By Solange De Santis, Anglican Journal — August 10, 2004 American bishop Terence Kelshaw was hospitalized for three weeks in St. John's after falling ill June 4 on a transatlantic flight from Turkey to his home in Albuquerque, N.M. "I had been leading a pilgrimage to the seven churches of Revelation in Turkey. We changed planes in Frankfurt and were heading for Denver. Coming over Canada, I felt short of breath. There was a German doctor on board and he decided I ought not to go to Denver," said Bishop Kelshaw in an interview. The plane made an emergency landing in Goose Bay, Labrador, where Bishop Kelshaw and his family were met by an ambulance. He was in hospital for three days in Goose Bay, then transferred to the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, where he spent 10 days in intensive care, he said. Bishop Kelshaw, who is 67, was diagnosed with double pneumonia and treated with antibiotics. He was visited several times by Bishop Don Harvey of the diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador and the hospital chaplains, Rev. Garry Parsons and Canon William Noel. Clergy in the diocese offered to host Bishop Kelshaw's wife, Hazel, in their homes, but "she wanted to stay at the hospital because it really was touch-and-go there for a while," said Bishop Harvey. However, said the bishop, "the traditional Newfoundland hospitality rose again." Bishop Kelshaw praised clergy and lay people in the diocese for their visits and the care given Mrs. Kelshaw, who was taken out to dinner and shown around the city. "It was an apostolic experience. Here is a stranger passing through the land and they ministered to me and it was wonderful. It reinforced my view that hospitals need chaplains. The work that Father Noel does and the hope he brings to everyone - not just Anglicans - in the hospital is wonderful," said Bishop Kelshaw. Mr. Noel drove the Kelshaws to the airport at 4 a.m. on June 29 for the flight home, said Bishop Kelshaw. Bishop Harvey also telephoned Bishop Kelshaw's office and one of his episcopal colleagues in the U.S. with regular updates on his progress. As of early August, Bishop Kelshaw was home and still on oxygen, but spending two days a week at the office and, he said, "doing a lot better." Bishop Kelshaw said he and his wife hope to return for a visit and to thank Newfoundlanders for their kindness.

Special Report by David W. Virtue — Oklahoma City, OK (8/11/2004) The Bishop of Oklahoma, the Rt. Rev. Robert M. Moody has written a letter, which Virtuosity has obtained, publicly castigating and chastising the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Jr., over the appointment of a deacon in his diocese, who was not, it turned out, under his jurisdiction. In his letter, Moody blasted Duncan saying that the appointment of the Rev. Vern Caswell as vicar of St. James Anglican Church (formerly St. James Episcopal Church - an ECUSA parish) was outside his authority and jurisdiction and he questioned the orthodox bishop's pastoral judgment. Moody accused Duncan of assigning the recent graduate of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry to this parish "as the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network." "Since the Anglican Communion Network is not a jurisdiction that is recognized within The Episcopal Church or by The Anglican Communion, I question how you, as an active Diocesan Bishop of the Episcopal Church can assign or permit one of your Deacons to function in a congregation that is not a member of The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion? I also question your authority and pastoral judgment to assign a Deacon to minister outside the Diocese of Pittsburgh and within the Diocese of Oklahoma," he wrote to Duncan. Moody then said that he realized that Duncan was not breaking the letter of the Canons and Constitutions, "especially as St. James Anglican Church is not part of this diocese and is not part of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. But you are breaking the spirit of the Canons and Constitutions that govern this Episcopal Church and you bringing schism into this Church by your actions." The bishop, who is known for his revisionist positions, concluded the letter by saying that he felt "regret and deep sorrow" because of Duncan's actions. Bishop Duncan responded and on July 30th wrote the following letter to Moody: Dear Bob, Word of your letter has reached me while on vacation in rural France. Your communication proceeded based upon a false assumption as stated in your letter, "I assume that he is under your authority and that you are assigning him to this ministry as the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network." It would have been simple to pick up the telephone and check with me. It is destructive of the life of the church to communicate with the entire church without verification. All the bishops of the church now have a letter stating something that is not true. Before I left on vacation I had already begun the proceedings to transfer Deacon Vern Caswell to the Most. Rev. Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, at their mutual request. Since then, Archbishop Venables has received Deacon Caswell. His subsequent assignment is not a matter of my jurisdiction. Finally, while your letter questions my authority and pastoral judgment, I must state that it was your action and those of the majority of the bishops of the Episcopal Church that created the schism to which you refer. The consequences of last summer are simply unfolding all around us. I regret this is so, and even more so in consideration that with the Church's adoption of these innovations it finds itself increasingly separated from the vast majority of the Anglican Communion and the whole of catholic Christendom. Please know that those of us in the Network are most willing to try to work with you to repair the damage done if you would turn back from these innovations which have been so divisive. Faithfully in Christ, +Robert/Pittsburgh. Both letters were also sent to the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Clay Matthews, The Chancellor, The Diocesan Bishops of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Moody is the first bishop in the 2,000-year history of Christendom to ordain a transsexual to the Diaconate. The Rev. Paul Schonauer is now the Rev. Paula Schonauer, following a sex change operation.

By David W. Virtue — Newport News, VA (8/11/2004) The Rev. R. Rolling "Bo" Bryant had received a "prophetic word" from the Lord that it was time to leave. He had asked the question many times, "Lord what do you want me to do?" There had been several different prophecies from his people and now he had "received" a deadline. "The Lord spoke to me before the end of last year. We had a parish retreat before December of 2003 and we prayed as a church all day; and the next day at a vestry meeting the decision to leave was unanimous. The vestry concluded at the meeting that the Episcopal Church was apostate and unreformable. At a congregational meeting the people unanimously agreed." And so the end came for the rector, wardens, vestry and the whole congregation of the 100-year old Grace Episcopal Church on June 14, 2004, "Bo" told Virtuosity. "We didn't leave right away, we wanted to be sure, but the voice of the people was unanimous they voted with their feet to go." "We would not let property, buildings, and possessions weigh us down if we truly wanted to follow the Lord. We clearly understood that we were to walk away from everything that belonged in any legal way to the national church and start anew," he said. And so on June 14 the Rev. R. Bolling "Bo" Bryant, Rector, and the Wardens of Grace Episcopal Church, Newport News, personally delivered a letter to Bishop David Bane indicating their decision to "be under the authority of the Anglican Mission in America" and so they became the Mission of Grace Anglican Church. "There was no rancor, no personal animosity with the bishop. We simply could no longer walk with him and the ECUSA," he told Virtuosity. "Therefore, with a heavy heart we the Rector and Vestry of Grace Church do resign as the official governing body of this parish and sever our connections with the Episcopal Church USA," he wrote in a letter to the bishop. In a prepared statement, the Rev. "Bo" said the past year had been a time of turmoil and major self-reflection for us at Mission of Grace as is true for all Episcopal churches who want to follow the Lord and abide by His word. They had their time of grieving and justification of the rightness of their beliefs as many churches have. They considered joining the fight to take back their church from those who have taken over. "But in the end these are all empty words and really cast an unflattering image on us as being more concerned with the 'rightness' of our arguments than spreading the gospel message. Upon deeper reflection into ourselves and what the Lord is calling us to do and be 'In His Name,' we understood that we must come before His throne and ask Him what we are to do. We spent much individual and corporate time and set a day aside for a congregational day of fasting and prayer seeking the hand of the Lord in what we are to do." The Rev. "Bo" had joined the Episcopal Church in 1972 and had been ordained for more than 20 years. He was walking away from a church he had served and loved with his whole heart. "I am basically Evangelical and Catholic Rite II," he told Virtuosity. "I bear no animosity towards Bishop Bane. He voted on the right side of the issues at General Convention and he voted against V. Gene Robinson's consecration and against same sex blessings, but it is about more than that. It is about the direction the Episcopal Church is going and I can't go there." "After much prayer and study of the Word of God, we all understood that as faithful Christians who want to stay under a proper Biblical spiritual umbrella, that place is not in the national church as it now exists. The leadership of the church have strayed so far from the truth of the word of God that we cannot continue under their worldly authority and remain faithful stewards of the gifts and calling He has placed on our little church." The Rev. "Bo" has been inhibited and the deposition process is under way. "The bishop was very pastoral to me. Our parting was very amicable. He followed the 815 play book. He did what he had to do...it was a good meeting and he gave us his blessing. He said nice words, our departure was very gracious," he told Virtuosity. "We did not contest anything. We walked away from property, we had no real endowment; we left the keys at the front door." Their new bishop is now the Rt. Rev. Thad Barnum. "We have joined the Anglican Mission in America as our spiritual umbrella. Through their encouragement, we have partnered with the 'Mosaic' of several other churches from very different denominational expressions - Baptists, Nazarene, and Pentecostal. Each one of our churches brings in part of the whole church, and we all are learning from each other who we are in Christ and how He wants us to work together to do His work." The bishop will be forced to close down the church. He will probably sell it to a Black church, said the Rev. "Bo." In other news Virtuosity has learned that the Diocese of Southern Virginia is down 24% in contributions for 2004 and they have now lost a historic church as well. According to a source, more churches are expected to follow later this year.

