Archives

Women could be barred from becoming Archbishops, and may not even be allowed to run dioceses, under official plans to consecrate them as bishops. An unpublished Church of England report will suggest the reform may be acceptable to conservatives only if women are merely allowed to climb on to the first rung of the ladder by becoming "junior" bishops. The proposal will spark fury among campaigners for women clergy, who will regard it as a fresh example of the "stained glass ceiling" they face in the male-dominated Church. Hard-line traditionalists will also be unimpressed with the compromise, though many in the Church's powerful evangelical wing may find it attractive. With a General Synod debate likely in the autumn, the row threatens to engulf the Church 10 years after the ordination of women provoked one of the greatest crises in its 450-year history. Though it is not expected to be as bitter as that over women priests, it comes as the worldwide Church tears itself apart over the issue of homosexuality. The confidential draft report, drawn up by a working party chaired by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, will set out the options if the Church decides to consecrate women. As the Telegraph disclosed last month, one possibility is to split the Church, one half with female clergy and one without. At the other extreme, all posts could be opened to women without the conservatives receiving any protection, risking another damaging exodus of traditionalist clergy. But the draft report also proposes a number of options designed to placate those who are not fundamentally opposed to the reform but who nevertheless have serious qualms. Under one, women could be given one of the 43 diocesan bishoprics but not that of the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. This might be enough to persuade moderate pro-women campaigners that they have got almost all they want. It might also satisfy conservative evangelicals worried about "headship", the belief that the Bible, particularly St Paul, bars women from roles in which they are in authority over men. The issue is expected to be debated by the Synod next November or February, after the report, which has taken three years to complete, has been finally approved by the House of Bishops. If approved, legislation will be drawn up to allow women bishops, and the first consecrations could take place within five years.

By Rev. Bill Dickson Ash Wednesday, 2004 Rev. R. William Dickson St. John the Divine, Houston, TX Introduction: There's a quip about public speaking which I have always found quite startling and provocative. It goes this way – "The first thing an inexperienced novice speaker does upon being invited to speak somewhere is to inquire about the topic –"What is it I am to talk about?"; but the first thing a really expert speaker asks is 'Who is my audience?" It is simply impossible to communicate effectively without giving some serious consideration to the matter of your audience. You dare not address a group of fourth graders as you would a group of mature adults. It would be quite wrong-headed to address a gathering of scholars the same way you would speak to a group of blue-collar workers. You cannot communicate effectively without considering your audience. I doubt that anyone who has ever spoken publicly or anyone who has ever thought carefully about the task would dispute it. It is certainly true. But I wonder if we have given adequate consideration to the critical importance of the audience of our lives. Before whom are we really living our lives? Who is the true audience before whom our time on the stage of life is performed? In our gospel text for today Jesus suggests there are but two options, and only one is acceptable to those who would be his disciples. But before we consider Jesus' teaching about the true audience of the life of a disciple, we must consider the apparent contradiction between our gospel text and a few verses which occurred just moments earlier in this very same sermon of Jesus – his famous sermon on the Mount. Doesn't it just drive you nuts when you're listening closely to your preacher and he or she says one thing at one point in the sermon and then at another point in the same sermon seems to directly contradict the earlier point? Which is it? Is it this or that? Is it yes or no? Has Jesus truly contradicted Himself? Moments earlier, those listening to this remarkable exploration of life in the kingdom heard Jesus say this, 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. So one question we must ask and answer immediately is this – Is it good or is it bad for our good works to be seen by men? And from the verses in chapter 5, verse 16 in particular – "16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."... we simply have to conclude that it is good for our good works to be seen by men. In fact, rendering our good works entirely invisible before the world is about as misdirected as lighting a lamp and then immediately placing it under a bushel. We cannot conclude that Jesus' meaning is that a truly Christian piety is an invisible piety, completely hidden away from the sight of others. And yet, we want to take his other language seriously too. So what could it mean when he states, 1 "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. If we have ruled out the possibility that Jesus is commending an entirely invisible piety, then we are left with no other possibility than to see a problem in the intended result of a certain self-consciously, deliberately public piety, a piety we might call "theatrical piety." The problem is not in our piety being seen by men, rather the problem is in intentionally doing those pious things in order to be seen by men. Are we speaking in riddles, or does this in fact make sense? It seems to me Jesus is telling those of us who wish to follow as his disciples and live within the power and values of the kingdom of God even now, even right here, right now -- that we need to think of our lives as lived before an audience of one – God alone. But lives lived with that kind of intentionality, that kind of sharply focused vision, will be lives which cannot help but shine out brightly in a dark and godless culture desperate for some light. To whom are we answerable? To whom must we ultimately give an account? Who is it that we truly serve? There is but one answer if we would be followers of Jesus – "It is the Lord and the Lord alone whom we serve." And to live otherwise is to invite a certain spiritual vertigo into our souls. Elab. Some of you know, many of you don't that my wife, Ginger, has been sick recently. She has had a viral infection of the throat, sinuses and ears which has made it hard for her to stand up. She has been profoundly debilitated now for several days with a horrible sense of the world teetering and tottering unpredictably this way and that. She has been experiencing intense vertigo. She did the only reasonable thing, she went to the doctor. She paid Dick Stassney a visit. Dr. Stassney of course treated Ginger very thoroughly, very carefully and as she was leaving gave her a little booklet entitled "Dizziness or Vertigo? Understanding Balance Problems." Right here on the front you see a picture of a man experiencing dizziness or vertigo, and interestingly there is a picture of a little gyro-scope within his head. Apparently his inner ear, our biological gyro-scope is malfunctioning. Well we have a spiritual gyro-scope too. And we can make it malfunction if we forget before whom we are really living our lives. Os Guinness, in his wonderful book The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life, in the chapter entitled "The Audience of One" says this about our spiritual gyro-scope, "The Puritans lived as if they had swallowed gyroscopes; we modern Christians live as if we have swallowed Gallup polls. Or as Martin Luther King wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "in those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society." Leaders or panderers? Gyroscope or Gallup poll? Thermostat or thermometer? Only those who practice the presence of the Audience of One can hope to attain the former and escape the latter." Conclusion: In moments, most of you will come forward to receive the imposition of ashes. A few of you will opt out, and that is perfectly fine, a perfectly proper thing to do if for any reason that is your preference. But for those receiving ashes upon the head, in fact, even those remaining seated and observing others receiving the mark of the cross upon the head, I wish to present before your imagination a challenge, a vision, an image of what we should be doing. Perhaps you and I must confess that we have not been entirely single-hearted in our view of our lives and the proper audience of our lives. Perhaps we have allowed from time to time the clamoring voices of the world and its countless special interest lobby groups to confuse us about our real audience. Our spiritual gyroscope has quit functioning rightly. As that cross is being marked upon our heads, let us pray to God that our spiritual gyroscopes planted deep within our hearts might be set right again. We would be God-pleasers, rather than men-pleasers. We would be those who acknowledge but One God, but one audience of our lives. We would be those so enthralled with a vision of our Lord and God that "Before others we have nothing to prove, nothing to gain, nothing whatsoever to lose." God, let it be so! Amen.

