Archives

An exclusive interview with the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman, rector of St. Stephen's parish in Sewickley, PA. His parish has 2,000 members and is the largest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. By David W. Virtue 1/23/2004 [Interview continues with full text...]

By Elizabeth Day 25/01/2004 One of British medicine's most senior advisers on medical ethics has provoked outrage by claiming that infanticide is "justifiable"... [Article continues with full text...]

The Nation (Nairobi) All Africa News January 15, 2004 OPINION By Francis Ayieko NAIROBI--Recently, the Uganda Anglican Church withdrew an invitation to the Episcopalian Church of the US to attend the ordination of the Right Rev Henry Orombi as the country's new archbishop... [Article continues with full text...]

by Giles Fraser CONSIDER this sensitive editorial on the gay debate by the Revd Professor Gerald Bray in the journal, Churchman: "Although no one will be surprised to discover that many of the Episcopal churches [in the Southern United States] are horrified at the recent election of a practising homosexual as bishop of New Hampshire, the nature of Southern traditionalism does not immediately suggest that they would turn to a place like Rwanda for assistance..." [Article continues with full text...]

Feast of St. Hilary To: The Rt. Rev. Robert O'Neill St. John's Cathedral Denver, Colorado January 14, 2004 Your Grace: Inasmuch as an Archbishop of an Anglican Province in Africa has publicly declared his belief that "the devil has entered into" the Episcopal Church, and given that as you say "we have more in common than what divides us," I should like to challenge you to a public debate... [Letter continues with full text...]

Press Association (UK) Up to 95% of lesbians and gays are not really homosexual but "sexual perverts," a Belgian cardinal claimed today. "I will sign here in my own blood that of all those who say they are lesbian or gay, at most five to 10 are effectively lesbian or gay," Cardinal Gustaaf Joos, 80, told a magazine. "All the rest are simply sexual perverts. Don't hesitate to write that down. I demand you write it down. If they come to protest on my doorstep, I don't care. I will not open the door." Joos, who studied with Pope John Paul, was appointed cardinal last year. He made his comments in an interview on the state of Roman Catholicism in overwhelmingly Catholic Belgium whose legislature legalised gay marriages last year and may soon allow same-sex couples to adopt children. "Real homosexuals don't walk the streets in colourful suits," P-Magazine quoted Joos as saying. "They are people with a serious problem and have to learn to live with it. And if they err, they will be forgiven. We must help those people, not condemn them." The Belgian cardinal said his church "rejects homosexuality, not homosexuals." He was equally strident in questioning democracy, saying in the same interview, "Politics, democracy. Don't make me laugh. The right to vote, what is that all about? I think it is curious a snot-nosed, 18-year-old has the same vote as a father of seven. One has no responsibilities whatsoever, the other provides tomorrow's citizens."

Missionaries will be certified for orthodoxy The Most Reverend Frank Tracy Griswold Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA 815 Second Avenue New York NY 10017 USA 8th January 2004 Dear +Frank, This comes with a prayerful greeting from the Southern Cone in Jesus' name. As you can see from the attached statement, the decision of ECUSA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a person sexually active outside marriage, and to declare by resolution that same-sex blessings are "in bounds," has left us no choice but to recognize the situation which you have created. That is one of a profound impairment of communion. Our deep sadness comes on two fronts. First of all, you have done what you had no right to do. You have represented as God's blessing your promotion of an unbiblical agenda. You must know that the overwhelming majority of the people in this province view that as absolutely scandalous. Our concern is very great for those who embrace the deception you foster. Spiritually, it is a terrible place to be. In addition, you should know that many of us in the provinces you obviously consider to be of little consequence are also deeply offended at the arrogant, strident and unilateral action ECUSA has taken. This is doubly problematic because you personally have been so critical of your own government's failure to be collaborative in international affairs. Is stridence only a problem when you happen to disagree with the action? Could you not at least have discussed your convictions and underlying principles with your fellow primates before the final steps were taken? With deep regret, I must also inform you that the Province of the Southern Cone is designing a process for certification of missionaries. Candidates will have to demonstrate their commitment to orthodoxy in order to be acceptable for ministry here. Surely by now, you must see the folly of what you have done. The implications are staggering. Hardly a day goes by without international mention of more consequences. It is my fervent hope that you will repent. The mercy of Jesus knows no limit. I continue to pray that you will turn away from the course you have taken and turn to the "faith once delivered to the saints." With great sorrow, The Most Reverend Gregory James Venables Primate of the Southern Cone +++ To ECUSA and the churches of the Anglican Communion from the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone of America. In the Name of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ. The recent unilateral actions of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) in consecrating a bishop who is sexually active outside marriage, and the recognition of same-sex blessings have created a deeply painful and divisive situation and devastated our Christian witness. In the light of Tradition, it reveals a misinterpretation of the clear witness of God's Word and a deaf ear to the heartfelt pleas of the entire Communion. When the economically powerful church in America acts, it attracts worldwide attention; and despite repeated warnings, ECUSA's leaders have shown selfish indifference to the difficulties and confusion their actions have now brought this and other provinces. Their action is a clear departure from the moral teaching, practice and common understanding of the Anglican Communion, clearly expressed by the Lambeth