News Analysis     By UWE SIEMON-NETTO UPI Religion Writer     The following question is of course highly speculative and may sound slightly off the wall, but it still makes some sense: Could 2004 be a Nigerian year? Consider the following: Chances are that pope John Paul II, who is very ill and tired, will not last for another 12 months. Who will take his place? One of the likely prospects is Cardinal Francis Arinze, 71, an Ibo from Nigeria and now prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation on Divine worship. He is tough, energetic knows how to handle youth -- and most importantly perhaps - - is an expert on Islam. Then consider another branch of Christianity -- the Anglicans. The most powerful traditionalist voice is that of archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the Anglican province of Nigeria with 17 million-18 million faithful.     His see, Abuja, may well become the Canterbury of the 21st century, just as Constantinople once proclaimed itself the second and Moscow the third Rome. As conjecture in Anglican circles goes, the current archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will continue to waffle on the crisis in the Episcopal Church USA.     But time is running out. Ten out of the 11 African primates want to cut ties with the tiny American offshoot of Anglicanism, or at least the diocese of the first openly homosexual bishop, Gene Robinson. Most Asians and Latin Americans feel the same way. And Peter Jensen, archbishop of Sydney in Australia, has already mused aloud about the possibility of shifting his allegiance from Canterbury to Abuja, Nigeria’s capital.     Akinola has already made clear that he will not let Americas wealth persuade him to make doctrinal concessions to what he considers the Western heresies.     In other words, there’ll be a split in world Anglicanism.     Now let’s guess on: Nigeria is not only home to two of the most powerful Christian prelates involved in the lesser clash of cultures -- the one pitting Scripture against false doctrine. Nigeria is also the place where the big culture war is being fought -- the conflict between radical Islam and Christianity, both growing rapidly.     Chances are, then, that Nigeria may become the main focus of religion reporters in the New Year -- or perhaps not. To begin with, nobody can predict when the pope will die, and who will take his place. Given the Churchs 2,000-year history it is very likely that after the polish popes 25-year reign, it will once again be an Italians turn.     It could be that Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna will succeed him, or Cardinal Phillippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon and a man of great personal holiness, or maybe even the ageing Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, the German prefect of the Pontifical Congregation for the doctrine of Faith, who might bring theological order back into the Roman Church.     Or it could be anybody. Suffice it to say the biggest religion story of 2004 will presumably come from Rome, and that five things can be considered a given about the new man on St. Peters throne:     1. He is a disciplinarian, which John Paul II is not, which accounts for a considerable theological chaos in the Church.     2. He has John Paul’s passion for the young.     3. He is, like John Paul, able to garner the respect of representative of other faiths, especially Islam.     4. He shares his commitment to ecumenism, without which it would be hard t o accomplish the next pontiffs perhaps most important task:     5. He must continue John Paul’s strategy of re-evangelizing Europe and thus strengthen the Christian Church against the potential onslaught of Islamic radicalism.     There are many small signs pointing to Europe’s slow spiritual recovery: There is the fact that 70 percent of the new ordinands in the Church of England are evangelical. There is the reawakening of Christian intellectual life in France -- and the missionary zeal of the Catholic and Protestant churches in that most secularized of all European nations.     There is substantial evidence for a reawakening of religious interests in Germany, where pastors suddenly rank second-highest in the public’s estimation of various professions, and where on regional television religious programs are the most popular. Another sign is that the American feature film Luther is a resounding success in the land of Luther, where only 20 years ago Protestant theologians called the Reformer passe.     These developments tend to be subtle -- less obvious than bloody acts of terrorism committed by terrorists in the name of Islam, or conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims dominating the television news from Iraq.     But for the moment, sociologists of religion from both sides of the Atlantic agree, it looks as if in 2004 vibrant Christianity will be the most powerful faith in the world. Meanwhile, Islam may well provide bigger headlines, but has yet to find the ground it has lost 1,000 years ago.     Unless, of course, you consider militant Islamism the true voice of that religion. In that case, most Christian, Muslim and Jewish theologians would beg to disagree.     END

EDITORIAL The TELEGRAPH 28/12/2003   It is a regrettable aspect of modern life, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, asserted in his Christmas Day sermon, that those who show religious faith should sometimes be treated as figures of fun. The nervous sniggering about the Prime Minister's religious faith which ripples over the surface of the media from time to time, he asserted, is part of the same fear and unease towards religion that manifests itself in the proposal to ban the wearing of Muslim headscarves in French schools. Dr Williams would be wrong, however, to assume that when people show irreverence towards religious figures it is necessarily a scornful response to their faith. If Dr Williams feels personally the object of mirth, he should reflect on some of the secular aspects of his work. The leaking of his Christmas Day sermon, much of which was trailed in a newspaper last Sunday, is typical of the tawdrier political practices developed by the New Labour spin machine but is unworthy of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. A sermon is supposed to be a private communion between the priest and his congregation, not a media event, leaked and spun in advance to favoured journalists.     Dr Williams has become adept at using the media to his own ends. Yet he does so not to offer spiritual guidance but to advance a soft-Left political agenda. A full page of the Daily Mail last week was devoted to a piece by Dr Williams proffering family financial advice. The credit explosion has made life a lot easier in all sorts of good ways, he wrote. But it is in danger of slipping out of control unless we have some better regulation and some new attitudes. The Archbishop would more likely find himself being taken seriously were he to render unto the Government the business of financial regulation and concentrate a little more on spiritual leadership.     Since Dr Williams became Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican Church has been riven by the debate over homosexual clergy. It is not easy to see how politically-correct Episcopalians from Virginia can be reconciled with fundamentalists from central Africa who are driven to preach blood and hellfire whenever the word homosexuality is mentioned, nor to see how schisms can be prevented. Dr Williams’s approach to the problem, however, seems to be not even to try.     In June, during the controversy over the abortive appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading, Dr Williams’s secretary for public affairs, Jeremy Harris, penned a memo worthy of Alistair Campbell. The issue of homosexuality, suggested the memo, has to be managed in media terms by seeking to take the sting out of it and displacing it in the public mind. The memo went on to suggest a number of attractive alternative stories by which the media might be deflected from the issue of Dr John. ABC, as the memo referred to the Archbishop, was advised to deliver a reading of his own poems, make a high profile Lords intervention or announce a theological prize.     Unfortunately for Jeremy Harris, a former BBC journalist, the media turned out to be less gullible and less trivia-obsessed than Lambeth Palace imagined. Most newspapers stuck to the real story, the disquiet over the appointment of Dr John and into the circumstances of Dr Johns late decision to step down.     Dr Williams has been no less morally flabby on the issue of Islamic terrorism. On Christmas Day the Pope appealed to God to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, on the other hand, reserved his clearest condemnation for the Wests counter-terrorism campaign. Imprisoning terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay and Belmarsh prison, he complained, sends out the wrong message to Muslim societies. Those of the Christian faith, he said, should show themselves to be on the side of humanity by making sacrifices for the sake of justice. The sacrifices to which Dr Williams refers presumably involve risking another terrorist attack on the scale of September 11. So far, the counter-terrorist campaign has been remarkably successful in preventing al-Qaeda attacks in Europe and America, in spite of that organisations strikes elsewhere in the world. Moreover, this has been achieved without any curtailment of the rights of ordinary Muslims in Britain and America, who are free to practise their faith with a degree of freedom of which Christians in many parts of the Islamic world can only dream. Does Dr Williams really suggest that humanity would better be served by refusing to imprison those who, given the chance, would delight in making a nuclear attack on a Western city?     Dr Williams has yet to deliver a poetry reading in the manner suggested in the Lambeth Palace memo. But if he does treat us to his poetry we hope it will give us greater reason to take him seriously than many of his public pronouncements, which, thus far, have echoed Edward Lear rather than Alfred Lord Tennyson.     END