By George Jaksa, The Flint Journal — August 8, 2004 It's been a tumultuous year for some area Episcopalians and their churches. Since the ordination of an openly gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire a year ago, three local pastors have resigned their posts and tumbling local church attendance has yet to stabilize. Gone are the Rev. Scott Danforth, 51, rector of St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church, Davison Township; the Rev. David Kulchar, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Flushing; and the Rev. Gregory Tournoux, 45, rector of Christ Episcopal Church, Owosso. The turmoil centers on New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, installed and affirmed last August at the U.S. church's national convention in Minneapolis. The Rev. Laura Truby, interim rector at Christ Episcopal, said she won't know until after summer vacation how attendance will shake out. "In the past, groups have broken off into little splinter groups, but they come back over the years," said Bishop Edwin Leidel of Saginaw, head of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan, where the resignations have taken place. Leidel and the entire eight-member delegation from the eastern side of Michigan affirmed Robinson's ordination. "This is kind of the hair that broke the camel's back," said the Rev. Steven J. Dewey, 55, conservative rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Lapeer. "At this juncture, the real issue is the authority of Holy Scripture. Does it have any authority in the church? Our national church has said 'no,' our diocesan bishop has, by action, said 'no.'" Although other Episcopal dioceses have ordained gay priests, Flushing's Kulchar said ordaining Robinson at a national convention was especially galling. "What made last summer so critical is that ... the general convention is the only real body that can set policy for the church," Kulchar said. Leidel, who doesn't shy away from the issue, last September discussed homosexuality in the church at a closed meeting in St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Flint and later wrote a letter for the diocesan newspaper. "I do have a bias to be open to giving gay men and lesbians a more inclusive role in the church," said Leidel. "It's a frightening thing," said Dewey, who intends to stay as rector of Grace Episcopal. "I guess the part that is really hard for me is that I really believe that our presiding bishop believes that what he is doing is the right thing, the caring and compassionate thing." Opponents say Robinson's ordination and other issues have sent the Episcopal church in the wrong direction. They're hoping a 14-member international committee will give the Archbishop of Canterbury - who presides over the worldwide Anglican church that Episcopalians are part of - reason to order changes in the United States. Kulchar said he hopes the archbishop will at least allow conservatives to have their own Anglican network in the United States. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the international Anglican Communion, consisting of denominations that stem from the Church of England. Many foreign Anglican churches have denounced or broken fellowship with the Episcopal Church over Robinson, who has lived for years with a gay partner. Locally, Danforth resigned Feb. 1 after almost 10 years as St. Dunstan's rector and left the denomination. He now is considering teaching at the secondary level, among other options. A former tennis partner with Leidel, Danforth said he had an ongoing frustration with the direction and theological path of the church and saw no hope of change. He said he had considered leaving the church for two years, but the Robinson issue had a bearing in his final decision. "I really had no more grace to be able to navigate through the waters as a clergyman," he said. "It was time." Kulchar, who continues to live in the Trinity parish rectory with his family, just finished a three-month sabbatical to ponder his future. He said he wants to remain in the Anglican church and was willing to do weddings, funerals, preach at Episcopal churches and be a fill-in rector, but was turned down by Leidel. "I have a great affection and love for him (Kulchar) and have tried to help him find employment and other things," Leidel said, "But he cannot function as a priest without being in communion with the bishop." Kulchar, a member of the Flushing Board of Education, said he hopes to stay in Flushing at least through the 2004-05 school year so his son can graduate from Flushing High School. Tournoux is on sabbatical for six months from Christ Episcopal but is looking for work in the U.S. Anglican churches. He resigned effective June 12 after 12 years as rector and has started work on a second doctorate. He is considering posts in Mississippi and his home state of Ohio and describes himself as committed to Anglicanism. "I absolutely loved my time at Christ's Church," he said. "I will not give up the priesthood. I believe strongly in the ordained leadership, and I am looking forward to getting back into the saddle." Leidel said the Episcopal Church has a number of priests able to fill the vacated rectorship, with a number of other seminarians studying for the priesthood. Kulchar said there were 70 people worshiping at Trinity Episcopal when he resigned, but attendance is now down to 30. St. Dunstan and Christ Episcopal also have lost parishioners - but VanKirk Carlson, junior warden at Christ Church, is hopeful. "During the last month and a half, the folks who were unhappy have pretty much left," Carlson said. "Those who are left pretty much have a positive attitude. We are looking to start over with a fresh slate."

