the dismay of many Sydney Anglcians at grotesque acts of antisemites in our city. Syndey Anglican welcome and affirm the presence and contributions of Jewish Australians for whom Sydney is the home we share and whose peace, prosperity and harmony is our common commitment.   Nearly half of all people worldwide hold elevated levels of antisemitic attitudes, according to the latest Global 100 survey conducted by ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and coordinated with Ipsos and other research partners. The survey found that 46 percent of the world’s adult population – an estimated 2.2 billion people – harbor deeply entrenched antisemitic attitudes, more than double compared to ADL’s first worldwide survey a decade ago and the highest level on record since ADL started tracking these trends globally.   ***   Episcopalians are the most highly educated Protestant denomination, followed by the PCUSA and the ELCA. The only trope that the mainline is filled with the ‘well to do’ is empirically true. Of course, being intellectually smarter than everybody else doesn’t mean such churches make good decisions. If they did, they would not be sinking numerically.   Here is the decline in membership of the Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestant Christianity; American Baptist: -24% Disciples of Christ: -74% Evangelical Lutheran: -45% Presbyterian Church USA: -62% Episcopal: -36% United Church of Christ: - 57% United Methodist: -40%   ***   To reinforce the point that The Episcopal Church has gone out of its mind on sexuality issues, TransEpiscopal, a group that advocates for more inclusive church policies toward transgender people , joined The Episcopal Church’s Department of Gender Justice and Department of Racial Reconciliation, Justice and Creation Care in hosting a Jan. 13 webinar titled “Defending the Dignity of Trans and Non-Binary People in 2025 and Beyond.” Nearly 700 people registered for the Zoom event.   Aaron Scott, the church’s gender justice officer and a trans man, stresses the need for Episcopalians to collectively advocate for transgender and nonbinary rights, not individually.   But a new poll reveals the American public is pushing back on transgender and nonbinary positions. A new survey shows that a vast majority of US parents oppose this wokeism from infecting public schools.   The poll, sponsored by the parental rights advocacy group Parents Defending Education and conducted by CRC Research, is based on responses collected from 1,000 American parents of children 18 years old or younger from Dec. 12-18, 2024.   You would think that ordinary Episcopalians reading this should put trans insanity behind them and join the world of normal and insist on a male-female foundation for sexual ethics. But apparently that is not going to happen.   "Hate speech" nowadays is usually nothing more than speech that the Left hates, particularly any questioning of the "trans" or "gay" agenda. The Left is also great at using hateful speech against faithful Christians, says Robert A. J. Gagnon a sexual ethics theologian.   The Episcopal Church is out of step with the vast majority of Americans and 80 million Anglicans globally. Not even the Church of England has openly embraced transgenderism, though give it time and it probably will.   The church still has a role to play in terms of being salt and light for the culture at large in matters of sexual ethics. Now is the time to speak out if this insanity is to be reversed. TO READ MORE CLICK HERE: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/episcopal-church-swings-with-the-culture-on-transgender-issues   *** One scholar who has single-handedly stripped homosexuality of its hold on the church and society is Robert Gagnon’s 2002 opus magnum The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics . It has been the answer to many who struggled with the issue. The meticulously researched and rigorously argued 500-page tome refutes every possible argument progressive scholars have raised in the last three decades. Its use of the Bible’s original languages and insight into the ancient world is unparalleled, writes Jules Gomes, himself a scholar and journalist.   Gagnon is an evangelical Presbyterian scholar who has devoted his life to almost single-handedly dissecting and debunking every avant-garde argument that raises its hydra-head against the biblical teaching on homosexuality. Unlike most scholars, he does this through his online lectures, website, debates, articles, and Facebook and X accounts. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/refuting-woke-evangelicals-who-believe-god-has-belatedly-repented-of-homophobia-1 *** THE PRICE OF ABUSE. Over two decades, Catholic dioceses, eparchies and men’s religious communities spent more than $5 billion on allegations of sexual abuse of minors, according to a new report released by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.   Between 2004 and 2023, three-fourths of the $5.025 billion reported was paid to abuse victims. Seventeen percent went to pay attorneys’ fees, 6% was in support for alleged abusers and 2% went toward other costs. On average, only 16% of the costs related to the allegations was borne by insurance companies.   ***   We have begun the transition to a new website. It will take a while to place over 35,000 stories in the archives and reconfigure the front page. Please bear with us. A transition like this is time consuming and costly and we could use some financial assistance to make it happen. We need specialists and consultants who can help make the change and transition possible; meanwhile the writing goes on.      