December 2003     Dear Friend of Ekklesia,     The decision of the Presiding Bishop and others to proceed to consecrate V. Gene Robinson despite the unanimous voice of opposition from other Anglican provinces, the Archbishop of Canterbury, other denominations, and even other faiths has wounded the Christian faith around the globe and isolated the Episcopal Church. Approximately 52 million Anglicans are in church each Sunday around the world. Already, the leaders of 50 million have declared impaired communion. Some have even gone beyond that. Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, West Africa, Rwanda, Central Africa, South East Asia, and Tanzania have formally broken communion. Those provinces represent about 35 million Anglicans. I have been dispatched with a diplomatic pouch of documents to consult with Anglican Primates and Archbishops about finding their way forward. They are deeply committed to Biblical faith. They are also committed to those of us w ho maintain historic teaching and have rejected the actions of the Presiding Bishop and the General Convention.     Working with faithful Anglican primates is a two way street. There is no question that we need their leadership and help, but they also live in circumstances of great need. To help address that in recent months your gifts to Ekklesia have helped accomplish many vitally important-even lifesaving-projects. Together this year we have:     Provided more than twenty tons of grain for famine relief in Central Africa     * Bought and outfitted a small fleet of commercial fishing boats for Lake Malawi. These boats will provide food for starving people, jobs, and income to the diocese for ministry.     * Been building two radio stations in Tanzania that should be going on the air-any day. They will provide Christian teaching, English classes, health education information, and advertising income for ministry from advertising revenue. Helped primates travel to critically important Anglican Communion meetings.                                        * Provided bicycles for all the clergy in Antsiranana Diocese m Madagascar as a memorial gift in thanksgiving for the ministry of Bishop Keith Benzies who died in office last year.     * Helped replace grants, scholarships, and other gifts that have been withdrawn or refused as a result of the crisis.     * Played a critical role in bringing continuing Anglicans together and helping to facilitate an emerging federation of jurisdictions.     Though the situation is grave, there is cause for rejoicing. Not only is Ekklesia working closely with the American Anglican Council, Forward in Faith, and Anglicans United, we are actually bearing fruit. Our labor has helped provide a spiritually secure future. Many questions remain about institutional life an d property, but faithful primates have committed to provide Episcopal oversight for those of us who remain committed to the Anglican Way in America. Ekklesia has been at the center of the conversations and commitments to provide faithful oversight for you. To go on, though, we need your help.     We must raise about $100,000 by Easter in order to operate, travel, and answer the poignant and urgent requests that come to us almost daily from overseas. Obviously, we do not receive any support from the national church. Overseas primates are deeply committed, but do not have financial resources. It is partners like you that that have helped us accomplish miracles over the last  eight years. Now, a Biblically faithful Anglican church in North America is within reach! Will you help?     Yours in Christ,   The Rev. Canon Bill Atwood, D. Min. General Secretary   PS. Please check out our website ( www.ekk.org ) and order my new book about the crisis. Wild Vine-Fruitful Vine: Crisis in the Anglican Communion. You can order them through Forward in Faith at 1-800-225-3661.20     END

By Adelle M. Banks RELIGION NEWS SERVICE     Bishop V. Gene Robinson, elected in June as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church, was named the Religion Newsmaker of the Year by members of the Religion Newswriters Association. His approval and consecration, and the ensuing threats of schism in the U. S. church and the wider Anglican Communion, were collectively cited as the top religion news story of 2003 -- a ranking shared with criticism of the Anglican bishop of Vancouver, British Columbia, who approved same-sex unions.     About a third of the 240 members of the Religion Newswriters Association took part in the annual survey. More than 80 percent of these selected Robinson as the top newsmaker.     The top 10 religion news stories were ranked as follows:   1. Turmoil mounts within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion after Robinsons approval and consecration, and Vancouver Bishop Michael Inghams action.     2. The pending war in Iraq split religious communities, with mostly mainline Protestant denominations opposing it and many evangelicals supporting it.     3. The definition of marriage becomes a key area of controversy after Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules gay couples have a right to civil marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a ban against homosexual sodomy.   4. A Ten Commandments monument is removed from Alabama’s State Judicial Building and the man who got it installed there, Roy Moore, is removed from his post as the states chief justice.     5. Roman Catholic Church efforts to implement plans combating priestly sex abuse draw praise and criticism. Archbishop Sean OMalley succeeds Cardinal Bernard Law as leader of the Boston Archdiocese.     6. Pope John Paul II marks the 25th anniversary of his election amid growing concerns about his health and debate over his eventual successor.     7. Slumping economy prompts budget cutbacks in many denominations.   8. Presbyterian Church (USA) keeps fidelity and chastity clause, maintaining its ban on noncelibate gay clergy. The denomination elects its first woman pastor as moderator.     9. The U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a California case challenging the inclusion of the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.     10. The suspension of Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod official David Benke of New York, for participating in a post-9/11 interfaith service, is overturned.     Officials of Valparaiso University issued an apology to the denominations members after holding an interfaith service marking the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.     END

Dear Bishop Lee;     Please read this carefully through until the end.  This is a hard e-mail, tough love, and I know that you have been getting many hard e-mails, sadly even hateful e-mails.  This message is not one of hate but words of one man speaking straight to another.  I have labored long on this message in love believing that you are an adult and old enough to take hard truth.  Please prayerfully consider what I have said.  Time is short. Much has happened in the life of the church since I shook your hand at Olivet Episcopal Church’s 150-year anniversary earlier in 2003. As part of our familys ministry to historic re-enactors (see www.historicfaith.net http://www.historicfaith.net/> ; ), Rev. Harper had asked us to help with preparations and we were there in 1850 clothing (I have attached a photo from the event).  I was touched when you stated that you found a power in the old (1845 vice 1928) liturgy, but was not convinced.  There has been twenty years for me to judge your words by.     In 1984 as bishop, you received me into the Episcopal Church. I believe that this confirmation service at Truro was your first confirmation service as bishop of the Diocese of Virginia.  Later, you were the Bishop that licensed me as a lay preacher when my family and I were at Christ the Redeemer.  You were the bishop who I looked to when I began the local discernment process for ordination.  While talking with you at a dozen after-church receptions does not make a deep friendship, you have been my bishop since you became bishop in Virginia.     As you have been my bishop, I have carefully read much of what you have written and listened carefully to what you have said. You are an intelligent and articulate man and I believe that you have some love for the Episcopal Church.  From what I have read, heard, and seen, I am deeply concerned for your soul.  It seems clear that you have valued the game of church politics and opinions of fellow bishops over your sworn duty to uphold the faith outlined in scripture and our catholic tradition.     