Archives

By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker December 29, 2003   (AgapePress) - A Bible-believing minister in the Presbyterian Church USA may be stripped of his ordination credentials for criticizing leaders in his denomination and accusing them of denying the authority of scripture. A committee in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina is recommending that Pastor Parker T. Williamson be removed from his position as CEO of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor-in-chief of its publications.     The Presbyterian Layman, a magazine that Williamson edits, recently urged Presbyterians to withhold undesignated gifts to the denomination because of its support for partial-birth abortion, homosexuality, and other practices that violate scripture. The pastor and editor has long spoken out against what he perceives as apostasy in the denomination, both vocally and in print. A Presbytery of Western North Carolina committee recently voted to approve a recommendation to place Williamson on inactive status. Presbytery officials call the action administrative rather than disciplinary, and claim they a re concerned about the ministers character and conduct. But he believes the church leaders are simply worried about losing money.     According to Williamson, denomination officials have put up with the biblical stance of his ministry since its inception in 1965. But now that money is involved, he contends that things have reached a new level.     We have criticized the leadership of this denomination for its abandonment of scripture as the authority for the church’s faith and life, the pastor says, and they are having a hard time tolerating the existence of the critic.     The Presbytery of Western North Carolinas Committee on Ministry voted in a closed session on December 9 to approve a recommendation to withdraw its validation of Williamsons ministry. Next the matter will go before the full presbytery at a January 31 meeting at First Presbyterian Church in Asheville, North Carolina. The outspoken minister says he is prepared to defend himself.     I intend to argue the case there. I’m fully prepared to lose my ordination if that’s what it takes in order to stand for what clearly is Gods truth, Williamson says.     Should the presbytery concur with the committees decision, the minister would be placed on inactive status and lose his speaking and voting privilege s at presbytery meetings. And if Williamsons ministry were not restored to active status within three years, then his ordination would be revoked and his name would be stricken from the presbytery roll.     Williamson became a member of the presbytery in 1971 and served as pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lenoir, North Carolina, before he was hired by the Presbyterian Lay Committee in 1989.   END

By Alan Medinger Regeneration News, December 2003     This article was inspired by the book On Hope by Josef Pieper, published by Ignatius Press, 1986; translated from the German. A number of times in these articles I have addressed the question as to how we can live with relative peace within the context of two truths that seem to crash headlong into each other the truth that God calls us  to live a holy life and the truth that we keep on sinning. Most recently I touched on this in the article â Who Is I? And Who Is Me? (October 2003). This is a critical issue for most of us because if we find ourselves accepting too easily that we are sinners, we risk falling into complacency or worse yet, we abuse God’s grace. On the other side, if we go too far berating ourselves for our sinfulness, we risk not experiencing the joy and freedom that is rightfully ours in Jesus Christ. You probably know people who live at either of the extremes; those who with an attitude of, Well, we all sin, seem to live in a permanent state of cheap grace, and those who seem to live in a state of perpetual self-condemnation show little of the joy of knowing Jesus. I suspect most of us don’t dwell constantly at one extreme or the other, but rather, we bounce back and forth between the two. In this article I  am going to approach the problem from a different direction from the perspective that we are all becoming, we are all a work in process, we are all on the way. Accepting this truth can bring both stability and hope into our lives, and both stability and hope inspire victory in our Christian walk.     Being a Person Still on the Way In seeking to overcome sexual sins, we can only be in one of four states: ·    moving forward ·    moving backward ·standing still ·    arrived My belief is  and I am going to build a case for that if we are leading the normal Christian life, then we are moving forward. I am going to describe what I mean by the normal  Christian life, but first let me eliminate one of the four states having arrived. I am not ready to state this unequivocally, but I believe quite strongly that as long as we possess the capacity to imagine, we will not be totally free from lust, at least not in this life. Using concepts from the writing of Thomas Aquinas, Josef Pieper refers to living in either status viatoris or status comprehensoris. Status viatoris means being on the way while status comprehensoris means having arrived. no longer being a viator, having achieved perfect union with Christ.   While status comprehensoris is our ultimate hope and destination, certainly none of us will be there until the moment of death. Even the Apostle Paul was quite clear that he was a viator, a person still on the way:     Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make [knowing Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection] my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained. (Philippians 3:12-16) Part of the good news of Jesus Christ is that being a viator is the natural state for all believers. In the born-again believer the indwelling Holy Spirit is constantly drawing us towards status comprehensoris, the state of perfect union with Jesus, the state of  perfect happiness. We do not reach it is this life, but being drawn towards it is at the center of Christian life. Being drawn is certain to occur because it is what the Holy Spirit does. Now it is true that we can resist being drawn, and with our abiding free will, resist it so successfully that we find ourselves stuck or falling backward. But this is analogous to my using an umbrella to shade myself from the sun. Even if I do this, the sun is still shining.     The Normal Christian Life It is not any extraordinary effort on our part, any sort of heroic Christianity that causes us to be drawn forward towards completeness in Jesus Christ. We simply need to be ordinary Christians leading the normal Christian life. What is this normal Christian life? I believe it is marked by the following conditions:   1.  We agree with basic Biblical truths as historically interpreted by the church and as expressed in the ancient creeds of the church. We hold to those beliefs that are universal in time and place. These are the fundamental Christian beliefs about God and man, about sin and redemption.   There is a matter of choice here. Christians who take hold of new truths(such as those recently put forth at the Episcopal Church’s national convention in Minneapolis) are quite likely in rebellion, a rebellion that is, at least in its early stages, freely chosen. They have chosen to adopt beliefs that will justify their behavior, rather than trying to change their behavior to be in accord with the beliefs expressed in Scripture and taught by the church. To a far greater extent than most people imagine, people believe what they want to believe. What have you chosen to believe, especially about sexual sin and sexual purity?     2.  We spend significant personal time with the Lord in prayer, meditation and the study of Scripture. This is how we grow in knowing Jesus and the power of His resurrection (Philippians 12:10). If we are growing in Him, we cannot help but be on the way.   3.  We are an active part of a community of believers. We are called to be a part of His Body. This is not an option. It is in interacting with other believers that we are challenged, convicted, encouraged, comforted, inspired; we experience all of the elements that provide growth. If you are in a large church where you are not known, join a small home group. If you are in a church where there is no body life, you may need to change churches. If you are in a church where body life is present, and you choose not to be involved, don’t look for growth and healing. 4.  We are trying to be obedient to God. We try to do those things we should do, and we try not to do those things we should not do. Don’t  berate yourself with, If I only tried harder I have never found that such self-talk helped anyone. Ultimately, it will be God’s power that enables us to become obedient. Our role is to cooperate by never giving  up trying.     