Conference of 1998. Following the example of Jesus we are open to all people, but we reject as sin those acts which separate us from God and from each other. ECUSA's action has forced painful division in the Communion and is a schism of their own making. Because by its precipitous action it has fomented needless division and denied the Tradition of the Church catholic, we believe that ECUSA cannot represent the Anglican Communion in any legitimate or moral sense. As a consequence, this Province now shares only a profoundly impaired communion with ECUSA and, in faithfulness to the Word of God, we cannot accept this consecration as a valid one. Impaired communion means that we cannot share fellowship, ministry, Eucharist or gifts with those who have affirmed or participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, nor with those who perform or permit blessings of same-sex unions outside historic Christian marriage, nor with any clergy who are sexually active outside marriage. We give thanks to God for the bishops, clergy and laity of ECUSA who have stood firm against these unacceptable acts. We remain in full fellowship, ministry and Eucharistic celebration with them. At the same time we are deeply concerned about increasing reports of pressure and persecution against those who hold fast to the Scriptures and the historic faith through retributive applications of canonical and secular legal procedures. Missionaries desiring to serve in our Province must reject the erroneous decisions of ECUSA and must affirm traditional scriptural norms. It is our hope and earnest prayer that ECUSA will come to its senses, repent and turn back from its schismatic actions; but without renouncing their present position there is little hope of it. As a Province we believe institutional unity in meaningless unless it is based in the truth of the Holy Scriptures. May God have compassion on His church. END

The following sermon was delivered before several thousand orthodox Episcopalians at the recent Plano East gathering in Virginia. January 10, 2004 At the very heart of the conflict within the Episcopal Church is a single, simple question that all who believe in Jesus Christ must answer for themselves. Are the Scriptures true? Can we be assured that what we read in the Bible is true? When the original authors wrote the various portions of Scripture, did they write the truth? Are the Scriptures we read today the same as the original? Episcopalians say that we believe in the authority of the Scriptures but what does that mean? The best-selling novel, The DaVinci Code, of which there are over 4 million copies now in print, is written on the premise that our New Testament is false, that other documents prove that Jesus was, in fact, a married man and that Mary Magdalene was his wife. This is clearly not true, according to our four Gospels, but millions believe it anyway. Is the Bible true or not? I want to lay out for you two principles which help us have confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. The first has to do with the words the text of the Bible. The second has to do with our Lord Jesus own attitude toward the Scriptures. First, the text of the Bible. Each of us has available for our use several fine translations. This is the most studied, translated book of all time. But behind all these translations is the text of the New Testament in Greek, and the Old Testament mostly in Hebrew. We do not, of course, have the original documents, the autographs, but we do know that the text of the New Testament from which scholars work today is essentially exactly the same as when the words were first penned by Paul, John and the others. How do we know this? There are thousands of ancient Greek and Latin portions of the New Testament, which have been preserved since the 1st century all across the world, first in churches and monasteries and then later in libraries. We have portions, for instance, of John Gospel, that we believe go back to the very generation in which it was originally penned. The originals were written down, disseminated and copied with utmost care, and gradually spread throughout the early Church, until eventually there were hundreds and thousands of copies. While, of course, many were lost we still have an unbelievable treasure trove of early New Testament manuscripts, all of which have been studied repeatedly, compared, contrasted by textual and literary critics from all around the world. This is an exacting science. And the conclusion of their research is that the standard Greek text we now use for New Testament studies upon which our modern translations are based, is as close as it could possibly be to the original without being the original. Why is this important? It means that when we read the New Testament we are reading 99.9% exactly the same thing as first century Christians read. The words of Jesus, the words of Paul, that we read, these are the very words read by Christians in Corinth, Rome and Palestine. We hear nowadays about some New Testament scholars sitting around casting colored marbles, to decide if this or that portion of the New Testament is genuine. But friends, these are the extreme fringe of so-called biblical scholars. The great mass do not question the authenticity of the text. Oh, there are variations in the early manuscripts but no essential doctrines are impacted by these. When we turn to the Old Testament, we do not, of course, have a bulk of manuscripts coming from the centuries before Christ. In fact, until the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in a cave overlooking the Dead Sea in 1947, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had came from the 9th or 10th century A.D. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, however, showed us that our modern Hebrew Bible, passed down, copied from generation to generation, is similarly, astoundingly close to the Old Testament, which Jesus himself read. The Dead Sea scrolls contained portions of the Old Testament, from the very time of Jesus himself, and the startling sameness between them and the later manuscripts with which scholars worked until we found the Dead Sea scrolls, which were a thousand years newer, is just astonishing. They were copied and transmitted reverently with painstaking care by hand over a thousand years with virtually no changes. We can only conclude that God has wanted and willed that 21st century students be able to read what was originally penned by the biblical writers. So, when we read our Old Testament we have good reason to believe it is virtually the same as the Old Testament that Jesus himself read and taught, and when we read our New Testament, it, too, is essentially exactly the same as the original autographs. That is important. Because the text is authentic, when we read the New Testament we see what the first century followers of Christ believed and what they understood Jesus to have said and done. We see Jesus as they saw him, the unique, wonderful, powerful Son of God. When we consider the risks taken by the Apostles to proclaim these New Testament truths, we are hard-pressed to conclude anything other than this they were utterly convinced of what they taught. What they wrote, they died for, and what we read, is what they were utterly convinced of. The Jesus they present to us is the historical Jesus they knew. The only way we know Christ is through what they wrote in the New Testament. We believe that what they wrote is true this brings us to the second point. How did Jesus view the Scriptures? We look at Jesus own attitude toward the Scriptures as described in the New Testament by those who knew him best, in order to understand the authority of Scriptures for ourselves. And here is what we see first in regards to the Old Testament: Jesus was completely committed to the authority of the Old Testament, and he submitted to the Old Testament in his own personal conduct, he submitted to the Old Testament in regard to his own sense of mission and purpose, and he submitted to the Old Testament in his controversies and debates. For instance, he met each of the temptations of the devil by reminding himself of the appropriate biblical response, which addressed Satan temptations. He also seems to have come to an understanding of his own life purpose and role as Messiah from a careful study of Old Testament Scripture. He knew from his unique relationship with God and from his study that he himself was the fulfillment of both Isaiah Suffering-Servant prophesies and Daniel Son of Man statements. This, of course, enabled him to accept that he could only achieve his life purpose through the path of suffering and death, and it explains why repeatedly he made statements such as, Mark 8:31, in which he said, The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected. He must be killed and after three days rise again. He was convinced of this because Scripture said so, and he put himself under its authority. Even after the resurrection he was still of the same opinion, he said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, did not the Christ have to suffer these things, and then enter his glory? This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:26, 44). Whenever Jesus entered into controversy or debate, he continually submitted to the Old Testament as his authority. What is written in the law? he would ask. How do you read it? (Luke 10:26) Or from Mark 12: Haven't you read the Scriptures? Over and over again he criticized the religious leaders for their disrespect for Scripture. The Pharisees added to Scripture additional rules and regulations, while the Sadducees subtracted from it. Over and over again he affirmed scripture cannot be broken. In the Sermon on the Mount he said, I tell you the truth, until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter nor the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. You will not find an example of Christ ever contradicting the divine origin of Old Testament Scripture. All the evidence available affirms that Jesus Christ both assented intellectually and submitted volitionally to the authority of the Old Testament, and it is hard to believe that we, his followers, should have a lower view of it than he did. He trusted the Old Testament. He certainly believed what Paul, his apostle, taught, that, all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproach, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. Now, of course, our Lord way of endorsing the New Testament was quite different, for none of the New Testament books had yet been written during his lifetime. Clearly the Old Testament was not the final revelation of God. Some of the Old Testament law and ceremony came to an end in Jesus because he was the fulfillment of it. Much of the Old Testament teaching was incomplete and he gave us the complete meaning. He himself, Christ, was the final revelation of God, and his message and the meaning of who he is had to be communicated to future generations. There had to be an authoritative record and interpretation of who he was and what he revealed, so Jesus made provision for this very thing. How? All the records agree that, after careful thought and lengthy prayer, he chose and appointed and then went on to train and authorize the 12 Apostles to be his representatives, just as God had chosen the prophets in the Old Testament. The Apostles of Christ were, of course, a small, restricted circle, made up of the original 12, and then Matthias (who replaced Judas), Paul, James, the Lord brother, and perhaps one or two more. It important to understand the meaning of the word, apostle. It means one sent by a person who is as the person himself, a person who speaks with the authority of the person who had commissioned him. Not too long ago the Washington Post had a headline that said, Bush Vows Action. However, when you read the article, you saw that President Bush had not yet actually commented publicly on the situation, but that actually it was Scott McClellan, Bush Press Secretary, who made the statement. It is interesting that McClellan words are equated with those of the President himself. This is similar to the sense of the word apostle. Jesus chose these apostles, deliberately gave them this title, and they were to be his personal representatives endowed with his authority to speak in his name. And when he sent them out he said to them, He who receives you, receives me. These men knew the Lord personally. They had a personal call and authorization by him. They had unequaled opportunities to hear his words, to talk with him, and to see his deeds, so that they might later on bear witness to what they had seen and heard. He said to them in John 15: 27: You must testify for you have been with me from the beginning. He promised to them an extraordinary inspiration by the Holy Spirit for their tasks. We see this in the conversation recorded by St. John, in which Jesus said to the 12, All this I have spoken while still with you, but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything I have said to you. I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. When