By John Yates Jan. 10, 2004   The following sermon was delivered before several thousand orthodox Episcopalians at the recent Plano East gathering in Virginia.   At the very heart of the conflict within the Episcopal Church is a single, simple question that all who believe in Jesus Christ must answer for themselves.     Are the Scriptures true? Can we be assured that what we read in the Bible is true?     When the original authors wrote the various portions of Scripture, did they write the truth?     Are the Scriptures we read today the same as the original?     Episcopalians say that we believe in the authority of the Scriptures but what does that mean?     The best-selling novel, The DaVinci Code, of which there are over 4 million copies now in print, is written on the premise that our New Testament is false, that other documents prove that Jesus was, in fact, a married man and that Mary Magdalene was his wife. This is clearly not true, according to our four Gospels, but millions believe it anyway.     Is the Bible true or not?     I want to lay out for you two principles which help us have confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. The first has to do with the words in the text of the Bible. The second has to do with our Lord Jesus' own attitude toward the Scriptures.   First, the text of the Bible. Each of us has available for our use several fine translations. This is the most studied, translated book of all time.     But behind all these translations is the text of the New Testament in Greek, and the Old Testament mostly in Hebrew. We do not, of course, have the original documents, the autographs, but we do know that the text of the New Testament from which scholars work today is essentially exactly the same as when the words were first penned by Paul, John and the others.     How do we know this? There are thousands of ancient Greek and Latin portions of the New Testament, which have been preserved since the 1st century all across the world, first in churches and monasteries and then later in libraries. We have portions, for instance, of John Gospel, that we believe go back to the very generation in which it was originally penned. The originals were written down, disseminated and copied with utmost care, and gradually spread throughout the early Church, until eventually there were hundreds and thousands of copies. While, of course, many were lost we still have an unbelievable treasure trove of early New Testament manuscripts, all of which have been studied repeatedly, compared, contrasted by textual and literary critics from all around the world. This is an exacting science. And the conclusion of their research is that the standard Greek text we now use for New Testament studies upon which our modern translations are based, is as close as it could possibly be to the original without being the original.     Why is this important? It means that when we read the New Testament we are reading 99.9% exactly the same thing as first century Christians read. The words of Jesus, the words of Paul, that we read, these are the very words read by Christians in Corinth, Rome and Palestine.     We hear nowadays about some New Testament scholars sitting around casting colored marbles, to decide if this or that portion of the New Testament is genuine. But friends, these are the extreme fringe of so-called biblical scholars. The great mass do not question the authenticity of the text. Oh, there are variations in the early manuscripts but no essential doctrines are impacted by these. When we turn to the Old Testament, we do not, of course, have a bulk of manuscripts coming from the centuries before Christ. In fact, until the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in a cave overlooking the Dead Sea in 1947, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts had come from the 9th or 10th century A.D.       The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, however, showed us that our modern Hebrew Bible, passed down, copied from generation to generation, is similarly, astoundingly close to the Old Testament, which Jesus himself read. The Dead Sea scrolls contained portions of the Old Testament, from the very time of Jesus himself, and the startling sameness between them and the later manuscripts with which scholars worked until we found the Dead Sea scrolls, which were a thousand years newer, is just astonishing. They were copied and transmitted reverently with painstaking care by hand over a thousand years with virtually no changes. We can only conclude that God has wanted and willed that 21st century students be able to read what was originally penned by the biblical writers.       So, when we read our Old Testament we have good reason to believe it is virtually the same as the Old Testament that Jesus himself read and taught, and when we read our New Testament, it, too, is essentially exactly the same as the original autographs. That is important.     Because the text is authentic, when we read the New Testament we see what the first century followers of Christ believed and what they understood Jesus to have said and done. We see Jesus as they saw him, the unique, wonderful, powerful Son of God.       When we consider the risks taken by the Apostles to proclaim these New Testament truths, we are hard-pressed to conclude anything other than this they were utterly convinced of what they taught. What they wrote, they died for, and what we read, is what they were utterly convinced of. The Jesus they present to us is the historical Jesus they knew. The only way we know Christ is through what they wrote in the New Testament. We believe that what they wrote is true. This brings us to the second point. How did Jesus view the Scriptures?     We look at Jesus' own attitude toward the Scriptures as described in the New Testament by those who knew him best, in order to understand the authority o f Scriptures for ourselves. And here is what we see first in regards to the Old Testament: Jesus was completely committed to the authority of the Old Testament, and he submitted to the Old Testament in his own personal conduct, he submitted to the Old Testament in regard to his own sense of mission and purpose, and he submitted to the Old Testament in his controversies and debates. For instance, he met each of the temptations of the devil by reminding himself o f the appropriate biblical response, which addressed Satan temptations. He also seems to have come to an understanding of his own life purpose and role as Messiah from a careful study of Old Testament Scripture. He knew from his unique relationship with God and from his study that he himself was the fulfillment of both Isaiah Suffering-Servant prophecies and Daniel Son of Man statements.       This, of course, enabled him to accept that he could only achieve his life purpose through the path of suffering and death, and it explains why repeatedly he made statements such as, Mark 8:31, in which he said, The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected. He must be killed and after three days rise again. He was convinced of this because Scripture said so, and he put himself under its authority. Even after the resurrection he was still of the same opinion, he said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, did not the Christ have to suffer these things, and then enter his glory? This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:2 6, 44).     Whenever Jesus entered into controversy or debate, he continually submitted to the Old Testament as his authority. What is written in the law?  he would ask. How do you read it? (Luke 10:26) Or from Mark 12: Haven;t you read the Scriptures? Over and over again he criticized the religious leaders for their disrespect for Scripture. The Pharisees added to Scripture additional rules and regulations, while the Sadducees subtracted from it. Over and over again he affirmed scripture cannot be broken. In the Sermon on the Mount he said, I tell you the truth, until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter nor the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the la w until everything is accomplished.       You will not find an example of Christ ever contradicting the divine origin of Old Testament Scripture. All the evidence available affirms that Jesus Christ both assented intellectually and submitted volitionally to the authority of the Old Testament, and it is hard to believe that we, his followers, should have a lower view of it than he did. He trusted the Old Testament. He certainly believed what Paul, his apostle, taught, that, all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproach, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.       Now, of course, our Lord's way of endorsing the New Testament was quite different, for none of the New Testament books had yet been written during his lifetime. Clearly the Old Testament was not the final revelation of God. Some of the Old Testament law and ceremony came to an end in Jesus because he was the fulfillment of it. Much of the Old Testament teaching was incomplete and he gave us the complete meaning. He himself, Christ, was the final revelation o f God, and his message and the meaning of who he is had to be communicated to future generations. There had to be an authoritative record and interpretation of who he was and what he revealed, so Jesus made provision for this very thing. How? All the records agree that, after careful thought and lengthy prayer, h e chose and appointed and then went on to train and authorize the 12 Apostles to be his representatives, just as God had chosen the prophets in the Old Testament. The Apostles of Christ were, of course, a small, restricted circle, made up of the original 12, and then Matthias (who replaced Judas), Paul, James, the Lord brother, and perhaps one or two more. It is important to understand the meaning of the word, apostle. It means one sent by a person who is as the person himself, a person who speaks with the authority of the person who had commissioned him.     Not too long ago the Washington Post had a headline that said, Bush Vows Action. However, when you read the article, you saw that President Bush had not yet actually commented publicly on the situation, but that actually it was Scott McClellan, Bush Press Secretary, who made the statement. It is interesting that McClellan words are equated with those of the President himself. This is similar to the sense of the word apostle. Jesus chose these apostles, deliberately gave them this title, and they were to be his personal representatives endowed with his authority to speak in his name. And when he  sent them out he said to them, He who receives you, receives me. These men knew the Lord personally. They had a personal call and authorization by him. They had unequaled opportunities to hear his words, to talk with him, and to see his deeds, so that they might later on bear witness to what they had seen and heard. He said to them in John 15: 27: You must testify for you have been wit h me from the beginning.       He promised to them an extraordinary inspiration by the Holy Spirit for their tasks. We see this in the conversation recorded by St. John, in which Jesus said to the 12, All this I have spoken while still with you, but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything I have said to you. I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. When he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you in all truth. (John 14) Now, the primary application of these verses is to the Apostles who were gathered around Jesus in the upper room. Only to them could he say, All this I have spoken to you while still with you, and I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. What he promised to the 12 was this: that the Holy Spirit would remind them of the teachings he had given them, and also that he would supplement this, leading them into all the truth which they could not yet understand. The major fulfillment of these promises, of course, was in the writing of the Gospels and the Epistles in the New Testament.     Now, you will point out that Paul, for instance, was not one of the original 12. He was, however, a witness of the resurrected Christ in his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road, and it seems clear that from his time spent with the Apostles and the three years he spent in Arabia, he was also guided, as he said, by revelations from Jesus Christ, which were intended to compensate him for not being with Christ during his years of public ministry. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes, I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. The other Apostles certainly recognized this as true.       God demonstrated the unique calling of these Apostles through miracles that accompanied their work, and we see it by their own self-conscious awareness of apostolic authority. The apostle John, for instance, in dealing with the threat of many false teachers, used the plural of apostolic authority, saying, We are from God and whoever knows God listens to us, but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of falsehood. (I John 4:6) In other words, John readers could discern between truth and error by examining the teaching to see if it was in accordance with John himself teaching. False teachers would reveal their own error if they were not in agreement with John, while the true Christian would demonstrate his authenticity by submitting to the Apostles authority. What John taught was what Jesus had taught.     The Apostles humbly recognized one another letters as inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is even the very famous passage in which the Apostle Peter refers to the letters of Paul (II Peter 3), in which he describes d ear brother Paul , commenting on the wisdom given to him by God and fully equates Paul letters with Scripture itself.     The early Church recognized the unique authority of the Apostles. For example, around 110 A.D., soon after the last Apostle St. John had died, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch sent letters to several of the churches in Europe and Asia Minor, and in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter 4, he wrote, I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles. I am but a condemned man. The apostolic writings were accepted as authoritative, right alongside the Old Testament. They emanated the authority of Christ and the Christians recognized them as truth.     Later in the fourth century, when the Church came finally to settle which books should be included in the New Testament Canon, the test they applied was whether a book came from the Apostles, whether it was written by an Apostle or, if it was not written by an Apostle, whether it came from the circle of the Apostles and had the endorsement of their authority. This would have been true, for instance, of Luke or Mark or James. The Church in the fourth century was not conferring authority on the canonical books. It was rather simply recognizing the authority that they already possessed. The false Gospels such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, were rejected not because the church was trying to control what people believed as it implied in The DaVinci Code, but because they were obviously spurious and had never been recognized as true.     So according to the Apostles, Christ endorsed the authority of the Old Testament, and he made provision for the New Testament by authorizing the Apostles to teach in His name. If it is our claim to submit to the authority of Christ, we must submit to the Scriptures authority as well, and because of Jesus Christ, we submit to both the Old and the New Testaments. The ultimate issue of authority in the Church hinges on the Lordship of Christ. If He is our teacher and Lord, we are under His authority. We have no freedom to disagree with Him or disobey Him. We bow to Scripture because we bow to Him.     This is not always easy. There are passages that are difficult; we are not always completely certain as to what is to be taken literally or figuratively. We must read the poetry and the allegorical sections as just that. Some passages almost offend us, some seem to be in contradiction with others.     John Stott has a helpful observation in this regard:     To accept the divine origin of the Bible is not to pretend that there are not problems. To be candid, there are many problems literary, historical, theological and moral. So what shall we do with them? Is it compatible with intellectual integrity to accept the unique authority of Scripture when so m any residual problems remain? Yes, indeed it is.     We need to learn to do with the problems surrounding Scripture exactly what we do with the problems surrounding any other Christian doctrine. Every Christian doctrine has its problems. No doctrine is entirely free of them. Take as an example the doctrine of the love of God. Every Christian of every conceivable hue believes that God is love. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine. To disbelieve this would be to disqualify oneself as a Christian. But the problems surrounding the doctrine are massive. What, then, do we do when someone brings us a problem touching God love, a problem of evil or of undeserved suffering, for instance? In the first place, we shall wrestle with the problem and may be granted some fresh light on it. But we are not likely to solve it altogether. So then what? Must we abandon our belief in the love of God until we have solved all the problems? No. We shall maintain our belief in the love of God, in spite of the problems, for one reason and for one reason only, namely that Jesus Christ taught it and exhibited it. That is why we believe that God is love. And the problems do not overthrow our belief.       