5.  We confess when we sin. As people on the way, those who haven’t arrived, we will sin. We have the answer to sin repentance and confession. This seems so simple, and it is.  But over and over again in our ministry we see confusion enter right here. We encounter many Christians who in broad terms want to live a life of obedience to the Lord, but who have consciously decided to go on with their lust, their fantasy, their masturbation. They see overcoming homosexuality or lust as a step by step process, and they imagine or tell themselves that they know just what the steps are. Usually they hide behind something like, Later, I am not at a place to stop yet.   The truth is, they are choosing to go on with their sin. When this is the case, I believe that confession of that particular sin is inappropriate. However, there are other things that such people can do. They can confess the sin of rebellion, asking God to change their wills. If this is where you are, right now, go back and re-read the previous four elements of the normal Christian life. What do you really believe about lust and about your sexuality? What are you choosing to believe?  Take time to pray about this, to talk to Jesus about it, to study God’s word with respect to sexual sins. Share with mature Christians in your fellowship where you are. And try, even if you feel like trying is futile.     6. As a sacramental believer, I would add a sixth element to the normal Christian life, the regular participation in the Eucharist. I believe that receiving the Lord’s Body and Blood has a life changing effect on us, but I realize that this is not where many of our readers are, and I do believe that the five elements described do comprise a life in which change will occur.     Part of Your Life Now, here’s a key point in all of this. There is not one of these five (or six) elements of the normal Christian life that cannot be a part of your life. And if they are present, you are on the way, and a part of this being on the way will be your growth in sexual purity. There will surely be times when you feel you are stuck, times even when you sense that you are falling back. That too is normal. The road toward completion is never a straight line. God may have you on hold until he gets your attention in some other area of your life. Most of us have found times when we had to sink deeply into the muck and mire of our own sins before we would find ourselves at a place where we were ready to truly die to something. If you are leading the normal Christian life, you are on the way to true and lasting change because it is not your power that is going to change you. It is His power. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:   To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 1:11-12)     It is His power. And for this reason, you have every reason for hope.   END

By the Rev. Samuel L. Edwards   While they sought to establish a more perfect union, the framers of the federal Constitution made no pretense that their work was perfect. That being so, they provided various means for redressing imbalances, refining imperfections and curbing abuses as the experience of living under the Constitution brought them to light. The essential powers of government were divided into three branches in which the powers of each were to be limited by the other two and the powers of all ultimately by the people. The built-in checks on the judiciary included the right of the President to appoint judges with the consent of the Senate, the power of the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in matters not specifically reserved to them, and the impeachment power. Also included was the process for amending the Constitution.   It is time the Constitution was amended in order to make the judiciary more accountable to the people in whose name and by whose commission they hold office while at the same time enabling judges to retain their independence to the greatest extent that prudence will tolerate. It is only in this way that an effective curb can be put on a corporate culture in which far too many judges are not content to interpret the law, but rather see themselves obligated to improve on it through decrees from the bench which are essentially legislative in character.     This sort of activism is the essence of critocracy- rule by judges. It breaches the wall erected by the republics Founders to separate the legislative and judicial spheres and so undermines the principle of popular sovereignty through elected representatives that lies at the very heart of the American constitutional order.     During the debates over the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, critics of the new document (among whom were the likes of Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson) raised objections against granting judges life tenure. They warned that it would reduce judges accountability to the citizenry on whose fundamental authority they were raised to the bench. It would lead at length to a judicial despotism that would in the end overthrow government by the peoples elected representatives on both the state and federal levels, thus replicating in a different form the very problem that led to the separation of the colonies from Great Britain.   Recent history strongly suggests that these initial anxieties were well-placed and that Alexander Hamilton was seriously mistaken in his expectation (expressed in The Federalist, No. 78) that the judiciary would ever continue as the weakest branch of the federal government: Indeed, it seems that it now has become the strongest, before which quail the magistrates and representatives elected by the people.   The early critics of the 1789 Constitution deemed the threat of impeachment an insufficient control on judicial grandiosity: Jefferson referred to it as scarecrow and a bugbear which they fear not at all. He seems to have been right in this: The infrequency of the impeachment of judges over the past two centuries is less a testimony to the integrity of the federal judiciary as guardians of the Constitution than it is to the unwillingness of the Congress to use it except in the most egregious cases of moral turpitude. Never has a judge been impeached for opinions which misrepresent and undermine the meaning of the Constitution. This cannot have escaped the notice of the occupants of the federal bench.     It is worth noting, as well, that when the Constitution was written, life expectancies were notably shorter than they are today. It was exceptional if a judge (or anyone else) lived into his seventies or eighties. In such a time, the absence of a limit on judicial tenure was no great problem, since the Grim Reaper would generally limit it, and  with it the potential of the average judge to inflict serious damage on the law. Now, however, with people regularly living long past their seventh decade of life, a judge appointed to the bench in his fifties may easily be expected to serve for a quarter-century or more. The scope for his doing lasting damage is concomitantly increased, especially since he is well aware that unless he is notoriously corrupt, he has absolute job security regardless of how outrageous to the Constitution and laws his judicial opinions might be.     Given such considerations, it would be prudent now to limit judicial tenure. This could be done by according to each federal judge and Supreme Court justice a fixed term of office that would be longer than those enjoyed by any elected federal official. A period of not less than ten nor more than twelve years would seem to be about right. Then, at the biennial general election following the conclusion of the tenth year of the judges term, he or she would be required to submit to a vote for or against retention in office by the voters who live in the judicial district or circuit over which the judge has jurisdiction. (In the case of the Supreme Court, of course, the vote would be nationwide.)     If the people voted to retain the judge or justice, he or she would be continued in office for another term. If, however, they voted not to retain the judge, he or she would be retired and disqualified from appointment to any federal judicial post for a fixed number of years afterward. The President would then be obliged, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint someone else to the post.     The most predictable objection to such a change is that it would impair the independence of the judiciary. This objection is less weighty than it seems at first: As personal responsibility is a necessary accompaniment of liberty, so in a republic official independence must be balanced by meaningful accountability. The unfettered independence of any branch of government from the other branches or from the people is a threat to republican government. The Constitution exists in the first place to ensure that no such independence is ever established.  