he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you in all truth. (John 14) Now, the primary application of these verses is to the Apostles who were gathered around Jesus in the upper room. Only to them could he say, All this I have spoken to you while still with you, and I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. What he promised to the 12 was this: that the Holy Spirit would remind them of the teachings he had given them, and also that he would supplement this, leading them into all the truth which they could not yet understand. The major fulfillment of these promises, of course, was in the writing of the Gospels and the Epistles in the New Testament. Now, you will point out that Paul, for instance, was not one of the original 12. He was, however, a witness of the resurrected Christ in his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road, and it seems clear that from his time spent with the Apostles and the three years he spent in Arabia, he was also guided, as he said, by revelations from Jesus Christ, which were intended to compensate him for not being with Christ during his years of public ministry. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes, I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. The other Apostles certainly recognized this as true. God demonstrated the unique calling of these Apostles through miracles that accompanied their work, and we see it by their own self-conscious awareness of apostolic authority. The apostle John, for instance, in dealing with the threat of many false teachers, used the plural of apostolic authority, saying, We are from God and whoever knows God listens to us, but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood. (I John 4:6) In other words, John readers could discern between truth and error by examining the teaching to see if it was in accordance with John himself teaching. False teachers would reveal their own error if they were not in agreement with John, while the true Christian would demonstrate his authenticity by submitting to the Apostles authority. What John taught was what Jesus had taught. The Apostles humbly recognized one another letters as inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is even the very famous passage in which the Apostle Peter refers to the letters of Paul (II Peter 3), in which he describes dear brother Paul, commenting on the wisdom given to him by God and fully equates Paul letters with Scripture itself. The early Church recognized the unique authority of the Apostles. For example, around 110 A.D., soon after the last Apostle St. John had died, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch sent letters to several of the churches in Europe and Asia Minor, and in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter 4, he wrote, I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles. I am but a condemned man. The apostolic writings were accepted as authoritative, right alongside the Old Testament. They emanated the authority of Christ and the Christians recognized them as truth. Later in the fourth century, when the Church came finally to settle which books should be included in the New Testament Canon, the test they applied was whether a book came from the Apostles, whether it was written by an Apostle or, if it was not written by an Apostle, whether it came from the circle of the Apostles and had the endorsement of their authority. This would have been true, for instance, of Luke or Mark or James. The Church in the fourth century was not conferring authority on the canonical books. It was rather simply recognizing the authority that they already possessed. The false Gospels such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, were rejected not because the church was trying to control what people believed as it implied in The DaVinci Code, but because they were obviously spurious had never been recognized as true. So according to the Apostles, Christ endorsed the authority of the Old Testament, and he made provision for the New Testament by authorizing the Apostles to teach in His name. If it is our claim to submit to the authority of Christ, we must submit to the Scriptures authority as well, and because of Jesus Christ, we submit to both the Old and the New Testaments. The ultimate issue of authority in the Church hinges on the Lordship of Christ. If He is our teacher and Lord, we are under His authority. We have no freedom to disagree with Him or disobey Him. We bow to Scripture because we bow to Him. This is not always easy. There are passages that are difficult we are not always completely certain as to what is to be taken literally or figuratively. We must read the poetry and the allegorical sections as just that. Some passages almost offend us some seem to be in contradiction with others. John Stott has a helpful observation in this regard: To accept the divine origin of the Bible is not to pretend that there are not problems. To be candid, there are many problems literary, historical, theological and moral. So what shall we do with them? Is it compatible with intellectual integrity to accept the unique authority of Scripture when so many residual problems remain? Yes, indeed it is. We need to learn to do with the problems surrounding Scripture exactly what we do with the problems surrounding any other Christian doctrine. Every Christian doctrine has its problems. No doctrine is entirely free of them. Take as an example the doctrine of the love of God. Every Christian of every conceivable hue believes that God is love. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine. To disbelieve this would be to disqualify oneself as a Christian. But the problems surrounding the doctrine are massive. What, then, do we do when someone brings us a problem touching God love, a problem of evil or of undeserved suffering, for instance? In the first place, we shall wrestle with the problem and may be granted some fresh light on it. But we are not likely to solve it altogether. So then what? Must we abandon our belief in the love of God until we have solved all the problems? No. We shall maintain our belief in the love of God, in spite of the problems, for one reason and for one reason only, namely that Jesus Christ taught it and exhibited it. That is why we believe that God is love. And the problems do not overthrow our belief. So with Scripture. Someone brings us a problem, or we stumble across one ourselves, maybe an apparent discrepancy or a question of literary criticism. What shall we do? To begin with, it is essential that we wrestle