By Rev. Charles F. Sutton, Jr. In these days of controversy over sexual morality and over such huge questions such as the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, both proponents of historic orthodoxy and of new theologies appeal to Scripture to uphold their claims. However, those who seek to make Jesus one among many paths to God or to say that homosexual activity is morally acceptable in the Lord's eyes use principles of interpretation that are alien to the nature and structure of the Bible. The Bible needs to be interpreted according to "the big picture." The parts only make their fullest sense in the light of the whole. The Bible also needs to be interpreted according to its own terms. One of the basic questions about the Bible is "What is the Bible's ultimate source?" Is it purely from the mind of human beings, or is God the ultimate author? If we as Christians look to Jesus Christ, we need to see his attitude to the Scriptures. When we review what Jesus says about the Bible, it is clear that he accepted the Bible as having God as its ultimate author. Time and again, Jesus says, "It is written," as he quotes Scripture, and what is written settles the matter. He opposes the Pharisees, who have learned how to use subterfuges to twist the meaning of the Scriptures - saying, for instance, that vowing to use their money for God at some point in the future means that they are relieved the responsibility of caring for their aged parents. (See Mark 7:11) The following are basic principles of reading the Bible in the light of the Bible: 1. The New Testament interprets the Old. (The Old Testament was preparatory; the New makes plain the meaning of what was being prepared. Someone once said, "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.") 2. The Epistles interpret the Gospels. (The epistles were written to explain the meaning of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection. The Gospels were written to tell the story of Jesus' life. Both are crucial for those who follow Jesus, but the epistles are explanations of the story and so help us to understand it.) 3. The universal interprets the local. (The local may show us how a particular principle is worked out in a particular setting, but it does not tell us the only way the principle may be applied - though of course, no principle could be applied in mutually contradictory ways.) 4. The systematic interprets the incidental. (Thus, Gen. 2:24, 25 tell us that the actions of Lot's daughters in Gen. 19:30-38 was wrong. Stories can give us examples to follow - or to avoid. What Lot's daughters did indicates the sexual depravity of Sodom.) 5. The didactic interprets the symbolic. (Thus, Revelation is to be read in the light of Jesus' teachings on his return and of Paul's teachings on the return of the Lord.) The "literal" interpretation of Scripture does not treat all verses the same. It takes into account the type of literature involved (poetry is different from systematic teaching; the Psalms and Proverbs are not interpreted the same way as Romans). Literal interpretation also takes into account the setting of the writer, and, if necessary, the setting of the intended hearers. Matthew is intended for Christians from a Jewish background; Luke for those from a Gentile background, and this differing audience accounts for some of the differences between the two (although the differences are those of emphasis and style, not of substance). The Old Testament needs to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament because the Old was preparing for the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah has arrived, what was provisional and preparatory in the Old Testament takes second place to what is in the New. The distinction between Jew and Gentile is to be dropped, because in Christ, all may come to the Father on the same grounds, the work of Christ on the cross, rather than membership in the physical descendants of Israel and the keeping of the commandments. The laws given in the Pentateuch are of three types: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The civil law no longer applies to the people of God, for they are no longer a nation-state, but rather a multi-ethnic people from many nations. The ceremonial laws do not apply, because their purpose was to point to Christ, either by revealing the sinfulness of sin ("clean" and "unclean") or the need for an atoning sacrifice to deal with sin. Now that the Lamb of God has come to deal with sin, the ceremonial laws are instructive to our understanding of sin, sacrifice, and grace, but they are not obligatory upon those who follow the Lord Jesus. He has made the sacrifice that restores and heals us. The moral laws, however, being grounded in the character of God and in the nature of his creation, still apply to all human beings. In Romans 12:1,2, Paul tells us "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -- his good, pleasing and perfect will." (NIV) When we read Scripture, we are to use our minds to their fullest capacity, but we are to submit those minds to God for instruction. When we read the Bible, we are to interpret it according to the perspective of the Lord Jesus, who loved the Scriptures and used them for his instruction, guidance, and refreshment. FOOTNOTE: These principles are from what I learned as member and later a Campus Intern of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and from my days at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I cannot pinpoint their source any more clearly than this. The Rev. Charles F. Sutton, Jr., Rector Trinity Episcopal Church (ECUSA - Diocese of W. Mass) Whitinsville, MA

By Terry Mattingly EDITOR'S NOTE: Second of two columns. Tony Campolo had a specific flock in mind as he prepared his first sermon for the 3-D, "virtual" sanctuary at the online Church of Fools. Using the lingo of his discipline, the sociologist referred to the typical wired worshippers as "religion-less Christians." They yearn for "spirituality," but believe they can do the faith thing on their own, without an institutional church. Campolo also assumed they spend lots of time wielding a mouse. "In evangelism, you have to meet people where they are before you try to take them where they need to go," he said. "The reality today is that lots of people spend a good part of their lives plugged into computer screens. If that's where they are, that's where we have to go meet them." This is the theory behind outreach work being done in "virtual churches" such as www.ChurchofFools.com , which is partly sponsored by the Methodist Church of Great Britain. Some sites offer basic chat rooms, while others use interactive graphics, audio and video. But there are questions. How do people show repentance and commitment in a medium in which users can switch spiritual paths with a click of a mouse? Is online worship possible? These questions, and more, were asked in Oxford as the Church of England created its first online congregation at www.i-church.org . It is open to anyone, regardless of "faith position," politics, sexual orientation, geographical location or membership elsewhere. "I remember being taken to one side, early on in the research for i-church, and being told that not only would it not work, but that no one would want to join an online church, and that any kind of Christian community that was not a sacramental community was a deficient community," said the Rev. Richard Thomas, in the dedication sermon. "It depends on how you define sacraments. My own definition suggests that sacraments are those things that make God, or his grace, 'visible.' To that end, we have at the last count around 700 applications for membership. ... These people are willing to commit to Christian discipleship, and to support others on the journey. If that is not sacramental, I don't know what is." Cyberspace includes millions of seekers and believers. The "Faith Online" project conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life project found that 64 percent of online Americans -- representing 82 million people -- have used the Internet for faith-related reasons. They read religion news, download religious music, explore strange books, forward inspirational messages, share prayer requests and find alternative sanctuaries. Most practice a specific faith, but many do not. While 54 percent of the online faithful are "religious and spiritual," 33 percent describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious." Some use the anonymity of cyberspace as a safe place to research new ways of living and worshipping. Once in this global marketplace, these seekers are almost sure to find like-minded people who are "asking the same questions, searching for the same kind of experiences or even suffering a similar sense of pain or loss," said Stewart Hoover of the University of Colorado, the study's lead author. It's natural for these people to form groups online, based on their needs and interests. The Internet is all about options. "But for most of these people, I really don't see this replacing what they already have in terms of their faith," he said. "It's more like a value-added situation. The religion they find on the Web needs to add on to what they are already experiencing somewhere else, with a real group of believers in a real community." And there is one more question that lurks in the background, especially for those who fund these experimental sites. How can they measure the success of a "virtual" church? "We know that encounters are taking place that are changing lives," said Stephen Goddard, co-creator of the Church of Fools. "Is that success? We know there have been some amazing intellectual conversations about the faith that have been going on down in the church crypt for weeks. Is that a success?" "We know that some people say that they are coming back into Christian fold because of this. They are more open to the faith, because of what we've done. Is that a success?" Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