So with Scripture. Someone brings us a problem, or we stumble across one ourselves, maybe an apparent discrepancy or a question of literary criticism. What shall we do? To begin with, it is essential that we wrestle honestly with biblical problems. It is not Christian to bury our heads in the sand, pretending that no problems exist. Nor is it Christian to manipulate Scripture in order to achieve a forced, artificial harmonization. No, we work at the problems with intellectual integrity. During this process some problems, which at first seemed intractable, are satisfactorily solved. To others, however, we can see no immediate solution. So then what? Must we abandon our belief in the Word of God until we have solved all the problems? No. We shall maintain our belief in God Word, just as we maintain our belief in God's love, in spite of the problems, ultimately for one reason and one reason only, namely that Jesus Christ taught it and exhibited it. It is no more obscurantist to cling to the one belief than the other. Indeed, it is not obscurantist at all. To follow Christ is always sober, humble, Christian realism. (from Understanding the Bible, Zondervan Publishing, 1999)     Some passages, such as the famous section in Job where his friends give him erroneous counsel, are not intended to be taken as God wisdom.     We wrestle with scripture. We devote ourselves to understanding scripture. We look to previous generations of Christians and how they understood it.     But over and above all of this, scripture is our authority, it is our deep, settled conviction that it is true. Therefore, we never assume we know better. We do not dare tamper with it. We love the Holy Scripture because through the words of men, God has spoken his true words to us and God's word is Holy. Turn away from scripture and we turn away from Christ. Twist the Scripture towards our own ends and we become a heresy or a cult.     We dare not say with one of our bishops, of the scriptures, we wrote them we can rewrite them.     Or with another, what we need is a new Christianity for a new world. There is only one Christianity the Christianity of Scripture.     Every generation of believers is tempted to turn away from the uncompromising, muscular demands of Jesus, from the radical doctrine of the New Testament church and to embrace the trendy ideas of the day. They do not realize they are in danger of sawing off the very branch of faith upon which they are sitting.     The church has always through the ages sought to submit to scripture as God's authoritative guide. Often we have erred and reformers have had to call us back and say, Sola Scriptura our tradition, our reasoning, and our experiences are fundamentally important, but in Christ and with Christ, we must renew our belief that in the Scriptures God has spoken and they are true. They are our infallible guide.       Over the last two generations, our denomination has tolerated leaders and teachers who have jettisoned historic doctrines of the Church many believers have left the Church in disgust. We have stayed. Now a General Convention decision has clarified starkly for all of us that the Episcopal Church has moved even further away from scripture. 92 bishops, a devastating majority refused to endorse a resolution reaffirming Holy Scripture as the foundation of authority in our church, reaffirming the historic statements of Anglicanism concerning scripture. It is clear, we have to say, enough we can go no further.     The ultimate issue is one of authority; it is that of lordship of Christ. You call me teacher and Lord, he said, and rightly so. For that is what I am. We have no liberty to disobey or disagree with him. We bow to t he authority and total trustworthiness of scripture because we bow to the authority of Christ.     The Rev. John Yates is the rector of The Falls Church, Virginia   END

Episcopal Church has begun a new religion; Ecclesiastical action against me logically incomprehensible;     By the Rev. Joseph P. Murphy Ph.D. January 21, 2004   To:   The Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee The Rt. Rev. David Jones The Rt. Rev. Francis Gray Mayo Memorial Church House 110 W. Franklin St. Richmond, VA 23220     Dear Bishops Lee, Jones, and Gray, At the gathering of clergy you convened this past fall at Christchurch School to discuss the actions of General Convention 2003, I made clear to you all my understanding that the Episcopal Church no longer holds the teaching of the Christian Faith that it had received, thus making void the vow of ordination that I, and all Episcopal clergy, have taken.      I repeated this to Bishop Lee in person later that month. That I am not alone in such an understanding is clear from Claiming Our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, USA, a paper commissioned in 2003 for the Primates of the Anglican Communion by the Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, and the Most Rev. Gregory Venables (pages 13-14). Further reflection and consideration of the action of the Episcopal Church, and the responses from Anglicans all over the world, have only deepened my conviction that the Episcopal Church of the United States of America has departed from the Christian faith in a substantial manner. By reading Scripture in such a way that its ethical imperatives no longer address personal desires where they conflict with Scripture, the Episcopal Church has now formally adopted a spirituality that is not subject to the Word of God. Without its life rooted in submission to God Who speaks, its theology and liturgy are cut off from the source of all life in the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You may view such a judgment on my part as extreme. However, if Christian disciples cannot be taught that all of our lives are to be submitted to Jesus Christ without reservation, that all of our thoughts and desires are to be brought into obedience to Him such that He alone determines what pleases Him, and that determination comes through what He has spoken to us all publicly through the writings of the Hebrew prophets, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of His apostles and their immediate disciples, then such discipleship as results from such restricted teaching will not know the freedom for which we have been created. It is not worthy of the name Christian. Truly, by formally relaxing the demands of discipleship on the entire self, the Episcopal Church has begun a new religion, one in which we determine what is necessary to please God. Of course, that determination rests in what pleases the majority of us, reducing our grasp of He Who is wholly Other than us to our political consensus about Him. Rather than ruling over us, He is effectively tamed.      It is the call of Jesus to lay down ones life for Him, or lose it. To reduce His call for radical discipleship at the level of the thoughts, desires, and intentions of our hearts to merely bearing with one another’s opinions as if the Church were merely a body politic, is to not only misconstrue the nature of the Church, but to fail to hear Jesus call to discipleship at all at the level where His cross which differentiates Christianity from all other spiritual ways becomes evident, that of personal obedience to Him where our desires run contrary. The issue at hand is not merely a social issue, or even an ethical issue. It is a question of the gospel itself, and of the reality of the acts of God in the life of humanity since words are acts. It is a matter of the differing ways we read scripture, but that is of the most profound importance, as that reading instantiates, brings into being, who we are.  God's Word is alive, as are those who submit their hearts to Him through it. The Episcopal Church has chosen to deny His words by granting itself the right to read them in such a way that they do not address our sinful condition. What is left is a message, a gospel, indistinguishable from the ways of the world, and frankly, better served by abandoning the vestiges of Scripture and tradition that can be retained under its new understanding. Cut off from its power to address the sinful self as God has chosen to, Scripture as contextualized in the new ethos of the Episcopal Church is no longer the Word of God, no longer the conduit for His Life that our Anglican tradition affirms.      I applaud the efforts of the American Anglican Council, and look forward to the day when a single Anglican Church will faithfully serve our Lord here in the United States. Until then, however, due to the actions of the Episcopal Church, I find the conclusion inescapable that violating Anglican order in some way is a necessity if Episcopalians are to remain obedient to the Lord. In my observation, the ethos of the Episcopal Church in large part is ignorant of, and resistant to the teachings of Scripture, evidencing processes long under way and only brought to fruition in the decisions of 2003.     While many congregations demonstrate exception to this observation, so many do not that I am convinced that the Church cannot reform itself. As I mentioned to all of you prior to the General Convention while urging you to help avoid the current crisis, the Episcopal Church is now in so many ways akin to the Donatist Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, that I believe it’s only hope is intervention from the wider Anglican Church as that Church’s salvation came from the universal Church. Consequently, to remain faithful to my ordination vow to serve as a presbyter in the Church of Jesus Christ proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, I hereby submit myself to the Anglican Province of Rwanda in the Anglican Mission in America. I do so in order to fulfill my ordination vow, maintaining my desire to serve the Lord in the Anglican Communion as it has historically existed as catholic and evangelical, proclaiming Christ in both Word and Sacrament.               Further, since the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda on September 5, 2003 declared that the Episcopal Church, USA has departed from the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as the Church has received them, and that by these actions the Episcopal Church, USA has placed itself out of communion with other member of the worldwide Anglican Communion by this letter I do hereby declare that any action taken against me as a presbyter under authority of Title IV Canon 10 of the Constitutions & Canons of the Episcopal Church of 2000, as revised by the General Convention of 2003, by the Diocese of Virginia (1) to be legally and logically incomprehensible given the loss of status in the Anglican Communion of the Episcopal Church which is assumed in Title IV Canon 10, and (2) to be null and void in the Anglican Communion by virtue of the Episcopal Church’s loss of its communion with other Anglican Communion churches.     It is my understanding that by this action I remain a presbyter in the Anglican Communion, whereas by my remaining in the Diocese of Virginia of the Episcopal Church, I would not.     By my stating what I deem to be the truth in regard to the Episcopal Church as it now stands, I imply nothing in regard to yourselves or any other clergy or members of the Episcopal Church. We each answer to our Lord alone. However, I urge you and all Episcopalians, by the mercies of our Lord, to give ear to His voice anew.   Sincerely yours in Jesus Christ,   The Rev. Joseph P. Murphy, Ph.D. Formerly rector of St. Mary’s - Fleeton, Reedville, VA     END

by J. Budziszewski     Are you Professor Theophilus?     I turned. That’s me. Come in.     My name’s Lawrence. I’m gay. I came to complain about your talk about constitutional liberties yesterday. It was bigoted and homophobic. I’m filing a formal protest to the people who run the Student Union speakers series.     At least he’s direct, I thought. I waved him to a seat. Help me out, Mr. Lawrence. How could -;     Just Lawrence.     Thank you. Now how could my talk have been  bigoted and homophobic when it didn’t mention homosexuality?     I didn’t actually hear the talk itself. I came in during Q &A.     I see. And what did I say during Q & A?     You said gays have sex with animals.     I’m used to this sort of thing, so I merely observed, I’m afraid you  weren’t listening carefully.     I remember distinctly, he declared. A girl asked your opinion of laws  against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and you said gays have sex with animals.     No, What I said was sexual orientation; can mean many things. Some  people are sexually oriented; toward the opposite sex; others toward  the same sex; others toward children; others toward animals; others  toward cadavers. I said that I wondered where this trend will end. Then you admit that gays don’t have sex with animals?   You brought that up, I reminded him. I have no information on the  point. I’m only suggesting that not all orientations; are morally equivalent.     He said nothing, but showed no inclination to leave. Do you think all  orientations; are morally equivalent? I queried.     I won’t even dignify that question with an answer, he said. But I  know what you think of my orientation. I’m sick of you phony Christians with your filthy hypocrisy about the love of God. So you’ve heard that I’m a Christian? Who hasn’t? The holy, the sanctimonious, the Most Excellent Professor Theophilus of Post-Everything State University - what else would he be? The whole school reeks of you, of you and the other so- called Christian so-called professors. That’s why I walked in on your Q &A. I wanted to ee you spit venom.;     My goodness. Have I said anything venomous?   It’s what you’re thinking that’s venomous.   I see, I smiled. Why don’t you stop being bashful, and tell me what’s bothering you?   You must think you’re funny.   I’m serious. Tell your complaints one by one, and I’ll answer them.   You couldn’t answer them. I have too many.   Try me. I’ll give short answers.   He cocked his head and peered at me. You mean it, don’t you?   I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t.   One at a time?   One at a time.     All right, here’s the first. Christians are hypocrites. You’re always running down gays, but what about the other things your Bible condemns, like divorce and remarriage? It’s other people’s sins that bother you, not your own.     I laughed. If you’d spent any time around me, you’d know that I’m just as hard on the sins of heterosexuals as on those of homosexuals. Easy divorce is a prime example of how one bad thing leads to another - in our case the loss of the ability to make any distinctions about sexual acts at all.     Ignoring the reply, he went on to his next complaint. You’re intolerant. You reject people like me just because we’re different than you.     Me reject you? I said. Aren’t you the one who rejects what is different than yourself? Don’t you reject the challenge of the other sex?     I don’t need the other sex. I have a committed relationship with my partner.     Research shows that homosexuals with partners don’t stop cruising, they just cruise less. When they don’t think straights are listening, gay writers say the same.;     So what if it’s true? There’s nothing wrong with gay love anyway.     I spoke quietly. Tell me what’s loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease and pain, I suggested. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils.     You’re - how can you even say that? he demanded. How dare you tell me who to love?     I don’t think I am telling you who to love.;     Oh, no? Then what are you telling me?     That there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction.     You must think my relationship with my partner is just dirt!     No, I respect friendship wherever I find it - your friendship with your   partner included. It’s just that sex doesn’t make every kind of friendship better.     Why not? Are you anti-sex or something?     Not at all, I said, but would you say that sex improves the friendship of a father with his daughter?     Seeing from his face that he didn’t, I continued. You get my point. Nor does sex improve the friendship of two men.     That’s where you’re wrong. Gay sex is just as natural for some people as straight sex is for other people.     What’s natural, I said, is what unlocks our inbuilt potential instead of thwarting it. One of the purposes of marital sex is to get you outside your Self and its concerns, to achieve intimacy with someone who is Really Other.;     Was he listening to any of this? I’m sorry, Lawrence - I really am - but having sex with another man can’t do that. It’s too much like loving your reflection. That’s what I meant before about refusing the challenge of the other sex.     I was about to go on, but abruptly he changed the subject: It’s attitudes like yours that killed Matthew Shepard. Surely you don’t imagine that the thugs who killed Matthew Shepard were  Christians, do you? I smiled at the absurdity of the thought, but seeing that he misunderstood my smile I made my face serious and tried again.     