honestly with biblical problems. It is not Christian to bury our heads in the sand, pretending that no problems exist. Nor is it Christian to manipulate Scripture in order to achieve a forced, artificial harmonization. No, we work at the problems with intellectual integrity. During this process some problems, which at first seemed intractable, are satisfactorily solved. To others, however, we can see no immediate solution. So then what? Must we abandon our belief in the Word of God until we have solved all the problems? No. We shall maintain our belief in God Word, just as we maintain our belief in God love, in spite of the problems, ultimately for one reason and one reason only, namely that Jesus Christ taught it and exhibited it. It is no more obscurantist to cling to the one belief than the other. Indeed, it is not obscurantist at all. To follow Christ is always sober, humble, Christian realism. (from Understanding the Bible, Zondervan Publishing, 1999) Some passages, such as the famous section in Job where his friends give him erroneous counsel, are not intended to be taken as God wisdom. We wrestle with scripture. We devote ourselves to understanding scripture. We look to previous generations of Christians and how they understood it. But over and above all of this, scripture is our authority it is our deep, settled conviction that it is true. Therefore, we never assume we know better. We do not dare tamper with it. We love the Holy Scripture because through the words of men, God has spoken his true words to us and God word is Holy. Turn away from scripture and we turn away from Christ. Twist the Scripture towards our own ends and we become a heresy or a cult. We dare not say with one of our bishops, of the scriptures, we wrote them we can rewrite them. Or with another, what we need is a new Christianity for a new world. There is only one Christianity the Christianity of Scripture. Every generation of believers is tempted to turn away from the uncompromising, muscular demands of Jesus, from the radical doctrine of the New Testament church and to embrace the trendy ideas of the day. They do not realize they are in danger of sawing off the very branch of faith upon which they are sitting. The church has always through the ages sought to submit to scripture as God authoritative guide. Often we have erred and reformers have had to call us back and say, Sola Scriptura our tradition, our reasoning, and our experiences are fundamentally important, but in Christ and with Christ, we must renew our belief that in the Scriptures God has spoken and they are true. They are our infallible guide. Over the last two generations, our denomination has tolerated leaders and teachers who have jettisoned historic doctrines of the Church many believers have left the Church in disgust. We have stayed. Now a General Convention decision has clarified starkly for all of us that the Episcopal Church has moved even further away from scripture. 92 bishops, a devastating majority refused to endorse a resolution reaffirming Holy Scripture as the foundation of authority in our church, reaffirming the historic statements of Anglicanism concerning scripture. It is clear, we have to say, enough we can go no further. The ultimate issue is one of authority it is that of lordship of Christ. You call me teacher and Lord, he said, and rightly so. For that is what I am. We have no liberty to disobey or disagree with him. We bow to the authority and total trustworthiness of scripture because we bow to the authority of Christ. The Rev. John Yates is the rector of The Falls Church, Virginia   END

"Episcopal Church has begun a new religion" "Ecclesiastical action against me logically incomprehensible" By the Rev. Joseph P. Murphy Ph.D. January 21, 2004 To: The Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee The Rt. Rev. David Jones The Rt. Rev. Francis Gray Mayo Memorial Church House 110 W. Franklin St. Richmond, VA 23220 Dear Bishops Lee, Jones, and Gray, At the gathering of clergy you convened this past fall at Christchurch School to discuss the actions of General Convention 2003, I made clear to you all my understanding that the Episcopal Church no longer holds the teaching of the Christian Faith that it had received, thus making void the vow of ordination that I, and all Episcopal clergy, have taken. I repeated this to Bishop Lee in person later that month. That I am not alone in such an understanding is clear from Claiming Our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, USA, a paper commissioned in 2003 for the Primates of the Anglican Communion by the Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, and the Most Rev. Gregory Venables (pages 13-14). Further reflection and consideration of the action of the Episcopal Church, and the responses from Anglicans all over the world, have only deepened my conviction that the Episcopal Church of the United States of America has departed from the Christian faith in a substantial manner. By reading Scripture in such a way that its ethical imperatives no longer address personal desires where they conflict with Scripture, the Episcopal Church has now formally adopted a spirituality that is not subject to the Word of God. Without its life rooted in submission to God Who speaks, its theology and liturgy are cut off from the source of all life in the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You may view such a judgment on my part as extreme. However, if Christian disciples cannot be taught that all of our lives are to be submitted to Jesus Christ without reservation, that all of our thoughts and desires are to be brought into obedience to Him such that He alone determines what pleases Him, and that determination comes through what He has spoken to us all publicly through the writings of the Hebrew prophets, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of His apostles and their immediate disciples, then such "discipleship" as results from such restricted teaching will not know the freedom for which we have been created. It is not worthy of the name Christian. Truly, by formally relaxing the demands of discipleship on the entire self, the Episcopal Church has begun a new religion, one in which we determine what is necessary to please God. Of course, that determination rests in what pleases the majority of us, reducing our grasp of He Who is wholly Other than us to our political consensus about Him. Rather than ruling over us, He is effectively tamed. It is the call of Jesus to lay down one's life for Him, or lose it. To reduce His call for radical discipleship