The change proposed here actually would have minimal impact on judicial independence: While there would no longer be life tenure, judicial tenure would still be for a longer period than that enjoyed by any elected federal official. In addition, the current provision against the reduction of judges compensation during their tenure would remain in place.   The appointment of judges would remain in the hands of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Congress would retain its impeachment authority unimpaired. The proposed amendment would reinforce the existing checks on judicial power by adding further level of regular accountability to the electorate.   It just may be that the addition of this kind accountability would be one part of a general remedy for the diminishing regard in which the federal courts are held, thanks to decisions that are seen as flatly wrong, or even immoral, by large sectors of the republics citizenry.   The people realize intuitively the truth what Jefferson expressed when he wrote, Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . [T]o whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[1820, letter to Jarvis] It is time that the people be given a voice in judging their judges.     Fort Washington, Maryland 19 December 2003 + + + + + + +     Proposed Text of Amendment     ARTICLE ##     Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in  one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and the inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior for a term of not less than ten nor more than twelve years, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. The term of office for a judge shall be deemed to commence from the date of his qualification for the same.     Section 2. At the general election for the members of the House of Representatives next after the expiration of his tenth year in office, the name of every judge not resigning shall be submitted to the electorate of the jurisdiction in which he serves for a vote for or against retention in office. If he be retained, he shall be continued in office for an additional term of not less than ten nor more than twelve years. If he be not retained, his office shall be vacated three months following the aforesaid general election (unless his term expire prior thereto) and the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint some other person to the office so vacated.     Section 3. The provisions of this Article shall be applicable to all judges of the courts of the United States in service at the time of its ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the several States. The name of every judge of the courts of the United States in office for more than ten years at the time this Article becomes effective and not resigning shall be submitted to the electorate of the jurisdiction in which he serves for a vote for or against retention in office.   Section 4. No person failing to be retained as a judge of the courts of the United States shall be eligible for appointment as a judge in any of the courts of the United States for a period of four years after the conclusion of his term in office. No person resigning as a judge of the courts of the United States within two years of the end of his term in office shall be eligible for appointment as a judge in any of the courts of the United States for a period of four years after the date of his resignation, except that this provision shall not apply in cases of judges resigning to assume a position on a higher court of the United States to which they have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.     Section 5. The Senate of the United States, within ninety days (Sundays excepted) from the date of its submission to the Senate, shall accord each person nominated by the President of the United States to the office of judge in any of the Courts of the United States a vote consenting or not consenting to said nomination.   Section 6. The Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of this Article by appropriate legislation.   The Rev. Sam Edwards is a priest in the Anglican Province of Christ the King   *****

BY SUZANNE PEREZ TOBIAS   About 40 members of an Episcopal church in east Wichita have established a new congregation within the Orthodox Church, citing their disapproval of the decidedly liberal drift of the Episcopal Church in recent years.   The Rev. John Flora, 57, retired rector of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, will lead the new congregation, which will begin worshipping at St. Georges Orthodox Christian Cathedral in Wichita at 10 a.m. on Sunday.     Flora said he and the group of former St. Stephens parishioners have grown frustrated with the Episcopal Church, including its approval of its first openly gay bishop in August.   When I found the Episcopal Church in college, I really believed I had found something that was connected to the ancient church and was going to remain steadfast, Flora said.     But my experience in the past 31 years as a priest is, there’s been a slippery slide into theological relativism, and that’s not where I’m at.     Officials with the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, including Bishop Dean Wolfe, were out of town for the holidays and could not be reached for comment.     Melodie Woerman, spokeswoman for the diocese, said that news of Floras new church mission was a surprise, and that church officials would be unlikely to make a comment until they learned more about the situation.     The new church, St. Michael the Archangel Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church, will be the first Western Rite Orthodox parish in Kansas. It  will join a growing number of Orthodox congregations that use a Western form for their liturgy, rather than the more characteristic Byzantine Rite.     The liturgy of the new church will be similar to that of the traditional Anglican Book of Common Prayer, Flora said, with some additions to make it conform to Orthodox theology. Becoming an Orthodox priest, which he plans to do on Easter, will complete a personal and theological evolution for Flora.     During seminary, he participated in a dialogue group between Anglican and Orthodox churches, and he has been interested in Palestinian issues and Orthodoxy ever since. For now, the new St. Michael parish will hold worship services in the chapel at St. Georges Cathedral, 7515 E. 13th St. But Flora hopes the congregation will grow and eventually have its own facility.     Leaving the 2.4 million-member Episcopal Church was a real hard decision, Flora said, but one I felt I had to make.     Other parishioners planning to join Flora agreed.   This has nothing to do with St. Stephens itself. It has everything to do with the Episcopal Church USA said Bill Anderson, head of the St. Michael parish council.     My belief is that we have not left the Episcopal Church; it has left us, he said. This is not a decision we took lightly, nor is it something that just happened.     END

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org August 18, 2025   As the news trickles out about the election of an avowed lesbian archbishop to lead the Church in Wales, it is not surprising that Global South Anglicans, which are predominantly theologically evangelical, are saddened, angry and rightly fear pushback from the Islamic community who view homosexuality as a grave sin.   “The crime of homosexuality is one of the greatest of crimes, the worst of sins and the most abhorrent of deeds, and Allah punished those who did it in a way that He did not punish other nations. It is indicative of violation of the fitrah, total misguidance, weak intellect and lack of religious commitment, and it is a sign of doom and deprivation of the mercy of Allah,” according to official Islamic teaching.   In Islam, sodomy is viewed as a reprehensible act. The Quran addresses this issue in several verses, particularly in the context of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot), who were warned about their practice of sodomy. Allah condemned them for their actions, stating that they were committing a sin that no one before them had committed. Sodomy is contrary to human nature and is considered a greater sin than adultery, with severe consequences for those who engage in it. Scholars and religious authorities have consistently condemned sodomy, advocating for the preservation of sexual morality and the sanctity of marriage.   