By Ruth Gledhill Religion Correspondent THE TIMES 3/19/2004 VACANT: one see with large house, £30,000 stipend, 70 priests, 7,000 souls and thousands more sheep. Must be able to speak Welsh. Hoffwch chi fod yn Esgob Bangor? For the first time in its history, the oldest diocese in the country has failed to elect a bishop. After a three-day conclave, the electoral college of the Church in Wales last night failed to reach a decision over who should succeed the Right Rev Saunders Davies as Bishop of Bangor. Bangor, the oldest continuous see in Britain, founded more than 1,450 years ago, could now be without a bishop for months or even years while the five other diocesan bishops decide what to do. Insiders were last night speculating that the diocese could even be merged with neighbouring St Asaph, placing its 70 parishes in the care of the Right Rev John Davies. The electoral college, made up of representatives from Bangor and the wider church, had to find a two-thirds majority for a new bishop within three days at their meeting this week at St Deiniol's Cathedral, Bangor. No electoral college meeting has taken longer than two days since the disestablishment and separation of the Church in Wales from the Church of England in 1920. The college has never before failed to reach a decision, which has resulted in the referral of the vacancy to the bench of bishops. The difficulties at Bangor are symptomatic of the problems facing the Anglican church throughout Britain. At the root of the problem is the declining number of priests and worshippers. As fewer high-calibre graduates experience a vocation to the ordained ministry, the number of clergy suitable for elevation to the episcopacy is diminishing fast.

By Peter C. Moore The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown's blockbuster novel, gives us a hauntingly mystical view of Christ. In The Code, Jesus is married to Mary Magdalene and has children with her. Along the way, he also spawns a cult of secret goddess worshippers. According to the novel, in the modern age, the rigidly orthodox Catholic order of Opus Dei fanatically suppresses a group of cultists who keep alive Jesus' ancient and "true" vision of Christianity. If you suspect that this plot line is too absurd to gain attention, consider that the novel has spent 52 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and is currently at the top. One of Brown's astonishing claims (presented as fast-paced truth) is that Jesus was never considered divine until, at the Emperor Constantine's insistence, the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 A.D. Brown doesn't explain why Christians of that day never noticed this sudden change in their doctrine of Christ. Why should we be surprised by the public's fascination with unorthodox theses on the nature of Jesus Christ? Colorful advocates have promoted these sorts of claims for centuries. In the 19th century, cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science sprang into existence asserting that Jesus was less than the unique Son of God. The idea they exploit is, of course, far older. In the 4th century, Arius, a presbyter in the Church of Alexandria, nearly caused a major schism by claiming that Christ was less than the Father. Fifteen emperors, five popes, scores of patriarchs, hundreds of bishops, innumerable priests, and even fervent street mobs took sides for or against Arius. Thirteen church councils hashed through the problem until it was eventually settled with the Nicene Creed. The heresy of subjectivism Today there is a new spin on these old heresies, arising from our culture's fascination with religious pluralism. Along with a widespread loss of belief in absolutes, we see a loss of faith in objective truth. People now hesitate to say that any religious convictions represent literal facts. They prefer to think that all beliefs are subjective. This allows them the benefit of holding on to beliefs that offend no one. Thus, these people can appear religious but tolerant. One of the most vigorous proponents of this new heresy is the controversial Canadian bishop Michael Ingham. He precipitated an international Anglican crisis by promoting the ordination of active homosexuals and performing same-sex blessings. Consequently, one third of the laity of his diocese (10 parishes) have left him and sought protection from the wider Communion. Theological warfare A few years ago, Bishop Ingham sponsored a debate on the topic, "Is Jesus Christ the only way to God?" The debaters were American Bible scholar Marcus Borg and British theologian Tom Wright, presently the Bishop of Durham. Four hundred people packed the auditorium, and 300 more were turned away; so clearly the subject was important to Anglicans in the Vancouver area. During the debate, Borg claimed that it was acceptable for Christians to reject the traditional belief that Jesus Christ is the only way. He warned against Christians making "triumphalist and provincial claims" that Jesus is the only way. Wright, on the other hand, quoted John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one can come to God except through me." He defended the "scandal of particularity" that asserts the politically incorrect view that Jesus is "the climax of God's story in the cosmos." The two scholars frequently appear on the same platform. I heard them debate at Chautauqua a couple of years later. Tom Harpur, a popular Canadian author, columnist, and TV commentator who renounced Anglican orders some years ago, sees John 14:6 as a pretext for "coercion and then violence against those who [don't] happen to agree." Harpur claims that John 14:6 should not be considered historical because, in his words "the Gospel of John is not historical." However, Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:32 say virtually the same thing as John 14:6. And so the battle is joined. Curiously, virtually all parties to the debate would doubtless claim that they are orthodox Christians. All most likely confess the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed and insist that the differences between conservatives and liberals are merely differences in the interpretation of Scripture rather than a rejection of the authority of Scripture. Similarly, when it comes to the current divisive issue of homosexuality, the same argument is offered: we all accept the authority of Scripture, say those in favor of the revisionist agenda, we just differ on its interpretation. I'm frankly troubled by this claim. While the issue of Christology and homosexuality seem miles apart, I see them as two sides of the same coin. Double-think Let's look again at the issue with which I began. Both liberal and conservative Anglicans claim to be "orthodox" Christians. Why then do they come to very different conclusions about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ? How can a large number of priests and bishops say that they affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, but refuse to say that he is the unique Son of God and the only Savior of the world? Ask your rector whether she or he believes that Jesus is the "only way." You may be surprised at the answer you get. The argument you get may sound like this: Jesus may have been the Son of God. But we cannot proclaim him to the world as anything more than "my God" or "our God." Is this muddled-headed thinking or something worse? I am reminded of George Orwell's "double-think." According to his major work, Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949), double-think is the modern faculty of simultaneously harboring two conflicting beliefs! Laity, I find, are sometimes quicker than clergy to see the incongruity of affirming one thing in a creed, and then proclaiming another from the pulpit. This was proven in a study of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. by two American sociologists. They asked why a very large number in the age group 35–55 had left the denomination. The reason was not what conventional wisdom would suggest: changes in worship, controversial social stances, poor preaching, or inadequate adult education. No, most people in this age group who left the Presbyterian Church did so for only one reason: they no longer believed that Jesus Christ was the only Savior of the world. Liturgical dissonance I suspect that the figures for lay flight would be much the same for the Episcopal Church. While the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Savior is the Church's historic position and the only logical conclusion to be drawn from our hymns, creeds and liturgies – to say nothing of the Scriptures – many church members reject it. A friend of mine wagers, for example, that 90% of those Episcopalians who support the consecration of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex relationships would deny that Jesus Christ is the only way. Which raises the question, "What does orthodoxy mean?" Is one orthodox if one denies such a central claim of the Faith as the position of Jesus Christ? Can one say the creed, recite the prayers, sing the hymns, and claim to be orthodox, and still be unwilling to say that Jesus is the only way? Two ways can't both be right During my 25 years of ministry to students, I was frequently challenged to answer the charge: "How can you say that Jesus Christ is the only Savior?" Here's what I said: I reminded them of Jesus' parable about two men who went into the temple to pray. One thanked God that he was "not as other men." He reminded God that he tithed, fasted and prayed, and was completely different from that other man "over there" who was a sinner. Most of us would conclude that the first man was sincerely religious and moral. The other man, however, knelt, beat his breast, and prayed, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." "Which one left the temple in a right relationship with God?" asked Jesus. Even his detractors had to say, "The one who asked for mercy." Jesus is talking about two fundamentally different approaches to God. The first approach relies on good works, honest intentions, and moral rectitude. The second approach is to cast oneself on the mercy of God. The first ultimately has no place for Jesus Christ, except as a moral teacher. The second will know Jesus at a glance, because Jesus embodies the divine mercy that is needed. So then, I respond to my challengers by saying that Jesus is the only Savior because he alone embodies the mercy of God. No other religious teacher or prophet ever came close to offering God's unconditional love to sinners, as Jesus did. So, if it's mercy we know we need, Jesus is the only way. And who doesn't need mercy? What of the people, then, who have never heard of Jesus? Isn't it logical to assume that, whenever they do hear of him, on this side of death or on the far side, they will recognize him as "the God they never knew?" Orthodoxy is simply the framework in which the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is preserved. That uniqueness is not something we can disperse into the mists of subjectivism. It's essential to our experience of unconditional mercy. Without it, we are all lost. With it, we are gloriously found. END

By Jan Nunley 3/25/2004 [ENS] The Rt. Rev. Neptali Larrea Moreno, Bishop of Ecuador Central, has been deposed from the ministry by a unanimous vote of the House of Bishops, meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, on March 23. According to the resolution, the deposition was made on the ground that Larrea abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church by "an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship" of the church under canon IV.9(1). On January 21, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold inhibited Larrea from functioning as a bishop, but Larrea failed to contest the inhibition or demand a trial by the House of Bishops, as canon law provides, within two months from the original notice. Bishop Clayton Matthews, executive director of the church's Office of Pastoral Development, said that the action was taken with the full support of the Standing Committee of the diocese and the bishops of Province IX. The Provincial Synod of Province IX will be meeting in Quito next week. Financial irregularities Matthews said that complaints about financial irregularities under Larrea's management of the diocese go back at least to 1997, when the treasurer's office for the Episcopal Church made "multiple attempts" to complete audits of the diocese. Because Larrea refused to cooperate with the audits, the matter was taken to Griswold in 2001. In September of that year, a special committee of bishops with particular knowledge of South America was appointed to gather further information. The committee included Bishops Onell Soto of Alabama, Victor Scantlebury of Chicago, William Skilton of South Carolina, John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, and Frank Gray of Virginia. Soto was later replaced by Bishop Lloyd Allen of Honduras. After months of negotiation without cooperation from Larrea, said Matthews, the committee requested that Griswold send the matter to the Title IV Review Committee--which, after further investigation, concluded that presentment charges were in order against Larrea. The charges were filed January 16, and Larrea was notified. Consent to the charges was obtained from the three senior bishops of the House: Peter James Lee of Virginia, William Swing of California, and Leo Frade of Southeast Florida. In the meantime, though, Larrea—still under inhibition according to the canons—called a diocesan convention in the fall of 2003, and then in December declared that the diocese was "independent" of Province IX and the Episcopal Church. Matthews said that Larrea also refused to cooperate with Bishop Telesforo Isaac, retired bishop of the Dominican Republic and assisting bishop of Southwest Florida, who had been asked to provide pastoral care for congregations in Ecuador. The action means Larrea is no longer a bishop and cannot function as such. The House of Bishops and the standing committee of the diocese is now in the process of obtaining the services of an assisting bishop until an election for a new bishop can be held. The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service.

March 15, 2004 A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oregon My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, As you well know, many churches and communities in our diocese continue to struggle with issues coming out of our recent General Convention. In recent weeks, the Massachusetts state legislature and the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners here in Oregon have made it possible for persons of the same gender to be married. Both of these prescriptive actions continue to be disputed in our courts and have caused considerable disagreement among legislators and members of their constituencies. I do know that as clergy on the front lines of conversation and discussion, some may have sought your advice, counsel, or opinion on this topic of current discussion. Please know of my support for your ministry, especially during these trying and somewhat difficult times. I am writing not only to express my thanks for your leadership during this time, but to clearly articulate the position of our church on the subject of marriage. As noted in our canons (Title 1, Canon 18, 19) and as reflected in the content and context of our liturgy of Holy Matrimony, we continue to uphold and honor the sanctity of marriage and recognize this as a union between one man and one woman. As a church we view, marriage in deeply spiritual terms in a manner that signifies the sacred mystery of union between Christ and his Church. Marriage in the Church is not simply a contractual relationship of union as prescribed by civil law; it represents a solemn and public covenant between one man and one woman in the presence of God in the context of a Christian community. Our theology of marriage, as reflected in our liturgy notes: "The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God." At this point, the Episcopal Church does not formally recognize any other form of marriage; nor does it formally recognize any liturgy that is contrary to the teaching or canons of the Episcopal Church. As members of the clergy we are all bound to uphold and follow the teachings of the Church and follow those guidelines as prescribed in our canons. Given the charged climate in which we find ourselves, I hope that this guidance is helpful, particularly in your conversations with others on this subject. I do hope that in the months to come we can prayerfully continue conversations on this subject and other issues that define us as a people of God. I wish you and all the members of your church-family a holy and blessed Lent. Faithfully, Yours in Christ, Itty, PhD Bishop Episcopal Diocese in Western Oregon. 11800 SW Military Lane Portland, Oregon 97219-8436. Phone: 503-636-5613 / 800-452-2562. FAX: 503-636-5616 http://www.diocese-oregon.org

By Robert M. Moody To the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Oklahoma: On Sunday, March 14, 2004, five retired bishops of the Episcopal Church and a bishop of the Episcopal Church of Brazil, in the words of the Presiding Bishop, "arrogated to themselves the right to perform episcopal and sacramental acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop." In an act of Constitutional and Canonical disobedience planned by the American Anglican Council, Bishops C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina, Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas, William Cox, retired assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee, William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire, and Robinson Cavalcanti. Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Brazil, confirmed and celebrated the Eucharist in an Orthodox church in Akron, Ohio, without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop of Ohio. Because two of the bishops who were involved in this event reside in the Diocese of Oklahoma, I believe that it is appropriate for me to make the following statements. Bishop William Wantland is an attorney and a respected expert on Church Canons. I am sure that he fully appreciates the seriousness of his actions. He is not licensed to exercise episcopal ministry in this diocese, but I have given him permission to accept invitations to celebrate, preach, and lead retreats whenever he has been asked to do so by Episcopal congregations and brotherhoods in Oklahoma. Until this matter is resolved, I urge you to keep him in your prayers and pray that he will take no further covert actions that will cause deeper divisions within our Church. Bishop William Cox served as an assistant bishop of Oklahoma for eight years. He presently serves on the staff of St. John's Church in Tulsa. He is well known for his ministry in Christian Healing. He is a beloved individual to many. His decision to participate in an event that has created a constitutional and canonical crisis is a surprise to both me and to the Reverend David Fox, the Rector of St. John's. He said nothing to either of us about his intention to do this. I do not know if he appreciates that his actions reflect upon both the Diocese of Oklahoma and the Parish of St. John's. I ask your prayers for him that Christ's spirit will lead him to be a healer of the Church's wounds. The House of Bishops will meet at Camp Allen in the Diocese of Texas from March 19-25, 2004. I believe that an appropriate response to this action of defiance and disobedience on the part of those bishops will be on our agenda. That response could be a censure of these bishops or a presentment that could lead to an ecclesiastical trial. I ask your prayers for the bishops and for our Church. I will be communication with you upon my return from the House of Bishops. Faithfully, +Robert M. Moody Bishop of Oklahoma

To: Rectors and Vicars of the Diocese of Washington Dear Friends in Christ: I am writing to give you advanced notice that I have appointed a Task Force on the Blessing of Relationships. The Task Force will be meeting from now until the end of May when they hope to have a rite prepared for use in the Diocese of Washington for those persons for whom the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in the Book of Common Prayer is not appropriate or not available for optional use. In some cases these may be couples of the same sex, and in some cases these may be couples for whom marriage is not an appropriate or desirable step. Of these couples, those who are 65 years of age and older are 266,000 in number. As many of you know, our Diocese has a history of blessing relationships, and some of our congregations and clergy have developed materials that might enrich this effort. If you have such materials in your files, the Task Force would be happy to receive them. The Task Force is being chaired by the Revs. Susan N. Blue and Michael W. Hopkins. The Task Force welcomes your input, so I encourage you to be in contact with them. We are planning to inform the people of our Diocese in the next issue of the Washington Window. In Christ's peace, power and love, The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D. Bishop of Washington and Dean of the Cathedral

By the Associated Press 3/18/2004 The Episcopal Church's bishops begin a closed-door meeting Friday in Texas, where they'll try to quiet the discord that has torn at the denomination since the consecration of an openly gay bishop New Hampshire's Gene Robinson. Robinson is attending his first meeting as part of a hierarchy in which 41% of bishops who head dioceses voted against his consecration and 28 of the bishops have refused to recognize him as a colleague. Episcopal headquarters in New York City announced Wednesday that the gathering in Navasota, 60 miles northwest of Houston, is not a legislative meeting and no major policy decisions are expected. Rather, the schedule features speeches and discussions on "reconciliation" within the Episcopal Church and the international Anglican Communion of which it's a part. The bishops will discuss the current flashpoint, how to handle conservative parishes that don't want to quit the Episcopal Church but cannot accept the authority of local bishops who favor gay clergy. The proposed remedy is to provide dissenting parishes with special conservative bishops from outside their dioceses. At an emergency summit last October, world Anglicanism's top leaders urged the American church to grant dissenters "adequate provision for episcopal oversight." The U.S. church leader, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his Council of Advice then proposed a plan allowing outside bishops to work with conservative parishes though only with approval from the local bishop as required by church law, allowing for appeals to regional bodies in case of disagreements. Conservatives have rejected that. They don't want the local bishops to keep their veto power and claim liberals control the regional bodies that would hear appeals. Griswold will present a rewritten plan at Navasota. Conservative leaders complain that they weren't consulted, and bishops weren't given the text to study in advance. Griswold repeated Monday that any plan must honor local bishops' powers under existing church law. The leading conservative bishop is Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of a "network" formed in January to unite Episcopal dioceses and parishes that insist upon the traditional Christian teaching against same-sex relationships. Duncan said some conservative bishops are boycotting the Navasota meeting, some will participate fully and some like himself will stay offsite and attend only sessions treating the church fracture. Duncan said the church must "come to its senses" and help conservatives because "the present course is a suicidal course, or at least a fratricidal course." Matters escalated last Sunday when five Episcopal bishops led a rebel confirmation service in Akron, Ohio congregations that spurned local Bishop J. Clark Grew II, a Robinson supporter. Maurice Benitez, retired bishop of the Texas Diocese and spokesman for the five bishops, said if the hierarchy produces an "acceptable plan" for visiting bishops, "these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary." The implication: If not, there will be further violations. Duncan said that if the Navasota meeting doesn't heed conservative appeals there will be "continuing chaos," not only Akron-type protests but congregations leaving the Episcopal Church. Griswold's Council of Advice said the five bishops broke church law, since Grew did not approve the confirmations, and appealed for unity against forces that "seek to sow the seeds of division." Grew said the Akron service might have been an attempt to "manipulate" the Navasota meeting while Griswold suggested the event was intended to "co-opt the bishops' agenda."

By David Virtue LONDON, UK -- There is a sign in the London Underground subway (tube) that reads, "Delays expected on the Northern Line, there are unresolved problems, as a result of previous problems." In many ways this is a humorous, if not understated reflection on the current state of affairs in the Episcopal Church, (not to mention British Rail). The ECUSA's current problems are a direct result of previous problems not only unresolved, but continuing and growing and getting worse by the day. A quick fix is no longer possible. And the worse they become the more "gracious" and "conversation[al]" our Presiding Bishop becomes in his words as he walks his way through the jungle swamp hoping that the crocodiles gathering around him have already feasted on a Primate or two, and therefore have no interest in him. He is wrong, they do. The House of Bishops meets in Camp Allen, Texas shortly and you can be sure that the "gracious" gloves will come off and a lot of brow beating will go on, with less than "gracious" fist-shaking and "how dare you invade my diocese" by Bishop Clark Grew (Ohio) who will try and show the right amount of aggrieved pain, righteous indignation and "why don't you conservative bastards just admit you lost and get over it." It ain't gonna happen. There is a new resolve by the orthodox bishops that we have not seen before that was not present over women's ordination or the dumping of the '28 Prayer Book. Sodomy, or more appropriately the consecration of a divorced man to the episcopacy who had entered into a formal homoerotic relationship with another man, is a step too far that will not be washed away on clouds of cultural enlightenment or post-modernist understanding. That day too, is done. The 25 plus orthodox bishops showed they had the right stuff at General Convention and publicly said so most graciously (Griswold seems to have forgotten that), and from thence forward we have had a couple of Plano gatherings, the formation of the Network (NADCP), all with a view of saying to the Anglican Communion and Rowan Williams; "We are not going to take it any more, we are fighting back. Listen to us, pray for us, but we are in a war and there is no turning or running away. The commitment has been made to fight for the soul of the Episcopal Church." This, of course, is the last thing Griswold wants to hear, hoping that if we all talk long enough and "listen" (another favorite word of his), and keep endless "conversation" going we will meet in the muddy middle or on a plain with Sufi Rumi and sing a chorus of "blessed be the ties that bind." Those days now are long gone, and all eyes are turning on the Lambeth (Eames) Commission in the hope that they will resolve the impasse for us all. But most British religious journalists on secular dailies I talked with this week think it will, at best, paper over large fissures that are no longer cracks, and that there will be an inevitable breakup of the Anglican Communion. Living in denial, noted one religion writer, is a splendid British pastime, until one has to call Winston Churchill to wield the big guns. And Rowan Williams, he reminded me, is no Churchill. But Anglican ecumenists remain hopeful that when the dust settles everyone will still be at the table even if battered and bruised by the experience. They might be whistling Dixie. One Anglican Communion Officer I spoke with believes that if all parties keep talking, the links can hold, even though he admitted that the church was not a democracy and that some basic principles have to be held onto if all parties were going to stay together at the table. (He opined that Virtuosity was a bit too strident and name calling, but recognized that its "voice" was necessary at such a time as this.) But there's the rub. No one can agree on what those principles are. Will it be the authority of Scripture, maintaining liturgical order (the Americans are better at that than the British), preaching sin and salvation, or will it be "inclusion", "diversity" and a multi-cultural grab bag of half digested ideas about God's promiscuous love for all people everywhere, a Heinz variety of sexual options available from an open buffet from which one can freely pick, with more to be added as the demand calls for. But the truth is, a yawning divide exists that even liberal/revisionist bishops now reluctantly admit. The statement, uttered by two ECUSA bishops that schism is worse than heresy, is a public admission that heresy DOES indeed exist and they want you to just live with it, because it is better than busting up the whole church! So rather than believing and upholding the 'faith once delivered', they want you to live with ambiguity, really heresy, because it is better than law suits, parish property fights, public mockery and more. But what the revisionists don't get is this - the final destination of the souls of hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians depends on a clear unequivocal message of salvation that cannot be tampered with, by talk of "inclusion" any more than Mel Gibson's 'Passion' can be watered down for a PG rating to satisfy blue-rinse Southern ladies or ECUSA liberals offended by the public scourging of the Messiah. Jesus did not die on a cross, between two thieves, to satisfy claims of "niceness" or to broker in "inclusion" or make the planet feel good about bio-diversity. He died because we were wretched sinners in need of a Savior and that fact is totally lost on ECUSA's revisionists even as we approach Easter. I have read at least a dozen stories by leading ECUSA's revisionists who have expressed hatred towards the Passion movie because it displays "hate" and not "love". They don't get it. Without the cross and the attendant 'hatred', 'pain, 'suffering' and more, there would have been no redemption for a lost humanity, and if secular Jews whine about anti-Semitism, try this God turned his back, literally turned his back on his (Jewish) Son and let him die precisely because atonement was the only way to deal with their sin and ours. It was His greatest act of love. So to say sexual sin doesn't matter, or what goes on in my bedroom is none of anybody's business, a claim this writer regularly reads on various liberal ECUSA chat rooms and Listservs, is to shake one's fist in the face of God and say "what I do with my body is none of YOUR business either." But what if God says it does matter, and that sin is sin and He doesn't wink, or says 'boys will be boys' and that God cares deeply how we treat our bodies as "temples of the Holy Spirit". And what if He has inviolable, holy standards that He wants us to keep because He says so. What if Pascal's Wager is true, what a (pardon the pun) hell of a risk to take, if the "inclusionists" are wrong! Would you wager your soul's destiny on a gamble such as that! Sixty-two ECUSA bishops are asking us to do precisely that, and the orthodox bishops are now saying, no. And can you blame them? There is a much bigger picture here than who owns the properties or invoking the canons and constitutions or General Convention resolutions, it is about the souls of Episcopalians, many of whom have never heard a salvific word from the pulpit in 40 years. They are dying without Christ and without hope, their brains addled by seminary graduates who don't know what they hell they believe in any more, as they ascend their pulpits each Sunday to deliver themselves on the evil of George Bush's policies while their parishioners souls cry out for a Word from God that will touch their hearts and change their lives. And that is more than a crying shame; it is a damned shame, and one that will truly damn many of them for all eternity.