Lawrence, I deplore the violence that killed Matthew Shepard, and I’m glad those men were caught. But shouldn’t we also grieve the urge which caused Matthew Shepard to be sexually attracted to violent strangers?     He said only, You hate me.     I paused to study him. Did he really believe that, or was it a smokescreen?     I don’t hate you, I said. I love you. I paused. I’d like to be with  you forever, in heaven.     Lawrence’s face displayed shock, as though he had been hit in the  stomach. Then he looked confused. The expression of confusion was instantaneously replaced by an expression of anger.     For one split-second, it had looked as if the shutters were open. God in heaven, I thought, I need help. How could they be pried back up?     My love isn’t really the issue for you, is it? I asked.     What do you mean?     It’s God’s. God’s love is the issue for you. For a few seconds there was no reaction.     Then it came. You’re bleeping right God’s love is the issue for me, he said. Your God’s love. The lying God who says He loves man, but who hates me for loving men.     Do you think God hates you?     Doesn’t He?   What makes you say that?     Doesn’t your Bible say that? It calls people like me an abomination. It calls what you do abomination. There’s a difference.;     There’s no difference. I do what I am.     I considered his point. Could it be, I said, that you want God to love you less?   Less !he spat.     Yes. Don’t you know what love is?     Acceptance.     Acceptance of what kills you? Consider another view: Love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person.   What?   I said love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other  person.     I don’t get what you’re saying.     Sure you do. The lover wants what’s good for the beloved.;     He hesitated. I suppose.;     Good. Now think. If that’s what love is, then a perfect Lover would  want the perfect good of the Beloved. Do you see what that means? He would loath and detest whatever destroyed the beloved’s good - no matter  how much the beloved desired it.;     I couldn’t read the look on his face, so I plowed on. That’s what sin does - it destroys us. Yours destroys you, mine destroys me. And so the Lover doesn’t accept; it; He hates it with an inexorable hatred. To cut the cancer out of us, He will do whatever it takes - like a surgeon. No, more than like a surgeon. If you let Him, He will even take the cancer upon Himself and die in your place.;     Still inscrutable, he kept his eyes in front of him, just avoiding my own.     I asked What happens, then, if you refuse to let go of what destroys you? What happens if you say this to the divine and perfect Lover who wants your complete and perfect good - if you say, I bind myself to my destruction! Accept me, and my destruction with me! I refuse to enter heaven except in the company of Death!     Neither of us spoke.   Lawrence rose from his chair and walked out the door.     Professor Budziszewski earned his doctorate from Yale University in 1981, and specializes in the relations among ethical theory, political theory, and Christian theology. The focus of his current research is natural law and moral self-deception. His books include The Resurrection of Nature: Political Theory and the Human Character (Cornell, 1986), The Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Virtues (Cornell, 1988), True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment (Transaction, 1992), Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (InterVarsity, 1997), The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man (Spence, 1999), and What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide (Spence, 2003). A good representation of his shorter work is; The Revenge of Conscience First Things 84, [June/July 1998], pp. 21-27).]Read more from the Professor at www.boundless.org/common/authorlist.cfm   END

From the Office of the Bishop of the Diocese of Southwest Florida   January 21, 2004     Dear Friends in Christ, Unfortunately, there is confusion regarding the reported involvement of the Bishop and the Diocese of Southwest Florida in the establishment of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. It is my conviction that these are extraordinary times demanding clarity from all those engaged in the leadership of the Church.       Due to recent comments by members of the American Anglican Council, it is unclear to me as to the long-term intentions in forming another network within the Episcopal Church. Because of this lack of clarity, the Diocese of Southwest Florida is not currently a member of the network. I have been clear that I do not intend to leave the Episcopal Church. I cannot condone any congregation of this diocese acting to leave the Episcopal Church even though I know that individuals who are deeply troubled by the actions of our Church may find it necessary to join other ecclesial communities.       I think that it is also important to clarify why I believe that this confusion has occurred. In order to support conversations between conservative leaders in our Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury, I joined 12 other bishops in signing a Memorandum of Agreement in late November 2003. The Memorandum grew out of a deep concern for those who are unable to accept the implications of the consecration of Gene Robinson. My decision is a reflection of my own convictions regarding justice within the faith community and my pastoral concern for those who find themselves in a minority in our Church. It did not bind the diocesan community to any particular course of action.       In early December, I chaired a meeting of Canadian and American bishops, as well as theologians from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Our task was to prepare a theological statement for a confessing movement within the Episcopal Church. This was in response to a suggestion made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an earlier meeting with conservative leaders of our Church. Our hope was that this document would provide a common statement for those who dissent from the actions of the General Convention in relationship to the Diocese of New Hampshire. The document is a call for the reform and renewal of the Episcopal Church from within. It is also a call for the whole church to confess the sins that threaten the unity of the Episcopal Church. I believe that this Theological Confession is an accurate statement of the foundational faith and witness of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. I believe that it provides a vehicle for our continued engagement with one another. I urge its study by our congregations.       I have great respect and a strong theological kinship with those bishops who have acted on their conscience and convictions regarding this network. If the intention of this network is to support the reform and renewal of the Episcopal Church and to work for reconciliation within the Episcopal Church, I pray that God will grant a successful resolution to these efforts.       May God grant each of us a spirit of charity and forbearance as we seek to live faithfully our proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord.       In Christ,     +John Lipscomb  Southwest Florida IV   END

Why the Realignment of Anglicanism is Sadly Necessary     Part 4: The Bible: Relevant or Irrelevant?   by the Rev. David A. Handy, Ph.D.   The first three parts of this series have set forth some of the many reasons why the dramatic realignment now underway in Anglicanism is so sadly necessary.  In this, the fourth segment, I will begin to drive home my main thesis: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.  In other words, my central claim is that by giving official approval to the notion that homosexual behavior is not sinful, the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada have flagrantly violated both Scripture and Tradition in a way that is completely unwarranted, totally unjustified.  As a result, the Primates have rightly rejected these scandalous actions and they have properly made provision for orthodox bishops, clergy, laity, and parishes to realign themselves with the orthodox majority of the Communion.     Up to this point, I have taken for granted the validity of the initial part of my main thesis, namely that the condemnation of homosexual behavior in both Scripture and Tradition is clear and consistent.  But given the importance of this point, I will now point to some of the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates the truth of this claim. While it is true that homosexuality is a minor and peripheral matter in Holy Scripture, there is a good deal more in it that is relevant to assessing the morality of same-sex behavior than is often recognized.       Once again, Robert Gagnon has provided the fullest and most adequate treatment.  For instance, as he demonstrates, the familiar story of the gross sinfulness of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 can’t be dismissed as irrelevant.  After all, this story is the reason why homosexuality is called sodomy.  Although the story indicts the inhabitants of those two wicked towns for conspiring to brutally rape Lots guests, the fact remains that the gang rape they intended to carry out was the rape of what they thought were other men (though actually they were angels).  That clearly compounds the heinousness of the crime in the eyes of the biblical writer (just as in the similar story in Judges 19).     As Gagnon has also pointed out, the enigmatic story of the cursing of Ham for his vaguely described crime against his father Noah (in Genesis 9:20-27) makes the most sense if it is likewise taken as a story about homosexual rape, this time compounded by incest as well.  This helps justify the extreme severity of the curse on Ham, the mythic ancestor of the flagrantly immoral Canaanites.  Moreover, while all the above passages are attributed by scholars to the so-called J source (the putative Yahwistic writer), the same completely negative attitude toward homosexual behavior is implicit in the many references to male temple prostitutes in the Deuteronomistic or D tradition (see Deut. 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46).  These men were not so much prostitutes, however, as symbolic representatives of the god of that shrine, and their sexual services were as much for religious purposes as for financial gain.  As we know from other ancient Near Eastern documents, these qedeshim (Hebrew) were religious professionals who served other men, not women, as part of pagan religious rituals of union with the shrine deity.  Such pagan orgiastic rites were an unthinkable abomination for those in covenant with the unique God of Israel, who alone among the ancient gods had no divine wife and allowed no such obscene practices.   Thus, the D tradition also was intensely hostile to homosexual practice, especially because of its pagan associations.       Finally, of course, there are the absolute prohibitions of homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, representing the priestly tradition (the so-called P and H sources).  These two legal passages have been subjected to much sneering criticism by liberals who scoff at the absurdity of the ritual laws in Leviticus in general.  Thus the laws about prohibited sexual behaviors are commonly lumped with obscure parts of the priestly purity system such as the prohibition on wearing clothing made of more than one kind of fiber (Lev. 19:19). William Countryman and Dan Via are particularly outrageous examples of this modern bias.  It seems to be conveniently forgotten that the great commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18) comes from this same part of Leviticus (falling midway between 18:22 and 20:13). It is found nowhere else in the Old Testament.  Thus the J, D, and P traditions are united in their vehement rejection of homosexual behavior, condemning it unconditionally as a pagan practice.       But liberals conveniently downplay the fact that the New Testament makes a firm distinction between the laws about sexual morality (which were kept) and the ritual laws in general (which were not).   Thus the Jerusalem Council decided to prohibit Gentile converts from practicing porneia (Greek, sexual immorality, Acts 15:29). This passage seems to be based on the ancient rabbinic understanding that the Mosaic laws in Lev. 17-18 (including 18:22) were originally part of the so-called Noahic covenant that applied to all the descendants of Noah.  All four of the things prohibited in Acts 15 are likewise proscribed in Lev. 17-18, where the laws specifically apply to resident aliens as well as Jews.  Moreover, our Anglican tradition makes the same distinction between the moral and the ceremonial laws, upholding the former (see Article 7 of The 39 Articles).       Furthermore, the fact is that the emphatic rejection of homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition is absolute and unconditional.  As Gagnon has shown, it would likely make little or no difference to St. Paul, for example, that two men (or women) were involved in a long-term consensual relationship and that they both sincerely believed that their powerful attraction to the same sex was innate, or beyond their control.  Paul would still regard it as reprehensible and contrary to nature, in the sense of being clearly contrary to Gods intentions in making us male and female in his image.  Contrary to modern sensibilities, Paul insists that although we are all subject to innate sinful impulses that are beyond our control, we are still accountable for sinning by giving in to those seemingly overwhelming impulses (see Romans 5 and 7).       Liberal scholars (including Wink, Booten, and Via) are increasingly willing to recognize this reality (albeit grudgingly).  At least as a matter of biblical exegesis, when trying to discern the original meaning of the text (a matter of historical criticism), there is growing consensus among liberal and conservative biblical scholars alike that Paul was against all forms of homosexual behavior, consensual or not, even if same-sex attractions are not freely chosen.  The question remains, of course, whether or not Paul was right.       That is, the disagreement is now mostly about whether or not this complete condemnation in Scripture and Tradition is binding on us today (a matter of hermeneutics in the narrow sense).  The real dispute, in other words, is not about what the biblical writers meant, but about what it means today, i.e., how it applies to our present situation.  The same issue arises when it comes to weighing the significance of the Tradition of the universal Church.  There is no denying that a strong abhorrence of homosexual behavior has been characteristic of the moral teaching of the Church from the start.  The issue is the contemporary relevance of this relentlessly negative tradition. There are two main ways that Liberals attempt to write off that totally negative biblical teaching as simply mistaken, but both are seriously flawed.  First, they frequently claim that people in ancient times were simply unacquainted with the idea of sexual orientation.  But this is historically untenable, as Robert Gagnon has amply shown.  Of course, the ancient Greeks and Romans, as well as the Jews, lacked our modern psychological sophistication, but they were certainly aware that a certain minority of men (and even less women) were habitually attracted to their own sex.  Indeed, the malakoi (Greek, soft men) Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 6:9 are very likely examples.  There is widespread agreement now among scholars that malakoi probably refers to men who habitually took the female role in sex (of being penetrated), just as some gay men do today. If, as we know, Philo of Alexandria was well aware of men with a virtually exclusive attraction to other men, it is highly likely that his younger contemporary Paul was aware of this also.  After all, he was a cosmopolitan Jew too.       Second, it is often claimed that the forms of homosexual behavior known in the ancient Mediterranean world were abusive and inherently exploitative.  Pederasty was indeed common among the Greeks, but committed relationships among adults were by no means unknown. There were several well-known examples in Greek history and literature of famous gay lovers, who had very much the same kind of long-term committed loving relationship that gay advocates like to imagine is a modern innovation and a credit to our enlightened age.  Moreover, Paul’s scathing denunciation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:24-27 actually stresses the mutual culpability of both partners.  Likewise, Leviticus calls for the death penalty for both parties.  Thus, the much-repeated liberal assertion that the Bible simply wasn’t addressing homosexuality as we know it today is just that, an unfounded assertion.  It glosses over too much ancient evidence to be convincing.  It is an example of what C. S. Lewis aptly called chronological snobbery.       To borrow the language of the popular Alpha Course, is the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexuality boring, untrue, and irrelevant?  To quote the indignant reply of St. Paul to similar questions , me genoito !  That is, No way!   A Tragic Necessity     Part 5:  Homosexuality: Natural or Unnatural?     In this final segment of the series I will seek to drive home the truth of my thesis: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.  In the previous installment I attempted to substantiate the first part of this thesis: namely, that the teaching about homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition is clear and consistent.  I also insisted that it is overwhelmingly negative and, more importantly, that it is by no means irrelevant today. What then of the second part of my main thesis?  In what ways are the liberal grounds for setting aside and overturning this clear and consistent biblical and ecclesiastical tradition completely unjustified because they are based on dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience?       First, as I argued in parts 1-3, the liberal arguments are undermined by the fact that they depend on a highly selective and biased interpretation of modern experience, namely the experience of unrepentant gay men and lesbians, while ignoring the contrary experience of the growing number of ex-gays whom God has miraculously healed.  There is no logical reason why we should pay more attention to the experience of Louie Crew and Gene Robinson than to that of ex-gays like Alan Medinger and Mario Bergner.  That is, at the very least, the argument from experience is based on conflicting evidence.       Secondly, as noted especially in part 1, the purported scientific evidence that is commonly thought to indicate that a homosexual orientation is innate and immutable is actually quite weak.  In fact, the scientific tide seems to be turning.  A few early studies that seemed to point toward a biological origin for a homosexual orientation have not been replicated.  The search for the hypothetical gay gene has failed, as is increasingly admitted by geneticists.  Instead, scientists with differing biases are acknowledging the bewildering complexity of this matter.  It is likely that multiple influences, not all benign, shape our sexual identity and behavior.  That is, the supposed scientific evidence for an innate homosexual orientation is dubious at best.  It is certainly unproven.   Third, there is now irrefutable evidence that, at least for some homosexuals, perhaps most, there is real hope for such profound healing that first their gender identity and then even their orientation itself can be divinely transformed.  I've seen this miracle in the lives of my brother-in-law, Joe Hallett, the founder of Outpost, an ex-gay ministry in Minneapolis, and several friends I know.  Ministries like Desert Stream in Anaheim, California (and the popular Living Waters Course designed by its founder Andy Comiskey) and Redeemed Lives in Wheaton, Illinois (led by Episcopal priest Mario Bergner) have helped hundreds of Christians struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors to overcome them.  Of course, not all are healed, any more than all the people we pray for to be healed of cancer are healed.  But that doesn't mean we should stop praying fervently for their healing.  After all, we don’t conclude that since many cancer patients aren't healed, therefore cancer can't be so bad.       Fourth, there are several undeniable facts that stubbornly stand in the way of the liberal attempt to justify homosexual behavior as simply the natural thing for a certain minority of people.  One is the fact that several identical twin studies have shown that it is rare for both twins to be gay.  Since identical twins share exactly the same genes, if a homosexual orientation were primarily genetic, then we would expect both twins to be the same, either both gay or both straight.  Yet the most recent and most reliable studies show that only 10-15% of the time are both identical twins gay.  This strongly suggests that whatever biological influence there may be, other factors are even more important.        Another such stubborn fact that liberals overlook is the indisputable fact that the actual incidence of homosexual behavior varies enormously among cultures.  In some cultures, ancient and modern, it is virtually unknown (as for example among the ancient Jews).  In other cultures, ancient and modern, it is much more widespread (as among the ancient Greeks).  Greenberg’s massive cross-cultural study of this matter, The Construction of Homosexuality, provides ample evidence of this highly significant fact.  Once again, this is very difficult to account for if homosexuality were mostly genetic, but much easier to explain if environmental influences outweigh whatever genetic predispositions there may be.       Finally, while the genetic studies may seem forbiddingly complex to scientific amateurs (like myself), the facts of human anatomy are obvious to all.  The plain fact is that the great majority of homosexuals are men, and the primary way they engage in intercourse is by penetrating the anal canal.  Unfortunately for them, anal intercourse is extremely unhealthy, because, unlike the vagina, the anal passageway is thinly lined.  Thus frequent penetration of the anus leads to the extremely high rate of serious infections that afflict gay men.  This is an indisputable medical fact that any doctor who treats a significant number of gay patients can confirm.  The truth is that the medical risks of homosexual behavior are not by any means limited to AIDS and STDs.       If you will pardon a graphic reminder of some crude biological facts, the reality is that the frequent bruises and tears in the anal passage caused by their sexual behavior make gay men highly vulnerable to any germs that invade their bodies through that route.  Of course, given that the purpose of the anal canal is the elimination of waste products from the body, this means constant exposure to toxic elements.  Condoms do little to prevent this bruising and tearing.  This helps explain the disturbingly high mortality rate among gay men, even when AIDS is completely discounted.  The average lifespan for gay men is only 49, a shocking fact that is one of the best-kept secrets of the gay community.   To condone such an extremely unhealthy practice as anal intercourse is not the way to show love to our gay neighbors!  Indeed, it is quite the opposite. All this clearly shows that Paul was right all along.  Homosexual behavior is indeed contrary to nature (para physin, Romans 1:26-27).  Thus, even apart from the clear and consistent condemnation of it in Holy Scripture, the practice of such an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle is extremely imprudent.  It violates the way our human nature is constituted as male and female, and it puts gay people at great risk.  It is not simply that, to put it crudely, the vagina was designed for sex and the anus wasn’t.  Rather, the politically incorrect reality is that men and women were designed to complement each other in many ways, including emotionally as well as physically.  It is no accident that so many relationships among gay people are very short-lived.  This is not primarily because social taboos and laws make it impossible for gay men or lesbians to be married.  Rather, it is what any reasonable person who is well-informed on these matters would expect.  Gay relationships are inherently defective because of their imbalance between the masculine and the feminine dimensions of our common humanity     The fundamental theological problem with same-sex intimacy from a natural law perspective is that it involves the futile attempt to find sexual completion in someone who is sexually the same, rather than a sexual opposite.  In a real sense, psychologically speaking, it is pursuing the fantasy of sexual narcissism (or conversely, an unreasonable fear of ones gender opposite, or aversion to it).  The profound and moving creation stories in Genesis 1-3 emphasize this male-female complementarity very strongly.   It is not good for the Man to be alone.  Therefore, the Creator forms Eve to match Adam, and the well-known conclusion of the story in Genesis 2 establishes an implicit norm for sexual relations:  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Both Jesus and Paul affirmed this without the slightest reservation or qualification.       All this shows that the attempt by liberal revisionists to overthrow the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture and the consensus of the universal Church for 2,000 years is totally unwarranted.  The approval that the Episcopal Church has recently given to the revolutionary notion that homosexual behavior is not sinful after all may be politically correct, but it will never be theologically or morally correct.  It’s not even pastorally correct.  It is not only wrong, it is provably and catastrophically wrong.       Theoretically, of course, both Scripture and Tradition could be wrong.  But before the Church could validly overturn its traditional unconditional reprobation of homosexual behavior, both Scripture and Tradition would have to be proven wrong.  This is such a momentous change, they would have to be proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that is far from being the case   Not only is there reasonable doubt about the correctness of the revisionist position; there is very substantial doubt.  Indeed, the revisionists can’t even claim a preponderance of the evidence.  The liberal case is actually much weaker than most people suppose.       The evidence from reason and experience that the revisionists have so far put forth to overturn Scripture and Tradition is both dubious and conflicting.  The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside in such a cavalier manner. Therefore, the dramatic realignment of Anglicanism is, alas, a tragic necessity.     The Rev. Dr. David A. Handy is in the Diocese of Southern Virginia as a non-parochial priest. His license has not been renewed by Bishop David C. Bane because his theological views are considered too narrow.     END

Part 1: Politically Correct or Theologically Correct?   Why It’s an Either/Or     by the Rev. David A. Handy, Ph.D.     Years ago, the great church historian Jaroslav Pelikan made the famous comment that the Protestant Reformation was a tragic necessity.  Protestants, he noted, who take the necessity of the Reformation for granted, tend to underestimate what a terrible tragedy it was.  On the other hand, Pelikan said, Catholics, who take the tragedy of the Reformation for granted, often fail to appreciate just how necessary it was. In a similar way, I suggest that the dramatic realignment of Anglicanism that is now underway is likewise a tragic necessity.  With so much at stake and emotions running so high, its easy for all of us to lose sight of both aspects of our complex situation, its sad necessity as well as the more obvious tragedy of it all.  My conversations since General Convention with clergy and laity alike suggest that many people are having trouble seeing why we can’t just agree to disagree agreeably.  This is true not only of those on the liberal side, or the muddled majority in the middle, but also of many conservatives who strongly disapprove of homosexual behavior yet wonder whether it is worth dividing the church over it.       I submit that, alas, the division has already taken place.  Though we had been drifting along with our culture in this direction for decades, we made a fateful decision in August in Minneapolis to give official approval to the idea that homosexual behavior is not sinful.  Now that Gene Robinsons consecration has taken place in New Hampshire, the practical fallout is just starting to become evident.  Some twenty of the Primates of the Global South have fiercely denounced this momentous act for what it is, a scandalous betrayal of biblical faith and a perversion of Anglican doctrine and discipline. The leaders of the American Anglican Council insist that we are not leaving the Episcopal Church.  We are staying behind.  It is the majority of the Episcopal Church which has departed from the Anglican Communion.  It is the revisionists who have hijacked the Episcopal Church and recklessly taken it into heresy and schism.       I argue that the acceptance that General Convention gave to homosexual practice may be politically correct, but it will never be theologically or morally correct.  My thesis in this five-part series is simply this: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience. Yet that is exactly what the Episcopal Church has done.  In our haste to be inclusive and prophetic, sure that the tides of history were running our way, we arrogantly refused to wait.  Despite the repeated warnings and earnest pleas from the Primates as recently as May, and an appeal for patience from the sympathetic Archbishop of Canterbury just before the Convention, we heedlessly plunged ahead.  Over a cliff.  We have drifted with our relativistic culture, right over a waterfall.  Now we must pay the price: the breakup of the Anglican Communion as it crashes into the rocks below.  Soon we will all be forced to choose sides, whether we like it or not.  Drastic realignment, with all the deep and bitter estrangement it brings, has tragically become not only inevitable, but proper and necessary.  Here’s why.       First and foremost, the realignment of Anglicanism is indeed necessary because the main issue at stake really and truly is the supremacy of biblical authority within Anglicanism.  Despite liberal claims to the contrary, this is not merely a dispute over hermeneutics.  That is, the debate is not simply over the proper interpretation of the few biblical passages dealing with homosexual behavior and a quarrel over their contested relevance today.  More on this crucial point will come in Parts 2 and 3.  Rather, the conflict genuinely is over whether or not the Scriptures are to be the decisive factor in settling this long and wearisome dispute.       Which will carry the day in the end, the Bible or modern experience?  And to echo the great proponent of virtue ethics, Alasdair MacIntyre whose experience?  whose science?  Whose experience is to count most, that of (unrepentant) gays and lesbians, or the contrary experience of ex-gays, of whom there are now verifiably hundreds, if not thousands.  Why do we pay more attention to the experience of V. Gene Robinson and Louie Crew than to that of Alan Medinger and Fr. Mario Bergner?  I wish I could make the latter’s dramatic testimony, Setting Love in Order, required reading before people presume to pontificate on whether or not a homosexual orientation can be changed.       Why is it that more Episcopalians don’t know that we have actually produced some of the great heroes in the ex-gay movement?  Why does the experience of Leanne Payne and Alan Medinger not count when they have successfully ministered healing to so many struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions?  Leannes books, including The Broken Image (1981) and Crisis in Masculinity (1985), have been around a long time and sold tens of thousands of copies in the conservative Protestant world, yet remain almost unknown among her fellow Prayerbook Christians.  Medinger is the founder of Regeneration, one of the earliest and most influential ex-gay ministries in the country (first in Baltimore, now expanded to DC).  So why do we not give credence to their testimony?   Could it be that the dominant worldview among Episcopalians rules out the plausibility of such miraculous things?   Liberals love to talk about the need to listen to the marginalized.  But the truly marginalized ones today are ex-gays.       Furthermore, contrary to what is so widely supposed, the scientific evidence in support of the popular notion that some people are born gay is actually quite weak.  And time is not on the progressive’s side, as they vainly imagine.  The tide among scientific researchers now seems to be running against them.  For example, the famous identical twin studies done by Michael Bailey in the early 1990s seemed to show that there was a significant genetic link to homosexuality.  But his small data base (110 male identical twins where at least one was gay) was compromised by the fact that he solicited volunteers for his study from gay publications, distorting the results.  His later and far more reliable work using a random sample (almost 5000 Australian twins) not only failed to replicate his earlier results, it largely invalidated them, as he himself now admits.   In other words, the liberal or revisionist position is based on a very shaky foundation.  The scientific evidence is far from proving that homosexuality is merely a natural trait for a certain minority of people.  And while the experience of gay men and lesbians is indeed important, we must also pay careful attention to the conflicting testimony of the growing number of men and women who have experienced such profound healing that not only their behavior, but also their gender identity and sometimes their very orientation itself has been transformed.       I contend that what we are witnessing today is an inevitable clash between two contradictory and mutually exclusive worldviews.  It is a clash of orthodoxies, to use the apt phrase of Robert George (a renowned professor of jurisprudence at Princeton and committed Catholic).  The obvious orthodoxy is of course the traditional Christian worldview, a time-tested orthodoxy rooted in divine revelation as enshrined in Holy Scripture and upheld by millions of believers throughout the ages.  This familiar orthodoxy, so disdained by the cultured despisers within and without the Church, is locked in fierce and unavoidable conflict with its modern/postmodern rival, which I will call here simply Liberalism.   I mean this in John Henry Newmans sense, liberalism as an ism, as an ideology (and thus I do not by any means intend a blanket condemnation of all liberal tendencies).  Liberalism in this sense rejects all dogmatisms, except its own.  This seemingly sophisticated worldview that exalts tolerance as the greatest of virtues and condemns intolerance as the worst of vices is actually highly intolerant of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity.  That is why today, as in Jeremiahs day (see Jer. 6 & 8), though many are urging peace, peace, there is no peace.  Nor can there be.       Part 2: What will be dominant: Scripture or Experience?     In Part I: Politically Correct or Theologically Correct?  Why It’s an Either/Or, I recalled the famous line of church historian Jaroslav Pelikan that the Protestant Reformation was a tragic necessity.  I suggested that the painful and costly realignment now underway in Anglicanism was likewise both deeply tragic and utterly necessary.  My contention is that the bitter disputes we are now witnessing are the inevitable consequence of the fact that what is happening is nothing less than a clash of two opposing and mutually exclusive orthodoxies, which I call for convenience, Christianity and Liberalism (to borrow the title of Machens famous book from the 1920s).     In the first installment I advanced the claim that in the end this battle really is about the place of the Bible in the life of the Church.  Although many would agree with the Presiding Bishop that the debate is not so much about the authority of the Bible as about its proper interpretation, I will now try to indicate why this claim is bogus.  I do not, of course, deny that there are many who sincerely believe that this dispute is actually about hermeneutics.  Many world-class scholars, such as Victor Furnish and Robin Scroggs, have made this claim for years.  My point is simply that they are wrong, disastrously and demonstrably wrong.       To put it sharply, liberal interpretations that assert that the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexual behavior in Scripture simply don’t apply to our modern situation are so deeply flawed and misleading that they amount to mere rationalization and wishful thinking.  In other words, the liberal case is so weak that it amounts to little more than a house of cards. It doesn’t take a big bad wolf to huff and puff and blow this fragile house down. All it takes is the courage to think outside the box and defy the skeptical prejudices and relativistic values of the dominant culture in the secularized Northern world. That is why the issue really is about the Bible's authority in the life of the Church. The crisis we face in the post-Christendom West is finding a way to recover the primacy and supremacy of biblical authority when it comes to sexual morality.       I maintain that the vast majority of bishops got it right at Lambeth in 1998 when they flatly declared homosexual behavior to be incompatible with Holy Scripture.  More importantly, I firmly believe that St. Paul got it right when he took it for granted that gay sex was contrary to nature (Romans 1:26-27).  There is increasing agreement among biblical scholars that Presbyterian seminary professor Robert Gagnon, the leading defender of the traditional Christian stance, is persuasive in his conservative exegetical conclusions.  What remains fiercely disputed is his application of them.  Gagnon’s massive study, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001) argues convincingly that the Bibles negative views about same-sex behavior are absolute, pervasive, and strong.  The question is whether or not the Bible is right. I repeat here my chief thesis:  the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience. A historical review of how these various authorities have vied with each other for dominance over the last few centuries helps to put our present controversies in proper perspective.     Granted, we Anglicans have never accepted the Protestant principle of sola scriptura, that is, taking the Bible as the sole authority for settling church disputes.  As is well known, we have (at least since the time of Richard Hooker in the 1590s) generally held that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason were our basic authorities.  Sometimes we have spoken of this as a three-legged stool, or to use a biblical image, that these three formed a three-fold cord that is not easily broken (Eccles. 4:13).  But contrary to what many suppose and teach nowadays, the classic Anglican position has always been unmistakably clear on the fact that these three are not on the same level.  Rather, Holy Scripture, as the Word of God has always been held to be the supreme and primary authority, with Tradition and Reason (or as Hooker would say, Reason and Tradition) as secondary authorities that help to settle disputes as to the proper interpretation and application of the Bible (e.g., Articles 6, 19, 20, and 34 of The 39 Articles).     Not so well known is the fact that John Wesley added Experience to the classic triad of authorities in the mid-1700s, forming what Methodists love to call the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  Many Anglicans, including myself, are sympathetic to this clarification and enrichment.  In any case, from a historical standpoint, the last half millennium of church history can be helpfully seen (very broadly) as a series of struggles over which of these various authorities will be dominant.     As we all know, at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century the great struggle was to restore the primacy and supremacy of biblical authority after it had been subordinated, for all practical purposes, to that of church tradition.  Later, during the Enlightenment or so-called Age of Reason, beginning around the time of our own American Revolution (and the rise of modern science), the great rival to the Bibles authority became Reason.   Today the battleground has shifted once again.  Now the chief challenge to the authority of the Bible comes from Experience.       In our day, in the wealthy Northern world, especially among academics and the well-educated, postmodernism is rapidly supplanting modernism (i.e., Enlightenment rationalism).  This sea change in the culture has brought a new and dangerously appealing foe of orthodox Christianity to the fore.  Now the great threat to the supreme authority of the Bible comes not from Reason and science (whose limits are increasingly recognized) but from Experience.  The cynical rejection of all universal, objective norms so typical of postmodernism has led to the embracing of the notion that experience is self-validating.  In such an age, all appeals to some presumed universal moral standards are held to be an unwarranted imposition of mere moral preferences on others.  The only absolute in our day is that there are no absolutes.  The most popular biblical text has become Judge not, lest you be judged, instead of John 3:16.       Modern attempts to evade the fact that the Bibles view of homosexual behavior is unremittingly negative are increasingly admitted by many liberal scholars to be just that, evasions of the facts.  Thus Walter Wink, Bernadette Brooten, and Dan Via, for example, all readily admit that the biblical strictures against gay sex can’t be explained away.  Instead, they frankly admit that we must squarely face the fact that the biblical writers (including St. Paul) would condemn all homosexual behavior, whether between consenting adults in a committed relationship or not, and regardless of the fact that gay men and women don’t choose their sexual orientation.  But these liberal scholars would hasten to add, the biblical writers were simply wrong.  Today we know better.  How?  Because of the experience of gay men and lesbians who claim to have known God’s grace and blessing in the midst of and through their committed relationships.       I was present in Minneapolis as an AAC volunteer and I was often struck by how those who spoke for the liberal/revisionist view in public hearings or floor debates appealed mostly to the experience of gay men and lesbians as if that settled the matter.  There was little attempt to cite scientific studies to support the notion that a homosexual orientation is innate.  There was little attempt to counter the conservative claims that the Bible ruled out same sex intimacy.  Instead, they relied on the telling of heart-felt stories, with justified confidence that those stories would not be subjected to critical analysis.       My problem with so many liberals is not that they are such critical thinkers when it comes to interpreting the Bible, but that they are such uncritical interpreters of modern experience.  I wish they’d be more consistently critical.  Why do we accept without question the validity of the personal witness of gay men and lesbians about their experience that God has blessed their relationships?  It seems that many simply take it for granted that such experiences are self-authenticating.  As such they neither need validation (according to the progressives) nor are they subject to critique by critical reason and scientific testing.  Much less are such experiential claims subject to scrutiny in their eyes because of the clear and consistent condemnation of homosexual behavior in Scripture and the moral consensus of the Church for 2,000 years.       This illustrates how far apart and mutually contradictory are the Christian and Liberal worldviews.  The revisionists believe God is doing a new thing by throwing open the door to gay people in our day as the Lord flung wide open the door to the Gentiles in the first century.  How do they know this?  By experience.  But the New Testament writers urge us to test such claims.  Thus Paul says, Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:20-21).   And 1 John admonishes, Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).  The problem is not the revisionists are too skeptical and critical; the problem is that they aren’t critical enough.       Part 3:  Which Unity Shall We Preserve? Unity with the Church of All Ages or Unity with Our Decadent Western Culture?       In the first two parts I’ve tried to lay the groundwork for my claim that the realignment of Anglicanism now underway is indeed a tragic necessity (as Pelikan said about the Reformation).  All of us in the Anglican tradition are now faced with a series of momentous choices.  In the first part I argued that we must choose whether we will seek to be politically correct or theologically correct.  In this case we cant have it both ways, for unlike the preceding controversy over women’s ordination, there is absolutely no biblical support for the liberal position.  In the second part I contended that the key issue is whether we will choose to give Scripture or modern experience the decisive role in settling this dispute.  I further argued that we must choose whose experience will count most in this debate, the dubious claim of gay men and lesbians to have experienced God’s blessing in their relationships or the contrary evidence from the growing number of ex-gays that God has healed them and set them free.       In this third installment, I highlight a third fateful choice that we must all make.  That choice is not so much between truth and unity, as some suppose, but rather we are all going to have to choose which unity matters most to us.  Will we choose to preserve our unity with the majority of the Episcopal Church and its institutional structures, or will we choose instead to preserve our unity with the majority of the Anglican Communion around the world?   Once again, there is no possibility of a both/and solution here, as the Global South Primates have made abundantly clear.  In biblical terms, Choose you this day whom you will serve, the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion?  All I can say is, As for me and my house, we will serve the Anglican Communion.     One reason why this choice is so difficult for us is because we aren’t used to having to make such wrenching choices.  Up until now, for us in the United States, to be Episcopal was to be automatically Anglican, and vice versa.  Alas, those days are over.     In a similar way, I contend that the real issue we must all face is which unity we are going to value most.  Will we seek to maintain our unity with the Church of all times and places or opt to preserve our unity with the decadent, permissive culture in which we live?  We can’t have it both ways.  Neither our fellow Christians around the world nor the aggressive secularists in our midst are going to allow us to delude ourselves into thinking we can serve two masters.  The aggressive attempt to eliminate open displays of Christian commitment from the public square in America leaves little doubt about this. Whether its removing the Ten Commandments from public places, or simply eliminating them from the public-school curriculum, there is no doubt which way our culture is heading.  Western civilization is in a moral free fall.  And the moral relativism that reigns among the academic and media elites is powerless to stop our slide into ever greater moral degradation.  The liberal revisionists imagine that they are being prophetic.  But they are merely endorsing the direction the culture is already going (with the hedonistic Boomer generation leading the way).   If you want to be truly progressive and countercultural, take to heart the delightful maxim of G. K. Chesterton almost a century ago, Break the conventions keep the Commandments!       The powers that be in North America now show a growing anti-Christian bias.    In the post-Christendom West/North, the process of secularization has moved beyond the separation of church and state; we are witnessing the divorce of Christianity and culture. We can’t escape the fact that ours is a culture of disbelief (in the apt phrase of Stephen Carter).  But we can choose how to respond to that stern challenge.  We can simply give in and become complicit in this cultural flight from the rigors of Christian faith and morality, or we can choose to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).       That scriptural admonition (in Greek) is on the seal of Virginia Theological Seminary, which has historically been proud to associate itself with evangelical Christianity (broadly defined).  But today, VTS allows gay faculty and students to live with their partners on campus.  Some will doubtless see this as an example of fearlessly following the truth wherever it may lead, and hail it as a contemporary fulfillment of our Lords promise, When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13).  After all, the VTS library bears a justly famous inscription beside its entrance, Seek the truth, come whence it may, cost what it will.  My contention in this series, however, is that in this case, the truth about homosexuality and the classical Christian position on it are one and the same.  In this case at least, the best scholarship (represented by the library with all its tomes) is on the side of orthodoxy.       Today, the fearless ones are those who dare to resist the seemingly unstoppable liberal tide, which will eventually and inevitably ebb. In our time, the truly courageous ones are those priests who choose to uphold the truth that homosexual behavior is inherently sinful, as Paul plainly says, even at great cost to their careers.  It will be the lay and ordained leaders of those rare churches that are willing to give up their property rather than compromise on this issue that will be lauded by the generations to come.   I repeat here my central thesis in this series: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.  It is grossly unjust to accuse all of us on the orthodox side of being ignorant, or blinded by prejudice against a misunderstood and oppressed sexual minority.  Rather, whether we are African or American, ethnic Chinese Anglicans from Southeast Asia or WASPS in Vancouver, many of us are genuinely compelled to take our stand not only by our convictions, but by the state of the evidence.  We aren’t governed by our emotions, but by the facts. Ever since the father of Protestant Liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher, tried to salvage what he could of Christianity by jettisoning its outdated beliefs and practices (in the eyes of its cultured despisers), the well-intentioned adherents of ideological Liberalism have sought to accommodate Christianity to the prevailing winds of change among the cultural elite.  Thus Schleiermacher infamously relegated the doctrine of the Trinity to the appendix of his controversial summation of systematic theology, The Christian Faith, in 1835.  Episcopal bishops James Pike and John Shelby Spong are only the latest and most notorious in the long line of heretics and compromisers who have thus watered down the apostolic faith in futilely trying to retain some measure of loyalty and respect from Christianity’s sophisticated skeptics.  It hasn’t worked.  The decline of Christianity continues in the wealthy, educated Northern world.       Meanwhile, as is ever more apparent, the orthodox Christian faith goes from strength to strength in the poor Southern hemisphere.  As Philip Jenkins (an Episcopalian who teaches at Penn State) has demonstrated so convincingly in his widely-acclaimed book The Next Christendom, the future of Christianity clearly lies in the Global South.  There are far more Anglicans (over 5 million) in small Uganda than in the USA and Canada combined.  There are far more Anglicans actually in church on Sunday in Nigeria (where there are over 17 million regular worshippers) than in all England (where less than 1 million bother to show up each week).       The liberals imagine that the future will vindicate them.  But it is merely wishful thinking.  The future of Anglicanism, and of Christianity as a whole, clearly lies with the Global South, as Rome understands very well.  To dismiss the vehement opposition to Robinsons confirmation on the part of virtually the whole Global South as merely reflecting how backward and unenlightened these poor countries are is an insult to our brothers and sisters there.  They often pay a heavy price for being faithful to Jesus Christ in a hostile environment.  We have much to learn from them about what it means to suffer for the sake of the gospel.       The truth is that many of the Global South Primates are highly educated, some more so than Frank Griswold or Michael Peers. Many of those Primates carefully studied the impressive 60-page case for rebuking and disciplining the Episcopal Church produced by the Anglican Communion Institute.  Called Claiming our Anglican Identity, this well-researched and cogently argued paper was commissioned for the Primates by three of their own, Drexel Gomez (Province of the West Indies), Peter Akinola (Nigeria), and Gregory Venables (Southern Cone, i.e., of South America).  It was written by a team of top scholars, including Professor Christopher Seitz and Philip Turner. The liberal side has yet to produce anything of comparable quality.  I doubt they ever will.       The fact is that the Global South is sure to win this war for the soul of Anglicanism.  They will win it, not simply because they have the numbers on their side.  They will win it because they have the truth on their side.  Most importantly, they will win it because they have God himself on their side.  So whose side do you want to be on?       END OF PART ONE

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonlione.org Sept. 9, 2025   It was hoped, and believed, that when the avowed homosexual Vicky Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of New Hampshire, that gays and lesbians would flock to Episcopal churches, especially gay Roman Catholics whose church regards homosexuality then and now, as “intrinsically disordered.”   It never happened.   Under Robinson (IX New Hampshire) who reigned as Bishop ordinary from 2004-2012 the numbers cratered.   MEMBERSHIP in 2004 was 15,531; by the time Robinson retired in 2012 it had dropped to 12,896 a drop of nearly 17% or 2,635.   The number of PARISHES in 2004 was 49; by 2012 it had dropped to 46, a drop of 6%.   COMMUNICANTS in 2004 numbered 12,581, by 2012 it had dropped to 10,154.   AVERAGE SUNDAY ATTENDANCE (ASA) in 2004 was 4,746. By 2012, ASA was down to 4,027, a drop of 719 or 15.1%, during Robinson’s reign.   By 2023, AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE, under the new bishop Robert Hirschfield (X New Hampshire) had plummeted to 2,605 a drop of 35%!   CHURCH SCHOOL attendance in 2004 was 1,608; by 2012 it had plunged to 1,051 (557) or 34.6%.   TOTAL BAPTISMS in 2004 was 377; by 2012 it had dropped to 196, a drop of 181 or 48%! For the combined years of both bishops (2004-2023) baptisms plunged by 287 or 76.1%!   TOTAL CONFIRMATIONS in 2004 was 211. By 2023 it had dropped to 75. During the years of Robinson, baptisms dropped by 128 or 60%. By the end of 2023 the combined bishops saw baptisms drop by 64%.   PLATE AND PLEDGE did see a spike in giving that defied the losses. In 2004 giving was $6,091,497; by 2012 giving rose to $6,854,528 for an increase of $743,032 or 12.5%. Under Hirschfield (2013-2023) giving rose by $305,117 or 4.5%.   WEDDINGS in 2004 totaled 153, by 2023 they had plunged to 36 a drop of 76.5%.   The Diocese of New Hampshire may not be representative of every diocese in the country, but it is a fair indicator that overall statistics do not look good with merging dioceses and part time bishops.   The acceptance of gay marriage (B012) has not seen a steady stream of homosexuals coming into the church even though there are now six gay and lesbian bishops functioning in the church. Many branches of the Anglican Communion do not recognize them as legitimate bishops and will not break bread with them.   The Anglican communion is at a cross roads, with two movements – GAFCON and the GSFA – weighing their future, as they await the outcome of who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The jury is still out as to whether the recent election of a lesbian archbishop to the Church in Wales is in fact a deal breaker that could bring about a formal schism within the communion.   END

Anglican Mission in South East Asia Formed // Peru gets New Bishop   Without the Holy Spirit, Christian discipleship would be inconceivable, even impossible. There can be no life without the life-giver, no understanding without the Spirit of truth, no fellowship without the unity of the Spirit, no Christlikeness of character apart from His fruit, and no effective witness without His power. As a body without breath is a corpse, so the church without the Spirit is dead. --- John Stott   More than wealth, or fame, or purpose, or identity, the modern West pursues escape—from obligations, from commitments, from confinement, from limits. Aided by digital technologies, we’ve come closer than ever before to escaping the need for God, the need for each other, even the need for our own bodies. – The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics   The strongest warriors often carry the deepest wounds. The most effective ministers often know the most about darkness. The people God uses to pull others from the pit are usually the ones who know exactly what the bottom feels like. – The Biblical Man   We do not exist to maintain status. We exist to storm the gates of Hell. We are not here to be tax-exempt but to be Spirit-filled. Our Founder was not a bureaucrat. He was a crucified King who rose in power and gave us a command: Go. –- Dr. Ronald Moore   Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org Sept. 12, 2025   With the consecration of the lesbian Archbishop Cherry Vann of the Church in Wales now assured, and a we-don’t-care attitude by Western Anglican leaders, it might just be time for Global South leaders to reassess their future in what is a deeply divided Anglican Communion. The liberal media applauded the election; conservative media saw it as another nail in the coffin of an already divided communion. First Female Archbishop: A Decade-Long Struggle for Acceptance screamed one headline. Others were of a similar nature. Christian group blasts Church in Wales’ defiance of biblical doctrine with lesbian archbishop, was a conservative response.   For the record, the Church in Wales reported 29,000 worshippers in pre-pandemic figures. As Bishop of Monmouth, Archbishop Vann warned that many congregations “have few, if any, members under 60: the life of the Church doesn’t look sustainable beyond a decade or so.”  That might be the truest word spoken.   A statement from First Things which describes itself as America’s most influential journal of Religion and Public Life said of the election of Vann that “it leaves the Church in Wales increasingly out of step with the majority of Anglicans worldwide.”   “The Church’s teaching on marriage—between one man and one woman—is historic, biblical, and doctrinal. It is enshrined in our liturgies and canon law, and upheld by the Lambeth 1.10 resolution. We give thanks for all who continue to uphold this teaching, often at great personal cost, bearing faithful witness to Christ’s truth and love.”   “We believe that no one persisting in a relationship contrary to Scripture should hold any position of Christian ministry or leadership. Sadly, this decision will only deepen divisions within the Anglican Communion. Entire Provinces that uphold orthodox biblical faith have already distanced themselves from Canterbury-aligned structures that have departed from the truth. Across the Communion, faithful Anglicans continue to seek out alternate structures that maintain and proclaim biblical orthodoxy, such as the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the Anglican Network in Europe (ANiE).”   Their statement was issued on behalf of First Things which comprises the following evangelical groups and organisations across the Church of Ireland: Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy (EFIC) Church of Ireland Evangelical Fellowship (CIEF) New Wine Ireland In addition, this statement is also supported by: GAFCON Ireland   *****   The fallout from the new lesbian archbishop of the Church in Wales has yet to be fully realized, but we got an indication this week when five out of eight staff at Bangor Cathedral are at risk of being made redundant or discontinued owing to “financial pressures”, according to the Church Times. When the people go, their money goes with them.   *****   If you were wondering about how The Episcopal Church is handling decline and a plethora of issues as it sinks slowly into the sands of time; well, the bishops reflected on all this on the sunny beaches of the Dominican Republic this week, where they soaked up sun, sang and danced, ate and drank merrily.   PB Sean Rowe gave a dystopian report updating bishops on structural changes in The Episcopal Church and the challenges many church leaders say they are facing today, including the polarized political environment; humanitarian crises and conflicts worldwide; the church’s decline in membership and the troubles facing the U.S. economy and fewer congregational pledges; and difficulty in managing canonical processes, maintaining generative relationships and handling conflict.  All these issues did not deter the bishops from having a good time …and of course mammajuana’s (a DR favorite) went down by the gallon.   Meantime a report by VOL on the state of the Diocese of New Hampshire, post Gene Robinson and the soon to retire Robert Hirschfeld might give the bishops pause to reflect on the state of their own dioceses.  The numbers are not good.   MEMBERSHIP in 2004 was 15,531; by the time Robinson retired in 2012 it had dropped to 12,896 a drop of nearly 17% or 2,635.   AVERAGE SUNDAY ATTENDANCE (ASA) in 2004 was 4,746. By 2012, ASA was down to 4,027, a drop of 719 or 15.1%, during Robinson’s reign.   By 2023, AVERAGE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE, under the new bishop Robert Hirschfield (X New Hampshire) had plummeted to 2,605 a drop of 35%! Total baptisms plunged by 287 or 76%. Confirmations dropped by 64%, with a small uptick in plate and pledge.   The acceptance of gay marriage (B012) has not seen a steady stream of homosexuals coming into the church even though there are now six gay and lesbian bishops functioning in the church. Many branches of the Anglican Communion do not recognize them as legitimate bishops and will not break bread with them. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/diocese-of-new-hampshire-numbers-nosedive-under-gay-and-straight-bishops   *****   Another disturbance in the TEC universe was the announcement this week that the Dean and President of Southwest Seminary was fired . Dean Bader-Saye’s termination comes following his admission of developing an inappropriate relationship with an employee with whom he was in a supervisory relationship.   The irony is that he taught Ethics. His class will now be taught by Dr. Tony Baker, Professor of Theology, whose PhD is in Theology, Ethics, and Culture, and who worked with Dr. Bader-Saye to design and coordinate the Theology and Ethics portions of our curriculum. You can read more here: Seminary of the Southwest Dean fired   *****   In 2021 All Saints, Ft Worth TX was forced from its church building and rectory having lost both in a protracted court battle with ACNA. It is now spending $11 million to renovate a former Methodist property with plans to move in by the end of 2026, according to ENS."   Jeff Walton, Anglican writer for IRD noted the following: “Amused that Pravda’s coverage comes across as incredulous that the parish lost its historic building to the Diocese of Ft. Worth. THAT NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN. Bishop Jack Iker offered deeds to each parish and All Saints declined, instead opting to litigate.”   *****   The flagship parish of the Diocese of New York, St. Thomas Church Fifth Avenue is plagued by homosexual assault. Here is the story:   Alexandria, Va. — Anglican Watch , the unofficial watchdog of the Episcopal Church, reports that the alleged victim of multiple sexual assaults by gay church members and clergy at St. Thomas Church Fifth Avenue has sued the church, the Episcopal Diocese of New York, and various persons allegedly involved in the situation.   In a suit filed in New York County, the plaintiff, whose name Anglican Watch is withholding as the victim of sexual assault, alleges that:   Gay Episcopal priest Mark Schultz, then employed by St. Thomas and residing at the St. Thomas Choir School, sexually assaulted him. Schultz’s husband, pornographer Erich Erickson, also sexually assaulted him. Bill Davis, a retired RN and St. Thomas Church employee, sexually assaulted him.   The Church and Diocese, acting by and through Bishop Matthew Heyd, responded to Westphal’s complaints of sexual assault by retaliating. This retaliation included banning Westphal from the church and engaging in a smear campaign against Plaintiff, falsely alleging to the church community and Plaintiff’s employer that Plaintiff was dangerous, had assaulted church employees, and had made terroristic threats.   Additionally, the suit alleges various specific details of sexual misconduct, including a gay parishioner showing the victim a picture of the parishioner in fishnet stockings, while telling him that “all the action happens upstairs” at the church.   The lawsuit, filed by New York attorney Cody Warner, seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements.   St. Thomas, which maintains the only Anglican residential choir school program in the United States, has done nothing to address the allegations of sexual assault, with the Rev. Mark Schultz and Erich Erickson still residing at the St. Thomas Choir School. Additionally, Schultz continues to officiate at church services.   St. Thomas was previously the scene of credible allegations of child sexual abuse involving boys at the Choir School.   A redacted copy of the civil complaint is available on the Anglican Watch website.   Anglican Watch is the unofficial watchdog of the Episcopal Church. Founded in 2015, the organization addresses sexual and non-sexual abuse in the Episcopal Church and other faith traditions.   *****   The Church of England remains rudderless. Increasingly one hears the voices of many saying who really cares. The church seems to be muddling along without a leader, largely we suspect because nobody really cares. 98% of Brits don’t attend a parish any more.   The real question now, as the Church of England remains rudderless, is, what if Lambeth Palace decided to throw a party and nobody came.   What if the Primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ghana, Egypt and the Republic of the Congo, all of whom had been offered invitations, simply decided not to come, even with the possibility of meeting King Charles and downing Canapes on Lambeth lawns.   Nigeria, the largest Anglican province in the communion and the most robustly evangelical, had already sent divorce papers to the Episcopal Church over the scandalous consecration of the homosexual Gene Robinson and they recently sent similar divorce papers to the Church in Wales for ordaining an avowed lesbian to be their next archbishop!   But the deeper question now is the sheer relevancy of the Church of England and the role it still plays in the communion.   The “bonds of affection” among primates and their 42 autonomous provinces has been strained to the limit. Many believe they are now irreversibly shattered, the fabric of the communion irrevocably torn. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/can-the-church-of-england-be-saved-and-who-cares   *****   On 27th August the Church of England Redress Scheme leaked the personal details of nearly 200 survivors of CofE abuse in a data breach. House of Survivors recognises that this was human error with no malevolent intent – nevertheless it has distressing consequences for all survivors involved. Many survivors had kept their name and identity carefully hidden. And many experienced it as yet another betrayal in a long narrative of harm done by the Church and its agents. The fact that this breach has occurred so early in this critical process which is meant to redress the Church’s long history of failing to protect and support abuse survivors—makes this incident particularly galling. It reinforces the very failures of safeguarding and care that the redress scheme was meant to address. It may now cause many survivors to be wary and distrustful of the Redress Scheme.   House of Survivors fears that this data breach may cause the Redress Scheme to be delayed, and this would be the worst outcome. It has taken many years to reach the point taken today, with a Redress Scheme voted for by Synod and ready to begin towards the end of this year or beginning of next. There have been too many delays. Too many survivors are struggling to survive economically as result of the damage in their lives and the re-abuse by the Church.   In our view, the Redress Scheme should move forward without the Church going back to the drawing board to negotiate with a new law firm (which might take another year at least). Kennedys and the Church must work together urgently to put this right and make sure there is no further additional harm to survivors. In our view, Kennedys should quickly offer fair and proportionate compensation to all survivors in the data breach, enabling us to move forward without the additional stress of civil claims. https://houseofsurvivors.org/2025/08/28/redress-scheme-data-breach/   *****   In Peru this week, a new bishop was commissioned. He was the Rt. Rev. Victor Condori, as suffragan bishop with the right of succession when Bishop Jorge Aguilar retires. Also ordained were two priests and two deacons as well as fourteen lay ministers. In attendance were visitors and representatives from most of South America, the USA, England and Australia. Bishops participated from all over South America with one from the USA. The first hand report was written by The Rev. Canon Ian Montgomery. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/report-on-the-consecration-ordination-and-commissioning-in-peru   *****   A network of Anglican Churches, congregations and Christian Service Organisations has been launched under the umbrella of the ANGLICAN MISSION IN SOUTH ASIA (AMISA), the brainchild of Dr. Vinay Samuel. The establishment and work of Anglican Mission in America and the Anglican Mission in Europe has inspired church leaders in India committed to an orthodox Anglican theology and practice to launch a network of churches and congregations’ eager to identify with a Reformed Anglican/Catholic tradition and become part of the Global Anglican family.   In the past forty years there is a very significant growth of “independent” churches in India. Such growth is rapid in urban centres and is also accelerating in rural India.  Church growth in India is largely among such churches that have membership of between 50 to 100 families in a congregation, meeting in homes or rented halls. Less than 1% have grown into large churches with membership of 500 to 2000 families. The membership is mostly of low-income families (the “Anawim” of the Bible) and is often home to Christian families who no longer feel at home with large upwardly mobile urban churches of established denominations to which they once belonged. Some of them call themselves ex-Anglican.   Such independent churches are usually enterprises started by a gifted and even charismatic lay leader who is self-trained and with no formal theological or pastoral training. Some of us have been involved in offering training programmes for such pastors for 30 years. Leaders of the AMISA network in South India are in touch with over 2000 such churches in the South Indian states of Karnataka, Andhra, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. Independent Churches have many more first generation Christians than historic, established churches as they grow through Christian mission and witness that is their dominant concern. They are at the cutting edge of church growth in South Asia. Similarly, leaders in North India, Sril Lanka and Nepal are in touch with several hundred similar independent churches who work with first generation believers.   The main work of AMISA will be to Provide accredited training of pastors in a biblical and Anglican understanding of the church, the nature of its ministry and its mission. Youth and Children’s ministry. Recognised training is needed in securing state recognition where required.   You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/anglican-mission-in-south-asia-launched-amisa   *****   VOL is now being read in 55 countries of the world, with hundreds of new readers going to our new website, according to WIX, a powerful, no code website builder. Please consider throwing a few tax-deductible bucks VOL’s way. Where else will you get this withering take on the Anglican Communion. I take no salary but I have several staff to pay and the Internet is not free. You can make a tax-deductible donation to keep the news coming. A PayPal donation link can be found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html   If you are more inclined with checks, you can send your tax-deductible donation to:   VIRTUEONLINE                                                                P.O. BOX 111                        Shohola, PA 18458   Thank you for your support, Yours in Christ, David   My Substack on the Middle East continues to grow. It is drawing a lot of interest and attention from across the globe. You can access it here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/   I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel’s right to exist and prosper while confronting her enemies both foreign and domestic. My latest report can be seen here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/p/iran-is-the-worlds-leading-exporter

By The Rev. Canon Ian Montgomery www.virtueonline.org September 12, 2025   I have been serving in Peru, both full time and part time since being called there in 2008. The crowning joy was to participate in the service of consecration, ordination and commissioning at the end of August. We commissioned a new Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Victor Condori, as suffragan bishop with the right of succession when Bishop Jorge Aguilar retires. We ordained two priests and two deacons. We commissioned fourteen lay ministers. In attendance were visitors and representatives from most of South America, the USA, England and Australia. Bishops participated from all over South America with one from the USA. It was a celebration of the future along with giving thanks for God's goodness over the last several years.   This was not an isolated event. It is part of a continuing plan to discern, develop and deploy Peruvians as evangelists, catechists and clergy in the country of Peru. Peruvians know well their own culture and language. Bishop Jorge Aguilar's vision is to harness his own people as missionaries.   In 2015/2016 we underwent a significant transition.   In April 2016, Bishop Bill Godfrey retired to England and Bishop Jorge Aguilar became Bishop of Peru. In 2015, Bishop Godfrey had commissioned an in-depth report on the state of the Diocese of Peru. The report was published in late 2016. By that time, Bishop Godfrey had retired (April 2016), and Bishop Aguilar had succeeded him as Bishop of Peru. The report contained a call to action for the future. "There is a clear need for a process and development of formation for the people of the diocese, both for the clergy and for the people in general, to help the people of the diocese live a Christian life."   The Diocese of Peru came under Peruvian leadership. This was a huge transition, and this report set the stage for new initiatives. In collaboration with the Bishops of the Anglican Province of South America, we decided to put a moratorium on ordinations and set up a system of collaborative leadership within the Diocese of Peru. Let me continue with the words of Bishop Aguilar. "I had been given by the Holy Spirit a theoretical vision for the future. It was a vision given by the Holy Spirit, that from today's perspective I understand to be both inspiration and direction.   "At the beginning (2016), the Lord gave me the Word Luke 15:18. "But I will arise and go to my Father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.’” I then wrote a pastoral letter, reflecting on the evidence of the Father's hand in my personal life.   "Sometime later (2019), I received another Word from the Lord from Matthew 9:36. "When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were helpless and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd." And I was able to see and understand, from the Lord's perspective, the urgent need for SHEPHERDS with the spirituality of the Good Shepherd. Along with that Word, another accompanied it, the entire chapter of Ezekiel 34. The Reina Valera Bible (Contemporary Version) describes this passage as a "Prophecy against the Shepherds of Israel." It is very strong and clear. I looked at myself in that mirror and wept bitterly.   "Then came COVID-19.  It heralded an entire process of brokenness, transformation, and restoration. I understood that the previous Words of the Prodigal Son and the Shepherds of Ezekiel were mine to embody. During that time, I learned deeply the COMPASSION of God in Jesus Christ. I am now a witness and testimony of His GRACE." ·        During the pandemic, we all learned, including me, to TRUST in the Lord. At the same time, we learned new pastoral tools such as "Virtual Church." We took advantage of training with the MOCLAN system (A biblical teaching ministry of Moore College, Sydney, Australia). This has born good fruit. ·        In 2021, we ordained four deacons.  ·        In 2022, we adopted new Canons.  At the 2019 and 2021 Synods, we reconfigured the work of the Diocese into Pastoral Regions with the elected regional coordinators. These made up The PASTORAL COUNCIL that was created. This Consejo Pastoral joins the Bishop in discerning necessary decisions. We also formalized a system of biblical-pastoral-theological formation with MOCLAN. We created a FORMATION PLAN with three levels:   ·        Level 1. Formation in local congregations ·        Level 2. Courses with MOCLAN ·        Level 3. Special training at the Anglican Seminary in Chile   In 2023, the Lord gave me a new Word from Paul's own experience regarding Timothy, and we then developed the TIMOTHY PLAN.  This is a plan by which the local congregations and their clergy discern people who might have a call to ministry.  The plan then developed a diocesan process whereby people can be mentored and guided. The Timothy Plan has born very good fruit. "Now I can see with a better Christian vision that Jesus urged us to allow his spirit to call and for a new leadership to emerge."   The first significant result of this new direction was the ordination on January 6, 2024, of four priests and fourteen deacons. At the time I wrote this - "It was a deeply emotional service– many tears were shed in joy and sweet gratitude for the love and blessing of God being active in the diocese. Those attending overflowed into the parish hall as we could not seat everyone in the Cathedral.  At times the congregation exploded with exhilaration as we sang, prayed, clapped, and shouted our approbation and praise. God is doing something new in the Diocese of Peru. I was there as Dean of the Cathedral. This was emotional, exciting and faith building."   At this years’ service on August 30, 2025, we consecrated a new bishop-coadjutor, two priests, two deacons and commissioned fourteen lay ministers. The focus continues to be one of building ministry leaders for the future. Bishop Victor will eventually succeed Bishop Jorge as diocesan. Bishop Victor's initial ministry as suffragan will be to bring episcopal ministry to a southern missionary area centered in Arequipa, Peru's second largest city.   At the service on August 30th, the two who were ordained priests had been ordained deacons in January 2024 (One other had been ordained a priest in January 2025). The two ordained as deacons were previously licensed lay ministers. I am especially excited about the fourteen commissioned as lay ministers. Bishop Jorge's timeline shows how the diocese planned to develop its ministry to make disciples for Christ - Peru's "sheep without a shepherd" now have both a shepherd and a leadership team all of whom serve under the lordship of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We as a diocese have a vision and a process for discernment, formation and training. We are developing clergy and lay leadership. The consecration of Bishop Victor was specifically to create a stable episcopal succession as well as to give local oversight in the southern missionary area.   FOOTNOTE. Bishop Jorge, the Pastoral Council and the Diocesan Council initiated in May of 2025 a process that harnesses retired clergy as mentors and counselors. We will participate in the life of the Diocese of Peru by coming alongside the parish clergy to give support and counsel, especially to the younger clergy. We will also participate in the councils of the Church.  Bishop Jorge had initiated a collegial style of leadership back in 2016. This will continue using the wisdom of his retired clergy. I am honored to have been named to this ministry.   Fr. Ian Montgomery is a SAMS Missionary and Associate Missionary to Peru, 2008 - present day

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue VIRTUOSITY     Episcopal Church revisionists have begun to spin the Network document presented at Plano this past week, with the Episcopal Church’s leading homosexual revisionist Dr. Louie Crew announcing that he was surprised by its ;tameness;.       They did not even insist on alternative episcopal oversight, only on ;adequate(the term used by the primates at their meeting in London last October), writes Crew who sits on the church’s Executive Council. This is not entirely true. While the document itself does not touch on that one particular issue, during a question and answer period Bishop Robert Duncan made it very clear that he and his colleagues were opposed to the Presiding Bishop’s proposed ;supplemental care idea.     Duncan was very critical of the Presiding Bishop’s concept of supplemental Episcopal care. ;It is not the same thing as alternative Episcopal oversight, which is what we are asking for. This is the [Bishop] Bennison (Diocese of Pennsylvania) plan, it didn’t work then and it won’t work now. It is totally untrue to say it was not mentioned and entirely disingenuous of him to say it was tame. The purpose of the charter was to lay out in broad brush strokes terms for what the Network stands for and not to announce an item by item declaration on specific issues. Only women’s ordination is mentioned in the charter and it said in Article VIII that affiliates of the Network hold differing positions regarding the ordination of women and pledge that we shall recognize and honor the positions and practices on this issue of others in the Network.     It does not specifically mention episcopal oversight any more than it mentions V. Gene Robinson’s enthronement as the church’s first sodomite bishop, or Oklahoma Bishop Moody’s ordination of a transsexual to the diaconate.       That was not the intention of the framers. The purpose of the Charter was to establish said Network, whose associated Dioceses and Convocations will constitute a true and legitimate expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion.       But it did touch on Mission and Authority. We, as Dioceses and Convocations, commit ourselves to the propagation of the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations.  We further commit ourselves to the formation of disciples submitted to the historic Faith and Order of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church under the ultimate authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.       And in its relationship to the world-wide Anglican Communion, it had this to say. We, as Dioceses and Convocations, commit ourselves to full membership in the Anglican Communion of Churches throughout the world, grounded in the classical Anglican formularies, and in submission to the moral and teaching authority of the Lambeth Conference and Primates Meeting.  We commit ourselves to maintaining, rebuilding, and strengthening ecumenical relationships.  We further commit ourselves to the ongoing re-union of the Anglican diaspora in North America.;       Writes Crew: The Network’s official press release and foundational document sounded about as innocuous as a group of macho tail-gaiting Episcopalians at a football game or 4th-of-July picnic.  Probably die-hards have not diminished their fervent commitment to a more radical and illegal take-over, but the rhetoric surely has toned down.  I hope that signals that persons of good faith in the Network, and I assume that to be the vast majority, are committed to keeping the struggle within the family rather than to leave it.  That is good news for all.;       If Crew thinks the official press release is a lot of macho tail-gaiting then he will be in for a rude awakening when the bulk of the Anglican Communion’s Primates begin to express themselves on the Network and recognize them, not the Episcopal Church as the official and legitimate expression of Anglicanism in North America. Already some dozen Primates have declared themselves out of communion with the ECUSA and Frank Griswold personally, and it will come as a great shock to him and to all revisionists when they wake up one morning to find that the number has gone over 18 (a simple majority) with this new Network statement.       When that happens, it won’t be some 4th-of-July picnic. It’ll be November the 5th (Guy Fawkes Day) with New Year’s Eve all rolled into one.       It was very clear at both press conferences I attended that this Charter document is a loud signal to the whole Anglican Communion, look a godly remnant exists in ECUSA that you can’t ignore. We are here, recognize us, and that is exactly what the majority of the Primates will do in time, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury.       Crew writes: The Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops are working now on the details of a plan to cover supplemental episcopal pastoral care. Earlier AAC leaders had insisted that the PB’s proposal was not enough, that a congregation ought to be able to bring in a bishop of its own choice without having the permission of the bishop who currently exercises jurisdiction over them.  Nothing has ever prevented a bishop from allowing another bishop to exercise episcopal functions within her/his diocese, but never have bishops been allowed to provide episcopal functions without the permission of the local bishop: Lambeth conferences have repeatedly made this point for decades.;     All parties will have to consider what adequate episcopal care is on a case by case basis, but that has always been true, and keeps us at the table, he says.       Nonsense, the Church of England has had flying bishops for years as a thoroughgoing alternative for Anglo-Catholic priests who don’t want liberal bishops in their churches, and it has worked. It could just as easily work in the ECUSA.      And while it is true that a bishop like Geralyn Wolfe (Rhode Island) has welcomed Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman to preside at traditionalist parishes in her diocese, Bishop Charles Bennison (Pennsylvania) reneged on a promise he made to the Anglo-Catholics when he ran for bishop and promptly reversed himself immediately he took office.      When Bishop Allen Bartlett was Bishop of Pennsylvania he cut a deal that allowed flying bishops, but Bennison blew it off when he became the bishop.      And the result has been years of legal conflict, still unresolved in the diocese, with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Frank Griswold, ECUSA’s Presiding Bishop trying to knock some sense into Bennison, but with no success!     But in a by-lined story, ;U.S. Episcopal faction OKs charter, leader by Christopher Curtis of Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network, he cites Crew as saying that spiritual authority is an ambiguous phrase meant to avoid violating canon law.   Once we get into matters of confirming Episcopalians or ordaining priests, then it;s a violation. But that didn’t happen, he said.     Again that was not the purpose of the Charter. But rest assured that events are moving towards an inevitable climax. The status quo will not be maintained forever. One cannot turn on a pressure cooker and leave it running indefinitely; sooner or later it will blow.       The high profile organization AAC and now this Network are not whistling Dixie and unless they are playing a vast con game with no hope of winning, then they will have mud all over their faces if it all collapses. They will be publicly humiliated before the entire Anglican Communion and the laughing stock of revisionists and liberals everywhere.       They will lose the respect of the world’s orthodox leaders, as well as ECUSA’s orthodox desperately looking for a safe place to land and much more.       We already have a network of Anglican dioceses, said the Rev. Susan Russell, the current president of Integrity. It’s called the Episcopal Church. It’s been around for 200 years. A well-financed temper tantrum by a bunch of conservatives is not going to change that with, dare I call it, a Chicken Little Theology.       The conservatives have been saying the sky is falling in an attempt to prove it would eventually fall after Bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated. But it hasn’t. Just as they said the church would fall apart and people would leave in droves, we’re almost into February and none of that has happened, Russell said.     But increasing evidence is mounting that Robinson’s consecration IS unlike anything else ECUSA has done. The reaction way exceeds the women’s ordination debacle by light years.   ever before have a dozen Primates of the Anglican Communion declared themselves in impaired or broken Communion with ECUSA. Never before has a Network with a dozen diocesan bishops come out publicly saying they are the legitimate heirs of orthodoxy in the Episcopal Church.     And what about this statement: The Steering Committee shall ensure that the congregations of each convocation shall come under the spiritual authority of a bishop approved by the Steering Committee. A convocation (cluster) shall be considered active when it consists of at least six worshipping congregations.;       You can be sure this is going to be acted on very shortly. The issue isn’t if but when. Watch for the month of February. Virtuosity will report all.     And then there is the money issue, which is drying up dioceses faster than an oases in a desert sun. Just about every diocese is suffering, with orthodox parishes holding back millions of dollars from revisionist diocesan bishops. They have never done this before. They have finally woken up to the fact that money talks, and they resent bankrolling a revisionist agenda that doesn’t include saving souls or advancing the mission of Christ to bring the gospel to all people, regardless of race, class, gender or sexual orientation.       And then there's a new word that seminarians graduating from liberal seminaries can’t get vocations once they graduate because parishes don’t have the money to employ them. Now that will surely put a few bishops; knickers in a twist. The revisionist well is drying up faster than anyone thought possible.       One result from this, and it has already begun, is that revisionist bishops are using strong arm tactics to coerce money from orthodox parishes, with threats of reducing the parish to mission status if they don’t cough up more money. By doing this it allows the bishop to take over and put his own people in.       Writes Russell: The GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered) leadership of the Episcopal Church does not see the formation of this network as a serious problem. The reality is that these dioceses came from the brink of leaving. They’re still a part of the dysfunctional Episcopal family, or as I like to call it, My Big Fat Anglican Family.       Really. And the revisionists, this time, might just be; One Big Fat Loser when the final curtain call comes. The revisionists have never made one convert to Christ, never. And you cannot keep the shop open indefinitely when you have nothing to sell. Sooner or later, you hang out a bankruptcy sign, and it might be right under the other sign that says, The Episcopal Church Welcomes you. David Virtue dvirtue236@AOL.com     This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.     END

An exclusive interview with the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman, rector of St. Stephen’s parish in Sewickley, PA. His parish has 2,000 members and is the largest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.     By David W. Virtue VIRTUOSITY 1/23/2004     VIRTUOSITY: A document that you had a hand in writing was leaked to three media this past week - the Washington Post, the Religious News Service and The Guardian. What happened?   CHAPMAN: I was leading a Special Projects team to provide Alternative Episcopal Oversight to churches at risk, as recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates late last year.  I came alongside the AAC to pioneer this urgent project, though I am not an AAC board member.     I had prepared a strategy paper in consultation with a group to guide churches who are seeking AEO, and in working with these churches at risk I tried to listen to two sets of voices - one was the orthodox leadership in the Anglican Communion and the other was the voice of churches who are being systematically repressed because they oppose the Robinson consecration.   VIRTUOSITY: Was it a final copy or simply a draft?     CHAPMAN: It was a 7-page draft.     VIRTUOSITY: Why was the draft prepared?     CHAPMAN: The draft was prepared for two reasons. The first was to provide encouragement and guidance to oversight churches (churches that applied for oversight) and secondly to bring that draft to the Network gathering at Plano for their consideration, adaptation and response.     VIRTUOSITY: When was this completed?     CHAPMAN: It was completed and released to oversight churches on December 28, 2003.     VIRTUOSITY: How many was it released to?     CHAPMAN: It was released to under 100.     VIRTUOSITY: To whom did it go?     CHAPMAN: It went to leaders we had been in contact with about oversight issues. Some went to rectors, others to members of the vestry.     VIRTUOSITY: When did it hit the three media?     CHAPMAN: I got a call on January 12th from Allen Cooperman of the Washington Post who would not say where he got it from. Within an hour I got a call from the Religious News Service (RNS) who also had a copy. I then got a call from the Guardian newspaper in England the next day and five other media in quick order like the Associated Press. I did not talk to the Guardian, but I did talk to the local Pittsburgh newspaper and Focus on the Family. I soon stopped responding to the calls and referred them to the AAC.     VIRTUOSITY: Did it surprise you that the document had been leaked?     CHAPMAN: Yes it was a surprise and discouraging to realize that people who had been entrusted with an important confidential strategy would put churches at risk by leaking the document.     VIRTUOSITY: It is being floated across the Internet that there was nothing essentially new in the document. Is that true?       CHAPMAN: Everything in the document had been floated at one time or another. But what was startling about the document was that it laid out a definite strategy for moving churches through the oversight/realignment process. What was also startling about the paper was that it set out a replacement jurisdiction as a possible preferred solution, if measures of international discipline failed, and a readiness, under certain extreme conditions, to engage faithful disobedience to canon law as a measure of last resort. Not all the orthodox agrees with these strategies. The national church takes great offense at them.       VIRTUOSITY: Do you know who leaked it?       CHAPMAN: I don’t know. My guess is it went to a circle of churches who shared it with insiders who shared it with a friend who turned out not to be a friend. I do wonder about the timing of the release and to whom it was sent. It was clearly designed to disrupt the formation of the new Network in Plano, Texas. It failed.       VIRTUOSITY: Do you think 815, the church’s national headquarters might have gotten a copy and leaked it?     CHAPMAN: Because of the timing, I have wondered. But I don’t know.     VIRTUOSITY: What of the memo itself?     CHAPMAN: The memo was a work in progress under discussion and not yet seen or affirmed by any of our bishops, though it implied otherwise. That implication was a mistake, premature, and I regret it. It had only provisional status within the AAC, as it was the work of a sub-committee, and had not been seen by the board. It had no status within the Network, as the Network had not yet even been formed.       VIRTUOSITY: What is your objective?       CHAPMAN: We are working to protect hundreds of orthodox churches in revisionist dioceses whose witness is being extinguished by those charged to uphold and spread the faith. With surprising and troubling frequency bishops who ironically have championed tolerance and diversity in past decades are proving decidedly intolerant of those who hold to the historic faith and the values of the bible and the Anglican Communion.     VIRTUOSITY: How serious is the problem?       CHAPMAN: Clergy are being threatened, vows of allegiance to the Episcopal Church are being exacted (even while international excommunications are rising), and canons are being misused to take over dissenting biblically orthodox churches. It is religious persecution, widespread, and it must be opposed. I am heartened to see at the end of the week that the Network is determined to work for Adequate Episcopal Oversight, as is the American Anglican council, under the guidance of the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury.     VIRTUOSITY: Thank you, Rev. Chapman.     END

By The Rev. Charles H. Nalls Special to The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC) January 23, 2004     THERE WAS a decidedly young face to the tens of thousands of pro-life demonstrators filling the streets of downtown Washington yesterday.     From a throng estimated at between 100,000-200,000 marchers, a deafening roar went up as a speaker asked all under the age of 25 to make themselves known. Americans and others from around the world including a visible and vocal  delegation from France, attentively listened to speeches from Christian and Jewish leaders, secular and religious, demanding an end to abortion, assisted suicide, and abortion-based research.     The weather, which had been threatening bitter cold and snow, lifted to warm those who had gathered to march, pray and sing on this 31 st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Various legislative victories, a commitment to the pro-life cause by the current administration, and court challenges to Roe by the original plaintiffs, buoyed and encouraged the crowd.     Again this year, both leaders of the March and the marchers themselves repeatedly remarked that the number of abortions is dropping, the numbers of people in opposition to abortion increasing, and the numbers of young people and women marching for life staggering. Indeed, the overwhelming number of demonstrators appeared to be female.   With the White House as a backdrop, the speeches lasted for several hours--a clear favorite being President Bush, who spoke to the crowd by telephone from New Mexico. While acknowledging the progress at building a culture of life in America over the last three years, he noted that there is still more to do. The President was emphatic that ;all life is sacred and worthy of protection. He left no doubt that the administration would fight to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion signed into law on Nov 5, and that it is determined to halt human cloning.     A perennial favorite was an orthodox rabbi who offered a fiery sermon against those in politics who do not favor life. The rabbi remarked that orthodox Judaism respected life from the point of conception, and declared excommunicate those who do not do so. The orthodox contingent then stirred the crowd with the blowing of the shofar to call for justice for the pre-born.     Sharing the dais were many notable religious and civic leaders, including a number of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops, as well as Eastern Orthodox bishops and prelates. Politicians also were in abundance, unabashedly articulating the pro-life position. They were joined by a variety of other supporters, including representatives of the Family Research  Council and Concerned Women of America.     At 2 p.m., nearly an hour late, the marchers stepped off onto Constitution Avenue in the shadow of the Washington Monument and almost immediately came to a halt. The crowd had grown so large it took nearly half hour to get it moving along the route.     Marchers had gathered under a variety of banners, and this reporter noticed a   greater number of non-Roman Catholic groups such as large contingents of Southern Baptists for Life and Methodists for Life;, as well as greater numbers under Eastern Orthodox banners and those of independent Evangelical churches. These joined literally thousands of Roman Catholic groups and parishes.     Continuing Anglicans also were present in the crowd, this commentator again marching with representatives of parishes of the Anglican Province of Christ the King. Along the route, the throng from virtually every denomination and state of the union sang hymns, prayed, recited the rosary and chanted various litanies. Salve Regina was chanted along with He’s Got the Whole World in His Hand. Tired toddlers were carried in the arms of parents who walked alongside hearty octogenarians. All were united in the common purpose of calling for a return to the sanctity of life.     Again this year, a strong police presence was evident everywhere, although, unlike other demonstrations in this city, marchers stopped to thank the officers and hand them informational literature, and priests offered blessings to law enforcement personnel. From the windows of office buildings, workers waived in support.     At the end of the route, pro-life demonstrators stopped before the nation’s highest court.  Some dropped to their knees and prayed, priests offered blessings and cast salt or holy water on the stairs of the Supreme Court, and some could do nothing but weep. Then there were the inevitable pictures, final farewells and the beginning of many long trips home.     There was a resolve in the crowd as it dispersed--a resolve to engage in their communities in the hope that there will be no 32nd anniversary for the Roe v. Wade decision. It was a resolve best expressed on the shirt of a teen-aged marcher that said simply: You will not silence me. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation.;   ---   Permission to circulate the foregoing electronically is granted, provided that there are no changes in the headings or text, and this notice is included. To learn more about THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE, e-mail us at  CHRISTIAN.CHALLENGE@ecunet.org or visit our website at http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/TCC/index/html .       END