Please consider a tax-deductible donation. A PayPal donation link can be found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html   If you are more inclined with old fashioned checks, (as I am), you can send your donation to: VIRTUEONLINE P.O. Box 111 Shohola, PA 18458   Warmly in Christ, David   I have begun a substack on the Middle East. In light of so much written on Israel, prophecy and the Bible, I felt constrained, with the help of some scholars, to look at events there and how they are playing out in today’s world in the light of Scripture. You can access my substack here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/ IN my latest piece I argue that the deal being cut with Gaza and Hamas is no deal at all. Some 33 Israeli hostages are being bartered for an unknown number of jailed Palestinians. Hamas still stays in power; that apparently is part of the deal, but  non-starter for Netanyahu. This is not what Bibi Netanyahu agreed to, nor has he fought for this for all these months.   He has said repeatedly, no Hamas left in power and all the hostages must be returned. On this he is 100 percent clear. The Prime Minister has nowhere argued that half a loaf is better than none.   What do the negotiators not understand about that? You can read more here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-154948235

by David G. Duggan © Special to Virtueonline www.virtueonline.org January 27, 2025   At the risk of offending some, I'm wading into the controversy surrounding the “sermon on the mount” [St Alban’s-the highest point in the District] which the Episcopal bishop of Washington “preached” at the National Cathedral the day after Trump’s inauguration.   Held since 1933 after FDR’s first inaugural, the liturgy is billed as a “Service of Prayer for the Nation.” Interfaith leaders, rabbis, a Vedanta teacher, an imam, a Muslim cantor, a Native American chief, a Buddhist reverend and a Sikh president joined with Christian ministers to offer prayers and scripture readings. Curiously, no Roman Catholic cleric was robed for the ceremony: a not perhaps well-understood ban prohibits Catholic clergy vesting at any religious facility other than one consecrated to the Roman Catholic faith. Two Roman Catholic clerics gave the book-end prayers at the inauguration: New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and retired Brooklyn pastor Fr. Frank Mann. Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops seem to have been zilched out of both ceremonies.   But the media have been focusing on the Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde’s “sermon” midway through last Tuesday’s service. I put “sermon” in quotes because it was not in any meaningful sense a sermon, a word which comes from Latin and Greek words meaning “conversation.” Typically, a sermon (or its shorter version, homily) explicates a text of scripture, tries to reconcile different accounts of the same event, exhorts the congregation to examine their own lives. They are neither indictment nor accusation, neither moralizing nor pontificating. By this measure, Budde’s message was a lamentation verging on a diatribe. It was a claim of a moral superiority over the man sworn to uphold the law, nothing more but nothing less. It started out well enough: a paean to “unity that fosters community across diversity,” “[t]hat enables ... communities... to genuinely care for each other.” It alludes to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount where He “exhorts us to love, not only our neighbors but our enemies... [t]o forgive others as God forgives us.” No argument there, but she failed when she proposed three “foundations of unity”: 1) “honoring the inherent dignity of every human being”; “honesty in both private conversation and public discourse”; and 3) “humility.” With a passing reference to Solzhenitsyn’s prison-inspired conclusion that the line between good and evil crosses every human heart, she contended that humility ties the other two into unity: because we are all fallible, we need to see the beam in our own eyes before picking the speck out of our neighbors’. Except she wasn’t that eloquent.   The problem is that you will search scripture in vain for any requirement that we “honor the dignity of every human being.” Whole tribes are slain, Goliath and Holofernes beheaded, Pharaoh’s charioteers drowned in the Red Sea. And while honesty is desirable, scripture is replete with deceptions which accomplish God’s purpose (Jacob and Esau over Isaac’s birthright, Lot’s daughters, Abraham’s passing off Sarah as his sister). And humility: if everyone humbled himself, who would lead? But the message went off the rails when she told the president to “have mercy upon the people in our country. And we’re scared now.” She gave the laundry list of outliers and disadvantaged: “gay, lesbian and transgendered children,” and the office-cleaners, crop-pickers and meat packers as those who fear. With references to “our God” (is there another one?) she begged for mercy for the “stranger for we were all once strangers in this land.” If this was a reference to Deut. 26: 5-11, the prayer of consecration of the first fruits of the earth, then it is devoid of context. But she didn’t tie that plea into an ancient Hebrew message of compassion and welcome.   Some of Ms. Budde’s defenders (and there are many) have described her “sermon” as “telling truth to power” in the mode of John the Baptist’s condemning Herod for marrying his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). We all know how that turned out. But Ms. Budde is not the “scolder in chief” and her message was scarcely unifying, nor humble: it was defiant. And for a Biblical example of effectively telling truth to power see Nathan’s rebuke of David for stealing Uriah’s wife Bathsheeba at 2 Samuel 12:1-14.   “Be not afraid,” Jesus said (Luke 12:32). Fear is not a Christian virtue; in fact it is its opposite. Ms. Budde forgot this fundamental lesson and for that reason, she rightly deserves the opprobrium which she has received from all quarters for her intemperate remarks.