AS IF TO REINFORCE THE SORRY STATE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Dr. David Sumner, journalist, author, and Episcopal Church historian, did some research on ECUSA’s latest figures and came up with the following information. He wrote Virtuosity to say that ECUSA has experienced a 36 percent decline in membership between 1966–2001, while at the same time ECUSA experienced a 63 percent increase in the number of ordained clergy. The number of members per clergy has declined from 343 in 1966 to 133 in 2001. More than 500 parishes have left ECUSA or been closed between 1985 and 2001. "I don’t know how anyone can dispute these statistics. They all came from the Episcopal Church Annuals." Dr. Sumner’s book, A History of the Episcopal Church, has figures in the appendix, which is based on figures in the church’s official Redbook. (Virtuosity has a few copies of this book and is glad to make them available to readers who are historically inclined for a donation to the cause.) It should be apparent, on any reading of the situation, that nearly 40 years of theological innovation, the watering down of doctrine, re-writing the Prayer Book, and adopting bizarre sexual behaviors is not working. It is creating more pain than ever, polarizing Episcopalians—and Anglicans worldwide—into various camps, all in the name of a false inclusion and bastardized diversity that is gospel-denying and spiritually suicidal. ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF REVISIONISM ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF REVISIONISM took place this week when it was announced that revisionist bishop Richard Schimpfky (El Camino Real) was finally given a financial package to go. He agreed to resign after years of dissension. Under his leadership, the diocese declined from 30,000 to 12,000 when he first took office in 1990—another example (like Grew) that revisionism has no gospel, and in the end, even their own people turn on them, because the writing on the wall looks remarkably like Mene, mene, tekel upharsin. ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY RECOMMENDS STUDYING ATHEISM A DISTURBING STORY OUT OF LONDON says the Archbishop of Canterbury wants students to study atheism. Keen to counter the inadequacies of religious education, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, reportedly wants school students to have a grounding in atheistic concepts. According to a report in Annanova and The Telegraph, Williams has recommended Philip Pullman’s best-selling trilogy titled His Dark Materials for school pupils. The archbishop feels that Pullman’s magnum opus—which ends with the death of God—would help to counter the inadequacies of some religious education. (Full story in the digest.) SUPPORT VIRTUOSITY I AM POSTING A NUMBER OF STORIES ON THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN OHIO, AND THE WIDER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION. There are the usual Virtuosity columnists and a number of other stories, including a fine article by Dr. Peter Moore, president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. I do hope you will continue to support VIRTUOSITY with your tax-deductible dollars. Without them, I cannot exist. Please be generous. You can use PAYPAL at my website: www.virtuosityonline.org, or you can send a snail mail check to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380. Thank you for your support. All blessings, David W. Virtue, DD

The HOB showed their pathological weakness when confronted last year with how to deal with PA Bishop Charles Bennison and Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan over the handling of Fr. David Moyer, the traditionalist priest in Bennison’s diocese. Presentment charges against Bennison for being a heretic went nowhere, and he too has said that schism is worse than heresy. The HOB wimped out and did nothing, sending a watered-down resolution off to a sub-committee where it sank and died without trace. It is unlikely they have the collective will to punish these bishops, firstly because it could create more problems than it resolves, and secondly, as they are retired and have no dioceses in their control, any victory would be largely pyrrhic. There is a deeper fear Griswold must surely entertain: that if presentments against these bishops actually emerged from the Title IV Review Committee, it could trigger something truly horrible—a diocesan bishop threatening to pull his whole diocese out of the Episcopal Church. A more horrible scenario cannot be imagined. At that point, all hell would break loose. And the word hell is used advisedly. There is no plain with Sufi Rumi to meet on that would satisfy all these parties—unless, of course, one deeply offends a pansexual practitioner, and then gay pain and liberal tyranny merge into one hemlock-filled silver chalice to be swallowed by the biblically orthodox on Frank’s command. You can read all the stories in today’s digest.

But the show of strength told Grew, and every other revisionist bishop: do your damndest, we are ready and we will defy you, the canons and constitutions—and if it ruffles Rowan Williams’ feathers and the Eames Commission, so be it. We don’t care. While Grew’s response has so far been muted, you can be sure we will soon see a display of liberal tyranny that only the revisionists can muster. "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" will not be on their lips—you can count on it.

Bishop Grew, clearly miffed by this "invasion" of five orthodox bishops into his diocesan territory, could only say, "It saddens me that these five congregations had to create a disturbance with our common church polity, in order to focus attention once more on their minority position." "There is no crisis in the Diocese of Ohio," he opined, "except the one created by a group that hopes to hold on to attention that is slipping away as time passes." Grew did not say whether disciplinary action would be taken. But judging by past history, the House of Bishops has little stomach for presentments, because if you start them on these five bishops, then someone is going to say that presentment charges should be brought against Spong for his heresies—and no one has the stomach to go there. But clearly this is a personal snub of Grew, the humiliation of which he will not soon forget. Their action also sent a loud message, not only to the largely revisionist House of Bishops, but to Rowan Williams—and it also sent a loud beeping sound to the Eames Commission.