Archives

A press release from the Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) claiming that the upcoming CAPA (Conference of Anglican Provinces in Africa) bishops’ meeting in Lagos “is not a reaction to current crises in the Anglican Communion” is flatly contradicted by the actual agenda and statements from organizers. The CAPA bishops intend to take up the serious matters of faith and morals confronting the Communion. The ACNS statement omitted the stated agenda items from the CAPA announcement. Topics to be discussed include HIV/AIDS, political instability, technological stagnation, poverty, ecclesiastical issues, and the current state of the worldwide Anglican Communion. All Anglican Bishops from Africa will meet for the first time in Lagos, Nigeria, from October 24 to 31, 2004, for the Africa Anglican Bishops Conference (AABC). The historic gathering’s theme is “Africa Comes of Age: An Anglican Self-Evaluation.” Approximately 300 Diocesan and Suffragan Bishops are expected to attend. The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) is hosting the meeting, while CAPA serves as the Conference Secretariat. The CAPA Design Committee has been meeting to plan the event; bishops are responsible only for their own transportation, with accommodation provided by the Church of Nigeria. A directory containing contact details and passport photographs of all African bishops and dioceses is being prepared for release at the conference. Bishops were urged to confirm participation by April 2004 and to submit their information to the CAPA Secretariat. Virtuosity has removed the offending ACNS report from its website.

A Hard Look at the Numbers By The Rev. Kevin Martin In the current Episcopal Church crisis, a number of claims are being made about the health and vitality of our denomination. Most of these are based on political spin, not on any hard data. I would like to try to move beyond this spin and take a look at our present organizational situation. Let’s start with the most extreme statements I am hearing on the liberal and conservative sides of the church. The Dean of EDS tells us that the actions of General Convention will open the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people because it declares that we are an open and inclusive church. One conservative leader has stated that ECUSA could lose 50 percent of its membership over the next few years. But, I believe that the most interesting — and potentially most dangerous — spin comes from the Chancellor of the National Church and represents the “official line” of 815. The chancellor is assuring Episcopal leaders that we have lost people before over the issue of prayer book revision and women’s ordination, but the denomination “recovered from this and went on.” What are we to make of these comments? For many in the church, their position seems to be “Our minds are made up; don’t confuse us with the facts.” But this is precisely what the leaders of our community need — to look at the facts. Let me also assure you that the data that I am using comes from the National Church’s own information. In other words, I am not making this up! So let’s begin with a 60-year look at two pieces of information: actual ECUSA membership and the percentage of U.S. population represented. From 1930 to 1965, both grew — peaking in 1965 at 3.6 million members (1.9% of the U.S. population). Since then, both have been in steady decline — and percentage has dropped faster than raw membership. Key observations: • For the past 40 years, ECUSA has been in steady decline. • Only the period immediately after the 1979 Prayer Book and women’s ordination saw a temporary slowdown in decline. • The fastest decline came in the first five years of Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning’s tenure. • A slight slowdown occurred early in Frank Griswold’s tenure — but the current crisis will likely accelerate decline again. These trends refute both liberal optimism (“we’ll attract new members”) and conservative alarmism (“we’ll lose half our people overnight”). Realistically, attrition may be ~100,000 in the near term — but the deeper concern is the erosion of core active members (estimated 840,000 who attend regularly and supply 70% of giving). Why are the Chancellor’s remarks dangerous? Because they foster complacency. Leadership denial is widespread. As a member of the 2020 Taskforce, I can confirm that neither the House of Bishops nor Executive Council has reviewed this data. When we suggested they do, we were told not to be “negative,” since the Presiding Bishop did not want to portray our situation negatively. Two conclusions: ECUSA has not demonstrated a sustainable place in U.S. society for 40 years — and current actions will likely worsen decline. If trends continue for just five more years, ECUSA’s status may fall to that of fringe groups like Christian Scientists or Unitarians. Today, more people believe they’ve been abducted by aliens than are members of ECUSA. And unlike us, their numbers are growing.

Submitted by David W. Virtue Atlanta Bishop J. Neil Alexander voted last fall in favor of Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s ordination, consistent with the wishes of his inner-city constituency, but alienating the much larger population of the diocese living in the suburbs and throughout north Georgia. Here is his statement. A Statement from Bishop Alexander on Those Leaving the Episcopal Church In recent weeks, some of our sisters and brothers, mostly from St. Alban’s Church in Monroe and St. Jude’s Church in Marietta, have decided to leave the Episcopal Church and venture out on their own. I am saddened by this turn of events, because the principal work of the church is to bring everyone into a reconciling relationship with God and with each other. Reconciliation is hard work, and it takes time and effort. In both parishes, a strong core of people remain, excellent lay leadership is emerging and new commitment and vigor to the work of Christ is abundantly clear. At St. Jude’s, the Rev. Frank Baltz is giving clear and effective pastoral leadership, assisted by Ramon Beances, a fine Hispanic pastoral leader who will soon be welcomed into the priesthood of our church. At St. Alban’s, strong lay leadership is in place, and we are working hard to find a faithful pastor for them as they look forward to calling a new rector. It is clear to me that the Holy Spirit is working mightily in both of these parishes and that God is going to bless their continuing ministry. Both the groups that have left have placed themselves under the pastoral direction and guidance of the bishop of Bolivia. This is a most unusual development, because in Anglican tradition a diocese is a defined geographic territory under the jurisdiction of its own bishop. Both in the American Episcopal Church and in worldwide Anglicanism, it is well understood that a bishop does not become involved in the internal affairs of another diocese. In Anglican tradition, when a member of the clergy or a parish is at odds with its bishop, all parties are expected to do the hard work of reconciliation for the sake of the ministry of Christ among us. I am saddened that the members who have left have done so without at least making the effort living more deeply into the reconciling work of the Gospel of Jesus. I hope that such reconciling opportunities will be open to us in the future. I believe that it is also responsible to point out that the leadership core at the heart of both groups are good, faithful people, but who have a history of schismatic behavior. The people who are at the heart of the movement to leave are folks who have left other parishes, and have even left the Episcopal Church before, have come back, and are now leaving again. Schism breeds schism. It always has. I hold in mind the great wisdom of the ancient church: if you have to choose between heresy and schism, choose heresy. For heresy is, in the end, just an opinion — and opinions come and go. Schism tears the fabric of the Body of Christ and is irreparable. For those deeply committed to the body of Christ, breaking fellowship is never a faithful option. I do not believe that all of the fine people who have decided to stay with us and continue to build our parishes have done so because they are in agreement with me or with the actions of the General Convention on these issues before the church in these days. I am, in fact, quite clear about the fact that many of those who have stayed are quite clearly in disagreement, but have determined that separating themselves from us is not the way to work through those issues that divide us. I honor them for their willingness to work with me, even in times of tension, and I will do everything I can to be as able and faithful a bishop and chief pastor to them and to all. To be in agreement, and to be in fellowship and mutual love, has never been the same thing among faithful members of the Anglican tradition. I do not have to agree with someone in order to be a faithful pastor to them. I am looking forward to deepening my pastoral relationship with the people of St. Alban’s and St. Jude’s. I believe our mutual commitment to the Lord of the Church is deeper than our differing viewpoints on the issues before us. This is a wonderful time to be in the church. In the midst of the present uneasiness, it is clear that the Spirit of the Risen Savior is vitally present among us. Every day I continue to be encouraged by the wonderful news of the ministries that are going on around our diocese and throughout the church: faithful Episcopalians finding ever more ways to share the good news of Jesus and to demonstrate God’s love to us by reaching out to others in Christ’s name. At the national level, the Episcopal Church has deployed more foreign missionaries — deacons and priests, teachers, doctors and nurses — than we have in decades. And many of these folks are going at the invitation of our sister churches throughout the Anglican Communion, even to those who have been critical of us in recent months. The fabric of the Anglican Communion is much stronger than many seem to realize. It is abundantly clear that God is using us and our common life to invite others into a deeper and more profound relationship with the Risen Christ. God is clearly not finished with us yet. I am grateful for our partnership in the Gospel of Jesus. To God be the glory! — The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander Bishop of Atlanta This letter by the bishop was published in the current issue of DioLog, the diocese’s semi-monthly newsletter.