Global South Anglicans who are overwhelmingly orthodox in faith and morals, are experiencing persecution on a scale never before seen with over 7,000 Nigerian Christians killed in the first seven months of 2025 by jihadist groups in various parts of Nigeria, a new report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) has revealed. An additional 7,800 people in the West African country were seized and abducted. This averages out at 30 Christians a day.   As a result, but not surprisingly, The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) officially cut all ties with the Anglican Church of Wales following the election of the bishop. The Nigerian Church also cut ties with the Episcopal Church when the homosexual Gene Robinson was consecrated the Bishop of New Hampshire.   Over the decades Global South Christians have had to fight colonialism, imperialism, racism and the use of money by Western liberals to manipulate them; but sodomy is perhaps the most egregious of behaviors because of its inherent violation of creation and because it makes evangelism of Muslims nearly impossible.   If Islam hates sodomy and Muslims fear God, should Christians who know and revere their bible not have the same fear of God’s judgement on sodomy?   The Apostle Paul in Romans 1: 26-27 is explicit in that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness…with God handing them over to their depraved minds. “For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature ( para physin ); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Those who indulge in sexual sin. . . or practice homosexuality . . . will not inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).   It is not surprising then that Egyptian Archbishop Emeritus Mouneer Anis said that this decision (by Wales) further strains our ecumenical relationships and undermines the credibility of our mission, especially in the Islamic world, where fidelity to revealed truth is both respected and expected from Christian leaders.   There you have it. The Welsh archbishop’s self-centered, ego-driven, sexually abhorrent lifestyle, while honored by a church that is rapidly dying, directly affects evangelistic efforts in the Global South where the church is growing by leaps and bounds. Sex matters. When you go against the Law of Nature and Nature’s God there are penalties and the Global South will pay the price not the Church in Wales.   Liberal protestant churches that have embraced the full range of LGBTQ sexualities, have not seen their churches grow; if anything, they have continued to empty and die even faster.   Never mind that this election not only deepens the existing divisions within the Anglican Communion it also diminishes the catholicity of the Church in Wales—its continuity with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. It isolates the Church in Wales from the wider body of global Christianity, both within and beyond the Anglican tradition.   Do the Welsh bishops even care? Why was there not a word from York Archbishop Stephen Cottrell, the temporary head of the Church of England? He is happy to rail on about Palestinian statehood but not a word about the Welsh election, largely we suspect, because he agrees with it and who knows what rocky road the Church of England will march down as they consider a new Archbishop of Canterbury! His silence speaks volumes.   The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) described it as a “divisive rejection of the historic Biblical and Anglican teaching on marriage and human sexuality.”   The tear in the fabric of the communion was just made worse by this act. There is no going back, the Nigerian Primate called for orthodox Welsh Anglicans to leave their church for greener spiritual pastures. Hopefully they will listen.   Archbishop Vann’s vanity is clear for all to see. Her election is another nail in the coffin of Western Anglicanism. There can be no doubt that GAFCON and the GSFA are contemplating their next move. We wait with bated breath.   END

Letter from the Bishops and Officers of the Synod Church of Pakistan   August 14, 2025   The Bishops and Officers of the Synod Church of Pakistan have written to the Secretary General of the ACC reflecting on the appointment of the new Archbishop of Wales. The Rt Revd Leo Rodrick Paul, Bishop of our link diocese of Multan and his wife, Mrs Honey Sadaf, are signatories.   A Call to Return - Reflections on the Appointment of the New Archbishop of Wales August 8, 2025   The Rt Revd Anthony Poggo Secretary GeneralThe Anglican Consultative CouncilLondon, United Kingdom Dear Bishop Anthony Poggo, Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The recent election of the Rt. Revd. Cherry Vann, Bishop of Monmouth, as Archbishop of Wales, has prompted deep concern and grief among us in the Church of Pakistan. While we recognise the significant nature of this moment for the Church in Wales, we also feel compelled to reflect prayerfully on its broader theological and missional implications for the global Church, with particular focus on the Anglican Communion, especially its United Churches that are in partnership with it and share in its spiritual, doctrinal, and ecclesial life. Decisions made in one Province inevitably influence the wider body, affecting our shared witness, unity, and credibility, especially in regions where the Church serves in challenging and often hostile environments. This appointment, being the first woman and the first openly partnered bishop in such a role, represents a significant development not only within the Church in Wales but across the wider Body of Christ. While we uphold the principle that each province governs its affairs, we cannot see this merely as an internal or administrative matter. Decisions of this kind inevitably affect our shared witness, doctrine, and fellowship, especially within a communion that claims a common faith and apostolic foundation. We write with reverence and humility. Our concerns are neither political nor personal but stem from our sincere belief that this decision marks a departure from the biblical pattern of spiritual leadership. We raise our voice not in condemnation, but in lament—grieved by what we perceive as a strain upon the shared communion and unity we hold dear, which has been nurtured through our common faith. We are compelled to raise four areas of grave concern:   Biblical Teaching and Moral Theology The appointment contradicts the consistent witness of Scripture on sexual ethics and leadership qualifications.   Communion and Shared Faith Our partnership as global Anglicans is built on shared beliefs; when those foundations shift, our fellowship is shaken.   Cultural and Missional Impact In contexts like Pakistan, where Christians live as a minority, such decisions feed hostile narratives that endanger our witness and well-being.   Unity in Diversity True unity does not come through agreement with culture, but through shared submission to Christ and His Word. We urge the Church of Wales to remember her witness to the Church of Pakistan through the Church Mission Society, the global impact of fostering church growth via the Welsh Revival over a century ago, and the sacrifice of many Welsh missionaries who laboured until their final breath to expand the church in Korea and China. Figures such as Robert Jermain Thomas, a Welshman who died holding his Bible as he extended it to his executioner, exemplify this dedication. Today, the Church of Pakistan extends the same Holy Bible to the Church of Wales, urging her to accept its words not as mere counsel, but as the foundational tenets of the faith of the Church. We prayerfully hope that the Church of Wales and others who have departed may return to her first love and seek reconciliation with Christ and His bride. A departure from this path necessitates a cry to God in solemn and humble repentance to avert an inevitable spiritual famine within her jurisdiction. We join in prayer, trusting that our supplications will be met with God’s mercy and man’s willingness to discern ways to embody holiness, uphold truth, and lead the people of God to Christ the Good Shepherd.   