News Analysis by David W. Virtue The Christian church must shoulder much of the blame for stigmatizing those with HIV/Aids, says Southern Africa Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane. "Christianity has too often espoused a destructive theology that links sex and sin and guilt and punishment," he wrote in a paper to be presented at a conference in Cape Town on Friday. "The church must take much of the blame for the issue of stigmatization and its attendant problems of fear, denial and silence...We must take the lead in overturning these distortions," he says. In the paper, extracts of which were released to media on Thursday, Ndungane, who is spiritual head of millions of Anglicans in southern Africa, called for an "exceptional response to an exceptional crisis". He said HIV/AIDS hits the poor hardest, and is also a disease that too often marginalizes and excludes, "not least because of its associations with sex." He said stigma has become a silent killer, "decimating families who find it impossible to communicate with each other about the illness in their midst". The African Archbishop has been listening too much to America's Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's agit-poop. Either that or he hasn't been reading his Bible lately. First of all he says the church is to blame for "stigmatizing those with HIV/AIDS." Now I don't know where the bishop is coming from, but I can assure you that I have never heard a single orthodox priest or bishop in the ECUSA publicly condemn men or women with HIV/AIDS. I wish he would identify such persons. Most orthodox folk I know have enormous compassion for such persons and some orthodox churches have public ministries to persons with HIV/AIDS. They are treated much like an alcoholic. If you need help all you have to do is ask for it. He talks about "fear, denial and violence..." Again who is he talking about? His American-born assistant for HIV/AIDS the gay "missionary" from 815 namely Ted Karpf publicly screams "the church has AIDS" whenever he gets an opportunity. It's a lie of course, but if you say it long enough and loud perhaps someone will believe it is true. I know of no one who is afraid of people with HIV/AIDS, and only a fool lives in denial, and no one that I know has been "violent" towards gay persons, and those with AIDS. It's a fiction. (My brother-in-law died of AIDS. He was loved to the end even though this writer disagreed with his lifestyle that caused it.) A personal note might be in order here, as I have been labeled homophobic often enough by revisionists. In the early 80's I shared a house with a Baptist minister in northern New Jersey whom I discovered was afflicted with HIV. I had just come off a three year stint working for American Leprosy Missions, so I neither feared the disease nor the man who had it. I nursed him as best I could, but as he got weaker I finally had to put him in hospital in NYC where he was promptly treated like a pariah and they put large red signs on his bedroom door and no one went in or out without being fully gowned and their faces covered. It was humiliating. I got him out of there and put him in an extended care unit in a hospital in Connecticut, where he died in peace. Ndungane: "Christianity has too often espoused a destructive theology that links sex and sin and guilt and punishment," said the archbishop in a paper to be presented at a conference in Cape Town on Friday. Let's unpack that. First of all if sex is practiced within marriage between a man and a woman there is absolutely no link between sex, guilt and punishment. None. If you are married and feel guilty about sex see a psychiatrist or therapist quickly or you will destroy your marriage. If you are engaging in promiscuous behavior - fornication, adultery or homosexual activity then that is an entirely different matter. In that case there IS a link between sex, sin and guilt. God has made it abundantly clear that sexual activity is a great gift to the world and for all married couples. When the archbishop paints with a broad sweeping brush linking sex, sin, guilt and punishment, who and what is he talking about? If a person indulges in sex outside of marriage he or she will or ought to KNOW that is sin and feel its attendant guilt and shame. Men and women who have experienced divorce because of adultery will tell you endless horror stories of guilt and shame. And well they might. One of the devastating aspects of President Bill Clinton's sexual escapades is the complete absence of a culture of shame and guilt. His "sin" was being caught. The archbishop is making linkages that are unbiblical. A quarter of the adult population in South Africa has HIV/AIDS. His country has the single largest AIDS population on the African continent and most, if not all of it, has to do with sex outside of marriage either heterosexual or homosexual. So this begs the question. The "destructive theology" Ndungane talks about is obviously aimed at orthodox folk who want to say that sex outside of marriage is a 'no no' and the empirical evidence is there for all to see. The archbishop's bashing of unnamed persons smacks of a sort of ortho-phobism that he now condemns. But what he is displaying is a misplaced compassion. No one is bashing those with HIV/AIDS, but what biblically-instructed Anglicans are saying or ought to say, is that the best and only means of sexual expression is in marriage and if you indulge yourself outside of that you will experience guilt and shame and you will have to repent. THAT is the message of Scripture and ought to be the message of the archbishop. Whacking unnamed persons for their "destructive theology" is just as bad as certain American bishops calling the growth of the Christian Church in Africa like the growth of the Nazi party and calling African Anglicans pre-Copernican because of their simplistic theology. The archbishop does the church and himself no good service blasting unnamed persons, and accusing and blaming the church for the AIDS crisis. This is precisely what Griswold did after 911, he blamed American foreign policy and Islamophobia for what took place. It was an enormous fiction and a lie, especially as we are learning more each day about Islam, Al Qaeda and terrorism. Ndungane: "Another tragic and shameful area of the church's spiritual blindness is in relation to women, and this too is having devastating consequences in relation to HIV/Aids." The bishop is partly right. Women have become the victims of the AIDS crisis but not because of the church or its silence. African women (and some North American women) have become the victims of their husband's promiscuity. Their men have gone with prostitutes picked up HIV and given it to their wives. Should THEY feel guilt and shame? Damn right they should. They have given their wives a death sentence. It is as if they had put a gun to their heads and blown their brains out. And yet God in his graciousness still offers forgiveness through repentance and faith. THAT is the good news. Why are we not hearing that from the archbishop? The archbishop is doing and saying the very thing he accuses the orthodox of doing, playing the blame game himself ...no names of course. "Christianity has been complicit in sustaining the patriarchal dominance of men and the subjugation of women in... politics, economics, culture, society and the family as well as within the institutional church," says the bishop. If the Archbishop of Southern Africa wants to say something of lasting value he should stand up and say something like this: "My dear friends, South Africa is in the midst of a sexual holocaust. One quarter of all adult persons has HIV/AIDS. We are the worst country in Africa and possibly the world for HIV statistics. It is a double tragedy because we have had Christianity on this part of the continent for over 300 years and clearly we have had little impact in the area of sexual ethics. "The tragedy in South Africa is sexual promiscuity - men and women indulging themselves outside of marriage, and as a result we are killing ourselves and our economy. As a nation we need to repent, individually and collectively and agree that God is right and we are wrong. We have broken His most holy laws and we are paying a horrible and terrible price. Our people are going to be dying by the millions. I implore you to repent and change your ways. In a very short time we will have tens of thousands of children on the streets growing up without parents. Who will look after them? I call the nation to repentance..."

