Speaking Out Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. 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? At first glance, individual cases may seem harmless. But history shows that social trends—illegitimacy, cohabitation—once rare, now contribute to lower marriage rates, fatherless children, domestic violence, poverty, and soaring welfare costs. Three major harms follow: 1. Bad for Marriage Marriage has, for millennia, meant the lifelong union of one man and one woman—an analytic truth. Redefining it scrambles our fundamental understanding of human relations. Advocates admit gay marriage will change marriage more than it changes gays. Andrew Sullivan: “Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive… there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets.” Troy Perry (Metropolitan Community Church): “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses… fidelity means honesty, not exclusivity.” A Dutch study shows even “monogamous” gay male couples average eight outside partners per year. Redefinition also opens the door to polyamory. Law professor Martha Ertman seeks moral neutrality between marriage and group unions. David Chambers expects gay marriage to increase government receptivity to marital units of three or more. 2. Bad for Children Research shows: “Family structure matters… the structure that helps most is two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” Gay marriage encourages adoption by same-sex couples—and anonymous sperm donation, deliberately depriving children of a biological parent. Studies also indicate children raised by homosexuals report: greater gender dissatisfaction, higher rates of familial molestation, and more homosexual experience. It also encourages sexually uncertain teens (25% of 12-year-old boys) to embrace a lifestyle with elevated rates of suicide, depression, HIV, STDs, and drug abuse. Further, it reinforces the idea that marriage is about adult fulfillment, not raising children—making it easier to abandon vows when unmet. 3. Bad for Society These effects intensify existing instability in marriage and family—the bedrock of society. Also, gay marriage cannot be democratically enacted. It is being imposed by activist judges against the will of the majority. Like Roe v. Wade, this risks widespread contempt for law and courts—and deepens social division. Conclusion Some legal entitlements may be granted via non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But marriage itself must retain its historic definition—and we must strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals. —Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, Roanoke College (Viewpoints do not necessarily represent Christianity Today.) END

The Passion of Mel Gibson 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 as news of the weird has turned into a powerful and popular film likely to be a major milestone in cinematic history. Gibson filmed the Passion with trademark force—and added subtitles for those whose ancient-language skills are rusty. The film opened on nearly 3,000 screens, with endorsements from leaders like Donald Hodel, Greg Laurie, Bill Hybels, and Ricky Skaggs. Tyndale House published a companion coffee-table book; moving testimonies circulated widely online. This evangelical enthusiasm may surprise some: the film was shaped from start to finish by a devout pre–Vatican II Catholic and a medieval Catholic vision. Yet evangelicals embrace it because it articulates themes vital to all classical Christians. The Vision Thing Gibson prefers the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary co-redemptrix. He drew details from Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Dolorous Passion, a 19th-century mystic’s visions of Christ’s suffering. For example: Pilate’s wife sends linen to Mary; Mary and Magdalene kneel to wipe up Christ’s blood from the scourging pillar—giving Gibson a dramatic, compassionate visual. Evil Unmasked From Emmerich, Gibson took the scene of Satan tempting Jesus in Gethsemane—not as a roaring beast, but as a pale, hooded female whispering: “Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty?” From her robe slithers a serpent—crushed under Jesus’ heel, echoing Genesis 3:15. Gibson told pastors: “Evil takes the form of beauty… It is the great ape of God. But the mask is askew.” He affirmed spiritual warfare: “The big realms are slugging it out. We’re just the meat in the sandwich. And for some reason, we’re worth it.” And “Complications happened… the closer you are to a breakthrough, the more vigorous [the opposition] gets.” Getting Personal Gibson stresses personal culpability: “For culpability, look to yourself. I look to myself.” In a powerful symbolic act, he—the director—grabbed the hammer and drove the nails into Christ’s hands on camera. The project rescued him from despair: “I found myself trapped with feelings of terrible, isolated emptiness.” He had neglected prayer for 18 years—since age 17—until chaos drove him back to God. Contemplating God’s Wounds Unlike typical Protestant prayer, Gibson’s Catholic spirituality includes contemplative devotion—meditating on each wound, each station of the Passion. The film mirrors the Five Sorrowful Mysteries: Agony, Scourging, Crowning, Carrying, Crucifixion. He writes: “I think of it as contemplative… compelling one to remember—in a spiritual way, which cannot be articulated, only experienced.” And: “I went to the wounds of Christ in order to cure my wounds… It was like giving birth: the story got inside me and started to grow… I had to tell it.” The Blood Sacrifice Gibson does not shy from blood. He affirms Leviticus 17:11: “The life of the flesh is in the blood… it makes atonement.” Unlike liberal Christians who downplay blood, Gibson presents it unflinchingly: “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 rewards him is the audience’s silence, introspection, realization—and remembering. After one viewing, a person simply said: “I’m sorry. I forgot.” —David Neff, editor of Christianity Today

Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. "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. END

AS EYE SEE IT. Tensions and threats abound at West Tennessee Convention by Jeff Marx 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

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH (2/24/2004) 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. END

It declares homosexuality 'may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities.' By Victoria Combe Religion Correspondent The Telegraph A radical rethink of Church teaching on homosexuality that declares it to be "divinely ordered" is revealed this week in a catechism commissioned by the Archbishop of York. The second most senior churchman in the Church of England, the Most Rev David Hope, has given the new catechism his imprimatur and describes it in his foreword as "a celebration of Christian living." Written by Canon Edward Norman, canon and treasurer of York Minster, the catechism seeks to define Anglicanism for the first time since Thomas Cranmer wrote The Book of Common Prayer in 1662. The Prayer Book version was a brief inquisitorial text intended for use in a pre-literate age. Canon Norman's is the first attempt fully to define Anglican teaching. In the section on sexuality, he contradicts official teaching and the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey. "Homosexuality," says the catechism, "may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities." "Homosexual Christian believers," it continues, "should be encouraged to find in their sexual preferences such elements of moral beauty as may enhance their general understanding of Christ's calling." The Anglican Church is deeply divided over its teaching on homosexuality and at the last Lambeth Conference bishops rowed openly about the issue. In the end, Dr Carey, supported by African and Asian bishops, passed a resolution saying homosexual acts were "incompatible with Scripture." The resolution said "abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage." A discussion document by the House of Bishops called Issues in Human Sexuality, published in 1991, forbade clergy from entering into homosexual relationships. Canon Norman, a highly respected theologian who writes "meditations" in The Daily Telegraph, was asked to write the catechism by Dr Hope to provide a tool in training for ministry. An "official" catechism is being written and published by Church House but the project will take several years. Called An Anglican Catechism, the text is praised by Dr Hope for managing to "explore the relevant issues for today" in the context of "an unchanging doctrinal basis of faith." Dr Hope was targeted by the homosexual rights group, Outrage!. After a night of prayer in Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris, he said his sexuality was "a grey area" and that he was celibate. Canon Norman addresses the contradictions in what the Church teaches and practises, saying: "The Church continues to classify homosexuality as an intrinsically disordered condition, yet significant numbers of Christians are and always have been homosexual." The catechism declares that homosexuality "is not in general chosen: it is an expression of sexuality which derives from conditions of inherited impulsions or of early infant experience." Richard Kirker, general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, welcomed the text as a "refreshing statement which the Church is crying out for." END