I shook your hand at Olivet but I was a little guarded for I believed that when the clear decision point came to choose between the Apostolic faith and the progressive, world loving, rationalistic apostasy that has come into vogue within ECUSA, you would choose the latter.  I was right.     Years ago, you wrote in the Virginia Episcopalian that you saw your duty as Bishop to avoid clarity (what I call fuzzing up) on issues that would divide, such as the immorality of homosexual acts. This is not the position of a bishop defending the faith.  Your duty is to make spiritual truth clear not to obscure it.  You have acted like a shepherd that will not divide wolves from sheep.  I could give you many scriptural references including the words of Jesus that show that light should not unite with darkness.  Lovingly, and actively, we are to engage the world so that those who sin are come from darkness to light but that is not to have common cause with them.  Scripture set a different course for those who are believers and even higher standards for those who are leaders among Christians.     Some time after that article on your commitment to be fuzzy in the Virginia Episcopalian, I believe around 1997, you instituted the Call to Holy Life at Virginia Theological Seminary to open the school to active homosexual partnerships in lieu of the previous policy that forbade sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage, adulterous relationships, and the practice of homosexuality.  By this action (and actions do speak louder than words) you clearly demonstrated that even within your own diocese, you would be go with the flow even it that meant jettisoning the moral teachings of Jesus.  You used your skill at turning phrases to fuzz up this issue.  At the time you instituted the Call to Holy Life you stated you were seeking a policy more in keeping with Anglican comprehensiveness than the previous statement and more in keeping with the biblical balance of the Christian tradition. Fine words, as I would expect from a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Duke Law School, but VTS, since your action and under your leadership, has become a hotbed of homosexual activism.     VTS is the place in your Diocese where church leaders are  training and you are responsible for the type of leaders you train there.  At the time of A Call to Holy Life, in my deep concern and as part of my discernment process, I exchanged a series of e-mails with you in an attempt to find out where you stood on the authority of scripture and the nature of sin, in particular on the sexual sin, which was being promoted by the apostate.  It was not easy to get a clear answer from you to this fundamental question - did you believe that homosexual practice was sin.  I was at first hopeful when you read my e-mails and took time to reply.     The ongoing exchanges with you, as courteous as they were, eventually convinced me that you did not have a moral compass that would enable me to seek ordination under your leadership.  In my heart, I knew then that when a vote on accepting same-sex immorality would come, you would choose Sodom rather than Zion.  Thus, I left off the ordination process and after subsequent statements and actions by you, left off active life in a local Episcopal Church for a couple of years, moving instead to support our non-denominational ministry.  Recent actions of yours has shown that I made the right decision.  Since you put The Call to Holy Life into place, VTS students who hold the orthodox faith have told me repeatedly how they feel under siege for their beliefs.     Your recent vote and past actions are clearly destroying our diocese.  Unless you publicly and proximately repent for your part in this apostasy, the diocese you claim to love will fall to pieces, to the despair of the many faithful priest and laity who have stood by you through your past moral fuzziness.  Through your actions, the Episcopal Church, USA has become a scandal within the historic, orthodox, catholic faith.  You stated that in your recent votes:   I had a difficult, even wrenching time deciding. I prayed a lot. I consulted widely, with clergy and lay colleagues, with other professionals, more formally with the deans of the regions, and the Standing Committee. I studied scripture anew.  I was particularly struck by the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles where the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem adapted the requirements of Jewish law to the reality of the situation of gentile converts in Antioch.  My reading of scripture convinces me that the Gospel is ever-increasing its power to erase the barriers that we human beings erect among ourselves.     Did you prayerfully read what the Apostles decided in Acts 15:20?  One of the minimum requirements that the Apostles placed on the Gentiles was to avoid sexual sins - no compromise, no fuzziness.  The requirement for the gentiles was a beginning not the end.  The Apostles decision also had the assumption that Gods ministers would teach the Gentiles to live a life of increasing righteousness through faith, not a life of wantonness masquerading as righteousness.  Again, in your reading of scripture as in past actions as bishop, you cling to the politics and ignore the requirements of faith.  You also stated,   I was also struck anew by the centrality of a theology based more on grace than on law.  In Philippians 3:8-14, Paul wrote to the Philippians yearning for a righteousness that comes not from the law but for a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.  Paul continues, I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.     Philippians 4:9 states, The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you.  Do you, a bishop, understand the grace that Paul preached?   Do you understand how repentance, the complete turning away from Sin, and Grace are related in Paul’s teaching?  Romans 6:1-7 shows this clearly:     What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid.  We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?  Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness s of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is justified from sin.     God Forbid indeed! and you should have done all in your power to forbid the consecration of Vickie Gene Robinson and the acceptance of same-sex blessings.  What did Paul tell Titus that a Bishop should do? Holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).  As a bishop you took the vows, and have been supported comfortably by the Church as bishop, but you are NOT holding to the faithful word and 2000 years of church doctrine. You are undermining, not defending the faith.  You seemed to stated with pride:     Since I was consecrated in 1984, I have consented to the consecration of nearly 200 bishops.  I have not voted against a single one, not those who were divorced and remarried, not the poor administrators and preachers, not even those bishops who now threaten to leave the church.   I believe strongly that the people of a local diocese, when the election is properly and fairly held, are the best people to determine who will best lead their diocese.  Just as the apostles respected the local circumstances of the people of Antioch, so the General Convention respected the circumstances of the people of New Hampshire.     The apostles clearly set limits and conditions (faith and repentance) on God’s grace and even stricter conditions for Church leadership.  Why can’t you?  The Church gave you the vote of consent to defend the faith as a faithful steward.  The pride you have in never having shown leadership, not once since 1984, in the consecration of 200 bishops is shameful.     If, in 1984, you found that you did not have the judgment or moral fortitude to vote down unworthy candidates for bishops, then you should have stepped down then.  If you cannot see the problem with your actions now, you should step down now.  A sea captain whom never steers a ship or a medical board than never denies a medical license to a medical student is acting criminally, even murderously.  Your action or in this case inaction is killing the Episcopal Church and more importantly hindering the work of the Gospel to turn people from death to life.  Do you so disrespect the Church and your calling that you believe that anyone who walks in the door will do as a bishop?  Even the non-spiritual, political wisdom of the business world understands the concept of checks and balances, and of the criticality of selecting competent leaders.     Do you understand what apostasy is?  Do you realize that you are joining with those who are actively seeking to turn the Church away from the authority of scripture and the faith delivered by the Apostles? Second Peter Chapter Two clearly talks about people wedded to apostasy. Verses 18-21 (Message version) is especially clear: They are loudmouths, full of hot air, but still they’re dangerous. Men and women who have recently escaped from a deviant life are most susceptible to their brand of seduction. They promise these newcomers freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, for if they’re addicted to corruption--and they are—they’re enslaved.  If they’ve escaped from the slum of sin by experiencing our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then slid back into that same old life again, they’re worse than if they had never left.  Better not to have started out on the straight road to God than to start out and then turn back, repudiating the experience and the holy command.     