By Gerald McDermott, Op-ed contributor www.christianpost.com January 27, 2025   PHOTO: People participate in a Jewish solidarity march on January 5, 2020, in New York City. The march was held in response to a recent rise in anti-Semitic crimes in the greater New York metropolitan area. | Jeenah Moon/Getty Images   Since October 7, 2023, the ancient serpent of antisemitism has returned to deceive and kill. After the most barbaric attack on Jews in a century, they are now being blamed for defending themselves. We Christians who follow a Jewish messiah ought to be the first and loudest defenders of the Chosen People when they are on the run again (which ought to remind us of the Church’s failures a century ago), so it is doubly tragic that we are starting to see antisemitism among our own.   Therefore, those of us who have been enlightened by the insights of Reformed theology welcomed November’s Antioch Declaration against antisemitism. We were not surprised that this was written and signed by leading Reformed thinkers, for Calvinist theologians have resisted the Lutheran temptation to pit Gospel against law. Calvin and Edwards saw that God’s Law, first stewarded by the Jewish people, is a gift to the world and Church and is in fact a form of grace.   This Declaration seems to have been spearheaded by the formidable Doug Wilson, author of nearly one hundred books and creator of what might be called a conservative Reformed civilization centered in Moscow, Idaho, with its own college, seminary, denomination, publishing house, and classical Christian school network.   Wilson regularly steps where angels fear to tread. In the last century, his witty jousts with the New Atheists often put them on the back foot, and in this century he dared to challenge the iconic Tim Keller for being political while claiming the opposite.   So, it is not surprising to see that a Wilson-led Declaration recognizes the “carnal desire in fallen man to seek out a scapegoat for sin and social corruption,” resulting in “conspiracy theories” that have often made Jews their “easiest target.” It argues that Jews “are objects of wrath just like the rest of us,” and as a people, they are “an object of God’s providential care.” The Puritans were right to realize that “in God’s good time, multitudes of Jews will come to faith in Christ and be added to the true commonwealth of Israel.”   Apparently, Wilson and his Reformed confreres are addressing new antisemitism within their own ranks coming from writers promoting “Christian nationalism.” The term has caused hysteria among many, but Wilson has rightly argued over the years that secularism has become America’s national religion and that efforts to restore Christian faith to the public square need not be coercive or theocratic.   But the ways that some Reformed writers are promoting Christian nationalism have been either troubling or nasty. Among the troubling has been Stephen Wolfe, whose The Case for Christian Nationalism has been the most impressive book on the subject.  It was published by Wilson’s press and promoted not only by Wilson but also by the founder of the National Conservatism movement, Jewish political philosopher Yoram Hazony.   Wolfe does not say anything that is overtly antisemitic in his book. But there are ambiguities that raise questions. No nation, he writes, “is composed of two or more ethnicities,” and an “ethnicity” emphasizes “particular features that distinguish one people group from another.” Wolfe insists he is not promoting white nationalism, but he also writes of “blood relations” and “community in blood.” He denies the notion “that ethnic majorities today should work to rescind citizenship from ethnic minorities,” but adds that “perhaps in some cases amicable ethnic separation along political lines is mutually desired.”   Perhaps then we should not be surprised that in a January response on X to The Babylon Bee's Jewish CEO who wondered why Christians don’t share Paul’s heart for Israel, Wolfe wrote, “Believing that Israelis are ‘of my own race’ is a mental disorder.”   To be fair, Wolfe was responding to Seth Dillon’s use of an English translation of Romans 9:3 where Paul supposedly refers to “my own race.”   But one still wonders what Wolfe means. When “race” in today’s culture usually denotes skin color, is Wolfe ignoring the fact that 45% of Israelis are Ashkenazi Jews with white skin? Or does he mean that because most Israelis are Jewish they cannot have any connection with Christians, even Jewish Christians like Dillon?   