Enemy-occupied territory – that is what the world is. & When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. - C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity, II-2 Spin Can Make You Dizzy A diabolical communiqué, intercepted by Gerry Hunter From the Desk of the Undersecretary for Ecclesiastical Affairs My Dear Dogwood, I doubt that you realize what a lucky devil you are. In fact, your recent behaviour has been so bizarre that you probably don't even realize that, bereft of blessing as we are, luck is all we have. Douglas Todd's piece in that marvelously cynical and secular publication, the Vancouver Sun, caught the Secretary's attention. Now for whatever reason, he gives you credit for causing it, when I know for a fact you were wasting your time trying to get some clod to curse when he stubbed his toe. But you are getting the credit, along with an assignment to prepare the analysis and recommendations for follow-up. Worse yet, his Disgrace made it clear that the quality of the report would be a clear indicator of my abilities as your directing executive. So do pay attention to what I'm telling you here, or we will both end up in the gulag. First, the article itself. We are on pretty thin ice here. The piece is so fawning and solicitous that one could conclude it was written by a press secretary, not a news gatherer. Not that we mind when paeans of praise for Michael Ingham fall into our laps, but we don't want them to be so obvious. But more to the point when you write your analysis, nephew, be aware that you are merely dealing with the kind of thing that one religionist routinely writes about another religionist. As distinct from what a Christian churchmen might write about one of his fellows, this article concentrates on the man, with his beliefs entering the picture only as peripheral ornaments. (More about those beliefs later.) So do not make the mistake of presenting this to the Secretary as something truly profound or insightful. You do that, and we will both be served up, garni, at the next executive banquet. Consequently, you had better just point out that the image presented in the article is that of a typical religionist, and leave it there. Strong but benevolent; his prayer, Bible reading, and golf all part of a tidy package; eager to discuss; a head as sensitive as foam rubber, to go along with his "spine of granite"; a man who places people before beliefs, even, you could note, beliefs that would nurture them. Don't forget to point out the favorable contrasts the writer includes concerning those churchmen who oppose his subject's efforts. It wouldn't hurt to complement the writer on how he has included them to bolster his subject's observations on "vehement language" and "hate mail." Also, the fact that the writer has worked in the view of togetherness before faithfulness probably deserves a favorable mention. And for the hate of Heaven, don't neglect to complement the writer for working in his subject's dismissal of those opponents, who are similar in ecclesiastical rank to the subject, as mere pragmatists, rather than as men of Christian conviction. The Secretary himself had a strong hand in encouraging that kind of thinking. In summary, Dogwood, don't make your usual mistake of presenting the ordinary as something extraordinary, and trying to claim credit for it. I happen to know that the Secretary considers you senior tempter material. He clearly does not know you well, and it is best for us both that he does not come to. You will notice, I hope, that I have said very little about the beliefs of the subject up to this point. Neither should you, in the analysis of the article. They pertain mostly to the recommendations that you should present, so you should discuss them at that point, as I am about to do now. Unfortunately, Dogwood, it will not escape everyone's notice that those beliefs of the subject that do come out in the article are much more Socinian then they are Christian. They aren't really good Socinianism, because they seem to be muddled with pop psychology and New Age spirituality. Still, they will alarm those who take the Enemy's teachings seriously. I've already mentioned how the subject categorized golf together with his prayer and Bible reading. You will notice, I hope, the reference to "the spirituality, the Zen, of golf," in the article, and how that concept has been developed into a course, if you please. Also, the ranking of togetherness before faithfulness will get the Christian reader's attention, as will the characterization of those who think differently as "architects of schism." For the Enemy's call to follow the narrow path, and enter the narrow gate, we have the subject's invitation to swim in "a big river." Don't make too much of the subject's father holding God responsible for evil. What you want to hit on there is the subject's characterization of Jesus as a way-shower, as distinct from a savior. Nor should you hit too hard on the subject's observations about his opponents "willingness to flout the church's cannon law," because he does try to represent himself as the leader of a Protestant denomination, and we don't want to undermine that image by making him look crypto-Roman. Still, you might be able to make something out of his delicious tendency to put man's corporate laws before the Enemy's Commandments and scriptural teachings. But the article has saved the best for last in the area of beliefs. Unfortunately, it also lets the cat out of the bag. When a man says, "a Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. This is not to say there are no others. This issue will be the next major battleground," he is making a statement that is going to attract attention beyond his own extended corporate sphere. If we are not careful, a statement like that could lead to difficulties involving the Enemy's followers who look to Rome, Constantinople, Geneva, Canterbury, or wherever. The recommendations you present the Secretary had better take that into account. There are several possibilities you should consider in your recommendations, but the following one should predominate. Don't waste much time on the Romans, or the Eastern Orthodox who have moved back from the subject's Anglican Communion until they sort things out. The best we can hope for from them is that they just let this pass without commenting. Come up with some ideas on how to encourage them in thinking that it really isn't their affair, and to have them say nothing. You might mention that, in those circumstances, the delicious prospect for confusion among their faithful, in the midst of such silence, is very real. After all, many of them live in the same culture whose ideas have overwhelmed the subject's spiritual thinking. Additionally, those vermin with no real concept of what it means to follow the Enemy, but who think they are somehow doing so, will continue to swim in the "big river," and not be moved to make for the shore while there's still time. We like that river. It delivers many souls to our gates, and the water, once vaporized, helps make our environment in hell delightfully beastly. So in this case, as a many others, just letting nature take its course will serve our purposes just fine. The subject's own co-denominationalists should probably be moved to silence as well. That is undoubtedly impossible in the case of that pesky remnant in his own area. But on a national and international level, we would certainly hope to achieve some degree of success in that regard. And of those two, the national is by far the most important. People outside of the subject's own country of residence have already made a lot of noise to minimal effect, and our own strategy should be one that helps to insulate those in his own national corporate ecclesiastical entity from being any more influenced by offshore noise over this article than they seem to have been from past noises. So then, come up with some recommendations on how to make it easy for everyone, but especially the latter group, to simply ignore this abject abandonment and denunciation of faith in the Enemy's Son. How, you ask? Well, Dogwood, if the Secretary considers you to be senior tempter material, I'm sure you will be able to come up with a way. And if you can't, you can be sure that all I, your adoring uncle, will fill in any gaps before I deliver your report to His Disgrace, thereby solidifying an unbreakable hold over you through the rest of eternity. Your affectionate uncle, Tapeworm

Pope John Paul II criticized the media saying they often give a positive depiction of extramarital sex, contraception, abortion and homosexuality that is harmful to society. The pontiff, in a statement issued ahead of the Church's World Communications Day in May, urged the media to promote traditional family life. "All communication has a moral dimension," his statement said. "People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear." But the pontiff, whose theme was "The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness" also had some positive words on the media. "On the one hand, marriage and family life are frequently depicted in a sensitive manner, realistic but also sympathetic, that celebrates virtues like love, fidelity, forgiveness, and generous self-giving for others," he said. "On the other hand, the family and family life are all too often inadequately portrayed in the media," John Paul added. "Infidelity, sexual activity outside of marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision of the marriage covenant are depicted uncritically, while positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Such portrayals, by promoting causes inimical to marriage and the family, are detrimental to the common good of society." The pope urged "responsible communicators" to resist commercial pressure and secular ideologies. He also called for regulations to stop the media from acting against "the good of the family," although he rejected censorship. Parents, too, have an important role in controlling the quantity and nature of media use in the home, John Paul said. "Even very young children can be taught important lessons about the media: that they are produced by people anxious to communicate messages; that these are often messages to do something - to buy a product, to engage in dubious behavior - that is not in the child's best interests or in accord with moral truth; that children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find in the media." The pontiff has frequently spoken out about the challenges created by new technology and has called for greater responsibility by the media. He also praises the potential of mass communications. John Paul himself has avidly used the media to get his message out and has presided over a technological revolution at the Vatican. This included the 1995 start of its web site and the recent introduction of papal messages sent to mobile phones.