at the level of the thoughts, desires, and intentions of our hearts to merely bearing with one another's "opinions" as if the Church were merely a body politic, is to not only misconstrue the nature of the Church, but to fail to hear Jesus' call to discipleship at all at the level where His cross—which differentiates Christianity from all other spiritual ways—becomes evident, that of personal obedience to Him where our desires run contrary. The issue at hand is not merely a social issue, or even an ethical issue. It is a question of the gospel itself, and of the reality of the acts of God in the life of humanity—since words are acts. It is a matter of the differing ways we read scripture, but that is of the most profound importance, as that reading instantiates, brings into being, who we are. God's Word is alive, as are those who submit their hearts to Him through it. The Episcopal Church has chosen to deny His words by granting itself the right to read them in such a way that they do not address our sinful condition. What is left is a message, a "gospel," indistinguishable from the ways of the world, and frankly, better served by abandoning the vestiges of Scripture and tradition that can be retained under its new understanding. Cut off from its power to address the sinful self as God has chosen to, Scripture as contextualized in the new ethos of the Episcopal Church is no longer the Word of God, no longer the conduit for His Life that our Anglican tradition affirms. I applaud the efforts of the American Anglican Council, and look forward to the day when a single Anglican Church will faithfully serve our Lord here in the United States. Until then, however, due to the actions of the Episcopal Church, I find the conclusion inescapable that violating Anglican order in some way is a necessity if Episcopalians are to remain obedient to the Lord. In my observation, the ethos of the Episcopal Church in large part is ignorant of, and resistant to the teachings of Scripture, evidencing processes long under way and only brought to fruition in the decisions of 2003. While many congregations demonstrate exception to this observation, so many do not that I am convinced that the Church cannot reform itself. As I mentioned to all of you prior to the General Convention while urging you to help avoid the current crisis, the Episcopal Church is now in so many ways akin to the Donatist Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, that I believe its only hope is intervention from the wider Anglican Church as that Church's salvation came from the universal Church. Consequently, to remain faithful to my ordination vow to serve as a presbyter in the Church of Jesus Christ proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, I hereby submit myself to the Anglican Province of Rwanda in the Anglican Mission in America. I do so in order to fulfill my ordination vow, maintaining my desire to serve the Lord in the Anglican Communion as it has historically existed as catholic and evangelical, proclaiming Christ in both Word and Sacrament. Further, since the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda on September 5, 2003 declared that "the Episcopal Church, USA has departed from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as the Church has received them," and that "by these actions the Episcopal Church, USA has placed itself out of communion with other member of the worldwide Anglican Communion" by this letter I do hereby declare that any action taken against me as a presbyter under authority of Title IV Canon 10 of the Constitutions & Canons of the Episcopal Church of 2000, as revised by the General Convention of 2003, by the Diocese of Virginia (1) to be legally and logically incomprehensible given the loss of status in the Anglican Communion of the Episcopal Church which is assumed in Title IV Canon 10, and (2) to be null and void in the Anglican Communion by virtue of the Episcopal Church's loss of its communion with other Anglican Communion churches. It is my understanding that by this action I remain a presbyter in the Anglican Communion, whereas by my remaining in the Diocese of Virginia of the Episcopal Church, I would not. By my stating what I deem to be the truth in regard to the Episcopal Church as it now stands, I imply nothing in regard to yourselves or any other clergy or members of the Episcopal Church. We each answer to our Lord alone. However, I urge you and all Episcopalians, by the mercies of our Lord, to give ear to His voice anew. Sincerely yours in Jesus Christ, The Rev. Joseph P. Murphy, Ph.D. Formerly rector of St. Mary's - Fleeton, Reedville, VA   END

Reformation Anglicans see salvation is wholly of God from beginning to end     By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org October 21, 2025   Jacobus Arminius, Dutch pastor and theologian, died October 19, 1609. But Arminianism is alive and well in today’s church. This is especially true of American evangelicalism where Christians demand the freedom to pick and choose the elements of our personal creeds, and where we teach our children that they have unlimited potential if they will just have faith. But Anglicans are not Arminian: not if we are the least bit honest about the anchors of the Edwardian and Elizabethan formularies (the Homilies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer). Not if we are the least bit faithful to how we have described this church since the 16th century. And yet, the message of free will and I-have-decided-to-follow-Jesus Christianity fills the pulpits and pews of Anglican churches across the country. It sometimes seems that the kudzu takeover of altar call evangelicalism is nearly complete, and the collateral damage is a diminished view of God’s role in salvation.     