Two things must be said about Wolfe’s suggestion that Jews (“Israelis”) are a race completely disconnected from American Christians. First, Paul never refers to his Jewish people as a “race.” The passage in Roman 9:3 (συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα) is better rendered as “my kinsmen according to the flesh.” And another Romans 9 phrase often wrongly translated with the word “race” is from Romans 9:5 (ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα) which is actually “from whom is the Christ according to the flesh.” Paul was writing these words when ancient Israel — like today’s Israel — was a “mixed multitude” composed of people with different skin colors which we mistakenly refer to as “races.” Neither the Bible nor science supports the existence of race as anything more than a sociological phenomenon.   Second, Paul said the Jews are God’s Chosen People. He referred to his fellow Jews who did not accept Jesus as still “beloved [by God] because of the Fathers [the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]. For the gifts and calling [κλῆσις, God’s calling the Jews as his Chosen] of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:28-29).  “Calling” means invitation to join God’s family, as when Paul tells the Corinthian Christians they should consider their “calling [κλῆσιν] — not many of you were wise by worldly standards” (1 Cor 1:26).   For Paul, then, Jews of his day were still God’s Chosen, even after a majority had rejected Jesus. He wrote, “To them belong [present tense] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the worship, and the promises” (Rom 9:4). He was not speaking of the eternal destiny of every Jew but of God’s continuing covenant with the descendants of the Patriarchs. Just as Jesus said those called to him could not presume their salvation unless they persevered in faithfulness to him (Matt 24:13), so too Jews were called into God’s family but were required to keep his covenant.  They retained their calling as His Chosen even if many failed to persevere and thereby lost the rewards of the covenant.   If Wolfe is ambiguous, Thomas Achord and Andrew Torba have been downright malicious. Achord, a Calvinist who has been co-host of the Ars Politica podcast with Stephen Wolfe, has written under the alias Tulius Aadland that “a random shooting of Antifa members hit 100% jews [sic] and 100% pedos,” complained of “the Yiddish roots of antifa,” and hoped for “no more Jew wars.”   Torba, co-author of a book on Christian nationalism recommended by Wilson, wrote in November 2022 that the GOP needs to be destroyed before another “Zionist bootlicker” is voted into office. He complained that “the Jews in positions of power” worry that your freedom of speech will give you “the freedom to reach a lot of people and criticize their power and oversized influence in our culture, government, and society.” Torba reposted a charge that Jews are “psychologically and spiritually castrating citizens.”   The Antioch Declaration is to be congratulated for its forthright denunciation of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust deniers. But it too is a bit disturbing.   Why should we think of Jews as the “easiest target” of conspiracy theories? Why not radical Muslims, who are by all accounts the source of most terrorism today, and by their own admission are trying to take over the world? Readers can be forgiven for wondering if the Antioch authors suggest by “easiest target” that there are legitimate reasons for antisemitic conspiracy theories.   And why regard the Jewish people as simply “an object of God’s providential care”? That is true of Cambodian Buddhists and Indian Hindus. One cannot read the Bible and conclude that Jews are no different from Buddhists and Hindus in God’s providence. This ignores Paul’s declaration that his Jewish brothers, even while denying Jesus as messiah, were still “beloved” of God and their “calling” to be God’s Chosen is “irrevocable.”   This odd language in the Declaration suggests what most supersessionists (those who think God’s new covenant with the Church supersedes and replaces his covenantal love for the Jewish people) have concluded, that God has given up on the Jews. But Paul specifically denied that. “Has God rejected his people? By no means!” The remnant that has seen its Messiah is proof that the “whole lump” of Israel is still “holy” (Rom 11:1, 16). Paul warns the Gentiles in Rome not to be “arrogant” toward the “branches” of Israel that have been broken off: “Remember it is not you who support the root [Jewish Israel], but the root that supports you” (v. 18). The Jews and Gentiles who have seen the Messiah are mysteriously connected to the root of Jewish Israel, even those parts of the root that have not seen Jesus yet.   