By Eric Gorski, Denver Post Staff Writer — 8/10/2004 Colorado Episcopal Bishop Rob O'Neill is expected to issue long-awaited policy statements this month on same-sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians, issues that have deeply divided the church nationwide and in Colorado. O'Neill, who supports broader involvement of gays and lesbians in the church, said that "different understandings" exist about the diocese's existing policies and practices, and he is seeking a clearer stance. O'Neill has taken a deliberate approach to issues of sexuality since becoming bishop of 35,000 Colorado Episcopalians in January, shortly after the elevation of the nation's first openly gay bishop in New Hampshire pushed the issue to the forefront. One of O'Neill's first steps was to appoint a 10-member task force that recently completed a blueprint for how the diocese can stick together despite differences over sexuality. The report is to be made public near the end of August, and O'Neill plans to announce his positions on ordination and gay unions about the same time. "The issue before us is not whether we agree or disagree about matters of sexuality and Christian faith," O'Neill said. "That we disagree is evident. The question that we must address is what are the consequences of our disagreement. How will we or will we not choose to live together?" But conservative Episcopal leaders believe the diocese needs to fall in line with Anglican Church teaching that marriage should be between a man and woman, sexual activity outside of marriage is not condoned and ordination of practicing homosexuals is not legitimate. The 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church is the American arm of the worldwide Anglican Communion. "Unless the central platform of this recommendation is an affirmation of the teaching of the Anglican Communion, I don't see how anything they say will draw alienated conservatives back to more full engagement," said the Rev. Ephraim Radner of Pueblo, the conservatives' choice for Colorado bishop last year. Among O'Neill's challenges will be squaring diocesan policy on ordination with the fact that gay clergy in committed relationships already serve in the diocese. A diocesan handbook published in 1999 states that clergy are to "exhibit a lifestyle consistent with the Episcopal Church's teaching regarding appropriate physical sexual expression, that is, married and faithful, or single and celibate." Said O'Neill: "My goal is to establish consistent policy and practice." He said he will seek to do the same with same-sex blessing ceremonies that fall short of marriage. In 1994, Colorado Episcopal Bishop Jerry Winterrowd reached an agreement with some clergy allowing same-sex couples to receive prayers of thanksgiving during "the prayers of the people" portion of Sunday worship, O'Neill said. But interpretation of that agreement has varied, and some people didn't know it existed, he said. One thing seems clear: The diocese is not likely to follow the lead of at least six other U.S. dioceses and develop a new rite for same-sex unions. A year ago, the church's General Convention adopted a document that was interpreted by some as opening the door for development of such rites. But O'Neill reaffirmed his belief that that was not the intent, and the national church must develop a same-sex liturgy before Colorado would follow suit.

By Jane Lampman, Christian Science Monitor Time magazine spurred public debate 40 years ago with a startling question on its cover: "Is God Dead?" Some estimate that half the world's population was then nominally atheist. And many in the West were predicting that scientific progress would eliminate religious belief altogether by the next century. The tide has dramatically turned, however, and Alistar McGrath - a theologian at Oxford University who was once in that camp - charts the shift in currents of thought in "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World." In this accessible intellectual history, McGrath explores how atheism came to capture a wide swath of the public imagination as the road to human liberation and progress, and why, in a postmodern world, its appeal has faded. Yet he also makes clear that, despite the resurgence in faith, Western Christianity has not fully recovered from the crisis of the '60s. Depicting atheism's heyday between the fall of the Bastille in 1789 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, McGrath highlights the specific contributions of the major philosophers, scientists, and artists who shaped the secular world, from the famous, such as Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and Darwin, to the less familiar, such as D'Holbach, Fuerbach, and Monod. McGrath contends that the origins of atheism lay primarily in a protest against the power, privilege, and corruption of church institutions - beginning with the French Revolution and later in Germany. Early proponents believed that "human happiness depends upon the triumph of atheism, which alone can liberate humanity from tyranny, war, and oppression - all of which have religious roots." McGrath, who is Protestant, also contends that Protestantism itself played a role in divorcing the sacred from many aspects of life, thereby helping create a sense of God's absence. And, he argues, a cerebral Christianity - the emphasis on theological correctness, on doctrines, and having the right idea of God - engages the mind but leaves emotions and imagination untouched. Atheism gained strength from a symbiosis with the scientific revolution and the developing perception of an inevitable conflict between science and religion. Mathematician William Kingdon Clifford argued, for instance, that it's wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. As science began to replace religion as the interpreter of human experience, artists joined the revolt against God, and poets such as Shelley, Keats, and Swinburne turned to nature to experience the transcendent. Christian imagery lost its attraction, and God increasingly became an absence in the popular imagination. Atheism envisioned a glorious future for a humanity freed from outdated religious dogmas and restrictions, with unlimited potential provided by scientific advancement and the human imagination. Human beings could not only be good without God, but much better. The reality has been very different. Along with progress, scientific advance brought environmental devastation and the potential to eliminate human life. Atheistic regimes dominating a huge proportion of the globe created new forms of tyranny (including mind control) and executed unprecedented millions. At the same time, many arguments failed to hold up. "No major historian of science now takes seriously the idea that science and religion are in perpetual conflict," McGrath says. While some, like Richard Dawkins, continue to insist on atheism, his fellow Darwinist, Stephen Jay Gould, countered that Darwinism has no bearing on the existence of God: "We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." A 1996 survey showed that 40 percent of scientists hold religious beliefs. McGrath also shows that some arguments of proponents, such as Sigmund Freud, rested not on scientific evidence so much as on a personal antipathy toward religion. Yet others were based on a criticism of the moral character of a God that would perpetrate such doctrines as eternal punishment. He acknowledges that atheism, like Marxism, has always been more popular in Europe than in the US because of the fight against entrenched institutions. In telling the story of Madalyn Murray O'Hare, he suggests the unattractiveness of the US atheist community is another reason. McGrath does not venture into the community of humanists, which has considerably more intellectual heft, and which might give a more comprehensive sense of the contemporary picture (including a new group calling itself the "Brights"). But this is incisive, valuable, and provocative historical analysis, which stirs a host of intriguing questions. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World By Alistar McGrath Doubleday, 306 pp., $23.95

Why Michael Horton is right to call it an eschatology, not merely a technology (Image: Detail of Creation of Adam, Michelangelo)   The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore https://substack.com/ March 28, 2026   Michael Horton, in his article at Modern Reformation, has done the Church a service by naming something that too many still treat as morally neutral. Transhumanism is not merely a set of technological ambitions. It is not simply a matter of better tools, longer life spans, enhanced cognition, or mechanical progress. At its heart, it is a rival eschatology. It is a competing doctrine of man, salvation, and the future. That is the real battlefield. Christians often make the mistake of arguing with modern technological ideologies only at the level of ethics. We ask whether this or that development is wise, safe, regulated, humane, or socially beneficial. Those are necessary questions, but they are not the deepest questions. The deepest question is this: what kind of salvation is being promised, and by whom? The transhumanist answer is clear enough. Man is flawed, but not fallen in the biblical sense. His problem is not sin, but limitation. His body is not a created good now subjected to corruption, but an outdated platform. Death is not the wages of sin, nor the final enemy to be destroyed by Christ, but a technical failure awaiting solution. In this vision, redemption comes not from above, but from within. Not by