By Dietrich Bonhoeffer Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods... Costly grace is the Gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it costs God the life of His Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God. Costly grace is the sanctuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs... — Dietrich Bonhoeffer (February 4, 1906-April 9, 1945)

"It is sometimes said that conduct is supremely important, and worship helps it. The truth is that worship is supremely important, and conduct tests it." Archbishop William Temple Dear Brothers and Sisters, If there is one lesson the revisionists have learned and learned well it is that if they win the bishoprics they not only control the direction of the church, they have the majority vote in the House of Bishops and who will eventually succeed Frank Griswold. They also know that a revisionist bishop can control who comes into the diocese, beat up on faithful Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who disagree with them on the 'faith once delivered', control the money flow to 815 to keep the national church's agenda alive, intimidate faithful rectors and much more. They also know that the bishop is capable of ripping up parishes if need be, deposing the rector and turn a once thriving parish into a mission. Just ask the folk in Versailles, Kentucky. The revisionists will do whatever it takes to win. They will employ every sleazy tactic in the book to get their man or woman elected. Consider what they did in the Diocese of North Dakota, Rio Grande, Colorado and more. The worst case is currently going in the diocese of the Rio Grande, where the godly Terence Kelshaw retires in 2005 and a single revisionist priest got hold of the entire diocesan mailing list and used it to promote his revisionist cause. So the lesson is this. First of all control the process. Make sure that the Search Committee chosen to investigate the candidates has several homosexual or pansexual believers on it. Then make sure that every candidate answers a question or two about the limits (or non-limits) of inclusivity, diversity and the usual buzzwords about sexual orientation, support of 815, abiding by the canons and constitutions etc. and then weed out any orthodox contenders. Then make sure that whoever is elected, and it really doesn't matter at this point if he or she believes in the creeds or 39 Articles, prays regularly, reads the Bible regularly, if at all, but will they make the appropriate noises about God's promiscuous love for all peoples between whatever sheets are available at the moment, preferably Versace, as he had pretty good idea about the non-limits of homoerotic behavior. The most important thing is learning how to dress up, put on a good show when you go visiting a local parish, mouth platitudes, pat a few heads, baptize and confirm a few adults (while still remaining dressed up), sit in a fancy chair and look good. Whatever you do don't say too much if the congregation just happens to know what the Bible teaches, but breathe the air of inclusivity and God's promiscuous love for all peoples, and tell the rector (privately) that if he doesn't cough up more money to keep the diocese afloat he will remove him. Do it all with a smile, and then leave in your limousine. The rector tells the vestry what the bishop just told him and everyone goes into a slump. Usually at this point the weakest members of the vestry think the best thing to do is not to upset the bishop and to give him/'her what she wants and then ignore him/her for three years and hope he/she won't show up again or beat up on the rector. But there is one thing revisionist bishops cannot control - the departure of faithful Episcopalians to other jurisdictions. When they see that happening, they make public statements about how "sad" and "disappointed" they feel but inwardly they are seething with rage. The bishop has just deposed a "wicked" (read orthodox) priest because he "betrayed" the bishop, defied the canons and took most of the congregation to newer pastures. The bishop knows that those who departed were the big givers and now he must put the screws to the remaining priests and dig into his Trust Funds to keep the party line going. But Episcopalians are in decline and like ancient Rome; they are falling from within. Too much in fighting and this is effecting the population. Episcopalians just don't have children like they used too. It's not dignified! The position is ridiculous and the pleasure fleeting! AS AN INDICATION OF HOW BAD THINGS ARE THERE COMES THIS from Waxahachie, Texas: "Our parish is small -- about 150 to 200 souls, but our per capita pledging has led the diocese (no real surprise there; small bodies often have less "dead wood"). We were 'really ginnin' with new building construction last year. Since Robinson, however, I have noticed a dramatic drop off in attendance, we're losing families -- some who are saying so -- who have been with the parish for 20 years or more. And I notice the deficit on the financials posted in the parish hall are growing steadily month by month. Our building program was based on the idea that our parish would HAVE to grow numerically to discharge the debt. We got into the new building on Christmas Day, 2002. Believe me, on the back side of Robinson's consecration, any prospects for growth in this part of the world have evaporated." Perhaps Bishop Don Wimberly can make them a loan from diocesan funds. It's the least he can do to keep the bank from foreclosing on the buildings. Revisionists take note. This is not untypical. BUT NOT TO BE OUTDONE, some thirteen groups of Episcopalians who disagree with conservatives opposing the Episcopal Church's acceptance of gay clergy and same-sex unions will hold their first national meeting in Atlanta next month. Organizers say they expect about 40 people from the groups plus three members of the national church's executive council to attend. The executive council members will observe, but not participate in, programs or panels during the gathering March 25th to March 27th. Virtuosity will apply to attend and will give you an insiders look at what is going on. They have two options: triumphalism or despair. Take your pick. BUT 815, THE CHURCH'S NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS IS ALREADY INTO damage control. Dan England, the Episcopal Church's communications director and foremost spinmeister has come out with a statement saying "some people seem to want to start a war, but we're not going to show up." Really. Virtuosity takes a hard look at that incredibly stupid statement. Saying there is no war going on is like saying the Holocaust never happened. AND AT THE DIOCESE OF TEXAS CONVENTION reported on in the last digest, Lyn Reavis writes, "your comments on the Diocese of Texas and Don Wimberly (aka Wimperly) are accurate. Although not a delegate, I was there to man the Scouting booth at the convention. Within eyesight of integrity's "hate free zone", I had more priests and delegates visit with us than in many previous conventions. What you did not report was Asst. Bishop of Austin (TX) comments at the opening services asking the "conservatives not to play god" at the convention. At that point several delegations and their clergy walked out of the opening service. They left rather than be at the same table with DoT's new revisionist bishops." Reavis said that fear of electing a revisionist executive board and standing committee members kept them [the orthodox] in the meeting. AND IN THE DIOCESE OF OHIO comes this from a reader. "The Rev. Zev Rosenberg resigned as rector of St. Paul's, Canton effective February 14. He's returning to Judaism and to their seminary. But he'll stay on at the parish until AFTER Passover Week." This raises the question as to why this man who now no longer believes in the Lord of the Passover is allowed to perform sacramentally during this sacred season now that he has dumped the Christian Faith! Why didn't the bishop act to remove him? FROM THE DIOCESE OF WEST TEXAS sources tell Virtuosity that Frank Griswold invited himself to the consecration of Gary Lillibridge, and it was the reason Ugandan Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi decided not to go. IT WILL COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT V. GENE ROBISON SUPPORTS GAY marriages in the State of Massachusetts. But in an article "Same-Sex Union Controversy Moves Into New Hampshire" a Times Staff Writer quotes Robinson as saying that same-sex marriage "poses no threat to the freedom of religious bodies in this state." The article then refers to Robinson as "the head of the Episcopal Church in North America." He may wish he was, but Frank Griswold has not relinquished the title. Said Robinson, "Isn't it a shame that some religious people are actually working against those who would pledge fidelity and love" in same-sex unions?" LAMBETH COMMISSION MOVES TO SECOND STAGE. Following the first meeting of