The Antioch Declaration implies that the “commonwealth of Israel” is the Christian Church. But the phrase refers to Jewish Israel in Ephesians 2:12, from which the gentile Christians in Ephesus had been “alienated” before their conversions, but to which they were now connected because of their oneness with the Jewish Messiah.   Many of the Puritans recognized this. They rejected Calvin’s totalizing transfer of God’s Old Testament promises to the Gentile Church, for they discerned that many OT promises were specific to the Jewish people. Unfortunately, Calvin missed this.  He wrote that because the Jews did not “reciprocate” as willing partners in God’s covenant, “they deserve to be repudiated” (Institutes 4.2.3). He therefore denied that the 1,000 repetitions of the land promise (God’s giving the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants as in Gen. 12:7 and 17:8) still applied to the Jewish people.  Or that God’s “everlasting covenant” with “Abraham’s seed throughout their generations” (Gen 17:7) was still in effect.   But Henry Finch (c. 1558–1625) was a Puritan member of Parliament who rejected this hermeneutic. He and many other Puritans followed the Reformation’s plain sense hermeneutic, preferring the literal or plain sense to more spiritual and obscure senses.   Where Israel, Judah, Zion, Jerusalem, etc. are named in this argument, the Holy Ghost meaneth not the spiritual Israel, or church of God collected of the Gentiles, no nor of the Jews and Gentiles both (for each of these have their promises severally and apart), but Israel properly descended out of Jacob’s loins.   Increase Mather was another Puritan who rejected Calvin’s ascription of all OT promises to the Gentile Church.  In his The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (1669) he asked, “Why should we unnecessarily refuse literal interpretations?” Like Finch, Mather insisted that promises about earthly inheritance should not be spiritualized away. He took seriously the Old Testament’s land promise and predicted that the Jews would regain their ancient land before general renewal falls upon them. It would be only “after the Israelites shall be returned to their own Land again” that the Spirit would be poured out on them.   Jonathan Edwards was a Reformed thinker who believed that God had future plans for both the Jewish people and their land. In his Blank Bible, he wrote that just as the “restoration” of an individual at first involves only his soul but then later his body at the general resurrection, so too “not only shall the spiritual state of the Jews be hereafter restored, but their external state as a nation in their own land ... shall be restored by [Christ].”   The Puritans were Reformed Christians who rejected the supersessionism of their Calvinist brethren. They knew that they were connected spiritually to Jewish Israel, and that to renounce that connection was to ignore the Bible and risk injustice to the Jewish people.   Little did they know, however, how supersessionist assumptions would lead German and other European Christians in the twentieth century to look the other way or actually join the Nazi program to do away with Jews.  After all, these Christians reasoned, if God is done with the Jews, we should be too.   Let me close with this: Supersessionism is problematic but not the same thing as antisemitism. There are many supersessionists who love the Jewish people and do not think through the logic of their replacement theology. And the Reformed are not alone: there is plenty of supersessionism (and antisemitism) in other Christian communions, Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.   We need to heed Paul the Jew’s warning not “to be arrogant toward the [broken off] branches” (Rom 11:18), and to remind ourselves that the Jewish people are “beloved for the sake of their fathers” (Rom 11:28).   Gerald McDermott teaches at Reformed Episcopal Seminary and Jerusalem Seminary. He is the author of Israel Matters: Why Christians Must Think Differently about the People and the Land and A New History of Redemption: The Work of Jesus the Messiah through the Millennia.