Recent statements by the revisionists, clearly demonstrate that they have no loyalty to the Christian faith.  In his Christmas Day message, your fellow bishop, John Bryson Chane stated the following And what was God thinking... when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?  And what was God thinking... when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?  (see http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/worship/jbc031225.html ).     Do you really want to through your lot in with the ECUSA proponents of Islam?; a religion that worldwide continues to martyr more Christians in its name than any other.  This is so much more than promoting slavery to deviate sexual practice, as terrible as that is; this is collaborating with those who are anti-Christ. Islam does not accept that Jesus is Christ and fights against or enslaves those who do -  Muslims are not fuzzy about what they believe. I know of what I speak.  I have read the Quran.  I have talked at length to both moderate and fundamental Muslims.  Having preached to and talked with Sudanese Anglican refugees when I was in Cairo with USAID and here in the United States, I have heard first hand accounts of what our Christian brothers and sisters have endured, and this death, rape, and torture is a worldwide reality, even under advanced Islamic governments.  I worked in Jordan, West Bank/Gaza, Turkey, and Egypt.  I have watched Saudi state television present the master plan of converting the world to Islam and have visited many places where historic churches were converted forcibly to mosques (they don’t switch back).     I have reviewed government assessments on the views and actions of Islamic Jihadist (Christian fundamentalist are NOT like Islamic fundamentalists).  I have read the words of American Mullahs and Imams. Now your fellow bishop has proclaimed the truth of Islam in our national cathedral and his fellow bishops remain silent.  This fact will not be lost on the Islamic world.  It will be used to justify the murder of thousands.     Would you consent to the elevation of a Islamic Mullah as Episcopal Bishop if a diocese put him forward?  Do you believe that Jesus would accept the teachings of Islam?  Jesus cannot be Lord is what Muhammad said in the Quran is true and from the Angel Gabriel. To accept Islam is to deny the Jesus of the Gospels.     Peter, will you choose to be light or darkness? hot or cold?, sheep or wolf?  There is no more time for sitting on the fence, no middle way of inclusion with evil, no more time for fuzz-ing up truth. This is not to say that there is not room in Anglicanism for differences of opinion or understanding but there are limits to how broad the Anglican road is.  It is a wide highway, but you have helped drive the Episcopal Church through the guardrail straight for a cliff--an abyss. You must turn 180 degrees immediately to avoid the crash and the resulting death in flames.     Do you not fear the judgment of God in this matter?  Being a bishop is no defense, if you believe the Gospel accounts and Epistles; judgment will be stricter for those in Spiritual leadership, whether they are legalistic, fundamentalist Pharisees or rationalistic, humanist Sadducees.     The last time I saw you at Olivet you stated that you were moved by the power of the old 1845 version of the liturgy.  I quote that liturgy now in the hope that you will be moved by its power to publicly repent.     I exhort you, in the Name of God, to remember the profession which you made unto God in your Baptism. And forasmuch as after this life there is an account to be given unto the righteous Judge, by whom all must be judged, without respect of persons, I require you to examine yourself and your estate, both toward God and man; so that, accusing and condemning yourself for your own faults, you may find mercy at our heavenly Fathers hand for Christs sake, and not be accused and condemned in that fearful judgment.     Should you decide that your pride or your convictions will not allow you to make a public confession of sin and repentance in this matter, I will no longer be able to offer you the hand of fellowship.   Until I see that you have repented of your recent heinous actions, I will not accept communion from your hand though this deeply grieves me. Should you decide to humbly and clearly repent, then I with saints and angels will rejoice and weep tears of joy.     I will continue to pray for you, as hundreds of others are, that you will turn back to the faith.   If you wish to meet one-on-one to discuss these matters, I will gladly work to meet your schedule, come to Richmond, and meet with you.  The one occasion that I feel that I can still break bread with you is if we came together to privately discuss this issue.  As one who has been saved by grace from my past evils, I am more than willing to go to some length to see your considerable gifts and talents recovered for the kingdom and to see our beloved Diocese of Virginia turned from wreaking at the bottom of the abyss.     Please think twice and pray about what I have said before hitting the delete key...     Your brother in Christ,   Jim Craft Manassas, Virginia   END

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue     It is now apparent that two very different and conflicting views of what The Episcopal Church will look like are beginning to emerge, as the Year 2003 ends, and the Year 2004 begins. On one side is the vision of Frank T. Griswold, The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop. His vision is contained in what he calls guidelines for providing Supplemental Episcopal Pastoral Care for Those bishops who find they have dissident meaning biblically orthodox parishes, who are at odds with theologically revisionist diocesan bishops like Charles E. Bennison, Tom Shaw, and John Chane et al.     On the other side is the Confessing Network of Churches that has been  Armed with some 13 dioceses now in place (and there will be more) that offer a completely different vision of what The Episcopal Church will look like as the Year 2004 unfolds.     One side is post-Biblical, post-modernist, culturally conforming and accommodationist with regard to both the Faith once delivered and morals.     The other side is Biblical, faithful to Scripture, liturgically honest, (that is they believe what the Prayer Book says and don’t simply pay lip service to it), gospel-driven with a clear understanding that while the gospel message never changes, it must be spoken relevantly into a pluralistic and pluriform world not much different from the First Century.     These two visions will in time, face off and harden into battle lines, which, if they do not find a way to live at peace with each other, will come to blows. A full-blown war will break out as the year progresses.   Both sides claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not intervening in ECUSAs internal affairs, but Dr. Williams has given the green light for the Network to form, while at the same time affirming Griswold’s need to find a way through the maze of orthodox priests who need protection in revisionist dioceses with the enticement of pastoral care.     The Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly staying above the fray, which is probably a safe place to stay, (but not for long) when the simmering battle breaks out into a full-scale war. And this will be no dogfight; it will be a war for the very soul of the Episcopal Church.     Another reason why the Network is not buying into Griswold’s vision is that supplemental pastoral care is a crock. What it allows is for a diocesan bishop like Charles Bennison or Bill Swing to let a flying  bishop come in on the understanding that the Diocesan can follow later if he or she so chooses.     In other words it is only supplemental and not alternative pastoral care, which is what Forward in Faith US wants and who will not settle for anything less.     This is precisely the situation in the Diocese of Pennsylvania where Bishop Bennison has demanded the right to visit the Anglo-Catholic parish of Church of the Good Shepherd regardless of who the flying bishop is that he allows to visit. Of course this is totally unacceptable to Fr. David Moyer.     Alternative and supplemental are two very different concepts and one hopes the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is said to be very bright, should be able to figure out for himself without another Eames Commission to help him.     The Network of Confessing Churches is saying that they cannot share the same Narthex space with the ECUSA because it has a different gospel, but they don’t want to split off from the Episcopal Church because the legal ramifications and property issues are enormous and everyone would lose. Its a sort of legal separation without a full-blown divorce.   David Booth Beers, Griswold’s legal guru might be itching to use the Dennis Canon, but he cant if no one tries to pull their parish out of the diocese and therefore out of the National Church. To that extent his hands are tied.     Furthermore, taking back parish buildings while losing souls is, in the long run, a no winner for revisionist bishops. Empty pews don’t produce revenue and maintenance costs for empty churches must come out of diocesan coffers.     But stubbornness and power make good bedfellows, and we have seen in the Diocese of Pennsylvania and in the Diocese of New Westminster what stubborn revisionist bishops can and will do.     