A Plea in Prayerful Hope We write not from a place of condemnation, but with grief, humility, and earnest love—grief over a once-cherished communion strained by theological compromise; humility as fellow sinners in need of grace; and love for the Church of Wales, with its historic contribution to global mission and Christian witness. Even now, we do not lose hope. Our aspiration is for the restoration and recovery of the Church from this dangerous drift into moral decay. We continue to pray fervently for the Church of Wales, a church that has been missionally active, which has endured many internal battles, and is intricately woven into the fabric of England’s monarchy. This church has been entrusted with much, and thus, much will be expected of it. We implore that it be repaired and healed through genuine, remorseful surrender to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by taking up the cross and following Christ faithfully, regardless of the cost. May the Holy Spirit empower us all to bear a clear and unwavering witness to Jesus Christ, His Gospel, and the purest love revealed through His sacrificial death for His Church. We pray that the Church of Wales might turn again to the truth and authority of God's Word, to walk no longer according to the patterns of the world, but to be renewed in holiness, humility, and repentance. We pray that it may once again proclaim, without compromise, the transforming power of the Gospel. Let this moment be not a final breach, but a holy invitation to return to Christ, to the Cross, and to the faith once and for all entrusted to the saints. As bishops of the Church of Pakistan, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the orthodox teaching of the historic Christian faith. In the spirit of Jude 1:3, we solemnly and joyfully affirm, "Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people." May the Holy Spirit grant us all the courage to follow Christ whatever the cost and to stand in truth with love for the sake of His Church and the glory of His name. In Christ,   The Bishops and Officers of the Synod Church of Pakistan   1.The Most Rev. Dr. Azad Marshall, Moderator/President Bishop, Church of Pakistan & Bishop of Raiwind 2. The Rt. Rev. Kaleem John, Deputy Moderator, Synod, Church of Pakistan & Bishop of Hyderabad 3. The Rt. Rev. Humphrey S. Peters, Bishop of Peshawar, Diocese of Peshawar, Church of Pakistan 4. The Rt. Rev. Leo Rodrick Paul, Bishop of Multan, Diocese of Multan, Church of Pakistan 5. The Rt. Rev. Alwin John Samuel, Bishop of Sialkot, Diocese of Sialkot, Church of Pakistan 6. The Rt. Rev. Fredrick John, Bishop of Karachi, Diocese of Karachi & Baluchistan, Church of Pakistan 7. The Rt. Rev. Aleem Anwar, Bishop of Faisalabad, Diocese of Faisalabad, Church of Pakistan 8. Mrs. Honey Sadaf, Treasurer, Synod Church of Pakistan 9. Mr. Shahzad Khurram, General Secretary, Synod Church of Pakistan

Israel blamed for “deliberate famine” in Gaza Bishops demand recognition of Palestine “regardless of facts on the ground”   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org August 13, 2025   The Anglican Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, the highest-ranking official in the Church of England, and four CofE bishops, excoriated Israel and that nation’s policies in Gaza, accusing the democratic state of “deliberate famine” and demanding Palestine be recognized “regardless of facts on the ground.”   The Church of England’s animus towards Israel is, by now, well established.   The five bishops took it up a notch this week, and in unprecedented language threw Israel under the bus, blaming the small, besieged democratic state for the ongoing war, accusing Israel of “starvation,” “deliberate famine” and “terrible injustices” being inflicted on the hapless people of Gaza.   The bishops demanded a Palestinian state “regardless of the facts on the ground,” which, if conceded too, would see the obliteration of Israel within a decade if not sooner.   Of the 14 paragraphs devoted to blasting Israel, just one was devoted to the mass slaughter of 1200 Israelis by Hamas. “We condemn unequivocally the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023. The hostages should be immediately and safely released without conditions attached to their freedom.” How condescending of the archbishop to devote a mere one paragraph to Israel!   The bishops’ statement was the largest pile of sanctimonious excrement since an effort to broker same-sex unions into the Church of England; an effort that looks increasingly like a failed project. There are more blood libels in their combined statement than hot dog vendors in Manhattan.   Here is what the bishops said; “We continue to call for an immediate end to this war and for negotiations leading to lasting justice, security and peace…a deliberate famine is being inflicted on the people of Gaza and Air drops of aid are dangerous and entirely inadequate substitutes for what is needed: the unimpeded delivery of aid through the U.N. and other established humanitarian organizations.”   Let’s unpack this.   A “deliberate famine?” There are hundreds of truckloads of food waiting to go into central Gaza, but the UN refuses to unload them because they don’t like the Israeli-backed and U.S.-funded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF sites opened in May as an alternative to the U.N.-run aid system, but operations have been marred by deaths and chaos. And who is causing the “deaths and chaos” it is certainly not the IDF. The GHF media office said: “There were no incidents at or near our sites today.” Israel's military said there were no incidents involving troops near central Gaza aid sites.   The bishops say they want an end to the war whether or not Hamas still holds sway over Gaza, and regardless if a single remnant of Hamas remains who will once again rain down rockets into Israel. Why should Israel tolerate even a single “remnant”? A ceasefire only benefits Hamas allowing them to regroup.   Can you imagine a band of Islamic terrorists settling on the Isle of Man firing rockets into England. Just how long would Keir Starmer tolerate that? “My god Winslow roll out the Royal Air Force and kill the buggers.”   Israel is not deliberately starving Gazans. They have sent in more than two million tons of food, most of it grabbed by Hamas for their purposes and then the surplus sold off at exorbitant prices to fellow Palestinians.   The United Nations World Food Program issued statistics in 2023 that claimed that 2.2 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip needed to be supplied with 3,287 trucks of food a week.  Putting aside that others claim the Gaza demographics at between 1.8 to two million people, and accepting the UN figure, Gaza needs 4,287 tons of food a week. Factoring in the fact that the war has gone on for six months, this would raise the total amount of food required in Gaza for half a year to a total of 102,888 tons.   COGAT, the Israeli coordinating arm of the Israeli Government’s activities in the territories, revealed figures that, since the start of the war Israel has overseen the entry into Gaza of 14,786 trucks loaded with 313,970 tons of food as of 15 April 2024.  That is over three times the amount of food quoted by the United Nations.  The bishops clearly had not done their homework.   So, who would you believe, an archbishop who should have resigned over failed safe guarding practices but did not, or a prime minister who is keeping Israel a free nation that includes two million Palestinians living within her borders?   The U.K. has a particular historical and moral duty to recognize the state of Palestine, and it is therefore disappointing that this recognition has been made conditional, say the bishops. Really!   And where is the bishop’s outrage at President Vladimir Putin in his grab for Ukraine and the half million Russian deaths!   On the issue of Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu says that granting an independent state to the Palestinians “is to invite a future war and a certain war (…) something that today, the Israeli public forcefully opposes.”   He went on to state that, “the Palestinians are not about creating a state. They’re about destroying a state. That’s why they opposed the Jewish National Movement to create a state. It’s called Zionism, conflating Palestinians who pursue an armed struggle with those who recognize the state of Israel.”   Hamas wants a one state solution (from the river to the sea) that sees the total obliteration of Israel, and that is why Israel cannot concede even an inch of Gaza to Hamas or allow a single Hamas to live. They can surrender themselves and the hostages, but they have steadfastly refused to do so.   Perhaps the first order of business for the Archbishop of York should be, “Church heal thyself,” before setting out to tell Israel what to do in a world they are powerless to control.   END