I’ve searched for ways to explain how the Church of England started with a firm commitment to the Reformation (Luther on faith and grace, and Calvin before Calvinism on the sacraments: the obvious message of the Anglican formularies), and then suddenly turned after Edward VI, Elizabeth I, and James 1 to Arminianism (often called “Pelagian” at the time: see Article IX). By 1630s-40s the church turned anti-Calvinist and has remained predominately that ever since. I wonder why and how we have become so disconnected from our Calvinistic formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles, the Homilies, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer). And, further, what explains the shift from the high christology of salvation by grace through faith alone, to the high anthropology (moralism) of Laud, Hammond, and Taylor just a hundred years after the English Reformation - that manifested itself in high churchmanship - morphed into the holiness movement of John Wesley - and then on to modern expressions of Arminianism that are found in forms of pietism, mysticism, and the spiritual disciplines movement? And doesn’t this explain modern new invented definitions of Anglicanism, such as tractarianism, theological progressivism, loyalty to Canterbury and the Instruments of Unity, and “three-streams” that have captured the imaginations of Anglicans? The bedrock theological question that underlies all is this: Is Jesus the Savior of all who choose to choose him, or is our eternal destiny predestined, individual, and absolute from “before the foundations of the world were laid” (Article XVII)?     The psychology of Arminianism (decisionism, revivalism, moralism, progressivism, and a generally sunnier outlook on human capacity) appeals to the base instincts of human nature. On some level we all love the idea that performance and self-righteous advancements contribute to our salvation. This love affair has its earlier expression in fifth-century Pelagianism and the semi-pelagianism of the Medieval Catholic Church. But as a brand, Arminianism was born in Holland at the turn of the 17th century in reaction against Calvinism. It was repudiated by the reformed world, including the Church of England at the Council of Dort (1618), but it obviously lives on today.     Arminians and Calvinists both believe in predestination; they have to because the Bible teaches it! Arminians teach that predestination is corporate and not individual (Israel and the new Israel, the church). Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that “predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor” (Article XVII). J. I. Packer said that “Arminians praise God for providing a Savior to whom all may come for life; Calvinists do that too, and then go on to praise God for actually bringing them to the Savior’s feet.     Reformation Anglicans don’t believe that God’s love stops at the point of politely inviting, but that God takes the additional gracious action to ensure that the elect respond in faith, repentance, and then obedience. Jesus said, “No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44). Arminians say that personal faith is the ground of justification; evangelical Anglicans say that justification is the ground of our faith.     Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in God’s righteousness for salvation - they have to because it’s in the Bible! Arminians believe that Christ’s death and atonement made salvation possible “for all who will receive him,” and that God’s righteousness (his grace) is distributed incrementally over time so that we will become acceptable to the groom as his bride. High Church Arminians came to believe, as Roman Catholics do, that this infused righteousness is automatically delivered in the sacraments. Reformation Anglicans also share the belief that it is God’s righteousness that saves, but they see it as God’s very own righteousness that is imputed to undeserving sinners - the robe of God’s righteousness, his garment of salvation so completely covering our unrighteousness that God sees us forever as the righteousness of God (Isa 61). Each Sunday we pray: “We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies…”     Since Arminians focus on our personal decision for Christ (that awful song, “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus”), they have a very different view of assurance and heavenly security than do Reformation Anglicans. They are in and out of grace depending on their faithfulness to trust in God for salvation (that horrible song, “Trust and Obey”). This “led inevitably to a new legalism of which the key thought was that the exerting of steady moral effort now is the way to salvation hereafter” (Packer). On the other hand, Reformation Anglicans believe that eternal security is about God’s faithfulness, not ours, and since God and his promises are absolutely trustworthy, we can have absolute assurance: “For I am convinced . . .” “And I am sure of this . . .” (Rom 8:38-39; Phil 1:6).     William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury under King Charles I, helped kick the door open to Arminianism and all its iterations and complications, including the high church movement. He gave the preferred episcopal positions to Arminian cronies. Under his leadership, worship in the Church of England was embellished with ceremonial and ritual that, for theological reasons, was not permitted in England after the Reformation. Laudians brought back altars to replace communion tables and pulpits in liturgical importance, and Holy Communion became a priority over the preached word, rather than the balance of Word and sacrament. Laud famously said, “in all ages of the Church the touchstone of religion was not to hear the word preached but to communicate” [receive Holy Communion], even though St. Paul said much the opposite (Rom 10:14-17).     The battle continues today. It’s evident in the “Yeah, but . . .” way some Anglicans respond to the formularies. And it is evident in the manipulated commentaries on the Articles of Religion, many of them written to justify preexisting theological preferences rather than “taken in their literal and grammatical sense” (as we say in ACNA’s Constitution and Canons). What is at stake is our core Anglican identity, but more importantly, the glory and sovereignty of God. Either we are capable of reaching up to God in our own choosing and we need a good coach, or we are dead in our trespasses and sins and we need a Savior who has defeated death and who has power to bring dead people back to life. Either the responsibility falls on us to raise our hand with all heads bowed and eyes closed, or God chose us from before the foundations of the world to be his children. Reformation Anglicans see that salvation is wholly of God from beginning to the end - a free gift of sovereign mercy for people who don’t deserve it, who haven’t done enough to earned it, and who would never have eternal life had God not supplied what is needed in the life, death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.     I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew He moved my soul to seek him, seeking me; It was not I that found, O Savior true, No, I was found of thee.   Thou didst reach forth thy hand and mine enfold; I walked and sank not on the storm-vexed sea,— 'Twas not so much that I on thee took hold, As thou, dear Lord, on me.   I find, I walk, I love, but, O the whole Of love is but my answer, Lord, to thee; For thou wert long beforehand with my soul, Always thou lovedst me.   END

Religion Media Centre October 20, 2025   A number of clergy in the Church of England are resisting a decision by the House of Bishops which put the brakes on moves to allow stand-alone services for same-sex blessings and to allow clergy to be in same-sex marriages.   Canon Simon Butler, an influential vicar in “Inclusive Evangelicals”, says the Canons of the Church of England do, in fact, permit stand-alone services. He has officiated at two in his church, Holy Trinity & St Mary’s, Guildford, and has used Prayers of Love and Faith, saying “They have been simple occasions of quiet joy”.   Writing for the organisation’s website, he says that in granting his licence, the bishop gave him “the liberty to exercise my ministry within the bounds of the doctrine and Canons of the Church of England”, and he quotes Canon B5 saying ministers have discretion to use forms of service for occasions “for which no provision is made”.   Separately, the Rev Dr Charlie Bavzyk-Bell and Canon Giles Fraser also said they would perform stand-alone services of blessing. In his article, Canon Butler said the bishops’ decision was “deeply disillusioning” and “an illegitimate piece of overreach .. that clergy are at liberty to ignore”.  He warned: “It would be an illegitimate use of episcopal power, if not a matter of discipline, for a bishop to threaten those who do with any repercussions. It is time to challenge the bishops here, especially as they have so clearly buckled to the threats and deep pockets of The Alliance.” This is a reference to churches opposed to same-sex relationships who formed “The Alliance”, saying they would withdraw funds if the measure went through, requiring another set of bishops in agreement with them and separate ordination training.   The Church Times reports that The Alliance has called for a day of action on 1 December, for clergy and PCCs to contact their bishop saying they will withdraw from CofE structures if stand alone same-sex blessing services or married gay clergy are allowed.   END

Conservative Episcopalians Launch Faction By RICHARD N. OSTLING  AP Religion Writer January 21, 2004 PLANO, Texas -- Episcopal conservatives who are bitterly opposed to same-sex blessings and the ordination of gay clergy launched a new, nationwide organization that plans to defy church leaders and may well wrestle with them for control of parishes and dioceses. Rather than a schism or breakaway, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes vows to fight Episcopal Church actions it says "departed from the historic faith and order and have brought immense harm." "This has been, for us, a glorious and historic day," said Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, elected as network leader Tuesday after delegates gave a governing charter unanimous approval. Under the charter, the network's core will be the 12 dioceses in nine states that sent delegates to a meeting at a suburban Dallas church. They must now return home and ask for formal diocesan approval to join the network. These dioceses include roughly one-tenth of the Episcopal Church's membership of 2.3 million, though some parishioners in those dioceses will undoubtedly oppose the new group. Network leaders contend they're not leaving the Episcopal Church but the church left them when it began allowing gay clergy and blessings for same-sex couples. November's consecration of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire brought the situation to a crisis point. Robinson was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman Mike Barwell said. Daniel England, a national church spokesman, said the network "would be a lot more troubling if their numbers were stronger." The network has characterized the new group as a "church within a church" and talk of schism was downplayed during the two-day meeting in suburban Dallas. One reason is that parishes would likely be forced to surrender their properties to the denomination if they leave. The most ticklish aspect of the network is conservative parishes within liberal dioceses. Each member parish will be placed "under the spiritual authority of a bishop" approved by the network's 13-member steering committee -- a direct challenge to the Episcopal Church system of leadership. Though the meeting made no decision, some activists also want the network to have outside bishops directly lead conservative congregations in liberal dioceses upon request, even against the wishes of the resident bishop, which would violate church law. "I don't think most Episcopalians, committed to a system centered on the authority of diocesan bishops, are going to put up with that kind of behavior very long," England said. "It goes to the heart of what it means to be an Episcopal Church." However, the network says it will "operate in good faith within the constitution of the Episcopal Church" as "a true and legitimate expression of the worldwide Anglican Communion." Delegates who approved the charter were sent by dioceses based in Albany, N.Y.; Pittsburgh; Charleston, S.C.; Jacksonville and Orlando, Fla.; Peoria and Springfield, Ill.; Salina, Kan.; Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas; Albuquerque, N.M.; and Fresno, Calif. Together, they represent churches with a combined 235,000 members. The network hopes to add some of the 31 other dioceses whose head bishops voted against Robinson's elevation. The network will create five geographical districts -- New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern, Mid-Continental and Western -- and one non-geographical district. The meeting discussed writing a doctrinal platform but lacked the time to do that in Plano, and delegates acknowledged they disagree about whether women should be ordained. Anglicanism is a global body of churches stemming from the Church of England and the Episcopal Church is its U.S. branch. A wide majority of overseas Anglican leaders insist on the traditional Christian teaching against same-sex activity, but that's a minority view among U.S. Episcopal leaders. The network wants to get recognition -- and greater legitimacy -- from those overseas Anglican leaders. Due to the U.S. dispute and another over same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church of Canada, the world Anglican leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, appointed a crisis committee to propose solutions by Sept. 30. END