Both Bennison and Ingham have adopted a scorched earth policy in dealing with parish priests that don’t agree with them, and who insist there is only one gospel and any other gospel is anathema.     In the Diocese of NW this past week, Michael Ingham shut down Holy Cross a small but growing parish in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The argument is; if you wont conform I will crush you like a gnat. Forget the souls who will be hurt by his actions, or even what God thinks, this is about the raw, naked, abuse of ecclesiastical power.     It is also why the new Network knows they cannot worship in the same parish pews with these people. It is a lose-lose proposition, repeatedly stated in interview after interview with Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council.     But what the Network must address are those thriving orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses. How can they be protected? Bishop Robert Duncan will have to do something for them. When Ft. Moyer was inhibited, he and a group of orthodox bishops and clergy planned to meet with Ft. Moyer at the Radnor Hotel near Philadelphia earlier this year. But Bennison objected and they backed down. At some point orthodox bishops need to be willing to enter revisionist dioceses without the permission of bishops like Bennison and take the risk, or it will just be a shell game.     One of the reasons, but not overtly stated, as to why the Network wont breakaway from the ECUSA is that they maintain they are the upholders of the one true faith, and in abandoning the ECUSA, they are abandoning what the ECUSA originally stood for, that is before the rot set in with Bishops Pike and Spong. The argument, again not stated, is that in time, as revisionism dies with no discernible gospel and liberal seminaries start closing, as surely they will, and the orthodox ones continue burgeoning, they might just win if they stay and fight. It might take 10 or 20 years, but what is that in the life of the Church. he history of the Christian Church is strewn with the dead bodies of he faithful drawn over centuries.     Add to the mix what the Anglican Primates will do and how they will act, and the Network (already affirmed by the Province of Uganda) has strong international support that will only increase with time.     Already some twenty of the 38 primates have declared their support for the formation of the confessing network organized by the AAC, according to the Rev. Canon Bill Atwood, secretary general of the EKKLESIA Society, and that figure will only grow. It is also a headache for Williams, because he will never know when they will suddenly act against him.     Canon Atwood himself has emerged as the orthodox answer to Canon John Peterson of the Anglican Consultative Council. He may not have Petersons money or infrastructure, but he does have the ear and confidence of the vast majority of primates who listen to him and are guided by him.     Peterson has no respect among the orthodox primates, who no longer want him anywhere near their provinces, and as money can no longer be used by him to manipulate them, his power will drain away, in time, to nothing.     The Archbishop of Canterbury says he is waiting to see what the report he has commissioned by Robin Eames will produce before he decides to act to discipline Griswold. What he wants is mutual accountability, but that is an increasingly growing fiction, as Griswold and ECUSAs 62 revisionist bishops will be held accountable to no one but themselves.     And then there is the Anglican Communions wild card - Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola. He has come out blasting Griswold, Robinson and other Western liberal bishops, refusing their money and ready to have the African, Asian and Southern Cone bishops act on their own.     The argument, though he has not made it is, why should he be expected to wait till Sept/Oct 2004 for the Eames Commission decision on homosexuality when Frank Griswold publicly turned his back on the Pastoral Letter he signed at Lambeth and within a few weeks consecrated a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy!     Griswold has lied and flipped the bird to his fellow Primates while schmoozing Rowan Williams just as he did George Carey over the AMIA consecrations.     This morally conflicted, theologically contorted little man with his force field mystic paganism, has proven there is no level he won’t stoop too, to stay in the Supreme Club of Purple as long as he can keep Williams from acting against him. And he has done it with all the gall and venality of a high class hooker who admits she will only do it for $1,000 and not for 50 bucks in the back seat of a streetcar named ECUSA.     Is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning for ECUSA and Frank Griswold? We wait and see. Whatever it is, 2004 promises to be the most climactic year in the 200-year-old history of the Episcopal Church with two conflicting worldviews locked in mortal combat.     END

Dear Brothers and Sisters,     As this tumultuous year draws to a close in the life of the Anglican Communion we might well reflect for a moment on why it is necessary to uphold the Faith once delivered.     We are not playing word games here. Words have meaning and they change how we think and view the world. Think what Das Kapital and Mein Kampf did to a generation before us. Words matter. They change the way we think, influence our decisions and more. We act upon words every day of our life. We make decisions for good or ill on what we hear and learn, and words influence what directions we will take, what we support with our money and much more.     Virtuosity’s whole purpose is to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is practiced within the context of the Anglican Way. There is nothing particularly new or startling about this, no mind-shattering revelations or illuminations, just the solid, defense of something that is true for us today as it was 2,000 years ago. It is a message that has not changed with time, the passage of history, passing cultural fashions, the findings of science, advances in education, the new morality, or more.     Human nature we now know has not changed appreciably over aeons of history. Regardless of how well-educated we might be, however advanced in our understanding of how the mind and body works; that intractable thing we call the ego rears its ugly head and we sin.     For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish, said the Great Apostle, and he is right. The pull of power, the urge of libidos, and the false security of money pulls us down to equalize us all. None of us is exempt, including this writer.     I love words. I love what they do, how they influence lives, and more. Perhaps one day when I come to die someone will carve on my tombstone; He used words well. I should be so lucky.   For most of you who have endured VIRTUOSITY for another year, will note that many of my writers and contributors, essayists and columnists have used words far better than me, for they are better writers than I am, and know their subjects better than I do.     I am truly grateful for each one of them. I suffer from the sin of envy (among other sins), that God has enabled them to put together sentences more illuminating than my own, more powerful in their ability to persuade, and so I sit in awe of them. Still  we must press on.     Virtuosity is a calling and a ministry and it will go on into the New Year vigorously proclaiming, defending, and building up, at the same time pulling down strongholds of satanic influence. We will leave no stone unturned in the search for truth and exposing the lies and half-truths, the pomposity and venality of revisionist hegemony found in The Episcopal Church. We will reveal, expose and bring to the light, those things which we have done and those which we ought not to have done.     That does not mean that this writer comes covered in a mantle of perfection, far from it. I will make my own mistakes and hopefully you the reader will tell me so I can correct them. I expect that. I would be shocked if I did not hear from you.     IN TODAYS LEAD STORY we continue to look at the implications of what a New World Anglican Order could look like if the Episcopal Church becomes, in effect, two churches. A church within a church or para-church, a church that is, that comes alongside the main body, drawing the good from it and leaving a dead carcass behind.     Events are shaping up fast. Two conflicting views over the future of the ECUSA is beginning to emerge and you can read the substance of that in today’s lead story.     TED MOLLEGEN, the point man for The Episcopal Church’s hoped for growth with General Conventions 20/20 has written a propaganda piece at those who opposed Vicki Genes consecration. I have taken this apart for your edification. This man has managed to turn truth so violently on its head that cranial damage has ensued and now seems permanent. His blasphemous attack on orthodoxy and those who defend it is exposed for all to read.     ONCE AGAIN, THE DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA LEADS THE WAY. The Rev. Douglas G. Scott, rector of St. Martins Church, Radnor has issued a stirring call to action on page 28 of Episcopal Life. It is an outrage, he writes, that Christianity seems to have little tolerance for the suffering fat. We should ask the obese to share with their faith community what it means to be at the margins of societal acceptance and learn from them.     I kid you not. The obvious solution, Virtuosity believes is to consecrate an openly fat man who is in a committed relationship with his refrigerator. Do you Douglas take Kelvinator to be your awfully wedded significant other, to have and to hold, till high cholesterol do you part... Dear friends, it is utterly impossible to out-satirize this stuff. With the removal of the twin sins of gluttony and sodomy it just gets easier and easier to become an Episcopalian. Will we abandon the Prayer Book in time? Perhaps we will all live long enough to see a fat bisexual with bestial proclivities who has a hankering for non-neutered Dalmatians publicly consecrated in a NYC bathhouse. Frank Griswold will preside. ECUSA has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.     And our Bible reading today is taken from First Bennison (Pennsylvania Episcopalian Page B) chapter 1 verse 1 Moses smashed the tablets brought down off Mount Sinai to free the Word of God to be heard not seen.  How long will the Standing Committee put up with this lunatic?     IN A RECENT NEWS ARTICLE THE PRESIDING BISHOP Frank Griswold gave some instructions to his Executive Council on the relationship between truth and community. This is what he said: Truth is discovered in communion.   Schism is the shattering of communion. In order to discover God’s truth, everyone has to be at the table.     The Rev. Lawrence D. Bausch, rector of Holy Trinity Church, San Diego, begs to disagree. He argues the exact reverse. He offers four examples when leaving the table has occurred because truth had been discerned and not agreed to.     First, the calling out of Abraham and his descendants as followers of Yahweh, separating them from their neighbors. This is a recurrent theme throughout the Old Testament. Secondly, the separation of Christians from Jews over the identity of Jesus. Third, the conciliar definitions including the creeds and canon of Scripture which determined acceptable parameters for communion. And fourth, the English reform under Queen Elizabeth I, which resulted in separation from the Catholic Church.   It's amazing how much rubbish Griswold manages to get away with unchallenged by his fellow bishops.     RECENT REPORTS in newspapers like the Church of England newspaper and on the Internet that Anglo-Catholics and groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) are ready to run to Rome are exaggerated and premature. In discussions with various leaders in Episcopal Anglo-Catholic circles, word is that while talks and visits to Rome have been undertaken no one is going anywhere. The TAC under the leadership of Archbishop Falk and more recently the newly anointed Archbishop John Hepworth admit that while seeking unity to the fullest degree is desirable no one is going to abandon the Anglican tradition. Merger with Rome is not imminent. Furthermore Rome never acts in a hurry, even to embrace hurting Anglicans under siege from revisionist forces. All in good time.     THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH has had a defection. Bishop Gregory Hotchkiss has resigned over the RECs stance against gay marriage. Even the most orthodox of jurisdictions are not immune, it would seem, from all this craziness over homo-erotic behavior.     SPRINGFIELD BISHOP PETER BECKWITH reports that no presentment charges have been made against him despite coming under heavy fire from a group of hard-line revisionist gay and lesbian priests and laity in his diocese who want him gone. (Virtuosity exposed their tricks in a secret chat room where they used anonymous names to blast the bishop).   Beckwith wrote to VIRTUOSITY, I have heard there has been some interest/desire/attempt to present me for 1) Teaching against the doctrine of the Church; and 2) Abandoning the Sacrament of the Church.  I’m told 1 is because I will not recognize Gene Robinson’s ministry, allow blessing of same sex relationships or likely to welcome clergy into the Diocese who would.  I’m told 2 is because I did not visit a new mission initiative in our Monroe County before I pulled the plug on it.  After 15 months of preparation we were aiming at having 200 at the first service.  20 showed up.  In the seven weeks of operation, it was reported between 13 and 20 people participated per service.  We had about 80K left to invest after which the congregation would have to raise the 100K annually to support the operation.  That seeming most unlikely led to my decision. Frankly I consider their efforts to present me laughable! Thank you Bishop.     AND IT WILL COME AS NO SURPRISE, that the Religious Newswriters Association picked the Gene Robinson consecration as the top news story of the year.     But it is very revealing that not one of the bishops who supported Robinson has expressed any concern that he accepted a Person of the Year award from a gay soft porn website, PlanetOut, and a gay magazine, The Advocate.     Second top story is Michael Inghams attempted slaughter of 11 godly parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster. They are still open for business and thriving.     And in the DIOCESE OF COLORADO the bishop there one Jerry Winterrowd now expresses regret for supporting the election of the nations first openly gay bishop. He says the church was not ready. Winterrowd, who retires on Dec. 31, said he went into Augusts General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA intending to vote against the election of Gene Robinson as New Hampshire bishop. His rationale: Robinsons election would fly in the face of the church’s desire to delay setting policy on blessing same-sex unions. But Winterrowd said he became convinced that each diocese had the right to elect its own bishop. Subsequently, I would say that I am on very thin ice there, Winterrowd said. Indeed you are bishop. Very thin.     IN CANADA, the Bully of Vancouver, Michael Ingham closed down the fledgling mission parish of Holy Cross in Abbotsford, BC. The timing of the Anglican Bishops pre-Christmas closure of the church is ironic. In attempting to include new ideas, the Anglican Church is making sure there is no room in the inn for traditionalist thinkers. The parishioners must defend their faith. If this was happening in another country, Holy Cross would be listed under the persecution of Christians. That it should be persecuted at the hands of its own infrastructure is alarming, wrote one priest.     The parish priest James Wagner remains committed to his congregation, saying, we will continue to worship, even though were apparently not recognized formally. We hear a lot about tolerance and diversity and how diverse views should be respected. It seems to me a strange way to resolve conflict, said a parish layman.     Holy Cross is a mission church, which is distinct from an incorporated parish. Holy Cross voted by overwhelming majority to accept the offer of Bishop Terry Buckle of Yukon to lead them. The Bishop later withdrew.     Ten years ago when the small parish of St. Georges Anglican Church in Hamilton, Ontario, was disestablished, it was re-born immediately as St George's Reformed Episcopal Church and functions as a traditional Anglican parish. It is flourishing. There is hope.     And this from WASHINGTON BISHOP JOHN CHANES KORANIC CHRISTMAS MESSAGE:   And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?     Virtuosity thinks that God thinks that Bishop Chane should be tossed out of his bishopric for talking rubbish.     DEMOCRATIC FRONT RUNNER HOWARD DEAN was once an Episcopalian in Vermont. But owing to a squabble about the construction of a pathway on a nine-mile stretch of land along Lake Champlain opposed by a group of Episcopalians, he left the Episcopal Church. Apparently the much Vaunted Doctrine of Inclusion hit a snag and the wannabe next president left the ECUSA.     I WROTE TO CANON PATRICK MAUNEY, the Episcopal Church’s Director of Anglican and Global Relations this week asking if the Episcopal Church was still planning to go ahead and send money for the poor Gulus in Uganda, even though Frank Griswold has been disinvited to attend the consecration of their new archbishop. I got no answer. Unless Virtuosity hears otherwise you can safely assume the gift will not be going out to these poor starving Ugandans, which goes to prove that money and politics are inextricably twined in The Episcopal Church.     THE BISHOP OF OHIO CLARK GREW went on the offensive this week about a group of parishioners who left a parish in Hudson, Ohio. This is what he said on radio WKSUI think the tension I feel is, and I don’t want to devalue the authenticity of scripture claim that people make that this is a matter of scriptural authority, but I think, deep within that posture is a deep-seeded homophobia and an inability for people to see gay and lesbian people as children of God. Other members on the panel took him to task and you can read the he said/she said into today’s digest. He has some very revealing thoughts about a parallel jurisdiction in the ECUSA.     RE: CHRIST AND CIVILIZATION article. I received a mountain of e-mails expressing anger and disgust at the turn the article took in the latter quarter of the four-part series in its attack on Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Virtuosity regrets such attacks and maintains that the thrust of the article, which is that without Christ we would not have Western Civilization, as we know it, still stands. I am publishing a number of LETTERS reflecting various views on the article, and Virtuosity invites anyone with a knowledge of the origins of Western Civilization to write a contra piece for publication. I HAVE POSTED A NUMBER OF STORIES today for your interest and edification.     