Reviewed by David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org August 15, 2025 Secularists and atheists will not like this book. In fact, they will hate it. And they will hate it because they believe the public square should be naked, devoid of religious belief. They discarded religion at the Enlightenment, and think it is now no longer relevant in a technological age run more by AI than the Torah or the Sermon on the Mount. Melanie Phillips would respectfully disagree. The brilliant British Jewish author, columnist and Israeli defender, contends that the West is destroying itself from within and without, and only Jews and Christians standing together can make it possible for Western civilization to survive. While Phillips is on the Jewish side of the equation, she argues like a Christian apologist defending the West against its cultured despisers. Her book, How Jews and Christians Built the West, and why they are the only ones capable of rescuing it from its decline, is a book of extraordinary analysis and wild hope. Few can escape the conclusions she offers. It is profoundly ironic, that, at the opening, she cites Psalm 118:22; “The stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone.” King David wrote the Psalm to celebrate God’s steadfast love and faithfulness. The Jews sang this during festivals and ceremonies, possibly even the Feast of Tabernacles, commemorating God’s miraculous provision during Israel’s journey in the wilderness. For Christians it is Jesus himself who is the chief cornerstone of His Church, but the New Testament says that the God of Israel gave to Jesus "the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:34), and so we Christians should realize that the foundation of Jesus' kingdom is profoundly Jewish. Her book is written against a background of unprecedented cultural tumult in the West with a society deeply polarized as a tsunami of antisemitism eats at the very heart of the West with liberals and left-wingers happily destroying the very roots that gave rise to their freedoms. Phillips believes that the present divisions are not between conservatives and liberals, white skinned individuals and people of color, heterosexuals and gays, but those who want Western civilization to continue and those who don’t. At its heart Phillips believes that there is an attempt to “destroy core values” of national identity and cultural self-belief, entailing a progressive collapse of social order and rationality into anarchy, stupefying imbecility and moral squalor. Phillips believes, with some justification, that the cultural crisis is being exploited and manipulated by Islamists, who recognize in the weakness of the West their chance to conquer it and subjugate it to Islamic rule. “All this is coalescing around antisemitism and the demonization of Israel, both the symptoms and the cause of civilizational collapse.” She believes that the US may still be able to turn itself around but Britain and Europe are lost causes because of the sheer number of Islamists and the feebleness of their response to the threat they pose. Therefore, the cultural collapse is the most critical front in the West’s struggle for survival. “This cultural war of attrition has now reached a tipping point.” “Establishment politicians across the spectrum seem frozen in the headlamps of self-destructive ideologies and the increasing Islamist threat. Establishment liberals are attempting to silence dissent – which they demonize as 'right wing' or even 'far-right' – in flagrant disregard of liberal principles of free speech and due process.” Phillips believe that this is the moment when the West will either pull itself together or go over the edge of the cultural cliff. This is the moment when we all hold our breath that Western leaders will make the right call. Phillips makes the bold assertion that issues like transgender mutilation, punishing universities, or throwing out illegal immigrants are the results of what’s gone wrong. At the root it is a spiritual problem. A crisis over meaning and purpose. “That takes us headfirst into the issue of religious belief. A key issue behind the West’s civilizational travails is a spiritual vacuum underpinning the denigration of the nation, the abandonment of the family, the destruction of education; it has shaped contempt for the past and despair about the future; it has replaced emotional health by a profound loneliness. All these things are connected.” Phillips' remedy is to learn from the resilience and experience of the Jewish people. “The Jews' unique selling point throughout history has been a culture of survival – as the State of Israel has once again shown the rest of the world.” The barbaric slaughter of October 6, 2023 and the West's pathetic response to it was the canary in the coalmine, revealing a culture in an advanced state of decay and disintegration. Phillips believes that the Jewish targets of this onslaught could become the West’s salvation. October 7 turbo-charged the West’s decades-long process of cultural suicide. Oct. 7 was a new front in the Islamic holy war against the West that took the battle onto a higher and triumphalist level, says Phillips. She notes that the Palestinian attempt at the genocide of the Jews was labelled “resistance,” while Israel’s resistance to being annihilated was labelled “genocide.” “At the heart of all this was the doctrine that there was no such thing as objective truth. Everything was relative; everything was a matter of opinion. Because there was no truth, feelings became more important than facts.” The principles of justice, freedom, and tolerance are not universal. They are core principles of the West alone. Uprooting them from the Western civilization that gave them birth has turned them into weapons to be deployed against the West by its enemies. The West’s abandonment of its biblically-based structures created a vacuum into which the Islamists have marched. They understood something that the West had forgotten – that religion is essential to a culture’s understanding of itself, and that without a religious underpinning, no culture will survive. They understood that the West was evacuating its culture of religion, meaning, and purpose, and so would no longer be prepared to defend it. The West, however, refuses to acknowledge the war being waged by the Islamic world against Western civilization. Worse, by appeasing Iran, undermining Israel, and ignoring the Islamization of the free world, it has been giving succor to its mortal enemies. Phillips believes there is an antidote to this - it is the Jewish roots of the West. Judaism is the West’s civilizational soul. Christianity itself, the institutional foundation of that civilization, rests upon Jewish precepts that Christianity thus channeled into Western culture. So for the West, the fight for its survival as a civilization is very much on, and everything is to play for. And in this great cultural struggle, the Jewish people can play a vital role. That’s because Jewish principles and experiences are the West’s rescue remedy. It’s only by restoring those biblical values that the West will be able to save itself, concludes Phillips. Another book that I must mention, written in a similar vein but from a distinctly Christian perspective is by Dr. Os Guinness, social critic and Anglican. His book: OUR CIVILIZATIONAL MOMENT: The Waning of the West and the War of the Worlds is a must read for any thoughtful Christian. The world is fast approaching the climax of one of the great turning points in history, writes Guinness. “After nearly two millennia of existence and half a millennium of unprecedented dominance, Western civilization is on the wane and the shadows it casts are lengthening. Guinness notes that the most vehement and radical enemies assaulting the West are from within.” Echoes of Phillips. “The root of the decline lies not just in the philosophical, ethical, cultural, economic, and technological spheres but the deepest cause of all—the deteriorating condition of the roots of the animating force that once made the West the civilization it has been. The faiths that gave vitality and unity have become enervated and rejected entirely.” I recommend both these books to readers. They can be purchased through Amazon.com END

Grace is not a suggestion, a boost, or a cooperative handshake—it is the sovereign act of God upon undeserving sinners.   The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore Aug 15, 2025 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” – Ephesians 2:8 (NKJV) Among the five Solas that form the theological backbone of the Reformation,  Sola Gratia — Grace Alone —stands like a lighthouse in a storm-tossed sea. It was not merely a theological refinement; it was a rescue operation. In a world where man was told to earn God’s favor through indulgences, penance, pilgrimages, and priestly mediation, the Reformers reclaimed the ancient truth: salvation is by grace, and grace alone. Grace Is Not a Boost Modern people tend to think of grace as a sort of spiritual fuel additive—something God gives to help you do what you couldn’t quite manage on your own. But this is not the biblical doctrine of grace. Grace is not a reward for trying hard. It is not a supplement to good intentions. It is not even a reward for faith. Grace is the unmerited favor of God poured out upon the unworthy. It is the love of God for the unlovable, the pardon of God for the guilty, the healing touch of Christ upon the leper's skin. It is God doing for us what we could never do for ourselves—not even with infinite time and effort. Dead Men Can’t Reach The Reformers—especially Luther and Calvin—were adamant about one thing: humanity is not morally sick, in need of medicine, therapy, or motivation. Humanity is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). Grace, therefore, is not CPR. It is resurrection. It is the divine act of raising the spiritually dead to new life. This stands in sharp contrast to the semi-Pelagian error of their day (and ours), which suggests that man must take the first step—showing some measure of desire, some inkling of righteousness—and then God meets him halfway. But Sola Gratia asserts that even the first spark of desire for God is itself the result of grace. Not of Works—Full Stop Ephesians 2:8–9 makes the claim airtight: “not of works, lest anyone should boast.” If grace is mixed with works, it ceases to be grace (Romans 11:6). The moment we insert our own righteousness into the equation, we pollute the gospel. It is not 99% grace and 1% effort—it is 100% the gift of God. Even our faith is a grace-given response. The very ability to trust in Christ is wrought in us by the Spirit of grace. No man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Grace Offends True grace is offensive. It offends our pride, our religious instincts, our sense of fairness. It tells us that the drunk in the gutter and the church elder have the same hope: the mercy of God. It tells us that salvation is not a wage, not a trophy, but a gift—and gifts cannot be earned. They can only be received with empty hands. This is why so many reject it. To receive grace is to admit your bankruptcy, to confess that all your best efforts amount to nothing before the throne of a holy God. Why It Still Matters Sola Gratia is not just a relic of 16th-century debate. It is the living heartbeat of the gospel. The modern Church still flirts with performance-based religion. We say "grace" but then measure ourselves by attendance, good behavior, social activism, or doctrinal purity. None of those things are bad—but none of them justify us before God. Grace alone saves. Everything else flows from that fountain. If we lose Sola Gratia, we lose the gospel. We do not need a better marketing plan, a more attractive Christianity, or a more palatable God. We need to fall on our faces before the throne of grace, crying out for mercy—and finding, to our astonishment, that He already gave it. Let us never forget: We are not saved by grit, but by grace. Not by resolve, but by resurrection. Not by merit, but by mercy. Sola Gratia. Thanks be to God.

By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org August 14, 2025   J. B. Lightfoot was a renown New Testament scholar at Cambridge when he was called in 1879 to be the Anglican Bishop of Durham. He spent the last decade of his life shepherding the people and congregations of his diocese.   His commentaries on many of St. Paul’s epistles and his work on the apostolic fathers are still widely read today. He is perhaps best remembered by a book he wrote that some Anglicans find troubling. In “The Christian Ministry,” Lightfoot shows the evolution of the office of bishop from the New Testament into the early church. He shows that the terms presbyter ( presbuteros, elder or priest) and bishop ( episcopos) are interchangeable in the New Testament; they describe the same office.   There is no clear distinction in the Bible between the two and there is not a clear three-fold distinction of orders of ministries (bishop, priest, and deacon) in Holy Scripture.   It didn’t take but several decades after the apostles for the church to find three orders very helpful, but to say that this is biblical is simply wrong. And in the wrong hands, this becomes a false grounding for sacerdotal views of ordained ministry that seeks to justify “special” classes of Christians and an ongoing office of apostles.   The English reformers saw the historic episcopate as of “ bene esse ” (for the well being) of the church. Since it is not clearly Scriptural, they couldn’t say, as the later Tractarians did, that the historic episcopate is of the “ esse ” of the church or that episcopacy is an indispensable requisite in a Christian church.   A case can be made that episcopacy went wild with the 1830s Tractarian revival (see Tract 10!) on into the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. This led to such ideas as: ordination automatically conveys special grace to make ordinary Christians into a special Christians.   This is the kind of nonsense that Paul rails against in 1 Corinthians 12! We in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) have unfortunately ceded authority to priests and bishops that, in someone who doesn’t see himself as a servant, can too easily lead to the abuse of power. Why, for example, do we now anoint hands with oil in ordination, “that whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated”?   There is nothing about making magic hands in our Anglican heritage until the 2019 Book of Common Prayer. We can say that a church order based on bishops, priests and deacons is good, and may even be the best system of church governance, without giving in to ugly and unbiblical clericalism.   The Rev. Canon Chuck Collins is a theologian and historian in the reform tradition.

The Children’s Society said it is committed to supporting survivors of abuse and accepting the donation would not be consistent with its principles.   By Aine Fox, PA Social Affairs Correspondent Shropshire News Dec. 20, 2024 The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had chosen to make a donation to The Children’s Society but they have declined the offer (Andrew Milligan/PA) A children’s charity has rejected a Christmas donation from the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, saying that accepting it would not be consistent with its work in supporting victims of child sexual abuse. Earlier this week Justin Welby – who will officially quit in early January over failures in handling a Church of England abuse scandal – sent an annual e-card for the festive season, and said he was making a donation to The Children’s Society. A message accompanying the card from Mr Welby and his wife Caroline noted that the charity “works with children affected by criminal and sexual exploitation, abuse” and other issues. But the charity announced on Friday that it had “respectfully decided” not to accept the donation. Mark Russell, the organization's chief executive, said: “After careful consideration, we have respectfully decided not to accept the donation offered by the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury.   “The Children’s Society is deeply committed to supporting the survivors of abuse, our teams support victims of child sexual abuse, and this means that accepting this donation would not be consistent with the principles and values that underpin our work.”   Mr. Welby announced last month he was resigning from his leading role in the Church “in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse” in the wake of the Makin Review.   The resignation announcement followed days of pressure after the independent review concluded barrister John Smyth – thought to have been the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the Church – might have been brought to justice had Mr Welby formally reported him to police in 2013.   Across five decades in three different countries and involving as many as 130 boys and young men in the UK and Africa, Smyth is said to have subjected his victims to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks, permanently marking their lives.   Smyth died aged 77 in Cape Town in 2018 while under investigation by Hampshire Police, and was “never brought to justice for the abuse”, the Makin report said.   Mr. Russell added: “We were profoundly shocked by the findings of the Makin report, and our thoughts are with all survivors of abuse. We believe that there is an urgent need for the Church of England to reset its approach to safeguarding and continue to create a safer Church and safer spaces for young people, protected by real accountability and a culture of care.     “The Children’s Society’s life-changing work supports children facing abuse, exploitation or struggling with their mental health. We remain deeply grateful for the generosity of those who share our vision and the support of those donations is crucial to changing children’s lives for the better. We will continue to focus on delivering a society built for all children.”   A spokesperson for the archbishop said: “Lambeth Palace respects the decision made by The Children’s Society.   “The Archbishop of Canterbury shares the principles and values of The Children’s Society and is committed to supporting the survivors of abuse and victims of child sexual abuse.   “He applauds The Children’s Society for their tireless work in this field.”