Recently, I was asked to hold the funeral of a close friend and 83-year-old colleague, Glenn. The end of a life is always a sobering thing, but in Glenn's case, it was a privilege to bury him. As we sang the old spiritual "There is a Balm in Gilead," his widow, Marlys, bent over his open casket, took his hands in hers, and kissed him goodbye. Six hundred people were in the room, and there was not a dry eye. But it was not just because we were watching a farewell. Here was a couple who had promised to remain true to each other through joys and sorrow, "until death parts you." And because of this faithfulness, their marriage had lasted more than half a century. A marriage like Glenn and Marlys's is a rare thing in our time, when most people seem to fear the very idea of commitment. As a culture, we are obsessed with romance and sex, and focus on them almost endlessly. Sex permeates entertainment, sports, and even politics. For Christians and non-Christians alike, it has taken the place of God. All the more it was encouraging to read, the week before Valentine's Day, about a "Day of Purity," on which students across the country planned to wear white T-shirts to school in order to promote the idea of saving sex for marriage. As Melissa, a 17-year-old who took part in the event, explained, "The way sex is talked about, it's so casual...it's like going to McDonald's." Critics said the teens were "self-righteous" and accused the organizers of having a "bigoted agenda." Others, like my community, the Bruderhof, applaud the teens for their courage, and feel that such a movement needs every bit of support that it can get. Sex as God created it is the foundation of human society. It has been, ever since he created Adam and Eve, blessed them, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Sex is also God's greatest gift to us. More than a mere mechanical act, it encompasses the entire person physically, emotionally, and spiritually. In sex alone, soul and body become truly one. Entered with reverence, it is the highest and deepest expression of love, and can transform a person on every level. No wonder Jesus said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one." Unfortunately, very few people are able to see sex in such a deep and wonderful way, because we have turned away from God's plan for it. This turning away began in Eden, with Adam and Eve's disobedience, which polluted their innocence and made them ashamed of their nakedness. Its fruits are guilt, lust, violence, pride and greed, and every other evil that plagues humankind today. The serpent of rebellion is still whispering today, trying to convince people that God's word is not true. Just as Adam and Eve, they try to find freedom and happiness on their own terms, especially in the sexual sphere. But as sincere as many of these people are in looking for happiness that they deserve, they will never find it, because they are going against God's order. Meanwhile, sex becomes more and more degraded and cheap, as shown by new headlines every week: Paris Hilton's video, Janet Jackson's stunt at the Super Bowl, Beyonce's copycat act a few weeks later, and continual rumors about Kerry and other presidential candidates. People pretend to be shocked by these things, but our children see right through it. In the end they get the message that sex is a joke: you can always have your fun and get away with what you want. If only we grasped how such a twisted view can traumatize a soul for a lifetime. It leads to broken relationships, crime, emotional instability, and even suicide. How different our world would be if we saw that every man and woman is created in the image of God. Then we would have reverence for each person's sexual being, and see it as a mystery that only a marriage partner should unlock. Like Moses, who took off his sandals before the burning bush, we would instinctively know: this is holy ground. We are all weak human beings, and we all disobey God. But it is never too late for us to turn around. Once we do, we can put sex back in its proper place--marriage--and perhaps restore some sanity to our crazed and corrupt culture. Deep down it is this that every person longs for, even if millions have been misled and are confused: the beauty and stability of God's original order, and the peace of heart and mind that comes from embracing it. On Valentine's Day, a young couple I know named David and Alissa celebrated their wedding. David is 26 and has a life-threatening heart condition that grew suddenly worse during their engagement. Dave is scheduled for open-heart surgery in a few weeks, and between now and then, anything could happen. Given such an uncertain future, many people might break off a relationship. But this young couple saw their situation as a call to greater love and faithfulness, and decided to commit themselves to each other "until death parts." A day before their wedding I spoke to David and Alissa and reminded them that only God knows how long they will have each other. One day, whether soon or in years, it will be their turn to say goodbye to one another as Marlys did to Glenn. But it does not matter, I told them, whether their marriage is long or short—if David lives for another week, or another fifty years. What does matter is their commitment to each other, and the fact that they have made it before God, and for eternity. In his eyes, a day is like a thousand years, and if that day is lived for God, who knows how much can be achieved? We need to appreciate people like David and Alissa, Glenn and Marlys, and the teens who organized a "Day of Purity." We need to thank God for their example with respect to sex and marriage, and let our own lives reflect the same commitment and faithfulness. Most important, we need to believe that others are looking for these things too, and that, with enough courage and conviction, we can start a revolution. By Johann Christoph Arnold

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages? The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone? It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent. Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses. But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society. 1. Bad for Marriage The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage. Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. ... Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds." The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception." A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship. In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays. Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality. University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more." 2. Bad for Children Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often. Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "in" in certain elite social sectors. Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them. 3. Bad for Society Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society. In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous. In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans, including those in heterosexual marriages, over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment. Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals. By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

In the history of modern evangelical enthusiasms, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ seems to be joining WWJD bracelets and Promise Keepers' conferences as cultural markers. At first it seemed like it might just be a quirky art film: a film about Jesus' passion using only Aramaic and Latin—and with no subtitles. But what started out as news of the weird has turned into a powerful and popular film that is likely to be a major milestone in cinematic history. Gibson has filmed the Passion with his trademark force—and for those whose ancient language skills are a bit rusty, he has added subtitles. In January, Gibson told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that the film had already been scheduled to open on close to 3,500 screens—that places it squarely between Finding Nemo and Return of the King at their peak distribution last year. Gibson's company now says The Passion will open at 2,800 theaters. Promoters have produced a Passion lapel pin and witnessing card. Endorsements have poured in from evangelical leaders like Focus on the Family president Donald Hodel and Harvest Crusades evangelist Greg Laurie. Public figures as diverse as Willow Creek Community Church's pastor Bill Hybels and bluegrass musician Ricky Skaggs have hosted special screenings for pastors. Moving responses from ordinary believers and Christian celebrities have circulated widely on the Internet, urging believers to see the movie. And Tyndale House has reinforced the movie's influence by publishing The Passion, a coffee table book that integrates still photos from the filming with a harmony of the Passion accounts drawn from the New Living Translation. (Many illustrations for the March 2004 issue of CT came from that book.) This evangelical enthusiasm for The Passion of the Christ may seem a little surprising, in that the movie was shaped from start to finish by a devout Roman Catholic and by an almost medieval Catholic vision. But evangelicals have not found that a problem because, overall, the theology of the film articulates very powerful themes that have been important to all classical Christians. The Vision Thing Mel Gibson is in many ways a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. He prefers the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary co-redemptrix. Early in the filming of The Passion, he gave a long interview to Raymond Arroyo on the