This will be the last digest for the Year 2003. When next I write it will be in the first week in January with a YEAR IN REVIEW story. With that will come a new website makeover for 2004. It will be easier to navigate with a full explanation coming from Virtuosity’s webmaster, Mr. Robert Turner.     I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU who contributed so generously to Virtuosity this past year. By doing so you made it possible for me to travel and rite the stories you needed to read to keep abreast with events as they unfolded in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. I am indebted to all of you who supported me with checks both large and small. Thank you.     The year 2004 will be even more turbulent Virtuosity predicts than this past year. It will certainly be break point for The Episcopal Church. What will all the alphabet soup of groups do within and without ECUSA?   How will they coalesce? Will they? Who will still be standing at the end of the day? Will it be full-blown schism or a parallel church within a church? We shall know more in due course. Stay tuned.     Please keep this writer in your prayers, and if you can support this ministry, please do so either by going to PAYPAL at my website www.virtuosityonline.org , or by sending a donation via snail mail to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380. Thank you for your support     God bless you all and have a very happy New Year.   All blessings,   David W. Virtue DD   END

by Michael J. McManus     Pollster George Barna reported recently that three-fifths of Americans believe cohabitation is an acceptable behavior.  In fact, two-thirds of Catholics see no problem with unmarried couples living together, nor half of all Protestants and even 49 percent of born-again Americans.   What’s more, Barna says, The moral perspectives of Americans are likely to continue to deteriorate. Compared to surveys we conducted just two years ago, significantly more adults are depicting such behaviors as morally acceptable.     Certainly, the number of couples living together has soared from only 520,000 in 1970 to 5 million today, a ten-fold increase in a generation. That’s double the number who marry in a year. Cohabitation, not marriage, is the primary way male-female unions are formed.     However, Scripture is clear.  Flee fornication,  St. Paul wrote (I. Cor 7:18).     I cited that quote in England, and a very dignified dowager interrupted me to exclaim, Jesus never said anything about it.       Yes he did.  Remember the woman at the well, who Jesus said had five husbands and the man you now have is not your husband (John 4:18).     The problem, as I see is two-fold: ignorance of cohabitations consequences by the general public, and a willful avoidance of the issue by Americas clergy.     Sociology backs up Scripture on the evil of cohabitation. Since men and women living together begin with minimal commitment, there’s greater unhappiness - more infidelity, more conflict and even violence, more illness and depression. Sociologist Pamela Smock estimates that 45 percent of such couples undergo premarital divorce, which can be painful and complicated.  A woman at a Christian publishing company told me she lived with a man for six years, and desperately wanted to leave, but felt trapped. We bought a house together and he doesn’t want to sell it.     Many live together to test their potential for marriage. Big mistake. Marriages that are preceded by living together have 50 percent higher disruption rates than marriages without premarital cohabitation, according to the National Survey of Families and Households.     St. Paul sagely wrote, Test everything. Hold onto the good. Avoid every kind of evil.     Cohabitation may be perceived as a test, but it is an embracing of evil. A stunning 43 percent of unmarried couples have children, vs 46 percent of married couples.     Yet have you ever heard a sermon on cohabitation?  I bet not. In scores of cities, I’ve asked pastors if they have preached on it. One hand in 50 goes up. This moral abdication is perhaps the major reason why Barna found Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists.   There is an alternative.  A third of Americas churches now provide a more appropriate way for couples to test their relationships - with a test called a premarital inventory.  The man and woman are asked if they agree or disagree separately to 150+ one sentence statements:     At times I am concerned about the silent treatment I get from my future spouse.     I am concerned that my future spouse sometimes spends money foolishly.   I am hoping that after marriage my future souse will change of his/her behaviors.   A computerized report is prepared comparing what the man and woman said on each issue. Result: a tenth of couples decide not to marry. Studies show that their scores are equal to those who marry and later divorce.  So they are avoiding a bad marriage before it has begun!     In 1992, my wife and I added another component, having couples in solid marriages administer the inventory. Clergy will normally provide only an hour of feedback. They do not have time to talk through scores of issues that a couple aged 50 can provide. With both genders present, mentor couples can actually do a better job than clergy or counselors.     From 1992-2000, 302 couples were mentored at our home church.  Of that number, 21 dropped out part way through, mostly to break up. Another 34 couples met with their mentors six evenings, but decided not to marry.     Thus, more than 50 couples avoided a likely divorce.  But of those who did marry, there have been only seven divorces or separations in a decade.  That is a 3 percent failure rate, or a 97 percent success rate.     Thats not just marriage preparation - but marriage insurance.  What’s more, we created an organization called Marriage Savers that has trained 3,000 mentor couples across the country, whose churches often have even lower divorce rates. To learn more, see marriagesavers.org .     Why doesn’t your church, synagogue or mosque set a goal in 2004 to radically reduce your congregation's divorce rate?       END

By TREVOR KAVANAGH Political Editor THE SUN     TWO top bishops last night warned Tony Blair must answer to God for toppling Saddam Hussein.     The Bishop of Durham and the Archbishop of York blasted the war in newspaper interviews.     In an astonishing grab for the moral high ground, they admitted Saddam was wicked but claimed the allies were not the right people to oust him.     Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, accused the PM and President George Bush - both devout Christians - of  a strange distortion of Christianity  to justify action.     He compared them to  white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug Dealing . Dr David Hope, Archbishop of York, reminded the Prime Minister of the  higher authority  he will have to face one day and urged churchgoers to pray for his soul.     Referring to Saddam, he said . Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed but there are other wicked leaders. . His words echoed Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams  warning that Mr. Blair would be  called to account .     END

Some years ago the main-line Christian denominations were taken over by leftists; the process is even more far gone in Europe than in America.   Hence this utterly bizarre news story. Two Top Bishops Last Night Warned Tony Blair Must Answer to God for Toppling Saddam Hussein . Yes, that’s right. God was in Saddam’s corner all the way the Bishop of Durham and the Archbishop of York blasted the war in newspaper interviews. In an astonishing grab for the moral high ground, they admitted Saddam was wicked but claimed the allies were not the right people to oust him.      Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, accused the PM and President George Bush- both devout Christians - of a strange distortion of Christianity; to justify action. He compared them to white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug dealing .   If anyone understands that reference, send us an email. It  I’m completely in the dark. And if England and America weren’t the  right people  to oust Saddam , who were? All those other nations who have been lining up to do the dirty work all these years, I guess.     David Hope, Archbishop of York, reminded the Prime Minister of the  higher authority  he will have to face one day and urged churchgoers to pray for his soul. Referring to Saddam, he said:  Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed but there are other wicked leaders.     Meaning, I guess, that God will fault Tony Blair for not removing the Mullahs, Kim Il Jong, and a few others. Well, Reverend, give him time. Meanwhile, when it comes to removing  very wicked leaders,  the score is: Tony Blair and George Bush--(remember the Taliban), Church of England clerics--.   END