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org December 13, 2024   A lot is being made of culture, realignment and restructuring as churches look to regroup after massive losses over the past few years.   Around 40 million Americans have stopped attending church in the past 25 years, with estimates suggesting that "another 2 million Americans" could potentially be leaving the church, contributing to a growing trend of declining church attendance across the country; this is often referred to as "the great dechurching." Mainline denominations are in free fall.   What can be done about it? The Episcopal Church is by no means the biggest loser but a new Presiding Bishop and his bishops are talking up realignment and restructuring as they watch the numbers drop year over year hoping to reverse the trend. You can read Bishop Sean Rowe's aspirations here:  https://www.oaoa.com/people/religion/sean-rowe-wants-to-realign-the-episcopal-church/   Reading through the various options on the situation it looks very much like the bishops are rearranging the deck chairs on the SS TEC but with fewer chairs.   The bishops met at the DoubleTree Hilton Minneapolis Airport recently, and another 55 participated virtually and tried doing just that.   To get The Episcopal Church on the right footing, the newly minted Presiding Bishop Rowe hired Insight Global an international professional services and staffing company specializing in delivering talent and technical solutions to Fortune 1000 companies across the IT, Non-IT, Healthcare, and Engineering industries.   So, the question must be asked is, how can a secular company possibly know how a church runs, if its leadership is supposed to be aligned with God's will for the church and not just the best manager for the job. Do the managers of Insight Global hear from God about how TEC should run. Do they have spiritual or biblical insights. Do they meet the requirements of leadership laid out by the Apostle Paul such as humility, servant leadership, unwavering commitment to the truth, compassion, courage, vision, passion, adaptability, and a deep care for the spiritual growth of others; essentially prioritizing the needs of the community over personal gain, while actively leading with integrity and conviction in spreading the Gospel message to all people regardless of background.   Would the deep thinkers at Insight Global know what this even means? The company talks about developing a plan for strategic realignment. But unless the plan starts and end with God's kingdom being realized on earth then it is nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Aligning itself with the culture is not a winning strategy.   Two issues did pop up; one was on Title IV - the church's disciplinary system for clergy dominated discussion. Why am I not surprised. Anglican Watch a feisty unofficial watch dog on the sins of bishops and clergy has been kicking TEC's butt over failed disciplinary issues.   Here are some recent headlines: Sean Rowe removes bishop Todd Ousley from all Title IV functions prior to Ousley's departure later this year; Say farewell to a fraud: reflections on Title IV and the lies of Cayce Ramey; St. Paul's Dayton cuts Duplicitous Dan loose; Priest faces fraud allegations at Diocese of Dallas parish, resigns from Nashotah House board; Anglican Watch urges reconsideration of Duggan Title IV case in Chicago to cite but a few stories. You can read more here:  https://www.anglicanwatch.com/   The other issue was refocusing General Convention and the College for Bishops, with an educational program for newly elected bishops. How that will grow the diocese and parishes is anybody's guess. It is dubious to say the least.   One bishop seemed to catch on that the Church might need to focus on the Christian faith! OMG. The Rt. Rev. Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows of Indianapolis, vice chair of the House of Bishops concurred: "The heart of the matter is we want to have the Episcopal Church -- both in the aggregate and in each diocese -- be given every bit of steam it can have to make an effective witness for Jesus Christ. We talked about it being a life-and-death matter, because we believe in the dying and rising of Jesus as the core of our faith."   Well, there is a whole lot of dying going on and not much rising...and very little witnessing. Once upon a time, the Anglican bishops at the global Lambeth Conference boldly declared the 1990s the "Decade of Evangelism." It worked across the Global South, but not in the Global North.   Back 20 years ago The Episcopal Church created a "20/20 Vision" task force committed to doubling baptized membership by 2020. It was called the 20/20 strategy. One of its goals was to double average Sunday attendance (ASA) by the year 2020. It failed. The downward spiral continued. The 20/20 proposal totally flopped. Former Presiding Bishop Michael Curry's "revivals" revived nothing that we could find, but he did put on a good show.   And there is evangelism, another theme the bishops discussed. But that usually means trying to bring more alternative lifestyle pursuers into the church by pushing LGBTQ+ sexualities and pushing back on anyone who disagrees with them. Opening the doors wider to the unbaptized, or making communion available to anyone who wants it is not evangelism or pasting ashes on peoples' heads without asking if they had asked for their sins to be forgiven is not evangelism.   Therein lies the problem. Evangelism, biblically understood, is presenting the good news about Jesus, talking up repentance and confession. At its core evangelism is presenting the good news freely and trusting God to convert people.   Very few people in TEC know how to present the good news and most have never done so.   The bottom line is your average Episcopalian is going to be asked to share a faith they have not heard, bought into, or understood. If they had there would be no need for the ACNA to exist, because at the heart of the two churches there is a very different understanding of the gospel. What constitutes good news for TEC is not the same as good news promulgated by the ACNA.   TEC thinks that pushing DEI and gay marriage is good news, the ACNA does not. Railing on about racism is considered good news, but racism is not a fundamental problem in TEC with less than one percent blacks in the pews.   Pushing and advocating for LGBTQ issues is not filling churches. This crowd are not church goers. Pushing the trans cause is spiritual suicide. Switching out genitals through surgery is hardly an apologetic method to win souls for Christ.   Homosexual bishop Gene Robinson is fast becoming passe. How much more whine from pulpits about how aggrieved he is and how uninclusive the church is and how homophobic everybody is who doesn't agree with him, will average Episcopalians tolerate?   The more sexually off the rails TEC heads the worse it is all becoming. And the new presiding bishop Sean Rowe has no intention of reversing the church's stand on sexuality issues. He has made that abundantly clear.   So, if you violate the clear teaching of scripture on sexuality then why should anyone believe TEC bishops about any other doctrine the church should happily change its mind about or cavalierly discard.   TEC can't have it both ways. TEC can't proclaim a message of redemption from sin, all sin, and then give some sins a pass because the culture says so, and then hope to fill churches. It's a nonstarter. Why do evangelical churches grow? One of the reasons is a clear-eyed understanding of what grace, redemption, justification are with no compromises.   If TEC cannot proclaim a [coherent] message of redemption, then realigning and restructuring cannot stop TEC's decline. TEC will continue reaping the whirlwind of emptying churches.   END