By Terry Mattingly It’s hard to watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ without concluding that the suicidal Judas Iscariot was chased by demons into the pit of hell. On the other hand, it’s hard to watch the ABC television movie Judas without concluding that somehow, before he hung himself, his sense of remorse put him back on the road to redemption. These movies offer radically different takes on the Passion and events that led to it. While Gibson has been attacked for his stark, traditional Catholicism, Judas (March 8, 9 p.m. ET) offers a modern, made-for-television, post-Vatican II Catholic approach. “It’s hard to have your little movie compared to a $25 million epic by an Academy Award winner,” said Charles Robert Carner, who directed Judas when it was filmed back in the summer of ’01. “We don’t want people to see this as some kind of cheesy TV rip-off of this big movie.” “We did our thing long before anybody knew Mel Gibson was making the Passion. We’re just thankful that our movie finally has a chance to be seen.” Produced by the Catholic media pioneers at Paulist Productions, Judas began nearly a decade ago as one of the final projects of the late Father Ellwood “Bud” Kieser, founder of the Humanitas Prize. The goal was to create a mini-series called Jesus and Company, which would tell the same story a number of times, only seen through the eyes of characters such as Peter, Mary Magdalene, Judas and others. In the end, only Judas became a reality. The movie was shot in only 23 days in Morocco with a $5 million budget. The 106-page script came from executive producer Tom Fontana, who is best known for his gritty work in crime dramas such as Oz and Homicide: Life on the Streets. Judas was supposed to have aired during the Easter season in ’02. “The movie is coming out now because of The Passion and all of the publicity it has generated,” said Father Frank Desiderio, president of Paulist Productions. “Our movie deals with some of the same material, but in a very different way. We would like to bring more light, rather than heat, to some of the issues that are being discussed.” Judas opens with a crucifixion, only the man on the cross is one of hundreds of Jews being executed by the Romans. The man is Judas’s father and this event plants a fierce hatred of the “Roman bloodsuckers” in the heart of his young son. Judas grows up to become a bitter urban rebel and his anti-establishment anger prevents him from grasping the peaceful, sacrificial message of Jesus. Another major difference between Judas and the controversial Gibson movie is that Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a kind of Machiavellian hedonist who conspires to pin the blame for the death of Jesus on Caiaphas and a few other corrupt members of the Jewish establishment. The goal was to look traditional and sound contemporary. Jesus is shown performing miracles that literally take place on screen, while speaking in modern, even chatty, language. Some viewers and critics may find it jarring, but the Judas team did this intentionally. Desiderio is also unapologetic about the movie’s hopeful ending. Judas, of course, hangs himself in a fit of guilt, despair and madness. Still, the voice of Jesus is heard in a flashback, telling Judas: “I want you to spend eternity with me — with my Father. It’s not too late. It’s never too late.” Later, Peter and two apostles pray over the traitor’s lifeless body, because that is what Jesus would have wanted them to do. So did Judas go to heaven? This may seem like a radical idea, said Desiderio. But it’s a logical question for modern Catholics. “Without that flashback, I would never have made the movie,” said the priest. “That’s the point. It’s never too late. That’s the message to Judas and to each and every one of us. The Catholic church teaches that there is a hell, but we don’t know if anyone is in it. Only God knows if Judas was somehow able to repent and find forgiveness. “That is what this movie is saying: It’s never too late to turn back to God.” Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

By Michael J. McManus Two new studies commissioned by America’s Catholic Bishops document the scale of the sexual abuse of minors by priests that has been front-page news for two years — and its causes and proposed remedies. From 1950–2002, some 4,392 priests — 4 percent of those who served in those years — sexually abused 10,667 children whose average age was only 12. More than 80 percent of that abuse was of a homosexual nature. Those numbers are undoubtedly low. Half of the priests were accused of a single offense. Studies reveal that child molesters violate 60 children before an incident becomes public. Many victims never report the abuse. For example, a fifth of victims say their siblings were also abused. The church paid $572 million to support victims and settle lawsuits, not counting the $85 million recently paid in Boston nor the amounts of 14 non-reporting dioceses. What caused the abuse? A National Review Board of distinguished Catholic lay people appointed by the bishops came to two conclusions. First, “Some men became priests over the last fifty years who never should have been admitted into the seminary or...allowed to continue to ordination.” For decades, boys aged 13–14 entered the seminary — so young their sexuality was immature. Most “minor seminaries” are now closed, but even major seminaries “yielded to a culture of sexual permissiveness” in the 1970s and 1980s, and were often so dominated by a gay subculture that heterosexuals fled. The seminaries actually taught little about sexuality, and that was in Latin, rather than English. Curiously, future priests were not taught how to be celibate, though it was expected. More importantly, when instances of child sexual abuse by priests became known to bishops, “too many failed to respond to this problem forthrightly. Their responses were characterized by moral laxity, excessive leniency, insensitivity, secrecy and neglect,” said the National Review Board, made up of distinguished lawyers, psychologists, a judge, a newspaper publisher and Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff. The Board said the bishops “all too often treated victims of clerical sexual abuse as adversaries and threats to the well-being of the Church, not as injured parishioners in need of healing.” Offending priests were considered “misdirected individuals in need of psychological treatment or a simple change of environment rather than as criminal offenders to be removed from ministry and reported to civil authorities.” These approaches exacerbated the problems. Why did bishops rationalize or ignore misconduct, and transfer priests from one parish to another where more children were victimized? Initially, church leaders viewed sexual abuse as an isolated moral lapse. Later they saw it as a pattern that could be cured by therapy. The threat of litigation caused bishops to “disregard their pastoral role and adopt an adversarial stance not worthy of the church.” Many bishops did not meet victims, which would have prompted a more pastoral response. Few understood the decades-long impact of the abuse that led to depression, drug dependency, sexual dysfunction and even suicide. “Unless you listen to victims, survivors, you don’t really have that sense of horror,” one bishop told the panel. It must be added that child sexual abuse is far more prevalent outside the church than within it. Studies indicate that up to a fifth of men and a quarter of women were molested as children — often by stepparents, teachers or others with access to children. The Board recommended enhanced screening and training of seminarians, increased sensitivity to victims by bishops, more active lay advisory boards and better selection of bishops. However, these remedies seem thin. One poll reveals that 80 percent of Americans favor criminal charges for offending priests and for bishops who covered up the crimes. Yet only 220 of the 4,392 offending priests have been charged with crimes and none of the bishops. In the last two years, 700 priests have been forced to resign along with several bishops who were also abusers. But only Cardinal Bernard Law has been removed due to transferring molesters from parish to parish. Many more bishops should resign, such as the bishops of New Hampshire and Cincinnati who filed guilty pleas with prosecutors. Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles is allowing ten priests facing abuse charges to remain in parish ministry. The Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska refused to cooperate with the National Review Board. No one is holding such bishops accountable. Finally, the celibacy issue itself needs to be reconsidered. I will explore that issue in next week’s column. © 2004 Michael J. McManus

Episcopal diocese votes to join ranks of protest network Delegates want panel to explore ways to reconcile By Dave Munday of The Post and Courier Staff CHARLESTON, SC — The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina at its annual convention Friday joined a controversial network formed to protest the election of an openly gay bishop. Delegates also voted that the diocese should form a commission to try to keep the church from splitting over the issue. The vote to join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes had been expected because S.C. Bishop Edward Salmon Jr. was one of the founding members and because the diocese’s standing committee and executive committee had each voted unanimously to join. But a couple of delegates spoke against it at the meeting at the North Charleston Convention Center. “I believe this resolution would continue the divisiveness ... because it would institutionalize a movement that not all parishes agree with,” Andy Brack, a lay delegate from St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Charleston, told the 296 clergy and lay delegates before the vote. Brack suggested that individual parishes, rather than the diocese as a whole, should vote on whether to join the network. Herbert Drayton III, another lay delegate from St. Stephen’s, announced he would boycott the convention because the resolution reminded him of the way the Episcopal Church treated women and Blacks in the past. “I can certainly tell you, bishop, as an African-American, I certainly do not want to go back to yesterday,” Drayton said before walking out. Salmon endorsed the resolution in his annual address before the business session. “Endorsement does not mean that individuals and congregations who do not agree are thus co-opted against their will,” he said. “As a diocese, over the years, we have had a number of initiatives endorsed by the diocese and supported by many and ignored by others. It does mean that this is not just the personal position of the bishops.” The resolution to join the network passed on a show of hands, with about two dozen voting against it. South Carolina is the seventh of the denomination’s 108 dioceses to join the network, and bishops from another five have endorsed it, according to a tally kept by the American Anglican Council. It’s not a move to leave the denomination, Salmon said. The network was formed in January to oppose changing the church’s standards on sexuality, to funnel money to other missions and to remain in fellowship with other Christian bodies who say they can no longer deal with the Episcopal Church since the denomination’s General Convention accepted the election of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man with a gay lover, as bishop of New Hampshire last summer. A second resolution calls on Salmon to form a Reconciliation Commission. The commission is supposed to try to keep Episcopalians who are divided over the ordination of Robinson and same-sex blessings from formalizing the growing split. Salmon also endorsed that resolution in his address. The problem in the church is not just that the two sides don’t understand each other but that they “often don’t even talk the same language,” Salmon said. Geoff Place, a lay delegate from All Saints Episcopal Church of Hilton Head Island, introduced the resolution on the floor. “How can we start to address some of these differences ... that are starting to negatively impact God’s work in the church?” Place asked. “I suspect ... the road ahead of us is going to be long and very bumpy.” The Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the diocese and a priest at Christ St. Paul’s on Yonge’s Island, lauded the resolution’s goal. But he said reconciliation would be possible only if those who caused the schism by voting for Robinson recognized the seriousness of their actions. He proposed that the resolution be amended to include references to “profound ecclesiastical and theological differences” and a “deep divide.” Place agreed with the changes, and the resolution passed with only a couple of hands raised in opposition. The commission is supposed to come up with a plan to address the differences by Oct. 1. A third resolution, also offered by Place, calls on the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops to talk about ways to bring the two sides together when the bishops meet March 19. Salmon also endorsed that resolution in his address. Harmon proposed the same changes, Place agreed, and the resolution passed overwhelmingly. Salmon reported a number of major church expansions since the last convention. He said half of the $1.5 million needed to build the first Episcopal church on Daniel Island has been raised. Since 1990, the net disposable income of churches in the diocese has grown from $9.6 million to $26.2 million, Salmon said in his address. He endorsed the work of Agape Ministries on Charleston’s impoverished East Side. The ministry is led by the Revs. Dallas Wilson and Jimmy Gallant, who grew up in Calvary Episcopal Church. The diocese recently accepted them as postulants, or candidates for ministry. Salmon proposed that the diocese affiliate with Healing Farm Ministries, which supports families with developmentally disabled members. It’s led by Mary Tutterow, a member of St. Michael’s Episcopal Church.

I have just finished reading David Virtue’s interview with Dr. Ephraim Radner, and that in the context of some studies of how the Church Universal has dealt with the matter of false teaching and rank immorality. I do not believe Radner’s responses to these matters lead us in the right direction. As a result, I am forced to take pen in hand, or rather, fingers to keyboard, to address this vital issue. The place to begin is Jesus Christ. According to Radner Jesus was a “stayer” not a “leaver.” By this he means that Jesus did not abandon Israel. Rather, he subjected himself to the Jewish authorities, even to death on the cross. This act of humiliation fulfilled the law and the prophets, above all Israel’s Exile. As such, it is the pattern of God’s redemptive work. Therefore, Christians should submit themselves to Church authorities and stay, not leave. Further, when David Virtue asked Radner if it was not true that “Jesus finally abandoned Israel,” with the implication that there are times when one must separate, Radner replied, The notion that Jesus “abandoned” Israel is nonsense, David. Indeed, a very pernicious nonsense, if I may state it so strongly. Jesus died for Israel, in the form of Israel, and tied to Israel. The passage you cite (Matthew 23:38) expresses the sorrow of Jesus at Israel’s rejection of his love, not his own rejection of their person. Radner goes on to fortify his point that Christ did not abandon Israel by discussing Romans 9–11, and from there to the notion that “radically supersessionist view of Israel is in fact historically tied to the promotion of separatism and schism within the Christian Church itself …” Since Jesus did not abandon Israel, we should not abandon ECUSA. Let us be clear. The primary matter facing us is not whether Jesus was a “stayer” or a “leaver,” but whether or not we are “stayers” or “leavers” in regard to Jesus. The question is not whether Jesus abandoned Israel (he did not), but rather, whether Israel or anyone else abandons Jesus. That is the question we face, first and foremost. When that question is placed first, and it must be first, then we can see clearly that Jesus is the Lord of Israel, that he formed a new Israel, that he called people to decide for or against him, and that this decision created a division between those who decided for him and those who did not. This is utterly clear from the gospel records. Jesus knew it, his disciples knew it, his opponents knew it. He was not crucified because he was a “stayer” or a “leaver,” but for blasphemy. He was the Lord, claiming an authority above the law and the prophets. As Lord, he decided to stay and be crucified, but he was first Lord, and as the Lord, he created and still creates a division between those who recognize his Lordship and those who do not. By framing the issue in terms of whether Jesus was a “stayer” or “leaver,” Radner has defined the issue in terms of obedience to religious authority, rather than in terms of obedience to Christ. This covertly places the Church before Christ, rather than Christ as Lord of the Church. How is the decision for or against Christ made manifest? From the beginning, Christ’s Lordship was first proclaimed in baptism and celebrated in Eucharist. One enters into his body by baptism, and one’s life is Christ is sustained by Holy Eucharist. Can just anyone be baptized, can anyone receive the Holy Eucharist? Baptism means surrender to Christ as Lord and Savior. Eucharist means living that commitment in life. Not everyone is admitted to baptism, and for those baptized, not all are automatically admitted to Eucharist. The witness of the New Testament, as well as the teaching of the Church Universal, is that only those who are committed to him can be baptized. Further, once baptized, grossly immoral, unrepentant persons and false teachers are not admitted to the Eucharist. To my mind this is the clear teaching of the New Testament as well as the witness of the Church Universal. This should be obvious. I find it rather strange that Radner did not address the question of who can be admitted to Holy Communion. Before we discuss whether we should stay or leave, before we decide for or against institutional unity, we must decide a prior question—With whom shall we share the body and blood of Jesus Christ? That is the first and fundamental question once we have committed ourselves to Christ as Lord. David Virtue then poses several questions regarding Paul and other New Testament writers who seem to teach that Christians should separate themselves from immoral persons and false teachers. Radner addresses these questions in terms of Paul, and he does to Paul what he did with Jesus. According to Radner, Paul understands that his “people are a trust he has been given,” they are his “little children, he is their “mother” a “parent” who is “responsible for his charges, and accountable for their lives unto the end.” Paul, like Jesus, is a “shepherd who leaves those who are well in order to find the one who has wandered astray.” From this perspective, Paul exercises discipline, and may even ask the Corinthians to “banish one of their immoral members from their midst” but this “is done for the offender’s ultimate salvation (1 Cor. 5:5).” Paul also urges his congregations, quoting Radner, “to keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons. He urges them to do this as members of his flock, within a given church. He does not urge them to leave churches and to divide congregations for they are his in a special way!” Furthermore, “Paul never asks that congregations split over their adherence to this or that teacher, however false they may be.” As one reads this section two factors become apparent. First, Radner is thinking of Paul as one whose primary task is to maintain unity in the Church, and within that context, exercise discipline. This is similar to his framing Jesus’ ministry in terms of being a “stayer” or a “leaver.” Paul wants the people in his congregations to be “stayers” not “leavers,” and so does Radner. But staying and leaving was not Paul’s primary aim, though that is very important. Paul’s primary responsibility was to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and to live under his Lordship. If Paul’s ultimate aim had been Church unity, he could have applied the solution of ECUSA’s revisionists—allow all baptized persons to come to the Eucharist. But Church unity was not Paul’s ultimate aim. There was a norm that stood over the Church, the Lordship of Jesus Christ. By that norm Paul and the early Church judged that grossly immoral persons and false teachers had violated their allegiance to the Lord, and therefore, they were not admitted to Church fellowship nor to the Eucharist. Dr. Radner doesn’t face that fact straight on. In fact, his treatment is a bit muddled. He wants to present Paul as one who “does not urge them [his congregations] to leave churches and to divide congregations,” yet Paul insisted that his churches exercise discipline. In the end, these two requirements are mutually exclusive. Here is Radner: It is from this position that Paul encourages Christians to keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons. He urges them to do this as members of his flock, within a given church. He does not urge them to leave churches and to divide congregations for they are his in a special way!—but rather to exercise within their own ranks the “discipline” necessary to maintain a clear witness and godly context of common formation. In light of ECUSA’s present apostasy, the phrases of this quotation contradict themselves. Christians are to “keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons,” they are to discipline “within their own ranks,” yet they are not to “leave churches and to divide congregations.” What discipline was available to the early Church or to the Church today? One can think of gentle admonishment, earnest teaching of those gone wrong, rebuke, warning, and finally, exclusion from fellowship and the Holy Eucharist. Now, when a major sector of a Church has gone over to false teaching, elected a unrepentant grossly immoral person to its highest office, refused admonition, teaching, and warning, become incapable of disciplining itself, what course is left? Only one alternative remains—the faithful must not participate in Holy Eucharist with the apostate. When that happens, the Church as a whole will divide, unless of course we maintain some form of institutional unity while avoiding each other eucharistically. (I will discuss this shortly). As it is, however, in the present circumstance, discipline and Church unity are mutually exclusive. The practice of the Church of the first few centuries confirms the foregoing. I have just finished reading Werner Elert’s incisive analysis, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. He confirmed what I have known since seminary. The ancient Church excluded unrepentant, immoral persons and false teachers from the Eucharist. Once excluded, they were also excluded from fellowship. Exclusion from Eucharist was done first and foremost to preserve the integrity of the body of Christ. It was done out of obedience. Secondly, exclusion was done for the sake of discipline, to enable repentance. Christ was first, his integrity, and then the discipline, and not vice-versa. Ultimately, for those who would not heed godly council (our present situation), exclusion from Eucharist was the only alternative. Finally, decisions on false teaching needed to be made corporately. Church councils became the primary instrument for making these decisions. This is the positive truth that Radner does advocate. Throughout the interview, Radner had plenty of opportunities to affirm this legacy, a tradition that continued through the Middle Ages and into early Anglicanism. He did not do so. Rather, he obscured the matter. For example, he stated the following: Much could be said about particular passages and about the evolution of the practices of discipline and even of excommunication in the developing Christian Church. These are serious and complex matters, often poorly understood by historians. And they should not be dealt with cavalierly, as they tend to be in the midst of present argument. There