grace, but by innovation. Not through the incarnation, cross, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, but through data, code, surgery, chemistry, machinery, and eventually the fusion of mind and machine. That is not merely bad theology. It is anti-Christian theology. Horton is right to say that transhumanism is theological even when it pretends to be secular. Modern man has not ceased to be religious. He has simply transferred his worship. He still longs for immortality. He still seeks transcendence. He still wants to overcome weakness, suffering, ignorance, and death. He still dreams of glory. What has changed is that he now seeks these things apart from God, and increasingly against God. The ancient lie has not disappeared. It has merely learned to speak in digital language: “You shall be as gods.” That is why the transhumanist project is so seductive. It flatters man in the name of compassion. It presents rebellion as benevolence. It tells us that our refusal to accept creaturely limits is actually a noble moral duty. Why should we not conquer aging? Why should we not improve humanity? Why should we not transcend biological weakness? Why should we not build a better species? Because man is not a machine in need of upgrading. He is a creature in need of redemption. That distinction is everything. Christianity does not teach that the body is the prison of the soul. It does not teach that matter is the problem, nor that history is an embarrassing prelude to spiritual escape. The Christian faith is not Gnosticism baptized. God created the world and called it good. He created man in His image, body and soul together, as an embodied being. Sin did not make us embodied; sin corrupted our embodied life. Death is not natural in the sense of being desirable or proper. It is an intruder, an enemy, a judgment. Yet even in the face of death, Christianity does not offer escape from the body, but the resurrection of the body. That is where the glory of the gospel stands over against every counterfeit. The Christian hope is not that we will upload ourselves into a machine, dissolve into cosmic consciousness, or become post-human beings through our own technical mastery. The Christian hope is that Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, has conquered death in His own flesh and will raise us also. The future of the believer is not disembodied existence, but glorified humanity. The end is not less human, but more truly human. Not the annihilation of creatureliness, but its perfection. Not absorption into divinity, but communion with the Triune God through Christ by the Spirit. That is why Horton’s emphasis on deification, rightly understood, matters so much. Modern ears hear words like deification and immediately become uneasy, as though the Church were flirting with paganism. But classical Christian theology has long taught that salvation means more than acquittal. We are not only pardoned; we are transformed. We are brought into union with Christ. We are made partakers of the divine nature, not by essence, but by grace. We do not become gods by nature, nor are we absorbed into God. Rather, being united to Christ, we are made like Him in holiness, immortality, and glory as far as creatures can bear. That is not self-exaltation. It is gift. Transhumanism offers a parody of this. It mimics glorification while denying grace. It offers ascension without repentance, immortality without resurrection, exaltation without worship, power without holiness, and eternity without Christ. It is Babel with better funding. It is the old rebellion wearing a lab coat. And here the Church must be very careful. There is nothing wrong with medicine. There is nothing wrong with tools. There is nothing wrong with technological development as such. Christians should not speak as though every advance in science were a threat to the faith. Historically, that would be foolish as well as false. The Christian doctrine of creation helped make real science possible by distinguishing God from nature and affirming the created order as lawful, intelligible, and worthy of study. Yet the fact that tools are good does not mean they are ultimate. A scalpel can heal, but it cannot save. A machine may extend life, but it cannot redeem it. Information may be processed, but wisdom is not the same thing as computation. Intelligence is not holiness. Efficiency is not glory. The modern world repeatedly confuses capability with authority. Because we can do a thing, we imagine we may do it. Because we may do it, we imagine we ought to do it. Because we ought to do it, we imagine it will save us. That is not science. That is liturgy. It is the ritual life of a new religion. And this religion has its own priesthood, its own dogmas, its own saints, and its own eschaton. Its priesthood consists of technologists, futurists, and engineers who increasingly speak of humanity as raw material. Its dogmas include the belief that consciousness is transferable, identity is editable, embodiment is optional, and mortality is a design problem. Its saints are the innovators and visionaries who promise deliverance. Its eschaton is the emergence of a post-human future in which man remakes himself. It is not hard to see why such a vision appeals to a civilization that has lost confidence in transcendence but still cannot stop longing for eternity. Yet the Christian must answer plainly: man does not need to become post-human. He needs to become holy. That holiness will not be engineered into us. It comes by the Spirit of God. It is grounded in the finished work of Christ. It begins now in sanctification and will be brought to completion in glorification. The final answer to death is not artificial extension, but resurrection. The final answer to corruption is not enhancement, but redemption. The final answer to creaturely weakness is not the abolition of creatureliness, but its union with the risen Christ. This also means that the Church must recover a stronger doctrine of the body, the sacraments, and the new creation. We cannot answer transhumanism adequately if we have already reduced Christianity to private feelings, moral uplift, and vague promises about going to heaven when we die. A thin gospel cannot withstand a thick heresy. If Christians themselves speak as though salvation were mainly inward, disembodied, and therapeutic, then they should not be surprised when the world offers a more ambitious imitation. The answer is to preach the whole Christ. Preach the Christ who took flesh, not as a temporary costume, but forever. Preach the Christ who rose bodily from the tomb. Preach the Christ who ascended in our humanity. Preach the Christ who gives Himself to His people in Word and Sacrament. Preach the Christ who will come again to judge the living and the dead. Preach the resurrection of the body and the life of the world to come. Only that Christ can answer the false promises of the machine age. In the end, this is not a contest between old religion and new technology. It is a contest between two gospels. One says that man, through knowledge and power, will save himself. The other says that man cannot save himself, and therefore God has come down to save him. One ends in pride, because it begins in pride. The other ends in glory, because it begins in grace. Michael Horton is right. The issue before us is eschatological. Transhumanism is not merely tinkering with the future. It is preaching one. The Church must answer with a better one. Because our hope is not in silicon, code, enhancement, or engineered immortality. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, who was dead and is alive forevermore. And that is not a metaphor. It is the future of the world.

As Jews return to their land, some Christians are reshaping theology to deny that reality, revealing a deeper crisis within the Church. Armenian Orthodox worshippers arrive at the Church of the Nativity, in the West Bank city of Bethlehem, to celebrate Christmas and Epiphany, January 18, 2026(photo credit: WISAM HASHLAMOUN/FLASH90) OPINION By Pesach Wolicki THE JERUSALEM POST March 29, 2026  Something strange has been happening in certain corners of the  Christian world . Traditional Catholics and many other Christian voices are increasingly claiming that today’s Jews are not really the Jews, that the State of Israel has no significance, and that Christian Zionism is a heresy.  These ideas are no longer confined to fringe platforms; they have entered mainstream discourse, with  Tucker Carlson  emerging as the most prominent public voice raising such claims. While this may seem like a sideshow to the political conversation, it actually signals a significant theological crisis happening within traditional Christianity.  For more than 1,500 years, mainstream Christian theology regarding the Jews – especially within Catholicism – was shaped by the ideas of Augustine. In his City of God, Augustine articulated what later became known as “witness theology.” The Jews, he argued, were to survive, but in perpetual exile – scattered, powerless, and dependent – serving as a living testimony to Christian truth. This framework made sense in a world where Jews had no sovereignty, no homeland, and no political power. For centuries, this theology and the apparent facts of history aligned. But today, that world no longer exists. The Jewish people have returned en masse to their land, ingathered from the four corners of the earth, and reestablished sovereignty. We are no longer the “witness people” of Augustine’s imagination – and that creates a problem. Theology, at its core, is an attempt to understand God’s actions in the world. Augustine himself described theology as faith seeking understanding. He looked at the world as it existed in his time and formulated a rational theological explanation for it. But what happens when the world changes? The official Catholic Church has been grappling with that question for decades, since the founding and success of the State of  Israel . Beginning with the Second Vatican Council in 1965 and continuing through subsequent papal statements, there has been a clear shift.  In 1980, Pope John Paul II referred to the Jewish people as “the people of God of the old covenant, which has never been revoked.” In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of God’s ongoing faithfulness to Israel, noting that “the favor of the God of the covenant has always accompanied them.” 'God has never revoked his covenant with Israel' And in a landmark 2015 Vatican document, the Church stated explicitly that “God has never revoked his covenant with Israel” and that the Jewish people are “participants in God’s salvation.” This is not Augustine. It is a significant theological shift – one that acknowledges a reality Augustine never faced: a restored Jewish people in their ancestral land. The Vatican has not fully resolved all the implications of this shift. In fact, it openly admits the seemingly conflicted relationship between eternal  Jewish  covenantal status and Christian theology, calling it “an unfathomable divine mystery,” a direct reference to Paul’s own grappling with this exact question in the  Book of Romans . But that admission itself expresses a willingness to confront the realities of history and adjust theological understanding accordingly. Not everyone is willing to do that. The “traditional Catholic” voices now attacking Jews and Christian Zionists are, in many ways, trying to preserve Augustine’s framework intact. But they face an obvious obstacle: the facts on the ground contradict it. If the Jews of today are the Jews of biblical times – and if the covenant has not been revoked – then Augustine’s model of permanent exile collapses. Put simply, it is absurd to maintain that Augustine would have formulated his “witness theology” had he lived to see the current State of Israel. But what about 1,500 years of Church doctrine? These “traditional” Christians have a workaround. Today’s Jews are not really the Jews. It follows that the return to Israel is meaningless, the State of Israel is biblically irrelevant, and the Augustinian tradition remains intact. This is why we are hearing these claims now. It is not simply antisemitism, though that may be part of it. It is an attempt to protect a theological system from a reality that threatens it. At the heart of this conflict is the difference between theology and eschatology. Theology is about understanding God; people can disagree about theology indefinitely without resolution. A Jew and a Christian can hold fundamentally different views about God and still coexist peacefully. Eschatology, on the other hand, will come to head at some point. Eschatology is about how history unfolds – about what will happen in the end. And when two eschatological visions collide, history eventually renders a verdict. For centuries, there were competing claims. One said that the Jews would remain in exile forever. The other – rooted in the Hebrew Bible and the stubborn faith of Jews everywhere – said that the Jewish people would one day return to their land. For most of history, that debate could remain theoretical. But no longer. History has spoken. The Jewish people have returned – and that forces a choice. The Catholic Church, at its highest levels, has chosen to grapple with that reality – even if it means rethinking long-held assumptions. That is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of intellectual and spiritual humility. Others have chosen a different path. Rather than adjust their theology, they reject the reality: they deny that the Jews are the Jews, dismiss the State of Israel as insignificant, and attack those Christians who have drawn theological conclusions from the return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land. But this reaction, however loud, cannot resolve the underlying tension. The question will not go away: If the Jewish people are still in covenant with God – and if they have returned to their land – what does that mean? What may look like a fringe online argument is, in fact, something much deeper: a theological system confronting a reality it can no longer explain. And that is why this is not a sideshow at all. It is a theological crisis – one that is only just beginning to unfold. The writer is the executive director of Israel365 Action and co-host of the  Shoulder to Shoulder  podcast.

THIS WEEK •        Americans lie about church attendance — new data shows only 5% actually show up •        Sarah Mullally installed as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury — first woman in 1,400 years •        Global South primates push back; 16 of 42 absent from enthronement •        ACNAtoo blasts ACNA’s hiring of LGBTQ+-affirming law firm Lathrop GPM to review Ruch decision •        Bishop Edgar refuses ACNA discussions without diocesan representation •        Did Bishops Edgar and Warner know of Archbishop Wood’s sexual misconduct and stay silent? •        Vatican signals approval for Anglican Ordinariates •        Ramadan, Iran, and the theology of Islamic war   Quotes to Remember “The war creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it.” — C.S. Lewis “Social responsibility becomes an aspect not of Christian mission only, but also of Christian conversion. It is impossible to be truly converted to God without being thereby converted to our neighbor.” — John Stott “What disturbs me most is that civilized, evangelical leaders hold much of the power and control in our nation and in our world. Yet our evangelical leadership is not creative or compassionate enough to deal with the truths that burst in upon us every day—the economic/social truths of race hatred, energy crisis, crime, hunger, and poverty—in light of the healing mandate of the Scriptures.” — John Perkins, “Stoning the Prophets” “President Trump needs to understand that efficiency in the White House cannot long survive the loss of dignity. Those of us who want the president to be successfully efficient need to be the very people who call on President Trump to recover the dignified part of leadership—and fast.” — Albert Mohler “Go on, in a full pursuit of all the mind that was in Christ, of inward and then outward holiness; so shall you be not almost, but altogether, a Christian.” — John Wesley   Only 5% of Americans Actually Attend Church A new study from the University of Chicago has done what self-reported surveys cannot: it tracked cell phone movement to determine where Americans actually spend Sunday mornings. The answer is sobering. Only 5% of Americans are in a place of worship on Sunday — not the commonly cited 20%. The gap between what Americans claim and what they do has long been suspected. Now it is documented. You can read the full paper here: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BFI_WP_2024-58.pdf The data matches what I observe here in semi-rural Pennsylvania, near the New York and New Jersey borders. The local Lutheran church draws fewer than 20 on a Sunday and relies on an occasional visiting pastor it cannot afford to retain. The United Methodist congregation barely reaches 15, served by a retired part-timer. One Catholic priest covers four parishes. My own congregation numbers close to 30, served by a three-quarter-time pastor — and we are growing. The local Congregational church struggles to reach 15; its pastor volunteers without pay. Across five churches in two states, drawing from a combined population of roughly 3,184 people, attendance runs at approximately 3%. Gallup corroborates the trend from a different angle: in 2025, only 47% of Americans said religion is “very important” in their lives — down from 58% in 2012 and 70–75% in the 1950s and 1960s. Across the 38 OECD nations, the median stands at 36%, and the United States is converging toward that figure faster than at any point in Gallup’s tracking history. Nearly 30% of Americans now identify as religiously unaffiliated — the so-called “Nones.” Pew Research reports their numbers have doubled since the early 2000s. They are not uniformly atheist; many believe in a higher power but reject organized religion. Millennials and Gen Z lead the trend, frequently citing institutional distrust as their reason for opting out. Politically, the Nones lean progressive and are increasingly a decisive voting bloc. Meanwhile, a Church Answers poll found that only 1% of churches maintain an ongoing evangelism effort — the lowest health score across all denominations in a longitudinal study running since 1996. As goes evangelism, so goes discipleship, so goes the church. The gates of hell will not prevail — but that promise is not a guarantee about America. The Global South is rising in evangelistic fervor, discipleship, and growth. The center of gravity is shifting.   