conservative Catholic network EWTN. In that interview, Gibson told how actor Jim Caviezel, the film's Jesus, insisted on beginning each day of filming with the celebration of the Mass on the set. He also recounted a series of divine coincidences that led him to read the works of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a late-18th, early-19th-century Westphalian nun who had visions of the events of the Passion. Many of the details needed to fill out the Gospel accounts he drew from her book, Dolorous Passion of Our Lord. Here is one such detail from Emmerich: "[A]fter the flagellation, I saw Claudia Procles, the wife of Pilate, send some large pieces of linen to the Mother of God. I know not whether she thought that Jesus would be set free, and that his Mother would then require linen to dress his wounds, or whether this compassionate lady was aware of the use which would be made of her present. I soon after saw Mary and Magdalen approach the pillar where Jesus had been scourged; they knelt down on the ground near the pillar, and wiped up the sacred blood with the linen which Claudia Procles had sent." Gibson does not follow Dolorous Passion slavishly, and at many points he chooses details that conflict with Emmerich's account. But the sight of Pilate's wife handing a stack of linen cloths to Jesus' mother allows Gibson to capture a moment of sympathy and compassion between the two women, and the act of the two Marys wiping up Jesus' blood gives Gibson the opportunity to pull back for a dramatic shot of the bloody pavement. Evil Unmasked Another detail picked up from Dolorous Passion is just as dramatically powerful, but much more significant theologically. Emmerich writes that during Jesus' agony in the garden, Satan presented Jesus with a vision of all the sins of the human race. "Satan brought forward innumerable temptations, as he had formerly done in the desert, even daring to adduce various accusations against him." Satan, writes Emmerich, addressed Jesus "in words such as these: 'Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty? Art thou prepared to satisfy for all these sins?'" Gibson shows Jesus being tempted by a pale, hooded female figure, who whispers to him just such words, suggesting that bearing the sins of the world is too much for Jesus, that he should turn back. And from under the tempter's robe there slithers a snake. In a moment of metaphorical violence drawn straight from Genesis 3:15, Jesus crushes the serpent's head beneath his sandaled heel. These details from the film's opening sequence announce Gibson's acute consciousness of the cosmic battle between good and evil—between God and the devil—that is played out behind earthly scenes of violence against the innocent Jesus. Gibson's approach to evil impressed at least one expert: The Washington Post reported last July that The Exorcist author William Peter Blatty called the movie "a tremendous depiction of evil." At the January pastors' screening at Willow Creek in Illinois, Gibson explained why he used this veiled female figure to portray evil. Evil "takes on the form of beauty," Gibson said. "It is almost beautiful. It is the great aper of God. But the mask is askew; there is always something wrong. Evil masquerades, but if your antennae are up, you'll detect it." The Apostle Paul hinted at this fact in 2 Corinthians where he wrote that "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." Paul said we shouldn't be surprised then "if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness." C. S. Lewis had a similar insight, expressed in a letter to Arthur Greeves: "Evil usually contains or imitates some good, which accounts for its potency." After the screening, I asked Gibson about his belief in spiritual warfare. "That's the big picture, isn't it?" Gibson replied. "The big realms are slugging it out. We're just the meat in the sandwich. And for some reason, we're worth it. I don't know why, but we are." Gibson sensed spiritual battle on the set, as well. "Complications happened to block certain things," he said. "And the closer you are to a breakthrough point, the more vigorous it gets, so that you know when the opposition is at its greatest, you're close and you have to keep pressing on." "That happened a number of times [in production], and it's happened a number of times since. Production was tough. Post-production has been brutal. You name it, it's happened. Whoa, the world goes into revolt!" Getting Personal The world in revolt? That is, of course, the premise of the entire biblical story. Mel Gibson belongs to that group of Christians who believe we each need to personalize that fact. Not only is the world in revolt, but every human being—including Mel Gibson and David Neff—resists God and good. The visionary Emmerich wrote: "Among the sins of the world which Jesus took upon himself, I saw also my own; and a stream, in which I distinctly beheld each of my faults, appeared to flow towards me from out of the temptations with which he was encircled." When Gibson is accused of making an anti-Semitic film, he stresses that each of us is responsible for Christ's crucifixion. "For culpability," Gibson told a group of Chicago religious leaders last July, "look to yourself. I look to myself." That response hasn't mollified certain Jewish critics, but it does reveal a lot about Gibson. In an action deeply symbolic of his sense of culpability, Mel Gibson the director grabbed the mallet and spikes from the actor who was supposed to be nailing Jesus to the cross. The cameras kept rolling as Gibson wielded the hammer to show how he wanted the nails driven. The close-up cameo of Gibson's hands became part of The Passion. Gibson also has a strong sense of personal salvation. He has a focused feeling, such as John Wesley possessed when he wrote in 1738 that "an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." One reason for Gibson's personal sense of salvation is the way this project rescued him from himself. In his foreword to the Tyndale House book The Passion, Gibson says the film "had its genesis during a time in which [he] found [him]self trapped with feelings of terrible, isolated emptiness." He told the pastors at Willow Creek of his "emptiness, regret, despair, pain." At the time, a little over a decade ago, he had been neglecting his faith since he was 17—a hiatus of about 18 years. Gibson said that he had "always believed," but that he had only prayed when he found himself "in trouble." When you neglect prayer, he said, "you fall into chaos." And so he turned once again to God in prayer. Contemplating God's Wounds When Protestants talk about prayer, they usually mean talking to God about what is on their heart and asking him to deal with life's difficulties. When Catholics talk about prayer, they mean those same things, but they tend to include as well certain practices of contemplation and meditation. Historian Chris Armstrong describes the medieval origins of Cross-centered devotion, which invited the believer to meditate on each separate event of Jesus' passion and each individual wound on his body. Long before evangelicals like Richard Foster began to experiment with guided imagery in prayer, those devotional practices also invited believers to place themselves in their imaginations into the biblical stories. These practices became the foundation for such widely practiced traditions as meditating on the Five Sorrowful Mysteries when saying the Rosary. The structure of Gibson's film conforms exactly to the list of the Five Sorrowful Mysteries: The Agony of Jesus in the Garden, the Scourging of Jesus at the Pillar, the Crowning with Thorns, the Carrying the Cross, and the Crucifixion and Death of Jesus. And it reveals the way that this film is for Gibson a kind of prayer. In the foreword to The Passion, he writes that the film "is not meant as a historical documentary. I think of it as contemplative in the sense that one is compelled to remember in a spiritual way, which cannot be articulated, only experienced." This contemplative devotion has been intensified during the filming of The Passion of the Christ. "This work has turned up the heat" on his prayer life, Gibson told the pastors at Willow Creek. "The past three years forced me to focus heavily on the Passion." "I went to the wounds of Christ in order to cure my wounds," he told TODAY'S CHRISTIAN WOMAN, a CT sister publication, by e-mail. "And when I did that, through reading and studying and meditating and praying, I began to see in my own mind what he really went through. It was like giving birth: the story, the way I envisioned the suffering of Christ, got inside me and started to grow, and it reached a point where I just had to tell it, to get it out." At the Willow Creek event, Hybels asked Gibson why so many religious films are, by comparison, not very good. "I didn't try to make a religious film," Gibson said by way of response. "I tried to make something that was real to me." All of this—the sense of one's own sins being responsible for the Crucifixion, the sense of the enormous weight of the world's sins on the Savior's shoulders, the horror of the suffering that Christ endured, the way the story grew inside Gibson—accounts in part for the film's bruising bloodiness. The extremes of brutality are not simply a translation of Gibson's secular visual vocabulary from Lethal Weapon and We Were Soldiers into the sacred sphere. "The enormity of blood sacrifice," as he put it, is important to Gibson. Unlike liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) who deny the importance of the shedding of blood in the Atonement, Gibson grasps firmly the sacred symbol of blood and spatters the audience's sensibilities with it. Never one to run from a compelling symbol, Gibson presents the truth of Leviticus 17:11 in all its power: "The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life." Some will feel simply overwhelmed by the display, but many traditional Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) will see this film and feel Gibson has sprinkled them with the saving blood just as the Israelite priests sprinkled the atoning blood on the altar. For, as Gibson puts it, "In the Old Covenant, blood was required. In the New Covenant, blood was required. Jesus could have pricked his finger, but he didn't; he went all the way." What impresses Mel Gibson is the total surrender of Jesus to the Father's will in order to be an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the human race. What rewards Mel Gibson is the silence, the introspection, the realization, and the remembering that people do. (Gibson pointed out that the Greek word for truth literally means "un-forgetting.") After seeing the movie, one person simply said, "I'm sorry. I forgot." By David Neff

By Philip Turner I have been asked to address a notoriously broad and difficult subject, "The Foundations of Christian Belief and Practice." The subject is broad because "the foundations" involve more than a few simple statements. They involve a complex of mutually dependent and interlocking beliefs and practices that are notoriously difficult to summarize. The subject is difficult because the minute one tries to identify the foundations, someone offers a different list. At this point statements intended to produce unity become themselves the cause of disagreement and, on occasion, division. Despite these difficulties, however, the cry to return to foundations appears again and again; and it does so because in times of conflict, persecution, and/or suffering people feel a need "to look to the rock from which they were hewn." When the earth moves, people desperately search for solid footing. The recent actions of the Dioceses of New Westminster, of ECUSA's General Convention, and the subsequent ordination of Gene Robinson to be the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire have indeed caused the earth to move; and those who deny that they are feeling shock waves live in a world whose physics I fail to understand. The foundations have indeed been shaken; and consequently, despite the difficulty of the project, I agreed to comply with your request. For the next few minutes, I am going to ask us to consider the foundations of our faith. Before I do that, however, I think it will be helpful to state at the outset where I am going to end up; namely, with a challenge that is fearfully difficult to state, hear, and accept. The challenge is that we seek to overcome among ourselves the forces of individualism and congregationalism that have shaken the foundations of our common life; and that we do so by forming a communion of parishes jointly committed in mutually supportive ways to building a common life upon the foundations I hope to identify. To put the matter another way, my challenge is to join (right here in the Diocese of Colorado) as brothers and sisters in fellowship with Christ and with one another in a common movement of repentance, reconciliation, reform and renewal whose purpose is nothing less that the reform of and renewal of the Episcopal Church. Conversely, my challenge is for us to cease thinking of ourselves as distressed individuals joined together on the basis of shared preferences and a sense of affliction into distinct congregations whose purpose is self-protection, self-promotion, and the pursuit of privately held religious and moral beliefs. Both the positive and the negative statement of the telos of this address are intended to strike at the heart of the individualism and congregationalism (and so also the sin) that have combined to shake the foundations not only of ECUSA but also of the Anglican Communion as a whole. Given this purpose, when writing this address, these questions posed themselves. If I am to speak of foundations, how do I get from A to B? More specifically, how do I get from a place where there seems to be no solid ground to one that is as firm as a rock—a rock so firmly implanted in the earth that it can be called "the rock of ages?" For better or worse, in search of an answer, I decided to address three questions and they are these: What purpose does God ask of those who search for foundations--who look to the rock from which they were hewn? How do we recognize and come to rest upon the foundations of our common belief and practice? What shall we do if we find ourselves standing together on the foundations God provides his church? Foundations and Purposes Let me put the first question in this way. If in a time of turmoil, uncertainty, and distress, we seek to relocate ourselves on a firm foundation, what purpose drives us? Why, in such circumstances, does the question of foundations arise? Do we seek an answer for no greater reason than to save our own skin? Is our purpose simply to keep the house from falling in on our own heads? Or are we, perhaps, simply trying to distinguish ourselves from people with whom we do not wish to be identified? Though I do so at some risk of giving offense, I must at this juncture speak with considerable candor. Too much is at stake to beat around the bush. I have been involved in the church struggle in which we now find ourselves for some 30 years, and during that time (particularly in the last three or four years) I have noted a change in the purpose a search for foundations serves. The search has less and less been directed to finding common ground upon which all members of ECUSA, despite their differences, can stand. Conversely, the search has been directed more and more toward finding a self-definition that distinguishes my group that holds to right belief and practice from another group that does not. In short, the notion of foundations serves less and less to provide the fundament of a common dwelling place and more and more as a totemic symbol that distinguishes warring clans engaged in a deadly family feud. There are several reasons for this shift. The first is self-protective. The reasoning seems to go something like this. If we can raise the totemic symbol of foundations high enough, then our people will not seek membership in another clan. More bluntly, if we can identify our congregation as clearly orthodox as opposed to heterodox, people will not (as good Americans though not good Christians do) shop around for another that better suits them. I must say that despite the many good things that went on recently in Plano at the conference intended to establish a network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, one thing troubled me profoundly. Though I support this network and desire more than I can say to see its tribe increase, I must note that at the Plano meeting, far too many people wanted to join in large measure because they were afraid that apart from this option many of "their people" would leave. The driving force behind their support of the movement was self-protective. I detected also a second (less than optimal) reason for support of this particular attempt to define foundations. To declare for foundations may serve the purpose of establishing my obedience and virtue and exposing the disobedience and vice of someone whom I now hold to be a stranger rather than a member of my own family. I am sad to say that, in the heat of our present struggles, I have found this attitude all too common both in myself and in others. I certainly have found it increasingly common in the way in which some Episcopalians often refer to other Episcopalians. Foundations (sadly) have become a means of breaking communion rather than one upon which it is built. Now I would be the last to deny that the fundaments of Christian belief and practice serve to reveal false accounts of these matters. I would also not like to deny that they might serve to hold people together in times of division and stress. I am convinced, however, that neither purpose ought to dominate our search. In searching for foundations, our purpose under God ought to be to rebuild the house of the Lord; and that rebuilding cannot be done with the purpose of excluding members of the family who may have lost track of those beliefs and practices that give the family identity. The first purpose of a search for foundations, if it is to be a godly search, is to call everyone, both orthodox and heterodox, to look to the rock from which they were hewn. If the search for foundations is intended simply to keep some people in and keep others out, it will, despite its necessity, prove an ungodly course of action. If the search for foundations is only a matter of truth: if that search takes place apart from love and mercy, then the truth becomes an instrument of war and not a bond of peace. To paraphrase the psalm, truth and mercy must kiss if God is to be served. If this is so, then the search for foundations, if it is to be godly, must begin with a desire to include one's opponent. Its purpose must be to find a foundation upon which all are called to stand. This desire must be accompanied by the hope of reconciliation and agreement. To be godly, the search must be born of hope rather than despair. To be godly, the search for foundations must be born of eagerness to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace rather than an eagerness to establish the righteousness of one's own cause. It cannot be godly if it is in essence an attempt to define one part of the church over against another. Such an attempt screams not of obedience but of disobedience. I conclude, therefore, with the observation that a godly search for the foundations of Christian faith and practice must necessarily be accompanied negatively by repentance and positively by love and charity toward the neighbor in Christ who may well have strayed far indeed from the common foundations upon which God's temple, the church, rest. Recognizing Fundaments If the purpose under God of a search for foundations is to call everyone, both orthodox and heterodox, to look to the rock from which both were hewn, then one must ask first not about building foundations but about recognizing those God has already provided. How shall we find the foundations upon which the ruined walls of our church can be rebuilt? The answer to this question is simple to state, but extraordinarily difficult to put into practice. If we wish to recognize the foundations God has provided, we can do so only as a people who are immersed in the Holy Scriptures as read and commonly interpreted within the context of the prayers, worship, and common life of the church. In making this statement, I am offering neither a truism nor a bromide. I am in fact calling for something quite radical; namely, a return to what I take to be the foundational principle of Anglicanism as set forth by Thomas Cranmer at the time of the Reformation in England. At the beginning of the "Preface" to the Book of Common Prayer adopted in 1549 Cranmer notes that his arrangement for having the whole Bible (or the greatest part thereof) read through once a year by both clergy and people has its origins in the ancient practice of the church. In his essay "Of Ceremonies: Why Some Be Abolished and Some Retained," he grounds his revision of the prayers of the church in Holy Scripture and the practice of the early fathers rather than in ecclesial authority, doctrinal propositions, or cannot law. He believed that the way to foundations lay in the ancient practice of the church. The conviction led him to believe that the best way to discern the foundations was neither by reference to the office of bishop, nor to formularies (like a confession), nor to canon law. The best way to look to the rock from which the church is hewn is by "scriptural exposition within the divine service of clergy and people." Cranmer looked to the fathers of the church and in doing so held that repetition of "scriptural exposition within the divine service of clergy and people" promotes communal edification in a way that is more effective than a focus on "right doctrine." He certainly believed in the importance of right doctrine, but he believed also that what he called "decent order" and "quiet discipline" is a necessary precondition for the preservation of right doctrine. The reiterative reading of Holy Scripture within ancient forms of worship produce, as he notes in "Of Ceremonies," "unity and concord." We may summarize Cranmer's position by saying that, in his reform of the ceremonies of the Church of England, he sought an ordered, communal, and prayerful process in which the people, joined in worship, heard the entirety of the Bible in an ordered manner. The purpose of this reiterative reading and prayer was the formation and strengthening of a common mind and form of life, and so also peace and unity within the church. This common scriptural formation was for Cranmer of more fundamental importance and of greater effect in maintaining the health of the church than confessional statements or forms of ecclesial governance, Episcopal ones included. He believed that within the boundaries of common prayer and ordered communal hearing of Holy Scripture, one can trust that the Holy Spirit will lead God's people in the way of truth and love. Cranmer believed that this practice would, if faithfully carried on, reveal the foundations not simply to a clerical elite (who are not to be trusted on their own) but to the church as a whole, composed as it is of both clergy and laity. I might add parenthetically that William White, ECUSA's first bishop, in his The Case of the Episcopal Church in the United States Considered, believed something very similar. He wrote that the Episcopal Church is defined by "ancient habits" and "stated ordinances" that render a church closest to the "form of religion of the Scriptures." It would appear that for Anglicans, even of an American variety, foundations are discerned by communal reading of the Holy Scriptures within the context of ancient forms of prayer and worship. Here, however, we are presented with the nub of our present problem. Episcopalians, both lay and clerical, are no longer immersed in the ordered reading of Holy Scriptures. Our clergy no longer stand under the mandatory discipline of reading the daily offices, and our laity no longer are in possession of functioning forms of domestic piety that focus on daily readings that take them regularly through the entire sweep of the biblical narrative. The result is that, within ECUSA, clergy and laity alike are incapable of recognizing a fundament even if they run headlong into it. We no longer can have a scriptural argument that amounts to anything because we have not been shaped by comprehensive reading of the basic witness to the foundations of our faith and life. So if I am to talk of foundations, it will not do to state a series of theological propositions and urge you to agree with me. Apart from communal insight born of common immersion in Holy Scripture, such talk can only appear subjective, arbitrary, or even tyrannical. So if in this time when the earth is moving and the ground under our feet seems full of cracks and crevices we wish to fix our feet on the solid ground of foundations, we will have first to find a way to become a people immersed in Holy Scripture. Apart from such immersion, foundations will become a source of division rather than unity. Everyone, friend and foe alike, will fail to recognize them. Consequently I take the formation of a people immersed in Holy Scripture to be the first and foremost responsibility of clergy and laity in our time. Apart from such formation, the search for foundations will fail and the walls of the church will remain in ruins. But how can such a reform be brought about? For the moment I shall do no more than place before you two changes that must come about if we are to speak of foundations in a way that unites rather than divides. The first concerns the clergy among us. Our preaching can do much to beckon people toward the pages of Holy Scripture and display their meaning. It can also do much to turn them away and occlude its witness to the fundaments upon which our life together rest. As things stand at present, I have become convinced that, on the whole, the preaching of ECUSA's clergy (both orthodox and heterodox) does more to hide the meaning of Holy Scripture than reveal it—more to chase people away than to attract them. Why? Because our seminary education has left us in thrall to a form of interpretation that focuses on single texts and asks only what this or that particular text meant in its original context. The more conservative among us will tend to see the original meaning as applicable to our circumstances. The more liberal will tend to focus on the differences between our circumstances and those reflected in the text. Thus one group will say the text is authoritative and the other will speak of how it is relative to a particular time and place. Neither conservative nor liberal, however, locates the text within the sweep of the biblical narrative. Thus, in contradistinction to the fathers of the church, neither sees each text as a figure that points to others. The result of this textual myopia, this failure to see the Bible whole, this failure to link one text with another, is the increasingly common view that the Bible can yield no perspicuous witness to foundations. One can hardly be surprised, therefore, that laity and clergy alike turn increasingly away from Holy Scripture and toward some form of experience or some doctrinal definition. One can hardly be surprised either by the increasingly common use of isolated verses in a manner that reminds one more of a war club than a healing poultice. Either way, the Bible does not serve as the ether that sustains God's people in the oxygen-starved air of their trials and travails. The first thing necessary for a people immersed in Holy Scripture is for the public exposition of the reiterative reading of Holy Scripture to become of the sort that locates given texts within the full sweep of the Bible's testimony. The second thing necessary for common recognition of the foundations is the reconstitution of forms of domestic piety that, within the context of daily life, immerse people in the same narrative sweep. My grandmother provides a homely example of what I mean. She had a favorite chair and could be found sitting in it each morning and evening. On the table beside her chair could be found the novel she was reading, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Bible. The first books she reached for morning and evening were the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. She was immersed in Holy Scripture, and could comment on the Sunday sermon with more critical insight than can the vast majority of seminary-trained clergy in our day. I do not wish to be a romantic. I am fully aware of the time constraints modern life places upon both individuals and families. I am also aware, however, that the search for foundations will certainly go astray if that search is left to presbyters and bishops who are not in conversation with a biblically literate laity whose lives are formed by the prayers of the church and daily immersion in the pages of the books that display our foundations. Either we find a way to renew domestic piety and the figural reading of Holy Scripture, or the Holy Scriptures will remain strange to us and the walls of the church will remain in ruins. Naming the Foundations Now I come to the hardest and most controversial part. If we were to become a people immersed in the Holy Scriptures as read and interpreted with the context of the common life, prayer, and worship of the church, what are the foundations that would be revealed to us? I will attempt no complete answer to this question. I will suggest only those things I believe would jump out at us. The first thing we would discover is that the fundaments concern a notion very much out of favor among Episcopalians--"salvation." I do not mean that they are first of all about bringing relief to some privation experienced within the compass of what the Bible is fond of calling "this present age" or "the world." It is not that the witness of Holy Scripture is unconcerned with the state of the poor, or the suffering of the outcast, or the plight of the prisoner, or the pain of the infirm. I mean only that these matters are penultimate to another—our broken relation with God. At the center of the witness of the Bible is Christ's death for sinners. It is precisely the ugliness of our state before God that the theology of incarnation now so popular with Episcopal clergy seeks to cover over with bromides about God's accepting love and his affirmation of creation. Indeed, I will make bold to say that the regnant theology within ECUSA has removed salvation as a concern. Since God is loving and accepting without qualification, there is not need for salvation. Within ECUSA Christianity as popularly preached is no longer a religion of salvation. This observation leads me to say that once one leaves the language of the Book of Common Prayer and steps into the pulpit or the rector's forum, generally speaking, one leaves behind as well the issue of salvation. With this departure, the foundations of our common belief and practice lie in ruins. I can only say that a people immersed in Holy Scripture would know right off that they were being passed a counterfeit coin. I know of no other way to understand the sweep of Holy Scripture than as a witness to a good creation gone wrong and to God who will pay a terrible price to reconcile and redeem that world. The first thing a people immersed in Holy Scripture will discover is that their religion is indeed one of salvation; and that the salvation in question has to do first of all with their life before God. This simple discovery would change the subject in most parishes I know in ways that render what went before, from a Christian perspective, unrecognizable. They would see much of what went before as but a strange caricature of Christian truth. The second thing that such a people would recognize is that the story of God's agonizing reclamation of his world is given form, not by the internal dynamics of the world itself, but by God's own being as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The biblical narrative would no longer fall apart into a host of unrelated and time bound stories and sayings both difficult to understand and infrequently applicable. Rather that narrative would display the fearful holiness of the Father who in love begets the Son and sends forth the Spirit to form a people for his service and to return the world to the right worship of its creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. A people steeped in the witness of the Holy Scriptures would come to understand that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not an impossible logical conundrum about three being one and yet remaining three. It is rather God's provision of himself as the way back to himself. A biblically immersed people know that the fundament of their life is that they may be confident (or "bold") to pray to God as he in fact is. So biblically immersed people know what it is to pray to the Father through the Son in the power of the Spirit. They know also to read the story of their own lives and that of the world through the same prism. The Father, through the death and resurrection of his Son and through the gift of the Holy Spirit, both overcomes and reconciles the world in its defection. As Augustine saw so clearly when he wrote his Confessions and the City of God, both biography and history receive their intelligibility from this extraordinary story where in God who has taught us to address him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit both creates, reconciles, and redeems the world. A biblically immersed people would read life through Trinitarian glasses. The foundation revealed to a biblically immersed people is God; God who is to be addressed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; whose nature is displayed in this name; God whose way of working in the world is made manifest as the church invokes this name. This statement brings me to the final point I wish to make about the foundations revealed to a biblically immersed people. If it is the case that God the Father effects our salvation by bringing us to himself through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit, a certain form of life will become a part of the foundations for which we search. Those who seek the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit will struggle to live a life that images, reflects, or imitates that of the Son. They will not depend upon the success of their imitation for salvation, but they will live before God with adoration, praise, gratitude, and fear. This way of standing before God will drive them toward a life worthy of a holy God. The Holy Scriptures contain abundant accounts of the form such a life is to take. In its lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, and eagerness for unity; in its kindness, tenderheartedness, and mercy; and finally in its willingness to suffer, the members of Christ body seek in the power of the Holy Spirit to display Christ as the way to the Father. When we speak of foundations, we think on the whole of matters of doctrine rather than conduct. However, a people immersed in the Holy Scriptures will recognize among the foundations not only doctrine but a very practical call to a devout and holy life. Once again, despite the familiarity of such a statement, I must insist that I am not offering either a truism or a bromide. The fact is that as I survey the parishes and congregations dotted about the city in which I live, I do not see bodies of people whose lives are immersed in the Holy Scriptures, whose understanding of themselves and the world about them is shaped by the providential action on the part of the Father in the Son and through the Spirit to reconcile all things to himself; and I certainly do not see a common struggle to live, after the pattern of the Son, an devout and holy life. What I see with too few exceptions are voluntary associations formed to meet the religious, spiritual, moral, and personal needs of those whose tastes draw them to this group rather than to another. What I see is in fact example after example of American "denominationalism"—that extraordinarily American effort to market religion on the basis of consumer sentiment. If there were world enough and time, I could demonstrate the truth of this statement over and over again. It is enough to say at the moment that, on the whole, the parishes of the Episcopal Church, like the congregations of most other American denominations, are organized around the expressed needs to the congregants rather than the fundaments I have identified ever so briefly above. When I was the Dean of a Seminary, I used, once a year, to run conferences for the Rectors of larger parishes. Once I noted that they were remarkably successful in devising programs that attracted people by addressing the issues and concerns most on people's minds. I then asked them how successful were their efforts to draw people more deeply into the Christian mystery—into the beliefs and practices that give identity to the purposes of God. My question was followed by an embarrassed silence that I will never forget. What Then Shall We Do? This observation brings me to my last question. If as a biblically immersed people we find ourselves standing on the foundation of the saving economy of God whom we address as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and upon our calling to a devout and holy life; what is to be done to rebuild the walls of the church upon this, rather than its present foundation of consumer sentiment? If those historians and sociologists who comment on American religion are correct in their assessment, undertaking such a task can only be compared to turning a ship the size of a Nimitz class carrier a full 180 degrees when one is in the midst of a gale force storm. It will require us to revision, reform, and rebuild the parish as we know it. We may quibble over details and dispute this or that point, but what Bellah, and others tell us about American Christianity is basically true. Our religion is highly personal and acquisitive. We shop for a "religious affiliation" that meets our needs and tastes. The denominational system is set up as a response to this religious consumerism. Within this system, God is portrayed as a kindly Father anxious to meet the needs of his children. The Holy Scriptures are viewed rather like a table at a jumble sale—one on which all sorts of things are set out and from which one may choose according to taste and need. The primary issue is not the purpose of a Holy and transcendent God who, out of shear mercy, wills the redemption of the entire creation, but the usefulness of a limitlessly tolerant and kindly God for addressing our hopes and fears. The foundations are, in the end, laid by our own desires and tastes rather than by a sovereign God. Given the real state of the churches in America and that of ECUSA in particular, I do not find it surprising that all find themselves in one or another form of crisis. God will not be mocked as we now do. We must assume, therefore, that our present distress is a sign of divine judgment rather than divine favor. Further, we dare not assume that we, unlike others, are righteous—free from that judgment. The judgment of God, who as the Father comes to us in the Son through The Spirit, is always accompanied with a promise of forgiveness and a call to repentance. Repentance is consequently the first step necessary if we are to rebuild the walls of the church upon the foundation God himself provides. It is my view that the last thing genuine repentance requires of us it the arrogant step of founding a pure church set apart from that of the miserable sinners. What repentance requires is admission of one's sin and amendment of life. And here is my main point. Repentance and amendment of life when applied to parishes and congregations requires a common effort to reconfigure our life together and place it upon the foundation God himself provides. At this point, I come to the challenge with which I began. The act of repentance required of us is a corporate one. Just as YHWH through the prophets called all of Israel to return, so he calls his church to return as a body. If we are to hear for ourselves the words God spoke to Francis, "rebuild my church," we must hear these words as a body and not as isolated selves or even as distinct congregations. The task of rebuilding lies beyond the reach of individuals and separate congregations. Divided efforts of this sort will simply reproduce denominationalism in different forms. To rest once more upon the fundaments of our faith and to live once more as a people will require us to become a communion, a fellowship. To repent and amend our lives as a church requires that our parishes give up self-protective and self-promoting strategies and give themselves to a common struggle to rebuild the walls of the church. I know that it was the intention of the people who drew up the theological charter commended by the newly formed network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes to begin exactly this sort of movement of repentance and reform. My challenge to you is to form within the Diocese of Colorado a part of such a network and to come together in a movement of repentance, reconciliation, reform, and renewal intended to rebuild the walls of the entire church upon the foundations God graciously has provided his people. In line with this challenge, I would like to conclude these remarks by sharing with you a dream. Suppose it were the case that the parishes represented here today in the persons of both clergy and laity were in full cooperation one with another to undertake to shape the program of each congregation so as to help its members better fulfill this simple promise made when each was baptized. Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of the bread and the prayers? What would have to happen in a parish to encourage and enable people to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship? What would have to happen to help them continue in the breaking of bread? What would have to happen to help them continue in the prayers? And what would such a communion of parishes do jointly to see that together they sought to fulfill the other promises made at baptism? How jointly, for example, might they seek to persevere in resisting evil? And how jointly might they seek to "proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? How might they jointly attempt to "seek and serve Christ in all persons?" Suppose these questions became the basis of common prayer, discussion, and endeavor? Suppose questions such as these shaped the way in which the leaders and people in each congregation sought to worship, honor, and serve the Father through the Son in the Spirit? I believe that such an effort would not prove to be self-protective and self-promoting. I believe it would run against the grain of our individualism, congregatonalism, and sin. I believe it would signal a repentant heart. I believe that it would prove an effort blessed by God. I believe finally, that it would reflect a biblically immersed people whose lives rest upon the foundation of God's salvation procured by the Father, in the Son and through the Spirit and whose manner of life reflects God's own.

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." We repeat those words every Sunday when we stand together to recite the Nicene Creed. What it means to be a part of the church catholic holds a renewed and special meaning for Anglicans today because of the crisis issues that face us. It is our unique Anglican heritage that allows us to lay claim to the historic faith we profess in that creed. So what does it really mean and why is it important? The early Christian church, by the end of the first century A.D., was called catholic simply because the word means universal. It comes from the Greek, katas holos, which literally means according to the whole. The second bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius, said at the end of the first century: wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. Before the end of the fourth century, the church administration became centered in Rome; hence, the term developed Roman Catholic Church. However, when speaking of the historic universal church that has always existed since the time of Christ, the term catholic is correct. By the historic office of bishop that has been preserved through the centuries since the time of the Apostles, we are also able to claim the apostolic church. When the Protestant Reformation emerged during the sixteenth century, scholars like Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to re-claim what early Christianity was like before corrupted during the Middle Ages at the hands of Rome. By the time of the late Middle Ages, the church in Rome was openly selling church offices, selling God's grace through "indulgences," and the legitimacy of the papacy was seriously in question. What reformers sought was a renewed catholicity; a return to the universal apostolic church of the first centuries. The word catholicity simply refers to unity and universality – the common bonds that tie Christians together. The exact meaning of catholicity is something that has been hotly debated among theologians and historians. However, it is clear that during the Protestant Reformation, some believed that the best way to re-claim the early Church was to abolish many practices and doctrines that had been embraced by the Roman church for centuries. In varying degrees, mainstream Protestant churches distanced themselves from the historic catholic faith by abandoning the historic sacraments of the church and the traditional liturgy, eliminating the office of bishop, and even carrying out more symbolic acts like doing away with clerical vestments and removing altars from churches. These reformers saw catholicity as an invisible unity that was not necessarily found in the traditional practices of the Christian church. In the minds of many, the Roman Catholic Church was completely flawed and therefore, anything historically associated with that institution was also flawed. Therefore, some churches that emerged from the Protestant Reformation developed new models of administration and differing methods of worship. However, some defined catholicity in more visible and tangible terms. When the Reformation came to England, it was much more rooted at the national level than it had been on the continent of Europe and conditions there dictated that church reform be more moderate to ensure a legitimate link to the past. In England in the sixteenth century, it was important that the historic elements of Christian unity be absolutely defined in concrete terms -- the consecrated office of bishop, the sacraments, the authority of Holy Scripture, the Creeds, the orthodoxy of the Church Fathers, the traditional liturgy – all of which were historic ties to the early Church. Therefore, when the Church of England broke away from Rome in 1534, it could still claim to be a part of the church catholic and apostolic by virtue of history. All of the historical elements of catholicity remained intact yet purged of the corrupt errors of Rome. This is the unique Anglican identity – to be truly part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. When the Episcopal Church of the United States broke away from the authority of Holy Scripture in consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop, it made the statement that our history is unimportant – that somehow, our tie to the rest of the Anglican Communion does not matter. Yet the Anglican Communion is our only tie to the historic past. Through our Anglican forebears of nearly five hundred years ago, we inherited a claim to the historic catholic church of the first century. There has perhaps never been a better time in recent centuries to review and embrace our history and heritage. Our legitimacy is anchored firmly in the past, therefore eliminating the need for any discussions about new theologies for the modern world. Even amid the doctrinal squabbles of the Reformation period, all learned and scholarly men agreed that there was only one true authority – God's Holy Word. Holy Scripture and the Creeds have defined for us the limits of our inclusiveness; they are our signposts, fixed and true. To remain a part of the church catholic means to cling fast to the history we know – the orthodox faith of centuries of Christians who have gone before us. Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. is a professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport and she 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.

The Diocese of West Tennessee had its convention this past weekend. Bishop Don E. Johnson, who voted against Robinson, continues to verbalize the theme of unity. In an emotionally powerful image he recounted a rabbinical story about Abraham's call. The point of the story was that Abraham responded to God with one request, "I will go where you send me if I can bring my family with me." Bishop Johnson then asked that he be allowed to bring his family, the diocesan family, with him into the unknown future. The call to unity and focus on togetherness permeated much of our time together. The question for many of us concerns the content of that unity. One major source of contention was the role of Bishop Chilton Knudsen of Maine. She had been invited last fall to be a speaker for the convention. Unfortunately, shortly after that invitation was accepted, she was a co-consecrator at V. Gene Robinson's elevation to the episcopacy. Although Bishop Johnson made it clear that he did not know she would participate in the consecration and it was not his intent to make a political statement through this invitation, several of the West Tennessee clergy told the bishop that we would be unable to attend the Eucharist if she concelebrated and preached. Bishop Johnson had extended the invitation prior to the Robinson consecration and decided not to withdraw it. Four priests met with him (ironically, the day after he issued his Pastoral Letter about the AAC). During a candid, but generally friendly exchange, we made it clear that we would be gathering elsewhere to pray. Bishop Johnson voiced respect for us and our position. We emphasized that we would not make any 'grand exit' which would disrupt the Eucharist. On Friday evening we did not attend the diocesan Eucharist and gathered instead at my parish. Friday at 6:00 PM St. Andrew's Church in Collierville was filled with some 1200 worshippers. We prayed Evening Prayer and a dozen folks prayed aloud for the needs of the church. At the end of the service all the priests present were asked to stand up and extend their hands in blessing. About nine clergy were there and the beauty and power of the moment was lost on no one. Several participants later commented that it was the high point of the convention weekend. The atmosphere at the evening prayer had been affected by the threats uttered just a few hours before. Just prior to the evening prayer, beginning at 3:30, we had gathered for hearings on several resolutions. Three resolutions had been submitted by a traditionalist priest. One called for a renunciation of General Convention resolutions that have caused such an uproar in the church, another affirmed that marriage was between one man and one woman and that sex outside of marriage was a sin. A third asked for diocesan support of the Network as an effort to make a place for those who want to remain in the Episcopal Church but remained committed to the orthodox faith. In the midst of those discussions at the hearings a statement was made by the rector of the host parish that he would bring up on presentment any priest who was associated with the AAC or the Network. A short time after that I asked if I had correctly heard that this priest intended to present me for my membership in AAC. At that point Fr. Joe Davis asked, "And me?" I think that one or two other priests also asked the same question. Both publicly and privately afterward this priest made it clear that he would bring us up on presentment if need be. Although this threat was rather unnerving, later that night and the next day three other priests who are in opposition to our position came to offer support. I do not believe at this point that any charges will be filed. I think many of the opposition here still view us with respect and love and do not want us brought up on charges. Unfortunately, the resolutions committee decided to not bring the three resolutions made by the Traditionalists to the house floor. Instead they claimed to roll them into another "unity" resolution which called for further dialogue. (Several of the Traditionalists had supported this resolution with the understanding that we wanted to remain in the church and work together). We were deeply saddened when this resolution was foisted upon us as a compromise to avoid conflict. The attempt to silence us failed as on the house floor the resolutions were resubmitted as amendments and the very discussion that they had tried to prevent occurred any way. During the closing floor debate Fr. Joe Davis set out a reasoned argument for the orthodox claims. Fr. Colenzo Hubbard pointed out that we had heard only the liberal voice and needed to also hear the Traditionalists, and Fr. Samson Giteau asked for the delegates to give us some reason for hope. The discussions were neither contentious or highly emotional. They also did not sway the delegates to vote affirmatively for any of the amendments. I addressed the assembly and tried to explain our plight. I called on them to realize that many folks in our parishes were barely hanging on in the church. I explained that they needed some sign of hope. I asked them, "besides Vicky Gene Robinson himself, who could you have possibly placed at this altar to send a clearer message of where we stand than the person who consecrated him?" I turned to Bishop Knudsen and told her that had she spoken at any other time or circumstance we would have listened to her. I told her that I understood we missed out on a fine talk. I also explained that we are committed to the Church universal and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Knudsen had ignored the united voice of the Anglican Primates, had engaged in an act which tore at the fabric of the communion and that she was the schismatic. I also stated that the disregard for Africa and the Southern Hemisphere was an act of racism and that Liberal racism is the most insidious type because they cannot believe they are capable of racism. Our diocese failed to renounce the Robinson ordination. We did not confirm that we believe marriage is between one man and one woman (i.e., we rejected the Prayer Book definition). We did not confirm sex outside of marriage is a sin. We did not allow for parishes in West Tennessee to be part of the Network. We did commit to further discussions and dialogue. Many of the orthodox are not hopeful. They believe dialogue means "talk until you get on board with the new and improved Christianity." The days ahead are uncertain but we remain committed to faithful discipleship. We ask the Primates to hear that we did not attend the Eucharist and do not want to be in broken or impaired communion. We want our ecumenical partners to hear we witnessed to the faith within this convention. We want the readers of this to hold us and our bishop in prayer. Jeff Marx is the rector St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Collierville in the Diocese of West Tennessee.

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