the Lambeth Commission (the new name for the Archbishop's/Eames Commission) on Anglican Life at Windsor, the Commission has re-focussed it's agenda to move forward in its discussion of the issues arising from the actions taken by New Hampshire and New Westminster dioceses. IN TODAY'S STORIES, you can read the positive upbeat story FAITH ALIVE! A story like this gives one hope that all is not lost despite the spiritual carnage going on at the present time. There are more stories from dioceses like West Texas and Central New York. A story out of England, "The Significance of Bisexuality - shedding light on the nature/nurture debate" by Peter May raises questions about the significance of bisexuality. It highlights, for instance, that Ancient Greek & Roman cultures did not have gay/straight terminology in their language. They viewed people as being simply 'sexual', expressing their sexuality in a variety of different ways. The language of preference, of learned behaviour patterns and addiction makes much more sense of the observed realities of sexual behaviour than talk about orientation. An excellent read. The Mel Gibson movie THE PASSION has provoked a storm of criticism as it heads into theaters today. But of the some 40 articles this writer has read, none has touched on the truly sensitive statement uttered by the mob, "His blood be upon us and upon our children." Virtuosity commissioned the Rev. Dr. Joseph Murphy an Episcopal theologian living near Chicago and teaching at Wheaton College, Illinois to take a long, hard look at that verse in Matthew's gospel. What he has written is a sound piece of scholarship, thoughtful and compassionate that we can all take to heart. A NEW COLUMNIST JOINS THE RANKS OF VIRTUOSITY TODAY. Dr. Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. is professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport and who serves on the vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. She is a frequent guest lecturer on topics related to church history and Reformation studies, and is a member of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference. Her major fields of study and research are early Anglicanism and historical catholicity. We are delighted to have her on board and you can look forward to regular columns from the pen of Dr. White. WELCOME. ONE MILLION HITS. Later this week Virtuosity's website will cross a threshold. The One Millionth hit will occur and if you are that person please drop me a line and I will send you a Virtuosity Coffee Mug. IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO JOIN VIRTUOSITY AND INVITE YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN. Don't let the revisionists spin the news. Learn the truth. Read Virtuosity. Go to the website www.virtuosityonline.org and read what is REALLY going on. And if you would like to support this ministry with a tax-deductible donation that would certainly enhance this ministry and help it to spread around the globe. You can make a donation at PAYPAL at the website or send a snail mail check to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380. Thank you for your support. VIRTUOSITY is read in 45 countries on six continents. Send a story to a friend that you have read and tell them where you go it from. Invite them to join. The voice of Global orthodox Anglicanism is FREE. Like grace, you just have to ask for it. All Blessings, David W. Virtue DD

By the Rev. Dr. Joseph Murphy In Mel Gibson's new film, The Passion of the Christ, the Aramaic text of the account from the Gospel of Matthew is provided in English subtitles, except for Matthew 27:25. That verse is not included because of the potential for misunderstanding given the history of Jewish-Christian relations. The passage reads, "And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"(NASV). In one sense, its meaning is simple enough. Using a common biblical idiom, the crowd was taking responsibility for the execution of Jesus, just as a jury and a judge today take responsibility for the execution of a criminal guilty of capital offense. It is no trivial matter, in either case. What compounds the problem, of course, is that Jesus was no ordinary criminal; in fact, no ordinary man, and no criminal at all. At least, that is what we Christians believe. What's more, we believe it passionately, because the message of salvation through Christ goes deeper in us than any passion we have. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," Jesus said (John 8:32). His hearers, "the Jews" according to the Gospel of John, were incredulous at this statement, because they did not consider themselves anyone's slaves. Indeed, they were not. From the days of Judas Maccabeus, the Jews were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, a people most difficult to force into subjection. Freedom is dear to the heart of the Jews. It is part of their heritage. The freedom Jesus spoke of, though, was freedom from sin, freedom to live before God without being controlled by our passions, our hatreds, our vices--an inner freedom in and of the Spirit of God allowing us to love and serve others. In Jesus' ministry recounted in the four Gospels, we see again and again Jesus being misunderstood and the conflict it caused, as He spoke about a kingdom which is not of this world, in the midst of a kingdom very much in this world, which was very disagreeably held under the cruel thumb of Rome. In the account of Jesus' Passion, we see it come to a head as He stands before Pilate, the Roman ruler of the Jewish state whose ignorance of Jesus' true Kingship is complete, though he acts in effect as Jesus' judge. It is Pilate's authority that executes Jesus, since the Jews had no authority to do so apart from Rome. Who then is "all the people" who, in effect, comprise the jury that takes the responsibility for Pilate to kill Jesus? Through the history of the Church, it has been interpreted variously as being all the Jews at all times since that day, all the Jews alive at the time of Christ's death except those who believed, or all of that generation of Jews except those who believed in Jesus, since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Rome would have fulfilled the reference to Jesus' blood coming upon "our children," the following generation. In the limited context of the meaning of Matthew's Gospel, the latter is probable: only those people capable of hearing and responding to Jesus during His life and ministry. But in the context of the entire message of the New Testament, to identify who is responsible for Jesus' death, the question we must first answer is, who speaks for us when we are identified corporately? Identity politics is the order of the day in these postmodern times. The Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf in Exclusion & Embrace describes the particularities of our human identity and the resulting differences between us, behind the current global problems of race, ethnicity, and culture, which are "tribal realities" brought to the foreground by the new global economy and technology. The question of who speaks for "us," as we are so identified, is, therefore, of the greatest importance. If you are "white," or "Christian," did Hitler speak for you? The question is germane, since it is exactly this kind of authority to speak for "all" by perpetrators of evil that is brought into question by Matthew's passage. Did those people there present at the crucifixion speak for all Jews when they took responsibility for Pilate to execute? It is the attribution of the murder of Jesus to "all the Jews" by Christians historically that has rightly concerned many Jews today in respect to Mel Gibson's movie. They fear fresh anti-Semitism, and history shows their fears to be rational. Hitler's unspeakable atrocities came at the end of centuries of mistreatment of the Jews in Christian Europe. Christians today who dismiss those fears do not serve the Jewish community well. And, for the Church now finally shorn of the corrupting power of rulership in this world, the only thing that demonstrates the love of Christ our King, if we listen to Jesus at the time of His Passion (John 13:1-17) and follow Him, is humble service. Had the Church been serving the Jewish community in the freedom of Christ all these years, refusing to do violence to them and seeking their well-being, we would hear no such fears expressed today. At one time, in the days of Jesus and His disciples, it was possible for believers in Christ, Jew or Gentile, and Jewish non-believers in Christ to discuss and argue the truth of Jesus' claims. Now, we have two thousand years of the Church's failure to act like Jesus toward the Jews that horribly complicates the relationship. We Christians must ask ourselves, who has the right to speak for us? The only credible person who claims the right to speak for us all, the Pope, is specifically not granted that right by all of us! How is it that those Jewish persons at the