are, of course, many things that are “often poorly understood by historians,” yet certain matters are quite clear—there is a vital connection between admittance to Holy Communion and Christian faith and practice. Further, Radner’s response to David Virtue’s question on Cyprian was not that helpful. The clear intent of David’s question was to bring before us the problem of apostate bishops. Radner diverts the issue, beginning with a discussion of Cyprian’s views on the “juridical-canonical” understanding of Church structures, then on to Cyprian’s ideas on clerical contagion, and finally, he affirms Cyprian in his notion that discipline must be “discipline within communion,” with the consequence that the Anglican Communion as a whole must deal with ECUSA’s heretical bishops. Yes, this is true. But what options are open to the primates of the Anglican Communion? Given that ECUSA’s revisionists have been admonished and warned by the primates as well as our ecumenical partners, given that they cannot be expected to discipline themselves, given that Radner thinks that we are “dealing with something akin to madness” among ECUSA’s revisionists, given that he thinks that “Dialogue is useless at present, because there is little shared basis of evangelical commitment upon which to follow the persuasive compulsion of argument,” and given that the primates cannot depose American bishops, they will have but one choice—to refuse to share the body and blood of Christ with revisionist bishops and to call on the faithful in the States to do the same. Whether they take this course or do not, we all will face the same question—“Will we or will we not make Eucharist with those who have publicly and egregiously betrayed the faith?” Rather than reaching these conclusions, Radner seems to be holding out for “unity” at any cost. At the beginning of the interview he was asked if there were any circumstances in which one should leave the Church. He responded with an analogy, the analogy of divorce. All sorts of people evade Jesus’ simple command not to divorce. By analogy, we should never separate from the Church. As Radner puts it, we should ask ourselves the simple question, “Is Christ divided?” and since he isn’t, we should not divide. Well, Christ is not divided, but we are divided, and we are divided over Christ. Radner has led us in the wrong direction by a misleading question. Far more evidence could be presented here to make my critical point, that the fundamental teaching of the Church through the centuries is that notoriously immoral persons and false teachers should be banned from the Eucharist. This was certainly understood at the time of the Reformation by all sides. It was clearly understood by Anglicans. Rome and the Church of England divided, and the issue was doctrine and practice. Both knew it, both felt they must withdraw from the other. The Anglican Church simply thought Rome was in error and set forth its position in the Articles of Religion. One Anglican scholar summarized these Anglican claims in these words: The errors of the Church of Rome can easily be seen from the statements of the Articles themselves. Thus in its “living” can be proved by the celibacy of the clergy (Article XXXII); in its “manner of Ceremonies,” (Article XXIV) and the denial of the cup to the laity may be adduced (Article XXX); in regard to “matters of Faith,” the errors are almost too numerous to mention, including the use of tradition (Article VI) the works of supererogation (Article XIV), purgatory (Article XXII), the seven Sacraments (Article XXV), Transubstantiation (Article XXVIII), and several more.(1) In light of the foregoing, what must we do? Before addressing that question, I would like to discuss one more matter, the matter of doctrine. As between gross immorality and false doctrine, false doctrine is the more insidious. It is insidious because it so often appears to affirm the normative documents and traditions of the faith. Nevertheless, it takes the fundamental sources of Christian Truth and interprets them in ways that ultimately denies that Jesus Christ is Lord. The heretic Arius, for example, believed in the Scriptures, went to Eucharist, held to the creed of his time, and yet, he understood these sources of Christian Truth in a way that ultimately undermined the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Similarly, the revisionists of today do not deny Scripture, the Creeds, the liturgies, and the great traditions of the Church. Rather, they take these documents and interpret them from an alien perspective that vitiates their saving substance. I have documented this repeatedly in this column and on my web page (www.rsanders.org ). The pious revisionists of today never tire of telling us that they affirm Scripture, that they love the Prayer Book and the tradition, that they find worship sublime. But they will rarely, practically never, lay bare the theological perspective they use to distort these sources of Christian Truth. When this theological perspective is laid bare, it can be seen that revisionist are actually worshipping another god. For example, I am convinced that Frank Griswold is essentially a mystical pagan. I have demonstrated this by analyzing the operant theology of his public speeches. Michael Johnston, author of Engaging the Word, Volume Three of The New Church’s Teaching Series, holds a similar position. Spong’s theology is so incoherent that it can scarcely be classified. The theological presuppositions of William Countryman’s Dirt, Greed, and Sex, have nothing to do with the classical creedal way of interpreting Scripture. These theological approaches smuggle other sources of revelation into the Christian faith so as to undermine the normative revelation of God given in Jesus Christ as known in Scripture. All these people worship in the Episcopal Church, resonate to its liturgies, quote its Scripture, but they do so in a way that substitutes another god for the living Father of Jesus Christ. For that reason, when the orthodox share the body and blood of Christ with them, they are not worshipping the same God. This does terrible violence to the body of Christ. What must we do? Let me begin with the Episcopate. Bishops are especially called to defend the faith. They are visible signs of unity, and this unity entails agreement on fundamental doctrines and moral norms. None of our orthodox bishops, as well as our orthodox bishops abroad, should be taking communion with the ECUSA’s revisionists. Further, no one, laity or otherwise, should be sharing the body and blood of Jesus with revisionist bishops. This is fundamental. Of course, there are many persons, and all of us in some way, who do not hold to the core doctrines of the Church, nor practice holy living. But laity, priests, and deacons are not the visible signs of doctrinal and moral unity. Bishops are. If we must resist, and we must, we must begin there. This implies that orthodox bishops must cross diocesan boundaries to offer Eucharist to congregations with revisionists bishops. The foregoing seems utterly clear. Further, and this point may entail further debate, we must question whether or not we can take communion from orthodox bishops who participate in Eucharists with revisionists. Why? To begin with, when orthodox bishops share the body and blood of Christ with revisionists, they give visible and terrible assent to their ideology. That ideology is simple—profound theological and moral differences are ultimately irrelevant, they are papered over in the sharing of Christ’s very body and blood. This profanes and degrades the Eucharist. Secondly, it is a part of the orthodox faith that the faithful should not share eucharist with the heterodox. One cannot be orthodox and share communion with false teachers. For the ancient Church, if anyone shared communion with heretics, they placed themselves outside orthodox fellowship. Let me quote Werner Elert, speaking of the Church of the first four centuries. All acknowledged that the fellowship of a church can no more be piecemeal than the church itself. Its integrity depends on the integrity of all members. No member may overstep the boundaries of fellowship without the approval of all members. Whoever communicates with a heretic, schismatic, or any man that for any reason is not within the fellowship thereby disqualifies himself from the fellowship. He is guilty of injuring the integrity of the whole. For this reason every member must hold to the sacrament administered within the borders of the fellowship.(2) Although the faithful must not share Holy Communion with revisionists bishops, this does not, to my mind at this point, entail leaving ECUSA. In the longer term, however, broken communion will lead to institutional division. For the moment, I would prefer that institutional division be approached cautiously for the sake of people and property. Further, we need an immediate discussion over the propriety of taking communion from orthodox bishops who communicate with the revisionists. If we share Holy Eucharist with someone, this implies doctrinal and moral agreement on fundamentals. How can orthodox bishops be orthodox if they share the body and blood of Christ with those who overtly and covertly deny the faith? Unless someone can show me differently, I do not see how they can. In short, the essential question is not whether to stay or leave ECUSA as an institution, but rather, whether or not we worship Christ as Lord with those who undermine the faith. (1) W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology, An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, London: Church Book Room Press, 1951, p. 273. (2) Elert, Werner, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966, p. 174. The Rev. Dr. Robert J. Sanders serves as Associate Rector at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Jacksonville, FL. Prior to his service at St. Mark’s, he was the rector for twelve years at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan, Kansas. He has also served in Central America, where he was the Director of Theological Education in the Diocese of Honduras. He did his undergraduate work at The University of the South at Sewanee. He has a Ph.D. in systematic theology.

“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod omnibus creditum est”—What is believed always, everywhere, and by all. “Non illegitimus carborundum”—Don’t let the bastards grind you down. Dear Brothers and Sisters, The Anglican Communion inched closer towards schism this week when the Primate of the Communion’s largest and most powerful province openly condemned the Anglican Communion Office run by Canon John Peterson, for holding a conference that included Frank Griswold, a bishop who stands in broken communion with some 50 million Anglicans worldwide. One newsmagazine suggested that the Anglican Communion is on a death watch. The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, speaking from Lagos, turned down an invitation to attend a meeting of church leaders and wrote Peterson saying he was baffled that the ACO continues to act as if ECUSA’s [actions] did not really matter. The Nigerian primate led the opposition from churches in Africa condemning last year’s decision by the US Episcopal Church to consecrate Canon Gene Robinson, an avowed homosexual, as Bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire. “I could not sit down with ECUSA at any meeting of the Global Communion, it would undermine the position of the developing world church leaders who opposed the Robinson’s confirmation and have since dropped links with their US colleagues,” he wrote. In the meantime Griswold is permitted to celebrate the Eucharist at Canterbury Cathedral on the occasion of his 19th anniversary as a bishop with full compliance of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In September last year, African church leaders warned that if the US bishops did not rescind their decision to recognize Robinson’s ministry then “they would have removed themselves from the fellowship of the Communion,” the letter recalled. The Anglican Consultative Committee oversees the running of Anglicanism’s central secretariat. They are meeting all week in London. The group comprises a large number of the church’s leading bishops, including Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the church, and Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church. What we see here is the high-handed arrogance of Canon John Peterson who believes that he can ride rough shod over the Global South bishops, after being caught red-handed trying to manipulate the Archbishop of Canterbury into believing that the orthodox bishops could be persuaded to come around in documents seen by Birmingham Dean, Dr. Paul Zahl. There can be little doubt now that the cumulative effect of Peterson’s actions, the naivete of Dr. Rowan Williams in not listening to his biggest constituency, and then acting like Frank Griswold can continue to be part of the Primatial club as though nothing has happened, will only lead to a cataclysmic end. What can the liberals in Lampal (Lambeth Palace) be thinking about? Do they honestly think that it is business as usual, that nothing happened, or if it did, that it was just a blip on the theological radar screen and, given enough time, the rest of the Anglican world will come around to ECUSA’s unbiblical sexuality. They are smoking the wrong peace pipe. It will never happen. The African giant has awoken, and not only is this giant not prepared to play second fiddle to Western Anglicanism, the giant is not going to put institutional loyalty ahead of the truth of the gospel and the veracity of the faith. That day is done. Church of England Evangelical missionaries converted them more than a century ago and the gospel is deep in their bones. They won’t compromise for the sake of their own souls and those of their people. And they don’t like Frank Griswold. Bishop Peter Lee of South Africa put it well when he said, “a little group of American church leaders has bombed the Anglican Communion.” UNDAUNTED THE LAMBETH COMMISSION MOVES FORWARD into its second stage. The second meeting of the Commission will be June 13th–18th in Kanuga, USA. Here they will discuss issues of process in the Anglican Communion, the nature and purposes of communion, (please stay together even if we don’t all agree with one another about sex), the obligations of communion, (accept sodomite priests or bishops and if you break the canons you are gone), authority (Scripture please, but don’t hold your breath that anyone will suggest that and the Americans will ever practice it anyway), the role of the instruments of unity in preserving fellowship (keep Peterson the biggest hindrance to unity. Ask any bishop in the Global South.) TRYING TO PATCH UP THINGS BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH, the Bishop of SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, John Lipscomb is taking a sabbatical trip to Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania this April. This is the same bishop who is hosting Frank Griswold as guest preacher at the diocese’s 2004 October Diocesan Convention! And the Bishop of the DIOCESE OF BETHLEHEM, Paul Marshall (along with a number of unnamed ECUSA bishops) has invited the bishops in Swaziland and Kajo Kejin and those foreign bishops who have the gravest doubts about the Episcopal Church to pay the ECUSA an extended visit, “to worship with us, to get to know how we believe and think before pronouncing further judgments. Should that invitation fail to be sent by the entire House of Bishops, a number of us are prepared to issue it on our own,” said Marshall. It is highly doubtful they will come to be schmoozed by a bunch of revisionist ECUSA bishops unless money is involved. The whole African continent with the exception of Southern Africa is solidly orthodox and they are slowly uniting behind the Nigerian Primate who daily receives more support from his African friends. These ECUSA bishops just don’t get it. The bishop of Swaziland was the one who was very complimentary of ECUSA after the convention. The plan by Marshall is to bring over the one bishop who is sympathetic to ECUSA in a conservative province and make him see the “light”. AND FROM SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA comes this from Bishop Frank Neff Powell. “We have 57 congregations in the Diocese. Twenty of our churches increased their pledges for 2004. Twelve churches have kept their pledges at the same level as 2003. Twenty-four have decreased their pledges. The total dollars pledged from congregations to the Diocese for 2004 has declined 11%. Overall, the Diocese has experienced a 9% decline in income. The largest part of the decline is due to the economy, not to dissenters’ response to the actions of General Convention. We have had to borrow from the endowments to balance our Diocesan budget for 2004.” THE RIGHT REV. V. GENE ROBINSON will formally assume leadership of the Diocese of New Hampshire as the ninth bishop on Sunday. He takes over from the Right Rev. Douglas Theuner. It should be noted that Robinson’s election has been condemned by half of the world’s Anglican provinces, it is hardly a roaring start. From a reader who knows Robinson comes this. “Mr. Robinson’s given name is ‘Gene’, or rather ‘Vicki Gene’, not ‘Eugene.’ His parents were expecting a girl, and had settled on ‘Vicki Jean’. The birth was extraordinarily difficult, and his mother was ‘out of it’ for some time thereafter. When nurses asked his father for the name they’d chosen, and he told them, the nurses pointed out that ‘Jean’ was a girl’s name, so it was changed to ‘Gene’. I know this because he was a classmate of mine at The General Theological Seminary (1973). He took a year out ‘to find himself’, then reentered, and graduated with my class. He was exposed to the pro-homosexual (occult-derived) teachings of Prof. Johnson while there,” said the source. Vicki Gene will appear on 60 Minutes this coming Sunday, Mar. 7. The spin is “look at me I’m just like you and everybody else so what’s the big deal.” VGR will admit he goes to a gay bar in New York City when he hits the Big Apple. BISHOP ROBINSON, AND HIS PARTNER, AND BISHOP GRISWOLD all had to wear bullet-proof vests during his consecration service for fear of attack from Christian extremists. Really. To get into the ice rink you had to pass through a metal detector and be patted down by Police and all bags and laptops searched. I know I was there. Furthermore there has never been a threat to any of these gentlemen. Following Robinson’s acceptance at General Convention last year an orthodox African bishop was assaulted in London, a Church janitor was beaten up in the US, and an Episcopal Church was burned down. The Left love to play the role of injured victim even while they are doing their best to bury the Church’s orthodox. AND FROM THE SATIRICAL ICONOCLAST COMES THIS (London)—In his homily yesterday during a memorial service for Palestinian suicide bombers, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, denounced Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ as being “overtly pro-Christian.” “This film is going to have a devastating effect on Anglicanism worldwide,” said Reverend Williams. “Impressionable persons may be unduly influenced and actually begin attending church. And it would be a great tragedy if the Church had to divert its precious resources away from protesting against capitalism and democracy and use them instead for religious purposes.” The Archbishop became angry at this point and interjected, “I didn’t enter the ministry to promote the so-called Gospel of someone who allegedly lived 2000 years ago. I became a priest in order to empower gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, heathens and persons with a fondness for sheep!” In related news, the Right reverend Percy Bigglesworth, Bishop Co-Adjutor for the Diocese of Provincetown and Fire Island, denounced Gibson’s film for having no clearly identifiable gay or lesbian characters and for showing Mary Magdalene’s former profession as sex worker in a negative light. FROM THE AAC COMES THIS WORD…two more dioceses voted to associate with the new Network. The Dioceses of San Joaquin (California) and Springfield (Illinois) have formally associated with the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, commonly known as the Anglican Communion Network. San Joaquin and Springfield join the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Rio Grande (Texas and Arizona), and Central Florida in associating with the Network. At the Network’s Organizing Convocation, held January 19–20, 2004, bishops and representatives from twelve dioceses voted to approve the Charter for the Network (to read the Charter, please go to www.americananglican.org ). Dioceses have sought final ratification by their respective legislative bodies, as appropriate. ON THE PASSION. True Christians cannot emerge from this movie any more anti-Semitic than they emerged from Schindler’s List as anti-German. The Passion is about the sins of all of us, we all nailed him to the cross, Schindler’s List is about the Nazis. PRIESTLY VULNERABILITY. In re-directing their offerings away from 815, one thing that needs remembering is that if congregations begin taking action to separate themselves from ECUSA or a revisionist diocese, the first vulnerability has nothing to do with the property—it is their clergy’s vulnerability to a direct attack on their ability to pay bills and put food on the table and send their kids to school, and maybe even a roof over their heads. This is especially acute for mission clergy, who can be fired at the momentary whim of their diocesan. One thing orthodox laity can do, he writes, is put aside funds and set up a local charitable account “for the relief of clergy in distress”. Care should have to be taken to avoid tax hassles for the priest (don’t give him money unless the diocese takes money away). Care should also be taken to keep the money out of the hands of the diocese. NEWS ITEM. Complete sexual freedom. That was the dream promoted by feminists. The dream has cost America dearly. Several reports released last week—by Advocates for Youth and the Alan Guttmacher Institute—conclude that half of all young Americans will get a sexually transmitted disease by age 25. And the Episcopal Church promotes sex outside of marriage with a ‘no consequences’ attitude that simply appalls faithful believers. WORD ABOUT THE UPCOMING MEETING OF THIRTEEN REVISIONIST organizations meeting in Atlanta is that it is going to be held behind closed doors. No press will be allowed in. Another example of where revisionism breeds paranoia. ON THE PLUS SIDE the Traditional Anglican Communion worldwide is yanking in 15,000 souls per month according to Archbishop William Falk. This is going on principally in southern Africa, and some other places “south of the equator,” according to the new TAC Primate John Hepworth who gave a report at their bishop’s meeting in Orlando last month. AND THEN THERE IS THE STORY ABOUT A MARRIED VICAR in England who was suspended after he posted a ‘naked photograph’ of himself on the Internet and invited women to contact him for sex. In typical British understatement the bishop of Chelmsford the Rt. Rev. John Gladwin said Bob Locke vicar of Burnham-on-Crouch in Essex or is it Burning-at-the-Crotch was suspended for “unsettling allegations”. Unsettling indeed. He’s suspended with full pay. No word on how many women took up his offer. TODAY’S STORIES feature some of the Episcopal Church’s finest writers. Fleming Rutledge, Dr. Guy Lytle, Dr. Robert Sanders and more. There are also Virtuosity’s regular columnists Mike McManus, Terry Mattingly and Uwe Siemon-Netto who senses the start of a spiritual revival. It is a veritable feast for the mind, heart and soul. Read and enjoy. AND PLEASE SUPPORT VIRTUOSITY. Income has been thin of late, and the stress of long hours and late nights is taking its toll. New medications not covered by my major medical are putting a strain on my already thin resources. Please be generous and make a donation through PAYPAL at my website or send a check by snail mail to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380. Thank you and God bless. David W. Virtue DD