By John J. Shaughnessy The IndyStar February 21, 2004 Distressed by the ordination of an openly gay bishop, nearly 60 parishioners have left the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis and will hold services in their new church today. The move represents the first break from the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis since Bishop Catherine Waynick voted in August to confirm the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Members of the newly formed Faithful Anglicans in the Heartland also object to Waynick allowing gay couples in the Indianapolis diocese, which includes the lower two-thirds of the state, to have same-sex blessing ceremonies -- another issue that has caused division within the Episcopal Church. "They are a group of very faithful people who feel that, in good conscience, they could not worship (as part of the diocese), given Bishop Waynick's position on the confirmation of Bishop Robinson," said the Rev. Robert Giffin, the priest leading the new congregation in Evansville. "A number of us felt that if we sat in the pews, we were giving tacit approval to the way the Episcopal Church is going," said member Andy Ward. "My wife and I felt we couldn't do that to our children." Instead of criticizing the move, Waynick offered a conciliatory gesture and comments Friday toward the members of the new church, who still consider themselves Episcopalians. "We have some extraordinary circumstances where we have people who are terribly unhappy and terribly hurt," said Waynick, who leads about 12,000 members in the diocese. "We're trying to find ways to make a pastoral response that keeps our diocesan structure intact." Waynick licensed Giffin to serve weekly Eucharist at the new church, whose members left churches in Evansville, New Harmony and Mount Vernon. Giffin is a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, Ill. -- a neighboring diocese led by Bishop Peter Beckwith, who voted against Robinson's confirmation as bishop. "It was gracious of her," Ward said. Similar to many faiths, the issue of homosexuality has been a controversial and divisive one for the Episcopal Church in the United States, which accounts for 2.3 million members of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion. "I believe it's inappropriate that Gene Robinson be a bishop, a priest or a deacon," Beckwith said. "The largest majority of Anglicans say they dissent from a decision that is incompatible with Scripture. The choice is, 'Are we going to accept Christ's values or are we going to co-opt the values of the world?' " Waynick said she is grateful to the vast majority of people in the diocese of Indianapolis who have stayed together during this difficult time. "While it is clear there is a wide variety of response to Bishop Robinson's confirmation, there's also a firm determination to stay together and to go about serving the world in God's name," Waynick said. Dissent has spread across the country. Several thousand members of the church met in Virginia in January to protest Robinson's ordination. Members in Mississippi have debated repudiating the bishops' actions to confirm Robinson. And leaders in southwest Florida told members upset over the ordination that they could protest by withholding funds from the national church. Beckwith and Waynick agree that the issue won't be resolved soon. "I don't think this will go away," Beckwith said. "It needs to be resolved. For me, it's a salvation issue." "It's very clear a number of bishops and several dioceses weren't very happy," Waynick said. "How all this will develop and find resolution, we're still not clear." END

Ash Wednesday, 2004 Learning to Live with an Audience of One 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

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

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

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

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org Nov. 8, 2025   A second sexual harassment complaint has emerged against ACNA Archbishop Stephen Wood, just weeks after reports of a first allegation erupted, leaving clergy and parishioners stunned nationwide that he was elected with knowledge by the bishops of this and other charges against him.   The Washington Post which broke the first story reported the new complaint, submitted anonymously to the church Nov. 6 by “Jane Doe 1.” It accuses Wood of misconduct and sexual harassment, alleging that he pressured her to drink alcohol alone with him despite her expressing discomfort,   The statement does not identify the location or time period when the alleged actions occurred, the newspaper reported.   Wood who faces presentment charges, is on voluntary paid leave of absence as archbishop and bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas until proceedings against him reach a conclusion. Wood also announced his retirement as rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Mount Pleasant where he has served for 25 years.   REC Bishop Ray Sutton has assumed the archbishop’s responsibilities in the interim and the Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn is the acting bishop.   The former church staff member accused Wood of touching the back of her head and trying to kiss her in his office in April 2024, according to The Washington Post. The woman reportedly told The Post that Wood also presented her with thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church funds before the alleged advance. In addition, priests complained that Wood bullied church staff members, the newspaper reported.   “I do not believe these complaints have merit,” Wood said in a statement regarding the first allegation, The Post and Courier reported. “I trust the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters.”   The first public accusation against Wood came from a former church ministry director at St. Andrew’s, The Washington Post first reported Oct. 23. The allegations come from Wood’s time as the leader of the church before his election in June 2024 as the Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America.   What is staggering is that Wood has not been inhibited by the House of Bishops over the severity of the charges.   The Post emailed Wood specific questions about the allegations in the revised presentment, but he declined to comment.   If the denomination calls for an ecclesiastical trial, a guilty verdict could result in Wood’s being defrocked.   ACROSS the denomination response is beginning to pour in over the allegations.   The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon an ACNA priest who resides in Charleston, SC wrote that, “To state the matter carefully: ACNA is in profound trouble, and I do not think that the people in charge of ACNA see how much trouble we are in.”   Harmon placed the blame on the process by which allegations of misbehavior by ACNA leaders are adjudicated and said, “it is incredibly messed up and needs to be deeply reformed. It speaks to a process in a canonical system that does not work properly by any reasonable standard.”   Almost everyone whom I’ve seen in ACNA who is looking at the situation is looking at it backwards. They are saying things like trust the process, isn’t it terrible that people in the church felt it necessary to go to a secular newspaper like the Washington Post in order to do what they felt had to be done.   To me that is entirely upside down; the question everyone in active leadership should be asking themselves is supposing I was part of the group that made these allegations.   A group of people who love ACNA had such a profound mistrust of the existing process that they felt they had a better chance of beginning to get the truth into the light in a secular newspaper as opposed to the process provided by the church! It is clear that they did not because they felt that they could not.   Harmon charges that the Canon for Safeguarding and a chancellor who works for Steve Wood should not have been involved in the process at all. “It speaks to a process which is so deeply wrong that it is nearly or entirely bankrupt.”   Harmon charges that Bishop Ray Sutton, who is now the bishop in charge of this process, had written a letter to the ACNA House of bishops in which he discussed the overcoming of these objections by suggesting that the process by which the objections were made was legitimate. “It was anything but. Other people could have been appointed to make objections, but not people who work for or were appointed by the current person accused.” None of the other leaders have made an objection to this, said Harmon.   “What we are looking at here, brother and sisters, is a colossal mess which has so many things out of kilter one hardly knows where to start,” bemoaned Harmon. You can read his full report here:   https://www.virtueonline.org/post/concerns-from-my-heart-about-the-deep-acna-leadership-crisis-kendall-harmon-op-ed   Warren Cole Smith writing for Ministry Watch, and an Anglican, was more forthright and said it is hard to come to any conclusion other than this: ACNA is in crisis, and it is not at all clear to me that it will survive in its present form.   All of the current controversies — those involving Archbishop Wood and Bishops Ruch and Jones — have also highlighted the inadequacy of the church’s canons to deal with matters of conflict and discipline, he wrote.   Smith believes that Wood has never been up to the task and should resign as archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America.   You can read more here:  https://www.virtueonline.org/post/acna-in-crisis-steve-wood-should-resign-as-archbishop-of-the-anglican-church-in-north-america   Another bishop Derek Jones, who has led the military chaplain corps, is now behind a rancorous attempt to leave ACNA and take more than 300 chaplains with him. This has been met with grim opposition by bishops Wood, Sutton and Phil Ashey who have been vocal in their opposition to Bishop Jones. Ashey contends that the charges against Jones, which include allegations of ecclesiastical power abuse and wrongful use of disciplinary processes, are grounds for an inhibition. The ACNA's College of Bishops has declared Jones' seat vacant, and the Rt. Rev. Jerome R. Cayangyang has been elected as the new Bishop for the ACNA Special Jurisdiction for the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy.   The jury is still out as to where all this will go.   One voice of moderation is the Rev. Dr. Bryan Hollon, President of Trinity Anglican Seminary in Ambridge, PA.   “The discipline taking place in our Province is not a sign of a broken church. Nor is it institutional self-protection or damage control. It is the fruit of a Christian community abiding in the Word of God. When we take Scripture seriously, believe that ordination vows genuinely bind us, and we refuse to treat moral integrity as optional – discipline becomes a necessary and ongoing process for Christian communities seeking to be faithful to Jesus Christ. The very fact that we’re willing to scrutinize and correct our own leaders is evidence that we’re taking God’s Word seriously. It’s not necessarily evidence that the church is broken. It’s often evidence the church is functioning as it should.”   He concluded by saying that “Discipline is not a sign the church is dying. It’s a sign the church is serious about holiness, that we believe our vows matter, and that Scripture’s standards apply to everyone. The ACNA was born because we needed a province where faith would be guarded and leaders held accountable. We are seeing what that looks like in practice. It’s messy and painful but necessary.”   END