A Historic — or Infamous — Enthronement at Canterbury Dame Sarah Mullally was installed this week as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to hold the office in its 1,400-year history. Two thousand attended the ceremony at Canterbury Cathedral. Many called it historic. Others will mark the date as one of ecclesiastical infamy. Mullally was raised evangelical but has governed as a progressive. As Bishop of London, she supported the introduction of same-sex blessings under the “Prayers of Love and Faith” framework and helped lead the Living in Love and Faith process that produced them. She has publicly acknowledged the Church’s harm toward LGBT people and described the blessings as an expression of pastoral responsibility. The Dean of Canterbury, who officiated portions of the installation, lives in a same-sex relationship. It was, as one observer noted, a clean sweep. The Global South Response GAFCON and Global South primates had already signaled their opposition before the service began. Sixteen of 42 Global South primates were absent — the most telling datum of the week. In Abuja, the GAFCON primates formally constituted the Global Anglican Communion, declaring themselves in impaired communion with the See of Canterbury. Their orthodox brothers, the GSFA  have not fully severed ties, but the direction is unmistakable. The Anglican Communion’s fabric is torn. The Global North provinces are moving steadily and, it appears, irreversibly away from the authority of Scripture and the 39 Articles. Synods treat doctrine as contextual rather than authoritative; bishops redefine core beliefs without reference to the formularies. What was once a communion is becoming two distinct bodies sharing a name. I have written more on this pattern of evangelical leaders losing their theological footing: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/why-did-church-of-england-leaders-lose-the-evangelical-plot The full story on the absent primates: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/missing-primates-at-the-mullally-enthronement-tell-the-real-story-of-a-fractured-communion   Vatican Signals Approval for Anglican Ordinariates The Vatican has published a significant new document on the Anglican Ordinariates, formally titled Characteristics of the Anglican Heritage as Lived in the Ordinariates Established Under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. The text emerged from discussions held at the dicastery March 1–3, following a private audience in which Pope Francis received Bishop David Waller and Bishop Steven Joseph Lopes, along with Cardinal Fernández. The document is less a theoretical statement than a synthesis of lived experience across Ordinariate communities worldwide. It affirms that “a core shared identity is indeed evident” despite wide geographic spread, rooted in “a common path of following Christ that has led them into full communion with the Catholic Church.” The Anglican patrimony is described as “a worthy patrimony of piety and usage” and “a precious gift … and a treasure to be shared.” Rome’s tone is warmly affirmative.   ACNA Under Strain: Ruch, Edgar, and Unanswered Questions The Anglican Church in North America is managing multiple crises at once, and none of them are resolving cleanly. ACNAtoo, the advocacy group representing women who have raised abuse concerns within ACNA, is publicly criticizing the province’s decision to hire Lathrop GPM to review the Title IV process in the Bishop Ruch case. Their concern: Lathrop is an LGBTQ+-affirming firm. Why ACNA chose them is a question the province has not answered publicly. https://www.virtueonline.org/post/acna-hires-lathrop-gpm-to-review-ruch-title-iv-process Separately, the Rt. Rev. Chip Edgar, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, has formally notified the ACNA Executive Committee that he will not participate in private discussions about the province without his own representatives present. The letter from Bishop Edgar and the ADOSC Standing Committee sets out specific demands for transparency. https://www.virtueonline.org/post/south-carolina-anglican-bishop-demands-transparency-in-acna Then came a more pointed allegation. Bishop Ken Ross of the Anglican Diocese of the Rocky Mountains posted on X (formerly Twitter) that both Bishop Edgar and Bishop Christopher Warner of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic were aware of Archbishop Steve Wood’s alleged sexual misconduct and “they never told anybody else.” “Why weren’t Bps Edgar & Warner disciplined for withholding credible claims of sexual misconduct for months?” Ross asked. It is a fair question. VOL reached out to Bishop Edgar for a response; none was received. The cumulative picture is of a province that is increasingly adrift: active litigation between the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy and Bishop Julian Dobbs, and an impending ecclesiastical trial of its own archbishop.   Ramadan, Iran, and a War That Cannot End in Surrender I recently published a piece on Israel, Isaac, and Ishmael, tracing the religious dimensions of the current conflict with Iran. The response was substantial. Mgr. Michael Nazir-Ali offered his own assessment with characteristic directness: “Don’t expect Iran to surrender.” His argument, distilled: Iran’s regime survives by projecting defiance, not by winning wars. Surrender is impossible for a system built on revolutionary mythology and martyrdom rhetoric. Escalation is a feature, not a flaw, of Tehran’s foreign policy. The West misreads Iran when it assumes rational cost-benefit calculations will restrain the regime. Deterrence, not diplomacy alone, is what constrains Tehran. The pattern is long-standing: Iran’s leadership uses conflict as a tool of internal legitimacy. Backing down would be existentially humiliating. They simply will not do it. The apocalyptic theology embedded in Shia Islam makes surrender a theological impossibility, not merely a political inconvenience. I have written on that dimension here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/p/irans-war-is-a-religious-war-against Nazir-Ali’s full analysis: https://michaelnazirali.com/articles/app/month/03-2026/title/don-t-expect-iran-to-surrender-suffering-is-the-ultimate-virtue-to-shias-tehran   Finnish MP Convicted of Hate Speech Over 22-Year-Old Pamphlet Päivi Räsänen, former leader of Finland’s Christian Democratic Party (2004–2015) and interior minister (2011–2015), has been found guilty of hate speech by Finland’s Supreme Court in a 3–2 decision. The conviction stems from a pamphlet she wrote more than 20 years ago describing homosexuality as a psychosexual development disorder, as well as a 2019 tweet criticizing the Finnish Lutheran Church’s participation in LGBT Pride Month. She has been fined. This is how freedom erodes: quietly, through incremental legal precedent. Orthodox Christians are being penalized for articulating convictions that were mainstream throughout Western history. The precedent, once established for speech about homosexuality, will eventually reach speech about Islam. Cries of Islamophobia will carry the same legal weight — and Christians who dare to name Islamic doctrine plainly will face the same fines, or worse.   Prince William and the Church of England: Sincerity or Positioning? Prince William attended the Mullally enthronement this week and met privately with the new Archbishop of Canterbury for tea. Aides described the meeting as part of an effort to “build a strong and meaningful bond” with the Church of England ahead of his eventual role as Supreme Governor. He is not a regular churchgoer, but is said to be keen to signal commitment before ascending the throne. Gavin Ashenden, former Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II, was unsparing in his assessment. He called William’s announcement of a “quiet faith” insulting to serious Christians, strategic rather than spiritually authentic, and evidence of “vacant ideas about God” — a PR positioning exercise ahead of a constitutional role, nothing more. His full piece: https://www.gavinashenden.com/p/too-little-too-late-the-warming-of-prince   METAMODERNISM IS COMING YOUR WAY Have you heard of the term “Metamodernism”? If you haven’t yet, you probably will soon. The term is increasingly used to describe the unique dynamics of twenty-first century culture. We’ve moved beyond postmodernism and entered the metamodern era. But what does that mean? And why does it matter for Christians? It matters because metamodernism helps explain the real postures, aesthetics, and sensibilities of 21st-century people—the people we’re trying to reach with the gospel; the people we’re discipling in our churches. Metamodernism can be a heady concept, but it’s easiest to understand by looking at examples from pop culture. In this cohort we’ll primarily look at movies as an entry point for understanding what metamodernism is, how it feels, and what it looks like in the arts. We’ll also look at music, TV, and technological trends. This cohort is for anyone seeking to grow in their grasp of our metamodern cultural moment, whether for personal edification or for practical application in ministry, apologetics, evangelism, teaching, or parenting the next generation. Support VOL If you value what VOL writes, please consider a tax-deductible donation. This work is a labor of love, but bills must be paid. There are no salaries, but daily writing continues — and a webmaster, researcher, and overseas journalists must be supported. VOL has brought on new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. We have no mega-donors and no grants — only faithful readers who believe in what we do. Tens of thousands trust us to cover the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today; only a small percentage contribute. We have proven ourselves over more than 35 years. Online: virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE, P.O. Box 111, Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your support.   David W. Virtue, DD