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue ECUSA’s Presiding Bishop, Frank T. Griswold has weighed in on the national same-sex marriage debate, condemning President George W. Bush’s endorsement of a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Griswold says he is concerned about the advisability of a constitutional amendment being put forth for discussion at this time. “Questions of sexuality are far from settled, and a constitutional amendment which was perceived as settling this matter might make it more difficult to engage in civil discourse around this topic.” The Presiding Bishop and other [revisionist] Episcopal bishops want “restraint and continued conversation” they say, but Griswold exercised no such restraint when he signed a statement with the Primates at Lambeth saying that the election of a practicing homosexual as bishop would damage the Anglican Communion. Before the ink was dry he participated as chief consecrator at the ordination and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a communion breaking act that has rippled around the Anglican communion resulting in him being declared anathema in more than a third of the communion’s provinces. Frank Griswold lied to every Anglican primate in the communion by doing what he did, and his notion of “restraint” and “conversation” are buzz words for brokering in sodomy at every turn in the Episcopal road while urging Episcopalians of orthodox faith to be patient while he blind sides them time and again. Their patience has run out. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic. Griswold’s theobabble has resulted in the spiritual death of tens of thousands of Episcopalians who have bought into his mystic paganism, at the same most Episcopalians have never heard a saving word emanating from their parish pulpits. The closest many of them have come to an understanding of the atonement is to see Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion, and even that movie is being condemned by Melcontents in a number of dioceses, most notably the Diocese of Maine. Revisionist bishops and clergy see the movie as a symbol of “hate” failing to uphold the wishy washy love and good feelings Jesus they have come to worship, the one who turns a blind eye to sin and who loves everybody inclusively regardless of how they behave. Above all Episcopalians don’t want a killjoy Jesus, preferring a pale Galilean who will bend to their will and not theirs to His. Around the world The Episcopal Church is slowly being anathematized, made unwelcome in one province after another, while Griswold blindly stumbles along with his theobabble blather and mystic pagan views, confounding the spiritually blind and shutting the ears of those crying out for a salvific word. An Episcopal News Service press release says the Episcopal Church…is presently engaged in conversations and debates about issues of human sexuality, and more particularly homosexuality and the public recognition of committed relationships between members of the same sex. Nonsense. The Episcopal Church ended that “conversation” and “debate” last August when the ECUSA passed rites for same-sex blessings at its General Convention and said that a non-celibate homosexual could wear a miter. Thousands of orthodox Episcopalians are no longer committed to continuing discussion and discernment around these questions because they know there is no “common mind” and there never will be one. Thousands said so at Plano and they are still saying it—the conversation is over. Equal protection under the law and full civil rights for homosexual persons is not the issue; it’s the behavior stupid. Griswold and the bulk of the Episcopal Church has made up its mind and said that homosexual activity is no longer a sin. They have decided and resolved this against all biblical, theological and 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian history. For ECUSA they are settled. The deed has been done and unless there is a full repentance then ostracism and isolation from the world communion awaits it. And all the signs are that ECUSA is heading like the Titanic at full speed towards the Anglican iceberg. Griswold drops this choice morsel. “As I support the honoring of differing perspectives within the Episcopal Church, equally, it is my strong hope that our national discourse during this political season will promote thoughtful and respectful conversation.” Rubbish. Griswold does not support “differing perspectives”. He totally supports the lesbi-gay agenda whose individuals he sees as persecuted, and he doesn’t give a damn if the three dwindling Anglo-Catholic diocesan bishops disappear off the face of the earth so long as they leave their parishes to revisionist priests to take over when they go. As for those narrow-minded Evangelicals, they can stay because they know how to make churches grow and they bring in the money which he needs to keep his revisionist pansexual agenda alive. Griswold wants sweet reasonableness to reign so long as the deliberations lead to his pre-determined conclusion that sodomy is good and right in the eyes of God. If perchance the long “deliberations” come up with the notion, God forbid, that sodomy is wrong and could lead to the death of your soul, he will gnash his teeth and stamp his little feet and yell foul. What Griswold wants more than anything else is for America (and the Episcopal Church will pass a resolution to that effect) to become one vast pansexual playground where anybody can screw anybody, so long as no one gets hurt. They should pursue this agenda, of course, with all due “deliberation” and “reasonable” reflection. But do it. Resolution C051 was the death knell on ECUSA and Robinson was the last nail in the coffin of a once proud denomination. All that remains is for someone to lower the coffin into the ground and pour dirt onto the theologically empty pine box.

By ANNE SAUNDERS ASSOCIATED PRESS CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Days before he is to take over as the Episcopal church’s leader in New Hampshire, Bishop V. Gene Robinson said he’d marry his same-sex partner “in a minute” if he had the chance. Robinson, whose election as the church’s first openly gay bishop last year had divided Episcopalians, said Friday that the gay marriage issue is one of civil rights. “It is very irritating to me that Britney Spears, when she traipsed off to be married in Las Vegas, instantly had what my partner and I of 15 years do not have,” he told The Associated Press. Robinson takes over in a Sunday ceremony from retiring Bishop Douglas Theuner at a time when the debate over gay rights, including marriage, is making headlines nationwide. Robinson’s election has been denounced by conservatives in the United States and abroad who say the Episcopal church is operating in violation of Scripture. Robinson has testified at the New Hampshire statehouse in opposition to a proposed law that would prohibit the state from recognizing gay marriages approved by other states. He said he’ll continue to speak out in favor of civil unions for gays—something he says is entirely separate from whether any church chooses to bless the union. Robinson said the legal status of his own relationship with his longtime partner, Mark Andrew, especially worried him before Andrew’s family accepted him. “I had a great fear that if Mark was to be killed in a car accident that his family could come in and just take his body—that I would never have access to him either in the hospital or at the funeral home or at the grave,” Robinson said. “That’s an unnerving thing,” he said. “I’d be married in a minute if I was allowed to.” In the absence of marriage or civil union, Robinson and Andrew put together legal agreements to give each other power of attorney and to share their assets through trusts. But these cover only a fraction of the rights they’d have if their relationship was recognized by the state, he said.

I. Unity and Schism At the center of much that is being said and written today in ECUSA is the issue (for some, the supreme virtue) of “unity” and its perceived opposite, the charge of “division” or “schism”. We all agree that it would be better if we could rightly understand, agree, and embody what God would have us rightly understand, believe, and do; but the fact is, we don’t! Why not? That is the heart of the problem. I will concede that most of the discussants, as wrong as I think some of them are, sincerely believe what they say they believe. But I don’t think we get very far by trying to fix the blame for our current divisions on one group or the other. First, examples of rhetorical insult in lieu of theological insight have occurred (probably since Eden) and will recur (until Armageddon). We traditionalist Christians greatly tire of and become resentfully hardened by the continuous cry of “schism” from those who cannot abide or answer our positions. I’m sure others with different positions sometimes feel something similar. So how should we think about “unity” and “schism”? On one frequently heard subject, there are those who say, “Differences about sexuality should not divide the Episcopal Church,” or “Why now? Surely, this isn’t as big an issue as x or y or z”, and part of me understands that perspective. But to it might be responded: in one important sense, the Reformation began over indulgences. Surely, indulgences were not a significant enough issue to split Western Christendom. That division has now gone on for some 500 years. It has caused many wars, inquisitions, and human bonfires. But, others might say, the Reformation clearly was not about indulgences or some other minor aspect of sacramental theology. It was about sola scriptura, sola gratia, a wholly new truth that offered an essential and accurate soteriology and polity to a people of God long chained in Roman bondage. (To Luther and his successors, this new truth was, of course, a newly recovered old truth.) Are the issues of the summer and autumn of 2003 analogous to the traveling indulgence market of 1516? Do we have in both cases classic examples of straws and camels’ backs? To label an opponent as “schismatic,” as with the constant misuse of “homophobic” and “fundamentalist,” is insulting and meant to stop all debate in its tracks. To call the traditionalist, orthodox position “schismatic” is as absurd as calling the Catholic Fathers at Nicaea “schismatic” for opposing the Arian bishops’ innovations, or Protestants calling Roman Catholics “schismatic” in 1520. The traditionalist, orthodox view is in accord with: The vast majority of the Anglican Communion (and almost certainly of the ECUSA as well): probably more than 60,000,000 of the world’s 75,000,000 Anglicans, The Roman Catholic Church (1.7 billion Christians), The Orthodox Churches (400 million Christians), The Southern Baptists and other burgeoning Evangelical and Pentecostal churches around the world (hard to be precise, but multi-millions). To their opinion, self-identified “progressive” Christians can claim the accord of the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the rapidly declining United Church of Christ, etc. It is not at all clear that any more of the tiny U.S. Mainline Protestant denominations will follow ECUSA; but even so, we would be counting negligible numbers. The very notion that traditionalist Anglicans/Episcopalians are causing schism is nonsensical. Not only is it the innovators who are triggering division as they preach a new doctrine, discover a new morality, and create new authorities; but, more importantly, the division is simply a fact. There is no unity, no matter how much some of our bishops, clergy, and laity want to pretend that things remain the same or will soon “get back to normal.” A bishop, whom I like personally, recently urged his diocese to “get over this, and get on with it”—“it” presumably being his concept of the mission of the Church. Well, okay. But the “mission of the Church” has always involved coherent, authoritative, defensible theology, ecclesiology, and moral life. If that is NOT part of the mission of the Church, then to what are we evangelizing? What specifically about the Episcopal Church can be said to be holy, Catholic or apostolic? Why don’t we just become a liberal consciousness-raising club with bishops who hold good same-sex mixers and committees who do occasional social work? Left-wing politicians, good fellowship, and doing charitable works is not all the Lord and the Apostles had in mind with the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Great Commission, and Pentecost. Of course, Our Lord preached, “If you love me, feed my sheep” (John 21:18). But he also said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The two pillars stand together. The Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion (technically I was confirmed into the Church of England) has been my spiritual/ecclesial home for more than forty years. I have loved, and still love, its ethos; its two millennia witness to the Christian faith. I pray with all the fervor I can muster that an honest, viable, and most of all faithful, solution will emerge from the Archbishop’s Commission and from the plethora of gifted, inspired, committed minds and hearts now praying and thinking toward that solution. The theologian and church historian in me must insist, however, that “causing schism” is so much in the eye of the accuser that it is, at least in this case, linguistically meaningless since it is causally impossible to determine. Historically, “schism” often just is. Nicaea, or better Chalcedon, has never been “settled” within Christendom. It just slowly took shape, and then one day Christianity recognized it had happened. By 1053, the East-West division was a “done reality,” and it has never been resolved between Rome and the Orthodox. Historians still make careers arguing about how, and even when, the Reformation began; but, for good or ill, it is still an on-going reality. And there are many other smaller, but significant, intra- and inter-denominational divisions. All such divisions are in some ways regrettable and harmful to our credibility and witness to those of other faiths and to the world at large. Ecumenical dialogues (a growing part of Christianity since the 17th century) are important theological processes. But, in a sinful world, unity is an eschatological hope. And what is unity? Jesus indeed wished for unity among his followers (something even He couldn’t achieve with the twelve), but unity as “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). That seems to me to be a dogma, more than some soft tolerance. It bears doctrinal—yea, again, dogmatic—content. Theology, authority, obedience, and their implications, matter—especially when we talk about unity. It is not just “process”, not just being nice to each other. II. Cultural Differences & Local Options It has been suggested that one way of saving the “unity” of the Episcopal Church, at least in the short run, is to follow the policy of so-called “local-option”. “Provincial autonomy” is built into the polity of the Anglican Communion; and, in another sense, the USA is certainly very different in so many ways from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, various Southeast Asian countries, etc. And despite Interstate 95, South Carolina is a pretty long way from New Hampshire; does what happens in the latter really affect the former? Is your local parish substantially different today than it was before August 5th or November 2nd? A lot of questions jostle in that paragraph, questions that I can imagine St. Paul and his co-workers pondering as they considered the different issues facing the nascent Christians in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Philippi, Rome, Ephesus, et al. What did any of these communities have to do with each other? How quickly we abandon even the ideal of “one Body.” Some of those who were given a lot of press as ECUSA leaders (I think of Jack Spong, Martin Smith, and many others) brought infamy on our church by their comments after the 1998 Lambeth Conference. They tried to cast intra-Anglican division, especially about the issue of homosexuality, as one between an educated, indeed civilized, progressive, prophetic West, and an ignorant, indeed uncivilized, backward, morally-retrograde South. This unveiled racism is also factually unsupported: there are far more earned theology Ph.D.s among the “global South” traditionalist bishops than among their Western counterparts (not that Ph.D.s confer or connote virtue). In a disturbing way, especially to one who grew up in segregated Alabama in the 1950s, the “local option” solution to maintaining the unity of ECUSA, heavily endorsed by liberals (until they can impose their policy universally by fiat) has all-too-resonant echoes to the similarly-argued “local option” policies of “state’s rights” in George Wallace’s Alabama, Ross Barnett’s Mississippi, and Lester Maddox’s Georgia. What would/did a strong, morally heroic Presiding Bishop like John Hines, or indeed General Convention itself, say to that situation? III. Fundamentalists On another issue, aren’t those who are defending a close reading of the Bible about sexuality being “fundamentalists”? And Anglicans are not fundamentalists. Don’t we have our own way of interpreting the Bible? Biblical interpretation is an immensely demanding scholarly field, and one of great importance. I cannot here insert a whole tract on Biblical interpretation. Others can and have done that much better than I can; but I will mention a few points relevant to my thinking. Traditionalists are certainly being accused widely of being “fundamentalists” for accepting the divine revelation as normative. This accusation shows the historical and exegetical ignorance or duplicity of their critics. Those who call us “fundamentalists” often wrap themselves in some vague “Anglican way” of reading the Bible—again, seemingly wholly ignorant of the main Anglican tradition of valuing the authority of Scripture: from Colet and Erasmus through Cranmer, Hooker, the Caroline Divines, the Wesleys, the Evangelical and Catholic Revivals, Westcott, Hort, and Caird, to N. T. Wright in our own day. Who among that tradition would read the Bible the way they do and supply the interpretations they propose? Who, in fact, are the Anglicans in today’s debate? A fundamental distinction has been made, since the patristic and medieval periods, between “literal”, “allegorical”, “moral,” and other possible modes of interpretation. “Inerrant” was not even a possible category until fairly modern times. “Literal”, which goes back before St. Augustine, has simply meant that the Bible’s words mean what they say as their primary interpretation. Of course, we need to study the Bible (ordination vows require it), not just memorize “proof texts” or quote out of context. Those of us who read the Bible carefully know that study and interpretation have been fundamental duties from the Old Testament on. Take that profoundly important, prophetic interpretive passage in Nehemiah (8:2–8): “Accordingly, the priest Ezra brought the law before the assembly … He read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law… And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. Then Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands. Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground … the Levites helped the people to understand the law… So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” The Holy Scriptures are to be read in community, heard, taught, interpreted, and lived. If that is “fundamentalism,” then Jews and Christians (including Anglican Christians) have always been “fundamentalists.” There is all the difference in the world between “literal” and “inerrant.” In the process of translation, basic teachings of the Scriptures are re-expressed in words that may have different cultural nuances. Both linguistic complexities and historical contexts need explaining, so we can understand ancient meaning and see how it might inform our thinking now. One current tactic is to make the Bible “ridiculous” by citing one isolated, clearly human, historical, contextual suggestion, as if God or Christians mean it to be universally normative, while ignoring the plain sense of the theme throughout the whole of the Bible (this is why Robert Gagnon so expertly demolishes many facile rhetorical attempts at rewriting the Scriptures. See http://www.robgagnon.net ). Others obsess over “texts of terror,” rejecting whatever the words might really be trying to express. Or, a very wide-spread tactic, many today are busy scouring the Bible for what it doesn’t explicitly forbid, so they can see what they can “get away with.” I have been drawn to Biblical exegesis since I was what must have been an annoyingly precocious child. The long Baptist sermons I still remember were the month (or season) long series, galloping through one book or another. As simple as it now seems in retrospect, my vocation was essentially confirmed one afternoon in my freshman year at Princeton when a term-paper assignment led me to the Interpreter’s Bible for the first time, and I read (very unusually for me) straight through dinnertime. Had I been more linguistically gifted (or perhaps more hard-working) in languages, I am quite certain I would be a Biblical scholar and professor today. So I don’t take the work of anyone (of any faith tradition, or none) who has devoted his or her life to interpreting the Bible lightly or dismiss any of their arguments easily. Among the many, many other Biblical theologians I read (and use) regularly, Walter Brueggemann and David Ford, seem to me to have brought particularly convincing analyses and creative imaginations to their readings of the relevance of the Bible for us today. I do not always agree with either of them, but agreement is not prerequisite for respect (or even love—hence the survival of almost any marriage). Brueggemann once wrote about the spiritual paralysis caused by dualism in religions, one part of which “yields a religion of harsh conformity which crushes” and the other part which “yields… a religion of indulgent self-interest that harbors selfishness”. (Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living, Minneapolis, 1991, p.23) This dichotomy has shaped and continues to shape my hermeneutic of most religious conflict ever since. The solution to the impasse that both Brueggemann and Ford (the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and an Anglican priest) suggest, in somewhat different ways, is a turn toward interpretations of the Bible based on faith-centered imaginations, both obedient and creative. Right now, sadly, most of us in the ECUSA debates seem to lack both qualities. Finding fruitful obedience and faithful creativity in the task of bishops, theologians, priests, and all other baptized Christians; not defeating opponents, not claiming victories, but accepting Christ’s Grace and the Bible’s revealed pattern of how to live into God’s Kingdom. Let me end this section with the most basic of pleas: we must get beyond hurling verbal insults as if they were theological doctrine. That seems, but is more complicated than it seems, a fairly basic requirement for those who would call us to engage in “civil discourse and reconciliation.” IV. Prophecy Another rhetorical device overused by the “progressives” is to claim the prophetic mantle and charge traditionalists with somehow being against prophecy and its fruits. Aren’t Christians always called by God to be “prophetic”, to be against the sinful status quo, to be against oppression and injustice in all forms, and for a glorious future—the coming, utopian reign of God? Biblical prophecy is another very complex subject, and scholars have produced a huge body of literature about it. Let me highlight several points that seem often overlooked in today’s liberal perspective. We seem to have lost the sense of what prophecy very often meant to the people of God in ancient Israel as revealed in the Bible. First, those called by God to be prophets seldom eagerly embraced that vocation. In this respect today’s self-proclaimed prophets bear little resemblance to our prophetic forbears. Old Testament prophets proclaimed the coming of the Messiah and the coming of His Kingdom of true justice and peace of which we will joyfully be a part. But the overwhelming tone and content of the Old Testament prophets’ messages, the path they directed God’s Covenanted Chosen Ones to follow to reach that Kingdom, most often recalled the people of Israel to their previously revealed right-relationship with God. Again and again the Israelites abandoned that right relationship and the structure of life God had established for them. The prophets did not rejoice that God was “doing a new thing in their day.” No, the prophets pointed out, usually rather sharply, how the people had gone astray, following the devices and desires of their own hearts, or how they had turned to more attractive and less demanding false idols. The only hope for the people of God was to repent and return to the Lord, to affect true metanoia and follow the ways He had revealed in His Laws. Has God changed? No! Rather, “prophecy,” as it is used rhetorically today, has become the tool which some now brandish hegemonically against those who are still trying to be the people of God. Maybe we need to proclaim with joy that God is “doing an old thing” and recalling us to that blessed right-relationship, now confirmed in Jesus the Christ. While this is by no means the whole interpretation of Biblical prophecy, I believe it is a perspective that is largely missing from current discussion. V. Paradigms What seems to underlie these two conflicting views of prophecy (and so much else in the current disputes) is that there are at least two major, conflicting ways of interpreting our world right now (what philosophers, historians, and sociologists call “paradigms”), and that these paradigms are largely incompatible. Is that the problem? Basically, yes. The narcissism of most so-called “post-modernist interpretation”, beyond its long known and obvious teachings that interpretation occurs in contexts (not all of which are intellectually or otherwise equal), is largely the justification of aggressive agendas, self-aggrandizing and self-pleading attempts to co-opt revealed truths for other, all-too-sinfully-human, purposes. If Christian Truth is not knowable and more compelling than human paradigms, if it does not transcend our own limited visions, then why bother? That is obviously the view from within my paradigm, as will become clear below. But it does not come from an ignorance of the secularist, post-modern paradigm (as Ricoeur and others would understand), but from my considered rejection of its claims. What is, I think, self-evident is that there are, in essence, two powerful, coherent paradigms effective structurally in our culture today: One is what some might call the “classic Christian” paradigm (what I call elsewhere the “Transcendent anti-paradigm”), based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, Church Traditions (including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, classic Protestant, Anglican, and many other varieties), and a fairly generally agreed sense of what it means to be a Christian (though certainly with some internal disagreements about theology and the meanings of symbols and rituals). The other is a secular, liberationist, modernist/post-modernist, scientist, hedonist paradigm, one that can be said to have been developing in western society and culture since the 18th century (and in some ways since the Renaissance), greatly accelerating its characteristics in the latter half of the 20th century. Traditionalists, though not unaffected by the second paradigm, are fairly well ensconced in the first and continue to try to articulate its ideas, values, and behavior in a way that is consistent with its foundations and traditions; still, they/we believe, relevant to the current age, and explicitly hostile to most of the latter paradigm. The second paradigm is also fully articulated by a cultural, academic, and media/advertising elite, people who largely control the artistic, informational, and in many ways the commerce levers of our external lives. Each paradigm operates in fundamental and conscious opposition to the other. Those who identify themselves as “liberal” or “progressive” Christians are often somewhat betwixt and between. They want, for whatever—often worthy and noble—reasons, to hold onto some traits of the traditional Judeo-Christian paradigm, to co-opt and redefine its texts, traditions, and institutions, to baptize the secularist, post-modern paradigm and call it “Christian.” To a Southerner steeped in the bizarre images and fervid religious imaginations that produced and inhabit the world that is Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood, with its repellant, compelling central character Haze Motes, we are indeed in a place of “the Church of Christ without Christ.” Traditional Christians are not willing any longer passively to cede to holders of the “progressivist” paradigm the right to the Christian identity without serious qualifications or metanoia. Some, very wrong-headedly I think, try to claim such a mental and behavioral hybrid as “Anglican,” since they seem to believe “Anglicanism” is a wide, seemingly infinite, diversity of opinion and action in which there are no boundaries to the “left” and little recognition of the possible validity of anything that the secular paradigmists find disagreeable to the “right.” (I use these “directional signals reluctantly as “shorthand” in an already overlong note.) No earlier Anglican, nor the great majority of Anglicans today, would recognize such a claim. The via media, or Newman’s “third way,” is simply not that elastic. So, and this is the heart of the matter for me, revisionists/post-modernists are faced with a choice, a classic choice repeatedly posed in the Bible and in Christian history. They can accept the secularist paradigm, try to inject some mostly incompatible Christianity, and live their lives accordingly. Perhaps they can justify this change fully to themselves. God still loves them; Christ died for their sins because of His inestimable love. But it is, I think, utterly delusional, just wrong, to insist on labeling their resulting lifeform “Christian,” and “evangelizing” others to follow their way. In Jesus the Incarnate Christ, God has shown us “the way, the truth, and the life” and has called us, and recalled us time and again, to that saving way, that way to live in true freedom, to the utter, liberating joy to be Christ’s Holy Body and Church. Whatever sociobiology and behaviorist psychology may tell us, we have been endowed with sufficient free will to make the choice. That choice is what this conflict is all about! What is needed is to accept the Grace that will allow one to understand that this is where the joy will be found, and then to accept that further Grace which is the will to respond to that understanding. This discussion has just scratched the surface of a few topics. Perhaps you have thought all these thoughts, and many more, and are way beyond them. Actually, I hope you are. Let’s keep at it. Circulate the results. God gave us minds to think, and thoughts can often be the mind at prayer. We must not neglect to pray in all ways, alone and in community. We will not solve these problems in prayer’s absence. One final note: Although this essay clearly was not intended, in any way, to be an essay in systematic theology, several colleagues who have seen it in draft have asked me for a theological comment on the Cambridge “Radical Orthodoxy” group of theologians, and indeed Archbishop Williams himself, who have been dealing with aspects of post-modernism and Christianity, and with this paradigm conflict; others have asked how “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason”—plus the misleading category of “Experience”—fit together and deal with our present conflicts. An essay now in draft form will soon try to shed some light on these questions. May God bless us all, These words are mine alone, and are not published with any additional authority or representation. The Rev’d Guy Fitch Lytle III, Ph.D., D.D. Dr. Lytle is an Episcopal priest. He holds a Ph.D. in Church History. His areas of specialization are the history of Anglicanism and the theology of priesthood.

News Analysis By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — A considerable increase of religious activity over the last 10 years may indicate a start of a spiritual revival in the United States, according to pollster George Barna. He termed it significant “that we are witnessing a slow but steady development of more traditional religious behavior in the Western states.” Trends, “usually start in the West, take hold in the Northeast, then infiltrate the interior of the nation,” he explained. A recent poll by the Barna Research Group showed marked jumps in private, rather than public, religious activity, such as prayers, Bible study and participation in worship groups. This might suggest that groups within mainline denominations “are taking the cue from the para-church movement,” said Thomas C. Oden, a professor of theology and a leader of the confessional movement within the United Methodist Church. According to Barna’s survey, the share of adults reporting they had read from the Bible during the past week—not including Sunday service—rose from 37 percent in 1994 to 44 percent this year. It was in this category that the increase was most noteworthy in California, Oregon and Washington state, where Bible study among residents almost doubled from 29 to 44 percent in the last decade. Similarly, participation in small groups for prayer, Bible study and fellowship shot up from 11 to 26 percent in the West, Barna reported. Nationwide, it rose from 12 to 20 percent. In this context, Barna noted a phenomenon that has been observed overseas as well: Men, traditionally less religiously engaged, are becoming more involved. In the United States, their participation in prayer and other groups doubled to 18 percent in the last decade. Western European ministers and sociologists of religion attribute a similar development on their side of the Atlantic to feminism and divorces, most of which are initiated by women, which swelled the ranks of single—and often lonely—middle-aged men. “Isn’t it ironic that while men stop smoking, women take it up, and while women stop being religious, men take it up?” quipped the Rev. Michael Stollwerk, dean of Wetzlar Cathedral north of Frankfurt. Another piece of evidence for a possible religious revival is the rise in the number of people who said they had prayed to God in the past week from 77 percent in 1999 to 83 percent in 2004; no data for 1994 are available in this category. Curiously, Barna found the steepest increase in prayer activity among those who identified themselves as atheists or agnostics, where it doubled to 20 percent in the last five years. Atheists praying to God seem an oxymoron. Yet this phenomenon has been around for almost as long as such polls have been taken, lending credence to the claim that true atheists are a rare species. In the final analysis, they may just be agnostics who don’t know if there is a God but still call on him “on spec.” This newest Barna survey has a potentially troubling aspect for the churches. It shows that while religiosity in private or in small groups is clearly intensifying, it seems to be stagnating in the public domain. Weekly church attendance, while still high compared with other Western nations, remained at 43 percent, only one point more than 10 years ago. A mere quarter of the sample group of 1,014 adults did volunteer work in their congregations. The share of those who explained their faith to non-Christians—actually a duty for believers according to Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:19)—declined between 1999 and 2004 from 58 to 55 percent. Thomas Oden attributes this stagnation to the “disastrous developments in the mainline churches in the last 40 years,” especially the “loss of theological substance” in their seminaries, most of which he accused of succumbing to a liberal academic elitism that is detrimental to faith. Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington-based think tank, also warns of the danger of a privatization of religiosity but considers the influence of para-church activities on mainline Christians a blessing. Remarkably, Oden, a Protestant, sounds like Catholic Church leaders in Europe when he counsels patience. It could take a century for the Christian church to overcome the theological catastrophe of the last four decades. But there is one hopeful sign pastors are observing throughout the Western world—a general “thirst for God” to which the latest Barna survey attests and the instant success of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, attest.