By Bishop Ceirion H Dewar THE CONSERVATIVE WOMAN September 22, 2025   I WAS there. I stood at the front of the recent Unite the Kingdom event in London, and I led the prayers from the stage. I saw ordinary men and women – fathers carrying their children, pensioners gripping their sticks, young men and women lifting their voices – gathered not in hatred but in hope, not in rage but in resolve. I saw the cross of Christ raised aloft, not as a weapon of division but as a banner of faith.   Yet, within days, the familiar chorus began. Bishops and clergy, those who should have stood shoulder to shoulder with their faithful, rushed instead to the newspapers to denounce them. With one hand, they clutched their mitres and collars; with the other, they pointed accusingly at their own people. And with trembling voices, they scolded not those who desecrate our heritage, but those who dared to carry the cross into the public square.   This is no small failure. It is a betrayal of vocation, a collapse of courage, and a surrender to the spirit of the age.   Abandoning the faithful   The first calling of bishops and clergy is simple: feed my sheep. Not feed the media, not soothe the cultural elite, not curry favour with the powers of this world – but feed the sheep.   Yet what we now witness is the abandonment of the flock. The faithful, anxious about the future of their nation, concerned about the moral collapse of society, longing for leaders who will speak plainly, find instead that their shepherds have deserted them. They are branded with the scarlet letters of ‘far-right’ or ‘extremist’, not by enemies of the faith, but by their own bishops and clergy.   I tell you: this is cowardice draped in clerical robes. It is easier to condemn your own than to confront the godless ideologues tearing apart the nation. It is safer to sneer at the sheep than to stand against the wolves. But it is treachery all the same.   Social agendas above scripture   Bishops and clergy today have found a new gospel. It is not the gospel of Christ crucified and risen: it is the gospel of inclusivity, diversity, sustainability, and every other slogan that wins them polite applause in editorial offices and political chambers.   This counterfeit gospel is not salvation from sin but affirmation of self. It does not lead men to repentance but lulls them into complacency. It does not transform, it merely conforms.   The true gospel is scandalous because it divides light from darkness, truth from falsehood, life from death. But these bishops and clergy prefer a gospel that never offends. They wrap the cross in bubble-wrap, lest anyone be pricked by its sharp edges. And in so doing, they rob it of power.   Make no mistake: this is not prudence. It is compromise. And compromise with falsehood is betrayal of truth.   Smearing the concerned   The tactic is predictable: label all dissent as dangerous. To raise questions about uncontrolled immigration? ‘Far-right’. To voice concern about crime in our streets? ‘Far-right’. To object to ideologies foisted upon our children? ‘Far-right’.   This is lazy rhetoric and moral cowardice. It is designed not to answer but to silence, not to shepherd but to shame. And it is deeply unchristian.   The prophets were accused of rebellion. Christ was denounced as a blasphemer. The apostles were branded disturbers of the peace. To be faithful in a corrupt age is always to be misrepresented. Yet bishops and clergy now join the chorus of slanderers. Rather than defending their flock, they amplify the jeers of the mob.   If they cannot see the difference between genuine concern for the nation and the poison of extremism, they are blind guides. If they can see it and choose to smear anyway, they are complicit liars.   Ivory towers of false piety   Picture it: bishops and clergy issuing statements from their cathedrals and churches, tutting at the ‘co-opting of the cross’, wagging their fingers at those who dared to pray in public. They posture as defenders of holy things, yet they are silent when those same holy things are mocked in our schools, sidelined in our courts, erased from our history.   They claim to guard the sanctity of the cross, yet they strip it of its scandal, its authority, its demand for repentance. They denounce its appearance on the streets, while they themselves turn the Church into a chaplaincy for the state and a mouthpiece for cultural fads.   This is not holiness. It is hypocrisy. It is the arrogance of men who believe their robes give them moral superiority while their pulpits ring hollow and their congregations dwindle.   The people are not blind. They see through it. And they are weary of it.   The cross is for all   The cross of Christ is for all – not just for the pious pronouncements of clerics, not just for the carefully managed services inside cathedral and church walls. It belongs in the marketplace, the public square, the street where lives are lived and nations are shaped.   When I saw it lifted at the march, I did not see desecration. I saw devotion. I saw a people unashamed to confess Christ before men.   Bishops and clergy who would rather see the cross confined to their sacristies have forgotten that the Lord of the cross is the Lord of history. They cannot lock Him in their chancels, nor silence Him with their press releases.   A call to courage   As a bishop, I cannot remain silent. Those bishops and clergy who condemned that march should be thoroughly ashamed. They have revealed their fear of man and their contempt for the faithful. They would rather be praised by the world than persecuted with Christ.   But the time has come to say it plainly: your cowardice is killing the Church. Your compromises are emptying the pews. Your silence on truth is deafening, and your eagerness to condemn your own people is disgraceful.   Repent. Return to the vows you made. Remember that your office is not to mirror the culture but to confront it with the Word of God. Better to be hated with Christ than applauded with Caesar. Better to be dismissed as ‘far-right’ for standing with the truth than congratulated for bowing to lies.   Conclusion   History will not remember the press releases of cowardly bishops and clergy. It will not record their carefully worded denunciations or their mealy-mouthed attempts to please all sides. It will remember only their betrayal.   But it will also remember those who stood unashamed. It will remember the men and women who lifted the cross in the public square, who prayed aloud while others scoffed, who refused to let the faith of this land be trampled into silence.   The cross of Christ will outlast the cowardice of these bishops and clergy. It will outshine their compromises. It will stand long after their cathedrals are empty, because it is not theirs to own or control.   I was there. I led the prayers. I saw the cross lifted in hope. And I will not allow false shepherds to defame the faithful unchallenged. The Church may be led by cowards, but it is not devoid of courage. The people of God will stand – with or without their bishops and clergy.   And when the Judge of all the earth appears, He will not ask how well they aligned with cultural agendas. He will ask if they were faithful to Him. Woe to those bishops and clergy who chose the approval of men over the truth of Christ. END

Bishop Michael R. Williams EXCLUSIVE REPORT   By Bishop Michael R. Williams www.virtueonline.org October 1, 2025   Bishop Derek Jones is neither a "scoundrel" nor a "villain"; and I take profound offense at such an unfair and ill-founded characterization. I deem such a characterization of Bishop Derek to be an appalling spiritual abuse of the highest order from a person in ecclesiastical power, a presumptive judgement upon our beloved Bishop without due process; and, given what I am witnessing, I fully expect to be on the receiving end of retribution as a result of saying so.   I know Bishop Derek rather to be a highly respected man, full of God the Holy Spirit, and of uncompromising integrity. He is a "Chairman Emeritus for Life" of the National Conference for Ministry to the Armed Forces (NCMAF), Executive Director of Chaplain Alliance (CALL), and a nationally recognized Subject Matter Expert on Religious Liberty and Religious Liberty matters; a nationally engaged and highly respected leader for Religious Freedom. There is no stronger advocate for our Chaplains and for the right to Freedom of Religion than Bishop Derek Jones.   Bishop Derek is also one of the strongest, most well differentiated Christian leaders I have had the honor of knowing in my 58 years as an Anglican Christian and 35 years of ordained ministry. He is not afraid to call out heterodoxy. And regarding his practice of holding those under his authority accountable to godly and canonical standards, in my experience, any accusation that he has ever disciplined a priest for a minor infraction, or no reason is patently false. He Always, rather, bends over backwards to ensure anyone accused of anything is not disciplined without just reason and overwhelming evidence.   Bishop Derek loves and is devoted to our Lord Jesus. He loves our Lord’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And he loves, sacrificially, all our Anglican Clergy-Chaplains and Lay Commissioned Chaplains and their families, for whom he continues to pray unceasingly, and for whom he will always do everything in his power to encourage, guide, protect, and prosper in ministry, with everything he has, and all for the Glory of God in Christ Jesus our Risen Savior and King.   The Rt. Rev. Michael Williams is Assisting Bishop in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy