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

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

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

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

(Ventura, CA) - Any objective social analyst would conclude that the United States faces its fair share of moral and spiritual problems. A new research study from the Barna Research Group’ suggests that a large share of the nation’s moral and spiritual challenges is directly attributable to the absence of a biblical worldview among Americans.Citing the findings from a just-completed national survey of 2033 adults that showed only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of t heir decision-making, researcher George Barna described the outcome.   If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus. Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stem s from what we think – our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions.     Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our  research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life. We’re often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance.     Not Just Any Worldview.  The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2% ) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).     Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosaics).     For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist’ that such truth is defined by the Bible’ and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life’ God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today’ salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned’ Satan is real’ a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people’ and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.     The Difference a Biblical Worldview Makes One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people’s behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.     People’s views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical  worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively)’ 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%)’ 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%)’ 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%) ‘ and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).   Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets)’ to get drunk (three times less likely)’ and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matter s with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.     Some Groups Are More Likely to Have a Biblical Worldview   Adults who have a biblical worldview possessed a somewhat different demographic profile than those who did not. For instance, individuals who attended college were much more likely than those who did not to have this perspective (6% versus 2%, respectively). Married adults were more than twice as likely as adults who had never been wed to hold such a worldview (5% versus 2%). Whites (5%) were slightly more likely than either blacks (3%) or Hispanics (3%) to hold this ideology. One of the largest gaps was between Republicans (10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents (2%) and Democrats (1%).     Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation’s largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview).     Attributes such as gender, age and household income showed no statistical relationship to the possession of a biblical worldview.   Some Churches Are Helping People   The research found that one of the most effective methods of enabling people to develop a biblical worldview is by addressing seven critical quest ions that consistently lead to beliefs and behaviors that are in tune with biblical teaching. Outlining that process in a new book he has written as an outgrowth of the research, entitled Think Like Jesus, Barna also noted that many churches are already helping their  congregants to implement such a way of addressing daily challenges and opportunities.     The emphasis of these churches is to not only teach biblical perspectives, according to Barna, but also to help people connect the dots of the core principles taught. Rather than simply provide people with good material and hope they figure out what to do with it, these are churches whose services, programs, events and relationships are geared to weaving a limited number of foundational biblical principles into a way of responding to every life situation. The goal is to facilitate a means of interpreting and responding to every life situation that is consistent with God’s expectations. These are not perfect people, but once they catch on to the critical principles found in the Bible and train their minds to incorporate those views into their thinking, their behavior varies noticeably from the norm.   Research Source and Methodology     The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 33 adults conducted during September through November 03. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is B12.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.     The data from the 03 survey was compared with figures on worldview possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in 02 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 02 surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9% of the born again segment ha d a biblical worldview. Other repeated measures were co ...

by George H. Gallup Jr. Senior Staff Writer   After dipping to an all-time low in the wake of the recent sex abuse scandals afflicting the Catholic Church, weekly church attendance among Catholics appears to be on the rebound. However, historical Gallup Poll data show that Protestants have now clearly overtaken Catholics in church attendance, for the first time in Gallup polling history. Between March 2002, when the news of the scandals broke, and February 2003, weekly church attendance among Catholics fell nine percentage points to 35%, the lowest measurement since Gallup began asking the question in 1955. By November 2003*, however, the figure had climbed 10 percentage points to 45%. Protestants’ levels of church attendance, meanwhile, remained fairly stable during this same period. While it is up from earlier this year, that 45% figure among Catholics is 29 percentage points lower than the 74% recorded when this question was first asked in 1955. Comparatively, Protestants’ church attendance is actually slightly higher in November 2003 (48%) than it was in 1955 (42%).     George Gallup Jr. is the Chairman of the George H. Gallup International Institute and is recognized internationally for his research and study on youth, health, religion, and urban problems.     END

Associated Press     COLUMBUS, Miss. - The Rev. Sandra DePriest has become the first Mississippi Episcopal priest to step down to protest the  ordination of the church’s first openly gay bishop.DePriest told The Commercial Dispatch newspaper in Columbus that she could no longer actively serve as a priest until the gay bishop issue is resolved.   DePriest finished up with the Church of the Good Shepherd in Columbus and St. Johns Episcopal Church in Aberdeen on Christmas Day.     DePriest told the newspaper she was not resigning her vows for the time being, but could no longer actively serve as a priest until the gay bishop issue was resolved.   Earlier this year, Bishop V. Gene Robinson became the first openly gay man elevated to that rank in any major Christian body.   Robinson was ordained after an August vote at the Episcopal Church USA General Convention in Minneapolis.     Many Episcopalians who believe in a traditional interpretation o f the Bible want Robinson removed as bishop and have won the support of several American bishops.     DePriest said she is one of those opposed to Robinson’s ordination and her stance on the issue meant she could not continue leading worship.   I believe that my vows have been placed in conflict, DePriest said. I took vows to uphold Scripture when I was ordained ... and at the same time I took vows to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church of the United States. And I cannot teach those doctrines and disciplines.     DePriest joined the priesthood after a 17-year career as a lawyer. She joined the seminary in 1996 and was ordained in 1999.     After spending two years as the priest of Christ Episcopal Church in Tuscaloosa, Ala., DePriest took her position with the two churches in Columbus and Aberdeen.   DePriest said the appointment of Robinson to a senior position within the church was a deal breaker for Episcopalians who believe in a traditional interpretation of the Bible.     DePriest said these Episcopalians consider homosexuality a sin that must be repented a belief completely at odds with Robinson’s openly gay lifestyle.   DePriest said for the moment, she is not willing to leave the church completely while there is hope that the rift can be repaired.     DePriest said the Episcopal Church USA was willing to provide alternative pastoral care for priests and congregations who were opposed to Robinson’s ordination. This arrangement, she said, is supposed to keep disgruntled members of the faith under the Episcopalian banner by allowing them to shift their churches under the authority of another bishop.     DePriest said this is unacceptable to members of the faith who are thinking about splitting from the church because they no longer support its leaders. DePriest said under present arrangements, those Episcopalians would have to abandon their churches and sever financial links with the church.     Bishop Duncan Gray of the Mississippi Diocese said the Anglican faith that Episcopalians practice - founded in England over 400 years ago - was based upon diversity of belief and tolerance.     We were founded in theological conflict, Gray said. Gray said the church had the ability to broker a compromise with in its DNA. He claimed a number of the 13 bishops who had been identified as working against the church’s leadership had since clarified and even retracted earlier statements.   Gray said a great deal of work is going on behind the scenes to broker a compromise.   This is certainly something that will be ongoing, but I’m very pleased with the efforts (of the church) to respect individual conscience, Gray said.     END

I sense an impending train wreck the size of which this part of the Anglican Communion has not seen. The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield     THE YEAR IN REVIEW   (Part 1)     LATE BREAKING FIGURES FROM ANGLICAN MAINSTREAM   www.anglican-mainstream.net/index2.htm   Support So Far 13,628,200   Including Most Revd Livingstone Mpalanyi-Nkoyoyo and the Church of the Uganda   Archbishop Yong Ping Chung and the Province of South East Asia   Presiding Bishop Greg Venables, Southern Cone   Archbishop Fidelis Dirokpa and the Province of the Congo   Rt Rev Dr Bernard Malango and the Province of Central Africa   Most Rev Benjamin M Nzimbi and the Anglican Church of Kenya   Rt Rev Peter John Lee and Bishops Council, Diocese of Christ the King, CPSA   Rt Rev Jack Iker and Diocese of Fort Worth   Rt Rev Stephen K Nyorsok and Diocese of Kitale Kenya   Rt Rev Dr Glenn N Davies, North Sydney Rt Rev Stephen Hale, Melbourne   Rt Rev Colin Bazley, Former Primate Southern Cone   Rt Rev Louis Tsui & Eastern Kowloon   Rt Rev John Jun’ichiro Furumoto, Diocese of Kobe, Japan   Canon David Anderson (AAC)   David Peterson, Principal, Oak Hill College   Peter C Moore, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry   Rev Ulric Gerry University of Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania   Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy   Rev Jude Edomwonyi, St Augustine, Bahamas   Preb Richard Bewes and All Souls Langham Place, London   Rev Susan H Crane and Iglesia de San Mat=EDas, Tennessee   Rev Vincent Rakotoarisoa, St Peter’s Ambanidia, Antananarivo, Madagascar   Rev Ed Hird and St Simon’s, New Westminster   Rev Paul Harcourt and All Saints Woodford Wells, Chelmsford   Holy Spirit Anglican Church, Recife, Brazil   Church of the Redeemer, South West Florida   Rev Joanne Beacon and Humboldt Parish Saskatoon   4.013 individuals   11,665 in 3,192 families   69,922 in 249 parishes and organisations   198,600 in 8 dioceses   13,334,000 in 5 provinces   As of 12:00 GMT, 29/12/03   New Hampshire Consecration   Attending Bishops   Primates   The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold   Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Chief Consecrator   The Most Rev. Martin De Jesus Barahona   Primate of the Province of Central America and Bishop of El Salvador   International   Bishop Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Church of Sweden, Bishop Emeritus of   Stockholm and Co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. Bruce Stavert, Bishop of Quebec (Anglican Church of Canada)   The Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster (Anglican Church of   Canada)   Episcopal Diocesan Bishops   The Rt. Rev. Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska   The Rt. Rev. John B. Chane, Bishop of Washington   The Rt. Rev. George Councell, Bishop of New Jersey   The Rt. Rev. Thomas Ely, Bishop of Vermont   The Rt. Rev. James J. Jelinek, Bishop of Minnesota   The Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen, Bishop of Maine and co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. James A. Kelsey, Bishop of Northern Michigan   The Rt. Rev. Jack=A0 M. McKelvey, Bishop of Rochester   The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE, Bishop of Massachusetts   The Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, Bishop of Connecticut   The Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner, Bishop of New Hampshire   The Rt. Rev. Orris G. Walker, Jr., Bishop of Long Island   Suffragan, assisting and retired Episcopal Bishops   The Rt. Rev. Craig Anderson, Bishop of South Dakota (retired)   The Rt. Rev. G. P. Mellick Belshaw, Bishop of New Jersey (retired)   The Most Rev. Edmond L. Browning, retired Presiding Bishop and co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. Roy F. Cederholm, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts   The Rt. Rev. Otis Charles, Bishop of Utah (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Bishop of Alaska (resigned)   The Rt. Rev. James E. Curry, Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut   The Rt. Rev. Jane H. Dixon, Bishop Suffragan of Washington (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Herbert A. Donovan, Jr., Bishop of Arkansas (retired) and   co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. A. Theodore Eastman, Bishop of Maryland (retired) and   co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. Gayle E. Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts   The Rt. Rev. Barbara C. Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (retired)   and co-consecrator   The Rt. Rev. Donald P. Hart, Assistant Bishop of Southern Virginia   The Rt. Rev. Harold A. Hopkins, Bishop of North Dakota (retired)   The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt III, Bishop of Rhode Island (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Edward W. Jones, Bishop of Indianapolis (retired)   The Rt. Rev. H. Coleman McGehee, Jr., Bishop of Michigan (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Wilfrido Ramos-Orench, Bishop Suffragaon of Connecticut   The Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, Bishop of Iowa (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Hays H. Rockwell, Bishop of Missouri (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Catherine Roskam, Bishop Suffragan of New York   The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Bishop of Atlanta (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Philip A. Smith, Bishop of New Hampshire (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Daniel L. Swenson, Bishop of Vermont (retired)   The Rt. Rev. Arthur Walmsley, Bishop of Connecticut (retired)   The Rt. Rev. O’Kelley Whitaker, Bishop of Central New York (retired)   The Rt. Rev. R. Stewart Wood, Jr., Bishop of Michigan (retired)   Attending but not participating   The Rt. Rev. Michael Mayes of Limerick and Killaloe (Church of Ireland)   DISSENTING BISHOPS   The Episcopal Church   Diocesan Bishops   The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy   The Rt. Rev. James Adams, Bishop of Western Kansas   The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield

By Toby Cohen http://www.religiousintelligence.org/ June 10th, 2010   Episcopal vacancies are opening up across the Church, and in the next few years the House of Bishops could have a very different complexion. With the Church teetering on the brink of some major changes, there is particular curiosity about the mentality of the new men under the mitres. The Assistant Area Dean of Southampton, the Rev Canon Geoffrey Annas, was announced last week as the next Bishop of Stafford. As his new Diocesan Bishop, the Rt Rev John Gledhill, makes clear, Canon Annas has just the right sort of credentials: He has won the respect of the whole community and many attribute a drop in serious crime to the neighbourliness and vision of St Christopher’s [Thornhill, where he was made vicar in ‘94].He has overseen the establishment of the Southampton Street Pastors’ Scheme and a new Academy school, under the auspices of the Diocese and Oasis Trust. More recently he has been assistant Area Dean in the large Southampton Deanery, caring for clergy and lay leaders.     Canon Annas’ expertise in important frontline Church initiatives qualifies him well for service in any part of the organisation, as he acknowledges in an interview during his return to Lichfield last week, 25 years after his only previous visit there on a diocesan retreat.     My background has obviously been very much in ministry in the urban setting, but I spend a lot of time today with people in the rural setting and that’s been fascinating. The links between the two [are fascinating] as well. There’s not as much diversity between the two as people make out.     He will miss the people he has worked with in Southampton, but is confident in their ability to carry on the good work’ he is aware of great achievements being made in Lichfield, but is confident in the call of God and the help of his supportive team.     So far there is little to distinguish him from the other humble and enthused servants of the Church who have been selected for elevation. But Canon Annas himself detects a shift: There’s a general change in culture at the moment. It’s not just in the Church, I think the result of the General Election is an indication that people generally are looking now more towards consensual ways forward rather than being competitive all the time.     We sometimes make the mistake that everyone wants something new but there’s a lot that’s good about the traditional ways we’ve always done things and it’s just about bringing the two together really, which is what I meant by the consensual thing.     That might not be the change others in the Church are talking about. And if they are talking about it at Synod this summer, they may have to look hard to find that spirit of consensus which the Archbishop of Canterbury was pleading for in February.   So how has that culture of consensus affected Canon Annas’ own stance on disputed issues?   I haven’t compromised at all, in that I am totally supportive of women bishops and I very much value the ministry of my female colleagues. And I look forward to the time when they exercise Episcopal ministry as well.     Although I’m 100 per cent behind the ordination of women to the episcopate, I’m also incredibly sensitive to those who find it difficult, and this is again where the consensual thing comes in. The last thing that I want is for anybody to feel alienated, I think the Church should be inclusive and so I think we have to work within that.     So perhaps traditionalists needn’t be too worried just yet. The new Bishop of Stafford joins the large gang of Church ‘liberals’ who believe in incremental development rather than table-turning reform. He plays the same line on gays: My feelings about openly gay clergy - I personally have no issues with that at all, but I think again like the ordination of women to the episcopate it’s something where there needs to be enormous sensitivity.     I’m not somebody who will overthrow rules and regulations for the sake of it, because I think if you do that you get chaos and anarchy, but I am somebody who will work to build a consensus to change rules and regulations and I would hope that in the future at some point people could be allowed to be true to themselves.     It is not a sin to be a homosexual, and that is very much the teaching of the Church of England. What the Church does teach is that actually whether you’re heterosexual or gay, outside of a committed married relationship, there should be no physical sexual activity.     Well, as you realise, unless you’re saying to me that gay people should marry, which I personally wouldn’t agree with, you’re going to deprive gay people of that possibility of having a physical relationship, which to my mind seems contrary to what being in a creative loving relationship is all about.     This is where traditionalists and liberals alike may wish to interject. No one is asking him to overthrow rules and regulations for the sake of it. Liberal society is asking him to do it, primarily, for the sake of those still suffering at the sharp end of our culture’s homophobic heritage. The Church might not like being seen as the great curator of that heritage, but at least this shows that some of that society has not laughed and walked away.     Traditionalists are asking why, if he feels women are entitled to be bishops and people who are gay entitled to physical relationships without being excluded, he doesn’t take a stand and openly challenge the Church, instead of sneakily undermining it.     Talk about a poisoned chalice. At least he is in good company as he steps out on to this tightrope, on which the Archbishop of Canterbury is another balanced with his crosier. Canon Annas is steeled to face these challenges while preserving strength to concentrate on the issues most dear to him, such as climate change and the damage of the recession.     On one line he is united with a great many in the Church: All too often newspapers are focussing on these two particular issues, when there are so many issues... A lot of the Church’s agenda is dictated by the media so I encourage you and urge you to start broadening it a bit.     Who can blame him?

Our Beloved Anglican Communion is in turmoil. The Episcopal Church roils from crisis to crisis. Each year is one of tumult and turbulence, but even on the worst of days we could hear the still small voice saying press on...follow me. And we at VirtueOnline do every day. We do not stop for a week or a day. Daily at the web site and weekly in a news digest we faithfully send you the news.     More than 4 million of you visited the web site and thousands receive a weekly digest of stories to stay informed.     Please keep this writer in your prayers, and if you can support this ministry, please do so either electronically ( http://www.virtueonline.org/donate.html ) via check or credit card by using PayPal or you can send your check to:     Thank you for your support of this ministry. VirtueOnline is a registered U.S. 501(c)3 charity and all contributions are tax deductible.     Below is the latest letter from VOL asking for support from our friends, readers and members.     Every Blessing in Christ,     David W. Virtue DD http://www.virtueonline.org virtuedavid20@gmail.com     December 2012     VIEWPOINTS   Dear VOL friend and loyal supporter,     2013 was another tumultuous year in the life of the Anglican Communion.     In March 2013, an evangelical, Justin Welby was enthroned as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, putting behind eight years of liberally minded Rowan Williams and what many viewed as a disastrous period in the life of the Anglican Communion with unresolved sexuality issues and a failed Covenant.     The year ended with some 1400 Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic Anglican leaders meeting in Nairobi under the banner of GAFCON II to forge a new way ahead for the Anglican Communion that is orthodox in faith and morals. They left no doubt as to where they stood as guardians of the faith. They greeted the Archbishops brief presence in Nairobi with polite applause’ he offered them nothing that assured them of Canterburys commitment to biblical faithfulness in the area of sexual fidelity to marriage between a man and a woman. They were unmoved by his less than sterling support of them and they proceeded to setup the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE).     The polarization within the Anglican Communion only heightened during the year with the Episcopal Church pushing the boundaries on sexuality issues in an attempt to redefine marriage in order to accommodate a handful of men and women who wanted to marry their same-sex partners. “Gay Rites were put forth for experimentation by liberal bishops so clergy could legitimize same-sex unions even though gay marriage is still technically off the table. The Washington National Cathedral announced that they would be the first in line to use experimental Rites. Everyone, of course, knows where this is ultimately going. The Episcopal Church’s decision to endorse marriage equality follows the approval of a Rite for the Blessing of a same-sex relationship at the 2012 General Convention.       Lawsuits against four dioceses continued in 2013 and will continue on in 2014. The roughest and toughest calls will be made in South Carolina where the laws favor Bishop Mark Lawrence and TEC has experienced the most pushback. Tens of millions of dollars worth of real estate are at stake. An estimated $22 million has been spent to date on litigation by The Episcopal Church in an effort to retain or take back church properties in these dioceses. When TEC legally wins properties, the bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut, for example, is forced to sell them off to other denominations and to Muslims for conversion into mosques because they cannot financially support them.     The Global South, which is growing and vibrant, is committed to crossing boundaries and rescuing churches in the West under siege by liberal and revisionist bishops.     The Episcopal Church will continue to splinter in 2014 though at a slower pace. TEC will continue to wither and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will continue to grow. The theological divide will only widen in 2014. There will be triumphs and tragedies, winners and losers in the real estate battles. Aging and small TEC congregations will continue to shrink and there will be more diocesan mergers in 2014 (Ex. Quincy to Chicago). There will be ongoing realignment among the Continuers as well. VOL will document it all for you.     But we do need your help to keep the news digests coming weekly into your e-mail and continued daily postings to the website www.virtueonline.org     VOL is 100% reader supported.  So please spare a few dollars for VOL this Christmas season we are the news source built for you and thousands like you who come each day to get the news about the Anglican Communion. VOL is the leading source for Anglican news across the globe.     Please consider an end of year tax deductible donation and send to the address below:       VIRTUEONLINE 570 Twin Lakes Road P.O. Box 111 Shohola, PA 18458     Or you can make an electronic donation to VOL through our secure site here: www.virtueonline.org/donate.html   Thank you for reading and supporting Virtueonline.   Warmly in Christ,   VIRTUEONLINE     WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT VIRTUEONLINE     Given that we continue to live in a period of confusion and sometimes misinformation regarding the tragic state of the Anglican Church as a result of the unilateral and non biblical decisions and actions of the North American church we are more grateful than ever for the clarity and relevance of Virtueonline.   We thank God for this important and faithful ministry to the worldwide communion. -- Gregory James Venables, Bishop of Argentina and former Archbishop of the Southern Cone.     Virtueonline remains a crucial source of information and analysis in the larger Anglican Communion.  I recommend it for its insight and breadth.  In our day it is critical to have news sources that are reliable and conservative. -- Rt. Rev Frank Lyons, Bishop of Bolivia     There is no one except David Virtue who provides us with timely and essential news, as well as searching biblical analysis of that news. In this he serves not only the biblically faithful in North America but throughout the Anglican Communion. It is my prayer and hope that he will be able to continue his service to us for years to come. -- The Right Reverend John H. Rodgers Jr. ThD. AMIA (ret)       The Anglican Communion is in the midst of a complex and critical time in its history and life. The situation is highly fluid at many levels and the events and decisions made impact deeply our mission and ministry. VOL has its finger on the pulse of the Communion, it knows the players and it goes where the action is. It is an essential resource for understanding and navigating the times in which we live. -- Rev. Jerry Kramer, Anglican Missionary to the Muslim World     I have been following his regular news and commentary for more than 10 years.  I continue to do so.  VOL pulls no punches and David is relentless in pursuing truth, particularly when people are abusing God’s Church.  David does not suffer despots in the Church and takes great trouble to expose their conduct.  Amongst the orthodox who write about the Anglican Communion David is guaranteed to have a strong opinion, take a strong stand and sometimes rub people the wrong way.  David never counts the cost so long as what is hidden may be exposed to the light of truth. -- Rev. Ian Montgomery, Missionary to the Anglican Diocese of Peru       In spite of the remarkable growth in the number of blogs and websites covering Anglican issues today, trying to find truly reliable and balanced Anglican news has actually become more difficult. Agendas and biases have replaced journalistic professionalism and integrity as the new guiding forces behind much of what is reported on the web today. VOL has been delivering the highest quality news and commentary for almost twenty years. David Virtues timely interviews and comprehensive analysis always give me the most accurate and insightful reports of what really matters to me and to my Anglican family. I am a VOL supporter, and I encourage you to join me to support VOL for the next 20 years. -- AMiA Bishop Doc Loomis.       Virtueonline allows me to know what is going on all over the Anglican scene, and usually in the words of the people directly involved.  I always read it each and every week. -- The Rt. Rev William Wantland, Bishop of Eau Clair (ret)     VirtueOnline is an incredibly valuable channel of global communication on all matters affecting the wider Christian body, and especially our Anglican part of it. I’ve always been impressed with David’s own writing that while appropriately acerbic, remains  insightful, theologically rich, and deftly humorous. VirtueOnline’s format has increasingly become both user friendly and comprehensive. I cannot commend it too highly. -- Peter C. Moore, former Dean and President of Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, PA     Your loyalty to our faithful reporting makes this unique Anglican news service worthwhile.     Please make a tax- deductible donation to VOL. You can do so by hitting the PAYPAL link at VOLs website ( http://www.virtueonline.org/donate.html )     Or you can send a check to   VIRTUEONLINE 570 Twin Lakes Rd P.O. Box 111 Shohola, PA 18458     Thank you for your support,

By Gerald McDermott THE FEDERALIST July 15, 2025   Fulfillment theology not only fails to do justice to the actual Bible but also caricatures Christian Zionism, rooting it all in dispensationalism.   The Ted Cruz-Tucker Carlson debate might be old news, but the dispute over the New Testament meaning of “Israel” is not. Cruz made a crude argument from the Bible that he claims mandates Christian support for the state of Israel. Tucker Carlson denied any connection between biblical Israel and the modern state, using arguments made by many Christians today, especially Lutherans and the Reformed, often called “fulfillment theology.”   Fulfillment theology teaches that the church is “the new and true Israel,” yet the New Testament never once says this. Those who subscribe to fulfillment theology say “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to the Gentile church, but its contextual referent is Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah. For Paul says in this passage, addressed to a Galatian church that is nearly or all Gentile, that in comparison to the new creation, circumcision is unimportant: “For all [Gentiles] who walk by this rule [the new creation], peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God [Jews who walk by the new creation].”   As Pastor Rich Lusk laid out in a recent article at The Federalist, fulfillment theology maintains that the presence of Jews in the land of Israel “in no way indicates God’s covenant blessing or the fulfillment of a covenant promise” (emphasis original).   This would suggest that Jesus was naïve when he proclaimed that every stroke of the pen in Torah and the Prophets was God-given (Matthew 5:17-18), for Torah teaches that Israel is God’s “firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22), and both Torah and the prophets predict a worldwide return to the land when it will be more prosperous and numerous than that of the fathers (Deuteronomy 30:4-5; Ezekiel 36:24-25; 37:11-14). Jeremiah prophesied that as long as the sun, moon, and stars are in the sky, the offspring of Israel will never cease being a nation before God (Jeremiah 31:35-36).   On close inspection, fulfillment theology is like the Greek myth of Procrustes, a bandit who forced his victims to fit onto his iron bed by cutting off their legs if they were too long or stretching their legs if they were too short. It ignores the Bible where it does not fit its system.   For example, fulfillment theologians argue that today’s Jews in Israel have no relation to biblical Jews by suggesting that Jesus called all Pharisees “children of the devil.” Since most of today’s Israel is like the Pharisees who rejected Jesus, they cannot be the true Israel, which consists only of Jews who accept Jesus.   But if Jesus regarded Pharisees as children of the devil, why did He exhort His disciples to “teach and protect whatever the Pharisees tell you” (Matthew 23:3)?   Fulfillment theology also regards today’s Judaism, as Pastor Lusk puts it, as “an idolatrous faith” and a “returning to paganism” because it does not accept Jesus as Messiah. But this approach is light years from that of the apostle Paul, who said of his fellow Jews who had not seen Jesus yet, that they “are [present tense] beloved by God because of the Fathers [the patriarchs].” And their “calling” as God’s chosen people is “irrevocable” (Romans 11:28-29).   Fulfillment theologians also regard the oft-repeated Old Testament land promise as fulfilled in the church and therefore not to be taken literally in New Testament times. But here again, this theological system breaks apart on the rocks of the biblical text.   The New Testament repeats the land promise three times. The author of Hebrews says God led Abraham to a place to receive as an inheritance, and that Isaac and Jacob were heirs with him of the same promise (Hebrews 11:9). Before his martyrdom, deacon Stephen said God promised to give Abraham this land as a possession and to his offspring after him (Acts 7:4-5). Paul tells the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia that the God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land as an inheritance (Acts 13:17-19).   The massive return of Jews to the land beginning in the 19th century was a fulfillment of prophecies in the Septuagint (the Bible for the early church) that one day there would be an apokatastasis, a return to the land by Jews from the four corners of the earth (Jeremiah 16:15; 24:6; 50:19; Hosea 11:11).   Was this referring to the return after exile in Babylon? Not for the apostle Peter. In his second speech in Jerusalem, after Jesus’ resurrection, he says the apokatastasis is still to come (Acts 3:21). In other words, the resurrection did not fulfill all the biblical prophecies, and sometime in the future there would be a worldwide return to the land.   The fulfillment model not only fails to do justice to the actual Bible but also caricatures Christian Zionism, rooting it all in dispensationalism. But New Christian Zionism has nothing to do with dispensationalism, which features an unbiblical rapture and elaborate eschatologies that promise more than we can know from the plain sense of Scripture.   New Christian Zionism goes back to the early church and was revived in the 16th century when Puritans in England and Pietists on the Continent used the Reformation emphasis on the plain sense of Scripture to discover that Calvin and Luther were wrong to assume that every Old Testament prophecy was about the future Gentile church. There were too many prophecies that clearly were Israel- and Jewish-specific.   New Christian Zionism takes seriously Paul’s warning to “understand the mystery” of Israel and his inspired declaration that the “whole lump” of Israel is holy, even its broken-off branches (Romans 11:16, 25). It cautions Gentile Jesus-followers not to think they are above the “root” instead of remembering that “it is not you who support the root but the root that supports you” (verse 18). It wants to heed Paul’s admonition to “not become proud but stand in awe” of God’s “mystery of Israel” (verses 20, 25-26).  It listens to what Scripture insists on, that Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” are “Israelites” and that to them still “belong the adoption … and the promises” (Romans 9:3).   Does this mean the state of Israel is a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as Cruz suggested? No. Nor does it mean Christians must ratify every policy of the Israeli government. But the last two centuries have shown that God’s covenanted people need a state to protect them from those who would destroy them. And Gentile Jesus-believers who believe God redeems by grace and not works — and superintends the history of redemption by His sovereign decree and not human performance — should not despise the people from whom our Savior and salvation have come (John 4:22; Romans 9:5).   Gerald McDermott teaches at Jerusalem Seminary and Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is editor of The New Christian Zionism and Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity, and author of Israel Matters and A New History of Redemption.

The alternative celebrates innovation without any sense as to where innovation starts and stops.   By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org July 14, 2025   "National Apostasy" was a sermon preached July 14, 1833 by John Keble. According to John Henry Newman, this signaled the start of the Oxford Movement, the tractarian revival in the Church of England. In this unremarkable sermon based on 1 Samuel 12:23, Keble fussed at the nation for not behaving more like the Old Testament prophet Samuel. “The sermon collected no disciples, raised no party-standard, asserted nothing but what other high churchmen were saying through the country - the importance of the sermon was only in its signal within Newman’s mind” (Owen Chadwick).   The Oxford Movement sought to return the church to what is often referred to as the Great Tradition - the church’s ancient roots as expressed in the church fathers - and especially as the fathers were viewed by the seventeenth-century Caroline theologians. But today when someone pulls the “great tradition” card they almost always mean something like: “I don’t like that Anglicans are Protestant” or “I don’t accept the Reformation or the Elizabethan Settlement as determinative for describing Anglican identity” or “I subscribe to a conciliar definition of ‘Anglicanism’ as opposed to a confessional definition.” The Oxford professors tended to elevate “tradition” to a coequal status with Scripture, so it was natural that the movement would increasingly diverge from the thoughts and practices of the English Reformation and the historic Anglican formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles, the two books of Homilies, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer).   The Oxford dons published 90 well-circulated tracts ("Tracts for the Times") trying to persuade British church and society to restore Christian life to the “Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness” (Newman’s words). The Tractarians (although they preferred the more exalted term, “Apostolicals”) moved away from the doctrine of justification by faith alone which they thought was necessary in the 16th century to curb the works-righteousness of Medieval Catholicism, to a theology of ‘holy living’ (faith-plus-works, or infused righteousness) that they thought would curb the Reformation’s tendency towards antinomianism.   The Tractarians promoted a High Church understanding of "apostolic succession" that has less to do with the passing-on of apostolic teaching to future generations (2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 15:3), and more about an automatic tactile transmission of priestly character and office in ordination. They saw bishops as necessary to church order (esse), rather than simply for the bene esse (for the well being of the church) - tract 10 states: “he that despiseth the Bishops despiseth the Apostles.” They also promoted a view of the sacraments in which God’s grace is automatically and always delivered, whether or not faith is present (i.e., baptismal regeneration and Holy Communion as a “sacrifice”). This naturally led to an understanding of “real presence” to be Jesus’s body materiality present in the bread and wine rather than spiritually present in the hearts and affections of those who receive the grace of the sacrament by faith (“to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same” Article XXVIII).   Some of the Tractarian luminaries eventually found their happy home in Roman Catholicism (Newman). Others stayed in the Church of England trying to agitate the church away from its historic confession and formularies (Keble and Pusey) towards a new identity as far from the Reformation as they could get. Out of the Oxford Movement (and the later 19th century Broad Church Movement) came many theological aberrations that diverted Anglican attention away from its historic formularies. “The Tractarians in the 1840s may have posed the greatest threat to the church’s equilibrium by explaining away the Articles [of Religion],” wrote Peter Nockles. Nockles went on to say that “the Tractarians came to challenge, then shatter, the doctrinal consensus of the earlier High Church Anglicanism, seeming to dissolve the Church of England into its constituent parts as never before.” Historian Diarmaid MacCulloch said, "The nineteenth century growth of Anglo-Catholicism amounted to nothing less than an ideological revolution in the Church of England, which involved radically reinterpreting its history."   The deleterious impact of the Oxford Movement should be clear to everyone, as it’s effects are evident in all the recent Prayer Book revisions. Gerald Bray begins his seminal book on Anglican identity by stating that the Anglicanism we know today is a nineteenth-century invention, and that before the Tractarian revival, “almost all members of the Church of England saw themselves as Protestants and regarded Rome with varying degrees of enmity.”   The choice before us today is between two very different ways of locating Anglican identity. The first harkens back to a wax-nose “Great Tradition” which is explained as the ancient teaching of the church, a euphemism for: “as understood by a few Caroline Divines and high churchmen.” This is a smorgasbord of church theologies and ideals that, skipping over the 16th century Reformation, leaves us to choose our favorite things to satisfy our individual tastes (raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens). If not a smorgasbord, then what? Anglican’s historic anchor is the primacy of Holy Scripture as it is explained by the church fathers, summarized in the creeds, and preserved in the historic formularies of the Edwardian and Elizabethan settlement. Such a church is thoroughly biblical, theologically reformed and confessional, liturgically beautiful, and pastorally generous. Reformation Anglicanism gives us a grounding for the future; the alternative celebrates innovation without any sense as to where innovation starts and stops. FOOTNOTES   The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship 1760-1857, Peter B. Nockles The Spirit of the Oxford Movement: Tractarian Essays, Owen Chadwick Oxford’s Protestant Spy: The Controversial Career of Charles Golightly, Andrew Atherstone Evangelical Theology 1833-1856: A Response to Tractarianism, Peter Toon Anglicanism: A Reformed Catholic Tradition, Gerald Bray