crucifixion had the right to speak for all Jews everywhere then and since? Some people might reply that the New Testament assigns the blame--that God has spoken through Matthew so that the Jews are all to blame. Without questioning that God has spoken through Matthew, we can and must ask if we have understood the New Testament correctly if we hear it assign blame to the Jewish people as a whole. The concept of corporate identity is not a postmodern phenomena, despite our preoccupation with it today in social politics. It is evident in the Hebrew Bible in the writings of the Jewish prophets, and particularly in the writings of Isaiah, which were of primary importance to the early Jewish Christians in arguing the claims of the Messiah Jesus to their fellow Jews (e.g. Acts 8:26-39). Isaiah describes the Servant of the Lord in chapters 40 to 53 of that book in a way that accentuates the corporate identity of Israel. Sometimes, the Servant is clearly the people of Israel. Sometimes, however, the Servant is an individual, but as an individual standing for the whole people, in the unity of their corporate identity. This is presented as God's work, not a definition of unity that we impose upon Israel. The suffering of Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and graphically portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, is the suffering of the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah chapter 53. Jesus' fellow Jew and disciple Peter refers to that chapter in describing Jesus' suffering: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed (I Peter 2:24)." Jesus died for us. This death for us is at the heart of the gospel, because Jesus died in our place, so that our sins were nailed to His cross. This makes the gospel the proclamation of a truth that brings inner freedom in a life of loving service to God, because we are freed from both the power of sin and from the fear of death—the greatest power that can be wielded against us in this world. But, isn't that what we heard Jesus say to His Jewish hearers, that the truth would set them free? Was Jesus Himself, then, being anti-Semitic? Or, to state it differently, is His death any different from His life, a stumbling-block Peter calls it, again citing Isaiah? Doesn't the charge of anti-Semitism in the New Testament reduce to the challenge of faith in Jesus that Jesus Himself put before His own people of Israel, distorted and obscured in the history of the Church by Gentile racial hatred of Jesus' own race? What the gospel of Christ tells us is that we, all, have sinned, and fallen short of what God has created us for, which is nothing less than His own glory in living union with Him. The death of Jesus, followed by His resurrection, offers us a way out of that dilemma, a way through faith in Christ in which His blood cleanses us from all of our sins. The blood of that Passover Lamb of God, according to the New Testament patterned after the Hebrew Testament, causes the judgment of God in His separation from us, to pass. All those who believe in Jesus, then, want to be washed in the blood of the Lamb, to have His blood upon us! The divine irony of His blood being upon us who believe in Him extends to those who killed Him that day, who cried out for His blood to be upon them. If Jesus' death is our life, is their killing Him not a service to us? In other words, did not Israel, the Servant of the Lord, act in unison that day, the One and the many, in a sacrifice to end all sacrifices? Who is guilty, then? Jesus bore it, all. Jesus makes that clear: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:18). The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Servant of the Lord laid down His life for us, at the hands of "the kings of the earth," as Psalm 2 puts it, or as we might say, "the powers that be." Christians, who believe the story of Jesus' Passion, are actually forever indebted to those Jewish men and women who acted on behalf of us all, in agreeing to put Jesus to death. Not that we commend their motives. No, in an ultimate sense we share their motives, every day, in every one of our lives. Failure to acknowledge that human unity in complicity simply reflects a lack of repentance on our part. In a very specific sense, any Christian that is angered at the Jews for killing Jesus falls into the very profile of the spiritually bankrupt religious leadership that were offended by Jesus, a portrait also given to us by Matthew: "And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. (Matt. 23:30-31)" The murder of Jesus is our story, man and woman against God, unwilling to accept Him as He presents Himself to us. God offers us all forgiveness through the life and death of Jesus. The people of Israel, the Servant of the Lord, have served us all, in corporate unity with Jesus Whom God appointed to speak for Him in an ultimate action of God's love toward us all. The unavoidable implication of Jesus' Passion is that humanity itself is united before God, and that Israel as God's Servant has served us all for His sake. If the Jews, represented in this story by Caiphas and the crowd, are one in the horrible, unjust execution of Christ, Gentile Christians, represented by Pilate in his abuse of power, are one in their horrible, unjust killing of the Jews through history. No, it was we, all humanity, who killed the Servant of the Lord, and God who has forgiven us of all through that very act of Jesus' Self-giving. If anti-Semitism increases as a result of Gibson's film, its viewers will have seen and not understood. In Jesus' words, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.' (Matthew 13:14)" Such is the blindness of Pilate, and all Christians who have stood in his place of power, executing the Servant of the Lord at any time in history. Any Christian like Pilate washing their hands of complicity in the death of Christ in order to blame the Jews, only proves that they do not understand what they see. It is not accidental that Pilate is the one who dismisses the possibility and value of knowing the truth: he did not see Jesus for Who He is. Miroslav Volf accurately describes the Victim of the incredible violence shown in The Passion of the Christ: "Jesus, who claimed to be the Truth, refused to use violence to "persuade" those who did not recognize his truth. The kingdom of truth he came to proclaim was the kingdom of freedom and therefore cannot rest on pillars of violence." If the graphic violence portrayed in this film inflames anyone's ire against the Jewish people, they have seen and not understood, nor has the truth freed them to love and serve. The violence is not the point of Jesus' story, not at least as it was written. Cinema, for all its visual splendor, is an ineffective medium for communicating the written word. As always, to appreciate the full story, one needs to read the book. © 2004 The Rev. Joseph P. Murphy, Ph.D.

As they arrived where the evangelist was to speak, a crowd of 200 people was already packed into the house. Like many others, Duan had to sit in the courtyard and listen to the teacher through the open window. When Brother Wang began preaching, Duan felt a terrible shock. It was like hearing himself! He began to tremble with fear. Was he dying? Even the phrases the teacher used sounded familiar. Confused, he staggered up to the window to see the preacher, causing a commotion as he fell over people. The preacher stopped and there was a moment of shocked silence as the men looked at each other. The crowd was hushed as they realized the amazing physical likeness. "I'm sorry for interrupting your excellent message," Duan began. "You see, I had a son who would be your age right now. If he had lived, he would have looked and sounded just like you." Brother Wang began to tremble violently. Suddenly, his legs buckled under him and he had to be caught before he fell. Clutching his pounding chest, he sobbed, "Are you Daddy Duan?" Everyone wept as father and son were reunited. The preacher told how he had indeed been brought up by Wu, who was so impressed by Duan's act of giving that he had become a strong Christian. "I'm not your real father," Wu used to say to him. "He's a great man of God, full of grace and love. He gave you to me, and I give you all my love and the encouragement to put God first, just like your real father." Wang's adopted parents had moved away from the earthquake zone before the tragedy, but both died of cancer in their 60s. Wang became an evangelist and tried to find his real father, but Duan had changed his name so many times to avoid arrest that he had proved untraceable. As father and son continued to hug and weep, the elder of the church stood up and declared, "It's December. We have seen our sermon tonight: Christ came into the world to save sinners -- that is Christmas. Just as Duan handed his only son to the care of his enemy, so God handed over His own Son to us sinners. Let us rejoice in their reconciliation and ours too."

It was the greatest miracle that ever happened to Brother Duan, and he would not have experienced it had his bus not broken down. En route from a northern to a southern province of China in December, he happened to be passing through Henan province when the engine of the bus expired in its futile battle with the cold. On a whim, Duan trudged off through the fields, leaving the other passengers huddled inside the bus. He was a house church leader in northern China. Now 77 years of age, he still had no home to call his own. Truth is, he was deeply depressed. He was on his way to mediate a dispute among some leaders and was weary of all the infighting that seemed to be harming the house churches. And he was lonely. As he crossed the frozen field, Duan though longingly of his beloved wife, who died long ago. He wished she were alive to listen to him and give her sweet counsel. And then the thought came into his tired mind of his little son, and an even darker cloud settled over his heart. He found a village and knocked on a door. A little cross was notched on the doorpost. "Is there anyone here who loves the Lord?" he asked. "I would love some fellowship tonight." The door was opened by a man in his fifties, and Duan was warmly welcomed. His feet were washed in a basin -- the custom of welcoming a stranger among the house church movement -- and was fed hot congee and steaming vegetables. He noticed that the people were all excited. It turned out that they would be traveling to a neighboring town to hear a dynamic Bible teacher from one of the bigger cities. "What's his name?" asked Duan. "Brother Wang." LIFE OF GIVING As they made their way to the meeting, they told him some of the stories about this mysterious Brother Wang. It was clear they loved him dearly, and one of the men explained why. "We were once holding a training seminar here and heard the police were coming. Brother Wang got everyone out, except our main pastor. When the police arrived, Wang dared to bargain with them. He would go to jail if our pastor -- whose wife was eight months pregnant - could go free. The policeman accepted his terms, and Brother Wang spent three years in prison." "How old is Brother Wang?" Duan asked. When told he was in his early 40s, Duan's face showed great pain. "What's the matter?" he was asked. "Are you ill from the cart trip?" "No, I'm not ill," he replied, "just very sad. I once had a son, whom I knew for just two months. He's dead now, but if alive he would have been 42 today. "My wife called him the 'Christmas Child,' since he was born at Christmas time. I called him 'Isaac,' because we had despaired for so long of having a child." There was silence as they rode in the open cart under the stars. Brother Duan told the incredible story of how he and his wife had been evangelists in the 1950s. They refused to join the Three Self church, and Wu, an old school bully, kept accusing them of political and criminal offenses. It was only a matter of time before they were jailed or killed, but what would happen to their boy? One night, Duan's wife heard a strong voice in a vision, saying, "Give your son to your enemy." Knowing nothing about this, Duan read Genesis 22:2 the following morning: "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love and sacrifice him to me." Sharing their impressions, the couple decided on a course of action that caused Duan to wince in pain every day since. They gave their boy to Wu and his wife -- who were childless -- even as Wu arranged for the couple's arrest. It wasn't until 1978, when Duan was released from jail, that he learned what happened to his wife and son. She had died in the terrible famine of 1958, and his son had disappeared along with the Wu family under the rubble of a devastating earthquake in 1975. Said Duan sadly as the little cart approached the meeting place, "God judged me for being so irresponsible with my little son."

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PAOLI, PA--Doug, (that's not his real name) is now 17. He started taking drugs at the age of 12. He was quickly hooked, and was fast heading toward an early grave. Then he encountered some young Christians who took an interest in him and told him there was a way out. Desperate, Doug took it. Through an encounter with Jesus Christ at a Faith Alive weekend, Doug surrendered himself to Jesus, and thus began the long journey back to a drug-free life. He told his story before some 500 Episcopalians at the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, Pennsylvania recently at a lay witness weekend put on by Faith Alive, a 100 percent Episcopal organization involved in renewing the church, changing people's lives from the inside out. Faith Alive is one of the still thriving (after 30 years) evangelical ministries within the Episcopal Church. A Faith Alive weekend program embraces adults, youth and children with a program of music and the telling of faith stories with a direct connection to the service of baptism: "I renounce the evil powers of this earth, the sinful desires that draw me from the love of God, and I put my whole trust in His grace and love..." said Tom Riley, President of Faith Alive who speaks glowingly of the organization he leads. "We continue to focus on the baptismal covenant while steering clear of church politics," said Riley. "It is a policy that has rewarded Faith Alive with registrations for its 'lay witness weekends' from a broad range of Episcopal Churches seeking spiritual refreshment," he told Virtuosity. How it works is this. A parish must invite Faith Alive into its life. Faith Alive never pushes itself on anyone, says Riley. After dinner there is a general session of music and introductions with sharing by the visiting team many from other parishes who come in with their own fresh testimonies to relate. People then break up into small groups where people tell their faith journey stories and personal testimonies of what God is doing in their lives. Clergy are asked not to participate in group discussions. Laity lead it. At the end of the weekend there is an altar call, a call to renewal, commitment to Christ and for some a recommitment to Christ. For Vincent Czepukaitis, a weekend coordinator for Faith Alive and an active Episcopal layman, its an opportunity for him to tell his story of how he was raised a strict Roman Catholic. "I knew all about control and since the church was the No. 1 control in my life I wanted to control all the other areas of my life." Barbara his wife picks up the story. "We had been married for 13 years. I met the Lord at a Marriage Encounter weekend even though I was raised an Episcopalian. Vince saw what I had received and wanted it for himself." Thus began a new chapter in their marriage relationship and a new ministry beckoned on the horizon. Vince was a lector in the Roman Catholic Church and Barbara sang in the choir of the local Episcopal Church. We found a godly Episcopal Church in Massachusetts, but later we moved to Yardley and then New Hope, PA. "Faith Alive was a natural place for us to use our gifts. We got into Scripture and this volunteer renewal movement naturally evolved into a ministry for us," he said. There are some 100 coordinators nationwide, and Faith Alive can be found almost every weekend of the year in one parish or another. Tony Walter, Diocesan Youth Coordinator for the Diocese of Milwaukee lends his support to Faith Alive weekends and travels around the country handling the youth side of these three-day Faith Alive weekends. At 58 he doesn't seem the right age group, but he gravitates to youth as they gravitate to him. His joy is leading young people to Christ. Barbara Czepukaitis describes a Faith Alive weekend as "close as it gets to heaven on earth. We are absolutely focused on Jesus not issues. In time issues pass away. We look for the perpetuation of the ministry through weekends like this." Lucia Englander and Heather Niedland Good Samaritan parish coordinators say that the parish has been blessed by the visit of the Faith Alive team who come at their own expense to share the love of Jesus. "We see people renewed in their faith, some coming to faith for the first time, marriages healed and restored, and much more," said Englander. Faith Alive was launched in 1970 by members of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew who had participated in a Methodist Lay Witness Mission. To date Faith Alive has held its weekend program in more than 2,400 churches nationwide. In addition to holding Faith Alive Weekends in Episcopal Churches - the ministry expects to hold 40 in Year 2004 -- while being active in Anglican churches in the Bahamas. Faith Alive has also held its program in other denominations, including Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic. Asked how the present controversy within the Episcopal Church, following last summer's action by the General Convention, has affected the ministry, President Tom Riley said, "Churches in virtually all dioceses of the Church continue to look to Faith Alive as a resource for spiritual refreshment. Already this year we have held Weekends in the dioceses of Central Florida, Eastern Carolina, Southwest Florida, Arizona, Western Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. In March, Faith Alive Weekends will be held in churches in the Diocese of New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Chicago, West Virginia and Springfield. "In the early days of Faith Alive there was considerable pressure from parishes and from our own board members to take a stand on the Charismatic Movement that was sweeping through our Church. Our founder and longtime president, Fred Gore remained adamant, 'The mission of Faith Alive is to bring individuals into an encounter with Jesus Christ that results in their recognition of Jesus as their Savior and their commitment to Him as Lord of their lives. We cannot accomplish this if we take sides on this issue or any other." "On the contrary, we must be sensitive to the rector and parish we serve, which means that we respect the piety of that parish, watch our vocabulary, and probably avoid raising our hands in worship. In some churches, we may use songs exclusively from the Episcopal hymnal. We accept these people where they are, we provide a climate in which the Holy Spirit can move, we make ourselves available to be used by the Spirit, and we give God the glory for the great works accomplished." "That continues to be our policy," Riley said, "and it works! Literally thousands of Episcopalians each year discover on Faith Alive Weekends that they have not yet made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives - 'Wherever you would have me go, however you call me to serve, Lord, the answer will always be yes.' Rectors are thrilled at the large number of parishioners participating in a Weekend -- generally two-thirds of the average Sunday attendance -- as well as the numbers of parishioners on the periphery of parish life. The altar ministry on Sunday, and the small-group ministry in homes of parishioners continue to make lasting impressions. Follow-up is an integral part of the Faith Alive program, spawning men's ministry, house churches, youth programs, a refreshed children's ministry, varied music ministries, mission and outreach. And with personal commitment to Jesus Christ comes a whole new approach to giving. Tithing becomes the norm, the starting point of Christian stewardship. The church's annual financial report a year after a Faith Alive Weekend is a tangible example of the program's impact on a parish!" NOTE: Anyone interested in having a Faith Alive team come to their parish should drop a line to Tom Riley at FAweekend@AOL.COM Faith Alive is on the Internet at www.faithalive.org

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org November 17, 2025 There are two conflicting views emerging among ACNA bishops over Archbishop Steve Wood and how he should be treated, and whether or not he should be inhibited as he faces presentment charges related to alleged sexual misconduct, plagiarism and abuse. Bishop Chris Warner, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic (DOMA) has come out with a statement saying, “at the outset let me remind you at this stage, these are allegations, not findings not a verdict at trial. That this presentment was sent to the Washington Post is disheartening because the article insinuates, there is the expectation by some that the College of Bishops will not seek to do the right thing in this matter.” Warner is too disingenuous by half. Both he and Bishop Chip Edgar (DSC) were approached by complainants in the Wood matter but they did not back a presentment. Warner is on record stating that he was one of four bishops that complainants approached six months ago regarding Archbishop Wood: they did contact bishops before going to the media. Warner is treating us like we are dupes and suckers. He is treating us with contempt, one knowledgeable insider told VOL. By contrast, South Carolina ACNA Bishop Chip Edgar has called for the inhibition of the ACNA archbishop. In a letter to his diocese Edgar said, “I want to clarify my support for the Complainants in the matter concerning Archbishop Wood and I have urged the senior bishops to call for Archbishop Wood’s inhibition.” Bishop Edgar said that it was not true that complainants had gone to the press before they initiated the disciplinary process. “I’ve written to the College of Bishops explaining to them that, for over six months the complainants sought a way forward, following the canonical structures of the Anglican Church in North America. I and several other bishops were involved at this preliminary stage. Throughout their efforts, they were stymied by a system that appeared unable to do what it is designed to do. I’ve asked the College for a unified, public apology for these disparaging statements.” Edgar apologized for his lack of support of the Presentment to the complainants. “Those who brought these charges forward are credible and trustworthy, and the charges they bring are serious. They must be investigated fully, until a trial court can determine guilt or innocence.” Edgar said that calling for an inhibition of the archbishop makes no judgment as to the guilt or innocence in the face of charges, rather it is an acknowledgement that continued ministry in the face of serious charges further damages the reputation of the Church. Among the many things missing is complete transparency. Christopher Edward Marchand, said that those who had their hearts set on becoming primate were not elected, he wrote on Facebook. His solution is for ACNA bishops to hire outside independent church trauma experts to openly assess the cases in front of us and advise us on our disciplinary canons, there might be hope for our future. Bishops disciplining bishops behind closed doors is a silly unworkable solution. The next time we elect a primate, we must call it an assembly, not a conclave. We are electing a leader not a pope. ACNA is facing its Kairos moment. The bishops met on a zoom call over the weekend with Bishop Julian Dobbs (Diocese of the Living Word) declaring that Archbishop Wood had now been inhibited and he was in charge. But one astute observer noted that what is really interesting is the College of Bishops has not in any way reassured the church that it is not going to crash and burn. “I have never seen organizational chaos so quickly dissolve into total systemic collapse…but given so much cover up over the last decade and the secrecy of the College of Bishops, it is no wonder this has happened with no checks or balances combined with the sort of autocratic tyranny I have witnessed at every turn...threats of trials and defrocking, commands to be silent, hierarchal tyranny and rogue diocesan operations.” A complete house cleaning is needed. Anything less does not do or lead to justice for the complainants. END

The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore Nov 17, 2025 Some questions arrive like a spark in dry grass — they do not burn immediately, but they smolder until the wind shifts. Artificial intelligence and the Great Commission is one of those questions. It is not going away, and it will not remain theoretical. It presses on the Church whether we are ready or not. The Christian Today article linked above asks in a straightforward way whether AI can—or should—assist the Church in proclaiming the Gospel. The conversation it reflects is already happening across denominations, missions agencies, seminaries, and even informal forums of scholars and clergy. Some welcome AI as the next great technological multiplier for evangelism, a tool that can translate Scripture, answer questions, and reach into regions too dangerous for missionaries. Others fear that delegating spiritual work to machines cheapens the Gospel and erodes the personal, incarnational nature of Christian witness. Both instincts contain truth. Both contain danger. But the real question is not whether AI can help the Church. The real question is what the Church believes the Great Commission actually is. The Great Commission Is Personal, Not Merely Informational At its core, the Great Commission is not the mass distribution of spiritual data. It is the making of disciples — whole persons who turn from sin, trust in Christ, and are formed by Word and Sacrament into the likeness of the Son. Information matters. Teaching matters. But every generation of Christians has had to resist the temptation to reduce evangelism to information delivery. The printing press made this mistake possible on a global scale. The radio and television age repeated it. The internet amplified it. Now AI tempts us to imagine that the Gospel, if packaged and delivered with enough technological sophistication, will accomplish its work without the human face, the human voice, the human life behind it. But Christianity is stubbornly incarnational. The Gospel did not come as a principle. It came as a Person. Discipleship spread not through machines but through men and women who embodied the faith before others. We may distribute information by proxy. But we cannot delegate incarnation. Any technology, no matter how advanced, will always reach the limit where only a living Christian can go further. A Tool, Not a Replacement A sober view sees AI not as a rival to human witness but as a tool that can extend, support, and multiply it — provided we do not surrender the essential task. AI can: · Translate Scripture into languages that have no Bible · Provide baseline explanations of Christian doctrine · Generate resources for missionaries and pastors in under-resourced regions · Help seekers ask questions anonymously in places where public interest in Christianity is dangerous · Assist disabled or isolated individuals in accessing teaching they might never hear These are extraordinary gifts, if used rightly. But AI cannot: · Preach repentance with authority · Administer Sacraments · Shepherd souls · Share in suffering · Model holiness · Love · Die for the truth · Live a life that points to Christ And because it cannot do these things, it cannot fulfill the Great Commission. It can only assist those who do. The danger is not that AI will replace Christian witness. The danger is that the Church will permit it to become a substitute for the costly, slow, relational labor of disciple-making. Tools become idols when they relieve us of duties we were commanded to bear. The Church’s Deeper Crisis Isn’t Technological What the Christian Today article reveals—without explicitly stating it—is that much of the Church’s anxiety around AI stems not from the technology itself but from our own spiritual anemia. Many churches hope that AI will revitalize evangelism because human evangelists have grown timid. Many hope that AI will teach doctrine because clergy formation has weakened. Many hope that AI will sustain the Great Commission because Western Christians have lost confidence in their own calling. But the Great Commission does not falter because of technological change. It falters when the Church forgets that Christ Himself promised to be with us “unto the end of the world.” Technology does not create courage, conviction, discipline, or awe. It merely amplifies the presence or absence of those things. If a church is spiritually vibrant, AI will serve it well. If a church is spiritually hollow, AI will make the hollowness more obvious. The Proper Christian Posture: Discernment, Not Panic There are two errors Christians must avoid: 1. Technological Luddism:Rejecting every new tool out of fear that modernity will corrupt the Gospel. 2. Technological Utopianism:Believing that tools themselves can accomplish what only the Holy Spirit can do. The correct path is neither rejection nor surrender. It is discernment — a virtue older than the printing press and wiser than our assumptions about the future. Christians have always adapted technology without allowing it to rewrite theology. The question is not whether AI will reshape the world. It will. The question is whether the Church will approach it with seriousness, prayer, and doctrinal clarity — or whether we will let Silicon Valley shape the disciples our Lord commanded us to make. A Final Word AI will become part of the mission landscape. It already has. But its proper role is always secondary, assistive, and subordinate to the living witness of the Church. The Gospel spread without machines. It transformed continents through uneducated fishermen and faithful widows. Technology can accelerate the reach of the message, but it cannot replace the messenger. The Church must not fear AI. But neither must we enthrone it. The Great Commission belongs to the Body of Christ — to real men and women who kneel, pray, preach, baptize, teach, and love. AI may carry our words, but it cannot carry our cross. And the cross, not the algorithm, is still the power of God unto salvation.

By Peter May Church of England Newspaper The recent discussion document, Some Issues in Human Sexuality, which was debated in General Synod, raises questions about the significance of bisexuality. It highlights, for instance, that Ancient Greek & Roman cultures did not have gay/straight terminology in their language (p219). They viewed people as being simply 'sexual', expressing their sexuality in a variety of different ways. Sexual Behaviour in Britain, published by Penguin Books in 1994, remains the most comprehensive study of national sexual attitudes and lifestyle. This was the survey that the Thatcher government refused to finance and was rescued by the Wellcome Trust. And a welcome report it was! Until that study was done, the best data available was the Kinsey Report of 1953. That report estimated that some 10% of the population was homosexual. That figure never rang true in medical practice and the Wellcome Report explained why. Surveying nearly 20,000 randomly selected Britons, the Wellcome researchers concluded that only 6.1 % of men and 3.4% of women had had any homosexual experience at any stage in their lifetime (p226). These statistics may be an underestimate, given people's reluctance to be honest in these matters, though great care was taken in the research method. The figures may also have changed in the past 10 years, presumably due to changing cultural mores, rather than changes in biological or genetic causes. The incidence of bisexuality reported by them was huge. They concluded that 90.3% of that 6.1% of men had also had a female sexual partner, which would leave 0.6% of men being exclusively homosexual. 95.8% of the 3.4% of women had claimed also to have had a male partner, which would leave 0.14% of women being exclusively homosexual (p.211). Barely 1% of men and less than 0.25% of women described their sexual experience as either mostly or exclusively homosexual (p.183). The Report concluded that exclusively homosexual behaviour is rare (p227). They also noted that for many, homosexual experience was youthful and transitory, and unlikely to lead to a permanent behaviour pattern (p.226) and that the high prevalence of bisexual behaviour among homosexuals was well-documented (p211). A recent article in the Times, written by a lesbian, said, "Thousands of gay women have had relationships with men and some may not rule out the possibility of falling in love with a man in the future. But ask a gay woman to define herself as lesbian or bisexual is difficult. To opt for what may be the more honest answer of 'bisexual' could be viewed as some kind of betrayal, a refusal to stand up and be counted." Genetic studies, for all their ambiguity, have ruled out the idea of a gay gene determining orientation. The report before Synod did not mention the significance of twin studies. Identical twins are genetically "clones" of one another, having an identical genetic make up. If sexual orientation were genetically determined, they would both exhibit the same orientation. But studies have shown that they do not. There may be a genetic or other biological disposition towards homosexual relationships in some people. We don't know. But homosexuality is clearly not genetically determined. We may therefore be very mistaken to speak of sexual orientations rather than sexual behaviours. When we start talking about behaviour, we might then note that some sexual behaviours can be deeply addictive. While some people seem to move from one type of sexual experience to another, others get hooked in a serious way. For some, the use of pornography may come to dominate their lives. It may be a preference for violent pornography, which grips their imagination and drives the person to fulfil their desires. Promiscuity, sado-masochism, and the use of prostitutes can all become addictive behaviours. The chemistry of falling in love is a sort of addiction. Many of us are happily addicted to our spouses, though the addiction needs to be constantly fuelled to be kept alive. Adultery is addictive. Few people embarking on an adulterous relationship find it is a 'take or leave' matter that they can easily walk away from. You cannot sit down with these people and have a sensible chat about the damage they will do, such that they say, "You are quite right. I will stop it at once." They are hooked and get an intense thrill from the encounter. The more they see the person, the more their desires are stirred up. Then there is that powerfully addictive and disturbing preference for sexual intimacy with children. Having engaged in sexual acts with children, paedophiles always remain vulnerable to repeating such behaviour. We engage in addictive activities at our peril. Yet no one considers any of these behaviours to be 'orientations'. The language of preference, of learned behaviour patterns and addiction makes much more sense of the observed realities of sexual behaviour than talk about orientation.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue Dan England the communications director for the Episcopal Church said at the recent meeting of the church's Executive Council in Tampa, Florida that "some people seem to want to start a war, but we're not going to show up." He was parroting the Very Rev. George Werner, president of the House of Deputies who first coined the phrase after the last General Convention. It is in the same category of foolishness and naivete that convinced the American people that they could remain neutral in World War II before Pearl Harbor. Mr. England wants you to believe that either no war is going on, or if there is one, he and his leftist pals aren't going to show up. The truth is there IS a war, it has been going on for some time now and sooner or later there will be a winner and a loser. A draw, it seems, is not on the cards. The Eames Commission may try and make it look like a draw with everyone winning, but it is doubtful the Global South will buy anything less than a complete repudiation of sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage and the public disciplining of Frank Griswold for his participation in the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. Or to put it another way, a split will occur that will leave the two sides looking at each other across an irreconcilable divide. The revisionists in ECUSA started this war back with Bishop James Pike, then Jack Spong set about making theological nuclear bombs with his 12 theses, then there followed the ripping of the fabric of the church over the illegal ordination of women, later sodomy was affirmed by ordaining openly homoerotic priests (the first one died of AIDS), then followed the promotion of same-sex unions, capping it off with the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual priest to the episcopacy. And England wants you to believe that this is all an orthodox illusion and the Holocaust never happened either. If you believe Mr. England, the orthodox are simply making it all up. It is a fiction of their imagination. If they just stopped believing there was a problem it would go away. Right. So the church can't even affirm Bishop Keith Ackerman's Resolution B001 on a couple of basic doctrines of the faith once delivered and this is okay? The church consecrates a divorced homoeroticist living with another man, and this is not declaring war? Fourteen Primates representing some 50 million Anglicans declare themselves either in impaired or out of communion with Griswold and ECUSA, and this is not war? You reduce the Bible to myths and stories and remove the ancient Prayer Book and tell them all they have left are the church's canons and constitutions and this is not war? And when you have stripped the orthodox of all their cherished beliefs, called them 'fundamentalists' and 'homophobic' for even suggesting that anal sex may actually be bad for your health, not to mention God's disapproval, and then tell them you are not going to show up for war, while you hurl 16inch rounds from 500 or 3,000 miles away, is fatuous beyond all belief. And then when you have finished beating them up on Omaha Beach, tell the orthodox that if they even think about leaving with their properties because they don't want to jeopardize the souls of the faithful, they will see a side of the bishop they never knew existed. He will "shoot" the rector, invoking Canon 4 or 10 and bury the poor parish priest with more law suits than there are 39 Articles, and then sit back using Diocesan Trust Funds to obtain the best legal counsel he can find and hammer the poor bastards into the ground. Talk to Fr. Eddy Rix or Fr. David Ousley in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They have stories to tell about the way Bishop Charles Bennison has treated them. Bennison is at war with orthodoxy in his diocese. New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham is at war with 11 parishes in his diocese. Ed Salmon (South Carolina) is at war with one parish in his diocese, and John W. Howe (Central Florida) has filed suit against a parish in his diocese. The list could go on and on. And what about individual orthodox bishops who are at war with revisionist clergy and laity in their own dioceses. Ask Bishop Terence Kelshaw about what Via Media, the leftist group in his diocese is doing to promote a pro-sodomite candidate of their own to succeed him. They literally stole the whole Diocesan mailing list and used it to promote their pansexual agenda. Or talk to Bishop Bertram Herlong in the Diocese of Tennessee about how the Episcopalfreespeech.com crowd is using anonymous names to stoke up a presentment against him on some phony charge or other about his lack of inclusivity. Or why Florida Bishop Steve Jecko and San Diego Bishop Gethin Hughes retired early because they couldn't stand the political pressure any more and wanted out. And this is not the effect of a war? Or the sneaky way revisionists in the Diocese of North Dakota tried to push one of their own by dumping five candidates on the unsuspecting diocese without ever asking them the "S" questions. The orthodox put up one of their own in at the last minute, but he didn't have a prayer, judging by the final statistics reported in The Living Church. That the Episcopal Church is at war with itself is painfully obvious to even the most unenlightened. Across the country biblically orthodox parishes and their rectors are waging courageous battles against revisionist bishops. From New Westminster, to North Dakota, from Montana to Tennessee, from Southern Virginia, to Albany and even in New Hampshire, the battle rages. No diocese is unaffected. And the result? The loss of millions of dollars in revenues as Episcopalians close their check books. Funds are being withheld at record levels. And this is not war? (And this while the stock market is roaring upwards.) And England says, "I think that message (convincing the press that the church is not going to split) and our focus on reconciliation is starting to get through." What reconciliation? The American Anglican Council, the new Network, (NACDP), two Plano gatherings, endless diocesan dogfights between Left and the Right, the relentless growth of the AMiA, and he smells reconciliation in the air? This is fiction of the highest order. England again: "We are not going to strike back at anybody." Really. Pray tell me what David Booth Beers, Griswold's personal attorney is doing running around the country putting the fear of God (or Frank) into diocesan chancellors instructing them not to let parishes walk away from ECUSA or he will invoke the Denis Canon if they do. This is not striking back? This is not, at the very least coercion? This is not war? It's time for a novel, "My life with Frank…the untold story". The national church is losing funds left and right from dioceses both orthodox and heterodox and by all accounts it is going to get worse. And there would seem to be no way back unless legal threats of coercion are made and ecclesiastical action is taken by revisionist bishops whose final recourse is the Canons and Constitutions. And this is reconciliation? ECUSA's biblically orthodox are under siege from one end of the country to the other. The Anglo-Catholics have almost been wiped out and Evangelicals who are growing like crazy are only tolerated because they bring in much needed cash to keep revisionist bishops in travel to HOB meetings where they mock them and call them homophobic for not getting in line behind Vickie Gene. But you had better write out the checks or we will come after you. "We think the controversy is beginning to die down," says England. In his dreams. If it is tell that to Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan who would love to hear that news. Or maybe Griswold should send a note to Canon David Anderson of the AAC and tell him that he is really on the right side of the angels after all, and we love you and want your perspective on things. Then he should send a telegram to Fr. David L. Moyer in Philadelphia and apologize to him for all the nonsense he has had to put up with from Bishop Bennison and if he [Bennison] gives him any more trouble, he'll refer Bennison to the Title IV Review Committee. All this will happen when the proverbial hell freezes over. Then to cap off his spin, England writes, "But even if it doesn't, we intend to use the bad press to get our message across. If it goes well, that will be like free publicity." Oh my Lord. England, desperate for any shred of dignity he and his boss can salvage from Vickie Gene's consecration says he plans to use the bad press to get the national church's message across. And what message is that? Inclusivity of bizarre sexual behaviors like ordaining a transsexual deacon! Diversity that DOESN'T include biblically orthodox folk because they have narrow uninclusive views about the limits of sexual expression, and believe sin and salvation have been rubbished by the deep thinkers at 815 or twisted beyond all Biblical recognition? Or perhaps ECUSA can convince the world that our new found Doctrine of Inclusivity means that the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton (Newark) can regularize "holy one night stands" and include them in The Book of Occasional Services, Lesser Feasts and Fasts, how to Enrich Our Worship. Or perhaps Oklahoma Bishop Robert Moody can elevate history's first ordained transsexual deacon (Paul to Paula Schonauer) and offer her/him to be the next bishop suffragan of Newark, NJ. They'd love to have him/her. Louie will cast the first vote. Croneberger and Schonauer perfect together. No, there is a war and it is ongoing, and to drive the point home, some 13-revisionist ECUSA bodies are meeting next month in Atlanta to find a way forward (or strategy) to defeat the AAC and NACDP. The national church will send three representatives. They hope to get 40. Plano got nearly 4,000. Whatever "free publicity" England hopes to salvage from this negative publicity defies all human logic. The Apostle Paul said, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers", he just never figured that the latter would be inside The Episcopal Church, and that the world, the flesh and the devil were making nice in the majority of ECUSA's dioceses, and that the barbarians were now firmly within the gates being enabled by nine of the church's 11 seminaries. Every day in every way, from the loss of millions of dollars to parishes leaving and thousands of Episcopalians walking away from the denomination, the Episcopal Church is slowly dying. The ECUSA hulk is on a sandbank, flopping about like a dying whale. The only question is can it be rescued in time. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed more than 900,000 times by readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.