The misstep creates worldwide headlines   By Mary Ann Mueller VOL Special Correspondent www.virtueonline.org January 26, 2025   The Episcopal Church is in the news again for all the wrong reasons. This time it is because Bishopette Mariann Budde (IX Washington, DC) took newly-reinaugurated President Donald Trump to task over his southern border policies designed to stem foreign asylum seekers from flowing across the US/Mexico border without first going through proper immigration channels as my own Norwegian-born mother did 100 years ago when she came through Ellis Island.   My mother, Ragnhild Sather, was one of the 12 million Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, Italians, Irish and others who came seeking a new life in America who, from 1892 through 1954, were legally processed through the Ellis Island immigration portal.   Mother first went to her family in Minnesota. Her Aunt Hannah (Grandma Belinda Sather's sister) settled in Otter Tail County. Then Mother headed to Washington State where she met and married my father, Robert Mueller, in Seattle and where I was born. And it was in Seattle that she also died when I was yet a babe-in-arms.  I have no memory of her, and that has always haunted me.   Getting back to Bishopette Budde. The National Cathedral has historically played a super-sized role in the spiritual life of the nation.  It is there that the country comes to pray as a nation since the Episcopal cathedral is considered a house of prayer for all people; grieve as a nation (state funerals), rejoice as a nation (post-inaugural presidential prayer services); and be spiritually unified as one nation under God invisible (9/11).   Most recently the National Cathedral hosted former President Jimmy Carter's state funeral, drawing together then-sitting President Joe Biden, former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama; and then President-elect Donald Trump under a single vaulted cathedral ceiling regardless of their political persuasion (Democrat or Republican) to show their unified respect to the man who once preceded each of them to the Oval Office and now precedes them in death.   On Tuesday (Jan. 21), less than 24 hours after President Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office, Bishopette Budde used the occasion of a National Cathedral-hosted prayer service to lambaste the new President from her Episcopal pulpit over his immigration policies.  She turned the raised carved stone Canterbury pulpit into a political bully pulpit and the world took notice.   Quickly the Episcopal bishopette was dubbed the “Woke Bishop” by the media.   It's not the first time that an Episcopal bishop – or Presiding Bishop – has held his captive audience slack-jawed.   In May of 2018 the XXVII Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church crossed “The Pond” to preach at Prince Harry's Church of England royal wedding to black American actress Meghan Markle. The black Presiding Bishop Michael Curry decided it was time to school the British Royal Family on 19th century Southern slavery and American civil rights referencing Martin Luther King, Jr.  to emphasize his point.   Members of the Royal Family sat in shock with their mouths agape.   Both Episcopal bishops felt they were “speaking truth to power.” In both instances their messages fell flat but they did manage to garner worldwide headlines.   Another Episcopal bishop, who was not shy about garnering headlines was – and occasionally still is creating press attention – Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson (IX New Hampshire).  Where Bishopette Budde is dubbed the “Woke Bishop” by the press Bishop Robinson's headline moniker is the “Gay Bishop.”   Bishopette Budde, Presiding Bishop Curry, and Bishop Robinson have each, in their turn, twisted their pulpits into bully pulpits to rail against some perceived injustice – immigration (Budde); racism (Curry); or the gay pride agenda (Robinson).  Since the National Cathedral looms large in the American spiritual psyche each of these three bishops have preached from its pulpit.   As bishops Jesus Christ should be the sermon topic from any pulpit a bishop – Episcopal … Roman Catholic … Lutheran … Methodist … et al – preaches.   It is a bishop's responsibility to see to it that the Gospel is powerfully preached, with the Sacraments are being faithfully celebrated and joyfully received thus leading their flock into a closer relationship with God through Jesus Christ, God’s one and only dearly begotten Son.   However, the National Cathedral has intersected with politics for more than a century.   It has hosted five presidential state funerals including: Dwight Eisenhower (1969); Ronald Reagan (2004); Gerald Ford (2007); George H.W. Bush (2018); and most recently Jimmy Carter (2025).   It also conducted six presidential memorial services including: Warren Harding (1923); William Taft (1930); Calvin Coolidge (1933); Harry Truman (1972); and Richard Nixon (1994). And other memorial services were held for civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968); anti-apartheid activist, Nelson Mandela (2014); and the Queen of England, Elizabeth II (2022).   Then, of course, there are the ten post inaugural Presidential Prayers Services which are designed to help prayerfully launch the new president into his administration.  Those services include: Franklin Roosevelt's second administration (1937); Ronald Reagan’s second administration (1985); George H.W. Bush’s only administration (1989); George W. Bush's first and second administrations (2001 & 2005); Barack Obama's first and second administrations (2009 & 2013); Donald Trump's first administration (2017); Joe Biden's only administration (2021); and Donald Trump's second administration (2025).   Also, several national, political, military and civil figures are also interred at the National Cathedral including: the only Admiral-of-the-Navy George Dewey (1917); President Woodrow Wilson (1924); Secretary of State and Noble Peace Laureate Frank Kellogg (1937); First Lady Edith Wilson (1961); disability advocate Helen Keller (1968); and gay activist Matthew Shephard (2018).   In addition, eight Episcopal bishops and one Episcopal priest are buried within the walls of the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul which is the formal name of the National Cathedral.   Historically the Episcopal bishops of Diocese of Washington are buried within the confines of their Cathedral including: Henry Satterlee (I Washington) 1908; Alfred Harding (II Washington) 1923; James Freeman (III Washington) 1943; Angus Dun (IV Washington) 1971; William Creighton (V Washington) 1987; John Walker (VI Washington) 1989; Ronald Haines (VII Washington) 2008; and Thomas Claggett (I Maryland) 1816.   The Episcopal Diocese of Washington was sliced out of the Diocese of Maryland in 1895. Bishop Claggett is the first Episcopal bishop to be consecrated in America and he also served as Chaplain to the US Senate which earned him the honor of being reinterred in the National Cathedral. He was initially buried in the Claggett Cemetery in Croom, Maryland but moved to Washington, DC in 1898.   The VIII and IX bishops of Washington – John Chane and Mariann Budde, respectively – are still living.   In addition, the V. Rev. Francis Sayre, Jr. is also interred at the National Cathedral. He holds the distinction of being the longest tenured Dean of the National Cathedral, serving from 1951 to 1978.   At this point in time there are no other Episcopal clergy buried within the National Cathedral.   Slowly through the years as the National Cathedral rolled out its Episcopal red carpet of welcome the cathedral's spiritual emphasis has shifted from a purely Anglican Book of Common Prayer Christocentric focus to interdenominational ecumenical ceremonies and eventually intertwining an interfaith spiritual expression which includes active non-Christian participation.   Bishopette Budde has crossed swords with President Trump before.  She was livid in June 2020 when the President ventured across Lafayette Square for an ill-advised photo op at St. John's Episcopal Church during the height of the George Floyd Black Lives Matter protests. The President displayed a Bible in front of the St. John's church sign. “The President just used a Bible, the most sacred text of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and one of the churches of my diocese, without permission, as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus," the Washington bishopette said in 2020. “He took the symbols sacred to our tradition and stood in front of a house of prayer in full expectation that would be a celebratory moment.”   The Washington bishopette's disdain for President Trump stems back to his first administration when she came to consider him inflaming violence through speech and actions and having a divisive and immoral leadership style. She participated in the Black Lives Matters protests.   On January 21, 2017, as the IX Episcopal Bishop of Washington, DC, a post she has held since 2011, Mariann Budde warmly welcomed the newly-inaugurated first term President to her “house of prayer for people to mark this moment of political transition” for an Episcopal interfaith prayer service. There was no scathing sermon, merely unified prayer albeit interdenominational – Episcopal, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptist, and non-denominational Christian – as well as interfaith –  Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist,  Baha’i and Navajo.   Eight years later a similar cast of religious characters showed up for President Trump's second interdenominational and interfaith presidential prayer service on January 21, 2025.   It was the V. Rev. Randy Hollerith, the XI Dean of the National Cathedral, who welcomed the worshippers to the Service of Prayer for the Nation, not Bishopette Budde.  She had something else up her  rochet’s snowy-white sleeve.   This time the cast of pray-ers included: Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Lurheran, Native American, Jewish, Momon, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and Sikh.   Then Bishopette Budde ascended the pulpit and skewered President Trump thus making ongoing worldwide headlines and shifting the focus from what should have been a spiritual emphasis into a political dagger.   Bishopette Budde's sermon sent shockwaves through the Anglican world. Episcopal priests are having to deal with upset parishioners – regardless of their political persuasion – who are hurt and confused and angry that an Episcopal prayer service at the most prominent Episcopal cathedral in the nation was turned into a political event.   Anglicans are the best when it comes to ecclesial pomp and ceremony. The Church of England did a masterful job at conducting Queen Elizabeth II's funeral or hosting Royal weddings.   Most recently (January 9, 2025)  the National Cathedral conducted President Jimmy Carter's State Funeral with aplomb and without missing a step.   The National Cathedral knows how to put its best foot forward and show to the world the majesty and splendor of Anglican worship giving honor and glory to God.   But when it came to last week's Presidential Prayer Service the cathedral tripped over a bishop's crozier.   Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas.  She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline