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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By J. Michael Parker Express-News Religion Writer 2/22/2004 The Episcopal Diocese of West Texas ended its annual council Saturday by consecrating a popular 47-year-old San Antonio priest as its newest bishop. The Rev. Gary Richard Lillibridge, former rector of St. David's Parish, became coadjutor bishop, which means he has the automatic right to succeed Bishop James E. Folts as head of the diocese when Folts retires or dies. Folts, 63, has announced no retirement plans and may continue in office until he turns 72. Lillibridge then will become the ninth bishop to head the West Texas diocese, which celebrates its centennial this year. An estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Episcopalians from 92 congregations in 60 counties attended Saturday's two-hour liturgy in Municipal Auditorium. "My ministry is going to be one of encouraging people who are hurting," the new prelate said after the ceremony. "We can't get so discouraged that we're diverted from our mission. "Each generation has faced its own challenges, and I'm proud of the way this diocese has dealt with the issues facing it. And any time is a great time to serve the Lord," Lillibridge said. It was a joyful ending for a council that on the previous two days had passed resolutions expressing displeasure at Episcopal Church actions. One resolution criticized the approval of a noncelibate gay bishop in New Hampshire. The other affirmed the sanctity of Christian marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. The council also decided to let each congregation decide this year how to spend mission and ministry funds it usually sends to the Episcopal Church. The 2004 budget provides for $569,000 to be sent to the national church if all parishes and missions send their share. Some will still send it there, while others will divert it directly to a variety of mission causes. Debate was spirited but not rancorous. Delegates acknowledged the tension but said they were committed to staying in the Episcopal Church and continuing dialogue. Retired Bishop John MacNaughton, in his consecration sermon Saturday, said Episcopalians are "at war with each other" over church authority and the Bible. But he said Lillibridge must minister to all people in need "whether they agree with you or not" and serve "a world that's dying for lack of moral leadership." Lillibridge received a Bible, a cross, a ring, a stole and a crozier (shepherd's staff) as symbols of his office, and the assembled Episcopal bishops prayed in a circle around him as he knelt before the altar. Congregants applauded him enthusiastically when the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, presented Lillibridge to the congregation in his new red and white bishop vestments. "Members of Gary's congregation all feel very sad to lose him as our rector," said Owens Crowley, a St. David's parishioner who attended the event. "But he has many gifts to offer, and we're happy that he can share them with the whole diocese. Others said he's a strong leader who will bring vitality to diocesan leadership and will enable the church to grow. "We hope he'll be able to lead us for a long time," Rawley McCoy of St. Francis Parish in Victoria said.

Associated Press 2/22/2004 CHARLESTON, S.C. - Theological differences over homosexuality are causing rifts in the Episcopal Church, but they do not have to be fatal to the church's unity, according to speakers at a forum here. Nearly 200 Episcopalians from around the state gathered Saturday to discuss ways of coping with conflicts over the 2003 confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the denomination's first openly gay bishop. Clergy and laity, most from the Charleston-based Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, gathered for "Seeking Unity in Diversity," a conference set up by the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina. The Mount Pleasant-based group was formed to help members of the diocese try to find common ground despite differences over Robinson's confirmation. "Our goal today was to get some constructive conversation going within the Episcopal Church because there is so much polarization in the church and in our diocese," said Lynn Pagliaro of Mount Pleasant, one of the Forum's board members. "Members of the diocese want to learn about different opinions on these issues, and we see ourselves as an ongoing place for conversation within the Episcopal Church." The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, has been one of the most vocal opponents of Robinson's confirmation. In December, the diocese he leads became one of four charter members of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network is for Episcopalians opposed to Robinson's confirmation. Network membership, as well as differences of opinion over Robinson, same-sex unions and other issues have caused distress among many lay members of the diocese. The only way to continue conversation between the two sides is to recognize the seriousness of the step the Episcopal Church took in affirming Robinson, said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the diocese's canon theologian. "This is a debate about essentials," he said. Both Harmon and the Very Rev. William McKeachie, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, challenged Robinson's supporters to come up with a way to reconcile gay relationships with Scripture. "The biblical case for monogamous, heterosexual unions has not suddenly been proven wrong," McKeachie said. "... If schism and the breaking up of the Anglican Communion is incipient, it is not, in the view of the Diocese of South Carolina, we who caused the schism." McKeachie said both sides need to work out a theological compromise, such as the statement worked out at the 1988 General Convention that recognizes abortion as legal but also as a serious matter. The Very Rev. Samuel Candler, dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta, said he believes in "the possibility that certain same-sex relationships can offer the grace of God." Many members said they were encouraged after the daylong conference. "I think this is a step in the right direction," said Georgia Ann Porcher, a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston. FAITH UNDER FIRE - HUGE CHRISTIAN GROWTH SHOCKS CHINA'S LEADERS - CRACKDOWN REPORTEDLY SPARKED BY NEW VIDEO, BOOKS RELEASED IN U.S. February 20, 2004 Christianity Today More than 50 Chinese Christians, including three prominent Protestant leaders have been arrested in a new crackdown that follows the release of a video and book in the United States documenting the massive growth of the unregistered, or "underground" church. A report by the evangelical magazine Christianity Today said the crackdown began during a meeting of China's top officials in charge of regulating religion. "They will especially hunt those in Beijing," a Hong Kong source told CT. "It took them by surprise that there were so many Christians in China. Every week pastors are arrested and thrown in jail. The communists see Christians as a threat because there are [more] Christians than party members." China has more than 15 million Christians in government-sanction churches but as many as 80 million in unregistered congregations branded by the communist regime as "illegal cults," though estimates vary widely. Fifty or more Christians were arrested in January after communist leaders viewed a new video, "The Cross: Jesus in China," produced by a California-based group, China Soul for Christ Foundation, CT said. The Chinese officials also were briefed on a new book that shows the extraordinary growth of the church in China and its potential to transform the nation in coming decades, "Jesus in Beijing," by former Time magazine Beijing bureau chief David Aikman. The digitally formatted video, which has been widely distributed across China, has been classified as "political matter" and confiscated by police along with other Christian literature, the CT report said. In January police arrested three prominent Protestant leaders from Henan province, Qiao Chunling, 41, Deborah Xu Yongling, 58, and Zeng Guangbo, 35. Guangbo escaped two days after his arrest and remains in hiding, CT said. The crackdown, which began at China's annual National Religious Working Conference, could last for 30 days and become as brutal as the repression of the Falun Gong sect, which has resulted in hundreds of deaths, according to a watchdog group. Liu Zhenying a Chinese Christian leader imprisoned many times who now lives in Germany, told CT China's communist officials are trying to split unofficial groups any way they can. "They tried to isolate one house-church group, now to single them out. By doing that, they can divide house-church unity," he said in an interview at the recent National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. "This purpose is very obvious, very evil. We really prayed the eyesight, the insight, the discernment of the eagle to really clearly see this trap of Satan." Liu, better known as Brother Yun, said China uses "international propaganda" to deceive Westerners and promote China's policy stance toward religion. Top Christian leaders are invited to travel through China to see first-hand how the government allows churches to operate openly, but this does not present the full picture, he told CT. The Chinese government considers all Protestant churches outside the official government-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement to be subversive. The official churches are restricted, to varying degrees around the country, in their doctrine and practice. Catholics also are restricted to a government-controlled church, which is not allowed to recognize the authority of the pope. As WorldNetDaily reported, a video recently was smuggled out of China documenting the destruction of an unregistered church in Zhejiang Province, according to Voice of the Martyrs. In November, Chinese Continue officials closed 125 places of worship, affected 3,000 Christians.

From the Church Times THE CHOIR of St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney will not proceed with a planned tour of churches in the United States, in response to the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. The tour, which had been scheduled for April, was to have been in conjunction with a tour by the St Andrew's Cathedral School orchestra, and was to have included engagements in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Phillip Heath, the head of the Cathedral School, where the 24 choristers are educated on school scholarships, confirmed that the choir tour, but not the orchestra tour, had been cancelled by a decision of the school council. The choir represented the cathedral, the church of the diocese, but the orchestra represented only the school, he said; the orchestra would continue to offer concerts in school-based institutions in the US. The decision to cancel the choir's involvement, while difficult, was a "prudent" one, given the current uncertainty about the nature of the Anglican Communion, Mr Heath said. Although he had been involved in planning the tour, he said he supported the decision the school council had made. Contrary to some press reports, the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, had not been consulted directly about the decision. Mr Heath said the cathedral choir, which includes 12 lay clerks, was one of only three choirs outside the United Kingdom to belong to the Choir Schools Association. The choir was "a very high priority" for the Cathedral School, he said.

By the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner Dr. Ephraim Radner responds to Mark Harris's article Contending with Anglican Realignment As Paul Zahl, the Dean of Advent Cathedral in Birmingham recently said, the accusation of "homophobia" when once leveled within our church at a Christian interlocutor, has the effect of stopping conversation cold and, with a little manipulation, tainting reputations and spoiling careers. It is also grossly unfair when used, in the present debate over the proper Christian teaching regarding sexual behavior, as a way to characterize most conservative parties to the discussion, whose theological concerns go far deeper then reactive emotions of insecurity. For a long time something similar could have been said about the charge of "fascism". Fortunately, times have changed, and the unstinting dispersal of absurd misapplications of this accusation has rendered it more a tool of simple rhetorical gesticulation than a serious description of anybody's real convictions. The same evolution, we may hope, will unfold – at least in the context of illuminating argument -- with respect to the epithet of "homophobe". As an example of "fascism's" devolving powers of vilifying explication, consider "Contending with Anglican Alignment" by Mark Harris (and published recently by The Witness magazine), a highly confused and inaccurate attack upon, among others, those associated with the emerging Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. While happily demonstrating how otiose the charge of "fascism" has become, the article also serves a clarifying function in contrasting the worldviews of one sector of the Episcopal Church that supports recent decisions at General Convention with those, like the Network, that oppose them. In brief, Harris' essay argues that the Network is informed by a "pre-modern", "un-useful", and "appalling" vision, whose commitment to the "bundling of Faith and Order into a unified whole" – the use of the term "bundling" is a nice subliminal reference to Mussolini's aspirations -- is in fact "fascist" in its attempt to "force" some kind of uniform belief upon unwilling "free-thinkers"(like Harris) through a "take-over" of the Episcopal Church. Over against this is the purportedly more rational and acceptable world-view of the author (and General Convention), that is attuned to and accepting of the "complexity" of the new "plurality of Anglican cultures and Anglican churches", within a plural world, and is willing (and presumably courageous enough) to be "discomfited" by the reality that empires and despotisms no longer control our lives, in church or elsewhere. This last, we are told, is an appropriately "post-modern" view – appropriate, that is, to the "times" that have now left behind the old world-view of the "complainers". It is a view that is leading to some as yet unknown destination, but that is at least engaged with the "faithful pilgrimage in Jesus Christ" whose "telling" is multiple and diverse. On its face, this is the standard contrast between an out-dated vision of religious and political establishment on the one hand, and a robust pluralism on the other. Still, as two views supposedly held within a (once) common religious framework, the contrast needs some further explicating. Initially, it would seem that Harris is accepting the modern liberal redefinition of "church" as a kind of "voluntary religious organization" within a society that has many such organizations. Thus, no citizen has the right to "enforce" their religious viewpoint upon another; they have, rather, the duty to choose to associate with like-minded religious persons, and leave others alone. The Network doesn't want to do this. Rather, it appears to want to erect "structures of control" and return to an era when consciences are "constrained" coercively. The problem with this initial interpretation of the contrast is that it is egregiously incongruent with the actual situation the author is trying to address: that is, the Episcopal Church is itself a "voluntary religious organization", one among many in the nation. Therefore it is not really possible to import into its structures the moral dynamics of politically enforced establishment or pluralistic diversity. It is precisely because individual religious organizations within a pluralist society exist through and indeed because of their self-defined character that they can maintain their particular and civically regulated places within an ordered and non-tyrannical commonwealth as a whole. In what possible way could voluntary organizations be "fascistic" in the proper sense of the term, simply by having members work for a common vision? The internal struggles for a unified identity within voluntary organizations is, in fact, often a necessary aspect of their continued vitality as participating elements within a specifically pluralist landscape. Thus, members of organizations like the Boy Scouts, or the YMCA or the Elks Club and so on will often engage in debates, disputes, and sometimes acrimonious struggles to maintain or change the self-articulated statements of mission or of policy that define these groups. Boards will be formed, will be challenged, will be re-invented in these struggles; votes will be taken and reversed; directorships will be promoted that redirect or retain strategies and commitments. As with publicly and privately held companies, revolts and "coups" take place among stock-holders. Sometimes these struggles spill over into the civil (and occasionally even criminal) courts. However, the struggles themselves constitute the necessary means by which voluntary groups represent the aspirations and visions of their members through resolving or refashioning cohesive group identities. Which, of course, stand side by side a host of alternative identities embodied in a multiplicity of co-existing groups. A truly post-modern pluralistic attitude would see this process – in churches as much as any other voluntary social group – as simply part of the reality of a robustly diverse society. And indeed the body politic has no interest in intervening in this process; quite the opposite. Applying qualities like "pre-modern" and "unhistorical" and "controlling" in a moral way to individual groups simply makes no sense in a pluralistic context: as part of the bustling supermarket of shifting small-scale social arrangements that create the vigorous pluralist society, Mormonism and Santeria, Alien-seekers and Episcopalians, do not each (nor should they) represent microcosms of some larger democratic pluralism, but individually they are separately interesting and sometimes arresting possibilities of the always surprising diversity of the human spirit, whose juggling of the set as a whole mimics social health. This, at least, is an aspect of post-modernism's celebration of pluralism. But Harris seems to want the players to represent the whole play, and so Anglicanism and Episcopalianism stand for all of society, in a funny and universalized manner. It is an ethically strange, culturally hegemonic (because it wants the internal dynamics of the Episcopal Church itself to reflect the shape of Harris' post-modern democratic theory and society as a whole) and ultimately anti-pluralistic exercise. Applied to the inner-workings of a single church, the vision is some kind of odd amalgam of Enlightenment civil-Christian establishmentarianism: the Episcopal Church should function like an appointed civic review panel that has representatives of every perspective. Church and society are to be mirror images of each other. Thus, all the fussy anxieties over the Network's purported conspiring machinations to overthrow the "structures" of the Episcopal Church secretly and nefariously, worries which consistently sound more like the paranoia of an absolutist continental royal court, than the open relativism of the true religious pluralist. A liberal pluralist body politic has no interest in whether the Chassidim are in turmoil over a rabbinic succession or whether Episcopalians are grappling in the mud over gay bishops; the more they do it within their own courtyards, the less they will disturb the public square. This is where the accusations of "fascism" leveled at the Network appear so silly. Fascists are interested in controlling – among other things – the inner workings of voluntary organizations from the outside, so as to make them conform to a standard of "usefulness" to be applied to society as a whole: i.e. individual churches, in a fascist state, must cohere to the outlooks and policies of the state and its interests as a whole. The last thing fascists want is for individual voluntary organizations to engage in internal struggles over their particular group identities, in ways unrelated or even contrary to defined larger social goals. It doesn't take much scrutiny to realize that what Harris calls the Network's "fascism" is in fact what makes it part of a truly liberal pluralistic religious "post-modern" society, and that the basis upon which he castigates the internal struggle in which the Network is engaged is something that is aligned itself with a certain kind of distaste for religiously plural groups flourishing within a religiously indifferent society. Of course, there is a certain amount of understandable and acceptable posturing in all this. Harris himself is engaged in just the sort of internal struggle voluntary religious organizations are meant to have (in a pluralist society). The charges and counter-charges of things like "fascism", "precisely" because they are so flatulent, are part of the rhetorical jouissance of the exercise. We can note the playful irony of the fact that, in an article that is extravagantly scornful of the Network's impudent assertion to be representative of the Anglican Communion in some fashion – "by whose authority, or by what measure?" Harris wonders (although little imagination is required to realize that the assertion is a hope, a commitment, and a calculated prediction based on rapidly gathering facts) is itself published by an organization that calls itself "The Episcopal Church Publishing Company", although it has nothing officially to do with the Episcopal Church. The inflated "nomenclature" is hardly disturbing in this kind of dispute. It goes with the territory. And in any case, from the perspective of The Witness, calling people "fascists" represents the expected kind of political sloganeering that has long characterized its theological twelve-tone system by which it has hoped to charm the sensibilities of its readers. "Fascism" in its negative reference has become a musical style, attractive to a particular taste. No, there is something else at work in Harris' superficially pluralist, but more fundamentally intransigent insistence on ruling the Network's religious struggle for the Episcopal Church's identity out of order. And that something seems to be religion itself. For clearly, from the Network's side, the issue is not the integrity of the dynamics of voluntary religious organizations within a pluralist society (however mixed up about this The Witness may be). Nor is it about modern, pre-modern, or post-modern world-views. The issue for the Network is the religious character of the Episcopal Church as a faithful Christian body fulfilling its divine vocation. Harris notes that the Network's "Theological Charter" refers extensively and almost exclusively to Scripture. His own article, however, refers to nary a verse. Indeed, it is scrupulously a-theological (perhaps even anti-theological) in its content and argument. There is one mention of the "faithful pilgrimage in Jesus Christ", to be sure, but that is the extent of the matter, literally. As a whole, the essay ranges over matters of social evolution, generalizations about social-political attitudes, historical glances upon cultural variations in something called "Anglicanism", and finally flirtations with misty legal details. There is nothing, however, about the Church of Jesus Christ, expressed in the language of Scripture, prayer, and theological tradition (or even anti-tradition). This is all fine, as a piece of personal testimony. But let's be clear that it does not really gel with the general sense that I would think most reflective Episcopalians have that a struggle for their church's identity ought at least to engage some kind of explicit and even explicitly Christian dimension. The image offered instead by Harris – again, in stark contrast to the Network's own "un-useful" vision – is one of a radical secularism, in the technical sense: a cognitive attitude wherein the intellectual scaffolding of the present age, devoid of religious claims, provides the truest representation of reality by which to organize one's life. Secularism, in its modern forms, has no interest in any particular epistemological framework, as long as it excludes essential religious elements. Hence, secularism can take its forms from Revolutionary France to National Socialism or Communism to American liberalism. Secularism is in fact indifferent to fascism as a moral (or immoral) absolute. And hence, in secularist discourse, the charge of "fascism" has become increasingly weak and beside the point. It is the anti-religious character of secularism that gives it its impetus. Some of secularism's original drive comes from the realization that religious commitment, when imposed upon a social whole, has proven socially divisive and even destructive, as Harris rightly observes. But just as secularism itself is a clothing adapted to many a political form, so too religion is by no means necessarily a stick of social dynamite. That has been the political insight of the American constitutional system: religious organizations are free to define themselves religiously as long as they do not disturb the larger commonwealth; and the vital religious character of these definitions actually adds to the vigor of the Republic. The "bundling together of Faith and Order into a unified whole" is exactly what religious groups do. What is odd in Harris' argument is the way that he inserts a secularist set of values into a particular church's proposed self-definition so that "faith" itself – that is, religious content – is effectively banished. This move is politically unnecessary and, from within the life of a given church, logically contradictory. To define as religiously "un-useful" (useless?) and "fascistic" those whose sense of divine vocation leads them to engage and submit to the vision of "one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-6); to define as "fascistic" those who struggle, according to their lights, to maintain their church "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); to define as "fascistic" those whose sense of moral obligation presses them to action, within a church that has always accepted these and other irreducibly theologically specific articulations as parameters of its self-definition; to define as "fascistic" those who (with all uncertainty and difficulty) attempt to order this struggle according to outlooks shared with a host of other "Anglicans" around the world in a bond generally recognized as substantive by most American Episcopalians until recently (because shaped "precisely" by a shared reception and common commitment to the religiously particularized demands of Scriptural revelation among other things)… to define all this as religiously "un-useful" and "fascistic" sounds like Humpty-Dumpty inventing his own meanings and references and scattering them about the nave, more than anything else ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean"). However varied Anglicanism may be culturally, we all know that in the present dispute the vying commitments are rather narrowly defined among two or three groups at best, and that the vast majority of those who call themselves "Anglicans" actually do agree on what they believe about sexuality and are clear on the Scriptural, semantic, and historical basis of their agreement. If history is "passing" anybody by in this discussion it is those who cannot hear the concordance of voices speaking at this particular time. It is perhaps this false presupposition of moral cacophony that leads Harris to assume that a mention of the Barmen Declaration in the Network's Theological Charter "really" means that Network theologians think ECUSA Conventioneers are Nazis, something that might rightly "offend" him were it true. (Although, since the charge is no more than a dramatic turn of phrase, so too is probably the sense of affront.) In a world (and thereby church, since church is meant to reflect the world in this secularist perspective) that is intrinsically diverse and "complexly" textured in its moral compass, anybody who affirms clear and possibly harmonious ideas as informative of a historical vocation must harbor a well-refined hatred towards others – and "Nazis" represent the purest contemporary object of such hatred. Thereby, of course, they must want to kill everybody else who disagrees with them as well. Which would imply that those who hate Nazis are really Nazis themselves (eviscerated invective is logically confused). But all this, it must be noted, is purely an intuition on Harris' part, since the Charter says nothing of the sort. His is an intuition perhaps understandable in one who appears habituated in the practice of charging others with "fascistic" tendencies. The intuition, however, misleads. The Charter refers, in passing, to the Barmen Declaration's opening paragraph only to emphasize, with the Declaration's famous clarity, the coherent, well-known, and limited authorities by which the Church discerns God's will and lives, primarily the authority of Scripture. ("In this way the authorities, which the church needs for her mission, are defined and limited" is the quote.) If such a citation is "really" about calling everybody else Nazis, and if this occult and mysteriously discerned (and unspoken) charge against ECUSA is itself a pose masking its own fascistic intent, it is better to avoid citing theological heroes at all: the one who quotes Augustine will be mistaken as accusing others of Manichaeism and Donatism, the one who quotes Luther will be seen as eyeing neighbors as corrupt papists or raving charismatic anarchists, and so on. Although, come to think of it, the dangers of "acquiescing to the prevailing culture" that Harris thinks is being targeted by this quote are certainly worth exposing. In fact, however, it was none other than that well-known fascist Rowan Williams who suggested that those within ECUSA who would organize a resistance to General Convention's decisions, including the leaders of what became the "Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes", take as their model the Confessing Church of Barth and Bonhoeffer. I suppose he was offering an overly grandiose examplar, morally speaking, to this rag-tag group of American grousers; but his hope, I think, was that a "principled" and structured form of protest, bound by a theologically articulate and centered purpose and founded on commitments to communal formation would provide an appropriate and authentic framework within which to be faithful to conscience, to an apprehended and specific Gospel, and finally to some sort of ecclesial order. There have, of course, been "Anglican" fascists of a sort once defined a little more strictly. Some belonged to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in the 1930's; several were affiliated with Frank Buchman's so-called Oxford Group; not a few were confused enough by their desire to avoid war and oppose communism to support Hitler (bishops among them, no less). But this has not been the general orientation of this conglomeration of churches, unless Archbishop Laud is viewed as somehow both a retrojection of National Socialism and a font of developing totalitarian history as it has swept through Prayer Book congregations. The Network's existence, in the context of American separation of Church and State and of a topsy-turvy fashioning of an international Anglicanism even as we speak, would appear, in any case, to be located in another sphere altogether. Not that it matters: we are in an ecclesiastical theater. Though there is, to be sure, the point of view that asserts that when moral distinctions fade in favor of rhetorical gesture, moral conscience itself is progressively blunted. Meanwhile as we ponder this possibility, we should not flinch from responding to questions of the moment: Is it morally legitimate and historically relevant to struggle for the soul of one's church, and even for the direction of its teaching as we have received it in Christ Jesus? Is it politically sensitive to have religious commitments? Is it intellectually honest to claim Scriptural adherence, to seek ethical faithfulness according to purportedly "revealed" standards, and to mold a vocational identity within this outlook? To all of these questions I would respond, freely and without coercion, "Yes!". The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is Rector Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado. He holds a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University and is an accomplished violinist and scholar.